Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Status
Not open for further replies.

marathag

Banned
Without vast amounts of the American 75x 350R ammunition around in 1942
Don't forget that while the HE was well regarded, the AP round wasn't.
The British had captured enough German AP rounds, that they were modified to fit the US case, and US powder replaced with the Powder from French 75mm from Syrian stocks
 

marathag

Banned
I think some contributors have an unhealthy fascination with the American M3 75mm gun and want to shove it into everything they see!
It was a good gun, in the right place, at the right time, for 1942.
But it was only slightly better than the 18 pdr.
The US should have developed the 3" in place of the 76mm, that was meant to duplicate the WWI era 3"AA with a lighter tube and breech, rather than modernizing the 3" and surpassing that performance while in a lighter tube. The old 3" weighed near as much as the 17 pdr or M3 90mm
 
Don't forget that while the HE was well regarded, the AP round wasn't.
The British had captured enough German AP rounds, that they were modified to fit the US case, and US powder replaced with the Powder from French 75mm from Syrian stocks
If I recall the US had consistently bad early AP for each new gun they made. Mostly poor heat treatment, and that resulted in worse performance than the ammo should have if it was German or British.
It was a good gun, in the right place, at the right time, for 1942.
But it was only slightly better than the 18 pdr.
The US should have developed the 3" in place of the 76mm, that was meant to duplicate the WWI era 3"AA with a lighter tube and breech, rather than modernizing the 3" and surpassing that performance while in a lighter tube. The old 3" weighed near as much as the 17 pdr or M3 90mm
In fact when the Canadians got to see the 3" T12 (M7 prototype) in testing, they found out that its safety factor and general overengineering would have easily allowed it to sustain 3000 fps MV without too bad of a barrel life, and they reckoned IIRC that the recoil assembly and other components could have been suitable to work with a 17pdr barrel. Now the AP shell was a bit lighter than 17pdr (15.7) but it clearly had room to grow to 17pdr-level, and arguably had many advantages over the 90mm that was later used for heavy antitank duties. The 76 M1 couldn't match that with a safety factor of 1.5.

Testing with 90mm M2 powder got it to 115% loading, increasing penetration by a half-inch for AP and .9 inches for HVAP at 30°, which is not bad. MV was 2800 fps then.

Evidently the desire to keep barrel life as high as possible meant that the full potential of some US guns was never reached. Of course supercharged guns will still require new sights, cartridge cases and occasionnally other modifications but that hardly was more complicated than using another gun. The Brits did supercharge som AP rounds in some guns, namely the 25, 2 and 6 pounders. Usually no more than 200 fps which allowed the use of existing sights generally.

As for the 76 M1, it clearly was a desire to keep tanks as light as possible which made sense on the Hellcat, and to a degree the Sherman (of course we know it could handle a lot of extra weight but the US still wanted to limit it), but since the US chose to design a new turret to take this gun, the 76 became relatively obsolescent by the time it was actually used. Even at the cost of several extra hundred pounds, the new turret could simply have been designed with the super 3" in mind from the start, as was shown with French upgrades of the Sherman for the Israelis.

In comparison the redesign of the M3 into the lightweight M5/M6 was arguably more useful since the low weight and compact size was very important for aircrafts and light tanks.
 

marathag

Banned
. Even at the cost of several extra hundred pounds, the new turret could simply have been designed with the super 3" in mind from the start, as was shown with French upgrades of the Sherman for the Israelis.
The new 75mm was put into the old original M4 small turret, with the mount moved forward in an armored box and clearance in the back.
That higher powered 75mm would have been fine in the T23 Turret used on the 76mm, as the later French 105mm was just minor modifications
 
The new 75mm was put into the old original M4 small turret, with the mount moved forward in an armored box and clearance in the back.
That higher powered 75mm would have been fine in the T23 Turret used on the 76mm, as the later French 105mm was just minor modifications
You mean the 76?
 
3 May 1940. Dorset, England.
3 May 1940. Dorset, England.

With time running out before they were due to be mobilised for overseas service, the current situation of the 1st Armoured Division had been hampered by the switch to the Besa air cooled machine gun from the Vickers .303. The changeover meant that Nuffield’s production of A13 Mark IIA had been slowed, and some of the Armoured Regiments were complaining that they were dealing with two different types of ammunition for the machine guns, complicating an already messy business of preparing for war. The numbers of Besa machine guns coming from Birmingham Small Arms factory was still less than required, which also meant there weren’t a lot of spare part for the guns being delivered either.

It had also been noted that most of the Close Support tanks didn’t have 3.7-inch ammunition for the main gun. Only a small number smoke shells were available and there was no High Explosive ammunition at all. If the Division was to meet the deadline, there were serious deficits in its ammunition stores that would have to be addressed. Letters to the Ministry of Supply had asked for them to deal with the provision of the main 2-pdr ammunition. Hadfields Ltd of Sheffield was the only company making this ammunition. They had evolved a specialised production process that required skilled workmen, and an in-house designed rotary furnace. The order for ammunition for the growing number of tanks and anti-tank regiments who were equipped with the 2-pdr meant that the estimate was the army would need approximately 1 million rounds per month. Currently, since there was only one firm making the ammunition, the army was receiving less than 300,000 rounds per month.

A lot of the existing stock of APHE 2-pdr had been adapted for training purposes. When delivered originally, these shells contained a small bursting charge designed so that once the armour had been pierced, it would explode, providing for something of a ‘coup de grâce’ for the crew of an enemy tank. Before war had been declared Hadfields had changed over to a solid Armour Piercing shot as the War Office thought it provided greater penetration. Therefore, many of the APHE shells in stock had had the bursting charge removed and ‘plugged’ with sand or other inert material, so they could function as practice rounds. There was now a concern from the Armoured Division’s Quartermaster that the tanks would be deployed with only solid shot, and nothing at all with any kind of High Explosive capability. The Royal Tank Regiments equipped with the A11, firing the Vickers pompom 2-pdr, had found that even the relatively small HE charge in these shells were very effective. Without HE ammunition for the 3.7-inch tank mortar or APHE shells for the 2-pdr, the Quartermaster was concerned that the 1st Armoured Division would be at a disadvantage. Asking Hadfields to begin making APHE rounds again would probably mean that the deficit in 2-pdr ammunition would get worse.

The Ministry of Supply was overwhelmed with all the requests for making up deficits to just about every aspect of the army’s life. The conscription of so many into the army had meant that the training establishments were bursting at the seams, but didn’t have the staff or equipment to train the new recruits. There were shortages of everything, including uniforms. Trying to sort out ammunition for the small numbers of Close Support tanks was quite low on the list of priorities. Due to the lack of ammunition, more and more of the Armoured Regiments started using the CS tanks as the rear link tank. This was the tank the second in command of each squadron rode in. They acted as a conduit for communication back and forth between the Squadron and the Regiment HQs, and important task, due to the limitations of the wireless sets in the tanks. But it also meant that the tank wasn’t available for its main purpose.

The new drafts of men arriving in the Armoured Regiments had completed their basic training, then had some specialised training. Of those who had received tank training, it had been extremely limited. This was due in part because of how few tanks there were to be trained on. Those who had qualified as drivers admitted that had spent less than an hour actually driving a tank, and that was usually not the type they would be driving in the Regiment. Mechanics, fitters, and electricians all needed a lot more training and on top of all the other problems of getting the Regiments up to War Establishment, this was one more burden.

The other burden that was being felt especially in the Quartermaster’s and Technical Officer’s staff. The stores and equipment that were arriving from central stores, while peacetime equipment was being withdrawn from Squadrons and returned to the RAOC. Despite being at war, peacetime procedures of issue and receipt accountancy were supposed to be maintained, something that the clerical staff found almost impossible. As if this wasn’t enough, the Regiments weren’t yet all in possession of Army Form G1098. This should have provided them with a detailed scale of equipment, not only for their expected War Establishment, but also as personal weapons, wirelesses, tools, stores, spares, signals and cooking equipment.

All of this is OTL, no changes.
 
That really brings home how bad things were for the the Army when it comes to supplies. You could replace every tank Britain has with the Valiant and it would make little difference. The crews are massively undertrained and their isn't the ammo to go around either.
Only a week to go now as well.
 
And this is why rushing the latest production tanks to the front, even if the tanks themselves are good quality, doesn't get you a viable armoured force. There are so many little fiddly details that have to be filled in - not just supplying the tanks with crews, fuel and ammo but things like spare parts, and the tools to install the spare parts, and training the mechanics to use the tools, and getting all 57 types of new spare part assigned part numbers and included on the requisition forms so the depots can order more of them... Then you can start training as a unit, so that the crews and commanders can get some idea of what the tanks can actually do, and how to work with the supporting units.

I can - to an extent - sympathise with the bureaucrats running all this. They've been practising for years at running a minimal army on a shoestring, with new equipment being dribbled out in small quantities over long periods and most training done in-unit. Now they've been told to oversee raising a whole bunch of new units, while simultaneously bringing existing units up to war strength, while supporting the units already deployed with the BEF (and if you think the 1st Armoured has problems, imagine how much fun the armoured battalions already in France must having trying to keep to some sort of training schedule while not wearing out their tanks or depleting their stocks of ammunition and spares). People accustomed to thinking in dozens or hundreds are now dealing in thousands, and that hits all sorts of weaknesses in peacetime systems that don't scale to a mass army. The fact that the new army is going to be 100% motorised means that vehicles, drivers, mechanics and fuel are going to be even scarcer than they expected.

The manufacturers are in the same boat, being asked to massively ramp up production while at the same time running their existing lines full blast (and finding that between the industry and the army there are no spare skilled workers to be had). I can see someone from Hadfields writing to the Ministry to point out that between the need to train new workers, construct new furnaces and set up new workshops, the soonest they can significantly increase production is about six months time - and only if they're allowed to cut back on production now to free up staff...

Buuut - the war's been on for 8 months now and still doesn't look like anyone has a grip on what's needed and how to deliver it in volume. You'd have thought there would be some sort of institutional memory of the Great Shell Crisis of 1915.
 
Though shooting at 88mm guns, rather would engage them with a Pom Pom than MG bullets or 2pdr solid shot
There is quite a misunderstanding on your part of the range differences between the 88mm FlaK 18/36/37 and the 2 Pdr "Pom-pom". The 88mm can hit it's target a 2,000 metres with ease. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" can hit it's target, if it's lucky in a pitching and tossing tank at 500 metres or less. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" is not a wonderwaffen. It is merely the useful adaptation of a naval gun which even in 1940 was on it's way out in Naval circles.
 
There is quite a misunderstanding on your part of the range differences between the 88mm FlaK 18/36/37 and the 2 Pdr "Pom-pom". The 88mm can hit it's target a 2,000 metres with ease. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" can hit it's target, if it's lucky in a pitching and tossing tank at 500 metres or less. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" is not a wonderwaffen. It is merely the useful adaptation of a naval gun which even in 1940 was on it's way out in Naval circles.
2,000 metres on an open plain, except the ground around Arras isn't an open plain, so it's not quite that simple. In addition, the 88 at the time was an AA gun, bringing it down to point at tanks was a sign that something was already going wrong for the Germans. And as marathag said, better that than a MG.
 
2,000 metres on an open plain, except the ground around Arras isn't an open plain, so it's not quite that simple. In addition, the 88 at the time was an AA gun, bringing it down to point at tanks was a sign that something was already going wrong for the Germans. And as marathag said, better that than a MG.
I am unsure why you are fixating on Arras, as well. Arras was one minor battle. 88mm guns were not, despite the propaganda, used there. It was 105mm field guns which ultimately stopped the British tanks. 88mm guns only came to the fore in North Africa - the "broad open plains" that you mention. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" is limited to what the commander/gunner can see and fire at. The 105mm/88mm gun has a much wider field of view and a much steadier platform.
 
I am unsure why you are fixating on Arras, as well. Arras was one minor battle. 88mm guns were not, despite the propaganda, used there. It was 105mm field guns which ultimately stopped the British tanks. 88mm guns only came to the fore in North Africa - the "broad open plains" that you mention. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" is limited to what the commander/gunner can see and fire at. The 105mm/88mm gun has a much wider field of view and a much steadier platform.
There are verified accounts on the 88s being ordered into service by Rommel. In addition, you mentioned the 88mm and the pom-pom, and there's only one battle in the entire campaign in France where those two guns are likely to meet. That's Arras.
 
My understanding is that the M3's used in NA came mainly from the US 1st armoured division ottl. this delayed its deployment while it rearmed with M4's.
so in ttl will it deploy with the M3's and where does it deploy
 

marathag

Banned
There is quite a misunderstanding on your part of the range differences between the 88mm FlaK 18/36/37 and the 2 Pdr "Pom-pom". The 88mm can hit it's target a 2,000 metres with ease. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" can hit it's target, if it's lucky in a pitching and tossing tank at 500 metres or less. The 2 Pdr "Pom-pom" is not a wonderwaffen. It is merely the useful adaptation of a naval gun which even in 1940 was on it's way out in Naval circles.
Arras wasn't the wide open Ukraine, either.

But say you get some open fields of that size, fine.

Would you rather engage 88mm at with a Matilda I .303 Machine gun, or this TL's Pom Pom?
Pretty simple answer, I think
 
There are verified accounts on the 88s being ordered into service by Rommel. In addition, you mentioned the 88mm and the pom-pom, and there's only one battle in the entire campaign in France where those two guns are likely to meet. That's Arras.
Assuming that is where they counter-attack. We are in alternative realities. 88mm guns still far out range anything mounted on a Matilda I tank. QED.
 
Arras wasn't the wide open Ukraine, either.

But say you get some open fields of that size, fine.

Would you rather engage 88mm at with a Matilda I .303 Machine gun, or this TL's Pom Pom?
Pretty simple answer, I think
You wouldn't get a chance to engage with either. The FlaK or Field Guns would far outrange the weapon on the tank. Something that people here are ignoring/forgetting. Anti-tank weapons always outrange tank guns.
 
My understanding is that the M3's used in NA came mainly from the US 1st armoured division ottl. this delayed its deployment while it rearmed with M4's.
so in ttl will it deploy with the M3's and where does it deploy
Probably to Britain, from which they send a strongly-worded memo home about being shipped with inadequate gear.

Assuming that is where they counter-attack. We are in alternative realities. 88mm guns still far out range anything mounted on a Matilda I tank. QED.
Terrain can reduce the engagement range a lot.

You wouldn't get a chance to engage with either. The FlaK or Field Guns would far outrange the weapon on the tank. Something that people here are ignoring/forgetting. Anti-tank weapons always outrange tank guns.
And you seem to be forgetting that combat does take always take place in the middle of a wide, open field. tree-lines, hills, buildings, etc can all obscure your view, and some can limit you effective range as well. In addition, the 88s weren't used until the actual AT guns had proved ineffective at cracking the Matildas.
 
Last edited:
Terrain can reduce the engagement range a lot.

And you seem to be forgetting that combat does take always take place in the middle of a wide, open field. tree-lines, hills, buildings, etc can all obscure your view, and some can limit you effective range as well.
Not if your guns are sited well. Look, you're arguing on a losing wicket. Admit and move on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top