|
|
|
Subject:
RE:Wasn't it the 32-pdr gun?...doggtag
Carl S
10/3/2005 9:14:32 PM
|
| I dont know about the 32 lbr, but I have read a little about the fielding of the US 90mm guns series. The HQ Army Ground Forces (responsible for training and equiping combat ready units for the field commanders) followed the offcial doctrine that tanks would not fight tanks. The enemy tanks were to be handled by the Tank Destroyer battalions and brigades. The TD Corps originally thought a gun in the 70-80mm caliber range ideal and the 3" gun was at the top of the list in 1941. Then intel indicated the Germans were developing heavier armored tanks, so. The 3'' gun was settled on as a interm design and fitted to the M10 Wolverine TD. Eventually a 90mm gun was identified as the best long term solution, but time was wasted in identifying the perfect 90mm model available. About two years worth of time.
There was also contrary feedback from Europe. Experince in Tunisia and Italy in 1942-43 indicated the 3' gun could handle any common German tank. The dozen Tigers sent Tunisia, or the twenty in Sicily were dismissed as irrelevant due to rarity. Personages such as Patton sent reports & memorandum back to AGF the Ordinance Dept, the Armored Corps dept, the Tank Destroyer Corps, to the effect that the existing 75mm and 3' guns were more than enough for dealing with the German MkIII J and MkIVH models they had fought in 1943. Contrary messages from others were ignored by AGF, which dictated policy to the subordinate Armored & TD Corps.
The 90mm armed TD was pushed through to limited production in early 1944, but not until the reality of the new up armored MkIV models, the Panthers, and the Tiger battalions sank in in the summer of 1944 were the T36 TD shipped out.
That Gen McNair, commander of AGF, was killed in July 1944 may have reduced opposition to the use of the M36 and the T26.
|
| |
|
|
|
