Why was the Belgian FRC C60 AT gun designed?

[daveh]

Can anyone provide details regarding the thinking involved in creating the FRC C60 L/50 anti tank gun?

1) Why the new larger calibre (60mm) design?

The Belgian 47mm AT gun was already available in the mid 1930s and was amongst the largest calibre AT guns of the period.
The 47mm gun was capable of dealing with any then current German AFV and had a reasonable HE round available.
A fortress mount existed as it was fitted as the AT armament of a number of Belgian forts.

So why was it felt that an even larger calibre gun was required?

2) Was the FRC C60 L/50 design entirely new or was it an up scaled 47mm or derived from some other design?

3) Was it commercially worthwhile for FRC to create a new design as the numbers built must have been small?

4) Was the FRC C60 L/50 anti tank gun always intended to be mounted only in forts/bunkers?

[Manuferey]

1) A larger caliber has a longer range. Thus, you can engage a tank farther away with a 60 mm then a 47 mm. In the Belgian flat terrain, it could have been seen as useful.

2) I tend to believe that the 60 mm gun was a new design, not a derivative of another gun:

a) The closest existing gun in Belgium from WW1 was the "Canon de caponnière" or fortification gun 57 mm Cockerill-Nordenfeld. It was also mounted on wheels.
But based on the picture at http://www.ordersofbattle.darkscape.net ... part_b.htm
the breech of the 60 mm gun looks quite different from the breech of the 57 mm gun.

b) The text below mentions the AT gun of 60 mm separately from the 47 mm AT guns and from fortress armament
(from an history of the FRC at Lieges (http://www.clham.org/050141.htm#FRC0):
« [La FRC] conçut et exécuta des canons antiaériens, des canons antichars de 47 mm, un canon de 120 à grande puissance, un canon antichar de 60 mm, un mortier d'accompagnement de 76 mm. […]"

Emmanuel

[daveh]

Thanks for your reply Emmanuel

From the information I have concerning the fields of fire for the 60mm AT guns at Eben Emael (see Osprey's Fortress book 30: Fort Eben Emael, p.27) these guns were placed in bunkers designed to cover the antitank defences along the flanks of the fort. This position and role, plus limited elevation of the fortress mount*, suggests that a longer range would not be the primary concern.

Your points concerning whether the 60mm AT gun was a new design strongly suggest that it was and that it was solely for fortress use.

* 5 degrees according to http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium ... part_b.htm

[Manuferey]

This position and role, plus limited elevation of the fortress mount*, suggests that a longer range would not be the primary concern.

A larger caliber would also increase your chance to stop a tank as you would be able to penetrate the armor when hitting at steeper angles than with a smaller caliber.

Emmanuel

[jopaerya]

Hello

Not only Eben-Emael had the 60 mm L/50 ( 12 X ) but also Battice had 4 X 60 mm L/50

Regards Jos

[daveh]

thank you for the table Jos.
I will check to see if the 2 60mm equipped forts were later than the 47mm equipped ones

I haven't got a plan of Fort Battice yet but I am assuming the 60mm AT guns had similar fields of fire to those at Eben Emael.

An interesting thought Emmanuel. Given the difficulty of upgunning any of the defences perhaps the 60mm was seen as a better long term prospect in terms of dealing with future AFV.

[verdenpark]

Hello,
Does anyone know the penetration figures for this gun?

[nuyt]

Some more pics
http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/t ... tress+guns

[verdenpark]

Some more pics
http://www.network54.com/Forum/330333/t ... tress+guns

Some interesting photos there.

[verdenpark]

Thanks for your reply Emmanuel

From the information I have concerning the fields of fire for the 60mm AT guns at Eben Emael (see Osprey's Fortress book 30: Fort Eben Emael, p.27) these guns were placed in bunkers designed to cover the antitank defences along the flanks of the fort. This position and role, plus limited elevation of the fortress mount*, suggests that a longer range would not be the primary concern.

Your points concerning whether the 60mm AT gun was a new design strongly suggest that it was and that it was solely for fortress use.

* 5 degrees according to http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium ... part_b.htm

I have been giving this some thought. The Belgians may not have built these guns for range, but the higher impact energy associated with the heavier projectile. Not really necessary against German tanks of the day, but French tanks were considered to be heavily armoured. The C47 would have no chance of penetrating a French medium or heavy tank front on, and a side shot would only just go through at short range. So, I am assuming that when the C60 was designed, the French and their heavily armoured tanks were considered as the greatest threat.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The location of this gun @ Eban Emael & Battice & a fixed mount makes it only suitable for defense of those forts against attackers from the east. The assumption may have been some of the experimental German heavy tanks would be fielded for use against the fortresses? Perhaps the Belgians obtained information of German tests of armor thicker than 60mm?

The larger caliber may have allowed the use of a effective HE projectile as well. Was there such a projectile designed for this weapon?

[phylo_roadking]

The assumption may have been some of the experimental German heavy tanks would be fielded for use against the fortresses? Perhaps the Belgians obtained information of German tests of armor thicker than 60mm?

The Germans had carefully cultivated the myth of the Neubaufahrzeug PzKpfw V / VI...even to the point of using it in Norway (everything else was gathering for France/Belgium?). It's suprising how stylised representations of this item and the grosstraktors still appear in Allied posters and training literature right through to 1941-42...3 to 3 and a 1/2 years after contact with the real thing!

[daveh]

According to
http://niehorster.orbat.com/021_belgium ... part_b.htm
the FRC C60 AT gun

was used extensively by the forts to fire HE ammunition. The gun was equipped with a special aiming device for indirect fire.

It fired an HE round weighing 3.02 kg.

There is no known use of this type of gun against an AFV.

[Carl Schwamberger]

The assumption may have been some of the experimental German heavy tanks would be fielded for use against the fortresses? Perhaps the Belgians obtained information of German tests of armor thicker than 60mm?

The Germans had carefully cultivated the myth of the Neubaufahrzeug PzKpfw V / VI...even to the point of using it in Norway (everything else was gathering for France/Belgium?). It's suprising how stylised representations of this item and the grosstraktors still appear in Allied posters and training literature right through to 1941-42...3 to 3 and a 1/2 years after contact with the real thing!

That what I was questioning. The Belgians had a active intelligence service, but perhaps their analysis was not always correct? So, maybe they were building a gun in response to a misperception, or a German deception effort.

The Germans had carefully cultivated the myth of the Neubaufahrzeug PzKpfw V / VI...even to the point of using it in Norway (everything else was gathering for France/Belgium?). ....

There were some companies of MkI tanks in Norway. I cant recall if there were any MkII.

[phylo_roadking]

There were some companies of MkI tanks in Norway. I cant recall if there were any MkII.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/german-pan ... f-1940.htm