Talk:Ordnance QF 6 pounder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

just for a note. according to information from robert livingston(read in a book i forgot the name. the 6 pounder used in normady with apcbc, penetrates 120mm at 0deg, and 95mm at 30 deg at 100 yds; and does 101 at 0deg, 80mm at 30deg at 1000 yds.

apcr is accrding to A memo from the Ministry of Supply dated 1st April 1943 gives the following figures for "Single homo (taken from a document made by john d salt from www. britwar.co.uk) plate penetration at 30º in mm.": 500 yds 1000 yds 1500 yds. 6-pdr APCBC 86.5 79.8 73.5. 6-pdr Littlejohn 123 111 101. 6-pdr composite rigid 109 90 75.(apcr). Taken from the 1975 bovington fire and movement booklet.

APDS    100m 500m 1000m 2000m.
         131  117   103   90.

All figurea are british standard of 50% of hits penetrating plate of a bhn approximatly 278.

Excellent numbers, although in their current form they are a little disorganized. I'll try getting this to format correctly...
            100yrd  500yrd  1000yrd  1500yrd
APCR                109      90       75
APCBC       95       87      80       74
APDS        131     117     103       90
Littlejohn          123     111      101
mm of penetration of homogeneous steel armor at 30 degrees angle
What is odd about this list is that the APCBC are smaller than the APCR numbers. I was under the impression that the APCBC rounds were a minor variation on APCR that further improved its ballistics. The fact that it replaced APCR (I think) in service also suggests it's numbers should be higher, not lower. And certainly not this much lower! Maury 13:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] APCBC is not related to APCR

Maury you have it a bit mixed up. Evolution of armour piercing rounds runs something like AP -> solid steel shot, against face hardened armour it's possible to shatter the nose of such a round, solution: APC -> solid steel shot with a soft meal cap to support the nose on impact, down side of this is it's not aerodynamic and it decreases penetration of RHA, this leads to APCBC -> as for APC but with a very light aerodynamic cover over the nose, still not as good as APC against RHA but has a better ballistic coefficient and so retains velocity at longer ranges.

Now along comes a new idea a metal heavier than steel is better at penetrating armour than steel is, down side it is heavier so you can't get it moving as fast without drastically increasing the pressure inside the gun, solution: put the heavy metal slug (tungsten, uranium, etc) inside a light weight container that will fit a larger gun so overall it's weight is the same or less than the round the larger gun would ordinarily fire, result: APCR (which if things were named consistently would probably be APS Armour Piercing Sabot), downside of this is that the carrier gets dragged along to the target slowing the whole round down reducing penetration at long range, solution allow the sabot to fall away after leaving the muzzle -> APDS.


== Corrections! == By Aburger I made the initial post with the penetration figures, sorry about there disorganisation.

Just to make a few of my corrections to the apcbc is not related to to apcr.

Its better than apc against rha, its just not as good against fha. Apcr stands for armour piercing composite rigid and your description is spot on.

Some more info for interest the 6 pounder apcbc penetration figures should be revised to 105mm at 100 yards (30 degree angle of impact) as mackay's book tank battle's qoutes it as being able to pen the tiger hull frontaly at this range. Also I know have a digital copy of WO 185/118 D.F.V.G Which has the steel Ap round from the 50 calibre gun penetrating the Drivers front plate of the tiger from 700 yards. Aburger


Apcr began production in june but heavier production began in october 43, presumably because of the italian invasion. It was cancelled shortly after apds production began in march 44. (Ian Hogg's British and American Anti tank Artillery ISBN 1853674788)Aburger

The Churchill Claim was taken from the Churchill Infantry Tank by Bryan Perrett & M. Chappell Osprey Publishing ISBN 9781855322974. Aburger

"HEADQUARTERS 776TH TANK DESTROYER BATTALION APO #758 11 December 1944 EFFECTIVENESS OF FIRE OF 57 MM ANTI-TANK GUN ON MK V TANK is the source for the claim penetrating the Panther turret found at this website http://www.efour4ever.com/57mm.htm Aburger

The 17 Pounder did not replace the 6 pounder in Royal anti tank regiments At Regiments had a full organisation of 110 guns, 32 17 pounders and 68 6 pounders. British Anti-tank Artillery 1939-45 By Chris Henry ISBN 1-84176-638-0 Aburger


[edit] Measurements and dimensions

Either I'm misreading the quoted figures, or there's a typo. 2.82 metres seems way too short for the overall length, since even 43 calibres is over 2.4 metres. Find a good side view and the proportions look wrong.

It's certainly not the overall length, but just what is it the length of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.55.113 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Probably the barrel and breech together which is strictly the QF 6 pounder part, the carriage being defined separately. GraemeLeggett 14:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what books say...

  • Hunnicutt (Sherman):
    • Mk II barrel: bore length 42.9 cal / 96.2 in / 2443 mm; overall length 45 cal / 100.95 in / 2564 mm.
    • Mk IV barrel: bore length 50 cal / 112.2 in / 2850 mm; overall length (without m/b) 52.1 cal / 116.95 in / 2971 mm.
  • Hogg (Allied Artillery of World War II), Mk II: burrel length 100.95 in / 2564 mm, barrel weight 348 kg, weight in action 1143 kg.
  • Foss (Artillery of the World): length 4724 mm, width 1889 mm, height 1280 mm and weight in traveling position 1224 kg. But for which Mk ?

Bukvoed 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)