Wehrmacht with a ruthless reduction of cannon/howitzer types?

If any army was fielding a wast array of different calibers, 5cm and above, that was German army of ww2. Just for 7.5cm bore they used about 10 different ammo types (along with captured pieces in that bore or in 7.62cm), then 2 for 8.8cm (plus ammo of Tiger and Flak 36 not being interchangeable), howitzer + cannon 105mm, 128mm AA gun despite having 127mm in production for the Navy etc.
So - what a substantial reduction of gun & ammo types can bring to them? How about guns that are suitable for tanks/AFVs, but were either not used or were used too late? Suggestions for possible gun/AFV combinations?

If MODERATORS feel that this is better suited for WW2 General sub-forum, please move it there.

tomo pauk said:

If any army was fielding a wast array of different calibers, 5cm and above, that was German army of ww2. Just for 7.5cm bore they used about 10 different ammo types (along with captured pieces in that bore or in 7.62cm), then 2 for 8.8cm (plus ammo of Tiger and Flak 36 not being interchangeable), howitzer + cannon 105mm, 128mm AA gun despite having 127mm in production for the Navy etc.
So - what a substantial reduction of gun & ammo types can bring to them? How about guns that are suitable for tanks/AFVs, but were either not used or were used too late? Suggestions for possible gun/AFV combinations?

If MODERATORS feel that this is better suited for WW2 General sub-forum, please move it there.

Click to expand...

They used three different 37mm shell types... how about using the existing 37x249R for the flak 18 instead of a slightly different shell? And adopt the gun for the KM instead of the semi-auto they had with yet another 37mm shell, thus simplifying logistics?

How about adapting said 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30 as an AT gun instead of fiddling with a completely new and just as large and heavy 5cm gun? They have had have plenty by 1939.

They did have a 7,5cm/L40 gun on trials on a few AT halftracks that never went anywhere and then ended up using a new gun in 1942.

JAG88 said:

They used three different 37mm shell types... how about using the existing 37x249R for the flak 18 instead of a slightly different shell? And adopt the gun for the KM instead of the semi-auto they had with yet another 37mm shell, thus simplifying logistics?

How about adapting said 3.7 cm/83 SK C/30 as an AT gun instead of fiddling with a completely new and just as large and heavy 5cm gun? They have had have plenty by 1939.

Click to expand...

I'd certainly want the most powerful of them all (the Navy cartridge) and then go design a Flak and AT/tank gun for it. The 3.7cm C/30 (750 g @ 1000 m/s) was about as powerful as the 40mm Bofors, the Flak and Pak cartridges were perhaps at 2/3 of it's power.

They did have a 7,5cm/L40 gun on trials on a few AT halftracks that never went anywhere and then ended up using a new gun in 1942.

Click to expand...

For the 7.5cm bore guns, i'd go with 3 ammo types:
- the smallest, that uses the infantry gun ammo
- mid-power: gun for the ammo of the leFK 16.n.A
- hi-power: using the ammo for the 7.5cm L60 Flak

For anything more powerful - 8.8cm.

tomo pauk said:

I'd certainly want the most powerful of them all (the Navy cartridge) and then go design a Flak and AT/tank gun for it. The 3.7cm C/30 (750 g @ 1000 m/s) was about as powerful as the 40mm Bofors, the Flak and Pak cartridges were perhaps at 2/3 of it's power.

Click to expand...

It would have been the more sensible decision, however, the smallest one was the first one available and by the early 30s the Germans already had thousands of PaKs in service IIRC and still needed many thousands more, hence trying to consolidate around the oldest and already in service cartridge.

Plus smaller cartridge means lighter gun.

For the 7.5cm bore guns, i'd go with 3 ammo types:
- the smallest, that uses the infantry gun ammo
- mid-power: gun for the ammo of the leFK 16.n.A
- hi-power: using the ammo for the 7.5cm L60 Flak

For anything more powerful - 8.8cm.

Click to expand...

I am not a fan of the infantry guns, I would replace them with additional mortars, do away with not one but two types of guns and calibers (15cm).

In fact, no 7,5cm other than for the tanks (L24 and then L40 guns) and mountain guns.

Consolidate both the AT (75mm) and bunkerbusters (88 and 105mm) projects around a Pz IV chassis with a 8,8cm flak, kill 3 birds with one stone.

tomo pauk said:

128mm AA gun despite having 127mm in production for the Navy

Click to expand...

The Navy gun was actually 128mm, same as the AA.

JAG88 said:

It would have been the more sensible decision, however, the smallest one was the first one available and by the early 30s the Germans already had thousands of PaKs in service IIRC and still needed many thousands more, hence trying to consolidate around the oldest and already in service cartridge.
Plus smaller cartridge means lighter gun.
I am not a fan of the infantry guns, I would replace them with additional mortars, do away with not one but two types of guns and calibers (15cm).
In fact, no 7,5cm other than for the tanks (L24 and then L40 guns) and mountain guns.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what other gun used the same ammo as the 3.7cm Pak, however seems like there was not a single such gun in regular used before 1935. Wikipedia states 1936 as start of service use for the 3,7cm Pak, same as the 3,7 cm C/30 Flak.

<edit> It seems you're right, the 1st 3,7cm Pak was issued to units already in late 1920s. So yes, designing a Flak that uses same ammo is prudent.</edit>

Mortars of the day were not of use for direct fire - against the windows, walls, light fortifications (sand bags, logs) vehicles.

Consolidate both the AT (75mm) and bunkerbusters (88 and 105mm) projects around a Pz IV chassis with a 8,8cm flak, kill 3 birds with one stone.

Click to expand...

That might be a lot to ask from the Pz-IV chassis?

Thos9 said:

The Navy gun was actually 128mm, same as the AA.

Click to expand...

Ammo was not the same - 128 x 680R mm Navy guns (those were basically the over-bored 10.5cm cannons), while Heer's Flaks used 128 x 958Rmm (cannons being a brand new design).

Hmm - have Heer forget their own 10,5 cm and 12,8 cm cannons, produce and use Navy gun type instead, both in Flak mountings and field pieces?

tomo pauk said:

I'm not sure what other gun used the same ammo as the 3.7cm Pak, however seems like there was not a single such gun in regular used before 1935. Wikipedia states 1936 as start of service use for the 3,7cm Pak, same as the 3,7 cm C/30 Flak.

<edit> It seems you're right, the 1st 3,7cm Pak was issued to units already in late 1920s. So yes, designing a Flak that uses same ammo is prudent.</edit>

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was hippo-mobile at first, redesignated PaK 36 when modified for motorized transport. Funny thing, the KM ended up designing the flak M42 for that AT round anyways.

Mortars of the day were not of use for direct fire - against the windows, walls, light fortifications (sand bags, logs) vehicles.

Click to expand...

Yeah, they had their uses, but for that I like the small Japanese 50mm mortar, mobile, flexible, and get rid of the complicated and heavy 5cm German mortar.

That might be a lot to ask from the Pz-IV chassis?

Click to expand...

It was when they put a 10,5cm gun in it, brought the vehicle to the 25t limit it eventually reached in the J model, an 88 is much lighter and was even used (barely) on a halftrack:



Plus a slightly modified Pz IV chassis ended up carrying the much heavier 88mmL71. This way you get a proper heavy AT/bunker buster pre-war to deal with the wally heavy tanks and fortifications.

Hmm - have Heer forget their own 10,5 cm and 12,8 cm cannons, produce and use Navy gun type instead, both in Flak mountings and field pieces?

Click to expand...

Sounds right.

JAG88 said:

It was when they put a 10,5cm gun in it, brought the vehicle to the 25t limit it eventually reached in the J model, an 88 is much lighter and was even used (barely) on a halftrack:

Plus a slightly modified Pz IV chassis ended up carrying the much heavier 88mmL71. This way you get a proper heavy AT/bunker buster pre-war to deal with the wally heavy tanks and fortifications.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Germans had installed anything bigger than the 7.5cmL48 in a rotating turret of the Pz-IV. Even the Panther's gun was not working, it was installed in the fixed superstructure instead, and left a lot to be desired with regard to ballance and muzzle clearance when on ondulating terrain.
But as a 'semi-fixed' gun, on a modified Pz-IV vehicle (engine and combat compartment switch place, talk 'Elefant light', or 'Marder plus') - yes, I agree that the 88mmL56 would've been a good fit. We still need proper tanks, though.

Sounds right.

Click to expand...

A bit of my mistake there - if heavy Flak is talked about, then it's Luftwaffe's business, not of the Heer.

tomo pauk said:

I'm not sure that Germans had installed anything bigger than the 7.5cmL48 in a rotating turret of the Pz-IV. Even the Panther's gun was not working, it was installed in the fixed superstructure instead, and left a lot to be desired with regard to ballance and muzzle clearance when on ondulating terrain.
But as a 'semi-fixed' gun, on a modified Pz-IV vehicle (engine and combat compartment switch place, talk 'Elefant light', or 'Marder plus') - yes, I agree that the 88mmL56 would've been a good fit. We still need proper tanks, though.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was talking about a lighter version of this guy that used a much longer and heavier 10,5cm gun, that overloaded the chassis and required a weaker engine to boot:



Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. Oh, and I agree it would be better with the combat compartment all the way to the back, but I am thinking on the basis of conforming as much as possible to the historical designs they had, and pre-early war this was it.

And I like "Baby Nashorn".

Regarding the tank gun, there are several scattered references to a 7,5cm/L40,8 for a turreted AT half-track:



Testing began in the mid-30s and nothing came out of it, in theory, you could get a Pz IV with such a gun pre-war... if the gun was viable, not much info available on it.

A bit of my mistake there - if heavy Flak is talked about, then it's Luftwaffe's business, not of the Heer.

Click to expand...

True but that is an issue too, as the KM, the Heer should have control over its own flak instead of the mess they got IRL. Design and acquisitions of course should be coordinated, but operations is a matter of each force. It is wild that the LW got to handle all Heer flak to the point of operating expensive HT-mounted flak for them...

Let the Heer operate its own flak, use the towed 88s as heavy flak, heavy AT and for counter-battery fire. Drop the 10,5cm long guns

And I would get rid of most of the railroad guns, keep the K5s only.

JAG88 said:

Let the Heer operate its own flak, use the towed 88s as heavy flak, heavy AT and for counter-battery fire. Drop the 10,5cm long guns

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the 88mm might have neither the range or the shell power for counter battery work. While it will outrange the British 88mm (25pdr) and the American 105 it doesn't have the range of the British 4.5in and barely the range of the 5.5in (with 100lb shell, 5.5 with 80lb shell is no contest).
While "triple threat" guns sound cool they often have some disadvantages. The bean counters seldom want to buy enough of them, they are sold has being able to do 3 jobs after all. Guns emplaced as AT guns are almost useless as AA guns. AA guns placed for defence of supply points, depots and the like are miles away from where the tanks are (mostly). And AA guns, after a period of time have some rather worn barrels leading to in accuracy in long rang shooting. The German long range 10.5cm gun also had a 3 level charge system which cut down on barrel wear if the longest range wasn't needed. You could supply fixed 88mm rounds with reduced charges but that starts to defeat the simplicity of the ammo supply.
Triple threat guns also tend to be rather expensive. The mounts much more than the barrels. Yes you could mount the barrels on simpler mountings for anti-tank or artillery work and keep the simplified ammo supply (except as above) but now you need a supply of spare parts for the mount/s. German hodge-podge of mounts was probably as much of a problem as the different ammo calibers. The triple threat guns also need large towing vehicles for their caliber.

Please note that all criticisms (or most) of the "triple threat gun" apply to the American 90mm AA gun and the British 3.7in and few others.

JAG88 said:

And I would get rid of most of the railroad guns, keep the K5s only.

Click to expand...

While the 80cm gun was a colossal waste of resources and the Adolf K was a one off wonder (another waste?) the 38cm Siegfried K might have been OK. Most railroad guns were built to use up spare battleship/naval barrels. The big problems came when some bright sparks deicide the Battleship guns aren't good enough as is and start adding "improvements" which add weight, delays and cost. Most 28cm railroad guns before the K 5 used used old naval/coast defence guns and since the barrels were a large part of the cost of a railroad gun there is no reason to get rid of them before they are worn out. K5 had enough problems with barrel wear (all really high velocity guns do.)

Shortround6 said:

Unfortunately the 88mm might have neither the range or the shell power for counter battery work. While it will outrange the British 88mm (25pdr) and the American 105 it doesn't have the range of the British 4.5in and barely the range of the 5.5in (with 100lb shell, 5.5 with 80lb shell is no contest).

Click to expand...

Sure, but in the German side they would give divisions counter-battery capability and, if possible, replace the 10cm guns that were corps assets and yet too light for that work. Of course the most demanding counter-battery duties would still be handled by the 15cm guns.

While "triple threat" guns sound cool they often have some disadvantages. The bean counters seldom want to buy enough of them, they are sold has being able to do 3 jobs after all. Guns emplaced as AT guns are almost useless as AA guns.

Click to expand...

You cant place heavy guns on the front line as AT, they are hard to conceal, they are big targets and bound to get crushed by the first artillery barrage. However, they can be quickly repositioned when an armored attack is expected or received, after all, it is a secondary mission for them, they would be great at it when needed, but they are first and foremost AAA assets, just like the regular artillery.

AA guns placed for defence of supply points, depots and the like are miles away from where the tanks are (mostly).

Click to expand...

You need independent units for that, cant use divisional assets to protect rear area logistics.

And AA guns, after a period of time have some rather worn barrels leading to in accuracy in long rang shooting. The German long range 10.5cm gun also had a 3 level charge system which cut down on barrel wear if the longest range wasn't needed. You could supply fixed 88mm rounds with reduced charges but that starts to defeat the simplicity of the ammo supply.

Click to expand...

The complication of the logistics would be minor when compared to the added capabilities, and I believe the 88 had a barrel life of around 6.000 shells IIRC.

Triple threat guns also tend to be rather expensive. The mounts much more than the barrels. Yes you could mount the barrels on simpler mountings for anti-tank or artillery work and keep the simplified ammo supply (except as above) but now you need a supply of spare parts for the mount/s. German hodge-podge of mounts was probably as much of a problem as the different ammo calibers. The triple threat guns also need large towing vehicles for their caliber.

Click to expand...

The Germans began the war with 2.600+ of those guns and with the Heer deprived of its own flak, the guns often were there, but were LW-operated. I am sure the cost of additional guns could be offset at least partially by getting rid of the 10cm K18s since the 88s would be taking over the role.

While the 80cm gun was a colossal waste of resources and the Adolf K was a one off wonder (another waste?) the 38cm Siegfried K might have been OK. Most railroad guns were built to use up spare battleship/naval barrels. The big problems came when some bright sparks deicide the Battleship guns aren't good enough as is and start adding "improvements" which add weight, delays and cost. Most 28cm railroad guns before the K 5 used used old naval/coast defence guns and since the barrels were a large part of the cost of a railroad gun there is no reason to get rid of them before they are worn out. K5 had enough problems with barrel wear (all really high velocity guns do.)

Click to expand...

I would keep the naval guns on coastal emplacements, thus reducing the number of models moving around.

JAG88 said:

The complication of the logistics would be minor when compared to the added capabilities, and I believe the 88 had a barrel life of around 6.000 shells IIRC.

Click to expand...

The 88 reached a barrel life of 6000 rounds late in the war according to some sources. pre war it may have been as little as 900 rounds which was the reason for the 3 piece liner. Changes in propellants and barrel materials pushed the numbers up. Tate of fire can also affect things. American 105 howitzer barrels were supposed to last 10,000 rounds, In NW Europe they were wearing out in under 5000 rounds due to heavy use (more fire missions at rapid fire rate rather than sustained fire).

JAG88 said:

The Germans began the war with 2.600+ of those guns and with the Heer deprived of its own flak, the guns often were there, but were LW-operated. I am sure the cost of additional guns could be offset at least partially by getting rid of the 10cm K18s since the 88s would be taking over the role.

Click to expand...

Again I am not sure how a gun with range of 14,800 meters and a 20.7lb shell takes over from a gun with 18,300 meter range and a 33.3lb shell.
And all three roles require different training of the crews. Counter battery work requires a lot of map work and math for the firing solution. the men stuffing the shells the breech don't have to know it but units are not really interchangeable, AA guns on monday, anti-tank on wednesday and counter battery on friday. The Allies used their 90mm and 3.7in guns for general bombardment. But they were being under utilized as AA guns due to the general lack of German aircraft (supporting the army) late in the war.

JAG88 said:

I would keep the naval guns on coastal emplacements, thus reducing the number of models moving around.

Click to expand...

Germans might have got more use from the four 38cm guns they left in Norway if they stuck them on railroad carriages. Railroad guns are usually used in a very deliberate manner. Moves are carefully considered and once in place they tend to stay in area for a while. Germans actually didn't have all that many.

Shortround6 said:

The 88 reached a barrel life of 6000 rounds late in the war according to some sources. pre war it may have been as little as 900 rounds which was the reason for the 3 piece liner. Changes in propellants and barrel materials pushed the numbers up. Tate of fire can also affect things. American 105 howitzer barrels were supposed to last 10,000 rounds, In NW Europe they were wearing out in under 5000 rounds due to heavy use (more fire missions at rapid fire rate rather than sustained fire).

Click to expand...

No, late war was 10.000 rounds, the 88 ammo experienced gradual improvements that kept increasing barrel life. I would expect that being an AA gun by its very nature high RoF would be considered as a given in the calculation of the barrel life, aircraft are fast and the chance to hit them short.

Again I am not sure how a gun with range of 14,800 meters and a 20.7lb shell takes over from a gun with 18,300 meter range and a 33.3lb shell.
And all three roles require different training of the crews. Counter battery work requires a lot of map work and math for the firing solution. the men stuffing the shells the breech don't have to know it but units are not really interchangeable, AA guns on monday, anti-tank on wednesday and counter battery on friday. The Allies used their 90mm and 3.7in guns for general bombardment. But they were being under utilized as AA guns due to the general lack of German aircraft (supporting the army) late in the war.

Click to expand...

It is a numbers game as always, you have a limited number of 10cm guns along the front, with many more 88s capable of being used in the CB role range become less of an issue since it is more likely there would be a higher number of 88s in range of the target but, remember that the 15cm guns are the primary CB guns, not the 10cm or 8,8cm ones, for the 88 CB is a nice extra capability.

Yes CB is demanding, but if you dont train the crews for it, then you have the absurd of having a bunch of accurate guns with a 15Km range (the longer range guns available to the division) NOT firing back at the enemy artillery... and I am pretty sure the crews and calculators used by the flak handled far more demanding calculations than in CB. If these guns had been part of the Heer instead of LW, would they had kept them silent?

Germans might have got more use from the four 38cm guns they left in Norway if they stuck them on railroad carriages. Railroad guns are usually used in a very deliberate manner. Moves are carefully considered and once in place they tend to stay in area for a while. Germans actually didn't have all that many.

Click to expand...

I would have rather put them in Calais, the more the merrier.