# WWII Artillery....



## Lucky13 (May 20, 2007)

Which was the best piece of artillery during WWII if you look at mobility, accuracy and firepower?


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Which was the best piece of artillery during WWII if you look at mobility, accuracy and firepower?



The US 105mm and 155 mm howitzers.


----------



## Henk (May 20, 2007)

How good were the German 88's?


----------



## mkloby (May 20, 2007)

I've worked with the US M2 105mm Howitzer. Good piece - after one call next round was "fire for effect." Our the firing position was about 8 clicks away from the target. I always thought the strangest thing was that you can actually see the shell flying through the air...


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2007)

German 88, British 25pounder, US105


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2007)

I think it depends on what you want.

The German 88 was very versatile and good at whatever it did. It could be used as a FLAK gun (its original intended purpose) and as a anti tank gun which it was superb possibly the best of the war. It however was not an area artillery piece and could not be used in the same ways as the US 105 or 155mm.

For pure arty I would go with the US 105 and 155 as sys said.

So I say the best depending on what you want are the German 88 and the US 105mm and 155mm.


----------



## Gnomey (May 20, 2007)

trackend said:


> German 88, British 25pounder, US105



Agreed.


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2007)

British 25pd. It was flexible, light, reliable, had a good rate of fire and a longer range that the US or German 105.


----------



## Joe2 (May 21, 2007)

Is the nerblwerfer included in this descussion?


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2007)

The Nerblwerfer was too slow to reload I'd rather have a 3inch mortar.
Another heavier field piece of that was highly rated was the 5.5 inch which struck a good compromise between caliber and maneuverability
IMO I think the Long Tom was a bit too big at a little over 30,000lbs it made it limited in the terrain it could be towed over.


----------



## comiso90 (May 21, 2007)

It's my understanding that the 88 was unparalleled in line of sight, flat trajectory engagements because of it’s high muzzle velocity but was not very accurate when it came to arching fire.

is that true?

The US exceled in TOT (Time on Target) fire. Several pieces in different locations would hit the target simutaniously.

What about Russian guns?... I know they had longer ranges than American guns


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> It's my understanding that the 88 was unparalleled in line of sight, flat trajectory engagements because of it’s high muzzle velocity but was not very accurate when it came to arching fire.
> 
> is that true?



Not sure but it would not surprise me. The 88 was built originally as a FLAK gun and served in that purpose the entire war. The other way it was effectively used was as a anti tank gun. It cut through the allied tanks like butter.

I dont believe it was ever used for regular arty.


----------



## comiso90 (May 21, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I dont believe it was ever used for regular arty.



A favorite tactic in forrested area was to aim at the tops of the trees and let the splinters do the damage..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 21, 2007)

That I know of, I believe the Germans did that during the Bulge but when I mean regular arty I mean like area shelling and so forth. The gun was not built for that purpose.


----------



## Henk (May 21, 2007)

I think they did use 88's in the Desert war in North Africa as arty, but not sure.


----------

