Development
Prior to the introduction of the ROQF 75 mm, British tanks had been equipped with guns such as the QF 2 pounder, and then the larger QF 6 pdr, that fired Armour Piercing shot - good against tanks but ineffective against groups of infantry. Some tanks operating in the infantry support role were given guns firing HE shells, e.g. early models of Churchill tank and CS ("Close Support") versions of the Matilda II. The decision to equip British tanks with an HE shell firing gun for "soft" targets like infantry and, importantly, anti-tank guns was taken by the War Office.
An HE shell for the 6 pounder was in production by the time of the start of the Tunisia Campaign and available in large amounts in the Italian Campaign. However, the round lacked sufficient explosive power. The power of the US 75 mm HE round used in the M3 75 mm was found to be markedly superior, and a number of Churchills in operation in Italy had guns scavenged from Sherman tanks and fitted to their turrets to give the Churchill NA75 (NA coming from "North Africa" where the conversions were carried out). Approximately 200 were converted in this way.
Instead of looking to take the American gun to be fitted en masse into modified British tanks, the Royal Ordnance modified their 6 pdr design by boring out the barrel and adapting the breech to fire the US round. The resulting gun could then be fitted without redesigned tank mountings. It was effective but although gaining a good HE shell they had an inferior anti-tank round and this proved troublesome against the minority of heavily armoured German tanks. In the Battle of Villers-Bocage Cromwell tanks with the 75 mm were outgunned by Tiger tanks of the 101st SS Heavy Tank Battalion.
Though the 75 mm had a good HE shell, it was still thought that a more powerful close support weapon was needed and as such the Ordnance QF 95 mm howitzer was agreed for a limited number of tanks.
Read more about this topic: Ordnance QF 75 Mm
Famous quotes containing the word development:
“If you complain of people being shot down in the streets, of the absence of communication or social responsibility, of the rise of everyday violence which people have become accustomed to, and the dehumanization of feelings, then the ultimate development on an organized social level is the concentration camp.... The concentration camp is the final expression of human separateness and its ultimate consequence. It is organized abandonment.”
—Arthur Miller (b. 1915)
“They [women] can use their abilities to support each other, even as they develop more effective and appropriate ways of dealing with power.... Women do not need to diminish other women ... [they] need the power to advance their own development, but they do not “need” the power to limit the development of others.”
—Jean Baker Miller (20th century)