Best Long Range Artillery Piece

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I think you are about right with the the German Heavy guns in North Africa. The Italian 149mm and the various 15cm guns from Germany are about the same in terms of performance. My point was simply that the italians did produce a few guns that were very good.

However I cant help but stir up a little mischief. Why would you point out the italian gun would lack mobility because of its size, weight, carriage and wheels, all of which are similar to the german heavies, and not want to accept the same limitations for German guns? Cant resist getting you to concede the point, so I apologize for that
 
I would accept the same limitations, why not.
Just pointing out that the best axis gun in North Africa (in Rommel's opinion), split trail and all, was actually not much different than the German heavy artillery in many ways.

As far as stirring mischief, how could it have been any good? The Italian artillery "system" was really bad, poor tractors, poor logistics, poor radio nets, their best designs were on the fringes of main stream artillery (either too light or too heavy)

Not really trying to put the Italians down, they did manufacture some very good artillery pieces, just not many of them in production totals, but that says more about Italian industrial capacity than the Italian gun designers.

I have also had a thought about those solid rubber tires and mobility. Solid tires don't go flat from a rifle bullet or shell fragment. Or from rocks in poor roads.
 
[I have also had a thought about those solid rubber tires and mobility. Solid tires don't go flat from a rifle bullet or shell fragment. Or from rocks in poor roads. [/QUOTE]

You are correct, they don't go flat, but they also have horrible flotation. There is a reason that even the largest earthmoving equipment such as scrapers still have air filled tires, it is because of flotation on soft ground. If the 17cm K18 would have been mounted on the US 155mm carriage, I believe the Germans would've had a real winner on their hands.

Quick question: Why did weapons like the US 155 Long Tom and 8 inch howitzer use a limber? Why didn't they just hook it directly to the back of the prime mover? Now if they towed it with a truck, that is what they did, the 7 1/2 ton Mack did not use a limber. Why did they use one with a full tracked prime mover? It makes it harder to back up and takes weight off the tractor with would help with traction. I wouldn't think it was weight on the back of the prime mover, the limber just had 2 little tires on it.
 
Last edited:
Readie said:
Just a thought, would 'Artillery' include missiles?

If so, then the German V weapons win hands down.

Cheers
John
Click to expand...

Hi John


Thats a whole other world of pain and suffering.......nebelwerfer vs katyusha, and then there are those rockets that were mounted on LCMs by the allies to support landings.....fin stabilzed v spin stabilized....cheap v complicated...accurate v area weapons. Do we really have to go there (groan)....
 
N
Nooooooooooooooooooooo, unless we all live to 108

I'm probably wrong that 'artillery' would include missiles anyway.

Cheers
John
 
The 'Missiles' did show the way to the future but as practical weapons of war in WW II they just sucked up resources that would have been better off being used somewhere else. Their greatest actual value to the Germans was the effort the Allies put into stopping them. Like the number of squadrons tied up in diver patrols or the amount of bombing of the V-1 launch sites. It was an awful lot of resources to tied up in what turned out to be basically a diversion.
 
Quick question: Why did weapons like the US 155 Long Tom and 8 inch howitzer use a limber? Why didn't they just hook it directly to the back of the prime mover? Now if they towed it with a truck, like the 7 1/2 ton Mack they did not use a limber. Why did they use one with a full tracked prime mover? It makes it harder to back up and takes weight off the tractor with would help with traction. I wouldn't think it was too much weight on the back of the prime mover, the limber just had 2 little tires on it.
 


I assume you are referring to V-1s and V-2s here. I think the battlefield weapons....the Nebelwerfers, the Katyushas, and their derivatives were very effective weapons systems, and generally cost effective. OTOH the terror weapons were not a good use of resources
 

Actually, post-war they just slung the trails from the chain hoist at the rear of the 7 1/2 ton truck and did away with the limber. It saved some work and was safer. the normal limber was positioned by the trails (facing backwards) and as the trails were lifted to a certain point the limber flipped 180 degrees into the tow position with the trail legs on top. This procedure was not liked by the gunners.

As for flotation, while the US 155 was better it wasn't using high flotation tires. The eight main tires were 11.00 X 20 in size, large truck tires.
The 7 1/2 ton truck went just under 40,000lbs for off road use while towing (it could go higher not towing). the front axle carried 12,634lbs when empty and 13,363lbs loaded cross country. rear axles carried 8,235lbs each empty and 13,045lbs loaded cross country while towing. The Truck used 14 ply 12.00 X 24 tires. 80psi front and 65psi rear. They were big but not really high flotation tires.
US 6X6 2 1/2 ton trucks often used 7.50 X 20 tires during WW II.
 

Yes I knew that none of the tires on the 155 or the Mack were "high flotation" tires, but 8 11.00x20 rubber tires would beat 2 12inch wide iron wheels for crossing soft ground.


The 7 1/2 ton Mack didn't use the limber during WW2 either, the limber was only used for tracked prime movers. The 7 1/2 ton Mack was quite a vehicle. In fact, I used to own a 10 ton Mack at one time. It had 14.00x24 tires on it and even though the old motor was gutless, in low gear you couldn't stop it. I think 1st gear low range was around 181 to 1.

Does anyone here know why a tracked prime mover would use a limber but a truck would not?
 
Last edited:
Its not so much the flotation issue as the ground pressures that are lowered with pneumatic tyres . Pneumatic tyres have much more "give" in them, meaning that there is much more tyre on the ground surface than what you will get with a solid wheel. You can increase this effect even more by partial deflation of the tyre, though if you do this too much you will all of a sudden pay a huge price in rolling resistance.

But decreased ground pressures mean decreased bogging for the wheels and much enhanced mobility.

In the reverse situation, ie when travelling over hard ice, wher a heavy hauled load will have a tendency to slide allover the ice, you will also achieve greater lateral stability because of the greatly enhanced grip across the direction of roll of the tyre.

The likelihood of a puncture for a pneumatic tyre is quite low, however, even if your gun carriage gets a flat, its effect is not that much greater than the effect of a solid tyre anyway, so for short distances it wont matter much. The worst that can happen is that you will completely chew out the tyre and destroy the steel rim. You also risk fractures to the axle and cariage cassis, but then this is also a problem with solid tyres and one of the reasons why they were built more solidly (and heavily) than more modern types (a minor issue though admittedly)

There should really be no great disagreement on this, Pneumatic tyres versus solid tyres = no contest. Steel tyres are marginally better for horse drawn transport, but a big disdvantage for motorized transport
 

True, but the flying bomb attacks on the UK and later Europe caused a lot of damage and casualties.
In total, the V-1 attacks caused 22,892 casualties (almost entirely civilians).
I shudder to think of the figures had the V2 worked as intended.
Cheers
John
 
pinsog said:
Yes I knew that none of the tires on the 155 or the Mack were "high flotation" tires, but 8 11.00x20 rubber tires would beat 2 12inch wide iron wheels for crossing soft ground.
Click to expand...

But it is not two 12 wide iron wheels. It is four minimum or six if the barrel cart is used. granted the US gun is using 10 tires and not 8 if the limber is used. The 11.00 dimension is the distance across the side walls at the widest point, not the width of the tread. If you are on soft ground and the wheels/tires are actually sinking in a full inch a 5 foot diameter wheel is going to be pressing on 15.36in of ground for inch of width, a 40in diameter wheel will press on 12.49in of ground. an almost 30% increase. I don't know the actual diameter of the wheels/tires used on the the two different pieces of artillery and I am certainly not claiming that the German guns had better mobility or even the same. I do think that the difference is somewhat smaller than the almost 4 to 1 ratio implied here however.

pinsog said:
The 7 1/2 ton Mack didn't use the limber during WW2 either, the limber was only used for tracked prime movers.
Click to expand...

According to one source, while the practice started in WW II it wasn't official sanctioned until sometime after the war. The limber may allow more of a load to be placed in the truck.
 

I don't mean to minimize the suffering of the civilians but from a military point of view, for what was supposed to be a strategic or at least grand tactical weapon, what was it's actual effect?

How many factories lost how many days of production? How many ports were closed and for how long? Even if twice the number had gotten through and caused twice the casualties would it have lengthened the war by more than a day or two?

Would the resources the Germans put into this program had served them better elsewhere, like better AA defense, more shells for their artillery, more radios for their troops, other programs or equipment?
 
According to one source, while the practice started in WW II it wasn't official sanctioned until sometime after the war. The limber may allow more of a load to be placed in the truck.[/QUOTE]

I've never seen a pic of a US truck pulling heavy artillery while using a limber.

The limber would take 100% of the weight off the prime mover, essentially making the gun into a wagon.

I'm floored that no one on this sight knows why full tracked vehicles used a limber and trucks didn't. I've wondered this for years.
 

I am taking a guess on this but the gun without limber may affect the steering or tracking (ability to run straight at speed) of the full tracked vehicles. The tracked vehicles may have been more difficult to steer both with the weight and distance from the pivot on an unlimbered gun and the weight of the trails may ( guessing again) have up set the balance of the tractors, making them tail heavy, Front of tracks running lighter than usual?

The Mack truck was rated at 20,897lbs payload on the highway and 15,350lbs payload off highway. Payload was supposed to be restricted to 10,350 lbs when towing maximum load. Perhaps a few thousand pounds on the rear of the truck from the trails being carried without the limber doesn't affect the steering as much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Long term viability of the USA's warship museum ships?
Replies
13
Views
1K
GreenKnight121
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
23K
Reluctant Poster
R
Best German WWII General? Definitive Answer....
Replies
19
Views
1K
Thumpalumpacus
S
Some observations on WW II small arms, and bit on artillery.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
BarnOwlLover
S
1936-1941: your best RA (tanks/artillery)
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
tomo pauk
Menu
Log in
Register