Home > Discussion Groups > Allied

Message posting guidelines:

Full real names must be used at all times.

A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not optional)
Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.

From 20 April, registration is compulsory if you wish to post messages on the Discussion Groups. For further information, please see the following message: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47208&messageid=1113823018

Please read our Community guidelines before posting.
By contributing to this discussion group, you indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination of the violator's account.


 Return to Index  

Re: OQF 6Pounder mk5 to 75mm

August 18 2012 at 11:56 AM
Claus Bonnesen  (Login cbo)
Missing-Lynx members
from IP address

Response to OQF 6Pounder mk5 to 75mm

Calling the 75mm MkV a rebored 6-pdr is a bit of a stretch. It would be more corret to call the 75mm MkV a gun built around the internal ballistics of the US 75mm M3 gun using as many 6-pdr parts as possibly and able to fit in the 6-pdr gun mount.

According to the Churchill Mk VII & VIII Instruction book, the 75mm barrel was "externally similar to that of the Ordnance Q.F. 6-pr 7-cwt. Mk V" and measured 107.8 inches. As Brian points out - and confirmed by the Instruction Book for the Cromwells 6-pdr gun - that was shorter than the 112.2 inches of the 6-pdr Mk V barrel.

My guess is, that the difference in length and weight is found in the breech end of the gun, as 6-pdr cartridge was longer than its 75mm counterpart (441mm vs 350mm).

As for the thickness of the barrel, it stands to reason, that a barrel with thicker walls was used for the larger 75mm round.

 Respond to this message   

  1. Gun balance... - Brian Colburn on Aug 18, 2012, 3:49 PM
    1. Elevation gears - Claus Bonnesen on Aug 19, 2012, 4:08 AM
      1. physical evidence - ian foster on Aug 19, 2012, 4:45 AM
        1. Absolutely... Unfortunately... - Brian Colburn on Aug 19, 2012, 4:52 PM
          1. Thanks all - ian foster on Aug 22, 2012, 3:50 AM

Terms and Conditions of Use
Report abuse