Well, the 3"/76mm projectile issue was so problematic that we don't really know what the penetration of the guns should have been. Ordnance "calculated" that the APC should have penetrated the Tiger I and inferred that it would also penetrate the Panther...except that it couldn't. How much of that was wishful thinking, poor testing processes, and poor analysis is anyone's guess now, since there isn't a good paper trail for what actually happened...I don't know if Ordnance covered its tracks postwar, certainly Barnes actively tried to shift blame to the Armored Board and AGF, so it is possible. I do know that Aberdeen produced specially machined test projectiles for gun testing and have often wondered if that may have skewed test results, but again that is a trail that is hard to follow. Lastly, there is the issue of the quality of the test plates they fired at...American machined plate was more ductile than German, so that may have been an issue.
Actually, I'm not sure that would be perfectly possible, although it would be imperfectly possible. The 17-pdr Mark IV was developed to mate with the trunnions and trunnion bearing surfaces of the M34A1 Gun Mount as found on the 75mm-armed Medium Tanks M4-series, which were mounted on the inner face of the mounting. The M34A1 also had a convenient "hole for the co-axial telescope and can be readily machined in the bottom center to facilitate maximum depression". Perhaps perversely, Ordnance designed the M62 Gun Mount for the 76mm-armed T23 and M4, with the trunnions and trunnion bearing surfaces on the outer face of the mount. It is also unclear if the telescope mounting would fit. All that means that the 17-pdr Mark IV would have to be redesigned again to make it work. (In reality, the change in the trunnion design was for a good reason, it moved the gun forward in the mounting, improving room in the turret and the balance of the gun, but still... )Fully agree - it is highly unlikely that (even if the gun was available) anybody would have contemplated using UK. On the other hand - 17-pdr history clearly shows that it was perfectly possible to put into even "small" turret so putting bigger gun into T23 should not be a problem. Actually it was fully possible to modify the turret for 90mm.
It's seemingly minor issues like these that can turn out to have unintended consequences.
Actually, the 17-pdr APCBC did not begin full-rate production until the second half of 1944 and it was relatively scarce, as was 17-pdr HVDS (APDS), until September-October 1944. Before that the typical round available was the 17-pdr APC...but the test results at Isigny were from APCBC.Yes, but 17-pdr ABCBC was widely available while HVAP sadly not. Zaloga quotes documents requesting "one-off" requirement for 43000 pieces for ETO (half for 76mm and half for 3inch) and 10000 monthly afterwards. This was estimated level of requirements - which makes actual deliveries heavily insufficient.
Anyway, yes, production of APCR was inadequate, only 27,000 rounds of 3"/76mm was produced in 1944...and just 57,000 rounds in the first half of 1945. The 10,000-round per month goal was achieved in November, but by then only 17,000 total were produced. The British, without the massive machine tooling requirement of the Americans, were better able to shift tungsten carbide to "wasteful" projectile production than the Americans were. More damning though was that American Ordnance did ZERO to improve the standard 76mm AP or APC rounds, but did for 90mm AP rounds.
I tend to agree. It would have been better if the TD Command had been placed under the Armored Force, but that was branch politics, which the American Army excels at.That's other story- I believe that final negative view of McNair and concept of TDs is partially unfair. It needs to be stated that because of this imperfect idea US Army (UK as well) obtained fine piece of (mostly) mobile ATGs with well trained crews which perfectly matches the approach other armies - also cheaper than contemporary tanks. One may even say that to some extent even better than Germans or Russians - OK, they fielded heavier guns and more armor but open (although the covers were welcomed addition) turret has its advantages. Germans from the very beginning trained tank crews to act "button up", increasing their situational awareness, which is critical on the battle field. Additionally - turret itself has its very significant advantages. Consequently defensive use of the TDs was very effective - despite insufficient guns. Of course - offensive use of TDs did not make much sense.
Yes. The only others I have traced are the Canadian AT Rgeiments:Polish 1st Armoured had M10 17-pdr in Normandy but they started in August 1944.
1st Anti-Tank Regiment, RCA (1st Cdn Div)
27th, 51st, 57th, 90th Atk Batteries, each with:
-2 Trps 6pdr ATG/FAT, 1 Trp17pdr ATG/FAT
-Oct 44 3 Trps 6pdr ATG/FAT except 90th Battery with 2 Trps Littlejohn 2pdr ATG/Jeep
2nd Anti-Tank Regiment, RCA (2nd Cdn Div)
18th, 20th, 23rd, 108th Atk Batteries, each with:
-1 Trp 6pdr ATG/Carrier, 1 Trp 17pdr ATG/FAT (replaced Fall 44 by Half-track), 1 Trp M10 (3") (replaced Spring 45 by 1 Trp Archer)
3rd Anti-Tank Regiment, RCA (3rd Cdn Div)
4th, 52nd, 94th, 105th Atk Batteries, each with:
-2 Trps 6pdr ATG/Carriers, 1 Trp M10 (3")
-Aug 44 1 Trp 6pdr ATG/Carrier, 1 Trp 17pdr ATG/Half-track, 1 Trp M10 (3") (replaced Dec 44 by 1 Trp Archer)
4th Anti-Tank Regiment, RCA (5th Cdn AD)
16th, 49th Atk Batteries, each with:
-2 Trps 6pdr ATG/FAT (replaced mid-44 by Half-track), 1Trp 17pdr ATG/Crusader or Sherman AGT
82nd, 98th Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps M10 (3"), replaced Oct 44 by 3 Trps Archer
5th Anti-Tank Regiment, RCA (4th Cdn AD)
3rd, 65th Atk Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps 17pdr ATG/Crusader AGT
14th, 96th Atk Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps M10 (17pdr)
6th Anti-Tank Regiment, RCA (2 Cdn Corps)
33rd, 56th Atk Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps M10 (3"), replaced Aug 44 by 3 Trps M10 (17pdr), replaced Nov 44 by 3 Trps Archer
74th, 103rd Atk Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps 17pdr ATG/Ram AGT
7th Anti-tank Regiment, RCA (1 Cdn Corps)
15th, 111th Atk Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps M10 (3"), replaced Dec 44 by 3 Trps M10 (17pdr)
104th, 113th Atk Batteries, each with:
-3 Trps 17pdr ATG/Crusader AGT