Recently I have gotten the US manual Handbook of Artillery, Including Mobile, Antiaircraft, Motor Carriage, and Trench Materiel (July 1921).Within this manual there is a very interesting section on the US 75mm Model of 1916.The US 75mm 1916 did not go into service in Europe in WW1.Instead we chose the French 75mm mle/1897.Nevertheless these were built in some numbers and served in the US Army during the Inter-War years.There are examples of this piece at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and with many years of training there I am fairly familiar with the gun. I have also understood for some time that Dr. Rimailho at the Saint Chamond company in France designed the hydopneumatic recoil mechanism for the US 75mm 1916. However, from illustrations within this US 1921 manual there is an indication that the barrel with Nordenfelt Breech from the St. Chamond 75mm 1897-23 (nearly identical to the St. Chamond mle/97-18) was also considered.I have attached drawings from the US 1921 manual and drawings from Artillerie de Campagne (1924) illustrating the St. Chamond 75mm for comparison.Note, this is not the Schneider 75mm mle/97 known in the US as the French 75 but is instead the competing design that did not go into regular French Army or US Army service. Because this type did not go into regular service it is a bit of trivia but I thought it was interesting.Hope some of you find it the same. Ralph Lovett
In an effort to further confuse Ralph's initial post, I bring you pics from the same manual Ralph's drawings are found with yet another variation.
That being; " Canon de campagne de 75mm Sainte-Chamond, Mod. 1922".
You will note it differs considerably from the "75" of WW1 fame. Firstly, it is fitted with a vertical breach block, and secondly, a howitzer type trail allowing increased elevation. Though not accepted by the French army, I suspect the decision was made for economic reasons ( The impact of WW1 was devasting to the French economy; which was doing quite nicely by 1900, and growing appreciably until the Great War. ); certainly it would have given superior performance to the M1897.
