Search this Topic:
Mar 29 17 11:42 AM
sergeante wrote:One side or the other would almost always have good reason to be waiting for the approach of the enemy, while their opponent, if there was to be any battle at all, had to have sufficient imperatives to advance to contact, knowing the enemy was probably waiting. Running into each other while maneuvering did happen, but even then, more often than not, one side or the other had some form of scouting that caused them to either sit still and await the enemy or that gave them a maneuver advantage. Just running into each other while tooling down the road, with each side being caught equally flat-footed? I literally can't think of a single case.Obviously, if you're in the opposite situation, moving, the odds are all against you, and your turret traverse speedain't going to help against guys that cam can probably get in a couple ofshots before you can shoot back. no matter howgood you or your equipment is.
Mar 29 17 2:43 PM
I'm interested in your proposed alternatives...
Mar 29 17 2:49 PM
IcelofAngeln wrote:How much worse would things have been if the TD force - still trying to convert from towed 3" to M-10s - had had to deal with two incompatible ammo types?
Again, talking about Tiger Is is a non-issue: US tankers almost never encountered them.
Mar 29 17 3:21 PM
I'm interested in your proposed alternatives, when when they could have been in service.
US started to try to put a 90mm gun in a turret on the M10 turret starting in October of 1942. As best as I can tell it was tried in the more or less existing M10 turret design. Are you suggesting that the US Army should have put this into production sometime in 1943? According to the little bit I can find about this design, the turret was very unbalanced, with hand traverse, and thus difficult to use. Since the October 1942 M10 was using an unbalanced, hand traversed turret that was difficult to use the 3 inch gun, I can't imagine that a 90mm weapon would have made it better. I believe that they started adding counterweights to help with the problem in ~December of 1942? If the counterweights were able to more or less "quickfix" the unbalanced problem, then why not adopt the same with the 90mm gun? And the M10 used the hand traverse through the war.
If I'm doing the math right it typically it took ~5-6 months to go from prototype to production, and then another ~6-7 months to get the units to the front. A October of 1942 for a prototype is about right to have it in production by ~March of 1943. The first units would be in the UK and maybe Italy around September-November of 1943. If the US did this, they could still have the "balanced" M36 turret in design with the bustle, and when it was available in ~October of 1943, switch to that production, more or less as they did historically.
This seems to be a completely viable path. Tank destroyers were the "specialist" units for destroying tanks in the US Army. The US's Army's most powerful anti-tank gun was the 90mm gun in an anti-aircraft mounting in 1942. The 90mm gun and it's ammunition including the AP round were in the supply chain all the way to the front lines anywhere the US Army was. The M10 was the specialist tank destroyer unit for the US in 1942. As soon as the US ran into Tigers and Soviet reports of Panthers in 1942, someone should have asked for a more powerful specialist Tank Destroyer. After all, that's what the TD branch is, the "GO TO" group for tank destruction. The logical solution was to adopt the M10 to the 90mm gun, which was apparently done and tested toward the end of 1942! The resulting design was rejected, and a new turret required. Not really a surprise, the M10 turret was apparently never very satisfactory. However, if the M10 was useable with the crappy turret, and the a 90mm M10 would be about as crappy, why not switch ASAP? The 90mm gun does everything the 3 incher could do, but more so.
Mar 29 17 3:39 PM
Mar 29 17 4:44 PM
Mar 29 17 7:08 PM
Mar 29 17 8:39 PM
IcelofAngeln wrote:Or a DP mounting shamelessly ripped off from the FlaK 36. (The German PaK 43 on a trail mounting proved impossibly cumbersome; on anything but a pool table the long barrel hit the ground)
Mar 30 17 10:30 PM
Mar 31 17 2:59 PM
ChrisPat wrote:M18 seems like the same sort of doctrine over reality development. US TD doctrine was written then a series of platforms built to put it into effect, the 75mm on half tracks weren't the "correct" answer, the M10 was much closer and M18 was pretty much what they'd have liked if they could have had it right from the beginning. That the AFVs that they'd be asked to destroy would develop in the time it took to get there wasn't taken into account. Ice - PaK43 had two mounts, the proper one was an all round traverse job and AFAIK the only problem was the size and weight that came with the gun. The mass production expedient (PaK 43/41 IIRC) was a clumsy beast.
Mar 31 17 8:55 PM
Mar 31 17 11:50 PM
ChrisPat wrote:Also true of all the other big AT guns. Had a look around one of the few still in use a while ago, a Sov 100mm model. Not intended to go anywhere very fast, which is one reason why some US and UK AT units retained 57mm / 6pdr.
A bit odd that UK started the AT gun business with an all round traverse mount then dropped the idea but the Germans picked it up later.
Apr 1 17 8:12 AM
Apr 1 17 2:22 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.