M4 versions

The 155mm Long Tom was a particularly good gun and used by the British as the equipment for half the batteries in each heavy Regiment. It was about the only allied artillery piece with the range to match the long ranged German guns deployed at Army and Corps level. Post war the 175mm M107 filled this role and has only been replaced with MLRS.

The British had put much effort into developing heavy artillery post WW1 as there was an assumption that a bomber aircraft would be more effective. Britain went to war with WW1 era heavy guns.

 

I read that by the end of the war the 90mm American anti-tank/anti-aircraft gun overtook the German 88mm in terms of effectiveness.

 

The 90mm AA Gun M1 was always a better AA gun than the Flak 18, 36, and 37 and was only slightly less capable interns of effective ceiling than the Flak 42. It's performance As an AT gun was sililR, but the carriage was not as good. The M2 carriage matched the German except in weight. The Pak 43 performed better, but as a beast in terms of weight too.

 

The British 3.7" was comparable to the 88mm and 90mm AA guns. The difference was that the Allies had less opportunity to use their heavy AA Guns in the anti-tank roles.

Using Heavy AA guns as anti-tank guns was inefficient. They could all knock out enemy tanks, but were too tall, and heavy and their organisations trained to act as part of an integrated air defence system. The US 90mm guns did OK against 1 SS in the Ardennes, but lost as many guns as they knocked out tanks. The 17 Pdr was as effective as the 3.7 and with APDS could punch through anything the Germans fielded.

The the pak 40 rather than the 88mm gun was the German anti tank gun of choice, at least on the western front. It could KO any Allied tank and more likely to survive than the 88mm.

 

Had all the comparable guns (the italian 90/53 not to forget) the same flat trajectory? This is always mentioned as unique, when the german "88" is the subject.

The 88mm gun was successful in Africa, there it was easy to hide and range and accuracy were more important than everything else.

 

IIRC, it could also be man-handled, while the "dreaded" 88 required a prime mover.

 

When were the first US 76mm Shermans in combat in France? July of 1944?

 

26 July 1944.

 

The Pak 40 needed also a vehicle or what do you mean by "man-handled"? When looking at the Pak 40 in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7fhBm1ouSU
i wonder how a gun crew could aim and fire at the target after the first shot.

 

Man-handled

But, as this photo shows, in soft ground in could take several men.

 

Weight 1,4 to. As much as an old Volvo 240 estate. On two wheels. I don't want to move this over a longer distance.

 

That video was done with a black-powder cartridge. The flash and smoke from a service cartridge was a fraction of that.

 

"Several" meaning 18 men. Slowly.

 

Concentrations from 155-mm. guns were said to damage tank treads, optics and barrels with some efficiency and the preferred arty on call for bombarding enemy armor.

 

Were there other instances the US 90mm being used in the AT role aside from the example you gave, and did the British 3.7" ever see actual combat deployment in the AT role?

 

We don;t known the circumstances under which this photograph was taken.

I served the British 25 pdr and the L118 Light Gun. These weighted 3.7 tons and could be manhandled over good ground by a detachment of six. We used to have inter sub-section gun races as per the Royal Tournament. However, uphill and on soft going you needed a lot more. The pak 40 and 17 pdr were much less easy to manhandle than the Pak 50mm or 6 Pdr, and much harder to dig in.

 

The 90-mm. was mentioned in the US Army's lessons learned document post Normandy. The "Green Book," or US Army official history, of the Ardennes was peppered with references to its use. I think Combat Command R of the 3rd Armored Div used those weapons in a fight against the 116th Panzer in a little town with success.

 

There were several occasions when the British 3.7" AA Gun was used in the Anti tank role in 1942 when Britain lacked anti tank guns. In the fall of Tobruk 3.7" guns accounted for several tanks and deployed as field and anti tank artillery at the first battle of El Alamein in July 1942. The HAA positions protecting the Normandy beachhead were selected to have alternative anti tank positions. One regiment pre-positioned captured 88mm guns in these positions.

The Germans thought the 3.7" guns were a significant threat to tiger tanks, though the RA's 17pdr was more effective.

The 3.7" gun was a versatile equipment used as a medium artillery piece in 1944-45. It had the same range as a 5.5" gun and useful time fuse.

The US Army never needed to use 90mm AAA in the anti tank role apart from the Ardennes - and perhaps (maybe in Alsace?) The best way to use the 90mm gun was on a tracked chassis,as the M36.

 

The Sherman gets a lot of flack, but from the standpoint that it was maneuverable, reliable, fairly quick, was able to be massed produced with quality, upgrade-able, and for mid/late 1942, the gun was sufficient to hold its own against tanks of the same class. It also had to be designed with loading, shipping, logistics in mind. At times I think it gets an unfair bad rap.

 

Plus, the nickname "Sherman" isn't very intimidating. The Psychology of words can have a subconscious or perceptive effect. I think if it was just referred to as M4, like T34, it would have been perceived differently.

Don't jump on me for that, words and how they are said to matter.