Jump to content


Photo

Pre Ww2 Tanks


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,873 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1000 AM

Not at all. The gun had zero degrees traverse. 

 

I dont think I made myself very clear. From what Kenneth Macksey said in Tank V Tank, they had to turn the hull to lay the gun. That, according to him, proved very difficult against moving targets like tanks.

 

This was practical as a CS weapon only, a bit like the 3 inch one in the Churchill hull?


  • 0

#42 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,921 posts

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1111 AM

As an aside the SPG likely would have been an optimal layout for interwar tanks. A Hetzer type thing would have been doable using the BT chassis and could have been able to be armored enough to stand up to most extant AT guns. Put the 76 mm divisional gun M1902 on it and it can plink bunkers etc. 


  • 0

#43 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1402 PM

Not at all. The gun had zero degrees traverse.

Just let the target drive into your pre-laid gun. Still difficult, but should be doable with training.

In theory and WoT when someone hugs your face. Scratch that. The gun wouldn't work in WoT at all. They have a no secondary guns policy.
  • 0

#44 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 27 July 2019 - 1736 PM

 

Not at all. The gun had zero degrees traverse.


Just let the target drive into your pre-laid gun. Still difficult, but should be doable with training.

 

We called that ambushing the mover and invariably the round would pass behind the target.


  • 0

#45 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 27 July 2019 - 2210 PM

It should also be remembered that the main AT weapon of the M3 medium was originally the 37mm in the turret.  At first it was proposed mounting a version of the Pack 75 in the sponsor, that would have been really an HE / Smoke weapon only, and only later was the longer 75mm accepted as being useful in the AT role and put in the sponsor.


Edited by DougRichards, 27 July 2019 - 2210 PM.

  • 0

#46 DogDodger

DogDodger

    Cornre durg dealing ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:WV, USA
  • Interests:tanks, driving, hockey

Posted 27 July 2019 - 2227 PM

The medium tank T5E2 used a 75 mm pack howitzer M1A1 in the sponson, but the M3 was always to be armed with a gun. Very true that the 75 was initially not considered the main AT weapon, though. :)
  • 0

#47 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0855 AM

 

Not at all. The gun had zero degrees traverse. 

 

I dont think I made myself very clear. From what Kenneth Macksey said in Tank V Tank, they had to turn the hull to lay the gun. That, according to him, proved very difficult against moving targets like tanks.

 

This was practical as a CS weapon only, a bit like the 3 inch one in the Churchill hull?

 

 

The Char B was designed as an infantry supprt tank to take out Bunkers/Pillboxes with its 75 mm Gun and an mg Turret on top.. When more tanks appeared in other countries it was decided to put an AT weapon on top in the single manned 47mm gun turret. The 75mm could indeed not (or barely) be used against tanks. In the late thirties , it was envisioned to develop the Char B Ter, which had a 75 mm gun with some traverse so as to make it useful against moving targets (one prototype built AFAIK before surrender).

 

At the same time in the late thirties, the French were developing a "Char de forteresse" which would have been used to support static defense lines. They would have ben used as a sort of reserve SPG to plug any gaps in a defense. They had a CharB/Somua like hull, quite heavily armoured and with a rather good 75 mm gun (with AT capability) in a limited traverse mount. They were like the later long gun Stug III and would have been interesting additions to the French army in 1940 had they actually been built in numbers by 1940 (perhaps replace Char B production with these things ?) 

 

http://france1940.fr...mee/otdb1f.html


  • 0

#48 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 28 July 2019 - 0856 AM

The medium tank T5E2 used a 75 mm pack howitzer M1A1 in the sponson, but the M3 was always to be armed with a gun. Very true that the 75 was initially not considered the main AT weapon, though. :)

 

Beat me to it... :D


  • 0

#49 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,650 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 29 July 2019 - 0549 AM

I recommend the French site
https://www.chars-fr.../de-1930-a-1940
for this.


  • 0

#50 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 598 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Belgium
  • Interests:Tanks, warships, polar exploration, ancient history,astronomy and space exploration,Ancient Egypt, harpsichords, Baroque and Classisist music, buying far too many books.

Posted 30 July 2019 - 0648 AM

It should also be remembered that the main AT weapon of the M3 medium was originally the 37mm in the turret.  At first it was proposed mounting a version of the Pack 75 in the sponsor, that would have been really an HE / Smoke weapon only, and only later was the longer 75mm accepted as being useful in the AT role and put in the sponsor.

 

Wasn't the T5E not more than a proof of concept verhicle, leading to the M3 design ?


  • 0

#51 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 30 July 2019 - 1717 PM

???

 

The US had no equivalent of the PAK 75, to my knowledge. Even if that were the case, Rich's research for his new book shows the US projectiles fell far short of equivalent performance.


  • 0

#52 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,566 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 30 July 2019 - 1725 PM

Pack, iow 75mm M1 howitzer.


  • 0

#53 shootER5

shootER5

    Beer drinker, hell raiser.

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas
  • Interests:model building, history, firearms

Posted 30 July 2019 - 2140 PM

Pack, iow 75mm M1 howitzer.

 

Si.

 

Attached Files


  • 0

#54 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 30 July 2019 - 2223 PM

 

Pack, iow 75mm M1 howitzer.

 

Si.

 

 

 

 

 

That is a lot of vehicle for not a lot of gun.  But the genesis of the M7 can be seen , but even comparing the M7 to the Wespe, the HMC M7 was also a lot of vehicle for the 105mm howitzer.

 

If the US had entered the war a year earlier then this combination may have gone to war and probably would have given a good account of itself..(invasion of France 1942 anyone?)

 

Meanwhile other vehicles armed with either the 75mm howitzer, or a derivative, served usefully on many fronts, from the HMC M8 to the LVT(a)5 to the lesser known HMC T30 on the M3 half track.

 

It was a good gun, its shell being the same as that used by the range of 75mm guns mounted on US tanks and other SP mountings, of course with a different cartridge case.  But there is also the (perhaps apocryphal)  story of the Marine M4 unit that ran out of ammunition for their 75mm tank guns and used M1 Howitzer ammunition in its place.  Of course much lower MV but the bang on target at close range against Japanese bunkers would not have been much diminished.

 

What surprises me about the 75mm on the Char Bis was the thickness of the barrel, almost as if the gun itself was armoured.  Perhaps as the gun was so short the thickness of the barrel was required for strength to enable the sell to be discharged at what could have been a useful MV.


Edited by DougRichards, 30 July 2019 - 2227 PM.

  • 0

#55 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 30 July 2019 - 2233 PM

 

It should also be remembered that the main AT weapon of the M3 medium was originally the 37mm in the turret.  At first it was proposed mounting a version of the Pack 75 in the sponsor, that would have been really an HE / Smoke weapon only, and only later was the longer 75mm accepted as being useful in the AT role and put in the sponsor.

 

Wasn't the T5E not more than a proof of concept verhicle, leading to the M3 design ?

 

 

The Medium Tank T5E2 was actually the T5 Phase III pilot with a new superstructure. Chief of Infantry MG George A. Lynch requested Ordnance test the pilot with a 75mm as main armament based on MID reports of European tanks with such a weapon mounted. Ordnance sketched out such a vehicle on 27 January 1939 using the 75mm Howitzer M1A1, because there was no suitable 75mm gun at the time.

 

In that sense it could be termed "proof of concept", but there was little doubt it could work. However, the idea of modifying the standardized T5 Phase III, the Medium Tank M2A1, as the Medium Tank M3, with a 75mm gun, developed between 5 and 13 June 1940, when MG Lynch sent Ordnance his analysis of future tank developments based on upon the initial MID reports from the French Campaign. Ordnance determined that a turreted 75mm gun was outside the capability of the current state of the art in the U.S., so chose to adapt the M2A1 as the interim Medium Tank M3.


  • 0

#56 Rich

Rich

    intellectual bully ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,425 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WW II, Current Defense Issues, Military History in General

Posted 30 July 2019 - 2248 PM

 

 

Pack, iow 75mm M1 howitzer.

 

Si.

 

 

That is a lot of vehicle for not a lot of gun.  But the genesis of the M7 can be seen , but even comparing the M7 to the Wespe, the HMC M7 was also a lot of vehicle for the 105mm howitzer.

 

If the US had entered the war a year earlier then this combination may have gone to war and probably would have given a good account of itself..(invasion of France 1942 anyone?)

 

Meanwhile other vehicles armed with either the 75mm howitzer, or a derivative, served usefully on many fronts, from the HMC M8 to the LVT(a)5 to the lesser known HMC T30 on the M3 half track.

 

It was a good gun, its shell being the same as that used by the range of 75mm guns mounted on US tanks and other SP mountings, of course with a different cartridge case.  But there is also the (perhaps apocryphal)  story of the Marine M4 unit that ran out of ammunition for their 75mm tank guns and used M1 Howitzer ammunition in its place.  Of course much lower MV but the bang on target at close range against Japanese bunkers would not have been much diminished.

 

 

The Medium Tank T5E2 was never intended as a production vehicle. Instead, in every sense of the word, it was a pilot model. As I mentioned, it used the 75mm M1A1 Howitzer only because it was available and could be made to work...the 75mm Gun M1897, the only alternative, was simply not suitable for mounting in the sponson of the T5E2. Instead, between June 1940 and July 1941 the 75mm Gun T6 (the last iteration of a failed AA design) was adapted as a tank gun.


  • 0

#57 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 31 July 2019 - 0258 AM

Duh, thanks all.


  • 0

#58 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 31 July 2019 - 0345 AM

Well the US M1 75mm howitzer was roughly the equivalent, when vehicle mounted, to the 7.5cm KwK 37.  The German gun's shell was a little heavier, but essentially very similar specs.  It could be considered that the HMC M8 filled the same niche that as the  Panzer III Ausf. N, remembering that the M4 was getting 105mm howitzers for the same role.


  • 0

#59 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Tamarama Beach, Sydney, Aust
  • Interests:Degree in History and Politics. Interests are Military History, military models,

Posted 31 July 2019 - 0356 AM

We need a thread: US AFVs if the USA entered the war in December 1940 instead of 1941.........


  • 0

#60 Paul Lakowski

Paul Lakowski

    Man of the worldly means

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,766 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor Tech and silly humor.

Posted 01 August 2019 - 1449 PM

Most bunkers -on both side of the French-German boarder- were designed to withstand direct fire from heavier field artillery, with concrete thickness of 1.5m or more.

Where these 3" guns really expected to destroy WESTWALL fortifications with that thickness .

Were they just for lighter tactical field bunkers, with concrete thickness of 3/4 meter or less ?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users