|
crsutton -> RE: Type 97 Chi-Ha (7/23/2015 3:41:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BlackhorseToo quote:
ORIGINAL: spence It would seem that the larger explosive charge in the 57 mm gun would improve its AT ability somewhat to perhaps the same ANTI-ARMOR value of the 47mm AT but the ANTI-SOFT ability of the 47mm gun couldn't ever compare favorably to the 57mm gun since it had a smaller charge to begin with. IJA tanks were not too impressive in all cases although they could do a heck of a job terrorizing unarmed Chinese peasants. The US had a different problem with the anti-soft effect of their anti-tank guns. The 37mm AT gun, equipped with HE and canister rounds, was widely used as an infantry support weapon in the Pacific. With the invasion of North Africa in November, 1942, the 37mm AT gun became instantly obsolete in the ETO, and was rapidly replaced by the 57mm AT gun. But no HE or canister rounds were produced for the 57mm gun until 1945, so the 37mm AT gun was a more effective anti-infantry weapon until nearly the end of the war. Well, the 37mm remained an excellent support weapon in the Pacific due to its size and comparative light weight more than anything else. I just doubt the 57mm would have been as versatile even with canister. It is ironic that many GIs felt that the M1 carbine was a better weapon for Pacific combat than the Garand due to it light weight and short length (important when fighting in jungle or bush) but the majority of the carbines were sent to Europe and very few made it to the Pacific-especially in the early years.
|
|
|
|