The tubes are all comparable, with trivial differences. The American split trail, allowing higher elevations and substantially increased range, is a decisive advantage, The American gun.
I think I'd go with the American M1917. It may be slightly heavier, but it's got better range, better elevation, and 5 different companies can make the ammunition and components. It's an interchangeable weapon and can be easily moved into position.
The French M1897 75 is the best choice. There are more of them in stock, sufficient, if all are employed, for 719 four gun batteries, or 479 six gun batteries. The amount on hand are sufficient to equip a force of thirty-nine divisions on the six gun battery establishment (assuming 72 guns per square division), or 53 divisions (54 guns per division) if the Army opts for a triangular division establishment. General March’s maximum program for half a million regulars might make up 25 divisions worth, but we must remember the need to provide guns for the reserves and the National Guard, as well as providing for spares. This is particularly pertinent given the unpredictable and likely parsimonious attitude of the Congress (see the Navy’s issues with its battleship program).
The weapon is lighter, thus easier to move, and has a marginally higher muzzle velocity. Adopting it would allow time to take the American design and what we have already learned from the war, and make a more advanced piece at some point in the future. We have a supplier for the gun itself, and Waterlivet and the others could be contracted to make spare barrels as well, at need.
The US M1916 would really be preferable in a perfect world. It has a greater range than the other two choices. However, there are not many presently in stock, and the willingness of Congress to appropriate additional funds to cast new guns, when so many are already on hand, is doubtful. We have enough for 121 six-gun batteries, just enough for 10 divisions on the square pattern, or 13 on the triangular pattern. That number of divisions is probably close to what Congress can reasonably be expected to authorize, but this will severely limit spares, and likely make equipment of the reserves impossible. For a number of years, we would need to maintain the French and British guns in store as an emergency reserve.
The M 1917 British 75 has all of the demerits of reliance on the American M1916 with the added demerit of one supplier for everything associated with it.
The tubes are all comparable, with trivial differences. The American split trail, allowing higher elevations and substantially increased range, is a decisive advantage, The American gun.
American 75--the range outweighs the weight and muzzle velocity of the French 75.
I think I'd go with the American M1917. It may be slightly heavier, but it's got better range, better elevation, and 5 different companies can make the ammunition and components. It's an interchangeable weapon and can be easily moved into position.
The French M1897 75 is the best choice. There are more of them in stock, sufficient, if all are employed, for 719 four gun batteries, or 479 six gun batteries. The amount on hand are sufficient to equip a force of thirty-nine divisions on the six gun battery establishment (assuming 72 guns per square division), or 53 divisions (54 guns per division) if the Army opts for a triangular division establishment. General March’s maximum program for half a million regulars might make up 25 divisions worth, but we must remember the need to provide guns for the reserves and the National Guard, as well as providing for spares. This is particularly pertinent given the unpredictable and likely parsimonious attitude of the Congress (see the Navy’s issues with its battleship program).
The weapon is lighter, thus easier to move, and has a marginally higher muzzle velocity. Adopting it would allow time to take the American design and what we have already learned from the war, and make a more advanced piece at some point in the future. We have a supplier for the gun itself, and Waterlivet and the others could be contracted to make spare barrels as well, at need.
The US M1916 would really be preferable in a perfect world. It has a greater range than the other two choices. However, there are not many presently in stock, and the willingness of Congress to appropriate additional funds to cast new guns, when so many are already on hand, is doubtful. We have enough for 121 six-gun batteries, just enough for 10 divisions on the square pattern, or 13 on the triangular pattern. That number of divisions is probably close to what Congress can reasonably be expected to authorize, but this will severely limit spares, and likely make equipment of the reserves impossible. For a number of years, we would need to maintain the French and British guns in store as an emergency reserve.
The M 1917 British 75 has all of the demerits of reliance on the American M1916 with the added demerit of one supplier for everything associated with it.