US 57mm M1 ATG Question

[sburke]

1 hour ago, c3k said:

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.

I haven't been able to find anything for certain.  There seems to be a bit of confusion as to whether the Spitz was led by a Pz IV or Panther unit.  Cole's seems to imply Panzer IV.  Cole makes mention that Peiper's recollections later seemed to confuse events and timelines so it is hard to use him as a source.  This is in reference to Stavelot.

Stavelot and its bridge were open for the taking. The only combat troops in the town at this time were a squad from the 291st Engineer Combat Battalion which had been sent from Malmedy to construct a roadblock on the road leading to the bridge. For some reason Peiper's advance guard halted on the south side of the river, one of those quirks in the conduct of military operations which have critical import but which can never be explained. Months after the event Peiper told interrogators that his force had been checked by American antitank weapons covering the narrow approach to the bridge, that Stavelot was "heavily defended." But his detailed description of what happened when the Germans attacked to take town and bridge shows that he was confused in his chronology and was thinking of events which tran-

Page 266

spired on 18 December. It is true that during the early evening of the 17th three German tanks made a rush for the bridge, but when the leader hit a hasty mine field, laid by American engineers, the others turned back-nor were they seen for the rest of the night.

 

Here is a link to the interview with Maj. Yates describing the action at Trois Pont.  The interview is from two months later, but I see no reason to doubt the man.

http://www.battleofthebulgememories.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=486:defense-at-trois-ponts-company-qcq-51st-engineer-combat-bn&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6

[John Kettler]

The Damned Engineers, by Janice Holt Giles, says on page 242 the lead tank was a Panther, as was the one after it. No word on the rest of the column's composition. With the weather being cold and foggy, I'm hardly surprised someone mistook a Panther for a King Tiger in some account. The second Panther quickly destroyed the gun of the 526th Armored Infantry and its four-man crew, also wounding one of the six men from the 51st Engineers there in support.

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

^^^ Again, repeating the same source does not make it more reliable.

Recce vehicles, halftracks, PzIVs, are more likely than a King Tiger. A Panther is possible, but strong arguments could be made for not leading with one. German source corroboration would be nice.

 

"Battle in the Mist", vol. 1-3, give great detail. The German forces were halftracks and PzIVs, with Pieper as part of that column and present.

Edited July 25, 2016 by c3k

[womble]

No one's arguing that the APDS round wasn't effective. The 6-lber-armed Churchill's anti-armour performance was raised significantly by the provision of that round. But it was still superceded by a 75mm-armed version, for whatever (probably infantry-support-based) reason. And the 57mm in US hands fought the vast majority of its engagements without access to the special ammo, so any "general" assessment of the effectiveness of the gun as an ATG has to be conducted with that in mind, along with the counterpoint that it was an entirely adequate upgrade from the 37mm/2lber it replaced, at the time it came into service, capable of defeating the frontal armour of the standard German medium tank at the time and the flank armour of anything lighter than a tiger until the end of the war. Perhaps it was starting to become obsolete by the time of D-Day, but it still hadn't completed that process by VE-Day, so long as Panzer IVs were being produced as a major component of german armour formations.

[John Kettler]

c3k,

You rejected Cole, but I cited Giles. How is that repeating the same source? Until now, I knew nothing of whatever that publication is you listed at the bottom of your post. But let's look at what Cole has to say about an earlier run-in Peiper's column had before the Trois Pont business. Bold mine. Page 265

"About 1400 the column resumed the march, taking some time to negotiate the sharp turns and narrow streets in Ligneuville. At the western exit the point of the column ran onto the trains belonging to CCB, 9th Armored Division, which was preparing to move east in support of the combat command then engaged in the St. Vith sector. A couple of Sherman tanks and a tank destroyer made a fight for it, demolishing the leading Panther and a few other armored vehicles. Peiper's column was delayed for about an hour."

Cole and Giles both speak of Peiper's column being led by Panthers. Cole says this in covering an earlier clash, while Giles says this of the 57 mm engagement we're addressing. But it would appear a separate secondary effort was built around Mark IVs. Page 267.

"While the engagement in Stavelot was still in progress, Peiper turned some of his tanks toward Trois Ponts, the important bridgehead at the confluence of the Salm and the Amblève. As Peiper puts it: "We proceeded at top speed towards Trois Ponts in an effort to seize the bridge there.... If we had captured the bridge at Trois Ponts intact and had had enough fuel, it would have been a simple matter to drive through to the Meuse River early that day." One company of Mark IV tanks tried to reach Trois Ponts by following a narrow side road on the near bank of the Amblève. The road was almost impassable, and when the column came under American fire this approach was abandoned. The main part of the kampfgruppe swung through Stavelot and advanced on Trois Ponts by the highway which followed the north bank of the river. Things were looking up and it seemed that the only cause for worry was the lowering level in the panzer fuel tanks. Missing in Peiper's calculations was an American gun, the puny 57-mm. antitank weapon which had proven such an impuissant answer to German tanks."

Absent better information to the contrary, I think there is a good case to be made the lead tank hit at Trois Pont was a Panther.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited July 25, 2016 by John Kettler

[c3k]

Cole and Giles may be using the same after action report. We don't know. If two individuals perused the same allied fighter bomber squadrons debriefings for claims for tank kills, would that make those claims have more veracity? By crosschecking with German strngth returns, we find that allied fighter bomber kill claims bear little relation to reality.

Similarly, the reports of stopping Panthers and Tigers must be regarded with scepticism until corroborated. This is basic. Did Giles merely reference Cole? Did Giles use the same US unit aar source document that Cole used? Peiper advanced into Stoumont using halftracks, infantry and PzIVs...in that order. That establishes one method he used at that time. Leading with Panther or Tiger would be a change in tactic. Is there support for that change, other than the report of the atg crew who fired the opening shot? This attack is well documented. I'm looking for support in the German records that, indeed, a Panther or Tiger was lost in that manner. Or a post-battle ops research study.

 

 

[John Kettler]

c3k,

According to the then XO, Yates,  of the 51st Engineer Battalion, the 57 mm knocked "the tread off the lead tank." He doesn't specify tank type at all. To my knowledge Giles didn't reference Cole in what I read and indeed seemed to be describing things at times from the German perspective, referencing the interrogation of Peiper, for example.

http://www.battleofthebulgememories.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=486:defense-at-trois-ponts-company-qcq-51st-engineer-combat-bn&catid=1:battle-of-the-bulge-us-army&Itemid=6

At Stavelot, the first German tank across the bridge was a Panther. Cole, chapter 11, p. 266. Bold mine.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_11.htm

"Before the riflemen could organize a defense the German infantry attacked, captured the tank destroyers south of the river, and drove the two platoons back across the bridge. Taken by surprise, the Americans failed to destroy the bridge structure, and a Panther made a dash about 0800 which carried it onto the north bank."

Regarding the presence of Tigers and Panthers in Peiper's column, you may find this of interest: a King Tiger which in dodging bazooka fire in Stavelot, became immobilized after running into a house. The text says that tank commander climbed into the next tank, en route to Trois Pont.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/573012752564114928/

Reinforcing this is the composition of KG Peiper, taken from a study  of the 1111th Engineer Combat Group (51st Combat Engineer Battalion was a component unit)  in the Battle of the Bulge which appears from the European Center for Military History. Bold mine. According to this account, the 57 mm immobilized the lead tank but was destroyed by fire from that tank, but since you asked what the Germans had at Trois Pont, let's concentrate on KG Peiper's force composition.

http://www.eucmh.com/2015/08/20/1111th-engineer-combat-group-engineers-in-the-battle-of-the-bulge/

(Fair Use)

"Early on the morning of December 17, Col Peiper ordered his Kampfgruppe forward and began his race for the Meuse. The Group Peiper was a powerful force of over 4000 men. Formed around the 1. SS-Panzer Division’s 1. SS-Panzer Regiment, Peiper had 72 Mark IV and Mark V tanks as well as 30 Mark VI (King Tiger) tanks of the 501. SS-Heavy Panzer Battalion. His armored vehicles also included four flak tanks, and a light flak battalion with self-propelled 20-MM guns. Infantry support was provided by the 3. Battalion, 2. SS-Panzer Grenadier Regiment mounted on armored personnel carriers and supported by 25 assault guns. Kampfgruppe Peiper also included a battalion of towed 105-MM artillery, 2 companies of engineers, and logistical units."

Nafziger's German OOB for 1 SS Pz Rgt shows the following on Page 11, apparently representing German reporting practices, end strengths and source disputes.

http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/944GLAA.pdf

German Army

Battle of the Bulge

15 December 1944

 

1st

SS

Panzer

Division

(Leibstandardt

Adolf

Hitler)

18

SS

-

Oberfü

hrer W. Mohnke

1/,2/1st SS Panzer Regiment (34 Mk IV, 37 Mk V)

Mk V Panther

-

34/38/37/0

Mk IV

-

34/34/34/0

Of every account I've so far managed to locate, not one references halftracks leading at Trois Pont. Every account talks about a tank leading. Nafziger's study supports what I understand to be typical ~50/50 split in a Panzer Regiment of Mark IVs and Panthers, so either is credible, yet two accounts, from two different times (before and during Trois Point) say Panthers led. We also know the 501st SS Panzer Heavy Battalion (King Tigers) was in the column, too. On balance, I see no issue with claims a Panther led and real reason to doubt halftracks led, since we know the 501st ran into an unexpected  hornet's nest at Stavelot--en route to Trois Pont. Had it been halftracks in the lead, then presumably they would've gotten rocketed. Instead, we have ambushed King Tigers. What we really need is a photo of the vexed M-Killed ID contested tank. So far, I've been unable to find one. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by John Kettler

[c3k]

John,

This is tiresome. Really.

Using your link (page 2) to the Dom Butgenbach study, here's a comment: Around 1000, five Mk IV tanks from KG Peiper tried to reconnoiter the road from Bellingen to Dom Butgenbach, but Kennedy's TO guns opened fire and knocked out three of the five. The surviving two hurriedly returned to Ballingen. 9

That's based on an attack on 17 December. My bold, my italics. Hmmm, using PzIVs to recce.

From "Duel in the Mist", volume I, page 14, The author states that 2./SS-Pz.Rgt. 1 took over the spitz from 1/(same).  That role begins on the 19th.

In a confusing twist, although 2. is in the lead, 6. helps. (These are companies.) 6. is PzIVs,. The first vehicles the Americans saw were SPW251s. Go figure.

So, we have the 1./SS-Pz.Rgt. 1 (Panthers) supposedly leading the attack, yet PzIVs are used to recce for them, until 19DEC when 2./SS-Pz.Rgt. 1 takes the lead. (I would assume due to combat losses to 1./(same). Shrug.). This time, halftracks were the first to see combat.

"Taking the lead" does not necessarily mean "being the front-most vehicle", nor does it mean "no other vehicles were nearby".

The PzIVs are held off.

The point being, despite quoting OOB's, and unit TO&Es, you cannot know which tank was where during a battle. When a gunner says "I hit a Tiger II and stopped Pieper", well, maybe a bit of a harder look is warranted...especially if that ONE anecdote is being used to hang one's appraisal of the combat effectiveness of the 57mm atg upon.

Does it matter to me if it was an SPW, a PzIV, a PzV or a PzVI? No.

However, using a combat example to show effectiveness of a weapon means you need to understand what was engaged, where, and how. Using one sided anecdotes is NOT anywhere near close enough. I don't care how many authors repeat the story. Until/unless there is verification, it is an anecdote, not a fact. (Wouldn't it be nice if the authors had footnoted their source?)

I'm out.

Ken

Edited to add: my italicized quote? Guess what: that number "9" is a footnote...and references Cole. Circular referencing. See what I mean?

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by c3k

[Vanir Ausf B]

I am not sure what the point is in searching after anecdotal evidence. We know that by 1945 the US Army had decided that towed AT guns were poor performers in general compared to vehicular tank destroyers and were replacing the former with the latter as quickly as possible, not just the 57mm, all of them. The ballistics of the 57mm cannon itself is well known. At typical combat ranges it's penetration falls roughly midway between the US 75mm and 76mm cannons so you can compare that to whatever tank and get a fair idea of how it would perform if it ever hit one. It would be likely to penetrate anything from the side at typical ranges but would tend to bounce off most of the frontal area of a Panther or Tiger.

[c3k]

Duel in the Mist, volume 3 specifies the unit (to the platoon) and the tactical number on the leading German tanks at Trois Ponts. They were Panthers. However, there is also specific mention that the ATG did not cause any damage to the tanks. So, the 57mm ATG did fire at the Panthers and did (apparently) get some hits. Then all the men manning the ATG were killed. A brief delay, and the column continued.

[John Kettler]

c3k,

I don't have, nor have read the series. What sources were cited as the basis of what you just stated? Perhaps the writer/s found fresh material? If so, I guarantee an attentive audience!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bolldar]

The in game 57mm gun is far too effective. It is a modified 6 pdr with a slightly longer barrel and different tow hookup. These could not penetrate the glacis of a Panther frontally at all at pretty much any range. At 300 meters they could sometimes penetrate the turret frontally with APDS (not readily available for the US) but not consistently. Even from the sides at 500 meters normal round shot often bounced with sabot penetrating more consistently. However modified ammo for the 57mm was in short supply and not available at all till late in the war.  the only ammunition type in production in the US by mid-1943 was the AP ammunition. Only after the Normandy Campaign did the HE round reach battlefield (US units were sometimes able to get a limited amount of HE ammunition from the British Army), and the canister shot was not seen in significant amounts until early 1945. This limited the efficiency of the gun in the infantry support role. Some British stocks of APDS were supplied to the US units. APCR and APDS rounds were never developed by the US.

I have found the 57mm doing far too much frontal damage to Panthers on a consistent basis. Coupled with what I believe is a bug causing the gun and optics on the Panther to be almost consistently damaged by anything that fires at it, there is a need to address this. 

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, Bolldar said:

Coupled with what I believe is a bug causing the gun and optics on the Panther to be almost consistently damaged by anything that fires at it

I have definitely noticed this too, and it's puzzling me, but I do not have the knowledge to say if it's realistic or not.

An even stranger (?) thing is that the Panther's radio tends to get damaged extremely easy, even by shots that hit the front, far from the antenna on the rear of the tank.

[Bolldar]

On 7/26/2016 at 11:05 AM, John Kettler said:

 

 

Regarding the presence of Tigers and Panthers in Peiper's column, you may find this of interest: a King Tiger which in dodging bazooka fire in Stavelot, became immobilized after running into a house. The text says that tank commander climbed into the next tank, en route to Trois Pont.

 

The Tiger in question stalled at the top of Rue Haut Rivage when the driver was startled by the firing of the main gun in response to being fired on, and rolled backwards at high speed down the  street into the front of House No9, Its speculated a the tank was fired on by a rifle grenade or bazooka which while they did no damage, achieved the desired result in the end.

On 7/26/2016 at 11:05 AM, John Kettler said:

 

 

 

[John Kettler]

Bolldar,

Very much appreciate the details of what led to the photo. The biggest weapons the rushed into position defenders had were bazookas. If I'm defending, a Mission Kill is a Mission Kill. I care not what form it takes as long as the tank goes away. Doubly so if it's a behemoth! Wonder why the driver was startled? Was his intercom out? Otherwise, why didn't he hear the fire command, not to mention that click in his headphones an instant before the main gun firing?

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 11, 2016 by John Kettler

[Erwin]

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I have definitely noticed this too, and it's puzzling me, but I do not have the knowledge to say if it's realistic or not.

An even stranger (?) thing is that the Panther's radio tends to get damaged extremely easy, even by shots that hit the front, far from the antenna on the rear of the tank.

I dunno if the game models where equipment is situated, but the radio is usually situated in the front right of the fuselage (IIRC it is in the PzVI) and could be damaged.  The antenna may be irrelevant.

[GhostRider3/3]

13 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I have definitely noticed this too, and it's puzzling me, but I do not have the knowledge to say if it's realistic or not.

An even stranger (?) thing is that the Panther's radio tends to get damaged extremely easy, even by shots that hit the front, far from the antenna on the rear of the tank.

I agree, both the King Tiger and especially Panther tanks muzzles get damaged so often, I often think they may have truck loads of extra muzzles and such.  Happens so often its funny almost.  I looked up the 57mm, or the 6lb gun and someone help me out here but late in the war it seems it was capable of penetrating with APDS 130mm of armor but at 100m.  However that is not the British ammo?  I think the US only had AP, APCBC/HE, and HE late 44. From the game.. they also use Canister shot, but this is in Final Blitzkrieg.

[Bulletpoint]

45 minutes ago, GhostRider3/3 said:

I agree, both the King Tiger and especially Panther tanks muzzles get damaged so often, I often think they may have truck loads of extra muzzles and such. 

I think it might be due to the game considering the muzzle brake essential for gun function. Whereas I assume that in real life, if the muzzle brake gets shot off or broken, the gun will still fire (but of course without the benefit of that part).

[Bolldar]

It was a rarity for the muzzle break to be damaged, same for damage to the barrel. What did play up particularly with the Tiger II was the electric firing mechanism (the Panther had a similar mechanism). It took a significant shock to upset it, but it happened in Normandy due to carpet bombing and in the final stand of KG Peiper where a King Tiger attempted to engage a company of Shermans who mass fired rapidly on the Tiger II subsequently damaging the firing mechanism. They didn't penetrate the Tiger but once they couldn't fire abandoned the tank.

[John Kettler]

Bulletpoint,

The muzzle brake is but a small percentage of a gun's's PA (Presented Area), and PA varies based on the compound angles in 3-D vs projectile path. What I don't see being understood here is what happens in the event of any hit on the VA (Vulnerable Area) which significantly distorts the brake. VA/PA yield the PK(h)--Probability of Kill given a Hit. For a muzzle brake hit by a tank cannon projectile or similar , this approaches unity. Why? The muzzle brake is a very substantial, but still bendable by impact, complex mild steel object (have been around a number of them recently), and if either the primary collar of the muzzle or the front pass through is in any way blocked, at best accuracy will plummet, but there is a distinct possibility of a shell explosion, gun barrel rupture or both. Certainly, if time permits at some stage in the battle, it may (threads could be totally seized) be possible to remove the muzzle brake via crow bar and a sledge hammer (seen it done on Tank Overhaul), if available, and carry on fighting. Whereas there are cases of no muzzle brakes tank cannon barrels whose muzzles were damaged being shortened by working all night with hacksaws and such, there is no equivalent repair available to a muzzle brake equipped cannon whose muzzle brake threads are jammed. Definitely a matter for Ordnance!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 12, 2016 by John Kettler