- Thread starter
-
- #21
I'd say that the weight of the '5 in' gun-how will be lower than what the 150mm sfh18 howitzer weighted, or what the 5.5in gun weighted.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'd say that the weight of the '5 in' gun-how will be lower than what the 150mm sfh18 howitzer weighted, or what the 5.5in gun weighted.The Problem is going bigger. The Soviet 12.2cm M38 went 2450kg in position but 3100kg in transit and only ranged to 11.8km. The Soviet 12.2cm gun (A-19) fired about 73% further but weighed 2.9 times as much in position. It also has a lower rate of fire.
Adjust as needed for a 12.7/12.8cm weapon.
Actually most powers, aside from the Germans and US used 75/76mm guns as divisional artillery. The British were the middle ground and then screwed up with the cheap ammo.
Many armies used a mixed armament of 75-76mm field guns and 100-105mm howitzers as the two weapons could use similar/identical carriages. 2-3 batteries of the 75-76mm field guns for each battery of 100-105s.
So everybody had 100-105mm howitzers, but in the Japanese, Italian, French, Soviet armies they were rather outnumbered by the 75-76mm guns. They just don't get much of the glory
Here is where things trip and fall down. The increase in range from 15km to 20km takes a lot more gun (and propelling charge) than most people think.
| Number of charges | Max range |
|---|---|
| 1 | 8 |
| 2 | 13 |
| 3 | 14 |
| 4 | 18 |
| 5 | 24 |
Also the Germans were far from perfect. They did a lot of dumb stuff.
The Heer, without a really, really ruthless paring of 75mm ammunition types was always going to have a crap load of ammunition types. Unless you also get rid of a number of different guns/gun systems.
This is why I think that the 10.5cm gun-how is neither here nor there (at least for the ww2 Heer) - will require a substantial prime mover (or even being a SP weapon), while being with a light shell.
PossiblyI'd say that the weight of the '5 in' gun-how will be lower than what the 150mm sfh18 howitzer weighted, or what the 5.5in gun weighted.
Possibly
British 4.5in gun .................55lb/25kg shell................12,800lbs/5800kg..........................20,500yds/18,745m........................2250fps/686ms
British 5.5in gun .................80lb/36.3kg shell............13,646lbs/6190kg..........................18,100yds/16,550m.......................1950fps/594ms
British 5.5in gun ..............100lb/45.4kg shell.............13,464lbs/6190kg.........................16,200yds/14,813m........................1675fps/511ms
German 15cm sfh 18........96lb/43.5kg shell.............12,154lbs/5512kg..........................14,490yds/13,250m........................1624fps/495ms
| Model | Shell weight (kg) | Weight of gun (travel) (kg) | Max range (m) | Muzzle velocity (m/s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US M114 155mm howitzer | 43 | 5800 | 14600 | 563 |
| US M1 155mm gun | 43 | 13880 | 23700 | 853 |
| Soviet ML-20 152mm howitzer-gun | 43.6 | 7930 | 17230 | 655 |
| Soviet D-1 152mm howitzer | 40.0 | 3600 | 12400 | 508 |
| Soviet D-20 152mm gun-howitzer (1947) | 43.56 | 5700 | 17400 | 650 |
| German 15cm cannon K18 | 43 | 18600 | 24500 | 865 |
Germans were not happy with the 15cm sfh 18 and came up with the 18/40. this was the 3rd try after the sfh 18.
They added about 420mm to the length of the barrel an made the chamber about 32% bigger. Weight went up about 200kg.
Ger...15cm sfh 18/40................96lb/43.5kg shell.............12,613lbs/5720kg..........................16,513yds/15100m........................1952fps/595ms
Max charge went from 3.71kg to 6.81kg, only 46 were built, accuracy using the standard projectiles and propellent charges was not good.
I can't find the HE content of the 15cm shells. For the US the 155 howitzer gave about 15lbs of HE compared to just under 5lbs the US 4.5in shells offered and the US didn't think the 4.5, despite it's greater range, gave enough "bang for the buck".
Germans were not happy with the 15cm sfh 18 and came up with the 18/40. this was the 3rd try after the sfh 18.
They added about 420mm to the length of the barrel an made the chamber about 32% bigger. Weight went up about 200kg.
The British were also 2nd tier with artillery. There are a number of elements that make up an Artillery force.IMO, Germans quickly (by the time they found themselves on the receiving edge of the Soviet and British artillery, talk from late 1941 on) discovered that their artillery park is second best on the battlefield. They were not happy with 105mm, they were not happy with 15cm, and they were eager to both much improve on these calibers, as well as to introduce the 128mm gun.
That is something of a puzzle but it may come down to being cheap and trying to use existing tooling or there may be a bit of NIH going on? or something else? The K4 was not designed for horse traction and perhaps that had something to with it?I'm not sure why the Germans were trying to reinvent the wheel with the much modified 150mm howitzer while having the Czech 15cm K4 in their possesion already by early 1939.
Artillery Generals think that artillery is like playing golf. The Generals need a wide selection of weapons (guns, howitzer, mortars) to handle every job just like a golfer needs 9-14 clubs to handle any situation on the courseMy reasoning is still the same, as it was on the beginning of the thread: trade the shell weight for range, without over-doing either the shell weight to be too small, nor that expectations for the range is too great - all in order to keep the weapon's weight manageable. Perhaps 13+ km for the 88mm, 15+ km for the '5 in'?
We do run into the 'cube law' and in artillery circles that means that the shell weight is proportional to the cube of the diameter. So is the weight of the tube and the mount/carriage.Thus 88 gun-how is the mainstay instead of the 105mm how, and so is the 127(8) instead of 150mm how.
A lot of this may depend on condition of the weapons and difficulty of manufacturing replacement barrel liners vs different size shells.Captured Soviet 122 mm weapons (both cannon and howitzer) can be out-bored to accept German shells once the captured Soviet shells are gone (same as with Soviet heavy AAA that was out-bored to fire German 88mm ammo).
Artillery Generals think that artillery is like playing golf. The Generals need a wide selection of weapons (guns, howitzer, mortars) to handle every job just like a golfer needs 9-14 clubs to handle any situation on the courseTrying to use just 4-5 clubs means a lot of compromise.
We do run into the 'cube law' and in artillery circles that means that the shell weight is proportional to the cube of the diameter. So is the weight of the tube and the mount/carriage.
Not exact but close. Next limit is the weight of shell that a single man can stuff in the breech end of the gun. This is generally accepted to be about 100lbs or 45kg at least on steady ground or large ship. "lively" ships need a bit lighter shells. Larger guns without powered assist need two or more men to get the projectile into the barrel. This rather explains the popularity of the 15cm/6in guns and howitzers among the worlds armies.
However weight of shell also has advantages and disadvantages. The bigger/heavier shell with range further with the same initial velocity. It will also hold a larger quantity (percentage) of HE per pound/kg of shell weight.
The 155mm gets a lot more range, only part of which is from the higher velocity. There are some benefits of scale but perhaps not as much as we think?
The 5in may be trying to fall into two camps if you try for one gun. Soviets stayed with both Howitzers and guns not only during the war but long after. New weapons and not legacy weapons.
| Shell (mm) | Shell weight (kg) | Sectional density (kg/m^2) |
|---|---|---|
| 155 | 43 | 2280 |
| 122 | 21.7 (Soviet howitzer shell) | 1857 |
| 105 | 15 | 1733 |
| 88 | 11.34 (WWII 25pdr shell) | 1865 |
| 88 | 9.52 (new 25pdr shell) | 1566 |
on this one there is a line that is sometimes crossed to too simple. The British 25pdr with it's 45 degree elevation and 3/4 charge system worked well until the British got into Italy and then it didn't. A lot of digging that trail into pits in the ground to get the shells to land in the next valley instead of shooting over it. Solved by introducing 1/2 charges between existing charges. Also "solved" by making a carriage with hinge behind the space the gun recoiled into.Good artillery generals at least ought to think a lot about logistics, considering artillery shells are a very non-trivial fraction of the total logistical burden of an army in the field. And for an industrial total war like WWII, the capacity of the industry to produce shells as well. A 80% 'good enough' solution that you have available in sufficient numbers is better than the perfect tool for every situation that exists only on paper, or somewhere NOT where you'd need it at a particular moment.
We gave to be careful to compare like to like. Not all HE shells have the same construction. You can use thinner walls on low velocity shells than you can on high velocity shells.To a point, maybe? It does seem that when you go to even larger shells the HE % goes down. Looking at US naval HE (HC) shells for the WWII era, for the 5"/38 you have 13.2%, for 6" you have about 12.6% HE content, for 8" 8.2%, and for a 16" shell you have 8.1%.
For comparison, a roughly WWII-era 155mm HE shell (M107) had 15.9%. And for the 8" gun M1, 8.7%. And a 105mm US shell, 13.2%.
Towing the K4 by a horse team means someone screwed up :=)That is something of a puzzle but it may come down to being cheap and trying to use existing tooling or there may be a bit of NIH going on? or something else? The K4 was not designed for horse traction and perhaps that had something to with it?
As an ad-hoc AT gun (ie. something that can be useful in self-defence situation that can happen every few months?), the 700 m/s 8,8cm gun should have it's merit. Soviets moved into 122mm gun-how post war, while the 122mm lost against the former naval 130mm ordnance on the split carriage (the later, together with 85/88/90mm AA guns - all re-purposed into anti-ship guns for shore batteries - were crucial in preventing Serb forces in cutting Dalmatia into two in 1991The 8.8cm gun/howitzer may be a good idea, The British bungled it a bit so perhaps it didn't get a fair shake but if you try to turn it into anti-tank gun you lose some of the advantages. The 5in may be trying to fall into two camps if you try for one gun. Soviets stayed with both Howitzers and guns not only during the war but long after. New weapons and not legacy weapons.
Every gun (and it's ammo) was compromise between conflicting requirements.
Best gun in the world doesn't do much good it it is stuck in the mud 40 miles from where the action is.
The Paris gun was an amazing achievement. Wither it was cost effective is whole different story.
I have seen one account that has the Standard German 15cm s FH 18 going over 8,000kg when set up for horse traction.Towing the K4 by a horse team means someone screwed up :=)
It is a useful feature, the question is what are you giving up? 700m/s is 2300fps and that is on the high side for an normal artillery piece (non AT or AA).As an ad-hoc AT gun (ie. something that can be useful in self-defence situation that can happen every few months?), the 700 m/s 8,8cm gun should have it's merit.
I don't like a lot of post war comparisons. Different steels, different coatings in some of the barrels (like chrome lining) , different powder technology.Soviets moved into 122mm gun-how post war, while the 122mm lost against the former naval 130mm ordnance on the split carriage
on this one there is a line that is sometimes crossed to too simple. The British 25pdr with it's 45 degree elevation and 3/4 charge system worked well until the British got into Italy and then it didn't. A lot of digging that trail into pits in the ground to get the shells to land in the next valley instead of shooting over it. Solved by introducing 1/2 charges between existing charges.
US 105 howitzer would elevate to 66 degrees without such shenanigans but it made the 105 heavier and more costly.
Paratroopers and Mountain troops liked smaller and lighter guns vs not having any or getting them several days into a battle.
We gave to be careful to compare like to like. Not all HE shells have the same construction. You can use thinner walls on low velocity shells than you can on high velocity shells.
WW II 8in howitzer used shells that held 17.8% HE ?
But firing 8in Howitzer shells at Naval gun velocities may lead to blown up guns. Thin wall shell buckles inside the barrel.
US 16in HC shell was still getting booted by a 593 lbs charge and the shell has to be built to stand up to that.
Standardization is all well and good but the 8in gun used shells that only carried about 20lbs of HE (in a 240lb shell) and the 8in How started with a 30lb filler and the later (but still WW II ) shell held 37lbs (rounded up tiny bit).
The British screwed themselves somewhat with the 25pdr ammo. They could make a lot of it with cheap steel and low HE content (main problem was the steel) but when you have to ship hundreds of tons more ammo (and make it) around Africa or to the Far East the cheap ammo is no longer quite so cheap. Better than no ammo but where is the cross over point?
Towing the K4 by a horse team means someone screwed up :=)
Germans rarely made a good use of captured production resources (preferring to loot the actual fighting hardware & ammo; Pz-38(t) and G&R14M as probably the only exceptions?), so methinks that not following up with the K4 production (but inn ever greater volume) was yet another mistake of German procurement system.
Soviets moved into 122mm gun-how post war, while the 122mm lost against the former naval 130mm ordnance on the split carriage
If you already have a 15cm howitzer and gun, does a 12.8cm piece provide enough of a distinct capability that it's worth having? Especially if you also have a 10.5cm gun in the inventory (or Tomo's 88mm gun-howitzer).I do Agree that the Germans should probably have investigated a 120-128mm solution. Sticking a 10cm barrel on a 15cm gun carriage is too big a jump.
Using a barrel that fired a shell about 1/2 the weight of the 15cm shell instead of only 30% might have made a better all round weapon. But the Germans needed 15cm howitzers for heavy work.
Now from Wiki so..................
"A number of M-30s fell into the hands of the Wehrmacht in 1941–1942 and were adopted as 12,2 cm s.F.H.396(r) heavy howitzers. Germany began mass production of 122 mm ammunition for these and other captured howitzers, producing 424,000 shells in 1943, 696,700 in 1944 and 133,000 in 1945."
Over 1,250,000 shells for Soviet guns while the Germans futz around with the 12.8cm cannon.
Maybe the Germans should design a 122mm gun (or two) to use captured Soviet ammo and not worry about the Soviets capturing German ammo? Defeatist thinking?
Well, a lot of times a shell that goes pop at 7-9000 meters beats a shell that goes BANG at 4-6000 metersA piece of artillery that can shoot at high angles, yet be light enough that it can be used by paras and/or in difficult terrain? Did somebody say heavy mortar? Unless you need the direct fire capability or the extra range a small (pack) howitzer gives you, it's really hard to beat a 300kg gun (well, around 500kg when you attach the wheels for transport) that can chuck a 15kg shell about 6km.
Accuracy, Dare I say it? is dismal. Especially at the longer ranges. US 4.2s were better, post-war French 120s were pretty good.Oh, and you know what else can use thin walled shells packing a lot of HE? Dare I say it again? Yes, mortars!
If you already have a 15cm howitzer and gun, does a 12.8cm piece provide enough of a distinct capability that it's worth having? Especially if you also have a 10.5cm gun in the inventory (or Tomo's 88mm gun-howitzer).
As for the Germans producing a 12.2 cm gun compatible with Soviet ammunition, again does it provide enough of a different capability compared to their existing 10.5cm one to be worth it? In the sense that they already have production of the shells setup, and if they think they can design a new gun which is plain better than the existing 10.5cm one and can thus replace it, maybe?
But since a lot of the German army depended on horses what do you do?
I have no idea what was going on, not only were the Czech guns looking better, the Germans sometimes designed better guns for export. One has to wonder at what the specific German army requirements were?
It is a useful feature, the question is what are you giving up?
It can be done but the weapon winds up several hundred kg heavier.
Soviets did a nice job with the 85mm D-44 divisional gun. But there a number of questions. Like barrel life, suitability for reduced charge loads, Problems with firing at high elevations? Or is this another give 2-3 guys shovels and start digging the pit for the breech block to go into.
British 25pdr barrel recoils up to 36in (0.91m) when horizontal and 20in (50cm) at high elevations, Gun is dumb, if you lower the rear end into a pit or stack boxes under the wheels it is going to recoil the distance it would in relation the angle between the barrel and the carriage. One does wonder what kind of pit is needed to handle the recoil of the Soviet 85mm at high elevation?
I do Agree that the Germans should probably have investigated a 120-128mm solution. Sticking a 10cm barrel on a 15cm gun carriage is too big a jump.
Using a barrel that fired a shell about 1/2 the weight of the 15cm shell instead of only 30% might have made a better all round weapon.
By 'losing' I've meant that 130mm was the preferred new long-range gun.What do you mean by losing? The 130mm naval gun pressed into land use (presumably you're talking about the M-46?) had an impressive range at 27km, but it paid for it by being pretty heavy, nearly 8 ton of gun for chucking a 'mere' 130mm shell. Further it didn't have the capability for reduced charges, every shot was a full charge shot, and with a MV of 930 m/s one wonders what the barrel life of that thing was. Perhaps a useful capability to have, but smells very much like a specialized long range cannon. By comparison, the 122mm gun-howitzer (D-30) was/is very much a general purpose piece.