The only thing the AA gun contributed to the project was the barrel, the rest came from other weapons, notably the 25-pounder to the breech, the 6-pounder for the recoil mechanisn, and, as you noted, ammunition from the mountain howitzer.The 95 was developed as fire support weapon from the 3.7 in AA gun and used 3.7 in mountain howitzer ammunition. You would see that as the fire support tank as developed.
Perhaps an early 20 pdr?The only thing the AA gun contributed to the project was the barrel, the rest came from other weapons, notably the 25-pounder to the breech, the 6-pounder for the recoil mechanisn, and, as you noted, ammunition from the mountain howitzer.
No, I was talking about the main gun of the Victor's successor being a (mostly) unmodified 3.7" AA gun. I mean, later models of the Centurion mounted the 105mm L7 IOTL, so the ITTL version starting with a 94mm shouldn't be too much of a stretch.
But you've excluded the 20 pdr! Wail!Speaking of guns, I was just looking at the calibres used across the British (or at least Vickers) designs, and found an interesting sequence:
Matilda 1 (40mm), Valiant +17mm (40/57mm), Victor +18mm (75mm).
Continuing this trend, the follow up to the victor would have a gun 19mm larger than the 75mm, which is...(drumroll)... 94mm/3.7".
Perhaps an early 20 pdr?
Why bother with an intermediary between two guns they already have?But you've excluded the 20 pdr! Wail!
Yes, it was a "lower pressure gun" compared to the six pounder. The latter's muzzle velocity with the L/50 barrel and with 1942 APC was 884 m/s. The M3's muzzle velocity with either M61 APC or M72 AP was 618 m/s. The OQF 75mm's muzzle velocity was essentially the same, usually stated as 620 m/s. That indicates a substantial difference in the chamber pressures.The QF was not a low pressure gun, it fires exactly the same shell as the American M3 used by the Grant/Sherman.
I think you are misunderstanding the reference to "low pressure". It is a reference to the 75mm version of the weapon compared to other 75mm weapons. It was demonstrably not.Yes, it was a "lower pressure gun" compared to the six pounder. The latter's muzzle velocity with the L/50 barrel and with 1942 APC was 884 m/s. The M3's muzzle velocity with either M61 APC or M72 AP was 618 m/s. The OQF 75mm's muzzle velocity was essentially the same, usually stated as 620 m/s. That indicates a substantial difference in the chamber pressures.
So, you admit you were mistaken to assume that the 75mm QF is a "low-pressure gun"?The original point of the discussion above, I think, was the possible utility of an aircraft version of the OQF 75mm in place of the OTL aircraft version of the six pounder L/50, including against tanks. My response was that the OTL six pounder was very effective against tanks, but the OQF 75mm (assuming that a 75mm version of the Molins loading system were developed) would be much less so, even if firing APC...just as the OTL OQF 75mm when fitted to a British tank was considered much less effective than the six pounder against enemy tanks.
Would it have been effective enough? That's a judgement call. In OTL tanks, opinions differed.
Few of the targets will be tanks. Also, absolute muzzle velocities will be higher, given the air-speed of the platform.The original point of the discussion above, I think, was the possible utility of an aircraft version of the OQF 75mm in place of the OTL aircraft version of the six pounder L/50, including against tanks. My response was that the OTL six pounder was very effective against tanks, but the OQF 75mm (assuming that a 75mm version of the Molins loading system were developed) would be much less so, even if firing APC...just as the OTL OQF 75mm when fitted to a British tank was considered much less effective than the six pounder against enemy tanks.
Would it have been effective enough? That's a judgement call. In OTL tanks, opinions differed.
The QF 75mm actually had greater muzzle energy than the 6 pdr, velocity is not the only factor, heck even the 17pdr had a lower velocity than the 6pdr.Yes, it was a "lower pressure gun" compared to the six pounder. The latter's muzzle velocity with the L/50 barrel and with 1942 APC was 884 m/s. The M3's muzzle velocity with either M61 APC or M72 AP was 618 m/s. The OQF 75mm's muzzle velocity was essentially the same, usually stated as 620 m/s. That indicates a substantial difference in the chamber pressures.
The actual chamber pressure for the six pounder was 3230 kg/cm2. (Yes, that's a goofy unit, but that's how my reference states it.) I don't presently have the chamber pressure for the M3 or OQF 75mm guns, but of course it was lower than that of the six pounder.
Well of course the 75mm has more muzzle energy, because it's a much heavier shell. That's probably not a good thing in an aircraft TBH, as it will put more stress on the airframe. What woul probably be better would be to develop a side-loading recoilless rifle.The QF 75mm actually had greater muzzle energy than the 6 pdr, velocity is not the only factor, heck even the 17pdr had a lower velocity than the 6pdr.
you mean an bigger/better COW gun..Well of course the 75mm has more muzzle energy, because it's a much heavier shell. That's probably not a good thing in an aircraft TBH, as it will put more stress on the airframe. What woul probably be better would be to develop a side-loading recoilless rifle.
Was the COW gun a recoilless rifle?you mean an bigger/better COW gun..
As the Molins QF75mm post writer I can clarify my meaning. The 75 HE is better than the 6 Pounder in almost everything bar the frontal armour of the later tanks. Air fired there is no need to hit the frontal armour and, for the rest of the tank, especially on top or from behind, the 75 HE will do the job. Plus using the HE to remove the fuel and resupply lorry’s etc. does much the same thing to defeat the supported tanks. If you are determined to punch holes in the tank frontal armour (why?) then the 6 Pounder, especially if aided by the aeroplanes speed added to the muzzle velocity and APDS will have a good go at it. I note that the 40mm S Gun on Hurricanes demonstrably penetrated thicker armour than a ground fired one and even more so with a Littlehjohn adaptor and tungsten squeeze bore round. The QF75mm is simply an overall more useful universal weapon.The original point of the discussion above, I think, was the possible utility of an aircraft version of the OQF 75mm in place of the OTL aircraft version of the six pounder L/50, including against tanks. My response was that the OTL six pounder was very effective against tanks, but the OQF 75mm (assuming that a 75mm version of the Molins loading system were developed) would be much less so, even if firing APC...just as the OTL OQF 75mm when fitted to a British tank was considered much less effective than the six pounder against enemy tanks.
Would it have been effective enough? That's a judgement call. In OTL tanks, opinions differed.
Well this time we're talking about mounting them in aircraft, so it's completely different. Honest.How many more times are we going to be subjected to the same sodding conversation about guns?
Next up- naval mounts.Well this time we're talking about mounting them in aircraft, so it's completely different. Honest.
I like the 20 pdr. Sulk.Why bother with an intermediary between two guns they already have?
Well this time we're talking about mounting them in aircraft, so it's completely different. Honest.