WW2's most successful WW1 "leftover"

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I disagree. The 4.5 inch QF howitzer was the standard division level field howitzer used by the British army. The 105mm Modele 1913 was the standard division level field howitzer used by the French army (once they finally started procuring division level howitzers in 1915).

WWI Germany did things a bit different. Each infantry division had a battalion of short range 10.5cm howitzers plus a battery of long range 10cm Kanone M1914. The 10cm Kanone M1914 was similiar in performance to the French 105mm Modele 1913.
 
WWI Germany did things a bit different.

My point all 3 armies on the western front did things differently with different doctrines, tactics and equipment. The only artillery piece that seems to have direct equivalents with equivalent roles in all 3 armies is the medium 15cm, 6inch, 155mm howitzer.

The 4.5 QF was the only field piece that went unmodified (apart from small production changes) from 1914 to 1918 so it must have done the job the Royal Artillery wanted.

This is a fascinating book not an easy read for the amateur like myself but worth it if you can find a copy at the very least it will cure insomnia

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0850668115/?tag=dcglabs-20
 
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.


The Vickers Machine Gun was one of the longest serving weapons in British military history, with the Mk 1 being employed in virtually unaltered form from its adoption in 1912 until 1968. The gun is a development of the Maxim system (see FIR 8095) wherein the Maxim toggle action is turned upside down, allowing for the body of the gun to be significantly smaller and, therefore, lighter. The heavy brass water jacket of the the Maxim was replaced by a lighter corrugated steel version. Various other changes were made which made the Vickers much easier to strip and service than the Maxim. During the First World War the Vickers became central to British infantry tactics and, from October 1915, all the Army's Vickers Guns were put under the control of a specialist unit, the Machine Gun Corps. This gave impetus to the development of sophisticated tactics, which made full use of the Vickers guns range, accuracy and extraordinary reliability. These tactics were founded on pre-plotted fire, which could, when necessary, be conducted in multi-gun barrages, indirectly against unseen targets and over the heads of friendly troops. Although the Machine Gun Corps was disbanded in 1922, similar tactics were employed during the Second World War, when use of the Vickers was deputed to specially trained battalions furnished from line infantry regiments. The Vickers was replaced in British service from 1962 onwards, by the L7 General Purpose Machine-Gun.


Vickers machine gun team of 10th Battalion training near Bou Arada, 30 April 1943.
 


Artillery spotting balloons were employed from 1890s and some were still used during WWII. For instance Japan used artillery spotting balloons when bombarding Corregidor during spring of 1942. I wouldn't be surprised if spotting balloons were also used for 1942 siege of Sevastopol.
 
I think on reflection, it has to be the bolt action rifles, any kind. So many in service, and used to good effect by all. Hard to see any other singlke weapon system or generic type of kit (though I will toff my hat to the tin hat) having as much effect
 
was distinctive in profile, and better sun protection for your eyes, Plus, when being shelled, gave small comfort by allowing the victim the belief he could actually crawl under the brim.

In reality and seriously, do you really think helmet shape makes any difference to the level of protection? Its more a recognition thing more tan anything. That was one of the criticisms when the US changed over to their new helmet shape back in the 80's. Made them look like latter day Germans
 
Yes thats true, but in the context of a cash strapped Britain, not wanting to spend much on defence, dont you think retaining the old Brodie Helmet (which in australia we just referred to as "the tin hat") was justified. Its a bit like the Lee Enfield. in retrospect, like the Mauser, there were better options available, but it just didnt make any sense from a cost pov to go to the trouble and expense to make that huge change. Spending limited defence dollars on upgrading artillery, or improving tanks, or the like, made far better finacial sense given that the old Infantry weapons were perfectly serviceable.

Statistically personal side arms account fopr less than 5% of enemy casualties in a full on battle. Artillery is about 50% of casualties, Tanks are about 5%, mortars and light artillery about 10%, air support anbout 5%, MGs about 15%, and things like mines, snipers etc the rest. Spending money on personal side arms, when all the combatants had bigger holes to fill, makes no sense. You make do with what you can.

Things are completely different now. We are in the age of the "small wars, and here, personal kit has more impportance.

As far as helmets are concerned, Ive got no data but I expect when the US redesigned their helmets they based it on some kind of data. Iremember reading in one of those defence journals that weight was a more significant concern than levels of protection. Arent the new US Hellmets made out of carbon fibre or kevlar or something?
 
Modern U.S. helmets are made of Kevlar. I suspect other nations with well funded armies also use kevlar.

BTW, kevlar doesn't necessarily save weight. The kevlar helmet we wore during 1990s actually weighed a bit more then WWII ere steel helmet it replaced. It was more bullet resistant though in addition to protecting a bit more head space.
 
The main purpose of the helmet being shrapnel- and debris-protection, no ww2 helmet being bullet proof?
 
I would imagine the Brodie helmet would be better for airburst as it is wider than other helmets. Plus having tried on a German helmet it was like wearing a bucket on your head and degrading your hearing. 1mm of steel wouldnt even slow down a bullet at close range.
 
Airburst shrapnel is exactly what the Brodie helmet was designed to cope with. No WW1 or WW2 helmet was expected to defeat a rifle round. Possibly deflect a very glancing strike. Hence the maximising of overhead cover.

Having designed and issued the Brodie helmet (aka Battle Bowler in later itterations) to reduce the prevalant head wounds, the medical staff were initially puzzled as to why the numbers of head wounds, and deaths from head wounds, were increasing. Until they realised that, thanks to the new helmets, more were surviving long enough to reach medical aid.

IIRC (and it was a long time ago) the Parachute Regiment sponsored a study that indicated that, in WW2, using helmets instead of berets made a noticeable difference in head wounds and deaths but only in the case artillery and mortar fire. Against small arms helmets showed no statistical evidence of reducing head wounds, even with numerous anecdotal stories of deflected small arms strikes. I (very) vaguely recall that they attempted to weed out sustained long range HMG plunging fire from the small arms figures, treating them as artillery as the principal vector was vertical. Please treat this a information from a very low reliability source (my ancient memory.)
 
Last edited:
There's plenty of ground burst shrapnel too. Mortar rounds, hand grenades, rifle grenades, assault artillery rounds, flakvierling rounds, panzerfaust rounds etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

J
French M15 Adrian Helmet (WW1) original or fake?
Replies
8
Views
1K
Wurger
N
US Navy WW2 squadron patch
Replies
1
Views
526
Wurger
D
Help with RAF WW2 service record
Replies
10
Views
745
Sabrejet
A
WW2 Japanese Flag Translation
Replies
18
Views
1K
AerialTorpedoDude69
W
What effect would a cross channel tunnel have on WW2?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Airframes
Menu
Log in
Register