US 57mm M1 ATG Question

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, the later model Panthers most likely have armor quality ratings below 100%. I can't get my old CMx1 games to work anymore to check what BFC set them to back in the day but it was probably either 90% or 85% which translates to 99mm and 94mm effective resistance for the 110mm thick front turret. The 10 degree slope would add a few millimeters so probably 97-102mm effective resistance at 0 slope. The mantlet aka gun mount would be 100mm x .90 (quality modifier) x .96 (cast armor modifier)  = 86mm effective resistance near the mantlet apex although the curvature would make hits near the top and bottom edges bounce.

US 57mm armor piercing round M70 penetrates 100mm of RHA at 0° at 750 meters so frequent penetrations of the late Panther front turret should be expected.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[Sublime]

I do wish the TacAI could be tweaked to not use APDS unless range is less than 100m until say the third shot, unless APDS amount is greater than or equal to 3 or 4.  To get the range etc. All too often i have the Holy APDS round which gets fired off.. high. Then AP low... then AP just right, except it bounces.

 

The same with say German 150mm IG ammo where often you have only a couple of HEAT rounds. 

 

Of course this post will really degenerate into arguments for TacSOPs and the counter too much micromanagement argument. And if BFC catered to me a zillion others would complain and prefer it their way. So ya its moot regardless.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Sublime

[Sailor Malan2]

If this were to be done, I give it 4 quintillianths of a second before someone posts: My ATG had one chance to kill the tank bofore getting fried and wasted it by bouncing a AP off the beast when they had an APDS round. Please fix or summink 

 

:

[womble]

3 minutes ago, Sublime said:

I do wish the TacAI could be tweaked to not use APDS unless range is less than 100m until say the third shot, unless APDS amount is greater than or equal to 3 or 4.  To get the range etc. All too often i have the Holy APDS round which gets fired off.. high. Then AP low... then AP just right, except it bounces.

 

The same with say German 150mm IG ammo where often you have only a couple of HEAT rounds. 

 

Of course this post will really degenerate into arguments for TacSOPs and the counter too much micromanagement argument. And if BFC catered to me a zillion others would complain and prefer it their way. So ya its moot regardless.

I'm not sure getting AP ranged in would necessarily mean an APDS round is more likely to hit, given the much shorter flight time; you may well end up with the sabot whistling harmlessly over the top, especially at longer ranges. That said, given the ultra high velocities, even first shots under 500m should be a pretty likely hit (less than 0.5s flight time, so only a metre drop below aim point: aim at the turret and you're pretty much going to hit a tank, and even aiming centre of visual mass and not compensating at all for drop, you'll hit most tanks). As such, you probably want to shoot APDS first so you can kill the threat before it notices you. So long as you don't panic and set the sights for vanilla AP...

[Sublime]

It just always seems that unless its a real close in ambush the first round from my ATGs especially Allied misses. Of course it always seems that way when its "your" guns.

Of course and especially with a 57mm I try for short in ambushes but often it becomes a choice of let the enemy butcher my troops safe from harm or try to at least hit back and KO armor

[Anthony P.]

Firing a lesser quality round the first time doesn't feel right. It would imply that the cannon crew would know that the first round always misses. IMO it is right for them to always turn to the best performing round they have. I'd say a better solution would be to increase the odds of a first shot hit even at longer ranges, and compensate by making the dozens of subsequent rounds a bit less likely to hit.

E.g. increase first shot hit chance at 1000m by 25%, compensate by decreasing the odds for the remaining 25 shots to hit at the same range by 1% each. That way APDS shots would be more useful at longer ranges.

This is of course assuming that the first round always does miss at longer ranges. I'm not too well acquainted with long range ATG employment due to deriving the bulk of my experience from playing as American in Normandy or attacking as German.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Anthony P.

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

E.g. increase first shot hit chance at 1000m by 25%, compensate by decreasing the odds for the remaining 25 shots to hit at the same range by 1% each.

Except this is the opposite of what is reported in the histories. Accuracy generally improved with later shots on the same target. That's just a fact of life and we have to live with it...or die with it.

I think the best solution is the one that was posted earlier, fire standard AP rounds until you get a burst on target. If the hit ricochets, then switch to APDS with the assumption that the gunner will compensate for the difference in ballistic properties of the round. This hews closer to the accounts I have read. The exceptions to that rule are when the target was known to be impenetrable by AP at the range observed and posed an immediate threat. Then you gave it your best shot and hoped that it did the job.

Michael

Edited May 1, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[Sailor Malan2]

The suggestion to fire APDS first shot also assumes the ATG crew has an encyclopedic knowledge of the tansk, armour and penentration tables, and so could be argued that it should only apply to experienced crews. Where would one stop?

[MikeyD]

"... assumes the ATG crew has an encyclopedic knowledge"

Heh heh, I'm reminder of a poster a long time ago who said his father was a tank driver in a PzIV in WWII. When asked about the function of the vehicle's convoy driving lights in back dad replied "Oh, I always wondered what those things were!" (I've loosely interpreted the post). 

[Anthony P.]

4 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

The suggestion to fire APDS first shot also assumes the ATG crew has an encyclopedic knowledge of the tansk, armour and penentration tables, and so could be argued that it should only apply to experienced crews. Where would one stop?

No, it assumes that the crew has spotted an enemy tank, and turned to the round that has the best ability to penetrate it. Who in their right mind would assume that they will miss when using a direct fire weapon, and therefore use ammunition that isn't as well suited to the task? In that case you might as well argue that they should fire HE shots first, as it'd be easier to judge where they land.

[Sailor Malan2]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

No, it assumes that the crew has spotted an enemy tank, and turned to the round that has the best ability to penetrate it. Who in their right mind would assume that they will miss when using a direct fire weapon, and therefore use ammunition that isn't as well suited to the task? In that case you might as well argue that they should fire HE shots first, as it'd be easier to judge where they land.

Careful what you wish for! If the crew doesn't have a good knowledge of the tank and its armour, and always fires the shot with the best chance to kill first, any time you don't have full ammo you won't have any "specials" since they would have been fired. 

For most guns HE is no good as a spotting round aince it has a much smaller charge and lower muzzle velocity (you use a different sight graticule).

i still maintain that there is a lot of logic in the current system, and in fact I see specials "wasted" as often now as underused. A lot of the time they are used sensibly as well.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Sailor Malan2
Typo

[Sublime]

Thanks for agreeing emrys. It also jives with what I know about real life. Assuming first shot hits and later ones degrading is completely unrealistic. Ww2 lit. Is replete with examples of direct fire guns firing a few times to get the range. No laser designators just marks on a scope and the eyeball.

And yes Ive seen special ammo used right as well, the issue is only strongly noticeable with the 57mm, German 50mm with the special 150mm round, and sometimes German 150mm IG

 

 

[Michael Emrys]

7 hours ago, Sublime said:

...the issue is only strongly noticeable with the 57mm, German 50mm with the special 150mm round, and sometimes German 150mm IG

I might mention here that at least once recently in FB I ran up against some German troops armed with 37mm ATGs and that huge shaped charge round. They fired at one of my tanks, but the round fell short. Then they died when my shot didn't fall short.

Michael

[Sublime]

I love that ridiculously big round

[user1000]

The 57mm AT gun because of it's high velocity was better than the shermans low velocity 75 at taking on tanks.

Edited July 18, 2016 by user1000

[Duckman]

Whoa, that really is a huge boost from the sabot! As for late war German armour plate, it really was appallingly bad in some cases. I think the Soviets tested some Panthers and were amazed. 

[Duckman]

Here's the source: 

However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it.

This was explained by an interesting change of circumstances in the Summer of 1944. The Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armour very brittle, especially at the seam welds. The first encounters of JS-2 tanks with the Germans also showed that the front protection of its hull was not impenetrable.

From http://english.battlefield.ru/tanks/10-heavy-tanks/19-js-2.html

As you can see it happened already in mid  44, so it would very much be a factor at the Bulge and espcially since most of the German armour was new production.

 

[JasonC]

We've heard all the changing armor quality stories, but a few less concerting facts.

First, Duckman's quote about the cracked mantlet specifically says the 122 ricoceted off.  

Second and more on the actual theme of the thread, there is precise little evidence that US 57mm ATGs were ever very effective against the front of Panthers.  There is in fact remarkably little evidence of their being effective vs anything, really.  So e flank shots at close ranges, some hits on Panzer IVs, no doubt.  But a simply horrible combat record vs serious German armor, in the bulge period specifically.  

At best, they were sometimes effective when set up to get a close range side shot onto a narrow forest road, where a wreck could block the route and protect them from the rest of the German armor.  When they lined up lots of them with wide fields of fire, they were generally outshot pretty catastrophically, with minimal effect themselves.

Towed 76mm were pretty ineffective too, but can at least boast some important tactical successes (a couple of King Tigers e.g.)

The actual 57mm formations were frequently cannabilized for riflemen, especially in the armored divisions, which didn't have enough infantry and had more useful AT weapons in armored mounts.

The really effective AT weapons in the bulge fighting were the armored tank destroyers, M10s, M18s, and M36s.  Mines, bazookas, physical obstacles, some 155mm artillery fire in large amounts over wide areas - were more important supplements to those than towed ATGs.  Non TD armor in division amounts was also AT effective; lesser doses of just Shermans, much less so.

[Pak40]

On 7/20/2016 at 5:10 AM, JasonC said:

We've heard all the changing armor quality stories, but a few less concerting facts.

First, Duckman's quote about the cracked mantlet specifically says the 122 ricoceted off.  

Second and more on the actual theme of the thread, there is precise little evidence that US 57mm ATGs were ever very effective against the front of Panthers.  There is in fact remarkably little evidence of their being effective vs anything, really.  So e flank shots at close ranges, some hits on Panzer IVs, no doubt.  But a simply horrible combat record vs serious German armor, in the bulge period specifically.  

At best, they were sometimes effective when set up to get a close range side shot onto a narrow forest road, where a wreck could block the route and protect them from the rest of the German armor.  When they lined up lots of them with wide fields of fire, they were generally outshot pretty catastrophically, with minimal effect themselves.

Towed 76mm were pretty ineffective too, but can at least boast some important tactical successes (a couple of King Tigers e.g.)

The actual 57mm formations were frequently cannabilized for riflemen, especially in the armored divisions, which didn't have enough infantry and had more useful AT weapons in armored mounts.

The really effective AT weapons in the bulge fighting were the armored tank destroyers, M10s, M18s, and M36s.  Mines, bazookas, physical obstacles, some 155mm artillery fire in large amounts over wide areas - were more important supplements to those than towed ATGs.  Non TD armor in division amounts was also AT effective; lesser doses of just Shermans, much less so.

Have you ever read any detailed accounts of the Dom Butgenbach battles? There's ample evidence there. I've read in more than once source that these 57 crews did have some of the coveted British rounds that were so effective. This battle area was basically a wide open ground with gentle slopes, however it seems the Americans used reverse slope tactics in most cases which would certainly mean closer ranges and probably not the typical 800m engagement range.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: AT Guns

The 76 MM towed mount simply was Not Good At Anything.  When employed doctrinally, it failed disastrously.  When employed in a more conventional "heavy weapon" role it was not entirely useless, but was too unwieldy for regular employment.

The 57 MM saw some success as it could penetrate a lot of German hardware, and the heavier stuff if the stars were right/in favorable angles/facings.  it was also small enough to be placed in interesting places, and it was integral to infantry formations which meant it was part of a wider defensive plan which gave it much more utility than the towed tank destroyer units.  

Neither was entirely "Good" but the 57 MM wasn't a total wash.

In regards to armor, Shermans fared pretty all right.  Many Armored Divisions had started to acquire 76 MM Shermans in quantity, and the defensive nature of the fighting negated a lot of the advantages of German armor.   The M36 did quite well, as did other tank destroyers, but given the kind of fighting and weapons involved, it could be argued that it was not so important that it was an M10 or Sherman, but that it was a full track tank-like AFV on station.  

[sburke]

From Cole's The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge

"Company C, 51st Engineer Combat Battalion, occupied Trois Ponts, so important in the itinerary of the kampfgruppe. Quite unaware of the importance of its mission, the company had been ordered out of the sawmills it had been operating as part of the First Army's Winterization and Bridge Timber Cutting Program, and dispatched to Trois Ponts where it detrucked about midnight on 17 December. Numbering around 140 men, the company was armed with eight bazookas and ten machine guns. Maj. Robert B. Yates, commanding the force, knew only that the 1111th Engineer Group was preparing a barrier line along the Salm River from Trois Ponts south to Bovigny and that he was to construct roadblocks at the approaches to Trois Ponts according to the group plans. During the night Yates deployed the company at roadblocks covering the bridge across the Amblève and at the vulnerable highway underpass at the railroad tracks north of the river. On the morning of 18 December a part of the artillery column of the 7th Armored Division passed through Trois Ponts, after a detour to avoid the German armor south of Malmédy; then appeared one 57-mm. antitank gun and crew which had become lost during the move of the 526th Armored Infantry

[267]

---

Battalion. Yates commandeered the crew and placed the gun on the Stavelot road to the east of the first underpass where a daisy chain of mines had been laid.

A quarter of an hour before noon the advance guard of Peiper's main column, nineteen or twenty tanks, came rolling along the road. A shot from the lone antitank gun crippled or in somewise stopped the foremost German tank..

The hit on the lead tank checked the German column just long enough to give warning to the bridge guards, only a few score yards farther on. They blew the Amblève bridge, then the Salm bridge, and fell back to the houses in the main part of town. In the meantime one of the engineer platoons had discouraged the German tank company from further advance along the side road and it had turned back to Stavelot. "

 

Granted it is only 1 instance, but it had a pretty effective impact on that specific tank and an over size impact on KG Peiper as a whole. The tank was purportedly a Panther as well.

Edited July 22, 2016 by sburke

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, sburke said:

From Cole's The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge

"Company C, 51st Engineer Combat Battalion, occupied Trois Ponts, so important in the itinerary of the kampfgruppe. Quite unaware of the importance of its mission, the company had been ordered out of the sawmills it had been operating as part of the First Army's Winterization and Bridge Timber Cutting Program, and dispatched to Trois Ponts where it detrucked about midnight on 17 December. Numbering around 140 men, the company was armed with eight bazookas and ten machine guns. Maj. Robert B. Yates, commanding the force, knew only that the 1111th Engineer Group was preparing a barrier line along the Salm River from Trois Ponts south to Bovigny and that he was to construct roadblocks at the approaches to Trois Ponts according to the group plans. During the night Yates deployed the company at roadblocks covering the bridge across the Amblève and at the vulnerable highway underpass at the railroad tracks north of the river. On the morning of 18 December a part of the artillery column of the 7th Armored Division passed through Trois Ponts, after a detour to avoid the German armor south of Malmédy; then appeared one 57-mm. antitank gun and crew which had become lost during the move of the 526th Armored Infantry

[267]

---

Battalion. Yates commandeered the crew and placed the gun on the Stavelot road to the east of the first underpass where a daisy chain of mines had been laid.

A quarter of an hour before noon the advance guard of Peiper's main column, nineteen or twenty tanks, came rolling along the road. A shot from the lone antitank gun crippled or in somewise stopped the foremost German tank..

The hit on the lead tank checked the German column just long enough to give warning to the bridge guards, only a few score yards farther on. They blew the Amblève bridge, then the Salm bridge, and fell back to the houses in the main part of town. In the meantime one of the engineer platoons had discouraged the German tank company from further advance along the side road and it had turned back to Stavelot. "

 

Granted it is only 1 instance, but it had a pretty effective impact on that specific tank and an over size impact on KG Peiper as a whole. The tank was purportedly a Panther as well.

It would have been a close range shot though - I've walked that bit of dirt and fields of fire down that road close to the viaduct are not that great.

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

It would have been a close range shot though - I've walked that bit of dirt and fields of fire down that road close to the viaduct are not that great.

true, it wasn't to say the 57mm was somehow super effective, but it also wasn't a completely useless piece of equipment either. In this instance I vaguely recall this being a mobility kill though geezer that I am my memory may be faulty.  Considering the state of the German armor force though, how much opportunity is a 57 mm going to have to make a difference anyway at this stage of the war?  In this particular instance it came through big. 

[John Kettler]

On 4/29/2016 at 2:35 PM, John Kettler said:

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
 

 

sburke,

Please see above for a case in which the 57 mm, using British supplied APDS, was quite effective. This is part of a multi-volume SAIC Anti-Armor Defense Study doe for the Army's concepts Analysis Agency.

Anthony P.,

There was no reticle setting for APDS, rendering using it somewhat iffy. I recall reading something about a handmade mark on the scope. You may find this old thread on the 57 mm of interest.

Combatintman,

The tank in question was a King Tiger, and the fateful shot took off a track smack in the middle of the bridge. I believe I read that detail in John S.D. Eisenhower's The Bitter Woods. My recollection is that the road was only wide enough for one tank, so there was no way to get around it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

Peiper/trois ponts/57mm:

 

I would like to se a German source state what type of vehicle led the column and how/if it was destroyed. Otherwise, Cole's reference is not supported.

 

Traveling, atm, so cannot check.