37mm Mclean gun - could it be good AA or At gun ?

[ATP]

This gun:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjKgLu2monyAhVk-ioKHY_yCkAQFjABegQIBBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F37_mm_McClean_Automatic_Cannon_Mk._III&usg=AOvVaw0Pal3xgt57lRi_KZ-yP0cA

was built for Russia in USA during WW1 from 1916.But it was ready in 1909,and version which could be used for AA purpose was made in 1918.
So,my question is - could it be turned into efficient AA or AT gun before WW2 ?
And what effect would it made ? Poland and France was doomed to fall,but,for example Japan with good AT guns would probably win in 1939 with soviets,and if they have 37mm instead of 25mm AA it would help them at Pacyfic.

 

[Marduk]

Shell weight	450 g (1 lb)

Muzzle velocity	650 m/s (2,100 ft/s)

Between that and unreliability, the answer is no.
For comparison, here's a strong 37mm:

37 mm gun M3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

AP-T

AP M74 Shot

1.51 / 0.87

–

884 / 870

And ok 37mm:

3.7 cm Pak 36 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pzgr

• Projectile weight: 0.685 kg
• Muzzle velocity: 745 m/s

 

[ATP]

Between that and unreliability, the answer is no.
For comparison, here's a strong 37mm:

37 mm gun M3 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And ok 37mm:

3.7 cm Pak 36 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks.So,it was forgotten for good reason.
About other automatic gun - czech made A18 75mm automatic gun for their T.25 medium tank during WW2.German refused it/like all czech medium tanks/ becouse...nobody exactly knew why.
I read in one article,that Hitler forbid it becouse he wanted work for german workers,but even he could not be that stupid.
Here,about tank :

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi54PC5ronyAhWGyIsKHUZDD5cQFjAPegQIFhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Ftanks-encyclopedia.com%2Fww2-germany-czechoslovak-skoda-t25%2F&usg=AOvVaw209u_zRVD4U80qn1HZnpff

So,question is - was such kind of gun for tanks good idea,or not ?

 

[Marduk]

Power wise, the only data i've found is 98mm RHA penetration at 1000m. Which is between 75L48 of Pz4 and 75L70 of Panthers. As such, quite decent, at least if it could be introduced quickly and the autoloader worked well. Which is a big unknown.
Drum magazines in tank guns are doable and practical enough, as the French proved after the war with AMX-13, but it took them some time.

 

[Zachowon]

Power wise, the only data i've found is 98mm RHA penetration at 1000m. Which is between 75L48 of Pz4 and 75L70 of Panthers. As such, quite decent, at least if it could be introduced quickly and the autoloader worked well. Which is a big unknown.
Drum magazines in tank guns are doable and practical enough, as the French proved after the war with AMX-13, but it took them some time.

The French kinda were the pioneers of it in a mass produced way.

As for the 75mm mentioned. It definitely seems like a Long 75mm, like the FL10 of the french of the M7 used by the M10 Wolverine

 

[ATP]

The French kinda were the pioneers of it in a mass produced way.

As for the 75mm mentioned. It definitely seems like a Long 75mm, like the FL10 of the french of the M7 used by the M10 Wolverine

According to what i found,it was 75/55,which mean that barrel was as long as american 76mm gun.
Fun thing - according to what i found,american 76mm gun was better then soviet 85mm in armor piercing,which mean that czech 75mm would be better,too.

Still worst then german 75mm L70,which was one of the reason why german in 1942 abadonned entire project.Pity.They would lost anyway,but thanks to introducing T.25 with automatic gun we would see more automatic guns after war.

 

[Buba]

Be carefull when comparing cannon. Barrel length aside there is the quantity of propelant to consider. Here case length is a rough guide, where longer=better (spot male bias). But some cases were fatter than typical for their length (Yes! Girth Matters!). being designed for use inside those tight and hot confines of tank turrets.
And then we get to ammunition and the alphabet soup of different types of AT shot/shell, leading to highly disparate performance of weapons which at first glance look identical.
BTW - on paper the data for the McLean cannon looks OK for 1940 against German, Soviet or British cruiser tanks. Against French just (in)effective as the PAK 3,7cm.

 

[ATP]

Be carefull when comparing cannon. Barrel length aside there is the quantity of propelant to consider. Here case length is a rough guide, where longer=better (spot male bias). But some cases were fatter than typical for their length (Yes! Girth Matters!). being designed for use inside those tight and hot confines of tank turrets.
And then we get to ammunition and the alphabet soup of different types of AT shot/shell, leading to highly disparate performance of weapons which at first glance look identical.
BTW - on paper the data for the McLean cannon looks OK for 1940 against German, Soviet or British cruiser tanks. Against French just (in)effective as the PAK 3,7cm.

And how good 37mm McLean would be as AA gun? they made prototype in 1918,but war ended and nobody buy that.

 

[Buba]

The ROF looks too low for AA.
Maaaaaaaaaybe acceptable for 1918, but not in the 1930s. Compare with Pom-pom, its contemporary. In 1918 a HMG would be just/almost as good and much lighter and cheaper.
I don't like the "tap gas at muzzle" mechanism. Tried several times but I don't know of any mass produced weapon with. But I'm no expert ...

 

[ATP]

So...not good both as AT and AA gun.Abadonned for good reasons.
Unless...Japan AT and AA guns sucked,so if they have it in 1939 they could win Chałchyn-goł,and it would be better AA then 25mm they used.But,except more destroyed allies planes,it would still change nothing.

 

[Buba]

The McLean indeed looks like that it was too early to be viable in WWII and used a technology which was never (?) made to work satisfactorily.

If you want to give the Japanese a good AT cannon for '39 clashes with Soviets - PAK 3,7cm or Bohler 47mm (canone 47/32). Both available in early '30s. I'd go with the latter - better HE shell and thus can be used as light infantry cannon. It is derided for not coping with Matildas. But in 1940/41 the Matilda was out of the league of all standard battalion level AT cannon.
For AA - the pom-pom but with the "hotter loaded" ammunition.
Or you could go the Hungarian route - they standardised on the 40mm Bofors AA, i.e. they used the same ammo (more powerful than AT rounds in that calibre!) for their AT cannon.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

the source says that the shell used black powder as the propellant.
unless the propellant is modernized i'm going to say no, but if the shells are switched to smokeless/ ball powder i don't know if the action is able to handle those pressures

 

[ATP]

the source says that the shell used black powder as the propellant.
unless the propellant is modernized i'm going to say no, but if the shells are switched to smokeless/ ball powder i don't know if the action is able to handle those pressures

AA version from 1918 used smokeless powder.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The two main problems with the Japanese 25mm Hotchkiss AA mounts were that all but a tiny handful of mountings lacked even the most rudimentary form of RPC direction, and that the small 15-round box magazines severely handicapped the rate of fire. The 37mm McLean does not address either of these issues, and in fact would have even worse loading issues since it only had 5-round or 10-round magazines.

 

[ATP]

The two main problems with the Japanese 25mm Hotchkiss AA mounts were that all but a tiny handful of mountings lacked even the most rudimentary form of RPC direction, and that the small 15-round box magazines severely handicapped the rate of fire. The 37mm McLean does not address either of these issues, and in fact would have even worse loading issues since it only had 5-round or 10-round magazines.

So poor japaneese are still fucked.They should copy Hungary and use 40mm AA and AT Bofors guns.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

So poor japaneese are still fucked.They should copy Hungary and use 40mm AA and AT Bofors guns.

They tried, but failed.

A number of British-made single Bofors guns were captured in Singapore in 1942 and the Japanese proceeded to copy the design under the designation Type 5, but quality control was poor enough to cause severe reliability issues. Several modifications were made to try to resolve this and otherwise improve the weapon -- notably longer barrels and flash suppressors -- but they were never satisfactory and only a handful were built for trials.

(Remember that the U.S. had to make numerous modifications to the Bofors design to make it suitable for mass production. No one else, not even the British, managed to do so -- which is why the British version of the Bofors saw only limited use.)

 

[Buba]

Mid 1942 is waaaay too late - to get the Bofors and its ammo into mass production for Khalkin Ghol you need a license around '34 or '35.

Reverse engineering stuff is not easy - look at the USA - it failed to copy the MG42 ... or was it the MG 34?

 

[Husky_Khan]

Mid 1942 is waaaay too late - to get the Bofors and its ammo into mass production for Khalkin Ghol you need a license around '34 or '35.

Reverse engineering stuff is not easy - look at the USA - it failed to copy the MG42 ... or was it the MG 34?

The M60 Machine Gun was partially inspired by the MG-42.

 

[gral]

The M60 Machine Gun was partially inspired by the MG-42.

It was mainly inspired by the FG42, not the MG42. The US did try to copy the MG42 and failed.

 

[Zachowon]

We created the M2 Browning which has been copied many times over and used by many.
I think we are more successful