MHO Home   Forum Home   Help   Register   Login
 
 
Welcome to MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.
You are not signed in.
The current time is: 10/23/2017 2:15:29 AM
 Ordnance    
AuthorMessage
Page 2 of 3 (Page: 1  2 3 ) 
Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/12/2015 8:48:38 PM
The account I linked earlier by a 57mm gunner stated:

”I'm not sure of the date, but it was after we had crossed the Moselle and waited for three weeks while the rest of the war caught up with Patton. We caught up with a British motorized column. As we sat for a few minutes waiting for the road to clear there was an excited exchange between a Brit Six pounder unit and our 57mm AT Squad (you may remember they were basically the same gun). They were anxious to know what we thought of "their" gun. They were happy with our report. Our only complaint was the lack of a HE (high explosive) projectile for it.”

Maybe other 57mm equipped units were already receiving HE ammo before the author’s unit.
---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/12/2015 8:52:08 PM

Quote:

Quote:
According to Steven Zaloga in M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer 1943-97:
”In January, Bradley’s First US Army headquarters in England were informed that the M18 would be available in time for operations in France. At first they refused them, stating that they saw no advantage in replacing the M10, and expressing concerns over the additional logistical burden of a new type. Instead they wanted to wait until the M36 90mm GMC became available.”

Interesting, I had not heard that before. I may ask Steve about that since in context it makes little sense. The M18 units were not available and it was known they would not be available until July at the earliest. So they could not be available for First Army for NEPTUNE. It simply made perfect sense for them to be staged in with the follow-on forces, which they were.
--richto90

According to a chart in the same book, by the end of April 1944, 1594 M18s had been produced.

By D Day there were three M18 equipped battalions in Britain.

---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/12/2015 9:35:11 PM

Quote:
According to a chart in the same book, by the end of April 1944, 1594 M18s had been produced.

By D Day there were three M18 equipped battalions in Britain.


Yes Rick, I know. The 705th arrived at in April 1944 assigned to the 5th TD Group of Third Army. The 704th arrived in April with the 4th AD it was attached to and was also assigned to Third Army. The 603d also arrived in April (it was the first unit equipped with M18 in CONUS) and was assigned to the Third Army, XX Corps, 6th Armored Division. Meanwhile, seven M10 battalions were assigned or attached to First Army (one was assigned to VII Corps, Third Army, which was attached to First Army). Many had previous experience in North Africa and Italy, so why, after all the assault loading plans and units assignments were in place (they were "frozen" on 22 May) would anyone make the decision to pull them out and replace them with the new and untested M18 units?

Oh, sorry, I see where I went off. I said available by July, I should have said committed. Either way, given the arrivals and the need to mount NEPTUNE, there is no way the M188 units arriving in late April were going to be in the invasion.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/12/2015 10:16:38 PM
Just out of curiosity, when did the first TD battalions come ashore in Normandy?
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/12/2015 11:08:05 PM

Quote:
Just out of curiosity, when did the first TD battalions come ashore in Normandy?
--Jim Cameron


Jim, I believe it was the evening of 6 June, but it may have been the morning of 7 June. I believe it was the 635th TD on OMAHA and the 899th TD on UTAH that landed first. A detachment of the 635th landed with the 16th Infantry (IIRC) on OMAHA, on 6 June, but it was just a liaison team and had no TD's.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/13/2015 11:08:31 AM
Interesting. The 635th was towed 3", which would have made some sense on Omaha, until to beachhead was large enough to accommodate armored units. (Not to say that was the specific idea.)
The 899th was SP, and a liaison team accompanied the glider troops, so perhaps the idea was to use its mobility to achieve a rapid linkup with the airborne. Again, just speculation on my part.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/13/2015 11:32:50 AM

Quote:
Interesting. The 635th was towed 3", which would have made some sense on Omaha, until to beachhead was large enough to accommodate armored units. (Not to say that was the specific idea.)
The 899th was SP, and a liaison team accompanied the glider troops, so perhaps the idea was to use its mobility to achieve a rapid linkup with the airborne. Again, just speculation on my part.
--Jim Cameron


Could be Jim. In looking I find the 635th TD is credited with having landed on 8 June. Such credit is usually when the assault element had closed on the Continent (unit residues were still landing weeks later).

Rich

Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/13/2015 11:39:27 AM
As noted, the 635th landed on Omaha on 8 June.

The 899th; ”Liaison personnel accompanied second glider lift of 82d Airborne Division during invasion of Normandy. Battalion proper landed at Utah Beach on D-Day.”

The first kill by a SP TD came on 23 June when an M10 from the 899th killed a PzKpfw III.



---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/13/2015 12:13:31 PM

Quote:
As noted, the 635th landed on Omaha on 8 June.

The 899th; ”Liaison personnel accompanied second glider lift of 82d Airborne Division during invasion of Normandy. Battalion proper landed at Utah Beach on D-Day.”

The first kill by a SP TD came on 23 June when an M10 from the 899th killed a PzKpfw III.


Yep, they had to kinda hunt for it to kill a Pz III, there were only a few dozen in Ob. West at the time. IIRC it was from Pz.Abtl. 206, which was mostly equipped with ex-French tanks.

Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/13/2015 1:55:35 PM
The M18 is my favorite US AFV of WW2.


M18, probably 805th TD BN, Italy. Note the TD emblem on the bow:




Same TD, ?, later in the war, and with a star added:



---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/15/2015 11:23:53 AM
In looking at the tables of US weapons effects in the other thread, it is interesting how comparatively little additional armor penetration the 3" AT gun had as compared to the 57mm in absolute terms, considering the considerable increase in size and weight with the 3" gun.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/15/2015 12:43:55 PM

Quote:
In looking at the tables of US weapons effects in the other thread, it is interesting how comparatively little additional armor penetration the 3" AT gun had as compared to the 57mm in absolute terms, considering the considerable increase in size and weight with the 3" gun.
--Jim Cameron



Jim,

I'm seeing a roughly 20% increase at all ranges for the 3". And that I believe is for concrete penetration, not armor?

Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 8/15/2015 2:34:57 PM

Quote:
In looking at the tables of US weapons effects in the other thread, it is interesting how comparatively little additional armor penetration the 3" AT gun had as compared to the 57mm in absolute terms, considering the considerable increase in size and weight with the 3" gun.
--Jim Cameron

Penetration in mm at 500 yards:
57mm – 100
3in – 114

The infantry did not want the 57mm saying that it weighed too much.
Patton asked for better ammo for the lighter 37mm AT gun.


The 3in AT gun was a monster and its disadvantages far outweighed (no pun intended) the advantages (minimal improved penetration power), over the 57mm towed, and none over the SP TD, especially in offensive operations.

In addition, the prime mover for the 3in AT was supposed to be the M39 Armored Utility Vehicle.
The M39 was not available until April 1945.

Photo of the 3in AT gun:
”The Signal Corps caption observes,
“Army Ordnance Department tests have proved the 3 – inch antitank gun is superior to the German 88mm antitank gun as an antitank weapon.”

(Yeide, The Tank Killers)

---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

Markus Becker
Westphalia, Germany
top 60
E-3 Private First Class


Posts: 44

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 9/24/2015 3:07:12 PM
AFAIK the US did not use APDS ammo at all and while the various 3"/76mm gun were more powerful they also were much heavier.

A towed infantry AT-gun needs to combine sufficient firepower with not too much weight. With that in mind I consider the 6pounder/57mm gun to be the best towed AT-gun of the Allies. It could kill anything smaller than a Panther or a Tiger at a weight of just 1,100 kilos. The German heavies were a problem but even the much heavier guns -towed and self propelled- didn't do that well with ordinary APC ammo.

redcoat
Stockport, UK
top 30
E-5 Sergeant


Posts: 217

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 9/30/2015 6:12:02 PM

Quote:
AFAIK the US did not use APDS ammo at all
--Markus Becker
The US Airborne formations were issued with APDS for their 6pdrs on major operations.


richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 10/2/2015 8:37:42 PM

Quote:

Quote:
AFAIK the US did not use APDS ammo at all
--Markus Becker
The US Airborne formations were issued with APDS for their 6pdrs on major operations.


--redcoat


Not "issued them" per se redcoat. At least not initially. Rather, they drew some from UK supply sources during MARKET and hung on to them. Some other American units obtained small numbers of them in similar fashion. IIRC, the 2d ID managed to source enough for each 57mm in the Infantry Regiment AT Company and the Infantry Battalion AT Platoon to have six.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/16/2016 8:54:44 AM

Quote:
The US 57mm AT gun acquired (and to some degree, still has) a bad reputation for being too light for the intended task. But I think that much of that reflected the lack of a selection of different ammo types. As noted above, the British did make some sabot rounds available, but one of the most limiting factors, in terms of tactical employment, was the lack of an HE round. Here too, some were provided from British stocks, but US made HE rounds were not available until after Normandy.
--Jim Cameron


I just ran into an interesting aspect of the issue of 57mm HE to American units. In a postwar Infantry School study the Battalion Exec of the 3d Battalion, 357th Infantry noted the pre D-Day deficiencies in the battalion were:

"Certain critical items of equipment were not available. These included extra bolts and firing pins for the 30 caliber machine guns, and the long firing pins for the 57mm antitank guns. These long firing pins were needed to fire the British high explosive type ammunition, which was part of the basic ammunition load. When the Battalions sailed for NORMANDY there was an average of 1 1/2 spare bolts and firing pins at the each 30 caliber machine gun and only one long firing pin for the three 57mm antitank guns."

So the HE was part of the basic load. The issue of the firing pins is something I was not previously aware of. I will try to dig and see what was going on with that.

Mike Johnson
Stafford, VA, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 492

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/16/2016 6:51:30 PM
Thanks, Richard. That is interesting.

I also find it interesting that an infantry battalion would consider the platoon of 3 57mm AT guns to be a battalion asset as opposed to a regiment asset. At least for the D-day landings and for one battalion in the 90th Division the platoon seems to have been integrated into the battalion.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/16/2016 7:05:09 PM
The battalion headquarters company had its own AT platoon, separate and distinct from the regimental AT company.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/16/2016 10:54:52 PM

Quote:
The battalion headquarters company had its own AT platoon, separate and distinct from the regimental AT company.
--Jim Cameron


Yep. I think Mike just forgot. Unfortunately FM 23-75 does not mention an HE round and I have yet to find the British equivalent.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3322

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/17/2016 4:39:40 AM
Rich,

 Not sure what you're looking for exactly. CORD shows the M303 as:

☆Diameter: 57-mm
☆Length: 269-mm
☆Explosive weight: 255 grams
☆Charge weight: 567 grams

 I thought I had more official data on these, but can't locate anything else at the moment.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Society's righteous paranoia lows profoundly. -- random wisdom of a computer

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/17/2016 7:24:51 AM

Quote:
Rich,

Not sure what you're looking for exactly.


It's the bit about "long firing pins for the 57mm antitank guns. These long firing pins were needed to fire the British high explosive type" I'm trying to confirm. Often it is non-Ordnance types writing AAR's and School papers like this, so sometimes the real circumstances get scrambled. I'm just not sure why a "long firing pin" was necessary or how it would function? Do you disassemble the breechblock and insert the other firing pin when you need to fire AP? Or do yo just have one of the guns in a platoon HE capable? There's just something odd about that and I want to try to confirm the requirement.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3322

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/17/2016 8:29:34 AM
 Thanks. It does sound odd. It would be downright clunky to work with in the field, much less in combat.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Society's righteous paranoia lows profoundly. -- random wisdom of a computer

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/17/2016 2:39:33 PM
It does sound odd. I could see something along the lines of stronger springs being needed if the British ammo had a harder or otherwise less sensitive primer (not to say it did) and needed more of a blow to set it off, but unless there was something different about the basic measurements of the case I'm not sure why a longer firing pin would have been required. Not to mention that having to swap out firing pins under fire depending on ammo type would seem to render the piece all but useless. Spares, certainly, but different lengths?
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3322

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/19/2016 9:05:10 AM
[Read More]

 Interesting report, and no mention of an issue with a different firing pin.

Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Society's righteous paranoia lows profoundly. -- random wisdom of a computer

Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/20/2016 11:20:11 AM
FM 23-75, 57mm Gun M1, 1944, contains the following statement:

”75. Commands for Initial Fire Orders
a. Ammunition. Ammunition is mentioned in the fire order only when a type other than armor piercing is used."

(Pp 78)

That gives the indication that other types of ammunition were/would be available.

The technical manual for the 57mm, TM 9-303 should have information on the firing pin(s).
Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to locate that TM online
---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/20/2016 2:23:53 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to locate that TM online

--Rick Schaus


Ditto, and I'm not going to have time to get to Archives II or USAMHI before I complete my move to Washington State.

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3322

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/3/2017 8:07:23 AM
*bump*
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Society's righteous paranoia lows profoundly. -- random wisdom of a computer

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/3/2017 9:43:57 PM

Quote:
FM 23-75, 57mm Gun M1, 1944, contains the following statement:

”75. Commands for Initial Fire Orders
a. Ammunition. Ammunition is mentioned in the fire order only when a type other than armor piercing is used."

(Pp 78)

That gives the indication that other types of ammunition were/would be available.

--Rick Schaus


HE was authorized in March of 1944, but it took a while for it to become available in the field. Likewise, production of 57mm canister rounds began in January,1945, but little of it reached the ETO in time for it to be used in combat.
With different types of ammunition in the pipeline, it's not surprising to see this reflected in the manuals, even if somewhat prospectively.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/4/2017 10:22:43 AM

Quote:
HE was authorized in March of 1944, but it took a while for it to become available in the field. Likewise, production of 57mm canister rounds began in January,1945, but little of it reached the ETO in time for it to be used in combat.
With different types of ammunition in the pipeline, it's not surprising to see this reflected in the manuals, even if somewhat prospectively.
--Jim Cameron


Jim,

First production batch of 1,000 57mm Canister T17 was accepted in April 1944. Another batch of 15,000 followed in January 1945, 4,000 in February 1945, and ended with 2,000 in April 1945.

First batch of 20,000 57mm HE-Tracer M303 was accepted in August 1944. Serial production began soon after with 241,000 more rounds completed in 1944 and 1,584,000 rounds in the first eight months of 1945.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/5/2017 9:25:19 AM
I suspect that the first 1,000 round run in April 1944 may have been a test batch, rather than regular production.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/5/2017 1:29:43 PM
Also, the amount of canister produced seems surprisingly small, if just over 20,000 rounds was all there was. With 57 guns in an infantry division, 30 in an armored division, plus training units stateside, that's hardly enough for a few rounds per gun, not to mention resupply and reserve stocks. Even if it wasn't a large percentage, I would expect to see more than that.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/5/2017 2:12:05 PM

Quote:
Also, the amount of canister produced seems surprisingly small, if just over 20,000 rounds was all there was. With 57 guns in an infantry division, 30 in an armored division, plus training units stateside, that's hardly enough for a few rounds per gun, not to mention resupply and reserve stocks. Even if it wasn't a large percentage, I would expect to see more than that.
--Jim Cameron


They were only ever intended apparently for the Pacific.

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/7/2017 10:06:11 AM
Are you sure about that? Even if true, it still seems light. Especially with a invasion of Japan still anticipated.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

richto90
Bremerton, WA, USA
top 25
E-6 Staff Sergeant
Posts: 396

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/7/2017 12:09:14 PM

Quote:
Are you sure about that? Even if true, it still seems light. Especially with a invasion of Japan still anticipated.
--Jim Cameron


Yep. There was zero expenditure of 57mm canister in the ETO. Expenditure of 57mm HE began in September, when 864 rounds were expended. Total HE expenditure was 127,869.

Expenditure of 57mm HE was the same in the MTO, beginning in September, when 900 rounds were expended. Total HE expenditure was 19,548. No canister was expended.


Unfortunately, I have not found expenditure data for the Pacific, but if no canister was used in the ETO or MTO, then...

James W.
Ballina, Australia
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 674

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/8/2017 4:32:14 AM
Did the L-L 6-pounder/57mm units sent to Stalin in WW II serve as a genesis for their 57mm auto-fire mobile AAA ordnance, post-war?
( any similarity to the 'Molins' auto fire 6pdr variant, or was it a combination of Western design features - like the Kalashnikov AK-47?)

I recall reading that US pilots on close support/interdiction duties in the 'Nam, noted its efficacy...

BWilson

top 5
E-9 Cmd Sgt Major


Posts: 3322

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/8/2017 5:00:58 AM
 From Wikipedia FWIW:


Quote:
In the late 1940s, the Soviets started to develop a 57 mm anti-aircraft gun, to replace its 37 mm guns. Three different models were presented, and the winning design was made by V. G. Grabin. According to western intelligence sources, the German prototype gun 5,5 cm Gerät 58 formed the basis for the design. The Soviets were also able to study German 5 cm Flak 41 guns that had been captured following the Battle of Stalingrad.


Image:5.5-cm Gerät 58


Image:Soviet 57-mm AA Gun S-60


Cheers

BW
---------------
With occasional, fatigued glances at life's rear-view mirror from the other side of time.

Society's righteous paranoia lows profoundly. -- random wisdom of a computer

Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 548

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/8/2017 11:14:51 AM
Apparently there were not many, if any 57mm AT guns issued to Army divisions in combat in the PTO (PI, Okinawa) by the end of the war:

”The Americans also produced their own version of the British 6-pounder, which they designated the 57mm M1 antitank gun, but this was primarily deployed to Europe. It was originally intended as Lend-Lease for the British, but only about a third of those manufactured actually ended up in British hands.

Marine divisions in the Pacific retained the 37mm gun to the end of the war, though some Army divisions had reequipped with the 57mm M1 by the time of the Japanese capitulation.”

(The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia)
---------------
VR, Rick Schaus

"When things go wrong in your command, start searching for the reason in increasingly large circles around your own desk."
-- Gen. Bruce Clarke

Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
top 15
E-8 Master Sergeant


Posts: 669

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 2/9/2017 6:38:37 PM
Makes sense, given the lack of a Japanese armor threat. Such as there was could generally be dealt with by the 37mm, which was also easier to manhandle, and, did have a useful canister round. I do however wonder if the 57mm would have become more common had the invasion of Japan gone forward.
---------------
Jim Cameron

Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.

17thfabn
Ohio, USA
top 60
E-3 Private First Class
Posts: 43

Re: U.S. use of 57-mm discarding sabot ammunition in ETO
Posted on: 3/16/2017 12:22:53 PM

Quote:
Makes sense, given the lack of a Japanese armor threat. Such as there was could generally be dealt with by the 37mm, which was also easier to manhandle, and, did have a useful canister round. I do however wonder if the 57mm would have become more common had the invasion of Japan gone forward.
--Jim Cameron


I would think the 57 mm would have been issued to U.S. Army units for an invasion of Japan. Common sense would tell you that the Japanese had some better tanks held back for the defense of the home islands.

The Japanese only built a few of these, the Type 4 with a 75 mm gun and frontal armor that would defeat a 37 mm anti-tank gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_4_Chi-To

But if the invasion had taken place by the time that U.S. forces started the second phase, the invasion of Honshu they may have faced a sizable number of these tanks.
---------------
Withdrawal in disgust is not the same as apathy.

 Ordnance    
Page 2 of 3 (Page: 1  2 3 ) 
 Forum Ads from Google