17/25 pdr Pheasant

rnixartillery · #1 15-05-15, 18:30

Well as the title states I have spent two years in research and another three restoring the last remaining 'original' pheasant known about.
Quite a long story of the on going restoration that can be viewed here.
http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?29198-A-Riddle

Rob........................rnixartillery.

Rob Fast · #2 15-05-15, 19:04

well worth the read. Thanks for the link. Cheers Rob Fast

Mike Cecil · #3 16-05-15, 02:30

Interesting, and a very nice job you have done, too.

The first 17-pdrs produced in Australia were trialed on the (modified) 25-pdr carriage. Test firing was at Williamstown, Victoria. Charles Ruwolt P/L or GM-H (can't remember which) were the major co-ordinating contractor on the project. *** Apparently not a trial version - see later post****

Mike

gordon · #4 16-05-15, 09:49

Can't wait to see the side by side shot of the Pheasant with vanilla 17 pounder at one side and 25 at the other ...

David Dunlop · #5 17-05-15, 14:58

Rob. Is that a counterweight on the barrel, just aft of the muzzle brake?

David

rnixartillery · #6 17-05-15, 16:51

Yes David it is ,you cannot depress the barrel without it. If you do a Google search on the net for pheasant ,17/25 pdr etc you will come across several pictures, the ones with the pheasant showing a riveted cradle, un-modified shield , a full compliment of CES and missing the barrel counterweight was a gun that was used as a simulation for publicity. practically it would not operate correctly, the pheasants that were finally assembled for service were quite different and they all had welded cradles not riveted which G&J Weir developed to simplify and speed up production of.

Rob....................rnixartillery.

David Dunlop · #7 17-05-15, 18:02

Thanks, Rob.

Must say the name 'Pheasant' is a hard one to wrap one's head around for an artillery piece initially. Then I remembered getting the fright of my life many years ago working in heavy bush country when one of the little suckers suddenly exploded out of the scrub a few feet in front of me.

Probably the same reaction the Germans had when they first encountered it in the field

so the name probably fits rather well after all.

David

Mike Cecil · #8 17-05-15, 18:03

Interesting: the Australian 17/25pdr was built with an all-welded and lengthened trail, a welded cradle, had a double 'spaced armour' shield, and no muzzle counterweight, just the muzzle brake. It wasn't a mock-up: test firing was done at Williamstown, Victoria.

The Aust 17pdr production version was the same as/similar to the standard 17pdr built in the UK, with a split trail, low profile, etc.

Can I ask why wouldn't the 17/25pdr Pheasant depress without the counterweight, please?

Thanks

Mike

gordon · #9 17-05-15, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Dunlop

Must say the name 'Pheasant' is a hard one to wrap one's head around for an artillery piece.

David

I remember Rob telling us that design / production was rushed through in September of whatever year, and I wondered if they agreed the contract on the 12th of August ...

rnixartillery · #10 17-05-15, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Cecil

Interesting: the Australian 17/25pdr was built with an all-welded and lengthened trail, a welded cradle, had a double 'spaced armour' shield, and no muzzle counterweight, just the muzzle brake. It wasn't a mock-up: test firing was done at Williamstown, Victoria.

The Aust 17pdr production version was the same as/similar to the standard 17pdr built in the UK, with a split trail, low profile, etc.

Can I ask why wouldn't the 17/25pdr Pheasant depress without the counterweight, please?

Thanks

Mike

Mike,

Do you have pictures you could post so we can see the differences between the two ?
I have a standard 17 pdr here as well which as you all know were not fitted with barrel counter weights but have the larger heavier cradles which have a different point of balance, they elevate and depress with no problem, the pheasant however has the 17 pdr recouperator inside the lighter 25 pdr cradle and requires extra weight at the muzzle to balance the ordnance better at the trunnions .You can physically depress it without the balance but it takes both hands and a GREAT deal of effort which I have experienced.
Weir's produced 17/25 pdr's were built on standard 25 pdr carriages not altered or lengthened in any way .

Rob......................rnixartillery.

Mike Cecil · #11 17-05-15, 19:40

All extremely interesting. I am learning a lot!

I only have a print: will scan and post later today. Don't think I've ever seen an image of the Aust 17/25 published anywhere - I just had a scan through the AWM site and only the production version is shown in images from that source.

I wonder if '17/25pdr' that is really 'right' for this Aust weapon? The carriage is of similar design to the all-welded 25pdr, but altered for the 17pdr, so really a different carriage? Maybe it would be more accurately called the '17pdr (Aust) Experimental'?)

Mike

rnixartillery · #12 17-05-15, 19:54

To simplify things ,the 17 pdr ordnance and recouperator were standard 17 pdr, the cradle, saddle and carriage were standard 25 pdr (British) the modifications were, increasing the opening in the shield, a bespoke firing linkage and guard and the upgrade of the firing platform by boxing in the angle spokes and reinforcing the outer ring.
One very good question would be ,why does the 17/25 pdr require a firing platform ? when in a direct fire role.............................well I believe that it is as much for ballast than anything else !

Rob..............................rnixartillery.

rnixartillery · #13 17-05-15, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Dunlop

Thanks, Rob.

Must say the name 'Pheasant' is a hard one to wrap one's head around for an artillery piece initially. Then I remembered getting the fright of my life many years ago working in heavy bush country when one of the little suckers suddenly exploded out of the scrub a few feet in front of me.

Probably the same reaction the Germans had when they first encountered it in the field

so the name probably fits rather well after all.

David

David,

The name 'Pheasant' was bestowed upon it by the soldiers that used them ,the correct name for the weapon was the 'Hybrid' and this was the name used by the War department for the weapon whilst in service even though it was short lived.

Rob..................rnixartillery.

Alex van de Wetering · #14 17-05-15, 22:42

Lovely work on this rare piece, Rob! Well done.

Alex

Mike Cecil · #15 17-05-15, 23:09

Rob,

"To simplify things ,the 17 pdr ordnance and recouperator were standard 17 pdr, the cradle, saddle and carriage were standard 25 pdr (British) .....One very good question would be ,why does the 17/25 pdr require a firing platform ? when in a direct fire role.............................well I believe that it is as much for ballast than anything else !"

I think the answer to that question lies in the traverse limits: a standard 25pdr had a traverse of just 4 degrees either side of the centreline (ie 8 degrees of traverse) whereas the 17pdr had 30 degrees either side, so 60 degrees of traverse. The 'Platform, Firing, No.9' allowed "... allowing rapid all-round traverse for anti-tank shooting."(User handbook, QF 25pr Marks 2 & 3: AMF 31 May 1952, page 296). The platform allowed traversing for a full 360 degrees, quickly and easily by one man using the trail spike. Assuming the 17/25pdr was as well balanced as the standard 25pdr, then the platform would have been equally as useful. Them wily Germans didn't always approach from the direct front!

Mike

rnixartillery · #16 18-05-15, 09:40

Here is some very interesting film footage.

https://youtu.be/KosCsRbAADg

Rob......................rnixartillery

Wayne Henderson · #17 18-05-15, 11:03

Thanks for that, a great bit of film.
The gun has a very high profile. Elevation would have been limited.
Appears to be for anti armour and strong point work?

tankbarrell · #18 18-05-15, 14:24

Excellent bit of film Rob!

The early, square hole muzzle brakes were quite flat on the front face. I see there was an interim style with the round front but still with square holes before the familiar later style.

Tim Bell · #19 18-05-15, 16:26

Some Pheasant Gun parts listed here...

http://armygear.org/?Items:Artillery_-_Page_1

The home page suggests that some of the items in this collection might be for sale.

Tim

rnixartillery · #20 18-05-15, 16:34

Thats right Adrian there were three variants ,two square hole and the last design with the round holes unfortunately I have not found the first pattern with the squarer profile.

Tim the Ad you have found is very old plus the parts are just standard 17 and 25 pdr that has clearly been clagged together.

Rob....................rnixartillery

Tim Bell · #21 18-05-15, 17:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by rnixartillery

Thats right Adrian there were three variants ,two square hole and the last design with the round holes unfortunately I have not found the first pattern with the squarer profile.

Tim the Ad you have found is very old plus the parts are just standard 17 and 25 pdr that has clearly been clagged together.

Rob....................rnixartillery

Rob

Thanks for the clarification... better though for me to assume you havent seen it... than to assume you have and not post anything.

Cheers

Tim

Mike Cecil · #22 23-05-15, 02:13

Hi Rob,

I found two views: left and right rear, neither are great shots, but you should get some details from them. On closer examination, the trail appears to be the same overall design as that used on the 25-pdr Mk2/1(Aust), ie the all-welded trail with tubular cross member, but lengthened.

This was at Williamstown test range, Victoria, in 1944.

I'll be interested in your views about this weapon.

Regards

Mike

rnixartillery · #23 23-05-15, 07:38

Mike,
I am away in Normandy at the moment typing on a phone,
These are the same pictures I have of the Australian prototype, I could not find any information as to whether they produced any more and that is was no more than used for trials.

Cheers
Rob.......... rnixartillery

Mike Cecil · #24 23-05-15, 16:30

Don't remember you mentioning you already had images of it. Do you have any others?

Mike

Lynn Eades · #25 23-05-15, 22:22

Mike C., with the utmost respect for your endless unbounded knowledge, while you are discussing the nomenclature of this "field gun".
I know that what I write here you would already know, and anything I have wrong I am happy for you to correct. I await the barrage.
Here is my personal view:

The term "gun" refers to a smooth bore.
I would suggest in this day and age of political correctness, to stay away from the term "weapon"
I is my belief that the correct usage of "weapon" should be limited to the likes of swords, bayonets etc. (edged weapons) and that small arms or firearms is the term for those sort of things.
I believe that the use of the term "weapons" only hastens the "dis arming" of the good people in this part of the world (my opinion)

Is it not correct that for a rifled artillery "gun" (and I assume the that this gun of topic, is rifled) that David is correct using (artillery) "piece"?

Mike Cecil · #26 23-05-15, 23:17

Ah, Lynn, quite an opening barrage from I-don't-know-where, but since you have zeroed in, I'll be glad to lob some counter-battery fire in your direction!

Weapon: "An instrument of ANY kind used in warfare or combat to attack and overcome an enemy". The Shorter Oxford Dictionary, V2, page 2519. I think that might include just about everything, ...... artillery, small arms, tanks, swords, trench shovels, knuckle dusters .....

"Gun: A Gun is a piece of ordnance designed with a view to the tangent elevation required for any range being as low as possible. In comparison with a Howitzer of equal calibre, it is a long weapon with a high muzzle velocity".

"RBL (Rifled Breach Loader): The first RIFLED GUNS introduced into the Service (ie British Royal Artillery), were those designed by the late Lord Armstrong ..."

Two quotes from above from the 'Textbook of Service Ordnance 1923', the capitalization within is my emphasis.

From the above, it can be seen that the term 'Gun' is not restricted to, or dependent upon, an absence of rifling. So the statement that 'Gun refers to a smoothbore' is, as demonstrated above, incorrect.

So, some examples of the official use of Gun/Guns when referring to artillery pieces that have rifling:

Pamphlet title: 'Gun Drill for QF 25 pr Gun, Marks 1/2, 3/1, 4 on Carriage 25 pr Mk 1 (1960).

Or maybe 'Gun Drill for QF 18pr Mk IV Gun on Mark IVP (LP) Field Carriages 1939',

or perhaps 'Range Tables (Part 1) for QF, 25-pr Guns, Marks 2 & 3 (1953).

So, a range of dates and titles, all referring to artillery weapons - sorry, 'pieces' - with rifled ordnance, as 'guns'.

Cease fire ... target destroyed.

Mike

Lynn Eades · #27 24-05-15, 00:14

Aaarrrggghh!!!!

Mike Cecil · #28 24-05-15, 01:17

OK, Rob I think you can have your thread back now ....

How was Normandy, and have you any other 17pdr (Aust) (Exp?) images, please?

Mike

David Dunlop · #29 24-05-15, 16:26

Love the banter

Love to get you two together to discuss Art or Music sometime! :happy:

Now back to your Heavy Metal thread, Rob.

David

Lynn Eades · #30 24-05-15, 21:51

David, you would find that I knew about the same on art and music, that I know about artillery.

Yes, back to the Pheasant / Hybrid. Btw, I regularly feed the odd pheasant when I feed my deer. I think Pheasant was a very apt. name. The way they explode from the ground, scaring the (your choice of verb) out of us.