I juess I am on a sherman kick at the moment. Someone posted recently asking what mm the British 17 pounder was. There seamed to be various answers as I recall. I want to know what is the difference between the 17 pounder and the US 76mm. Which penetrated more armor? Thanks Greg.
Not sure about all the facts, but I think the longer barrel created a higher velocity and better precision. It also had a muzzle brake wich would increase the velocity some.
I agree that with a longer barrel more energy is transfered to the proyectile, but I thought muzzle brakes only diminished the recoil.
Anyway I’m sure some of the WWII armor experts will be able to tell which gun was better.
The 17 pdr was more effective due to the tube length as well as the primer charge according to Steve Zaloga’s M4(76MM) 1943-65.Tests at Aberdeen in March 44 proved it more effective than even the 90mm much less the 76 mm.The book says the biggest draw back to the 76mm and the 3 inch gun on M10’s was the primer charge and the weight of the round itself. The tungsten T4 (HVAP) round somewhat evened the score but there was a shortage of tungsten.
The biggest reason the US didn’t adopt the 17 pdr was the logistical problems of ammo distribution .This of course is what Steven Zaloga’s book states.So if anyone thinks it’s WAY OFF save it.
Real benefit was the amount of guns available. While the 17 pdr was a better gun, they were in short supply and there only tended to be one or two per company. The 76mm was not as good, but entire US tank companies were armed with this slightly lesser gun. I think the US did not use the 17 pdr due to GB inability to produce them in the quantities needed. They had trouble equipping the UK armor corps with enough 17 pdr Fireflies.
Great point Rob, that too is in the book I was referencing.
there was more HE rounds availible for the 76mm gun than for the 17pounder, thats why there was always 75mm shermans or Cromwells with Fireflys