Jeff Duquette

I just got this from Richard Anderson of TDI (co-Author of "Hitler's Last Gamble" as well as numerous periodicals and articles on artillery). Originally rplying to my question at "OnWar" Forum. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Ammo produced for the US-made 57mm (6-pdr) in the US was: HE-T, M303 (T18 and T18E1) (HE tracer) 1.845 million rounds Canister (T17) (produced in very small numbers in April 1944 and Jan-Apr 1945 and possibly never shipped) 22,000 rounds APC-T, M86 and AP, M70 (the standard AP round) 10.624 million rounds Note that no APDS rounds were produced for the 57mm in the US. All 57mm APDS rounds in the ETO were supplied by the British. (A December 1944 proposal to the War Department requested that the basic load per gun include 10 APDS rounds.)<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>My point avoids confusion and improves clarity. I continue to strongly suggest that either the British designation be used for American rounds (APCBC), or one might state APC (armor piercing and ballistic caps).<hr></blockquote> My point is simply that M86 APC is M86 APC. There should be no confusion as there isn’t two types of M86 ordnance for the 57mm Anti-Tank Gun. If you are intent on using none standard nomenclature and correcting folks that actually use the official designation of the round than you should use the full ordnance description to avoid confusing whatever folks you are worried about confusing. APCBC-HE-T is the form you seek for the US 57mm M86 round, and APCBC-T for the British 6-pdr round. Ultimately I suspect there are two groups of folks…one group knows the cap situation of M86 APC, and one group (a much-much larger group) that prolly just doesnt care much either way.

F.M.vonSenger und Etterlin in his work “German Tanks of World War II” indicates that a canister round was being produced for the early STUG-III’s. I believe Valera indicated he had come across Red Army AAR’s indicating canister being employed against Soviet Infantry in or around Stalingrad.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I am interested in correctly describing the cap situation, so 57mm ATG fires AP and APCBC. The fact that the round has a tracer or HE filler is besides the point when one is discussing the presence of caps.<hr></blockquote> If you are truly interested in “accuracy” than you should indicate APCBC-HE-T for the M86. After all some penetrators don’t contain explosive charges and some don’t have tracer elements. So if your intent is to be “correct” then perhaps you should distinguish between rounds that were outfitted with tracer elements and those that were not. It makes a big difference to a gunner and TC trying to sense their own fire if the round is equipped or not equipped with a tracer element. To these folks that “T” is quite important. In addition it is actually important to distinguish between rounds with explosive fillers and those without. As I know you are aware British APCBC differed from US APCBC in that explosive filler was often removed or not included in the later war British versions of APCBC. Therefore if you are truly trying to avoid being “incorrect” it should behoove you to include or discard that little “HE” notation dependent upon the actual make-up of the round in question. I am well aware of the M86’s cap situation, and am quite content in this case to employ the truncated nomenclature used in official Tech manuals and ordnance catalogues. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Kurt Laughlin has posted information on the AFV News site giving the proper designation for 57mm ATG HE rounds: The US did have a designation for the 57mm HE round, T18E1. User instructions were issued via Technical Bulletin TB ORD 169, dated 21 August 1944, and the round was included in firing table FT 57-C-1 issued on 19 September 1944. I will ask where the 57mm HE rounds were manufactured.<hr></blockquote> Great information. Thanks for the digging and be sure to thank Kurt. Why don’t you ask if you can obtain a copy of FT 57-C-1. I have a WO around here with dispersion info for the 6-pdr APCBC-T It might be interesting to check to see if there was any difference between the 6-pdr and the 57mm's ABCBC-HE-T dispersion stats. [ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

Sorry....just wanted to add that Slapdragon's post is an excellent bit of research.

<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.

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

<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.

Just to add to Ligur’s and Janson’s obviously informed posts (great post Ligur)…more TFT information. Single tube…dispersion resultant from systematic error only: M29 81mm Mortar firing HE (charge 4): @1000m…Range Probable Error = 7m…. Deflection Probable Error=4m 50% Zone = 14m x 8m…. 100% zone = 56m x 32m @1500m…Range Probable Error = 9m…. Deflection Probable Error=4m 50% Zone = 18m x 8m…. 100% zone = 72m x 32m

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>European theater Engineers were issued camos<hr></blockquote> Osprey indicates camo fatigues in ETO were limited to combat engineers in the 2nd AD. One of the armored Infantry Battalions of 2nd AD was also apparently issued camo fatigues. I am curious as to what your sources indicate regarding other units being issued camo.

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.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Lorrin Said: The range at which a target is hulldown makes a world of difference.<hr></blockquote> Yup. See my post on page 1 of this thread.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Lorrin Said: The range at which a target is hulldown makes a world of difference.<hr></blockquote> Yup. See my post on page 1 of this thread.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Err, because it is a mathematical point, and thus has dimension zero, and thus has no area, and thus every shot falls at some distance from it, however infinitessimal.<hr></blockquote> I had considered mentioning this earlier, but thought it might be interesting to see where he went with this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Tero Said:Any arty piece, any charge, any range.<hr></blockquote> Interesting. Please elaborate.

Interesting that there is a picture of what apparently is a member of 17th Armored Infantry Battalion, 12th Armored Division, wearing camouflage fatigues ala the USMC’s Pacific Theatre Garb. I had thought ETO issue of camouflage fatigues had been limited to 2nd AD.

Nice article...thnx for the link.

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>

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.

HE T18B1 Canister T17 These are perhaps post-war Italian manufactured rounds? A 57mm canister certainly sounds intriguing.

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?

Thnx Marcus

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?

Marcus: Have you seen actual Ballistische Angaben for the Panzerschreck. Data for dispersion…Breite and Hohe relative to entfernung?

I too have always been impressed with the uncanny accuracy of the Panzerschreak in CMBO. It’s an excellent tank killer out to ranges of at least 150m or so.