6pdr on the Churchill - What range do we expect to kill Panthers and Tigers with?

[[KG]Destaex]

Just seeing some of the other posts about the 6pdr gun because of the Churchill and would like to know more.

I am wondering at what ranges a tank with a 6pdr would have to get to penetrate the Tiger or Panther and even the mkIV frontally.

I am further wondering if a special shot is required to penetrate at all.

After that whether the Russians had the shot required to penetrate for the 6pdr and thus in game of Prokhorovka.

 

 

[JV44HeinzBar]

S!,

I post this earlier:

 

As for ammunition production, I found production numbers of ammunition, as well as, production numbers for weapon systems in the same book. 430K rounds were exported for overseas use. I suspect that the Churchhill will have APCBC, APC, and HE rounds. I'm assuming that the Churchhill will use the L50 gun rather than the L43. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by JV44HeinzBar
added additional tables

[[KG]Destaex]

Really cool post. What books are they from. Might be worth getting the books?

[JV44HeinzBar]

6 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Really cool post. What books are they from. Might be worth getting the books?

 

S!,

These came from "The 6lb Handbook & The Cromwell Handbook". Both have been out of production for some time, now.

 

There is a short book out there called, British anti-tank artillery 1939-45 by Bryan Perrett, Mike Chappell. It's produced by Osprey publishing. It has some nice tables in it detailing the different types of British guns, ammunition, etc.

 

HB

[Wold]

 

Penetration Code used in Firing Trials Reports

A. = Slight or no impression
B. = Deep impression
C.= Deep impression and bulge at back.
D. = Deep impression and bulge at back and crack.
E.= Deep impression with flake off back of plate, or with bulge and crack sufficient to see daylight through the plate(after removal of shot if necessary) or with any portion of the projectile protruding through or visilbe from the back of the plate.
F.= Pinhole penetration.
R.= Penetration; core or shot not clean through the plate.
W.= Penetration; core or shot clean through.
(L) = core or shot lodged in the plate.

 

Note: - (L) can qualify any letter of the code from B to R, and is used as in the following examples.

 

D(L) = Deep impression and bulge at back and crack core in plate.
F(L) = Pinhole penetration core in plate.

 

The Ballistic Limit is the average of four or more velocities within 70 f.s half of which give "E" or worse damage and half "D"s or less damage. It shall not considered valid if such average exceeds any "E" by more than 35, f.s

 

W/R approximately 50% of the rounds estimated to be clean gun wins

BL(Ballistic Limits) 50% of the rounds not to give bulges cracked so badly as to admit daylight.

C/D 50% of the rounds not to give cracked bulges

C Immunity. The mean of the lowest velocity to give a cracked bulge and that of the next lowest round which did not give a cracked bulge

C.V - critical velocity

[Peasant]

In April of 1943 when the soviets performed the ballistic testing of the first captured Tiger on the eastern front they've used plain "57mm Mk.III AP-T shot" not APCBC (much less APDS) with 6pdr ATG as well as in Churchill's gun. The ammunition supply situation probably hasn't changed much between spring and the summer of 1943.

 

When british were testing the Panther it's cast mantlet resisted in it's vertical part like 94mm of british rolled plate.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Peasant

[Na-zdorovie]

a lot of the shortcomings on the churchy were from tracks/reliability/heating, gearbox,wheels, etc, made by the russians during testing, even Vickers head engineer reported he would have nothing to do with it, 

it filled a gap for a time, but i better not say to much bad about it else ill get flamed again from the fans

 

Three modifications of Churchill tanks were sent to the USSR: Churchills II, III, and IV, mostly III. Churchills were naturally considered heavy tanks and used in Guards Independent Heavy Tank Breakthrough Battalions, along KV tanks. The Churchill was plagued with many issues: poor suitability for winter or mountain combat (tracks slip when the tank tilts to 20 degrees), difficult to repair tracks, poor reliability, mudguards that bulged up when packed with mud and limited driver visibility and turret traverse, unreliable 57 mm gun. Firing the gun in certain positions could also tear off the mudguards.

However, the impressions weren't all negative. The performance of the 6-pounder was roughly equal to the Soviet 57 mm ZIS-2, the armour of the Churchill was thicker than on the KV, and equal average speed to the KV, despite a lower top speed. The favourite thing about the tank was the observation devices, based on the Gundlach periscope. This periscope was copied and went into production under the index MK-4.

Like the Valentine, Churchill tracks were given grousers to improve traction.

While the Churchill could be considered an equal of the KV-1, it paled in comparison to the IS-1 and IS-2, which eclipsed it in armour, firepower, and reliability. The last Churchills saw battle on the Eastern Front in September of 1944.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Na-zdorovie

[JV44HeinzBar]

@Wold Excellent info. I love to find old historic data like the bit you presented. Any possibility that you can pass along the source and how to acquire it?

 

Thanks,

HB

[Wold]

WO 194/744 National Archive, Kew

[jeanba]

16 hours ago, [KG]Destaex said:

Just seeing some of the other posts about the 6pdr gun because of the Churchill and would like to know more.

I am wondering at what ranges a tank with a 6pdr would have to get to penetrate the Tiger or Panther and even the mkIV frontally.

I am further wondering if a special shot is required to penetrate at all.

After that whether the Russians had the shot required to penetrate for the 6pdr and thus in game of Prokhorovka.

 

 

What does "fail" mean ?

[JV44HeinzBar]

5 hours ago, Wold said:

WO 194/744 National Archive, Kew

S! Wold,

I'm guessing you requested a paper copy? I noticed that a digital copy has not been made by the Archive. Am I wrong?

 

HB

[Lofte]

6 hours ago, jeanba said:

What does "fail" mean ?

Fail, means fail, man)

[[KG]Destaex]

18 hours ago, Na-zdorovie said:

a lot of the shortcomings on the churchy were from tracks/reliability/heating, gearbox,wheels, etc, made by the russians during testing, even Vickers head engineer reported he would have nothing to do with it, 

it filled a gap for a time, but i better not say to much bad about it else ill get flamed again from the fans

 

Three modifications of Churchill tanks were sent to the USSR: Churchills II, III, and IV, mostly III. Churchills were naturally considered heavy tanks and used in Guards Independent Heavy Tank Breakthrough Battalions, along KV tanks. The Churchill was plagued with many issues: poor suitability for winter or mountain combat (tracks slip when the tank tilts to 20 degrees), difficult to repair tracks, poor reliability, mudguards that bulged up when packed with mud and limited driver visibility and turret traverse, unreliable 57 mm gun. Firing the gun in certain positions could also tear off the mudguards.

However, the impressions weren't all negative. The performance of the 6-pounder was roughly equal to the Soviet 57 mm ZIS-2, the armour of the Churchill was thicker than on the KV, and equal average speed to the KV, despite a lower top speed. The favourite thing about the tank was the observation devices, based on the Gundlach periscope. This periscope was copied and went into production under the index MK-4.

Like the Valentine, Churchill tracks were given grousers to improve traction.

While the Churchill could be considered an equal of the KV-1, it paled in comparison to the IS-1 and IS-2, which eclipsed it in armour, firepower, and reliability. The last Churchills saw battle on the Eastern Front in September of 1944.

 

The Brits used to love the Churchill because it could go up the mountains in Italy with the troops when other tanks could not (I think it probably had to do with torque than traction?) and you see pictures of it climbing hedges. I wonder whether later marks of Churchill were simply better at climbing than the old ones.

 

I always thought the Churchill looked too complex and had too many parts to be reliable. The bogey system with those tiny wheels in particular. I love it though as it looks like an armadillo with all that side protection.

Edited December 3, 2021 by [KG]Destaex

[jeanba]

10 hours ago, Lofte said:

Fail, means fail, man)

In this context, FAIL may mean (by professionnal experience) :

- Some problem occured in the experiment and the shot did not deliver exploitable results => THIS IS THE USUAL MEANING OF "FAIL" IN THIS CONTEXT, in this case, why the test fails must be explained. Remember that we are in an experimental context : if the shell does not penetrate the armor and everything in the experimental process went well, the experiment is a success in the sense that it delivered a meaningfull result (though you may not be happy with the results)

- The shell did not penetrate the armor: in which case, it would be interesting to know what was the lowest range tested

 

[Lofte]

15 minutes ago, jeanba said:

Some problem occured in the experiment and the shot did not deliver exploitable results

Put such data in report like this is senseless. Fail means "fail to penetrate", I see no equivocation here.

[jeanba]

3 hours ago, Lofte said:

Put such data in report like this is senseless. Fail means "fail to penetrate", I see no equivocation here.

It has some sense and a lot.

The classical example were missile tests during the early 60's (Falcon, AIM9B ...).

The missiles had a high kill rate discarding the "Failed tests" which were mostly tests out of enveloppe.

As you may know, during the VN war, the kill rate dropped down to 5% or less : of course, it was realized that thos "fail tests" were not "failed" in the sens that they were meaningfull (read "Clash, Air Combat Over Viet Nam" for more info)

They discarded the basic rule that you must always document and record failed tests because they may bring you some critical info anyway.

 

Edit : note that I am not criticizing teh document itself, I am simply saying that it uses some a word that is not as clear as you might think (though there may be an updated definition of "FAIL" somewhere else in the report)

Edited December 3, 2021 by jeanba

[Lofte]

2 hours ago, jeanba said:

though there may be an updated definition of "FAIL" somewhere else in the report

Good mention. Maybe @[KG]Destaex show it to us to clearify the word FAIL finally. But I can bet $5 - it means "fail to penetrate" or "fail to do some noticible damage".

[jeanba]

7 minutes ago, Lofte said:

Good mention. Maybe @[KG]Destaex show it to us to clearify the word FAIL finally. But I can bet $5 - it means "fail to penetrate" or "fail to do some noticible damage".

It would be very interesting to know from which range and other parameters they shot

[Peasant]

9 minutes ago, jeanba said:

It would be very interesting to know from which range and other parameters they shot

 

The data used to compile these charts is most likely derived from penetration curves established against good quality domestic armour. 

 

 

[jeanba]

15 minutes ago, Peasant said:

 

The data used to compile these charts is most likely derived from penetration curves established against good quality domestic armour. 

 

 

Are you talking about this picture ?

 

 

[Peasant]

26 minutes ago, jeanba said:

Are you talking about this picture ?

Yes.

[JV44HeinzBar]

S!,

It took some digging, but I found the source.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to verify the content. I do have the 2 books listed as source material. Neither of these books, from what I remember, have data concerning the 6lb gun vs the tiger.

 

https://warspot.net/156-tiger-killers

 

HB

[mightywolf]

3 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

It took some digging, but I found the source.  Unfortunately, I don't have access to verify the content. I do have the 2 books listed as source material. Neither of these books, from what I remember, have data concerning the 6lb gun vs the tiger.

 

https://warspot.net/156-tiger-killers

 

HB

 

The full report can be acquired from Digital History Archive

 

4 hours ago, Peasant said:

 

The data used to compile these charts is most likely derived from penetration curves established against good quality domestic armour. 

 

See attachment:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by mightywolf

[JV44HeinzBar]

@mightywolf Thank you!! 

 

HB

[Lofte]

27 minutes ago, mightywolf said:

The full report can be acquired from Digital History Archive

I can not open the link..(

406 Not Acceptable

[mightywolf]

6 minutes ago, Lofte said:

I can not open the link..(

 

http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html

http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/uploads/2/5/4/1/25411694/digital_history_archive_catalog__november_2021_.pdf

 

[Thad]

Salutations Tankers,

 

I look forward to the upcoming tanks. But I don't put to much concern or thought into their reliability. Currently there are no such problems built into any of the games vehicles. I have never seen an instant or message that my track/s or transmission etc. failing randomly other than from enemy fire. Except the rare invisible object problem.

 

So our concerns will probably be their Damage Models and Offensive Capabilities versus other tanks. As usual, there will be much debate about how the developers present these aspects, not any random reliability aspects.

[SCG_judgedeath3]

29 minutes ago, Thad said:

I have never seen an instant or message that my track/s or transmission etc

Drive ferdinand on 1 gear for 3-5 minutes, or on summer map on prokarovka or stalingrad map and the engine of panther and tiger will overheat and get destroyed after driving 30ish minutes on the road with full speed. Or downhill very fast with panzer IV and the gearbox gets damaged/destroyed

[Thad]

Those are not random problems out of the blue... they are caused by driver/player actions. One can overheat etc. most planes by bad piloting too.

 

I forgot to lower my landing gear once. It did not end well. ?

[Lofte]

1 hour ago, mightywolf said:

http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html

http://www.digitalhistoryarchive.com/uploads/2/5/4/1/25411694/digital_history_archive_catalog__november_2021_.pdf

Thanks, but obviously it is my local Internet problem... ((

[[KG]Destaex]

21 hours ago, Lofte said:

Good mention. Maybe @[KG]Destaex show it to us to clearify the word FAIL finally. But I can bet $5 - it means "fail to penetrate" or "fail to do some noticible damage".

I can only guess as well sorry. I assume it means the armour fails at those angles and is penetrated.

15 hours ago, Thad said:

Salutations Tankers,

 

I look forward to the upcoming tanks. But I don't put to much concern or thought into their reliability. Currently there are no such problems built into any of the games vehicles. I have never seen an instant or message that my track/s or transmission etc. failing randomly other than from enemy fire. Except the rare invisible object problem.

 

So our concerns will probably be their Damage Models and Offensive Capabilities versus other tanks. As usual, there will be much debate about how the developers present these aspects, not any random reliability aspects.

I get failures from enemy fire in game for tracks and all sorts of thing. I also get engine overheats on long trips at full speed with the PzIV. I think the engine over-revs on downhill runs. Not sure.

[Lofte]

10 minutes ago, [KG]Destaex said:

it means the armour fails at those angles and is penetrated.

Lol))

[Lofte]

On 12/2/2021 at 6:40 PM, Wold said:

WO 194/744 National Archive, Kew

If somebody has these digital copies - feel free to PM me
I'd add it to my Panzer Docs topic. So to speak - AD BONUM PUBLICUM |)

 

>> WO 194/744 - Firing trial in Tunisia against the hull of German Pz Kw VI Tiger tank
>> WO 194/749 - German 75mm and 88mm APCBC ammunition at oblique impact

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Lofte