Advertisement
    Home        Articles        Reviews        Gallery        Contests        Forums     Search Login
Forums
 Introduction
 Posting guidelines
 Forum key
New Messages
Forum List
 News Forums
   GeneralOct 7 
   IndustryOct 7 
   Shows & ClubsOct 7 
 Site Forums
   ArticlesMay 16
   Build LogsOct 7
   ReviewsSep 22
   GalleryOct 7
   ContestsOct 6
 Modelling Forums
   KitsOct 7 
   ConstructionOct 6 
   PaintingOct 2 
   FiguresOct 7 
   DioramasAug 29 
   1-48th ScaleOct 1 
   Small ScaleSep 23 
 Research Forums
   WW2Oct 7 
   Post WW2Oct 7 
   Pre WW2Sep 6 
 Classifieds Ads
   Buy & SellOct 7 
   CommercialOct 3 
 

Forums - Research / WW2

This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects.

Topics  3351
Messages  14953
 Subject:  Re: Some more informationList thread.  
  
 Date:  Aug 21, 2005
 From:  Roy Chow 
The 75mm cannon was well suited for HE ammo which the M4, in its role as a breakthrough tank, would use agains enemy fortifications, personel and buildings. The strength of the 76 was that it could offer some better AP uses but its HE round wasn't as good as the one for the 75mm armed tanks. Before the real blood letting of the French campaign, US Medium tank units as breakthrough units, were thought to really need a good HE delivery cannon such as the 75mm. Any real armor vs. armor was to be taken care of by following M10 TDs or combined arms tactics (air, artillery support). The prevalance of the Panthers ended those halcyon days and tank units needed an effective AT ability and field commanders cried out for the 76mm tanks.

The 75mm equipped tanks could take on German armor and were often lethal against them. It just required good circumstances and lots of luck. But to think that only Fireflies or 76mm armed Shermans could knock out German heavies is untrue.
 
Thread Listing 
  M4 types - Guus Winter - Aug 20, 2005
. . . Re: M4 types - Roy Chow - Aug 20, 2005
. . . . . . Re: M4 types - Guus Winter - Aug 20, 2005
. . . . . . . . . Re: M4 types - Roy Chow - Aug 20, 2005
. . . . . . . . . Re: M4 types - Roy Chow - Aug 20, 2005
. . . Some more information - Michael Withington - Aug 20, 2005
. . . . . . Re: Some more information - Guus Winter - Aug 21, 2005
. . . . . . Re: Some more information - Curtis Jurrens - Aug 21, 2005
. . . . . . . . . Re: Some more information - Roy Chow - Aug 21, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some more information - Curtis Jurrens - Aug 21, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Some more information - Martin Dogger - Aug 22, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: m4 variants - Luke - Aug 22, 2005
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: m4 variants - Roy Chow - Aug 22, 2005
. . . . . . . . . A bit more - Michael Withington - Aug 23, 2005
    Home        Articles        Reviews        Gallery        Contests        Forums     Contact Track-Link