While the USMC were the only US combat users of the M4A2 due to the use of Diesel that was also used in smaller craft, they did also use M4A3 later in the war. I suppose a combination of competition with Lend Lease (esp. Soviets) requirements and the fact that by then they would have operated alongside Army units which used M4/M4A1/M4A3 which reduced the Diesel fuel supply advantage.
I always think of Iwo as the first use of the M4A3 by the USMC, but this probably oversimplifies things - I haven't pulled out Estes or Gilbert in several years now. I believe that the USMC intended to switch to the 105mm M4A3, exclusively, for the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands.
USMC PVC N.E. Carling in front of an M4A2 tank named Killer. It has a Type 94 TE KE tank on its back deck. Photo taken Kwajalein, Marshall Islands, 2 Feb 1944. Killer seems to have wooden planks added to the sides.
Often with cement behind the wooden planks.Killer seems to have wooden planks added to the sides.
I have little knowledge as to when the USMC started using non-M4A2 M4s. A thread here from a few years ago first alerted me to that. I have little doubt that you have a better handle on the matter than I. That thread also covered what would be the rule effects of the wood and concrete "armour". My suggestion was that it would have little effects on projectiles, at least ≥20mm, but a significant advantage in CC, especially when faced by DC and ATMM.
Though this is getting outside what I know too much about, I agree with your assessment (I've read in numerous secondary sources that sandbag and cement armor had no real effect against AP rounds, but I'm not sure that these authors typically have any more qualifications to make these pronouncements than I do). The primary fear of USMC tankers was, I believe, shaped charge placed munitions (though Japanese AT weapons could penetrate the M4 mediums, and the 47mm even from the front). There are many photos of USMC tanks with "cages" welded over the hatches or large "nails" welded on top of the hatches intended to defeat shaped charge weapons (by preventing attachement of magnetic mines and giving more stand off distance). As a manifestation of the culture of lower unit initiative in the USMC, there was a much wider range of field expedient enhancements than are often seen in Army usage, just as the variability of unit markings seen in USMC tanks (though, of course, cement and sandbags were widely used in the ETO).
improvised anti-SCW armor was not a purely American invention. By April 1945, nearly every Russian AFV crossing the Oder was outfitted with bed mattress springs welded will - nilly to all side and rear surfaces. These were used to interrupt the flight path of an SCW coming in before impact, causing (it was hoped) either a premature detonation or at worst, a glancing blow at a severe angle to the armor face.
As a former heavy machine gun guy in the USMC, a hearty amen, sir!
My knowledge (and often simply impressions) is second, third or fourth hand at very best. So comments from practitioners, professionals or otherwise, are always welcome, even if they flatly contradict what I thought or said. First hand knowledge beats all and data is still data. Never be afraid to jump on a wrong statement, we are all here to learn and might as well get the best while we are at it.
Paul, I know almost nothing compared with the knowledge that you have - I have tremendous respect for what you know and your willingness to share it.
). You can also accurately shoot indirect fire with the .50cal out to a range of several miles (with the consequent plunging fire). It's a truly awesome weapon (there's a reason that the design is not significantly changed since the First World War).
Still appears to be a live issue. The 1980's saw reactive armor invented - now we have BAE system's "LROD" aluminum anti HEAT grating. Still, even BAE says their test runs on Strykers allow upwards of 50% effective hits on the test vehicle from all samples of HEAT warheads.
Yeah, I've seen some Strykers with some pretty bad hits but hard to say if they were from RPGs or IEDs. We did hear of a double warhead RPG round, but normally the ones we were hit with had the percussion tip removed for a detonation device for IEDs and were just inert peices of metal flying at you most of the time (but not all of the time).
even a 50% reduction in effective contact hits is something a tanker would be very pleased to have in place on his AFV. Beats the heck out of 100% that achieve making a hit actually connecting with full force.
Reminds me of a story my dad and friends used to tell after a few brewskies. From what I remember he and a buddy were on Leyte and came across two Japanese washing cloths in a stream. My dad's buddy "Dutch" took aim with a carbine and let fly with about 3 or 4 rounds without any effect. My dad, "Indian" by nickname, chided him for wasting taxpayers money as he brought up his Garand and dispatched the Japanese with two well aimed shots as they ran away. Ammo is cheap (well it used to be), but the poor taxpayers got it rough. :nod:As for ma deuce's yepper. Our standard line in Somalia was the .50 SLAP round from our XM-218's could shoot through schools, churches, engine blocks and apartments in a single burst. Still, anything worth a burst of .50 cal was always worth 3 or 5 more just to make sure it quit moving.....ammo is cheap.
