"The 17-pounder AT gun. Best in WW2?" Topic

Still not getting the idea that it wasn't the tank guns that were the issue. The 2-pdr was arguably superior to the short 50mm gun on the Mk. III, and definitely to the 75mm on the Mk. IV. But the British tankers really couldn't get that through their head.

Kilojoules of energy at muzzle:

7.5cm KwK 37 – 504kJ
5cm Kwk 38 – 483kJ
OQF 2-pdr – 339kJ

The 8th Army British tankers managed to get it into their heads that the 75mm on the Sherman was a lot better than what they had been using.

Another important point to consider with respect to the British versus German tank situation in the desert was the appearance in numbers of the L/L Grant tank at Gazala. Even allowing for its ungainly hull sponson mounting, the 75mm gun of the Grant materially altered the tank versus tank tactical calculus.

B

Since the German 88 was present from the first day of the war to the last, and the British 17 pdr was only around starting in late 1943, I would give the 88 the vote as best of the war.

The 88 was destroying targets for 46 months BEFORE the 17 pdr even saw action.

Kilojoules of energy at muzzle:

7.5cm KwK 37 – 504kJ
5cm Kwk 38 – 483kJ
OQF 2-pdr – 339kJ

Interesting, if only to observe how useless this indicator is. The KwK37 was a howitzer. Its tank-killing ability was severely constrained therefore and the tank wasn't fought in that way in 1941. But somehow your stat makes it look as it was a superior gun not just to the 2-pdr but the best of the three…

The KwK 38 had about the same penetration rate of the 2-pdr. This was probably a function of the ammunition, as the Germans did not use solid shot.

The 8th Army British tankers managed to get it into their heads that the 75mm on the Sherman was a lot better than what they had been using.

Another observation irrelevant to the discussion, as there were no 75mm guns in any British tank seeing combat prior to May 1942.

All the best

Andreas

Interesting, if only to observe how useless this indicator is. The KwK37 was a howitzer. Its tank-killing ability was severely constrained therefore and the tank wasn't fought in that way in 1941. But somehow your stat makes it look as it was a superior gun not just to the 2-pdr but the best of the three…

I think the stat helps show that the 2-pdr is not definitely superior to the 7.5cm. :)

The KwK 38 had about the same penetration rate of the 2-pdr. This was probably a function of the ammunition, as the Germans did not use solid shot.

In which case the projectile with 40% greater kinetic energy is likely to be the more damaging.

Another observation irrelevant to the discussion, as there were no 75mm guns in any British tank seeing combat prior to May 1942.

Relevant in that British tankers could tell when they had an effective tank gun, making it most likely, therefore, that they could also tell when they had an ineffective tank gun.

8th Army received its first 17-pdrs in early 1943, not the end of 1943, and they were used in Tunisia.

Gary

"Another observation irrelevant to the discussion, as there were no 75mm guns in any British tank seeing combat prior to May 1942."

Not by any means trying to be a "tank snob", but there were small numbers of Crusaders armed with short 3-inch main guns for close support in N Africa in late 1941.

B

Heedless Horseman

Think 17pdr was a very good A/T gun…whether in a Firefly, 'Achilles', or towed… but not perfect. Just better than anything else British had.
Not particularly accurate, (Certainly if compared to an 88!), but a pretty heavy 'Punch'

Care to show the evidence of the 17pdr's inaccuracy?

It was as accurate as any A.T gun.

Can you tell me why there was the anomaly of a Firefly taking out a Mk4 at 1,500 yards, and the famous Joe Ekins, who destroyed a Mk4 'type' at 1,200 yards with the last shot (his 7th in total as a gunner) he fired in anger? Oh! he hit his three Tigers with all five shots at ranges between 700 and 900 yards

There's a similar topic on Quora. Back in 2019, a post claimed that the U.S 76mm was better, according to statistics, in 'of all places' the Normandy campaign…

IIRC, complaints of inaccuracy in connection with the 17-pdr were related to the design of its then new and technically unprecedented APDS round, which had to be modified to ensure stable flight of the core when the outer sabot was discarded.

There were very few 76mm Shermans in Normandy. Were these Quora claims perhaps based upon the US towed AT guns?

B

The Chieftain would like to have a word with you: YouTube link

Wolfhag

Blutarski

Yes! It's well known about the APDS problem with the wartime issue, but it seems, not mentioned by many abroad. To them, the 17pdr was unable to hit anything accurately beyond 500 yards with any type of shot.

Here's the quora link pertaining those 'results': link

Does the poster in that topic post on here too?

Wolfhag:

The Chieftain's research (more or less) clears up his earlier remarks in an earlier video. But what the weapon does and how it faired in testing does not equate to the reality of actual combat service.

Thanks, dibble.
Dr Holladay's commentary was most interesting.

B

Wolfhag wrote –
"The Chieftain would like to have a word with you:"

It's because I typed "17-pdr" instead of "17-pr", isn't it!?!?!?

B

dibble,
But what the weapon does and how it faired in testing does not equate to the reality of actual combat service.

Of course not. However, it is a way to make comparisons and benchmark accuracy and something to strive for in combat.
This is a good example: link

The biggest accuracy variable is the range estimation so a gun with a rangefinder will be more accurate at longer ranges than one without. A gun that does not have the sight and tube aligned (bore sight) will be inaccurate no matter what.

The problems with testing is that during the war they were limited in comprehensive testing and no two nations had the same definition for the results like accuracy and penetration. Armor manufacturing was not standard throughout the war and any new weapon had some teething and training problems. Using the APDS as a standard to measure 17pdr accuracy or any other gun is ridiculous.

In the anti-tank role the 17pdr does have a performance advantage over the 88. The 17pdr needed the extra penetration, the Germans did not so the FlaK 88 was just fine for most of the war. You could say the Germans had a dedicated 88 anti-tank gun in the Pak 43 which was about the same performance as the 17pdr when they needed the extra performance. It could perform better as it was not a dual purpose gun. Dual purpose has tradeoffs for better flexibility. You develop weapons based on your needs and the tactical situations you'll expect. Not for war gamers.

As an anti-tank gun the 17pdr, weighting 2 tons more than the 88 with a heavier carriage, was harder to move around and deploy, especially in poor terrain so it did not have the tactical flexibility as the 88 so would not have suited the German needs.

The 88l56 was a better tank gun than the 17pdr because the Sherman turrets could barely fit them and the Tiger I was designed from the start for the 88L56 so it's somewhat of an unfair comparison.

The FlaK 88 was not an ideal anti-tank platform as it was too large and not a dedicated anti-tank gun. You could dig it in and hide it but then it would not be used in the AA role. However, since it out ranged most tanks and could be moved around it had greater tactical flexibility firing from the carriage (no 360 degree fire) but would then needed time to deploy in the AA role. The FlaK 88 could also be used for indirect fire, dedicated anti-tank guns could not. It comes down to accomplishing your mission and tradeoffs as no one weapon is going to be ideal in all situations you'll encounter. For Warspites dad I'd agree it was the best for him.

Wolfhag

"The 88l56 was a better tank gun than the 17pdr because the Sherman turrets could barely fit them and the Tiger I was designed from the start for the 88L56 so it's somewhat of an unfair comparison."

One point to keep in mind: The British had already modified the 17-pounder to fit into an existing Sherman turret. Mating the two was very much a rushed, on the fly "backyard mechanic" modification program, but time was of the essence and it worked well enough.

The US Army had to modify both the original 90mm AA gun and the turret in order to successfully mount the gun on a Sherman chassis. But since, for a multiplicity of reasons and motives, time was not of the essence in the eyes of the stateside army bureaucracy, the 90mm M36 (as valuable as it proved to be in combat) was fated to play only a relatively small role as a latecomer to the ETO.

FWIW.

B

Wolfhag

I don't know what you are going on about in your last as you are arguing points that I never made, especially regarding the APDS other than its accuracy which by reports, was not good at all over 500 yards and I haven't questioned those shortcomings.

I also mentioned nothing pertaining the towed 17pdr and its flexibility or the 'varying' armour quality on tanks of the day.

I also care not a jot about what tank-gun was more powerful. As far as I'm concerned, if the 17pdr did its job against 'all comers' then it was an excellent anti-tank gun.
My real gripe is with the rubbish that is all over the internet that the 17pdr (I use those letters and will always use them) was crap with accuracy at any range over 500 yards regardless the ammunition used (especially on Youtube).

As for the fitting of the 17pdr in the Sherman. It may well have been awkward to mount and initially, when being served by the loader, but those problems were overcome and the Sherman became the most dangerous tank the German Panzers faced in the West for almost the rest of the war.

Hi dibble,
I do not think that Wolfhag is actually arguing with you.

Strictly my opinion, of course.

B

dibble,
I'm not arguing with you, just putting out some data and making comparisons for a constructive discussion, accept it or disbelieve. I don't care if you don't care, you don't have to.

Yes, despite some problems and limitations, like most other weapons have, the 17pdr in a Sherman was the most effective gun against the Germans in NWE. I like looking at the advantages and disadvantages of weapons to get a better understanding of them to model in a game. I'm not really concerned about who or what is the "best" as it is subject to interpretation so feel free to decide for yourself.

Wolfhag

I think the stat helps show that the 2-pdr is not definitely superior to the 7.5cm. :)

I'm sorry to be blunt, but all this shows is that you don't know what you are talking about.

The 75L24 was a howitzer with very weak AT capability. It had nothing in common with the 2-pdr other than being a gun. It's purpose and therefore its use by the Germans was completely different.

All the best

Andreas

Not by any means trying to be a "tank snob", but there were small numbers of Crusaders armed with short 3-inch main guns for close support in N Africa in late 1941.

Seriously?

All the best

Andreas

Hi Andreas,
Just tryig to be helpful after you wrote -
"… there were no 75mm guns in any British tank seeing combat prior to May 1942."

Seriously.

B

I don't know about the Crusader, but the CS version of the Matilda II had a 3" howitzer. It was mostly used to fire smoke. When the Soviets got some via Lend-Lease they started replacing the smoke rounds with HE.

Folks. This is a thread about AT gun performance.

And if we want to get really technical, 3" is not 75mm, it is 76.2mm.

All the best

Andreas

Blutarski

Hi dibble,
I do not think that Wolfhag is actually arguing with you.

When I posted 'argue' I did not mean it in a confrontational manner.

"give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea" Not! "express diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way"

No offense taken, I enjoyed the discussion and exchange and learned something.

Thanks

Wolfhag

I'm sorry to be blunt, but all this shows is that you don't know what you are talking about.

The 75L24 was a howitzer with very weak AT capability. It had nothing in common with the 2-pdr other than being a gun. It's purpose and therefore its use by the Germans was completely different.

Well you were the one comparing it with the 2-pdr. ;)

The reality of course is that the PzIV crews did use the 75mm L24 against other tanks and despite its feeble AP could still penetrate the armour of the early British Cruisers and Crusader MkI anywhere and the Stuart and later Crusaders mostwheres at the range a 2-pdr might be effective. For the heavier British tanks and at longer ranges the HE round might be as effective as the Sherman HE round was effective against the heavier German types late war.

On a pedantic note, watching the linked videos by Matsimus and The Chieftain, they both mispronounce the word sabot as 'say-bo.'

youtu.be/ZY9yPvukwp0?t=328
youtu.be/kM74wlQongo?t=43

I've seen that mistake in a US tank manual, too.

It's a short 'a' not a long one:

dictionary.com/browse/sabot
link
link

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Well you were the one comparing it with the 2-pdr. ;)

And there's a good reason for that statement, which people who know something about how the British perceived German tanks in 1941 will understand. It has nothing to do with how the Germans used the tank.

could still penetrate the armour of the early British Cruisers and Crusader MkI anywhere and the Stuart and later Crusaders mostwheres at the range a 2-pdr might be effective.

Apart from the fact that it would struggle to hit the target over longer distances, I cannot reconcile the available penetration figures for the PzGr Rot with the available frontal armour figures for the Mk I Crusader and the Stuart in a way that supports your claim.

From what I can see, both the Crusader Mk I and the Stuart would be able to kill the Panzer IV over the frontal arc at distances where the Panzer IV will seriously struggle to kill them with AP, and would be better off firing HE and hoping for the best (an M-kill).

All the best

Andreas

"An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."
"No it isn't."

What years did a HEAT round come out for the 75L24 and how effective was it?

Wolfhag

Thank you, 4th Cuirassier!

"An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

and sometimes a connected series of left jabs and right hooks.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag wrote – "What years did a HEAT round come out for the 75L24 and how effective was it?

I do not believe that the HEAT round for the 7.5cm L/24 was available in N Africa during that early period.

- – -

See "Tank Combat in North Africa: The Opening Rounds – Feb-Jun 1941", by Thomas Jentz for some interesting comparison data on opposing tank and anti-tank weapons of that period.

Also see"Panzertruppen" Volume 1 (1933-1942), also by Thomas Jentz, for data on the 7.5cm L/24 HEAT rounds (which came in four different sub-types with penetrations of 45/70/75/100mm (assuming a satisfactorily verticaly impact angle).

Another interesting array of data can be found on page 284 of "Panzertruppen" Volume 1, which is worth repeating here verbatim -

quote -

By mid 1942, British forces in the Middle East had carried out tests with captured German tanks in order to determine the effectiveness of British and U.S. weapons against them. The table show the ranges in yards at which the different types of German tank armor were completely penetrated (perforated) by standard U.S. and British weapons. The angles of impact were the normal slop of the armor on the tank.

Pz.Kpfw III & IV with 30mm thick plates on
(a) turret front and hull front
(b) driver's front
(c) sides

2pdr std – - 2pdr HV – - 6pdr – - US37mm APC – - US75mm APC
1,300 – - – - 1,500 – - 2,000+ – - 1,600 – - – - 2,000+
1,400 – - – - 1,600 – - 2,000+ – - 1,800 – - – - 2,000+
1,500 – - – - 1,700 – - 2,000+ – - 2,000 – - – - 2,000+

- – -

Pz.Kpfw IV with 20mm + 20mm thick plates on sides

2pdr std – - 2pdr HV – - 6pdr – - US37mm APC – - US75mm APC
1,000 – - – - 1,200 – - 2,000 – - 1,100 – - – - 2,000+

- – -

Pz.Kpfw III & IV with 30mm + 30mm thick face-hardened plates on
(a) hull front
(b) driver's front

2pdr std – - 2pdr HV – - 6pdr – - US37mm APC – - US75mm APC
No Pen – - – No Pen – - – 500 – - – 200 – - – - – 1,000
No Pen – - – No Pen – - – 600 – - – 300 – - – - – 1,000

- – -

Pz.Kpfw III with 50mm thick face-hardened plates on
(a) turret front and hull front
(b) driver's front

2pdr std – - 2pdr HV – - 6pdr – - US37mm APC – - US75mm APC
200 – - – - – 400 – - – - 800 – - – 500 – - – - – 1,500
200 – - – - – 400 – - – - 900 – - – 600 – - – - – 1,700

- – -

Note: Re US75mm SAP, which was also tested, the last two entries read as -

Pz.Kpfw III & IV with 30mm + 30mm thick face-hardened plates on
(a) hull front
(b) driver's front

400
500

- – -

Pz.Kpfw III with 50mm thick face-hardened plates on
(a) turret front and hull front
(b) driver's front

600
700

I don't know about the Crusader, but the CS version of the Matilda II had a 3" howitzer. It was mostly used to fire smoke. When the Soviets got some via Lend-Lease they started replacing the smoke rounds with HE.

I dimly recall that early on quite a few of the CS tanks were Mk. IV A13, as there don't seem to have been many (any?) Crusader Mk. I CS tanks. But yes, same gun, mainly used for smoke, and I'm not aware (for whatever that's worth) of an AT round for that gun being shipped in the tanks.

All the best

Andreas

I do not believe that the HEAT round for the 7.5cm L/24 was available in N Africa during that early period.

There were HEAT rounds in the German 105mm field howitzer stocks in North Africa, but by personal order from Adolf they were not allowed to be brought close to the frontline, for fear of disclosing the secret of their operation.

I haven't come across info for the 75L24, but by implication would consider it unlikely that they were allowed to carry such ammunition in the tank, if there were any in North Africa. I also understand that the HL/A rounds of early provenance were pretty poor performers.

I suspect the Italians introduced 75mm EP hollow charge rounds when the Semovente da 75 arrived in North Africa in January 1942.

All the best

Andreas

The Germans captured about 1,000 F-22 guns in 1941 and used them as- is (because it could penetrate a T-34) or returned them to Germany for conversion. A lot of the converted ones made it to North Africa*, where their effectiveness was probably indistinguishable from that of an 88 to a British tank crew.

Are you sure about the conversion of the towed guns? I have notes in the 90th light and Panzerarmee war diaries referring to Russian ammunition being scarce (both in North Africa and in the Reich) and therefore use should be restricted. While this could just refer to the Dianas, I am not 100% certain that it would warrant such an entry?

Also, the Germans were disappointed about the AT performance of the gun when the Allied forces took out one of 90th Light's strongpoints at the end of March 1942.

All the best

Andreas

I checked in a couple of my dusty references. IIUC, captured Russian F-22 field guns underwent several modifications before being issued to German units as the Pak 36(r):

> Controls were re-located to permit elevation and traverse by one man and a muzzle brake added. Although not explicitly stated, I would assume that standard German direct fire AT gun sights probably replaced the original Russian sights as well.

> The breech chamber was reamed out to accept the standard German Pak40 cartridge case.

> Ammunition manufactured for this gun was of a special hybrid nature – a combination of a 7.62cm APCBC projectile mated to the standard 7.5cm cartridge case. This ammunition could not be used by the standard German 7.5cm Pak40 or KwK43, so it is possible that references to "Russian ammunition" in the reports of 90th Light Division may simply have been a colloquial reference to the special hybrid ammunition used by the Pak 36(r).

> I'm not sure why the AP performance would necessarily have been considered poor. One possibility is that the numerous captured Russian 76.2mm Model 1936 Field Guns were re-purposed in two ways: some (both unmodified and modified) were adopted for use as field artillery under the nomenclature 7.62cm Feldkanone 296(r); others went through the above-mentioned modification process and emerged as anti-tank guns under the nomenclature PaK 36(r)

Here is a comparison of AP performance between the standard German 7.5cm Pak40 and the modified ex-Russian 7.62cm Pak36(r) antitank guns -

Both guns firing APCBC Pzgr 39;
Penetration in mm @ 30deg obliquity:

Range (yds – – Pak36(r) – – Pak40
0500 – – – – – – 98 – – – – – 106
1000 – – – – – – 88 – – – – – 94
1500 – – – – – – 79 – – – – – 83
2000 – – – – – – 71 – – – – – 73

AP data from "German Tank and Antitank", Hoffschmidt & Tantum

FWIW.

B

The question I am asking is whether the guns issued to the Afrika Korps were unmodified F-22 or modified PAK36(r).

I am aware that modification happened. The question here is about these specific guns.

Two types were sent:

1) around 100 towed guns
2) Six SP guns in the Dianas.

Did they use different munitions? Were they all modified in the less than six months between being captured and sent to North Africa?

The point about the hybrid munitions is helpful and could explain the note in the war diary, thanks for that.

All the best

Andreas

Complicated story. I took a quick look into George Nafziger's reference work "The Afrika Korps – An Organizational History 1941-1943".

The 1 Oct 1942 equipment returns for 90th Light Division indicates that its officiaol TO&E indicates:
9 x 76.2mm PAK (r) self-propelled
54 x 76.2 PAK (r)
but is lacking all of them.

I also see references to 76.2mm Russian guns in a few field artillery units and 76.2mm Russian PAK (presumably towed) in certain other formations (15th Panzer Div for example).

Some people criticize Nafziger's work, but he was IIRC a long time Department of Defense employee and practically lived in the DoD archives.

As mentioned – a very complicated story.

B

I wouldn't use Nafziger if it were the last source available to me.

The guns were in North Africa, that's without any doubt. While the initial intent was to concentrate them in 90th light, this was weakened as things went on.

The 9x SP guns are probably Marders at the end of 1942. I am not sure how many Dianas were left by then.

All the best

Andreas

I watched some footage of Archers using their 17pdrs in the indirect roll, supplementing the Royal artillery during Operation Veritable.

YouTube link

YouTube link

See "Tank Combat in North Africa: The Opening Rounds – Feb-Jun 1941", by Thomas Jentz for some interesting comparison data on opposing tank and anti-tank weapons of that period.

Which also includes

" 4.1.1.2 EFFECT AFTER PENETRATION

The destructive effect of the 2-pounder AP-Shot after penetration was based solely on whatever kinetic energy re¬mained in the solid shot, shot fragments if it shattered, and/or fragments of armor plate broken off by the hit. Starting with the design of the Pz.Kpfw.l, German designers had taken extra precautions to reduce the probability of fire as a result of penetration. Fuel tanks were separated from the crew com¬partment by a firewall (about 5 mm thick). In the case of the Pz.Kpfw.ll, the fuel tank, located on the right side of the crew i compartment, was isolated by 8 mm thick armor plate. As a further precaution, the main gun ammunition in the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV was stowed in bins whose sides were 4 to 6 mm thick. In addition, main gun ammunition in the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV was stored low in the hull. Thus, even when a 2-pounder AP-Shot managed to penetrate through the armor, it needed suf¬ficient residual kinetic energy to penetrate the firewall or am¬munition bins in order to destroy the tank by setting it on fire. Penetration of a Pz.Kpfw.lll or IV by 2-pounder AP-Shot fired at 600 to 1500 yards range frequently resulted in crew mem¬bers being wounded but infrequently resulted in destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire. <Of those Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV knocked out in combat by AP-Shot, fewer than 20 percent were destroyed by fire or damaged so severely that they couldn't be repaired."

So even when the 2-pdr could get a penetration the likelihood was that the PzIIIs and IVs would only be 'knocked-out' briefly, if at all.

Which suggests that the British overclaiming of Panzers knocked out during their pre-Alamein duels may be more an overestimation of they damage they were inflicting than that they were actually hitting.

The claim that the British overestimated German tanks knocked out tends to overlook that a lot of German tanks were disappearing from the roster even though not registered as a loss in their books. See the engagement of PR5 against 8 Hussars on 19 November.

While Jentz is right in principle, even an M-Kill or temporary disabling of the enemy tank is good enough if you end up overruning the repair shop with the tank in it two weeks later. Looking at the positions of at least well over 40 of the German tanks lost in CRUSADER, that's exactly what happened.

All the best

Andreas

It's interesting that Soviet testing of the 2-pdr seems to produce different armour penetration results than British testing

StuG III. At 50 meters, the 2-pounder only forms a 20 mm deep dent in the StuG's front armour. However, at 100 meters, it manages to penetrate the upper part of the front plate. That result does not repeat, as another shot from 100 meters only makes a 25 mm deep dent. 4 shots from the side, all at 850 meters, go through.

Conclusion: "The 40 mm tank gun penetrates the side of the hull, 30 mm thick, from 850 meters. The front of the hull, 50 mm thick, is not reliably penetrable at any distance due to the poor shell quality. Upon impact, the shells shatter into small fragments."

The Valentine gets another turn, this time against a PzIII. The results are similar to the StuG. It cannot penetrate the front at 100, or even 50, meters.

In the conclusions, the following is noted: "The British 40 mm shell, when fired at a 50 mm armour plate from 50-100 meters, makes a 20-25 mm dent and shatters. "

How is that different? That the 2-pdr could not penetrate face-hardened armour on the Panzer III is well established, and the same results were experienced in the western desert.

If I were you, I'd stop random googling to prove a point, and start reading up on the issues you are discussing. The context of these things matters, and you won't get it from a quick google aiming to win an internet argument. Your original post should be a warning in that regard.

All the best

Andreas

Gosh for somebody with some very faulty ideas about the fighting in the desert you seem very free with the advice.

So how was the "2-pdr was arguably superior to the short 50mm gun on the Mk. III, and definitely to the 75mm on the Mk. IV."
again?

I think it is fair to say that the 2pdr, betrayed by poor AP ammunition, proved inadequate as an anti-armor weapon and, due to lack of an HE round, as a tank main gun.

Which is why, before adequate number of 6pdr AT guns came available, so many 25pdrs, early on, were pressed into anti-tank duties.

B

I find it interesting that, in Blutarski's data, the U.S. 37mm had better penetration than the British 2-pdr (40mm)!

What about the 2pdr uncapped AP shot hitting the German face hardened armor?

Wolfhag

Gosh for somebody with some very faulty ideas about the fighting in the desert you seem very free with the advice.

You're funny. For someone who cannot tell the difference between a howitzer and a gun you seem to be very convinced about your insight.

Good luck.

All the best

Andreas