Talk:Ordnance QF 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.

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.

according to the aar's the british units were approximatly 800 yards away from the tigers. Rich tea man.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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" ?

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)

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.

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)

Best allied gun?

The Russians too were "Allies", and they had range of high-power vehicle and towed anti-tank cannons like their 76.2, 85, 100, 122 and 152mm weapons, im pretty sure one, if not most of these were more powerful (well really all had prolly better HE performance) / had better (armor) penetration (and after armor effect) than the 17 pounder.