Best Long Range Artillery Piece

[davebender]

IMHO 17cm K18 was an excellent LR gun, probably technically the best WWII LR gun. But maybe a bit too specialized weapon.

That's my line of reasoning also. Germany might have been further ahead to mass produce a variant of the 15cm K39 optimized for use as field artillery (i.e. not coast defense). Without the coast defense equipment weight should have been similiar to the U.S. 155mm Long Tom. Hence it could be towed by a single WWII era artillery tractor. 24,500 meter max range is good enough for most missions. Every German army corps should have a battalion for counter-battery fire and other such long range missions.

Germany still needs a few hundred 21 cm Mörser 18 for use as siege artillery. Such specialized weapons would remain in OHL reserve.

 

[pinsog]

One source says the 24cm K 3 could be emplaced by 25 men in 1 1/2 hours. it weighed about 121,000lbs in action and traveled in SIX loads. weight on the road was 83 tons. The Germans didn't like it because they thought it took too long and took too many men to set up. They built 10? We don't have a set up time of the 17cm K18 so far but I doubt that it was as long. We also have the fact that the American 155mm gun had 60 degrees of traverse while the 17cm had 16degrees on the carriage but after jacking down the trail castoring wheel the entire gun was supposed to able to be swung through 360 degrees by two men. This may depend on clearance and ground surface but it is an ability the US gun does not have.

I am getting mixed feelings on mobility. How much (how fast) is needed?
Obviously being able to move when horses can't do the job is a huge advantage.
Obviously being able to move at 3-5 times the speed of horses is a huge advantage.

If you are stuck in a column of vehicles doing 10-15km/h I am not sure that being able to have a top towing speed of 50kp/h is much of an advantage over having a top towing speed of 25kp/h (or whatever the speed is for those solid rubber tires).

I'm not looking at mobility as far as how fast you can tow it on a paved road, 15 or 20 mph is about as fast as an M4 HST could tow a 155, I'm looking at mobility as far as 51,000 pounds concentrated on 4 steel wheels with little rubber strips around them, vs 30,000 pounds spread out over 10 pneumatic tires crossing soft ground. I would think the 17cm is going to sink right up to the frame in any kind of soft ground. In fact, I've seen the jacks on loaded semi trailers sink into blacktop on a hot day, I wonder if a 17cm would do the same thing. If so, how would you like to be towing it down an unpaved road in Europe that had been abused by hundreds if not thousands of heavy vehicles before you.

The greatest cannon ever designed by mankind is worthless if it is buried up to the frame in mud 5 miles out of range because the designer didn't think "oh yeah, we gotta move this think in the mud, so maybe we should remove the skinny iron wheels and put lots of big rubber ones on it so it doesn't act like a boat anchor". Kinda like the greatest tank in the world with an unreliable engine or transmission.

 

[Shortround6]

The Germans had trialed carriages using 6 pneumatic tires (3 axles or one axle and a double boggie) before settling on the steel wheels with "little rubber strips". They may have had a fair idea what they were getting into. Since I don't have the tire sizes or actual dimensions of the steel wheels (except to note that they were big) and since I don't know the axle loading's of the equipment, it was post war practice to tow the 155 with the trails suspended from the tow vehicle and not use the limber, I am not going to try to guess the actually ground loading of the two equipment's. There are pictures showing the companion piece, the 21cm Mrs 18, with the barrel transporter hooked to the gun carriage as a sort of tandem trailer load, with Six steel wheels to take the weight. The trial versions with pneumatic tires appear to have used eight tires including the barrel cart.

The American equipment may very well have had better ground loading and more flotation. Without some numbers to go on though we have no idea how close or how far apart they were.

 

[pinsog]

The Germans had trialed carriages using 6 pneumatic tires (3 axles or one axle and a double boggie) before settling on the steel wheels with "little rubber strips". They may have had a fair idea what they were getting into. Since I don't have the tire sizes or actual dimensions of the steel wheels (except to note that they were big) and since I don't know the axle loading's of the equipment, it was post war practice to tow the 155 with the trails suspended from the tow vehicle and not use the limber, I am not going to try to guess the actually ground loading of the two equipment's. There are pictures showing the companion piece, the 21cm Mrs 18, with the barrel transporter hooked to the gun carriage as a sort of tandem trailer load, with Six steel wheels to take the weight. The trial versions with pneumatic tires appear to have used eight tires including the barrel cart.

The American equipment may very well have had better ground loading and more flotation. Without some numbers to go on though we have no idea how close or how far apart they were.

The barrel of the US 8 inch was transported on a wagon with 6 huge pneumatic earthmover tires that looked to be about 6 ft tall each and very wide. Iron wheels should have been retired after the American civil war.

If you really want the best soft ground performance, do what the Russians did, put a tracked undercarriage on your heavy guns instead of wheels. Some of the stuff the Germans did really make me scratch my head, they put tracks on a motorcycle, and skinny iron wheels on a 51,000 pound cannon. In hindsight, neither sounds like a great idea.

Was the 17cm transported in one load or 2?

 

[Shortround6]

The barrel of the US 8 inch was transported on a wagon with 6 huge pneumatic earthmover tires that looked to be about 6 ft tall each and very wide. Iron wheels should have been retired after the American civil war.

They might have been closer to 4ft judging by some of the men in the pictures (tires come to mid chest?). Gross exaggeration does your argument no good. The Civil war was firmly in the wooden wheel era as was light/medium artillery in the early part of WW I. Russians were using steel wheels with soild rubber tires on artillery adopted in the md 30s.

If you really want the best soft ground performance, do what the Russians did, put a tracked undercarriage on your heavy guns instead of wheels. Some of the stuff the Germans did really make me scratch my head, they put tracks on a motorcycle, and skinny iron wheels on a 51,000 pound cannon. In hindsight, neither sounds like a great idea.

Except the Russians never tried it again, ever wonder why? What you gain in flotation you loose in rolling resistance. it takes twice as much power to move on good ground as the wheels. Plus the tracked carriage was heavier than the wheeled one. If putting tracks on a motorcycle is funny, try pulling an 800-1000lb trailer through dirt with a wheeled motorcycle.

Was the 17cm transported in one load or 2?

Either, it could be pulled as one load for "short" distances or the barrel pulled out and carried on a special cart for longer moves, or perhaps in ground conditions warranted it? in any case the option was there.

 

[pinsog]

They might have been closer to 4ft judging by some of the men in the pictures (tires come to mid chest?). Gross exaggeration does your argument no good. The Civil war was firmly in the wooden wheel era as was light/medium artillery in the early part of WW I. Russians were using steel wheels with soild rubber tires on artillery adopted in the md 30s.

Except the Russians never tried it again, ever wonder why? What you gain in flotation you loose in rolling resistance. it takes twice as much power to move on good ground as the wheels. Plus the tracked carriage was heavier than the wheeled one. If putting tracks on a motorcycle is funny, try pulling an 800-1000lb trailer through dirt with a wheeled motorcycle.



Either, it could be pulled as one load for "short" distances or the barrel pulled out and carried on a special cart for longer moves, or perhaps in ground conditions warranted it? in any case the option was there.

http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=7461
This is a much better angle than the other pic I have. Obviously less than 6 foot, but looks taller than 4 foot. Lets just agree this would float over soft ground better than 2 skinny iron wheels. I wasn't trying to exaggerate the size of the tires. The image I was looking at was from above behind a prime mover and they looked MUCH taller, this is a much better image.


With the tracked carriage your probably right, in the long run you probably lose more than you gain.

Pulling 800 to 1000 lbs with a motorcycle is rediculous anyway. Americans used trucks, anything from a jeep through a 7 1/2 to Mack. Mostly just a 2 1/2 ton though

If we are going to compare cannon that had to be broken down, why aren't we comparing this to the US 8 inch gun?

 

[parsifal]

German choices on mobility as well as choices on gun carriage arrangements are very much linked to one of those taboo subjects extraneous to the actual gun itself......the intended purpose of the gun. German guns were linked to horse drawn transport, to breakthrough pre-planned barrages, and defending static lines. mobile artillery was developed for lighter guns, generally 105mm and below, usually on tracks. later, of which the k-18 was an example some of these relatively static heavies were given a measure of mobility with MT transport, but without changing the basic configuration of the german Heavy gun park, that is, tuned to relatively static lines and relatively limited mobility options.

By contrast American Artillery seems to have been developed between the wars with more motorization and more mobility in mind. certainly their artillery systems appear to have been developd to deal with more fluid lines in mind. their artillery was designed to allow relatively rapid movement, their artillery plotting systems designed to react more quickly. Not perfectly so, but more rapidly than the german model. There were reasons why both armies would develop along different lines like this, and the designs cannot be understood unless the theories behind their development are also understood.

My opinion is that German artillery development, whether by reason of equipment (MT), doctrinal shortcomings, or resources shortages (ammunition materials for constructionetc) was simply not as advanced as comparable Allied artillery. Now, before allowing that statement to be torn apart, the germans developed their artillery in certain areas very well, and in those areas were ahead of the opposition by a clear margin. Specifically in terms of range and weight of shell, and also to a lesser extent in terms of accuracy. But in other areas they were behind (and significantly so). They prepared for a mode of warfare that was a generation out of date in terms of their artillery. Some of this was because of the material, and some because of the doctrine. Now, the question that remains very much in the debate is how much of these associated factors do you want to eliminate. Do we ignore the shortcomings in german transport, do we ignore the shortcomings in doctrine, just so we can oggle at their guns sheer size and power. We can do that, but we will come away with an incomplete understanding of how and why German (and Allied) artillery developed the way that they did.

 

[pinsog]

German choices on mobility as well as choices on gun carriage arrangements are very much linked to one of those taboo subjects extraneous to the actual gun itself......the intended purpose of the gun. German guns were linked to horse drawn transport, to breakthrough pre-planned barrages, and defending static lines. mobile artillery was developed for lighter guns, generally 105mm and below, usually on tracks. later, of which the k-18 was an example some of these relatively static heavies were given a measure of mobility with MT transport, but without changing the basic configuration of the german Heavy gun park, that is, tuned to relatively static lines and relatively limited mobility options.

By contrast American Artillery seems to have been developed between the wars with more motorization and more mobility in mind. certainly their artillery systems appear to have been developd to deal with more fluid lines in mind. their artillery was designed to allow relatively rapid movement, their artillery plotting systems designed to react more quickly. Not perfectly so, but more rapidly than the german model. There were reasons why both armies would develop along different lines like this, and the designs cannot be understood unless the theories behind their development are also understood.

My opinion is that German artillery development, whether by reason of equipment (MT), doctrinal shortcomings, or resources shortages (ammunition materials for constructionetc) was simply not as advanced as comparable Allied artillery. Now, before allowing that statement to be torn apart, the germans developed their artillery in certain areas very well, and in those areas were ahead of the opposition by a clear margin. Specifically in terms of range and weight of shell, and also to a lesser extent in terms of accuracy. But in other areas they were behind (and significantly so). They prepared for a mode of warfare that was a generation out of date in terms of their artillery. Some of this was because of the material, and some because of the doctrine. Now, the question that remains very much in the debate is how much of these associated factors do you want to eliminate. Do we ignore the shortcomings in german transport, do we ignore the shortcomings in doctrine, just so we can oggle at their guns sheer size and power. We can do that, but we will come away with an incomplete understanding of how and why German (and Allied) artillery developed the way that they did.

Excellent summary.

 

[parsifal]

I should calrify that the K-18 was always pulled by a motorised prime mover, nevertheless it was relatively slow to emplace, and difficult generally to manouvre.

I am guided by Pattons comments immediately following the german surrender....along the lines of "Ishould not need to tell you that our war was won by our artillery". Ther were good reasons for him saying this.

 

[pinsog]

I should calrify that the K-18 was always pulled by a motorised prime mover, nevertheless it was relatively slow to emplace, and difficult generally to manouvre.

I am guided by Pattons comments immediately following the german surrender....along the lines of "Ishould not need to tell you that our war was won by our artillery". Ther were good reasons for him saying this.

And if moved very far was broken down into 2 pieces. Seems to me we are comparing the wrong weapons. The US 155 Long Tom was a 1 piece cannon and relatively easy to move with a single M4 HST or some other full tracked prime mover, relatively quick to emplace or to move.

If we are going to compare long range 2 piece cannon, then we need to compare it to a US long range 2 piece cannon, and that cannon would be the US 8 inch gun.

But, to be fair, the 17cm K18, just splits the difference between the US 155 and US 8inch guns. The US 155 weighs 30,000 pounds, the 17cm K18 weighs 51,000 pounds, the US M1 weighs 69,500 pounds.

The 17cm K18 out performs the US 155 in range and weight of shell but has poor mobility and slow setup times. I would venture to say the US 8 inch gun has equal or better mobility, due mainly to the better carriage its mounted on, and is equal, or faster in set up time(8 inch gun was accompanied by a crane to speed setup times) in addition to throwing a heavier shell slightly farther.

The cannon itself was undoubtedly a fine weapon. Why the Germans chose to handicap it with a sustandard carriage is a mystery. They obviously knew how to build quality platforms for artillery, the 88mm Flak 18 and Flak 36 gun carriage being one of the best examples fielded by anyone during the whole war.

 

[parsifal]

Some photos I found on th4e web


url=http://www.ww2incolor.com/german-artillery/drat.html]

[/url]


German Artillery - Direct Fire

 

[Shortround6]

Pulling 800 to 1000 lbs with a motorcycle is rediculous anyway.

That German "motorcycle" used a water cooled, 1500cc, 4cylinder engine of 36hp. from an Opal car. It used a bigger engine with 50% more power than a Kubelwagon. It also weighed about 1 1/2 tons.

Standard German sidecar motorcycles had a side car wheel that could be driven (two-wheel drive) and a transfer case with high and low ranges to give 8 forward gears and two in reverse. The Germans did not try using them to tow small artillery.

 

[Shortround6]

German choices on mobility as well as choices on gun carriage arrangements are very much linked to one of those taboo subjects extraneous to the actual gun itself......the intended purpose of the gun. German guns were linked to horse drawn transport, to breakthrough pre-planned barrages, and defending static lines. mobile artillery was developed for lighter guns, generally 105mm and below, usually on tracks. later, of which the k-18 was an example some of these relatively static heavies were given a measure of mobility with MT transport, but without changing the basic configuration of the german Heavy gun park, that is, tuned to relatively static lines and relatively limited mobility options.

The majority of the German army was linked to horse drawn transport. While the Panzers got the the press and the attention of many modern day enthusiasts, the German Army was very much a horse drawn army for the entire war. The Germans had been pioneers is the use of mechanized transport of heavy artillery in WW I. At least in the way of dragging what had been considered guns too big to move at all at a walking (marching) pace into the field. With the introduction of the Panzer divisions and the Panzer grenadier divisions some mobile divisional artillery had to be provided. Truck or semi-track drawn divisional artillery was provided to the "mobile" divisions. Work on the 17cm K 18 and it's companion 21cm mortar had started in the mid 30s, the 21cm piece which used the same carriage was first issued in 1939, well before the Germans got around to putting any sort of artillery "on" tracks as production/issue items. First tracked artillery being the Sturmgeschutz.
Now I could be way off, basing my understanding on books written for the 'popular' audience, but I believe the initial Panzer doctrine was one of penetration and by passing strong points, which would be dealt with later by the "foot" army. perhaps this doctrine was flawed but it meant that the heavy guns didn't have to keep up with panzers or "mobile" troops. Of course the rapid expansion of the "mobile" troops didn't help the planning or equipment production. In 1938/39 were they planning of on having not just Panzer corp but multiple Panzer armies in 1941/42? The change from 6 Panzer divisions to 10 (converting the "light' divisions) was enabled by the use of Czech tanks, not German production. Up to 10 "foot" divisions were equipped with Czech weapons, from rifles and machine guns to 15cm howitzers for the attack on France. The doubling of the Panzer divisions, enabled in part by halving the number of tanks per division is part of the history that shows that the artillery branch may have been caught short by the demand for more mobile guns, both in quantity and type.

By contrast American Artillery seems to have been developed between the wars with more motorization and more mobility in mind. certainly their artillery systems appear to have been developd to deal with more fluid lines in mind. their artillery was designed to allow relatively rapid movement, their artillery plotting systems designed to react more quickly. Not perfectly so, but more rapidly than the german model. There were reasons why both armies would develop along different lines like this, and the designs cannot be understood unless the theories behind their development are also understood.

Between the wars the American army had to be more strategically mobile. A division in New England or in Kansas was useless if an enemy invaded Florida or Georgia. Granted we had railroads but the size of the United States helped Dictate the drive for mobility of the Army just as the size of the United States helped dictate the range requirements and size of some of our 1930s aircraft. Put that together with size of the US motor industry and the fact we had the highest per capita number of motor vehicles in the world for civilian use and it is not hard to see how/why the US Army developed it's mobility.

My opinion is that German artillery development, whether by reason of equipment (MT), doctrinal shortcomings, or resources shortages (ammunition materials for constructionetc) was simply not as advanced as comparable Allied artillery. Now, before allowing that statement to be torn apart, the germans developed their artillery in certain areas very well, and in those areas were ahead of the opposition by a clear margin. Specifically in terms of range and weight of shell, and also to a lesser extent in terms of accuracy. But in other areas they were behind (and significantly so). They prepared for a mode of warfare that was a generation out of date in terms of their artillery. Some of this was because of the material, and some because of the doctrine. Now, the question that remains very much in the debate is how much of these associated factors do you want to eliminate. Do we ignore the shortcomings in german transport, do we ignore the shortcomings in doctrine, just so we can oggle at their guns sheer size and power. We can do that, but we will come away with an incomplete understanding of how and why German (and Allied) artillery developed the way that they did.

Many of your points are valid but you keep wanting to turn a simple question "what was the best long range gun" into a critique of the not the just the German artillery system but comparing the entire German artillery system to a number of other nations artillery systems. And then using that critique of the 'systems' to down grade a specific weapon.

 

[Shortround6]

And if moved very far was broken down into 2 pieces. Seems to me we are comparing the wrong weapons. The US 155 Long Tom was a 1 piece cannon and relatively easy to move with a single M4 HST or some other full tracked prime mover, relatively quick to emplace or to move.

If we are going to compare long range 2 piece cannon, then we need to compare it to a US long range 2 piece cannon, and that cannon would be the US 8 inch gun.

But, to be fair, the 17cm K18, just splits the difference between the US 155 and US 8inch guns. The US 155 weighs 30,000 pounds, the 17cm K18 weighs 51,000 pounds, the US M1 weighs 69,500 pounds.

The 17cm K18 out performs the US 155 in range and weight of shell but has poor mobility and slow setup times. I would venture to say the US 8 inch gun has equal or better mobility, due mainly to the better carriage its mounted on, and is equal, or faster in set up time(8 inch gun was accompanied by a crane to speed setup times) in addition to throwing a heavier shell slightly farther.

Does anybody have an actually time for the set up of the 17cm gun or 21cm howitzer/mortar?

The US 8in gun needed 1 1/2 to hours to set up using the crane. Up to 9 hours without the crane. The US 8in gun was restricted to a 30 degree traverse (15 right-15 left) during the war, without getting the crane back or using the prime movers winches. The US 8in also had a rather major restriction. A +10 degree minimum elevation which meant that while it could shoot to 35,635 yds it could NOT shoot any closer than 22,100 yds to the gun.

The cannon itself was undoubtedly a fine weapon. Why the Germans chose to handicap it with a sustandard carriage is a mystery. They obviously knew how to build quality platforms for artillery, the 88mm Flak 18 and Flak 36 gun carriage being one of the best examples fielded by anyone during the whole war.[/QUOTE]

 

[pinsog]

That German "motorcycle" used a water cooled, 1500cc, 4cylinder engine of 36hp. from an Opal car. It used a bigger engine with 50% more power than a Kubelwagon. It also weighed about 1 1/2 tons.

Standard German sidecar motorcycles had a side car wheel that could be driven (two-wheel drive) and a transfer case with high and low ranges to give 8 forward gears and two in reverse. The Germans did not try using them to tow small artillery.[/QUOTE

I just looked up the specs on a Kettenkrad tracked "motorcycle", 3440 pounds! I had no idea they weighed that much! While they are undoubtedly cool,(how would you like to ride that into Sturgis during the big rally?) they would have been better off putting those resources into a small 4x4 truck, the Dodge WC 3/4 being a great example, they would be a much more all round vehicle.

 

[pinsog]

[Many of your points are valid but you keep wanting to turn a simple question "what was the best long range gun" into a critique of the not the just the German artillery system but comparing the entire German artillery system to a number of other nations artillery systems. And then using that critique of the 'systems' to down grade a specific weapon.[/QUOTE]

If that is the question, does it matter if it is mobile at all? Do we count shore batteries? Do we count railway guns? Or do we just count the biggest guns that can be moved by tractor on a battlefield(ie: American 8 inch and 240mm howitzer type guns)?

I'm showing US 8 inch gun and 240 mm howitzer had a 20 degree swing in each direction instead of 15 degrees. Still seems rather narrow. What can the big German guns in this class do?

 

[parsifal]

SR

You and I agree on about 90% of the discussion and then seem to proceed to divorce proceedings on the last 10%. Correct me if Im wrong, but your beef is because I tar the K18 with the same brush as the entire German artillery park

Specifically

Many of your points are valid but you keep wanting to turn a simple question "what was the best long range gun" into a critique of the not the just the German artillery system but comparing the entire German artillery system to a number of other nations artillery systems. And then using that critique of the 'systems' to down grade a specific weapon.

I have to differ on this point. On a number of occasions I have stated that the K18, indeed many other pieces of German artillery, were excellent in certain areas, but they had some glaring weaknesses. The point I am making is that ther is more to the "best" piece of artillery than its range and power, and even its design. That may not be the simple answer that you want, but the points raised are relevant to the topic (suggest you have a look at Post 1 of the thread....its not about one gun)

This thread is not about one piece of artillery, its about the best piece of long range artillery. Go back to post 1 of this thread and you will see why I can harp on about the full range of artillery pieces, of any nation and why we think they are better. It was never strictly about one piece of artillery or indeed about the design of that piece or pieces alone. it was about all the factors that lead to the title "best". As I see it that can include all manner of things and influences, including things and influences not related to the actual gun design. It was about making the comparisons to establish the best LR artillery. From that basis it is valid to talk about doctrines, about failures, about shortcomings, about things you might not normally consider as relevant to one particular piece of kit. And just to allow the discussion to proceed, I have waived the objection i have about the vagueness of the term "Long Range". That should not be forgotten, its just that it was threatening to derail what is a good topic for discussion....

I suggested some time ago that the best way to address this aspect of the discussion would be to refine the terms of the thread....this suggestion was not accepted, so, here we are, discussing what was the best LR piece of artillery. I happen to think it was not the K-18, or any German piece for that matter because of inherent weaknesses in the way they were used. that may not be to your liking....I can understand that....but it is still relevant to the wide ranging and ill defined terms of reference contained in this thread....

 

[Shortround6]

I just looked up the specs on a Kettenkrad tracked "motorcycle", 3440 pounds! I had no idea they weighed that much! While they are undoubtedly cool,(how would you like to ride that into Sturgis during the big rally?) they would have been better off putting those resources into a small 4x4 truck, the Dodge WC 3/4 being a great example, they would be a much more all round vehicle.

The Germans developed the Kettenkrad as a small prime mover for use by mountain troops and it was later adapted by the parachute/airborne troops. While the Dodge WC 3/4 was a better all round vehicle it wouldn't work in the mountains as well and certainly wouldn't fit in any normal German gliders or transport planes.

 

[Shortround6]

If that is the question, does it matter if it is mobile at all? Do we count shore batteries? Do we count railway guns? Or do we just count the biggest guns that can be moved by tractor on a battlefield(ie: American 8 inch and 240mm howitzer type guns)?

I'm showing US 8 inch gun and 240 mm howitzer had a 20 degree swing in each direction instead of 15 degrees. Still seems rather narrow. What can the big German guns in this class do?

The last sentence of the first post in this thread.

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

After listing specs for the 17cm K 18 and the US 155 gun.

I think we can leave out the railway guns and shore battery guns.

 

[davebender]

Not if it works. And everything I have read suggests the Kleines Kettenkraftrad Sd.Kfz.2 light towing tractor worked just fine. It performed many of the same tasks as the American made Jeep.