6 pdr anti-tank gun

[Arjuna]

Tim,

I don't mean any disrespect, but just because someone mentions something on a forum, including the History Channel, is not IMO a sufficiently reliable source. In general we rely on primary sources or good secondary sources.

[TMO]

Dave

No offence taken - you are quite right about quotes from the internet (something I discourage my students from doing - though a bit of scepticism about any published source never goes amiss!!). If I get any evidence from more traditional/more reliable sources I'll let you know.

Regards

Tim

[Arjuna]

Thanks Tim...much appreciated.

[TMO]

Dave

According to various web references (don't groan [;)]) the British had APDS for their 6 pdrs from June 1944 and for the 17 pdr from September/October that year. The US, I believe, never developed such a round. My question is: are you able to model British and US 6 pdr/57 mm armour penetration differently (i.e. British APDS equipped gun has better armour penetration than its US equivalent) or does the engine have to treat them both the same as it's essentially the same weapon?

Regards

Tim

[Arjuna]

For now they are the same. We would need to create a seperate weapon and then change it throughout the estabs.

[GoodGuy]

British 6-pdr gun units used HE ammunition.

I've seen a documentary (BBC i think), where a British vet stated that US AT-crews tried to make British AT troopers trade their APDS ammunition whereever possible. The Brits didn't like to pass their APDS rounds, though, but they did it, especially since they could count on their 17-pdrs, and the Brits received praise as feedback from the US units, as this ammo turned the US 57mm M1 into an effective AT weapon. The brits got HE ammo in return. According to this vet, these trades were pretty common.

US ordnance issued HE rounds to US AT gun units, regularly.

"US anti-tank artillery, 1941-45" by Steven J. Zaloga, Brian Delf
page 36, paragraph "The Test: Anti-Tank Guns In The Battle Of The Bulge":

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=EhB0 ... ch_s&cad=0

ORIGINAL: S. J. Zaloga

"Some idea of the use of the guns can be determined by their ammunition expenditure. In case of the 57mm gun, about 20 percent of the 57mm ammunition used by the First Army from August 1944 to February 1945 was high explosive, while the remainder was anti-tank ammunition.
In the late autumn of 1944, 57mm guns began receiving small quantities of APDS (armor-piercing discarding sabot) ammunition. This was 6-pdr ammunition obtained from British stockpiles, rather than US ammunition. The APDS used a sub-caliber projectile within a sleeve that peeled away after leaving the barrel. This increased the muzzle velocity by nearly 50 percent, and so could penetrate 160mm of armor at 500 meters compared to only 112mm for the normal armor-piercing round. This ammunition was much prized for dealing with German tanks."

So US units actually had HE, and had sufficient numbers to share.

But even more important, the quote above and the following part both illustrate that it's necessary to render the US M1 57mm and the British 6-pdr differently in the estabs:

While the British made several revisions, incl. the development of a light-weight version (6-pdr MK-III) for their airborne units, and, afaik, an improved barrel (IIRC a shorter barrel), the US AT units were still using the original version of the M1 (derived from the original 6-pdr gun).

Zaloga stresses that a US study concluded that self-propelled tank destroyers were "five to six times more effective than the towed guns, and that the towed 3in guns were successful in only two out of nine defensive actions".

Some of the reasons:

• high weight making relocation and quick setup difficult,
• trucks/halftracks towing the guns - and the crews operating them - were pretty vulnerable even to small arms fire when relocating the guns,
• the common type of AT round was the AP round, while APDS rounds were in short supply (i am not sure if the US produced 57mm APDS rounds at all), rendering the US guns less effective than the 6-pdrs (firing APDS) employed by the Brits,
• the US did not develop a light version for the airborne divisions (which would have been quite useful for regular inf units, too).

Zaloga illustrates the 2 roles of these guns (within the US forces) - AT-combat and infantry support - and the reduced effectiveness against German tanks by quoting a Regimental officer who (along with other survivors of the 2nd Infantry Division) got interviewed by the "War Department Observers Board" - in late January 1945:

"He also noted that the 57mm gun was used as often as not for targets other than tanks, and recommended that the basic ammunition load be 25 rounds of armor-piercing, 25 rounds of high explosive and ten rounds of the new sabot anti-tank ammunition. The other officers of the 2d Division interviewed by the observers unanimously agreed that the towed 57mm gun should be replaced by self-propelled guns"

This recommendation regarding the ammunition-"mix", of course, was just a proposal in front of the observers board, as the actual use of ammunition from 1944-45 (means the contingent of HE ammo used in the field - as pointed out by Zaloga in the first quote - using the First Army's expenditure ratio) was pretty different.

I should add, that - quite surprising - 57mm guns performed well and did the trick at La Gleize - it seems, in the late stage of that German offensive. I have no info about what type of AP round had been used there, though.
Other than that, the US 57mm guns had a really bad ratio, unlike the British guns.

According to wikipedia (yeah yeah, i know....), prior to the Normandy para-landings, the US obtained British 6-pdrs (for the 82nd and/or the 101st), where a division then employed 8 of these guns in divisional artillery, 24 in the AA battalion, and 18 in the glider infantry regiment. PIR units did not have AT guns.
There is a chance that this Wiki-entry is correct.... I can't be arsed to check several books now tho, but either Zaloga or Chamberlain might shed some light on the question whether the US airborne units were really using the lightweight 6-pdr (MKIII) or not, and if they were still in use in the Ardennes.

Whatsoever, the US M1 and the British 6-pdr should be seperate guns, estab-wise, as the ammunition-"mix" was different, as the 6-pdr had offered way better penetration values (with APDS) and as the Brit. 6-pdr was a bit different weapon (shorter barrel for the later versions = reduced weight, other improvements) in 1944/45.
In case that the 82nd and the 101st had really used the 6-pdr MK-IIIs, then the estabs would have to reflect the fact that these guns were relatively light: they could be pulled by jeeps (or troops), unlike the 57mm M1.

If i am not mistaken, elements of the Glider Inf Regiment were at Bastogne when the Germans surrounded Bastogne, so if some of its AT elements still had the 6-pdrs MK-III and if they were part of the defending force-mix, this should be researched and (if true) changed in a BFTB Bastogne scenario.
The MK-IIIs may have fired AP rounds mainly (and not APDS), but these guns were way more mobile than the US 57mm M1, so I think it would make a difference and it would be worth to include that detail (if historically correct) in the scenario's force list.

According to Zaloga, the typical deployment/engagement of 57mm guns had already changed during the German retreat from France, in autumn 1944, as the AT units did not encounter "sufficient" numbers of German tanks anymore.
This new type of usage culminated in heavy consumption of HE rounds at the Siegfried line, where Tank Destroyers and 57mm guns were used to suppress targets and cover the infantry's progress through the dense line of enemy defenses.

So, TMO is right regarding APDS (UK) versus AP (US), and I think he is right regarding the HE used by British units, it may just need some digging in Chamberlain's/Zaloga's work, to see to what extent HE was used by the Brits.

[TMO]

Goodguy

According to wikipedia (yeah yeah, i know....), prior to the Normandy para-landings, the US obtained British 6-pdrs (for the 82nd and/or the 101st), where a division then employed 8 of these guns in divisional artillery, 24 in the AA battalion, and 18 in the glider infantry regiment. PIR units did not have AT guns.
There is a chance that this Wiki-entry is correct.... I can't be arsed to check several books now tho, but either Zaloga or Chamberlain might shed some light on the question whether the US airborne units were really using the lightweight 6-pdr (MKIII) or not, and if they were still in use in the Ardennes.

Check out p.41, US Airborne Divisions in the ETO 1944-45, By Steven J. Zaloga, Duncan Anderson:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UxSUxWg96xsC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=6 pdr british anti-tank artillery 1944&source=bl&ots=RQNSWwxozp&sig=5sYtYauQz8b6y1ytDO7WuhEqSXg&hl=en&ei=hQQ5SqmWBIKsjAfUoaSfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

Regards

Tim

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: TMO

Goodguy

.....the US obtained British 6-pdrs (for the 82nd and/or the 101st), where a division then employed 8 of these guns in divisional artillery, 24 in the AA battalion, and 18 in the glider infantry regiment. PIR units did not have AT guns.

Check out p.41, US Airborne Divisions in the ETO 1944-45, By Steven J. Zaloga, Duncan Anderson:

Nice find. The TO&E on page 35 - from December 16, 1944, lists 9 57mm guns in the Glider Infantry Regiment's AT battery, with additional 3 guns assigned to each battalion (" Battalion x3") = eighteen 57mm guns. So this part (18 6-pdrs per Glider Regiment) of the wiki-entry is correct.

Zaloga also lists 4 37mm guns for the airborne division's artillery Bn (called "divisional Arty" in the wiki-entry), and 8 of these guns for the anti-aircraft battalion. Both TOEs are from February 1944, though. Since the 37mm guns originally listed on the airborne divisions' TOE were replaced by the 6-pdr even before these units were dropped on French soil, the actual numbers of 6-pdrs (ending up in the Arty Bn and the AA Bn) still have to be researched:

ORIGINAL: S.J. Zaloga in "US Airborne Divisions in the ETO 1944-45", referring to the use of the 6-pdr in the "Airborne anti-aircraft battalion":

"As mentioned earlier, the 1944 tables authorized the 37mm anti-tank gun, but the British 6-pdr was substituted in the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions prior to the Normandy landings. These weapons proved very useful in stemming several German armored attacks in Normandy so, by the time of the December 1944 tables, the 57mm gun had become officially accepted in spite of the need for glider delivery. The postwar General Board study concluded that this unit was unnecessary and its task better handled by artillery units since the new recoilless rifles were suitable for the anti-tank role."

The Airborne Division's AA unit was, according to Zaloga, in fact a heavy weapons unit, with the priority on AT guns when it came to airlift, as transport capabilities of the Allies were limited.

Also, if I interpret this right, the AA unit's task in the airborne division - when using the 57mm guns, was infantry support mainly, where in contrast - due to the need for glider delivery - Parachute Infantry (PIR) units had to rely on Bazookas when they had to engage enemy tanks. There's a picture of a knocked out StuGIV in Carentan, with a 6-pdr in front - on page 42, though. Too bad "Band of Brothers" didn't include some 6-pdr action in the part showing events in Carentan [:D].

Anyway, conclusion:

• If the 101st's AA and Arty elements and GIR were in Bastogne and if they had managed to move their equipment to the perimeter in time, they were using their 6-pdrs, definetly. Since they had been issued before the Normandy landings, they had been surely used during operation Market Garden. In case BFTB scenarios cover the northern sector, where the 82nd Division (especially the 325th Glider Infantry Regiment) jumped in 2 days after the Ardennes offensive began, this division's AT components/capabilities should be reviewed as well.
• Starting in late autumn 1944 (according to Zaloga), US 57mm gun units (airborne too, most likely) received low amounts of British APDS ammunition from British stocks (Zaloga) and "trades" (vet accounts on BBC). The Regimental officer's recommendation (quoted in post #26) regarding the standard ammunition load (10 rounds of APDS per gun) could be used as guideline imho, so 5-10 rounds per gun would be realistic, imo.
  That means that the ammunition load for all units using 57mm guns should be reviewed.

[simovitch]

There was a 1st Infantry Division 57mm at Dom Bütgenbach that fired APDS rounds during the German attack, knocking out a Panther or a JgPz V. However there just isn't enough instances on the WF to warrant inclusion of APDS into the game as the AP shot for the 57mm, or to include a special "APDS" 57mm.

The limitation in the game is that you can only have 1 type of ammo each for AP, HE, AA, etc.
If this was Combat Mission I would say we have a problem, but with BFTB at the Operational level, I would say we are OK.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

However there just isn't enough instances on the WF to warrant inclusion of APDS into the game as the AP shot for the 57mm, or to include a special "APDS" 57mm.

Well if the engine would be able to render 2 different types of AP ammo, I'd say they should be included, as the US units actually had APDS at their disposal - by December 1944, given, in really low numbers. The sources are there regarding the (low amounts) of APDS ammo, unlike with HE used by the Brits.

If this was Combat Mission I would say we have a problem, but with BFTB at the Operational level, I would say we are OK.

Yep, I see the engine limit and it wouldn't be correct to replace AP with APDS, but I still see a problem, as the 101st and the 82nd had the lightweight 6-pdr MK-III gun and not the 57mm M1. The 57mm M1 couldn't be moved without trucks or halftracks and they couldn't be transfered with gliders, let alone dropped by bombers (which happened to 6-pdrs), but the MK-IIIs very well. The possibility to use these lightweight AT guns does impact manoeuvrability and punch of airborne units in the field - ergo the decision process of the player.

The GIR's AT-battery, the airborne Division's AA and the divisional arty bty received 6-pdrs.

At least the GIR's exact amount of 6-pdrs is in Zaloga (TOE from 16th December 1944).
Unless another source indicates that the 101st 6-pdrs didn't make it to Bastogne and that the 82nd left their guns behind when they moved to Werbomont, the 6-pdrs MK-III should make it into the estabs.
If the 82nd, and especially its GIR, is present in the game (northern sector) then it should receive the same treatment, estab-wise.

[TMO]

Dave

Emailed Nigel Evans who runs the website: BRITISH ARTILLERY IN WORLD WAR 2

http://members.tripod.com/nigelef/index.htm

(I think "Golf 33" used this site as a source for artillery information for HTTR and COTA - could be wrong though.)

Dear Nigel

Firstly, what a fantastic website - obviously years of love and labour. I
have an interest in military history (particularly of WWII)and wargaming
and I wonder if you could shed light on a couple of questions. You state:

"Initially anti-tank guns were limited to armour piercing ammunition.
However, in early 1944 HE ammunition was authorised for direct fire tasks.
The concern had been that too much HE would mean too much wear to the
anti-tank guns and consequently lose accuracy for their anti-tank role.
The HE ammunition scale was:

6-pdr, up to 25%, 1st line 96 rpg, all types

17-pdr, up to 5%, 1st line 90 rpg, all types

3-in M10, up to 30%, 1st line 90 rpg, all types

This led to anti-tank guns increasingly used in their secondary role for
direct fire against hard targets such as bunkers, 'pill-boxes', MG posts,
snipers in houses, OPs, etc."

Do you know when the US army first issued HE rounds to its anti-tank
units? How widespread/frequent was the use of 6 pdr HE rounds in infantry
units? Which references listed on your website support this information?

Many thanks in advance.

Kind regards

Tim

Got this reply:

Tim

I can't help with anything on the US Army or with UK infantry, although I'd assume that infanrty Atk guns had access to HE at the same time that RA did. I fairly sure that the source of the information about the introduction and scale of ammo is in RA Notes, but I'd have to do some digging to find which issue.

Regards

Nigel

The RA Notes Nigel refers to:

RA Notes. Issued monthly from Jan 1943 to Mar 1946 by the Director of Artillery and classified Secret. Main headings were operations, training, equipment and organisation. Contains much useful information including some on allied and enemy artilleries and lessons learned. Accounts were sanitised so that specific units were not identified. Some items are identified as taken from other referenced reports. They also included notification of policy changes concerning organisation and equipment. The RA Institution Library in Woolwich, London, holds a set. Original War Office file number 57/Guns/2710(R.A.8).

http://members.tripod.com/nigelef/sources.htm

Regards

Tim

[simovitch]

We added HE capability to the towed 6 pdr AT guns in BFTB. About a 10% ratio to AP shot.

[GoodGuy]

10% sounds reasonable. Good move.

What about the 6-pdr guns issued to the 101st and 82nd ? [:)]

[simovitch]

There may have been some 6pdrs post-market garden fighting on "the island" (just guessing) but the 101st and 82nd AB moved post-haste to the Ardennes from Mourmelon with barely the shirts on their backs. Also, usually the towed 57mm gun was all the infantry coys had to fight armor with. It was pretty much exclusively deployed as an AT weapon.

While no doubt there was 57mm HE lying around at the dumps, I have never read about them being used as field guns against infantry. It's just not enough to include HE ammo to the US 57mm or US 6pdr in BFTB.

IMO Zaloga, while a prolific writer, is more often than not himself in need of a reliable source to substantiate some of his claims.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

the towed 57mm gun was all the infantry coys had to fight armor with. It was pretty much exclusively deployed as an AT weapon.

With all respect Simo, but that's not correct.
The towed M5 was exclusively deployed as an AT weapon (namely in the TD battalions), not the M1. The losses during the Battle of the Bulge led to the M5s' removal from the front, and the US then favored to employ more self-propelled TDs.
The M1's intended role differed from the actual role in the field, due to the progress in armor development on the German side, and due to the lack of APDS ammo.

BTW, the 57mm guns weren't issued to Infantry Regiments/Coys - they were attached as divisional assets.

The 57mm gun was clearly obsolete by the time of the BOTB, it was good for lucky shots, only. I'd even refer to these guns as suicide guns, as their crews often lasted for seconds only, when they encountered a German tank conducting a frontal attack. Shooting at a German tank's side or rear may have been successful here and there, but in general, this weapon rather resembled a ticket to heaven, if its crew didn't have APDS at their disposal.

While no doubt there was 57mm HE lying around at the dumps, I have never read about them being used as field guns against infantry. It's just not enough to include HE ammo to the US 57mm or US 6pdr in BFTB.

Well, then take a look at this picture:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/us-artillery/ ... hting.html




This picture shows a US unit in Aachen, 1944. The first battle of Aachen started in early October. The fight for the city itself raged from 13th to 21st October.

The pic was taken on the 15th of October, at a point where German tank units were busy in Aachen's suburbs way south, at Würselen (as German armor had tried to intervene in Aachen's suburbs, to avoid being outflanked in the south - which failed, followed by the successful link-up of the US 30th and 1st US ID in the south, on 16th of October).
The US units used flamethrowers, a single 155mm howitzer (mounted on a vehicle) and 57mm guns to weaken/vaporate German strongpoints during the actual house-to-house fighting.

As you can see on the picture, the barrel's position indicates that the GI is aiming at a building at the end of the road - probably at the 2nd or 3rd floor.
The Russians used their ZIS-guns in the same manner for the fighting in Berlin, as the few German tanks left downtown (a few Kingtigers, firing from concealed or fortified positions) couldn't be cracked with those guns anyways.

In Aachen, the Germans used to erect bullet-proof positions/strongpoints at night, but these points could not withstand HE rounds. The 155mm gun used to be brought up at points where German defenders wouldn't give away.
After the 26th Inf Div's experience, some surprising German counterattacks before the 16th, which had inflicted quite some losses, the US decided to play it safer and bring up heavier guns instead of rushing their INF forward. They then made slow progress towards the city center, measuring progress by counting the number of houses cleared.

The US employed similar tactics (i.e. bringing up TDs, the 155mm howitzers, and 57mm guns) to suppress defensive positions at the parts of the Siegfried line in this sector (which formed a def. line from the southeast of Aachen to the Northwest of the city) in September.
They clearly had HE at their disposal.
57mm AP shells wouldn't do much damage to a defensive position in a city environment, besides piercing a few tiny holes.

IMO Zaloga, while a prolific writer, is more often than not himself in need of a reliable source to substantiate some of his claims.

Well, he used/researched historic TOEs and it doesn't look like he's making up things.

[GoodGuy]

West Wall September 1944:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... d-ch03.htm

What about this account?
The official US Army History:


Chapter III "V Corps Hits the West Wall"

"General von Luettwitz might have breathed more easily had he known the true situation in the American camp. Moving directly from the scramble of pursuit warfare, the 28th Division was not ready for an attack on a fortified line. Neither of the two regiments had received special equipment needed in pillbox assault, such as flame throwers and explosive charges. Attached tank and self-propelled tank destroyer units still were repairing their pursuit-damaged vehicles and had yet to come forward. The infantry would face the West Wall with direct fire support only from organic 57-mm antitank guns and a few platoons of towed tank destroyers, both highly vulnerable to return fire."

The guns were used to suppress pillboxes, and defensive positions in general, in a direct fire support role at the West Wall/Siegried Line, and in Aachen.
You don't provide direct fire support for your fellow inf units with AP, right? [:D]

[simovitch]

I'm not saying 57mm HE was never used, just that it was not standard issue. I'm not a ballistics expert by any means, but I thought AP shot was precisely what they fired at concrete bunkers. I wouldn't think a 57mm HE round would do much damage at all.[&:]

BTW, the 57mm guns weren't issued to Infantry Regiments/Coys - they were attached as divisional assets.

I believe that 3 included in the TO&E of the US Infantry Battalion Anti-tank platoon, and another 9 in the Regimental Anti-tank Coy. In fact there were none allocated as divisional assets at all. Ah well, perhaps it's all just a question of semantics.

Anyway if the customers want to see some HE availability for the M1 I don't see any harm in adding a few rounds. I won't be suprised though if I hear complaints that it was not standard issue and should not be included. You just can't please everyone.[:)]

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: simovitch
You just can't please everyone.[:)]

That's right Richard. I think we've made the right decision on this for now. Let's stick to our guns ( pun intented ) and leave this stand for now.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

I'm not saying 57mm HE was never used, just that it was not standard issue.

I know that you're not saying that, but I still believe it was standard issue by Nov. 1944 (latest), as authors emphasize that HE started to reach 57mm units in autumn (not just Zaloga, the official Army History - as quoted above - points out that TDs and 57mm guns had been used in an infantry support role at the Siegfried Line already.... and you clearly can't do that with AP).

The more evidence ppl come up with, the more reluctant you get [;)]... lol... geez [:)]

I'm not a ballistics expert by any means, but I thought AP shot was precisely what they fired at concrete bunkers. I wouldn't think a 57mm HE round would do much damage at all.[&:]

57mm AP doesn't do anything to a 6'-7" (2.04 meters) concrete wall.


The 155mm guns did something in terms of damage as well as the Sherman's 75mm or the TD' guns, but the usual procedure was to lay supressive fire on the embrasure (term? -> "loop"?.... called "Schießscharte" in German) using 155mm HE, 57mm HE or self-propelled TD HE, so that the bunker's garrison/crew could not use it for interdiction/suppresive fire. Allied Infantry then rushed to the back of the bunker, using bazookas (see next post) to blast the steel doors and then flamethrowers to reduce the bunker garrison.

Sometimes flamethrower crews sneaked to the sides, to suppress the fire coming from the embrasure. Some bunkers were just buried, using Sherman's which had blades/plows attached - plowing debris to cover the embrasures and exits, leaving the bunker's garrison buried alive.
That kinda US tactic was often used in the Huertgen area, especially with Bunker installations like the one above, in order to save time and speed up progress. Some bunkers held out for days, sometimes even a week.

When US units interviewed German bunker crews who surrendered, they learned that some bunkers in the Siegfried Line were unmanned, or manned the night before the Americans attacked, and that their crews were often 2nd or even 3rd class troops, often consisting of Luftwaffe fortress units, Naval units, or support personnel (there's a funny story about a cook who had been assigned to a bunker crew in the Army History - complaining about the fact that he had to fight ... the crew had surrendered after 2 hrs of fighting) - like cooks, mechanics or drivers.
They still put up quite some resistance, which created frustration among US units, as they got held up by a mixed bag of defenders, containing low quality troops mostly.

[GoodGuy]

Cracking the bunker from behind: