How was the 37mm on the Grant used?

[DonMegel]

I am looking for some primary source information about how the 37mm gun was used, if at all, on the M3 Grant (and Lee) medium tank during the North African campaign in World War two. I suspect it was not used in tandem with the 75mm (fire at the same target) but I do not know. Would the M3 engage multiple targets at once? Did they use the 37mm at all? The internet has thus far proven full of stats and history about the evolution of the M3 but has yielded very little information on the above topic.

Any articles, books, sites that you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Personal knowledge is welcome but, if possible, cite were you know your information from.

Thank you in advance,

[LWD]

I believe the 37mm gun was the anti tank gun on the M3 where the 75 was a howitzer for use vs soft targets.

[DonMegel]

I am fairly certain that this was not the case as the 37mm was not sufficient to penetrate the armor of the Axis tanks it opposed at the time. Furthermore, adding a 75mm gun to the side would not have been necessary if the existing 37mm was sufficient. The 75mm cannon on the M3 was one of the first tank mounted weapons capable of firing both HE and AP rounds.

[phylo_roadking]

IIRC Rommel recorded in his diary that on their debut they tore a hole in his line And that his 50mm tank rounds simply bounced off them too.

However....

The 75mm cannon on the M3 was one of the first tank mounted weapons capable of firing both HE and AP rounds.

...I think his comment betrays a certain inflexibility in the 75mm because of its positioning and limited traverse; it would only work in a head-on attack? A good oldfashioned British head-on tank charge? lol

I am fairly certain that this was not the case as the 37mm was not sufficient to penetrate the armor of the Axis tanks it opposed at the time.

But when the mockup was viewed in 1940....that 37mm was certainly up there In France in the spring of 1940, even British HMG fire could penetrate PzIIs etc.. Even when the prototype was delivered for testing in March 1941, and the first british models came off the production line in July of that year it would still have just about been a capable weapon....but it wasn't to go into action until early 1942 nearly a year after that prototype ran.

Things certainly changed in THAT timescale....

[LWD]

Well Wiki at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee
sates:

The design was unusual because the main weapon — a larger caliber, low-velocity 75 mm gun — was in an offset sponson mounted in the hull with limited traverse. A small turret with a lighter, high-velocity 37 mm gun sat on the tall hull.

and http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/de ... mor_id=249
states it was at the least on a par with German tanks it faced when fielded in North Africa.
Looking at the penetration tables at http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/Vehicle ... -Grant.htm
the 37 is inferior to the 75 but not greatly so and capable of pentrating the front of most PzIIIs at reasonable ranges.

[DonMegel]

So they were both used but at the same time? Two targets at once? Does anyone have any documentation?

[Peter jarvah]

Hello,

The Grant/Lee tank had two loaders and two gunners in the crew. Both the 75mm and 37mm were equipted with gyro stabilizers, that with the bonus of a roomy interior would have made it possible to use both in combat.

Ref: British and American Tanks of World War ll
Peter Chamberlain & Chris Ellis
Arco Publishing

[Tim Smith]

I am fairly certain that this was not the case as the 37mm was not sufficient to penetrate the armor of the Axis tanks it opposed at the time.

Depends on which Axis tank you're talking about, and also depends on range and whether you're shooting at it's front, sides, or rear.

The 37mm wasn't sufficient to penetrate the frontal armour of the Panzer III and IV, except at extremely close range - but could penetrate their sides and rear. And the 37mm was sufficient against the Panzer II and the Italian tanks, even their frontal armour. (Also armoured cars and half-tracks.)

The US 37mm gun was as good as the British 2-pounder, despite being a slightly smaller weapon (the 2-pounder was 40mm.)

[Urmel]

I doubt it would have struggled much to penetrate the frontal armour of the Panzer III/IV which were in service when it was introduced on the Honey in November 41, and when the first Grants arrived. By May 42, it's another story.

[Tom from Cornwall]

I have read an account in the history of the Royal Gloucestershire Yeomanry which describes them "blasting away with all guns" during the first day of Gazala.

I imagine that if either gunner could see a target they would fire at it, after all, they did not have the luxury of knowing exactly what sort of armour protection their enemy had!!

Regards

Tom

[RichTO90]

I have read an account in the history of the Royal Gloucestershire Yeomanry which describes them "blasting away with all guns" during the first day of Gazala.

I imagine that if either gunner could see a target they would fire at it, after all, they did not have the luxury of knowing exactly what sort of armour protection their enemy had!!

Regards

Tom

You know Tom, ever since this was first posted I have forced myself not to make the smartass reply "to shoot at the enemy"...and now you have relieved me of the burden of resisting my evil urges.

Cheers!

[David W]

Rich.

I can't tell you how glad I was to read your last post. You see, I have always wanted to write smartass one liners that literally answer the question posed by the thread title!
I thought that I was evil. I probably am, but at least I'm not alone!

[Tom from Cornwall]

Rich and David,

I've been trying to think of a one-liner from 'Star Wars' - something like "Come over to the dark side, Luke", followed by evil laughter

Tom