tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post4553066482646524500..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Airborne ScorpionPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-90091084277688959792018-10-22T15:19:41.397-04:002018-10-22T15:19:41.397-04:00To be fair the 57mm was due to be replaced anyway....To be fair the 57mm was due to be replaced anyway. By 1945 we already had 57mm and 75mm recoilless rifles in production with a 105mm rifle on the way. Pound for pound and Dollar wise our airborne and infantry were better off with recoilless equipped jeeps. About the only place the M56 might of come in handy was in Europe where the lack of back blast from the 90mm would come in handy firing out of windows of abandoned buildings. Though in peace time people are less likely to give up their homes for training purposes.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-46822452555625052502018-10-22T13:13:37.271-04:002018-10-22T13:13:37.271-04:00I recall reading that by the late war the Brits we...I recall reading that by the late war the Brits were routinely using their L-L Tank Destroyers to shore up the infantry in newly seized positions against the inevitable counterattacks while the hefty 17-pounders were being brought up and dug in, which typically took overnight. And that gun was hardly the bulkiest towed piece of the war...<br /><br />There's a reason the towed antitank gun essentially died out after '45.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-53277066225284919262018-10-22T08:55:55.024-04:002018-10-22T08:55:55.024-04:00"This was not critical for the infantry, as t..."This was not critical for the infantry, as they could simply introduce more powerful tractors"<br /><br />This was a massive problem for the Infantry. AT guns of the 1930s and early WW2 period could be towed by two horses, or a jeep-sized vehicle, and even moved short distances by their crews alone. <br /><br />Adding additional, large vehicles to Infantry units imposed new logistical problems they had not previously been equipped or trained to handle. <br /><br />By 1944-45, some US Infantry regiments were starting to discard their 57mm AT guns, which needed a 1.5 ton truck and a large crew to tow & operate. They started to favor bazookas alone. Despite their very short range, some units thought them more effective, and certainly they had a much smaller cost for the unit. <br /><br />The 3-inch AT gun was never an Infantry asset, it was always operated by Tank Destroyer battalions who were organized and trained from the outset to handle lots of vehicles. <br />Dat34https://www.blogger.com/profile/05191197983174208313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-64279423678454974462018-10-21T17:42:04.927-04:002018-10-21T17:42:04.927-04:00I wonder what the turnover rate among the M 56 cre...I wonder what the turnover rate among the M 56 crew men as it was jumping around inside the American Army.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.com