Jump to content


What could have the US done for anti-tank guns?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

red_banner #41 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 09:18

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 14 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

Let me say to the question of a AT gun for Army forces...

The Enemy (Germans) were being driven by someone else, the Red Army, and their T34s (Panther) and KV1s (Tiger) and the PZIV and Sturm upgrades along with the patches Marder I,II,III etc.

So maybe if FDR had told Uncle Joe in 1940, "Joey, send some of those T34 tanks over with a design team, we would like to help supply them to you" US gets T34, beats M2,M3,and M4 in evaluation trials. Tank's interior is adjusted for crew performance, new track and sprocket drive system put on. Vision system improved, American Comms added.  Oh and when the new line of German armor comes up someone in Detroit goes, "I wonder if we could put a 90mm in this..."

Bottom line is German Tank designs were being driven by the Red Army, Just like the Luftwaffe's high altitude and jet programs were being driven by the 8th USAAF. The Germans weren't worried about Shermans and Churchills, they were trying to deal with Bolsheviks who had tanks which had better protection, guns, and mobility then they had.

 

AT guns with limited infantry use-you mean like the TOW and the flying fish the Dragon?

What if the guys who created the bazooka and the 57mm recoiless  rifle, had gotten together on an Army project in 1940 to make a light, long range AT weapon which could be used at the company level to defend against armor.  Like maybe a 100mm recoiless rifle which could be ground mounted, or mounted on a M2 or M3 half track, and or on a 1/4T(You know for those AB people)?



red_banner #42 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 09:27

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 14 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

Opps forgot.  What if the US moved the .50 cal to the coax position and have them ranged/zeroed with the main gun, and used it as a spotting gun to increase first hit%?

AT guns used for direct infantry support, that is more crazy then US tanks in Korea driving up down ramps to deliver indirect fire-or plunging fire for you inf types?



_Tex #43 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 15:21

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6246 battles
  • 373
  • [DIMBO] DIMBO
  • Member since:
    04-28-2013
IF you didn't have anything that could pen it, go kill the fuel truck that had to follow the Tiger every where it goes.  Then it becomes a tank with no gas.

FrozenKemp #44 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 17:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 42712 battles
  • 4,701
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

That's sort of an interesting/question:  would Stalin have provided a T-34 to Allied forces for study if requested?  Did he?  (Maybe they decided to go with the M4 anyway.)

 

 



The_Chieftain #45 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 18:02

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10166 battles
  • 9,598
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostFrozenKemp, on Jun 17 2016 - 16:15, said:

That's sort of an interesting/question:  would Stalin have provided a T-34 to Allied forces for study if requested?  Did he?  (Maybe they decided to go with the M4 anyway.)

 

 

 

They did. Both the US and British observations are available online.

Anlushac11 #46 Posted Jun 17 2016 - 18:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 33153 battles
  • 2,107
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View Postred_banner, on Jun 17 2016 - 03:18, said:

Let me say to the question of a AT gun for Army forces...

The Enemy (Germans) were being driven by someone else, the Red Army, and their T34s (Panther) and KV1s (Tiger) and the PZIV and Sturm upgrades along with the patches Marder I,II,III etc.

So maybe if FDR had told Uncle Joe in 1940, "Joey, send some of those T34 tanks over with a design team, we would like to help supply them to you" US gets T34, beats M2,M3,and M4 in evaluation trials. Tank's interior is adjusted for crew performance, new track and sprocket drive system put on. Vision system improved, American Comms added.  Oh and when the new line of German armor comes up someone in Detroit goes, "I wonder if we could put a 90mm in this..."

Bottom line is German Tank designs were being driven by the Red Army, Just like the Luftwaffe's high altitude and jet programs were being driven by the 8th USAAF. The Germans weren't worried about Shermans and Churchills, they were trying to deal with Bolsheviks who had tanks which had better protection, guns, and mobility then they had.

 

AT guns with limited infantry use-you mean like the TOW and the flying fish the Dragon?

What if the guys who created the bazooka and the 57mm recoiless  rifle, had gotten together on an Army project in 1940 to make a light, long range AT weapon which could be used at the company level to defend against armor.  Like maybe a 100mm recoiless rifle which could be ground mounted, or mounted on a M2 or M3 half track, and or on a 1/4T(You know for those AB people)?

 

Hmmm...yes and no.

 

Heinz Guderian was Germany's brainchild who wrote armor doctrine and tactics, and the vehicle requirements.

 

The US Army sends out Request For Proposals. The US Army would sit and think up what was needed, developed a set of requirements and then sent out a request of Companies to submit designs built to those Army requirements. Germans had a similar procedure.

 

The German Army issued its equivalent of RFP for Panzer IV in 1934. Krupp design was selected in 1935 for production with first PzIVA units becoming operational in 1936.

 

In 1937 German Army issued RFP for a 30 ton medium tank to replace the Panzer IV. Daimler Benz, M.A.N., Krupp, Rheinmetall, Henschel, and Porsche all submitted designs. In 1937 most of the designs looked like a Panzer IV with different suspensions. Then WW2 started, German had success after success and not much effort was put into developing the VK30 series.

 

Then Operation Barbarossa came and with it first contact with T-34/76's and KV-1's.

 

So in light of the Germans experience with the new T-34's and KV-1's a new RFP was issued for a 30 ton tank but this one specified sloped armor and a gun capable of penetrating the KV-1 and T-34/76.

 

I have been surprised to read that while most people consider the Panzer III to be a huge success Daimler Benz was not happy with it. The torsion bar suspension gave a good ride but the torsion bars took too much room inside, were problematic to change in field, and the Panzer III was not considered a very good gun platform, it oscillated front and back too much. Its my humble opinion only that this was related to a ineffective and immature German hydraulic dampening technology. Basically German shock absorbers which were needed at front and rear of a torsion bar equipped tank to dampen oscillations were not effective and/or wore out quickly.

 

This is why Daimler Benz's first VK3001DB was a leaf spring design. Easy to build, easy to maintain, and easy to replace, took no room in hull allowing for a lower vehicle height.  

 

The VK3001DB was originally selected as the Panzer V but this was later reversed when it came to light that there would be delays getting design into service as turrets had to be built and the Mercedes Benz rear mounted air cooled diesel engine and transaxle needed development. .

 

For Tiger I in short....in 1937 D.W.1 begat D.W.2 which in 1939 begat VK30.01H ( Medium tank) and VK36.01H ( Heavy tank). The VK36.01H begat VK45.01 which begat Tiger I Ausf H2 which begat Tiger I Ausf D.

 

Hitler could have demanded the 88mm in the Tiger all day long but in the end it was the already built and available turrets with 88mm guns that led to its mounting on the Tiger I. All Henschel had to do was open turret ring a little bit to take larger diameter turret.

 

Also Panther was not a 30 ton suspension that was overloaded to reach 43 tons. When everyone else was submitting 30 tons designs M.A.N. throws down a 43 ton tank from the start. Interesting to note that Panther II used same single torsion bar setup as Tiger I and II.

 

In hindsight I have to wonder whether the VK30.01D with a 75mm L/48 would have been the better choice for a new medium tank to enter service in 1942.

 

The VK30.01M looked more like a enlarged version of the VK20.01D which is in game. 



red_banner #47 Posted Jun 18 2016 - 01:02

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 14 battles
  • 3
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

This is where FDR comes in, Hey Joey, we will make T34s for lend lease. I submit like WW1 and the Merlin in WW2, once the US industry starts to crank them out it becomes a done deal-The Enfield rifle the US was already selling to Britain becomes the standard because the 03 doesn't get tooling going, and French Army contract boots made in the US get issued to Army forces. I don't know if this is the right link, but from this it appears the US had a good idea on how they could improve the T34 if the US produced it.

http://www.armchairg...ead.php?t=60696

 

For the new and improved, according to Prof Heinkel the war wasn't planned to start till 1947.  This put all the German projects on the back burner except for the always popular rail road Big Bertha guns. Anyway, I submit the Red Army tanks shocked the Germans enough to force them to make stop gaps-Marder series. The production mods, PzIV up gun, Sturm up gun, and finally go for a whole new series of tanks.

Otherwise encounters with heavy French tanks and the Matilda in France would have started all the upgrading.  I just think the T34 and KV tanks on the battlefield made local commanders question the ability to obtain their objectives.  So maybe like the Americans and the Red Army did, any contact was with the most "Feared Tank".  I have read US AT stuff and Red Army AT (And these guys are suppose to be trained in vehicle ID) and everything is either a Tiger or an Elephant or Panther...So maybe the Heer, WSS and the Luft were sending up reports of KVs here, and KVs there etc.

Maybe in armor it is does not appear as obvious but take WW1 fighters, and you have example after example of "We just modifiy this and that, and it will be good enought" germans with the Eindecker, then Albatross.  The French with the Nieuport and Spad series.

If all the Russians had were M3s, Vickers and T28s why would the Germans look to take the leap from a short barrel 75, and drop the 45 AT if their tanks dominated the battlefield?  Watching the Inside the Hatch Videos it seems what saved the Germans (Besides bad CC by the Red Army) was bad human engineering which prevented the crews from being effective as they could of been with the weapon systems they had.

In short I don't think the Germans looked at British and American Armor as systems they had to counter with new designs. What, they figure they needed the Maus to counter the sherman and the new chaffee?

 

As for the AT question still think going for recoiless rifle design in the 90-106mm range would have solved alot of the US's AT problems.


Edited by red_banner, Jun 18 2016 - 01:32.


Dent781 #48 Posted Jun 18 2016 - 12:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 17094 battles
  • 1,184
  • Member since:
    06-26-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 17 2016 - 12:02, said:

 

They did. Both the US and British observations are available online.

 

I find that to be so weird considering what went on right after the war ended.

 

What other modern for the times models did the Soviets share? How did they ship this crap over to us also through the Germans?



Anlushac11 #49 Posted Jun 18 2016 - 14:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 33153 battles
  • 2,107
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

An old saying...the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

US received a T-34/76 and a KV-1. Both used to be at Aberdeen. Not sure where they are now.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users