M10 with 17-pounder question - date of R&D work?

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Chris C, Mar 22, 2019.

  1. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    Hi all,

    Does anyone know when precisely a 17-pounder was first fit into an M10 satisfactorily? I'm not talking about industrial production, but when they put one in, tested it, and decided "yes, this scheme will work".
     
    Dave55 likes this.
  2. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Unfortunately the REME staff history doesn't mention a hard date but the impression is that it was a very quick process.
    Thinking about it, its little-known moniker MAYFLY might well reflect the last-minute nature of the project...
    What mark of 17-pr was fitted in the M10 - was it the same as Firefly or did it use a different piece? Did it affect or augment Firefly production?
    IMG_20190322_184423955~2.jpg
     
    Juha likes this.
  3. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    Ahh why doesn't that document say when they were given that work?

    Wikipedia lists the gun marks per vehicle for the 17 pounder

    edit: Challenger and Valentine SP: Mk II
    Firefly: Mk IV
    M10: Mk V - says it's a modification of the Mk IV

    edit: but in some way there must have been overall limits in 17 pounder gun production
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  4. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
  5. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    That would be very interesting!

    Based on the comment I read about the M10 being a "wasting asset" in the postwar 1940s, I suspect it must refer to Archers. I am trying to remember if I read of a potential sale to Lebanon which was canceled under a cloud? The postwar Archers I have seen in photos were from Egypt.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2019
  6. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Well, the M10's were certainly considered a wasting asset at one point, but there must have been a big overhaul as they were employed in quite large numbers into the mid-1950's.

    This was to do with the handover of the anti-tank role from the RA to the RAC, and the cancellation of any new dedicated anti-tank SPG in favour of the Conqueror. This in turn was due to the panic that the IS-3 induced in the British Army, which made their existing SP's (apparently) useless, but also necessitated a very big and expensive SPG in order to defeat it. So they went with the Conqueror tank, which was a long slow development programme, and kept the M10 and Archer in service in the meantime.
     
    Dave55 and Chris C like this.
  7. Richelieu

    Richelieu Well-Known Member

    The proof firing was undertaken at Woolwich 22/12/1943 with a successful comprehensive firing trial at Larkhill 30/12/1943.

    This is an interesting file to browse – it indicates that a Canadian project [Project 56 Arty] had been instituted by General Gatehouse, B.A.S., Washington, around September 1943, with preliminary studies undertaken in Detroit in October, but that progress was held back by the delay in delivering the requisite Mk. II gun from the U.K. An urgent parallel project was instituted in the U.K. in November, that evidently drew on this work, and came to fruition in January 1944 after which the Canadian project was spiked.
     
    Chris C likes this.
  8. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    Is it wrong for me to find it amusing that "on three occasions when the S.A.did function, the empty cartridge was violently ejected and and bounced off the slopes of the fighting compartment hitting the No.1"? I'm sure that would actually hurt a lot.
     
    Vintage Wargaming likes this.

Share This Page