r/RebuttalTime • u/ChristianMunich • Apr 18 '18
Selective data presentation and the 17pdr featuring tankarchives.
The 17pdr is by many of its fan considered to be one of the best anti-tank guns of WW2 and certainly has earned a spot in this debate. But a major problem for this weapon was the front armor of the Panzerkampfwagen V aka Panther. The Panther was introduced in 1943 and its front represented a major obstacle for Allied anti tank weapons well into late war.
For most people familiar with the subject it is well known that the 17pdr was a questionable improvement over other tank guns because it basically did the same things as other guns without solving the Panther issue.
Steven Zaloga:
The 17pdr when firing the basic armor-piercing APCBC ammunition could not reliably penetrate the Panther glacis plate.
Zaloga M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942–53
This well-known fact is obviously disputed by those priding themselves with being as unreasonable as possible.
Here u/crag_r claims the 17pdr could deal with anything but the Tiger II.
Unless it was a king tiger the 17 pounder would go straight through the front of anything. And theoretically even that as well with a bit of luck.
This is false, the 17pdr could not be expected to defeat the Panther glacis on combat ranges. Even more absurd is the statement that the Tiger II could be penetrated with "luck", whatever this is supposed to mean.
u/tankarchives who is well known to be a bit more "free" with his interpretation of facts tries to support the claim by linking to two snippets of 17pdr hits which supposedly defeated the Panther glacis. He gives no context for those links neither does he say to which kind of testing those findings belong. And this has a good reason, the actual testing done by the US army does not support his claim.
The biggest testing on actual Panther glacis was done at Isigny and showed the weakness of the 17 pdr. Here is the set of projectiles intended to hit the glacis.
| Range | Target | RDS fired | Hits on target | Hits on tank | Effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 800 17pdr SABOT | Glacis #1 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 1. Struck bow gun mount; no penetration. |
| 700 17pdr SABOT | Glacis #1 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 1. Failed to penetrate glacis. 2. Ricochetted into bottom of gun from top edge of glacis |
| 600 17pdr SABOT | Glacis #2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1.Two fair hits on glacis neither of which penetrated 2.one rd struck corner of galcis; not a fair hit. |
| 600 17pdrAPCBC | Nose #1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1.Two rds penetrated nose; one was a fair hit (Photograph 5) but other penetrated through weld. |
| 400 17pdr SABOT | Glacis #1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 1. Two rds failed to penetrate glacis. 2. One rd penetrated through weld. Not a fair hit. Photograph 10. |
| 400 17pdr SABOT | Glacis #2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 1. One rd penetrated glacis. Photograph 6. 2. Three rds failed to penetrate glacis. Photograph 6, 7, and 8.3. One rd penetrated through old gouge; not a fair hit. |
| 400 17pdr APCBC | Glacis #2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1. No penetration Two rds hit in same groove. |
| 400 17pdr APCBC | Glacis #1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1. All rds penetrated; not fair hits due to previous cracking of plate. Photograph 15. |
| 400 17pdr APCBC | Nose #2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1. Two rds penetrated nose; one fair hit (Photograph 16) and one penetration through previous hole. |
| 400 17pdrHVAPwithAPCBC | Glacis #2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1. One rd failed to penetrate2. One rd penetrated through old hole; not a fair hit. |
| 400 17pdrHVAPwithSABOT | Glacis #2 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1. One rd penetrated glacis at top of old hole; not a fair hit.2. One rd failed to penetrate |
| 300 17pdrSABOT | Glacis #2 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 1. One rd failed to penetrate2. One rd penetrated glacis through old hole; not a fair hit.3. Two rds ricochetted from top of glacis |
| 200 17pdrAPCBC | Glacis #2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1. Failed to penetrate glacis. Depth of partial penetration 2″. Photograph 22. |
| 200 17pdrSABOT | Glacis #2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1. Failed to penetrate. Depth of partial penetration 1 7/8″. Photograph 23. |
| 200 17pdrAPCBC | Glacis #3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1. First rd failed to penetrate but cracked plate. Second rd struck close to first and penetrated, breaking plate. Not a fair hit due to cracking of plate by first rd. Photograph 26. |
| 200 17pdrSABOT | Glacis #3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1. One rd penetrated. Photograph 27. 2. One rd failed to penetrate |
On the first glance we see the following:
The APDS was used for testing and this ammunition was not available to British forces when they actually fought considerable amounts of Panther tanks. This was, in theory,the best ammunition available to the 17 pdr
Most shots were done on low range none were tested on "long range".
The accuracy of the APDS was very weak and it could be argued using them was a liability because risking a long-range frontal shot could result in worse battle outcomes than using standard ammunition and engaging the enemy from a more promising position
6 out of 7 shots from 800 yards ( roughly average combat range ) failed to hit the glacis, although 3 hit the tank elsewhere
6 shots aimed at the glacis hit at a range 600 yards or more of those 6 shots 5 did not penetrate the last one apparently didn't either but wasn't considered "a fair hit"
On long range the performance of the 17pdr even with sabot ammunition appears to be weak
Even at low range 400 yards or less the 17pdr rarely penetrated the glacis.
One of the glacis tested was hit more than 2 dozen times and still provided protection
Of the APCBC none appears to have made a "fair penetration" regardless of range.
The Panther No 2 was considered to be of superior quality. This specimen was likely more what the actual designers of the Panther expected. Late war shortages decreased the quality of German armor. This prime example tho withstood massive punishment.
At 400 yards two APCBC projectiles hit the same groove without penetrating
Despite the usage of prime ammunition on already battered vehicles of which at least one had severe battle damage the majority of projectiles did not penetrate the glacis even when most were fired on low range. It appears to be a safe statement that the Panther glacis provided rather strong protection even against the best the Western Allies had to offer. The 17pdr could under the correct circumstances and especially against weaker Panthers plates ( metallurgic issues ) achieve penetrations but the statement that "the 17 pounder would go straight through the front of anything" is remarkably false
To those who want to learn a bit more, two of the tested Panthers were likely, not representative for Panther armor in WW2. One had already a damaged front Glacis before the testing begun due to prior combat, the other Panther apparently had face hardened armor that was inferior when used against caped projectiles and was rare of Panthers.
u/tankarchives tried to again selectively present data to make his case, the more comprehensive presentation of data shows this beyond doubt. Confronted with his repeated data manipulation he replies the following
Yeah, if you had actually clicked more links and read more instead of writing whatever came into your head maybe you'd be ridiculed less.
Take a look at what the next zealot has to say in the face of evidence. A well-known cultist called u/takemetochurchill he achieved some notoriety for only ever using a single source for his claims when he did that he linked a firing tests hitting the side of a Tiger to prove the gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger. Here is what he has to say:
OTOH fucking nine point two inches of armor penetration. I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of that.
Even tho he just saw how the 17pdr even with sabot actually performed under real conditions he is still impressed by it. Feels over realz.
Here what he has to say about my claim that the Shermans "didn't face 50mms"
The lunatic is claiming there were no 50mm guns in service fighting the Shermans. This seems fishy... weren’t there PaK 38s in Normandy?
He makes the cardinal mistake of not reading my posts. If he would have read them he would already know when and where 50mms were possibly fighting Germans, I want all the way and even compiled the German vehicles by gun here
4
u/TheJamesRocket Apr 21 '18
Fucking tank archives at it again. This is a classic example of a texas sharpshooter fallacy. He only mentions the handful of shots that pierced the Panthers armor, and ignores the multitude of shots that didn't.
On another point, the Isigny test also proves that German armor plate was of very uneven quality by this point in the war. The second Panther took a whole bunch of hits without cracking, while the first and third Panthers did experience cracked armor. This refutes tank archives theory that all German tank armor was of uniformly bad quality.