American 76MM tank cannon- Why?

[rexford]

SU 100 had 75mm of front upper hull armor.

Some one suggested that 90mm HE was more effective than 75mm HE, which is not always the case and renders some select comments about my comments as off-base as always. Some folks just seem to always miss the point, or the boat.

I guess some people can only grasp a fragment of my notes on HE fragments.

[Triumvir]

Ehhh... you know all these trolls. Always accusing others of their own failings...

[JasonC]

"The Su-100 had 75mm..."

I stand corrected. I saw a listing of 45mm for the front, but that was the small lower hull plate only, it appears. At that good an angle that becomes a serious armor plate.

So what ranges to you get against that for the various threat guns, Rexford? I'd expect that to be proof against the standard 75mmL48 (because of the angle), penetrable at just about any range by the long 88, while the 88L56 (Tiger I) and 75L70 (Panther) might hole it at 1-1.5 km. But it is Russian armor quality and a high slope, so your forte, quality and cap issues, presumably enter.

I'd also be interested in your opinions about the gun mantle area (less sloped) plus lower hull, for weak-point vunerability to 75L48.

[Username]

Given the realities of post d-day fighting, the US should have gone on a crash Jumbo-76 build. Tank battalions short 76mm tanks should have been given M10 for one company as an expedient. The M18s should have been given to the armored recon guys. These poor saps had to tool around in M5 tanks, M8 armored cars, jeeps, halftracks. The speed of the M18 would have complented the recon well and gave it real teeth when they came across some cat.

90mm M36 or some other expedient like a priest with a 90mm mounted in place of the 105mm should have been pressed into service.

The US was lucky that it wasnt the one facing Caan. The vet panzers there would have chewed them a new one.

Lewis

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

The US was lucky that it wasnt the one facing Caan. The vet panzers there would have chewed them a new one.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please. Had Caen been in the U.S. sector it would have been cleared and invested in two days. The vet panzers there would have been lying in 20m diameter craters.

-dale

[JonS]

[Guest PondScum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

He claims the hellcat drew air through the fighting compartment to the engine! This made for frigid cold weather fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe several Allied tanks used this approach. It made things more bearable in the desert - they had feared that men would basically broil in tanks out there, but as long as you had the engine running it was apparently ok - but much nastier in European winters. Especially in snow. If the TC had his hatch open, snow falling near the turret would get sucked down around him into the tank. Brrr.

[Username]

I think it would depend on if the tank was an aircooled radial engine.

[Dan Robertson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dalem:

Please. Had Caen been in the U.S. sector it would have been cleared and invested in two days. The vet panzers there would have been lying in 20m diameter craters.

-dale<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What fire support did the US have on D-Day that the UK/Canadians didn't

[Guest PondScum]

From "The Sharp End: The Fighting Man in World War II", by John Ellis (ISBN 0-77126-5891-2), talking about tank crews:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

For one thing, their crews were not spared the extremes of climate. Surprisingly, perhaps, they were often very cold because the tank's engine was deemed more important than the men who manned it. In many models the engine was cooled by a fan in the turret and this wafted cold air, rain or snow indiscriminately over the actual motor and those in the bowels of the tank. The Matilda I was notorious for this as was the ubiquitous Sherman in which there was "always a considerable downdraught going through the commander's cupola, and in a snowstorm this had its disadvantages. A snowflake which is descending quite happily several feet away from the tank, is suddenly sucked from the vertical and whipped up against the unhappy commander". The Cromwell, too, suffered from this defect and more cold air or whatever was sucked through the driver's visor. In the desert, however, this cold air could provide some sort of ventilation and air-conditioning. It was for this reason that although temperatures in stationary tanks often reached alarming levels, the starting of the engine brought speedy relief, and heat stroke, over which many fears had been expressed, was never a problem amongst armoured units.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

What fire support did the US have on D-Day that the UK/Canadians didn't<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same fire support, different quality leadership.

-dale

[Username]

The US had no 76mm shermans and only M10s in June. There were no M36 and no tungsten ammo at all. US TACAIR was also lacking in cooperation.

US armored experience was still very limited before D-Day. It woudl have been a shock to the troops.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

The US had no 76mm shermans and only M10s in June. There were no M36 and no tungsten ammo at all. US TACAIR was also lacking in cooperation.

US armored experience was still very limited before D-Day. It woudl have been a shock to the troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough, but the overall tactical and strategic situation would have been far different had the Allies actually taken Caen D+2 and the "vet panzers" might not have faced the turkey shoot of Goodwood, etc.

But that is certainly *not* the point of this thread - I apologize for using a dead horse for my own amusement.

-dale

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US had no 76mm shermans and only M10s in June. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The M4A1 (76mm) went into production in January-February 1944. According to Chamberlain and Ellis they "were available in time for the Normandy landings..."

Production of the Hellcat started in July 1943.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch:

The M4A1 (76mm) went into production in January-February 1944. According to Chamberlain and Ellis they "were available in time for the Normandy landings..."

Production of the Hellcat started in July 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read that none were included in the initial landing forces because the generals didn't want to introduce new equipment 'on the eve of the Normandy landings'. But I think that might have been designer notes from a wargame or something, so I can't attest to the accuracy of that statement.

-dale

[Andrew H.]

In Zaloga's book on the Sherman, he states that in the second week of June, divisional commanders were given a demonstration of the Sherm 76, but no one wanted them because the troops hadn't trained on them. Then Patton agreed to accept some if they were put in a separate battalion. After Patton agreed, some other Generals also agreed to accept them.

So it seems realistic to infer from this that there were no Sherm 76s until July '44. That would correspond with other stuff I've read as well.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

Now back to "the world according to JasonC".

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hang on. Wasn't that a book by John Irving or somefink?

Regards

Jim R.

[Harry Yeide]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

In Zaloga's book on the Sherman, he states that in the second week of June, divisional commanders were given a demonstration of the Sherm 76, but no one wanted them because the troops hadn't trained on them. Then Patton agreed to accept some if they were put in a separate battalion. After Patton agreed, some other Generals also agreed to accept them.

So it seems realistic to infer from this that there were no Sherm 76s until July '44. That would correspond with other stuff I've read as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The separate (i.e., infantry support) tank battalions began receiving or deploying with 76mm Shermans in August 1944. That month, the 70th, 746th, and 749th TBs drew 76mm tanks--17 each in the first two battalions, and a single vehicle in the last. The 774th TB entered battle that month entirely equipped with 76mm Shermans. Most of the battalions that landed on D-day, however, did not begin to receive 76mm tanks until December-January. Cheers.

[GenSplatton]

I finally went back and referred to my source about the muzzle velocity. In other words, I re-watched the Dangerous Missions episode on Tanks. I thought they had said the muzzle velocity was doubled with the 76mm. In fact, what they said was that the casing for the 76mm shell increased the propellant load by 50%, thereby increasing velocity. Irrelevant I know, but I had to try and redeem myself.