scotsman

From US testing - there are some notes floating around that part of the issue with the 17pdr ammo was simply due to manufacturing and not due to the round itself (also due to the conditions in which the tested batch was stored). Not seeing the document on DTIC any more....it and some others seem to have magically evaporated over the years but I do have a copy of the written material somewhere...trouble is its still not publically releasable.

Thanks - I've done a lot of deep dive on 3.7" in the AT role and there is no doubt that the ammunition and the Tobruk site mod was present in North Africa. Larkhill records confirmed that the gunners were trained locally in AT and retrofitted their guns in the field - agree with the previous poster that the sight ring size seems to indicate the 6pdr sight was certainly used on some of those mods. The bottom line to 3.7" AT is that the gun was capable, it had the ammunition, and the local field modification to fight as an ATG in North Africa...but it's value and scarcity as HAA precluded anything but emergency use until later - by which time many more ATG were available and the need had passed. Nevertheless - from what I have been able to determine - it could have been so used had that decision ever been made... I own a round of 3.7" AP

Hey Ken... Do you have a reference handy for the proposed 3.7" use?

I'll second the observation on Allied artillery. Many instances of German Eastern Front veterans fighting in Normandy saying that they had never experienced anything like the weight and responsiveness of Allied artillery on the eastern front. The Russians could plan and execute significant prep. fires, but there is a world of difference between that and every platoon in the front being able to call for 'all available' (or William target if your British) at the drop of a hat. Eastern front veterans had never experienced anything like that as Russian artillery was generally centrally controlled. You only have to look at the historical record of some of the German counterattacks to understand the difference between the Allied and Russian capabilities to bring air and indirect fire to the target.

Ohh? gotcha!

Happily as soon as I confirm the current classification. I have been filing to get some of the older stuff still under wraps reviewed and released into the public domain - but that's a long process - as I'm sure those of you that have done it know full well. Last time I checked it was still FOUO which prevents outright release to the public domain - unclassified but still restricted distribution to the USG and its contractors. You can read between the lines on some of what I have written though. Testing of single lots can and will lead to false conclusions, -especially if quality issues are identified with the test lots before firing-. If other lots from other manufacturers fire without issue, then you are left with manufacturer ammunition production quality and quality assurance as the likely culprit. Need to reread the report...I believe the lot numbers were identified in the report... Again this is why its important to know everything about a test possible before we leap to conclusions and paint with a broad brush...saying that all ammunition or any weapon of type X is universally subject to the test results is not accurate in a case like this.

Believe the US test document identified the root cause which was nothing to do with the weapon or ammunition design....

That's a bofors bill test //// nothing to do with Israel or Syria

Hey Nick I'm aware of that report but I think there is another AD that was dropped from DTIC last time I checked. In that report there was data that tied the 17 pdr accuracy issue to specific manufacturers, lots, and production/storage issues. I believe that report was still FOUO and had not been downgraded. Kind of limited in what I can say here if that classification is still in effect. You can read between the lines though. Blanket statements on 17pdr APDS accuracy shouldn't be made if the effects observed are tied to the issues noted, as other ammunition lots will fire without any accuracy issues. That's the problem with these sorts of one off tests. To really know how the weapon behaves you have to test multiple lots and systems. One off tests leave you vulnerable to drawing incorrect conclusions from a small sample. If your ammo is drawn from one manufacture or lot and that lot is not up to spec you're going to arrive at all the wrong conclusions. Too often we quote the one of WWII tests as universally applicable without understanding what the heck was really tested and in what condition the vehicles, ammunition, and tests were run in. That's why multiple lots are always tested in peacetime...a luxury that could not be afforded in war. Hence...even more important to understand all we can in what a given test shows. Interesting notes on the Canadian information. That too would seem to indicate that it's not a system issue...its an ammunition manufacture and storage issue. The 77mm was simply the old 3" 20 cwt casing tied to the 17pdr projectile. Smaller case so it would all fit in the turret ring, but as the projo is in essence the same. It does sort of point back to the same conclusion. That the accuracy issue was not in fact system based, but rather based on ammunition manufacture/quality. That's the only foot note I would make in talking about 17pdr accuracy - that there is in fact evidence which indicates that the 'inaccuracy issue' was lot/manufacturer driven, and saying it applied universally is also a myth. I believe the lot numbers were noted in that AD you referenced. Have to go back and have a look see at that lot number vs. other reported history. I have some contacts in the UK - Ill try and get a copy of that document. I may have it at home already. As the 6pdr and 17pdr APDS rounds were the first of their breed a lot of attention was paid to them. I have a sample of WWI production 6pdr APDS in my collection. A fair number of rounds got stuck in a warehouse in Holland and remained undiscovered until the early 2000s. Also have 17pdr APCBC and 77mm APCBC. Wishing I could afford all the samples of all the AP I would like to own! I have a 37mm steilgranate salvaged from a lake in Finland...and also have a rare 76mm HVAP which laid in a Pa. barn until 2 years ago. No telling where these things will pop up. Will do some more research on the US side and report back.

Interesting video - but also has it wrong on a couple of things. The US tested 17pdr APDS and came to a somewhat different decision than he is putting out in the video. The report is (or was) available by DTIC. Not sure its out there any more. The premise was there was always something wrong with the APDS ammunition/gun and its interaction that caused accuracy issues with the 17pdr. The thought was muzzle brake sabot interaction or something else (initially). This turned out to be a symptom, but it was not the root cause. The US test identified the likely root cause...and unfortunately it has nothing to do with anything outlined in the video. Saying the 17pdr had an accuracy issue with APDS is thus also compounding a myth. In the final examination it is dependent on the time of production and manufacturer of the APDS ammunition used for the test. This is a good example of how historical documents and one off tests can also lead you astray. The test results he quotes were because of the ammunition lots provided for the initial US test. Different lot = different results.

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/new-tehnik-parad-150504/

Not seeing anything obvious at first look on that...

CGs are the Russian Ministry of Defense site for the new vehicles

sad indeed...

Is that Kurganets-25 or T-15 in the video...seeing this chassis/road wheel count being reported both ways...