# WW2 light field howitzer, your choice



## Vincenzo (Sep 27, 2014)

the light field howitzer was a common piece of artillery in WW2 what is your choice?, we can take in consideration also specifical national trouble (like minor countries or not motorized countries)

in WW2: so only weapons that had fired in battle of WW2
light field howitzer: main thats around 100/105mm calibre, expandable to 87/122mm calibre range, howitzer or gun howitzer the 4.5 inch gun is out, same for the 10 cm s.FK 18 or the 105/28 modello 1913

list for memory (i omitt some short ranged light howitzer, under 8 km range are not in list), corrections and add are welcomed:
Howitzer M2A1 105mm Rock Island Arsenal 2.3 Ton
leFH 16 105mm Krupp 1.5 Ton
leFH 18 105mm Rheinmetall (and derivatives) 2 Ton
Canon court Modele 1934 105mm Schneider 1.8 Ton
Canon court Modele 1935 B 105mm Arsenal de Bourges 1.6 Ton
Obice Modello 1918 105mm Ansaldo (on Schneider design) 1.4 Ton
Howitzer Model 1924 105mm Bofors 1.7 Ton
Haubits M/40 105mm Bofors 1.9 Ton
Howitzer Type 91 105mm Osaka Arsenal 1.5 Ton (1.8 Ton motorized version)
GebH40 105mm Boehler 1.7 Ton
Howitzer Model 1914 100mm Skoda (over 8km range only with WW2 era ammos) 1.4 Ton
Howitzer Model 1916 100mm Skoda (same as above) 1.2 Ton
Howitzer Model 1914/19 100mm Skoda 1.5 Ton
Howitzer Model 1916/19 100mm skoda 1.3 Ton
Howitzer Model 1928 100mm Skoda 1.8 Ton
Howitzer Model 1930 105mm Skoda 1.8 Ton
Howitzer Model 1939 105mm Skoda 1.4 Ton
Howitzer Model H2 105mm Skoda 2 Ton
Ordnance QF 25 pdr 88mm Royal Ordnance (in the 18 pdr carriage) 1.6 Ton
Ordnance QF 25 pdr Short 88mm Australian Ordnance Production Directorate (only in emergency) 1.2 Ton
Howitzer Model 1909/37 122mm Perm Plant 1.5 Ton
Howitzer Model 1910/30 122mm Perm Plant 1.5 Ton
Howitzer Model 1909/40 122mm Finish arsenal 1.5 Ton
Howitzer Model 1910/40 122mm Finish arsenal 1.5 Ton
Howitzer Model 1938 122mm Motovilikha Plant 2.5 Ton
Obusier TR Model 1909 120mm Schneider (if bulgarian had used it) 1.4 Ton

edited: Comic Sans MS for over 10 km range, Century gothic over 12 km range
added weight in combat in metric tonnes (rounded to first decimal)
the shell weight was within the range 13.8-16,3 kg for the 100-105mm weapons, was 11.3 kg for the 25 pdr, was 21.8 kg for the 122mm, was 20.7 kg for the 120mm

traverse infos: most pieces (all the WW1 era pieces) had a traverse within the 4°-8° range, same is true for the platform howitzer w/o the platform
pieces with good traverse (the 25 pdr and the Bofors model 1924 had platform for 360°)
M2A1 46°
leFH18 56°
Bofors H/40 47°
Skoda H2 50°
Schneider Mle 1934 45°
Mle 1935 B 58°
Type 91 40°
GebH40 51°
122 Model 1938 49°
elevation infos: only few pieces can fire in the 2nd arc, are this, with the max elevation:
M2A1 66°
Skoda H2 70°
Mle 1935 B 50°
Skoda Vz.30 80° (probably also the vz.28 )
Skoda vz.14 and 14/19 48°
Skoda vz.16 and 16/19 and D9 70°
GebH40 71°
Ansaldo 70°
122 model 1938 63°


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 27, 2014)

If I had to push it around by hand the 1.6 ton 25 pounder, if someone else was pushing it the 2.6 ton 122mm M38. 

The 25 pounder didnt fire the heaviest shell but a gun team was expected to be able to pull up, unhitch, drop the base plate, jump on the spade to dig it in and have a round in the air in 90 seconds. When I was in the Territorial Army we could get our 25 pounders into action in about 60 seconds though this took a lot of practice at the depot till we could do it in our sleep.


----------



## davebender (Sep 27, 2014)

Not much to choose between the two weapon. Both were state of the art during 1940s. German 10.5cm leFH18 (1,985kg) was a bit lighter in weight.

British 25 pounder (1,829kg) was not in same league as German and U.S. 105mm weapons. Almost as heavy but HE payload (per shell) only about half as much.

Soviet 122mm (3,100kg) was a fine weapon but it wasn't really a light howitzer by WWII standards. Russians have preferred this size over 105mm since it was first adopted in 1910. Different strokes for different folks. 

IMO German 15cm sIG 33 (1,800kg) rifled mortar / infantry gun (take your pick) deserves an honorable mention. Each German infantry regiment was supposed to have a battery of six. Range only 4.7km but shell contains massive HE payload of 8.3kg and it was as accurate as any rifled howitzer. Weapon of choice for suppressing enemy defenders immediately prior to German infantry assault. Special demolition round with 27kg HE filler had range of 1,000 meters.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 27, 2014)

AFAIK this are the combat weight
M2 2258 kg
leFH 18 1985 kg
25 pdr 1632 kg
122 model 1938 2450 kg
Canon court mle 1935 B 1627 kg
leFH 30 (t) 1789 kg

i added the combat weight in the list


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2014)

A couple of things to consider is that as a _general rule_ not only does the shell weight go up with cube of diameter but so does the gun/carriage weight, everything being equal, which it often was not. 

Suitability for towing by motor vehicle affects weight, especially high speed towing. Heavier wheels, tires, axles brakes, etc are needed for even 30mph towing compared to 4-6mph towing (and 105 howitzers did NOT go into action at the gallop with horse traction.) 

Split trail carriages were heavier than box trail carriages but offered wider traverse, usually _much_ wider, which means the crews were required to heave the guns about much less often once they were in position. 46-60 degrees of arc might be covered for a split trail gun. 
Higher elevation can also run up the weight. The ability to fire in upper register (over 45 degrees) allows for more freedom in placement (nearer buildings or in woods/trees) and more options trying to deal with dead ground like ravines. But higher elevation means trunions have to be higher of the ground or recoil length restricted. The latter means heavier recoil blows to the carriage which means a stronger (heavier) carriage. 

Rates of fire can also be important. Not just the size of a single shell but the weight of shells per minute over a given period of time. 

Travel weights vs in-action weights need a bit of looking at too. Did the travel weight include a _necessary_ towing limber/axle or just a handy one that provided _some_ ammo and a space for crew to ride. 







A posed picture? riding around with fixed bayonets on the gun crews rifles would give a modern safety officer the heebie-jeebies 

British 25pdr out ranged the German 105mm howitzer by about 1600 meters (14.7% ?) which had the Germans scrambling a bit to introduce a new model gun with more range, this was achieved by using a special propellant charge behind a special projectile and changing the gas pressure in the recoil cylinders, re-valving them and adding a muzzle brake. The new combination out range the British by a whopping 75 meters. Granted max range fire is a small proportion of a field howitzers work but the long range ammunition was an unwanted logistics complication. The "super charge" could not be used with seamed or wrapped cartridge cases, only drawn steel cases. 

There is a lot more to evaluating field howitzers than shell weight/range/weight of equipment.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2014)

Shortround6 i'm agree with most of your post but not on this
"Rates of fire can also be important. Not just the size of a single shell but the weight of shells per minute over a given period of time. "
imho weight of shells per minute is a badest indicator of the simple shell weight
1) as i read the larger shell is better of smaller shells of same weight (taking out different technology in the shells)
2) the rof can be mesaured in different way in different armies
3) most time the weapons are firing well under their max ROF, so actually if one howitzer can fire 8 rpm and an other 10 rpm most time is not 
important (but is not w/o importance)

edited: obviously there is a actual difference in pratical ROF between a 25 pdr weapon and a 50 pdr weapon


added info on traverse and elevation in the first post


----------



## davebender (Sep 29, 2014)

Artillery is a system with overlapping capabilities.

Heer solution for long range during both world wars was to provide each division with a battery of 10.5cm schwere Kanone. This freed up the lightweight, inexpensive and relatively effective 10.5cm leFH18 for general purpose infantry support.

10.5cmK17 (WWI version). 16.5km max range. 3,300kg weight. 
.....Horse towed.
10.5cmK18 (WWII version). 19km max range. 5,642kg weight. 
.....Requires Sd.Kfz.7 artillery tractor.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 29, 2014)

the 10 cm sFK 18 was not a common pieces in the german division only a few get it normally was in corps/army unit


----------



## davebender (Sep 29, 2014)

I think you are wrong.

*1939 German Infantry Division TOE*. Artillery only.
Germany's Tables of Organization and Equipment (TOE)
14 15cm howitzers.
_4 10.5cmK18 long range guns._
36 10.5cm light howitzers.
20 7.5cm howitzers. 
.....These were substitutes. 1939 Germany did not have enough 10.5cm howitzers to meet operational requirements.
Plus 7.5cm and 15cm rifled mortars / infantry guns at regiment level.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2014)

A British division had 72 25pdrs, 4 10 cm sFK 18s are going to have an awful hard time suppressing all those guns. 

granted not ALL the 25pdrs will be located out of the reach of the standard leFH 18 howitzers.


----------



## Glider (Sep 29, 2014)

Of those on the list it has to be the 122mm M38. Does it count as light, then that's something else.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> Shortround6 i'm agree with most of your post but not on this
> "Rates of fire can also be important. Not just the size of a single shell but the weight of shells per minute over a given period of time. "
> imho weight of shells per minute is a badest indicator of the simple shell weight
> 1) as i read the larger shell is better of smaller shells of same weight (taking out different technology in the shells)
> ...



Yes, finding good information on "practical" rates of fire can be hard. 

However for the US 105mm howitzer one source gives 

First 1/2min..............................8 rpm
first 4 min................................4 rpm
first 10 min.............................. 3 rpm
sustained...............................100 rounds/hour

These may be book figures for best barrel life, Some US 105mm howitzers in NW Europe were burning out their barrels in under 5000 rounds compared to a book life of 10,000rounds. Heat (rapid fire or high charges) is the most important factor in barrel life. 

Some of the older howitzers (or reworked) ones could fire new ammo to longer ranges but it sometimes affected the "practical" rate of fire in that higher energy ammo could, while not breaking the gun or mount, move it around a bit so the gun required more frequent relaying (aiming) even though you could throw the rounds into the breech just as fast.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 29, 2014)

How far could heavy mortars substitute for these light field howitzers? Much lighter and cheaper. Both in themselves and their transport. I am sure that the artillerymen out there will be spitting their cornflakes across the breakfast table at the thought. Yes they will be out ranged so that renders them liable to counter battery fire and less able to change targets across a wider area but can you simply have more of them? As Stalin (allegedly) said 'quantity has a quality all of it's own'.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2014)

As usual, the euro centric pre-occupation with firepower and range comes at the expense of other considerations. as the allies found in the jungles of new guinea Burma and larger islands like balikpapaan, this was a costly mistake. 

Artillery in the Jungle is as important, if not more so, than in the open fields of battle of northern Europe

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. these were heavy guns for Jungle conditions, and this led to the eventual development of the "Baby 25 pounder." Even as redesigned the baby 25 was too heavy and immobile for the jungle. 

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.





_Captured Japanese 70mm howitzer, greatly coveted by the Australians and used regularly when captured_
The great labour involved was, in the first half of the campaign, rewarded by victory in battle. To have no artillery, when the enemy has it, is to be disadvantaged like a boxer who finds his opponent has a much longer reach than him. The Japanese artillery had several times the range of any Australian weapon, and were muli capable, as howitzers, as direct fire guns and even with some ATG capability. this was an important facet of Japanese artillery capability....its ability to more than one job. 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.

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 which were eagerly utilised by the advancing australians.

So, to answer the question, the preliminary question must first be answered. what are the terrain constraints that the weapon is operating. The next question is how mobile and transportable the weapon is, which includes its ability for motorised transport, and also the ability to be broken down into movable loads, when weight is a big issue. only then can we get into the argument of how much bang is the right amount.....

In the Jungle light artillery fulfils the role of medium and heavy as well, and the Japanese fielded the most versatile artillery of the war in that regard, despite its antiquated design and appearance. they had the most experience of any nation in that regard, except with the possible exceptions of the Italians and the Austrians


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 29, 2014)

Once you get to the bigger mortars logistics (weight of ammo) takes over from the weight of the actual tube and mount. A Russian 120mm M43 mortar weighs 275kg in firing position and 500kg traveling. However the bombs weigh about 16kg each(fused) so 500kg of bombs is about 31 rounds _not_ including packing tubes/boxes/crates. Moving the mortar/s is no problem, moving a worthwhile amount of ammo is a big problem. 

The next difference is accuracy, something the mortar makers were a bit hesitant to advertise. The 50% zone for the British WW II 3in mortar using charge 2 (max range 2800yds) was 25yds wide and 150yds long, that is 50% of rounds fired would land _inside_ that area. This is not the 'beaten zone'

Mortars are very good at certain jobs and not so good at others. Mortar bombs are very effective for the weight, carrying a high percentage of explosive but a 120mm howitzer shell weighs just under 22kg and carried about 50-100% more explosive than WW II mortar bombs depending on exact model of bomb. Cast Iron or steel. Modern equivalents are packaged 2 bombs to the wooden case. 50 kg per case, or 100 rounds weigh 2500kg.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2014)

davebender are not me in wrong it's your source in wrong
as you can see in the Niehorster page German Armed Forces under military organization based on original german sources there were not 10 sFK 18 in the normal infantry divisions TOE (1939, 40, 41 all that available on the page), a few of the other divisions get its.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2014)

davebender are not me in wrong it's your source in wrong
as you can see in the Niehorster page German Armed Forces under military organization based on original german sources there were not 10 sFK 18 in the normal infantry divisions TOE (1939, 40, 41 all that available on the page), a few of the other divisions get its.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2014)

Glider are you aware that the 122 M38 weight only 2 quintal more of the M2A1?
I'm aware that its weight is not far from the weight of 149/155mm howitzer of WWI


----------



## Glider (Sep 30, 2014)

Yes I am, but if someone wants to include it in the list then it has to be my choice. I would certainly question if it should be on the list, but that is a different question. As I said _Does it count as light, then that's something else._
It might be better to define some weight categories then let people choose to that


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2014)

The 122 M1938 is and was in the list, second-last, 
i used also a translator but the phrase "Does it count as light, then that's something else." remains to me unclear, sorry
for weight categorie we can use from 1.2 metric ton to 2.5 metric tons,


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2014)

It is very hard to come up with firm limits on some of these categories. Some armies, at times, assigned some rather strange weapons and blurred the generally accepted "limits" of "Field artillery". 

The original limits were rather loose to begin with as "horse"----"Field"------and "Siege" artillery were ALL horse (or oxen) drawn. It was up to different armies to determine how many horses and what speed of travel divided the guns into each class. 

"Horse" artillery _generally_ could advance (or retreat) at the gallop with ALL crewmen either riding horses, caissons or wagons. "Feild" artillery had to keep up with a marching army and some of the gun crew walked alongside the guns/caissons/wagons. "siege" artillery, even with up to 20 animals per towing team, could NOT keep up with marching men on a day by day basis. Armies might vary on how many horses were in the Horse or field artillery towing teams. 

Some later classifications, like divisional guns, show some rather wide variations as not only do the different types of divisions use different guns (Cavalry divisions using horse artillery, mountain or alpine divisions using mountain guns, etc) but some armies, even before WW I mixed guns in a regular infantry division. The French being one of the few major armies to use all one type of gun in most of their infantry divisions. During WW I most armies began the shift away from 75-76mm guns to 100-105mm howitzers as divisional artillery. The US and German armies beefed up their divisions by WW II by including a 12 tube 150-155 battalion to accompany the 3 battalions of 105mm tubes. So in WW II you could be dealing with anywhere from a 75mm gun to a 155mm howitzer as "divisional" artillery. 

If you want to compare "field" howitzers kick out all the mountain guns/jungle guns/airborne guns/infantry guns as they should be competing in a category of their own, or even more than one category. 

Then kick out some of the antiques and leftovers. Lets face it, they were substitute standards (issued to second line/training units) for good reason. They didn't do the job as well as the newer weapons, despite how they might compare on a simple list. many of the WW I weapons were used in WW II because the owning countries didn't have the money for anything better (or the money went to different weapons like airplanes or tanks).
The difference between a horse drawn 1.6 ton weapon and a horse drawn 1.8 ton weapon getting bogged down in mud is going to pretty small. And maybe the 1.8 ton weapon has bigger diameter wheels (or wider?) 

You should wind up with a short list with not more than 2 weapons from any one country.


----------



## Vincenzo (Sep 30, 2014)

For pratical purpose there were only 4 and half modern howitzer: leFH18, M2, 25 pdr, 122 M1938, the half is the Type 91 that was built in much small scale. All other modern pieces had very low production number the most produced is the GebH40 with 420 pieces, yes i know this was a mountain howitzer but there is no reason (price excluding) that would not have been a good piece of field artillery (is the howitzer with the longest range in the list). The old WW1 era pieces were cheap, or better free (they were already in the stocks) had not the capability of modern pieces but are better of nothing (and also better of the very short ranged pieces still around) and all are in low band as weight (i'm no a expert but is possible that a 1.4 ton horse towed howitzer is more easy to put out to mud that a 2 ton horse towed howitzer)


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> All other modern pieces had very low production number the most produced is the GebH40 with 420 pieces, yes i know this was a mountain howitzer but there is no reason (price excluding) that would not have been a good piece of field artillery (is the howitzer with the longest range in the list).









This why there were different guns for different uses, it is not _just_ the cost. The Mountain howitzer has small wheels and a narrow axle, it keeps the weight down but means the equipment is a bit top heavy and more likely to over turn while being towed over rough terrain. Or try dragging the equipment on a 1000km road march (rough roads) and see if it takes itself apart. Equipment that is _designed_ to come apart in 4-8 major sections just may take-itself apart on long road trips. _"Can be towed"_doesn't mean it is _good_ at being towed. Or there may be speed restrictions when being towed by motor traction. Small wheels don't handle bumps/holes in roads as well as large wheels (they figured this out back with muzzle loading guns).

And again, _standard_ divisional weapons were designed for long life, both firing and towing. More than one attempt to 'lighten' existing equipment stopped when the new light carriage/mount broke or bent after prolonged firing. 

The Artillery was really a somewhat scientific branch of service and had been since muzzle loading days. Books or booklets on carriage design going back to the 1700s, logistics (ammo supply) and how much barrel you really needed being topics of discussion and experimentation. Once you started getting into targets that were out of line sight trigonometry and surveying came into play. As ranges increased weather and/or atmospheric conditions had to be taken into account. Senior artillery officers still may have made mistakes but it was a lot harder to get to be a senior artillery officer _without_ formal engineering training than in either the infantry or cavalry. 






> and all are in low band as weight (i'm no a expert but is possible that a 1.4 ton horse towed howitzer is more easy to put out to mud that a 2 ton horse towed howitzer)



this may be true but the practical difference of only .2 of ton may not be enough to offset any other differences.

And sometimes you just had to make the equipment soldier proof

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 5, 2014)

Following your suggestion do not considering specialized howitzer, also if i consider necessary check one to one the lack of capability to be used as standard field howitzer, the list of 26* howitzer go down to 21*
they can be clustered in: 
the old WW1 models and their limited upgraded versions group (9 howitzer: leFH 16, Skoda vz.1414/19, the Ansaldo, the soviet and finish upgrade of 122 model 19091910 and the 120 Schneider 1909**), they have limited weight 1,4-1,5 tons, limited traverse 4-6°, max elevation within 40-48°, range all under 10 km (the better is the Skoda 14/19 with 9,9), also if originally they were horse towed many were modified for motorized towing
"modern" pieces with limited traverse group (2 howitzer Skoda model 19281930 (the 30 is the czech army version and thw 28 is the export version (Yugoslavia the alone customer afaik), weight 1,8 tons, traverse 8°, elevation 80°, range around 10,5 km, built for towing motorized
all the other modern pieces group (10 howitzers: M2, leFH18, Bofors model 1924&H/40, Skoda H2, Schneider mle 1934, mle 1935 B, Type 91, 25 pdr, 122 Model 938), large variability in weight from 1,5 to 2,5 tons, traverse from 40 to 58°, excluding the 25 pdr and the Bofors m1924 they had only 8° but with platform can 360°, elevation from 42 to 70° (that with 2nd arc are the 1935 B (50°), 122 m1938 (63°), M2 (66°), H2 (70°)), range from 10,3 to 12,3 km (only the 25 pdr, the leFH 18M and 18/40 and the Skoda H2 over 12 km ) all built for motorized towing (for the leFH18 were built also horse towed carriages; edited the most common Type 91 variant was horse towed)




* to check for error and omission
** to check for actual use


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2014)

As you stated in the beginning, choice depends on the country. 

The British and Americans were _never_ going to pick a horse drawn gun at this point in time. They simply didn't have any horses left (except for ceremonial purposes) and had no breeding program or veterinary service to provide for large numbers of horses. 

The Russians, French, Germans, Italians and to some extent the Japanese were caught in-between. They _wanted_ motorized troops and motorized artillery but didn't have the money/resources to _fully_ equip their armies with the needed number of vehicles. 

The other countries may have looked at motorized guns and 'wished' but had no money or infrastructure (drivers, mechanics, garages, fuel distribution) to make the change over possible except in very small specialized units (this last may apply to the Italians and Japanese).

Best howitzer for Bulgaria was NOT the best howitzer for the US. The reverse was also true. 

There are also differences in motor towing. Solid rubber tires may not allow tow speeds of 30-45mph although they allow higher speeds than wooden wheels and steel tires/rims. 

Now as Parsifal points out, the best gun/s is/are the one/s you actually have in position to give you fire support. However it it is not just the guns but the ammo supply. A modern company quotes 72 Kg for *two* Russian 122mm howitzer rounds in the wooden packing crate/box and 55Kg for *two* 105 rounds in the wooden packing crate/box. 200 rounds of 122mm ammo could weigh 7200kg and the 105mm ammo goes 5500kg for 200 rounds. Even 100 rounds packed/cased exceeds the weight of the guns. While the difference of a few hundred kilograms from one model of gun to another makes a bit of difference to the men trying to man handle them the weight of a _battery_ of guns (radios, field phones, repair/fitter, etc) _and ammo_ can totally overwhelm the gun weights. 
The Ammo weight was another reason the mountain/airborne troops stuck with 75/76mm weapons longer than the regular field troops did. 75/76mm support fire beats no support fire. Same company mentioned above quotes 39KG for a *three* round case of 76mm ammo for the Post-war Yugoslavian (and Romanian?) mountain howitzer. 

Breaking open the cased ammo and trying to have the men lug it in one or two rounds at a time can suck up hundreds of infantry men. 

Some countries had short supply lines. Using WW I left overs in small numbers only a few hundred miles from the arsenals/factories is a different problem than using odd ball guns at the end of 3000-8000 mile supply chains. 
Best gun in the world doesn't do much good if you don't have ammo for it. Australian 'baby' 25pdr may have been a compromise in an attempt to use standard ammo as much as they could.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 5, 2014)

taking out the parts i've agree with you (the most)
i just want add that 2 122mm round weight more of 2 105mm round but also are more powerfull, and generally a 122 weapon fire slower that a 105 weapon, so do not need the same number of rounds for the same work.

i'll try to check tires type maybe this is not so easy


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 5, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> taking out the parts i've agree with you (the most)
> i just want add that 2 122mm round weight more of 2 105mm round but also are more powerfull, and generally a 122 weapon fire slower that a 105 weapon, so do not need the same number of rounds for the same work.



depends on the work, some of the work was harassing or interdicting fire fire. So many rounds per hour into a given area to keep the enemy from moving around in it/though it. Not expecting to demolish fortifications (if any were hit it was a bonus). You need enough rounds per hour (or unit of time) to keep anyone from trying to dash between the shots. Bigger bangs further apart don't work as well. 
Troops (or trucks/transport) caught in the open need high rates of fire for a brief time before the target troops get to cover/move out of impact zone. 

Even at sustained rates of fire( not burst fire) it wasn't hard for most of these howitzers to go through 100 rounds an hour. In WW I some of the 75-84mm field guns went through over 500 rounds a day in the prolonged bombardments and could fire 15-25 rounds per minute for brief periods of time, ammo supply was always a consideration. 
The Luftwaffe gets a lot of credit for the Blitzkrieg in Poland, what doesn't get a lot of credit is that a 'standard' German infantry division (non-Panzer) not only had more (although not a lot more) and bigger guns in the division ( Germans used a lot more 105mm howitzers while the Poles still had a lot of 75mm guns) but the German Division had *2-3* times (or tons) worth of ammunition in the division supply train. The advantage of trucks over horses. And trucks (assuming good weather/terrain) could bring up more ammo from the supply dumps/rail heads much faster than horse drawn wagons. As the German army added divisions faster than truck production could keep up (and as the older trucks wore out faster than they could be replaced) this advantage disappeared.


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 7, 2014)

i've already try to reply yesterday but the site had trouble

imho the ammos need for harassing works is small comperate to that need for attck/defence works

on the tires, the 25 pdr and M2 had tube tires, is possible tat the motorized variant of Type 91 had also tube tires
the others would be had solid rubber tires; some pieces had the old wooden tires but was possible use trail for motorized towing or load the howitzer on the truck. 
EDIT: also the belgian leFH 16 had tube tires
(30/45 mph for towing artillery i don't think was realistic, also for tube tires, in WW2 time have you infos on this?)


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 12, 2014)

i try to put some choice
horse towed: 105 mm Type 91, had the low weight like the WW1 era pieces but has relatively good traverse (40°) and range (10,7). IDK if the improvements over the ww1 era pieces are enough for a actual choice. the italian army valutating the skoda 100 model 1914/19 versus the 100 model 1914 already in use rate the 14/19 not enough better of their 14 for the cost, yes the Type 91 is superior to 14/19 but idk if enough for a actual choice (the italian army want a 105 mm howitzer of 1,6 ton and 11 km range (idk the other data of the requiremnt but both concurring design had "modern" traverse capability) and failed to have it).
motor towed: 122 mm Model 1938 (Skoda H2 if must be a 105)
high speed motor towed: M2 and 25 pdr are too near for a choice, both have some advantage on the other


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 12, 2014)

i try to put some choice
horse towed: 105 mm Type 91, had the low weight like the WW1 era pieces but has relatively good traverse (40°) and range (10,7). IDK if the improvements over the ww1 era pieces are enough for a actual choice. the italian army valutating the skoda 100 model 1914/19 versus the 100 model 1914 already in use rate the 14/19 not enough better of their 14 for the cost, yes the Type 91 is superior to 14/19 but idk if enough for a actual choice (the italian army want a 105 mm howitzer of 1,6 ton and 11 km range (idk the other data of the requiremnt but both concurring design had "modern" traverse capability) and failed to have it).
motor towed: 122 mm Model 1938 (Skoda H2 if must be a 105)
high speed motor towed: M2 and 25 pdr are too near for a choice, both have some advantage on the other


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 12, 2014)

A part of how important the traverse is how interconnected your artillery batteries are. The British were probably the best at this by the end of the war as within just a few minutes _any_ artillery observer had the capability of calling the fire from any/all guns in range on a single target (if given permission by higher command) _regardless_ of parent organization (forward observer could 'borrow' neighboring divisions/corp batteries for some missions). This required a very large number of radios and field phone networks. The British 25pdr on it's turntable was capable of large changes in arc quite rapidly. 
The WW I guns were usually in armies with much more rudimentary communications networks. It doesn't matter so much if you lack wide traverse as the guns were linked to only a limited number of forward observers and even brigade/division headquarters were not well linked laterally. Pre-planned fire is one thing, responding to sudden needs/threats is another and the wider traversing guns, assuming a communications network that allowed it, were much better at responding out of arc. 
You also had the firing 'patterns' for lack of a better word. A gun with 8 degrees of traverse could cover about 1300 yds of frontage at at a range of 10,000yds, or 650yds at 5000yds. Penetration into enemy territory is at the expense of covering your own front. How many yds/meters of line was a division supposed to hold? A howitzer with 5-7 times the covered arc could both reach in to the enemy territory and cover a a decent amount of frontage. 

Time taken getting into action and back out of action is also important, sometimes weight was kept down by using trail spikes instead of spades (this may not translate well).










The Japanese howitzer (and some others) required stakes/spikes to be hammered down into the ground before firing (most of the time) and then pried back up before moving/swinging the gun. 
The American howitzer would dig it's spades in under recoil but took less work to unseat and move the gun (and in a hurry a few rounds of ammo were enough to set the spades again).


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 12, 2014)

all italian 30s pieces had spikes/stakes afaik because the army want this, they considerd the best choice for the foresee grounds

the threat was on pieces not on the armies


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 12, 2014)

Bofors Howitzer M/40
Weight: 1,970 kg
Length: 5.310 m
Crew: 7 + 3 reserve
Shell: High explosive
Caliber: 105 mm
Breech: Horizontal sliding-wedge breech or interrupted screw breech
Carriage: Split trail with spades
Elevation: -5 to +45 degrees
Traverse: 50 degrees
Rate of fire: Mk40 rounds per hour
Maximum firing range	: 10,900 m


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 12, 2014)

Hi Lucky13 have you same info also for the model 1924?
I had 47° for traverse but this not change by much


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 12, 2014)

Vincenzo said:


> the threat was on pieces not on the armies



If you mean 'thread" (and I mistype more than most), yes, it is on the artillery pieces but some armies would find older weapons less 'limiting' because they not only were using 'old' traction (animals instead of motor vehicles) but because their 'command and control' could not take _full_ advantage of the capabilities of the newer weapons. Taking longer to emplace the battery is not a big deal if you have few or poor radios and need to lay down a field-phone network _before_ the battery can be used to good effect. 
A more modern gun can used to the same effect (but perhaps not much better) as an older gun by an otherwise poorly equipped army. A well equipped army would find the old model gun the limiting factor in it's artillery's effectiveness.

When trying to pick a "best" artillery piece in a category there is more than just the gun/tube/mount to consider. Is the weapon the limiting factor in the 'system' effectiveness or or is the 'system' limiting the gun? 
And to open a whole new can of worms. Someone once said the shell is the weapon, the gun or howitzer is just the delivery system


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 12, 2014)

All I can find, is it seems the m/24 was mountain gun, with only four made, being mentioned as m/10-24, either way, she's an elusive piece of equipment....

What I've seen is;
10,5cm Berghaubits m/10-24
Caliber: 105 mm
Barrel lenght: Probably 14 cal
Projectile Weight: 14,6 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 293 m/s
Max elevation: 43°
Range: 8 000 m
Traverse: 5,5°
Trail: Box
Gun weight in action: 1 100 kg
Rate of Fire: N/A
Prolonged Rate of Fire: N/A
Ammunition: 10,5cm m/10
Design: Bofors
Wheels: Spoked wood
Shield: Yes
Year of delivery: 1926-27
Quantity: 4


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 12, 2014)

Shortround6: yes i mean thread, now your poin is clear

Lucky13, is not the same m1924 that i was talking, is a howitzer bought in 14 pieces from the KNIL, is a 105/22 
this one
10.5 cm howitzer Model 1924 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DEF / Nederlandse leger in Nederlands-Indië - forum.fok.nl around half page there is a pic


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 12, 2014)

This pic..?


----------



## Vincenzo (Oct 13, 2014)

no that are AA gun
try here the first pic The Overvalwagen Forum: knil howitzer battalion
some small pics also here (not the first) Canadian Chevrolet Maple Leaf 4x4 artillery tractors? - Page 4 - MLU FORUM


----------



## Lucky13 (Oct 13, 2014)

Aaah....found it now! 






Must be _some_ info about the m/24 Haubits, _somewhere!_


----------

