Shortround6
Major General
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.
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.