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

While the 25pdr was probably the closest one could've gotten wrt. the 88mm gun-howitzer, even if bit on the short-range side, the Greek Schneider 85mm is the example of a longer-ranged piece in the slightly similar fashion. It was managing 15km+ with the thick-walled 10 kg shell, and less with the thin-walled 8.8kg shell. Per Russian-language Wikipedia, FWIW:
Two different types of shells were used to fire the cannon. The first was a light howitzer landmine, weighing 8.8 kg and firing a range of up to 9.8 km with a large explosive charge, the second was a heavy cannon landmine, weighing 10 kg and firing a range of up to 15 km with a lower explosive charge.

Just a 19.4 lb high-capacity shell is obviously to weak to compete, at least 11 kg (~24lb) would be desirable, going together with upping the caliber to 88mm. The MV will be going down from 670 m/s (for 10 kg shell of the Greek 85mm) to perhaps 630+- m/s? The range will still be very good when compared with either the 10.5cm howitzer or the 25 pdr.

Interestingly enough, Germans called the piece as 'gun-howitzer':

tomo pauk said:

Interestingly enough, Germans called the piece as 'gun-howitzer':

Click to expand...

Perhaps because the barrel would elevate to 65 degrees and allow steep plunging fire at closer ranges?

tomo pauk said:

Just a 19.4 lb high-capacity shell is obviously to weak to compete, at least 11 kg (~24lb) would be desirable, going together with upping the caliber to 88mm. The MV will be going down from 670 m/s (for 10 kg shell of the Greek 85mm) to perhaps 630+- m/s? The range will still be very good when compared with either the 10.5cm howitzer or the 25 pdr.

Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see the actual shells. British 25pdr shells were made from crappy steel and had thick walls. You had high weight but not a lot of explosive. A shell even 2 kg lighter could actually hold over twice the explosive of the the British 25pdr shell.

Now note that this weapon was 200-300kg heavier than a British 25pdr and was set up for horse traction. Another 100-200kg for motor traction?

Shortround6 said:

Perhaps because the barrel would elevate to 65 degrees and allow steep plunging fire at closer ranges?

Click to expand...

I'd say yes.

Shortround6 said:

It would be interesting to see the actual shells. British 25pdr shells were made from crappy steel and had thick walls. You had high weight but not a lot of explosive. A shell even 2 kg lighter could actually hold over twice the explosive of the the British 25pdr shell.

Click to expand...

This website says that the 25pdr held 1.8 lbs of explosive, ie. ~0.82 kg. The 8.8cm Flak 18 HE shell held 785g per this, in a shell that weighted some 25% less total (= 9 kg). That of the Flak 41 held a full kilo of explosives, total shell weight of 9.4kg (per this). Both the German shells were stressed for the much greater propellant load.
Add all of this together, and indeed there was a lot of room for the ammo of the 25 pdr to be improved.

Shortround6 said:

Now note that this weapon was 200-300kg heavier than a British 25pdr and was set up for horse traction. Another 100-200kg for motor traction?

Click to expand...

Wight was in the ballpark with the weapon intended to replace per this thread

tomo pauk said:

This website says that the 25pdr held 1.8 lbs of explosive, ie. ~0.82 kg. The 8.8cm Flak 18 HE shell held 785g per this, in a shell that weighted some 25% less total (= 9 kg). That of the Flak 41 held a full kilo of explosives, total shell weight of 9.4kg (per this). Both the German shells were stressed for the much greater propellant load.
Add all of this together, and indeed there was a lot of room for the ammo of the 25 pdr to be improved.

Click to expand...

British made some experimental HE shells out of high grade steel that weighed 21lbs and held 3lbs of explosive. Shell went 14,500 yds, gain of 1100yds. Work started in Sept 1943 and was not finished by the end of the war, canceled.