17/25 pdr Pheasant

[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

[gordon]

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]

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]

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

Alex

[Mike Cecil]

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]

Here is some very interesting film footage.

https://youtu.be/KosCsRbAADg

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

[Wayne Henderson]

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]

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.