WW2 Tank Gun Comparison

[Juha]

Soren
You know the report of the US 12 Army Group test at Isigny so you know also this section of the report:

"(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this teast with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is expalined by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted."

Juha

 

[Glider]

Soren
Can you support your comment re the 17pd. I admit that I had heard that it wasn't as accurate as the US 76mm which was by common consent one of the most accurate of the allied tank guns. However that doesn't mean that the gun was a bad as you imply.

I have found the following %age chances of a hit at different ranges of British Anti Tank Guns and the 17pd may not be as good as the best, but its pretty good.

Table 2 - Chance of Hitting a Vertical 6ft × 6 ft Target
Gun 1000 yds 2000 yds 5000 yds
2-pdr 90% 40% 1%
6-pdr 96% 55% 3%
17-pdr 98% 80% 15%
25-pdr 80% 45% 7%

I have not been able to find anything to support your statement that the 17pd APDS was a poor design and would appreciate any information to support your view, plus of course your comment on the accuracy.
I wouldn't be that suprised if there had been some problems with early 6pd APDS ammo as the design was new but would have expected it to have been addressed by the time the 17pd came on stream.

If it helps the data for the above table was on the followng site.
ANTI-TANK

 

[Glider]

Sorry folks, I thought that I had sorted the spacing out but it went wrong.

 

[Juha]

Soren
British instructions were to use in 17pdr APCBC at shorter ranges, because it was perfectly capable to penetrate the armour of Tiger I at short and medium ranges, APDS was to be used only at longer ranges when there was doubt of the pnetrative ability of APCBC. It would have been absurd to use APDS, which was a special ammo if APCBC, ie standard ammo, was enough. and after all if both were capable to penetrate APCBC was more lethal.

Juha

 

[Kurfürst]

AFAIK the 17pdr APDS round had issues with accuracy beyond ca 500 yards indeed. There wasn't much point of firing it any further, given that it would give away position and yield uncertain results.

The Tunisia Tiger wasn't really 'knocked out' by the 6 pdr, they got a lucky shot at the bottom of the gun, which slipped off and hit the joint where the turret and the hull meet, and jammed to turret. The crew perhaps panicked, or realized there is not much they can do for the moment with their turret jammed, bailed out, and there was no possibility to blow the tank.

 

[Glider]

AFAIK the 17pdr APDS round had issues with accuracy beyond ca 500 yards indeed. There wasn't much point of firing it any further, given that it would give away position and yield uncertain results.

You certainly could be right Kurfurst ,but the site I mentioned would seem to disagree with you, as would the firing test that Juha mentioned.

Have you any supporting evidence for your comment as I would like to get to the bottom of this if possible.

Thanks

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
If one was dueling or for some other reason tried to knock out Panther from front sector from 750m with 17pdr IMHO it was best to use APDS, hit probablity lower but if hit there were good change to penetration, with APCBC IMHO only a narrow strip of the middle of mantlet or the small areas of turret front visible or the nose plate (meaning the lower hull) were penetrable, maybe also glassic if it happened to be very poor quality.

Against Tiger I, APCBC because it was more accurate and more lethal and well able to penetrate.

Juha

 

[m kenny]

AFAIK the 17pdr APDS round had issues with accuracy beyond ca 500 yards indeed. There wasn't much point of firing it any further, given that it would give away position and yield uncertain results.

And yet many Unit accounts tell of first shot hits at 1000/2000 yds.
Clearly there was an issue with the trials ammo but it seems in the field a good gunner could get results. It seems the problems with one type of shot is used as a yardstick for the guns overall performance. Wittmann's group were at around 800-1000 yds when they got hit (lucky shot x 3?) the gunner had never fired a shot in anger before and was far from an expert.
Using the theoretical tables for such ranges he had at best a 45-57% chance of a hit. He fired 2 rounds at the Tiger he selected and both hit. He then backed away whilst being fired at by another Tiger ( 3 shots and they all missed). Later he engaged the second Tiger- one round, one hit. I have no information for the third Tiger he hit.

 

[Soren]

And who says that Wittmann's Tiger wasn't hit by an APCBC projectile ???

Also I'd certainly like to see the reports which claim first shot hits at 2000y with the APDS round, heck I'd like to see the 1000y claims as-well.

 

[Soren]

Glider,

The British APDS round had issues with accuracy because of its design, IIRC the sabot or shoe was at fault. After having been fired the sabot didn't seperate properly, transferring instability to the penetrator.

 

[Juha]

Hello m_kenny
I agree with Soren in that that I haven't see info that Elkin? (Gordon's gunner)used APDS, it was early August, was there APDSs in use in that time in Normandy? Troops got first patches of it in Aug. And anyway APCBC or APC, IMHO against vertical armour of Tiger IMHO there wasn't much difference in penetration ability of those two, were both capable to penetrate Tiger's side armour at 800m. Elgin got the 3rd Tiger with one shot, it also burnt, all crew KIA.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Glider,

The British APDS round had issues with accuracy because of its design, IIRC the sabot or shoe was at fault. After having been fired the sabot didn't seperate properly, transferring instability to the penetrator.

I understand what you are saying. All I am asking is something to support it. I gave you the link to the site where I got my information and the %age hit chance was pretty good. It amy not equal the best but that doesn't make it useless. The site may be wrong but it seems to go into great detail and seems to be better than most.

Have you got a site or book reference to support your position?

 

[m kenny]

The claims were that the 17pdr was only able to hit a target at 800 yds 57% of the time using APC. If this were the norm the Ekins must have been well above average (which he was not) because he achieved 100% with at least 3shots.
The point is APC/APDS ot not this battlefield performance was much better that claimed by the theoretical tables. It is not often that reality intrudes on the blizzard of penetration tables that abound on the web.
Personaly I see no real point in consulting such data when the battlefields were full of wrecks that were the results of actual combat. Why play with 'could be' data when you can see the 'what happened' reality.

 

[Glider]

The claims were that the 17pdr was only able to hit a target at 800 yds 57% of the time using APC. If this were the norm the Ekins must have been well above average (which he was not) because he achieved 100% with at least 3shots.
The point is APC/APDS ot not this battlefield performance was much better that claimed by the theoretical tables. It is not often that reality intrudes on the blizzard of penetration tables that abound on the web.
Personaly I see no real point in consulting such data when the battlefields were full of wrecks that were the results of actual combat. Why play with 'could be' data when you can see the 'what happened' reality.

Good point

 

[Kurfürst]

The claims were that the 17pdr was only able to hit a target at 800 yds 57% of the time using APC.

Nope, the issue raised was that the APDS round issued for the 17 pdr gun had dispersion issues which limited its usefullness above 500 yards or so considerably. There was nothing wrong with the 17 pdr full caliber AP rounds AFAIK.

If this were the norm the Ekins must have been well above average (which he was not) because he achieved 100% with at least 3shots. The point is APC/APDS ot not this battlefield performance was much better that claimed by the theoretical tables.

And this conclusion is drawn by a sample of three shots made with an unknown type of ammo... Similiarly, 'many unit accounts' and 'full of wrecks' is hard to quantify.

Tigers sometimes achieved hits and kills at 4000+ meters with the 8,8, but that doesn't prove it was the norm.

Regarding the Tiger and frontal shots, in hull down position or turret hits the APDS's penetration surely come in handly, given the extreme protection offered by Tiger I mantlet+turret front vs. the single 100 mm plate on the hull.

 

[Juha]

Hello Kurfürst
re my message #61, according to the 1st Army test at Balleroy, 17pdr APDS wasn't hopelessly inaccurate against a target 700y away.

Juha

 

[m kenny]

Nope, the issue raised was that the APDS round issued for the 17 pdr gun had dispersion issues which limited its usefullness above 500 yards or so considerably. There was nothing wrong with the 17 pdr full caliber AP rounds AFAIK.

The trials carried out with 2 Firefly tanks in mid 1944 (WO165/135 Sept 1944)are the one most widely used to disparage the 17pdr gun. They say that APC has a 57.3% chance of a hit at 800yds (731mtrs) However there were issues raised that the batch of Guns used was sub-standard.

And this conclusion is drawn by a sample of three shots made with an unknown type of ammo... Similiarly, 'many unit accounts' and 'full of wrecks' is hard to quantify.

I just picked on the most famous (and thus all the parameters are known and can not be argued) example where a green gunner in his first action scored 100% with all his shots at at least 800yds. This is at odds with the performance graph mentioned above.
I have read a good number of British Unit accounts from 1944 and can tell you that references are made to Firefly hits at extreme ranges. I am not saying it is normal or that it was an everyday happening. It did happen and I remember thinking (as I read them) how this conflicted with the much publicised WO 165/135.

 

[Juha]

Hello m_kenny
one slightly off topic question.
HEAT round of 95mm howitzer is usually credited with 110mm at 30deg penetration ability but Keith Jones in his IMHO excellent "64 days of a Normandy Summer" claims that when he became 2nd-in-C of his sqn and got a CS Cromwell to command he was defenceless against panzers with only HE and smoke ammo even if IIRC normal load of CS Cromwell incl 10% of HEAT rounds. Now both Jones and his gunner had no previous experience with 95mm. So my question, have you ever seen mentioned a pz kill by CS Cromwell? After all the given 110 mm at 30deg penetration ability of 95mm was the best the all Cromwell equipped reconnaissance regiments of Armoured Divs had in Normandy. It should have been enough even against Tiger I if one got a hit with the low MV howitzer.

TIA
Juha

 

[Soren]

I'm still waiting to see these claimed reports of green gunners hitting with 100% accuracy at 800m, and multiple first time hits with APDS rounds at 1000 2000 y....

Now as for the accuracy of the 17 pdr itself, I wouldn't assume it to be any worse or any better than any other similar gun of the war. The accuracy problem occured when using the APDS ammunition. The APCBC ammunition was by far the deadliest round available for the 17 pdr, and it was very accurate.

 

[m kenny]

I'm still waiting to see these claimed reports of green gunners hitting with 100% accuracy at 800m,

Joe Ekins, 8/8/44 at Cintheaux. See any book on Michael Wittmann.