M4 105Mm Vs Panzers/t34

[shep854]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tanks in skirts? Like this?

 

Dear God man, are you trying to get us all to tear our eye's out .

 

As an aside, where does one position the AT gun in Walmart?.

 

Charles

 

Does someone said skirt ?

 

Armored kilt, my good man.

[DougRichards]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tanks in skirts? Like this?

 

Dear God man, are you trying to get us all to tear our eye's out .

 

As an aside, where does one position the AT gun in Walmart?.

 

Charles

 

Does someone said skirt ?

 

Armored kilt, my good man.

 

 

Needs a kevlar sporran

[Marek Tucan]

So in the artificial world where tanks did not fight tanks, what Tiger KO and 88mm matching gun did the designated US tank destroyer have? Assuming there was such a complete universal animal and not some inferior pretender that satisfied the bean counters and the politicians.

 

What was the artifical world where tanks do not fight tanks, apart from the strawmen elected by Tiger-worshipping authors?

 

Medium tnaks were supposed to fight tanks - even the stopgap M3 Lee was, that is why it got the 75mm gun and not 75mm howitzer. T-34/76 was also supposed to fight tanks, by the way, with worse penetration than 75mm M3. And it did fight tanks. After all, regardless of armor, and penetration, all gunners went for side shots, regarless if it was 37mm gun with APCR vs. T-34 or whether it was long 88mm vs. same.

 

As for "Tiger killing" weapon, there was the 3-inch anti-tank gun and the 76mm tank gun. Both, by the way, were at least equals in penetration to 88mm FlaK and depending on the nature of the target could come pretty close to 88mm KwK. From late 1944 onward there was also the 90mm gun.

 

And neither was a result of bean counting - however, both were the result of global logistics. A platoon of 76mm armed tanks kills more enemies and protects more own lioves than one 90mm armed tank

 

As for the Sherman 105, lack of power traverse and low RoF would inconvenience it - hard to do quick flanking or "drive-by shooting" that was employed often in combat vs. the cats. As for AP... What would be the result of doing like Germans tried to do, basically using a saboted 75mm/76mm AP shell as APDS for the short 105? Germans used 88mm projectile in 15cm howitzer (albeit longer barreled) and 75mm in 10.5cm howitzer, but never seen any mention about performance or deployment.

[DogDodger]

What was the artifical world where tanks do not fight tanks, apart from the strawmen elected by Tiger-worshipping authors?

Certainly not in the US Army. The September 1942 edition of FM 17-33 The Armored Battalion, Light and Medium says medium tanks can be used:

1. As the leading wave or echelon of attack against known enemy resistance when the antitank defense is strong.
2. To support by fire the advance of light tanks, other medium tanks, or infantry in tank versus tank action. [emphasis added]

 

The December 1944 edition of the same FM is more detailed, saying medium tanks may be used:

1. To lead the attack.
2. To support by fire the advance of the light tanks, other medium tanks, and ground troops. This support is usually by direct fire.
3. To feel out the enemy and develop weak spots. This use is exceptional.
4. As a reserve for exploiting a success or breaking up a counterattack against the supported unit.
5. To accompany the infantry and assist the advance by destroying or neutralizing hostile automatic weapons and pillboxes holding up the advance.
6. When necessary, against enemy tanks. [emphasis added]
7. When necessary, against dug-in pillboxes (exceptional).
8. To reinforce artillery fires.

76 mm gun medium tanks were also used "[t]o reinforce the antitank defense of a supported infantry unit."

[Marek Tucan]

Exactly my point. The notion that "M4 was not supposed to fight tanx and thus got a crappy gun" comes from a complete fantasy land of authors with an axe to grind.
Funny thing is that half of them at least gives T-34 as an example of a proper "tank with good armor designed to fight tanks"... T-34/76 which had a gun with lower penetration than M4 Medium and comparable protection on average

[DogDodger]

Yep, I was agreeing with you.

[Colin Williams]

Exactly my point. The notion that "M4 was not supposed to fight tanx and thus got a crappy gun" comes from a complete fantasy land of authors with an axe to grind.

Funny thing is that half of them at least gives T-34 as an example of a proper "tank with good armor designed to fight tanks"... T-34/76 which had a gun with lower penetration than M4 Medium and comparable protection on average

I wouldn't say complete fantasy. Even after months of practical experience in NW Europe tank vs tank is still listed 6 out of 8 and qualified with an "if necessary".

[Wobbly Head]

All tanks are designed to fight other tanks but they are made for the threat at the time they are designed. When the Sherman tank was designed the 75mm was more than adequate for Panzer3 and short barrelled Panzer4. Considering how fast tanks evolved during WW2 from the Panzer1 a 6 tons tank armed with machine guns to the Tiger2 70 tons armed with a 88mm gun in only 6 years it's not suppressing that the Sherman was outgunned at some point.

Edited December 13, 2014 by Wobbly Head

[Marek Tucan]

I wouldn't say complete fantasy. Even after months of practical experience in NW Europe tank vs tank is still listed 6 out of 8 and qualified with an "if necessary".

Then again, there is emphasis added there and there is "exceptional" added to what should be the infantry support tank's raison d'etre...

[DogDodger]

What was meant by that was the italics were added by me to show where tank-versus-tank action was specifically mentioned. The parenthetical references to exceptional use were in the original, however.

 

All tanks are designed to fight other tanks but they are made for the threat at the time they are designed. When the Sherman tank was designed the 75mm was more than adequate for Panzer3 and short barrelled Panzer4. Considering how fast tanks evolved during WW2 from the Panzer1 a 6 tons tank armed with machine guns to the Tiger2 70 tons armed with a 88mm gun in only 6 years it's not suppressing that the Sherman was outgunned at some point.

Well the M4 was intended to also be armed with the 3" gun found in the heavy tank M6 and later the GMC M10. Turns out it didn't fit, though, so the 76 mm gun was designed. Turns out that still didn't fit, so the turret of the T23 prototype (in which the 76 mm gun did fit) was dropped onto the M4 hull, and production of 76 mm gun tanks started in January 1944. Edited December 13, 2014 by DogDodger

[mnm]

As for "Tiger killing" weapon, there was the 3-inch anti-tank gun and the 76mm tank gun. Both, by the way, were at least equals in penetration to 88mm FlaK and depending on the nature of the target could come pretty close to 88mm KwK. From late 1944 onward there was also the 90mm gun.

Hang on a mo, it's past 2am and I'll be darned if I'm going to look up anything but can you support your statement? Per the "narrative" (I love the word) the 76 was worse than the Votes AT Rifle!

[Max H]

What about developing an armor piercing round or even HVAP? The British had an AP round for the 25 pdr that was relatively effective in the 1941-42 time frame. An APHE round from a 105 may have been decent compared to the standard rounds used in the 75mm.

 

IIRC there's one mentioned in the text of hunnicutt, but it never got anywhere - I recall it only being really light though (28lbs maybe?), so performance wouldn't have been very impressive. Maybe tigers at short range?

[Przezdzieblo]

There were US experimental sabot shells for 105 mm howitzer, with 57 mm APC M86 and 75 mm APC M61 as projectiles. Development was stopped, HEAT rounds were introduced.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Przezdzieblo

[shep854]

Were slipping bands ever introduced on 105 How HEAT?

[BLAH]

105mm HE would mission kill one most times.

 

Running gear

KO/wound crew

optics/gun tube

[L.V.]

I think that 105 mm HE would be kind of on the fence when it comes to destroying tanks, whereas 122 mm HE were able to destroy e.g. Panthers. Here are a couple of pics showing the effect of Italian 100/17 EP HESH against a T-34.

 

 

(Originally posted on WK2ammo)

[Richard Lindquist]

The 105mm howitzer equipped Shermans in the tank battalion and the 75mm howitzer equipped assault guns in the cavalry squadron and the armored infantry battalion had the raison d'eter of providing smoke cover to the battalion in maneuver. Secondarily, they had an HE mission against soft point targets.

[Ken Estes]

There was some thought that 105mm would do better against Japanese ferro-concrete fortifications than did the 75mm, until reality set in in 1944-45, hence the call for M26 and T29 for the invasion of Japan.