Best Long Range Artillery Piece

[Shortround6]

How common was that? I'm under the impression Soviet 76mm field guns were primarily used as direct fire weapons. Including the variant mounted in the Su-76.

It was actually quite common. What was one (or two) of the things the Germans had to do when converting the captured Russian guns to Pak guns, aside from rechambering?

One, fit anti tank gun sight.
two, cross over controls so one gunner could control both elevation and traverse. Field guns frequently had the elevation and traverse controls on opposite sides of the carriage. They weren't intended to track moving targets that often.

In WW I even the French figured out in a few weeks that field guns use in the direct fire role didn't last long (minutes) if the enemy had anything that could shoot back.

 

[davebender]

In WW I even the French figured out in a few weeks that field guns use in the direct fire role didn't last long

A bit off topic but...

France and Germany both began WWI well prepared to fire field artillery indirectly. They had trained forward observers, ample field telephone equipment, artillery spotting balloons, proper sights for indirect fire etc.

Germany even had the world's first Beobachtungsanhänge (forward observer vehicle) which didn't work too well in practise. The French Army knew what they were and made them a priority target.
Review of FSF's 1/72 Beobachtungswagen, WW1 German Artillery Observation Wagon

 

[parsifal]

thought the main limitation of the 76mm divisional gun were the crews, rather than the gun, and the crews gradually picked up the ability to shoot indirectly as the war progressed.

The 76mm remained in service after the war for quite a few years, and certainly had no issues with indirect fire in its post war guise

 

[Freebird]

Other. Please nominate your favorite long range field artillery weapon (i.e. not siege artillery.)

I'm curious as to how the various CW field artillery compared?
Besides the 25 pdr (85mm I think) there was the 4.5 inch how, 60 pdr, 6" gun 6" how.

 

[parsifal]

25 pdr weighed 7335 pounds, had a muzzle velocity of 1485 pounds, a range of 13400 yards and a practical ROF of 5rpm. It could penetrate 2.52 inches of hardened plate at 30 deg incline

The 5.5 inMk 3 gun weighed 12820 lbs, and a range of 17000 yds. It had a ROF of 2 rpm and a muzzle velocity of of 1675 fps.

Both guns were modern in that they included modern wheels and trails. .

 

[Shortround6]

I'm curious as to how the various CW field artillery compared?
Besides the 25 pdr (85mm I think) there was the 4.5 inch how, 60 pdr, 6" gun 6" how.

25 pdr (87.5mm, close enough to 88) was a good serviceable gun with some interesting features. While the shell was a bit light compared to the 105 how it was competing against it was bit lighter and handier.

The other four you mention are, to varying degrees, Edwardian in concept and in origination and were obsolete by 1939. While rugged in design and construction and serviceable in their day they were short of range and cumbersome (lacking in traverse). The 6 in gun was cobbled together by mounting a 6in naval barrel (for all practical purposes if not actual fact) on an 8in howitzer chassis. The over loaded recoil mechanism was "assisted" by large ramps which the entire equipment rolled up upon firing and then rolled back down to the "original firing position"?? The 6in How was a good weapon in it's day and it's large shell and small size for it's shell allowed it to stay in use in the far east where the lack of Japanese field artillery ( in numbers of heavy guns) limited the Japanese ability to counter battery it.

See: British 6inch 26cwt WW1 Howitzer

British 4.5inch QF Howitzer

The British British 60-Pounder BL Mk I Field Gun

ANd the 8in How

Welcome to Landships! - A site for WW1 Military Hardware WW1 Military Modelling

The 5.5 was a modern weapon with good abilities.

The British army spent very little money on artillery between the wars. Most of the money went to the RAF and the Navy.

 

[davebender]

76mm remained in service after the war for quite a few years, and certainly had no issues with indirect fire in its post war guise

When employed for indirect fire it had the same shortcoming as all other 75mm artillery pieces. The HE filler was too small to be effective against field fortifications. That's why most nations stepped up to 105mm for division light howitzers as a result of WWI experience.

 

[parsifal]

Whilst i agree that the 76.2mm was too light to be effective as the main Divisional field artillery piece, this needs to be considered against some of th other issues when comparing to the 105mm Gun Howitzer. Inferring that the 105 was able to deal with field fortification whilst the 76mm could not, is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. 105s were better able to cope, but still fell well short of being able to handle them.

The Zis-3 M1942 76.2mm Russian gun had many other characteristics that more than made up for its lighter shell weight and limited explosive capabilities. It was far more mobile, outranged the German gun by almost double. Had an effective ROF almost twice that of the german gun. German superiority in terms of bursting charge was not as significant as might be expected. Standard or usual HE ammunition for the 105 was called Type 6, which had a bursting charge of 3lbs, but the charge was of lower quality, so was equal to about 2.7lbs of russian explosive. The German gun was of little or no use in the anti-armour role, and was not really an operational piece in temperature extremes. the 76.2mm gun was much more MT friendly and more capable in rough terrain. because of its simplicity it could be used by almost anyone, and proved exceptionally reliable. To be fair, my opinion is that the german gun was more accurate, but not so dramatically so as your earlier posts would lead us to believe

 

[Shortround6]

Most nations went to war in 1939-41 with a mix of 75-76mm guns and 100-105mm how as division guns. In general the 75-76 would out range the howitzers. Even the Germans had designed and built a new 75mm gun between the wars, it had more than it's share of problems but they were not related to the caliber. The mix of guns varied from country to country, how many 75mm guns to how many 105 howitzers. The only major countries to not use the mix were England (and the BC) with their 18pdr/25pdr gun and the Russians who pretty much skipped the 105-107 caliber and went to 122mm.
Given the limits of horse traction ( and the only fully motorized army in 1939 was the British) on gun weight, a 75mm gun would always out range the 100-105 howitzer (in many cases they were different barrels on the the same carriage). Horse transport of ammunition might have played a part to. A horse drawn wagon could carry double the amount (easily) of 75mm ammunition than it can of 105 ammunition of the same weight.

Perhaps some one can answer better than I can, but the Soviets may have used a different organization with more artillery at corp or army level than at division level. Given the need for communications to make artillery effective perhaps they felt that a more centralized approach to the heavier guns/howitzers would make for an easier communications and ammunition supply.

Parsifal, you keep going on about the German guns not working well in the Russian cold, I don't know if they did or didn't but it seems to me that most nations guns would have had difficulties (except for the Russian guns of course) because nobody else designed or tested their guns at such temperatures at the time. I wonder if British or American guns would have worked properly at such temperatures in 1939-42? I am not sure when the US started testing weapons in Alaska as part of their development program ( although I believe they started testing airplanes there in 1939 or 40?)

 

[Glider]

The British army spent very little money on artillery between the wars. Most of the money went to the RAF and the Navy.

I admit that this wasn't my impression. The 25pd, 4.5 and 5.5 in gun howitzers were brand new, the 2pd as good as anything else at the start of the war and the 6pd was equal to the best that Russia and Germany could field in 1941. The 6pd pre war development was fine, it went wrong when production was delayed due to the losses in France. that 12/18 month delay cost a lot of lives.

For Heavy Artillery the British developed the 7.2in Howitzer, by no means the best gun around but pretty useful and nothing to be ashamed about. What they did lack was a long ranged heavy artillery piece.

Edit - Its my understanding that the USA used the 4.5in gun howitzer. Like the British they found that the shell was too light but they did use it in some numbers.

 

[parsifal]

I cant really comment too much about the US 105mm and in reality my comments were about the limits of the german ordinance in harsh weather conditions. These were reported on numerous occasions by the Germans themselves, starting with the failure of Operation Typhoon and continuing throughout the war. I admit I am not entirely sure what was wrong with the, in entirety, but it appears many of the hydraulic recoil systems seized, the synthetic o-rings, flanges and the like just shattered. German guns were on the heavy side, which affected their mobility. Many mechaisms in the German guns were machined to too finer tolerances, meaning that bearings and sleeves and the like frequently just seized up in the cold. Many of their synthetic oils and lubricants just froze solid. Finally the solid road wheels often prevented them from being moved at all. So, as a piece of equipment in cold conditions, German guns were not a success. Superior German training meant that the Germans maged in spite of their equipment, not because of it.

Now the 25 pounder was never really tested in cold climate conditions, but its predecessor, the 18/25 was used in Norway. Have not heard of any failures when used in that theatre. 25 pounders were used in cold conditions in Korea. AFAIK ther were no serious issues in their performance. British guns continued to operate, I think a lot of that was because of the simplicity of the design, which was a feature conspicuously lacking in German designs. But also the mkaterials used in the manufacture, the tolerances that the gun was designed to all showed no real signs of problem that I am aware of. The lighweight construction of the 25 pounder was a major advantage, as was the pnematic tyresd, which could have the tyres dflated to assist movement through the snow or mud.

So my opinion is that if the British had been called to deply their divisional artillery into arctic subzero conditions they have continued to function

Here is a link to an online book that may be of interst to those wanting to learn about the 25 pounder

New Vanguard - The 25-Pounder Field Gun 1939-72

 

[davebender]

Most nations still had a bunch of 75mm weapons left over from WWI. Typically they were rebuilt with a modern gun carriage that allowed high elevation fire and faster road transport. However not many nations kept 75mm artillery pieces in mass production except as specialized weapons for use by mountain troops and cavalry.

Let's look at German field artillery production for 1939.
Production Stats on German Tube-fired Weapons 1939-1945
8 x 10.5cm K18. Not standard issue. Probably manufactured for export. Very long range.
15 x 15cm K39. Export weapons intended for Turkey. Very long range.

8 x 7.5cm leFK18. Cavalry weapons?
59 x 7.5cm Geb.Gesch. 36. Lightweight mountain howitzers.
483 x 10.5cm leFH18. Standard issue German light howitzer.
190 x 15cm sFH18. Standard issue German heavy howitzer.
58 x 21cm Mörser 18. Limited production weapons for use against fortifications.

290 x 7.5cm leIG18. Light infantry guns. 400kg.
.....WWI era Germany employed the 608kg 7.62cm Infanteriegeschütz L16.5 for direct fire support. This is the replacement.
48 x 15cm sIG33. Heavy infantry guns. 1,800kg.
.....Too heavy to be man handled. Consequently they were mounted on obsolete light tank chassis from 1940 onward. The resulting inexpensive sIG33 SP weapon worked well.

 

[Shortround6]

The 25pdr was barely in production in 1939. The BEF in France used late model 18pdr guns rebarreled to use 25pdr ammunition. The 4.5in gun (not howitzer) and the 5.5in used the same carriage for a big savings in design cost and effort and in manufacturing. Niether shows up in numbers until 1941. The early 7.2in howitzer was another monstrosity that did work, but just barely. It could be quite entertaining to watch one being fired, of course the entertainment value goes up with the distance from the gun.

File:7.2 inch howitzer of 51st Heavy Regiment.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice the ramps both in front of and behind the wheels that will be pushed almost together when the gun is read to shoot. depending on the exact angle of the rear ramps, the charge used, the angle of elevation of the barrel and the normal deviation from shot to shot it was not unknown for the entire gun and carriage to go up and over the rear ramps. This was bad enough with the iron traction engine wheels but with balloon tire models bouncing around the gun pit after a a 3ft plus drop life could VERY exiting for the gun crew.
The later MK6 used a longer barrel on American supplied carriages identical to the US 155 gun and 8in Howitzers and were an altogether different proposition. Nobody was sad to see the last of the early MKs.
Rates of fire were pretty low for these guns because they had to be relayed for every shot. They never ended up quite where they started from regardless of the placement of the ramps.

The US did use a 4.5in gun. The barrel was mounted on the 155 howitzer carriage.

 

[pbfoot]

the 25lb gun was manufactured in Canada and we get our share of cold weather , Shilo Manitoba is the main traing area for artillery and has been since WW1 the median temp in Jan is -19c

 

[Shortround6]

I cant really comment too much about the US 105mm and in reality my comments were about the limits of the german ordinance in harsh weather conditions. These were reported on numerous occasions by the Germans themselves, starting with the failure of Operation Typhoon and continuing throughout the war. I admit I am not entirely sure what was wrong with the, in entirety, but it appears many of the hydraulic recoil systems seized, the synthetic o-rings, flanges and the like just shattered. German guns were on the heavy side, which affected their mobility. Many mechaisms in the German guns were machined to too finer tolerances, meaning that bearings and sleeves and the like frequently just seized up in the cold. Many of their synthetic oils and lubricants just froze solid. Finally the solid road wheels often prevented them from being moved at all. So, as a piece of equipment in cold conditions, German guns were not a success. Superior German training meant that the Germans maged in spite of their equipment, not because of it.

Now the 25 pounder was never really tested in cold climate conditions, but its predecessor, the 18/25 was used in Norway. Have not heard of any failures when used in that theatre. 25 pounders were used in cold conditions in Korea. AFAIK ther were no serious issues in their performance. British guns continued to operate, I think a lot of that was because of the simplicity of the design, which was a feature conspicuously lacking in German designs. But also the mkaterials used in the manufacture, the tolerances that the gun was designed to all showed no real signs of problem that I am aware of. The lighweight construction of the 25 pounder was a major advantage, as was the pnematic tyresd, which could have the tyres dflated to assist movement through the snow or mud.

So my opinion is that if the British had been called to deply their divisional artillery into arctic subzero conditions they have continued to function

Many peoples guns and equipment had trouble in extreme cold. I am certainly not doubting that the Germans did. I am just wondering if many other nations would have done any better in the same conditions in 1941-43. Other nations with access to different materials for seals or fluids may have been better able to modify/adapt as time went on.
Norway in March/April might be a bit different than parts of Russia in Jan/Feb.
THere is a big difference in how things work at -10 to -20 C than how they work at -40. The British had 10 years to get the guns to work by Korea with plenty of examples to show them how. Changes in hydraulic fluid for different weather conditions might be noted in manuals but usually don't warrant a different MK number for the equipment.

 

[Shortround6]

Most nations still had a bunch of 75mm weapons left over from WWI. Typically they were rebuilt with a modern gun carriage that allowed high elevation fire and faster road transport. However not many nations kept 75mm artillery pieces in mass production except as specialized weapons for use by mountain troops and cavalry.

Let's look at German field artillery production for 1939.
Production Stats on German Tube-fired Weapons 1939-1945
8 x 10.5cm K18. Not standard issue. Probably manufactured for export. Very long range.
15 x 15cm K39. Export weapons intended for Turkey. Very long range.

8 x 7.5cm leFK18. Cavalry weapons?
59 x 7.5cm Geb.Gesch. 36. Lightweight mountain howitzers.
483 x 10.5cm leFH18. Standard issue German light howitzer.
190 x 15cm sFH18. Standard issue German heavy howitzer.
58 x 21cm Mörser 18. Limited production weapons for use against fortifications.

290 x 7.5cm leIG18. Light infantry guns. 400kg.
.....WWI era Germany employed the 608kg 7.62cm Infanteriegeschütz L16.5 for direct fire support. This is the replacement.
48 x 15cm sIG33. Heavy infantry guns. 1,800kg.
.....Too heavy to be man handled. Consequently they were mounted on obsolete light tank chassis from 1940 onward. The resulting inexpensive sIG33 SP weapon worked well.

The 7.5cm leFK18 was a standard field gun. it entered service in 1938, according to your source 96 were produced in 1940. Number made in 1938 is unknown. The cavalry used the 7.5cm FK 16Na. a WW I design/manufactured gun with new barrels in the early thirties. This gun was also used by some infantry units.

Most of the rest of your list is specialty guns or heavy artillery. The 10.5cm K18 was a 10.5cm barrel on the carriage of the 15cm sFH18. it was not export. but it was a corp level gun and not division.

Italy and Japan kept 75mm guns in production for the duration of their wars. Many smaller nations bought their guns from Britain, France, Germany, Italy or Czechoslovakia ( how many German divisions went to war with Czech guns?).

Yes there were a large number of WW I left overs in use but but why make new 75s when the old ones are working and suit the tactical doctrine. While it did save money many of the WW I left overs had new barrels with fresh rifling and modernized carriages. In some cases (French and US) they used relatively new (or new) barrels on brand new split trail carriages suitable for motor towing. Just because it was a "French 75" doesn't mean it was manufactured in 1917.

 

[DonL]

A simple question,

why don't you compare the soviet 76,2mm gun to the the 8,8cm Flak/18/36/37 with near the same duties in WWII?

THe 8,8cm Flak was Flak, anti tank gun, light field artillery and so on.

The 10,5cm howitzer is to my opinion not comparable to the 76,2mm and had totally other duties.
If you want compare a german 10,5cm gun I would choose the Schwere 10-cm-Feldkanone 18 as one battery of the division artillery.

Edit:

Most of the rest of your list is specialty guns or heavy artillery. The 10.5cm K18 was a 10.5cm barrel on the carriage of the 15cm sFH18. it was not export. but it was a corp level gun and not division.

Sorry no!
The normal german mobile infantry division and tank division had 4 departmentalism a 3 batteries. The heavy departmentalism had standard 2 Batteries 15cm howitzer and 1 Battery 10.5cm K18 field gun.

 

[Glider]

The 25pdr was barely in production in 1939. The BEF in France used late model 18pdr guns rebarreled to use 25pdr ammunition. The 4.5in gun (not howitzer) and the 5.5in used the same carriage for a big savings in design cost and effort and in manufacturing. Niether shows up in numbers until 1941. The early 7.2in howitzer was another monstrosity that did work, but just barely. It could be quite entertaining to watch one being fired, of course the entertainment value goes up with the distance from the gun.The US did use a 4.5in gun.
The barrel was mounted on the 155 howitzer carriage.

I am not doubting the points you made here but was pointing out that thr British did spend money between the wars on Artillery. The designs were almost all new and production picked up.

It is true that 25pd production in 1939 had just started and I do not question your figure of 111, but in 1940 production stepped up and by 1941 they were being produced in serious numbers, 4,000+. Its also wrong to belittle the 18/25pd conversions, they were not lashups, they were put together after serious testing and for the time were very capable weapons.

Had the USA found itself at war in 1939 their situation would have been very difficult. It says something that the USA had to use British 4.5in ammunition. I don't know if the M1 105mm ever entered production but my understanding is that the M2 didn't enter production until 1941, so the British were if anything ahead of the USA in Artillery.

The accepted exception being the Heavy Artillery where the 7.2in was a stop gap until given a modern mounting. Even here the US had 65 Long Toms in Dec 1941, had they gone to war in 1939 they would be using the WW1 derived 155mm 1917/18. again not a bad gun, but undeniably old.

 

[pbfoot]

THere is a big difference in how things work at -10 to -20 C than how they work at -40. The British had 10 years to get the guns to work by Korea with plenty of examples to show them how. Changes in hydraulic fluid for different weather conditions might be noted in manuals but usually don't warrant a different MK number for the equipment.

Sure is a big difference but -40c is the same as -40f and Shilo manitoba is colder then Minsk by several degrees for an average winter temp. Suggestion don't clean your car windows when its -40 from personal expierience

 

[Shortround6]

A simple question,

why don't you compare the soviet 76,2mm gun to the the 8,8cm Flak/18/36/37 with near the same duties in WWII?

THe 8,8cm Flak was Flak, anti tank gun, light field artillery and so on.

This is an often trotted out point but in reality not quite true. While the gun was used those roles it was not used interchangeably in those roles. If deployed as AT guns they were usually not hooked up to the AA director and were little better than a WW I aa gun. If used as AT guns for any period of time they tended to loose ( crews stripped) the AA equipment, like the automatic fuse setter, from the mounts rendering the guns near useless for AA work even if they were given back to an AA organization. Using high velocity AA guns for general bombardment is either a sign of desperation ( you don't have enough guns to begin with) or a sign of such overwhelming superiority ( the air force controls the sky so the AA guns have nothing to shoot at) that AA barrel life, much much shorter than field gun life, can be used up in a secondary role.

But if you do want to compare the two guns a soviet 76.2 gun weighed 1/4 to 1/5 what an 8.8cm Flack gun weighed. Which also shows how uneconomical using Flak guns for field artillery work is.

The 10,5cm howitzer is to my opinion not comparable to the 76,2mm and had totally other duties.

Care to explain? Both weapons were designed as a basic artillery piece of the infantry division for indirect fire support. They fired HE and smoke for the most part. Any other role, including AT work was secondary. The Russians, with their drive for standardization used the 7,62cm guns as anti tank guns even though they weren't really that good at it. They were good enough considering the lack of heavy German armor until 1943 but they were about the lowest powered 75-76mm gun used in large numbers for anti-tank work and had a high profile due to their higher than normal for an AT gun elevation. This higher elevation helped give them the range desired for the field gun role.
If you want compare a german 10,5cm gun I would choose the Schwere 10-cm-Feldkanone 18 as one battery of the division artillery.

Edit:
Sorry no!
The normal german mobile infantry division and tank division had 4 departmentalism a 3 batteries. The heavy departmentalism had standard 2 Batteries 15cm howitzer and 1 Battery 10.5cm K18 field gun.

You are correct and I was wrong about this. But 4-6 guns per division means it wasn't a common gun.