Yes. But in VERY small numbers. It just wasn't used in thst way as with the size of the bore, it just wasn't effective. The shell was called 'H.E, OQF 6PDR, Mk10T.' It was made and was issued but it seems this was merely a formality as they already knew it wouldnt be effective anyway and they were biring the 6 pdr out to 75mm for effective HE anyway.
The 6pdr HE with the anti tank units may very well have had some problems - they did however aquit themselves very well - but the main a/t gun was the 25th pdr..we never had any problems with the HE inour Churchill Tans in both North Africa and Italy Cheers
The 6 pounder, apparently was considered obsolescent but was dropped with the SAS when they were operating with the Maquis behind the lines, in the Morvan,Burgundy from June to September 1944. Have to say that I did not see any reports of the weapon being used....wrong type of engagements and in the end,a very fluid encounter with the German occupation forces....no set engagements as far as I can see.
Harry My late friend Major Roy Farran (2nd SAS) was involved in that French caper and he always insisted that he only moved by Jeep for speed of action - so to have 6pdrs having to be hauled was not an option and thus they were dumped at the first opportunity as much more damage could be done with the Hit and Run games - so obsolescence was not the problem as they were not fighting Armour but troop movements and so machine guns did more damage... Cheers
Tom, I would agree what you say...jeeps gave the greater flexibility of movement and moreover were equipped onboard to outfight the usual German patrols. I think the emergence of the weapon in the Morvan impressed the Maquis and the locals.From what I have seen recorded, the weapon was secreted away pending a requirement for its use.You may have seen a SAS 6 Pounder being hauled through a Morvan hamlet by oxen.The occupation Germans for their part, only possessed soft skinned vehicles and in this area, it would be thought by their superiors,that armour was unnecessary. But of course it might well have been that the British operational planners considered that there was a chance that the Germans had some form of armour and such guns were found a use. A different story in other parts of France particularly the south east where the Maquis did not even have the luxury of bazookas and the terrain was not suitable for ill equipped irregulars to fight against a well organised enemy aided by the Milice.
The Australian Army used the 6 Pdr in the SWPA. Since Jap tanks were scarce, the 6 Pdr was used to 'snipe' the embrasures of enemy bunkers. Apparently it was quite successful in this role. While 6 Pdr HE was available, units equipped with 6 Pdr armed tanks preferred to rely on CS tanks with 3" or 95mm howitzers to provide HE fire. Some old Churchill Mk I and II with the 3" how were retained in 21st and 25th Tank Brigades until quite late in the Italian campaign for this reason. (This from old 15th AG tank states I have seen.)
I should add, further, that the inadequacy of 6 Pdr HE was one of the reasons for the decision to re-arm the Cromwell and the Churchill with the 75mm gun. Buckley's book on British armor in Normandy goes into all this in detail.
TTH don't know where all this inadequacy of the 6 pdr is coming from as we in 145th RAC of 21st TB never had a problem with it - as far as the M1 & Mk 111 are concerned - we never saw them after North Africa - some Regmtl HQ's MIGHT have had some but not to fight with - we finally had the 95mm HOW on the Mk V CS Churchill in early August '44 just before the Gothic Line and at one per sqdn it was handy at knocking down LARGE houses while our 6pdr HE was adequate for the rest- first time the 95mm was used - everyone had both eyes on the shot which descended 20 yards from a house with a couple of Spandaus - a German came out to inspect and looked up for a bomber - Wee Wully Fenn - the gunner from 4th Troop sorted him out with his next shot - straight down the chimney......the 75mm's on the Cromwell and Churchills were natural consequences of the times and availability Cheers
Like Tom, never heard any complaints. We had an Anti-Tank Platoon in our infantry battalion with six 6-pdrs which performed well and glad to have them. Joe Brown.
For those interested in such things - I have a breakdown of the different ammo used by the 6pr 7cwt on my website here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Molins.htm
As to complaints about the 6 Pdr I should make it clear that I was referring solely to the HE ammunition, which was inferior to the 75mm and the 95mm how. Though it lacked the range of the 17 Pdr, the 6 Pdr was still a good anti-tank weapon in 1944, especially once the discarding sabot round was issued. Tom, re the old Mk Is and IIs with the 3" how, I got these from some 1944 tank states for 15th AG. I believe they were indeed held by RHQ's, as you surmise, but I don't have the references handy. I can try and look them up if you are interested. The 15th AG tank states are quite interesting, actually, mainly because they show how 15th AG tended to get the latest stuff (Churchill VII's, Fireflies, etc) well after 21st AG. Because of this, obsolescent vehicles sometimes lingered on in Italy. In 1943, for example, some outfits still had a few Lee-Grant gun tanks and Marmon-Herrington Mk III armored cars on strength.
TTH do appreciate your point about the ammo in the early stages as being less than adequate - no need to dredge up the old Mk 111's as we never did see them in Italy but 25th AB had some in North Africa- we probably had some hanging around as well - you are correct also in us getting the more recent stuff when 21st AG had a surplus they couldn't park anywhere....so we had some MkV11's and Firefly'd in LATE October just when we were looking at our winter line when we were "invited ' to act as Infantry - that was a hoot as I missed it by still being in Hospital for a while See Characters at war - my BBc article below Cheers
