17 pounder APDS - & 17 pdr in general.

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by mollusc, Oct 21, 2008.

  1. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    I dunno, because I've never seen any complaints about 17 pounder accuracy from users in the field either in the Firefly or the M10. This is an unusual issue because I'm pretty used to the situation where a piece of equipment does very will in tests, but has problems in the field, while the 17 pounder seems to be the opposite way round - it seems to have had problems during certain tests, but the users in the field were very content with it.

    My suspicion is that there were problems with the tests, and not with the gun.

    You know what the controversy was because you referred to it in your post #80.
     
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  2. Delta Tank

    Delta Tank Member

    I think the controversy was with the ammunition. The gun was okay, the ammunition needed improvement. We used that gun, I am sure with modifications, in Korea and with the new and improved HVAP round it had no problems killing T-34s.

    Mike
     
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  3. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    When the ammo is not working the gun gets the blame. This happened in the desert with the 2 pounder, when the standard AP round shattered against face hardened German armour. The long delay in producing more effective APCBC ammunition was not the fault of the 2 pounder, but it got the blame anyway. Hence the 2 pounder, like the 76mm, was controversial.
     
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  4. Delta Tank

    Delta Tank Member

    What round were they using? When did crews receive APDS? Not before D-Day?

    Mike
     
  5. Delta Tank

    Delta Tank Member

    Here is another video on “Myths of American Armor”. Myth#5 is at 20:00 or so and Myth#6 at 23:20 or so both pertinent to this discussion. I didn’t see this posted, hope it is not a repeat.



    Mike
     
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  6. Delta Tank

    Delta Tank Member

    This is approximately when APDS was issued for the 17 pounder.

    “Seriously though, there is little evidence that British deliveries of 17-pdr SABOT was any more numerous. Buckley is correct that 6-pdr SABOT was available and issued pre-NEPTUNE, but it may not have been as "widespread" as he indicated. There are also some mention I have run across that issue of range cards was an issue initially. 17-pdr SABOTthough is a different matter. It seems the initial shipment was the unproofed lot issued for the Balleroy and Isigny test. Later, 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.”

    Found at this link previously posted above: Why did the British abandon the 6 pounder as a Tank gun? - Page 4 - Axis History Forum

    Mike
     
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  7. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

  8. Delta Tank

    Delta Tank Member

    . I thought I read in one of these posts that the APDS ammo was available before D-Day. Then I read or re-read the post above and the APDS ammo was not available until December 44-January 45. By that time the HVAP round was available, not in the desired quantities, but available and the M-36 was also in theater.

    I may of misunderstood.

    I have spent the whole morning looking at all this again, dug out my book on the Sherman by R. P. Hunnicutt, lots of improvements on the M-4 over the years.

    Mike
     
    Chris C likes this.
  9. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Comment below from 91st Anti-Tank Regiment on 28th September 1944, looking forward to using their 17 pounders at maximum range against armour on the flat plains of Holland.

    Geldrop.jpg

    Yet more fools who fail to recognise how inaccurate their guns are!
     
    Nick the Noodle and Chris C like this.
  10. Delta Tank

    Delta Tank Member

    But they have not been issued APDS yet. The “regular” AP was accurate, it was with APDS that was inaccurate.

    Mike
     
  11. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    I got hold of 257 Battery's diary in order to see what they had to say about the Balleroy test. Prepare to have your minds blown:

    257 Bal.jpg
     
  12. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    That reminds me of a comment made by an officer of 54th Anti-Tank Regiment after a 17 pdr shoot (12 Feb 1945) albeit with HE Reduced Charge. "I have never seen rounds fall so often into the same hole. The accuracy of the gun at the range of [3100 yards or 2840 meters] was phenomenal.”
     
    Nick the Noodle, Juha and Don Juan like this.
  13. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    My current research on the Crusader Gun Tractor is leading me to believe that the number one cause of tank unreliability in WW2 was the standard of training of the users, and not poor design or production errors. I'm also starting to suspect that the same issue was in play regarding alleged gun inaccuracy.
     
  14. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I didn't know that the gunners in the Balleroy test came from the Northumberland Hussars, who were of course the AT regiment for 50th Division. Nor did I know that the gunners came to the test straight from the battlefield and went right back to it afterwards.
     
    Chris C likes this.
  15. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Think it's actually the Norfolk Yeomanry (7 Armd Div) who carry out the shoot.

    Generally speaking though the role of the anti-tank regiments, especially the SP batteries, is chronically under-researched, which in turn gives a totally distorted picture of the Battle of Normandy, and probably NWE generally. I wouldn't mind betting that the RA destroyed more German tanks in Normandy than the RAC did, and I suspect the M10 was a far more decisive weapon than the Firefly was. The M10 was absolutely superb - why don't people know this?

    Part of the reason why the 17 pounder has something of a reputation for inaccuracy is because historians have concentrated on the RAC story and largely ignored the RA one. But the information from the RA diaries seems to indicate, if anything, that the 17 pounder was an unusually accurate gun, even with APDS.

    Another thing I picked up recently was that the RA were using different sights to the RAC, with the RA ones allegedly being worse!
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2022
    Nick the Noodle, Sheldrake and TTH like this.
  16. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    Oddly enough, the Norfolk Yeomanry had also served with 50th Div earlier in the war. In July 44, 56 Bde was also part of the 50th Div so it's a little strange to see a regiment from outside the 50th providing AT support.

    In reading the Northumberland Hussars Normandy WD, I found that there was a good deal of squabbling between the antitank gunners and the infantry about the proper way to employ and deploy the guns. The infantry, as I recall, wanted them as far forward as possible.
     
  17. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  18. idler

    idler GeneralList

    That argument goes way back and probably falls into the same category as 'we can't see any planes, so the RAF can't be doing anything'. Gunners wanted to site guns to kill tanks, while the infantry seemed to want them as an emotional crutch.
    I've seen a write-up of Medenine which talks of the Gunners imposing their will - as well as the infantry's guns - on the anti-tank fireplan, with much better than average results. The effectiveness of infantry anti-tank guns probably came down to the willingness of battalion and company commanders to let the A/Tk platoon commander do his job, not what they thought it should be. 1/7 Queens' guns at Villers-Bocage spring to mind - defiladed 6-prs dealt with many a Tiger in the town.
     
    Nick the Noodle, TTH and Chris C like this.
  19. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    The corps anti-tank regiments were all over the place, so it was certainly normal of them to support divisional units. The SP batteries of the 73rd Anti-Tank Regiment actually arrived in Normandy as part of the 102nd Anti-Tank Regiment, having spent two months training with them. Whether it was normal for an Armd Div AT Regiment like the 65th to behave in such a way I'm less sure of.
     
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  20. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    There is something in this. My understanding is the theory by 1944 was as follows:-

    1. The anti tank platoon of an infantry battalion was there to provide anti tank defence for the battalion.
    2. The divisional anti tank regiment (mix of 6 and 17 pounder - towed) was there to kill tanks and sited around killing zones on likely AFV approaches.
    3. The corps anti tank regiment 50% SP 50% towed 17 pounder. Backstop on likely armoured approaches (17 pounder towed/ coastal artillery), mobile anti tank reserve SP.

    In Normandy some of the theory went out of the window. There were no massive panzer thrusts to deal with a la Medennine pass. The typical scenario was of a British advance by infantry supported by tanks under an artillery barrage, followed by a German counter attack with or without tanks under a mortar barrage. The likely armoured approach and protecting the infantry are almost one and the same. The problem was to get anti tank weapons in place early enough to be ready for a quick counterattack, and do it in a forward area subject to mortar fire and random bullets. The 6 pounders were fine, as long as there weren't any Tigers about. The towed 17 pounder was hopelessly slow to deploy, taking around 12 hours to dig in and the field artillery tractor was potentially a deathtrap in forward areas. The best solution was the 17 pounder M10 SP, which could provide protection while towed equipment deployed. These were supposed to then be released.

    By and large the SP batteries of the armoured division and corps anti tank regiments were fully employed while the towed batteries twiddled their thumbs and after the break out ended up doing all sorts of odd jobs or acting as extra infantry. Thus 21 Anti tank regiment is used as an extra battlegroup for the Guards Armoured Division and in Feb/Mar 1945 the manpower of the towed batteries of 6th Canadian Anti-tank regiment were used as infantry on the Gelwe "Island" while theior Ram gun tractors were used as APCs.

    There were experiments with towing 17 pounders using Churchill tanks (Op Greenline)

    The Normandy story is covered in some detail in Gunners in Normandy, though I am aware of some corrections re 73 Anti tank Regiment. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gunners-Normandy-History-Artillery-North-west/dp/0750990449
     
    TTH, Chris C and Osborne2 like this.

Share This Page