Firefly's 76mm 17pdr gun just as effective as tiger's 88 mm?

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
User avatar
KBO
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 31 Jul 2004 14:27
Location: Denmark

Post by KBO » 05 Aug 2004 13:50

Bob_Mackenzie wrote:One thing that should also be remembered is that the APDS ammo for the 17pdr was just as rare for the British as the Pzgr40 was for the germans...

Dear KBO

Not sure thats true. At least its not true for the 44-45 time

OK I don't have any info on load-outs for Brit AFVs but I do have several references that refer to APDS for the 17pdr.

I have NOTHING that indicates that APCR was issed to German tanks in this timeframe and I have more books about German armour on my shelves than British

Take a look at:

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/GermWeapProd.html

You will see that the Germans made 5800 PzGr40 in 1943 and that was there entire production. Compared to this they made 825900 PzGr39. Thats 0.7% of production was PzGr40. NO PzGr40 was made after 1943 so I find it hard to believe that German tanks were routinely carrying it in the 44/45 timeframe.

Cheers

Bob


Well the 5800 Pzgr40 rounds you mension is actually only the Monthly production for the Pzgr40 in 1943 and not for the whole year.. you can read that at the top of the page to...

So it was actually 69600 Pzgr40 rounds that were produced in 1943...
Last edited by KBO on 06 Aug 2004 15:28, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
KBO
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 31 Jul 2004 14:27
Location: Denmark

Post by KBO » 05 Aug 2004 13:50

Bob_Mackenzie wrote:One thing that should also be remembered is that the APDS ammo for the 17pdr was just as rare for the British as the Pzgr40 was for the germans...

Dear KBO

Not sure thats true. At least its not true for the 44-45 time

OK I don't have any info on load-outs for Brit AFVs but I do have several references that refer to APDS for the 17pdr.

I have NOTHING that indicates that APCR was issed to German tanks in this timeframe and I have more books about German armour on my shelves than British

Take a look at:

http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/GermWeapProd.html

You will see that the Germans made 5800 PzGr40 in 1943 and that was there entire production. Compared to this they made 825900 PzGr39. Thats 0.7% of production was PzGr40. NO PzGr40 was made after 1943 so I find it hard to believe that German tanks were routinely carrying it in the 44/45 timeframe.

Cheers

Bob


Well Karl Brommann (a Kingtiger crewman) said himself he used Pzgr40 rounds to take out russian JSII's at over 3000m....

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 05 Aug 2004 21:51

KBO wrote:But still when using Pzgr40 ammunition the 88mm L/71 gun clearly outmatched the 17pdr..



Hi,

Agree on that.

Also the dimensions of weapon are altogether different... trying to fit 88mm L71 to Sherman turret would not be even dreamed of...

Regards, Mark V

Bob_Mackenzie
Member
Posts: 517
Joined: 22 Nov 2003 11:02
Location: UK

Post by Bob_Mackenzie » 06 Aug 2004 19:59

KBO wrote:Well the 5800 Pzgr40 rounds you mension is actually only the Monthly production for the Pzgr40 in 1943 and not for the whole year.. you can read that at the top of the page to...

So it was actually 69600 Pzgr40 rounds that were produced in 1943...


Dear KBO

You've miss-read. Monthly Weapon Production 1939-1941 isn't a title its a hyperlink to a section further down the page.

The production figs I quoted are for the whole year

Cheers

Bob

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1335
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Post by Tony Williams » 07 Aug 2004 05:33

No-one in their right mind would deny that the 88mm L/71 was more powerful than the 17 pdr, given equivalent ammo. All you have to do is look at the relative sizes of the ammo to see that. The downside was of course that the 88mm L/71 was a huge and heavy gun which required a huge and heavy tank to carry it (and was extremely difficult to haul around as a separate anti-tank gun).

However, the 17 pdr had tungsten-cored shot readily available, the 88mm did not. The German shortage of tungsten was such that its common use was restricted to those guns which were virtually useless without it - like the 5 cm L/60 and the 3 and 3.7 cm airborne anti-tank guns. In the circumstances it would actually have been rather stupid to issue tungsten-cored shot for the 88mm L/71 - partly because each shot used a lot of tungsten, partly because it was powerful enough not to need it.

Tony Williams

User avatar
KBO
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 31 Jul 2004 14:27
Location: Denmark

Post by KBO » 07 Aug 2004 11:44

Tony Williams wrote:No-one in their right mind would deny that the 88mm L/71 was more powerful than the 17 pdr, given equivalent ammo. All you have to do is look at the relative sizes of the ammo to see that. The downside was of course that the 88mm L/71 was a huge and heavy gun which required a huge and heavy tank to carry it (and was extremely difficult to haul around as a separate anti-tank gun).

However, the 17 pdr had tungsten-cored shot readily available, the 88mm did not. The German shortage of tungsten was such that its common use was restricted to those guns which were virtually useless without it - like the 5 cm L/60 and the 3 and 3.7 cm airborne anti-tank guns. In the circumstances it would actually have been rather stupid to issue tungsten-cored shot for the 88mm L/71 - partly because each shot used a lot of tungsten, partly because it was powerful enough not to need it.

Tony Williams


Another thing that must be remembered is that the APDS rounds made by Britain were better for penetation than the APCR rounds made by Germany, but it was not because the germans couldnt make thier APCR rounds penetrate more, but they just werent prepared to offer accuracy for it like the British.
But the british only got this by offering Accuracy for penetration in thier designs wich ment that the APDS rounds made by Britain seldern were used beyond 1000m... These designs were also used by the americans.

The germans rather wanted a higher penetration compined with also higher accuracy, wich ment they had to make compromises wich also ment a lesser penetration than possible traded for higher accuracy...

But when using APBC ammo wich was the best AT ammo in ww2 (because of blast effect after pen), the german guns were far superior too any allied counterpart....

No Tankgun used during ww2 using APBC ammo could penetrate as much armor as the 88mm L/71 gun mounted on the TigerII.. "Reason" because of the Extreemly High kenetic energy developed by the 88mm L/71 gun, this energy was unsurpassed by any tankgun in the world, until a good time after ww2...

Best regards, KBO

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1335
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Post by Tony Williams » 07 Aug 2004 21:20

KBO wrote:Another thing that must be remembered is that the APDS rounds made by Britain were better for penetation than the APCR rounds made by Germany, but it was not because the germans couldnt make thier APCR rounds penetrate more, but they just werent prepared to offer accuracy for it like the British.


The early APDS rounds certainly suffered in dispersion (i.e. target range accuracy) although they recovered this to some extent because the very high velocity gave them a flat trajectory and a short flight time, both useful in minimising the effects of aiming errors.

But the british only got this by offering Accuracy for penetration in thier designs wich ment that the APDS rounds made by Britain seldern were used beyond 1000m... These designs were also used by the americans.


Not as far as I know - the US used APCR rather than APDS.

The germans rather wanted a higher penetration compined with also higher accuracy, wich ment they had to make compromises wich also ment a lesser penetration than possible traded for higher accuracy...


There were some interesting trade-offs made with APCR design. You could go for a heavy APCR which had much the same ballistics as the APCBC but offered better penetration at all ranges (as the Americans preferred) or you could go for a light very high-velocity APCR which gave much better penetration at short range but lost this more quickly at longer ranges (which is what the Germans generally preferred).

But when using APBC ammo wich was the best AT ammo in ww2 (because of blast effect after pen), the german guns were far superior too any allied counterpart....


Yes, when the fuzes worked properly - which wasn't that easy. The British found the base-fuzed APHE shells so unreliable that they didn't bother with them and relied on solid AP shot only. The Americans used APHE.

No Tankgun used during ww2 using APBC ammo could penetrate as much armor as the 88mm L/71 gun mounted on the TigerII.. "Reason" because of the Extreemly High kenetic energy developed by the 88mm L/71 gun, this energy was unsurpassed by any tankgun in the world, until a good time after ww2


Well, the British 32 pdr AT gun, which was based on the 3.7 inch (94mm) AA gun, developed slightly more muzzle energy than the 88mm L/71. This gun was made experimentally during WW2 and also fitted into the 70-ton Tortoise SPG, but not used operationally. Three years after WW2 ended, the British also introduced the 20 pdr tank gun in the Centurion III tank. This was a much smaller and lighter weapon of 83.5mm calibre, but generated almost exactly the same muzzle energy as the 88mm L/71 - and it had a more accurate APDS available from the start.

Tony Williams

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 07 Aug 2004 21:44

Good post Tony,

British were surely on right track with their APDS, because APCR is more or less of APDS-like penetrator surrounded by an lightweight sabot - causing aerodynamical penalty compared to similar penetrator in "free flight" in APDS round.

It was easier to manufacture APCR, and performance could be more made more consistent, but APDS had an vast amount of potential for improvement and promised superior performance in longer ranges.

Mark V

User avatar
KBO
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 31 Jul 2004 14:27
Location: Denmark

Post by KBO » 07 Aug 2004 21:55

Tony Williams wrote:
Well, the British 32 pdr AT gun, which was based on the 3.7 inch (94mm) AA gun, developed slightly more muzzle energy than the 88mm L/71. This gun was made experimentally during WW2 and also fitted into the 70-ton Tortoise SPG, but not used operationally. Three years after WW2 ended, the British also introduced the 20 pdr tank gun in the Centurion III tank. This was a much smaller and lighter weapon of 83.5mm calibre, but generated almost exactly the same muzzle energy as the 88mm L/71 - and it had a more accurate APDS available from the start.

Tony Williams


Well yeah ok the 32 Pdr developed abit more muzzle energy, but like you said it was only an experimental gun wich never saw service in ww2, so it couldnt be counted as weapon ever being used...

Btw sry for my misstyping i typed APBC instead of the correct APCBC, i Apologize... :oops:

And thanks for your reply... :)

Best regards, KBO

User avatar
KBO
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 31 Jul 2004 14:27
Location: Denmark

Post by KBO » 07 Aug 2004 21:59

Mark V wrote:Good post Tony,

British were surely on right track with their APDS, because APCR is more or less of APDS-like penetrator surrounded by an lightweight sabot - causing aerodynamical penalty compared to similar penetrator in "free flight" in APDS round.

It was easier to manufacture APCR, and performance could be more made more consistent, but APDS had an vast amount of potential for improvement and promised superior performance in longer ranges.

Mark V


True.... APDS is the first choice today if you want to knock out an enemy tank...
The British were on the right path with the APDS back in ww2, it just needed to be perfected abit...

Regards, KBO

Pzgr40
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 12 Apr 2005 10:09
Location: Europe

88mm

Post by Pzgr40 » 13 Apr 2005 12:59

For anybody , interested in the 88mm Pzgr39 in all it's forms used , look here:
http://213.147.167.60/blaze/viewtopic.php?t=1507
With regards , Pzgr40

User avatar
Wolfkin
Member
Posts: 773
Joined: 25 May 2002 18:23
Location: Calgary,AB,Canada

Post by Wolfkin » 18 Apr 2005 01:16

Hello!

Just a correction to this quote:

"The Fire Fly was a good tank killer but there was only a few of them that were only with the British on D day.

The Canadian Army did not get Fire Fly's till much later. The Polish had them before the Canadian did."

This is not correct. The Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade had Sherman Firefly Tanks in Normandy in June of 1944. The Polish 1st Armoured Division would have received them at around the same time or later in July or August of 1944 when it entered combat in Normandy.

See the following thread for good information regarding the Firefly in the Canadian 2nd Armoured Brigade:

viewtopic.php?t=62123&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


Cheers,

Wolfkin

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: Firefly's 76mm 17pdr gun just as effective as tiger's 88 mm?

Post by Alejandro_ » 27 Dec 2008 15:37

KBO wrote:Well Karl Brommann (a Kingtiger crewman) said himself he used Pzgr40 rounds to take out russian JSII's at over 3000m....
Where can I find this interview? by the time Tiger-II was deployed Soviets were in Poland, where its almost impossible to get 3000LOS, and there are no reports on Tiger-II crews using PzGr 40.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”