Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions

"Rich" <RichTO90@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dj12rn$9sa$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Robert Willett wrote:
> > David any AA heavier than the 90 mm were on mounts that allowed only
high
> > angle fire hence they were useless as ground weapons. Other than the
quad
> > 50's which were attached mostly to armored units there weren't that many
SP
> > AA units. Also the more numerous 90mm M1 was not adaptable and the M2
90 mm
> > had teething problems. The M3 90mm didn't come up until late. The
majority
> > of 90 mm tubes went to the self propelled tank destroyers which had no
AA
> > funtion. The reason for this was the definite superiority of the SP
Tank
> > destroyer over the towed 90mm.
>
> Sorry, Robert, but no, not quite. :)
>
> The only AAA "heavier" than the 90mm was the 120mm AA Gun M1 of which
> few were deployed outside the US, so the distinction is hardly needed.

Rich note it was David who claimed that the heavier than 90 mm AA pieces
would have had a non -AA use. My comment was in reply to that. Therefore
the distinction was needed. BTW a late war and post war attempt to deploy a
120mm towed anti-tank gun was not successful due to the weight of the piece.
>
> And at least in the ETO the .50 caliber Machine Gun Motor Carriage was
> fairly common. In addition to the actual AAA Automatic Weapons (SP)
> Battalions deployed (most of which were attached to armored divisions),
> there were also a total of 321 MGMC converted by mounting M45 Quad
> .50-caliber Trailers on spare M5 Halftracks at the initiative of
> ETOUSA, all in the spring of 1944. They were known as M17A1 and were
> issued roughly on the scale of 8-12 each to the AAA Automatic Weapons
> Battalions in the ETO, making those battalions roughly one-quarter SP
> (in terms of quad .50's). Also, in addition to the M13, M14, M16, M17,
> and M17A1 MGMC there were a large number of M15A1 issued to the SP
> battalions, on a scale of 32 per battalion, giving them the heavier
> firepower of the twin-.50 and single 37mm mount.

Again since I have conceded that the quad 50 mounted on various motor
carriage was useful in a dual purpose role. The Patton specials (twin 50
and 37mm) would also have been useful as direct fire weapons.


> And although the M1 and M1A1 90mm AA Gun were more "numerous", that is
> a bit deceptive. Most of the mobile battalions deployed to the ETO
> AFAIK were equipped with the 90mm AA Gun M2 on Carriage M2, which
> incorporated a carriage enabling "off the wheels" engagement of ground
> targets. That was Standardized 13 May 1943 and the M1 was redesignated
> Substitute Standard. At that time 5,636 M1 and M1A1 had been completed,
> but another 1,941 were built as M2. The M1 and M1A1 was mostly
> relegated to static defense and was assigned to 90mm AA Gun Battalions
> (Semi-mobile). Nor am I aware of significant "teething problems" in the
> 90mm AA Gun M2, at least in its production variant, although it did
> require about two years development to get it into production.

Let's see
>
> And the 90mm Tank Gun M3 was a bit of a different kettle of fish,
> developed because the M1, M1A1 and M2 Gun were not readily adaptable to
> mounting in a vehicle, so it is actually a separate development cycle
> that has little to do with the antiaircraft? Nor did the Tank Gun
> constitute a majority of the production, they were not even half of the
> production. The distribution of production was roughly:
>
> M1 and M1A1 AA Gun - c. 5,636
> M2 AA Gun on Mount M2 - c. 1,941
> M2 AA Gun on Mount M3 (fixed) - 254
> M3 Tank Gun - 4,653 (in M26, M36 and T25)
> T8 Field Gun - 200

Let's see Rich (1941/(5636+1941))*100%= 25.62% I think that means the
majority of 90 mm AA weapons were not practically useful as direct fire
weapons.

>
> The tank and tank destroyer guns were not superior, they were simply
> manufactured for a different purpose.

Rich sorry you misinterperted my statement. The 90 mm Tank destroyers were
a better anti tank weapon system than the towed 90 mm weapons. Do you
disagree with that. Also I realized through a typo I didn't note it was the
majority of the M3 90mm tubes that went to the TD's.


> <snip>
>
> > How droll, David. Of course they wouldn't use their parachutes and
gliders
> > but they could use all their other equipment. Thye AA units which were
> > broken up (over 200 battalions) couldn't use their AA guns in an
alternative
> > role therefore their personnel were reassigned many to the regular
artillery
> > battalions.
>
> Most of the AAA Battalions were never really "broken up" because many
> of the 258 disbanded between 1 January 1944 and 8 May 1945 were only
> constituted but had not been organized and even fewer had been
> deployed. Those still in CONUS (a large percentage of the total) had
> their personnel shunted into the replacement system as did some of
> those overseas. And in fact the 90mm Gun Battalions were in heavy
> demand in the ETO because of their relatively large supply of
> ammunition, which eased the demand on 105mm rounds. But many of the
> semi-mobile and some mobile Automatic Weapons Battalions in the ETO and
> MTO were stood down, initially to provide additional logistics vehicles
> and then to be converted to infantry, in Italy first as TF 49 and then
> as the 474th Infantry.

But the units were determined to be unneeded and whatever personnel were
assigned to them were sent to other units. The determination they were
unneeded was based on a definite knowledge that the reason for which they
were originally planned no longer existed (ie concern about the Luftwaffe's
influence in the ETO).

Dave tried to argue thay could have been used effectively in their original
organizations with their original weapons in a different role which
obviously the 1944 authorities did not agree. I do not believe what you
have said above to in any way dispute the decision of the 1944 authorities.
--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Psych War: "Tank Destroyer" and "Jagdpanzer"
    ... and my French keyboard has no problem ... KwK 40 were the same gun, ... And then the early tank version ... in each of the artillery battalions, except in the GS 155mm battalion, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Some observations about raising of US airborne divisions
    ... And at least in the ETO the .50 caliber Machine Gun Motor Carriage was ... Battalions in the ETO, making those battalions roughly one-quarter SP ... The airborne were kept intact and perfomed ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Psych War: "Tank Destroyer" and "Jagdpanzer"
    ... the name of a vehicle and the name of a unit. ... KwK 40 were the same gun, ... about the best way to execute antitank operations. ... in each of the artillery battalions, except in the GS 155mm battalion, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Urge to the East 1940?
    ... logistical requirements without doubling their combat power, ... wanted 400 tank panzer divisions rather than the 320 tank divisions of ... panzer arm was based on massed tanks supported by other arms. ... battalions plus a schutzen brigade with two motorised infantry regiments ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)