6PDR

[Chris Knapp]

In a PBEM I had a 6pdr take out a Tiger I and a STUH from the fron, at maybe 300-400m, with 2 shots. It was a veteran crew, but is this typical? Man what a great gun!

My next question is why didn't the brits ever mount it in an AFV??

Chris

[YankeeDog]

As to your first question: Nope, certainly not typical. Even at short range results like that are not very common, even with a Veteran crew.

They are certainly possible, though - that's one of the nice things about CM is that it models the chances of war pretty well.

Trust that karma will come around sooner or later and you'll bounce 3 88mm shells in a row off a sherman or something like that.

As to your second question, I don't know. I have often wondered myself why Allied tank designs never made use of the 57mm/6pdr.

Cheers,

YD

[Chris Knapp]

Thanks, I was wondering. I normally play the CW but I have yet to really use the 6pdr. It was small Qb and I decided that the 17pdr was too pricey. What made it really suprising was that it was 2 shots "bang" "bang" right after one another. The Tiger was right beside and slightly behind the STUH.

The Gods of war were with me, I suppose.

Chris

ps: Kham, if you're reading this, I'm sure I will pay dearly for my early luck

[Andreas]

The Brits did mount it in the Valentine (IX I believe) and Churchills Mk II-IV (IIRC). The Mk IV were later regunned with 75mm guns. Or somefink. British armour development is a bit of a mystery to me.

If you get Tungsten rounds the 6pdr can go through Tiger armour like a warm knife through butter. A Stug is no problem at all with ordinary ammo.

[xerxes]

The 6pdr is a great AT gun. Good penetration, high ROF, quick to turn, easy to manhandle into position, quick to setup, low profile.

Too bad you can't get 20 "t" rounds with it.

[Ron]

I never leave home without them in my Commonwealth kit. After many playings I would have to disagree strongly with the 'not very common' post, especially when they are Veteran. I won't bore with past exploits, but in the right situations(favorable for AT guns) they can and will mess up German armor quite handily, even uber-cats when tungsten is availabe(which is usual). Too bad no 6pndr equipped AFVs were modelled in CMBO.

Ron

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Ron:

I never leave home without them in my Commonwealth kit. After many playings I would have to disagree strongly with the 'not very common' post, especially when they are Veteran. I won't bore with past exploits, but in the right situations(favorable for AT guns) they can and will mess up German armor quite handily, even uber-cats when tungsten is availabe(which is usual). Too bad no 6pndr equipped AFVs were modelled in CMBO.

Ron

There were only few (okay, still more than Pumas) of the Churchills with 6pdr about in Normandy, and probably none thereafter (health warning, John Salt will probably show me up).

The Commonwealth also had the Staghound heavy AC, with the 6pdr. No idea how many of those were fielded in NWE though, and again, probably not many.

The Commonwealth also produced the RAM and RAM II tanks, at least the latter was equipped with the 6pdr. It was still in service with Canadian regiments in late 1943/early 1944, but was replaced by Vanilla Shermans then.

[Soddball]

One of the big pluses of the 6pdr is that it's jeep-mountable - so for 75(ish) points you get a gun that can be rushed forward at 50mph, which (often) has a couple of tungsten rounds, which has a preparation time of 1 minute, and which will seriously upset anything up to a Panther. They are ideal on defence when strapped to a jeep, just race them from one place to another

I find myself disagreeing with Yankeedog about their effectiveness. When playing as Axis against the British they are one of my biggest headaches.

I asked why they were so rarely mounted on tanks, and was told (by someone here, can't remember who) that the 75mm was preferred because although its AP hit wasn't quite as good, the 6pdr shell was pretty cruddy for HE (which it is). So there you are.

A couple of 40mph Cromwells with those 6pdr guns would make merry hell of a German tank platoon

[YankeeDog]

In response to those disagreeing with my 'not very common' assesment:

My meaning was that two killing hits in a row as was described is not very common, even for a relatively accurate AT Gun at relatively close range. Especially if there there's Tungsten ammo involved, there's no doubt that the 6pdr can penetrate both the Tiger's and the StuH's frontal armor. However, in my experience, you'll usually get one or two missed shots in there somewhere. When you factor the chance of two hits on two different targets with the chance of both hits being kills (the kill chance being good but by no means guaranteed), you get a relatively uncommon occurrence.

Worth noting that even with a couple of missed shots, a 57mm would still have a good chance of taking out a Tiger and a StuH before those two AFVs could take out the gun - the 6pdr's high ROF and fast rotation mean that the German tankers are going to be sweating hard trying to bring their slow-rotating guns to bear on the ATG before the killing shot comes in.

Some other thoughts/questions:

Can a Jeep towing a 6pdr really go 50mph?!

Thanks for the responses re the use of the 6pdr in AFVs. I guess when you look at some of the allied doctrine surrounding tank usage (i.e., tanks support infantry, tank hunters kill tanks), the scarcity of 6pdr/57mm armed tanks makes more sense. It's a great compact AT gun; it's a crappy infantry support gun.

Wasn't there a Halftrack-mounted 57mm/6pdr used in the North African campaign??

Cheers,

YD

[Cpl Carrot]

IIRC the 6lber had very poor HE performance. Also when fitting the 6lber to the Valentine IX they had to delete the Besa to make the thing fit.

[winkelried]

Can a Jeep towing a 6pdr really go 50mph?!

I don't think that a jeep would be able to tow the 6pdr which weighted 1100 kgs. ( http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/Weapons/antitankguns/infantry_anti_tank_guns.htm ). The jeep itself weighting only just 1.2 tons (as I faintly remember from my army days ...) and we were only allowed to tow .25 ton trailers (single axle).

see also http://phaedra.apana.org.au/ww2jeep.html

But CMBO is probably modeling a generic small truck which could pull the 6pdr. E.g. a 3/4ton Dodge ?

[Priest]

Really Ron (make mental note!)

Also the 6 pdr was put on the last version of the Crusader IIRC. Basically British gun development went something like this.

2pdr

6pdr

75mm dual purpose (there own design that fire American ammo) (IIRC)

17lber

Only the 75mm was designed initially with a HE round. I do not know if the 2pdr ever got one but the 6 pdr and 17lber did.

The original cruiser tanks and early infantry tanks all had 2lber guns.

Cruiser Mks

Coventer

Early Churchills

Early and mid Crusaders

Matildas

Valentines

As mentioned before the Valentine and Churchs were upgraded and I think the initial prototypes for the Cromwell had the 6 pdr also. Eventually all of the tanks mentioned above (Valentine, Church, and Crom) all got the 75mm gun.

The 17lb was tried in the Cromwell, (the Challenger) but really was not successful until integrated into the Comet, which really was almost a entirely new chassis. The Churchill was tried and became the Black Prince, it too was not successful. Really the Firefly on the Sherman chassis utilized that gun for the British army in the ETO, well and the archer of course. And was the Archer based on the Valentine chassis??? Damn need to be home with my books!

[zukkov]

the russians also experimented by mounting a 57mm on the t-34. they didn't like it either for the same reason as the brits. it had a lousy he round...

[Cpl Carrot]

Originally posted by Priest:

Really Ron (make mental note!)

Also the 6 pdr was put on the last version of the Crusader IIRC. Basically British gun development went something like this.

2pdr

6pdr

75mm dual purpose (there own design that fire American ammo) (IIRC)

17lber

Only the 75mm was designed initially with a HE round. I do not know if the 2pdr ever got one but the 6 pdr and 17lber did.

The original cruiser tanks and early infantry tanks all had 2lber guns.

Cruiser Mks

Coventer

Early Churchills

Early and mid Crusaders

Matildas

Valentines

As mentioned before the Valentine and Churchs were upgraded and I think the initial prototypes for the Cromwell had the 6 pdr also. Eventually all of the tanks mentioned above (Valentine, Church, and Crom) all got the 75mm gun.

The 17lb was tried in the Cromwell, (the Challenger) but really was not successful until integrated into the Comet, which really was almost a entirely new chassis. The Churchill was tried and became the Black Prince, it too was not successful. Really the Firefly on the Sherman chassis utilized that gun for the British army in the ETO, well and the archer of course. And was the Archer based on the Valentine chassis??? Damn need to be home with my books!

Crusader Mk III had the 6lber. Early Churchills had a 2lber in the turret and a 3in (75mm) gun in the hull (like a Char 1 bis). Some were fitted in the reverse manner for CS.

Archer used the valentine chassis, as did the Bishop

Intial Cromwells used the 6lber as well.

[KenH]

As the party on the recieving end of this I can clearly state it was crack! crack! .... 2 shots, maybe 5 sec apart, 2 first-round kills.... :eek:

I smell tungsten, but I'll wait for the AAR to see how it pans out

Ya couldn't resist gloating, could ya Strider?

[Yggdrasill]

I have a great 6 pounder story.

I am defending a crossroads as the brits. 5 tanks came over hill, 2 pz IVs, 2 stuGs and a panther.

My veteran 6 pounder, entrenched in woods, opens up on the first Mark IV at about 400 meters. BOOM *miss*

Now it's under fire from two tanks and an MG, but the crew gets its act together in a hurry. Second shot, BLAM, one Mark IV toast. Reload. Next Mark IV, BLAM, also dead. Then it targets the StuG which moved to the flank and is rotating toward it. BAM, right through the side armor. End of turn.

Next turn, opening seconds, the gun targets the last StuG and fires, a second after the StuG does. Both shots hit and they take each other out. But all the gun crew survives (to take home their medals).

Hardly a typical experience, but immensely satisfying. The quick turning and high rate of fire are great advantages for this gun, over something larger and more cumbersome.

[Sprocket7]

[ July 01, 2002, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Sprocket7 ]

[Chris Knapp]

LOL kham My luck in PBEM usually runs the other way, so I have to get the most out of this...

Chris.

[Ex Bellator]

The 17lb was tried in the Cromwell, (the Challenger) but really was not successful until integrated into the Comet,

I'm pretty sure that the Comet did not have the 17lber, but it's own specific 77mm (?) gun with better HE but inferior AP capabilities. As you thought, the Archer was based on a Valentine chassis, and it amazes me that they managed to get such a large gun on such a tiny tank at all.

The 6lber was a rude shock to the Axis when first deployed in the desert, witness the battle at Kidney Ridge during Alamein for example. I think what makes them so effective in CMBO is the combination of low cost and the reasonable amount of lethal Tungsten ammo.

[ July 10, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ]

[flamingknives]

Yes, the comet did mount a "77mm" gun, but it fired the 17pdr ammunition. The decreased AP performance came from a shorter barrel and hence a lower MV.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Yes, the comet did mount a "77mm" gun, but it fired the 17pdr ammunition. The decreased AP performance came from a shorter barrel and hence a lower MV.

Are you sure it fired the same round as the 17pdr.? I have this notion that it was a cut down cartridge with a little less propellant, which would also contribute to a lower mv.

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

Yes, the comet did mount a "77mm" gun, but it fired the 17pdr ammunition. [snips]

Are you sure it fired the same round as the 17pdr.? I have this notion that it was a cut down cartridge with a little less propellant, which would also contribute to a lower mv.

Michael</font>

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

[/QB]

"The redesigned gun, a 76.2mm (3 in) weapon like the 17-pr, was designated "77mm" to differentiate it from that gun. It fired the same projectiles, using a shorter case, and although marginally less effective against armoured targets than the 17-pr, it was extremely accurate, highly effective and easy to use."

-- From the entry "Comet A34" on page 24 of "British Tanks 1939-1945", 7th edn, 1978, The Tank Museum, Bovington.

All the best,

John.[/QB]