Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: GreyFriar
It was a much better gun, despite the mere mm increase in barrel diamter. I suspect the modest diameter increase simplified field upgrades for existing inventory?

62 posted on 05/06/2019 12:03:02 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: SunkenCiv

Being an anti-aircraft gun, the 76.2mm had a larger propelling charge than the modified French 75mm gun that equipped the M-3 Grant/Lee and the early model M-4 Shermans.

The performance characteristics of both guns are explained in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1

And here is a good article on the various M-4 Sherman tank models: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

During the war the Army’s 90mm anti-aircraft gun was also modified for use as an anti-tank gun first used on the M36 tank destroyer and, with modifications, I believe was used as the main armament on the M-26 Pershing and later M-46 Patton (Korean War) tanks.


63 posted on 05/06/2019 1:02:49 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: SunkenCiv

Also buried in the article is a statement that the Army named it a 76.2mm gun, so as to avoid confusion when requesting ammunition with that provided for the 3 inch anti-tank gun, whose shell was 76.2mm in diameter.


64 posted on 05/06/2019 1:10:36 PM PDT by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson