76 Mm Gun M1 - Design and Development

Design and Development

It was a new gun with breech similar to that of the 75 mm M3 Gun. It fired the same shell as the 3-inch (76 mm) gun of the 3in Gun Motor Carriage M10 tank destroyer, but from a different case. The 76 mm was developed as a lighter gun than the "3 inch". The gun received a muzzle brake and faster rifle twist during production.

While the 76 mm had less High Explosive (HE) and smoke performance than the 75 mm, the higher-velocity 76 mm gave better anti-tank performance, with firepower similar to many of the armored fighting vehicles it encountered, particularly the Panzer IV and StuG vehicles.

The M1 was tested on an M4 Sherman tank, it was then found that the long barrel caused balance problems. The barrel was shortened and a counterweight added to the breech to compensate giving the M1A1. The reduction in length - by about 15 inches - reduced performance but the 76 mm was still superior to the 75 mm gun.

When the counterweight was found to be insufficient, the turret design of the T23 tank was used on the M4 chassis to carry the 76mm gun.

Wholesale introduction of the 76 mm gun was opposed due to its inferior HE round - approx 0.9 lb of explosive to the 1.5 lb in the 75 mm round - and the muzzle blast which could create large dust clouds in dry conditions.

The UK was not interested in the 76 mm gun Sherman as they had their own guns under development - although of intermediate length between the M1 and M1A1 76 mm, their Ordnance QF 17 pounder (76.2 mm) antitank gun used about 5.5 lb (2.5 kg) more propellant. Armed with this gun the M4 was known as the Sherman Firefly.

Read more about this topic:  76 Mm Gun M1

Famous quotes containing the words design and/or development:

    Humility is often only the putting on of a submissiveness by which men hope to bring other people to submit to them; it is a more calculated sort of pride, which debases itself with a design of being exalted; and though this vice transform itself into a thousand several shapes, yet the disguise is never more effectual nor more capable of deceiving the world than when concealed under a form of humility.
    François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680)

    Other nations have tried to check ... the fulfillment of our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.
    John Louis O’Sullivan (1813–1895)