Best Long Range Artillery Piece

[Shortround6]

Why don't you start a thread for best artillery piece for all conditions?

Many people know what long range artillery is, what it is used for, and it's limitations.

That is why most armies had a mix of heavy guns and even had mixes at different levels. Divisions had short range howitzers and longer ranged guns of about the same size/weight, Corp had both Howitzers and guns of a larger size (both shell and equipment) and range again with gun having a smaller shell but longer range than the howitzer. If the Army was big enough they had another pair of weapons for 'army' level (several corp) or independent heavy battalions to be assigned as needed. These were another step up in shell size and equipment size and in range.

Your argument has fallen away to nothing unless every general staff of every nation big enough to a form a field army of more than a couple of Corp has had it wrong since about 1900 and you are the only one that is right.

Your geographical argument is on shaky ground too. The big guns (not just the 17cm K18) were use aplenty on the Russian steppes and in North Africa. The big guns were used in Italy and historically, big guns (in physical size if not range, 8in howitzers/6in guns and the like) were used in WW I on the Italian/Austrian front in the Alps.

While getting the right 'MIX" of guns is certainly subject to argument, the need for at least some long range guns is not. Once you have a 'category' of long range guns then it is quite proper to consider which is the best in that category, just as it is proper to consider best field gun or best mountain gun or any other category with just one or two adjectives. we don't need a paragraph long description to categorize an artillery piece.

You have claimed that these big guns are siege weapons without ever defining siege weapon. What is the dividing line between a 'field' gun and a 'siege gun?

Is it weight of the equipment? or towing requirements? or time needed to emplace? Is two hours to emplace OK for a 'field gun' but 2 1/4 hours it is a siege gun?

Obviously as carriages and towing equipment got better from 1914 to 1945 what had been siege guns turned into field guns.

By the way, if all you have is great general purpose, use anywhere, light feildguns/howitzers and your opponent does get some longer ranged heavy artillery into a firing position, your guns are not only "instantly redundant" they are dead leaving your opponents smaller artillery to mop up your infantry without the inconvenience of counter battery fire.

 

[davebender]

Isn't that the purpose of army recon aircraft such as the Fw-189?
Focke-Wulf Fw 189

 

[Shortround6]

Yep, but if it can't fly (weather or night) it can't locate targets.

And that is assuming that the enemy fighters leave it alone.

Without such help the longest range gun is restricted to what the guys in the FO posts can see (which may include gun flashes) rather than the max range of the gun. Shells and barrel life are too limited just to fire off shells in the general direction of the enemy.

The US 175mm gun in Viet Nam was limited to 300 full charge shots before barrel replacement to begin with. This was latter changed to between 1000-1200 shots but it required better barrel inspection methods, and perhaps better barrel construction/materials and powder additives. normal rate of fire for the US gun was one round every 2 minutes but for short periods it could fire once every 30 seconds. It had a power shell lifting and ramming system that powered by hydraulics. Once you get much of 100lbs for shell weight you either need power equipment of you have low rate of fire.

 

[parsifal]

Why don't you start a thread for best artillery piece for all conditions?

Many people know what long range artillery is, what it is used for, and it's limitations.

Actually, they dont. what they have are misconceptions based on national interpretations of the application of artillery. That those theories actually failed in a number of key situations does not seem to register, and neither does it matter to them, because they "know" what is the correct application of artillery.

Starting another thread may be a good idea, but that would not necessarily mean abandoning this thread to degenerating into a propaganda platform to sing the praises of firepower and range over all other considerations. Sorry to dissappoint, but this is where the action is, this is where the BS is being manufactured, this is where i will make my stand.

That is why most armies had a mix of heavy guns and even had mixes at different levels. Divisions had short range howitzers and longer ranged guns of about the same size/weight, Corp had both Howitzers and guns of a larger size (both shell and equipment) and range again with gun having a smaller shell but longer range than the howitzer. If the Army was big enough they had another pair of weapons for 'army' level (several corp) or independent heavy battalions to be assigned as needed. These were another step up in shell size and equipment size and in range.

I agree that armies have a mix of guns, and that having the right gun for a given situation is important to success. several people, including yourself, have commented along those lines. What is not so true is that divisions had mixes of guns. In the British army, the Australian Army, the Canadian Army, and many others, there was just one standardized piece of field artilleery at the divisional level and below. At Corps and army level the specialist artillery was centralized and held in reserve.

A US division had 36 105mm howitzers and 12 155 Howitzers. The heavier Howitzers werent there for range purposes, they were included to give the division greater ability to put heavy firepower down onto a particular position. They were the divisional reserve, in effect, to give added firepower to the MLA of the Division. US Infantry in the ETO was admittedly more dependant on Corps level resources than a British Division, which by 1944, had 72 guns in the artilery brigades, plus an additional 4 guns attached directly to each Brigade HQ. In fact when you have a closer look at all the divisional allocations for just about every nation. The Germans, for example in their training and techniques did not place a greeat deal of weight on outranging an enemy, infact they stressed pushing their artillery as far forward as possible. this meant that their artillery could start responding earlier, made possible counterattacks at the local level and meant that the enemy guns were placed at greater risk from counter battery fire. This admittedly had some risk to it, but the germans never tried to engage the enemy guns or formations at ling range with their own guns. Neither did the Italians or Japanese. Strangely the British did introduce this type of thinking somewhat I suspect because their 25pounders could outrange the German field artillery.

Your argument has fallen away to nothing unless every general staff of every nation big enough to a form a field army of more than a couple of Corp has had it wrong since about 1900 and you are the only one that is right.

Your geographical argument is on shaky ground too. The big guns (not just the 17cm K1 were use aplenty on the Russian steppes and in North Africa. The big guns were used in Italy and historically, big guns (in physical size if not range, 8in howitzers/6in guns and the like) were used in WW I on the Italian/Austrian front in the Alps.

Every nation needs a heavy artillery park. Im not arguing that. The thread is entitled "Best Long range artillery". It fails to take into account the differing conditions that render the big, heavy guns useless. In fact what I am arguing is that the concept of "long range" is not wedded to a single concept or formula, it is wedded to maxised flexibility and effectiveness, and that is much more than just having the biggest, heaviest, and longest ranged guns your industry can build. In other words the very thing you are arguing in your openeing paragraps are the things I am saying are essential. Of course that encouraging path to enlightenment evaporates quickly as soon as it is realized that the primacy of the heavy gun may be under some kind of threat, and hevaen forbid, we might have to thinnk about something other than gun size and range.

As for me being alone in my criticism of the big guns, I can only suggest you do a little more reading. Try reading Colonel Tsuji, and Blamey for a start. The very things you are espousing , about how an army is only effective if it has the necessary heavy firepower to back it up, were major factors in the japanese run of successes throughout southeast asia, and why the US sucked at jungle warfare or indeed warfare in any rough terrain (you mention italy, we will look at the US performance in the mountains of Italy in a minute....but it is not a pretty picture I can assure you) until they learnt the lesson of not trying to apply the same formula interms of artillery support to every situation, and infact paying greater attention to the issue of mobility. To be fair, unlike the germans, the Americans at least always paid great attention to supply and logistics issues, which got them out of a lot of pickles during the war. l

With regard to the use of big guns outside central eurpoe, again you are taking the issue out of context. I never said they were not used, but where were they decisive, and what were the difficulties that each side faced. For the germans, the last great concentration of their big guns on the eastern front was at Sevastopol. Big guns were not deplyed to any great extent at Stalingrad, because of supply difficulties mostly. The russians certainly used them, but it would generally take 6-12 weeks of painstaking stockpiling to prepare for an offensive, and the bigger the guns, the longer the build up. And, in every case of the Soviet build ups, there was a flurry of rail and road construction in the area where the offensive was to take place. Without that, the logistic support was simply not there to support the big guns. Put another way, the Russians had to create "central European" conditions in the locality where they were to attack, before they coulod successfully emply their big artillery parks. Where they didnt do this, their guns , or at least their heavy guns were not used.

The US in western Europr had similar problems. Until the French railnet, and the French ports, could be built back up, the allies had to rely on road transport (the Red Bull highway????), and whilst this reliance on road transport existed, you will not find many instances of the allies using large amounts of their corps artillery assets on a large scale. Arhem was an exception., but this was achieved at the expense of other offensive activities, and even then some rail communications had been established by then and gues where those efforts were being directed.

In North Africa, the big guns were only used by the allies where they had rail communications to support them (eventually this meant to Tobruk), and later still the light rail network around tripoli), and for both sides, the use of corps level artillery assets (ie, the big guns) was extremely limited. At Alamein, for example, there were 28 Regimental sized units attached to Corps units or above, however ther were only 8 regiments of 155mm or larger, and these units never left the Alamein once the pursuit stated. the British never bothered....they knew that it would be impossible to supply them....they dont reappear in the battle line up until after the fall of tripoli. So, for the allies at least, the heavy guns in north Africa are only used close to port in North africa, and only where there are rails, or at least short distance, and high quality roads. In other words, extremely limited opportunities to use them. For the germans, apart from some ex-french 155mm Coatal guns, that never left the ports regions, I can only identify three understrength Battalions of Heavy guns of 155mm or above that may have moved away from the supply sources, plus a further two batteries of heavy mortars that may have been used in the final assault on Tobruk. In other words, anything but a heavy use of heavy gunbs in the desert, by either side.

 

[parsifal]

While getting the right 'MIX" of guns is certainly subject to argument, the need for at least some long range guns is not. Once you have a 'category' of long range guns then it is quite proper to consider which is the best in that category, just as it is proper to consider best field gun or best mountain gun or any other category with just one or two adjectives. we don't need a paragraph long description to categorize an artillery piece.

I completely agree with your statements here, however the parameters for determining "best" are flawed under your system, because no account for mobility or reliability is being considered. you seem to be basing your selection criteria on two things only...range, and weight of shell, and look out anybody who points out that in most situations these guns could not be deployed, and were there fore useless compared to less heavy guns. The concept of "long range" is relative to the opponent, and to what can be deployed, but this is something you appear most reluctant to acknowledge. We get these swqeeping statement about how the heavy guns were used across Europe with devastating effect, in the deserts of North Africa, and in the Mountains of the italian Alps, and yet, when we break it down, we actually see the effects of these heavy guns as quite limited in those TOs. I think the proper assessment is not to consider the theoretical potential of these guns, but rather to look at their actual applications, and their actual effects. And if you do that all of a sudden we are confronted with the fact that their effects were quite limited, as was their deployment

You have claimed that these big guns are siege weapons without ever defining siege weapon. What is the dividing line between a 'field' gun and a 'siege gun?

Is it weight of the equipment? or towing requirements? or time needed to emplace? Is two hours to emplace OK for a 'field gun' but 2 1/4 hours it is a siege gun?


Ther isnt a clear definition, but obviously is is linked to the mobility issue, also where were these guns actually used and where were they effective. As far as emplacement is concerned, a figure more like two months is a more realistic figure for their emplacement,and the build up of a logistic base to support them, as the experiences of the germans at Odessa, Sevastopol and Russians in all their major offensives show. where such preprations were not made, such as at Moscow, the heavy guns were inneffective (and therefore are not the "best). If you look at where German Heavy guns were effective, its was in siege situations, mostly, rather than in fluid mobile battles


Obviously as carriages and towing equipment got better from 1914 to 1945 what had been siege guns turned into field guns.

By the way, if all you have is great general purpose, use anywhere, light feildguns/howitzers and your opponent does get some longer ranged heavy artillery into a firing position, your guns are not only "instantly redundant" they are dead leaving your opponents smaller artillery to mop up your infantry without the inconvenience of counter battery fire.

Can you give examples of that happening on a catqastrophic scale? I cant think of any occasions. If we look at Alamein for example....the British used an overwhelming park of 25 pounders, which were the longest ranged weapons except for a few 4.5 inc and 7.2 inch guns. They easily outranged the majority of German and italian guns deployed at the battle, which in any case were deployed well forward. I cant find any real evidence that the British massacred the Axis guns until after tha breakthrough. At Tobruk in the precedeing year, the defending Australian garrson was equiped mostly with captured 65mm ex-Italian guns with a range of about 6000 yards. they were enageaged by a superior number of heavier axis artillery, which far outranged them, but no great defeat of the Australian maned batteries ever occurred. The Axis assaults were rep[eatedly driven off. I am not saying that having a range advantage is not a benefit, but your asertion is that range advantage more or less automataically gurantees victory. id like to know where that occurred?????

 

[davebender]

The Fw-189 flew at night. A few of them were even used as night fighters.

 

[Shortround6]

All Fw 189s flew at night or just selected units?

To locate targets for artillery you have to be able to place the position on a map. While a night flying "intruder" can certainly bomb/strafe a target "west of a village" if it can't identify which village or how far west (2000meters or 2500meters) the sighting does no good to the artillery.

 

[Shortround6]

Starting another thread may be a good idea, but that would not necessarily mean abandoning this thread to degenerating into a propaganda platform to sing the praises of firepower and range over all other considerations. Sorry to dissappoint, but this is where the action is, this is where the BS is being manufactured, this is where i will make my stand.

Yes the BS does seem to being manufactured here and a fair amount does seem to coming from down under.

Please refer me back to MY posts that "sing the praises of firepower and range over all other considerations".

I believe I have tried to point out a number of considerations that are negative to the big long range guns.

I agree that armies have a mix of guns, and that having the right gun for a given situation is important to success. several people, including yourself, have commented along those lines. What is not so true is that divisions had mixes of guns. In the British army, the Australian Army, the Canadian Army, and many others, there was just one standardized piece of field artilleery at the divisional level and below. At Corps and army level the specialist artillery was centralized and held in reserve.

The British Commonwealth was the exception that proved the rule at the beginning of the war and not quite even then. While some units in the BEF did have 25pdrs others had a mix of 18pdrs and 4.5in Howitzers. Granted it was due to lack of the 25pdr guns rather than doctrine but it shows the pairing. The flat trajectory field guns often had dead areas of ground they could not shoot into, not having adjustable charges like the 25pdr and howitzers. The Howitzers in most armies were to hit this dead ground in addition to providing shell weight.
Had the US gone to war any earlier than it did it too would have had a mix of guns, again due to a late start rather than in equipping they they wished.
However both armies had the advantage of planning to use motor transport from some point in the 30s to tow their guns and haul their ammo. This meant their "standard" field gun/howitzer could be heavier than other armies who were still depending, in some part, on horse traction. These heavier "standard" field gun/howitzers could offer more performance than the lighter horse drawn pieces and could combine the light howitzer/light field gun abilities into one piece of equipment.

The US 155 Howitzer could out range the German 15cm howitzer by about 1700yds (about 11%) so perhaps the Americans didn't feel the need for long ranged gun in division quite as much. The American 155 could also out range the British 5.5in (using 100lb shells) by a few hundred yds but nobody was surveying firing positions that closely. Call them equal. American divisions were also usually generously supported by higher echelon units which had the 155mm gun which could range to over 25,000yds.
Germans divisions often had (as I was reminded) a 4 gun battery of 10.5cm cannon that could range to 20,000yds. Perhaps this was a mistake but it seems somebody thought that some degree of counter battery fire was useful.

The Germans certainly put a lot of effort into trying to design/build guns/howitzers with longer range. From putting muzzle brakes on the standard 105s. to modified 15ch howitzers to new 105mm gun/howitzers and 12.8cm field guns. Most of this effort came up way short of providing any real results let alone being decisive at any point but it sure seems like somebody was tired of being out ranged? our were they just seduced by the glamour of the bigger guns?

BTW, why did the British introduce the 80lb shell for the 5.5in gun? Better target effect only? The range increase of 1900yds had nothing to do with it?

Every nation needs a heavy artillery park. Im not arguing that. The thread is entitled "Best Long range artillery". It fails to take into account the differing conditions that render the big, heavy guns useless. In fact what I am arguing is that the concept of "long range" is not wedded to a single concept or formula, it is wedded to maxised flexibility and effectiveness, and that is much more than just having the biggest, heaviest, and longest ranged guns your industry can build. In other words the very thing you are arguing in your openeing paragraps are the things I am saying are essential. Of course that encouraging path to enlightenment evaporates quickly as soon as it is realized that the primacy of the heavy gun may be under some kind of threat, and hevaen forbid, we might have to thinnk about something other than gun size and range.

Boy the sarcasm is getting a bit heavy here isn't it. I thought I was trying to be even handed but if it doesn't agree with your theory or point of view you come out swinging. An enlightened point of view might conclude that things are shades of gray. It seems that that is not so. One can either agree with you and be in the circle of light or disagree and be cast into the darkness.

l

 

[parsifal]

With regard to range, I think i already agreed with you that having more range gives an advantage. however, your position evolved to...."By the way, if all you have is great general purpose, use anywhere, light feildguns/howitzers and your opponent does get some longer ranged heavy artillery into a firing position, your guns are not only "instantly redundant" they are dead leaving your opponents smaller artillery to mop up your infantry without the inconvenience of counter battery fire.". I was curious to know of significant situations where having superior range led to the more or less instant destruction of the enemy force. Perhaps it is the scale we are talking about. Destruction of individual guns....perhaps, destruction of an entire enemy on a given battlefield....I cannot think of a single instance.

With regard to K-18 deployment in North Africa, i forgot to mention that just a single battery (either 2 or 4 guns) were deployed to North Africa.

Not having an effective Howitzer was a a definite disadvantage for the British, though the 25 pounder could use plunging fire to a degree. I think being forced by expedient to have a menagerie of guns does not serve as any exception to the theory....as fast as the British could, they corrected their shortages,and adopted a standardised gun for their artillery.

The point of contention her isnt that firepower or range wasnt important, they were, but so too were the other factors previously mentioned, and the big guns lacked many of these qualities. You havent commented on much on the limitations on Heavy gun deployment since this comment"Your argument has fallen away to nothing unless every general staff of every nation big enough to a form a field army of more than a couple of Corp has had it wrong since about 1900 and you are the only one that is right.

Your geographical argument is on shaky ground too. The big guns (not just the 17cm K1 were use aplenty on the Russian steppes and in North Africa. The big guns were used in Italy and historically, big guns (in physical size if not range, 8in howitzers/6in guns and the like) were used in WW I on the Italian/Austrian front in the Alps". (And im the one making insulting, aggressive statements....really?). I gave you some greater details about these deployments outside of central Europe (except for the usage on the italian Alps in WWI, dont have too much information for those battles.....but my meagre knowledge says that the usage of these big guns was not actually in mountain terrain, it was near it).

So, the impasse I would suggest is this....I am maintaining that the definition of long range and heavy is relative to the terrain, and the opposition. If you are equipped with mortars and your enemy has nothing, you have the advantage of range and firepower.....I am further maintaining that guns like the K-18 have a purpose, and are good at what they do, but their applications are very limited, and as a result of that limitation (especially for the german gun) cannot be considered as best long range artillery. Youve argued with me a lot, we have exchanged some angry words, but this issue has not been addressed as far as I can see. Perhaps we should get back to that issue, and try and make some headway there.

 

[Glider]

BTW, why did the British introduce the 80lb shell for the 5.5in gun? Better target effect only? The range increase of 1900yds had nothing to do with it?

My guess and its only that, would be the 4.5 for all its faults was handy as a counter battery weapon with a good range 20,000+ yard range. Also the 80pd shell was more accurate than the 100 pound shell.

 

[Shortround6]

I completely agree with your statements here, however the parameters for determining "best" are flawed under your system, because no account for mobility or reliability is being considered. you seem to be basing your selection criteria on two things only...range, and weight of shell, and look out anybody who points out that in most situations these guns could not be deployed, and were there fore useless compared to less heavy guns. The concept of "long range" is relative to the opponent, and to what can be deployed, but this is something you appear most reluctant to acknowledge. We get these swqeeping statement about how the heavy guns were used across Europe with devastating effect, in the deserts of North Africa, and in the Mountains of the italian Alps, and yet, when we break it down, we actually see the effects of these heavy guns as quite limited in those TOs. I think the proper assessment is not to consider the theoretical potential of these guns, but rather to look at their actual applications, and their actual effects. And if you do that all of a sudden we are confronted with the fact that their effects were quite limited, as was their deployment

Care to point out where I made these sweeping statements "about how the heavy guns were used across Europe with devastating effect, in the deserts of North Africa, and in the Mountains of the italian Alps"

I said they were used, did I say with "devastating effect"?

How about a little less poetic licence in what you attribute to others.

Ther isnt a clear definition, but obviously is is linked to the mobility issue, also where were these guns actually used and where were they effective. As far as emplacement is concerned, a figure more like two months is a more realistic figure for their emplacement,and the build up of a logistic base to support them, as the experiences of the germans at Odessa, Sevastopol and Russians in all their major offensives show. where such preprations were not made, such as at Moscow, the heavy guns were inneffective (and therefore are not the "best). If you look at where German Heavy guns were effective, its was in siege situations, mostly, rather than in fluid mobile battles

Let me see if I have this right. You can provide a several sentence long description of what a long range gun is (did I miss count the sentences?) but you have no definition of what a siege gun is or what characteristics it has?

yet in your post #58 you say"These pieces of "siege artillery" (which is basically all they were) were useful, and powerful, but they are not the only types of artillery that can have the term "Heavy" applied to them....it depends on the environment that the guns are operating in. "

Which seems like you know what siege artillery is. Maybe I am reading too much into that.

If we look at Alamein for example....the British used an overwhelming park of 25 pounders, which were the longest ranged weapons except for a few 4.5 inc and 7.2 inch guns. They easily outranged the majority of German and italian guns deployed at the battle, which in any case were deployed well forward. I cant find any real evidence that the British massacred the Axis guns until after tha breakthrough. At Tobruk in the precedeing year, the defending Australian garrson was equiped mostly with captured 65mm ex-Italian guns with a range of about 6000 yards. they were enageaged by a superior number of heavier axis artillery, which far outranged them, but no great defeat of the Australian maned batteries ever occurred. The Axis assaults were rep[eatedly driven off. I am not saying that having a range advantage is not a benefit, but your asertion is that range advantage more or less automataically gurantees victory. id like to know where that occurred?????

You are right, a range advantage alone does not guarantee victory.

I can find definitions at various times as to what field artillery was (usually in reference as tow what sized horse team was needed to move it.) with implications that larger or heavier artillery was siege artillery. As time went on some of the heavier weapons were classified as heavy field artillery. Some early definitions/classifications (that varied a bit from army to army) were that horse artillery had to be able to move at the gallop, at least for short distances, while carrying the entire gun crew mounted on the team (usually six horses) or riding in seats on the equipment. Field artillery used pretty much the same six horses but moved at the trot at best and might or might not have part of the crew walking/marching. Medium field artillery used more (and bigger) horses and moved at the walk. The usual definition of field artillery was that it could keep up with the army on the march. Literally as the infantry marched on foot. Siege artillery could be moved but could not keep up with the marching troops.
Obviously things changed as motor traction came into use. Heavier loads could be moved even if at a walking pace by early gas engined tractors or even steam tractors. Obviously a plentiful supply of ammo still presented a problem. Such machine traction was in short supply and horse drawn wagons were not a good way to move heavy shells.
If you think this is going too far afield please remember how many smaller armies were essentially horse drawn at the start of WW II. And How few years even the most motorized armies had been motorized. The US was working on a horse drawn 75mm howitzer in the late 30s. It used the 75mm pack howitzer barrel on a much larger, heavier carriage.
Also please remember that whatever the official TOE's show for the desired German infantry divisions as far as motor vehicles and guns go, many were not only under strength but equipped with Czech guns, From rifles to field artillery.

As mentioned above the Americans ind British Commonwealth units had the motor transport to move slightly larger guns (often with higher ammunition allowances) at higher speeds than many other armies. This is not said to make the Germans look better for working under the conditions they did. They actually used some of the same advantages against the Poles in 1939. While even a regular infantry division marched they did have enough trucks to move not only the guns but a considerably larger tonnage of ammo for the guns than the Poles did.
With motor transport as it existed in the early part of the war guns of 12,000-15,000lbs could keep pace with even motorized infantry units. Yes this is a generality and exceptions can be found. AS the war went on and even bigger trucks/tractors joined the transportation system even bigger guns could keep pace. Yes the bigger guns put a strain on the logistics system. One little fact I found though was that the Commonwealth 5.5in guns fired 2,610,000 shells in the northwestern Europe with Army group 21 between D-day and V-E day. That is over 104,000tons (short tons) of shells, not counting propelling charges. While it may not have been "decisive" that support must have helped.

BTW. your choice of using the 7.2 howitzer as an example doesn't really help your case. The 7.2in howitzer used at Alamein was a great example of how NOT to design a heavy piece of artillery unless you are really desperate. It had only a few hundred yd range advantage over the 5.5 and was shorter ranged by 3,000yds than the 4.5 in gun and that was using the #4 charge that bounced the gun around so bad that in 1943 it was decided not to use it any more as it made the rate of fire too low. The MK 6 gun used in NW Europe by the 21st army group used the same shell but just about nothing else was the same.
While breack thoughs achieved by artillery alone may have been non-existant the larger guns (and range) did seem to play a role.

 

[parsifal]

Your right that i should not try and put words in your mouth. Wasnt my intention, but thats the way it came across. My apologies.

My beef however is saying the K-18 is the best long ranged piece of artillery. I say that "Long Ranged" is a relative term, determined by terrain, and what the opposition has, not by an arbitrary number. If you have catapults and your opponent has rocks, your catapults are still the long ranged weapon.

And then ther is the term "best". by saying the K-18 was "best" is to deny its glaring weakness...namely its decided lack of mobility. I really buck at the notion that the K-18 was the best heavy artillery when ther are so many instances where it could not be used, and its mobility was so limited. Even in the genre of its own kind.....ie the big guns suited really only to flat terrain on static fronts, it was nore limited in terms of mobility than its competitors...not all of them, but some of them. I happen to think that range and firepower are subordinate to mobility. In this regard i have a lot of support in terms of the theory. Have a look at Deitchmann ("American Defence Policy', MIT Press 1964) which explores this issue in a fair amount of detail, and led to a lot of changes to US procurement and capability in the 60s and 70s.

To stop my criticisms, the terms of reference for the thread would need to be changed. If you want to limit the debate to a particular type of artillery, then modify the forum topic to reflect that. If you retain the current thread topic, i will never agree that the K-18 was the best LR artillery piece because of the limitations on it that have previously been mentioned.

Not sure what you are getting at with your last para about the 7.2". Im not supporting the 7.2" as a piece of equipment. i think Brit heavy guns basically suck, for the record, especially the older ones. And really, only one regiment out of 28 deployed at Alamein were equipped with the 7.2in gun....most of the heavies used by the brits were either 4.5s or two regiments with 3.7 used as artillery. The majority of brit Corps and army level artillery at Alamein was 25 pounder (20 regiments out of 28).

So, unless you can produce evidence that mobility is not an issue, or that the K-18 had mobility that we have not previously known about, please tell me why I am not justified in levelling criticism at it (the K-18) because of that lack of mobility. In my opinion, the only way that the K-18 can be argued as the best LR artillery, is if the mobility issue is downgraded or ignored. I dont think that is a valiad parameter on which to base the assessment.

 

[Shortround6]

So, the impasse I would suggest is this....I am maintaining that the definition of long range and heavy is relative to the terrain, and the opposition. If you are equipped with mortars and your enemy has nothing, you have the advantage of range and firepower.....I am further maintaining that guns like the K-18 have a purpose, and are good at what they do, but their applications are very limited, and as a result of that limitation (especially for the german gun) cannot be considered as best long range artillery. Youve argued with me a lot, we have exchanged some angry words, but this issue has not been addressed as far as I can see. Perhaps we should get back to that issue, and try and make some headway there.

I can agree to that. I actually don't think we are that far apart.

While I think that your idea of trying to tie the mobility of a gun to it's range and shell power has some merit for trying to figure out a "best gun" overall or for some sort of value index, I think it is too hard to actually implement. There are just way too many variables.
Consider jungle ( and you may have way more experience than I do).

IS it a highland plateau jungle? thick vegetation but some what flat and somewhat dry.
Is it mountain jungle? thick vegetation with steep inclines and somewhat dry
Is it swamp jungle? thick vegetation flat but half under water.

some jungles may be easier than others, same with desserts, soft sand vs rock.

Climate. Russian winter or Russian mud season vs dry summer.

Now consider something like the the US 155mm gun. about 30,000lbs in action, a bit heavier with its towing limber 10 wheels in it's most common form.

How do we measure it's mobility any terrain without considering the tow vehicle/s. Do we just assume that all 30,000lb guns have the same mobility?

Compare it to the US 155 howitzer. about 12,000lbs on two wheels. Better or worse mobility on soft ground? Needs a lighter tow vehicle. Shells weigh the same (100 shells weigh 5 tons) so the logistics of suppling the guns aren't that much different ammunition wise.

Common tow vehicles for the gun include the Mack 7 1/2 ton truck that actually weighs just under 30,000lbs empty, has a 159hp engine, 6X6 drive, 10 forward gears, top speed of 32mph, max towed load of 50,000lbs and a 40,000lb winch.The other is the M-18 high speed tractor that weighs about the same, has a 190hp engine, tracks, a torque converter 3 speed automatic, a top speed of 35mph, max towed load of 38,700lbs and a 30,000lb winch. Another tow option is a M3 tank chassis.
We are now comparing tow vehicles which, while affecting the mobility of the gun, have little or nothing to do with the gun design. An army unhappy with the mobility of a tow vehicle/gun combination can design/buy another tow vehicle and leave the gun alone.
Now compare the mobility of one of these combinations (gun and tow vehicle) with the rest of the army, while it is quite true that the road network in Europe is much better than most everywhere else that WW II was fought it should be apparent that any of these combinations can do 100 miles in a 10 hr day on any sort of decent road in good weather which should keep up with just about any advance, they may be able to do better.
What happens if the weather/ terrain turns to crap? they move slower, much slower but then how fast is the rest of the army moving? are the infantry carrying trucks humming along at 30mph (or even 10mph) while the gun towers are doing 2-5mph?
Granted none of these tow vehicles are going to get a 30,000lb gun over the Owen Stanley mountains but then how big a gun can you get over a particular track over the Owen Stanley's? and how fast does ANYTHING get over the Owen Stanley's?

While a 75mm pack howitzer with 15 rounds of ammo in range of the enemy beats the heck out of a 155 gun 50 miles behind we don't need a complicated matrix or formula to tell us that. We can usually look at a class of gun at most points of time in history and take a guess as to how they would fare in certain types of terrain. Nobodies 30,00lb gun (or even 15,000lb gun or howitzer) was going to be mobile in the jungle or in the Russian mud season or in 4 feet of snow. Or on certain trails in the alps. Neither are a lot of 4-5,000lb guns although you can get them into more places. TO get into the really lousy places or handle the worst climate conditions (extreme cold is a thing of it's own) you need the mountain/pack (coming apart in multiple loads) guns meant for those conditions.
It seems about 3,000lbs may be the max single unit load that can be shifted without power assistance in most circumstances. I am basing this of tales of the Germans leaving Pak 75s behind but claiming they could move Pak 50s. If this is true ( and it very well might not be) only the lightest of field guns has any mobility in bad conditions.

It is for these reasons that I believe, interesting as your idea/position seems as a technical exercise they are just too many variables/unknowns for most of us to make any headway with it.

I would vote for simplicity. The 17cm K 18 is the best long range gun out of a bunch of extremely heavy, difficult to move, short lived guns in it's general weight class.

The British 25pdr was one of the best ( and perhaps the best?) of the 4,000lb (give or take) Field guns considering it's weight, range, shell power, variety of ammunition (something the big guns didn't have, 1-3 different shells seems to be about it; also a generalization) ease of handling,etc.

The British didn't really compare the 25pdr to the 4.5in gun
The Americans didn't compare the 105 howitzer to the 155mm long Tom or 8in rifle (here is a gun that makes the 17cm K 18 look mobile)
The Germans didn't compare the 105mm how to the 17cm.

Why are we?

 

[davebender]

Bear in mind the 17cm artillery piece had a range fan of about 28km. It doesn't need to move as often as shorter range FA weapons.

Assuming a Sd.Kfz.8 heavy artilery tractor is available, does anyone know how much time was required for the 17cm artillery piece to displace to an alternate firing location?

 

[Shortround6]

So, unless you can produce evidence that mobility is not an issue, or that the K-18 had mobility that we have not previously known about, please tell me why I am not justified in levelling criticism at it (the K-18) because of that lack of mobility. In my opinion, the only way that the K-18 can be argued as the best LR artillery, is if the mobility issue is downgraded or ignored. I dont think that is a valiad parameter on which to base the assessment.

I am not sure how to get this across, although I tried in the above post which crossed with yours. Unless somebody can come up with an example that I missed, once you get passed about 26,000yds in range EVERBODY'S long range artillery had major mobility problems. Ir was a generic class flaw. Once that is accepted you can discuss which one had the worst mobility and what other limitations they and the American 8in had some doosies.

The idea of a 'variably' long range classifications is just too complicated for me. I mean lets look at it again. Let us say that gun "A" shoots to 14,000yds and weighs XXXX and gun "B" shoots to 8000yds and weighs 1/2 XXXX. Now in Europe in dry summer weather gun "B" would be a short ranged gun and Gun "A" a medium ranged gun? Now in the dessert in soft sand gun "A" bogs down much more often and can't reach designated firing positions while gun "B" does so with great regularity even if not perfect. Is gun "B" now the longer ranged Gun? What happens if we give gun "A" a tracked vehicle for towing and leave gun "A" with a truck, does Gun "A" now make it to the desert firing positions often enough to regain the long range title? No change in gun.
Then send the guns to Burma. Gun 'A' only gets to a useable firing position 10% of the time, gun "B" gets into firing positions 25% of the time. A 2,600yd mortar gets into range 90% of the time, is gun "A" now in 3rd place for range?

What kind of gun (what category) is gun "A". A medium range gun? a short range gun in certain conditions? an ultra short range gun in the jungle, even though it can still shoot 14,000yds from a coastal road or spots on a bulldozed path.

What happens if we introduce Gun "D" 20,000yds range and weight 2 XXXX. there are no paved roads and it rains for 3 days, is gun "D" now a medium ranged gun and gun "A" the long ranged gun?

What happens if the front doesn't move for 10 days and everybody has time to tow, drag, winch, take guns to pieces and bring in a part at time and rebuild in desired firing positions. what is the range order now?

Tell me the range of the gun, tell me the weight of the shell, tell me the age of the gun (introduced in 1904 0r in 1940) and I can probably make a WAG as to it's weight and another WAG as to how suitable it might be in different terrain.

Or just tell me how much it weighs and what the tow vehicle is.

To try to sum it up, mobility is an issue, but if it is just as big an issue (or bigger) for any gun that exceeds it's range (or even comes close) why are we making such a big deal about it. It is just the nature of the beast. You want a land gun that shoots 30,000yds? it is going to be a Stone Bi*ch to move no matter who made it.

 

[parsifal]

I agree that it become s a bit ridiculous to compare one class of artillery to another on a purely technical basis. There isnt really a lot of comparability between a 25pdr and a 170mm heavy gun. They each have differing roles, differing capabilities. but what is comparable is their basic purpose....to throw bits of lead and explosive at an enemy to destriy their ability to resist. Which one is better? As you say, hard to know.

If you want me to relent a little and allow the debate to proceed on a purely technical basis, then as a gun the K-18 was a very capable piece of kit. I have no argument with that. But, its lack of mobility is an issue, and compared to its main challenger, the US 155mm I am still inclined to favour the US gun. As far as I know the K-18 was never mounted on an SPG, at least not to any great extent, whereas the 155mm was so mounted on a relatively large scale. In this regard I found this article very interesting

3rd Armored Division Artillery in WWII - by Col. Frederic J. Brown [LTG]

Any gun able to be mounted on tracks has a huge advantage in the mobility department, that more than makes up for any shortcomings in range and power. I guess thats a matter of opinion, but surely you agree that tracked mobility was a huge advantage for any heavy piece of ordinance.

 

[davebender]

I agree. But what makes you think the German 17cm artillery piece couldn't have been modified for mounting on a tracked vehicle chassis? The Panther tank chassis was larger and considerably more powerful then the chassis employed for the U.S. 175mm SP gun.

M107 175mm SP Gun.
28.3 tons Vehicle weight.
6.46m Hull length.
3.15m Hull width.
450 hp Engine

Panther ausf G.
45.5 tons Vehicle weight.
6.88m Hull length.
3.4m Hull width.
700 hp Engine.

 

[Shortround6]

First, thank you for Link.

As an example of tracked mobility we have a test done at Fort Bragg in Feb 1942. They compared the T6 155mm self-propelled gun (later the M12) which used the 155 M1917/18 gun , max range 20,100yds) to a towed version of the same gun. the test was to fire, move six miles down a road (type not given) and fire again. The self propelled gun took 35 minutes. the towed gun took 3 hours. the towed gun weighed 25,900lbs in action.

However, as Parsifal so rightly points out, mobility also includes ammunition supply. the M-12 carried 10 rounds of ammunition and was almost always paired up with an M30 ammunition carrier (same chassis as the M12) which carried another 40 rounds of ammo and some of the gun crew.

The 17cm K18 was supposed to move as two pieces, barrel pulled out and transported on a separate wagon/trailer for long moves. For "short" distances (whatever that means) it could be moved as a one piece unit. There are pictures of it being moved this way in Russia. obviously there are going to be big differences in set up time depending on how it was moved. I am not going to try to figure out the longer mobility problem, one big load that can get stuck or two smaller, lighter loads either of which could get stuck but less likely to on an individual basis?

The US 155 gun, the M1 model with the 25,400yd range, was not mounted on an SP chassis (M40) until later, production started in Feb 1945 and by the time they got overseas, just one example and one companion 8in howitzer version (M43) saw combat. These SP guns used modified M-4 tank chassis (wider than the normal tank).

The Americans never used an SP 155 howitzer in WW II. (manufactured, yes, but again, not in time to see combat in WW II).

If we want to continue the debate on the technical merits of the various guns can we agree on the minimum range for a "long range gun"?

25,000yds gives up a rather short list to compare, 20,000yds bring in a number of candidates, 19,000yds may bring in a few more, going under that starts to get too confusing and with each major country represented at least once and with some minor countries aready represented I think that should cover the field.

 

[Shortround6]

I agree. But what makes you think the German 17cm artillery piece couldn't have been modified for mounting on a tracked vehicle chassis? The Panther tank chassis was larger and considerably more powerful then the chassis employed for the U.S. 175mm SP gun.

True but the US chassis had ZERO armor, carriedTWO rounds of ammunition and a fair number of the crew rode on a second vehicle.

The Germans did have a prototype SP 17cm equipment under construction at the wars end, or started earlier and abandoned. They used a King Tiger chassis and stretched that. The American gun has under 2/3 the recoil impluse of the 17cm gun.

The M12 weighed 59,000lbs, the M-40 with the 155mm Long Tom weighed 80,000lbs.

It could have been mounted on a tracked chassis, that might solve part of the mobility problem, it was still a large, heavy piece of equipment that needs lots of logistic support and needs replacement barrels at a ferocious rate if you actually fire the thing like a 150mm howitzer.

 

[davebender]

My guess.
The German 17cm artillery piece could be moved as a single unit to an alternate firing position in order to evade counter-battery fire.

My questions:
How long did it take to move the 17cm artillery piece to an alternate firing position 500 to 1,000m away if the proper towing tractor was available?
How long did it take to move the USA 155mm Long Tom to an alternate firing position 500 to 1,000m away if the proper towing tractor was available?