But the USA ammunition was more powerful. For example, the French AP shell “M” was 6.4 kg at an initial velocity of 570 m/s versus the USA M61 APC of 6.79 kg at 609 m/s (617-619 m/s from the M3 75 tank cannon). The French propellent charge was something like 695 to 750(?) (from memory) grams of nitrocellulose (NC) powder versus the USA Super charge of around 900 g (~2 lb). The USA had no qualms about firing M61 APC from the 75 mm M1897A4 (updated/modified M1897) of the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3. Of course the GMC M3 weighed 20,000 lb and thus could absorb greater recoil than the 7.5 cm Pak 97/38.
I understood that the Germans used these guns in Russia as the main AT gun used in Barbarossa was the 37 mm gun. This was inadequate against the heavy T34 and KV1 Russian tanks. The new 50 mm gun was just not available in sufficient numbers, so they refitted the French 75. As more of the 50mm and better guns became available, the 75 was phased out.
The muzzle brake might have been necessary to deal with the greater recoil of captured Polish armor piercing ammunition. the French AP shell “M” was 6.4 kg at an initial velocity (IV) of 570 m/s versus the Polish Pzgr of 6.8 kg at the same initial velocity. The French propellent charge was something like 695 to 750(?) (from memory) grams of nitrocellulose (NC) powder versus the Polish charge of 800 or so grams. The greater masses of the Polish shell and propellent will increase the overall recoil impulse on the entire gun. In contrast, the USA M61 APC of 6.79 kg at 609 m/s (617-619 m/s from the M3 75 tank cannon) with the USA Super charge of around 900 g (~2 lb). The USA didn’t install a muzzle brake on the modified M1897 (M1897A4) used on the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3. Of course the “A4” modification may have addressed USA Super Charge ammo, and the 20,000 lb over all weight of the 75 m GMC M3 (versus 2,600 lb of the 7.5 cm Pak 97/38) would better absorb the higher recoil impulse. The Germans also developed a series of shaped charge (HEAT) projectiles for the 97/38 (and many other 7.5 cm cannons - IG 18, KwK 37, KwK 40, & PaK 40). For the 97/38 the projectiles were circa 4.4 to 4.6 kg and had an IV of around 450 m/s. The Finns also used the 7.5 cm PaK 97/38 and one is (was) displayed at their Artillery Museum at Hämeenlinna (see Wikipedia) along with other historical artillery dating back to even WW I.
Nazi-Germany supplied this gun to its allies and co-belligerents. In 1941 and 1942 it was still adequate with HEAT shells, but its lack of range and accuracy (old barrels) caught up with it.
This gun used the same ammunition as the M3 Lee/Grant,M4 Sherman and B25G and H
But the USA ammunition was more powerful. For example, the French AP shell “M” was 6.4 kg at an initial velocity of 570 m/s versus the USA M61 APC of 6.79 kg at 609 m/s (617-619 m/s from the M3 75 tank cannon). The French propellent charge was something like 695 to 750(?) (from memory) grams of nitrocellulose (NC) powder versus the USA Super charge of around 900 g (~2 lb). The USA had no qualms about firing M61 APC from the 75 mm M1897A4 (updated/modified M1897) of the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3. Of course the GMC M3 weighed 20,000 lb and thus could absorb greater recoil than the 7.5 cm Pak 97/38.
I understood that the Germans used these guns in Russia as the main AT gun used in Barbarossa was the 37 mm gun. This was inadequate against the heavy T34 and KV1 Russian tanks. The new 50 mm gun was just not available in sufficient numbers, so they refitted the French 75. As more of the 50mm and better guns became available, the 75 was phased out.
Finland got some French 75mm guns and they used them during Continuation War and for training after War ended.
The muzzle brake might have been necessary to deal with the greater recoil of captured Polish armor piercing ammunition. the French AP shell “M” was 6.4 kg at an initial velocity (IV) of 570 m/s versus the Polish Pzgr of 6.8 kg at the same initial velocity. The French propellent charge was something like 695 to 750(?) (from memory) grams of nitrocellulose (NC) powder versus the Polish charge of 800 or so grams. The greater masses of the Polish shell and propellent will increase the overall recoil impulse on the entire gun. In contrast, the USA M61 APC of 6.79 kg at 609 m/s (617-619 m/s from the M3 75 tank cannon) with the USA Super charge of around 900 g (~2 lb). The USA didn’t install a muzzle brake on the modified M1897 (M1897A4) used on the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3. Of course the “A4” modification may have addressed USA Super Charge ammo, and the 20,000 lb over all weight of the 75 m GMC M3 (versus 2,600 lb of the 7.5 cm Pak 97/38) would better absorb the higher recoil impulse.
The Germans also developed a series of shaped charge (HEAT) projectiles for the 97/38 (and many other 7.5 cm cannons - IG 18, KwK 37, KwK 40, & PaK 40). For the 97/38 the projectiles were circa 4.4 to 4.6 kg and had an IV of around 450 m/s. The Finns also used the 7.5 cm PaK 97/38 and one is (was) displayed at their Artillery Museum at Hämeenlinna (see Wikipedia) along with other historical artillery dating back to even WW I.
Nazi-Germany supplied this gun to its allies and co-belligerents. In 1941 and 1942 it was still adequate with HEAT shells, but its lack of range and accuracy (old barrels) caught up with it.
Outstanding stuff 😁bloody TH-cam, recommendations,gives me shitty sports and bell end celebs whilst I watch loads of military history
Yellow rat tank destroyer???
Funny translation for a Marder I guess?
Not a realy good Pak...it still was good fieldgun,using HE rounds against Infantrie
Enh, maybe they just adapted Soviet doctrine: all guns are anti-tank guns, from anti-tank rifles to battleship cannons.
What is “yellow rat”?
I guess marder.
This AI commentary makes this unwatchable....
SA-Intin mulatti