17 pounder APDS - & 17 pdr in general.

Claimed 1000 yard hit with 17 pounder APDS by 260 Bty 65 Anti-Tank Regiment on 9th April 1945:



Is the inaccuracy of 17 pdr sabot a myth?

 

Is there any evidence of a difference in the quality of the sabot ammunition used between mid-1944 on the one hand, and 1945 on the other?

 

After this engagement was the Tiger tank examined to determine how many times it was hit?

Mike

 

A few years ago I saw a document at Kew which covered it. In the course of the war there were three different Mk's of APDS for the 17pdr. These included doing things like shifting the centre of gravity in the projectile and using different sabots to make separation cleaner. By all accounts these improved the situation but never solved it.

 

My personal theory regarding these reports is that RA gunners were a lot better than RAC gunners.

 

Both Tigers were considered to be knocked out, and they were both immobile in position the next day, although there is no record of any examination by 260 Bty,, who moved on on 11th April.

 

Frontal armour of Panther penetrated by 17 pdr APDS at 750 yds:



RA gunners once again.

 

Hello DJ
Interesting, so it was 257 Bty which participated the Balleroy test, see the photo, IIRC it was posted by Michael Kenny

 

So as early as July '44, the 17 pdr APDS was doing exactly what it was supposed to do both in terms of accuracy and penetration.

 

I suspect the ammo really really improved as the war went on. 6pdr sabots never has an issue with accuracy.

 

I think you may be in danger of unfairly defaming RAC gunners.
The 17-pdr "Pheasants" appeared, according to most sources, in February 1943. I can't find a definite date for the appearance of the "proper" 17-pounder, but I've seen photos of them fairly early on in Italy, so July 1943 on. I assume (and I know the risks of assuming things, but I think I'm safe here) that RA units in training in the UK would have been issued with their 17-pounders at about the same time.
That means that RA anti-tank gunners would have had about a year to familiarise themselves with their weapons, with lots of UK range time in training, whereas their RAC counterparts would, it seems, have had two or three months at most before entering combat - the Fireflies and Challengers do not seem to have reached front-line units until May or June 1944. I don't know how much range time tank units actually got before D-Day, but I doubt whether it was enough to enable a gunner to really get used to what his gun could do.

Furthermore, how good or bad was the tank gunner's seating position and sights compared to his RA counterpart? We all know the Firefly was a bit of a last-minute bodge - how good were the sights that were fitted? How comfortable was the gunner? The Challenger was longer in development and based around a four-man turret - does that mean that it did a better job of replicating the "proper" 17-pounder's sights and seating position?. The Archer and M10 I don't know about, except that the Archer had the same Mark of 17-pounder as the Challenger and had an open-topped crew compartment so should have been fairly comparable to the "proper" 17-pounder.

Sadly, I have never (or at least, not yet . . .) had the opportunity to get in a Firefly turret or any other WW2 tank turret, for that matter, but I do have some experience of target-shooting with rifles up to 1200 yards, so I know the importance of getting to know the particular idiosyncrasies of your chosen weapon, and the length of time it takes to get used to new ammunition - I presume that these principles can be extrapolated to artillery.

 

The RAC always had a problem with gunners because it was a less transferable trade than driving or wireless operating, and so it was generally the case that it attracted the recruits with least aptitude. During the first half of the war the drivers were also trained as mechanics (a trade) and the loaders were trained as wireless operators (a trade) so they both got a supplement to their pay with tradesman's rates. Sometime around late 1942 and early 1943 gunners were also trained as mechanics or wireless operators in order to supplement their pay, but they still didn't get to use their skills in practice as much. If you were trained as a driver you could also seek a transfer to the RASC, which was statistically safer and also gave you access to a career on civvy street.

All that being said, you could well be correct that the M10 17 pdr was for whatever reason simply a much better firing platform than the Firefly, despite being just as much of a last minute bodge.

 

Apropos of nothing, I should point out that the M10, especially with the 17 pounder, was one of the very best AFV's of WW2, and is hugely underrated.

 

The M10's 3-inch gun was a considerably larger piece than the Sherman's 75mm so Mayfly had a significant head start.

Which leads into another thought: why was the 77mm just a one-hit wonder?

 

Maybe made obsolete by the 90mm M3?

EDIT:

My mistake. I thought you said 76mm.

 

Sorry, Dave, the 77mm being the British mini 17-pr as used on the Comet.

 

Yes, that's a good point.

Well it was going to be used on the A46 (post-war Vickers Light Tank) so it almost had a longer career.

 

I recall reading in the Canadian War Diaries (apologies I will have to dig through my notes for the evidence) that the 17pdr muzzle brake had to be modified for APDS by widening the baffles on the inside.. I cannot remember by how much or which war diary it was in.

 

Another reason may of been that the US was going to field the HVAP (High Velocity Armor Piercing) in the near future. It had very good armor penetration and was also very accurate. I will try to find more information over on Axis History Forum and post it here.

Mike
PS. I never took probability and statistics but it would be interesting if someone that has would analyze the data. What are the chances of a first round hit with APDS at 800 yards? If you fire four rounds does that guarantee at least one hit? I don’t know the answer to these questions.

 

To All,
Apparently the US Army did not know that the HVAP Round was in the supply pipeline. The following is from Richard C. Anderson over on Axis History Forum:

“The initial problems with M62 were found in the ETOUSA in the Shoeburyness tests in May 1944 and were found mostly related to the poor fuze action of the APC design, which was also true in the 75mm and 90mm rounds. So the initial thought was using solid, unfuzed AP shot was a good quick fix. The problems with the APC versus the Panther were first found in the publication of the British analysis of the Panther published 5 June 1944 and then confirmed from early battle experience, leading to the crash program to field 3"/76mm HVAP, which was completed in about five weeks. Then the two Isigny and single Balleroy test further demonstrated the weakness of M62 versus the Panther glacis and the thought again that AP might work better.

"Beforehand", M79 and all other AP shot was authorized Substitute Standard in late 1942 when it was completely replaced in production by APC. Insofar as I can tell, all production of AP shot for the U.S. Army ceased in late 1942 and early 1943 and was only present in ETOUSA/MTOUSA or Z/I depots after that date. Most was probably shot off by mid 1944, but I have never been able to find complete production or expenditure figures that differentiate between the two types. The only production after that was the reheat treated 90mm M77 AP that was designated T33. Postwar though, improved AP designs almost entirely replaced APC.”

M62 vs M79 availability for the 76mm gun M1 - Axis History Forum

Mike