NATO Survey, 1943 Pt 2

The_Chieftain:   I'm afraid I'm going to disagree with you on your statements.   Armored Force doctrine was not so ignorant as to think that they could break through and conduct an exploitation without considering the possibility that the enemy might happen to have a tank or two along. Note that FM 18-5, the TD manual, is purely defensive (at least as regards enemy armor), while the Armored Force Manual FM 17-10, states for example, on page 90 that the role of the medium tank (i.e. M3 and M4) includes dealing with hostile armor when on the offence. Further, the Armored Force FM only prohibits attacking equal or stronger enemy armored forces, which, in fairness, is pretty fundamental and would apply to any branch. Note also that the later FM 18-5 (1944) states that an armored division is capable of dealing with an enemy armored unit on its own, and the TD battalion might not be called up to action, though it is not recommended.   The reason the M4 had a "plane jane 75mm" was primarly because it took years to figure out how to correctly implement the 76mm in the tank, and the field commanders had no indication that they needed the ones which were available in the UK for D-Day. There was no doctrinal resistance in Armored Force to the concept of a bigger gun, and the US Army had changed to 76mm production in 1943. See http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/the_chieftains-hatch-end_of_75_M4/ and http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/316113-general-barnes-makes-a-phone-call/, http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/21/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/ and , http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us-guns-german-armor-part-2/