17 pounder APDS - & 17 pdr in general.

Regardless of what the US Army had in the pipeline, the 17 Pounder was available on D Day. Regardless of its accuracy, users had confidence that it would KO any tank it hit. This was a crumb of comfort to anti tank gunners, and to tank crews who knew that their tanks were vulnerable to all of the Germans tank or anti tank guns.

That the HVAP round was not ready for the US 3" by D Day did not matter too much in hindsight as the US Army was not going to face the heavy tanks that turned up on the Caen Bayeux sector.

 

Sheldrake,

I want to continue this conversation however, I drove from Pennsylvania to Laramie Wyoming over the last couple of days and tomorrow I will be in the Routt National Forest about 15 miles south of the metropolitan area of Savery, Wyoming which has a population of about 15 people but, for some reason has a Post Office and a zip code!! I am going elk and mule deer hunting with a muzzleloader. So, we will pick up where we left off in about 14 days.

Mike
PS. I am learning/relearning a lot.

 

I forgot to add I am sorry the Queen died.

Mike

 

FWIW, in Savery you're ~21 hours closer than anywhere in Pennsylvania to the National Museum of Military Vehicles in Dubois, WY.

 

Not a statistical analyze but. On the Balleroy test, see my message #68 in this threat, 5 shots from 700 yds according to US from 750 yrds according to British, see Don Juan's message #67 and 3 penetrating hits. But APDS ammo for troops arrived only in October 44 for RA and at the turn of the year 1944/45 for RAC.

Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun? - Page 4 - Axis History Forum Post #53 Richard C. Anderson Jr. "..., in RAC Letter Number 3 from 29 December, it is mentioned (Para. 66) that "small quantities of "17-pr SVDS" (Super Velocity Discarding Sabot) had been received and that it was being tested in order to ensure "it was up to specification" - presumably meaning the accuracy problem was solved - "before it is put into operational use". That test is also described in the same letter (this time called "17-pr DS shot", Para. 77) as occuring 23 November. It was an accuracy test only, firing at screens at 800 yards with good results, but the test was limited by poor visibility during the day..."

see also e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml
incl. message 1

 

Hmm, now I'm trying to think whether I have a copy of "RAC Letter Number 3".

 

He gets in the gunner's seat at 4:50 mark

 

Thank you very much indeed - I had no idea the Chieftain had made a video on the Firefly!
But that definitely confirms a lot of my suspicions (even if he is a big bugger!). I read a book years ago by a Firefly gunner - must try and find it again . . .

 

This reminds me that a lot of the current mythology of 17 pounder APDS inaccuracy comes from an article that The Chieftain posted several years ago about a US Army trial of the Firefly. You can see this article here:

The Chieftain's Hatch: US Firefly Pt. 1

This demonstrated that the 17 pounder's APDS was very inaccurate, while its APCBC ammunition had mediocre accuracy. The problem with this report, however, is that the tank tested was not, in fact, a Firefly, as revealed in this passage:

The issue here of course is that the M4A3 hull was not an approved hull for the Firefly, which was only produced on M4 and M4A4 hulls. The M4A1, M4A2 and M4A3 hulls were prohibited for Firefly conversion as they were all deemed to be "unsuitable". The British were frustratingly coy about why these hulls were unsuitable, and to this day we have yet to find out why, but this test may in fact hint that one of the reasons was that they did not provide a stable gun platform for the 17 pounder. However it is the case that this test was not conducted on a tank type that was in the British inventory, but was instead conducted on a lash-up that resembled a type of tank that the British themselves had forbidden from being produced in the first place.

As such, as a supposed assessment of the accuracy of the 17 pounder as installed in the Firefly, this trial is invalid and should be ignored.

 

Don Juan sent me the relevant files - thank you so much - and here is exactly what RAC Liaison Letter No 3 said.

 

Not entirely. The M4A1 upper hull was not as roomy as the welded hulls and Firefly conversions needed as much space as possible for stowage. I suspect it could have been done but small numbers of small hatch Sherman Is in service likely made it unnecessary. As for the Sherman III, that is more clear. The protrusion of the engine driven generators into the fighting compartment did not allow for the full compliment of ammunition stowage.

 

Is this documented anywhere in contemporary reports? I've not seen any written confirmation of this - you could well be correct, but when I referred to coyness I meant that the reasons for the choices made don't seem to have been openly stated.

 

No, I haven't seen it documented, it just comes from my familiarity with the vehicles, having owned and restored a Sherman for 30 years and having been working on them and making parts for them, including Fireflies for even longer. I admit it's a best guess but makes sense. Certainly with regard to the Sherman III, there is no way you can get the rear hull ammo racks in unless they were cut down.
It's a bit like the front hull ammo rack. It's clearly built to take 15 rounds but stowage charts show 14. Having made a couple of these racks, knowing that the gearbox oil filler elbow and cap protrudes through a cut out in the rack and prevents use of one of the holders is obvious but only from first hand, that never shows up in pictures!

 

That's a fair point, although it could have been the case that the stowage issues were one of a number of factors that made those particular hulls unsuitable. It really is very odd that the RA were reporting 17 pounder APDS accuracy up to 1400 yards in the M10, but those US Army tests reported poor accuracy even at 500 yards in the Firefly. I can understand the 17 pounder in the Firefly being somewhat less accurate than in the M10 (or Archer or towed) as it had a different recoil system but those results suggest a totally different paradigm. I'm quite surprised the Americans didn't check if there were issues with their impromptu turret installation before assuming that the results they'd gained from firing were a fair reflection of the gun's performance.

I'm quite dubious about the idea that the 17 pounder was not very accurate even in the Firefly, as there are quite a few reports of Fireflies hitting multiple enemy tanks with consecutive rounds. IIRC there were at least two occasions when five Panthers were KO'd/destroyed with five or six rounds. I can't help noticing the pattern that doubts about 17 pounder accuracy only ever seem to emerge when the Americans turn up attempting to justify their controversial 76mm gun.

 

Here's an interesting comment from the 7th Canadian Anti-Tank Regiment in Elst on 24th April 1945:



Note how any inaccuracy is ascribed to anything but the gun itself, which this unit would have had extensive experience of using.

 

I don't know exactly when the regiment got towed 17-pounders but as you may have observed, I think they only got 17-pounder M10s in late March(?) after arriving in Northwest Europe. 111 Battery had some Archers from September 1944 onward.

Assuming this was a direct fire shoot I assume they had to lay using range equivalencies as the M10 sight would not have had markings for reduced charge HE.

 

When I was in Armor back in the day, we were trained to have the best tank defeating round in the chamber. So, if we ran into a BMP the first shot would be a Sabot round followed by a HEAT round if necessary. The easiest and quickest way to unload a tank main gun is to fire the round in the chamber.

Mike

 

If the turret fit on the hull and the turret rotated on the hull what would be the issue with accuracy? I see no difference between hulls other than room that has been mentioned.

Did anyone consider that the quality control when the ammunition was manufactured may of been the problem? This may explain the huge difference in accuracy between lots of ammunition?

Mike

 

Maybe the layout of the fire control in the “Firefly” made it extremely difficult to shoot the gun accurately compared to the fire control layout in the M10.

What was the controversy with the 76mm? IIRC the US Army used that gun (I am sure with modifications) in the Korean War and it was in the inventory well into the 1960s in some National Guard units. The 75mm on the M-24 may still be in service with some South American countries. Not a good anti-tank gun but adequate for close support of infantry vs an enemy that has no tanks.

Mike

 

Next time I am out in Wyoming, hopefully next year, I will try to go see that museum. Thanks!!

Mike