US 57mm Gun, M1 & HE?

[Jeff Duquette]

US 57mm Gun, M1

While digging through various US ARMY ordnance\tech manuals I was unable to find any evidence that an HE round was produced for the US 57mm Anti-tank gun. The only rounds described as being employed by the 57mm were M70 AP and M86 APC ammunition. Noting regarding HE ordnance is described in the Field Manual for the weapon either (FM23-75, Jun 15, 1944). The Reticle on the M69C gunners telescope also shows no evidence of range graduations for HE fire.

Has anyone run across evidence of US 57mm employing HE during WWII?

[Jarmo]

Would it be possible that british 6pdr HE would have been used in US 57mm guns?

[Jeff Duquette]

That was the first thing I had considered, but the lack of HE range graduations on the gunsight reticule is tough to reconcile. Have you run across official procurement data indicating the US was obtaining British Manufactured HE for the 57mm?

[Amedeo]

On a postwar Italian army manual I found the following (US) shells listed for use on the 57mm AT gun:

HE T18B1

Canister T17

There's nothing on the DOI however.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Jeff Duquette]

HE T18B1

Canister T17

These are perhaps post-war Italian manufactured rounds? A 57mm canister certainly sounds intriguing.

[Swift]

It's not the HE i usually worry about... its the tungsten

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

US 57mm Gun, M1

The Reticle on the M69C gunners telescope also shows no evidence of range graduations for HE fire.

<hr></blockquote>

With regards to this, I believe (but I could be wrong) that HE direct fire from a smallish AT gun like that would generally be corrected by bracketing the target rather than adjustments made from the ranging markings in the telescope. Also, at shorter engagement ranges the two types of shells might have ranged together making separate markings unnecessary. But this is all guesses and hunches.

[Jeff Duquette]

I’m not sure I really know what you mean as bracketing would be used regardless of whether HE is represented on the reticule or not. The gun commander and gunner estimate the range via various methods and the gunner lays the target picture in his sight on the appropriate range graticule. One has to bracket a target by range adjustments up or down depending the sensing of ones fire….long\short. So I don’t see the connection between bracketing drills and whether the US ARMY was procuring 6-pdr HE ammunition from the British.

[rexford]

Robert McNamara, who did the armor system development and research for Advanced Squad Leader, noted the following ammunition for WW II 57mm ATG:

Limited availability HE starting June 1944

Limited availability APDS starting June 1944

AP and APCBC types

Robert went through WW II official ammo use tables which were made out each month, and he found these tables at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

6 pdr ATG HE was available during February 1943, based on Advanced Squad Leader, in limited quantities.

APDS and HE would be fired even though they were not on the gun sight range markings using any one of a number of systems. The British fired APDS from 6 and 17 pounder guns without APDS range markings by setting a ratio of the estimated range to the range setting to use with APDS.

Last winter something found a post-WW II manual for the Achilles where they indicated that APDS was not on the gun sight but firers were to use 60% or so of the gun elevation for APCBC.

Something similar could be used with HE and APDS for 57mm ATG.

U.S. 76mm and 90mm gunsights did not have HVAP but they still fired the rounds accurately, by using a conversion system.

[Jeff Duquette]

Lorrin:

Your using ASL as a reference?

So how limited do think HE availability was? I'm looking for specific procurement data. Did the British sell the US 1000 shells or 1,000,000 shells?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>APDS and HE would be fired even though they were not on the gun sight range markings using any one of a number of systems. The British fired APDS from 6 and 17 pounder guns without APDS range markings by setting a ratio of the estimated range to the range setting to use with APDS.<hr></blockquote>

Presumably with an associated decrease in accuracy in situations other than training. What was muzzle velocity of 6-pdr HE relative to 6-pdr APCBC muzzle velocity?

You seem to be implying that APDS was being made available to 57mm AT units as well.

[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[rexford]

Not implying, stating that evidence exists that U.S. 57mm ATG were getting and using APDS.

U.S. tests disclosed that 57mm and 17 pounder APDS was extremely inaccurate and wild, so I doubt that ATG crews would view the round as anything but a last ditch survival attempt.

Advanced Squad Leader rulebook is not perfect, and has some things that appear far-out (like 57mm ATG APDS). But I have communicated with Robert McNamara alot on a variety of ASL rulebook items and he has the references for where many of his findings came from.

Plus there is a U.S. firing test against Panther in Europe (summer, 1944) where 57mm ATG fired APDS and the round was listed on the firing test inventory as "normally available", whereas 75mm HEAT was listed as "special".

Limited availability for ASL means only a few rounds per gun, on average.

Sorry, no specifics on total number of 57mm HE rounds in inventory.

The problem with HE is that is normally does not have a ballistic cap, so drops velocity faster than APCBC. (aside: Smoke has a flat nose, and a really low velocity, so smoke shots would be on another planet altogether). AP sight markings would probably be closer to HE than APCBC.

Finding velocity for HE rounds will take me some time.

[Jeff Duquette]

Lorrin:

It's not ASL ...but what the hay. I found the following:

"Anti-Armor Defense Data Study (A2D2), Volume 3. US Anti-Tank Defense At Dom Butgenbach, Belgium (December 1944)" SAIC Sep, 1990. The study is basically collation by SAIC of AAR’s, post war interviews and combat histories of units involved. Crew members of 57mm AT units organic to the 1st Infantry Division indicated that the standard combat load for 57mm was about 30% HE and 70% APC. There are a couple descriptions of 57mm ATG's employing HE against German Infantry as well as to dispatch tank crews who are exiting from KO'd Panzer\Assault Guns. Same study indicates 57mm guns were provided with 7 to 10 rounds each of "souped-up" APDS from the British.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The nature of the terrain, and the fog which blanketed the area, compelled

Lt. Col. Daniel to place his anti-tank assets well forward, in order to have sufficient visibility to support the foxhole lines. He set up three 57mm anti-tank guns covering the road running east to Bullingen, and supported them with three M-10 self-propelled tank destroyers mounting 3-inch guns. He sent three more AT guns to bolster the main line of resistance, or MLR, in the E and F Co areas. Each of the 57mm guns had, as part of its ammunition supply, seven to ten rounds of British discarding sabot (DS) ammunition, which the British had given to the regiment before D-Day.' These rounds used a disposable sleeve, or sabot, around the penetrator for the British 2-pounder gun. The result was a lighter projectile with increased velocity, about 4200 ft/sec vice 2900 ft/sec for the normal 57mm round. With this velocity, a DS round could penetrate approximately six inches (154mm) of armor at a 30° slope. This made the obsolescent 57mm gun more effective, particularly against the heavy Panther tank and Jagdpanther tank destroyer.<hr></blockquote>

It is Interesting to note the description of the APDS consisting of 2-pdr penetrators wrapped in sabot petals.

A2D2 along with its two sister studies can be obtained from NTIS.

[John Kettler]

Jeff,

That's what I call a real find. The comment about the gift of APDS from the British is telling, and I'd love to know whence came the HE. Was it the same source?

The reason I ask is what retired RA Master Gunner and Instructor in Ammunition at the Royal Military College Ian Hogg says on page 124 of THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, Bison Books, London, 1977, concerning the 57mm gun M1:

"The greatest difference was that the American gun never had the range of ammunition available to the British weapon, only AP and APC projectiles ever being issued for it."

This remark could be taken to mean that only these two projectile types were fielded for the gun, but what isn't clear is what Ian Hogg means on the British side of the equation. His equivalent text on the 6-pdr. (p. 118) mentions the succession of projectile types for the gun, but only AT projectiles: AP, APC, APCBC, APCR and APDS. Nowhere does he mention an HE capability.

I suggest that we have our British confreres hie themselves to a library which has the HMSO Royal Ordnance volumes and see what can be learned there

on this vexed HE ammo question while we here on this side of the Channel have recourse to the green

U.S ARMY IN WORLD WAR II Ordnance volumes and see what's hiding in those covers. Based on the equivalent volume for the Chemical Warfare Service, which I do have, we ought to find lengthy discussions on adoption of the gun, ammunition development for it, and reams of production statistics on the gun and its various projectiles.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[rexford]

Robert McNamara went through U.S. Army ammunition use tables, which were made out on a monthly basis by U.S. units during WW II. He found evidence of 57mm anti-tank gun use of APDS and HE.

Together with Jeff's find, it is apparent from Mr. McNamara's work that 57mm ATG did use APDS and HE regardless of what can be found in British sources about ammunition given to U.S. troops. It would, however, be good to find something in British sources about the total number of rounds (HE and APDS) shared, but it appears a "done deal" that some sharing was accomplished.

It is also obvious that previously published descriptions of ammunition available to 57mm ATG may now be somewhat outdated, due to unfamiliarity with newly found sources since the "limited to AP/APCBC" ammunition reference for 57mm ATG was made.

[rexford]

The data quoted by the U.S. military for 6 pdr APDS in Jeff's post is a little off the mark, which could be due to "hearsay" info handed down from one person to another.

6 pdr APDS has a 28.5mm tungsten core diameter and was fired at 4000 fps, somewhat difference from 2 pounder round (40mm) fired at 4200 fps.

These things happen.

[John Kettler]

rexford,

That was AP and APC, not AP and APCBC. For reasons I don't pretend to understand, we did very little ammo development work on the 57mm. Given this, it's a good thing the Germans spent most of their time on the defensive. Had they been able to mount more attacks, maybe that would've motivated us.

BTW, did you solve your Firefly armor problem yet? I recall that several of us were feeding you info on one of the models, but it's late, and I don't remember the exact nomenclature.

You may also wish to wade into the "Allied Schutzenplatte" thread and educate some people there about what many of the American and British ad hoc protection measures did to actually degrade the armor's effectiveness.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler:

rexford,

That was AP and APC, not AP and APCBC. For reasons I don't pretend to understand, we did very little ammo development work on the 57mm. Given this, it's a good thing the Germans spent most of their time on the defensive. Had they been able to mount more attacks, maybe that would've motivated us.

BTW, did you solve your Firefly armor problem yet? I recall that several of us were feeding you info on one of the models, but it's late, and I don't remember the exact nomenclature.

You may also wish to wade into the "Allied Schutzenplatte" thread and educate some people there about what many of the American and British ad hoc protection measures did to actually degrade the armor's effectiveness.

Regards,

John Kettler<hr></blockquote>

Good GOD John, we don't want poor Rex to be assaulted by someone for being anti-Commonwealth just for using (gasp) facts in that mud hole.

I was looking at a supply chart for Guadalcanal in 1942 and found it extremely interesting that tanks units equipped with 37mm armed M3 Light tanks and AT units with the 37mm AT gun were issued a 37mm cannistger round that was rated as "highly effective" by Marine ordnance people on the island and "key to stopping Japanese Human-Wave attacks." I have never seen evidence that these rounds made it into British or American stocks in Europe. I wonder if any did, or if there is reference to them at all in European supply chains.

[Brian]

Ian Hogg's excellent book, British and American Artillery of World War 2, has this to say about 6 Pdr and 57mm HE:

British 6 Pdr:

"Shell, HE, Mk.10T, A nose-fuzed, high-explosive shell filled with TNT and fitted with the Tracer No.13 and the Percussion Fuze No.243, Propelling Charge 2lb 5oz NC powder. Muzzle velocity 2,700ft per sec." [p.78]

American 57mm:

"HE Shell. According to some reports, a high-explosive shell was developed for the 57mm gun, weighing 6.75lb, having a velocity of 2,720ft/sec and a maximum range of 12,670 yards. However, no official nomenclature list of the war years mentions it and no such shell appears to have been standardized." [p.86]

Interestingly, both have similar weights and muzzle velocities. However, it appears that there is no US HE shell which was either standardised or issued.

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>John Kettler Said: That's what I call a real find. The comment about the gift of APDS from the British is telling, and I'd love to know whence came the HE. Was it the same source?<hr></blockquote>

I am assuming -- as I have been unable to find any evidence so far of the US manufacture of 57mm HE - that the HE came from British sources. US Ordnance Catalogues (dated 1944) - As I have already mentioned - make no reference to 57mm ammunition types beyond AP & APC rounds. I have found at least one reference indicating 57mm and 6-pdr ammunition was apparently interchangeable.

As to what level of procurement may have occurred, I have no idea. There may be nothing official. Was the US 1st Army ever under the 21st Army Groups logistical support during some phase of the Normandy Campaign?

The sources for HE and APDS are indeed the same. The "Anti-Armor Defense Data Study" is a four Volume study on US anti-tank actions during WWII. "Anti-Armor Defense Data Study (A2D2), Volume 2 is Mortain, Vol 3 is Dom Butgenbach, Vol 4 is Krinkelt-Rocherath. I have volumes 1, 2, & 3. Very unique studies, but they are not really for the bargain basement historian.

I. Hogg is certainly an excellent source when it comes to all things artillery. However, he on occasion delves into AFV's and AFV weapons. His expertise in these areas is seemingly somewhat restricted when compared with his excellent work and personal experiances with artillery (IMHO). And no I will not elaborate as this is just my personal opinion.

Anyway Vol 2 "Anti-Armor Defense Data Study" details at least one engagement on the first day of the German Mortain Counterattack in which German Infantry is engaged by a 57mm ATG crew firing 5 rounds of HE. I don't recall if there was mention of APDS in any of the Mortain ATG vs Tank engagements. I will check tonight.

[Jeff Duquette]

Slightly off subject, but what are the details around the Little-John adapter and ammunition for the 2-pdr.

[Slapdragon]

Cross posting this:

As a demonstration, I would like to take on the task of convincing BTS that a canister round should be included for the US and Commonwealth M3 / M6 series of 37mm cannon.

My first realization of the availability of this round came when I read Tregaski’s “Guadalcanal Diary” and his mention of the M3A1 being an incredibly deadly antipersonal weapon, especially at the misnamed battle of the Tenaru (Alligator Creek) and the fight with Ichicki on the coastal flank of the Marine bridgehead. Other mentions of the 37mm mounted on the M3 light tank seem to credit it with unusual capabilities that do not seem to jell with the blast characteristics of the M63 HE shell then available (although this shell fired from a rapid fire 37mm hopper loaded cannon could be deadly to infantry, it is to much to ask that 10 rounds fired per minute could cut “swaths” through Japanese charges at close range.

To confirm the use of this round in these battles and further prove that it existed, I went to look for alternate sources of information. Tregaski is a good source, but as a journalist he may not know the difference between a M3 and a 105mm howitzer. What he tells us is that something was deadly, fired from tanks and canon, and that something was instrumental in stopping several Japanese attacks.

The availability of a canister round for the 37mm series of canon is testified by a technical document called, “37mm M2 Canister”, published in 1941, but there is no reason to connect the technical design of these rounds with their employment in battle by US forces. One secondary source quotes, “Projectiles available to Grant crews included the US APC M51 (APCBC-T), AP M74 Shot (AP-T), HE M63 (Shell), plus an M2 canister round with 122 steel balls packed inside.”

(http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/grant/grant3.html) which seems promising, but is not cited, nor is actual combat use included.

However, we find that Guadalcanal’s Edson’s ridge, where Major Edson of the 1st Marine Division made his famous stand is still littered with steal balls from 37mm canister rounds. (http://www.gnt.net/~jrube/then&now/revisited95.htm )

Luckily, the Marine Corps own histories come to our rescue with an extensively cited book. In at a passage say:

“By this time Ichiki had assembled his force on the brush-covered point of land on the east bank of the river, and all was quiet until 0310 on 21 August when a column of some 200 Japanese rushed the exposed sandspit at the river mouth. Most of them were stopped by Marine small-arms fire and by a canister-firing 37mm antitank gun of the 1st Special Weapons Battalion.

The Marines opened up with everything they had. Machine-gun fire sliced along the beach as the enemy sloshed ashore, canister from the 37mm ripped gaping holes in the attack, and 75mm pack howitzers of the 3d Battalion.” (Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal: History of U.S. Marine Corps Operations in World War Two. Vol. I: Pearl Harbor to Guadalcanal by Lieutenant Colonel Frank O. Hough, USMCR; Major Verle E. Ludwig, USMC; Henry Shaw, Jr. p. 291)

Further the official United States Army history of that campaign confirms the use of 37mm canister shot, as can be seen in this passage, “The defending battalion had emplaced a 37-mm. gun, protected by machine guns and rifles, to cover the q.5-yard-wide sand bar. As the Japanese drew near, the 2d Battalion opened fire with rifles, machine guns, and the 37-mm. gun which was firing canister. A few of the Ichiki Force succeeded in crossing the bar to overrun some of the 2d Battalion's positions which were not protected by barbed wire. The majority were killed or wounded by the defenders' fire. The few who had crossed were prevented from reorganizing or extending their foothold by fire from the positions which the 2d Battalion had been able to hold. G Company of the 2d Battalion then counterattacked and drove the enemy survivors back across the river. The Ichiki Force installed itself along the beach east of the river mouth….To conclude the engagement before dark and to destroy some obdurate enemy machine gunners at the west end of the beach, a platoon of light tanks, supported by infantry, crossed the sand bar at 1500 and with 37-mm. canister and machine-gun fire attacked the Ichiki Force survivors and destroyed them. Two tanks suffered light damage, but by 1700 the engagement had ended. The attacking Japanese force had been destroyed, and Ichiki committed suicide. Japanese casualties numbered almost 800; only 130 survived.”

Miller, John. (1949). UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II: The War in the Pacific – GUADALCANAL: THE FIRST OFFENSIVE p. 96-98 CENTER OF MILITARY HISTORY

The use turns out to be pretty universal in the Pacific, as can be seen by this quote from an oral history of a survivor of the 27th Division at Butaritari (Gilbert Islands)

“The 1st Battalion's troops were also clearing the pocket northwest of the west tank barrier. The heaviest fighting took place in a coconut grove in the middle of the island, where a group of Japanese fired on a platoon mopping up a former stronghold. Four Stuart tanks assisted the infantry by spraying the treetops with .30-caliber machine-gun fire and 37mm canister shells. The four tanks had been firing for five minutes when a Navy dive bomber, its pilot mistaking the west tank barrier for the Japanese-held east tank barrier, dropped a 2,000-pound bomb near them.” http://www.pacificwrecks.com/people/veterans/garrett/part6.html

Again, we find it used at Tarawa by Marines also (Hammel, Eric, and John Lan. (1995). BLOODY TARAWA. Pacific Military History. evidence that the M2 was used in the Pacific in several campaigns, it was deadly, and it could be used in both tanks and the M3 anti-tank gun.

However, and this is a big problem, I cannot connect it with ETO, The Eastern front, or the Med yet. Luckily when I began to look, stuff started to come out about the use of the M2 canister round in Europe. First, I was sent this great website, which showed several logged uses of the round by Calvary units in the ETO. http://skyways.lib.ks.us/museums/kng/635TDB.html

Then I found more stuff, including a quote in the Presidential unit citation for the 275th AFA Battalion of page 28: “During the day a force of approximately 300 German infantry infiltrated through the wooded area between RODT and POTEAU and gained the position area of the 275th Armored Field Artillery Battalion. The 275th held its ground, and diverted on battery to direct fire at point blank range while continuing to execute fire missions with the other two firing batteries. The situation became critical, and it looked as if the artillery battalion was to be overrun until light tanks from the 87th Cavalry Squadron arrived. Opening fire with 37mm canister and machine guns the tanks drove into the German Infantry killing and wounding many of the enemy and putting the remainder in flight.

We find canister again at Battle of the Bulge:

“At Monschau the 1st Battalion of the 752d Regiment carried the attack, apparently aimed at cutting between the Monschau and Hofen defenses. As the German shellfire lessened, about 0600, the cavalry outposts heard troops moving along the Rohren road which entered Monschau from the southeast. The grenadiers were allowed to approach the barbed wire at the roadblock, then illuminating mortar shell was fired over the Germans and the cavalry opened up with every weapon at hand-the light tanks doing heavy damage with 37-mm. canister.” (Cole, Hugh M. “THE ARDENNES:BATTLE OF THE BULGE” CMH Publication 7-8, Page 89 (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_5.htm)

And again with the 14th Calvary Group:

To assist them, powerful searchlights stabbed through the fog guiding their attack. All they had to do was follow the beam. Unfortunately, the beam also silhouetted them against the snow. Untrained and led by inexperienced non-commissioned officers, Schonborn's men stumbled through the morning mist towards Manderfeld. As they came into range, the cavalry outposts extracted a fearful toll. Automatic weapons and canister rounds hurled through the fog, ripping holes in the attackers' ranks. (Judge, D.J, Colonel. CAVALRY IN THE GAP: THE 14TH CAVALRY GROUP (MECHANIZED) AND THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE

http://users.skynet.be/bulgecriba/Cavalry.html)

According to http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/stag/stag3.html around 10% of a Staghound’s ammo supply was canister. This supports a 1943 document which shows that 9% of the 37mm shells going to the Med where “37mm, M2” (Service of Supply in World War Two. (1949), Presidential press reprint.)

Now I propose to BTS that next time around the 37mm get a canister round at around 10% of the round loaded for action for ETO and the Med, and maybe even Russia and British use. I have strong evidence for ETO, less for the med, and none for Russia that it was ever used. I have no real data on how effective it is (yet), but I know it was pretty effective.

[rexford]

The American 57mm ATG fired AP and APCBC rounds, the Americans never used APC rounds during WW II for their tank and anti-tank guns.

AP is armor piercing

APC is armor piercing with an armor piercing cap

APCBC is APC with a ballistic cap that decreases air resistance

U.S. 57mm fires AP and APCBC.

The British 6 pounder fired AP, APC and APCBC.

Advanced Squad Leader noted that U.S. 57mm ATG fired APDS and HE during 1985, 16 years ago. Took the rest of the world quite a while to catch up, I'd say.

[rexford]

Advanced Squad Leader on U.S. 37mm cannister from guns:

"is available in all theaters but only after 7/42."

"75mm cannister .... is available in 1944-45 but not in Italy."

"105mm cannister ..... is available in 1944-45 but only in the PTO".

M3 light tank, M3A1 and M5A1 gets cannister.

So the Americans used cannister in Europe during 1944 and 1945.

As noted previously, Advanced Squad Leader did extensive research on their ammo availability rules and they were right on 57mm ATG HE and APDS 16 years ago. While a few real good calls does not mean everything is to be given the automatic okay, the references in the preceding post on cannister availability seems to support ASL on cannister for 37mm guns.

[Slapdragon]

The 57mm Recoiless M18 has a limited standard canister round as well, issed in small numbers in 1945. I have not yet found evidence of German use of canister, or of Commenwealth use of US canister, but I cannot rule out that possibility, especially in the case of Commonwealth.

I do wonder however how common the 75mm canister was outside of the pacific. Unlike the 37mm canister which there is a lot of evidence for its use in combat, I have not yet found an AAR or a discussion that includes a canister shoot from a 75mm in the ETO.

[Jeff Duquette]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The American 57mm ATG fired AP and APCBC rounds, the Americans never used APC rounds during WW II for their tank and anti-tank guns.

AP is armor piercing APC is armor piercing with an armor piercing cap APCBC is APC with a ballistic cap that decreases air resistance

U.S. 57mm fires AP and APCBC.

The British 6 pounder fired AP, APC and APCBC.<hr></blockquote>

The nomenclature employed in the Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items as well as TM9-1907, and FM23-75 is:

Shot, AP, M70

Projectile, APC, M86

Technically the US didn't use APCBC either…M86 APC is APCBC-HE-T, and M70 AP is AP-T. The Ordnance Catalogue and FM's truncate. I am quite content to do the same. I think you will find - perhaps not in ASL - that all US WWII APCBC-HE-T type ordnance is characterized as APC ala:

37mm M59 APC

75mm M61 APC

3" M62A1 APC

etc. etc. etc.