The 17pounder at gun. The forgotten best tank killer of ww2!

World War II British Military
#41

The US Army opted not to use the 17 pounder because they had a weapon that was roughly similar in the M1 76mm gun. A gun that was actually superior to most of the German tanks they faced, as Panthers and Tigers were still uncommon for much of Normandy. They did so for good reason, as the M3 90mm was in the pipeline and was superior to just about any equivalent caliber weapon in WWII against both armor and aircraft.

The US Army, like the British, simply had the luxury of putting inferior versions of weapon systems in the field as they could produce far more of them, and however great the Panther, Tiger, Tiger II were against Shermans and T34s, they were pretty much useless against aircraft…

The Army’s mistakes were:

A.) not equipping more Shermans with the 76mm (like the M4A1 [76] and the M4A3E8 HVSS [76]) earlier, prior to D-Day (nearly half were by the end of the War)

B.) relying on the doctrinal failure of the “tank destroyer” GMCs (although the M36 Jackson was a good one and some versions were pretty much a tank rather than a GMC in reality)

C.) not bringing numbers of the M26 Pershing in early enough (they could have shortly after Normandy if they really wanted too) to augment the Shermans

#42

NICKD,
You can’t be for real.
I never once said that numbers don’t matter, I believe that one on one comparison and battlefield performance both should count, (post 31). That is what I have always maintained in this post. You seem easily confused by this! I agreed with you (post 28) that German 75s probably knocked out more tanks than 88s.(either kind)
In post 31 I was responding to FIREFLY and posed a hypothesis. If you actually read it you would have understood that! Instead you made an obvious point about the T34 which we all know!(post 33) You also stated I was using “divergent arguements” When again I was just presenting a hypothetical to a previous post. If you call one on one analysis and battlefield performance “divergent argurments” then so be it…

In post 32 you state you are going to make a case that the 88 was overated and you went on to quote the Anti Aircraft specs of the gun not the AT performance which is what this thread is about!!! Then you defended that by saying," I think I offered specific examples" and you give a “wicki” link (post 32)to the Pershing!!!
Me a mole? Who is the one throwing quotes around here?..

#43

NICKD,
Response to post 40 "How was the L56 mounted? Answer; The Flak 18
How many were produced? http://www.feldgrau.com/weaprod.html production numbers for all tube fed guns produced by the Germans.
Most historical discussions/editorials regarding the 88 (whether it be the L/56- Pak 18 or the L71-Pak 43) seem to hi-lite the hitting power, versatility and greatness of the gun, not lack of numbers or mobility issues. The allies wished for lack of numbers!

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/88mm.htm
“The 88mm Flak (18) gun stood out on all fronts because of its mobility, rapid rate of fire (15 to 25 rounds per minute, depending on the crew’s level of training) and number of possible uses”

Heavy AND mobile, because of its great design.

#44

You see, this is where I have the problem. You’re not quoting or posting specific words, but merely saying what you think was said. Furthermore, you’re “cherrypicking.” For instance, the portion of the article I posted only partially referred to the fact that the US M3 90mm was far superior to the 88mm in an aircraft role (which would almost certainly make it superior in an anti-tank role, provided the correct ammunition was developed, because the weapon had a much higher velocity in a relative sense and had a longer range), it was also superior to almost any variant of the 88mm in an anti-tank role as the “Super-Pershing’s” innovative 90mm could penetrate over 300mm OF ARMOR at close ranges!!

Furthermore, you simply ignore whole posts that you find too inconvenient to refute. The 88 was vastly overrated because the Allies simply had better weapons available. It was only in the tactical deployment against ground targets that the weapon gained notoriety, not in that it was any better than the equivalent Allied guns, and indeed, most versions were inferior…

The problem here is that you’re perpetuating the typical WWII layman myth: that the 88mm was a wonder-weapon or super-weapon when it was clearly not. The gun was simply an effective, pedestrian anti-aircraft gun that was used in roles that other armies traditionally did not use their AA guns in (until late in the war).

#45

To this we’ll add (same ranges):

US 90mm M3: APCBC 122mm and 106mm
APBC 117mm and 109mm
APCR 221mm and 156mm

And the 90mm T15E2 (a prototypical gun fitted to the “Super-Pershing” but used in combat on a few occasions):

               APBC    127mm and 122mm
               APCR    221mm and 173mm

http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns7.html

#46

BTW, the 88mm L/71 also had a wearing problem, significantly reducing it’s reliability and forcing production of the barrel to be made in two pieces…

#47

A modified version was also mounted in the Tiger 1 tank.

http://www.wargamer.com/Hosted/Panzer/88mm.htm
“The 88mm Flak (18) gun stood out on all fronts because of its mobility, rapid rate of fire (15 to 25 rounds per minute, depending on the crew’s level of training) and number of possible uses”

Heavy AND mobile, because of its great design.

Yes, it was mobile for a big AA gun, compared with the even heavier (and more powerful) British 3.7", which is the obvious comparator. That does not equate to the mobility of an anti-tank gun of less than half the weight.

#48

Here is an interesting tidbit from the book “Russian Tanks of World War II - Stalin’s armored might” By Bean and Fowler. From the appendix pgs 169 - 173. These pages give interesting data and stats regarding the eastern front.

"Causes of T-34 Tank losses During WW2 (per cent)

[b] [u]75mm [/u] [/b]                 ---------------                [b][u] 88mm[/u]  [/b]                                                
  [b]  31.13%[/b]                       ---------------                   [b]   34.15%"[/b]

*Other weapons included 37mm, short and long 50mm, 105,128, AT rocket, and unknown, no other weapon came close to these percentages. however it did not give barrel length of the 75 and 88mm guns.

still an interesting stat, gleen what you like from it, Since the T-34 was by far the most numerous tank on the eastern front, it bucks conventional wisdom that the 75 was the supreme german tank killer in the war (at least the eastern front)

#49

NICKD,
88 vastly overrated? hahaha! :D:D:D
Im sure if you find any historical reference backing that up (other than AA data !) It would surely be authored by a British writer in defense of the 17 pounder! :roll:

#50

In other words, the 17 pdr comfortably beat the 88mm L/56 using the standard APCBC ammo (which is what the 17 pdr normally fired; APDS was in limited supply and was reserved for when it was really necessary), and it could match the 88mm L/71 by using APDS.

Teorically yes, but the problem comes when they faced sloped armor, in that the the smalller and lighter is usually ineffective.

Teorically the apcbc 17 pounder should be capable to defeat the frontal armor in a Panther aat 600-700 meters, but usually it did not.

The same goes for the 6 pounder, with the capped shot it was capable to defeat the side armor in a Tiger (80-60 mm vertical) , but it failed agaist the Hetzer at 300 meters (60 mm armor sloped) and it didnt penetrate the glacis in the Pz V (80mm sloped) at point blank.

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]c. Penetration
(1) At 600 yards, 17pdr APCBC penetrated the lower nose of tank No.1 (average plate), while 76mm HVAP failed to penetrate.
(2) At 400 yards, one round out of four fair hits of 17pdr SABOT penetrated the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). This was the only penetration of this plate by a fair hit with any of the ammunitions (including 76mm HVAP w/17pdr APBC propellant, 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant) at ranges 200 yards and over.

(3) At 400 yards, one round out of one fair hit with 17pdr APCBC and one round out of one hit with 17pdr SABOT penetrated the lower nose of tank No.2 (best plate). Both rounds of 76mm APC, M62 failed to penetrate, and one round of 76mm HVAP penetrated while the second round failed to penetrate. Two rounds out of two hits of 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant also penetrated.

(4) At 200 yards one fair hit with each of the standard ammunitions failed to penetrate the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). The relative depths of the partial penetrations at this range were as follows:
(a) 17pdr APCBC - 2"
(b) 17pdr SABOT - 1 7/8"
(c) 76mm HVAP - 1 5/16"
(d) 76mm APC, M62 - 1"

http://wargaming.info/armour07.htm

  1. 57mm Gun, M1
    a) APC, M86 will penetrate the sides and rear of the ‘Panther’ Tank at 1500 yards.

b) Sabot fails to penetrate front glacis slope plate and gun shield at 200 yards. Due to difficulty experienced in obtaining hits no conclusion as to the effectiveness of this ammunition was reached

http://wargaming.info/armour06.htm

Obviusly if you faced sloped armor tanks, the gun with heavier projectile is the one.

Germany could have had an anti-tank gun closely comparable with the 17 pdr, just by fitting the Panther’s 75mm L/70 tank gun to an AT chassis, but they never did it. This could penetrate 121mm at 1,000 yards and 89mm at 2,000. It would, I think, have been a more useful gun than the 88mm Pak, and because it would have cost much less to make, the Germans could have made more of them

Agreed, actually there was an attemp called “7,5 cm Pak 42” but few were manufactured, probably for the need to arm the Panthers.[/SIZE][/FONT]

#51

What a lot of you are neglecting is reality. The figures posted are for range work under idea condition on stationary target at exactly that angle with excellent ammo. In reality the target would probably be moving, It would be oblique or side on and would not be level with the firer so the sloped angel would be more or less acute. Not to mention the quality of the propellant and how it has been stored prior to use. Then we have the optics of the relevant guns and the ability of the gunner.

Then we have the position of the firer. Tank would be moving or just stopped as apposed to AT guns that should be in enfilade to the target and in ambush. So an AT gun would have a much better chance of hitting in the place of it’s choice than a tank which is in an advance to contact. Some tank would be in ambush but generally tanks are a mobile weapon and sat still they are not being used at their best.

131 Brigade led the advance of the 8th Army from Tripoli to the Mareth Line where at Medenine the Germans mounted a counter attack using two Panzer Divisions; the three Queen’s battalions, unprotected by mines and wire met the brunt of the attack and thoroughly defeated it. At dawn on 7th March 1943 there were no less than 27 tanks destroyed by their 6-pounder anti-tank guns in front of 1/7 Queen’s.

http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/short_history/sh05.html

You should also consider the quality of the ammo and its parts. I have used over the year many dodgy bangs and flashes and they were produced in peace time so what war time quality was like would be suspect.

We should also look at the range of the engagement, so you have a gun that can hit a nats eye at 4ooom and cut through 16 ft of armour. But if you can only see 500m then your gun is still only as good as a gun that can do the same job which is deigned to destroy tanks at 500m. The 17pdr was an AT gun that fired AT ammo from a carriage that was designed for it. It had a tractor that was suitable for its work and could hire well. The 17pdr was an AT gun the 88 was an AA gun that had a subsidiary role as AT. I have a hammer that knocks in nails it can also knock in screws but a screwdriver does a batter job with screws.

#52

Try looking at the armor peircing charts, supergenius or just continue to ignore them, strawman style? Are you just going to repeat the “AA” myth now?

It would surely be authored by a British writer in defense of the 17 pounder! :roll:

Feel free to reference the ARMOR PEIRCING charts provided by Tony or myself…:rolleyes:

The 17pounder was a great gun, but I’m talking about the US 90mm, which was also clearly better than the 88mm. It was underutilized and not brought in until the end, but still a better weapon than the 88 as it served into the Vietnam era whereas the 88mm was considered obsolete shortly after the War.

Also, if the weapon was so great, then why did the post-war French Army select the Panther to equip their forces on a stop gap basis, and not the Tiger or Tiger II?

And yes, it wasn’t “vastly” overrated, but it was overrated somewhat, when there were better weapons out there that made better tank cannons (i.e. the 90mm)…

#53

What you say is quite true, but the same limitations also affected tanks and their armour. There were reports of Panther armour splitting apart from the shock of hits which should not have damaged them because of a quality issue, and tanks were sometimes knocked out from the effect of non-penetrating hits - even from HE shells. All sorts of odd things tended to happen in real life, but the range tests are the only objective comparative measures we have to go on.

#54

I read portions of a Soviet test that claimed that the King Tiger was especially susceptible to the effects of “spalling.” Also, they reported that the welds could crack or buckle after an impact even if the the shell didn’t penetrate…

#55

2nd of foot,
I agree with your post, that the battlefield is not static. But to say that an 88 was nothing more than an AA gun turned horizontal (in a subsidiary role) is a gross mistatement (especially the Pak 43) I am sure many a T-34 and Sherman crewman may disagree with your 88assesment also.

#56

It’s the way the weapon is used as much as the weapon itself.

In the Western Desert, time and again, the British armoured units ran head-on (Prince Rupert style) onto the 88’s and were destroyed.

Rommel used the 88’s (his shield) to protect his flank and pin down the enemy while his armoured units (his sword) swept around their flank and into their rear echelons. Once the Germans got in amongst the rear echelons, there was mass panic and most units began to see Cairo beckoning.

#57

Yes, the German tanks would lure the British in by retreating and then the 88’s (and other AT guns) would ambush them…

#58

Pretty much the idea behind mobile defense.

The Rifles acquitted themselves quite well at Kidney Ridge, though, with their Six Pounders.

http://www.mishalov.com/Toms.html

#59

Of course. But the Afrika Corp had a field day for a bit until the Rats caught on…

#60

Sure they did, as I mentioned elsewhere – learning curves.

But that’s way over-simplified; there were many reasons diverse and complex which compounded the problems of the Eight Army operating in the Western Desert

For example: After WW1, many of the senior members of British cavalry regiments wanted to remain, or revert to being, horse regiments. This was their mentality, hence, charging against Rommel’s Afrika Korps.

By the way, there were units other than the 7the Armoured Division in the Eight Army.