The Chieftain's Random Musings Thread

The_Chieftain: I rue the day I mislaid the order number, but the modification issued early 1954 (identified 1952 or 1953, I can't recall) would be rather instructive. This was a post-manufacture retrofit of a simple band, and the order indicated that it should only be applied to non-Candian manufactured DS projectiles mated to 17pr casings. The text was specific that the accuracy of the projectile when mated to the 77mm was sufficiently accurate so the modification was un-necessary. The implication here, assuming there is no difference in the muzzle/brake between 17pr and 77mm, is that the issues only appear at the higher, 17pr velocity. If so, the Canadian testing of the round, damaged or not, out of the 77mm would have been pointless. (But you can't blame them, if the British didn't figure it out until the early 1950s).   US Armored Board in its testing in 1946 certainly claimed the Duraluminum fouling problem. The dispersion charts were quite clear on the effect. I would argue that the results in Fort Knox were certainly to the level of Isnigny, and they were conducted under far more scientific conditions than just plonking a tank "over there" and shooting at it a bit.   Either way, if it was "some" ammunition, or "all" ammunition, the lack of consistency would have still failed to meet US's famously stringent requirements for reliability. Before a weapon went overseas, it was going to be rugged as all hell, and when a round was fired, it was going to be expected to go pretty much where it was aimed. So, by US standards, the round was inaccurate, even if the Brits figured it was "Good enough". It's down to the base perspective, I think.