For all you M10 Achilles fans.

[Tieleader]

Our most recent arrival. Enjoy!

 

[Wurger]

 

[Sid327]

Our most recent arrival. Enjoy!

Was this the tank destroyer that used the British 17-pounder?
M10 Wolverine in US Army? But with the M1A1/2?

 

[Gnomey]

Good shot!

 

[Tieleader]

Was this the tank destroyer that used the British 17-pounder?
M10 Wolverine in US Army? But with the M1A1/2?

Yes. The British were evidently not to thrilled with the 3" gun and wanted more bang for their buck. The drawback was the space taken up but the massive breach and dust kicked up by the blast. Now try to fight in a Firefly turret with that gun jammed in, think you're going to perform at your best?
Don't know about the M1A1/2. Sorry.

 

[Sid327]

The Americans themselves,

were not impressed with the 3" and developed this 76mm M1 for the M4 tanks.
It was fitted into the M4A3E8 tanks which needed a bigger turret because of cramped internal space in the M4 turret. Same problem as the QF 17-pounder, but the Brits didn't have the easy choice to do much about it....

Rather than me explaining here's a link:-
76 mm gun M1 - Wikipedia

This gun still didn't perform as well as the 75mm Kwk 42/L70 in the Panther, or the QF 17-pounder.

 

[Shortround6]

were not impressed with the 3" and developed this 76mm M1 for the M4 tanks.

The 3 in was an adaptation of a 3" coast defence gun that dated to before WW I. It had the advantage of being available in the sense that blueprints existed, production tooling may have existed. The internal Ballistics were understood and the method of manufacturing the barrel was understood (and common).

The 76mm M1 had the same exterior ballistics/performance (same velocity with the same weight shot) but used a smaller cartridge case at much higher pressure and a different propellent.
The Gun itself used different steel and a different method of construction/fabrication that allowed the barrel to be much skinner and lighter.

 

[Sid327]

The 3 in was an adaptation of a 3" coast defence gun that dated to before WW I. It had the advantage of being available in the sense that blueprints existed, production tooling may have existed. The internal Ballistics were understood and the method of manufacturing the barrel was understood (and common).

The 76mm M1 had the same exterior ballistics/performance (same velocity with the same weight shot) but used a smaller cartridge case at much higher pressure and a different propellent.
The Gun itself used different steel and a different method of construction/fabrication that allowed the barrel to be much skinner and lighter.

Thanks SR6,

I knew I could rely on you to explain things better.