What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Show your 17 PR Rounds

The drawings, if drawn correctly, just about explains it all. The Canadian APDS was screwed and glued to the case and M8’s was probably punched stabbed as well. Examination of M8’s projectile reveals there are radial weakening slots machined around the base (from the drawing it would appear these are cut just above the thread). Furthermore, it can be seen that the lands between the slots have been grooved, presumably to weaken them. Thus, on firing, the lands will fracture and the base will remain attached to the case.

TimG
 
Last edited:
Thanks Tim, all
Can we just clarify a few points.

1. Is the Canadian APDS, actually marked APPS or APDS, or a mixture,
2. Were all Canadian AP{P/D}S projectiles marked with DDL numbers?, or is that a British designation of development? I.e. We're there service rounds.
3. Is the design of the US M331A1 HVAP and Canadian AP{P/D}S identical, similar or very different
4. Did the Canadian AP{P/D}S actually use a standard 17pdr case
5. M8 shows the Canadian AP{P/D}S sitting on top of a standard 17pdr case... and neither inside or outside, so did it use a modified case?

rich
 
My Canadian projectile is marked "APDS/T". These two attached photos show you all the markings on the pot - except the red "T". This strikes me as a service round.
 

Attachments

  • Canadian APDS.jpg
    Canadian APDS.jpg
    274.6 KB · Views: 48
  • Canadian APDS 2.jpg
    Canadian APDS 2.jpg
    276 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
Thanks Tim, all
Can we just clarify a few points.

1. Is the Canadian APDS, actually marked APPS or APDS, or a mixture,
2. Were all Canadian AP{P/D}S projectiles marked with DDL numbers?, or is that a British designation of development? I.e. We're there service rounds.
3. Is the design of the US M331A1 HVAP and Canadian AP{P/D}S identical, similar or very different
4. Did the Canadian AP{P/D}S actually use a standard 17pdr case
5. M8 shows the Canadian AP{P/D}S sitting on top of a standard 17pdr case... and neither inside or outside, so did it use a modified case?

rich

Some photos of the stamping's on the one I have.
Clearly marked APPS.
Dave.

IMG_1904.jpgIMG_1905.jpg
 
The case would have to be specific for the APDS, as it would have a narrower neck than standard that was presumably threaded.

TimG
 
I also have a Canadian 17pdr APDS projectile. Nearly the same as M8's. Marked "*SHOT APDS/T QF 17PDR AND 77MM CDN MK1*". It is made by CCM but appears to be a test piece as it is stamped "P/8" on the penetrator and in ink on the sabot/pot. I don't have a casing for it yet, but the inside of the pot base has very fine rings machined into it. Could those be there to hold the casing to the projectile?
 
A bit of extra information on the 17PR Canadian.

The case was specific to the APDS round as the neck was screw threaded. The adhesive used on the rounds caused problems as it was too strong and it wasn't possible to break the rounds down. It was intended to remedy this by using a slighter weaker adhesive in future manufacture, whether this occured or not I don't know as I could find no reference.

Although the projectile is marked 77mm it was not used in this calibre, as the 77mm case was apparently not suitable for conversion - no reaon being given.

The 15" primer was also case specific and drew some criticism from the Ordnance Board as they considered it inconsistent (reading between the lines they weren't overly impressed with the thought (or lack of), that had gone into its design).

Lt. Col. Caddy R.A. put in a post war claim for the design of the Canadian APDS. He was a British Army officer posted to Valcartier, Canada as a Proof Officer during WWII. The Ministry of Supply duly contacted the Canadian Army for confirmation. However, nothwithstanding an emphatic reply to the contrary from a Canadian Major General, Caddy was nevertheless awarded £500 in 1956.

TimG
 
Last edited:
17 Pdr APC

A bit of extra information on the 17PR Canadian.

The case was specific to the APDS round as the neck was screw threaded. The adhesive used on the rounds caused problems as it was too strong and it wasn't possible to break the rounds down. It was intended to remedy this by using a slighter weaker adhesive in future manufacture, whether this occured or not I don't know as I could find no reference.

Although the projectile is marked 77mm it was not used in this calibre, as the 77mm case was apparently not suitable for conversion - no reaon being given.

The 15" primer was also case specific and drew some criticism from the Ordnance Board as they considered it inconsistent (reading between the lines they weren't overly impressed with the thought (or lack of), that had gone into its design).

Lt. Col. Caddy R.A. put in a post war claim for the design of the Canadian APDS. He was a British Army officer posted to Valcartier, Canada as a Proof Officer during WWII. The Ministry of Supply duly contacted the Canadian Army for confirmation. However, nothwithstanding an emphatic reply to the contrary from a Canadian Major General, Caddy was nevertheless awarded £500 in 1956.

TimG

Hi there, first time posting here, I have a 17 Pdr APC with case and was wondering if anyone knew if the APC round was used in the Firefly as well as the field gun as I've read they weren't used in a tank but I've seen drawings of the stowage department of a firefly which seemed to show APC rounds.
 
Hi Tevie,

My understanding is yes (with very slight hesitation)
APC were given to both Sherman IC and VC, as well as APCBC, although Ive never seen a photograph of crews loading a firefly with anything other than APCBC and HE.


  • There is an 8th armoured brigade document showing ammunition loadings around December 1944, including APC and APCBC (but not APDS Interestingly, which arrived during Totalize I believe)
  • The famous testing that highlighted the inaccuracy of the early APDS was compared against APC (Although I've never found out which APDS design rectified the inaccuracy issues, and when)
  • Bovington and various other AFV documents as you say definitely DO show stowage that includes APC, APCBC and HE.

Clearly the gun could fire them, and if there was an inexhaustible supply of APCBC, why use APC?. Possibly spare stock?
Hopefully someone else has information too...Id err toward yes.

Rich
 
Tevie, Richard -
Although I don't know about the specifics of Firefly and other AFV usage (I have also heard APCBC only for AFVs, but this surprised me somewhat) I can provide some production figures to get a sense of relative useage overall -
All in all, about as many tank mounted 17pdr guns were produced as AT guns (5189 vs 5898)
APC was clearly the most common round
AP - 979,000
APC - 1,519,000
APCBC - 699,000
APDS - 177,000
The APC went out of production in 1945, but in 1944 it was the most produced round and likely still had the largest stockpile.
Based on this information, I would say it seems unlikely that APC rounds weren't used in tanks and SPGs.
 
I've just been going through this thread to try to learn more and be able to identify a round in a photo from Kinmel Camp in the late 40s.

On the subject of rounds given to tanks and SPGs, I can provide some (very) incomplete information. Archers started to be introduced in November 1944 to the anti-tank regiments within infantry divisions. Not many war diaries provide information about ammunition but 55 Anti-Tank Regiment (the first one to get Archers) mentions a scale of ammunition for SPs of only HE and APCBC in November '44. (There is no mention of ADPS for Archers until a very few issued in February 1945, which could be due to supply?)

So I suspect that from November onward, and presumably earlier, M10s would also only have been issued with APCBC and APDS, and no APC or AP.
 
Rich,

Images of my 1943 APCBC 17pdr.

One thing to bare in mind regarding the question of APDS accuracy/shot consistency in the 17 pounder is how very inconsistent/inaccurate the actually sabot was. Though it was a great "hole puncher" British figures paint a pretty woeful picture. Firing at a 5'x2' target (Panther, hull down) @ 600Yds the APDS first round strike was only 34% (73% APCBC) and @1000Yds was only 15% (45% APCBC). So, I guess I would go for the APCBC round if I were in my Firefly !
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1064.jpg
    IMG_1064.jpg
    328.3 KB · Views: 61
  • IMG_1065.jpg
    IMG_1065.jpg
    306.3 KB · Views: 68
That figures could be found in report held in The National Archives, WO 291/1263 'Firing trials with 17 pdr gun in Sherman I using APC and discarding sabot shot', 1944.
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Reviving this thread.

The picture below extracted from "Challenger 1 armament training pamphlet" from 1945 shows a HE projectile different from those in this thread (fert and rickwedlock)
Is is just because it's a poor drawing, or is it a different variant ?

Image9.jpg

Image10.jpg

Cheers,

S.
 
for info my 17pr AP shot is marked AP 17PDR & 77MMV1 new line FVRDE 2/88/385 new line PAT LOT 2 10 57 new line M 2054 B then between the band is 3890
 
there was another version of the 17pdr HE which was taller and held more explosive but the one in your picture seems to be a different shape, if i had to guess i would say it was a poor drawing although this would be unusual as the training books are normally accurate
 
Top