Jump to content

The 57mm and US Light Tanks


Recommended Posts

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

I never understood why the U.S. didn't put the 57mm into light tanks. It would have been a LOT more effective than the 37mm. Was this ever experimented with? Maybe the Army tried to convert some M5s to handle the 57mm. All it would take is a modified turret.

Anybody know?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a US light tank, the M6, which later was designated a medium tank because of weight problems, that had the 57mm. The problem with the 57mm was that it was a very large weapon for the caliber of shell, and the M5 with it or the 75mm was extremely limited in how much ammo could be carried. By the time a new light tank design was on the skids (the M6 was dumped after upgunning to 75mm because it was a slow, heavy pig) a new 75mm gun, the M4, had been designed with a concentric recoil system, based on an aircraft cannon. That weapon was lighter and more powerful than the 57mm and got the nod for the M24. The 57mm just fell through the cracks and was never adopted by the US for a mass production tank.

The Canadian Ram, designated the M4A5 by the US Army if they had brought it on board, would have had a gyrostabilized 57mm gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US also produced an SP 57mm gun, mounted on a half-track. However, they never chose to adopt it, instead producing it exclusively for British use - who used it mainly in Italy, as far as I'm aware, although most were converted back to troop carriers as I understand it, once they hit the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slap,

Do you actaully mean the T7 which was the light tank under development. It later was designated as M7 Medium Tank when fitted with the 75mm gun? I was thinking about the question of the 57mm gun in an American tank which led me to my copy of Chamberlain and Ellis. They talk about the T7 which later became the M7 and was dropped because it had become too heavy and underpowered. There is no mention of a M6 Tank in Chamberlain and Ellis.

FYI the Ram II was fitted with the 57mm gun but they never saw combat and most seemed to have been converted to Kangaroo APCs.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

-Gandalf the Grey.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Enoch, do you know that part of that quote is used in Operation Flashpoint? I thought it interesting to see it here too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Slap,

Do you actaully mean the T7 which was the light tank under development. It later was designated as M7 Medium Tank when fitted with the 75mm gun? I was thinking about the question of the 57mm gun in an American tank which led me to my copy of Chamberlain and Ellis. They talk about the T7 which later became the M7 and was dropped because it had become too heavy and underpowered. There is no mention of a M6 Tank in Chamberlain and Ellis.

FYI the Ram II was fitted with the 57mm gun but they never saw combat and most seemed to have been converted to Kangaroo APCs.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was the T7 / M7 but that tank was designed as a light tank with a 57mm gun, I was one off in my numbers. The Ram was not adopted, but was designated M4A5 by the US Army, and indeed was converted to APC for Commonwealth use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes, it was the T7 / M7 but that tank was designed as a light tank with a 57mm gun, I was one off in my numbers. The Ram was not adopted, but was designated M4A5 by the US Army, and indeed was converted to APC for Commonwealth use.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite - if there had been an invasion of Europe in 1943, the 4th Canadian Armoured at least would have gone to war in Ram IIs, IIRC. They only changed to Shermans relatively late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Not quite - if there had been an invasion of Europe in 1943, the 4th Canadian Armoured at least would have gone to war in Ram IIs, IIRC. They only changed to Shermans relatively late.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naw, I am talking about the US Army here, they almost adopted the Ram also as a limited standard, and went so far as to give it a number in the M4 series. I have no idea what the Canadians planned to do with the things except ride around in victory parades. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Naw, I am talking about the US Army here, they almost adopted the Ram also as a limited standard, and went so far as to give it a number in the M4 series. I have no idea what the Canadians planned to do with the things except ride around in victory parades. smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look dashing in a home-made contraption?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...