Best Long Range Artillery Piece

davebender said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think a jeep would have been way more practical, easier to manufacture, and was made to haul 4 men and pull a trailer. In reality you could pile 6 or 8 on it and still pull a trailer. But, I still think the Kettenkrad is cool, just not as good as a jeep or weasel.

Shortround6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

With the benefit of 65 years of hindsight, if I were German and given the option of equiping the German army with either the 17 cm or US 155, I would without hesitation choose the US 155 Long Tom. The 17 cm outranged the US 155 by 3.5 miles and threw a 1/3 heavier shell. BUT, from what I have read, most German 17cm guns were lost because they were simply overran. If I were a German commander, and I knew I was going to be chased all the way across the Russian Stepps, I would want an artillery piece that could be picked up and moved quickly, in one piece. A US 155 would have worked better for the Germans whether on the offense or on the defense. In the fast moving battles of WW2, you needed artillery that could be picked up and moved quickly. The US 155, you pull the guns trails together, hook up the limber, hook the limber to the prime mover and your out of there. That was simplified I know, because your always doing this in knee deep mud or snow, 100 degree heat or 20 below cold, but still simpler than having to break a weapon down. The German Sd. Kfz 8 would have no problem handling the US 155 on any normal terrain.

The 17cm K18 had fine ballistics, but its added weight, 40% more than a 155mm , and 2 piece movement, requiring 2 prime movers, was not worth the added range and weight of shell.

I liken the 17cm K18 to a paraplegic with a sniper rifle. He's gonna do great until it's time to move quickly, then your in trouble.

Only when operating on a road. The tracked Kettenkrad would be far superior in mud, snow, soft sand etc.

I've driven quite a few U.S. Army Jeeps. I have never seen one carry more then 4 people. Off road capability while towing a loaded trailer wasn't terribly good either. When we got our first HMMWVs they spent a substantial amount of time pulling stuck Jeeps out of the mud.

davebender said:

Only when operating on a road. The tracked Kettenkrad would be far superior in mud, snow, soft sand etc.

I've driven quite a few U.S. Army Jeeps. I have never seen one carry more then 4 people. Off road capability while towing a loaded trailer wasn't terribly good either. When we got our first HMMWVs they spent a substantial amount of time pulling stuck Jeeps out of the mud.

Click to expand...

Of course you know I mean piled in anywhere they can fit, not seated safely in a seat according to regulations?

I've had 4 grown men and a large mule deer on a Suzuki 300 King Quad 4 wheeler. 1 guy on the front rack holding 2 rifles, driver, guy behind driver on seat, deer on rack behind him, I was sitting on dead deer, holding 2 rifles, with guy in front holding my legs so I didn't fall off the back. Drove out of a canyon in 8 inches of snow. That is the kind of pics that should be in sales brochures!!!

I used to have a pic of my dad deer hunting in Colorado in the late 60's. They had 8 or 9 guys in a flatfender, windshield laid down, chains on all 4 tires, snowing like crazy. He said it would go anywhere they pointed it. They hauled it there and obviously it was for offroad use only. I'm fairly certain OSHA would not have condoned the way they used it. Obviously a Kettenkrad would have better mobility off road than a jeep, but what about a weasel?

On 17cm K18, it was hauled by big half-tracks, on its carriage, it wasn't a normal one but a double system one to handle its enormous recoil. On its wheels and generally the wheels of German guns. Germany had to rely on Buna, a synthetic rubber, to satisfy its need of rubber, so they tried to limit the use of it so that production would met the demand and even with all those efforts to limit the use of Buna Germany suffered for lack of tires most of the war, so US type solutions would not necessary have been optimal to Germans.

On horse drawn artillery, it was the only solution for Germany if they wanted reasonable amount of artillery support to their troops, Germany simply didn't have access to sufficient amount of fuel for fully motorized artillery, even with vast majority of divs relying horse transport the scarcity of fuel hampered its military operations already in Summer 42.

One had to try to make most of the resources one had, not to try to built an army for a perfect world where all the resources were plentiful. Simply as that. I bet that 17cm K-18 was more mobile than tireless Long Tom.

Juha

Juha said:

On 17cm K18, it was hauled by big half-tracks, on its carriage, it wasn't a normal one but a double system one to handle its enormous recoil. On its wheels and generally the wheels of German guns. Germany had to rely on Buna, a synthetic rubber, to satisfy its need of rubber, so they tried to limit the use of it so that production would met the demand and even with all those efforts to limit the use of Buna Germany suffered for lack of tires most of the war, so US type solutions would not necessary have been optimal to Germans.

On horse drawn artillery, it was the only solution for Germany if they wanted reasonable amount of artillery support to their troops, Germany simply didn't have access to sufficient amount of fuel for fully motorized artillery, even with vast majority of divs relying horse transport the scarcity of fuel hampered its military operations already in Summer 42.

One had to try to make most of the resources one had, not to try to built an army for a perfect world where all the resources were plentiful. Simply as that. I bet that 17cm K-18 was more mobile than tireless Long Tom.

Juha

Click to expand...

I guess that proves the folly of starting a war with the entire planet.

Hello Pinsog
absolutely true

Juha

davebender said:

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.

Click to expand...

It works, and works quite well, for what it was, but it was still a limited vehicle, and for what it was, an overcomplicated one. It had an obstacle climbing ability of 24in which is about half that of its comparable Allied counterpart the universal carrier. its ability to carry mounted weaponary was pretty limited, compared to the bren or the jeep. Brens carried 3in mortars, 0.55in ATRs, brens (of course), captured german models were adapted to carry Panzershrecks.
Brens were used to tow 6 pounder guns, and i think even 25 pounders in the jungle. Jeeps were definately used for that purpose. It was not easy for them, but they definately were used operationally in that role


(Edit - please diregard attachment....wrong attachment)

Coast defense artillery was often mounted on a turntable. For instance the U.S. Army Coast Defense Force employed the so called "Panama Mount".
Panama mount - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many of the WWII era German long range field artillery pieces were also designed for coast defense use. I believe that's why the 15cm K18, 15cm K39, 17cm K18 and 21cm Mörser 18 all had portable turntables. And therein lies the mobility problem. These weapons were highly portable compared to typical WWII era coast defense guns but rather cumbersome compared to typical WWII era field artillery.

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

The WWI era 15cm Kanone 16 shows how much simpler things could have been.
Produced 1917 to 1918.
10,870 kg emplaced
51.4 kg shell.
22 km max range.
The barrel could be detached for easier transport using WWI era artillery tractors. However it didn't need to be detached and wouldn't need to be detached if WWII era artillery tractors were available.

All Germany needed to do was updated the 15cm K16 with a WWII era split carriage. Forget the duel purpose concept that required the weapon to be mounted on a heavy and cumbersome turntable. If Germany desires a larger 17cm long range artillery piece it employs a similiar design. Let the navy design their own coast defense weapons.

might also update the axles and wheels, and all of a sudden you have the long lost twin of the long tom.

I agree with your summary however...Germany was in a good position to go in a differnt direction with its artillery than it did just after WWI. There cannot really be any serious argument that they lacked the technical expertise to do this

Here is the photo of the 25pdrs of 2RAR being moved by wilys jeeps. This was a regular occurrence in NG, and saw relocations of many scoresd of miles on repeated occasions. The Phot is from the Australian War memorial library, and is captioned:

BOUGAINVILLE. 1945-05-25. A JEEP TOWING A 25-POUNDER ALONG BUIN ROAD TO A NEW BATTERY POSITION AT THE HONGORAI RIVER. ARTILLERY OF 5 BATTERY, 2 FIELD REGIMENT, ROYAL AUSTRALIAN ARTILLERY, IS BEING USED EXTENSIVELY TO SUPPORT THE INFANTRY ADVANCE.


These were the LR Heavy artillery pieces in the Jungle until well after 1945

davebender said:

...Many of the WWII era German long range field artillery pieces were also designed for coast defense use. I believe that's why the 15cm K18, 15cm K39, 17cm K18 and 21cm Mörser 18 all had portable turntables. And therein lies the mobility problem. These weapons were highly portable compared to typical WWII era coast defense guns but rather cumbersome compared to typical WWII era field artillery...

Click to expand...

Hello Dave
Are you sure, that 17cm K18 was designed also for CD use? IIRC pre-war CD was KM's cup of tea. IMHO the turntable was mandatory because of the double action carriage which was the chosen solution to very powerful recoil of the gun. And after all Heer was satisfied with the K18 and it edged out its half-brother 21cm Mörser in production. It was probably not unduly awkward weapon in use, after all it was a Corps level cannon with very long range. In July 43 when Germans lost the eastern part of Orel bulge under very heavy Soviet pressure which produced several crises and while they were hampered by Hitler's unwillingness to allow rightly timed retreats , the 2nd PzA, the main German army under attack lost only one 17cm K18, it lost also among others 2 other heavy guns ,one 10cm and one 21cm while other losses incl. for ex 95 field howitzers (10.5 and 15cm), 37 artillery pieces of captured types and 32 AA guns. So probably its mobility wasn't unduly bad.

Juha

parsifal said:

It works, and works quite well, for what it was, but it was still a limited vehicle, and for what it was, an overcomplicated one. It had an obstacle climbing ability of 24in which is about half that of its comparable Allied counterpart the universal carrier. its ability to carry mounted weaponary was pretty limited, compared to the bren or the jeep. Brens carried 3in mortars, 0.55in ATRs, brens (of course), captured german models were adapted to carry Panzershrecks.
Brens were used to tow 6 pounder guns, and i think even 25 pounders in the jungle. Jeeps were definately used for that purpose. It was not easy for them, but they definately were used operationally in that role

Click to expand...

The Kettenrad was also a much smaller vehicle than either the universal carrier or the Jeep. Why don't we ask why a Universal carrier didn't pull 105 howitzers as a standard (non-emergency) thing?
The universal carrier used an engine the size of the engine in the SdKfz. 222 and not much smaller than the engine used in the early 1 ton half-tracks.

Data on the Kettenrad.

Technische Daten des NSU Kettenkrads

Its about value for money, what would have been the difference in cost between building the Kettenrad and something larger that could pull artillery.

The Bren had its limits, as did the jeep. However you are incorrect to assert that jeeps were used on an emergency basis to pull 25 pounders, at least in NG. They were found to be the best vehicle for the job actually. Brens pulled the 6 pounder, both in the Pacific and Europe, again on a routine basis, and being on tracks gave them a great deal of off road capability. I strongly suspect that in terms of cost they were much cheaper to build than the Kettenrad. I am unaware of the SDKFZ 222 being used to pull the 105mm, and whilst it was quite a good recon vehicle, did suffer from relatively poor mobility in the East, in mud and in North Africa. it would not have performed well in the jungle because of that poor off road mobility.

There is a size and type of vehicle that might be considered "optimal" for military uses. Motorcycles trikes, and the like have some uses, but really are an expedient, and ought not be considered as a satisfactory substitute for more conventional lorries and other military vehicles like a jeep or a UC. My point in raising this, apart from responding to the rather fantastic claims that the Kettenrad was as good or better than a jeep is that there are many ways at looking at effectiveness. Cost effectiveness is one of them, flexibility is another, as is of course straight up performance, and as is so often the case in discussions like these, the technical capabilities of all things German are played up, whilst the cost effectiveness (and to a lesser extent flexibility) of the item is not. Kettenrad is one of those pieces of equipment

I agree. But if you want to pursue this line of thought then we need historical equipment prices.

davebender said:

Many of the WWII era German long range field artillery pieces were also designed for coast defense use. I believe that's why the 15cm K18, 15cm K39, 17cm K18 and 21cm Mörser 18 all had portable turntables. And therein lies the mobility problem. These weapons were highly portable compared to typical WWII era coast defense guns but rather cumbersome compared to typical WWII era field artillery.

Click to expand...

Who's "typical WWII era field artillery"?

and "typical WWII era field artillery" covers a rather wide spectrum. Why don't you compare these guns to other nations 15cm guns instead of field artillery in general?

Belgian cannon de L mle 1924, only 17,290lbs in action but only 19,145yds of range and only 4 degrees of traverse on the carriage.

Skoda 149mm model 1928, with a range of 26,030 yds it has performance but it raveled in three loads and was a combination siege gun, coastal defense. 360 travres but 33,000lb in action, sold to Rumania and Yugoslavia.

Skoda 152mm model 14/16. 26,240lb left overs from WW I with a range of 23,900yds. 29 started the war with the Italians.

The French had a motley collection of WW I left overs I won't go into. Their best pieces were the cannon de 155 Grand Puissance Filloux which was the gun the US copied to get the 155mm 1918. 23,700lb in action. 60 degrees of traverse with a split trail and a range of 21,330 yds. The French also used a modernized version which used the same barrel and uper carriage (recoil, elevating and traverse) on a new lower carriage, much like the US 155 carriage but single wheels instead of duals on the bogie, traveling weight went up by about 5,000lbs, the price of mobility?

Skipping the Germans we go to Italy where skipping a really ancient piece with no recoil mechanism we have a rather good piece. The Cannone da 149/40 modello 35. Range 25,930yds, traverse 60 degrees, weight in action 25,000lbs split trail but traveled on steel wheels with solid rubber tires in two loads, separate barrel. It also had three large takes at the end of each trai; that had to be hammered into the ground before firing and then pried up before moving.

http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/579493-2/Artiglieria149

The Japanese have an entry. The 150mm gun type 89, 22,930lbs in action, range 21,800yds, traverse 40 degrees, split trail, towed in two loads.

The British don't have much, the old B.L. 6in MK XIX gun with it's light traveling weight of 22,792lbs matched by it's short range, 18,750yds, limited traverse of 8 degrees and need for ramps to control recoil. The 5.5in was much better but it's range with 100lb shell was only 16,200yds which takes it out of this class of weapon.

That leaves us with the US guns and the Russian guns, except the Russians don't have anything that ranges over 19,000yds aside from the contraption on the treads. 152 mm gun M1935 (Br-2) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

davebender said:

The WWI era 15cm Kanone 16 shows how much simpler things could have been.

Click to expand...

Most peoples WW I guns were simpler. Why??

Because they had small angles of traverse. The German 15cm K 16 had 8 degrees of traverse, changing to split trails may have added several thousand pounds to the weight, they often changed the weight of 3,000lb field guns by several hundred pounds. The don't solve the wheel/tire problem or the tractor problem. The 15cm K 39 was built to Turkish requirements and had a split trail and had 60 degrees of traverse. The third load in it's transport was the 360 degree platform, which was a segmented circle of a radius equal to the distance from the axle to the rear of the trails. The 15cm K 18, 17cm K18 and 21cm Mörser 18 had had a much smaller 360 degree turntable built in although ground anchors had to be deployed. There may have been a similar firing platform but it does not appear to part of the normal equipment. The German gun designers do not appear to be ignorant of the Split trail carriage but they had to build what the Germany army wanted, which might not have been what the needed. However, many post war guns went for 360 degree traverse at the expense of greater weight. Such as the Russian 122mm D-30 howitzer.

wasnt it the Italian 149/40 that Rommel thought was his best piece of heavy Artillery available in quantity????? I think it was him that said that.....but in any case it was probably the best piece of land ordinance the italians ever builty

Hello as I wrote in my message #4, SU had also 122 mm M-1931 and 122 M-1931/37, A-19, 25kg HE shell, max range 19800 - 20000m, depending on source.

Juha

Juha said:

Hello as I wrote in my message #4, SU had also 122 mm M-1931 and 122 M-1931/37, A-19, 25kg HE shell, max range 19800 - 20000m, depending on source.

Juha

Click to expand...

that is quite true but I was limiting this list to just 149-155mm guns in order to keep the size of list down, Firing 25kg shells 20,000meters plus requires a somewhat smaller gun and carriage than firing 42-50 kg shells the same distance.

We could argue about which was the better choice between a smaller, lighter 12cm gun and the bigger 15cm guns but those were the 149-155guns of the WW II era.

The 12cm guns may have been perfectly capable guns but including the 114mm British and American 4.5in equipment adds several more guns (including another Belgian one).

parsifal said:

wasnt it the Italian 149/40 that Rommel thought was his best piece of heavy Artillery available in quantity????? I think it was him that said that.....but in any case it was probably the best piece of land ordinance the italians ever builty

Click to expand...

You will probably correct me
but considering that Rommel probably didn't have more than 4 long ranged (bigger than 15cm Howitzers) German guns of any one type at once that may not be saying much.

Actually the Italian gun does look like a good piece of equipment but it's wheels/tires were not any different than the German guns and with the two piece transport it doesn't seem to go into/out of action much faster. Could be wrong, some guns had some tricks in the hand winches and stuff that helped but is not usually noted.