What could have the US done for anti-tank guns?
Дата: 03.01.2015 05:20:31
Slayer_Jesse, on Jan 02 2015 - 04:04, said: So, much has been said about the decision to stick with the 76mm. I
very much enjoyed your articles on getting it and Pershing into
service, Chief. My question is this: If armored/ordinance
board had decided they needed something better upon meeting the
Tiger for the 1st time, what kind of vehicle could they have
produced? (Though judging by your articles, this would be a very
big if. Also, when did Russia 1st encounter Tiger, and did they
share data on it with allies?) Are there any lesser known US
tank AT guns that could do the job? How fast could they have had
out a simple TD along SU-85 or Marder lines? A tank? I mean this to
be more anything goes, not what was probable. (So paper away, as
long as they actually had it or reasonably could have developed t
fast enough)The_Chieftain: The original plan was that the 75mm would be replaced in the
anti-tank role by the 57mm (6pr). It had a much higher muzzle
velocity, and thus was more capable against armor than the larger
75mm. The problem was that it was discovered in testing that the
theoretical advantage was limited: At ranges over about 500 yards,
the 75mm actually retained more energy and thus penetrating power.
Since the US Army wasn't interested in AP effectiveness at only
500m and less, the plan to use the 57mm in the next TD vehicle was
scrapped (The T48 Gun Motor Carriage), and pretty much all those
built were given to the UK and USSR. That left the job down to the
3", which was being used in the towed gun and in the expedient TDs
(M5, M10, M9), and which was too heavy to put into the M4, and the
76mm which was implemented as soon as possible once the solutions
were developed. The only other option, as already mentioned, was
the 90mm, as per the T53 series and eventually M36,
What could have the US done for anti-tank guns?