Talk:37 mm gun M3

message: The german anti-tank gun 5 cm PaK 38 was better than this american weapon.Even so, number of this gun were bigger than 5 cm PaK 38 , in levels of production.Agre22 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the M3 was good design that fitted the requirements. The infantry branch wanted a gun of roughly the same size and weight as Pak 35/36 and that was what they got; the performance of the M3 was probably slightly better than that of Pak 36 (it's tricky to compare penetration figures, but the M3 fired somewhat heavier projectile with somewhat higher muzzle velocity). Quite possibly the M3 was the best of the "37 mm generation", the only problem was that it took the US Army too much time to fully recognize the need for something more powerful (and by necessity heavier... e.g. the Pak 38 was about twice as heavy, Pak 40 about four times, etc)... Bukvoed (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: German 5 cm PaK 38 was better in power

message: so would it be monstrous of me to finish adding all the versions of this. since surfing around I dont find the complete list anywhere? Brian in denver (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only my opinion, but I don't think they should be here. The idea was to list all guns related to the M3 (common development history, same ammunition, ...), not all 37 mm guns in US service. M1916 and AA/aircraft autocannons are completely different beasts. Bukvoed (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved unrelated models to a separate paragraph. Bukvoed (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: versions

message: What does it measure?  Penetration in millimeters?  Inches?  Yards?  Furlongs?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.179.231.199 (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armor penetration table question 

message: This page was moved in January, but its associated A-class review remains at the old page title. The template thus displays a rather nasty red-link when trying to link to the review. What's the procedure for something like this? Should be just move the review page as well? Eddie891  Talk Work  19:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Moving the review pages as well seems like the easiest solution. Kges1901 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

text: The page-moving page tool makes an assumption that all subpages will be talk pages, like a GAN or Archive page would be; Wikipedia pages that are subpages of an article are unusual (I think MILHIST may be one of the only ones to use this?), so they get left behind. I've moved the page manually to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/37 mm gun M3, leaving a redirect behind. As far as I'm aware the only real way to "fix" such a problem would be to move our A-Class reviews to being Talk pages instead of Wikipedia, and this is the first case of the article name changing post-A class review, so I think having this be the procedure is pretty non-controversial. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page moved, but A-class review didn't  

message: I have some questions with regard to your note concerning this AAR.
The purpose of a notation such as yours---not being a citation---is to clarify or expand upon text presented in the main body, but generally believed to be too specialised to hold the interest of most readers. I do feel your note hit that perfectly.
However, your assertion that the "heavy assault gun" might be only one of two vehicles—both of which are actually Tank Hunters—is problematic. If you are going to add a note, I do feel you should embrace the undertaking, or not. Certainly, it is not at all impossible the vehicle in question was one of the large German Tank Hunters. Still, the presence of a Jagdtiger on the Western Front in late 1944 during a local counter-attack is unlikely. The Jagdpanther less so. The possibility the vehicle was a Jagdpanzer IV/70 cannot be dismissed, either. An then there are the actual German assault guns which were present in significant numbers, and which included heavily armoured vehicles mounting actual 105mm guns.
The point, to me, seems to rely more on the points that were initially illuminated in the note—the use of the term "heavy" is suggestive, and so also is the observer's estimation that the gun was in the 105mm range—a gun very prevalent in US Army inventories. The long US 105mm field gun could well have been associated by the American observer with a weapon like the the 75mm/L70 arming the JgPz.IV, while connecting it in haste and confusion to the larger 88mm/L72 Pak.43 of the JgPz.V is also quite likely. Confusing either vehicle for the Jagdtiger, however, is a definite stretch. Then there are the actual Sturngeschutzen present, which include actual 105mm field gun-armed variants.
I'm not at all sure why this note is here, though. There are no other forays into an exploration of enemy combat vehicles, and the 37mm M3 gun was woefully inadequate against any of the vehicles under discussion—it was inadequate against an ordinary StuG.IV. It was simply inadequate in the ETO by 1944.
If you want to retain the note, I would argue to expand the discussion a bit, adding information about the StuG.IV, the JgPz.IV, retaining and expanding the JgPz.V, and maybe dropping the Jagdtiger, or at least pointing out that the vehicle was vastly different than other vehicles identified by Americans as assault guns.
Ranya (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th December Battle 

message: Why on earth would anyone claim that a muzzle brake was added "to reduce the dust stirred up from the muzzle blast", when one of the main problems with muzzle brakes is that they increase dust because they increase muzzle blast and divert the gasses outwards instead of in a straight line from the muzzle. That is why most artillery has muzzle brakes that direct to either side, to minimize the effect as much as possible. And of course there is the plain fact that a muzzle brake is specifically a device for reducing recoil; if it was not intended to reduce recoil, then it is not a muzzle brake, it is some sort of 'blast diverter'. That is what a muzzle brake is, so it is nonsensical to say "but some sources argue that it was to reduce recoil". It is like saying "some sources argue that the MP5S was fitted with suppressor to reduce noise levels when firing". Yeah, that is what suppressors are for. If it was actually to hide muzzle flash, it would be a really fancy and overly complex flash hider. But at least in that case a suppressor does in fact reduce flash as a side effect, while it is extremely unlikely that any muzzle brake-like device would reduce dust.
64.223.159.140 (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muzzle brake 

message: The M3 37mm Anti-tank gun was among the most powerful 37mm guns of the period.  It fired an 870 gram solid shot at 2900 ft/sec.  Alternatively at 753 gram shot could be fired at 3050 ft/sec.  This weapon had about 50% more muzzle energy than the German PaK 35/36.
See the table here:  https://www.quarryhs.co.uk/ammotable5.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2EA5:1800:6182:51C2:6E84:1654 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  37mm M3 ballistics