View Single Post
  #3  
Old 06-08-22, 12:19
tankbarrell tankbarrell is offline
Adrian Barrell
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Suffolk, UK
Posts: 814
Default

Hi Rob, you are correct about a lack of info on 6 pr, this also results in spurious 'facts'!

As to the shields, my thoughts are as follows.

I presume the relative thinness of the original shield led to a need to increase the protection. I assume it was easier to add an extra, even thicker shield than to replace the existing with a thicker example. 17 pr had a spaced twin plate shield from new so it might be it was felt to offer advantages over a single thickness.

Photos of guns in Normandy can be seen with the notches for the shields but they don't seem to have the extra plates fitted. They can be seen later in the war.

I don't know if they were supplied as a kit for fitting in the field or whether it was just a change in production. If you can find the EMERs for 6 pr, that would likely tell you. I have some of the EMERs for 2 pr and 17 pr but not all guns received every mod, even if they should have done.

It's effectiveness as a shield would have been significantly enhanced as it went from 7mm up to a total of about 17 but that would still be of limited use against direct attack but then that is always the case. It does increase the weight somewhat but slightly helps the balance which is advantages as 6 pr is quite trail heavy.

Not much help, I'm afraid but my thoughts align with yours!
__________________
Adrian Barrell
Reply With Quote