Tweet
The sad thing in the great debate over WWII US tank armament is just how much influence that misunderstanding of the use of armor had on it.
Like a lot of military powers, the US was shocked by the speed of the German Blitzkrieg and like a lot of military powers, they drew the wrong conclusions.
The major misobservation was that armor was capable of overrunning everything and that there would be little, if any tank vs tank action (I am aware that there was actually major tank battles in the 1940 French campaign, but this was what US observers reported back...).
Faced with the prospect of tanks breaking through at will and tearing into the rear areas to spread fear and chaos, the US adopted three major changes.
First, tanks vs tanks will seldom occur on a battlefield, therefore tanks do not need a high-velocity cannon, but rather one that was capable of firing a large HE round (This is what led to the develop of the M-2 and M-3 75mm cannons).
Second, that due to fact that tanks will acheive breakthroughs at will, rear echelon units will need antitank protection (this led to the appearance of 37mm towed antitank guns and later bazookas).
And third, that specific vehicles designed for antitank use needed to be fielded (the birth of the Tank Destroyer Corps).
This misconception is what led to the Lee/Grant being armed with the short barreled M-2 75mm (later replaced by the M-3 75mm) as well as the Sherman being outfitted with the M-3 75mm and being issued with the AP and APC rounds. Almost as soon as the Sherman saw its first combat at El Alemain, the tankers started asking for a better cannon. There was never any problem with the HE round, but the AP round lacked decent penetration over its entire effective range. The development of the APC round helped, but the 75mm still lagged behind the Germans 75mm. It was not until the Normandy Campaign that the Ordnance Department allowed the fighting of the M-1 76mm cannon, and even then, its scale of issue was one tank in a platoon. The British were able to field the 17-pounder in time for Normandy, but again, the scale of issue was one troop out of a squadron.
Like a lot of military powers, the US was shocked by the speed of the German Blitzkrieg and like a lot of military powers, they drew the wrong conclusions.
The major misobservation was that armor was capable of overrunning everything and that there would be little, if any tank vs tank action (I am aware that there was actually major tank battles in the 1940 French campaign, but this was what US observers reported back...).
Faced with the prospect of tanks breaking through at will and tearing into the rear areas to spread fear and chaos, the US adopted three major changes.
First, tanks vs tanks will seldom occur on a battlefield, therefore tanks do not need a high-velocity cannon, but rather one that was capable of firing a large HE round (This is what led to the develop of the M-2 and M-3 75mm cannons).
Second, that due to fact that tanks will acheive breakthroughs at will, rear echelon units will need antitank protection (this led to the appearance of 37mm towed antitank guns and later bazookas).
And third, that specific vehicles designed for antitank use needed to be fielded (the birth of the Tank Destroyer Corps).
This misconception is what led to the Lee/Grant being armed with the short barreled M-2 75mm (later replaced by the M-3 75mm) as well as the Sherman being outfitted with the M-3 75mm and being issued with the AP and APC rounds. Almost as soon as the Sherman saw its first combat at El Alemain, the tankers started asking for a better cannon. There was never any problem with the HE round, but the AP round lacked decent penetration over its entire effective range. The development of the APC round helped, but the 75mm still lagged behind the Germans 75mm. It was not until the Normandy Campaign that the Ordnance Department allowed the fighting of the M-1 76mm cannon, and even then, its scale of issue was one tank in a platoon. The British were able to field the 17-pounder in time for Normandy, but again, the scale of issue was one troop out of a squadron.
Comment