WHY THE US ARMY STARTED WW II WITH 37-MM GUNS

Copyright 2015 JDN: All Rights Reserved

In the past various people speculated on why the USA and other Nations
started World War II with 37-mm or 40-mm (2-pounder guns). One person
posited that it allowed the most ammunition for cavalry use - striking
far behind enemy lines. And there has been plenty of speculation in the
realm of They were just stupid.
The real answer is: they were a fad.
Back in 1918 when tanks first appeared, so did a slew of small guns
intended to combat them. Small guns were not knew just look at the
Hotchkiss 37-mm, 47-mm, and 57-mm, which existed in the age of black
powder. The USAs affair with the 37-mm gun began: they bought thousands
of 37-mm guns as a result.
The tanks of 1914 to
them just as well as
During the 1920s and
tracks, engines, and
armored.

1918 were thinly armored and small guns

big 75s with nothing but high explosive
1930s no one advanced tank design. They
suspension, but most tanks were lightly

could bust
shells.
improved the
armed and

During the mid-1930s the fad in Armies was to adopt modern small-bore
cannon: with a higher velocity they could cope better with the slight
increases in armor seen in tanks. Thus 37-mms and 2-pdrs remained the
anti-tank/tank gun of choice.
Spanish Civil war of 1936 to 1938 was a proving ground that had proved
that while weapons like the 37-mm were decent, tank armor would soon
increase enough to give immunity to them. In response, many countries
switched to a 45-mm or 47-mm weapon. In 1938 the British designed the 6pounder (57-mm) and the Germans the 50-mm as their next generation anttank gun.
As one can see, the fact that tank armor had remained thin for 20 years
had everyone fooled about what was going to happen when a big shooting
war started.
Designing a cannon and producing and fielding it is another issue.
Britain lost so much equipment trying to stop the Germans in June and
July 1940 that they decided to keep the 2-pounder in manufacture rather
than switch production to the 57-mm. Germanys manufacturing was just as
unresponsive, although they did get the 50-mm into the field in 1941 or
so.
The United States suffered from blind-sided general staffers who made
decisions for the most idiotic reason. They had realized that their
stocks of World War I era 37-mm guns were hopelessly obsolete. Tests were
made to select a replacement. They could very well have went with a 75-mm
gun, if they wanted.

Each US Army Branch had a chance to develop and acquire its own weapons.
The major user of the AT gun, the Infantry Command, decided that any
anti-tank gun had to be light and easily moved by infantry on foot. This
meant is had to be light-weight, under 1,000 pounds or so. These
parameters were not new: the small 37-mms they had previously used had
been so small two men could haul them around.
They tested the 37-mm Rheinmetal AT gun and it fit the bill. Never mind
that Germany itself was in the process of replacing it because it was
obsolete which they realized they decided on it because it was
lightweight.
The Ordnance Department pointed out that a better weapon like a 45-mm or
47-mm would be wiser, but in the end they were told (in essence), The
Infantry Command chose the 37-mm. That is what they want. No money will
be provided for developing any alternate for them. If any other branch
desires a weapon of larger caliber, we'll consider it.
The Artillery Branch later issued specification for a light anti-tank gun
which would have indeed fit the 45-mm/47-mm range of gun. The Ordnance
Department might have used said demand to develop a 45-mm to 47-mm gun.
But the Ordnance Department replied that the 37-mm had been chosen by the
Infantry and the Artillery could easily substitute with 75-mm howitzers
and cannon if need be. Supplying a different ammo type and spending the
time didn't seem to appear to them. Somehow the Ordnance Department
forgot that the artillery regiments were replacing the 75mm gun with the
105-mm howitzer. The 105 did serve well as an improvised anti-tank gun on
several occasions during the war, so perhaps the Ordnance department was
vindicated.
It did not help that tests of some 45-mm and 47-mm guns showed them
lacking in performance - no better than a 37-mm. Many were obsolete 1935era guns. Weapons technology was advancing rapidly in those last few
years before the end of the 30s and anything a few years old was
outdated. The newer French 47-mm would have been an excellent design to
work from though (with a lighter carriage) offering around 3-inches (75mm) of penetration versus the 2-inches (50-mm) of the common 37. The USA
could have tweaked the 47-mm cartridge to outperform said gun.
The Ordnance Department made the mistake, as such, of optimizing it
with a heavy shot (1.9 lb.) at 2,900 feet per second) which gave it
around 2.5-inches/64-mm of armor penetration. It could outperform any
competing 37-mm/40-mm gun and most 45-mm/47-mm guns except the newer
French 47-mm. The British later update their 2-pounder to much the same
statistics. Thus, the suggestion of using a 45-mm or better was countered
by, You tried them and they were no better than the 37.
But, a shortage of funds and lack of visions led to the USA adopting an
already obsolete weapon at a time when they had the opportunity to adopt
something a little bit better. At a time when everyone else was fielding
45-mms and 47-mms (or 50-mms and 57-mms) as their main anti-tank gun.
Not that everyone time to replace all of their 37-mms. Production
resources trump innovation and many Armies had to fight with a mix of

whatever weapons they had on hand. No Army ever had enough of anything.
It was a shame the US Army wasted so many resources on inferior designs.
What is interesting is that the concept that the Infantry Command was the
primary motivation in accepting the 37-mm comes from several sources,
including the Ordnance Departments history and a book or two on antitank guns. Both sources fail to mention that mechanized units didnt like
the idea of a 37-mm gun because it added weight to their somewhat light
and underpowered vehicles, and neither did the cavalry units; both
preferred the .50-caliber machine gun because it could be fired
accurately on the move. Thus, Infantry Command was not alone! It wasnt
until the Spanish Civil War that the idea of using .50-calibers in combat
was proven to be ridiculous.
Indeed, it seems that the once the go-ahead was given in favor of a
better weapon, the Ordnance Department preferred to concentrate on
creating an armor piercing shot for the 75. The 37 could be left as-is
until the 75 was available rather than designing yet another new weapon.
With so many different sources, some seemingly quoting each other or
giving incomplete information, the reality of the situation tends to
remain murky. Perhaps some clarity can be given when one realizes that
when the Infantry Command placed a requirement for a medium tank with a
75-mm gun in June 1940, the ordnance Department suggested converting some
of the unused 75-mm 1897 model field guns into make-shift anti-tank
weapons by mounting them on new carriages. Which was done. Although when
the Army entered ground combat these remained back in the USA. Ground
forces fought the early months with the 37-mm gun (towed or mounted en
portee on a truck) and the 75 mounted on a halftrack as a mobile heavy
anti-tank weapon.
One might consider the idea that the switch to a weapon such as the 45mm
or 47mm should have been made before investment in the 37mm was made. And
that multiple concerns were involved in it being the light gun used until
the 57mm replaced it.
Sadly, a wiser army would have skipped all of those little guns or
manufactured a limited number as a light infantry gun and went straight
to 75s.
The USA built 18,000 37-mms, 15,000 57-mms and 2,500 3-inch anti-tank
guns; the Germans built 14,000 37-mm, ??? 50-mm, 23,000 75-mm, and 3,500
88-mm anti-tank guns, plus they built over 20,000 88-mm anti-aircraft
guns that were also used as anti-tank guns.