flamingknives Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Perhaps the US AARs refer to APDS 'aquired' from British 6pdr stocks. After all, they're essentially the same gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: Perhaps the US AARs refer to APDS 'aquired' from British 6pdr stocks. After all, they're essentially the same gun. You're right. That's why all of Jeff's research couldn't find anything. 38th Infantry AAR has a "Report of Towed 57mm Guns (AT)" that indicates the basic ammo load for the weapons: 60 AP or APC 6 sabot 13 HE The 13 HE rounds were a "kitty" built up in Normandy. Report references use of a hypervelocity "Sabot" round, which penetrated a Panther. The Americans sure knew alot about a round they supposedly never used. The July 1944 firing tests by American forces against captured Panthers, which took place in France, indicated that 57mm APDS was a common round, as opposed to a special ammo such as 75mm HEAT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Lorrin Said: “Jeff's response starts off with some histrionics that miss the point. Robert McNamara researched U.S. documents and found references to consumption of 57mm APDS by U.S. forces in two theaters. Whether he did the research for a game is besides the point, but declaring research to be inadmissible because it was done for a game is an easy way to dismiss the conflicting material. Play fair, Jeff.” ============================= ASL is a game. The designer could have included APDS for a fun "what-if" scenario. Definitive historical proof would be production figures for APDS, ballistic testing reports, or inclusion of information on the projectile in standard ordnance catalogues. I will ask again, "wheres the beef"? Do you have Aberdeen generated drawings?…ballistic research from BRL…War Department training manuals detailing 57mm APDS….any sort of AGF testing or training information that verifies the existence of a US Produced 57mm APDS round? ============================ Lorrin Said: “With regard to U.S. production of 57mm APDS, many many posts on various forums have indicated that it was of British origin. Claus Bonnesen in his Yahoo! Tankers post on 57mm APDS indicated that you won't find any Txx or Mxx numbers for the ammo since it was British. ================================= Yes I have seen speculation on this before. Presumably you have since uncovered some sort of historical documentation detailing this fairly unique ammunition transfer? Documentation should be easy enough to uncover, after all we seem to be talking about the transfer of what…6 rounds of APDS to every 57-mm gun in the 1st US ARMY. How much was transferred to 3rd Army stocks? Was this a one time lump transfer, or were regular stores of APDS being transferred from 21st Army Group Stocks. This is a huge amount of ammunition being pulled from the 21st Army Groups own stocks of fairly specialized ammunition. I would love to see the historical material you have uncovered on this ammunition transfer. I would say the case would be closed if this could be brought from the realm of whimsical musing, to an honest to goodness 21st Army Group logistics memorandum. Can you scan this memo or letter and post it here. From my previous message; Can you post the 90th ID report detailing its use of 57mm APDS as well as the source? Like I say I have a large number of 90th ID after action reports from its operations in Normandy as well its operations during the breakout. While you are at it can you post the actual 38th Infantry report detailing its use of APDS during actions around Rocherath-Krinkelt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted June 18, 2003 Share Posted June 18, 2003 Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: [snips] While you are at it can you post the actual 38th Infantry report detailing its use of APDS during actions around Rocherath-Krinkelt. Vannoy & Karamales' "Against the Panzers" (McFarland, Jefferson MC, 1996) says on page 280: "Each of the 57mm guns had as part of its ammunition supply seven to ten rounds of British discarding sabot (DS) ammunition, which had been issued before D-Day." The action that is described there is that of 2 Bn 28th Inf at the Domane Butgenbach. Unfortunately the account is not keyed to references to sources, but I would guess that the relevant source document is one or other of 26th IR (1st ID) AAR Dec 1944 and 26th IR (1st ID) Unit Journal, Dec 1944 - Feb 1945. The reference given for both is 301-INF(26)-0.3 at the Washington National Records Center, Suitland, MD. Personally I tend to think that a one-time issue of 10 r.p.g. makes APDS in American service about as widespread as hen's teeth; and I, too, would like to see a picture of a German 7.5cm canister round. Given the extraordinary effectiveness of both these kinds of round, I would think it reasonable to have heard more about them if they had really been used at all widely. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 57mm APDS shows up in a July 1944 U.S. firing test sequence against Panthers in France as a common ammunition (not special), and it shows up in U.S. AAR reports for combat in Germany. And Robert McNamara's research showed that U.S. forces seem to have continuously had some 57mm APDS, though in relatively small quantities and maybe only certain units. Robert McNamara's research was for a wargame but so what? Jeff's statement that McNamara included 57mm APDS for a what-if game scenario strikes me as not making much sense, since it flies in the face of the McNamara research that I clearly stated supported 57mm APDS use by U.S. forces. McNamara found that U.S. ammo consumption tables showed 57mm APDS ammo use starting with the D-Day landings. If McNamara found info supporting combat use of 57mm APDS a what-if scenario is clearly not needed. Where did Jeff get the what-if scenario idea? Jeff had no trouble accepting Amedeo's fine research on Russian 76.2mm shrapnel use as cannister at close range, even though that was for a wargame (CMBB). But he readily dismisses McNamara's findings as wargame speculation. Will Jeff treat Amedeo's finding as a what-if wargame scenario? If we find ONE example of actual combat use for 57mm APDS by American forces, it destroys Jeff's argument that it never occurred. And we have. With regard to the question as to why we haven't heard more about its use, I don't know. One could ask why a report to Eisenhower on the sad performance of U.S. tanks against panzers was delayed until 1945. Things happen. As far as proving British shipments and estimating the quantities, the fact that 57mm APDS was used in combat is enough for me. I leave the other stuff for other folks. The basic question has been answered, was APDS used by U.S. 57mm guns. 6 basic rounds of APDS available to at least one U.S. unit's guns, and an AAR report that the round penetrated a Panther in combat. End of argument, U.S. 57mm APDS was used in combat. The other questions that have been raised are secondary to the issue of was it ever used. [ June 18, 2003, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: [snips] While you are at it can you post the actual 38th Infantry report detailing its use of APDS during actions around Rocherath-Krinkelt. Vannoy & Karamales' "Against the Panzers" (McFarland, Jefferson MC, 1996) says on page 280: "Each of the 57mm guns had as part of its ammunition supply seven to ten rounds of British discarding sabot (DS) ammunition, which had been issued before D-Day." The action that is described there is that of 2 Bn 28th Inf at the Domane Butgenbach. Unfortunately the account is not keyed to references to sources, but I would guess that the relevant source document is one or other of 26th IR (1st ID) AAR Dec 1944 and 26th IR (1st ID) Unit Journal, Dec 1944 - Feb 1945. The reference given for both is 301-INF(26)-0.3 at the Washington National Records Center, Suitland, MD. Personally I tend to think that a one-time issue of 10 r.p.g. makes APDS in American service about as widespread as hen's teeth; and I, too, would like to see a picture of a German 7.5cm canister round. Given the extraordinary effectiveness of both these kinds of round, I would think it reasonable to have heard more about them if they had really been used at all widely. All the best, John. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Thanks John. I had produced for Lorrin a similar reference regarding 57mm APDS usuage at Dom Butgenbach several years back. A short discussion on the CMBO forum. My post detailing this material may still be in the old CMBO archives. 1st ID’s impressive defense of the little Cheatau of Dom Butgenbach was described by Charles Bailey in his extensive Anti-Armor Defense Data Study, Volume III, US Anti-Tank Defence at Dom Butgenbach. This study was written back in 1991 under the auspices of the US Army’s Concepts Analysis Agency. Not something you’re likely to find at the local used book store Bailey indicates the following: “These rounds used a disposable sleeve, or SABOT, around the penetrator for the British 2-pdr. The result was a lighter projectile with increased velocity, about 4200 ft/sec vice 2900 ft/sec for normal 57mm round.” (pg 21 Anti-Armor Defense Data Study, Volume III) It may be of interest to note that one of the co-authors of the “Anti-Armor Defense Data Study” was none other than Lloyd Karamales coauthor of "Against the Panzers". In other words this may be another case of seemingly corroborating references that in fact represent the same root source. Moreover this still begs verification\corroboration. This is why I would like to see the material Lorrin brought up regarding 90th IDs use of APDS during August of 1944, and 2nd IDs use around Krinkelt-Rocherath (also during the Battle of the Bulge). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Lorrin Said: “Jeff had no trouble accepting Amedeo's fine research on Russian 76.2mm shrapnel use as cannister at close range, even though that was for a wargame (CMBB). But he readily dismisses McNamara's findings as wargame speculation. Will Jeff treat Amedeo's finding as a what-if wargame scenario?” The excellent work on Amedeo's part actually produced an official Soviet Army publication on Artillery Gunnery....not a wargames rule booklet. An Army gunnery manual is the type of primary reference material I had been referring to in several of my previous posts. So I'm not sure what your beef is in this regard. In my mind Amedeo’s digging efforts were only further proof of what I had already asserted on this forum several months back. You are welcome to go back into the CMBB archive to read my previous posts regarding how 76mm shrapnel shell was being misrepresented as canister. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000233 I believe the question of RKKA 76mm canister was put forth by several folks on this forum long before this thread ever took root. The use of shrapnel in a pseudo-canister role is corroborated by several WWI US Army and French Army artillery gunnery manuals I posses and have discussed at length here. See my previous posts on this thread. I had also conducted a fairly extensive review months back of both 76mm firing tables as well as several catalogues of Ordnance employed by the RKKA during WWII. None of these indicate the existence of a 76mm canister round. To top off my search for the elusive 76mm canister round, I obtained an original copy of the 1942 Artillery manual for the ZIS-3 76mm Field Gun “76-mm Luschka Obp. 1942 r. Rukovodstvo Sludschbui” Mockba. A list of ZIS-3 ammunition types, their descriptions and capabilities as well as sectional drawings are all detailed in the manual. There is no canister round indicated. In other words I have conducted a fairly extensive search and am not basing my opinion upon one piece of information. ======================================== An aside, but of additional interest is that even shrapnel appears to have been being phased out by the time of the 76-mm Luschka Obp manuals publication in 1942 (the exact month of the manuals publication isn’t indicated). I haven't brought this up yet as I am patiently awaiting additional information on the employment of shrapnel by the RKKA during WWII. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 And that is your opinion Jeff, but it assumes: 1. Valera could not read Russian and Misinterpreted the shell writing. 2. That there was not a SHe-350 round. I quote from Valera: "The Sovet 76-mm Case-Shot Round She-350 consisted of 549 bullets, 10 grammes each bullet. When fired, bullets scattered at angle 6-9 degrees. Since the effective killing range (distance)* was about 200 metres, the maximum scatter range was ~50 metres. *This means a 90% probability to kill any unprotected man." The shrapnel round is the SH-350. Also, you assume a book on 1938 Artillery would have information on the T34 tank. I am NOT going to make that leap of faith. I emailed Valera, but have not gotten a reply. Anyone in contact with him? Jeff could still be right, but I still am waiting to hear from the horses mouth that he translated it wrong. For now, and with Valera's passage above, I think doubt still remains. Also, reading up on the shrapnel round, it did NOT have that number of balls, but the site I saw could be wrong. Does the description of the shell by Valera match that of the Sharpnel round? Last, look at Valera's page: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_4.html Note there is Bullet Shrapnel, which you are talking about, and case-shot listed separately. Again, did Valera make a mistake that great? I want to hear from him before ruling out case shot. Oh just found one more in Valera's FAQ. He states specfically that T34s could carry case-shot AND shrapnel rounds. He definitely separates the two rounds. You can find it here: http://www.battlefield.ru/faq2.html Rune [ June 19, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: rune ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McClaire Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Originally posted by rune: 1. Valera ...As the only person on the forum to try and defend the inclusion of 76mm canister in CMBB, perhaps you can explain exactly what your sources are. All I have seen given in support is one reference on the Russian Battlefield website. Now it is a fine website with a wealth of information, but unless Valera has first hand experience with 76mm canister it is not a primary source. Do you know where he got his information about canister rounds? Every other grog who has looked into this using primary source material (field manuals, gunnery tables, etc) has found noting to support the existance of 76mm canister. It's possible that they could all be wrong, but if every T-34 carried a half-dozen rounds of 76mm canister it seems unlikely that the cansiter round would have gone completely unmention in official field manuals. [ June 19, 2003, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Steve McClaire ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 A 1938 Artillery manual is the primary defense that case shot was shrapnel? Why is it wrong to ask Valera if he is sure? He stated before he had documentation on it, well, let's ask him and find out. WIthout giving too much away, Valera said this: "I'm afraid I cannot help you here. I can provide you with background information" and "I just pointed out the Russians used shrapnel and case-shot ammunition. If CM2 developers would like to add them in the game I will provide them with similar figures for other calibres" This tells me he has documentation on it. Well, let's find out what it says other then assuming he translated something wrong. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 One mroe I posted before: From Valera: "In all operational guides for Soviet tanks mentioned "shrapnel and case-shot rounds", none of them defines how many there were shrapnel rounds and how many case-shot rounds. I asked Soviet tankers, they told me they didn't use shrapnel at all, while case-shot used quite often. Vets said C-S ammo was deadly for any advancing infantry, much more effective then common HE ammo. C-S ammo used mostly in defensive actions and ambushes." This tells me it is listed in operational guides AND veteran accounts. Are you saying the veteran tankers and operational guides are wrong and all translated wrong? Possible...but I want to hear it from the horses mouth before assuming ONE book is correct. Rune [ June 19, 2003, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: rune ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 Rune: This isn’t an opinion I developed by looking over a few interent sites in a half hour of free time. It is typically much harder to prove the non-existence of particular ammunition type than its existence. But sooner or latter, after digging through enough gunnery manuals, ammunition catalogues, sending inquires to Soviet ammunition collectors, examining photos of ammunition, firing tables, etc one has to ask: Where is the evidence regarding this bit of ordnance that should seemingly be quite common. There have been errors regarding information posted on the Russian Battlefield web site before. These have been discussed on this and other discussion forums in the past. The site misidentified 76mm armored piercing ammunition types at one point...see my posts on this at the Yahoo Tankers Forum. In addition there was quite a stir regarding a Tiger-2 photo Valera had posted showing a large caliber penetration in the Tiger-2's glacis plate...see the Achtung Panzer Forum archives. This was about a year or two back. More recently there has been some hub-bub over RBF’s glacis plate thickness for the IS-2. I didn’t follow that discussion too closely and am not sure how it was resolved. I personally think the site is good for general information, but I never take it as the final word on anything, and I usually double check or triple check information if at all possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 19, 2003 Share Posted June 19, 2003 And that is exactly my point, Jeff. Yep, i agree it is possible Valera is wrong...but let us give him the chance to prove or dis-prove it before I trust a SINGLE source of a 1938 book. I too have done an internet search, and for a much longer period of time, but have found zero proof one way or the other. If he truly has operations manuals, then it means there were indeed two separate rounds. [since the effective range of the case shot is 200 meters as claimed, then it is NOT shrapnel which could be time to explode at a much greater range, UNLESS Valera means the Shrapnel explodes and the bullets are effective to 200 meters. I don't know, so I ask the source] You may be right, but I am not willing to take the leap of faith of one source, especially since there COULD be a shrapnel round with fuze, and another case-shot round. So, anyone in touch with him? Or I can try once again with emails. Tim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 I have a 1942 German report on Russian 76.2mm field guns and there is no mention of case shot but tons of info on shrapnel. Shrapnel with fuze set to go off just beyond the muzzle is mentioned for close defense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 "The excellent work on Amedeo's part actually produced an official Soviet Army publication on Artillery Gunnery....not a wargames rule booklet." Jeff seems fixated on the connection between 57mm APDS and Advanced Squad Leader. Robert McNamara uncovered the U.S. ammo use tables with 57mm APDS evidence back in the 1980's. Those tables might still be there, I'll ask Robert McNamara where he found them. [ June 19, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Actually I am fixated on these after action reports you mentioned from 2nd ID and 90th ID and their organic 57mm antitank guns employing APDS. Can you be a bit more specific as to report date, and the name of the officer or NCO that authored these after action reports. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted June 20, 2003 Share Posted June 20, 2003 Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: [snips] 1st ID’s impressive defense of the little Cheatau of Dom Butgenbach was described by Charles Bailey in his extensive Anti-Armor Defense Data Study, Volume III, US Anti-Tank Defence at Dom Butgenbach. This study was written back in 1991 under the auspices of the US Army’s Concepts Analysis Agency. Not something you’re likely to find at the local used book store Bailey indicates the following: “These rounds used a disposable sleeve, or SABOT, around the penetrator for the British 2-pdr. The result was a lighter projectile with increased velocity, about 4200 ft/sec vice 2900 ft/sec for normal 57mm round.” (pg 21 Anti-Armor Defense Data Study, Volume III) It may be of interest to note that one of the co-authors of the “Anti-Armor Defense Data Study” was none other than Lloyd Karamales coauthor of "Against the Panzers". In other words this may be another case of seemingly corroborating references that in fact represent the same root source. I think it is practically certain that these are two references to the same source. Apart from anything else, the Vannoy & Karamales quote I posted is immediately followed by a passage that is remarkably similar to the quote you have posted (and FWIW I am reasonably sure that "2-pdr" is a misprint for "6-pdr", and the error is repeated without correction). All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 Interesting that no questions were raised when I repeatedly referred to U.S. firing tests with 57mm APDS against captured Panthers in France. Jeff can add this to the list of references to U.S. use of 57mm APDS. Surprised that he wasn't familiar with the report as a reference to U.S. use of 57mm APDS. Following are highlights from the report: Organization: Headquarters, First U.S. Army "Proceedings of a board of officers which convened at Headquarters, First U.S. Army, pursuant to Special Order 196, Headquarters, First U.S. Army, 19 July 1944, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A(1)." Firing tests conducted July 12-30 1944. "Purpose: To conduct tests to determine the effectiveness of tank and anti-tank weapons in First U.S. Army, against the German Mk V Panther and Mk VI Tiger tanks." "1a. Firing was conducted on terrain permitting 1500 yards maximum range with zero angle of site. All guns and types of ammunition, suitable for anti-tank purposes, available to First U.S. Army were defeated on targets whose armour was slighly burned." "The following normal types of tank and anti-tank weapon and ammunition were tested; WEAPON ====== 57mm Gun, M1 AMMUNITION ========== APC M86 Sabot" Another vague reference? Weapons and ammo available to First U.S. Army, and normal types of ammunition. Nothing special is noted about 57mm sabot, it is not noted as experimental or for this test only. The report notes that troops had trouble hitting targets with 57mm sabot, a common enough problem with that type of ammo. I'll let you guys bounce that around for awhile. [ June 21, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: rexford ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 22, 2003 Share Posted June 22, 2003 You are suggesting that a US 57mm SABOT round was produced? If so what was the official projectile designation. Even projectiles still under development will have a designation. Or are we talking about a handfull of 6-pdr SABOT rounds rushed over from 21st Army Group stores by the British for these 1st Army trials? If British, how much SABOT ammunition was provided? 57mm firing trials were conducted in December of 1944 by the 44th ID against a combat damaged Panther. (Headquarters 776th TD Battalion, Effectiveness of fire of 57mm Anti-tank Gun on Mk V Tank, Capt. Louis Wable, Dec 11, 1944). There is no mention of 57mm SABOT; there is no mention of 6-pdr SABOT within the report either. Nor was SABOT used in the trials. If the round was so common within US Army inventories – as you are implying – why weren’t 57mm SABOT trials conducted by the 44th ID? Can I assume that you can’t produce anything more definative on these 2nd ID and 90th ID reports you mentioned regarding actual employment of 57mm SABOT in combat (or “lend-lease“ 6-pdr SABOT employed by 57mm ATGs)? Thus far we have seen only one combat account of 57mm SABOT use in ETO 44-45 (1st ID at Dom Butgenbach). Surely there should be more combat reports floating about for this ammunition type -- assuming of course it was commonly available. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 Lorrin Said: Since Jeff is a member of the Yahoo Tankers site, he must have missed the post which discussed AAR cases where 57mm APDS was fired by U.S. forces during combat. 38th Infantry AAR in Rocherath-Krinkelt action had 57mm sabot penetrate Panther turret side after AP bounced. 90th Division AAR for August 1944, G-4 summary, talks about how 57mm sabot is continually desired but only available in limited quantities.Volume IV of the Anti-Armor Defense Data Study I had refered to (by Michael Bailey & Lloyd Karamales et al.) details the 99th ID and 2nd ID defense around the villages of Krinkelt-Rocherath, December 1944. The antitank vs Panzer\Stug and tank or TD vs Panzer\Stug actions of 99th ID and 2nd ID described as occurring in and around Krinkelt-Rocherath are each detailed in Volume IV, and are broken out into 29 distinct antitank Actions. Each action represents one or more US Army anti-tank weapons, Tanks, or TDs vs. One of more Panzers or Assault Guns. The antiarmor actions included one or more of the following weapon types: 3“ towed TD antitank guns 57mm towed antitank guns Bazooka Sherman tanks Self-propelled TDs Of these 29 separate actions only two involved 57mm antitank guns engaging either Panzers or assault guns. Of these two actions, only one action entailed a Stug actually being destroyed by a 57mm antitank gun. These two separate actions include: Action 1: Assault Gun at Losheimegraben, 0715 Hours, 15th December, 1944. Here a 57mm ATG fighting with B-Co 394th Infantry Regiment (99th ID) engaged and destroyed what is described as a 75mm Sturmgeschutz (apparently attached to the 48th Grenadier Regiment, 12th VG Division). Typical -- "normal" -- ammunition load-out for the 57mm gun is described as: 100 rounds, 70% APC and 30% HE. The first 57mm APC round hit and immobilized the Sturmgeschutz. Two more 57mm APC rounds penetrated the flank armor and set the Stug on fire. There is no mention of 57mm SABOT being avaliable to the 394th 57mm gun crew, nor is it mentioned in the comments on typical ammunition load outs. Action 29: The End of Panther Five’s Saga, 0800 Hours, 18th December 1944. The action entailed a 57mm gun from Capt. James Love's anti-tank company (fighting alongside 3rd Battalion, 38th Infantry, 2nd ID), as well as a Sherman (most likely from 741st Tank Battalion), and a self-propelled TD from the 644th Tank Destroyer Battalion. "Normal" ammunition load-out for the 57mm gun is described as: 100 rounds, 70% APC and 30% HE. As with the 394th’s account (Action-1) there is no mention of 57mm SABOT being employed by the 38th Infantry's 57mm gun crews. The Panther was hit by one round of APC. The 57mm APC round apparently damaged the turret traversing mechanisim on the Panther. However the Panther continued its advance through the village. The Panther was subsequently engaged by a Sherman – one round fired -- it missed. The Panther continued its advance and quickly moved out of the Shermans LOS. The panzer was finally engaged and destroyed by several rounds from a self-propelled Tank Destroyer. The remaining 27 Antitank Actions described as occurring during the battles around Krinkelt-Rocherath entailed Panzers and Assault Guns destroyed by 3" towed tank destroyers, Bazookas, Shermans or Self-propelled TDs. [ June 24, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 The two actions described above are detailed in the following write-ups. From Volume IV of the Anti-Armor Defense Data Study by Michael Bailey & Lloyd Karamales (et al.): [ACTION 1] As soon as the barrage lifted, the men of B Co were startled to see an American jeep, driven by Germans, approaching them up the hill from Losheim. The jeep halted before It reached the American line, literally under the nose of one of the 57mm AT guns which was hidden about 50 meters north of the road on the south slope of Hill 666. In the diffused glare of the spotlights which the Germans behind the Westwall were bouncing off the low clouds, the gun crew could clearly see the jeep and its occupants, but in their surprise and uncertainty they hesitated to fire. Turning around, the jeep sped off back down the slope and into Losheim. A few minutes later it reappeared, leading what some accounts say was a tank. However, since the 12th Volksgrenadier Division had no tanks attached to it, the vehicle was instead almost certainly a sturmgeschutz (StuG III 75mm self-propelled assault gun) belonging to the division's organic 1012th StuG Co. Postwar accounts by the commander of the 48th Gren Regt, Col Wilhelm Osterhold, confirm this supposition, and mention that German infantry were riding on the sturmgeschutz. The American AT gun crew again let the jeep pass, but fired on the assault gun as it drew up in front of their gun. The first round struck the vehicle in the right flank, knocking off a track and immobilizing it. The second and third shots penetrated the vehicle's starboard hull, with the third shot setting the assault gun aflame. Some accounts say the only survivor of the crew was the commander, a lieutenant, who was badly wounded and who staggered from the wreck. Others say the entire crew bailed out, apparently unhurt, and began firing small arms at the AT gun crew. Considering the scarcity of flank armor on the StuG III and the proximity of the AT gun when it fired, the former outcome seems far more likely. The infantrymen of B Co, farther up the road toward Losheimergraben, killed the occupants of the captured jeep with small arms fire at the same time as the assault gun was destroyed. =================================== [ACTION 29] Farther to the southwest, at the CP of Col Barsanti's 3/38th Infantry, Maj Vivian Paul, the 38th Infantry Regiment's S-4, was just leaving to return to the Regimental CP in Rocherath after a meeting with Col Barsanti. He and his driver had just gotten into their jeep, parked in front of the CP, when the surviving Panther "rounded the corner going lickety-split," headed right for them. Maj Paul and the driver leapt from the jeep and rolled into a roadside ditch just as the Panther slammed into the jeep and crushed it. At that moment, one of the 57mm AT guns of the 3/38th's AT Platoon, which was covering the Route vers Udenbreth against just such a German incursion, fired at the Panther. The shell struck the panzer and apparently damaged the turret traverse mechanism, for the Panther continued down the street but "with the turret swinging wildly, completely out of control." [ACTION 29] The 3/38th's Assistant S-3, Lt Fred Sutton, was nearby and had witnessed the whole episode. He ran to a nearby Sherman tank and notified them of the Panther in the neighborhood. The Sherman quickly fired a round at the Panther but missed. The Panther was lost to the Sherman's view before the American tank could fire a second shot. The Panther pressed on toward Bollingen, approaching the L Co CP. Just as it passed in front of that building, a self-propelled TD from the 644th TD Bn, which Col Barsanti had placed near the 3/38th CP to guard against a German attack from BoIIingen, fired three rounds in rapid succession into the Panther's thinner rear armor at a range of 250-300 yards. That finally stopped the rampaging Panther, and as the crew bailed out of the tank, the L Co riflemen picked them off. When the panzer's hulk was examined later, it was found to have II bazooka holes in it (none of which apparently penetrated all the way through the armor), as well as the three TD penetrations in the rear and whatever mark the AT gun's round had left. ================================================== I uploaded a scan from Vol IV of the Anti-Armor Defense Data Study, Action 29. The study breaks down all Action details in the same manner. Copy and past the following URL into your browser address box – hit enter to view. http://www.geocities.com/tigervib_2000/Action29.jpg Of particular interest is the box toward the end of the chart that breaks out typical ammunition load out. There is no mention of 57mm SABOT being a "normal" ammunition type for this weapon. [ June 24, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 24, 2003 Share Posted June 24, 2003 If soviet tankers were given shrapnel already fused at zero, and not told how to reset the fuses to anything else, then perhaps they might think of it as case shot and refer to it as such? Just speculation as to how case and shrapnel might be considered as the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Jeff stated: " You are suggesting that a US 57mm SABOT round was produced? If so what was the official projectile designation. Even projectiles still under development will have a designation." I suggested nothing like that, and addressed the designation issue in previous posts on this thread. 57mm sabot was of British origin, which could explain the absence of U.S. M and T numbers. During his research for a wargame, Bob McNamara also found that the British gave the Americans some 57mm HE rounds, if memory serves me correct. This is in addition to the limited run of U.S. made HE for their 57mm guns. The fact that Bob McNamara documented his research in a wargame, as opposed to a magazine (1983 research), does not detract from his findings in my view. He also discussed the issues with me and explained his finds. I sense that this discussion is starting to go round and round on your part. You might wish to read my previous posts since you appear to have forgotten issues which were previously discussed. The U.S. Army firing test report indicates that 57mm sabot was available and considered a "normal" ammunition, which does not mean it is plentiful or available to every gun. I stated this in an earlier post. If you read the U.S. Army firing test report you'll see the context for "normal" versus "special" ammo. 57mm sabot is "normal", 75mm HEAT is "special", for instance It would be expected that many or most 57mm guns would not have access to 57mm sabot, so the normal ammo load could be addressed without mentioning 57mm sabot, and would not contradict the use of the same word (normal) in the U.S. firing test report. "Normal" as opposed to "special". Read the U.S. firing test report. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 26, 2003 Share Posted June 26, 2003 Jeff stated "Or are we talking about a handfull of 6-pdr SABOT rounds rushed over from 21st Army Group stores by the British for these 1st Army trials? If British, how much SABOT ammunition was provided? 57mm firing trials were conducted in December of 1944 by the 44th ID against a combat damaged Panther. (Headquarters 776th TD Battalion, Effectiveness of fire of 57mm Anti-tank Gun on Mk V Tank, Capt. Louis Wable, Dec 11, 1944). There is no mention of 57mm SABOT; there is no mention of 6-pdr SABOT within the report either. Nor was SABOT used in the trials. If the round was so common within US Army inventories ? as you are implying ? why weren?t 57mm SABOT trials conducted by the 44th ID? " I believe that the AAR posted by John Salt indicated that 57mm sabot was given to U.S. troops prior to D-Day, which is what Bob McNamara found in his research. If the First Army report indicates that 57mm sabot was an available and normal ammo, it suggests that it was not rushed over for the tests. Not every unit and gun had 57mm sabot, and the relative inaccuracy of the round may have discouraged its use in some tests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.