Could the Tiger I have been able to mount the 8.8 cm KwK 43 with no problem?

APDS ammunition was first available for 6 pdr (57mm) anti tank guns.before D Day. 6th AB Division was given priority as they might not have support from 17 Pdrs for some time.

50th Division Atk gunners were given a demonstration of the efficacy of APDS rounds a few weeks before D Day in a fire-power demonstration on Salisbury Plain. This may have accounted for the confidence that they had in the 6 Pdr, compared to the mistrust felt by US anti-tank gunners.

I am not sure exactly when 17 pdr APDS ammunition was available, but not before the end of June. There ought to be a note in one of the Arty HQ files.

 

The wikipedia entry included a mention of the difficulty of spotting the fall of shot over 1000m as the smaller projectile created less of a strike on the ground and therefore harder to see the fall of shot.

Not sure about that but.....

RA Notes paras 1276 (Published in Issue 21 autumn 1944) refers to development under way to improve the tracer in APDS to reduce the percentage of tracer failures. Tracer failure would be a PIA and would present problems spotting the fall of shot.

RA Notes 1277 mentioned that APDS offered better penetration at all ranges than APCBC, but APCBC does greater damage than DS and less likely to pass straight through a lightly armoured target.

RA Notes 20 reports in "random notes" extracted from reports from Normandy, that:

"It is impossible to give any reliable information about the 17 Pdr but it is enough to say that a lot of enemy tanks have been destroyed and that the 17 Pdr has proved to be a magnificent tank kliller" (30 June 1944)
Some feel that the 6 pdr with sabot is so powerful that it can do the job of the tractor drawn 17 Pdr."(8 Aug)

FWIW there is no suggestion that there was any other design flaw in the 17 Pdr APDS ammunition or inherent inaccuracy in the equipment. I wonder if the supposed design weaknesses mentioned on this thread originate from the US Army explanations about why they did not adopt the 17 Pdr.

 

It took me a while to find it, but here's what I have. It's from Michael and Gladys Green's book, "Panther". Here they quoted the unit history of the 23rd Hussars:

"...The 17-pounder was more encouraging (as related earlier we were equipped with one 17- pounder tank for every three 75mm) for it penetrated the front of the Panther's turret at 300 yards [274m], though it did not always go through the sloped front plate of the hull [glasis]. On the whole, we decided that head-on Panthers should be treated with circumspection. In point of fact we found ourselves in just that position a few days later, and the results were just as unhappy as our trial shoot indicated."

The Greens go on to relate:

"Late in 1944, the Sherman Firefly received small numbers of the new armor-piercing discarding sabot (PDS) round that boasted improved penetrative powers. The new round was designated the Super-Velocity Discarding Sabot (SVDS) and weighed 28.4 lbs. The projectile portion had a muzzle velocity of 3,950 ft/sec. The down side of the neew APDS round was a certain inaccuracy in early production lots, which frustrated all concerned." Emphasis mine.

I hope this helps.

 

Harold, you had just described the frontal armor of the Panther tank. I am not sure if that satisfy the requirements for a heavy tank, considering Panthers didn't fare very well against 90 mm and 122 mm weaponry. It is startling, however, that the Hussars' report implies Panther mantelet was not vulnerable to 17 pdr. at ranges greater than 300 yards. Either that, or longer range shots at the turret front was not attempted in the field test, which is strange.

 

What is the "certain inaccuracy" Is this the defective tracer element? There is nothing in the RA notes about any other defects and the Gunners were the main users of 6 pdr and 17 pdr sabot in 1944.

I donlt think you can infer this from the unit history quoted by harold S. The unit history may not have been referring to a scientific trial but some sort of field test,. possibly little more scientific than dirign a few rounds at a K/O'sd Panther. The statement that a 17 Pdr round could penetrate a\ panther mantlet at 300yds does not mean that this was the greatest range at which it could do so. The statement that the round did not ALWAYS penetrate, implies that it could and did. This may be a function of the sloped arour. The RA Notes also says that the APDS rounds penetrate sloped armour better and are less likely to ricochette.

 

Actually, my main points were that the APDS rounds probably had accuracy problems, at least in the beginning AND that this ammo didn't get to the UK troops until almost war's end. Therefore, it didn't play much of a role in the war. Sloped, RHA plates were very hard to penetrate. Cast armor wasn't as good. That's why it was easier to go through the 100-110mm cast mantlet than the 80mm of sloped RHA. In all discussions of ammo using tungsten steel, whether it was manufactured in Germany, UK, or the USA, it was noted that the quantities issued were small. Tungsten steel was needed more in the manufacture of weapons than as penetrators.

 

APDS may not have got to some tank units until late in 1944, however the British went to great length to ensure that 6 Pdr APDS ammunition was available by D Day for Atk units. I can't find a record of the first issue of the 17Pdr APDS ammunition or its first use. The main reasons why is because the 17 Pdr was considered a "magnificant tank killer" with APCBC.

 

IIRC, the 17-pounder APDS ammunition was first issued to combat units in October, 1944.

Ah, yes, here is the article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml

 

Honestly that's what I thought. The Hussar test seemed to be a field shoot conducted by the unit, and not particularly rigorous. The official trials were conducted by picked US/UK gunners, and didn't test the gun against Panther mantlet. They must have been pretty confident that it would work against that target to omit it completely. The official trials state that at about 550 meters, even glacis might be vulnerable, depending on quality of armor of specific specimen.

 

The History Of The 23rd Hussars does indeed mention this. However the Panther wreck was one of 'up to 8' they had smouldering in the fields beside them!
Someone was doing something right and I find the constant attention paid to specific parts of wunder-panzer X (as opposed o the whole package)somewhat puzzling.

 

Well said Mr K, why worry about the Panther's front armour when you can flank it, you won't need 17pdr APDS, a teaspoon that's hot will do the job. OK slight exagerration but the Panther's side armour was only 40-50mm and well within the capability of Allied weapons.

 

People worried about the front armor because throughout most of 44,45 the Germans were on the defensive. Thus allowing them to ambush and have more control of the fight on the tactical level.
However you are correct that when the Germans attacked such as during the Bulge they lost most of the front armor advantage as their losses amply showed.

 

I can't seem to find the thread now but there was a very extensive one (10+ years ago I think) on this. I'll keep looking it may have been on tanknet or the AFV forum. Derek Ward was one of the posters I beleive and they got into some details on the acceptance test of the ammunition.

 

http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/us-firefly-17-pounder-vs-90mm-vs-76mm.285284/

Initial post contains dispersion patterns for 17pdr test firing at 500/1000/1500/2000 yards.

 

Wow! Those tests certainly don't leave one with a good impression of the discarding sabot round.

 

Picking up the questions.

Q1. "why does the Firefly get the glory as the best Sherman"
A1 Because it was available in numbers in time for Op Overlord, the lodgement phased on the Second Front and decisive battle on the Western Front..

Q2. "Why were the British satisfied with an APDS round which might could penetrate at 1500 m but might only hit 15% of the time, compared with a 76m HVAP round which would only penetrate at a lower distance, but could hit the target.
A2. In Ww2 the allies had a LOT more tanks than the Germans. On 8th Aug 1944 on the Caen Falaise Road five Tiger tanks and C 30 Pz IV and V took on two armoured brigades containing C 360 tanks, including 90 fireflys. In a tank v tank battle at 1500m a tiger could pick off 76mm M4's until the cows came home. Against Fireflys with APDS sooner or later one would hit the target. (Not suggesting that APDS was used in this battle)
.

 

Well the Sherman with the 105mm gun was also availble in some numbers wasn't it? Not sure if they typically were equipped with a HEAT round but it wold have had a decent chance of penetrating even a Tiger in most locations (frontal turret being an exception). Also had an impressive HE round.

I also seem to recall that they got the dispersion under control fairly quickly.

 

Why would you assume that they got the dispersion under control fairly quickly? This test was performed after the war. I would assume that the British would send them the best ammo they had at the time.

I seem to remember that the Germans tried to develop sabot rounds but couldn't get them to shoot straight either. The trick was to get all the side petals to come off at the same time. Therefore, they went with the composite rigid shot.

A "sooner or later" hit (somewhere) doesn't cut it when the ammo was in very short supply.

An old gun fighting axiom: "Fast is fine but accuracy is final".

 

Again I am basing most of what I say off of a long series of posts from 10 plus years ago. They went over the dispersion tests in some detail from what I recall. It was as you say a petal seperation problem but it didn't affect the rounds from the three plants making them to the same extent. Again from what I recall the problem was with the rounds from one particular plant. Now there were indeed post war issues as they went to more advanced rounds and different calibers. I'll also admit that I can't get to the site you linked right now but will try and check it out later.

 

There were other 17 pdr rounds and they could deal with most situatuions.