Allied vehicle-based 17pdr HE "issue"

User avatar
kvasius
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue 22 Sep 2015 22:38
Location: Kiev, Ukraine
Contact:

Allied vehicle-based 17pdr HE "issue"

Postby kvasius » Tue 23 May 2017 22:47

...yes, I know, it wasnt even 24 hours from release, but still.
Why tank-version 17-pdr has only 2 HE?
From all the information i gathered, 17pdr HE shells had around 300g more explosive filler than Panther's KwK42 HE shells, but Panther has 4 HE, and not 1. :lol:
Sources:
For 17-pdr HE (its actually pretty hard to find info on those HE shells)
http://www.defence.gov.au/UXO/_Master/docs/Types/Projectile17prRev02.pdf
"approx.900g of TNT as HE filler"
For KwK42 :
http://www.panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-42-l-70
http://dzromon.narod.ru/gun/push/75-mm.htm
"620-690g (depends on the model) of ammotol 40/60 as HE filler"

I would understand if there is a gameplay reason of keeping it low so Firefly wouldn't cost same as Panther D, which, frankly, makes sence. But Panther D still has slightly more AP, more armor, and 3 MG42's.

Then why is it so?

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Allied vehicle-based 17pdr HE "issue"

Postby Hidden Gunman » Sun 28 May 2017 08:54

I'm an ex-Australian Army Ammunition Technical Officer (during the 1980's). I've checked my tech manuals, mostly WW2 Brit and Australian publications, and there is no mention of operational use of 17pdr HE. Those are WW2 or early post-war publications though, and may not reflect later ammunitions though.

Keep in mind that during the war the Brits didn't intend the 17pdr to fire HE...it was a tank killer, pure and simple. HE support for the infantry was provided by the 'infantry tanks', the heavily armoured Churchills and such, with the 75mm guns, and the mounting of the 17pdr onto an M4 chassis was a stopgap until the Comet and later tanks came on line, being dedicated carriers of the 17pdr. Ironically, the US field commanders were trying to get hold of Brit Fireflies during and after the Normandy campaign, due to the poor performance of their own AT weaponry (including the 90mm)...they weren't successful, even though Fireflies were being manufactured in the US for the Brits, for two reasons...first, what were being produced were being rolled out to the Brit forces, and there was never enough of them; second, the Pentagon...US command was adamant they were not going to use British weapons, even though it condemned thousands of their own troops due to underperforming weaponry.

What I do find questionable regarding that source you've provided is that the HE weight is given in metric, when the ammunition is classified in imperial measure...the source publications would definitely have the filling weight in imperial measure...I'm guessing the 'HE shell' was probably included by some public servant who couldn't tell s...t from clay (there's more than a few of those in the Defence Department).
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3911
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: Allied vehicle-based 17pdr HE "issue"

Postby Vulcan 607 » Sun 28 May 2017 23:48

Hidden Gunman wrote:I'm an ex-Australian Army Ammunition Technical Officer (during the 1980's). I've checked my tech manuals, mostly WW2 Brit and Australian publications, and there is no mention of operational use of 17pdr HE. Those are WW2 or early post-war publications though, and may not reflect later ammunitions though.

Keep in mind that during the war the Brits didn't intend the 17pdr to fire HE...it was a tank killer, pure and simple. HE support for the infantry was provided by the 'infantry tanks', the heavily armoured Churchills and such, with the 75mm guns, and the mounting of the 17pdr onto an M4 chassis was a stopgap until the Comet and later tanks came on line, being dedicated carriers of the 17pdr. Ironically, the US field commanders were trying to get hold of Brit Fireflies during and after the Normandy campaign, due to the poor performance of their own AT weaponry (including the 90mm)...they weren't successful, even though Fireflies were being manufactured in the US for the Brits, for two reasons...first, what were being produced were being rolled out to the Brit forces, and there was never enough of them; second, the Pentagon...US command was adamant they were not going to use British weapons, even though it condemned thousands of their own troops due to underperforming weaponry.


What I do find questionable regarding that source you've provided is that the HE weight is given in metric, when the ammunition is classified in imperial measure...the source publications would definitely have the filling weight in imperial measure...I'm guessing the 'HE shell' was probably included by some public servant who couldn't tell s...t from clay (there's more than a few of those in the Defence Department).


I don't think the 17pdr got a decent HE shell till after the Rhine. The guns high velocity necessitates a thick case meaning the HE rounds that did exist before then were utter crap with little HE filler. The problem was eventually solved by reducing the charge of the shell allowing a thinner case and more HE.
Though by this point it was of limited use in WW2 and to up shock value the famous Sherman and Cromwell tulips appeared don't know if they ever hit anything, but a German unit that had a volley sent their way surrendered immediately and complained that the rockets must be a war crime. (possibly to the Germans now ruined underwear!)

User avatar
Hidden Gunman
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri 6 Apr 2012 07:47
Location: Adelaide South Australia
Contact:

Re: Allied vehicle-based 17pdr HE "issue"

Postby Hidden Gunman » Mon 29 May 2017 09:43

Keep in mind that the Brit doctrine was that 'cruiser' tanks fought tanks, and armoured support to the infantry was done by the 'infantry' tanks (with heavy armour) in the Royal Tank Regiment based formations (the independent tank brigades). Basically, as a rule of thumb for the Brits anything labelled 'armoured brigade' used cruiser type tanks, and fights enemy armour, while those listed as 'tank brigade' were used in support roles, to provide support to the infantry divisions. Although the Australian Imperial Force divisions each included a hybrid 'cavalry' regiment of cruiser tanks, armed carriers, and in some cases a squadron or two of mech infantry (although that's more a field expedient, I think).

The intention was that the 17pdr didn't need HE, as it was intended to kill tanks.
A Firefly killed Wittman...

It's a 17lbr, not a 76.2mm.

kgb613
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 30 May 2017 02:02
Contact:

Re: Allied vehicle-based 17pdr HE "issue"

Postby kgb613 » Tue 30 May 2017 02:17

17pounder HE rounds were used, but not in Normandy. They were used more later in the war, because the gun was not quite good at firing HE rounds.
More than that, like said up here, the British doctrin is cruiser tank to fight tank and infantry tank to fight and support infantry.
And more than that, I don't think british will reduce the firefly power with infantry engagement, when Firefly is the only ally tank able to killing a Panther or a Tiger in Normandy at good range, when it carrying few ammo and when firefly can't shoot alone because the 17pndr gun is doing a lot of smoke when firing, so its crew need a friendly trooper tank to adjust its fire. So yeah, don't think British giving he round to their firefly, even 17pndr can fire HE round at this time.

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests