What features make the Resita different from the M31 it was based off of? And how many of them would be known to Vickers and not be indigenous work after the two countries ended up on opposite sides of the war?
British tank gun after the 6pdr?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Well, totally new carriage because it's not an anti-aircraft gun. Also quite a lot of tech transfer from taking apart a PaK 40 apparently, in addition to shell design nicked from Soviet BR-350A and an unusually small casing using very high power Vickers powder (2050g instead of 1820g in the M1931), which is why the barrel wear issue was quite so bad. If you asked Vickers to build an M1931 based anti tank solution it probably wouldn't be a Resita 75mm, but it's going to end up being a weapon somewhere in the same class.
Derek Pullem
Donor
I suppose the question to be asked is why the British started afresh with a new(ish) design for the 17 pdr when they had a "good enough" design off the shelf in the M1931? Possibly because the idea of the best anti-tank guns being repurposed AA guns hadn't quite filtered back from France yet?
Looking a bit on case capacity of the 25 pdr, seems like the greatest propellant weight was about 3.3 lbs ( full charge + intermediate charge + supercharge). This is not enough to warrant it's usefulness as a hole puncher beyond 1942-ish, eg. the German 7.5cm PaK have had around 6 lbs of propellant for use with AP ammo of different flavor; similar was the US 3in and British 77mm HV. So the 25 pdr as a tank gun might be okay instead of 6 pdr, but certainly not as a a 'heir' to the 6pdr.
Back to the drawing board
Back to the drawing board
There were actually three models produced of the Sentinel III. Not "one" as you claim. It was actually intended to replace the Sentinel II but a change in priorities meant it wasn't produced. Sentinel IV was designed at the same time. There is usually a process whereby the succeeding version of a vehicle/aircraft/ship is designed as soon as the preceding one enters service. The III was that vehicle as was the IV. Personally, I think the III was a better bet than the IV. It's HE round was heavier and it's velocity was sufficient to knock out any Japanese tank it might face.
The only thing the 25 Pdr Short carried over from the Sentinel was in the recuperator design, which actually worked quite well, thank'ee very much. The failure of the 25 Pdr Short was that it's maximum range was too short being on 10,500 yards as against the normal 25 Pdr of approximately 13,400 yd. As Lawrence Hartnett remarked, when asked, "how short do you want the barrel?" "When their ears start to bleed that'll be short enough!" It had a short barrel, it had problems with back blast but it worked, which was all that was demanded of it. The Sentinel would have worked with it's 25 Pdr would have worked quite well.
marathag
Banned
GM had the Grand Blanc Arsenal make the M4A3 (75)W until March 1945.
They started production in February 1944.
It looks like all 75mm diesel production ceased in June 1944
marathag
Banned
Because the RA guys at Woolwich didn't want to use a Vickers design.
Not the first time that happened.
Also possible lack or urgency. Until they ran into Tigers in 1943, the 6pdr was an adequate AT gun, and far easier to move around.
So if there is no hurry, a clean sheet design using modern practices does make sense
Because the Woolwich employed a large number of engineers who wanted a project to justify their employment to avoid them getting conscripted into the REME.
I think we (or some of us) are in danger of forgetting that a tank gun and an anti tank gun are not the same thing. An anti tank gun is for destroying armoured vehicles. Anything else it may do is entirely extra curricular. A tank gun needs to be effective against anything on the battlefield. That is why we need move up from 57mm to something bigger.
Old tankers saying: " if in doubt load HE!"
Old tankers saying: " if in doubt load HE!"
Last edited:
Here is Young Mr Fletcher talking about it - there is a video of it being loaded at about 1min - but the whole video is worth a watch
It's worth noting that with a L48 barrel the Resita was shooting at the same muzzle velocity as the postwar US T98 76.2mm gun, which was a L70. No wonder the barrel wear was insane.
The film showing the fascine's use comes from a training film called "Men in Armour" and it shows you don't halt the vehicle to lay it. The AVRE was simply run foward, it slowed before the ditch and the fascine was released.
I love the old training videos - the Bren gun is one of the best ones - such a simple gun to use - even when the instructions on the take down or immediate actions for example are slowed down for the recruits to take in its still fast!
I trained on the Bren gun, both in .303in and 7.62mm. It was a very easy gun to learn to use.
It wasn't in service for 50 years for nothing. Fascinating how we keep heading very slightly off topic.....
Well the Bren was used in British Armoured Vehicles including as AA on tanks so it does just about qualify as a tank gun.