57mm gun

[Soddball]

I've been using the 57mm AT gun whilst playing as British in a couple of games against the AI. I have a couple of questions and I hope someone can answer them:

1) Is it the same weapon as the American 57mm gun?

2) Why wasn't it ever mounted on a tank? It's a very effective tank buster even if the HE isn't up to much? It would have made a good replacement for the 2-pdr on vehicles like the Daimler, for example. I know there's issues like "How do we fit this gun in?" and would appreciate some feedback.

Thanks.

[JonS]

1) not 100% sure - I think so

2) It was. In UK parlance this was known as the 6pdr, and it was a fairly common mount on mid-war UK armour (eg, early Churchills).

[Slapdragon]

The Americans got the design for the 57mm from the British, but only used it in a towed AT mount. I am not sure how many changes the US made to the 57mm once they got it, but the basic tube and ammo was the same.

[Jarmo]

British 6pdr usually has more tungsten than US 57mm. Other than that it's the same.

All(?) british tanks with 6pdr were converted to use the US 75mm gun. The reason being HE performance. I think the 6pdr didn't even have HE early on.

Now that I think about it, a 6pdr armed heavy Churchill would probably have been a mighty tank buster.

[Slapdragon]

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

British 6pdr usually has more tungsten than US 57mm. Other than that it's the same.

All(?) british tanks with 6pdr were converted to use the US 75mm gun. The reason being HE performance. I think the 6pdr didn't even have HE early on.

Now that I think about it, a 6pdr armed heavy Churchill would probably have been a mighty tank buster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first British 75 was just a 6pdr bored out, and was mounted on a Churchill.

[JasonC]

The gun is the same, but the ammo isn't. The British version has "T" ammo - really APDS, high velocity saboted rounds - while the US does not. With ordinary AP, the gun performs about the same as a short 75mm in AT terms, with a higher muzzle velocity making up for the smaller caliber. But with the saboted rounds, it outperforms the US 76mm with standard AP, by quite a bit, at the closer ranges.

In CM, T ammo availability will vary with the date, but at mid war you can expect around 5 rounds of the stuff on average, and some of it 90% of the time. For 2 extra points of cost, that is a ridiculously good bargain, considering the special rounds will go through Panther turret fronts and Tiger Is from almost any angle, at common CM ranges.

As for its historical use, it was used as a tank main gun for a number of British mid war tank varieties. It is often undercovered because the period of German offensive in North Africa, and the western front in France, get most of the press, and the 6 lber as a main armament had its day between the two, in 1943. It was being built into tanks earlier, from mid 1942 on, but they hadn't reached the front in N.A. by the time of El Alamein.

Models that used it include the Crusader Mk III, several low production transitional types between the Crusader and the Cromwell, the Cromwell Mk I through Mk III, the Mk VIII through X versions of the Valentine, and the Mk III and IV models of the Churchill (as well as some later ones that didn't upgrade to 75mm as quickly). There were a few AEC Mk II armored cars that mounted it, but on the whole it was too big a gun for light armor.

Since common AP was the round available then, the short 75mm was preferred for the later Cromwells and Churchills, as giving as good AP capability plus much more useful HE. The late war APDS rounds extended the usefulness of the gun, though it was a towed weapon only by then. The leftover 6-lber tanks were used for training.

The only scandal about it in CM is that the extreme usefulness of the "T" ammo is not reflected in the price - only 2 extra points. (Well, a quibble is that early sabot rounds were less accurate too). It is another one of those "you get it for being British" things you don't have to pay for. Like Fireflies costing as much as US 76mm Shermans that aren't nearly as good, yada yada...

[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?

[Skipper]

I guess, same reason why russian tanks went straight from 45 to 85 mm. "Blast value".

[Slapdragon]

<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>

It was skipped over because North Africa proved the value of larger HE firing guns.

[dieseltaylor]

Coincidentally yesterday I was reading of one of Our VC winners who got two Tigers and a Stug in one engagement. It was posthumous.

He lost his gun crew and eventually his gun and legged it to another 6 pounder which he worked by himself before dying.Amazing stuff

Regrettably I browsed two bookshops yesterday and about ten books so its probably easier to check VC listings than the bookshops. Certainly late war and the hero had a long name like Haythornthwaite or suchlike.

People like this are just unbelievable - trust we have a few like him in action now.

[MikeyD]

The U.S. DID put 57mm into light tanks... prototype light tanks... Then these prototypes were upgraded with 75mm guns... Then they were found to be overweight... then the projects were dropped. U.S. light tank design history is not very pretty. The 57mm did make it into the M3 halftrack and went lend/lease to Britain and Russia. Only the Russians used them in combat, I believe.

[Pak40]

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

It was skipped over because North Africa proved the value of larger HE firing guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That doesn't explain why the M5 was kept in service until the Chafee came around. If what you say is true then the U.S. Army would have abandoned 37mm guns ASAP for favor of 57mm guns in the light tanks. The Chaffe didn't start appearing on the line until late 44, quite a bit of time after North Africa.

I guess the U.S. Army had a lot of problems when trying to modify the M5 turret to handle the bigger 57mm gun.

[Slapdragon]

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

That doesn't explain why the M5 was kept in service until the Chafee came around. If what you say is true then the U.S. Army would have abandoned 37mm guns ASAP for favor of 57mm guns in the light tanks. The Chaffe didn't start appearing on the line until late 44, quite a bit of time after North Africa.

I guess the U.S. Army had a lot of problems when trying to modify the M5 turret to handle the bigger 57mm gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They never tried. The M5 replacement was the T7 which was a major failure, and by the time it was turned into a medium and canceled, the T24 was almost done. Just fell between the cracks.

[JasonC]

"The Chaffe didn't start appearing on the line until late 44, quite a bit of time after North Africa"

Quite true, but it was ordered in early 1943. The first prototypes were completed by the fall of 1943, and mass production started in the spring of 1944. They did not get them to the troops.

It was a fine tank at the time of its design, but it really didn't see serious action in WW II. It did in Korea, where it proved reliable and effective for infantry support, but undergunned compared to T-34/85s. The 76mm Walker Bulldog was the answer to that problem.

As for the delay at the ordering stage, in 1942 the Stuart was an effective tank, though undergunned against Pz III Js once those showed up. The upgrade from the M3 model to the M5 model was delayed in order to get some tanks out and to the fronts, since the US was just getting into action in 1942. Then the Tunisia campaign was the first serious chance to see their weakness. It was a few months after that that the Chaffee was ordered.

The might have been a couple of months faster ordering the Chaffee. The delay from design decision to production was 11 months, not great. The design half of that went reasonably fast, but the tooling for production took from October 1943 to March 1944. That was Cadillac; they certainly should have been able to do that faster. The delay from the start of production to actually getting them into the field is a bigger mystery. They should have been fielded in time for Normandy, or at least for after Cobra, since they were in production for 3-5 months before those dates. Shipping space was tight then, it is true.

Overall, they lost a few months here, a quarter there, another at the tail end, and the net result was lousy US light tanks for most of the last year, when they could have had Chaffees for the whole French campaign at least, if they had been more on the ball. If they had, they might have hit on the upgunned Bulldog idea by 1945, or at least had them in time for Korea.

[Michael Emrys]

Jason, tell me something about the Bulldog please. Is it just an upgunned Chaffe or are there other substantial differences?

Michael

[JasonC]

The Bulldog was basically a redesigned Chaffee, based on the same hull and made by the same guys at Cadillac. The turret was larger to accomodate the gun, and had a distinctive large rear overhang as counterweight. The engine was also upgraded to 500 hp, and some of the front armor was half an inch thicker and better sloped. The overall weight increase was from around 20 tons to 25 tons. But the improved engine more than made up for it, giving a top road speed of 45 mph, Hellcat fast. The ground pressure was also outstanding, under 10 psi. It did have a reputation of guzzling gas, and being loud. The 76mm had 57 rounds and there were improved AT types for it. It combined most of the good points of the Chaffee and the Hellcat without the main weaknesses of either. It was still a light tank, of course, with the armor no thicker than 38mm. But the gun was good enough that they could fight T-34/85s, and in Nam (where they were used by ARVN) they did fine even against T-55s, using APDS ammo. They came out in 1951.

You can see a picture of one here -

http://www.battletanks.com/images/M41_Bulldog-2.jpg

And the technical specs here -

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m41bulldog.html

Some nut has one for sale for $89,000 here -

http://www.militarymotorpool.net/M-41%20Page.htm

I hope this helps.

Oh, and a P.S. Taiwan still has a few hundred of these as second line tanks. Modernized over the years somewhat, but the same critter.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Michael Emrys]

Thanks, Jason. That's what I wanted to know.

Michael

[Chris Conners]

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

The Bulldog was basically a redesigned Chaffee, based on the same hull and made by the same guys at Cadillac . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick note: M41 was not related to nor based on M24.

Thanks,

Chris

P.S. Thanks for the link

[JasonC]

In the sense of exact same chassis, that is correct it is not the same. The M41 is not quite 1 foot wider, almost 3 feet longer, and those allow both the larger engine and a turret ring 6 feet across instead of 5 feet on the Chaffee. In terms of the design layout, suspension, overall shape, there is a definite family resemblence (very close in fact), which is not surprising since the same people made the M41, at the same factories, as a successor to the M24. The design is based on the Chaffee, but it is a redesign to make room for the bigger turret and engine.

[Valera Potapov]

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

I guess, same reason why russian tanks went straight from 45 to 85 mm. "Blast value".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better would be to say "from 45mm to 76mm". Soviet 85-mm guns didn't have HE ammo but fragmentation only.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valera Potapov:

Soviet 85-mm guns didn't have HE ammo but fragmentation only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could you explain the difference to me, please.

Michael

[Chris Conners]

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

In terms of the design layout, suspension, overall shape, there is a definite family resemblence (very close in fact), which is not surprising since the same people made the M41, at the same factories, as a successor to the M24. The design is based on the Chaffee, but it is a redesign to make room for the bigger turret and engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jason, again I respectfully disagree. The M41 was not a redesigned M24. It was built at Cadillac because in 1948 they had been selected to be the primary producer of light tanks in the event of emergency, and they were given a contract for 100 T41E1s in January 1950. After the Korean War broke out, this contract was cancelled in favor of one for 1000 light tanks, which were of a simplified design without rangefinders to ease production. Both M24 and M41 use torsion bar suspensions, like most post-war US vehicles, but the M41 uses a cross-drive transmission driving through a rear sprocket compared to M24's front drive sprocket. As far as family resemblances go, I think M47 looks like M41's big brother.

Thanks,

Chris

[PiggDogg]

Everyone,

Is anyone interested in coming up with 1/2 of $89,000 to purchase a Bulldog?? :eek: :eek: :eek: (I am kidding. )

Bulldog for Sale

Cheers, Richard

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard Cuccia, the PiggDogg:

Is anyone interested in coming up with 1/2 of $89,000 to purchase a Bulldog??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait a second, I'll go count the pennies I keep in that big jar in the cupboard.

Michael

[JasonC]

Just think of it as the Cadillac of sport utility vehicles LOL. But be sure not to ask about the gas mileage...