Talk:Ordnance QF 17-pounder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comet use of 17 pounder

AFAIK, the Comet didn't actually use a 17 pdr. Instead it used a gun based on the 17 pdr. Oberiko 22:54, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The comet used the hv77mm. . just for an addition, the 17 pounder was frist used as the pheasant in north africa. it was delivered in september 1942 to combat the tiger tanks. but it never actualy met them. Rich tea man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.242.35 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Credit for Wittman's Tigers

"A group of Canadian Firefly's destroyed Michael Wittman's Tiger I section..."

This success has been attributed to the Canadians, and also to a rocket from a Typhoon aircraft. According to Ken Tout, gunner in a Sherman belonging to the unit that made the kill, credit properly belongs to a Firefly of "A" Squadron, 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry, commanded by Sergeant Gordon (gunner Joe Ekins). Although other Shermans armed with 75 mm guns were also shooting at the three Tigers from close range, all three were destroyed by the single Firefly - the 75 mm shot bounced off. See "A Fine Night for Tanks", Ken Tout, Sutton Publishing 1998, pp 113-5.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobblewik (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

according to the aar's the british units were approximatly 800 yards away from the tigers. Rich tea man.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.242.35 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

performence v us 76mm

(rich tea man) The 17 pounder apcbc round was capable of defeating the tigers front upper hull at a 30 degree angle of impact at over 1,000 yards. with m62 apcbc the 76mm rarely penned it over 50 yards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.242.35 (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, that depends entirely on the ammunition type. Tiger I glacis is 102mm right?

17-pounder firing APCBC or sabot can penetrate it at 1,500 yards or better. 76mm firing APCBC cannot penetrate at any range. 76mm firing HVAP can peentrate it at 1,500 or better. That's how much difference ammunition makes.

actualy according to wo 294/741 the 17 pounder apds round can penetrate the tiger through its frontal arc at 2,500m+ (rich tea man)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.108.119 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The 82mm side armor can be penetrated by either gun firing *any* ammo out to 1,000 yards. DMorpheus 20:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

not according to faint praise, dmorpheus the us 76mm failed alot against the tigers side armour but only from angle's of 30 degree's or more. (rich tea man)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.108.119 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Anonimous user's remark

Article: A prototype production line was set up that spring, and with the appearance of Tiger tanks in North Africa, the first 100 prototype 17-pdrs anti-tank guns were quickly sent off to help counter this new threat in September 1942.

211.28.179.12: (this date is dubious, British commanders in North Africa were still seeking 17 pounders at Christmas 1942 and the first guns did not arrive in Egypt until January 1943).

I removed the remark from the article; however I removed "in September 1942" too until confirmed. The guns which were sent in September in such a great rush and then weren't used until February ? Bukvoed 12:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

According to british anti tank artillery 1939-45 by Chris Henry, the first prototypes were made in september 42 and were first used in the tunisian campaign. (rich tea man)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.108.119 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing speculation.

In the intro it says that this was the best allied anti-tank gun of the war. I vote for removing that line as it is speculation. Vansice 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but in many of the books I've read, it is described as such. Can we have "often described as the best" ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Name another Allied anti-tank gun larger than the 6 pdr. Ie one on a carraige as opposed to a vehicle. GraemeLeggett 08:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet 100mm, 122mm & 152mm guns were all arguably superior to the 17 Pounder. The term "best allied anti-tank gun" refers specifically to Western allies such as Australia, Canada, Britain and the US but excludes the Soviets, --Senor Freebie (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "it is often thought of as the best..." or something to that effect. Vansice 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is some data to support the claim

Amongst the western allies at least, there's little question the 17-pounder is the best-performing towed AT gun of the war, and by a pretty wide margin.

Allied AT guns larger than the six-pounder would include the US towed 75mm M3, towed 75mm M1897, towed 3-inch, and towed 90mm. Of these only the towed 3-inch was widely issued in combat. Both the US 3-inch and the British 17-pounder were big, heavy guns, and that is a disadvantage to a towed gun. But the performance of the US 3-inch was not even close to the 17-pounder.

Here are some stats:

Gun weight - 17-pounder - 4,624 pounds. 3-inch - 4,875 pounds.

Armor penetration at 500 meters, vertical plate:

17 pounder: 163mm firing APCBC

3-inch: 115mm firing APC

I don't have the 17-pounder sabot (APDS) performance data handy but it was usually better than APCBC.

Source is Zaloga, US Anti-Tank Artillery 1941-45, Osprey 2005.

It is also worth pointing out that the towed 17-pounder was available in the field before the 3-inch or the Soviet 100mm. The only other towed gun that might approach the performance of the 17-pounder is the Soviet 100mm BS-3. I don't have that data with me right now, sorry.

If we consider vehicle-mounted guns as well as towed guns, then the US 90mm, as mounted in the M-36 and M-26, outperforms the 17-pounder only when using HVAP ammo. The 90mm firing APC penetrates only 140mm at 500 meters (vertical) but with HVAP penetrates 278mm. Since no towed 90mm AT was used in combat in WW2, I think the 17-pounder claim is pretty well-supported.

DMorpheus 13:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

well according to us slope multipliers the panthers glacias resists like 238mm compared to 17 pounder apds and 295mm compared to us hvap. the us rounds were inferier in penetrating sloped armour. i dont know the slope multipliers for the us 90mm, according lorrin bird and ian livingston.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.108.119 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing this to "most effective" gun. "Best" could refer to anything, including paint color and general cuteness. 98.222.195.230 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Soviet 100mm, 122mm & 152mm guns were all arguably superior to the 17 Pounder. The term "best allied anti-tank gun" refers specifically to Western allies such as Australia, Canada, Britain and the US but excludes the Soviets, possibly due to them fighting on a different front. Also, note that armour penetration details are actually not all that relevant in WW2. I mean sure, they represent a guns ability to penetrate a piece of metal but the experience, for example with the 17 Pounders best anti armour ammunition was that while it penetrated a Tiger at up to 2,000 meters it rarely did enough internal damage. Compare this to say the 152mm towed AT gun in service in the USSR at the same time and even a non-penetrating shot would disable or completely destroy the same tank. It was even reported that the HE shells from these guns would disable some German AFV's without a direct hit. Oh and I see that someone mentioned that the 17 pounder entered service before the 100mm. The statement was not "the 17 pounder was the most effective anti armour gun in service when initially introduced" ... it encompassed the entire of WW2. Besides the 122mm used in tank destroyers, towed mounts and on tanks was in service from 1938 and the 152mm which was used in the first 2 of those was in service from 1937 ... and anti-tank gun does not restrict your usage of said gun to firing from a towed platform at tanks ... otherwise militaries would only supply these guns with armour piercing ammunitions and without self-propelled platforms.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how we can possibly make any determination here since you seem to be rejecting all available evidence. A "gun's ability to penetrate a piece of metal" is precisely the problem with which we are dealing. I would be interested in your theory of how a 152 mm HE round can "completely destroy" a tank it does not hit. There was no towed 152 mm anti-tank gun; there was a towed 152 mm corps artillery piece, a very different sort of weapon. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You just mis-quoted me. I said that HE shells which didn't hit were reported to have disabled German AFV's. Disable =/= completely destroy. And I am not rejecting all available evidence ... witness reports are just as valid as statistics produced in experiments if they're determined to be unbiased. As for my claim, its rather simple, HE shells as I used the term refers generally to high explosive artillery shells. ISU-152 and SU-152's as well as the towed examples of this gun were often used as indirect fire on the German military as the gun is after a howitzer. On numerous occasions, the shrapnel from shells which hit the ground near a tank was suffecient to pierce the armour or destroy unarmoured parts on the outside such as vision slots, tracks, turret rings etc. On top of this mobility kills could be affected by simply turning the dirt the tank was on into mush.

As for your distinction between the corps artillery piece and a 'towed anti-tank gun' this isn't relevant. Your claim is about the equivalent of attempting to exclude the Flak 88 from discussions regarding the destruction of tanks since it was designed primarily for shooting at aircraft. The same goes for nearly every artillery piece of WW2 and the only reason you would logically not include them in discussion of anti-tank guns is when they were not used often in this role. The towed 152mm being a perfect example of one that does not fit that class as it was used frequently in the direct fire role against German tanks.

Back to evidence relating to anti tank guns; there are other types of evidence other then mm or armour pierced and witness reports. For example, it was often reported that some models of armoured vehicles were disabled without a penetrating shot. The way this worked was 2 fold; either the shell knocked some of the armour on the other side into the crew / components by force or the sheer impact of the shot bent / dented a part of the tank enough to stop it functioning. This of course becomes FAR more relevant when the shell becomes larger because the force of say a 45+kg anti tank shell travelling at 2,000 fps is much higher then the force of say a 3kg shell travelling at 4,000 fps. Another decisive factor is the weaker parts that have to be on the exterior and the effect of the gun on those. As I described earlier a HE shell can damage tracks, turret rings or vision slots among other things so a HE based anti armour weapon can be more successful. Then there is the 'decisiveness' of the penetrating shot. An incendiary round from a 14.5mm rifle could be devastating against an early German tank ... but only on the off chance it hit fuel or other combustables. Somewhere on the middle of the scale is the rather inneffective 17-pounder APDS round which often just punched a neat hole and didn't damage much. On the far end of the scale would be a larger gun ... even larger then the 152mm that managed to punch through with a HE shell. The resulting explosion would not be likely to leave any component undamaged in even larger AFV's like the Tiger. Another decisive factor that you're also ignoring is the ease of a hit. Obviously a short range heavy mortar like the pigot wouldn't be so great since it was innaccurate and easily outranged by approaching tanks. And an innaccurate round like the APDS would have trouble at long distances where aiming has to be very precise. But a gun like the 17-pounder might enjoy more success with a more accurate round thanks to the high velocity (meaning less lead time).--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all very interesting. I'll stick to the referenced data. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Consulting the multiple sources listed in this article and easily available on the web, I did a quick check of penetration (for best ammo type for each gun) at roughly 1000 meters. The 17-pounder firing APDS penetrates 192 mm at that range. The soviet 57 mm ZIS 2 firing BR-271N APCR ammo penetrates 140 mm at that range. The soviet 85 mm ZIS-S-53 firing BR-365P APCR ammo penetrates 110 mm at that range. The soviet 100 mm BS-3 firing BR-410D ammo penetrates 170 mm at that range. The soviet 122 mm D-25T firing BR-471B APBC APCR ammo penetrates 147 mm at that range. The soviet 152 mm ML-20 Corps artillery piece firing BR-50 ammo penetrates 120 mm at that range. So only the Soviet 100 mm comes close. Only about 500 of these were produced before the war ended, and as late as jan 1945 less than 200 were in service. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Then when I have time I will provide this article with more references which will point out the validity of my arguments. However I feel that this is going WAY too far ... you seem to be pretty much a zealot in favour of this piece of hardware. You are using nonsensical arguments to maintain your POV and defend a statement that is also blatantly POV. Remember ... this is all simply about the claim that the 17-pounder was the best anti-tank gun of WW2 and this is not only against Wikipedia's NPOV rule but subject to serious debate and therefore possibly if not probably wrong.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Senor, your opinions here fly in the face of most references and, very obviously, the design of most of the AT guns of WW2. If you have serious references claiming some other allied gun was a better AT gun than the 17 pounder we'd be very interested in seeing them and thus improving the article. There is nothing inherently POV about stating something is the best if it is cited and backed up with data. This has been thoroughly backed up. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the rather inneffective 17-pounder APDS round which often just punched a neat hole and didn't damage much - try telling that to Michael Wittman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.199 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3 in vs 75 mm

Thus the US M4 Sherman mounted much smaller 75 mm weapons, leaving the 3in-armed M10 Wolverine to deal with German armour.

I am slightly confused by this sentence. Is there something special about the "75 mm" round that makes it substantially different to the "3 in"/76mm round? 58.168.255.121 05:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the US 75mm, 76mm, and 3-inch gun ammunition were all different and had different performance despite their similar bore measurements. There are also important differences within each gun type depending on the ammunition type. DMorpheus 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

17 pounder APDS penetration

The article states the 17 pounder ammo penetrating 140mm at 1000 yards. I think whoever wrote that mixed up teh APDS and APCBC ammo because 140 at 1000m is what it could do with regular APCBC ammo, around 190mm was APDS according to Tarrif.net and Guns vs Armour. Unfortently I dont have any books with details, but I think its pretty obvious that the 17 pounder would not have been considered such a fearsome gun if it was doing only 140 at 1000m with specialty ammo, let alone the poor performance it would have had with regular ammo. It was able to defeat panthers (mantle) and tigers out beyond 1000m is what is commonly accepted. If its sepcialty ammo is doing 140mm at that range, its APCBC ammo would have been having one hell of a time doing what it was often stated able to do.

Anyways there is no source he listed so I am going to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.43.96 (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The 17 pdr had an unusually good performance for a gun of its calibre (76.2mm) using 'normal' ammunition, so with APDS the gun's performance was quite remarkable. IIRC, with APDS its muzzle velocity was something like 4,000 fps and as the shot itself (after the sabot had fallen away) was made of Tungsten carbide which is very heavy and hard, it had enormous power and as the cross-section of the shot was relatively small (compared to the diameter of the gun's barrel) it had much less air resistance, so it had a very flat trajectory and excellent 'carrying power', i.e., it had a much longer range than conventional shot and was usually capable of still penetrating the target when it got to it.

Although the Germans captured examples of APDS rounds towards the end of the war, they were unable to create their own ammunition due to the scarcity of tungsten in Germany, where the material was considered so important that it was reserved for making such things as machine tools, etc., and considered to be far too valuable to be thrown around battlefields. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.58.60 (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anti-tank guns vs. Category:World War II anti-tank guns

Category:World War II anti-tank guns is itself a category within Category:Anti-tank guns. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign-built AFVs mounting the 17-pounder

"It was used to 'up-gun' some foreign-built vehicles in British service, notably the Sherman Firefly" Is there any other non-British-built AFV that mounted a 17 pounder, other than the M10? If so shouldn't we simply say that rather than leaving this vague sentence that implies there may have been others? DMorpheus (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)