German artillery what-if: going all-in with gun-howitzers past 1935

[z42]

Accuracy, Dare I say it? is dismal. Especially at the longer ranges. US 4.2s were better, post-war French 120s were pretty good.

WW II Mortar accuracy was never good, some was worse than others.

When I did my military service, we did quite a lot of exercises shooting with (smoothbore) mortars as well as howitzers (I was in an artillery spotting team), and I don't recall the mortars being any less accurate than the guns. If anything, since the dispersion pattern is more or less circular vs a much more oblong shape for the guns it was often easier to cover the target. But this was more than 50 years after the end of WWII, so maybe mortar accuracy was substantially different back then.. A bit surprising though, considering a mortar is pretty simple piece of equipment compared to a cannon.

An awful lot depends on the weight of the weapon (I am using weapon to try to keep from confusing howitzers, guns and gun/howitzers) because the difference between different weapons also depended on tow vehicles. And tow vehicles changed considerably from the early 30s to 1943-44.

The US had several years to figure some of this stuff out and started using things like the M1 heavy tractor.
View attachment 797536
80hp diesel and top speed of 11mph (18kph) but it was faster than using horses.
BTW the Soviets got about 1000 of these plus other to supplement their own tractor production. This helps explain how the Soviets moved their heavy weapons around.

The Germans had their heavy halftracks that they used for towing heavy artillery, like Sd.Kfz 9. Which should be capable of towing a long-range 15cm gun in one piece, similar to the US M1 at around 14 tons. I guess they just didn't have enough of them.

 

[z42]

By 'losing' I've meant that 130mm was the preferred new long-range gun.
5 different propellant charges were available. Smallest was 3.98 kg (MV of 525 m/s), while full charge weighted 12.9 kg (MV of 930 m/s). See here (easy to translate).

Ha, serves me right for relying on the English language wikipedia for my data on this gun, which claims "a single propelling charge".

 

[Shortround6]

That lot of German army, that depended on horses, will not be getting the K4.
Czech guns (K4 in this case) not just looked better, they were longer-ranged with same weight of the shell and same weight of the firing position vs. the German 15 sfh.

Agreed.

Is there anywhere in this thread me claiming that Germans should've made an equivalent of the D-44 in the 1930s instead of their historical howitzers

No, but what you are proposing is somewhere around 1/2 way between the British 25pdr and the D-44. The Russian D-44 is rather light for what it does.
The 25pdr with a 20lb (9.07kg) shot and using a supercharge + increment+ muzzle brake hits 610m/s.
There is no question that such a weapon could be built. And it might be able to be built at about the same weight or a bit lighter than the German 10.5cm howitzer.
It might have been a better weapon than the British 25pdr. You can certainly lob a shell that carries more HE further.

K44/pak44 fired a 28 kg HE shell, vs. the 43 kg shell that 15cm guns fired. That is about 64% the shell weight, not the 1/2 shell weight.

I was actually referring to a 12.2cm shell, sorry I wasn't clearer on that. So about a 22kg shell vs the 43kg shell, close enough.

For the Germans working in 1942-43-44 they were using the shells they had available which were intended for high velocity and they didn't have the best amount of HE content for a lower performing weapon. The 26kg AA shell held about 3.4kg which is about the same as the the Soviet 12.2cm Howitzer shell. The ex-navy 28 kg shell held a bit less, sources differ but max out at 1.75kg (???). Nammo Raufoss produced some Anti ship shells in 1989 that held 3.2kg of HE. WW II data is incorrect or badly translated or???

A WW II purpose built shell for a 700m/s velocity could obviously hold more than the German high velocity shells.

The 1960s 12.2cm Soviet D-30 howitzer fires 21.76kg projectiles holding 3.675 kg-4.05kg of HE depending on type.
The 13cm M-46 cannon fires 33.4kg projectiles that hold 3.64-4.17kg of HE (?).

 

[tomo pauk]

I was actually referring to a 12.2cm shell, sorry I wasn't clearer on that. So about a 22kg shell vs the 43kg shell, close enough.

Okay, roger that.

For the Germans working in 1942-43-44 they were using the shells they had available which were intended for high velocity and they didn't have the best amount of HE content for a lower performing weapon. The 26kg AA shell held about 3.4kg which is about the same as the the Soviet 12.2cm Howitzer shell. The ex-navy 28 kg shell held a bit less, sources differ but max out at 1.75kg (???). Nammo Raufoss produced some Anti ship shells in 1989 that held 3.2kg of HE. WW II data is incorrect or badly translated or???

Hopefully I'll find some good data from the manuals and post them in a few days
This website is one of the reliable ones, FWIW: nawveaps

A WW II purpose built shell for a 700m/s velocity could obviously hold more than the German high velocity shells.

The 1960s 12.2cm Soviet D-30 howitzer fires 21.76kg projectiles holding 3.675 kg-4.05kg of HE depending on type.
The 13cm M-46 cannon fires 33.4kg projectiles that hold 3.64-4.17kg of HE (?).

Of course.
Germans can use the existing shells they find suitable at 1st (and later for longer ranges?), while developing a 'high capacity' shell to be available within a few months. Also, the weapon can gain the muzzle brake later, as it was in German fashion come 1940/41.

 

[Shortround6]

Getting back the original.

.. ie. artillery pieces that have the barrel length of some 30-35 calibers. Granted, this is a bit longer barrel than on the pieces that can be called like that. like the Soviet ML20, or the British 25 pdr, but bear with me for the duration of this thread. Artillery 'niches' are of 88 mm, 105 mm, 127/128mm, 150mm, and 170mm, with MV of some 650-700 m/s maximum. Max elevation is still above 45 degrees.
The 'no free lunch' rule will be evident - for the same weight vs. the howitzers, shell weight is going to be lighter, but the range will be longer, and so will be the ability to hit the moving targets that come in close, talk to about 1000m. Lets stipulate that Heer has no problems in specifying the 88 gun-howitzer as the backbone of their artillery park instead of the 105 mm howitzer (this is the hardest part probably, since the 105m shell was at least 50% heavier, even if that howitzer was short - if not very short - ranged). Or, go with 105mm gun-how for the motorized or mechanized divisions, and 88mm for the non-motorized units?
The dedicated guns are still being made, like the AT guns, or the long-range guns. They look at piggy-backing on the KM and LW guns for the long-barreled pieces, in order to save time and coin.

Will the Heer artillery park will be better off, or worse off?

The Germans had decided to go with the 10.5mm Howitzer in the 1920s and/or early 30s. The US had decided the the same thing in the 1920s but the US didn't go into production until around 1940.
The Germans kept the 7.5cm for the infantry guns, the mountain guns and for the guns for the horse cavalry. There were 18 regiments of cavalry in the 1930s.

Due to chronic shortages 2nd line infantry units got left over 7.5cm guns from the end of of WW I or the 1920s. Also due to chronic shortages they Germans issued a fair amount of captured equipment, usually to 2nd, 3rd and 4th line units. The Germans did have some standards as to which units got which artillery pieces based on existing ammo supplies. If there was too little captured ammo they scraped the guns rather than even use them as fortification guns.

The Germans had done a study and found that a 10.5cm shell was over 6 times more effective than a 7.5cm shell, which sounds impressive. It is, but not quite by that much. Since the 7.5mm shells are lighter you can carry ( load the wagon) more. And the 7.5cm guns usually fire faster. This makes up for some of the difference. But fuses are expensive and so is the labor to make the smaller shells/casing. Cost is not directly proportional to the weight of the materials.
Artillery is rather manpower and transport intensive. A German four tube 10.5cm howitzer battery included 4 officers, 30 NCOs, 137 enlisted men, 153 horses and 16 towed wagons.
Many of the wagons were ammunition wagons and the battery could carry 336 rounds of ammo in their own transport. They also had a single If.5 machine gun cart.

I will note that the 336 rounds of ammo will only last a 4 tube battery 21 minutes firing at 4 rpm which is about 1/2 the max rate of fire.

The 8.8cm gun howitzer battery can carry more ammo and have more range.
Wither the 528 (?) lighter shells will have the same target effect is subject to question, and not all the shells are going to be HE. There are going to be some smoke fire missions and possible illumination missions.

Now the Germans, like a lot things, were rather late in getting into mass production and this thing.

didn't get into mass production until 1943 (1872 built) and in 1944 outstripped all the old 10.5cm howitzers ever built(7807 built in 1944).
The muzzle brake allowed for slightly better range but the converted AT gun carriage cut about 5 degrees off the elevation.
It was a bit lighter than the standard 10.5cm howitzer.

There is a lot that goes into artillery when you start figuring in manpower and cost of production and especially cost of ammo (and transport).

The 8.8 cm gun/howitzer idea may have number of things going for it.
I have doubts about going to the larger sizes, although a 12-12.8cm howitzer may have some appeal depending on desired transport. Going too far for range may just give a light shell 15cm howitzer as far as moving it goes.

 

[Zmauky]

Artillery is not really my strong point, but ... I know that we cannot compare the accuracy of howitzers and nebelweffers, but I don't understand why the Germans didn't use rocket launchers more? I mean, they needed them in much larger quantities in Russia? Were they afraid of excessive consumption of ammunition (as well as for automatic rifles for infantry)? Probably yes because I remember (from the waffen arsenal?) that at one point there was a limited number of rocket consumption per weapon.

 

[Shortround6]

The rockets had truly miserable range.

Max range was 6.9km, the 21cm was bit longer ranged, the bigger 28cm/32cm were much shorter ranged.
Something to note here, this rocket launcher and the later 21ch 5 tube unit was mounted on the 37mm AT gun carriage. It did not require much in the way of tow vehicles.
on the other hand ammo supply needed a lot of transport. Each round was 32-36kg for the 15cm rockets and that does not include packaging/crates/tubes. etc. 3
3 salvos of ammo weighs more than the empty launcher.
Germans got rather adapt at firing a few salvos and then leaving before the counter battery fire arrived and with the signature smoke trails the rockets left pinpointing the launch positions things could get exciting rather quickly.

Ammo consumption and supply varied by huge amounts during the war so be careful as to what time period (or even theater) you are looking at.
German artillery does not get the credit it deserves for much of the early German success, and then it gets some of the blame in the last few years when supply had problems.

In Poland in 1939 an "average" (if there was such a thing) Infantry division was supposed to go into battle with 600 tons of ammo, sufficient for 20 days of average combat.
Of this 600 tons about 375 tons was artillery ammunition and 227 tons was for the 10.5cm howitzers and 108 tons was for the 15cm howitzers. A motorized infantry division was supposed to have 560 tons and a Panzer division 730tons (and we know the Panzer divisions were far from standard).
German infantry divisions had more artillery than Polish divisions and a lot more ammo. Germans had more ammo in the higher unit supply trains and the Germans had more artillery assigned to Corp and Army support units. The Stukas and Panzers get a lot of the credit that should have gone to the Artillery. Confusing artillery effectiveness over the years is the change in communications. German had more radios and better signals (telephone and other) than the Poles, low country and the French. Maybe the British (doctrine and training also count) but by 1944, while the Germans may have had more radios than they did in 1940 (repeat MAY) the British had around 10 to 20 times the number of radios per division that they had in 1940 and ability to coordinate/concentrate artillery fire was vastly improved.

 

[Zmauky]

Yes, that's why I said I like discussions - to learn something new, after a little (directed in the right direction) study it turns out that only the Russian M-30 300 mm rockets have a warhead comparable to artillery shells twice as small (28.9 kg) with a range of barely 4 km. So I got my answer and that with an explanation.

 

[bf109xxl]

The rockets had truly miserable range.

...but much better accuracy. For some reason, the Soviets after the war decided to develop _ALL_ their rocket artillery according to the German scheme (spin-stabilization using inclined nozzles) despite of better range using the improved aerodynamically stabilized rockets. And only later they began to use slow rotation only to compensate the thrust asymmetry (also a German idea implemented in the Taifun AA-rocket - the father of the famous Soviet "Grad").

 

[Denniss]

The M-30 of 1942 had just 2.8km range, the M-31 of 1943 increased that to 4300m. The spin-stabilized M-31-UK of 1944 decreased that to 4km but was a lot more accurate.

 

[bf109xxl]

The M-30 of 1942 had just 2.8km range

TS-16 blunt head HE	2.5 km
TS-20 sharped head HE	2.8 km
TS-18 incendiary	3.5 km

 

[marathag]

Another option

The 'Baby' 25 pdr from Oz
1315kg weight
40° elevation, 10,000 yard range.

Hardly perfect, but easier to move about by something Jeep sized. Idea is for very mobile guns, correct?

This was an emergency build, and shows it.

So lets refine it abit.

The Italian OTO Melara Mod 56

Here in action in Ukraine.

In Ukraine, seems many lose the shield completely, and then can be transported inside an M113, rather than towed behind, for more concealment and what protection that aluminum skin provides.

It's 105mm, and uses NATO spec 105mm ammo, that matches with the WWII US stuff, with 1360fps MV.
1290kg, but 65° elevation

Now isn't heavy duty enough for continuous use at a firebase, but this isn't that role.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hardly perfect, but easier to move about by something Jeep sized. Idea is for very mobile guns, correct?

Idea is that shell weight is less of a priority, while range gets higher priority. Since the 'no free lunch' rule applies as ever, the weight remains in the ballpark, ie. 2000-2500 kg for an 88m gun-how, and 5000-6000 kg for a '5 in' gun-how, with respective max ranges of perhaps 13 and 16 km (that is with normal ammo that can be expected to be available in the 2nd part of the 1930s).

 

[marathag]

Idea is that shell weight is less of a priority, while range gets higher priority. Since the 'no free lunch' rule applies as ever, the weight remains in the ballpark, ie. 2000-2500 kg for an 88m gun-how, and 5000-6000 kg for a '5 in' gun-how, with respective max ranges of perhaps 13 and 16 km (that is with normal ammo that can be expected to be available in the 2nd part of the 1930s).

Since more weight is allowed, then I would look to a slightly changed Italian interwar 102mm/L45 naval gun round, with a new tube and split trail mount.

This was originally based off the Vickers 4" gun, but the Italians ran with higher pressure.

30 pound shell,Fixed, 102x649mmR with 15km range at 35 degrees. 850m/s MV

the older WWI 102mm/L35 Naval gun was also used on land during the Great War against the Austrians and the 2nd in the Desert, done in Italian Field workshops against the British

by taking Coastal guns and mounting them on the the biggest truck the Italians had, the FIAT 634N. Had four swing out stabilization jacks

This was a 'Triple Threat' used for AA, AT as well as regular ranged HE fire. The older gun was wirewound, lower pressure, 755m/s and 11km range.

 

[tomo pauk]

I've sifted through some data wrt. the German 88mm ammo, and it seems like there are XY distinctive types:

case length, mm, (remark)	max propellant weight, g	max shell/proj. weight, kg
390.1 old (Kriegsmarine)	1410	10
390.1 new (Kriegsmarine)	2000	9.5
570.6 (Kriegsmarine 88, including their Flak)	2900	10.2
570 (LW Flak 18 & 36)	2950	10.2
570 (Tiger I)	2950	10.2
822.1 (Tiger II)	6800 (!!)	10.2
855.1 (Flak 41)	6055	9.4
879.6 (Kriegsmarine)	2700	9.4

I haven't listed the 88mm saluting guns ammo.
The 'old' 88x390.1 ammo was good for some 690 m/s from 35 cal barrels. That is a considerably higher than what the 25 pdr was doing (11.35 kg HE @ 530+ m/s), that was still good for 12250 m: with muzzle brake and the incresed charges, the 25 pdr was shooting the 20 lb (9.1 kg) AP projectile at 610 m/s.

 

[Shortround6]

There is no doubt in my mind that you could get a German 88mm gun/howitzer to fire a 10.2kg HE shell at enough velocity to get around 13-13,500 meters without much trouble at all.
British were using a 292mm case and the Germans should be able to to that within 20mm of length, either plus or minus. And you can do it for very close to the same weight as the 10.5 cm howitzer. British barrel is about 27 calibers in length?
Now the question/s are how much the Germans want to pay for greater capability, either range or anti-tank.
Barrel weight for a 1930s gun is significantly lighter than for old WW I (and before guns) but going to a 35 caliber length barrel might mean another 200lbs more barrel weight?
The 10.5cm howitzer was designed for around 10,000 rounds of barrel life (so was the American 105) but barrel life could be down to 5000 rounds depending charges used and rates of fire and duration of fire. Heat is the enemy of barrels.
If you use use a larger chamber (longer case) you have to use more propellent to get the same pressure/velocity and that means more heat. Granted at less than max charge the difference is not going to be great and firing at 3/4 rounds per minute is a lot less wearing than 6-8 rounds per minute.
If your field howitzers are going through their AT rounds at a high rate (Germans often only allocated 5 rounds per gun for local defense in planning) you have got other things to worry about
Everything is a trade-off, sometimes lighter weight guns are less stable while towing and flipping guns on their side while towing is not good. Light gun carriages also sometimes broke while towing (British were using portee AT guns as much to keep from breaking the guns under tow as they were for quick engagement and get away). Really light guns didn't like to fired at low elevations and high elevations often pounded the gun carriages. Just to use the British as and example, the 25pdr recoiled 36in when horizontal, it only recoiled 20in at 40 degrees elevation. US 105 recoiled 42in max at any elevation (?) In both the trails were subject to different loads. Straight back (mostly) for horizontal fire to the dug in spades and with vertical loads at higher elevations but less axial loads.
Don't know what the different armies were considering for loads or what the materials used were (yes steel but what grades, thickness and heat treatments).

The German 8.8cm Flak 18/36 shell held 0.87kg of HE. which is significantly better than the British 25pdr, but is about 2/3rs the HE weight of the German 10.5ch how.
Perhaps the Germans could have bored out the shell body of the 8.8cm shell and made the walls thinner and put more HE inside?
Not something you want to do with 800m/s shells. Where is the crossover point?

Are you sacrificing some other capability of the 10.5cm? or getting by with less "performance" from Smoke shells or illuminating projectiles. The Germans had gone to Shaped charge AT shells fairly soon for the 10.5cm howitzers and the 2nd model (out of 4) could penetrate about 100mms of armor or 70mm at 30 degrees. Granted they were close range shells.
With shaped charge projectiles the penetration was strongly linked to the diameter of warhead. Unfortunately spin degraded performance quite a bit.

 

[tomo pauk]

British barrel is about 27 calibers in length?
Now the question/s are how much the Germans want to pay for greater capability, either range or anti-tank.
Barrel weight for a 1930s gun is significantly lighter than for old WW I (and before guns) but going to a 35 caliber length barrel might mean another 200lbs more barrel weight?

The 30 cal barrel lenght seems like a nice, round number
A tad smaller propellant charge to go with that, talk 1.2 kg instead of 1.4 kg - together with the 30 cal barrel, that should keep the MV values to about 650 m/s max? That is for the 'full weight' HE and AP shell, talk 9.5-10 kg

The German 8.8cm Flak 18/36 shell held 0.87kg of HE. which is significantly better than the British 25pdr, but is about 2/3rs the HE weight of the German 10.5ch how.
Perhaps the Germans could have bored out the shell body of the 8.8cm shell and made the walls thinner and put more HE inside?
Not something you want to do with 800m/s shells. Where is the crossover point?

With fairly low pressures and MVs, there is more leeway in making the shell walls thinner, so more HE can be packed in.
FWIW, the ancient (for the ww2 time frame) 88mm shell was still good for 590 m/s from a 30 cal barrel, and 12900m at 45 deg, and despite the outdated shell design. You do know that I'm not championing the 800 m/s HE performance here.

Are you sacrificing some other capability of the 10.5cm? or getting by with less "performance" from Smoke shells or illuminating projectiles. The Germans had gone to Shaped charge AT shells fairly soon for the 10.5cm howitzers and the 2nd model (out of 4) could penetrate about 100mms of armor or 70mm at 30 degrees. Granted they were close range shells.
With shaped charge projectiles the penetration was strongly linked to the diameter of warhead. Unfortunately spin degraded performance quite a bit.

The 88mm HEAT shell was supposed to pierce 90mm, per this web site. I assume at 90 deg meet angle.
600 m/s MV should be giving better chance to hit than the 470? m/s MV of the 10.5cm lefh 18.

 

[Shortround6]

The 88mm HEAT shell was supposed to pierce 90mm, per this web site. I assume at 90 deg meet angle.
600 m/s MV should be giving better chance to hit than the 470? m/s MV of the 10.5cm lefh 18.

Yes the 600m/s will give a better chance of hit but may mean a 660 meter range or bit beyond vs 520 meters.
If your divisional artillery is using AT shells smelly things have already hit the fan.
dual purpose and triple threat guns sound good in adds or in getting the the money guys to pay for them. But they can only do one job at a time and if they are trying to snipe tanks they are not providing HE artillery support, illumination in night battles or smoke in day battles.
The Allies used a lot of AT guns for HE support but in 1944 the Germans turned out not to have the expected number of tanks. The Allies also used 90mm and 3.7in AA guns for general fire support but the Germans didn't have very many aircraft attacking the allies in NW Europe.
IN 1935-36-37 the Germans could have made better choices, one of them should have been build 47-50mm AT guns instead of 37mm so the Divisional artillery had to save the day so many times when the 37mm's didn't work.

You do know that I'm not championing the 800 m/s HE performance here.

I know. There seems to be real velocity gap between most (but not all) howitzers of around 500m/s and cannon of around 700-800ms. 700 m/s is a real bare spot.
With the US 75mm (and Sherman tank) coming in at about 600-610m/s (and the short M3 Grants a bit less) there are not a lot of real world examples to work with.
Like trying to find an HE shell of the right diameter and velocity range to figure HE content.
Which also has a few problems, the least powerful HE was about 2/3rd as powerful as the most powerful although most fell in a 25% range.
There are also some intentional differences. You want more but smaller fragments if you are trying to take out men, even if a bit shorter in range. You want heavier fragments (which means fewer per pound) if you are trying to take out material (trucks, wagons, artillery). They were working on getting the right explosive matched with the right steel (alloy and heat treatment) during WW II but most of the time just getting shell that would go bang where and when you wanted to priority over have no shells or shells that went bang in the wrong place (your own gun).
A lot of conflicting requirements.

 

[z42]

IN 1935-36-37 the Germans could have made better choices, one of them should have been build 47-50mm AT guns instead of 37mm so the Divisional artillery had to save the day so many times when the 37mm's didn't work.

I don't know. Pre war the 37mm/2pdr seems to have been perfectly adequate for AT use. The 5cm PAK was more than twice as heavy as the 37mm one. Of course pretty soon tanks had enough armor that the 5cm PAK wasn't enough either.

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes the 600m/s will give a better chance of hit but may mean a 660 meter range or bit beyond vs 520 meters.
If your divisional artillery is using AT shells smelly things have already hit the fan.

The AT shells in the artillery branch should be a 'self defense tool' - to be used so the enemy tanks cannot overrun the artillery positions should the dedicated AT means fail. OTOH, hitting the 90% of the tanks used in the early ww2 with the HE shells was not putting the smiling faces on the tanks' crews either - again, the gun-how stands better a chances to hit the moving target than a howitzer here.

N 1935-36-37 the Germans could have made better choices, one of them should have been build 47-50mm AT guns instead of 37mm so the Divisional artillery had to save the day so many times when the 37mm's didn't work.

I don't know. Pre war the 37mm/2pdr seems to have been perfectly adequate for AT use. The 5cm PAK was more than twice as heavy as the 37mm one. Of course pretty soon tanks had enough armor that the 5cm PAK wasn't enough either.

Alternative AT guns of 1935-45 might warrant their own thread Ditto for the light guns of under 80mm calibre - perhaps a joint thread?