17pdrs in burma?

[seamoose]

I recently found out my great grandfather served in Burma in the royal artillery and I've been told heveryone and his gun engaged japanese tanks on several occasions but no one seems to know what kind of gun he crewed. My father mentioned seeing a picture of him with his crew and he says there were 4 men in the photo which leads me to believe it was a 17pdr. However toyou knowledge 17pdrs weren't used in burma so I feel like it was more likely a 6 pdr and the 4th man in the photo drove the quad but I thought I would enquire here amongst the historical gurus to see if maybe someone could she'd some light for me.

[MHoxie]

This Nafziger TO&E pdf lists all anti-tank units as being equipped with 6 pdrs from 1/1944 to 7/1944:

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/nafziger/944PAAK.pdf

When did your great-grandfather serve?

[seamoose]

1945 is all I know

[Poiter50]

I would have thought 6 pdrs had at least 4 crew?

[Truscott Trotter]

and more on a 17pdr?
Just imagine a 17pdr hitting a Japanese tankette company - hole through 2 or 3 of them and it still didn't detonate 

[Vintage Wargaming]

And imagine trying to move a 17 pdr around in Burma. Why use them when the 6 pdr will be plenty powerful enough to deal with anything it will encounter, will be lighter and easier to move

[Etranger]

Nigel Evans invaluable site on the RA (British Artillery in WWII http://nigelef.tripod.com/ ) has this to say:

Starting in 1943 infantry type divisions in India had a composite LAA/ATk regiment instead of one regiment of each as in western theatres, although most divisions in India had never had an LAA regiment and a LAA/ATk regiment had been formed a year earlier, possibly for the Indian armoured division.  These regiments were generally formed by a pair of LAA and anti-tank regiments exchanging two batteries.  They lasted until September 1944 when all the LAA/ATk regiments in 14 Army became anti-tank regiments with 3 batteries, dual equipped with a 6-pdr anti-tank gun and 3-inch mortar for each of their 36 detachments.

from http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm

Given that the standard 6 pounder was quite capable of destroying any Japanese armour in 1945, even without using the lethal DS rounds. it's hard to see any need for 17 pounders in Burma.

The standard crew was 6, as seen here. It could of course be manned by fewer, and 4 would be a perfectly adequate number to man the gun:

[MartinR]

If he was RA, he would have been a divisional antitank gunner (the battalion AT platoons were crewed by infantrymen) and AFAIK the divisional AT batteries were only ever equipped with 6pdr in Burma.

The standard crew size for a 6pdr was six. Guns (and ammo) take a lot of hauling around.

[Arlequín]

The standard crew was 6, as seen here.

There are actually seven there, there's one hiding to the left of the guy on the right, but the guy on the right might be the driver-mechanic 'photo-bombing' this posed shot.

But yes, as far as I know six men was the actual gun detachment (plus driver/mechanic) and yes they were supposed to have a Bren per vehicle in an ideal world, as well as a rifle each too!

[Etranger]

I missed the guy behind the shield on the smaller version of the picture that I looked at first! 

[MHoxie]

He was camera shy...

[carlos marighela]

His name was Lofty and he was a dwarf.

The Australian Army did a similar things with it's AT assets in the Jungle Division. The AT assests also got re-branded with the soubriquet of Tank Attack, cos it supposedly sounded more agressive. Despite having 17pdrs, even going to the lengths of mounting one in a Sentinel tank, they weren't employed in the SWP, 6 pdrs were the AT guns used late in the war.

[Arlequín]

I'm surprised nobody has bridled at the name of the gun to be honest. 

I actually suspect it is named after 'Rastus Mouse' - the Rupert Bear character from the Daily Mail cartoon strip. I might chance a quid or two that its partner-gun in the section was named 'Willie'.

 

[Cubs]

I was going to reply to this last night, but then got shy because my answer was going to be a 'I would have thought that' instead of a 'I know that'. I agree with the replies thus far - ie. I reckon the 6pdr was more than powerful enough to handle Japanese armour (and presumably bunkers) and the 17pdr would have been massive overkill, plus a nightmare to move around on Burmese roads.

I'm surprised nobody has bridled at the name of the gun to be honest. 

I've been reading some Lovecraft stories and in 'The Rats in the Walls' the name of the cat is N(racial slur)-Man. Different times and all ... but I did wince whenever my eye fell on it.

[Arlequín]

That's okay, I'm shy enough to look things up before committing to 'I know' answers, otherwise 'I think' or 'perhaps' works for me too. You're amongst friends here, granted one or two of us are envious of your painting.

I read Evelyn Waugh from time to time just for the feeling of morale outrage on so many levels. 

I suspect that as we can identify these elements as being wrong, yet still enjoy the story, is a good thing. Not registering them at all while reading might be more worrying I think.