USA Anti-Tank Guns (True Fact)

Various Notes
------------------------------------------------------Anti-Tank Guns vs
Field Guns
Cals
Weight
MV
SW
Rge y
-----------------------------------------------------------------37-mm M3
L/52
900 2,900 1.9
37-mm PAK-35/36
L/45
950 2,550 1.5
47-mm M1 [Mine]
L/56.6 1,200 2,850 4
5-cm PaK-38
L/60
2,200 2,750 4.5
57-mm/6-pdr MK II, III L/43
2,500 2,800 6.3
57-mm/6-pdr MK IV V M1 L/50
2,500 2,950 6.3
57-mm M1
L/50
2,500 2,700 7.3
Canon de 75 mle 1897
L/36
2,500 1,900 13.7 12,000
75mm Field Gun M1917
L/30
2,900 1,850 15
13,500
75mm Field Gun M1897A1 L/34.5 3,400 2,000 15
13,900
75mm Field Gun M1897A4 L/34.5 3,400 2,000 15
13,900
75mm Field Gun M1897A4 L/34.5 3,700 2,000 15
13,900
M2A3 Carriage
75mm Field How M1A1
L/16
2,100 1,250 14.5 9,800
75mm Pack Howitzer M1 L/16
1,400 1,250 14.5 9,800
7.5-cm Pak-40
L/48
3,300 2,450 15
3-inch M5
L/50
4,900 2,600 15
17pdr
L/55
4,600 2,900 17
105mm Howitzer M2
L/22.5 4,250 1,550 33
12,500
76.2mm Field Gun M1941
76.2mm Field Gun M1943
85mm Field Gun M1943
85mm Field Gun M1943

L/42
L/42.6
L/55
L/55

2,500
2,500
3,750
3,800

2,250
2,250
2,600
2,600

13.7
13.7
21
21

14,000 76/41, ZIS-3

14,500 76/43, SIS-3*
18,000
17,000 D44*

75mm Field Gun M1917 - Converted 18pdr

76.2mm Field Gun M1943 SIS-3 - Numerous made. (*)
85mm Field Gun M1943 D44 - numerous made/ (*)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Tank Guns
Propellant and Shot Comparisons
Ammo Wt.
Max
CR Pr Pj Br*
MV
Range
APC M51
3.4 ? 1.9 - 2,900 fps
800 yd
HE M63
2,600 fps
700 yd
3.5 cals shorter than M6
37-mm M6
APC M51
3.4 ? 1.92 2,900 fps
800 yd
HE M63
3.4 ? 1.61 ?
2,600 fps
700 yd
HE M38
3.4 ? 1.24 ?
Canister M2 3.4 ? 1.89
75-mm M2
AP M61 19.36 lb. [3] 2 lb [3]
14.5 lb
1,850 fp
s
HE
@1 lb? [2]
14.6 lb 1.47 lb 1,450 fps
75-mm M3
AP
2 lb [3]
15 lb
2,030 fps
14,000 y
d
HE
@1 lb? [2]
14.6 lb 1.47 lb 1,550 fps
Weapon Ammo
37-mm M5

3-inch M5/M7
HE
d
76-mm M1 L/52
76-mm M1 L/52
HE
17-pounder L/55
75-mm L/70

AP

2,600 fps
2,800 fps

AP
AP

3.6 lb [1]

AP
AP

12.37 lb .86 lb 2,800

9 lb [1]
8.1 lb [1]

16,100 y

14,780 yd

Max
CR = Complete Round, Pr = Propellant, Pj= Projectile*, Br = Bursting Charge
Chamber
Weapon
Pressure Weight RPM
75-mm M2
36,000 783 lb. [3]
20
75-mm M3
38,000 910 lb. [2]
20
3-inch M5/M7
1,990 lb [2]
5,000 lb.
76-mm M1 L/52 38,000 [1]
76-mm M1 L/52 43,000 [2]
1,204 lb [2]
17-pounder L/55 48,000 1800, 4700 complete MK I
75-mm L/70
48,000
[1] M4 76mm Sherman-Medium Tank-Osprey-NV-073. pp. 4, 5.
[2] 75mm M3 gun, 76-mm M1, 3-inch M7 (leaflet?)
[3] 75-mm Tank Gun M2 FM23-95

Length
Tube
72.85"
84"
110.625"
26.625

Length
Overall
77.35"
91.75
118.375
26.625

90-mm Gun M3 L/50

90-mm Gun M3 L/50

150"
156"
45.375
177.25"
177.25"

158.1"
168"
49.625
195"
195"

75-mm How M1 L/15.9

47"

75-mm M1879A4 L/34.5

101.87

37-mm Gun M6 L/50

75-mm Gun M2 L/28.5
75-mm Gun M3 L/37.5
3-inch Gun M7 L/50
76-mm Gun M1 L/52

105-mm How M3 L/16

105-mm How M4 L/22
105-mm How M2 Tube & breech

Overall
Weight Cals
185 lb 50 / 53
783 lb
910 lb
127 lb
4.77 lb per inch
1,990 lb
1,207 lb 904 lb
+216 lb
2,410 lb
2,260 lb
1,465 lb
342 lb
1,035 lb
440 lb
995 lb
[c. 1,400 lb]
(1,100)

Gain of 130 pounds for L/28.5 to L/37.5 = 130 / 9 = 14.44 lb/cal

= 127 / 9 = 14.11 per cal
From L/37.5 to L/52 = 14.5 x 14.44 = 209 lb = 14.5 x 14.11 = 205 lb
bold underline emphasis

Length Length Overall Tube

Tube
Overall Weight Weight

Cals

6-pdr Mk 3 L/43
96.2
6-pdr Mk 5 L/50
112.2
75-mm QF MK V and MK VA L/36.5 (1)
77-mm QF Mk II L/49
147.65 165.5
3-inch Howitzer QF MK1, Mk1A L/25
95-mm Tank How QF Mk-1 L/21
80.4
3.7in Mortar (How) Ord QF Mk 1 L/15
17-pounder Mk VII L/55 165.45 172.25
17-pounder Mk IV
165.45 184.03
17-pounder Mk VI
165.45 183.8
17-pounder Mk VII
165.45 184.05

768
720
107.8 112.576 692
1502
75
78.2
256
85.52 867
55.5
59.2
222
1885
2032
1800, 4700 complete MK I

(1) Based on the 6-pounder increased to 75-mm caliber.

#### THE USA ANTI-TANK GUN WAS DESIGNED BEFORE IT WAS MOUNTED ON THE M2 tank ###
#
Late 1920s Infantry developed a 37-mm gun they adopted.
37-mm Anti-Tank Gun M2A1
******************************
Characteristics generally unknown.
Obsoleted in 1932 due to service tests where both the Artillery and Infantry con
sidered them Obsolete.
Version of the 37-mm M1916 with sliding breech block in place of 75-mm 1897 styl
e concentric screw.
Only 37-mm M1916 trench gun left once it was obsoleted.
Tests leading up to 37-mm
******************************
Hotchkiss 25-mm in 1935.
Dec. 1935 reports from Europe concerning Rhienmetal Pak offered for trials and p
urchasing. Decided to request one for trials.
1936 study of anti-mechanization weapons.
Sep. 1937 "Hurry up, everyone else has an AT and intermediate AA guns, and we d
on't." message from Chief of Staff to Ordnance.
47-mm Gun (Unknown if ever assigned a mark number or test type)
******************************
1936 created as a scaled up Pak-37. Hunnicut indicates it was a revised 37-mm M1
AA gun, not PaK which the ordnance Department likely did not have access to.
Tested on M2A1 light tank hull in an open mount of mild steel as a motorized gun
for combating anti-tank guns, and secondly as an anti-tank gun.
Did not perform well and never accepted.
No other details on the cannon.
Spanish Civil War
******************************
17 July 1936 to 1 April 1939
1936-1939 Spanish Civil War. Various lessons about tanks and anti-tank guns garn
ered.
(1) Anti-tank guns like German 37-mm and Soviet 45-mm rose to a threat to tanks.
(2) More armor was needed.
U.S. could afford a cannon for the M2 but not a redesign for more armor. The M2
hull and suspension would require major changes to handle any significant increa
se in weight - a tank redesign as it were.

Chiefs of Ordnance
***********************************
Four chiefs of Ordnance served the Department during the years between world war
s: General Williams, 1918 30; Maj. Gen. Samuel Hof, 1930 34; Maj. Gen. William H. Ts
chappat, 1934 38; and Maj. Gen. Charles M. Wesson, 1938 42, General [Clarence C.] Wi
lliams, an officer whose conception of the Ordnance mission had been profoundly
affected by his overseas service in 1917 18, combined open-mindedness with unusual
administrative ability. His vigorous pursuit of the Westervelt Board recommenda
tions on new equipment, his encouragement of industrial mobilization planning, a
nd his judicious selection of officers to carry out these basic policies earned
him universal respect.
Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9
37-mm Anti-Tank Gun M3, Tank Gun M5, M6
***********************************
M3 Lee Medium AFVDB: "The differences in the 37mm and 75mm guns are as follows:
The 37mm gun M5 was 6" (15cm) shorter than the M6, and the M5 had a manually-ope
rated breechblock instead of the M6's semiautomatic breechblock. The 75mm gun M2
had a shorter barrel than the M3 and had a vertical breechblock to the M3's hor
izontal breechblock. Otherwise, the 75mm guns were identical."
January 1937 ordnance Department authorized to develop a new 37-mm gun and a Rhe
inmetall 37-mm PaK was acquired for comparisons.
Pilot models authorized Sept. 9 1937 as 37-mm Gun T3 and Gun Carriage T1.
Trials at APG February and March 1938 uncovered numerous flaws: weak ammunition,
bad design of the breech, and wobbly carriage.
Went through 4 more designs for both bringing the carriage to T5.
August 1938 War Department remanded ordnance Department for suggesting the use o
f a 45-mm or 47-mm gun instead. and said no funding for work on a larger caliber
weapon was coming forth in 1939 or 1940.
Summer 1938 trials led to the acceptance of the 37-mm Gun T10 on carriage T5 as
the 37-mm Gun M3 and Carriage M4 on December 15, 1938.
"The American gun was designed for use not only on tanks but also as a light fie
ld gun mounted on its own carriage, adapted to towing either by truck or tractor
or by its crew of four men. Hence the Infantry was insistent that the weight of
gun and carriage together must not exceed 1,000 pounds. This weight limit precl
uded a gun of larger caliber. The gun itself was basically one and the same whet
her mounted on a carriage or in a tank, but because the gun when mounted in a ta
nk had to be shortened six inches, it was re-designated the 37-mm. M5, and later
, with a change in the breech mechanism, the M6. The antitank gun M3, for mounti
ng upon the carriage M4, kept a hand-operated breech mechanism. This gun was 6 f
eet 10.5 inches long, weighed 191 pounds, had a muzzle velocity of 2,600 feet pe
r second, a range of about 12,000 yards, and could fire 25 rounds a minute. Ordn
ance engineers expended only less effort upon the carriage than upon the gun, in
asmuch as the traverse, elevating mechanism, and locking devices were fixed to t
he carriage. [47] The requirement for ammunition was armor-piercing shot capable
of penetrating 1.5 inches of armor on impact 20 degrees from normal at a range
of 1,000 yards. By 1938 armor-piercing shot M51 was standardized with tracer, an
d later also a high-explosive shell with the M38A1 base detonating fuze. [48]
Thus, some four years were devoted to development of the U.S. Army's fi
rst antitank gun which, in terms of what the Soviet Union and Germany had ready
by 1939, was obsolete before it was standardized. From a military observer in Eu
rope word had come of developments in Germany, and observers in Spain during the
Spanish Civil War had opportunity to note the outstanding performance of the Ru
ssian 45-mm. antitank gun. Yet the decision to push the 37-mm. was not rescinded
. In August 1938, before the Ordnance Department had proceeded far with procurem
ent, the War Department issued explicit instructions to the Chief of Ordnance:

1. The Infantry is designated as the most interested using arm for the 37-mm ant
itank gun under AR 850-25.
2. No development funds will be expended by the Ordnance Department during the F
iscal Years 1939 or 1940 in the development of antimechanized weapons of larger
than 37-mm caliber. If the necessity for an antitank gun of larger than 37-mm ca
liber develops, the arm responsible for its development will be designated at th
at time.49
This decision of the General Staff, closing the door to alternative design, was
deplored by many Ordnance officers. The chief of the Artillery Branch of the Man
ufacturing Division from 1937 to 1939 later stated:
The Ordnance Department was well aware that the 37-mm gun was totally inadequate
as an antitank gun, and many and repeated efforts were made to convince the var
ious interested using services personnel of this fact.
The Infantry personnel were very much impressed with the compact design of the R
heinmetall 37 and at one time in fact demanded a duplicate. The deciding criteri
on was the overall weight ... 850 pounds.
Page 185
This was considered the maximum that four men could comfortably wheel over the g
round.
It is my opinion that all of the early artillery of World War II ... suffered fr
om the continued insistence by the using arms on mobility even at the expense of
striking power.50
This testimony leads to the conclusion that General Williams scheme of allowing t
he using arms to have the final say about types of equipment had been carried to
an extreme where Ordnance experts could no longer greatly influence important d
ecisions.
Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9
December 1938 Field Artillery proposed "... a truck-drawn weapon weighing about
1,500 pounds with a muzzle velocity sufficient to penetrate 2.5-inch armor at im
pact 20 degrees from normal [68-mm/2.7-inches; 67.6-mm/2.66-inches] at a range o
f 1,000 yards. But the Chief of Ordnance objected that the introduction of an ad
ditional weapon with new types of ammunition would complicate production and sup
ply, that the 75-mm. howitzer and 75-mm. field gun effectively supplemented the
37-mm. as antitank weapons, and that the gun requested by the Field Artillery co
uld not weigh less than 2,700 pounds. The Field Artillery withdrew its request.
[51]
Sixteen months later the Chief of Staff reviewed the question. "It occu
rs to me," wrote General Marshall in June 1940, "that we should initiate develop
ment of a heavier caliber antitank gun than the 37-mm. Reports from abroad indic
ate that the 37-mm. has been found comparatively ineffective against the heavier
type tank armor and that a 47-mm. gun (possibly on a self-propelled mount) may
be necessary as an arm for corps and division antiaircraft battalions." [52]
"General Wesson's [Chief of Ordnance] reply evinced no corresponding anx
iety. He repeated the substance of his earlier statement that for its weight the
37-mm. antitank gun was very effective; it would penetrate the armor on America
n light and medium tanks. The 47-mm. a study of which had been conducted in 1939
, was not enough more powerful than the 37-mm. to justify development. At least
a 57-mm. would be needed, and in view of the existence of the 75-mm. field gun,
work on a 57-mm. seemed uncalled for. The 37-mm. supplemented by the 75-mm. with
armor-piercing ammunition appeared to be adequate, though perhaps a more powerf
ul gun might be needed to combat heavy tanks. [53] In conclusion he declared tha
t the best way to supply self-propelled antitank artillery was to mount antitank
guns on tanks."
[Ordnance Procurement and Supply CMH Pub 10-10, pg. 81:]
Production: Started with M5 Tank Guns. Watervliet received the first production

contracts: they had the tools needed to make them since they were the lead when
the gun was being developed and had manufactured the pilot guns.
November 1938: 18 gun order
June 1939: About 400 more ordered.
Feb. 1940 shipped the first 18. Thereafter began producing 150 per month
starting Early 1941.
Summer 1940: 2 more companies began producing: National Pneumatic Compan
y and United Shoe Machinery Corporation, producing 2,800 and switched to M6s aft
er Pearl Harbor.
American Type Founders contracted to build M6s late 1940 supplying aroun
d 900 before 1941 ended.
Thus roughly 5,000 provided by the arsenal and 3 civilian contractors at
the finish of 1941 and yet orders were for 35,000 (including so many thousand f
or the British).
Ant-Tank Gun M3: Starting Winter 1939-1940.
Watervliet built guns, Rock Island carriages.
April 1940 York Safe and Lock Company given contracts for guns and carri
ages.
Several weeks later United Shoe Machinery Corporation and National Pneum
atic Company built guns while Muncie Gear Works and Duplex Printing Press Compan
y built carriages.
Slow ramp-up from signing on to getting into production led to the G4's
conclusion: "Delivery of 37-mm. AT guns is very slow, and it will be at least 18
months before the requirements for existing units will be filled."
Table 9: Artillery Production,. 1 July 1940 31 December 1941 (select entries)
------------------37-mm. gun, AT
2,592
37-mm. gun, AA
504
37-mm. gun, tank
5,571
37-mm. gun, aircraft
390
#####################################
57-mm Anti-Tank Gun M1
------------------------------------------------------British completed the 6-pdr Mk. I in 1939.
February 1941. Chief of Ordnance started the process needed to begin manufacturi
ng the British 6-pounder. February 1942 the USA 57-mm M1 Anti-Tank gun first pro
duced.
The Army had no plans to adopt it but most people saw it as a need for supplying
the British Lend Lease. The U.S. received one of the long barreld MK Is and hen
ce (having adeuqate lathes) built them L/50.
November 1941 British began building their own 6-pounder. Production began with
the shorter barreled Mk. II due to lack of lathes for the longer barrel. [US Ant
i Tank Artillery 1941-45; Zaloga; Osprey; 2005]
February 1942 the USA 57-mm M1 Anti-Tank gun first produced. Retained the Britis
h side-shields throughout service.
The 37-mm proved poor in Tunisia and as such the Infantry Command decided to rep
lace it with the 57-mm. Accepted in Service May 1943, although it seems some wer
e in oran in April 1943. Some units had switched over by the invasion of Scicily
(Patton's 3rd Army was critical of the lack of HE rounds as HE targets were qui
et common).

"The adoption of the British 57mm gun made the most sense as it was already in p
roduction in the United States. Ordnance felt it was the wrong move, since the 5
7mm gun would be obsolete by the time it reached service. The Ordnance viewpoint
was ignored, however..." [US Anti Tank Artillery 1941-45; Zaloga; Osprey; 2005
pg 14]
Although the 1.5 ton truck was assigned the prime mover the halftrack was often
used instead, although during the Battle of the Bulge one officer complained of
having issues moving guns by truck.
Various detail changes were made throughout the life of the gun: U.S. Army truck
s required a different lunette assembly to tow them (M1A3 carriage; M1A2 was the
model for Lend Lease as the British had no requirement for the change); caster
wheel to aide in swinging the trail; etc..
Experiments included the British Molins Automatic Loader Mk. I and T10 57/40mm s
queeze bore adaptor which failed.
U.S. Organization
3 each battalion = 9 (anti-tank platoons)
3 anti-tank companies with 3 each = 9
total: 18 per regiment
3 regiments per division = 54 per division
[US Anti Tank Artillery 1941-45; Zaloga; Osprey; 2005 pg 15]
The U.S. had not planned to adopt the 57-mm and as such had not set up a
system for manufacturing any ammunition except Armor Piercing. Manufacture of o
ther rounds lagged: the high explosive T18 became M303 authorized March 1944 but
none shipped until after the Normandy campaign; the T17 adopted as M305 caniste
r was tested in April 1944 but not produced until January 1945 and as such littl
e if any reached Europe in time for combat use. This hindering the 57-mm in the
field gun role. Some U.S. units acquired HE rounds from the British.
The U.S. never developed a HVAP round for the 57-mm although (again) som
e U.S. units acquired APDS rounds from the British. This was so common that some
commanding officers included it as part of the regular ammunition loads. The la
ck of a U.S. tungsten shot convinced some U.S. 57-mm gunners that the British 6pdr. was more effective for some magical reason. They were in fact the same basi
c cannon. If anything, early British 6-pdrs. had a shorter barrel (L/43) that th
e 57 or later 6 pdrs. (L/50) due to an initial shortage of lathes needed for the
longer barrels. Which would mean that at one time U.S. 57s were more powerful t
han British 6 pdrs.
This confusion sometimes occurred because U.S. Airborne units found the
57-mm to be too heavy and rejected it at first. But then accepted the British "A
irborne" model with narrower wheels and other modifications that made it easier
to load into gliders.
This confusion sometimes occurred because U.S. Airborne units found the
57-mm to be too heavy and rejected it at first. But then accepted the British "A
irborne" model with narrower wheels and other modifications that made it easier
to load into gliders.
The British adopted a muzzle brake later but the U.S. did not seem to (a
lthough paratroopers with British airborne guns can be seen with muzzle brakes).
Standard Guide to U.S. World War II TANKS & ARTILLERY indicates it "buck
ed" (hopped) a bit and illustrates a 57-mm in recoil with the wheels a few inche
s off the ground. Some other cannon like the 105-mm M3 also jumped under various
conditions. (Sabot Work by University of New Mexico).

British Experience With 6 pounder

---------------The original pilot had a long barrel (L/50). Due to a lack of lathes to
build long barrels the MK II/III (anti-tank/tank) models were 43 calibers long (
L/43) (760 lb. - 770lb.). They were also heavy due to the straight pug-nosed bar
rel. Velocity was around 100 fs. slower than the L/50 (anti-tank/tank). The long
er barreled weapon (L/50) MK IV/V not only had more velocity but was actually li
ghter due to slender barrel contours and other weight saving changes (730 lb.).
The author has seen U.S. manufactured "guns" stamped 725 lb. and in all likeliho
od actual produced weapons varied in weight.
The British had issues fighting German tanks in 1942 because of the use
of face hardened plate for the frontal armor of the Pzkw III and IV. The 2-pdr.
had grown ineffective except against the engine grills and other side or rear we
ak spots. The 6-pounder could not handle the frontal armor but was dandy against
the sides and rear. [El Alamein: The Battle that Turned the Tide of the Second
World War; Hammond; Osprey; 2012] notes the deficiencies against frontal armor d
uring the the El Alamein campaign July - November 1942 while [El Alamein 1942: B
attle Story; Battistelli; Spellmount; 2011] noted that the 6pdr. was only effect
ive to around 1,000 meters/1100 yd. while the 75-mm on the Grant/Lee and Sherman
was effective to 2,000 meters/2,200 yds. likely for this reason.
Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9 pg. 73 note
: "American 75-mm. APC ammunition, though then made without an explosive charge,
was credited with saving the day in Libya, as British uncapped ammunition was i
neffective against German face-hardened plate"
[http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:6pounder-anti-tank-gun&catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58]
The initial loadings used a 6.28 lb. plain AP (uncapped) round at 2,650
fs. later increased to 2,800/2,900 fs.
The 6-pdr was hampered by a lack of capped shot which was first produced
by the British in 1943 in uncapped form. In 1943 the APCBC shot was introduced
weighing 7.11-7.13 lb. with a velocity of 2630/2780 fs. which may have been the
unfilled equivilent of the U.S. APCBC shot 7.28 lb. [Artillery Ammunition TM9-19
01 June 1944]
U.S. APC shot was always "APCBC" and hence the "APCBC" was not specified
in U.S. parlance.

1941
AP
160,000
AP(o) APC
APCBC APCBC(o)APDS
HE
NF

1942
1943
6,150,000 7,130,000
1,838,000 1,330,000
534,000
1,125,000
430,000
396,000 1,865,000

1944
1945
30,000
1,143,000
2,044,000
217,000 158,000
286,000 172,000

57-mm Gun on Carriage T2

------------------------------------------------------"The US Army felt that the 6-pdr carriage wasn't stable enough and recommended t
hat a domestic design be initiated in May 1941. This was eventually approved as
the 57mm gun T2 and carriage T1. Four pilots were constructed, two based around
the hydropneumatic recoil mechanism of the 75mm pack howitzer, and two with hydr
ospring recuperators. The T2 gun used the same 57mm ammunition as the British. T
esting of the designs began in the spring of 1942, and comparative trials were c
onducted with the American-manufactured 57mm (6-pdr) in the summer. Although the
new American carriage design was generally more stable than the original Britis

h design, there was still no US Army requirement for a towed 57mm anti-tank gun;
it was therefore difficult to justify production of the weapon, as the gun had
the same ballistic performance as its British counterpart. The project was kept
open and many improvements incorporated into the design, but it proved to be a w
aste of effort."
[US Anti Tank Artillery 1941-45; Zaloga; Osprey; 2005 pg 14]
#####################################
75-mm Howitzer
"75-mm. Pack Howitzer
The 75-mm. pack howitzer belongs to the specialized group of weapons assi
gned for use in mountainous country where motorized or horse-drawn artillery can
not go. Easy disassembly for packing on mule-back is essential. Before World War
I the Ordnance Department had spent a good deal of effort designing a mountain
gun better than the English Vickers-Maxim 2.95-inch then in use, but the project
was dropped when it was apparent that the AEF would have no use for mountain gu
ns. In 1919 the Westervelt Board, reviving the project pronounced a pack howitze
r to be "one of the items of artillery in most urgent need of development." [35]
The ideal weapon should have a caliber of about 3 inches, possible elevation of
45 degrees, a minimum range of at least 5,000 yards, and should be capable of b
eing packed in four separate loads of about 225 pounds each. A first postwar mod
el, the M1920 which incorporated these features, was soon found unsatisfactory,
chiefly because recuperator, piston rod, and trail were inadequate. [36] The nex
t six years saw intensive work on models designed to correct these weaknesses an
d to furnish a mountain gun at least as powerful as new foreign types. Greater r
ange was particularly desired. The weapon standardized in 1927 as the 75-mm. Pac
k Howitzer M1 had a range of 9,200 yards and weighed 1,269 pounds in firing posi
tion. It took rank as one of the most efficient artillery weapons yet devised. [
37] The Chief of Field Artillery asserted: "It is a remarkable weapon with a gre
at future .... In its adaptability under pack it has exceeded any expectations w
hich could reasonably have been held considering the power of the weapon." [38]
Some modifications, chiefly of the recoil mechanism, and a new carriage were com
pleted during the thirties.
But in spite of faith in the usefulness of this weapon, only thirty-two p
ack howitzers had been manufactured by 1 July 1940. [39]"
Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9, pp. 180#######################################
-------------------------------------75-mm 1897 Guns
[75-mm Gun Material M1897 And Modifications; TM9 305; 1941; U.S. Army Technical
Manual]
75-mm guns Weight (pounds)
M1897
1,015
M1897A2
1,035
M1897A3
1,035
M1897A4
1,035
Carriage
M1897
2657
Original French
M1897M1A2
2657

Weight Elevation
19
19

Depression
10

Traverse R L
3/3

10

3/3

French made in U.S.A.

M1897A4
3007
High Speed.
M2A1
M2A2
M2A3

19
3447
3447
3225

10
46
10
46
10
45-30' 10-30' 3/3

3/3
45/40
45/40

-------------------------------------75-mm Anti-Tank Gun on Carriage M2A1 [Fact].

This gun threw the author at first because there was no "mark number"
until he r
ealized it was in essence the first 75-mm anti-tank gun the US Army adopted. And
just as interesting, it was usually not referred to as such: rather, technical
manuals refer to it as the 75-mm Gun 1897 Gun on Carriage M2A1.
In 1939 and 1940 the realities of war shook up the General stuff who bro
ke down and accepted the fact that the 37-mm was a pitiful gun to force on US tr
oops. It was then that the building of a tank with a 75-mm gun was allowed. (In
June 1940).
-------------------------------------75-mm Anti-Tank Gun on Carriage M2A1 [Fact].
The Ordnance Department suggested mounting 1897 guns on the new M2A1 spl
it trail carriage designed for the 105-mm howitzer with a shield and direct fire
sight as an interim heavy antitank gun. Production began in July 1940 and by No
vember 1941 exactly 918 had been converted. The use of the 105 carriage almost g
uaranteed this was a heavy bitch of a gun (3,700 pounds per Ian Hogg s Allied Arti
llery of World War Two; The Crowood Press; 1998), as shown by the mounting of th
e 3-inch gun T9 on the same basic carriage.
[3-inch T9 + 105-mm breech = 1,800 lb.; 75-mm 1897 tube + breech = 1,000
lb.; 3,700 + 800 lb. difference = 4,500 lb. for the 3-inch M5 ATG].
[75-mm Gun Material M1897 And Modifications; TM9 305; 1941; U.S. Army Te
chnical Manual] gives weight of 3,200 lb.
Rejection of a 75-mm armed tank...
------"If that was truth, not flattery, the lead was lost in 1938. In spite of a repor
t from Berlin describing the German experimental mounting of an 88-mm. gun in a
tank, the Chief of Infantry declared so powerful a weapon as a 75-mm, needless.1
07 As a result of this judgment, the pilots of the M2 and M2A1 medium tanks, bui
lt the next year, were each armed only with a 37-mm. gun, eight .30-caliber mach
ine guns, and a .45-caliber submachine gun. Meanwhile, the mechanized Cavalry wa
s clamoring for a self-propelled cannon to neutralize enemy antitank guns. Only
when the War Department conceded that a 75-mm. howitzer mounted on a combat car
chassis* was virtually a tank was a new decision reached; approval of designing
a tank equipped with a 75-mm. howitzer came at last in July 1940. The Armored Fo
rce, headed by a Cavalry officer, Brig. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, was established th
at month.108"
[Ordnance Procurement and Supply CMH Pub 10-10, 201]
* T3 75-mm Howitzer Experiment?
-------------------------------------75-mm Tank Gun M2, M3 [Pure Fact]
75-mm M2, 75-mm M3
M3 Lee Medium AFVDB: "The differences
The 37mm gun M5 was 6" (15cm) shorter
rated breechblock instead of the M6's
had a shorter barrel than the M3 and

in the 37mm and 75mm guns are as follows:

than the M6, and the M5 had a manually-ope
semiautomatic breechblock. The 75mm gun M2
had a vertical breechblock to the M3's hor

izontal breechblock. Otherwise, the 75mm guns were identical."

The exact reasons behind the choices that led to the 75-mm Tank Gun M2 a
nd M3 have never been given, but it seems obvious that in 1941 when the 75-mm ar
med tank was finally given the go-ahead the Army wanted a "75" as fast as possib
le; they did not want a new ammunition type; the 1897 model 75s were old and sti
ll needed; and the only modernized design was the pre-production T5 anti-aircraf
t gun tube.
Hunnicut says the 75 was seen as "artillery" not an AT gun and the AP sh
ot was an afterthought.
The first envisioned tank was the M3 with a 37-mm anti-tank gun and the
75-mm as a field gun.
[Where did I get the T5 info?] From brief snatches of information it see
ms the T5 was designed to continue the 75-mm 1897 line of anti-aircraft guns but
it fired the mid-velocity 1897 cartridge which was simply no longer useful agai
nst the higher flying aircraft of the 1930s and 1940s.
Hunnicut notes that the 75mm T6 was an anti-aircraft gun standardized as
the 75-mm Tank Gun M2 used in a test to develop an mobile AA gun based on the M
3 chassis as the 75-mm Gun motor Carriage T26, with work initiated in an October
1941 Ordnance Committee project but ending in March 1942 after the mid-velocity
nature of the 75 was determined unsuited for such use. [Sherman, pg. 387] [Was
this the 75-mm Tank Gun M1?] The T7/M2 was based on it and had the same 84" bore
length.
Hunnicut notes that they tested a 71.25 inch long bore but extreme amoun
t of muzzle blast resulted.
According to the "Illustrated Directory of Tanks of The World" by David
Miller (Salamander; 2000) in September 1940 the Armored Force requested higher v
elocities from the 75 (assumingly higher than the T7/M2).
There was a 75-mm T6 and then a 75-mm T7 which became the M2 gun (1,850
f/s in 1942; 1930 f/s by 1944) in May 1941. In June 1941 the T8 became the longe
r barreled 75-mm M3 (2,030 f/s).
75-mm M2
s
s
75-mm M3
s

AP M61 19.36 lb. [3]

2 lb [3]

14.5 lb

1,850 fp

HE

@1 lb? [2]

14.6 lb 1.47 lb 1,450 fp

AP

2 lb [3]

15 lb

2,030 fp

Mounting 37-mm in turret and 75-mm in hull to create the M3 medium tank... "
FM23-95 75-mm Tank Gun M2 (Mounted on Medium Tank M3) May 1942 gives a velocity
of 1,850 fs. for armor piercing shot. Base Penentration: 70-mm/2.8in@30;81-mm/3.2
in@0
TM9-1901 Artillery Ammunition June 1944 Gives a velocity of 1,930 fs. for the M2
gun with armor piercing shot. Base Penetration: 74-mm/2.9in@30;85-mm/3.3in@0
Velocity for the M3 gun is always quoted as 2,030 fs. Base Penetration: 77-mm/3i
n@30;89-mm/3.5in@0
Other than those with dyslexia who give "2300 fs." and those who round up to "20
50 fs." or down to "2000 fs."
Armor penentrating ballistics favor 2000 fs. for the M3. Base Penetration: 76-mm
/3in@30;88-mm/3.5in@0
M2 GUN 1,850 fs. 70-mm/2.8in@30;81-mm/3.2in@0 FM23-95
M2 GUN 1,930 fs. 74-mm/2.9in@30;85-mm/3.3in@0 TM9-1901
M3 GUN 2,030 fs. 77-mm/3.0in@30;89-mm/3.5in@0 TM9-1901
FM23-95 75-mm Tank Gun M2 (Mounted on Medium Tank M3) May 1942
TM9-1901 Artillery Ammunition June 1944

Armor penetrating ballistics favor 2000 fs. for the M3. Base Penentration: 76mm/3in@30;88-mm/3.5in@0
Penetration quotes from TM9-1901
75-mm APC M61A1 3.4" @ 0 @ 1,000
2.8" @ 0 @ 1,000
75-mm APC M61A1 3.1" @ 0 @ 1,000
2.6" @ 0 @ 1,000
75-mm APC M61A1 3.3" @ 0 @ 1,000
2.7" @ 0 @ 1,000

for the M2, M3, and 1897 guns are:

yd FH M3 Gun
yd RH
yd FH M2, M1916, M1917
yd RH
yd FH M1897A4
yd RH

(FH = Face Hardened, Rh = Rolled Homogenous)

"Although a makeshift, this arrangement was hailed in 1940 as the only a
vailable answer to the threat of German armor, and by September demands for 75-m
m. tank guns reached the 2,500 mark.
"An order for 1,308 75-mm. tank guns was assigned to Watervliet in mid-J
uly 1940, and 9 months later the first completed units were shipped. By Septembe
r 1941 Watervliet was turning out 75-mm's. at the rate of one hundred per month,
and had completed nearly one thousand by the end of the year. Meanwhile, as req
uirements continued to rise, two commercial firms were given contracts in August
and September of 1940, the Empire Ordnance Corporation of Philadelphia and the
Cowdrey Machine Works of Fitchburg, Mass. {62} Both were slow to get into produc
tion, and neither was regarded as a strong source. {63} Empire shipped its first
guns in August 1941 and Cowdrey in January 1942. Just a week before Pearl Harbo
r, with total requirements rising above twenty thousand and guns lagging behind
tank production, a third source was added, the Oldsmobile Division of General Mo
tors Corporation. Watervliet carried the burden of production during the critica
l months of the emergency period, manufacturing 1,000 of the 1,200 guns produced
during 1941. {64}"
"
[Ordnance Procurement and Supply CMH Pub 10-10, 82-83]
"The M2 was standardized in May 1941 and the M3 in June 1941." (Footnote on page
83, Ordnance Procurement and Supply CMH Pub 10-10)
Table 9: Artillery Production,. 1 July 1940 31 December 1941 (select entries)
-----------75-mm. gun, AT
918 [918 1897 field guns fit to howitzer carriage M2]
75-mm. gun, tank
1,216
75-mm. howitzer
458
3-inch gun, field
140 [3-inch AT guns? Prototypes?]

#######################################
75-mm M4 Aerial Cannon
Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9, pgs. 441, 442
NOTE: Lightweight steels used 1944.
"Meanwhile, long before work on the M9 37-mm. cannon began, Ordnance engineers h
ad been trying to develop a still more powerful strafing weapon. The 75-mm. fiel
d gun tested in plane-to-plane fire in the summer of 1940 had established the fe
asibility of mounting a big gun in aircraft. Though further work on that first d
evelopment project had lapsed, the Air Corps had evinced some interest in a sche
me to install a 75-mm. in a plane built to mount it for fire against ground targ
ets. In mid-1941 the Douglas Aircraft Company, instead of using the B-18 first t

ried, undertook to adapt a new medium bomber to take a specially designed cannon
and mount. Though a Douglas XA26B did mount a 75 and fire it successfully in Ju
ne 1942, the bomber that eventually carried the 75-mm. into action was the B-25
made by the North American Aviation Corporation. In 1941 Ordnance engineers to w
hom design of the gun, mount, and fire control system was assigned had for guida
nce only the knowledge that the job was possible. It meant a completely fresh st
art, for the field gun tried as an air-to-air weapon could not readily be modifi
ed to meet the new requirements for air-to-ground fire. In one respect only was
the designers task simplified: impact fuzes and aiming by ordinary gun sights wou
ld suffice for effective strafing of stationary or slow-moving ground targets, w
hereas proximity fuzes or preset fuzes and elaborate range finders would have be
en needed against aerial targets.2 Still the problems were peculiarly difficult.
The 44-inch recoil mechanism of the ground-mounted gun was impossible to use in
the confined space of a plane. Shortened recoil would increase trunnion reaction
, and mounting the conventional hydromatic recoil and counterrecoil cylinders ab
ove or below the gun tube would make the gun silhouette too large, Ordnance engi
neers found the answer in step-by-step modification of the 75-mm, M3 tank gun an
d in development of a new mount. The single-shot, hand-loaded weapon with its ve
rtical sliding, automatically operated breechblock was fired electrically. An eje
ctor mechanism spewed out the shell case after the round was fired. A hydro-spri
ng recoil mechanism using two cylinders mounted above and below the gun barrel r
educed the silhouette somewhat. The stronger construction of the newer bombers e
nabled Ordnance engineers to let the plane absorb part of the recoil shock and t
hus limit the recoil stroke to the 21-inch length of the round, a space needed i
n any case to load the gun. In the first models an automatically functioning muz
zle cover that opened when the breech was closed and closed when the breech open
ed was provided to prevent fumes from pouring into the gunner s compartment after
firing and to ease ammunition loading, but this feature was found unnecessary an
d later dropped.
Page 442
The model accepted in the summer of 1942 was designated the 75-mm. aircraft gun
M4, and its mount the M6. Gun and mount together weighed 893 pounds. Muzzle velo
city with high-explosive ammunition averaged 1,974 feet per second, with armor-p
iercing-capped ammunition, 2,024.3 The ammunition was the same as that standard
for ground guns, a considerable advantage in procurement. Moreover, on at least
one occasion, this interchangeability was of importance in the field. Maj. Gen,
Claire L. Chennault in his memoirs described how one of his officers saved the d
ay for Chinese troops equipped with three old French 75-mm. field guns but no am
munition. Sacrificing some of his cherished supply of 75-mm. aircraft shell, the
pilot dropped enough to the Chinese to put their guns into action. From the Pac
ific theatres after 1942 came testimony to the effectiveness of the gun for stra
fing. Its fire destroyed pillboxes and sank naval vessels. In July 1943, for exa
mple, two B-25 bombers mounting 75-mm. air cannon attacked a large Japanese dest
royer off the coast of Cape Gloucester and in two runs, firing seven shots on ea
ch run, riddled the ship from stem to stern and left it sinking.4
Even before the 75-mm. M4 was standardized, Ordnance engineers began work upon a
light-weight, mechanically-loaded air cannon. An entirely new recoil mechanism
in which the cylinder was concentric about the gun tube reduced both silhouette
and weight. By using a new high-strength alloy steel having an elastic limit of
130,000 pounds per square inch, the designers lowered the weight of the gun alon
e to 406 pounds. When metallurgical tests at Watertown Arsenal and firing tests
at Erie Proving Ground established the greater strength of hollow quenched over
solid quenched gun tubes and breechblocks, the former method of manufacture was
included in the specifications. An automatic fuze setter-rammer saved the space
required for manual loading and permitted firing at a rate of 30 rounds per minu
te. Two models of this light-weight cannon varying from each other only in minor

details were standardized in 1944 as the 75-mm. AN-M5A1 and the M10.5
Early in 1943 the 37-mm. M9 for strafing mechanized ground troops and the 75-mm.
M4 for destroying heavily armored ground targets were serving their purpose wel
l enough to inspire work upon a still more powerful gun. Tests at Eglin Field, F
lorida, comparing the effectiveness of existing rockets and air cannon pointed t
o the superiority of the latter. Development of a 105-mm. aircraft gun, therefor
e, was started in July 1943 with endeavor to adapt a 105-mm. howitzer to use for
air-to-ground attack. A year later numerous changes necessitated by the excessi
ve blast of the first models led to making a new approach. The resulting T7 105mm. aircraft gun was test fired late in 1944 only to show that the feed mechanis
m required further study. Before the changes were completed the war ended and th
e project was canceled.6"
#######################################
75-mm M6 Tank Cannon
Wikipedia indicates this was the gun used on the M24 Chaffee. It also indicates
it was 40-calibers but the data fact sheet shows the same calibers length as the
M3.
410-lbs same ballistics as the 75-mm m3.
Unsourced data fact sheet. Which hints it may have been used on some search-ligh
t tanks.
#######################################
75-mm M10 Aerial cannon.
406-lbs same ballistics as the 75-mm m3.
The strange case of the flying Grizzly and its 75mm gun (internet article)
"THE M10 CANNON
To arm the A-38 was the new-designed T15E1 (M10) 75-mm cannon. It was designed
to enable the A-38 to destroy enemy bunkers, tanks, and positions with just a
single shot, while it also placed random surface ships and submarines on the
menu. The gun, in essence, could assassinate a building or destroy a destroyer
if given the opportunity.
The entire front section of the gun forward of the recoil band protruded through
the nose of the A-38
Air cooled with an 84-inch long barrel, the gun was huge, being 12-feet long
from end to end when fully assembled. However, it was extensively stripped of
excess material, making it 'just' 406-pounds in weight, which is pretty light
for a 75mm cannon. Semi-auto, it could fire a 15-pound, 26-inch long shell every
two seconds. These rounds, fired at 2030 fps, could penetrate nearly four-inches
of steel armor.
Why don't you know about the Grizzly/M10 combo?
Well, the fact was that the plane came too late. First flying in the summer of
1944, the weapon worked beautifully in tests, as did the aircraft, however the
war was winding down, and no orders came for Beech..."

#######################################
3-inch Towed AT Gun M5
Wikipedia: "Prior to World War II, the primary US anti-aircraft gun was the 3-in
ch M1918 gun (76.2 mm L/50), a widely-used caliber for this class of weapon. Sim
ilar weapons were in British, Soviet and other arsenals. There had been several
upgrades to the weapon over its history, including the experimental T8 and T9 ve
rsions developed in the early 1930s that were intended to enter service later in
the decade.
However the US Army became interested in a much more capable weapon instead, and
on June 9, 1938 it issued a development contract calling for two new guns, one
of 90 mm which it felt was the largest possible size that was still capable of b
eing manually loaded at high elevations, and another, using assisted loading, of
120 mm caliber. The new design seemed so much better than developments of the o
lder 3-inch that work on the 3-inch T9 was canceled in 1938 just as it became pr
oduction-ready." [90 mm Gun M1-M2-M3 - Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia]
Began work around 1940. Original pilot model tube of T9 3-inch AA gun used to cr
eate 3-inch Gun T10, Recoil mechanism T5, Carriage T1. Carriage based on M2 Carr
iage of 105mm howitzer.
September 1941 pilot tested at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and worked so well an or
der for 100 was authorized.
March 1942 Field Artillery Board (FAB) tested at Fort Brag and found a lot of is
sues that needed to be addressed. No immediate interest; too heavy for infantry
and Tank Destroyers wanted a motorized weapon.
August 1942 head of Army Ground Forces General Lesley McNair (staunch supporter
of artillery and the idea that towed anti-tank guns were superior to tanks) star
ted it again with orders for 1,000.
December 1942 production of the 3-inch Gun M5 on Carriage M1 began.
#######################################
76-mm M1 Series Tank Gun
Why a 3" and not 75 for the 76-mm M1?
The 3-inch caliber was chosen (according to a phone call transcript between Gene
ral G.M. Barnes in charge of Ordnance Research & Development and General Joe Dev
ers Head of Armored Forces because the 75-mm driving band was not fit and would
have to be modified for high velocities whereas they had plenty of 3-inch rotati
ng bands "I would have considered using the 75, but we'd have to redesign the pr
ojectile because the rotating band wouldn't take that velocity. So we had to go
to 3"...":
GEN. BARNES: The new 76 mm. gun. The objective that we're after is to be able to
give you, in the same space, a gun of 2600 ft.s. muzzle velocity, same power, e
xterior ballistics as the 3" high power gun. We use the 3" bore for the gun in o
rder to use the 3" projectile which is under manufacture. We have to assemble a
new cartridge case in it in order to get the power, so we call the gun a 76 mm s
o it won't be confused with the 75 or 3". Now, that gun will penetrate 3" of arm
or at 3,000 yds. and give you all the fire power we feel you'll probably need. A
nd we can put it in the M4 tank without a single change in the tank except in yo
ur ammunition racks. While we're making the guns we can, of course, change the f
ace plate on the tank and push the gun about 6" further out into the atmosphere

and make a better arrangement inside the turret, because with this long gun we h
ave to add some weight to the gun guard (recoil guard) in order to bring it into
balance for the gun stabilizer. Of course we are all crazy about the thing down
here because it puts you so far ahead of everybody else in fire power, and so w
hat we want to do is to go ahead with the initial order of 1,000 guns, of which
we will be able to get two or three hundred of in a month and a half and as a st
arter, while you people are making up your mind how many in the long run you'll
want of these, and how many of the short guns.
GEN DEVERS: How much longer is this than the 75? It isn't as long as the present
3" is it?
B: Yes, it's a little longer than the 3". It's 52 calibers long. The old 3", I m
ean the old 75, is 35 calibers or 32, I've forgotten which.
D: Well,. what is the 3" A.A.? How many calibers long?
B: That's about 50.
D: In other words, this is 2" longer than that.
B: 2 calibers - 6" longer.
D: I think that's fine. The only thing that worries me a little bit now is that
this isn't going to throw us off on our present set-up so we can get to fighting
. I'm anxious to get M-4 tanks with anything in them so we can go to fighting.
B: It won't have any effect on that at all. We'll keep it off to one side. We wo
n't allow it to interfere in any way either with this program or with the 3" gun
s on the self-propelled mounts. What it'll do is to put you out several years ah
ead of anybody else on fire power
D: That's what we're after and it's along the proper lines. It won't complicate
the ammunition supply now, will it?
B: Well, to this extent: You're going to have to have a round of ammunition call
ed a 76 mm. as far as you're concerned. And that's different from the 75 or the
3".
D: What does this projectile weigh?
B: It's the 3" projectile.
D: The only difference is the cartridge case?
B: That's right
D: The 75 weighs 14.4. What does that 3" weigh?
B: About 15 lbs
D: There's not much difference, is there?
B: No. I would have considered using the 75, but we'd have to redesign the proje
ctile because the rotating band wouldn't take that velocity. So we had to go to
3" in order to give you that velocity, and of course we have a nice stock of 3"
on hand and are making them all the time.
D: Well, how many rounds are we going to be able to carry in a tank? Will it com
plicate that?

B: Well, it will reduce the number that you can carry, I don't know how much, be
cause we haven't had time to study that out yet. Now, I thought either you, or y
ou'd want to send someone up to Aberdeen to see the job. In order to save time w
e want to go ahead, with your permission, on 1,000 because of course we can stop
that at any time. But time is of the essence here, as you know as well as I do,
so I think we ought to start it and then work out the details later.
D: Well, all right then. This won't slow up anything we're doing?
B: That's right.
D: It's advance. It's looking six to eight months ahead.
B: That's right.
D: Well, I see no reason you shouldn't do it. I'll send someone up to Aberdeen r
ight away.
B: All right, thanks very much
[The Chieftain's Hatch General Barnes makes a 'Phone Call The Chieftain's Hatch
World of Tanks]
-----In SHERMAN: ARMORED THUNDERBOLT Zaloga indicates that the 3-inch gun was "...der
ived from World War I antiaircraft and coastal defense guns."
"Though advances in metallurgy by 1942 had enabled the Ordnance Department to bu
ild light but powerful 76-mm. and 90-mm. guns out of newly developed, thin, high
er physical steel, Ordnance men were convinced that medium tanks, whether mounti
ng 76-mm. guns or 105-mm. howitzers, must be supplemented by heavy tanks." [Ordn
ance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9, pg. 237]
Working on their own without a requirement presented by others, Ordnance began d
eveloping a 3-inch/76-mm class weapon early in 1942. The 3-inch M7 designed for
the M6 heavy tank and M10 tank destroyer were too heavy and big. Needed smaller
weapon so they started the T1 project to fulfill it. Different cartridge than th
e 3-inch, same projectiles, designated it the 76-mm to reduce confusion. (M4 76m
m Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 4)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

08/20/42
08/21/42
08/22/42
08/23/42
08/24/42
08/25/42
08/26/42
08/27/42
08/28/42
08/29/42
08/30/42
08/31/42
09/01/42
09/02/42
09/03/42
09/04/42
09/05/42
09/06/42

19
20
21
22

09/07/42
09/08/42
09/09/42
09/10/42

Development of the 76-mm M1 and M1A1 started July 1942. (British and American Ta
nks of World War II, 117).
Project began August 20, 1942 and finished gun supplied by September 10, 1942. [
22 days] 80 more produced in "Autumn 1944". Weighed 300 pounds more than the 75mm; AP ammo 600 fps faster; HE ammo 1,300 fps faster [seems to be "standard" and
not "super-charged"). [Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH Pub
10-9 pg 326, 327]
Summer 1942 first 2 guns built and sent to Aberdeen Proving Grounds one for proo
fing from a fixed stand and the second to be mounted on the standard M34 mount o
f an M4A1 tank. The 57-calibers length barrel caused traverse issues due to exce
ss forward weight so length reduced from L/57 to L/52, and installed a counterwe
ight on the breech. In SHERMAN: ARMORED THUNDERBOLT Zaloga indicates the prime c
oncern was the issue of shipping and the threat of the weapon digging into the e
arth is travelling downhill.
[Which is odd how Army pamphlets and those who quote them indicate the 76-mm use
d the 3-inch barrel.] (M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 4)
It did not match the ballistics and power of the 17-pounder British nor 75-mm L/
70 of the Germans but was closer to the German Pak-40/KwK and KwK.
All four: (M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 4 or 5 for 1st 3)
lb.
PSI chamber
Weapon
propellant MV fs. pressure
----------------------------------------------75-mm M3
2
2030 38,000
76-mm M1
3.75
2600 43,000 [Zaloga 38,000]
3-inch M7
4.87
2600 38,000
4.87 x 1.33 = 6.48: 76-mm propellant 8.42 lb.
German 40 75mm L43 -2450
-German 40 75mm L48 -2600
-British 17pdr.
9
2950 47,000 [Zaloga 48,000]
German 75mm L/70
8.1
3070 48,000
8.8-cm KwK 36
2700 33,000
90-mm M3
7
2800 38,000
105-mm How. M4
3
1550 28,000
August 1942 Ordnance Committee suggested standardizing the original L/57 T-1 as
the M1 76mm gun while the L/52 version became the M1A1.
August 1942 Ordnance recommended manufacture in 1943 of 1,000 76-mm armed M4A1s.
November 1942 Devers rejected "...this untried weapon." SHERMAN: ARMORED THUNDER
BOLT
General Jacob Devers (Head of Armored Force) would not accept as they had yet to
test it. (M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 5)
The suggested order of 1,000 tanks was cancelled December 1942.
Fact finding mission to Tunisia revealed the belief the 75-mm M4 was the best ta
nk then in use; in Britain they concurred but also realized heavier German armor
was going to be met in the future and hence the 17-pounder was being developed.
Devers changed his mind and authorized further development of the M4 tank and 7

6-mm M1 gun to
6mm gun should
of these guns
f the M4 tank,

determine how many 76 armed tanks to field. "The new high power 7
be immediately tested in the M4 tank to determine what percentage
should be installed in future tanks. ... The further perfection o
the best on any front today, should be aggressively continued."

At the same time the decision was made to begin using telescopic sights rather t
han periscopic and the M34A1 mount/sight combo developed. The 76-mm M1 was mount
ed on it.
Standard turret of 75-mm armed Sherman too small. (British and American Tanks of
World War II, 117).
Turret was not balanced by internal counterweight; did not try to attach externa
l counter-weight ad-hoc but rather than Pressed Steel Car Company produce a new
cast turret that had the counterweight on back: 12 M4A1 (76M1). Feb. 1943 shippe
d one to the Armored Board at Fort Knox and they decided that there was too litt
le inside space and did not accept the entire "quick fix" approach. Only 3 kept
as-is, the other 9 being remodled to 75-mm tanks.
Devers had argued with general Lesley McNair too much so he got him out of the w
ay by promoting him in May 1943, sending him to become interim commander of the
European Theater of Operations. General Alvan Gillem took his place. [M4 76mm Sh
erman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 6-7 confuses this by putting the details hith
er wither.]
SHERMAN: ARMORED THUNDERBOLT: McNair then reduced the impact of the Armored Forc
e by renaming it Armored Command and in Feb. 1944 to the Armored Training Center
, leaving Fort Knox's participation in tanks to be advisor through the Fort Knox
Armored Board testing section. He did this to take over tank requirements.
Ordnance switched to the T23 medium tank turret design starting with pilot model
s authorized June 17 1943 and delivered July 1943 as M4E6. August 17 1943 tests
resulted in recommendation for production by Armored Command HQ: 1,000 be produ
ced with the note "As soon as the tank has been proven on the battlefield, it is
recommended that we go to one hundred percent replacement of the M4 with 76mm g
un." (M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 6)
Note that Gillem was not the author of this: he was off visiting North Africa an
d Sicily to get a solid dea of what the Army needed for tanks. When he returned
to find his subordinates had suggested the above, he penned his his poison memo:
"The 76mm Gun M1 as a tank weapon has only one superior characteristic to the 75
mm Tank Gun M3/ superior characteristic is armor penetrating power. The 76mm gun
will penetrate on average one inch more armor than the 75mm tank gun M3 at the
same range. The high explosive pitching power of the 76mm gun is inferior to tha
t of the 75mm gun. The 76mm HE shell weighs 12.37lbs and has a charge of .86lbs
explosive. The 75mm shell weighs 14.6lbs and has a charge of 1.47lbs of explosiv
e. The exterior ballistics generally of the 76mm gun are less satisfactory for a
general purpose medium tank weapon than the 75mm gun. The 76mm gun has an extre
mely heavy muzzle blast, such that the rate of fire when the ground is dry is co
ntrolled by the muzzle blast dust cloud. Under many conditions this dust cloud d
oes not clear for some eight to thirty seconds. The presence of this heavy muzzl
e blast makes sensing the round extremely difficult for the tank commander and g
unner."
Interjected facts in (M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 7) to illustr
ate the importance of HE ammo: Typical number of rounds fired by US tanks during
the war were: 70% HE, 20% AP, 10% smoke. Poor HE shell was damning. [And yet th
e M10s had not complained, but rather were commended for their weapons effect!]

Gillem did not intend to stop acceptance but rather pursue a moderate acceptance
of 1 76-mm tank per 3 75-mm armed tanks; 1 platoon per company; or one company
per battalion. Agreed with switching production to 50% (since many 75s had been
produced already) but not 100%. (M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 8)
His recommendation swayed McNair to accept the 76-mm for production. Was to be i
ntroduced with the 2nd Generation Sherman with multiple updates.
February 1944 tanks using the larger T20/T23 turrets standardized and entered pr
oduction lines. (British and American Tanks of World War II, 117).
Late 1943 first production and January first receipts.
In production improvements of the 76-mm M1: allowing gun to be moved forward to
improve balance; muzzle brake to tame blast (production began July 1944). Guns t
hreaded for (or mounted with) designated M1A1C. Thread protector fit on many tha
t were fielded before receiving the brake.
M1A2 same as M1A1C but with new rifling twist of 1:34 rather than 1:40.
Heavier gun and heavier turret led to exploration of traction and flotations sol
utions and eventual adoption of HVSS starting March 1944 and full scale April 19
44.

17-pdr Option for M4 Tanks

-------------------------August 1943 British offered to convert some US tanks to 17 pounder. Ordnance dis
suaded by tests they had witnessed - excessive muzzle blast and some flash-back
at the breech.
March 25, 1944. Aberdeen Proving Ground in the US tested the 90-mm vs. 17-pdr.
May 23, 1944. Tests in Britain.
British offer of 200 guns and ammunition per month within 3 months of any accept
ance of their offer.
1. U.S. already producing both the 90-mm and 76-mm and ammunition; 17-pdr. woul
d not appear until after Normandy.
2. Developing HVAP T4 shot for the 76mm. [Not later?]
(M4 76mm Sherman Medium Tank Osprey NV 073 pg 9)
--------------------------90-mm M3, and AA Gun
"Realizing that still heavier guns would be required to insure American superior
ity on the battlefield, General Barnes in September 1942 ordered the initiation
of a project adapting the high-powered 90-mm. antiaircraft gun to use in combat
vehicles. Design of the 90-mm. tank gun T7 was completed in December of the same
year, but neither the 76-mm. nor the 90-mm. weapons were destined to see action
until the autumn of 1944.8"
[Ordnance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9, pg. 328]
"Though advances in metallurgy by 1942 had enabled the Ordnance Department to bu
ild light but powerful 76-mm. and 90-mm. guns out of newly developed, thin, high
er physical steel, Ordnance men were convinced that medium tanks, whether mounti
ng 76-mm. guns or 105-mm. howitzers, must be supplemented by heavy tanks." [[Ord
nance Department; Planning Munitions for War CMH_Pub_10-9, pg. 237]
"Prior to World War II, the primary US anti-aircraft gun was the 3-inch M1918 gu
n (76.2 mm L/50), a widely-used caliber for this class of weapon. Similar weapon
s were in British, Soviet and other arsenals. There had been several upgrades to

the weapon over its history, including the experimental T8 and T9 versions deve
loped in the early 1930s that were intended to enter service later in the decade
.
An M26 Pershing armed with the 90 mm gun
However the US Army became interested in a much more capable weapon instead, and
on June 9, 1938 it issued a development contract calling for two new guns, one
of 90 mm which it felt was the largest possible size that was still capable of b
eing manually loaded at high elevations, and another, using assisted loading, of
120 mm caliber. The new design seemed so much better than developments of the o
lder 3-inch that work on the 3-inch T9 was canceled in 1938 just as it became pr
oduction-ready. By 1940 the second development of the 90 mm design, the T2, was
standardized as the 90 mm M1, while its larger cousin became the 120 mm M1 gun.
A few hundred M1s were completed when several improvements were added to produce
the 90 mm M1A1, which entered production in late 1940 and was accepted as the s
tandard on May 22, 1941. The M1A1 included an improved mount and spring-rammer o
n the breech, with the result that firing rates went up to 20 rounds per minute.
Several thousand were available when the US entered the war, and the M1A1 was t
heir standard anti-aircraft gun for the rest of the conflict. Production rates c
ontinued to improve, topping out in the low thousands per month.
Like the German 88, and the British QF 3.7 inch AA gun, the M1A1 found itself fa
cing tanks in combat, but unlike the others it could not be depressed to fire ag
ainst them. On September 11, 1942 the Army issued specifications for a new mount
to allow it to be used in this role, which resulted in the 90 mm M2, introducin
g yet another new mount that could be depressed to 10 degrees below the horizont
al and featured a new electrically-assisted rammer. It became the standard weapo
n from May 13, 1943.
Anti-tank developments
The M3 was also adapted as the main gun for arious armored vehicles, starting wi
th the experimental T7 which was accepted as the 90 mm M3. The test firing of th
e M3 took place on an M10 tank destroyer in early 1943. The gun was used on the
M36 tank destroyer, and the M26 Pershing tank.
A number of experimental versions were developed on the basic M3 pattern, includ
ing the T14 which included a standard muzzle brake, the T15 series with an impro
ved muzzle velocity of about 975 m (3,199 ft) per second, the even higher veloci
ty T18 and the T19, which was an attempt to reduce barrel wear. The T21, which w
as intended for wheeled vehicles, and the T22, which used the breech from the st
andard 105 mm M2 howitzer to take larger charge cartridges. None of these versio
ns entered service.
In the post-war era development of the T15 continued as the T54, which included
the ability to fire tungsten-cored shells at much higher velocities. The T54 was
the main armament of the M47 and M48 Patton tanks, and the M56 Scorpion anti-ta
nk vehicle.
" [90 mm Gun M1-M2-M3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
90-mm T8 AT Gun
-------------------------------------------"The M1 90mm gun was mated with the M2 recoil mechanism from the 105mm howitzer
as the 90mm gun T8, and mounted on a new carriage designated as the T5." [Zaloga
U.S. Anti-Tank Guns]

"90mm gun T13 and Gun Carriage T9...the entire assembly weighed only 6,8501b, co
mpared to 9,9501b for the T8 90mm gun with T5E2 carriage.
Two further lightweight 90mm gun designs were initiated in July 1944 using more
conventional carriages: the T20 90mm gun with T14"
90-mm T15 SuperVelocity
-------------------------------------------"7. 90mm TANK GUN - SUPER VELOCITY: 17 March 1944, the design of the sup
er-velocity 90mm Gun, T15, was undertaken. This gun was designed to use a standa
rd 90mm projectile in a new case. The new cage has the same exterior diameter as
the discarded case, but the length has been increased to provide a greater powd
er capacity.
This gun was designed to give a velocity of 3,200 f/s with single-base p
owder. The design was also such that it could be used interchangeably with the s
tandard 90mm tank gun, M3, except of course, for ballistics. The gun is very Lon
g (70 calibers) and would require the use of a new equilibrator and stronger par
ts in the mount. However, this gun can be mounted in the T26E1 Tank.
The pilot gun was delivered to Aberdeen on 1 September 1944 and is now b
eing used to develop powder. If the war continues, several hundred of these guns
will be manufactured for mounting in the T26E1 Tanks in order to provide a gun
of greater firepower."
[US Gun Development Memo 1944 10 11]
CALCULATED LOAD:
Shot Weight is assumed:
2900 lb. 24.5 lb. AP @ 3200 f/s = 143-mm/5.6-in. @30; 159-mm/0-in. @0
-------------------------------------------105-mm Howitzer M4 in Sherman M4
November 1942 initial physical work with began. [Sherman: History... 208]
Standard M2A1 was a poor fit as loader had to insert round from one side and rea
ch across to activate breech closure.
Balance was atrocious: power traverse failed at 30 pct. or higher slope.
Created the lighter T8 howitzer which became the M4.
Revised shorter breech block, new operating handle easily used.
Took out gyrostabilizer and power traverse.
Improved ammo storage and telescopic sight.
Improved elevation range -10 to +35 degrees.
Combination mount M52.
Same basic turret as 75-mm model tank.
68 rds. 105-mm (2 in ready racks, 21 in 2 racks in right sponson, 45 in floor ra
cks). [Typical quote is 66 rounds; perhaps the 2 ready rack were removed?]
Hunnicut regarding M67 HEAT: ...the highly curved trajectory of the low velocity
howitzer... made it hard to hit ...except at very close range.
[Weapons of the Tankers, 93-94]
Limted velocity resulted in typical maximum range of 1,000 yards direct fire.
6 x 105-mm Armed M4s per tank battalion as a single armored artillery battery.
M10 assault trailer: 54 rounds
After war interviews revealed dislike of the non-powered turret which prevented
discouraged direct fire.
HE rounds could demolish smaller vehicles and AT guns with sheer blast.
[Weapons of the Tankers, 93]
Production Febuary 1943 to end of war.
-------------------------------------------105-mm T4
"By September 1943, the very powerful 105mm Gun, T4, had been designed and a pil

ot manufactured for antiaircraft use. Since this gun can fire a 42-lb. armor-pie
rcing projectile at 2,800 f/s, 5.5 inches of armor at 30 inclination can be penet
rated at a range of 2,000 yards." [US Gun Development Memo 1944 10 11]
CALCULATED LOAD:
3800 lb. 42 lb. AP @ 2800 f/s = 157-mm/6.2-in. @30; 175-mm/0-in. @0
-------------------------------------------105-mm T8
8 tons/16,000 lb.
39 lbs. @ 3,100 f/s
QAP: 210-mm/8.26" @ 1,000 y @ 0-dgrees.
CALCULATED LOAD:
4300 lb. 39 lb. AP @ 3100 f/s = 162-mm/6.4-in. @30; 180-mm/0-in. @0
Wikipedia quoting Zaloga U.S. Anti-Tank Guns.