The 17-Pounder's Accuracy, and other things.

A Q&A Special, does the fact that other guns are more accurate mean that 17pr is inaccurate?
Perfect is the enemy of good enough, after all.
Patreon: / the_chieftain
Direct Paypal paypal.me/thechieftainshat
Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/the_chi...

[@SofaKingShit]

For American viewers, seventeen pounds is roughly equivalent to twenty dollars.

[@voixdelaraison593]

10dogs2cats1donkey I thought it was 272 ounces?

[@cambo1200]

How much is that in feet?

[@voixdelaraison593]

cambo1200 As the Crow Flys... roughly 10 gallons.

[@coles4480]

I would like this but it’s at 69 likes......nice

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

@@cambo1200 about 42%.

[@pipss2669]

Given the massive model of it on your desk, will you make an "inside the hatch" video of the Consitution-class Starship Enterprise ?

[@Solidboat123]

"Oh my God, the starship is on fire!"

[@richardm1062]

Today a Constitution class starship model, last video he made a Locutus reference. I think there's a Trekker within that tanker that's struggling to get out.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

@chris younts but no bathrooms XD

[@tasman006]

Spock use the 90mm gun not the 17 pounder. Reminds me of the episode where Captain Kirk and Spock help topple on another planet a Nazi government started by one of there own a few years earlier because in historically it was the most successful type of government from res-session to a booming economy with plenty of jobs for all. Well pre war anyway. The episode is called Patterns of force hear is a little taste loved the old series for the Lols. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqibn59rpr1peKc

[@llllib]

If you can provide one, I'm sure he would do it :-D

[@chuckw1113]

Interesting discussion. The following is purely anecdotal, but it’s based on my experiences as a cadet tanker at VMI and an armor officer on active duty starting in 1975. In my days at VMI (1971-75) the VMI Army ROTC program had two years of basic skills training, and then you “branched” the remaining two years into a combat arm. The branches offered were Infantry, Armor and Field Artillery. I opted for armor. At that time we were taught that US Army armor doctrine stated that the preferred antitank round was HEAT, and APDS (Sabot) was acknowledged as existing round but to be avoided due to problems with the ammunition itself. This was the Gospel according to Knox. When I arrived at FT Knox for Armor Officer Basic in ‘75, the Army was undergoing a doctrinal shift. After reviewing the Israeli experience in the ‘73 War, the US Army was now advocating APDS as the standard antitank round, with HEAT also carried, but was to be used primarily against Infantry Fighting Vehicles and Armored Personnel Carriers. The reasons were many, but included the adoption of the “battlesight” engagement technique. The Israelis found that in their 105mm M48s they could index APDS with a range of 1500 meters in the ballistic computer, and when laying the sight on the base of the target they were always guaranteed a hit if the target was at 1500 meters or less. The change was also based on the APDS round itself. It seems that when the US first adopted the 105mm M68 gun (the American designation for the 105mm L7 Gun) they had a terrible time with APDS ammo. The main problem was with the Sabot separation, which caused a large number of stray rounds (called “fliers”), being wildly off target. At least this is what we were told. Since it was early in the development of the gun it’s possible there was a design issue with the round, and at that time most of the ammo was supplied by the UK. Whatever the problem was it was obviously fixed before the Israelis fought in 1973. In any event, the US Army changed its ways. We adopted the battlesight engagement technique and started training firing most engagements with Sabot. Our instructors there did acknowledge the issue of sensing the Sabot round as it went downrange, since the round was traveling at over 5000 FPS. Interestingly, on the range at Knox we did see a pair of “fliers” where the Sabot rounds went wildly off target and were told the round still had some separation issues. The US Army developed its APFSDS long rod penetrator, made of DU a few years later, and that put to bed any issues with the older APDS design.

[@jmullner76]

Better question: what does Ian's hair smell like? Cosmoline?

[@simonmorris4226]

Cordite!

[@xmlash234]

Probably sprinkles of Tannerite in there too

[@sadwingsraging3044]

Incense and myrrh I suspect.

[@JonManProductions]

French Shampoo and Cologne.

[@natepatterson4934]

I have a hunch that it would smell like Poudre B.

[@boxwoodgreen]

My late dad commanded a anti-tank artillery coy attached to a Canadian Infantry Regiment. He was wounded by a sniper after the company got their guns across a dutch canal Apr8/45. Holland has a lot of canals. That crossing task was a snipers dream range. Just as an aside pre-war my dad was a Sgt. in the local militia, the 26thField Battery R.C.A. One of the then privates in the Battery, eventually became a Starship Chief Engineer.

[@stephenland9361]

Life and fiction are full of surprises. Chief Engineer Montgomery "Scotty" Scott of Star Trek fame was supposed to be Scottish. He was in fact a Canuck, born in Vancouver BC. Born James Montgomery Doohan, he wasn't even of Scottish ancestry. Both of his parents were from Northern Ireland. While he was an artillery officer, he was also a pilot. He flew the Taylorcraft Auster Mark V aircraft which was a small observation, spotter and liaison plane. He once slalomed the thing between telephone poles just to show that it could be done. He went ashore at Juno Beach on D Day. That evening he was hit by a burst from a machine gun, being hit six times; four to his leg, one to his right middle finger and one to the chest. The shot to the chest was stopped by a cigarette case. And oh, the gunner was a fellow Canuck weilding a Bren gun!

[@boxwoodgreen]

@@stephenland9361 Jimmy was born in Vancouver B.C. but his family moved to my hometown Sarnia, Ontario when he was an infant. He was on the Sarnia Collegiate (high school) rifle team with my dad. My late dad was an ancestral Scot, and was commissioned in the Essex Scottish regiment. My best friend was organizing our High School's 75th anniversary for 1996, and contacted Jimmy to invite him. He turned down expenses offered, and came on his own. I was honoured to meet and talk with him. He was a true gentleman.

[@garethfairclough8715]

ejur? V'ejur! I'll assume that "the last microphone" died a horrible death a the hands of "ejur". RIP the last microphone.

[@abzzeus]

One effect the 17 pr that you haven't mentioned is on morale. British crew knew if Gerry comes along with his Tiger (Americans fought no Tigers vs tank battles in France just the 3 wrecked ones on the railway cars) they could call on the firefly and that could destroy Gerry. likewise on the German side, if you're fighting a group of Shermans and one suddenly fires what is a massive blast and the tank next to you that has been bouncing off the normal shell, just blows up you realise that something out there can kill you, so you're a bit more cautious

[@Caratacus1]

Your barn comment reminded me of a 21st Army group post-battle report. This identified a 17pdr shot that went straight through a soft skinned vehicle, and then on through a barn with 18 inch walls, and then through the front lower nose plate of a Panther which promptly blew up. See Holland's Normandy '44 book for details. So yes it apparently can hit a barn, and a truck, and still smash through the front turret of a Panther all at once.

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

Only 17 pounder or soviet 122 could do that ....not american 76

[@hoatattis7283]

caractucas: Yes this bloke is very biased to the Yanks. I will never watch him again

[@davidharvey8179]

@@hoatattis7283 how is stating facts from official reports biased? It was a balanced presentation on the 17 pdr compared to the usual ones you find.

[@agt155]

@@davidharvey8179 A very limited official report. This is much better. www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/accuracy.jpg

[@tobywenman4769]

@@hoatattis7283 he certainly does spout the virtues of American tanks often, however I believe he does genuinely believe all he says and is trying to do the right thing

[@magecraft2]

Must admit I find the contention about this a bit odd, it was a Antitank gun forced into a tank that was too small for it as a reaction to the rare German uber tanks. It did its role but no way was it going to be as refined a system as tanks and guns that had been specifically developed and improved through the war. Personally I love the Firefly as a symbol of British wartime engineering :) they quickly developed a solution to a problem, it was not a perfect solution but a workable one and I suggest in wartime that may well be the right one.

[@LeicesterRaver]

Yup, post war the 20 pounder was developed as a stop gap before the better calibres came into force.

[@DC9622]

Robert Pettigrew Mr Fletcher explanation on Firefly kzbin.info/www/bejne/f5fbnpdjqrKIa7s . The US Army Ammunition Research and Development organisation produced a paper on the 76mm M1 in 2018 January which is on line. To paraphrase the conclusion, specifically to this, the British produced the allies best anti tank gun of the war with the 17 pounder. The focus is penetration, which is the point of these things.

[@wyverncoch4430]

@@DC9622 Surely the point these things must be to first get the round on target, then to penetrate. Though I must admit I'd be more than happy with a grouping of 8-9 inches at 1000 yards

[@DC9622]

Wyvern Coch indeed, the after action reports are in contradiction with the quoted tests. There are a number of actions where the Firefly engaged Panther and Tigers, the scientific reports quoted 88% success the 6 pounder was 90%. Bottom line the Chieftain quotes the US Army engaged 3 tigers included 1 in Italy. Normandy the commonwealth army claimed 135 Tigers. This was only possible because of the 17 pounder.

[@Lightwolf_VR]

Define claimed.

[@Autobotmech]

As always informative and entertaining, thanks Chieftain.

[@rdfox76]

The SVDS ammo situation sounds like something where a bit of communication with the blokes over in the Navy might have been helpful. See, in the interwar period, there were lots of experiments towards making naval guns more effective without actually changing the guns (to avoid violating treaty limitations), and one line of thought was that lightweight shells at super-high velocities, having more kinetic energy, would successfully punch through more armor than conventional shells. And it worked just fine--when they could score hits. However, the consequence of this super-high velocity was excessive dispersion (overly large groupings) that was eventually traced directly to the desire for high muzzle velocity. The random overweight/underweight of every individual shell, and the random burn characteristics of each individual powder charge, while still within the specifications, resulted in a larger *total* random variation from shot to shot with faster shells--it might still be, say, a 2% variation in muzzle velocity, but they found that when you're shooting at 3300 feet per second, that 2% is a significantly larger absolute number than 2% of 2700 fps, making the grouping bigger. (They discovered this only after eliminating problems such as aerodynamic interference between shells in a salvo, but that doesn't really apply to tanks.) The only solution found, at least back then, was to derate the guns back down to lower velocities with either heavier shells, smaller powder charges, or a combination of the two. (Shortly thereafter, someone realized that an extra-heavy shell, moving slower, tends to fall more vertically at the long ranges that new fire control systems made possible, and thus the trend actually went towards heavier, slower shells that would hit the decks at more favorable angles for penetration, as hitting the side was becoming less and less common.) I don't know what sort of technical wizardry they now use to get what seem impossibly long ranges out of modern naval guns with sufficient accuracy, but it seems like the 17pr's problem may well have been something the US and Royal Navies had both encountered and overcome in the late 20s and early 30s...

[@88porpoise]

Naval guns and AT Guns are very different beasts. Naval guns would be far more like the heavy howitzers than an AT gun, but they are on a completely different scale. The 17 pounder is a 3 inch caliber. The standard naval gun on destroyers and light gun on large ships would be 4-5 inch caliber. A superheavy gun was 9.2 inches with a 13km range a Iowa class 16 inch gun could hit targets over 30 km away with a shell ten times as heavy (approximately the same weight as a 17 pounder, in fact). The forces and situations facing these guns are very different.

[@alganhar1]

With normal shells yes, but SVDS was a sabot round, so while some of the innaccuracy probably is down to the factors you noted, much of it is down to the seperation of the sabot from the penetrator. When and how that happens is going to have a significant impact on accuracy. If the seperation is not smooth and effectively immediate when it occurs that is going to throw off the round. To my knowledge no navy really played around with Sabot rounds, not in a big way, a tank is different to a ship, a kinetic penetrator is more than capable of killing a tank, but in a much larger target such as a ship even a large penetrator may pass right through the ship without causing any significant damage. Which is why all Naval AP rounds carried a bursting charge fused to (hopefully) detonate within the target once the round had punched through the armour. That being said, the Comets 77 had no issues, so while I do think the velocity was the problem I am more inclied to think the velocity monkeyed with that sabot seperation in unpredictable ways, a thought that is potentially supported by the fact that the Canadian redesign of the sabot seemed to fix most if not all the issues.

[@olivialambert4124]

Modern guns use a lot of wizardry, mostly based around reducing drag. They all add up to quite the difference. Usually just the boat tail design works well and is now used in a huge variety of weapons from rifles to the largest artillery with the downside of increasing wear. Add the base bleed shells, a small tracer-like charge burning to create smoke (rather than light) to fill the space behind the shell and thus the drag from the low-pressure void sucking it backwards doesn't apply. Or in the rarest of cases rocket assisted projectiles, though the only class using them I can think of are USS Zumwalt. Also used on artillery though seemingly only to meet demanded NATO specifications, one would imagine adding a rocket increases dispersion a lot and its only recently the Zumwalt (and possible future artillery shells) have started to use guided shells to counter that dispersion. Interestingly after inventing all of that wizardry to create the Zumwalt's cannons so incredibly revolutionary and able to save money vs the $2 mil cruise missile launchings, they decided to not buy more than the first run of cannon shells and don't use the gun. I don't know why, it worked as advertised. I imagine they will realise it was the right idea in 20 years or so.

[@CS-zn6pp]

As the same ammo worked fine in the comet then it must be down to the installation of the gun on the firefly. If we had data from the tow guns it would also help as they had the same ammo and barrel length as the firefly with the comet using the same ammo out of a shorter barrel thus if the tow guns were more accurate then its mounting issue not a Sabo issue. I'm guessing here but my money would be on it being down to the round being a little too hot and causing the Sabo separation issues.

[@mississippirebel1409]

rdfox76 - Talking about light weight shells, they aren't very good at penetrating at longer distances because they lose their velocity very fast and don't have enough punch to get through thick armor. During WW2 the US was known for using it's heavy 16" shells. These heavy shells where just as powerful as the Japanese 18" shells. Plus accuracy wasn't really an issue either.

[@russwoodward8251]

Fantastic research. Great documentation. Thanks.

[@dr.ryttmastarecctm6595]

Thank you for the always informative upload.

[@scottcampbell2836]

Barrrel harmonics can spread the groups out on long barrels. With a rifle cutting and re crowning it untill you find the sweet spot with the ammo used. Lightweight projectile and long barrel prone to barrel whip makes wobbly shot grouping.

[@knutdergroe9757]

I will bet, Rifle twist is a big factor here. Especially in the sabo rounds. I have also found the power burn rates can effect group size as well.

[@ScottKenny1978]

Yes, the US 175mm artillery gun was notorious for barrel whip throwing rounds off, particularly at long range.

[@attilarischt2851]

How many microphones have you gone through the last year, considering we just saw you mourn another one?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Four, I thiink. I killed another one when I was re-recording for the other broken one. I lost at least one at Rock Island, and I suspect there was another somewhere which I can't place

[@shinybaldy]

chris younts not really. Studio sound recording is typically done with a boom with a shotgun or condenser mic. Chieftain’s simple lav mic setup works and killing lav mics is just part of the process - cest la vie.

[@turbowolf302]

@@TheChieftainsHatch one a quarter seems to be an alright mean service life, seeing you've been allover the world.

[@shinybaldy]

chris younts that’s usually the news.

[@southronjr1570]

As a student of ballistics (internal,inside the barrel, external, outside the barrel but before on target, and terminal, what it does on impact) I have a theory why the 17 pdr had so many issues. When designing a barrel the engineers have to find a compromise in the projectiles and powder charges to design the rifling, twist rate, and barrel length to. It even gets down to the particular shape and finish on the rifling to gain the most accuracy. If the original designers didn't have the sabot ammo to design for, or if other factors like what the gun would MOST commonly use, then they couldn't take the oddball shells into account. For a similar gun with a similar problem, look no further than the M16'w early problems in Vietnam of US soldiers being found with guns broken down and had died while trying to clear the broken shell out of their weapon. In that case, the designer based the barrel and gas system off one particular bullet, powder, and case combination and the newfangled ball powders came out with faster burn rates and an egotistical sob overruled the ordnance board who didn't want to use the new powder with the new gun and it was sent over anyhow. Thus the M16/AR family of guns were demonized early on in their use because of such massive failures and the guns being so inaccurate initially. To give you an idea, the bullets were so unstable with the as issued combination, the bullets would begin tumbling on their own at around 300 yards, that's if hey didn't get hit with a cross wind or small debris like a leaf.

[@andrewcoley6410]

As always facinating and entertaining!

[@heimvar]

Man I'm happy KZbin's algorithm showed me your channel. I like your content and opinions a lot. Keep going on nan

[@joeblow9657]

I didn't know I needed a video on the 17-pounder's accuracy until Chietain uploaded it.

[@ABrit-bt6ce]

iirc 17pdr inaccuracy is filed alongside headspace and rimlock.

[@jic1]

@@ABrit-bt6ce Not for the sabot rounds.

[@SlavicCelery]

@@ABrit-bt6ce unfortunately the ergo facts still remain the same.

[@DC9622]

Joe Blow go on line look for US Army Ammunition Research and Development report on 76mm M1 gun. January 2018. They tested the performance using the modern methods employed by the US Army. To paraphrase part of the conclusion the British produced the most effective allied Anti Tank long barrel gun in the 17 pounder. The objective of the exercise is to penetrate the armour. The report agrees with Eisenhower’s opinion of June 1944. Perhaps the best statement is attributed to Alfred Rubbel, “Sherman’s we laugh at them, unless it’s a Firefly”

[@JustSomeCanuck]

Well, I know of one account from Canadians near Juno Beach. A Sherman Firefly destroyed/disabled five attacking Panthers with five shots. I'm guessing that wasn't with SVDS rounds, so this certainly demonstrates the 17 pdr with APCBC rounds worked just fine.

[@ToddSauve]

That sounds like that battle near Bretteville where some 1 Hussars Fireflies caught seven Panthers with their sides facing them, due to wanting to keep their frontal armour facing the anti-tank guns they were attacking. One guy nailed five of the Panthers from 1000 yards! So obviously the 17 pounder was sufficiently accurate at even a kilometer's distance.

[@kmckay7086]

Always entertaining and informative

[@frontiersmandavis1857]

Enjoyable & informative, thanks. Now a new question, what was the first tank to use track pads and the story behind it. Keep em’ coming!

[@lkchild]

ace video, this answered a lot of queries - thanks!

[@kiwiruna9077]

It's good to know that the Chieftain is bit of a Trekkie.

[@637man3]

This was a great view on an iconic weapon system, I'm a Firefly fan even with the warts but was never really up on the gun's genesis. I did some scratching around, British Pathé did a piece on what appears to be training and use in Africa which was interesting and Matsimus showed the wheeled version off in great style. One thing I noticed as it's apropriate to the closing comments here, at 2:00 of Matsimus' presentation, the sliding breech block has "17PDR" clearly stamped in the metal. Yet the ammo crates have "17 PR" so it was probably the Ministry of War deciding to save money and paint by dropping a letter.

[@pierredecine1936]

haha, quite a mood you were in (in) this one - laughed out loud, I did.

[@dcpack]

Just notice the TOS Enterprise on the desk. Class.

[@captdavid160]

Always a pleasure to listen to the Chieftain while on lunch break drinking a cup of joe

[@hashteraksgage3281]

I know the answer, but... Joe?

[@HMSVanguard46]

@@hashteraksgage3281 JOE MAMA!!

[@bluefletcher4340]

Or a beer.

[@richpurslow3283]

We needed a gun that could deal with any heavy armour reliably and the firefly did just that. Absolutley tons of accounts to that effect. Loads of panthers falling to them and aparently whittmans tiger counted amoung the dead too. Was it ideal...not exactly. Was it in service before the end of the war..yes. It was what we had and did the job.If i had to face even a late mark panzer 4 or worse id feel better knowing the gun we were using could stick a round through it nicely.

[@christineshotton824]

For a cobbled together expedient of a towed anti-tank gun and a tank turret never designed for such ordnance, the Firefly was an amazingly effective package. It's enough to make me believe that the UK also possesses innovative hillbillies with welders, as does the USA.

[@sarahshaw7315]

@@christineshotton824the British are the definition of ‘innovative’… everything they do is boarder-line Wallace and grommet inventions. Rather than building something around the idea they build the idea around the something. We want a tank that can counter tanks Shove this one in literally every tank we have! We need a fast tank Shove this engine in about 10 different designs , one of them is bound to work Our cromwells are not doing as well anymore Stick this plane engine in that sucker and go from there!

[@kellybreen5526]

Continuity error at 7;00. New shirt! Interesting video.

[@leoschorberschofskie4628]

Well, I guess it's more accurate then the camera focus XD But for real, nice video! Content over visuales.

[@5RndsFFE]

Love the second shirt mate, hope the weather in puckapunyal was kind to you haha

[@demosthenessirony4774]

I believe the term alibi is in connection to airborne operations (alibi pass has always referred to when a bird isn’t able to drop its full chalk in one pass) and some how found its way into daily hub meetings that battalions have in the morning and so on. But this is just my personal observation and theory

[@BillHalliwell]

G'day Nicholas, Being an air force type, the finer detail of tank ordinance is still somewhat of a mystery, yet always interesting. Whenever my ignorance began to glaze one's eyes, I pondered your tiny model of NCC-1701. Now, that's some ordinance I really would like explained to me. What warms one's heart is to find, like me, another 'grey-haired' gentleman who is a Star Trek fan. As the late Mr Roddenberry was a brother air force type, from the very first series I was fascinated with his worldview of the future. His Enterprise(s) were always stated as ships of peaceful exploration yet they all carried a vastly powerful array of futuristic weaponry. His world was one that didn't need money, had total gender and race equality, respect for any type of life-form and, as Captain Picard once said to an Earthling from the past, "...our motivation is for the betterment of humankind...". Still, they were armed to the gills for, firstly the Klingons and later the Romulans plus those pesky, chuckle-heads, the Borg. Finally, to the point: even in the 24th Century and beyond there will always be a need for someone like your good self to explain the intricacies of the weapons of war. I may not understand all of what you say, Sir Nick, but I do like the way that you "make it so". Cheers, BH

[@nickthenoodle9206]

Excellent vid.

[@texasdeeslinglead2401]

Really enjoyed seeing you and Ian chatting . Now for the most interesting personalities for these topics , you have to convince Bob to get in front of camera with you . Say maybe on the topic of reviving all of these beauties we talk about .

[@douggallagher8809]

Huh, this puts into perspective of all the towed A/T guns put into tank roles & how the deficits begun or maybe carry over. Adding into the military's perchant for just saying "good enough". But new question: the 17pr, 76mm, pak40 75mm, pak43 88mm all started in a towed A/T mount before being pressed into(quite literally) the tank roll. What was there cumulative accuracy compared from the towed mounts to their respective tank mounts? We have the US figures for the 76mm & 90mm but what of the german stuff?

[@cyberstormalpha789]

I love how you have the "NCC 1701, no bloody A, B, C, or D" on your desk.

[@ataxpayer723]

That is the ACTUAL NCC 1701. The entire StarTrek Universe is populated by very very small people. Thats why the "starships" can move from one star system to another. They are all contained inside one guys home office.

[@peterfmodel]

This is very interesting, explains a lot.

[@henrynelson11]

Good video! Any chance on a closer look on the Challenger's mounting of the 17pdr to compare with your analysis of Firefly?

[@christineshotton824]

I'm just geeking out about the fact that I have the same NCC1701C Enterprise miniature as is featured front and center on Nick's desk.

[@SvenTviking]

I was told that the problem with Sabot ammo on the 17 pounder was there were two manufacturers, one who made them correctly and one who didn’t. Noe if the correct manufacturer was solely the supplier of 77mm ammo for Comet, with it’s slightly smaller shell case, then all the 77mm would be accurate.

[@flakpanzer_gepard]

The issue with 17pdr APDS inaccuracy is well known. Besides The Chieftain has said something about Canadian shells for the British guns, but I cannot find anything about it, however I know that some reports exist

[@mycroft1905]

Fascinating. Thanks.

[@satanihelvetet]

Very interesting! I wish for a video about the development of armour piercing ammo for tank guns and anti tank guns from the beginning to today.

[@CZ350tuner]

The WW2 US HVAP (APCR) round was designated M.93 and was available in versions for the 75mm. L.41, 76mm. L.52 and 90mm. L.52 tank guns. The WW2 90mm. APDS round was designated M.304.

[@catlee8064]

Could you make a video about the smoothbore cannon into the CR2, CLEP. And the expense/costs/logistics of it ?

[@corymcgrath5652]

My Grandfather was an artillery guy during WWII, 23rd anti tank RCA, attached to the Canadian second Div. He was in charge of a self propelled that was a 17 pounder. I asked him how many tanks he shot up. He replied, never seen an enemy tank, shot it at everything else but.

[@neddy4702]

theres a interesting piece of german cruiser? armour at the royal armouries fort nelson near portsmouth that was used as a target for 17pdr guns, accuracy issue aside the penetration on the gun is incredible, from memory the target is at least 100mm thick and the 17 just punched holes right through it.

[@SHcinema]

I guess that points out a good reason why a smoothbore with fin-stabilized ammo is now a common sabot round. We're back to launching arrows at each other! LOL!

[@Tomartyr]

To put these into context both the 17pdr and 76mm were shooting well below 1 MOA which is the accepted starting point of precision or 'sniper' rifles, both are very very accurate.

[@AKUJIVALDO]

Tell that to 17pounder APDS LOL

[@stevefreeland9255]

Next Chieftain video should be called “The HE u give!”

[@AtlantiansGaming]

I love the little Micro-Machines TOS Enterprise!

[@PeterMultyGaming]

why i'm always laughing my ass off in your serious videos? excellent explanation!!

[@Axquirix]

Good stuff! Kinda curious on your thoughts, or any difference in testing data, of mounting it in the Achilles instead of the Firefly. If nothing else the turret modifications are a lot less adhoc...

[@jonmce1]

My dad drove tank from Monte Casssino up through Italy and then Belgium and Holland. You would never be able to convince him with any late claimed analysis that at least in the Canadian army they were damned glad to have them and that the Germans feared them enought ot specifically target them which is why they never allowed their 17ib sherman( I never heard him call it a firefly.) to lead the troop. Additonally the 17lb sherman took out more Tiger tanks in 15 minutes than the Americans did while in Northern Europe. The British did an evaluation of the 76mm and because of what they considered its deficiencies did everything they could to jam the 17ib into other tanks. They saw it in trils well before it went into production.

[@MultiZirkon]

09:00 "...a matter of condension..." :-) -- Ah not only Bismarck, but now also The Chieftain forces us to keep our ears open to not loose delightful small nuggets of verbal prose :-) (y)

[@watcherzero5256]

The correct is pdr, its possibly the abbreviation is similarly being abbreviated to reduce the amount of stencilling required. The lb as an abbreviation of pound comes from the Latin 'Libra Pondo' (Pound Weight) 'lbp' which was itself then shortened over time to 'lb' the Pound sign '£' continues this as its a derivation of the Roman symbol for Libra (An L with a cross line through it).

[@kidmohair8151]

ex audio guy here.. for the sit down at a desk stuff, get yerself a good ole regular plug-in mic, and put it on a desk stand... they are comparatively bullet proof and a decent one will put you back a C-note or so, and with an adapter you can even plug it into your radio transmitter... the only time that lapel mics need to be used is when mobility is desired

[@ditzydoo4378]

YES! Thank you for putting this point of contention on the 17-pounder to rest... I love your analysis in the video of D-Day in saying the reason Firefly has it reputation in that instance is that the British brought them and the American commanders at the time saw no need in switching to the 200 available 76mm Easy-6 tanks stuck in England at the time of the invasion... Oops! (your phrasing). Hoping you have a stellar new year, and I look forward to the next chat. cheers... ~_^

[@DC9622]

DitzyDoo go find the US Army Armaments Research and Development report January 2018 on the performance of 76mm M1 gun. It is on line. This use modern technology to test the performance. The conclusion to paraphrase The British understood the issue and produced the most effective allied anti tank gun of the war, the 17 pounder long barrel gun. Basically their testing agreed with the Normandy 1944 field testing and Eisenhower’s summery at the time.

[@tyler2259]

DC The 17pdr was found to be superior in terms of penetration to the 76mm mounted in the later version of Sherman tanks, people knew that even during the war, but US Army ordnance in their testing found the 90mm Anti Tank gun, superior in accuracy and penetration to the 17pdr, hence the US never bothered with the gun as the difference between the 17pdr and the 76 wasn’t large enough to make a difference in the majority of armored engagements

[@DC9622]

Phantom Taurus go read the US Army 2018 January report, by the Ammunition Research and Development. They disagree.

[@DC9622]

Phantom Taurus apps.dtic.mil is the site, google AD-E403 980, the full text should be available.

[@ditzydoo4378]

@@tyler2259 the Chieftain did a Q&A called Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015, were in one of the topic's he talked about was this subject. Here is the link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH_NoZJqn75rprs

[@johnnyzippo7109]

I always enjoy kickin back with a frosty carbonated “apple juice” watching some Chieftain aka The Tank Professor talkin guns , gears and gear.

[@hammer1349]

I believe the word you may be looking for is addendum, meaning that additional information added after printing etc so in this case filming or going through the script

[@ataxpayer723]

My dog ate my addendum.

[@marinetech262]

Interesting choice of desk adornments. It's a bit hard to tell, but I'm assuming that's an early Federation Constellation class. Might you have an interest in Starfleet Battles in addition to enjoying Bolo and Hammers Slammers novels?

[@Paul-ie1xp]

British Ammunition production was infamously iffy... I wonder if that didn't influence the large group size.

[@janetrickwood2484]

I love the idgy-bidgy Enterprise between the tanks, Chief. Vulla!

[@gabrielpetre3569]

Question, can you describe the ease of loading for diferent guns if aiming up or down, or to the sides in case of spg guns, and the effectivenes on loading speed witj turret baskets or on the move?

[@siem3113]

Some accuracy tests from '45 would be nice as the APDS ammunition was updated between the start and end of the war we know that, but given the info at hand I agree.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

So many say, but even Shot Mk 2 seems to be a post-war development as best I can find. And whatever the improvement, it still was considered worth issuing an accuracy improvement in the 1950s, so whatever the accuracy improvement may have been, it seems not to have been particularly good.

[@siem3113]

​@@TheChieftainsHatch Going off of the Challenger A30 May 1945 manual I have the APDS is listed as Shot A.P.D.S Mk. I . B . T. I don't know what the difference between Mk I A and Mk I B is but it does show there was some sort of a change, if you have any info on this would nice, other sources I've seen simply refer to rounds as APDS/T, Mk I APDS or Sabot Wt. It does still allude to the inaccuracy of the round (perhaps to a slightly lessened degree), as it says: RANGE (extreme effective) APDS - 800 yards. AP - 2,500 yards.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@siem3113 Interesting, but the next question is if Shot Mk IB was the production batch by May, and the US testing was delayed until Aug 45 due to delivery of ammunition, which version would have been shipped over? Unfortunately, the US test report does not say. I'll see if I can find a blow-up of the photo of the round I used in the thumbnail.

[@siem3113]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Sure, heres a pic if that helps at all. imgur.com/go1m5vN It can't be that much more accurate but I'm curious as to what the change was. The manual also states 20% APDS, 30% APCBC, 45% HE and 5% smoke so it was getting pretty common by the end of the war. Ofc we can't verify thats accurate to what was around at the time but it says (when available) next to the smoke but not next to the APDS suggesting theres not much of a supply issue. Also interestingly one of the HE rounds in the 17 Pounder seems to have about 33% more filler than the 76s own HE shell which is confusing as I thought the 17 Pounders HE was very poor. If you have any thoughts on these I'd be glad to hear them. Sorry for going off on a tangent about this but it's the only manual source I have on anything and it's been helpful with some non tank historical info as well. If you know of any other manuals documented online (for other tanks or equipment (prefererably western) I'd be glad to have a link. Can't afford to order any atm, but I got the book Troop leader for christmas so thats nice too, apparently they were issued tabby night vision devices (or a device) by the time they were issued M24s so I look foward to getting to that bit of the book. Edit: He also refers to some Stuart tanks as honey's in the book.

[@southronjr1570]

As a student of ballistics (internal,inside the barrel, external, outside the barrel but before on target, and terminal, what it does on impact) I have a theory why the 17 pdr had so many issues. When designing a barrel the engineers have to find a compromise in the projectiles and powder charges to design the rifling, twist rate, and barrel length to. It even gets down to the particular shape and finish on the rifling to gain the most accuracy. If the original designers didn't have the sabot ammo to design for, or if other factors like what the gun would MOST commonly use, then they couldn't take the oddball shells into account. For a similar gun with a similar problem, look no further than the M16'w early problems in Vietnam of US soldiers being found with guns broken down and had died while trying to clear the broken shell out of their weapon. In that case, the designer based the barrel and gas system off one particular bullet, powder, and case combination and the newfangled ball powders came out with faster burn rates and an egotistical sob overruled the ordnance board who didn't want to use the new powder with the new gun and it was sent over anyhow. Thus the M16/AR family of guns were demonized early on in their use because of such massive failures and the guns being so inaccurate initially. To give you an idea, the bullets were so unstable with the as issued combination, the bullets would begin tumbling on their own at around 300 yards, that's if hey didn't get hit with a cross wind or small debris like a leaf.

[@carebear8762]

"Alibi" is a Rifle Marksmanship term, refers to an "alibi round". As a Marine NCO I would reference MCRP 3-10, Appendix A. Training, Pg A-8 Alibis . "An alibi will be awarded during qualification firing if any condition caused by the weapon (i.e., mechanical malfunction), ammunition, or range operation, either line or pit, causes the Marine to not have an equal opportunity to complete a string of fire. An alibi will not be awarded for any condition caused by the Marine." Used colloquially when instructing or briefing for covering something inadvertently left out. Which frequently, to be precise, is a result of "briefer error" and thus would not qualify as an "alibi round" on the range.

[@colbeausabre8842]

"Alibi firers, watch your lanes!"

[@AngryMarine-il6ej]

Trying to do close up screen cap of Ian's model shelf. I figured he'd have an M-24 in that collection, as I can't see one.

[@simonh317]

So why the legend of the Firefly? The British had them on DDay and for the Normandy Breakout - the US Army did not have the 76mm......

[@Caratacus1]

The legend starts because all the Tigers and Panthers in France were sent to fight against the British and the 17pdr saw them all off. It didn't matter that the US only had 75mms because they were facing infantry and a few knackered old French or German medium tanks. By Mortain Allied air-power had wrecked any hope of a German success.

[@Jawzzy]

How does the accuracy of this guns, installed in the Sherman, with ww2 ammo, compare to the KWK42 installed in the Panther?

[@michaelcampin1464]

I suppose if you can get off 5 rounds against an opponents 2 the accuracy becomes a secondary consideration especially when you have gyroscope stabilised guns compared to unstabalised

[@goldleader6074]

I wonder if the 17 pounder sabot round accuracy problems were related to travelling at near Mach 3 and the stabilizing fins suffered some of the same issues that aircraft encountered when attempting to reach Mach 1+.

[@simonyip5978]

I think that the typical British Tank Troop/Platoon of an Armoured Squadron in an Armoured Regiment/Tank Battalion in the Royal Armoured Corps had 4 x Sherman tanks, 3 had the standard 75mm/76mm and one had a 17lb gun to deal with heavier armoured and armed enemy tanks.

[@iananderson1848]

These muzzle velocity figures are astounding . These are cannon rds regularly exceeding 3600 ft/sec by several 100s ft/ sec . Huge KE ergo Vsquared the plasma jet on impact . Precussors to EM rail gun cannons.

[@SvenTviking]

From what I’ve read the problem with Sabot was that there were two manufacturers, one who worked out how to make the round accurate and work, and one who didn’t. Now interestingly, the Comet Sabot was considered more accurate, but the projectile is exactly the same as the 17 pounder, the only difference being the size of the shell casing and thus the quantity of propellant. Was the “77mm” Sabot ammunition for the Comet gun supplied by the manufacturer who made the more accurate ammo?

[@shanesimpson3455]

I have always wondered about future conflicts with 1st world military forces and attrition rates, considering the cost & complex engineering of anti tank missiles could it possible that anti tank guns could make a return to the battlefield?

[@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl]

APDS in other words for the heavies at point blank range. Useful to prevent a tank on fire.

[@artistphilb]

I guess an interesting question would be, what did the crews tend to fire? were they using the standard AP round when they Knocked out Whitman?

[@Pocahonkers]

Dear Chieftain, can you maybe tell us a bit about the AMX30's (and more importantly here the AMX30B2's) fire control system? From what I'm reading the guns on the AMX30B2's were not stabilized so it didn't have a stabilizer in the traditional sense but instead was equipped with a stabilized gun sight (namely the M581 COTAC). And some people on the forums make the claim that it could be considered stabilized, as the FCS was set up in such a way that the gunner would hold simply down the trigger (while aiming the stabilized sight) and the gun would automatically fire, when it is aligned with the target the gunner is aiming at (bouncing up and down while driving). However, I have not been able to find any sources whatsoever about any of the AMX30's having this, not even about the AMX32. And since it's been used and retrofitted quite a while, I can't imagine them simply not putting a stabilizer into it as not having one seems to be a pretty big disadvantage. Best regards, Luke Full disclosure: I'm actually asking this because of War Thunder (now that you're not affiliated with Wargaming anymore hehe). Since the AMX30 is in the french tech tree and I really do find it quite appealing as it is basically a french Leopard I with many many reverse gears (which I really quite like, HESH is a lot more fun than I thought). However even the later, higher ranked versions (AMX30B2 and BRENUS) do not have a stabilizer and it simply does not seem like a competetive tank without it, as everything else bascially has one. I feel like Gaijin kinda realized that this is pretty bad, as they added the "AMX30 Super" which everyone agrees on is a complete fantasy tank that, miraculously, has a stabilizer in it. Naturally they want money for it. If you maybe were so kind to give a statement about this, I could maybe quote you in a forum post to have the devs implement something like a stabilizer for the AMX30 tanks. To put this "issue" into perspective: The unstabilized AMX30B2 is at 8.3 and can face tanks up to 9.3, Chieftains: Stabilized M60A1's: Stabilized Leopard 1A1: Stabilized OF40Mk.2 : Stabilized Basically everything with a red flag on it: stabilized.

[@p51cMustangFUYTGIVEMEBACK]

hey chieftain! any thoughts on the il2 tank crew game/simumator in terms of realism and imersion? i quite like it but since i am not a tanker i would like to know how realistic and immersive it really is !

[@mathewkelly9968]

The 17 PDR in the Achilles is what everyone forgets about , the Brits had regiments of them .

[@KevinSmith-ys3mh]

Agreed, probably the better option to go for would have been to attach an M10/M36/Achilles to standard tank platoons (boost size to 5-6 tracks each) and perform it's Tank destroyer missions as designed, a long range puncher to engage and pin the opposing tanks while the rest of platoon maneuver for flanking shots and close to their effective ranges. I suspect the open more spacious turrets of TD's enabled much better use of the 17pr gun at that time.

[@F4Wildcat]

Great video! By the way, does anybody knows the range of the 155mm gun of the M53 self propelled artillery? talking about the M53 not the M55! i can find info about the M55's range but not the M53. (Any great books regarding the US self propelled artilleries?)

[@vrsmartin2981]

Did the mic break itself or was it helped? ;-)

[@Edax_Royeaux]

I prefer PDR just because I've studied Napoleonic history and I distinguish the various cannons via the Pounder system.

[@fenixmarcus10]

will there ever be a t-72 review, switchology and fire control? as always love your videos. take care.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Yes, and yes.

[@fenixmarcus10]

@@TheChieftainsHatch thank you for answering my question. i appreciate it.

[@0Turbox]

I once read about the heavy barrel wear of the 17 pdr of just 200 AP rounds, till it losses accuracy. But can't find the sources anymore (was a decade ago, or even longer). For comparison: The German Pak 40 had a barrel live of @6.000 HE rounds. AP rounds wear the barrel 4x more makes it 1.500 rounds till you need a new barrel. There were 2 methods to increase the Vo of guns in WWII: The brit method: bigger chamber, short barrel (4.1m), same pen stats like the German 75mm/L70 (5.25m). That means, the Germans gained their penetration numbers by having a round travel longer inside the barrel to gain speed instead of the higher initial pressure of a bigger load and chamber. Assuming, the 75mm/L70 had a higher barrel wear as the Pak 40, the 17 pdr numbers becoming more plausible and making it not really a good gun and probably one reason the US didn't adopt it over their own design.

[@MagpieOz]

"I hope I don't need to come back to this again" ...... LOL, you will need to I'm sure

[@1701enter]

Dad told me once the 17pr was so powerful and hard hitting and had such a flat trajectory that he use to shoot through earth banks and hedges as it made no real difference at all . I imagine any thing on the receiving end thought so too? (Argyles Normandy on wards )

[@z_actual]

update, prior to previous discussion have acquired some RAN antiflash for trialling with civil fire service, mostly because we could get that in a day thanks for your help on this matter

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Huh. Who did you go through, as a matter of curiousity?

[@Sim.Crawford]

@@TheChieftainsHatch At the moment you could just raid a locker on Choules or Adelaide (we're a bit on fire at the moment).

[@z_actual]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Discussions got the ear of a now deployed RAN reservist officer who is in a sister unit nearby and he seems to think he can facilitate hoods which come with gloves in bags worn by the user. He's talking three, one of which we have already have which is enough to evaluate the usefulness. Equipment for these firemen such that it is, is pretty poor and well due for an upgrade and they hope to be in a position to pressure the state and fed govts where there's expected to be an appetite to throw some money at them. This group lost 2 trucks and all their gear, the thinking is that at least they can ask for the replacement trucks to come with with anti-flash kit as its a small percentage of the unit cost. Not to get too far in front of ourselves as first it has to get through evaluation, but basically thats the plan. Theres lots of analysis going to take place over the next little while including providing monies for the volunteer fire fighters (who basically get nothing) and equipment like fire fighting aircraft which is bound to be expensive, so the Fed are aware theyre going to have to let go of a bunch of money. This outside of roads, signage, post offices and things that have been totally lost.

[@z_actual]

@@Sim.Crawford I think thats pretty close to whats going on as the HMAS Adelaide was deployed a few days ago. Theyve been pulling up Army reservists, medicos and veterinaries at the same time, but like you say people are pretty busy both sides and Kangaroo Is isnt a settled thing yet and some resources are still needed locally.

[@Sim.Crawford]

@@z_actual guess who isn't RAEME on fire duty due to a fucked L5. I know how it goes.

[@tarjei99]

How about the the rounds bouncing off the Panther glacis plate? Did the 76mm HVAP rounds have the same problem?

[@bongobrandy6297]

It appears that the choice of shirt dooms a microphone to death in public. Choose wisely Chieftan!

[@HistoryNeedsYou]

Would the twist rates of the 17 pounder and 76mm affect their relative accuracy? I’m trying to find the info online as I do not have the specs in print. Perhaps the twist rate of the 17 pounder was a touch too low for the increased velocity of the sabot round?

[@johnharshfield4726]

I'd love to see the British 17 pounder next to the German 88mm for size comparison :-)

[@ancientfungi7818]

Is he talking about the guns on tanks with tankcrews or the towed AT guns with AT-artillerymen behind the guns?

[@fastmongrel]

It cant just be the velocity of the 17 pr sabot round causing the problem. The 6 pr with the 50 calibre barrel fired its sabot round at 4,000 fps yet I have never heard of poor accuracy problems with it. I have read that the prototype 32 pr gun was noted to be very acurate though I am not sure if it ever fired sabot ammunition. There must be certain barrel lengths, chamber volumes and shell weights that just hit the sweet spot, the US M1 76mm was phenomonally accurate and the British 77mm was reckoned to be the most acurate British tank gun. Both have very similar specifications so that must be a sweet spot.

[@nathanokun8801]

The problems with poor 17-pdr sabot/APDS seems to be the rifling is not spinning the projectile properly: Either too slow or not consistently. The better accuracy when slowed down is an important clue. The air resistance of such a high-velocity projectile creates such a high force on the nose that any yaw (tilt of the nose away from the bore-sight trajectory direction) would be amplified VERY rapidly until the projectile is literally spiraling/corkscrewing ("nutating") at the target and the size of the 50% hit circle is more like a rapidly-flaring trumpet bell than a conical megaphone shape, as with most regular rounds. This was found to be true with the WWII US Army 90mm AA gun firing regular nose-fuzed HE shells, though not as bad, and the design of the rifling had to be changed. The problem with uneven sabot separation might also be a problem, but it would affect the shell proportionately at any muzzle velocity and the US test results at 1000 yards (those 18 failed shots) do not indicate a linear proportional problem,. but an ACCELERATING one as range increases. Sabot effects would not do that.

[@Kman31ca]

That's still more than accurate for tanks as targets.

[@randymagnum143]

If you dont mind getting really close to them.

[@901Sherman]

@@randymagnum143 Still far from 'point blank' by tank combat standards

[@franklinhadick2866]

I like the Enterprise model on the desk..is that an old Fasa model??

[@pierredecine1936]

after watching this, and thinking about my S35 CA in WOT, I moved up to the 90mm gun - - much better dmg, and seems a bit more accurate, too.It just "erases" T-67's ( and hurts their feelings, too.)