US 57mm M1 ATG Question

[GhostRider3/3]

Hello I had some crazy results against the US 57mm M1 ATG.  I was curious if anyone had some good info on the Penetration value of this weapon.  I understand its virtually the British 6lb gun.  I could not find a penetration chart for the weapon, but thought it is one hell of a piece.

 

I just want to verify that this weapon could penetrate the front glacis' and gun mantlet. of a Panther at 600-750m  as was evident in a couple quick battles.   I believe if I remember correctly the unit itself just depicts AP and HE round.  But would they be using APDS?  I understand the front hull of the Panther is roughly 80mm @35* and the front Mantlet is 110mm round (Ausf G.)  Another Mantlet Penetration was on a ( Ausf G. Late) with Chin mantlet.  So the 6lb penetrated the Gun Mantlet and then penetrated through the actual Turret armor which I believe is 100mm at 10*  That penetration was around 750m.  Unless my calculation is off... and it very well could be because of the fine Scotch I am having.. but that's 210mm of Armor (Round and at 10* slightly spaced)

  Anyways just checking if this is accurate.. as that 6lb gun will be my new choice in Quick Battles.  Damn pesky ATG...

 

Cheers!

Edited April 29, 2016 by GhostRider3/3
Ausf G Late.

[CMFDR]

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf

As the document details, there are various figures floating around so I would personally take not any as granted.

Edited April 29, 2016 by CMFDR

[GhostRider3/3]

7 minutes ago, CMFDR said:

http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2pen3.pdf

As the document details, there are various figures floating around so I would personally take not any as granted.

Thanks CMFDR for the info.  I am still trying to wrap my head around how a 57mm could destroy a Panther (as in brew it up) by penetrating the front Mantlet and Turret.. from 600-750m.  I mean penetrating the front Mantlet is one thing but then penetrating the 100mm of turret armor at 10* is another.  Unless I am looking at the Panther Armor thickness diagram wrong.  LOL  which I could. (Jack Daniels is to blame)

[CMFDR]

Would you remember what was the date at which your battle happened?

Any chance the ATG crew have been watching Youtube on their smartphone while they were hiding?

 

[womble]

What round was it using? APDS from the 57mm/6lber was pretty potent and that table suggests the mantlet (100mm) is penetrable at even greater ranges. Sabot rounds were starting to get more commonly issued by the time of this module.

[GhostRider3/3]

1 minute ago, womble said:

What round was it using? APDS from the 57mm/6lber was pretty potent and that table suggests the mantlet (100mm) is penetrable at even greater ranges. Sabot rounds were starting to get more commonly issued by the time of this module.

Thanks Womble, and CMFDR.  This particular engagement was around 600-700m  The Panther took 5 rounds to the gun mantlet (Sharp shooters for a regular crew)   3 penetrated and for the life of me I wish I had my Fraps up but forgot.  The tank exploded from one of the Mantlet hits.  However is there not another 100mm of armor behind the gun Mantlet?

The other Panther suffered the same fate All be it from a 76mm most likely using HVAP.. that round again penetrated the Gun mantlet.. which was a Ausf G late with Chin mantlet.

[GhostRider3/3]

One thing I wish that the BF team did was actually put the correct name of rounds that are being used per weapon system.. but maybe that was not possible and the generic AP, HE was used for some of the weapons.

[CM-Kane]

Hi GhostRider,

behind the mantlet, there is no turret armor. Either you hit the front turret with 110mm (small area) or you hit the rounded mantlet with 100mm of armor.

The 6 pounder should have no problem with APDS rounds against the turret or mantlet.

Edited April 29, 2016 by CM-Kane

[Sublime]

Ghost rider thats odd. The 57mm is the Brit 6lber. The Brits did use solid shot AP however and started getting APDS earlier. If you look at some early BN battles you.ll notice the Brits will have APDS in June 44 the US almost never.

However what I find odd is your experience with the AP HE only. The games always showed the correct ammo for me even for that specific gun. And US units definitely do get the APDS for it more and more from June 44 onwards it becomes common until crews have 4 or 5 in Sept 44 IIRC

[MikeyD]

On the British side of things, they had converted all of their Churchills from 57mm to 75mm for the Normandy invasion, but quickly converted a batch back again to 57mm to take advantage of the superior AT capabilities. I saw one source refer to sabot 57mm as "The poor man's 17 pounder".

[nik mond]

5 hours ago, GhostRider3/3 said:

One thing I wish that the BF team did was actually put the correct name of rounds that are being used per weapon system.. but maybe that was not possible and the generic AP, HE was used for some of the weapons.

Not sure about the others, but for the US 57mm the US only manufactured AP I believe, and any late war AT variants, plus HE rounds came from what could be acquired from the British.

[Atago]

I've found this website interesting - running the numbers a Panther could be KO'd

 

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#

[Pak40]

4 hours ago, CM-Kane said:

Hi GhostRider,

behind the mantlet, there is no turret armor. Either you hit the front turret with 110mm (small area) or you hit the rounded mantlet with 100mm of armor.

The 6 pounder should have no problem with APDS rounds against the turret or mantlet.

There was a debate in a War Thunder forum about this. There are some good photos of a reconstruction of the Panther turret and links to Panther diagrams. It seems from the evidence presented that there is a 20mm splash shied behind the mantlet and then nothing but the gun housing (which itself is a hunk of sturdy metal) but not the 110mm of the turret armor.

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

The 57mm is the Brit 6lber.

Not quite. The US 57mm had a longer barrel—112.2" compared to 94.18"—and some sources give it a slightly higher muzzle velocity as a result.

5 hours ago, Sublime said:

The Brits did use solid shot AP however and started getting APDS earlier. If you look at some early BN battles you.ll notice the Brits will have APDS in June 44 the US almost never.

And US units definitely do get the APDS for it more and more from June 44 onwards it becomes common until crews have 4 or 5 in Sept 44 IIRC

In the source I consulted, The American Arsenal, only two types of ammunition are listed for the 57mm, solid shot M70 and APC M86 which has a small bursting charge of less than a tenth of a pound. The MV for the M70 is the same as the solid shot for the 6pdr, 2700 FPS, but the M86 has a muzzle velocity of 2950 FPS. So far, I have found no mention of a US manufactured APDS, so my guess is that whatever US troops might have had were scrounged from the British in reverse Lend-Lease.

Michael

[womble]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Not quite. The US 57mm had a longer barrel—112.2" compared to 94.18"—and some sources give it a slightly higher muzzle velocity as a result.

The brits in MG get a combination of two barrel lengths, IIRC, too... Wikipedia says 43 and 50 calibres which is about that difference in barrel length, innit?

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

So far, I have found no mention of a US manufactured APDS, so my guess is that whatever US troops might have had were scrounged from the British in reverse Lend-Lease.

Makes sense. The Brits were swapping their HE rounds for APHE, IIRC, from the moment they served close enough together for the scroungers to get into conference. 

[John Kettler]

GhostRider3/3,

After thinking the computer ate my post, I discovered I'd put it in the wrong place. Here is some key information on APDS for the US 57 mm.

Below is the relevant study volume, and the info is on Page 21.

NTI-ARMOR DEFENSE DATA STUDY (A2D2)

PHASE I

DRAFT FINAL REPORT
VOLUME III -- US ANTI-TANK DEFENSE AT

DOM BUTGENBACH, BELGIUM (DECEMBER, 1944) 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a284379.pdf
 

Quote

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.' 3 

The full Armor Defense Study is below and was done by SAIC for the US Army's Concepts Analysis Agency.

http://dsearch.dtic.mil/search?site=default_collection&q=armor+defense+study&client=dticol_frontend&proxystylesheet=dticol_frontend&proxyreload=1&filter=0&tlen=200&getfields=*&btnG=Google+search

CMFDR,

The guy who put that juicy weapon performance report together, John D. Salt, is one of our own.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 29, 2016 by John Kettler

[Sublime]

Emrys - i stand corrected on barrel length.

As far as shot Im almost certain from all the conversation about this when BN came out that the Brits used solid shot AP vs US APHE. The US didnt have APDS produced on its own but did receive small amounts that go from maybe one or two in June July to 5 to 10 in September or so. Some US atgs wont have any APDS at all as its relatively scarce on the CW side but makes a huge difference. When playing the Scottish Corridor the effect is stunning when you can KO Tiger Is with the guns.

[GhostRider3/3]

10 hours ago, Sublime said:

Ghost rider thats odd. The 57mm is the Brit 6lber. The Brits did use solid shot AP however and started getting APDS earlier. If you look at some early BN battles you.ll notice the Brits will have APDS in June 44 the US almost never.

However what I find odd is your experience with the AP HE only. The games always showed the correct ammo for me even for that specific gun. And US units definitely do get the APDS for it more and more from June 44 onwards it becomes common until crews have 4 or 5 in Sept 44 IIRC

I just realized its possible they ran out of APDS when  I looked at the unit itself... I really did have a few Scotches last night.  Anyways good information.  I knew the 6lb-57mm gun was a good asset, I guess I just never gave it the full respect it deserves.

[user1000]

It's a high velocity gun..

Edited April 30, 2016 by user1000

[womble]

And the sabot round was even faster, hitting, according to Wikipedia, 1219m/s mv out the L/50, and penetrating 142mm at 100m.

[kohlenklau]

I had a 57mm in my battle last night and hadn't fired a shot yet. It had ~50 rounds of AP and 1 of APDS.

[Sublime]

Lmao kohlenklau

[Splinty]

Oh Lord! Bless this thy Holy APDS round, that we may penetrate our enemies armour. In thy mercy.

[GhostRider3/3]

20 hours ago, womble said:

And the sabot round was even faster, hitting, according to Wikipedia, 1219m/s mv out the L/50, and penetrating 142mm at 100m.

Right... I just thought it bizarre that the weapon penetrated 110mm at 700m... 3 times????  Anyways good stuff.  Definitely a bad ass ATG. 

[MikeyD]

I'm not sure but there may possibly be a difference in armor quality for later production German tanks. Its been ages and ages since this was brought up but I seem to recall the steel recipe for the late stuff wasn't quite optimal. More flaking and spalling and cracking. I recall a Russian account of fighting in lend-lease Shermans. They were amazed/impressed by the lack of interior spalling with US armor. Of course that was because US armor was softer than the Soviet stuff, would bend before shattering.