Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#91

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Jul 2014, 00:41

EKB wrote:

Q. The ground pressure of the Mark V tank is much less than that of our M36 tank destroyer. Has this ever affected the results of your operations?

A. On 19 November 1944 when the 3rd Platoon, Company “B”, in support of Task Force “X” which was attached to CCB, was aiding in the defense of Immendorf, Germany, the enemy attacked our positions with five Mark V tanks. Two of these were destroyed and the others were forced to retreat.
One M36 was lost due to the fact that it had sunk in the soft earth and was unable to maneuver out of an artillery concentration. Another which was stuck was undamaged but had to remain in an exposed position until nighfall before it could be pulled out. The Mark V tanks which attacked over similar terrain had no difficulty in maneuvering. We defeated this attack only because of excellent positions and fields of fire.


And yet from almost the same date:


Jentz, Panzertruppen 2 page 150-151

The preferences of the crew for lighter, more maneuverable Panzers was recorded in a report written on 1 November 1944 by Albert Speer on his trip to Italy during 19 to 25 October 1944:
"On the Southwest Front, opinions are in favor of the Sherman tank and its cross-country ability The Sherman tank climbs mountains that our Panzer crews consider impass· able. This is accomplished by the especially powerful engine in the Sherman in comparison to its weight. Also, according to reports from the 26.Panzer-Division, the terrain-crossing ability on level ground (in the Po valley) is completely superior to our Panzers. The Sherman tanks drive freely cross· country while our Panzers must remain on trails and narrow roads and therefore are very restricted in their ability to fight.
All Panzer crews want to receive lighter Panzers, which are more maneuverable, possess increased ability to cross terrain, and guarantee the necessary combat power just with a superior gun. This desire by the troops corresponds with conditions that will develop in the future as a result of the drop in production capacity and of the fact that, because of a shortage of chrome, sufficient armor plate can ’t be produced to meet the increased production plans. Therefore, either the number of Panzers produced must be reduced or it will be necessary to reduce the thickness of the armor plate. ln that case, the troops will unequivocally ask for a reduction of the armor thickness in order to increase the total number of Panzers produced"
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 08 Jul 2014, 00:56, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#92

Post by Urmel » 08 Jul 2014, 00:43

Don Juan wrote:
Michael Kenny wrote:Nice to see someone batting for the Panther though. Takes me back to the 1980's.
Well the Panther clearly was a reasonable tank when you were on the defensive... In other words, a complete design failure.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the 6-pdr gun though.

Michael

Seems a very clear case of the grass being greener on the other side of the hill syndrome. Or to put it differently - soldiers bitching about their equipment. Wow, that's unheard of!
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#93

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Jul 2014, 00:52

EKB wrote: Q. Is the sight magnification in the 90-mm gun (approximately 2.5 power) sufficient? The Mark V has combination 2 and 5 power sight.

A. No. Sergeant Renaletta, gun commander, Company “A” stated that about 1300 on 4 January 1945, he was fired upon by a ground mount or a Mark V which was at least three thousand yards from his position. He could not pick up the gun through his sight. This same German gun had already destroyed four M4 tanks in his vicinity.
At about 1230 on 20 November 1944 in the vicinity of Ederen, Germany, Lieutenant Shirk stated his vehicle was destroyed by a tank firing at a range of approximately fifteen hundred yards. He could see the position from which the enemy fire was coming but could not pick it up in his sight.
During the period 24-25 November 1944 when the company was holding in the vicinity of Gereonschweiler, Germany, German tanks were obtaining hits on our tanks and tank destroyers at ranges of thirty-two hundred yards from vicinity of Lindern, Germany. The weather was generally misty and foggy. We were able to see these tanks only with great difficulty through our sights.

I know you believe there is a hierarchy with Germany at the top, USA second and UK way down at at the bottom of the pile but here you can read of the distances a 17pdr could achieve hits.

Image

From the same document how a 75mm Sherman dealt with a Tiger


Next he took on a Tiger at 1400 yds just outside Rauray. He fired 6
shots of which 4 hit and the last one brewed it up. Tp. Cmdr. thought he had
missed it and only hit the wall behind. Sjt. Dring's next shot brought the
sparks and the remark "You don't see a brick wall spark like that".
This tank has been seen and is much shot up. It now has one scoop in front
vertical plate, five penetrations in rear, four strikes with no penetrations in rear,
plus a scoop and one plate of engine hatch smashed

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#94

Post by Don Juan » 08 Jul 2014, 09:27

Urmel wrote: Not sure what any of this has to do with the 6-pdr gun though.
I think EKB's concept of "research" is to buy the closest-related 99-cent document he can find online from the Merriam Press, and argue from there.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#95

Post by Urmel » 08 Jul 2014, 10:36

Seems to work for him, and is cheaper than doing the job properly, so one's gotta give him some credit. PDF documents also have the advantage that you can cut and paste without having to scan, making it even easier to become discredited on an online forum in no time. :thumbsup:
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#96

Post by Urmel » 08 Jul 2014, 10:40

Michael Kenny wrote:I know you believe there is a hierarchy with Germany at the top, USA second and UK way down at at the bottom of the pile but here you can read of the distances a 17pdr could achieve hits.
Sorry, not possible. The invincible Panther, model of any post-war tank design you care to think of, and drooled over in boy's bedrooms since 1945, could not possibly have been drilled by a 75mm gun at 1,800 yards.

You got that wrong. :welcome:
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#97

Post by RichTO90 » 08 Jul 2014, 14:13

Don Juan wrote:Well, the whole report seems to be a lot of wishy-washy subjective opinions to me, without any supporting data.

Nice to see someone batting for the Panther though. Takes me back to the 1980's.
To be fair, and as was discussed at TankNet in February, the "problem" with the 90mm was not the gun, it was the projectile. The standard M77 and M82 was unlikely to penetrate the Panther upper glacis at any range. T30, fielded in very small quantities in 1945 with the ZEBRA mission, was a different matter.

As to the "report" it was actually a response to Eisenhower's circular requesting information after Hanson Baldwin published his series of "exposes" regarding Allied armor in January 1945. So it is anecdotal rather than "wishy-washy". What is surprising is the change in opinion that the tankers demonstrate from that in 1944. In the summer and fall of 1944 they complained about the lack of gun power to the liaison missions from the SHAEF AFV&W and 12th Army Group Armor sections, but without the vociferousness found in White's letter. That may be simply because White's response for the 2nd AD was the only extensive response Eisenhower received - Rose's reply for the 3rd AD was much briefer and less vehement, and I have been unable to find any sort of extended response from any of the other divisional commanders.

Certainly the mounting frustrations came to a boil in 1945, but I suspect if 76mm/3" T$ and 90mm T30 and T33 had been deployed in quantity in June 1944 then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#98

Post by EKB » 09 Jul 2014, 11:04

Michael Kenny wrote: I know you believe there is a hierarchy with Germany at the top, USA second and UK way down at at the bottom of the pile but here you can read of the distances a 17pdr could achieve hits.

Image

Mr. Kenny, you did not carefully read the contents of the Q&A about shooting at the sloped FRONTAL armor of the Panther ... because you replied by posting a completely irrelevant data sheet about shooting at the SIDE armor of a Panther.

Is this the best we can hope for, another off-topic rant from you?

You have been playing this song for a long time: Kenny does not like what is said; Kenny has nothing to challenge it; Kenny changes the subject.

Oh, and I never argued that German soldiers did not complain about their equipment, clothing, food, the weather, the Luftwaffe, Hitler, etc. The catalogue of comments published by Jentz are old news to me and does not invalidate what happened to the M36 crews that were interviewed - their destroyers got stuck in the mud and the German tanks did not. Get over it and move on.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#99

Post by Urmel » 09 Jul 2014, 11:23

EKB - learn to pay attention, and don't accuse others of doing what you are doing (changing the subject).

You said:
Some of you don't seem to accept that the crews of Sherman tanks, even with the 17-pounder, were advised to manuever for a flank shot against any of the vehicles from the Tiger and Panther series. Firing at the frontal armor in a combat situation was asking for trouble. The possibility of a British gunner lining up his barrel at the perfect angle of attack was almost nil, except in a trial shoot under controlled conditions.
My emphasis.

Line 4 - 11 July, 17-pdr, two hits for effect against a Tiger, frontal.

Seems relevant to me in the context of your original claim.

But of course, you have been playing this song for a long time: EKB does not like what is said; EKB has nothing to challenge it; EKBchanges the subject. In this case from '17-pdr is so bad it had to go for flank shots against Tigers and Panthers', to 'this is about the sloped FRONTAL armour of the Panther'.

I also note you fail to address the seemingly pertinent issue that advising for a flanking shot is the right advise even if the gun has the power to penetrate frontally, for the reasons outlined above in the US TD Field Manual I posted.

But hey, Panther baby.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#100

Post by EKB » 09 Jul 2014, 12:15

Don Juan wrote:
Urmel wrote: Not sure what any of this has to do with the 6-pdr gun though.
I think EKB's concept of "research" is to buy the closest-related 99-cent document he can find online from the Merriam Press, and argue from there.

Last week you argued for the "feelings" of a British officer over science, and "feelings" of a British officer over statistical data.

That is until some of those "feelings" were put to you from a British officer connected with field testing of British and American tanks, after which time you developed a sudden allergy to personal opinions of the troops. :lol:

Honestly, if the content of your posts were any lighter, it would float away.

User avatar
EKB
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 18:21
Location: United States

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#101

Post by EKB » 09 Jul 2014, 12:38

Urmel wrote:EKB - learn to pay attention, and don't accuse others of doing what you are doing (changing the subject).

You said:
Some of you don't seem to accept that the crews of Sherman tanks, even with the 17-pounder, were advised to manuever for a flank shot against any of the vehicles from the Tiger and Panther series. Firing at the frontal armor in a combat situation was asking for trouble. The possibility of a British gunner lining up his barrel at the perfect angle of attack was almost nil, except in a trial shoot under controlled conditions.
My emphasis.

Line 4 - 11 July, 17-pdr, two hits for effect against a Tiger, frontal.

Seems relevant to me in the context of your original claim.

But of course, you have been playing this song for a long time: EKB does not like what is said; EKB has nothing to challenge it; EKBchanges the subject. In this case from '17-pdr is so bad it had to go for flank shots against Tigers and Panthers', to 'this is about the sloped FRONTAL armour of the Panther'.

I also note you fail to address the seemingly pertinent issue that advising for a flanking shot is the right advise even if the gun has the power to penetrate frontally, for the reasons outlined above in the US TD Field Manual I posted.

But hey, Panther baby.

Your own post proves that I never wrote "American tank and tank destroyer crews were not advised to manuever for side shots" when possible. There is no need for me to "address" what I never claimed in the first place.

You are the one who just changed the subject.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#102

Post by Urmel » 09 Jul 2014, 12:48

Let's take this step by step, shall we, since it seems to be difficult.

1) EKB claims that 17-pdr tankers were advised to take flank shots against Tigers and Panthers because firing at the frontal armour was asking for trouble.
2) Michael Kenny shows that 17-pdr guns had no trouble dealing with said frontal armour on Tigers at 1,850 yards
3) EKB claims Michael Kenny's proof is irrelevant because the discussion is about Panther sloped FRONTAL armour.

What did I miss?
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#103

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 Jul 2014, 14:45

EKB wrote: Mr. Kenny, you did not carefully read the contents of the Q&A about shooting at the sloped FRONTAL armor of the Panther ... because you replied by posting a completely irrelevant data sheet about shooting at the SIDE armor of a Panther.

Is this the best we can hope for, another off-topic rant from you?
I know, Silly billy me. You post your 'proof' German sights are much better because Allied sights struggle pick up a target at 1500 yds and I show hits claimed at 1800.


EKB wrote: The catalogue of comments published by Jentz are old news to me and does not invalidate what happened to the M36 crews that were interviewed - their destroyers got stuck in the mud and the German tanks did not. Get over it and move on.
Your mantra is old news to me. It does not invalidate Speer's comments . Get over it and move on.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#104

Post by Urmel » 09 Jul 2014, 14:51

Next step:

1) EKB claims that UK tankers were advised to take flanking shots because firing at frontal armour was asking for trouble (no sources provided in the post, they maybe further upthread)
2) The question is asked whether rather than armour penetration related, this could not rather be due to sound advice on tactics.
3) Proof that flanking positions were sound from a tactical perspective is provided in the form of a US FM for tank destroyers (yes I know it's not from the UK, but it provides confirmation that flanking positions were tactically sound, and maybe just maybe that factoid did not escape the UK tankers?)
4) EKB refuses to address the question by going off on a tangent that he never said something about US tankers (which nobody claimed he did)

What did I miss?

Let me spell it out:

Did the UK commanders advise their 17-pdr Sherman crews to maneuver for flank shots because of their concerns about the 17-pdr's ability to penetrate both the Tiger and the Panther frontal armour at combat ranges? Yes, or no? If yes, where is the documentation for that? Thank you.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun?

#105

Post by Michael Kenny » 09 Jul 2014, 14:52

EKB wrote:
Last week you argued for the "feelings" of a British officer over science, and "feelings" of a British officer over statistical data.
After posting 'evidence' that the Cromwell was a mechanical failure you side-step the evidence I posted that shows the opposite.

Unable to take me out frontaly you seek a cowardly side shot..................

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”