American Tank guns in WW2

[ksbearski]

All-

Can anyone tell me why it took the USA so ling to develop a better tank gun thatn the 75mm originally arming the Sherman.  I mean, the sponson mounted 75 mm found on the M3 came as a nasty surprise to the Germans in the Western Desert, however, the Western Allies seem to take a fairly lacksadaisical approach to upgunning their tank guns.  Did the USA have development problems.  Also, I know the Brits had a 3.7" AA gun that was just about on par with the German 88 mm.  Why didn't the Brits mount that gun on anything?

KSBearski (formerly known as BBUDZOWSKI)

[Keith Heitmann]

I believe one explanation that I read somewhere for the slowness in making changes to the Sherman was that they didn't want to interfere with production to make the changes. At the time I guess they were more concerned with quantity and keeping the Russians and Brits, not to mention the US Army supplied with plentiful numbers of tanks. They wanted to build up new reserves that really didn't exist prior to the war.

I know this was not the only reason, but it is the only one that I can recall off-hand.

[ksbearski]

Keith-

Well I can understand the need to rapidly arm all of the mobilized formations, not to mention the British, Canadians, the Poles, the Free French, et al.  But, with as many different types, hull forms, etc, that the US manufacturers put out, I would have thought that someone could have armed the turrets somewhere else and shipped them to the factories to mate them with the hulls.

I also read somewhere that the high velocity 76mm took longer to develop than it should... and then still was not up to par.  I've also read that the British offered the US a license to manfacture the 17 Lbr, but US national pride(and the belief that the US designed and built 76 MM would be as good, if not better)got in the way.

ksbearski

[James M. Chambers]

Barry,

The most basic reason why the US Army took a while to develop a better gun than the 75mm and why the US didn't grab the 17 pounder is the same reason why the US Army had tank destroyers.

The official US Army doctrine was that tanks were exploitation vehicles that were to be used for a blitzkrieg style of warfare (just like the Germans in 1939 - 1942). Tanks were NOT supposed to fight other tanks. That wasn't what they were designed for (and it wasn't what the Sherman was designed for). Tank destroyers were supposed to fight tanks.

After 1942, the Germans shifted their tank doctrine away from blitzkrieg to destroy-Soviet-tanks-as-fast-as-you-can-and-at-as-long-a-range-as-possible doctrine. The West didn't follow suit.

[ksbearski]

James-

Sorry, I have been busy with work, remodeling (still) and am hot and heavy into a PBEM tourney over on Prodigy Exiles.  I have not tested your editor yet, but plan to next week.  Sorry for the delay on getting back to you.

I am aware of US doctrine, but I find it strange that the USA, after the experiences of the British and their own experience in North Africa, would have figured that tank vs tank combat was unavoidable and adjusted their doctrine.  As for disrupting production, I figure that you could have built turrets in one factory, effectively upgunning them with out slowing production.  US ordnance crews and maintenance personnel did field mods all the time, so I think that some clever old boy would have figured out that some armory could have been churning out turrets with 17 lbrs or 76 mm high velocity guns instead of the paltry 75 mm.

Barry

[Keith Heitmann]

Of course, they did see the light about anti-tank combat eventually. Later models of the M4 did come equipped with long barrel 75mm and 76mm AT guns. I would guess that they probably had to or suffer tremendous morale problems in the tank corps.

I know I wouldn't want to be facing down a Tiger or Panther with that short barrelled 75mm "pop gun."

[James M. Chambers]

Barry,

I am not too sure that the US Army got much tank experience in North Africa. The Brits did, but I think by the time the US got involved the Afrika Korps was no longer a major threat like it once was.

You must also remember that the US Army had a lot of institutional fighting going on over the proper use of tanks. The Infantry wanted tanks to support them. The Cavalry wanted tanks to use in scouting and exploitation roles. The Tank Destroyer Force wanted their TDs to kill tanks and didn't want tanks encroaching on their territory. The field commands in North Africa, Italy, and Europe couldn't see what all the fuss was over. General Marshal didn't seem to care about the issue. etc.

There probably is no one reason why the US Army chose the path it did.

James

[ksbearski]

James-

I can imagine that the infighting was horrible.  But I would have thoght that some of the early experiences in NW Europe would have a real eye opener and I would have though that it would have provided the impetus to deploy the M-26 that much quicker.

Barry