Talk:76 mm gun M1

message: Published Source                                                                              	Gun Type    	Ammunition                                       	Penetration at range	Penetration at range
Published Source                                                                              	Gun Type    	Ammunition                                       	500 m               	1000 m
Foss, Chris, Artillery of the World, 1974                                                     	Soviet 85 mm	Standard Armour-Piercing High-Explosive (APHE)   	N/A                 	102 mm
Foss, Chris, Artillery of the World, 1974                                                     	Soviet 85 mm	High-Velocity Armour-Piercing (HVAP)             	N/A                 	130 mm
Bovington Tank Museum, Fire and Movement, 1975                                                	Soviet 85 mm	Armour-Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped (APCBC)  	103 mm              	94 mm
Bovington Tank Museum, Fire and Movement, 1975                                                	US 76 mm    	APCBC                                            	94 mm               	89 mm
Bovington Tank Museum, Fire and Movement, 1975                                                	US 76 mm    	HVAP                                             	158 mm              	134 mm
Hunnicutt, R. P., Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank, 1978                        	US 76 mm    	Armour-Piercing Capped (APC) M62                 	93 mm               	88 mm
Hunnicutt, R. P., Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank, 1978                        	US 76 mm    	HVAP M93                                         	157 mm              	135 mm
Woodman, Harry, Tank Armament in World War Two, 1991                                          	Soviet 85mm 	APC                                              	96 mm               	88 mm
Woodman, Harry, Tank Armament in World War Two, 1991                                          	Soviet 85mm 	HVAP                                             	121 mm              	80 mm
Woodman, Harry, Tank Armament in World War Two, 1991                                          	US 76 mm    	APCBC                                            	94 mm               	89 mm
Woodman, Harry, Tank Armament in World War Two, 1991                                          	US 76 mm    	HVAP                                             	158 mm              	134 mm
Zaloga, Steven J. and Grandsen, James, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984	Soviet 85 mm	APHE (BR-365)                                    	111 mm              	102 mm
Zaloga, Steven J. and Grandsen, James, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two, 1984	Soviet 85 mm	Armour-Piercing, Composite Rigid (APCR) (BR-365P)	138 mm              	100 mm
Zaloga, Steven J. and Sarson, Peter, Sherman Medium Tank, 1993                                	US 76 mm    	APC (M61)                                        	98 mm               	90 mm
Zaloga, Steven J. and Sarson, Peter, Sherman Medium Tank, 1993                                	US 76 mm    	HVAP (T-4)                                       	150 mm              	132 mm
This table is the wikification of the previous text block. When wikifying, I first created this table and then decided to reorganize it. The wikified (but never saved) table is the above. –Dvandersluis 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikified Table, Before reorganization

message: I propose that we redirect this to a "76 mm gun (US)" or similarly named page that includes the AA and 3 inch M7 guns too.  Thank you.Wikist 14:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you want to merge the article with 3-inch M1918 gun ? I don't think it's good idea. Bukvoed 12:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because both are short articles they share a family tree (M1 uses the same shell as the M7 that is on the other page and so M7 penetration is here on the M1 page).  We might even add the M32 to avoid an M32 stub article (see how M6 is on 75 mm Gun (US).Wikist 19:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect proposal

message: I've read several places that the M1 gun on the upgraded M4 was in fact a 76,2mm gun, even though it's called a 76mm gun. Is this accurate?(No, I'm not confusing it with the 17 pounder)83.109.86.72 (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding caliber 

message: There should be no datat for 85mm for the 1st two strings IMO. During wartime, 85mm didn't have any APC or APCBC, just plain AP/HE and APCR (those listed below). And post-war shells had much better penetration.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.36.128 (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data table is a complete mess 

message: I understand that getting the exact dates that the 76mm gun replaced the 75mm gun is extremly difficult, but, I did not read about when the new tank gun was put into production anywhere in the article. Was it 1942, 1943 or 1944? I think the article could be improved by giving a more detailed time frame, such as at least giving the year the 76mm gun replaced the 75mm as the main tank gun of the M4 Sherman. Thank you. 204.80.61.110 (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: There are almost No dates listed in the article

message: "the subsequent uparmoring of these AFVs to 80 mm and upgunning to the KwK 40/StuK 40 diminished the ability of the Sherman to engage at long distances, whereas the Sherman front hull could provide a very effective backstop."
 
This sentence makes no sense to me. The Sherman hull could be very easily penetrated by the KwK 40, which doesn't seem to fit any definition of "effective" I'm familiar with.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this supposed to mean? 

message: :This appears to be a forum based on an online game. It is a totally unreliable, unacademic source. The performance of the 76mm seems wildly overstated. I have mentioned this before, and the author's apparant hatred of the 17 pdr, which was the best Allied anti tank gun of the war. The comparison with the Firefly is absurd. I suggest we discuss this to gather consensus for speedy removal. 2500m?? No way. Strongly advise removal so as not to mislead casual readers. I note it has been removed before and replaced without discussion. Irondome (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with you concerning our content guidelines of WP:V and WP:RS. But it seems that the Author using primary sources and giving just the predictive calculated probability. It is very unlikely and nearly expelled to hit the lower hull over 2000 m in a tank versus tank combat. The attempted shot rather would glance off the glacis. Zaloga describe that the Firefly opened fire only below 1200 yards, however, an antitank cannon waited in ambush might have a chance to place that shot, but not over 2500 yards. Bouquey (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then I take it that you agree with deletion and replacement with a RS like Zaloga? I do not think this is a reliable secondary source. Anyone can publish primary sources on a blog or forum, but I think we would both prefer to see it in a reputable serious publication. It does make some strange claims also, apparently WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which only a reputable published author could get away with. Appreciate the feedback! Regards Irondome (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, I don't have Zaloga's book which mentioning it explicit, I rather caught it once on Google book search. Hopefully someone else could quote him. Well, I would suggest to proceed it like we have made with the Wa Pruef quotes and rewrite it with a clear please note of an estimation for the contrast. Many thanks to consider my feedback :) Bouquey (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Hi JustinSmith, thanks for the speedy deletion of the disputed passage. As Irondome already pointed, I would also prefer to see the quotes from a verifiable and reputable publication with the authors expertise, since the primary given source at the blog isn't accessible. However I still belive that a moderat and more objective rewrite could actually fit and being used to contrast the estimated probabilities of those engagements. But for that, its also crucial to have the acutal ref. that common battle engagements did not occurred above 1500 yards. Which seems to be manageable. Regards Bouquey (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World of Tanks]] a RS? 

message: The current variants summary is:
Variants
M1: 57 caliber long gun[5]
M1A1: 52 caliber long version of gun with breech counterweight.[6]
M1A1C: fitted with muzzle brake
M1A2: fitted with muzzle brake
Zaloga's comment on page 4 of Sherman 76 that indicates that the shortened gun was the M1A1 conflicts with Hunnicut (Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank) on pages 198-204, (especially 200, 204, 206, 207). Hunnicut states that the second test gun with a shorter barrel was adopted as the M1 (page 200 caption for picture of shortened T1). He indicates these as proper models: 
Variants
T1: first production test gun 57 caliber long gun, second test gun 52 calibers long
M1: 52 calibers long
M1A1: 52 caliber long version of gun with longer recoil surface to allow lugs for trunion to be moved forward
M1A1C: Threaded for muzzle brake
M1A2: Threaded for muzzle brake and rifling twist changed from 1:40 calibers to 1:32 calibers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDNatWiki (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  T1 vs M1 designations 

message: The 3-inch guns M5, M6, and M7 were derived from the 3-inch gun M3, in particular the T9 model which was cancelled in 1938 and replaced by the 90-mm gun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDNatWiki (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  3-inch gun source 

message: This is an FYI for any future researcher: Doubtlessly the references to the weight of powder for 17pdr vs 76-mm is taken from Zaloga's M4 (76). It isn't wrong as such but Zaloga isn't aware of powder weight vs. powder type situation.  As shown on pages 564, 565 and 567 of Hunnicutt's Sherman opus the 17 pdr and 90-mm have almost the same chamber capacity of 300 cubic inches which is a bit more than twice the size of the 76s 140 cubic inches. I have seen varying quotes but basically the 76-mm has a 3.5 or 3.6 lb. powder charge which is about half the powder of the 90-mm's 7.2 to 7.3 lb. load. The 3-inch gun (the case is not completely filled by the powder used) gives the same ballistics as the 76-mm with a 4.5 to 4.7 pound charge - which is about half the weight of Zaloga's quote of 9 pounds for the 17pounder. I wish there was a verifiable source where someone either explained that this was a wrong comparison or allow researchers to say something simple like "The 17pounder has roughly twice the powder capacity and accounting for powder density and type twice the powder of the 76-mm". TM 9-1901 Artillery Ammunition June 1944 and The American Arsenal both give powder charge quoted for most basic WW II US rounds and illustrate how the 3-inch cartridges are partially empty.
JDNatWiki (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  17pdr vs 76-mm cartridge comparison 

message: As an addendum to the previous, the University of New Mexico, in researching tungsten loads for the Ordnance Department 1943-44, loaded the 76-mm case with 4 pounds of M2 powder and boosted velocity 200 feet per second as a test. Not all powders are the same. See page 117, 109 of ADA800118 Work on Sabot Projectiles 1942-1944. This document also mentions the rifling change for the 76-mm page 108 footnote and gives details concerning tungsten shot starting about page 105.
Following is the Army's very brief intro page with a pdf download link.
http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA800118
JDNatWiki (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For comparison the propellant used in a British weapon such as the 17 pdr was cordite. IIRC, firing APDS the 17 pdr's muzzle velocity was approaching 4,000 fps - something like 3,900 fps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.62 (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Standard 75 mm Gun M2/M3/M6 as used in the Grant and Sherman had a cartridge containing around 1 lb of propellent. 76mm M1 around 3.6 lbs of propellent. 17 pdr almost 9 lbs of propellent.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.221 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The US 75s were loaded with 2.16 pounds/2 kilograms of propellant per American Arsenal page 275 or 2 pounds/.9 kilograms per TM 9-1901 Artillery Ammunition page 356. If you had read a more recent book like Armored Thunderbolt page 99 you would see that Zaloga has realized his mistake and as such you would not be 13 years behind the learning curve. Likewise he has stopped calling the M64 white phosphorous round the M89 (which was a pure smoke). Nor has he repeated (not that I have found) the statement on page 4 of M4(76mm) where he claimed the 76mm and 17pounder projectiles "weighed about the same". The 17 pounder AP weighed 10% more than than the 76 AP shot giving it 10% more penetration at any given velocity; and the 17 pounder had over 12% more velocity. In Armored Thunderbolt the Heavy Tank Guns table page 121 quotes high velocity tungsten shot velocities and penetration for basic 88 AP shot in comparison to basic 90mm shot (see page 336 for 90mm APCR penetration.) The same propellant charge is given for both 88s; the wrong projectile designations are used; the AP shot was heavier. On pages 99 and 106 he states that the 75mm M3 barrel was 32 calibers long; the bore length was 37.5 calibers and overall length 40.1 calibers. I learn a lot about usage from him but his technical data is unreliable. Quoting Zaloga for technical statistics - especially his old books - is a fool's folly.Jdnwiki2016 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rifling twist change, tungsten shot development

message: Zaloga is a poor resource for any sort of technical detail. His attempt to compare cartridges by barrel length and powder charge in his books is a waste of printing ink: unless the exact same propellant type is used then the weight of the powder charge means nothing.  Even then, the comparison is meaningless without the same caliber, barrel length and projectile weight. The only useful comparison of how powerful the cannon were (besides penetration, quotes of which vary by source) is the projectile weight and muzzle velocity rolled up into foot tons/kilojoules of energy. Using a short ton (2,000 pounds as opposed to the long ton used by Hunnicutt in his books) and a kilojoules multiple of 2.7 per foot ton you find:
The 75-mm M3 firing a 15 pound/6.8 kilogram projectile at 2030 feet/619 meters per second generated 480 foot tons/1,296 kilojoules of energy.
The 76-mm M1 and 3-inch M7 firing a 15.5 pound/7 kilogram projectile at 2600 feet/793 meters per second generated 814 foot tons/2,198 kilojoules of energy.
The German 75-mm KwK 42 firing a 15.75 pound/7.2 kilogram projectile at 3050 feet/930 meters per second generated 1,138 foot tons/3,073 kilojoules of energy.
The 17 pounder firing a 17 pound/7.7 kilogram projectile at 2950 feet/900 meters per second generated 1,148 foot tons/3,100 kilojoules of muzzle energy.
The 90 mm firing a 24 pound/10.9 kilogram projectile at 2650 feet/808 meters per second generated 1,308 foot tons/3,532 kilojoules. The improved rounds firing at 2800 feet/854 meters generated 1,460 foot tons/3,942 kilojoules but were not provided until 1945 and in small quantities.
The 76mm had no way of being anywhere near as potent as the 17 pounder. The 17 pounder was pretty much the Allies' opposite to the "Long 75" of the Panther. Both were optimized for antitank performance (for their caliber) while the U.S. cannon were not.
Jdnwiki2016 (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Muzzle velocity for a 17 pdr firing APDS was nearly 4,000 feet per second. Projectile after sabot separation was solid tungsten carbide shot.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit the Wikipedia article on the 17 pounder if you think that data is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:74 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper comparison of 17pdr to 76-mm cartridge comparison 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 76 mm gun M1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117020557/http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html to http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
 --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article says that the 76mm gun had trouble penetrating the upgraded versions of the Panzer IV frontally. However, the PZIV H only has 80mm armour, and the 76mm should be able to punch through that even long ranges, according to the penetration tables.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.137.71 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Aberdeen's documents show something different. Instead of pasting dubious all over did you read their report?Tirronan (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems knocking out the Panzer IV? 

message: The M62 was APCBC, it's just that the US didn't usually refer to the shell with the whole acronym. It's likely these two shells mentioned in the first Performance table are the same shell. Performance appears to be identical as well. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole table is a mess. Hunnicutt uses yards not meters. I'll try to tidy it up. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Bovington used yards too. I've compiled the values from Bovington and Hunnicutt in one table and the ones from Zaloga, which does use meters, in another table. I've removed Woodman since I couldn't verify the source and no page was provided, but it did seem to just repeat the values from Bovington and Hunnicutt. Feel free to add the source back if you can check the page and confirm. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour-Piercing Capped (APC), US M62 vs Armour-Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped (APCBC)