37 mm M3 Anti-Tank Gun
"37 mm M3 Anti-Tank Gun
The gun has a vertical sliding breech without a semiautomatic mechanism. The mount has split trails, and the wheels can elevate above the ground in battle position. The wheels are equipped with pneumatic tires. The suspension is rigid.
The following is a table of the main characteristics of the American and German 37 mm guns, as well as our 45 mm mod. 1937 gun.
Characteristic
|
American 37 mm anti-tank gun M3
|
German 37 mm anti-tank gun
|
45 mm mod. 1937 anti-tank gun
|
Caliber, mm
|
37
|
37
|
45
|
Barrel length, calibers
|
56.6
|
45
|
46
|
Mass of an armour piercing shell, kg
|
0.871
|
0.68
|
1.43
|
Muzzle velocity, m/s
|
790
|
745
|
760
|
Mass of the system in battle position, kg
|
405
|
440
|
520
|
Metal usage coefficient
|
69
|
44
|
81
|
Calculated penetration of K=2400 armour at 60 degrees
|
|||
100 m
|
40
|
31
|
46
|
300 m
|
34
|
26
|
43
|
500 m
|
30
|
22
|
39
|
1000 m
|
21
|
14
|
32
|
The table shows that the 37 mm American M3 gun is superior to the German gun in penetration, but is inferior to the 45 mm gun, and is insufficiently powerful for fighting modern tanks.
The breech of the American gun does not have a semiautomatic mechanism, which means its rate of fire is lower than our 45 mm gun. The shield is small and does not fully protect the crew. The lack of suspension makes the gun fragile when travelling.
Overall, the American 37 mm M3 anti-tank gun does not meet the tactical-technical requirements of a modern anti-tank gun.
It is worth noting that, even before the war between Germany and the USSR, the Americans considered their 37 mm gun ill-suited for the role of a modern anti-tank gun, and, due to a lack of other suitable guns, used model 1897 guns to equip anti-tank batteries of infantry divisions. Currently, the Americans produce 57 mm guns, identical to British guns of the same caliber.
In total, 35 American 37 mm guns arrived. They are stored in a warehouse and have not been issued. Further purchase of these guns is unreasonable.
Fig. 16: Armour piercing M51 shell for 37 mm M3 and M5 guns.
Fig. 17: High explosive fragmentation M38A1 grenade for 37 mm M3 and M5 guns.
Ammunition for the 37 mm anti-tank gun:
37 mm armour piercing tracer shot (without explosives or a fuse) with
an armour piercing cap, M51
|
Trials results are satisfactory. The design of the shell is modern,
no worse than our 37 mm armour piercing-tracer shot for the 37 mm mod. 1939
AA gun.
|
37 mm armour piercing shot (without explosives or a fuse) M74
|
Trials results are satisfactory. The design of the shell is modern,
no worse than our 37 mm armour piercing-tracer shot for the 37 mm mod. 1939
AA gun. When using this shot to fire at armour from the American tank gun,
the results are no worse than from a domestic gun.
|
37 mm HE grenade M63 with an M58 fuse
|
Trials results are unsatisfactory. The grenade is unsuitable for its
purpose, destroying personnel when fired at terrain, due to poor performance
of the M58 fuse. Using this grenade is senseless.
|
The aforementioned ammunition is also used in tanks.
Was there any piece off lend lease that the soviets liked? So far i getthe impression they disliked everything. (Altough i can understand some, butnot all)
ReplyDeleteMaybe the jeep and some trucks?
They liked lots of stuff. In this very document, they praise the 90 mm AA gun, for instance. The vehicles and guns that get rejected usually have very good reasons for it, especially once you consider the fact that everything takes up space in the convoy, so why not take something you actually want as opposed to something that you don't?
DeleteTrue, you do have a valid point conserning the place aboard convoys.
DeleteWill we see some articles about stuff they liked?
And also, could you maybe add the dates (or a timeframe if the date is uncertain) off the orriginal documents in youre next posts? Because it does make a big diffrence sometimes to understand the mindset and overall situation.
Whoops, my bad. This one was from March 11th, 1943. Rather late to be ordering 37 mm anti-tank guns.
DeleteThere's quite a bit that I have about LL equipment that the Soviets did like. Shermans and Valentines, for instance, still have defects associated with their delivery that the Soviets (rightfully) complained about, but the overall assessment of the designs was good.
M4A2 assessment: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/10/lend-lease-impressions-m4a2-sherman.html
M4A2(76)W: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2017/07/m4a276w-emcha-with-long-hand.html