17 pounder APDS - & 17 pdr in general.

I think that both towed and SP 17 pounders eventually ended up as field artillery for knocking out sniper/OP positions and providing "Pepperpot" barrages, due to the general absence of German tanks. The LAA and HAA regiments ended up doing much the same kind of thing due to the similar lack of German aircraft. 21st Army Group had an enormous number of semi-redundant tubes by October 1944.

 

In what way? M10 used the same telescope as Sherman 17 pr, the No 43. This had x 3 magnification. Towed 17 pr originally used the No 41 which was only x 1.9 magnification but that was soon replaced by the No 51 which was also x 3. Presumably, that was the origin of the issue?

 

It looks like the RA used the No.41 (x 1.9) across the board for both SP and towed. Below are a couple of excerpts from 21 AG AFV Technical Report No.24 of May 1945, although this survey was actually conducted in Dec 1944.

From 21 Anti-Tank Regiment:



From 65 Anti-Tank Regiment:

 

Just wanted to note that the Archer had the No. 51 (x3).

When I was reading that report, I assumed that the M10 had a x3 telescope as well!

 

I applaud the sentiment in this post. I have just read two books on British tank development in WW2. "Death by Design" and "Rude mechanicals" In their long diatribes about inadequacies of British armour neither mentions SP anti-tank guns.

Tanks are sexy in a way that artillery isn't. Look at the yards of shelf space in bookshops about tanks and the handful of books about artillery.

 

They are both terrible books, tbh. If anyone wants to know more lore on the anti-tank regiments and the 17 pounder, this beast will be arriving (fairly) soon:

 

The change from 1.9 x to 3 x magnification resulted in a reduction in field of view from 21 to 13 degrees as alluded to in the 21st AT Regt report above. The 3 x telescopes had a removeable ocular lens which could be swapped for a 6 power version. Tanks certainly carried the 6 power lens as part of the on board kit. I wonder if the RA also had them when they went to the 3 power telescopes?

 

I don't know for sure, but I did not see a mention of a 6x lens in the Archer (SP Valentine etc etc) manual from 1946.

 

It's generally in the armament pamphlet. My M10 and Archer ones are both 1952, I think so not indicative of wartime. I will check though!

 

As I thought, both pamphlets are 1952 and both specify No 43 with the optional X 6 power eyepiece. However, both were RAC equipment by then so that tells us nothing!
The 17 pr SP Valentine handbook is wartime and specifies the No 51 telescope which is X 3 with the 13 degree field of view so apart from the option of the X 6 eyepiece, exactly the same view as the RAC telescope, the No 43. Of course, the No 43 x 3 ML had an illuminated, moving graticule with range scales in it, unlike the No 51 which was fixed with a simple crosshair and lead markings.

 

Do you have any info on the moving graticule, and what its purpose was? Was it moved by the gunner, or did it move/float of its own accord e.g. when tracking a target while traversing?

 

It was moved using knobs on the telescope. As the telescope mount was fixed, other than for zeroing purposes, it enabled the gunner to set the appropriate elevation and lead, the moving part being the cross hair. You would set the range on the telescope and elevate to bring the cross hair on target. The earlier X1.9 versions had a fixed graticule with range markings and you had to elevate as needed but that moved the cross hairs off the target.

 

Mike

APDS must have been available somewhere for some time for this memo advising the Muzzle Brakes be modified to be sent out in August 44...



Tim

 

AFVP/G1/28 - Provisional - Sherman "C" Tanks Armament

• No 43x3 L Mk 1 (Fixed Graticule & Limited Issue)
• No 43x3 ML Mk2 (Moving Graticule & Standard Issue)

AFVP/G1/44 - Sherman "C" Tanks Armament

• No 43x3 L Mk 1
• No 43x3 L Mk 2
• No 43x3 ML Mk 2A
• No 43x3 ML Mk 3

WO.1899 - Technical Handbook for Centurion Mks 1, 2 and 3 - May 1950

• No 43x3 ML Mk 2
• No 43x3 ML Mk 3

I theorise the No 43x3 ML Mk 3 must have been a good sight if still in use in 1950 with the Centurion.

EDIT - The Firefly gunner also had the American M4A1 Periscope with internal M38 telescope and a range conversion chart bolted to the side of the turret.

Tim

 

Here is a technical question. The towed 17-pdr on the designed carriage was slow to emplace and displace. The first 17-pdr to see action, however, was the Pheasant variant mounted on the 25-pdr carriage. Was this version any easier or quicker to handle?

 

No - so far as I know, the opposite was the case. At very least I think it was taller.

 

I know the Pheasant was taller than the proper carriage. The question is, was it any easier to move?

 

I don't know, sorry. Maurice Court mentions that the trail had to be lifted up and positioned in place with a hand spike, and that had to be reversed to move the gun, but I have no idea if that was also true of the "proper" carriage. And he didn't get the "proper" towed gun so he didn't make a comparison of the two.

 

The answer would be, it depends! The Mk2 carriage had a box trail so there was no need to dig in the trail spades as per the Mk 1. However, for anti tank use at that time, the intention was to mount the gun on the platform and move the carriage for large angles of traverse by hand using a hand spike.

I think the Mk1 was only slow to emplace if you had to dig it in. The simple act of unhitching and preparing for immediate action doesn't take long.

 

I don't know if the Pheasant was easier to manhandle, but I think the manhandling issue with the 17 pounder proper revolved around its weight, which was over 3 tons. The Crusader Gun Tractor was fitted with a front towing hook in order to assist with the manhandling. If the Pheasant was substantially lighter, which it may well have been, then I would posit that it would have been easier to manhandle. Digging in was generally a 12 to 24 hour job, although one anti-tank regiment came up with the idea of putting the gun in position and then digging the pit from underneath it, this apparently being a significant timesaver.