A stowage sketch showing the tank’s official designation: Sherman V.C

17-pounder gun, The 17-pounder anti-tank gun was a powerful weapon, but vulnerable on the battlefield due to its size and weight. The muzzle brake on this gun is not original.

One of the first images of the Panther tank widely distributed among the Allies

The development of anti-tank artillery followed more or less the same process in many countries. This resulted in the USSR creating a 100 mm BS-3 gun in 1944 and the Germans with the 88 mm Pak 43 gun, a weapon with excellent characteristics that forced Soviet tank designers to rethink their requirements for armour protection. However, the British arrived at the best solution, creating the Ordnance Quick-Firing 17-pounder, which had the most balanced characteristics. You can familiarize yourself with the gun in detail by viewing these photos and read about its creation and trials in the Soviet Union here.

The effects of "big cats" being shot up by large caliber Soviet shells are well known, but naturally every other Allied nation was willing to have a go themselves. Three British reports surfaced on Google Photos with just that. Unfortunately, they don't test as many tank guns as the Soviets do, settling for only the 6-pdr, 17-pdr, and occasionally the M3 75 mm gun on the Sherman, but they also test ground attack aircraft autocannons, 7.7 mm bullets, 25-pdr HE shells, and the humble PIAT. Despite the smaller caliber of the weapons, the German armour spalls, splinters, and shatters almost as well as during the Soviet trials. The conclusions are, well, predictable.

Panther

As soon as heavy German tanks hit the battlefield, British military minds thought of new weapons to fight them. In the middle of 1942, the QF-17 17-pounder 76.2 mm high penetration gun entered production. An idea arose to install this gun in a tracked tank destroyer.

British Tachanka

Out of all tanks currently available, only the Valentine could lift enough weight. It was decided to use it as a platform for the new gun, installing it in a casemate with limited traverse. The first modifications of the vehicle used a traditional layout, but the center of mass was shifted due to the long gun, and front wheels were overloaded. The gun was flipped around, spreading the weight out equally. The length of the vehicle was reduced drastically, as the gun only stuck out a little bit over the engine compartment.

A downside of this layout was a difficulty of use: the driver looked in one direction, and every other crew member looked in another. This made maneuvering in battle difficult. Additionally, the fighting compartment became very cramped. As a result, the gun could only traverse slightly in each direction and the vehicle had to turn often.

Another, more critical, downside was that the gun breech was placed above the driver's seat. If he wanted to keep his head, he had to leave his position before the shooting started, or leave the vehicle entirely, as there was not much room inside. It is not difficult to imagine how much this added to the aforementioned problems.

The vehicle was indexed "Self Propelled 17 pdr, Valentine, Mk I", more often known as the Archer.

Happiness of Artillerymen

Production of the vehicle began in the middle of 1943, but it arrived in the army much later, in October of 1944, when the fighting on the Western Front was at its most intense. The vehicle was adopted by artillery units of the British and Canadian armies.

It is unknown what tankers would have thought of such an untraditional vehicle, but the artillerymen were satisfied. It was no wonder: even the uncomfortable Archer provided much greater protection for its crew than the towed 17-pounder they had to use before. It is also known that they often preferred the Archer over the more traditional Achilles, due to the Archer's smaller profile.

The small size and low profile of the vehicle determined the most common tactic for its application: ambushes. The Archer took its position, aimed in at an area, and waited until German tanks approached to a viable combat distance. Then the crew of the Archer would fire a few times with minimal intervals between shots, and retreat to another prepared position. These tactics compensated for the limited traverse angle, and the position of the driver was even an advantage, as the Archer could retreat at maximum speed without wasting time on turning around.

Universal Soldier

The high penetration of the QF-17 bailed Archer crews out of trouble many times. It could successfully penetrate nearly any enemy vehicle at any distance with aimed fire. Not only that, but there is even a recorded event of an Archer firing at a Tiger, but missing their first shot. The Tiger retreated behind a building. The Archer's commander received the location of the enemy from a scout airplane, and fired directly through the building, destroying the Tiger through its side.

Aside from fighting tanks, Archers were used to support infantry, destroying field fortifications, machinegun nests, and other obstacles. Using an HE shell with a reduced muzzle velocity, the Archer could fire from entrenched positions, hiding the weakly armoured hull from harm.

Archers were used in Western Europe and Italy, remaining in the army until the end of the war. After victory, Archers remained in use for some time. It is known that the British Army on the Rhine kept then Archers until the mid-1950s. Some Archers were sold to Egypt, where they fought in local conflicts, including the Suez Crisis in 1956-57.

The rapid evolution of armoured vehicles rendered the 17-pounder quite unexceptional, denying the Archer its trump card, the penetration of the gun. This led to the vehicle's rapid disappearance from the battlefield.

Article author: Aleksandr Grebnev. Aleksandr Grebnev is an editor, translator, columnist, and article author for a number of magazines and websites. He took part in the localization of computer games, specifically military and historical ones. Currently, he is a historical consultant and a member of the Wargaming archive group.

Sources:

• Chris Henry: "British Anti-Tank Artillery, 1939-45", New Vanguard, Osprey Publishing, 2004
• Peter Chamberlain, Chris Ellis, "British and American Tanks of the Second World War", (AST, Astrel, 2003)

As a part of Lend-Lease, the USSR received two British 17-pounder anti-tank guns in April of 1944, which were trialled at the GANIOP between September 8th and November 10th of that year.

1. It is not possible to push the gun 500 meters by hand over rough terrain. The 7 man crew can only push the gun 100 meters on flat terrain. Pushing the gun is further complicated by a lack of convenient rails.
2. The gun is equipped with three different pumps: Studebaker pump for pumping air into the tires, pump for pumping fluid into the recoil mechanisms (of the GAZ-AA type), and two-stage air pump for pumping air into the return mechanism. This complicates use.
3. The handles of the aiming mechanisms and firing mechanisms are metallic. This leads to freezing hands.
4. The force required to fire is very high (up to 20-30 kg). The effort to open the breech is too high (up to 15-20 kg).
5. The recoil indicator is poorly placed behind the gun shield, leading to complications when controlling the recoil length.
6. Adding fluid to the recoil mechanism is difficult, as it requires the crew to leave the protection of the gun shield.
7. Observation of the results of the shot is difficult due to the smoke and dust kicked up by the muzzle brake.
8. The firing mechanism is unsatisfactory. Due to firing handles getting stuck on each other when the gun returns after firing, the gun cannot fire without fault.

Just like the Americans, the British received a T-34 and a KV-1 tank for testing. Their response to the tests was radically different.


"Please advise representatives of the purchasing commission in England what to do regarding building T-34 and KV tanks. If the English really want to mass produce these tanks, I would like to know what changes they make to their construction and keep track of their efforts."

Instead of merely taking the parts of the T-34 and KV like the Americans did, the British decided to produce clones of the tanks. Not surprising, given that the state of British tank production in mid-WWII was a bit delayed. The results of the tests were discussed at the "Scientific-Investigative Tank Proving Grounds" (perhaps Bovington?) on January 6th, 1944.

"Upon arriving at the proving grounds, we were invited to a meeting room where the administration of the grounds gathered, military and civilian, about 15 people. The chief of the proving grounds introduced them as the heads of various groups and departments. All of the military men were majors and lieutenant-colonels. These people had prepared questions from various areas for us.

We were asked questions regarding the construction of the vehicles, their materials, armament, usage, etc.

This report contains several questions about the armament and construction of the tanks. The following issues were also of interest to the English, asked of me outsides the office of the chief.
1. After shooting a gun of a caliber larger than 75 mm, gases exiting the barrel obscure the line of sight, and make it impossible to view your target for two seconds. To observe the path of the shell, we had to open the hatches.
Our response: this is an issue that can only be evaluated by the tank gunners themselves. In any case, a shell with a tracer is seen better than one without.

2. The gas tanks of the tank are located on both sides of the turret, which is a hazard in the fighting compartment.
Our response: we put additional gas tanks wherever possible. Perhaps you will find a better place for them.

3. The loader's seat does not fold down.
Our response: this is an issue that can be easily fixed if you so wish it.

4. Tanks do not have equipment for indirect fire.
Our response: these tanks were not built for the purpose of indirect fire.

5. Can a KV tank with a 6 inch howitzer provide indirect fire?
The question is asked knowing about the existence of such a tank in the Red Army [Note: the KV-2 matches the description of a "KV tank with a 6 inch howitzer"]. The English have known of its existence for a while. In early 1942, Major Donnington of the Artillery Depot asked about a KV armed with a 6 inch howitzer. Based on this knowledge, we answered that the tank in question is also not designed for indirect fire.

The questions asked by the English are few. As for their content, we consider 1, 4, and 5 relevant.

The first question regarding the tracer being obscured by gases is relevant, but is resolved by experience gained while using the tank. If this event occurs, then it appears that the training of our gunners is high enough that they are capable of performing effectively despite this drawback, which we think would be difficult to remove.

Questions 4 and 5 are also relevant. The question of indirect fire is asked by the English for a reason. Their officers insist that the manner of operations that their tanks carry out requires the ability to use tanks as artillery [illegible] terrain on the Italian front led them to use tanks as artillery batteries. They suppose that our T-34 and KV tanks, if mass produced, will be supplied with the necessary equipment.

Additionally, in our conversations, we have learned that:
a) the T-34 and KV vehicles will be produced for the British army. The former will be equipped with a 17-pounder, the latter with a 6 inch howitzer.
b) the tanks will be built with an improved gearbox and differential clutches.
c) the KV air pumps will be improved. [Note: the KV the British got had a defective air pump]
d) the tanks will be equipped with centrifugal air filters that will draw air from the transmission compartment. This is explained as follows: if you take air from behind the tank, it will contain dust kicked up by the tank. If you draw air from the transmission, the air purity reached is 100% ideal.
e) the welding will be performed with electrodes made from high hardness steel, which will result in welding seams being as robust as the armour plates.

English critique of the armament of our tanks:

Their opinion of our armament is good. This could not be otherwise, as their newest Centaur tanks were just recently equipped with 75 mm guns with ballistics equivalent to the American 75 mm gun on the Sherman tank. Currently, the largest caliber tank gun the English posses is the 6-pounder (57 mm). If you further recall the Churchill tank with a 2-pounder gun, you could not expect any other evaluation of our guns. The English themselves admit that arming the Churchill with a 2-pound gun was a poor idea.

The English, however, suggest that 76 mm is not enough for a KV tank, and propose to install a 6 inch howitzer, the ballistics of which were sent to NKVT earlier.

The T-34, on which they adore both the gun and the sloped front armour, is deemed to have satisfactory armament for a tank of that type. However, the English wish to outdo us and replace it with a 17 pounder gun.

Re-armament requires some modifications, and will take time, but, taking into account the manufacturing power of England and her dominions, we could very well see a T-34 with a 17-pounder gun and a KV with a 6 inch howitzer in our time. The fact that the English expect to produce our tanks is almost not hidden from us. This was established in conversations with workers of the Scientific-Investigative Tank Proving Grounds, and is backed up by other evidence. For example, when visiting an English gun factory near Liverpool, journalist [illegible] was informed that the factory is getting ready to produce 17-pound guns for T-34 tanks, that the English will soon produce."

Yuri Pasholok mocked up the following images:




Well, this is quite unexpected. As we all know, the British decided to go with American tanks, but put a 17-pounder into the Sherman and M10 anyway. This isn't exactly unprecedented in international tank building.  The T-34 itself is a distant relative of the work of American engineer Christie. The Soviets produced a large amount of T-26 tanks based on Vickers 6-ton tanks. The German PzI was also heavily influenced by the British Carden Loyd tankette design.

Let's take a look at the tanks themselves. The T-34 is no stranger to having large guns fitted into its turret, but what about the KV? The KV-2's 152 mm gun required a much larger turret. The British were going to have a hard time with a small KV turret, if not due to the turret ring (the KV-1 and KV-2 have the same turret ring), then to the gases and crampedness that such a contraption would introduce. The British are no strangers to cramped designs (I still wonder how they fit three people into some modifications of the Valentine turret), and the gas problem would be solved by an open-top turret. Perhaps this is why they were asking about indirect fire.

The Soviets, in a similar move, fitted the KV-1 with a 122 mm U-11 howitzer, designating this prototype KV-9 in 1942. It was not mass produced. By 1943, they arrived at the same decision as the British: 76 mm is not enough for a heavy tank, considering that the T-34 carried the same caliber gun. While the replacement heavy IS tank had a 122 mm gun, some proposed versions had a 152 mm howitzer.