# WWI Artillery....



## Lucky13 (May 20, 2007)

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


----------



## trackend (May 20, 2007)

French 75


----------



## HealzDevo (May 21, 2007)

Don't really think I know that much about WW1 artillery...


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2007)

British 18 pounder. The French 75 fired to light a shell which is why the British 13 pd gun wasn't used more widely.


----------



## trackend (May 21, 2007)

Over 20,000 75's where produced and although not a heavy shell it could fire 15 aimed rounds per min up until the introduction of the 75 in the late 1800's most artillery required re sighting after each round, the 75 had a recoil system that allowed all shots to stayed on target. By the end of WW1 improved ammo had increased the range to around 10000 yards. 
The weapon even lasted until WW2 being mounted on the M3 half track and the B25


----------



## Joe2 (May 22, 2007)

Agreed.


----------



## comiso90 (May 22, 2007)

No doubt the French 75. The rate of fire was unprecidented and was the first truly modern piece of artillery


----------



## Joe2 (May 22, 2007)

The fact it went so long means it must be good...like the Lee-Enfield


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2007)

Sorry folks but the 75mm was a remarkable weapon in many ways but it didn't fire a big enough shell to do much damage to the German trenches. As we all know, WW1 was about trenches and for that reason it wouldn't make my list as being the best.

Another first for the 75mm was it was basically copied and installed on the Lee Grant Tank.


----------



## comiso90 (May 22, 2007)

Glider said:


> Sorry folks but the 75mm was a remarkable weapon in many ways but it didn't fire a big enough shell to do much damage to the German trenches. As we all know, WW1 was about trenches and for that reason it wouldn't make my list as being the best.
> 
> Another first for the 75mm was it was basically copied and installed on the Lee Grant Tank.



"Best" has a lot of definitions... just like the "Greatest"..

For me, the innovation of the gas cylinders earns it a place of distinction...

The best shouldnt be defined by who killed the most people.


----------



## HealzDevo (May 22, 2007)

At least I mean the portable stuff. I know about the German Big Bertha which was such a massive gun and fired a massive round but it could hardly be described as portable...


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> "Best" has a lot of definitions... just like the "Greatest"..
> 
> For me, the innovation of the gas cylinders earns it a place of distinction...
> 
> The best shouldnt be defined by who killed the most people.



The thread is the best in WW1 not the best when it came out. I do agree the French 75 was a remarkable piece but for WW1 it was found wanting.

As mentioned earlier, the British developed the 13pd which had a similar performance to the 75 but like the 75 was to small for WW1. So for WW1 then in my mind at least, the 18pd was a better weapon.


----------



## Emac44 (Jun 23, 2007)

I would say the use of artillery came into its own on another plain during WW1. Prior to its use before WW1. Such things as box barriage creeping barriage preparatary fire etc etc. Came into its own with development of not only the GUNS but on how it was used and with improvements in communications other than by courier or flags or bugles or even pidgeons as that had been used previously. You can single out which Gun may have been better or lacked this or that. But all weapons have good and bad points or lack this or that etc. But WW1 in my opinion was a Gunners War as far as artillery went. Its not so much the GUNS themselves but how they were used and the desired effects that were needed in a battle or how to support infantry or break up infantry when the need arose etc. The GUNS themselves could and were used not only as a moral boost but could break that moral in an enemy just as effectively as anything previously developed. More physcological breakdowns can occur under constant artillery fire and the casuality rate as far as battle field physcosis is well documented due to constant shelling on troops by a determined and well directed artillery fire. Even the sound of certain types of shells once fired can un-nerve the receipants of that fire it was directed or fired at etc. And of course the ARTILLERY usage continued into the next World War and same effects were recognised. So I am not going to debate which GUN was better but how it was used in effectiveness . Both the Allies and the German Austrians had great GUNS and used them effectively. And their usage came also with a another concept Anti Aircraft Artillery which was beginning to be used during WW1. The Gunners and hoiw the GUNS were used saw a need in Anti Aircraft Fire and thus new techniques were developed from older artillery practises. But to me the GUNS are useless unless there are improvements of communications to go along with the GUNS use. And WW1 saw the use of telephone lines of communication and constant updates of information from such things as aerial observation by either balloon or aircraft or more use of ground Foward Observers. These may have been primative at first and they were in accordance with our own technologies of today but without some type of targetting for the GUNS and filtering of information back to the Gunners etc. The Guns would be useless on a battle field if information wasn't available. So before you debate which GUN was Good or Bad etc. Take into account of how those GUNS were used and for what for


----------



## peter benn (Jun 23, 2007)

Speaking of the "creeping barrage," has anyone else seen that History Channel (??) clip of the British or Canadian large artillery gun rocking backward on its huge wheels with every recoil -- and a pair of soldiers shovelling dirt into the exposed wheel ruts with every pass? As if that was as good a way as any to make the "creeping" adjustment?

Earplugs, like parachutes, were considered unimportant by the British. My maternal grandfather, a Lt. in charge of one gun, had tintinnitus for the next 50 years....


----------



## trackend (Jun 24, 2007)

Glider said:


> Sorry folks but the 75mm was a remarkable weapon in many ways but it didn't fire a big enough shell to do much damage to the German trenches. As we all know, WW1 was about trenches and for that reason it wouldn't make my list as being the best.
> 
> Another first for the 75mm was it was basically copied and installed on the Lee Grant Tank.



Agreed GL but it was a light field piece against just trenches the big Howitzers and Trench Mortars came into there own but for stemming attacks and the ability to move into new firing positions at short notice I still rate the 75 which meets two of the three criteria laid down in Lucky 13's original post as for fire power it is all relative to the target, a 8 inch howitzer will make a bloody big hole but lacks the fire power to stop advancing troops. A flank positoned MG slaughters them despite its small caliber IMO its different tools for different jobs so you can only compare fire power of say one howitzer to another howitzer and not different weapons.
Having said all of that it's not to say I do not see your reasoning for not selecting the 75 but I just have a different take on it.


----------



## Emac44 (Jun 24, 2007)

peter benn said:


> Speaking of the "creeping barrage," has anyone else seen that History Channel (??) clip of the British or Canadian large artillery gun rocking backward on its huge wheels with every recoil -- and a pair of soldiers shovelling dirt into the exposed wheel ruts with every pass? As if that was as good a way as any to make the "creeping" adjustment?
> 
> Earplugs, like parachutes, were considered unimportant by the British. My maternal grandfather, a Lt. in charge of one gun, had tintinnitus for the next 50 years....



Yes Peter seen many film clips of Artillery being used in WW1 on either History Channel or other resources like the Australian War Museum Canberra Australia. You mentioned about Gunners filling in wheel ruts after GUNS fired etc. Dont forget GUNS had to be relocated very often to avoid Counter Battery Fire and this was time consuming but necassary for the GUNNERS and Engineers to accomplish. More so if they wanted to keep the Battery hidden from sight or observation etc for the time being. You mentioned your Grand Father with Tintinnitus that was common with Gunners from WW1 and WW2. As were other injuires from handling hot shell casings after GUNS were fired. And the dangers of a misfire which occured on more than one occassion. Quality control of manufacturing of artillery shells wasn't a great priority during WW1 from what I have read. It was more of a case was to produce as many shells as possible regardless of the consquences not only on the battle front but also in the factory or armoury. Quiet a few artillery shells were more dangerous to the people making them or firing them, then to the enemy who would eventually were supposed to receive them in a bombardment etc. Read a few accounts were women in factories in England were either maimed or killed by shells exploding or shells fillings catching fire during manufacturing or poor work practises at the time in those factories


----------



## trackend (Jun 25, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> Quality control of manufacturing of artillery shells wasn't a great priority during WW1 from what I have read.


I agree EM although even during WW2 the quality varied considerably I like the Idea of the Soviets, instead of scraping them, using out of spect shells as war heads for there Katyusha's


----------



## Emac44 (Jun 25, 2007)

God Track Misfires in the GUNS are chilling. You hear and see the Lanyard being pulled and hear the firing mechanism work. Then nothing but a cold silence. You normally expect a very large bang. the Gun recoiling, But what you get is nothing. those misfires are bloody scarey. Because if that Gun still hasn't fired you know eventually that shell will have to be cleared from the breach. With the possiblity shell going off when breach is opened. Not something one wants to be around


----------



## trackend (Jun 25, 2007)

Sounds like fun EM Id just us a 50 foot lanyard and send you back too open the breach


----------



## Glider (Jun 25, 2007)

Emac44 said:


> God Track Misfires in the GUNS are chilling. You hear and see the Lanyard being pulled and hear the firing mechanism work. Then nothing but a cold silence. You normally expect a very large bang. the Gun recoiling, But what you get is nothing. those misfires are bloody scarey. Because if that Gun still hasn't fired you know eventually that shell will have to be cleared from the breach. With the possiblity shell going off when breach is opened. Not something one wants to be around



I used to work with someone who did national service in the 1950s as a gunner on the Centurion. He described a misfire as the loneliest time of his life as the rest of the crew bailed out and left him to extract the dud shell. In the confined space of a tank turret he was almost totally terrified that a nudge or knock could set the thing off.


----------



## Emac44 (Jun 26, 2007)

trackend said:


> Sounds like fun EM Id just us a 50 foot lanyard and send you back too open the breach



Put it this way Track. Would colourful refusal offend you


----------



## trackend (Jun 26, 2007)

I'd understand unless of course I out ranked you then Sorry you're volunteering.


----------



## Emac44 (Jun 26, 2007)

Wouldn't bother me at all Track. Can always tell you in the most colourful terms where to stick your 50ft lanyard and rank in and give demonstrations on how its achieved


----------



## trackend (Jun 26, 2007)

You Naughty Squaddie


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 26, 2007)

Okay, before this thread gets too far off-track . . .

I'm gonna have to go with the famous (or infamous, depending on you POV!) "Paris Gun". Quote from Wikipedia:

"It was capable of hurling a 94 kilogram (210 lb) shell to a range of 130 kilometres (81 miles) and a maximum altitude of 40 kilometres (25 miles) — the greatest height reached by a human-made projectile until the first successful V-2 flight test in October 1942."


----------



## Emac44 (Jun 27, 2007)

trackend said:


> You Naughty Squaddie



Not a naughty squaddie Track. More of an ex Gunner with Attitude


----------



## trackend (Jun 27, 2007)

OK


----------



## trackend (Jun 27, 2007)

Sorry for the double post guys


----------



## delcyros (Jun 27, 2007)

The paris gun hardly can be called an accurate weapon.
My vote goes to a Skoda gun.


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2007)

delcyros said:


> The paris gun hardly can be called an accurate weapon.
> My vote goes to a Skoda gun.



Be fair, all it had to do was hit Paris


----------



## delcyros (Jun 29, 2007)

Maybe. But does it make sense strategically to bombard a city sized target from indirect range? At least if You factor in the ressources necessary to use the Paris gun. It could be argued that the PG helped the allied war effort from this perspective. Technically an impressive object but strategically it wasn´t feasable. They needed to use a naval 15" gun as a base in which they put the 8.2" liners.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 29, 2007)

The 75 was a revolutionary weapon but, I have heard, it was not very effective in the trench warfare of WWI. For one, the trajectory was too flat to accurately lob shells into defensive works.

Outside of that, I have no idea, although I built a model of a French 75 when I was a kid.


----------



## LaggyMcLagLag (Jun 30, 2007)

hmmm, since messengar pigeons can be brough down with one shot and there were no Field Radios I spose the forward observer would be useless.

I also go with the 75. 
Later in WWII they mounted them on B-25's for anti-shipping!

Although it couldn't destoy trenches like other artillery, and it couldn't elevate more then 18 degrees, It was probably devestating when massed, like all artillery.


----------



## trackend (Jun 30, 2007)

Neat shooting to bring down a flying pigeon with an army rifle.


----------



## LaggyMcLagLag (Jun 30, 2007)

It was done. A pigeon was awarded a metal for delivering a message after being shot.


----------



## Glider (Jun 30, 2007)

LaggyMcLagLag said:


> hmmm, since messengar pigeons can be brough down with one shot and there were no Field Radios I spose the forward observer would be useless.



If it helps, they had field telephones


----------



## rogthedodge (Jul 16, 2007)

And air observers, even before reliable airborne radio.


----------



## Emac44 (Aug 1, 2007)

Rail Guns are fine but limited in their usage in my opinion. And mostly mounted on converted rail carriages. and using either tracks or rail line plus to travese the gun using either curved track points or turntables. Hardly very effective and very costly and time consuming from WW1 aspect. Yes they had the range to bombard a city or fortifications but accuracy was a bit off. It was more of a propaganda tool to scare the **** out of local population in a city it was targetting. And more a nuisance artillery piece then anything. This is just my opinion. Railway Mounted Artillery had earlier usage in US Civil War so it wasn't a new novel idea. This type of Atillery from WW1 was expensive on man power to man the GUN plus use of Train Engines had to be employed to move this type of Artillery. Also Cranes and hoist had to be used to load the bloody thing as well. Range is one thing accuracy quiet another and its not something you could hide very well from observation and rate of fire was appaling. But then again these GUNS were not designed in WW1 to have rapid fire succession. In my opinion Rail GUNS were a waste of time effort and resources as they didn't achieve mostly what they were designed to do in WW1 except be a propaganda tool that fired a very large calibre projectile at a city or fortification. It wasn't until WW2 these large calibre guns became more effective with better range finding but these too became no more then expensive rail mounted artillery pieces or were casement emplaced or used similar to a mortar type mounted on an armoured large track vehicle as used in siege of Sebastapol by the Germans in WW2. To those fans of Rail GUNS I am sorry never been impressed by them. And I don't really see them as the higher techniques of real artillery used on a battle field


----------

