Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

M4 versions

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by GunSlinger86, Aug 28, 2016.

  1. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    London UK
    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.
     
  2. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    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.
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  3. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    851
    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.
     
  4. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    London UK
    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.
     
    Dave55 likes this.
  5. OhneGewehr

    OhneGewehr New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
     
  6. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,448
    Likes Received:
    2,225
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    IIRC, it could also be man-handled, while the "dreaded" 88 required a prime mover.
     
  7. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    When were the first US 76mm Shermans in combat in France? July of 1944?
     
  8. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    851
    26 July 1944.
     
  9. OhneGewehr

    OhneGewehr New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    9,448
    Likes Received:
    2,225
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Man-handled
    [​IMG]
    But, as this photo shows, in soft ground in could take several men.
     
  11. OhneGewehr

    OhneGewehr New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2016
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    28
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
     
  12. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    851
    That video was done with a black-powder cartridge. The flash and smoke from a service cartridge was a fraction of that.
     
    OhneGewehr likes this.
  13. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    2,176
    Likes Received:
    851
    "Several" meaning 18 men. Slowly.
     
  14. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    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.
     
  15. USS Washington

    USS Washington Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2014
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    44
    Location:
    The Good old USofA
    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?
     
  16. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    London UK
    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.
     
  17. Triple C

    Triple C Ace

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,599
    Likes Received:
    230
    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.
     
    USS Washington likes this.
  18. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    1,692
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    London UK
    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.
     
    USS Washington likes this.
  19. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    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.
     
  20. GunSlinger86

    GunSlinger86 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    37
    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.
     

Share This Page