# WWII artillery/anti tank gun....which was best?



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2008)

Just thought that I'd education in field artillery and anti tank guns. In these two categories, which piece would you consider raise itself above the rest, when it comes to mobility, speed of getting the first shot fired/pack things up and move to the next place, hits on target....etc. etc.?






Happy Pak-40 gunners after hitting a Russian T-34...


----------



## timshatz (Apr 30, 2008)

Kind of two different catagories. If you want the best AT gun, go with the 88. Still has a reputation. 

In terms of most effective and widely used, go with the US 105 Howitzer or British 25lber. Both good guns and refined weapons (breach on the US Howitzer had something like 7 moving parts whereas the German variety had 45).

If you want the most effective in making life miserable for the other side/make enemy generals say "Boy, I wish I had that"/step towards the future, I'd go with the US SP 155 Gun. Not the howitzer, the rifle. That thing was murder. And, very mobile. Better than the Soviet 152 Mobile in that it was a rifle and not a howitzer type.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2008)

True... Just wanted to see which people consider to be the best artillery piece, and which they consider to be the best anti tank gun of WWII....


----------



## comiso90 (Apr 30, 2008)

nice footage of the M12

991st Field Artillery Bn and the M12 155mm SP Gun

imagine that beast in a direct fire role..



.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 30, 2008)

Enough to give you plenty of headache....


----------



## Soren (Apr 30, 2008)

Hmmm... best in terms of punch is the 88mm PaK43, but it was way more powerful than needed, so I'm going to say the 75mm PaK40.


----------



## machine shop tom (Apr 30, 2008)

I'd have to say the 75mm Pak40 or the Russian 76.2mm model 1942. 

Both were effective anti-armor weapons that were far more mobile than the 88mm or similar weapons.

tom


----------



## trackend (May 1, 2008)

A.T Id plump for the 17 pounder it was quicker to unlimber and get into action and was much easier to conceal than the 88 yet was still capable of knocking out enemy armour.
I agree that the 25 pounder and the 105 where both great artillery guns IMO the 105 being the quicker to get into action
That said as an all round field piece IMO the 88 was by far the best ART weapon of WW2.


----------



## timshatz (May 1, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> nice footage of the M12
> 
> 991st Field Artillery Bn and the M12 155mm SP Gun
> 
> imagine that beast in a direct fire role..



I read of two accounts where that happened. One on Pelelui when the 7th Marines were trying to take a ridge. Tried once and we repulsed. Brought in a ton of spotters and picked out the Japanese positions. Then, they unlimbered some 155s at ranges of around 800 yds and blew the hell out of the ridge. Said the blasts were so fierce there was schrapnel landing in the gun pits. 

Another was going through the Sigfried Line. An infantry unit was repulsed in their attack and trying to figure a way through when an SP155 rolled up to the situation. The LT in charge asked if they needed and help and proceeded to blast bunker after bunker with this thing (even let some of the infantry pull the lanyard). Even if the round didn't penetrate, it scrambled the brains of the Germans inside. After they'd shot up everything they could see, the Artillery limbered up and clattered away. The infantry were very thankful.


----------



## comiso90 (May 1, 2008)

timshatz said:


> I read of two accounts where that happened. One on Pelelui when the 7th Marines were trying to take a ridge. Tried once and we repulsed. Brought in a ton of spotters and picked out the Japanese positions. Then, they unlimbered some 155s at ranges of around 800 yds and blew the hell out of the ridge. Said the blasts were so fierce there was schrapnel landing in the gun pits.
> 
> Another was going through the Sigfried Line. An infantry unit was repulsed in their attack and trying to figure a way through when an SP155 rolled up to the situation. The LT in charge asked if they needed and help and proceeded to blast bunker after bunker with this thing (even let some of the infantry pull the lanyard). Even if the round didn't penetrate, it scrambled the brains of the Germans inside. After they'd shot up everything they could see, the Artillery limbered up and clattered away. The infantry were very thankful.



Thanks for posting I was goona ask for examples.

Too bad there were only about 200 of them built..

.


----------



## Soren (May 4, 2008)

> If you want the most effective in making life miserable for the other side/make enemy generals say "Boy, I wish I had that"/step towards the future, I'd go with the US SP 155 Gun. Not the howitzer, the rifle. That thing was murder. And, very mobile. Better than the Soviet 152 Mobile in that it was a rifle and not a howitzer type.



The Long Tom was good but not really revolutionary, I mean what about the 150mm K-18, 173mm K-18 210mm K-38 ?

The 150mm K-18 L/55 is lighter and has a longer range than the 155mm L/45 Long Tom.

The 173mm K-18 L/50 weighs roughly the same but has a much longer range and more potent shell.

The 210mm K-38 weighs more, but its range is 10km longer and the shell is enormously powerful.


As a long range heavy artillery piece the 173mm K-18 is probably the best of WW2.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

Its difficult to give a single answer about the "best" piece of artillery or AT, because there are so many different scenarios and capabilities to consider. For example, all of the nominees so far would be less than ideal in jungle terrain. For this the lowly 70 mm type 92 howitzer would probably be the best wartime artillery for that terrain, for the simple reason that it could be manhandled into the terrain whereas most other guns could not, and required no transport other than the gun crew carrying it. So the analysis needs to be broken down somewhat before a proper answer could be put togther

The list in my opinion should include the following

ATG
Best Lt (50mm or smaller)
Medium (51-75mm)
Hvy 76mm +

AA
Lt up to 40 mm
Hvy (41mm+)

Artillery
Field
Hvy
Mtn
Abn
Jungle

Special

Best Rocket artillery


Perhaps the type that could provide the most effective service in the most categories should be considered "the best", rather than just thinking in terms of just the one scenario. heaviest or most specialised is not always the best


----------



## timshatz (May 5, 2008)

If we were talking about jungle terrain, I think some kind of Recoiless Rifle would be the best option. Easiest to move around and with plenty of whack to it. 

Soren, were any (or maybe all of them) SPs? Was thinking the combination of the SP with the Firepower made is a very effective system. Agree it was evolutionary more so than revolutionary.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

A recoilless gun is a flat trajectory weapon that often cannot fire indirect. Given that jungle is such closed terrain this places a severe limitation on range of a recoilless gun, and often prevents its use altogether. A howitzer is a far more useful weapon in the jungle.

The US possessed a 75 Pack Howitzer, which was useful, but still required a mule or two, or at least a lot of men to move it. The CW had a shortened 25 pounder, which was even worse when it came to transport. The little 70mm was superior to a mortar, far more mobile than its allied counterparts, and moveable by a relatively small number of men (about 6 from memory). It was a high trajectory weapon, meaning it could be used to deliever plunging fire over the top of the tree canopy. 

The only weapon the allies possessed with all of these qualities were mortars, and these were badly outclassed insofar as range was concerned


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2008)

Must agree with Soren re the 173 as the best heavy Long Range piece but for Jungle I would go for the 75mm pack Howitzer.

The Jap 70mm I believe had a short range matched by the 4.2 in mortars and the 75mm had a better range but did weigh more.

AT Gun the 17pd takes some beating, others were more powerful but we were into overkill situations and they tended to be bigger targets not as easily hidden.

Medium Artillery the 25pd is a good shout as is the German 105 not much between them.


----------



## timshatz (May 5, 2008)

parsifal said:


> A recoilless gun is a flat trajectory weapon that often cannot fire indirect. Given that jungle is such closed terrain this places a severe limitation on range of a recoilless gun, and often prevents its use altogether. A howitzer is a far more useful weapon in the jungle.
> 
> The US possessed a 75 Pack Howitzer, which was useful, but still required a mule or two, or at least a lot of men to move it. The CW had a shortened 25 pounder, which was even worse when it came to transport. The little 70mm was superior to a mortar, far more mobile than its allied counterparts, and moveable by a relatively small number of men (about 6 from memory). It was a high trajectory weapon, meaning it could be used to deliever plunging fire over the top of the tree canopy.
> 
> The only weapon the allies possessed with all of these qualities were mortars, and these were badly outclassed insofar as range was concerned




Was thinking of a direct fire mode on this one. Bunker busting and taking out caves. 

Would hate to have to drag any artillery through a jungle. Brutal work.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Heavy Medium artillery don't belong in jungles, mortars and such are allot more effective here.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Forgot to mention the 150mm K-39 by Krupp.

This gun fired a 43 kg high explsove projectile at 890 m/s to a maximum range of 25,420m, slightly longer than the 150mm K-18, and it was lighter as-well by some 290 kg.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2008)

I would argue that Howitzers have a major role to play with the ability to fire over hills and hit the reverse slopes. When its difficult to move artillery, range is also important.


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Some pictures of the 173mm Kanone 18


















And the 210mm Kanone 38


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2008)

Glider said:


> I would argue that Howitzers have a major role to play with the ability to fire over hills and hit the reverse slopes. When its difficult to move artillery, range is also important.



Ofcourse, but it can be a real pain in the ass to get the artillery within range of the targets in Jungle terrain if the range of the gun isn't sufficient. So yes range is very important.

This is one of the reasons why the US prefered air strikes during the Vietnam war, as the artillery was far from always possible to bring to bear. However when artillery was available one must also know that it proved very accurate and effective, I know people who can vouch for that.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

artillery in the jungle, or any rough terrain, is as important as artillery in the open country. heavy artillery is not efficient in these types of terrains, because of their distinct lack of mobility and portability. Any additional resources needed to move a weapon means that the overall fireppower of the unit is reduced in some other way. In the jungle portability is very important, so in this regard mortars are indeed useful. 

However, mortars are a very poor substitute to proper tube artillery, because of range limitation, and because they frequantly lacked the power to penetrate japanese bunkers. Incidentally, the weapons needed to be capable of both direct and indirect fire in order to afford maximum utility. Mortars just cannot do that, and therfore the allied Infantry was often reduced to to direct assault of fortified positions.

The Japanese operated with severe tactical and strategic disadvantages that easily cancelled out any advantages they might have enjoyed with their portable artillery.

It needs to be acknowledged, that there are situations where mortars are useful, it also shouuld be acknowledged that there are many situations in closed terrain where artillery is simply not going to do the job 

Airpower in a wwii sense was often limited in its ability to git ground targets that were close to the front line because the vegetation would prevent proper target identifiecation most of the time. Airpower tended to be used more for Interdiction in the rear areas, rather than providing direct support, too many friendly fire incidents otherwise


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

timshatz said:


> *Was thinking of a direct fire mode on this one. Bunker busting and taking out caves*.
> No argument there, a recoilless gun is quite effective at that sort of thing
> *Would hate to have to drag any artillery through a jungle. Brutal work.*
> 
> To give you some idea of just how brutal, have a look at these



I will also forward some more pics of the little 70 mm "battalian gun, showing its ability in high angle mortar style fire. This meant that opn trenches were no protection from these guns.


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

Examples of the Bn gun


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

"Baby" 25 pdrs in the jungle


----------



## parsifal (May 5, 2008)

and finally, the terrain typical of jungle warfare


----------



## Mitya (Jun 25, 2008)

The best antitanck gun for 1943 ZiS-57, 1944 B-100.


----------



## starling (Jun 25, 2008)

field arty.25pdr.
medium/heavy.brit 5.5in.
a/t .russian 100mm.
mortar.russian 120mm,brit 4.2in.
a.a.brit 3.7in.,40mm bofors.
yours,starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 25, 2008)

field arty.25pdr.
medium/heavy.brit 5.5in.
a/t .russian 100mm.
mortar.russian 120mm,brit 4.2in.
a.a.brit 3.7in.,40mm bofors.
yours,starling.

So, in all terrains, and all situations, these pieces of equipment are the best availalble????


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

The best of the lot were:

Light artillery: 105mm LeFH 18/40 (Light, very accurate long range)
Medium heavy artillery: 150mm K-18 K-39 (Longest range highest destructive power)
Heavy artillery: 210mm K-38 173mm K-18 (Longest range highest destructive power)
Light Anti Tank gun: 75mm PaK40 L/46 (Probably the allround best AT gun of WW2)
Heavy Anti Tank gun: 88mm PaK43 L/71 (Most powerful accurate AT gun of WW2)


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> The best of the lot were:
> 
> Light artillery: 105mm LeFH 18/40 (Light, very accurate long range)
> Medium heavy artillery: 150mm K-18 K-39 (Longest range highest destructive power)
> ...



except that in the jungle these weappons would be basically immobile, and therefore useless. Alternatively huge amounts of manpower could be diverted to move them, in which case your battlefront collases due to a shortage of frontline manpower


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

In the jungle mortars airpower are to provide to bulk of any "artillery support" needed. The LeFH 18/40 would however prove just as effective as the pieces brought along by the US during the Vietnam war, and provide greater range.


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

hey parcy,in the jungle,particulary burma,i would say the baby 25pdr.the 4.2in and 3in mortar,would be about all that one could use,unless you winched a grant up a steep hill,like kohima.otherwise,hurribombers or jugs would perhaps be called upon.those commonweath fighter bomber pilots were i believe very accurate.the bofors were effective against most jap a.f.v as well,i understand.starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

No it would still be at a severe disadvantage. It weighed over 1700 kg, and had solid wheels (which are a disadvantage in rough jungle terrain, because the tyre pressure cannot be adjusted for the boggy terrain

By comparison, the "baby" 25 pounder weighed 1320 kg, and had pneumatic tyres, making somewhat more mobile for jungle operations. The smaller 25 lb gun was still not very mobile when compared to the Japanese Type 94 75mm mountain guns, and the 70mm battalian guns. The latter could be manhandled by a team of just six men, and combined all artillery functions, except AA, ie, gun, AT gun, howitzer, into one package. The fact that its performance was very low was more than offset by its ability to actually get into action.

American 105s from the Vietnam war are not relevant to wwii.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

[*B]hey parcy,in the jungle,particulary burma,i would say the baby 25pdr.the 4.2in and 3in mortar,would be about all that one could use,unless you winched a grant up a steep hill,like kohima.otherwise,hurribombers or jugs would perhaps be called upon.those commonweath fighter bomber pilots were i believe very accurate.the bofors were effective against most jap a.f.v as well,i understand.starling*[/B]
Each of the weapons proposed by yourself and others individually are superior in performance to anything I have suggested. However, they all have fatal flaws for jungle warfare. In the case of the 25lbers and 105s, its size and mobility. In the case of mortars, they are mobile, but they are not mutirole. Mortars proved pretty poor at busting Japanese bunkers. You need a direct fire HE weapon, or an AT gun for that.

Trouble is, if you have tolug around a morta, a gun a howitzer, and an AT gun as separate itmes, you generate enormous manpower problems, since you have to pull men out of yor frontline Infantry to haul the guns for you. More by accident than anythng, the Japanese solved this with their lightweight ordinance. 

If you wanted to pick a European gun type that was suited to the Jungle, I would suggest one of the mountain guns of light calibre that could be broken down into small loads. But even these might not have all the multi-role functions that the Japanese guns had (would need to look at each type).


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Lets have a look at what I said:

_The LeFH 18/40 would however prove just as effective as the pieces brought along by the US during the Vietnam war, and provide greater range._

The US M101 Howitzer used during the Vietnam war weighed 2,260 kg and has a max range of 11,200 m. 

So this is just another case of Parsifal twisting what others are saying once more.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

*Lets have a look at what I said:

The LeFH 18/40 would however prove just as effective as the pieces brought along by the US during the Vietnam war, and provide greater range.[/I]

The US M101 Howitzer used during the Vietnam war weighed 2,260 kg and has a max range of 11,200 m. 

So this is just another case of Parsifal twisting what others are saying once more*
Nothing twisted about it. Referring to a Vietnam situation is not relevant to WWII. And the Americans seldom used their 105 in Jungle areas, except wher is wa accessible by boats or other similar means. this happened rarely. Which explains why the Americans basically abandoned all large scale jungle warfare away from the coastal zones after early 1943.

The german gun would be at a slightly worse disadvantage in comparison to other nominees, because of its solid wheels. Compared to the cut down 25 pounders used in the Jungle, it would also be at a weight disadvantage


----------



## starling (Jun 26, 2008)

would you agree with my suggestion that the 40mm bofors was effective against most jap a.f.v,s.starling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 26, 2008)

would you agree with my suggestion that the 40mm bofors was effective against most jap a.f.v,s.starling


Yes, the Bofors would be able to do that, however it is still not a multi-role piece of ordinance


----------



## Kruska (Jun 26, 2008)

Hello parsifal,

I think a Bofors 40mm weighs about 650kg and could only be used in the direct fire role.

So what about the German mountain gun 7,5 cm 36L/19,3 ? These guns would have worked for the jungle just as well.
Total weight about 750kg dismountable into 6-7 parts (IIRC highest positioned gun in WW2 at Mount Elbrus) and a range of 9250m. 

Or the 7,5-cm-Gebirgskanone 15 L/15. Total weight 620kg, dismountable into 7 parts, range 6650m.

Lexikon der Wehrmacht - Gebirgsgeschütze

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Soren (Jun 26, 2008)

Those are all great Kruska, but as I'm sure you will agree airpower mortars would still be used mostly.

However I do agree that the guns you listed are better choices than the British 25 pdr.


----------



## Glider (Jun 26, 2008)

Certainly one advantage of the short 25lb for jungle warfare is that it could be broken down into mule loads.

The US 75mm pack howitzer was also useful


----------



## Kruska (Jun 26, 2008)

Soren said:


> Those are all great Kruska, but as I'm sure you will agree airpower mortars would still be used mostly.
> 
> However I do agree that the guns you listed are better choices than the British 25 pdr.



Yes, and don't forget the probably most important weapons - flamethrower and bazookas for the fortifications. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello parsifal,
> 
> *So what about the German mountain gun 7,5 cm 36L/19,3 ? These guns would have worked for the jungle just as well.
> Total weight about 750kg dismountable into 6-7 parts (IIRC highest positioned gun in WW2 at Mount Elbrus) and a range of 9250m.
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 27, 2008)

Bazookas and flamethrowers are indeed good at Bunker busting, but once again are an added weight issue, and specialized weapon systems. Try lugging 40 or 50 kgs of extra weight per man in the squad for tens of kms, only to find that the capability you have brought is not needed. If you have lugged a bazooka and say 10 rounds, all that way, just to find that some of the defenders are now dispersed in the trees, and in rocks, or trenches,then your bazooka is pretty much a waste of time, and your squad goes into battle with less firepower than it could. if you bring a mortar,, but the the enemy is hiding in bomb proof shelters, or bunkers, again you are going into battle under gunned. If you try to bring in both, you start to incur weight penalties for your squad, that may slow you down, or reduce the small arms firepower capabilities of your force.

The two single most important factors in jungle warfare, insofar as heavy wepons are concerned is portability, and adaptability. A single piece of equipment must be able to fulfil all the roles, and be portable as well. Even though the Japanese weapons were infereior in performance, they were highly portable, and very adaptable, and this made them extremely useful. Despite their homely looks, and less than impressive performances, this made them dangerous in the environments I have described.


----------



## Soren (Jun 27, 2008)

Parsifal,

You're hardly ever going to be able to bring heavy artillery to bare in a direct fire mode against bunkers in the Jungle when you're advancing through.

The best guns for jungle warfare would be the German 7.5cm 10.5cm LG40 and the 10.5cm LG42. Weighing in at 146 kg (7.5cm LG40), 389 kg (10.5cm LG40 10.5cm LG42), and with a range of 8.6 km to 8.9 km, being a capable AT weapon and great artillery pieces for both direct indirect fire they were ideal for the role.

7.5cm LG40 alongside Brandenburger elites: 






10.5cm LG42 in action on Crete:


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

Ah getting there, but still not quite

According to TME-30-451 these weapons had the following characteristics

_75-MM AIRBORNE RECOILLESS GUN (7.5 cm L. G. 40). (1) General description. The 7.5 cm L. G. 40, formerly known as the 7.5 cm L. G. 1 (L) Rh., needs no recoil mechanism. The breech is designed to eliminate recoil by emitting part of the propellent gases to the rear. Weight has been reduced considerably by constructing the carriage largely of light alloys, and the gun may be dropped by parachute in two wicker containers. The thin horizontal sliding breechblock is hand-operated. A Venturi tube extends from the rear of the breech which is bored to allow gases to escape. Light metal disk-type wheels are fitted to the mount. 

(2) Characteristics. 

Caliber . . . . . 75 mm (2.95 inches). 
Length of tube including breech ring and jet . . . . . 45.28 inches. 
Weight in action . . . . . 321 pounds. 
Maximum range (HE) . . . . . 8,900 yards (estimated). 
Muzzle velocity (HE) . . . . . 1,238 feet per second. 
Traverse with elevation -15° to +42° . . . . . 30° right and left. 
Traverse with elevation -15° to +20° . . . . . 360° right and left. 
Elevation with traverse of 360° . . . . . -15° to +20°. 
Elevation with traverse of 30°, right and left . . . . . -15° to + 42°. 
Traction . . . . . Airborne. 


(3) Ammunition. HE, APCBC, and hollow-charge projectiles are fired. Projectile weights are: HE, 12 pounds, APCBC, 15 pounds; hollow charge, 10.13 pounds. The hollow-charge projectile will penetrate 50 mm at 30 degrees from normal. 

b. 105-MM AIRBORNE RECOILLESS GUN (10.5 cm L. G. 40). (1) General description. The 10.5 cm L. G. 40, formerly known as the 10.5 cm L. G. 2 Kp., like the 7.5 cm L. G. 40, has a jet at the rear for the escape of part of the propellent gases instead of a recoil system. There is no breechblock. The firing mechanism is operated from the top of the breech ring and the striker hits a primer in the side of the cartridge. A modification of this weapon, the 10.5 cm L. G. 40/2, also exists. 

(2) Characteristics. 

Caliber . . . . . 105 mm (4.14 inches). 
Length of tube, including jet . . . . . 6 feet, 3 inches. 
Weight in action . . . . . 855 pounds. 
Maximum range . . . . . 8,694 yards. 
Muzzle velocity (HE) . . . . . 1,099 feet per second. 
Traverse . . . . . 80°. 
Elevation . . . . . -15° to +40° 30'. 
Traction . . . . . Airborne. 


(3) Ammunition. HE and hollow-charge projectiles are fired. The base of the cartridge case has a circular Bakelite disk which is destroyed when the gun fires. Projectile weights are: HE, 32.63 pounds; hollow charge, 25.88 pounds. 

c. 105-MM AIRBORNE RECOILLESS GUN (10.5 cm L. G. 42). (1) General description. The 10.5 cm L. G. 42, formerly known as the L. G. 2 Rh, differs from the 10.5 cm L. G. 40 in that it has a horizontal sliding breechblock bored for the passage of gases to the rear. The mount is made of fairly heavy tubing, and is designed for rapid dismantling and reassembly. Both air and pack transport are possible. A variation, known as 10.5 cm L. G. 42/1, differs in weight (1,191 pounds). It uses the same range tables. 

(2) Characteristics. 

Caliber . . . . . 105 mm (4.14 inches). 
Length of tube . . . . . 6 feet, 0.28 inch (including jet). 
Weight in action . . . . . 1,217 pounds. 
Maximum range (HE) . . . . . 8,695 yards. 
Muzzle velocity . . . . . 1,099 feet per second. 
Traverse . . . . . 360° at elevations up to 12°; 71° 15' at elevations over 12°. 
Elevation . . . . . 15° to 42° 35'. 
Traction . . . . . Airborne or pack. 


(3) Ammunition. This weapon fires HE, hollow-charge, smoke, and HE incendiary projectiles. The projectile weights are: HE, 32.58 pounds: hollow charge, 26.62 and 27.17 pounds; smoke, 32.36 pounds; and HE incendiary, 33.52 pounds_

Two of the three types could fire an AT round (or equivalent, but none of them were capable of High Angle fire. This means that in many situations they could be defeated by the terrain, and or the vegetation. However they are getting there....at least they are portable. The larger calibre weapon at 540-552 kg is lighter than the cut down 25 pounder at 1320 kg. The 75 mm recoilles gun is 321 lbs, is extremly light, so gets full marks on that score

The LG42 is only described as being pack transportable, so it might still be ata disadvantage in the Jungle, where the ability to be easily man portable is also a big advantage. This is my chief criticism of the 25 poinder, it is not easily man portable, and having to take animals into the jungle is still a problem


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

This is very dangerous, and potentially misleading, but I will attempt to explain why I think the Japanese artillery was potentially dangerous in the Jungle. Typically (and thats the dangerous bit, because Japanese TO E varied so much) a Japanese Bn might be expected to go into battle with 6 Bn guns, and about 4 Type 94s (or similar) attached. The Type 94s had the following characteristics

Caliber: 75 mm (2.95 in). 
Barrel: 1.56 m (61.5 in) (20.8 calibers) 
Rifling: 28 grooves, uniform right hand, 1 turn in 22.5 calibers 
Range: (HE) 8,000 m (8,750 yd). 
Elevation: +45º to -9º 
Traverse: 40º 
Weight: 544 kg 
Barrel length: 1.56 m (L20.8 ) (5 ft 1.5 in). 
Muzzle velocity: (HE) 355 m/s (1,165 ft/s). 
Rate of fire: 
15 rounds per minute for 2 minutes. 
4 rounds per minute for 15 minutes. 
2 rounds per minute for continuous firing. 

Ammunition
High explosive 
M94 6 kg with 0.8 kg of TNT and M88 impact or delay fuse. 
"A" 6.46 kg with Picric acid and dinitro and M3 combination fuse. 
"B" 6.6 kg with 0.66 kg of Picric acid and dinitro and M88 impact or delay fuse. 
M90/97 6.18 kg with 0.42 kg of TNT and M88 impact or delay fuse. 
M90 Pointed HE 6.35 kg with TNT and M88 impact or delay fuse. 
Armor piercing 
M95 APHE 6.2 kg with 0.45 kg of picric acid and dinitro M95 small AP base fuse. 
Shrapnel 
M90 Shrapnel 7 kg with 0.1 kg of Black powder with M5 combination fuse. 
M38 Shrapnel 6.83 kg with 0.1 kg of black powder with M3 combination fuse. 
Star 
M90 Illumination 5.65 kg with M5 combination fuse. 
Incendiary 
M90 Incendiary 6.93 kg with black powder and M5 combination fuse. 
Smoke 
M90 Smoke 5.73 kg with 0.1 kg of picric acid and dinitro with M88 impact fuse

The Type 92 70mm Bn gun was much more the Infantry support gun (and there was nothing in the allied inventory to compare with that). It had the following characteristics:

It was used by infantry battalions both for direct fire and for high angle support fire. It could fire high explosive, armor piercing, and smoke rounds. Each infantry battalion included two type 92 guns; with a further support group of four guns often attached .

Specifications
Calibre: 70 mm (2.75 in) 
Length of barrel: 0.622 m (24.5 in); i.e. 8.9 calibre lengths 
Weight: in action 212 kg (468 lb) 
Range : about 3745 m (4000 yards) 
Muzzle velocity: 198 m/s (650 ft/s) 
Weight of projectile: HE 3.795 kg (8.37 lb) 
Rate of fire: 10 rounds/minute 
Elevation: -10 to +60 degrees 
Traverse: 90 degrees 

By comparison the Q.F. 25-pr Gun Short (Aust) Mk 1 on Carriage Light (Aust) Mk 1, weighed 1300 kg and an effective range of 3-11000 yds, depending on th size of the propellant charge. It would be unusual for an Australian battalion to go into battle with more than 4 of these guns attached.

So, whilst the Japanese could go into battle with up to 10 artillery pieces in support, the Australians were limited to about half that number, however the Australian gun outranged its opponents, and carried a heavier shell. The Australians also would carry a larger number of mortars into battle. and if available the support from higher echelons was more usual

Moreover, the Allied gunnery was much more flexible than Japanese. Japanese artillery support was often poor because of a distinct lack of co-ordination, made worse by poor or non-existent communication between the troops at the front, and the artillery behind, Frequently Japanese artillery was reduced to just firing according to a predetermined fire plan, and their counter battery capability was very poor. On the other hand their abilities at deception and camouflage were legendary. But the biggest problem was supply. More often than not Japanese artillery could not reply at all because they lacked ammunition


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 28, 2008)

Great info ...A little off thread here but and I've often wondered 

How did the artillery troops deal with there hearing ..???..It most of been not good on there ears.. Sorry if its dumb thing to ask...


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2008)

Parsifal ALL types of the LG40 LG42 fired AT rounds, or more specifically: HE, HEAT, smoke HEI. The APCBC projectile I am not aware of being used.

Are you relying on Lonesentry Parsifal ? If so remember its wartime intelligence papers, and thus far from always accurate, infact there are several mistakes in them (Which is also noted on the site). However it is mostly in terms of what was available and not.

PS: the LG42 does weigh 580 kg according to the German specs, which ofcourse are the most accurate.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

Yes I am, and will stand corrected. 

My basic point is this, to try and get things back on thread. One should not necessarily assume that the biggest is always the bestest. If the Japanese Bn gun was deployed to the open country, it would be ridiculously outclassed by the big motherF*ckers you guys are so fond of. For the record, I believe the germans had the advantage in these areas, though American ordinance is still pretty good. My whole point in this sub-plot, was to try and mnake people stop and think about all the possible tasks that their dream artillery pieces might need to face.

Now, its time for me to admit something. I was recently looking at the burma campaign and came across evidence that suggested the Brits managed to manhandle some 5.5s into the jungle near Arakan. if theat is the case, with the artillery actually being deployed deep into the jungle, am genuinely shocked. I had never realized that the brits achieved that in WWII. The heaviest ordinance I was aware of going deep were the 25 pounders. How they would have gotten the 5.5s into the real jungle, I dont know, if anyone does know, would not mind some instruction


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2008)

Its a bit of a guess but the Matador truck probably had more than a little to do with is. It was a 4 x 4 truck that was able to go almost anywhere and was the standard tractor for the 5.5in.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

Haztoys said:


> Great info ...A little off thread here but and I've often wondered
> 
> How did the artillery troops deal with there hearing ..???..It most of been not good on there ears.. Sorry if its dumb thing to ask...



Its not so much the roar of the guns, as the muzzle blast effect. You can generally stop your ear drums from hurting simply by plugging your ears. Nowadays artillery crews ar generally issued with noise muffs, to protect hearing


----------



## JugBR (Jun 29, 2008)

there are artilherys and artilherys... and theres dora


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 29, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Its not so much the roar of the guns, as the muzzle blast effect. You can generally stop your ear drums from hurting simply by plugging your ears. Nowadays artillery crews ar generally issued with noise muffs, to protect hearing



thanks for the info ...Have been around some guns and artillery that was small and could feel it in your chest ... The big stuff must be nuts..


----------



## starling (Jun 29, 2008)

the british/indian/commonwealth engineers,were very adept at doing the seemingly impossible.i cannot recall which book it was in,but i do remember reading about 4.5in and 5.5in arty deep into the arakan.yours,starling.


----------



## starling (Jun 29, 2008)

getting back 2 lucky 13 origional question.i dont know about the rest of you,but when i see german guns being pulled by horses,especially during the falaise gap,piled up along the roadside,it upsets me.rather like when horses fall at the grand national,i always check the horses get up,without a thought for the jockey.yours,starling. .


----------



## stug3 (Apr 7, 2013)

A German artillery crew in Tunisia 1943


----------



## vinnye (Apr 7, 2013)

I would go for AT - 17 pdr - enough firepower to do the job , small enough to hide and move about.
For artillery - 105 / 155 or 25 pdr all would get the job done.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2013)

weve come full circle. Most field artillery is just fine in most terrain, but some terrain types dont allow the luxury of heavy, hard to move, single purpopse guns. 25pdr was as mobile and versatile as any gun of the GP variety, but struggled in difficult country like mountainous jungles of New Guinea. here, other issues dictated what was satisfacory other than weight of shell or range. in the jungle, the apparently obsolete 70mm gun howitzer or 75mm mountain gun of the IJA were aas good as any other, perhaps with the exceptions of the 'baby" 25mm or the US 75mmpack howitzer. these however, came later, and were still on the heavy side compared to the Japanese weapons.


----------



## fastmongrel (Apr 8, 2013)

Was the 3.7" pack howitzer used much in the East. I have seen a few photos of its use in Burma by the Indian Army but nothing by British or Commonwealth troops.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 8, 2013)

The 3.7" AA was in quantity production in Australia by 1940. A lesser output of the complex predictors was also undertaken, but there were never enough. The mobile carriages for some of the guns built were iported from Canada. 

The type, along with other examples of heavy ordinance, including the 17pounder were deployed extensively throughout the pacific wherever major Australian forces were engaged or deployed in significant numbers. because of their weight, their ability to deploy in difficult terrain was limited

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww2/civil/vol5/awmohww2-civil-vol5-ch11.pdf

I am not aware of any production or usage of the 3.7 in pack howitzer. It was however used in Burma. Our equivalent to that weappon was the "baby 25 pounder"

QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## stug3 (Aug 18, 2013)

German 150 mm artillery piece, near Kursk in 1942.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2013)

STZ-3 tractors towing 122mm M-30 howitzers M1938. South-Western Front. June 1941


----------



## DonL (Aug 18, 2013)

To come back to the discussion of this thread,

I think a very capable piece of artillerie for jungle fight would be this piece

10.5 cm Gebirgshaubitze 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## vinnye (Aug 19, 2013)

I came across this story from a Arakan Vet who served with the artillery ;
"By careful study of the tidal movements of the sea, it was established that on certain dates and times the beaches would have a wide expanse of firm sand, and the tidal rivers would be shallow enough to be negotiated by the regiment’s vehicle’s aided by amphibious craft standing by to help out with any bogged down vehicles. The whole regiment would form a broad front at right angles to the line of the sea on the exposed sandy beach, leaving the various coastal rivers shallow enough to drive across. It was planned to split all the vehicles and guns of the regiment into lines abreast of each other. The C.O.’s jeep in front, followed by an assortment of various vehicles, comprising first line 15cwt trucks and jeeps, followed by five ton lorries, with twenty four guns towed by 24 quads ,the four/wheeled drive armoured vehicles, carrying the gun crews and trailers and towing limbers for the guns and ammunition."

Full story ;
BBC - WW2 People's War - The Charge of the 8th FieldRoyal Artillery

So it would seem that the guns were towed by 4 wd quads as Glider said in post 52.
It does not say what size the guns were - possibly 5.5's as Parsifal thought in post 51?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 19, 2013)

DonL said:


> To come back to the discussion of this thread,
> 
> I think a very capable piece of artillerie for jungle fight would be this piece
> 
> 10.5 cm Gebirgshaubitze 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Great weapon but wouldnt something a bit smaller and lighter be better for Jungle and mountain warfare. The Bofors 75mm M1934 seems a good small gun If I was pushing it through a jungle or up a mountain I know which gun I would rather be struggling with. The only mountain gun still in use is the Yugoslav M48 which is still in use by several countries.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 17, 2013)

A Red Army 45mm gun crew firing under cover of a smokescreen.


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2013)

vinnye said:


> I came across this story from a Arakan Vet who served with the artillery ;
> "By careful study of the tidal movements of the sea, it was established that on certain dates and times the beaches would have a wide expanse of firm sand, and the tidal rivers would be shallow enough to be negotiated by the regiment’s vehicle’s aided by amphibious craft standing by to help out with any bogged down vehicles. The whole regiment would form a broad front at right angles to the line of the sea on the exposed sandy beach, leaving the various coastal rivers shallow enough to drive across. It was planned to split all the vehicles and guns of the regiment into lines abreast of each other. The C.O.’s jeep in front, followed by an assortment of various vehicles, comprising first line 15cwt trucks and jeeps, followed by five ton lorries, with twenty four guns towed by 24 quads ,the four/wheeled drive armoured vehicles, carrying the gun crews and trailers and towing limbers for the guns and ammunition."
> 
> Full story ;
> ...



Generally speaking the Quads were used to tow the 25pd and Matador 4WD Artillery Tractors towed the larger 4.5 and 5.5in guns and others of similar size.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 18, 2013)

Artillery requirements for jungle warfare are about the least well understood military problems even today, and particualalry for anyone hailing from North america or western europe. its a safe generalization to say that in the main, people from those parts have basolutely no idea of what they are talking about. The overweaning temptation is look for bigger, heavier, meaner guns at every step. That is absolutely the wrong way to approach the problem. even when we do get some appreciation that we have to unlearn our desire for ever more firepower and meannes, we still tend to fall into the trap of not wanting to compromise on firepower too much. Thats only a slightly less dangerous hole to fall into. in general, western equipment for the jungle during the war was far too heavy and unwieldy to be considered ideal. 

The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said that artillery is the weapon an army can least do without...and nowhere is that more true than in the jungle. 

The Australians along the Kokoda track did entirely without artillery except for a few days from 21 September 1942. When the Japanese were on Ioribaiwa Ridge, at the limit of their advance, two 25lb guns of 14th Field Regiment were dragged up to Owers' Corner from where they were able to fire on the enemy. They gave crucial fire support in the battle, and immediately outgunned and outranged everything else on the battlefield. but after the main battle, the Australaians again found themselves fighting without artillery support, as the 25 pounders they had were too heavy to manhandle into and through the Owen Stanleys. 

In 1943, the Australians introduced the the 25 pounder short, and married it to the ubiquitous jeep so as to give some much needed firepower, but the system still remained overly heavy and cumbersome. 

The Japanese experience of war in China in the 1930s had taught them that in remote road-less regions the only artillery they would have was what they carried with them. On first landing in Papua they had 17 artillery pieces. These were of three types; 75mm mountain guns, 70mm infantry guns and 37mm guns which could fire an anti-tank or an anti-personnel round. All three could be taken apart and carried by horse or man. When the Japanese advanced into the Owen Stanley Range the carrying of the guns and their ammunition had to be done by men alone. One fifth of their force was needed to shoulder the burden of the disassembled guns and several thousand rounds of ammunition.

The great labour involved was, in the first half of the campaign, rewarded by victory in battle, time after time. The Australians found themselves at a severe disadvantage without artillery support. The Japanese artillery had several times the range of any Australian weapon but in jungle war the gunners usually cannot see the target. 

This problem was solved by forward observers. These men advanced with their infantry until they could see the Australians then, by field telephone, directed the fire of their artillery on to the target.

However, in the jungle, transport is difficult, and having artillery that is heavy or requiring large numbers of men to transport is simply untenable. This makes all the heavier German artillery weapons, even their lighter mountain guns, basically not ideal in any remote jungle situation. German guns are notable for their accuracy and stability, which they achieve in part by their relatively heavy weight.

British Guns are similarly handicapped. The Australians found the 25 pdr QF guns difficult to position and use in the jungle because of this, and very manpower intensive. They developed a partial solution in the 25 pdr short. Still heavy and too buly for jungle conditions, but an improvement.

The best weapon in the jungle IMO proved to be the lowly Japanese 75mm mountain guns. Easily broken down into manp portable loads, simple in the extreme, but able to pack a useful punch. There were two 75mm mountain guns that I know of, the Type 91 dating back to 1909, and the Type 94 dating back to 1934.
On the last day at Isurava, six Japanese guns were engaged and at Ioribaiwa there were eight, including their three most powerful ones, 75mm mountain guns. The greatest concentration of Japanese guns during the Kokoda phase of the fighting in Papua was at Oivi-Gorari where 13 were in action. In the disaster that overtook the Japanese there, all were lost.

The Japanese 70mm Infantry gun was extremely useful. Far better than mortars, because of its range, idirect fire capability, limited ATG capabilities and easy transport, they were greatly feared.


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 18, 2013)

Parsifal didnt the Diggers have any 3.7 pack howitzers they seem to have been ideal for the jungle as they could be broken iirc into 10 loads.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 18, 2013)

Not that im aware of, and certainly not before 1942. Australians painfully manhandled full sized 25 pounders and then the 25 pounder short. We also used the US 75mm pack howitzer, but mostly the 25 pounder short. 

none of these weapons were at all comparable to the Japanese guns. It was one area they did really well at.


----------



## bbear (Sep 18, 2013)

My Dad was a Montain RA (QF 3.7" Howitzer) Radio Operator: if any allied gun can make the grade for in-close infantry support this obsolete 'screw gun' descendant would be it. In case of any confusion (among juniors not seniors) it is unrelated to the AT/AA/field piece QF 3.7" gun.

Note 'infantry support' and 'obsolete' in the same sentence - not a happy story. Also obolete and witheld from Australians - stinky story? or just about the capture of guns and shortage early in the war?

Tell tale signs are in it's specifcation : separate ammunition, carriage traverse L/R 20 degrees weight 750kg elevation 60 degrees, split trail

In its use : airborn, desert, jungle, mountain, urban, open, forest

Units that had it under command : commando,

Heaviest lump - breech 115kg - just about mule transportable, towable by jeep, plus glider, parachute

Minimum standard range : not far, I can't find a reference but within 100's of yards -apart from over the sights

More than that : RA Officers with RA training plus knackers in the same vice as the infantry (British - FOP often a CP : requests for support are given as orders)

Anecdote : 1944, Antwerp/Scheldt/Walcharen Island, summoned by infantry, 8 rounds HEAT to pillbox from 3.7" how situated 1st floor of house, considering wisdom of a 9th (not much of house left, trail 1/2 way through floor) when white flag raised from pill box

So it had the right thinkng in some ways and in demand by some but too heavy, obsolete breech, obsolete fuzes, no HEAT until 1942, it's a WW1 weapon, we were lucky. The aternatives all fall a bit short in some way, weight especislly. So there was no good allied in-close support artillery for all theatres and uses I think. 

Summary: infantry, they need an 'equaliser' they can rely on : our gunners/our infantry : choose the gun and you also choose the human relationship that goes with it.

Dad died a month back- RIP Eric


----------



## vinnye (Sep 20, 2013)

I like that little Bofors - looks like a nice package.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 23, 2013)

It may have been mentioned already, but what about the US M116 Howitzer on the M8 carriage?


----------



## bbear (Sep 24, 2013)

For myself i considered the M116 on both M8 and M3A1 carriages : not quite as good as the Japanese 75mm on most specifications and a traverse that is tny (box trail) or comes at a huge weight penalty (split trail). 

Also the highest individual load for the dissasembled gun at 107kg is not strictly mule packable ( An ordinary mule weighs 1000 to 1200lbs and can carry a load a third their weight. In my last estimate i didn't take off 100lbs to allow for the saddle and harness. For a minimum mule carrying a maximum load the allowance is 333lb in total including 233lb of gun. The largest pack part of the M1 is 107kg or 239lb and looks like a big awkward top load from the one picture i've seen. So there would possibly be bad tempered mules if the gun is mule packed. And some human attrition from the kicking that would be the consequence of that temper?.

But that was presuming that the artillery piece has to be close to the action to provide close support.

In fact I now think otherwise - because of German and US radio power. The British No 38 set for AFVs had a power of 200mW the no 22 sets for vehicles had a power of around 1 watt. The equivalent for Germany and US as far as i can see is 10-15W (SCR 245 and 15WseB). The american kit also later featured crystal control and modular replacement as opposed to field maintanance. That's a loose summary of internet sources so is subject to correction.

This being the case, for the US/Germans to have artillery up to 8 km away from the action makes sense. The UK decisions to use Mortars and anti tank guns makes a kind of sense but was late and wrong. That's wrong in the sense that a the UK was short of major artillery , had a heavy 3 " mortar with too little calibre and too short range. Also anti tank guns were still arranged wide rather than deep and in general communications were left unfit for blitzkrieg - thats a weak inference from reading so far. The Japanese look more sensible with artillery suited to acting as 'battalion guns' and horizontal projectors and mortars would possibly suit problematic communications, good radios but perhaps not always enough numbers?).

The best heavy mortars seem to have a calibre of 105-120mm fire 6 or more rounds a minute, a range of 6km and weigh 280kg or so. If powerful radio is available then all the great guns mentioned earlier in the thread may get a good report again.

So the possible new 'best beast' for all pockets, suited to a full range of comms support from none to plenty, and for all close infantry mortarable purposes may be this russian one bought from the French
File:2009-11-22-seelower-hoehen-by-Ralf-10.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plus a separate anti tank gun or bazooka



i'm not expert knowledgeable and i'm taking my sources from 
Site Directory
RKK Radio Museum - Communications in WWI and WWII
U.S. Army Quartermaster Museum - Fort Lee, Virginia
Artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and other such places.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 24, 2013)

Has the German 7.5 leG 18 been discussed? Seems like a hand size for a 75mm infantry gun.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Gruppe_geschuetz_01_%28RaBoe%29.jpg


----------



## bbear (Sep 24, 2013)

the leg 40 has been discusssed (post 46) and Parsifal summarised the advantages of the Japanese systems with several caveats in post 48.


----------



## Juha (Sep 24, 2013)

bbear said:


> ...In fact I now think otherwise - because of German and US radio power. The British No 38 set for AFVs had a power of 200mW the no 22 sets for vehicles had a power of around 1 watt. The equivalent for Germany and US as far as i can see is 10-15W (SCR 245 and 15WseB). The american kit also later featured crystal control and modular replacement as opposed to field maintanance. That's a loose summary of internet sources so is subject to correction....



I'm a bit puzzled, the standard GB AFV radio was the No 19, 5 - 9W. The standard German was FuG 5, 10 W and US most of the war was IIRC SCR 508, 25W. No 38 and 22 were infantry radios. German Befehlpanzern had more powerful radios (20-30W) for contacts to arty and other support, in British 2-in-command had radio contact with rear-link tank etc


----------



## bbear (Sep 24, 2013)

Yes, i should have specified, the AFV No 38 set for AFV was I believe used in specifc units to relay messages received by no 19 set to infantry and vice versa, I've a memory that the pure infantry versios of no 38 set were 120mw but I could only tuurn up online figures for the AFV version - 200mW. No 19 set was also in vehicles, pretty sure the No 22 set was inteded for vehicles but in extremis was remounted on Plywood and thus to an Everest carrrier and carried by 3 guys (my dad did this and I've separate corroboration from the Rhine crossing at Wesel) which IIRC came to a load of 90lb per man. One to carry the set, another the spare batteries and the thiird the rest - theres a picture of a whole No 22 set on the RKK site and a line drawaing on the Tripd site.


----------



## Juha (Sep 24, 2013)

Now German equivalent (more or less) to No 18 and 38 sets was Torn. Fu.d2, voice 0.3W and Morse 1W, contrary to Britsh one man radios it needed 2 man crew and British Inf.Batt. had 16 sets, the German one had only 4. I'm not sure what radio set the FOOs used, in the WM infantry divs artillery observers might well use Torn. Fu.c or .f, 0.6W radio.

Juha


PS On mortars. British had 3" (in reality 82mm) medium mortars, Germans had 80mm medium mortars, British had 107mm heavy mortars, Germans had 120mm, either captured from Soviets or German development of the Soviet one, 12 cm GrW 42. The difference in mediums was not big, especially from 1942 onwards, when British increased the range of their medium mortar. In heavy mortars Germans' had some 50% more range and some 66% heavier shell.


----------



## bbear (Sep 25, 2013)

Ok, thanks Juha for taking the time to respond. To make sense of such a variety of radios perhaps one needs your wide knowledge of organisational, operational and technical histories at the same time. So thanks again.

I'm still drawn to 'all round fittedness' in scoring or describimg what is good about a gun to an armed force, including supply amd communications. That is, I'm more drawn to that than a 'biggest bangs at longest range'' way of looking at it. 


---
On mortars : wkipedia says that Russsian and German 120mm mortars were both derived from Frech 'Brandt' types. Agreed that the UK 3" mortar needed an upgrade, so choosing to enter the war with no battalion gun was possibly premature but economcally prudent I understand. Agreed on the advantage of German heavy mortars. One of the 3.7" howitzers last conventonal jobs was counter Mortar for exactly that reason. 

The idea of radio as a technical limitation to or eabling technolgy of artillery is clearly some way off the pace. But perhaps the difference would be a matter of the peple involved, the educational level of raw recruits, morale, leadership, ways of working, the whole command control and communication system rather than just the tools


----------



## Juha (Sep 25, 2013)

I’m not army specialist, I have read quite a lot on German armoured and motorized units but that’s long ago. And on British army my knowledge is mostly limited on ETO 1944-45 fighting, built-up area tactics and Desert armoured warfare. On battlefield communications I rely heavily on Rottman’s WWII Battlefield Communications Osprey Elite 181. IMHO usefull booklet on the subject.

On mortars, it’s interesting that Mortier Brandt de 120 mm Mle 1935 didn’t make any impression on British and Germans in 1940. At least in theory there was a squad of 2 these mortars in each French infantry regiment in 1940. The effectiveness of Soviet 120mm mortar was a shock to Germans. Finns (Tampella factory) had developed its own 120mm mortar by 1935 but lack of funds delayed the order to Nov 1939 and it missed the Winter War. Finns had concluded that medium mortars were ineffective against dug in infantry so they thought they needed a heavier mortar as well. Mortars suited well to the Finnish doctrine. There is some more info on the Soviet and Finnish 120mm mortars here: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/MORTARS6.htm

In you take into account the command and control in artillery evaluation, IMHO you should do some in depth research on artillery tactics of different nations, on flexibility of its use, how easy it was to give control of the artillery assets of several formations to one FOO to maximize the effect of an artillery strike and so on.

Juha


----------



## bbear (Sep 25, 2013)

That's a fantastic reply Juha. I was going to go deeper into Finnish use of force anyway (partly because I can't make sense of what the German's and Soviets were doing on the Eastern front - I mean two professional armies apparently ignoring 'General Winter'. 'Motti'.. hmmmm....). So Rottmann Osprey elite 181 and website suggestions will be taken up, the webbsite looks good, thanks. The only reason I can think of for the non-impact of the 120mm mortars in the battle of France is - it was over too quickly for any weapon or formation to do much.

Yes, i see, complex command and control and radio communications systems would take me ast WW2 itself right to modern days and similarly problems of co-ordination would I'd guess go back to classical times. So back to in-depth basics - or for me, onwards to a new subject. General strategy even.

Thanks again.


----------



## Juha (Sep 25, 2013)

Hello bbear
maybe you know this already but anyway, IMHO an excellent site on British artillery in WWII British Artillery in World War 2

Juha


----------



## bbear (Oct 3, 2013)

Hi Juha,

yes , thanks for that. I did have it in my list of references but I need to read more of it. The Rottman book I bought - I can resist anything except temptation.

Thanks for the 'gen' and thanks to Parsifal for the 'like' - it's appreciated.

cheers


----------

