StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Anyone have a source that says if the US deployed the M2 version of the 90mm AA gun in the ETO.

Thanks

ETO has a dozen definitions, which?

ETO may refer to:

* Early termination option in a contract
* Earned time off
* Earth to orbit
* Electronics Technology Office (DARPA)
* Electro-Technical Officer
* Emitter Turn-Off thyristor
* Engineering, Technology, Operations
* Engineer to order, also called project based manufacturing—the product is designed specially for one customer
* Essentials, Tools, Objects
* Estimated Time of Overflight
* Ethylene oxide, an important industrial chemical used as an intermediate in the production of ethylene glycol and other chemicals, and as a sterilant for foodstuffs and medical supplies
o ETO sterilizer (or ET sterilizer), a type of sterilizer for medical equipment that uses ethylene oxide vapor
* European Telecommunications Office
* European Theater of Operations, the term used in the United States to refer to US operations north of the Mediterranean coast, in the European Theatre of World War II

If your referring to the last, then yes they were deployed as part of Battalion HQ units but were rarely used since the US did not use them as the Germans used 88 (Everywhere and anywhere) even if they were issued with HE & AP ammo they were far enough back to rarely get a chance to engage. As for source you can quote me since I've seen them in various Life photos set up on the beach in the days after D-Day as well as pictures of em-placed M3's in Italy. They were however as I said, rarely fired in anger except as planes and extremely rare they were em-placed as AT guns. That job going to 6pdr's, excuse me "57mm AT guns" because em placing a 57mm is a lot easier and the 57mm were issued to anti-tank units while the 90mm's were limited to HQ companies. And even then not all HQ companies got them.

Because the US Ordinance and Procurement system was such an inept bunch of retards, the 90mm AA gun didn't up seeing use in US armour until the Pershing and Jackson.

Still, it's funny that people think the 88 was some kind of magic gun that only the Germans had the capability to develop and employ. Experience during the 30s had shown EVERYONE the value of a high velocity AA gun. A gun which so obviously had great potential if used for AT purposes. At the start of the war though, the Axis didn't really posses any armour which justified huge 3 inch guns. Even in North Africa the 6pdr was usually enough. Once the Tiger and Panther started showing up in Italy and Normandy the British wisely looked to get the 17pdr in service as quickly as possible.

That being said you can't entirely fault the Americans. The biggest killer of Sherman tanks was concealed anti tank guns and Panzer Shreck wielding infantry. Against which the low velocity gun on the Sherman was fine. Encounters with the Panther and even the Tiger didn't happen near as much as the Panzer IV and StuG.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Still, it's funny that people think the 88 was some kind of magic gun that only the Germans had the capability to develop and employ.

Actually, Andras is asking if we actually ever did deploy the 90mm M2 Gun to Europe.

The 90mm M1 gun was a purpose built AA mount. The M2 was a dual purpose anti-air/anti-tank mount which had better mobility, and better depression capabilities.

The 90mm M3 Gun was a purpose built towed anti-tank mount; there apparently is a survivor at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.

MKSheppard wrote:
The 90mm M3 Gun was a purpose built towed anti-tank mount; there apparently is a survivor at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.

Which ran into the same problem the 17pdr ran into. It was to damn big to be called "mobile". Had rocket anti-tank weapons not show how you can easily arm your infantry with potent and light anti-tank weaponry, bigger AT guns would have ran into that it took twelve or more people to "manhandle" the 17pdr and by all accounts the purpose built 90mm was half again as heavy as the 17pdr. It kind of hard to emplace a gun when you need an entire platoon to move the damn thing two feet to the left.

Mr Bean wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:
The 90mm M3 Gun was a purpose built towed anti-tank mount; there apparently is a survivor at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD.

Which ran into the same problem the 17pdr ran into. It was to damn big to be called "mobile". Had rocket anti-tank weapons not show how you can easily arm your infantry with potent and light anti-tank weaponry, bigger AT guns would have ran into that it took twelve or more people to "manhandle" the 17pdr and by all accounts the purpose built 90mm was half again as heavy as the 17pdr. It kind of hard to emplace a gun when you need an entire platoon to move the damn thing two feet to the left.

True, that was a problem for all towed AT guns from 75 mm up. I would like to nitpick a little, though, about the rocket anti-tank weapons. Towed AT guns were mostly replaced by recoilless guns, which by definition are not rocket weapons. Only some of the light infantry AT weapons like the Bazooka and the Panzerschreck were rocket weapons, but the Panzerfaust and the PIAT were not. Those weapons were actually more like replacements for anti-tank rifles rather than anti-tank guns, even though in some armies there was a few years gap between the phasing out of AT rifles and introduction of HEAT warhead weapons like the Panzerschreck.

Mr Bean wrote:ETO has a dozen definitions, which?

If your referring to the last, then yes they were deployed as part of Battalion HQ units but were rarely used since the US did not use them as the Germans used 88 (Everywhere and anywhere) even if they were issued with HE & AP ammo they were far enough back to rarely get a chance to engage. As for source you can quote me since I've seen them in various Life photos set up on the beach in the days after D-Day as well as pictures of em-placed M3's in Italy. They were however as I said, rarely fired in anger except as planes and extremely rare they were em-placed as AT guns. That job going to 6pdr's, excuse me "57mm AT guns" because em placing a 57mm is a lot easier and the 57mm were issued to anti-tank units while the 90mm's were limited to HQ companies. And even then not all HQ companies got them.

A) This is the History forum.

B) Nothing you wrote applies to the M2 version of the 90mm AA cannon, and 90mm's were deployed in their own separate battalions, not as part of a division.

C) I need documented deployment of the M2 version of the 90mm AA cannon since I'm arguing with someone who says "There's no pictures of it, ergo it wasn't used"

Andras wrote:
A) This is the History forum.

And I'm a mind reader, be clear when your asking for help This is an Internet forum, you are asking for help. Acting like a prick is much less likely to result in you getting help.

Mr. Bean wrote:And I'm a mind reader, be clear when your asking for help This is an Internet forum, you are asking for help. Acting like a prick is much less likely to result in you getting help.

Are you retarded? It's obvious from the context of talking about anti-tank weaponry that Andras was referring to the European Theatre of Operations. You are the one who was intentionally behaving like an asshole, because looking at your own copy and pasted list of acronym definitions literally none of them except European Theatre of Operations could have anything at all to do with the deployment (moving to a location for use) of an anti-tank gun... I mean, come on. You were feeling like an asshole and you trolled this thread (with maybe one of the most in-your-face blatant trolls on the board ever), and now you're trying to passive-aggressively flip it back on Andras. Your nominal "response" didn't even address his question, which was a specific mark of the 90mm designed for dual AA/AT work from the start.

People, quit bitching at each other. What this thread does not need is for uninvolved third persons to talk about the actions of another poster.

If you do not have an answer to the original question, do not post in this thread.

The trick was the 56cal Flak 18 version of the 88mm weighed only about half as much as the US 90mm and British 3.7in. That made it way easier to move, it also meant it was significantly inferior as an AA weapon. Thus the improved and heavier 88mm models that followed and many served as anti aircraft.

What's even worse is the US and British weapons initially had no depression, making selection and fortification of anti tank positions far more difficult to the point of often being totally impossible outside of completely flat terrain. The whole point of the M2 90mm was it did in fact have depression on the gun mount, though it was even heavier in turn with an automatic rammer and fuse setter on the mount. The Army still wasn’t too serious about using it for anything but self defense.

I’ve never seen or heard of any documented proof the thing was used in Europe, just reports of people looking for it. It’s entirely possible some were sent, but the numbers would be fairly irrelevant in any case compared to the massive number of other allied artillery pieces present. Just about anything could kill tanks given some chance to fire upon them. The US knocked out hoards of Nazi armor with nothing more then our well directed 105mm howitzers. If you look at the Battle of the Bulge in detail you can find plenty of instances when American gunfire beat off German armored attacks. The whole penetration would have been inherently far smaller if not for a couple major allied Mistakes, like Monty ordering a massive fucking withdrawal because of what an idiot he was.

Apparently memories of Gazala were still fresh in the British Army's mind.

I read for a while the Brits had to resort to using the 25pdr as an anti tank gun due to lack of 6pdrs in North Africa. They actually weren't half bad at this job. It did keep them from their intended role of fire support though. Something the British were critically short of when trying to attack. The Brits had a lot of really good hardware, designs, training, etc during the war. It just astounds how miserably incompetent their senior staff were. It took them until 1945 to figure out why their Cavalry tank tactics were a terrible idea.

When their "best" general's (supposedly Monty) "winning" strategy involves turning the battlefield into a bloody WW1-style slog because he knows he has overwhelming superiority over the Afrika Korps in all types of men and material, yeah, they definitely have issues.

CaptHawkeye wrote:Apparently memories of Gazala were still fresh in the British Army's mind.

I read for a while the Brits had to resort to using the 25pdr as an anti tank gun due to lack of 6pdrs in North Africa. They actually weren't half bad at this job. It did keep them from their intended role of fire support though. Something the British were critically short of when trying to attack. The Brits had a lot of really good hardware, designs, training, etc during the war. It just astounds how miserably incompetent their senior staff were. It took them until 1945 to figure out why their Cavalry tank tactics were a terrible idea.

The 25pdr was designed with a high degree of anti tank capability from the onset, that’s why it had a turntable built onto the underside of the gun and retained a gun shield. You could drop it right down and fire 360 degrees as a Flak 18 could. The effective range against a Mark III or Mark IV of 1941 vintage was about 1,000 yards. Single batteries supported by a scattering of infantry were known to hold off battalion sized German attacks. Its kind of funny how much is made in books and history about the use of the flak 18 and 25pdr in the anti tank role as being novel, clearly someone had thought about it already or else they wouldn't have had AP ammo!

The need to deploy the 25pdr into the anti tank role would not have been so serious as it was, except that British forces in the western desert were largely without corps or army level artillery support to make up the difference. They also had little battlefield air support because of poor air ground communications methods preventing using the planes available. Basically all modernization of British artillery other then the 25pdr was put on hold until 1938 to spend money on the RAF. Meanwhile British defensive ideas spread too thin, so the artillery regiments that did exist could not support each other at all. The guns could have been sited for AT and artillery use had the defensive Brigade boxes not been spread so widely.