Реальное бронепробитие британских и немецких противотанковых пушек во Вторую Мировую войну

Analysis of WWII British and German anti-tank guns, focusing on test results of the 76mm M1 and 17-pounder against Panther tanks in 1944.

Key Takeaways

The 17-pounder and Pak 40 were excellent but not invincible anti-tank guns of WWII.
German Panther tank guns had limited effective range against Soviet T-34s, contrary to some modern myths.
Armor penetration depends on many factors beyond thickness, requiring experimental validation.
Soviet artillery, designed by Vasily Grabin, played a crucial role and deserves more recognition.
Rapid tank development during WWII quickly outpaced the effectiveness of mid-war caliber guns like 75mm.

What the video covers

The video presents a detailed analysis of British and American anti-tank guns during WWII, based on a US Army test report from August 1944.
Tests compared the American 76mm M1 gun and the British 17-pounder against captured German Panther tanks in Isigny-sur-Mer, France.
The report, sourced from the US National Archives, challenges popular myths about the 17-pounder's superiority in the Russian-speaking community.
The video also discusses the German Panther’s KwK 42 75mm gun, its capabilities, and limitations against Soviet tanks like the T-34 and T-44.
It highlights the German assessment that the effective firing range against T-34s was about 800 meters, not several kilometers as often exaggerated.
The presenter introduces a mini-series on Soviet artillery designer Vasily Grabin and Soviet guns like the ZiS-2, ZiS-3, and A-19.
The video emphasizes the complexity of armor penetration, noting factors beyond thickness such as material quality, slope, and heat treatment.
It critiques both overestimation and underestimation of WWII anti-tank guns, advocating for objective, experimental evaluation.
The video touches on the rapid tank development during the war, which made 75mm caliber guns less effective by mid-war.
The report includes detailed technical data on ammunition types, muzzle velocities, and test results, including failures against newer Soviet tanks.

Chapters

What was the purpose of the US Army tests conducted in Isigny-sur-Mer in 1944?

The tests aimed to compare the effectiveness of the American 76mm M1 gun and the British 17-pounder gun against the frontal armor of captured German Panther tanks.

How did the German Panther's KwK 42 gun perform against Soviet T-34 tanks according to the video?

The Germans considered the maximum guaranteed effective firing range against T-34s to be about 800 meters, much shorter than some modern claims, showing the gun's limitations.

Why does the video emphasize experimental testing over theoretical armor penetration calculations?

Because armor penetration depends on many factors like armor quality, slope, and material treatment, which cannot be accurately predicted without practical firing tests.

Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown

Speaker A

I am glad to welcome you back, dear viewers. It’s your old friend Pozdamych. And today, we will once again dive into the specifics of British and American anti-tank weaponry of the Second World War. And alas, if you, dear viewers, are what you might

Speaker A

call a fan of the 17-pounder, you are really not going to like this video.

Speaker A

But here, as they say, don't blame me. This is just a practically verbatim translation of an American test report comparing the American 76mm M1 gun and the British 17-pounder gun against the frontal armor of a Panther tank. The

Speaker A

tests took place in the French town of Isigny in late August 1944. The document itself was dug up at the NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration. The US National Archives and Records Administration.

Speaker A

And it became known to us thanks to Jim O'Neal. A person widely known in narrow circles. For many years, he has been digitizing papers related to that war.

Speaker A

Specifically, the document is located here. The fund title is Records of the US Army European Theater of Operations.

Speaker A

The document is the final report of the board of officers chaired by Colonel Andrew Peomire. The essence of the tests. Actual firing on captured Panther tanks, Ausf. A and G modifications, seized in Normandy. The tests were conducted at the

Speaker A

Isigny-sur-Mer proving ground in France from August 19th to 21st, 1944. Its authenticity is not disputed in the works of such English-speaking experts as Steven Zaloga and Lorrin Bird, who are little known here, but are true heavyweights over there. To settle the

Speaker A

question of authenticity, I not only agree but also ask you to subject the report to every possible check, as this document is capable, perhaps, of blowing up the notion of the 17-pounder that has formed in the Russian-speaking blogosphere, much like a high-explosive

Speaker A

bomb does to an outhouse. The document will be quoted in its entirety, without omissions, with my rare comments. Well, that’s probably it for the summary part. Now I will be a bit pedantic about the German Pak 40 guns and the

Speaker A

Panther's KwK 42. And if you are not interested in this, then feel free to skip the video to right here, and that is exactly where the reported document will be. Well, if you didn’t skip ahead, then I would like to provide a

Speaker A

few clarifications. Actually, strangely enough, this video is the beginning of a mini-series about Vasily Grabin. If artillery is called the god of war, then Grabin is, perhaps, what? A god of gods. I have intended to talk about him

Speaker A

and his guns for a very long time. And now, I have finally gotten around to it. There will definitely be a story about the ZiS-2 and ZiS-3. We will touch upon tank guns. We will certainly talk about the A-19 and much more.

Speaker A

Therefore, I decided to, as they say, clear the field a little. Because, as practice shows, a considerable number of history enthusiasts are firmly convinced that Soviet guns couldn't penetrate anything and never hit anything. But the Pak 40 or the 17-

Speaker A

pounder could hit a mosquito in the eye from a parsec away and could pierce 100 tanks if you lined them up one after another. And, well, if those were Soviet tanks, then of course, all thousand of them. Alas, the real Nazis

Speaker A

were significantly dumber than modern Germanophiles and didn't even know how remarkable their weaponry was. I'm not joking. The Nazis, for instance, didn't know that their KwK 42, the 75mm Panther gun, could pierce those laughable Soviet T-34s from 2 km or

Speaker A

even 5 km every single time. And here I'm not even asking you to verify it by all available means, because I'd bet my life on it being true. Look, there is this amazing little book called the Pantherfibel. Something like a Panther

Speaker A

primer. An instruction manual for using the Panzerkampfwagen V tank. The book is, of course, a blast. Here, for example, is a page from it. Well, I had books like this when I was five. But that's not what interests us. It lists

Speaker A

the main adversaries of the new Nazi kitties, and, of course, the T-34 is among them. So, the Germans considered the maximum guaranteed effective firing range against the T-34 to be not 5 km, not three, and not even two, but 800

Speaker A

meters. Don't believe me? See for yourself what kind of Soviet soldier they drew. By the way, regarding the slap, I can only say that the author categorically condemns it. The Germans messed up the armor stats for the T-34

Speaker A

here, but that has absolutely no effect on the penetration distance, because besides "who has it thicker," armor has a ton of other parameters: quality, composition, additives, heat treatment, slope angle, cast vs. rolled, the quality of the casting and the quality

Speaker A

of the rolling, and so on. Et cetera. So, the real effectiveness of a gun against a particular tank is determined only experimentally. Actually, that's why we fired at captured Panthers and Tigers, and the Nazis fired at T-34s and Panzers. As we can see, by 1943 the

Speaker A

Nazis had already studied the T-34 quite well and determined that for the Panther's KwK 42 armament, the maximum guaranteed kill distance for a T-34 was 800 meters. Yes, by the way, for the much newer Sherman—3 years of development for a World War II tank is

Speaker A

an era. The effective firing distance was a bit over 1,000 meters. And for the M3 Lee, as much as two. So, the Nazis, unlike modern specialists, did not treat the T-34's armor with contempt. And please note, these are

Speaker A

data for the KwK 42, which, while having the same caliber as the Pak 40, was significantly more powerful. A longer barrel—much longer, 70 calibers versus 46—and a larger charge ensured a higher muzzle velocity of 935 m/s versus 790. Dear viewers,

Speaker A

two points. Please, don't write to me saying this is all old Soviet propaganda and that you know exactly how it really was. Take all your questions to the Third Reich's Panzer Command. Or whatever it was that handled their tank manuals. And, of

Speaker A

course, one should not fall into the other extreme and despise German anti-tank guns. Alas, both the Pak 40 and the KwK 42 were excellent weapons of the Second World War. And they bled us dry. Another point is that, as we

Speaker A

can see, dismissing the armor of the T-34s is a bit hasty. Yes, the Paks and KwKs, with all sincere respect, are still not plasma cannons from an Imperial Destroyer. Objectivity is needed. The Germans honestly squeezed everything they could out of the 75mm

Speaker A

caliber. Another point is that the rapid development of tanks during World War II made 3 inches largely irrelevant by the middle of the war. And please, I ask you, don't yell at me regarding the caliber. This is not my view. This is

Speaker A

the view of the Nazis themselves. As early as the spring of 1943, when Panther production was just being established, the project was deemed unsuccessful, and accelerated development of the Panther II began.

Speaker A

And the main issue with the then-brand-new Panther was the impossibility of mounting an 88mm gun.

Speaker A

Another point is how one could manage to design a fifty-ton tank on which it was impossible to mount a gun larger than 75mm in principle, but that is, oh, a separate gloomy Teutonic genius.

Speaker A

That's not what we're talking about today. Well, the fact that the Nazis were burying the 75mm caliber in 1943 actually shows that their heads were working, in principle. Look, if the war had lasted another year, German tankers would have faced not only the

Speaker A

practically invulnerable IS-2s on the battlefield, but also the IS-3s and swarms of T-44s. And that would be the end, I'm not joking. They even tried firing the KwK 42 at a T-44 twice, in October 1944 and January 1945. The

Speaker A

result was roughly the following. The German armor-piercing projectile, the Panzergranate 39/42 with a blunt nose and ballistic cap, experienced colossal normalizing bending loads when encountering armor at a 60-degree angle from the vertical. It simply disintegrated, shattered against the

Speaker A

armor, or ricocheted. The report stated: the Panther's gun does not provide penetration of the T-44's upper front plate from any distance, including

Speaker A

the Panther would definitely have become toothless. I won't even mention the Pak 40. And the British 17-pounder is on the same path, only noticeably slower. And they, the Brits, by the way , encountered this culture shock. I mean the encounter with Soviet tanks

Speaker A

that were created, in essence, during World War II, but didn't make it to the war. When the British were able to study the IS-3 and T-54 in Hungary, they instantly stopped praying to their mega-guns, the 17-and 20-pounders, and

Speaker A

rushed to develop something more serious. And the IS-3 and T-54 are, I remind you, tanks developed in 1945.

Speaker A

Another funny thing is that people keep writing to me that stupid Soviets never invent anything themselves and only steal ideas. To be honest, I got so fed up with it that I even made a whole video on this subject. But here is an

Speaker A

interesting point. The entire development of British anti-tank guns is someone’s stolen idea. This time, they didn't choose the Pak 40 as the basis, like they did for the 17-pounder , or the KwK 43 or Pak 43, like for the

Speaker A

20-pounder, but the Soviet D-10. That’s how the A7 appeared. As a result, no hate or contempt. The Pak 40 , KwK 42, and the 17-pounder are excellent three-inch guns with excellent armor penetration. But here you have to take into account the word

Speaker A

"three-inch." I never tire of repeating that physics is a pseudoscience that is thoroughly Soviet. It doesn't care at all. It doesn't care if it's stamped " made by übermenschen in the Reich" or "made by high elves in England." Even

Speaker A

if the same gun had both a "made by Aryans" and "made by elves" stamp, it wouldn't change the picture. Physics just dictates more velocity and mass.

Speaker A

Well, it's a pseudoscience, what can you expect from it? And from 3 inches, with all the technological bells and whistles, the science of physics only allowed us to pull out what was possible. So that is what they pulled

Speaker A

out, probably, that's all. Oh, I almost forgot, I can't help but mention it. Besides the Pantherfibel, the Germans also had the Tigerfibel. That one, you have to admit, was for grown-ups—none of your childish nursery rhymes or pictures of dragons. Something like

Speaker A

this. Sigh. I look at our instructions from that war and realize we will never catch up to Europe. Well, I think that’s definitely all for the introduction. I will point out one thing. Links to all the documents mentioned above are in my Telegram.

Speaker A

Check them, verify them, look for discrepancies. I invite everyone to Telegram to discuss this topic. And now , with a blessing, we shall begin. I am starting to quote the document. And here is the quote: "Test firing by the

Speaker A

US Army, conducted in August 1944 by the Twelfth Army Group in Isigny, France, Board of Officers" 655 August 30, 1944. Subject: Final report of the Board of Officers appointed to determine the comparative effectiveness of ammunition for the 76mm gun and the

Speaker A

17-pounder gun. A clarification regarding the 76mm American gun. It is the M1 tank gun. From now on, I will call the British gun the "17-pounder" and the American one the "76mm." Oh, excuse me. Another clarification, or as they say, "as we were going to press."

Speaker A

While I was recording and editing the video, I hopped onto Wikipedia to snag a photo of that very American M1 gun.

Speaker A

Specifically, this one. It's convenient . Photos there are guaranteed to be in the public domain and the quality is generally not bad. And in the article about the Sherman, a quote caught my eye. This is already a quote from Wiki.

Speaker A

It is an interesting fact that the British, dissatisfied with the power of the M3 gun, began working on equipping the M4 with the 17-pounder long before the American command seriously concerned itself with the issue. Since the British obtained very good results,

Speaker A

they suggested that the Americans produce the 17-pounder under license and install it on American Shermans, especially since a new turret was not required for its installation. Due to an unwillingness to install foreign weaponry on their tanks, the Americans,

Speaker A

after a few experiments, decided to abandon this solution and began installing their own, less powerful M1 gun. Well, precisely the hero of the article. Facepalm. I get the feeling that Wiki has been taken over by the sect of the 17-pounder witnesses. To

Speaker A

protect their deity, they are ready to call not just the Soviets, but the Yanks stupid as well. Yeah, sure. The 17-pounder performed better than the M1 with armor-piercing rounds. But the Yanks had an excellent-working HVAP round, which was no worse than the

Speaker A

British AP, which, by the way, I will talk about below. And as for the super-cool British sabot round, called SVDS Mark 1T in the article, it definitely had better penetration, but it couldn't hit a damn thing, which, again, I will cover in maximum detail

Speaker A

today. So, in summary. The Yanks would have had to shove the 17-pounder into the unfortunate Sherman sideways and backwards, just like the Brits. I'm not joking, it was installed sideways precisely because it wouldn't fit otherwise. Make the turret almost

Speaker A

uninhabitable because it was so cramped . Turn the crew into deaf invalids. Yes , you see, a proper recoil mechanism wouldn't fit in the Sherman turret even sideways or backwards. And the Brits initially wanted to abandon it entirely

Speaker A

. They seriously considered the possibility of absorbing the recoil only with the tank hull, and the crew inside, of course. However, that turned out to be too much even for British scientists. They built a recoil system, but based on the 6-pounder gun system.

Speaker A

Just imagine how effectively that absorbed the recoil of the powerful 17- pounder cannon. But that’s not all.

Speaker A

The British plasma-gun increased the Sherman's weight by 1.5 to 2 tons. And the suspension of the poor American tank was already at its limit by that time. Think that’s everything? Not a chance. Those very 2 tons in the turret

Speaker A

raised the center of gravity of the already tall tank to an unreachable height. And that is exactly what you need when driving across a slope. And if the Americans had done all this, they would have gotten, well, judge for

Speaker A

yourself. If you only consider British AP, the Yanks covered its advantage with their excellent-working HVAP rounds. And the British sabot round did not work. Moreover, it didn't work to such an extent that even Wiki, with eyes cast down, was forced to state

Speaker A

below. The first production series of shells had significant manufacturing defects, which allowed them to be used only at short ranges. Well, the Americans looked at this, did the math, and installed their own M1 gun on the tank. And at the same time, they

Speaker A

accelerated the creation of a tank with a 90mm gun and the T26. That's it. And who are they? Well, obviously, dumb chauvinists. I applaud at length, standing. Well, let's get back to the American report, finally. To whom? To

Speaker A

the Commanding General of the Twelfth Army Group. A board appointed in accordance with the attached order met at the artillery range organized by the U.S. First Army near Isigny, France, at 10:30 a.m. on August 19, 1944, and conducted test firings against the

Speaker A

frontal armor of German Panther tanks. Firing continued on August 20 and 21, 1944, as weather conditions and the availability of target tanks permitted.

Speaker A

Due to the urgency of the test, a preliminary report dated August 21, 1944, was submitted on August 22, 1944.

Speaker A

Ammunition. Specifications of the tested standard ammunition are provided below in the ammunition specification tables. 76mm APC M62. Armor-piercing capped shell with a ballistic cap.

Speaker A

Muzzle velocity 2,600 feet per second. 792 m/s. Round weight 24.8 lbs, 11.25 kg. Projectile weight 15.44 lbs, 7 kg.

Speaker A

Description: armor-piercing shell with armor-piercing and ballistic caps, base fuze, and tracer. 76mm HVAP T4.

Speaker A

Armor-piercing composite rigid shell. Muzzle velocity 3,400 feet per second, 1036 m/s. Round weight 18.9 lbs, 8.57 kg. Projectile weight, lbs, 4.31. kg.

Speaker A

Description: lightweight shell with a tungsten carbide core, weighing 3.9 lbs , 1.77 kg, and 1.5 inches in diameter in a steel jacket. Aluminum body, steel base pallet, ballistic cap, and tracer.

Speaker A

17-pounder APCBC. Armor-piercing capped shell with a ballistic cap. Muzzle velocity 2,900 feet per second, 884 m/s . Round weight 35.5 lbs, 16.10 kg.

Speaker A

Projectile weight 17 lbs, 7.7 kg. Description: armor-piercing shell with armor-piercing and ballistic caps and tracer. 17-pounder sabot.

Speaker A

Armor-piercing discarding sabot shell. Muzzle velocity 3,950 feet per second, 1,204. m/s. Round weight 26.3 lbs, 11.93 kg. Projectile weight 8.15. lbs, 3.7 kg. Description: armor-piercing discarding sabot shell with a tungsten carbide core weighing 3.9 lbs, 1.77 kg, and 1.5 inches in diameter. Steel base

Speaker A

and tracer. A note on the side. Note the specs of the 76mm APC, that is, armor-piercing capped shell. 792 m/s with a projectile mass of 7 kg. This is a direct equivalent of the Pak 40, which the Americans created and fitted

Speaker A

into a tank. And they fitted it properly, unlike that gruesome Firefly abomination. But who heard of it against the backdrop of the Pak and the 17-pounder? This brings me to the question of where the Yanks and Brits drew their ideas from. And note the

Speaker A

British APCBC, that is, armor-piercing capped shell with a ballistic cap at 884 m/s with a mass of 7.7 kg. This is, of course, noticeably cooler than the Yankee one, but if we take the 7.5- centimeter Panzergranate 39/42 KwK 42,

Speaker A

that is, the main Panther shell, we see that it is slightly lighter, 6.8 kg, but the velocity is significantly higher. 535 m/s. Let's recall Soviet pseudo-physics. The power of the punch grows proportionally to the mass and proportionally to the square of the

Speaker A

velocity. And we admit that the British gun is hardly better than the Panther's KwK 42, which was supposed to become useless against Soviet tanks in 1946, and it did. But Soviet tank design is still stupid, and the German elves are

Speaker A

very sharp. And the sharpest thing they have is the 17-pounder. Let's continue reading the report. In addition to the aforementioned ammunition, the commission fired a 76mm HVAP projectile , an armor-piercing composite rigid ( APCR) shell from the 17-pounder

Speaker A

anti-tank gun, using propellant charges from the 17-pounder APCBC shells, armor-piercing capped ballistic capped, and the 17-pounder Sabot shells, armor-piercing discarding sabot projectiles in 17-pounder APCBC casings . Test characteristics. The aforementioned ammunition was fired at the frontal armor of three Panther

Speaker A

tanks. General characteristics of the frontal armor: UFP 85 mm, 3.35 inches at 55 °, and LFP 65 mm, 2.56 inches at 55 °. Note from the narrator. As we can see, it wasn't just the Germans who couldn't calculate the armor. Next, a

Speaker A

quote again. According to the American basic armor penetration, the vertical equivalent for the UFP is 187 mm, 7.36 inches, and for the LFP it is 139 mm, 5.47 inches. Due to the uneven ground, the UFP angle from the vertical on the

Speaker A

tanks used in this test was 57 ° 34 ', 57 ° 5' and 56 ° 53 '. The LFP thickness on one of the tested tanks was 66.67 mm, 2.5/8 5/8 inches. Note from the narrator. This excerpt is not

Speaker A

entirely clear, but overall it doesn't really change anything at all. As I already said, the power of a gun against a tank can only be determined by firing tests. Let's read the report again. Significant differences were found in the quality of the upper

Speaker A

frontal plate armor on the three tanks. Tank number two, hereafter referred to as the "Best Plate," withstood 30 hits at distances from 600 yards (548 m) to 200 yards (183 m) without cracking.

Speaker A

Tank 1 and Tank 3, hereafter referred to as the "Average Plate," cracked after a relatively small number of hits . Thus, all conclusions are based exclusively on the relative results of shots fired at the same plate.

Speaker A

Comparisons between shots fired at different plates are not conducted. Also, the results of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion for the distance at which it is guaranteed to penetrate the Panther's frontal armor. The last few

Speaker A

words of the sentence are illegible. Effectiveness was determined by comparing the number of penetrations with the number of shots fired and the number of hits received on a specific plate. A penetration is considered a case where the projectile passed

Speaker A

completely through the plate. Only valid, clean hits were considered when determining penetration. Hits on the edges of the plates, welds, and joints of the plates. Also, hits into already existing cracks in the plate were not counted as valid hits. Podsmych's note.

Speaker A

A fantastically interesting excerpt. We often see theses like "during tests of such a Soviet gun, there were no valid penetrations." And from this follows an instantaneous conclusion. Meaning, the gun couldn't penetrate. As we can see, that’s not how it works. Alas. As a

Speaker A

rule, there aren't enough fresh Panthers or Tigers for every shot of every gun at every distance, alas. So, we start with the weakest gun at the maximum distance, and then move the target, or the gun, closer, and closer

Speaker A

still, until the minimum. Then they take a bigger gun and start again from the maximum distance. Then a bigger one still. And so on, up to the ML-20. At some point, the tank begins to resemble Swiss cheese, and achieving a valid hit

Speaker A

—that is, on an absolutely undamaged spot—becomes increasingly difficult. And this is not a fantasy of Podsmych; as we can see, it works this way everywhere. Well, "Soviets are stupid" anyway. If there are no valid penetrations, then their guns couldn't

Speaker A

penetrate a damn thing. Continuing with the report. The line of fire was approximately perpendicular to the transverse axis of the target tanks.

Speaker A

Firing from the seventeen-pounder guns was conducted by two highly qualified British gunners from among the NCOs and enlisted personnel. The seventy-six-millimeter gun was fired by two officers possessing significant experience in testing firing procedures . Test results. Detailed results in the

Speaker A

form of a table with photographs are attached as Appendix AA1. Accuracy, grouping. The tabular data does not provide a complete picture of the comparative accuracy of different ammunition. For all standard shots, with the exception of the seventeen-pounder APDS round, the

Speaker A

accuracy was such that it allowed for attempts to hit specific sections of the frontal plates. In general, this was successful. However, some projectiles fired at the lower part of the upper glacis hit the upper part of the lower glacis. And vice versa.

Speaker A

Furthermore, it was not possible to position all tanks so that the lower glacis was not at least partially obscured by the ground line. Therefore, it seems that a more accurate assessment of grouping can be obtained if the lower glacis and upper glacis

Speaker A

are considered as a single target. Podsmych's note: this excerpt is no less interesting. Firstly, the tests are taking place at a proving ground, meaning no return fire is being directed at the gunners. The targets are stationary, the distance to them is

Speaker A

known to the meter—or rather, to the yard—and that is very important for aiming. The range itself is from 800 to 200 yards, that is, from 730 to 183 meters—in essence, point-blank. The fire is conducted by the most experienced artillerymen, which is

Speaker A

noted separately. And despite all this, they cannot confidently target the lower glacis, which is why it is proposed to consider the lower and upper glacis as one target. B. A no less important and interesting point.

Speaker A

On the testing ground, the tank is stationary. At short distances, they specifically could not place the tanks so that the lower glacis was not at least partially covered by the ground.

Speaker A

Well, what do you expect, digging out of the ground. That is precisely why the lower glacis on all the world’s tanks is designed as a weak point. In summary. A big hello to the experts who claim that the Panther was trash and

Speaker A

was being punched through the lower glacis and gun mantlet from a kilometer away. And from 5 km, too. Well, obviously, if those experts themselves were behind the sights of a PaK 40 or a 17-pounder, they would hit the lower

Speaker A

glacis from 10 km. But, alas, real klutzy military men can't do that. Life is pain. Let's read the report further.

Speaker A

Based on this, all 22 shots of the 76mm HVP T4, an armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile, and all 23 shots of the 17-pounder APCBC armor-piercing capped ballistic cap rounds hit the target, out of eight shots of the 76mm APC M62 armor-piercing capped ballistic

Speaker A

cap round. Only one shell fell short while attempting to hit the lower glacis and failed to hit the target.

Speaker A

There were 42 shots made with 17- pounder Sabot rounds, an armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile. And only 57%24 shots turned out to be hits. A large number of shots with 76mm APC M62 rounds—these are American armor-piercing shells—were not fired,

Speaker A

because the accuracy of this ammunition had been well-studied previously during tests in the USA by two commission members. Note from Podsmoche: here begins my favorite part. The devious Yankees, clearly bribed by Moscow, are simply mocking the poor British with

Speaker A

their high-tech armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds. Out of 42 shots at a distance of less than 705 meters, 18, that is almost half, did not hit the stationary tank—neither the mantlet, nor the lower glacis— they didn't hit the tank at all. Fine,

Speaker A

it would be one thing if the tank were some pipsqueak like a T-40. They couldn't hit a Panther. I'm stopping the video recording, standing up, and giving a long standing ovation. Well, and before I continue, I must ask for a

Speaker A

minute of your attention. Dear viewers, the channel hasn't folded solely thanks to your support. I will say more: old Podtsdamoch has fired up like never before. Only it, your support, determines when there will be new content, how much of it there will be,

Speaker A

and if there will be any at all. So, once again, a huge thank you to the sponsors, both on Boosty and directly to the card. Your donation is literally a few minutes of video in the next clip . A huge request: if there is an

Speaker A

opportunity to help the channel, please help. I emphasize, not the author, but the channel, so we can keep going. Well , let's continue about the guns. Do you see what the issue is? Discarding sabot rounds were still terrifyingly

Speaker A

high-tech back then. And like almost every high-tech, it had flaws. In this case, the Brits simply couldn't achieve a normal separation of that very sabot, which, naturally, threw off the projectile's flight trajectory. And, alas, they never managed to solve this

Speaker A

problem on the 17-pounder gun. The sabot rounds only started flying straight on the 20-pounder. But, firstly, this doesn't stop many modern history enthusiasts from whispering with bated breath. "Did you know they had armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds?" They penetrated everything,

Speaker A

yes, I know they penetrated, but not everything. And only if they hit. Secondly, if the Brits can't perfect a discarding sabot in 6 years, those are just objective difficulties and teething problems of new tech. But if the revolutionary T-34 has teething

Speaker A

problems when it appears, it's just because the Soviets are stupid. That's different, you have to understand.

Speaker A

Let's continue reading the report. An insufficient number of rounds were fired with the 76mm HVP projectile.

Speaker A

Composite rigid armor-piercing projectiles with 17-pounder APCBC propellant charges and Sabot discarding sabot projectiles to determine exact sight settings for the final accuracy test. The results of the limited firing showed that these rounds were comparable in accuracy to the 76mm HVAP

Speaker A

composite rigid and 17-pounder APCBC rounds. Penetration at 600 yards (548 m ): 17-pounder APCBC (Armor-Piercing Capped) penetrated the lower part of the lower glacis of tank number zero ( average armor plate), while the 76mm HVP (composite rigid) did not achieve

Speaker A

penetration. At ranges of 400 yards ( 366 m), one round out of four counted hits of the 17-pounder Sabot ( discarding sabot) penetrated the upper glacis of tank number two. The best plate. This was the only penetration of

Speaker A

this plate with a counted hit using any ammunition, including 76mm HVAP composite rigid with 17-pounder APCBC charge and 76mm HVAP composite rigid with 17-pounder Sabot charge.

Speaker A

Discarding sabot at a range of 200 yards (183 m). Note by the narrator. As we can see, even 17-pounder Sabots, even if they hit, even at ranges under half a kilometer, did not always penetrate the Panther's front. And this

Speaker A

is the best anti-tank weapon of the Allies. I recall the canonical photo of a riddled Panther glacis, marked 122mm, distance 2,000 m, but still, the 17- pounder is a gem and the D-25T is trash . Why? Because it's Soviet, and Soviet

Speaker A

is a priori trash. Let's read the report further. At a range of 400 yards (366 m) when firing at the upper glacis of tank number one, average armor plate , two shots out of three hits with 17- pounder rounds. APCBC, did not achieve

Speaker A

penetration. One 76mm HVP round—this is the American composite sub-caliber, penetrated the armor, but the second did not. Two shots out of two hits with the 76mm HVAP round composite American sub-caliber with 17-pounder Sabot propellant, also achieved penetration.

Speaker A

Note by the narrator. The text constantly mentions American composite HVAP rounds with British charges, both from AP and sub-caliber rounds. Why on earth would they do that, do you understand? The Yanks are practical people and put two and two together.

Speaker A

They had a composite sub-caliber that hit well, but it was clearly too weak against the Panther. British shells were more powerful, but they landed god knows where. It is logical to try to combine an accurate projectile and a

Speaker A

powerful charge, which is what we see. As we can see, and what we also see, is that the Americans were not such chauvinists. They were perfectly agreeable to the 17-pounder. Well, as long as it hit the target. Let us

Speaker A

continue reading the report. At a distance of 200 yards (183 m), one scoring hit from each of the standard munitions failed to penetrate the upper glacis of tank number D, the best plate . The relative depth of partial

Speaker A

penetrations at this range was: A—17- pounder APCBC (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap)—2 inches (50.8 mm); B —17-pounder Sabot. Armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile 1.78 inches (47.6 mm); C—76 mm HVAP armor-piercing composite rigid projectile 1.5/16 inches (33.3 mm).

Speaker A

76mm APC M 62—Armor Piercing Capped with ballistic cap. 1 inch (25.4 mm) at a distance of 200 yards (183 m) when firing at the upper glacis of tank number three (middle plate): one projectile out of four scoring hits, a

Speaker A

76. mm HVAP, the American composite rigid projectile, penetrated the armor. This projectile, after partial penetration, [indecipherable word], and penetrated the plate. [Indecipherable word]. One 17-pounder Sabot, armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile, penetrated the armor plate, while one did not at this range. One

Speaker A

scoring hit with a 17-pounder APCBC. The armor-piercing capped projectile did not record a penetration, but it cracked the plate. A second projectile, which hit within 6 inches of the first, penetrated the plate. Contrary to the results obtained by the commission with

Speaker A

17-pounder Sabot projectiles, an armor-piercing discarding sabot projectile during firing tests conducted by the US First Army in Balleroy on July 10, 1944, against the front plate of a Panther at a distance of 700 yards (640 m), five shots were

Speaker A

fired. Studying photographs of these firings shows that the first projectile hit the gun mantlet. The second, between the track and the lower glacis.

Speaker A

The third, at the joint of the lower and upper glacis. The fourth and fifth shots were scoring hits on the upper glacis and both penetrated it. The contradiction between these results and the results obtained by the commission is explained by Colonel A.G.A. Cole,

Speaker A

Deputy Director of Artillery at the Ministry of Supply. Colonel Cole was present at part of the tests and stated that the batch of ammunition presented by the commission had not undergone acceptance firing tests. He further asserts that, in his opinion, this

Speaker A

batch had manufacturing defects, was substandard, and would not have been cleared for service if acceptance tests had been conducted. Note by Podzmich.

Speaker A

Well, I knew it. Enemies. Most likely, it was the communists. They slipped in defective shells. Aha. They specially made defective shells for the tests and then skipped the acceptance phase as well. Well, dear viewers, you must agree, it’s obvious to any fool that

Speaker A

the communists had a hand in this. Only they could simultaneously extend their tentacles into both the shell factory and the military acceptance board. Oh, ridiculous. But let's assume even that's true. Although it is doubtful.

Speaker A

This tells us two things. The shell quality problem wasn't just for those " stupid Soviets." And the Allies hadn't managed to iron it out by August of '44 . And as we can see, the problem wasn't that the sub-caliber rounds—the

Speaker A

British sub-caliber rounds—were flying off target. They had basically come to terms with that. They just didn't penetrate a damn thing. And the second point. The armor penetration, even in those very trials the Communists didn't get their hands on,

Speaker A

shows an effective fire distance of 700 yards, or 640 meters, with three penetrations out of five hits, only two of which were counted as successful.

Speaker A

I'm reminded of the Soviet "Gulya" trials again. And once again, take note : from 700 yards (640 meters), they could only hit the upper glacis plate twice out of five times at the testing ground. But that's clearly like

Speaker A

shooting a mosquito in the eye from a parsec away. Now, I should say a few words in defense of the Brits here.

Speaker A

Overall, the 17-pounders worked despite their pile of shortcomings, and there were quite a few, ranging from their massive weight to the fact that they rarely hit anything. They just didn't work like they do in the wet dreams of

Speaker A

Anglophiles, or how Pak guns work in the dreams of Wehraboos. You know, the way some "Hawkeye" named Hans or John aims his Pak or 17-pounder at a dumb Bolshevik tank from 100 to 500 kilometers away. And he does it at

Speaker A

night, backwards, and with his eyes closed. And, of course, he hits it on the first shot with a 999%guarantee of total destruction. In dull, real life, anti-tank defense is built on different principles. Firstly, strange as it may seem, the task of anti-tank artillery

Speaker A

is not to knock out tanks, but to ensure the position holds against enemy tanks and armored vehicles. If we didn't destroy a single tank, but the village of Kryukovo remained in our hands after several tank attacks, then the AT defense did a five-star job. And

Speaker A

yes, it doesn't matter if it's Kryukovo or El Alamein, that's how it works everywhere. Secondly, the cost of an AT gun compared to a tank is peanuts, and with a more or less properly organized defense, there should be more guns than

Speaker A

there are tanks. Naturally, the working conditions of a stationary crew and a tank crew differ significantly. The former don't have to cram into a tight turret. There are just more of them.

Speaker A

Take the 17-pounder as an example. On the ground, it was operated by six men, whereas in a Firefly turret, it was just two. Stationary units have better visibility. They see with their own eyes. They aren't trying to spot things

Speaker A

through a periscope. Their positions are ranged in, meaning they know the distance to the target much more accurately. Before the battle, they measure distances to landmarks like a lone birch tree. You can pace it off; the list goes on. But most importantly,

Speaker A

in every army in the world, the fools who didn't echelon their anti-tank defense—that is, who lined them all up in a single row—well, by the winter of '42, they were all finished.

Speaker A

And in almost any battle, there came a moment when one anti-tank gun would appear right in the tank's face, while a second one flanked it. And this, by the way, is one of the reasons why I consider the Panther a failure. With a

Speaker A

weight of 48 tons, failing to armor the sides at all is quite an achievement.

Speaker A

And as we can see, it is actually necessary. I am, of course, exaggerating significantly. Tanks don't go into an attack alone, either. They are supported by both cannons and aircraft. But on the whole, it works like this. That is why, during a tank

Speaker A

attack, a sea of steel is flying at each one of them. Some shells miss, some hit well-armored areas. And some hit exactly where they need to. And, as we understand, it even happens that they hit the side. In such scenarios,

Speaker A

the 17-pounder was not bad. It provided the tank positions with solidity and posed a danger to almost any German tank. But hitting everything with your eyes closed from the first shot? Have mercy. Back to the report. A score of

Speaker A

hits from 76mm APC M62 shells. Armor-piercing capped shell. Did not lead to penetration and did not cause cracking of the medium-quality plate.

Speaker A

76mm shells. HVAP, 17-pounder SABOT, armor-piercing discarding sabot, and 17 -pounder APCBC armor-piercing capped with ballistic cap shells caused varying degrees of cracking. Overall, the 17-pounder APCBC armor-piercing capped shell caused more significant damage to the plate than the 17-pounder

Speaker A

SABOT discarding sabot and the 76mm HVAP. Armor-piercing composite rigid shell. Commission conclusions. A. 17- pounder SABOT, armor-piercing discarding sabot shells used in this test possess penetration capabilities equal to or slightly exceeding those of the 17-pounder APCBC armor-piercing capped shell and the 76mm HVAP T4

Speaker A

armor-piercing composite rigid shell. However, they are unconditionally inferior to these munitions due to their low accuracy. The commission notes that its findings and conclusions apply solely to the submitted batch of ammunition and cannot be taken as representative of the quality of 17-

Speaker A

pounder SABOT shells (note by Podzamych ). That doesn't count. The communists intervened there. But I repeat, the complaint is not about grouping, but about the penetration of discarding sabot rounds. The fact that there is no accuracy. Everyone accepted it. Let's

Speaker A

return to the document. The accuracy of the 76mm APC M62 armor-piercing capped shell with a ballistic cap is satisfactory. However, this ammunition is clearly inferior to both the 17- pounder APCBC and the 76mm HVAP due to its weak penetration capability. The 17

Speaker A

-pounder APCBC armor-piercing capped shell and the 76mm HVAP armor-piercing composite rigid shell are high-precision munitions. In the opinion of the commission members, two of whom have significant experience in testing British and American tank and anti-tank weapons. The 76mm HVAP,

Speaker A

armor-piercing composite rigid shell, is the most accurate tank or anti-tank ammunition they have encountered to date. C. 17-pounder APCBC round. The Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap round is more effective against a tank's frontal projection than the 76mm HVP T4 armor-piercing composite rigid

Speaker A

round. The margin of its superiority is very slight. Neither is guaranteed to penetrate the upper glacis with a single hit on a medium-quality plate.

Speaker A

D. Combining the 76mm HVP round with the propellant charge of the 17-pounder APCBC provides no advantages compared to standard ammunition. Due to its accuracy, as the core is practically identical to the core of the 17-pounder Sabot, the armor-piercing discarding

Speaker A

sabot round. The 76mm HVAP round of the composite rigid type with the 17- pounder Sabot propellant charge could become ammunition superior to the 17- pounder Sabot in accuracy and the 17- pounder APCBC and 76mm HVAP in penetration. Conclusion. And that 17-

Speaker A

pounder Sabot, armor-piercing discarding sabot rounds from the tested batch are deemed unsatisfactory ammunition due to low accuracy? Damn Soviets. That 76mm APC M62, armor-piercing capped ballistic cap round is deemed unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor due to insufficient penetration, and

Speaker A

that the 17-pounder APCBC, armor-piercing capped ballistic cap round, and the 76mm HVAP, armor-piercing composite rigid round, are deemed the best anti-tank ammunition available in these calibers for combat against heavy armor. The 17- pounder APCBC, armor-piercing capped ballistic cap round, is somewhat

Speaker A

superior to the 76mm HVAP in its effect against the Panther tank. Neither is guaranteed to penetrate the Panther's upper glacis with a single hit on a medium-quality armor plate. G. What needs to be studied? The possibilities of using the 76mm HVP round with the 17

Speaker A

-pounder Sabot propellant charge. In the event that 17-pounder guns are supplied to a US unit. Andrew O. Mir, Colonel, Field Artillery. Chairman of the Board, Francis B. Shearer, Colonel, Ordnance Department. Member of the Board, John Braud, Lieutenant Colonel,

Speaker A

Field Artillery. Secretary of the Board , Appendix 1, Supplement A, Summary table of test results, Appendix 2, Firing photos numbers 1 through 27 inclusive, Appendix 3, Written order of Headquarters, 12th Army Group, Rear Echelon, dated August 16, 1944, Subject

Speaker A

: Appointment of an Officer's Board. Note: Photographic materials were not attached to the documentation, therefore it is not possible to provide them here. The information above was provided by Jimmy O'Neil, Arizona, USA.

Speaker A

The primary source is documents declassified in 1982 and 1988. End of quote. Dear viewers, we seem to be finished. As we can see, the photo report was successfully lost by American archivists. Well, this document contains a very interesting

Speaker A

summary table for every shot at every distance. I couldn't just not present it, but I didn't know how to present it . If I were to read it aloud, I would go insane, and so would you. If I were

Speaker A

to place it in the video in graphic form, it would be unreadable, simply because it is too large. In the end, I personally developed a very clever plan . I divided the large table into several smaller, easily readable, and

Speaker A

digestible ones. I made the split based on the firing distance. And I will display these tables as slides after the video ends. All the numbers are there. Dear viewers. That's it. All that remains for me is to say thank you

Speaker A

, dear viewers, for watching, and to ask you to join me in thanking our sponsors. Without them, this video, like many others, would likely never have been released. Thank you, and see you next time.

Topics:World War IIanti-tank gunsBritish 17-pounderAmerican 76mm M1German Panther tankPak 40armor penetrationVasily GrabinSoviet artillerytank warfare

Get More with the SozAI App

Transcribe recordings, audio files, and YouTube videos — with AI summaries and speaker detection. 30 minutes free.

App Store Google Play

Or transcribe another YouTube video here →

Free tools: TXT to SRT · SRT Validator · Merge SRT · Subtitle to Text · All tools