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