T53 90mm Gun Motor Carriage

T53 90mm Gun Motor Carriage

T53 90mm Gun Motor Carriage

The T53 90mm Gun Motor Carriage was a design for a combined tank destroyer and self propelled anti-aircraft gun that was rejected after extensive development work had been carried out.

The idea of using the US 90mm anti-aircraft gun in the anti-tank role was at least partly inspired by the successful German use of their famous 88mm gun in that role.

In the summer of 1942 a proposal was put forward to mount a 90mm gun on the chassis of a Medium Tank M4. This design kept the basic layout of the M4, with the engine at the rear, driver at the front and gun in the middle. The idea was approved by the Ordnance Committee in July 1942, with the designation 90mm Gun Motor Carriage T53.

The pilot M4 was built by Chrysler. It was built around a M4A4, a slightly longer version of the M4 powered by a multibank Chrysler engine. The pilot abandoned the original layout, and instead took a rather more complex approach. The multibank engine was removed, and the gun was mounted at the rear. The Continental R975 air-cooled radial engine used in the M4 and M4A1 was mounted in the centre of the vehicle. The drive shaft of this engine was always quite high in the vehicle, and moving the engine forwards meant that the drive shaft had to drop at a steep angle. As a result the transmission and final drive in the nose had to be tilted upwards to match, and an extra piece of armour plate installed to cover the gap this created in the nose of the vehicle.

The gun was carried on a M1A1 mount at the rear of the vehicle. It was partly protected when not in use by side and rear walls that folded at the sponson line to form a firing platform.

The pilot T53 went to the Aberdeen Proving Ground in August 1942. It didn’t perform well in the tests. In the anti-aircraft role it wasn't stable enough for use against high altitude targets. In the tank destroyer role the gun was too far from the centre of gravity, again affecting the stability of the vehicle. The gun was difficult to traverse or elevate when the vehicle was on a slope. The Tank Destroyer Board at Camp Hood tested the T53 next, and also found plenty of faults, including the lack of armour, high silhouette, poor mobility and limited ammo storage room. The Board went as far as recommending that the entire idea of a combined AA and tank destroyer should be cancelled.

Despite these flaws, work continued on the T53. On 27 October 1942 the modified version was designated as the 90mm gun motor carriage T53E1, and production of 500 was authorised, with the potential for another 3,500.

The T53E1 was significantly different to the T53. The engine and gun were swapped around, so the engine returned to its normal position in the rear and the gun was mounted on a platform in the centre of the vehicle. Outriggers were attached to the front and rear bogies on each side to improve the stability when firing. The firing platform was formed by two hinged half-inch armoured plates, mounted on either side of the gun. When moving these would be in the up position to provide some protection, and when the gun was in use they would be lowered to widen the fighting platform.

The protection for the gun crew was improved by adding a gun shield. On the first pilot T53E1 this was made of flat sheets of 0.5in armour, bolted together to form a box that protected the front, sides and top of the gun position. This didn’t perform well in test as the bolts were prone to coming out, and so the second pilot got a shield made up of two semi-circular sheets, one on each side of the gun, but with an open top.

The second T53E1 pilot went to the Antiaircraft Artillery Board at Camp Davis for tests, but despite the changes didn't perform well. The vehicle didn’t carry enough ammo, and its high silhouette made it potentially vulnerable to attack. The Board recommended cancelling the programme, and as the Tank Destroyer Board was no longer interested the project was cancelled on 25 May 1944.

The T53 was developed alongside the T71 90mm Gun Motor Carriage, which entered development in October 1942. This was a more succesful design, and entered service as the M36 90mm Gun Motor Carriage, the most powerful American tank destroyer of the Second World War.

The 120 mm T53

You have probably heard about the American experimental heavy tank T34 somewhere, maybe from World of Tanks, War Thunder or Wikipedia. It’s described as having an excellent penetration at about 247 mm from 100 m, which is a feat compared to the German 8.8 cm KwK 43 gun armed on the Tiger II. But did you know that it could do more than that?


With the advent of heavy German armor such as the Panther and Tiger, the standard U.S. tank destroyer, the 3in Gun Motor Carriage M10, was rapidly becoming obsolete, because its main armament, the 3in M7 gun, had difficulty engaging these new tanks past 500 metres. This was foreseen, however, and in September 1942 American engineers had begun designing a new tank destroyer armed with the M3 90 mm gun. This was several months before any Western Allied unit encountered a Tiger in combat, as the British First Army in Tunisia was the first western Allied unit to encounter the Tiger I in the leadup to the Battle of the Kasserine Pass at the start of 1943, and well over a year before any US unit encountered a Panther in combat.

The first M36 prototype was completed in March 1943, with a new turret mounting the 90 mm M3 gun on a standard M10 chassis. After testing, an order for 500 was issued. The prototype was designated T71 Gun Motor Carriage upon standardization the designation was changed to 90 mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 in June 1944.

Like all US tank destroyers, the turret was open-topped to save weight and provide better observation. Postwar, a folding armored roof kit was developed to provide some protection from shell fragments, as with the M10. The M36 had a large bustle at the rear of its turret which provided a counterweight for the main gun. Eleven additional rounds of ammunition were stored inside the counterweight.

M10 Gun Motor Carriage (Wolverine / Achilles)

Authored By: Staff Writer | Last Edited: 03/21/2021 | Content ©www.MilitaryFactory.com | The following text is exclusive to this site.

When the United States Army successfully mated the chassis of the M4 Sherman to the 105mm field howitzer to create the new M7 Priest self-propelled artillery vehicle thought was given to a similar idea in devising a dedicated tank destroyer. The M4 Sherman formed the backbone armor of British and American tank actions once it was introduced and fought from the deserts of Africa through the hills of Europe and across the vastness of the Pacific. Its reach was such that thousands upon thousands were produced and the chassis served to further other battlefield required designs. US authorities then requested a dedicated tank destroyer based on the adaptable chassis of the fabled M4 Sherman series with the intent that it be fielded along with anti-tank forces to engage swathes of incoming enemy armor at distance. This would free up combat tanks to go forward and conquer alongside infantry whilst the anti-tank detachments could directly engage the enemy response or counter any break in the frontline. As such, the new tank destroyer would have to be mobile and very well-armed for the role. Armor protection would take a backseat considering the reserve role the Americans envisioned for their tank destroyer forces. Development of the new weapon system began in 1942.

The M4A2 Sherman model was therefore selected for the conversion process. The process would be handled by the Fisher Body Company and evaluations were headed by the US Tank Destroyer Board. An open-topped, rounded turret - initially developed for the abandoned T1/M6 Heavy Tank - was installed onto the body of an M4A2 Sherman and a 3-inch (76.2mm) M7 gun was fixed as primary armament. The use of a turret allowed for unfettered 360-traversal and engagement of enemies from nearly any attack angle. The TDB reviewed the Fisher offering, which was then designated as the "3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage T35", and found it lacking in some key areas. Revisions were ordered that included a modified sloped turret that provided for more ballistics protection as well as a lower profile target to the enemy. The changes were instituted to become the "3-Inch Gun Motor Carriage T35E1" prototype which sported the new angular open-topped turret we know for the M10 today. The open-topped approach was an accepted practice for such vehicles for it allowed enough "elbow" room for the gunnery crew to manage the firing functions while providing for clear vision in battlefield observation and saved on weight of additional armor. Only the driver would sit in a compartment protected from the elements and inherent dangers of the battlefield.

With the changes in tow, the design was formally accepted as the M10 GMC ("Gun Motor Carriage") in June of 1942. Production was slated to begin in September and, by this time, the M4 Sherman tank line had evolved to the point of producing a new chassis - the M4A3. It was accepted that this new chassis would also form the chassis of the equally new M10A1 variant. Some 5,000 M10s were produced - 4,993 of these from the short period of September 1942 to December 1942 - while a further 1,700 M10A1s soon joined them. The early batches stocked the inventories of awaiting US Army tank battalions which numbered 106 elements by early 1943 and each vehicle sported the 76.2mm M7 gun. 36 x M10 vehicles stocked each US battalion. The last 300 vehicles were given the 76mm M1 gun with improved penetration qualities over that of the original M7. The M10 family would go down as the most-produced American tank destroyer of the entire war with manufacture spanning 1942 to 1943 out of both General Motors and Ford vehicle plants.

Outwardly, the M10 showcased a conventional appearance save for the sharply angled, clean lines on both hull and turret. The hull was nothing more than a modified M4 Sherman body with slightly sloped side panels and a large-area sloped glacis plate. The track systems were decidedly Sherman in their length and thin appearance. The drive sprocket was held forward with the track idler at the rear. There were six rubber-tired road wheels to a track side, each paired to their respective suspension systems. The chassis was suspended by a Vertical Volute Spring Suspension (VVSS) system as in the M4 Sherman models. The turret was centered along the superstructure roof with full 360-degree unobstructed traversal, quite the departure from the German tank destroyers that made use of fixed superstructures and limited traverse main guns. However, the turret rotation was completely manual and, in practice, rather slow to respond to the rapidly changing scenarios of battle. The sides of the turret were extremely angular in their appearance while a hefty gun mantlet sat over the main gun mount base. The barrel extended out a distance ahead of the hull front and no muzzle brake was fitted. The turret was open-topped which allowed the gunnery crew the maximum amount of operating space possible. As in the M4 Sherman, the M10 was crewed by five personnel. This included the driver situated in the front left of the hull. The commander was positioned in the turret while the firing action was managed by three gunnery crew - a gun layer and two ammunition handlers.

The M10 was powered by a General Motors GM6046 6-71 Twin Diesel engine outputting 375 horsepower. This allowed the vehicle a top speed of 30 miles per hour on paved level roads and an operational range of 200 miles. Both of these numbers were good considering the vehicle's weight registering nearly 30 tons. The M10A1 production model differed not only in the M4 Sherman chassis used, but also in the installation of a Ford GAA gasoline-fueled engine. In both versions, the engine was fitted in a rear compartment (as in the M4 Sherman). Commonality of parts made for good logistics.

The main armament of American M10s was the 76.2mm Gun M7 main gun (later versions installed the improved 76mm M1 series). While lacking in the penetration capabilities of similar German (75mm), Soviet and British systems, the weapon system was generally effective. Up to 54 projectiles of 76.2mm ammunition was carried aboard. Secondary armament was the standard 0.50 caliber Browning M2HB heavy machine gun, suitable for marking targets, engaging enemy personnel and light vehicles or defending against low-flying enemy aircraft.

Once available in number, both versions of the American tank destroyer were shipped overseas to elements of the awaiting British Army. As British resources and industrial might were at their limit with other concerns, America ended up supplying much of the military industrial muscle throughout the course of the war. The M10 was known to the British in its base form as the "Wolverine" and the "Achilles" became a variant fitting the British 17-pdr (76.2mm) main gun as used on the British Sherman "Firefly" tank killer conversions. Using a locally-produced, proven weapon made sense from a logistical standpoint and did much to increase the lethality of the original American product. This version was easily identified by the addition of a muzzle brake to the barrel and came in two variants - the diesel-powered Achilles Mk IC (M10) and the gasoline-powered Achilles Mk IIC (M10A1). In the end, it was the British 17-pdr armed variants that proved the most effective M10s in the war.

M10s went to war with the British Army across both France and Italy where they proved effective. Free French forces also operated the type in their bid to retake their lands from German control. After the capitulation of Italy as an Axis power in September of 1943, it too utilized the ubiquitous M10 system for the duration of the war in its fight to remove German forces from its borders. The Polish Army received the M10 and dutifully used them against their German invaders with gusto. The Soviet Army also took delivery of M10s via Lend-Lease but it is unknown as to the value these systems held in subsequent combat against the Germans along the East Front.

In practice, the M10 was a large and heavy vehicle and suffered the fate of most of the US tank destroyers - she was lightly armored and therefore an easy target on the battlefield herself. The lack of overhead coverage for the gunnery crew also entertained the prospect of injury from artillery spray or small arms fire. It was not until enough operational experience was garnered that the idea of separate tank destroyer groups operating apart from battle tanks was deemed inefficient - essentially it was reasoned that a dedicated battle tank was needed to combat an enemy battle tank. This led to American tank destroyer groups being utilized more in the assault role used in conjunction with air support and reconnaissance forces or assigned directly as part of battle tank groups. Its 76.2mm main gun was also found to be less and less effective as the war dragged on with improvements in German armor. By the end of the war in 1945, the concept of the dedicated tank destroyer was dropped from most every major military power including the United States - tanks could now defeat enemy tanks head-on without the need for such dedicated vehicles.

Back in October of 1942, thought was given to "up-gunning" the M10 with a 90mm high-velocity gun based on a proven anti-tank field gun. However, the turret of the M10 had already proved that the existing 76.2mm mounting was enough to exceed the recommended forces. Ensuing evaluations fortified the thought that the M10 was a developmental "dead end" in terms of a more effective gun which led to the creation of a similar system - the experimental "T71 GMC". The T71 passed its evaluation period and was ushered into production in late 1943, becoming available in greater numbers by June of 1944 - to which point it was now known as the M36 GMC (nicknamed "Jackson" or "Slugger").

First combat actions of the M10 - as well as the fabled M4 Sherman tank for that matter - occurred in the North Africa Campaign where the German Afrika Corps, at one time, maintained all of the initiative. The M10 fired its first shots in anger in actions across Tunisia in 1943 where it proved a sound design against the Axis tanks being fielded at the time - lightly armed Italian medium tanks and the German Panzer III and Panzer IV medium tanks. In Europe, M10s took part in the breakout of Normandy after the D-Day landings but had a rough go of it against the newer German Panther and Tiger I series tanks which fielded considerably more armor protection - particularly along their front facings. The arrival of the newer M18 "Hellcat" series beefed up Allied tank destroyer firepower for the interim but the true replacement came at the end of 1944 when the aforementioned M36's came to being. The M36 was much more effective against the latest German tank offerings. To a limited and less favorable extent, M10s also saw service in the island-hopping campaigns of the Pacific. As the Japanese generally lacked much in the way of competent medium tanks, the M4 Sherman was the major thoroughbred in the theater. Most of the combat in the Pacific was nevertheless decided by the individual soldier and not so much the tank.

In the post-war world, M10s managed an extended existence as surplus M10s found their way to China. These were delivered sans their American main guns which provided the Chinese the opportunity to mount captured Japanese 105mm field guns instead. In essence, these became make-shift self-propelled artillery platforms of some value to the recovering Chinese Army.

90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1 + FOTOLEPTANÉ DÍLY - 1:35 - Italeri

Plastikový model tanku 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1 včetně podrobného návodu k sestavení. detailní popis

90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1 + FOTOLEPTANÉ DÍLY - 1:35

Americký stíhač tanků M36 byl vyvinut během druhé světové války, aby doplnil zbraňový arzenál Spojenců a dal jim účinnou odpověď na německé obrněné útočné stroje jako Panther a Tiger, které byly vybaveny silným pancířem a disponovaly velkou palebnou silou. Útočné schopnosti M36 vycházely z 90mm děla M3, které bylo lepší než 76mm kanón používaný u předchozího M10 se stejnou korbou. M36B1 bylo potom nouzové řešení, ke kterému Američané přikročili kvůli nedostatku koreb: z toho důvodu bylo rozhodnuto, že se věž M36 nasadí na korbu tanku Sherman M4A3. Podobně jako u všech ostatních amerických stíhačů tanků měla jeho věž otevřený vršek, aby se tak při bitvě maximálně zvětšilo zorné pole posádky. Jak účinný M36B1 byl, dokazuje jeho dlouhá operační služba. I po druhé světové válce ho používala řada armád. V 80. letech se zúčastnil mj. také irácko-íránské války a v 90. letech také války na Balkáně. Některé z nich dokonce ukořistila irácká armáda při válce v Iráku v roce 2003.

Informace o modelu:

Barevné schéma (Doporučené barvy Italeri):
- 4675AP, 4679AP, 4728AP, 4861AP

Detaily modelu:
Měřítko: 1:35
Délka: 213 mm
Obtížnost: 4


在德軍的豹式戰車,虎式戰車等重型戰車出現後,美軍的標準驅逐戰車M10狼獾很快就被證明過時了,因為它的76mm主炮在500m以外很難擊穿這些新式戰車的裝甲。幸而,這些情況早已被預見。在1942年夏季,美軍的工程師就開始研製一款新型的安裝90公厘戰車炮的驅逐戰車。這比西線的盟軍與虎式戰車初次遭遇提前了幾個月(在西線,盟軍第一次與虎式戰車作戰是在1943年早期的突尼斯,而這次戰役直接導致了凱賽林隘口戰役的爆發),比美軍部隊與豹式戰車遭遇早了一年以上。這個研究計畫成品稱為T53 90公厘火炮載具,T53的設計是採用M4中戰車砲塔搭配開放式炮架,該設計在1942年8月完成。美軍曾計畫讓T53進入量產,並與廠商敲定了500輛的合約,最終量產總數為3,500輛,但驅逐戰車司令部指揮官反對這個決策,他們認為T53的設計未竟理想,T53因此未進入制式編號階段。驅逐戰車司令部的意見在後續測試時也一語成讖,T53的操作性能不甚良好,而改良後的T53E1性能則更糟,這讓美軍終止了T53的開發。

1942年10月,美國陸軍軍械局再度嘗試將T7型90公厘戰車炮裝設在M4中戰車底盤上,但是這個構想被驅逐戰車司令部指揮官 安德魯·戴維斯·布魯斯 ( 英语 : Andrew Davis Bruce ) 所反對,因為他認為M18驅逐戰車才是理想的驅逐戰車構型,即便如此軍械局卻忽視了他的反應而繼續研發計畫。

1943年3月,第一輛M36驅逐戰車的原型車完成。它在一輛M10A1的底盤上安裝了一個新的炮塔,使得它可以安裝90mm火炮。 [1] 對軍械局工程師來講,在M10的開敞式戰鬥室裝入90公厘炮不是難事,但90公厘戰車砲較75公厘戰車砲增加了132公斤,並不適合以75公厘戰車砲為基礎的M10驅逐戰車砲塔,包括戰鬥室組員動線過於狹窄,車輛重心配置也得重新評估。最終軍械局為了90公厘炮設計了一座新炮塔,砲塔實際開發廠商為雪佛蘭,同時也決定採用福特公司製造的M10A1驅逐戰車底盤,1943年9月2輛原型車完成,被命名為“T71火炮載具”(英語: T71 Gun Motor Carriage ),在此同時,因為裝設90公厘戰車砲的新型戰車已經進入測評,因此T71曾一度可能終止計畫,但美國陸軍在1943年10月仍將計畫被納入量產測評之內,開始進行實車測試。雖然驅逐戰車司令部仍抵制T71的研發,但軍械局的意見此時勝出,理由並非因為反裝甲作戰,而是因為90公厘砲對於摧毀德軍防禦工事有著優秀表現,並且也作為以備萬一的預案。

在完成測試后,美軍訂購了300輛,也由於當時已經有許多完成的M10A1驅逐戰車底盤,降低了量產成本。在投入量産後,1944年6月,被更名為“M36 90mm火炮載具”(英語: 90 mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 )。美軍軍械局當時的建議是量產10個驅逐戰車營,並用於替換M10驅逐戰車。



美國 编辑

二戰 编辑

在1944年7月6日,歐洲戰區的美國陸軍司令部已向國內通知需求,希望獲得足額的M36全數汰換當時位於歐陸戰場的M10驅逐戰車營。第一批40輛M36在1944年9月出廠,但是它們留在國內作為教練車,在歐洲的美國陸軍第十二軍團則要求麾下42個驅逐戰車營中至少有20個營需要改裝M36;第二批次的M36開始配備給美國陸軍第一軍團與 美國陸軍第九軍團 ( 英语 : Ninth United States Army ) 所屬裝甲師麾下之驅逐戰車營。1944年9月,由第703驅逐戰車營換裝M36;美國陸軍第三軍團則在1944年9月25日換裝,換裝單位是第610驅逐戰車營。首批換裝單位多半在義大利戰場交火,實際得到1944年11月,這種戰車才被投入西歐戰場,至1944年底已經有7個驅逐戰車營完成換裝,1945年1月時,歐洲戰場的美軍驅逐戰車營已完成17個營換裝(西歐6個、第12軍團5個、第6軍團6個),到二戰結束前大部分使用M10驅逐戰車的單位都已完成換裝。

M36配備後其性能獲得前線官兵的一致擁戴,90公厘炮可以有效地在遠距離擊殺各種德軍戰車, [1] 在歐洲戰場的第810驅逐戰車營操作的M36曾有在4,600碼(4.2公里,M36配備的M76D直射瞄準鏡最遠可測量距離)擊毀豹式戰車的紀錄,雖然大部分擊殺是在是在800碼距離內,超過了800碼,仍然很難擊穿。 [2] )在1945年對德國的戰爭中,M36發揮了重要作用 [3]

韓戰 编辑

二戰後的美軍即刻實施大裁軍,M36並沒有轉售給美國盟邦,而多半採取退役封存, [3] 同時美軍裝甲部隊有著同樣配備90公厘炮但有更厚重裝甲的M26潘興戰車,因此,M36就顯得落伍了。 [2] 但是在韓戰初期由於M26機動性能不夠好且數量不夠多,有著同等火力但機動力較有優勢的M36再度啟用,它的主炮仍舊能夠擊毀戰場上的所有蘇製戰車;韓戰中操作的M36與當時不少的戰車一樣進行改良,而M36的主要改良項目是在副駕駛的位置上安裝了一門配有球型防盾的自衛機槍。美軍除了自己配備的M36外,也提供給大韓民國陸軍裝甲兵M36強化韓軍裝甲戰力。

Model Kit tank 6538 - 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36B1 (1:35)

Informace o originálu:
Americký stíhač tanků M36 byl vyvinut během druhé světové války, aby doplnil zbraňový arzenál Spojenců a dal jim účinnou odpověď na německé obrněné útočné stroje jako Panther a Tiger, které byly vybaveny silným pancířem a disponovaly velkou palebnou silou. Útočné schopnosti M36 vycházely z 90mm děla M3, které bylo lepší než 76mm kanón používaný u předchozího M10 se stejnou korbou. M36B1 bylo potom nouzové řešení, ke kterému Američané přikročili kvůli nedostatku koreb: z toho důvodu bylo rozhodnuto, že se věž M36 nasadí na korbu tanku Sherman M4A3. Podobně jako u všech ostatních amerických stíhačů tanků měla jeho věž otevřený vršek, aby se tak při bitvě maximálně zvětšilo zorné pole posádky. Jak účinný M36B1 byl, dokazuje jeho dlouhá operační služba. I po druhé světové válce ho používala řada armád. V 80. letech se zúčastnil mj. také irácko-íránské války a v 90. letech také války na Balkáně. Některé z nich dokonce ukořistila irácká armáda při válce v Iráku v roce 2003.

Informace o modelu:

Barevné schéma (Doporučené barvy Italeri):
- 4675AP, 4679AP, 4728AP, 4861AP

Detaily modelu:
Měřítko: 1:35
Délka: 213 mm
Obtížnost: 4

Doporučeno pro děti od 14 let.

Upozornění: Nebezpečí udušení! Výrobek obsahuje malé části. NEVHODNÉ PRO DĚTI DO 3 LET!

#14 Main Guns: Things That Go Boom, Some Bigger than Others, but None Bad

The Sherman tank and its chassis was host to a variety of guns. Most had the M3 75mm gun, or the M1A1 76mm gun, but many were also equipped with the British 17 pounder, the M3 90mm, 3-inch AT gun, and the M2/M4 105mm howitzer. I will cover each below.

The M3 75mm gun: When it first saw combat, it was a great tank Gun

The M3 75mm gun was a great tank gun for the time the Sherman was first introduced to combat and was based on a well-liked WWI French field gun. When it first saw combat it could punch through any German tank it faced, from just about any angle. It’s a myth the Sherman was designed to only support infantry, though its primary role was not anti-armor, it was still designed to face other tanks. The gun worked well in the infantry support role as well, with an effective HE and WP smoke round, and a canister round. This gun had a very high rate of fire in the Sherman (20rpm) and was mated with a basic stabilization system. This system did not allow shooting on the move accurately but did allow the sights and gun to be put on the target faster when the tank came to a stop to shoot. No world war two tanks could shoot on the move with a real chance to hit even a stationary tank-sized target. With a twenty-round a minute rate of fire, the Sherman could pump out a lot of HE in support of the infantry, and it was not unheard of for the tanks to be used as artillery. The Sherman tank was equipped with all the gear to act as artillery if needed and was a regular occurrence in the MTO, less so in the ETO.

Sherman tanks with the 75mm gun carried between 104 and 97 rounds of main gun ammo. Only 10 to 15% of this ammo was AP, that’s how rare other armor was, HE would make up the majority of the rest of the load, with maybe another 10 to 15% being WP smoke, since this was also a somewhat destructive shell, because it caused fires and WP when it landed on a person was hard to put out. There was also a canister shell, but I think it was only used in the PTO. The rate of fire on the gun is a little misleading, since depending on the Sherman, you would have between 6 and 12 ready rounds, more on the very early Shermans with ready rounds around the base of the turret basket. Once the ready rounds were fired, and often, the ready rounds are kept in reserve anyway, to deal with unexpected threats. Wet Shermans had an armored 6 round ready box mounted in the turret, the rest of the ammo was in armored boxes under the floor. Most wet tanks had a half turret basket or none at all. This was a problem common on pretty much all tanks.

The M3 75mm gun was so well-liked, the British essentially ended up converting many of the QF 6 pounders to fire the same round, fired with basically the same ballistics, with the advantage of not needing to modify the current tanks mount. The WF 6 pounder was a better AT gun, but, its HE round was not very good. The M48 HE round used by the m3 75mm had 1.5 pounds of TNT inside, and since the Sherman could fire them fast, and the shell was fairly handy, it’s easy to see why the gun was good at infantry support. It really only lacked the ability to pen the frontal armor of the German Tiger and Panther, but those tanks were rare enough, or easy enough to get side shots on, the 75 did the job, and did it the whole war since the 76mm armed Shermans never totaled more than 53% of the Sherman force in Europe. The M3 75mm gets a lot of flak thrown at it by ignorant people who think it was a low-velocity gun that could not penetrate armor. These people must be confusing it with the German KwK 37 L/24 75mm gun that armed the first versions of the Panzer IV.

75mm M3 spec booklet MK VI Download.

The M1/M1A1/M1A2 76mm gun: Made by Oldsmobile, It Was Not a Great Gun, but Did the Job

The M1 series of 76 mm guns went into production before the US Army had any idea of German heavy tanks or the Panther. They were just looking ahead, to keep the Sherman as good a combat weapon as possible, and to stay ahead in the arms race. They had the 3-inch AT gun on hand and had used it in the M6 and M10, but it was really too bulky to work in a medium tank turret. The Army decided to design a gun with the same ballistics, but in a much lighter, and less bulky package, in doing so the M1 gun was born. The gun overhung the front of the Sherman a lot so the Army decided to shorten it over a foot. It still seemed to match the ballistics of the 3-inch AT gun though guns with the shorter barrel were designated M1A1 guns. The first three hundred or so guns produced by Oldsmobile lacked muzzle brakes or the threads to install them. Gun’s produced after that had the threads and a protective cap over them so a brake could be installed later. The final variant of the gun was the M1A2, installed in late production 76mm Shermans, this gun always had the muzzle brake, but had a slightly different barrel, with a minor change to the rifling twist.

M4A1 76W with the unthreaded M1A1 gun

Much of the later large hatch hull tanks were produced with a larger turret to accommodate the M1 family of 76mm guns. This turret came on M4A1s, M4A2s, and M4A3 tanks. The M1A1 on the early tanks, like the M4A1 76 w tanks used in Operation Cobra, came without muzzle brakes. When firing during dusty -conditions the view of the target would be obscured by dust stirred up from the guns blast, the fix for this was for the commander or another crewman to stand away from the tank and talk to the crew over the intercom, via a long wire, and correct the shots onto the target. Not a great fix…The final fix was muzzle brakes it took a little while for supply to catch up with demand but they were showing up on Shermans in Europe by late 44, and by March they seemed to be in stock and showing up on tanks that had the protective cap before.

Another problem was the gun was not a huge improvement over the M3 75mm as a tank killer, and was not as good as an HE thrower. As mentioned before, several tank divisions didn’t want the improved Shermans at first. The penetration problem would be partially solved with HVAP ammunition, but by the time it was common, German tanks to use it on were not. Post-war, ammunition would be further improved and there would be no shortage of HVAP ammo in Korea, so the US Army would soldier on with the gun, in its final improved form, the M1A2.

The M1 series of guns were also stabilized when installed in the Sherman, but it was the same system used with the 75mm gun, offering limited advantages. The Nazi Germans never fielded a stabilization system of any kind on their tanks. Tanks with the M1 and M1A1 guns carried 71 main gun rounds in wet storage racks under the floor, with an armored 6 round ready rack on the turret floor.

M1-M1A1-M1A2 guns 76.2mm Sherman Tank Gun PDF file.

The M3 90mm Gun: The Most Powerful AT Gun the US used During the War.

The US M3 90mm tank gun started out life as an AA gun, a very good AA gun, unlike the very overrated Flak 18/36/37. As the AA gun was developed, its mount gained the ability to be used against ground targets, with up to -10 degrees depression. The ballistic performance on the gun was good, but what really made the AA gun shine was the AA gun system that incorporated Radar, and proximity fuses, sci-fi tech to the Germans, but pretty typical American technology for the time, it was the best land-based AA gun system of the war. Contrary to some claims, it was pretty rare for US 90mm AA guns to be used in the direct fire role. The US Army was rarely desperate enough to have to resort to such tactics.

When the US Army started looking into a bigger AT gun than the 3-inch, the M1/M2 90mm AA gun was a natural choice. The tank-mounted weapon would be designated the M3, and with a barrel threaded for a muzzle brake, the M3A1. When tested against the British 17 pounder gun, the M3 had slightly inferior performance but was more accurate. The US Army preferred the 90mm over the 17-pounder for various reasons, the biggest being it didn’t have scary flashback out of the breach on firing, making it seem like a somewhat shoddy design. The 90mm M3 would soldier on the in the M26/46 tanks but would be replaced by improved 90mm guns on the M47 and M48.

As a dual-purpose tank gun, the M3 90mm was good. Its rounds were not too big for one man to handle. It had good AT performance and a more potent HE round than the M3 75mm gun. When installed on the M36 Tank Destroyer, it was able to deal with the rare heavily armored German threat, if the regular Shermans hadn’t already killed it by the time the M36 got there. Since the gun was not overly hot, it didn’t wear barrels out fast, so it could still be used in an artillery role.

The 3-Inch AT gun: An Old AA Gun Finds a New Use

The 3inch AT gun started out life as a AA gun. It was still being used as one for the first half of the war. It was a natural choice as an AT gun since it was being replaced by the M1/2/3 90mm AA gun system. The gun was large, heavy, and bulky, and the M10 tank destroyer’s turret had to be rather large to fit it. They were also able to fit it in the T1/M6 Heavy tank, but it was clear it needed a redesign to fit in a smaller turret like the regular Sherman. This ultimately leads to the M1A1 gun discussed above.

There was also a towed AT gun version of this weapon, it was generally not well-liked. It was too big to move around easily by hand, hard to hide, and didn’t have great pen to work well as a fixed gun. At one point in the war, nearly half the Tank Destroyer Battalions were towed and equipped only with the towed guns and trucks to move them. These TD battalions had little luck, and some really got clobbered in the Battle of the bulge.

Ultimately this gun use was more about taking unused guns on hand and getting a decent AT weapon out the door fast, by using them for this new purpose. They were not perfect, and as towed weapons, even really good, but on a mobile platform like the M10 or even the M6 heavy tank they did the job well enough.

3 inch M7 Gun spec sheet PDF download

The M2/M4 105mm Howitzer: Artillery in a Sherman Package

The US 105mm M2/M4 howitzer was the biggest gun installed in the Sherman, the versions of the Sherman with this gun were developed to replace the M7 Priest, but never fully did so during WWII. They were used in the same role, or in limited direct support roles. These tanks did not have a stabilized gun or wet ammo racks but did have a large hatch hull. All 105 Sherman tanks, either M4 (105)s or M4A3 (105)s were produced exclusively by Chrysler. 105 tanks carried 66 rounds of main gun ammo, in dry ammo racks.

Sherman tanks equipped with the 105 often found themselves pooled with the others from the three companies of a battalion, with the two from the battalion HQ, so the Tank Battalion could have their own mini 105 battery on call. When working with their assigned company, they were often held in the back and supported the gun tank platoons with indirect or direct fire.

The 17 pounder gun: 76.2mm of British High-Velocity Boom Boom

The 17-pounder was developed to replace the 6-pounder, it was clear the 57mm 6-pounder wasn’t going to be able to handle tanks with thicker armor, but it stayed surprisingly relevant late into the war. The 17-pounder started development in the final months of 1940 and was going into prototype testing in late 1941. The first few AT guns were made by slapping the gun onto the 25 pounder carriage called the 17/25 pounder, and some were shipped to North Africa, to counter the supposed Tiger threat. The full production QF 17 pounder AT gun was available by the Italian Campaign.

American Test Firefly with 17 pounder

The main reason the gun was a better AT gun than the US M1A1 gun was the round had a lot more propellant behind the projectile and then the Brits came up with the super velocity discarding sabot round. This new round had very good penetration but had some serious accuracy problems. The accuracy problems with the SVDS ammo were not fully solved until after the war. The gun was intended for tank use, but the British Tanks meant for it had too many developmental problems, and were not going to be ready by Normandy landings, so the Sherman Firefly was born. See its own section for more info on these Shermans.

What’s left of an M4A3 75w on Iwo Jima

Sources: Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga, Sherman by Hunnicutt, Combat Lessons, Archive Awareness, WWII Armor, Ballistics and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston, TM9-374 90mm Gun M3

Part I: The US Army Tests the Firefly, article by World of Tanks

There are various stories going around about how the US Army was foolish for not either buying 17pr guns from the British to implement into their M4s, or, if British and Canadian production wasn’t up to it, simply building the guns themselves. However, almost all the documentation on the matter is either speculative or unscientific. It seems to be rather difficult to find an honest, objective assessment of the various options of tank armament to replace the 75mm.

The commonly referred to tests conducted in Europe in the Summer of 1944 (See US Guns German Armor Part 1) were generally not very scientific “Let’s lob a few rounds at these Panthers we found and see what happens” type tests, and almost entirely focused on penetration characteristics which generally resulted in “17 pr may be somewhat better, but there is no practical achievement from that better” (i.e couldn’t reliably kill a Panther from the front any more than anything else).

Of course, there is far more to a proper, thorough test of a weapon system than field tests, and those tests are conducted at proving grounds. A review of such a more comprehensive series of tests may at least provide some understanding of US Army thinking on the matter, and if the US Army’s testing was valid, may allow one to consider the commonly heard refrain that Firefly Sherman was Best Sherman during the war.

A Firefly turret was made available to the United States Ordnance Department during the winter of 1943-44 and was tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground against the 90mm Gun, M3, which at that time was emerging at the armament for Gun Motor Carriage M36, and was later to be mounted on Heavy Tank, T26E1 (the predecessor of Medium Tank, M26). As a result of these trials, the 17-pounder gun was considered by the Ordnance Department to be generally inferior to the 90mm gun.

Of course, that’s not entirely a fair test. The 90mm gun was being put into use as a tank destroyer, and in the next generation tank. But Firefly was being made to put the gun into the current generation tank. As a result, more testing would be required to find out just how good a solution it would be for Sherman compared to the route chosen by US Army Ordnance. It was also only a test by the Ordnance folks, not the end users. Shortly after the war ended Army Ground Forces instructed that such a test take place, although supply issues (not least the delivery of several hundred rounds of British ammunition) resulted in the testing in Fort Knox by Armored Force and Tank Destroyer Board not being complete and written up until August of 1946. By this stage, of course, there was no longer any question of if the Firefly should be considered as a useful variant of M4 for acquisition these were to be tests more focused on design features and its utility as an overall system to determine future tank design philosophy.

The vehicle as tested was the installation of the imported M4 17pr MkVII turret onto a standard M4A3 VVSS hull, so not a true Firefly conversion, but issues such as hull stowage were not really part of the tests and the merits of keeping the fifth crewman and bow gun were not debated. Three tank configurations were compared: The Firefly turret was compared with the M4(76) and M26.

The installations were comparatively rated on 21 characteristics. (If you are surprised by this number, ask yourself why. You think there isn’t something more to a tank gun than simply how accurate it is, how fast it shoots, and how much damage it does on the other end?) The report is quite long, so we’ll cover some of them in this article, and the rest over the next couple of weeks.

Without further ado, let’s go through the tests in the sequence as they appear.

Test 1: Handling and Loading Ammunition.

The rounds used, left to right: 76mm HVAP, HE, APC. 17pr SVDS, APC, HE, APCBC, 90mm HVAP, HE, APC.

Although the 17pr rounds are far from the longest, they are almost as wide as the 90mm rounds, making them the middleweight of the three. HE shells for the 76mm/17pr/90mm were 22.23/34.2/42.04 pounds, with the APC rounds at 24.8/37.5/43.87 and the supervelocity ammo being 18.9/28.41/36.25. Though the 17pr ammo was in excess of the proscribed US Army standards of the maximum weight a 3” caliber round should be, it wasn’t by much and the report noted that the round was not difficult to handle.

The problem of course is that handling the round isn’t the only issue. As the report stated:

Loading must be considered from the standpoint not only of weight and length of the round, but also loader’s working space. This space in the 17-pounder gun turret is particularly restricted, inasmuch as the loader must guide the projectile into the cutaway portion of the breech ring by movement in a horizontal plane in order for the base of the round to clear the rear of the recoil guard. In medium tank M26, the loader not being restricted by the recoil guard, is able to approach the breech with more latitude.[…] The advantage in weight and length of round of 17-pounder ammunition about equals the advantage of better working space in the 90mm gun turret, it is therefore concluded that ease of loading is substantially the same for both. In Medium Tank M4A3 with 76mm Gun M1A2, the advantage in weight and length of round, together with ample working space for the loader make ease of loading superior to the other two tanks

Test 2: Dispersion.

The purpose of this test was “to test the dispersion of various types of 17-pounder ammunition at ranges from 500 to 2,000 yards, and to compare the result with similar data computed from 76mm and 90mm ammunition”

This was done by setting up 6’x6’ canvas panels at 500 yard intervals, and firing ten-round groups at them.

Then they tried APCBC at 1,000 yards.

This successfully completed, they went back to the 500 yard target and fired SVDS.

Results were rated “poor”, with 8 rounds on target, and two sensed as being about 36” below the panel, but for the purposes of calculation they were presumed to have the same average deflection as the 8 rounds that were on target. Overall deflection was 2.35mil, 4.34mil elevation, with means of 0.5mil and 0.92mil respectively.

Then they tried at 1,000 yards. After firing 18 rounds trying to register, (Successive rounds with the same sight picture were observed as over, left, short) they decided to abandon further testing of the round except for armour penetration.

After firing the 28 rounds SVDS, they decided to go back to APCBC. However, the SVDS rounds had left duralumin fouling in the gun tube, and so before resuming the dispersion testing at range, they fired ten rounds of HE and then ten rounds of APCBC through the tube for the obscuration tests to clean it out. Given the observed results of the grouping (see “Phase B, below), they went back and fired another ten rounds of HE and APCBC. After the 40 rounds had been fired (Phase D), it was considered that the tube had returned to normal, (albeit at apparently a new zero) and the accuracy testing continued at 1,500 yards after an adjustment on the sights on a clean zero panel.

Figures for 1,500 yards and 2,000 yards were as follows. It is interesting to note that the size of the shot group was, in real terms, about the same as that at 1,000 yards, with a substantial increase at 2,000 yards. No explanation for this is offered in the report (It just reports test reports, not theories!), but the obvious thought from my unitiated mind is an oscillating trajectory caused by an unstable round which happens to have a wavelength which ‘zeros’ at about 1,500 yards. Of course, this is speculation on my part.

So, the average at all ranges was calculated to be 7.38mil/7.58mil overall, and means of .189mil and .205mil. The testing complete, they then dug into the records to find the test results of 90mm and 76mm guns.

Mean dispersions for deflection and elevation were .115mil/.142mil for the 90mm and .112 and .110 for the 76mm respectively.

It was thus concluded that a “comparison of data shows that the 17pounder gun has greater dispersion than either the 90mm gun or the 76mm gun

T53 90mm Gun Motor Carriage - History

TM 11-2701 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterberg/Corjan de Wit>>

  • TM 11-2702, 04/13/44. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Light Armored Car M8, 30 pages. PB 23458 - BSIR 2(2):97 07/05/46
  • TM 11-2703, 44. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Tank Recovery Vehicle T2, 27 pages. PB 78605 - BSIR 6(6):485 08/08/47.
  • TM 11-2704, 44. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Medium Tank M4 Series, 26 pages. PB 60520 - BSIR 4(12):1044 03/21/47

TM 11-2704 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterberg/Corjan de Wit>>

  • TM 11-2705, Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Light Tank T9E1. War Dept. Apr. 1944. 11 p. U408.3.A13 TM 11-2705 Apr. 1944
  • TM 11-2706, Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Medium tank M3. 27 May 44 ( per FM 21-6. U. of Idaho list is typo.)
  • TM 11-2707, Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 1/4 Ton, 4x4, Amphibian.
  • TM 11-2708, 44. Installation of Radio Equipment in Multiple Gun Motor Carriage M15, 13 pages. PB 78616 - BSIR 6(7):583 08/15/47.
  • TM 11-2709, 06/26/44. Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 2 1/2-ton, 6x6, Cargo, 25 pages. PB 23459 - BSIR 2(2):97 07/12/46
  • TM 11-2710, 07/22/44. Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 3/4-ton, 4x4, Carryall, 58 pages. PB 23460 - BSIR 2(2):97 07/12/46

TM 11-2710 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit) See also DODGE 3/4-TON 4 X 2 WC 51 through WC-60

  • TM 11-2711,Installation of Radio Equipment in Carrier, Personnel, Half-Track, M5 or M5A1, 25 pages. PB 23461 - BSIR 2(4):251 07/26/46.
  • TM 11-2712, 44. Installation of Radio Equipment in Multiple Gun Motor Carriage M13, M14, M16, or M17, 11 pages. PB 78617 - BSIR 6(7):583 08/15/47

TM 11-2712 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit)

  • TM 11-2713, Installation of Radio Equipment in Light Tank M3. U408.3.A13
  • TM 11-2714, 44. Installation of Radio Equipment in Carrier, Personnel, Half-Track, M3, 40 pages. PB 23462 - BSIR 2(2):87 07/05/46

TM 11-2714 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit>

  • TM 11-2715, Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 1/4-ton, 4x4, 78 pages, Sep.30, 1944 PB 23463 - BSIR 2(4):251

TM 11-2715 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterg, NL (Corjan de Wit) See 1/4-Ton 4x4 Truck (Willys-Overland Model MB and FORD Model GPW

TM 11-2715 C1 + C2 (Museum TD, Soesterg, NL (Corjan de Wit)

  • TM 11-2716, 44. Installation of Radio Equipment in Armored Utility Car M20, 29 pages. PB 80912 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47,
  • TM 11-2717, 44. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Car, Scout, M3A1, 68 pages. PB 23464 - BSIR 2(4):251 07/26/46

TM 11-2717 1944 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit>> See: M 3 Scout Car (all variants)

  • TM 11-2718, 45. Installation of Radio and Facsimile Equipment in Car, Half-Track M2A1, 54 pages. PB 23465 - BSIR 2(4):251 07/26/46
  • TM 11-2719, Installation of Radio Equipment in Car Halftrack, M9A1.
  • TM 11-2720, 44. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Light Tanks M5 and M5A1, 58 pages. PB 80927 - BSIR 7(1):34 10/03/47
  • TM 11-2721, 45. Installation of Radio and Facsimile Equipment in Carrier, Personnel, Half-Track, M3A1, 49 pages. PB 23466 - BSIR 2(4):251 07/26/46

TM 11-2721 1945 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit) See: M 3 Halftrack (all variants)

  • TM 11-2722, Installation of Radio Equipment, and Facsimile Equipment in car Halftrack M3A2
  • TM 11-2723, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Carriage, Motor, 3-inch Gun, M10 and M10A1, 25 pages. PB 80901 - BSIR 7(1):34 10/03/47,
  • TM 11-2724, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Carriage, Motor, 76-mm Gun, M18, 18 pages. PB 80918 - BSIR 7(1):34 10/03/47

TM 11-2724 1945 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit) See: M 18 Carriage, Motor, 76-MM Gun

  • TM 11-2725, 45. Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 3/4-ton, 4x4, Weapon Carrier, 68 pages. PB 80902 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47

TM 11-2725 1945 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit) See also DODGE 3/4-TON 4 X 2 WC 51 through WC-60

  • TM 11-2726, Installation of Radio and Facsimile Equipment in Truck, 3/4-ton, 4x4, Command Reconnaissance, 58 pages, March 10, 1945 PB 23467 - BSIR 2(4):251

TM 11-2726 1945 (Museum TD, Soesterg, NL (Corjan de Wit). See also DODGE 3/4-TON 4 X 2 WC 51 through WC-60

  • TM 11-2727, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Carriage, Motor, 75-mm Howitzer, M8, 27 pages. PB 80920 - BSIR 7(1):34 10/03/47,
  • TM 11-2728,
  • TM 11-2729,
  • TM 11-2730, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Tank, Medium, T23, 40 pages. PB 80905 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47 Note: With Change 1, 6 March 1945
  • TM 11-2731, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Carriage, Motor, 90-mm Gun, M36, M36B1, and M36B2, 58 pages. PB 80919 - BSIR 7(1):34 10/03/47

TM 11-2731 1945 (Museum TD, Soesterberg NL/Corjan de Wit)

  • TM 11-2732, 45. Installation of Radio Equipment in Carrier 81-mm Mortar, Half-Track M21, 13 pages. PB 80906 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47
  • TM 11-2733, 45. Installation of Radio Equipment in Carrier, Cargo, Light, M29 and M29C (Amphibian), 63 pages. PB 23468 - BSIR 2(3):166 07/19/46
  • TM 11-2735,
  • TM 11-2736,
  • TM 11-2737, 45. Installation of Radio Facsimile Equipment in Shelter HO-17-(), 18 pages. PB 23469 - BSIR 2(3):166 07/19/46
  • TM 11-2738, Installation of Radio Equipment, and Interphone Equipment in Heavy Tank M6
  • TM 11-2739, 45. Installation of Radio Equipment in Carriage, Motor, Combination Gun, M15A1, 17 pages. PB 80921 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47,
  • TM 11-2740,
  • TM 11-2741, 47. Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 2 1/2 Ton 6x6 Amphibian. (DUKW) October 1947, 30 pages.
  • TM 11-2742,
  • TM 11-2743, 45. Installation of Radio Equipment in Truck, 1½-ton, 6x6, Personnel and Cargo, 27 pages. PB 23470 - BSIR 2(3):166 07/19/46
  • TM 11-2744,
  • TM 11-2745,
  • TM 11-2746, Installation of Radio Equipment in Light Tank M3A1
  • TM 11-2747,
  • TM 11-2748, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Medium Tank M4A3 or M4A3E2, 75-mm Gun, Wet Stowage Medium Tank M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3, 76-MM Gun, Wet Stowage Medium Tank M4 or M4A3, 105-MM Howitzer, Jan.12, 1945

TM 11-2748 1945 + C2 (Incl. C2 of Jun.20, 1945 (Museum TD, Soesterberg/Corjan de Wit>>

  • TM 11-2748, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Medium Tank M4A3 or M4A3E2, 75-mm Gun, Wet Stowage Medium Tank M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3, 105-mm Howitzer, 40 pages. PB 80907 - BSIR 7(1):34 10/03/47
  • TM 11-2749,
  • TM 11-2750,
  • TM 11-2751,
  • TM 11-2752, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Vehicle, Landing, Tracked, (Armored), Mark I, LVT-(A)-1, 25 pages. PB 80922 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47
  • TM 11-2753, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Vehicle, Landing, Tracked, (Armored), Mark IV, LVT-(A)-4, 24 pages. PB 80923 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47,
  • TM 11-2754, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Tank, Light, M24, 45 pages. PB 80903 - BSIR 7(1):35 10/03/47
  • TM 11-2755, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Vehicle, Landing, Tracked, (Unarmored), Mark III, LTV-3, 21 pages. PB 23472 - BSIR 2(3):166 07/19/46, (Note 3rd manual in this PDF)
  • TM 11-2756, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Vehicle, Landing, Tracked, LVT-2, LVT-(A)-2, and LVT-4, 23 pages. PB 23471 - BSIR 2(3):166 07/19/46
  • TM 11-2757, 45. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Vehicle, Utility, Armored M39 (T41) or T41E1. War Dept. May 1945. 42 p. U408.3.A13 TM 11-2757 May 1945
  • TM 11-2758, Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Tank, Medium, M26. Dept. of the Army. Nov. 1948. 49 p. U408.3.A13 TM 11-2758 Nov. 1948
  • TM 11-2759, 46. INSTALLATION OF RADIO EQUIPMENT IN TRUCK, TRACTOR, M26A1. 26 pages. 11/22/46
  • TM 11-2762, 48. Installation of Radio and Interphone Equipment in Tank, Flame Thrower M43B1 and M42B3. Dept. of the Army. Mar. 1948. 36 p. U408.3.A13 TM 11-2762 Mar. 1948

Watch the video: 09-01-2018: Εντοπίστηκαν στην Πάτρα δύο εργαστήρια κατασκευής και συναρμολόγησης όπλων