
"US Infantry Anti-Tank Guns?" Topic
8 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Command Decision Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War One World War Two on the Land Modern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile Article The game table created for an Arc of Fire game at Cold Wars 2005.
Featured Book Review
|
gamer1 | 10 Aug 2018 11:16 a.m. PST |
Okay basic question and did know for sure were to put it but figured this was as good a place as any. Simple question. Towards the end of the war say after D-Day, what was the common size of the anti-tank gun(towed) used by the infantry, was it the same as the ones mounted on tank destroyers, did they lag behind and were still using smaller guns like the 57mm I believe it was? Did they ever field a 90mm or the 76.2mm I think it was? Thanks! Happy gaming all! |
Saber6  | 10 Aug 2018 11:29 a.m. PST |
When they were present it was the 57mm in Infantry units. Regiments had a 105mm cannon company. IIRC dedicated AT guns were a Division or higher asset (assigned where needed) |
jekinder6 | 10 Aug 2018 11:48 a.m. PST |
Three 57mm at the Battalion level with 9 more in the regimental AT company. It would not be unusual for a regiment to be supported by a company from the attached Tank Destroyer Battalion. This would be twelve 3" (76mm) towed AT guns towed by M-2 half-tracks or M-10 tank destroyers. |
Grumble87106 | 11 Aug 2018 10:31 a.m. PST |
I have heard that by the end of the war US infantry battalions were discarding their 57 mm guns and using the crews as infantry replacements. Not sure whether this means that they considered the 57 mm not worth the trouble or that they were desperate for infantry. |
goragrad | 11 Aug 2018 10:42 p.m. PST |
Probably Grumble that they weren't dealing with much German armor by then and having infantry was a bigger need. |
Dynaman8789 | 12 Aug 2018 12:29 p.m. PST |
Desperate for infantry, enemy armor was easily handled by the hundreds of Shermans and Jacksons running around. So many that Infantry companies sometimes had a platoon attached. |
Thomas Thomas | 13 Aug 2018 11:55 a.m. PST |
US Armored infantry companies had on paper a platoon (3 guns) of 5.7LATGs. Some sources claim almost all were reorganized as an extra Inf platoon. An unattached Armored Inf battalion played a prominant role in some Bulge battles and seems not to have dropped its 5.7Ls. Gave me a bit of trouble when I was trying to do Combat Command Battlegroup listings for US Armored Inf. To 5.7L or not to 5.7L that was the question. Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games |
ScottWashburn  | 04 Sep 2018 4:15 a.m. PST |
The 57mm ATG was the largest type directly attached to an infantry regiment. The towed 3" were part of tank destroyer units which were a higher level asset. There were also a few times where 90mm AA guns were pressed into service as AT guns, but they were also higher level assets. |
|