WWII artillery/anti tank gun....which was best?

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

Glider said:
I would argue that Howitzers have a major role to play with the ability to fire over hills and hit the reverse slopes. When its difficult to move artillery, range is also important.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse, but it can be a real pain in the ass to get the artillery within range of the targets in Jungle terrain if the range of the gun isn't sufficient. So yes range is very important.

This is one of the reasons why the US prefered air strikes during the Vietnam war, as the artillery was far from always possible to bring to bear. However when artillery was available one must also know that it proved very accurate and effective, I know people who can vouch for that.
 
artillery in the jungle, or any rough terrain, is as important as artillery in the open country. heavy artillery is not efficient in these types of terrains, because of their distinct lack of mobility and portability. Any additional resources needed to move a weapon means that the overall fireppower of the unit is reduced in some other way. In the jungle portability is very important, so in this regard mortars are indeed useful.

However, mortars are a very poor substitute to proper tube artillery, because of range limitation, and because they frequantly lacked the power to penetrate japanese bunkers. Incidentally, the weapons needed to be capable of both direct and indirect fire in order to afford maximum utility. Mortars just cannot do that, and therfore the allied Infantry was often reduced to to direct assault of fortified positions.

The Japanese operated with severe tactical and strategic disadvantages that easily cancelled out any advantages they might have enjoyed with their portable artillery.

It needs to be acknowledged, that there are situations where mortars are useful, it also shouuld be acknowledged that there are many situations in closed terrain where artillery is simply not going to do the job

Airpower in a wwii sense was often limited in its ability to git ground targets that were close to the front line because the vegetation would prevent proper target identifiecation most of the time. Airpower tended to be used more for Interdiction in the rear areas, rather than providing direct support, too many friendly fire incidents otherwise
 

I will also forward some more pics of the little 70 mm "battalian gun, showing its ability in high angle mortar style fire. This meant that opn trenches were no protection from these guns.
 
field arty.25pdr.
medium/heavy.brit 5.5in.
a/t .russian 100mm.
mortar.russian 120mm,brit 4.2in.
a.a.brit 3.7in.,40mm bofors.
yours,starling.

So, in all terrains, and all situations, these pieces of equipment are the best availalble????
 
The best of the lot were:

Light artillery: 105mm LeFH 18/40 (Light, very accurate long range)
Medium heavy artillery: 150mm K-18 K-39 (Longest range highest destructive power)
Heavy artillery: 210mm K-38 173mm K-18 (Longest range highest destructive power)
Light Anti Tank gun: 75mm PaK40 L/46 (Probably the allround best AT gun of WW2)
Heavy Anti Tank gun: 88mm PaK43 L/71 (Most powerful accurate AT gun of WW2)
 

except that in the jungle these weappons would be basically immobile, and therefore useless. Alternatively huge amounts of manpower could be diverted to move them, in which case your battlefront collases due to a shortage of frontline manpower
 
In the jungle mortars airpower are to provide to bulk of any "artillery support" needed. The LeFH 18/40 would however prove just as effective as the pieces brought along by the US during the Vietnam war, and provide greater range.
 
hey parcy,in the jungle,particulary burma,i would say the baby 25pdr.the 4.2in and 3in mortar,would be about all that one could use,unless you winched a grant up a steep hill,like kohima.otherwise,hurribombers or jugs would perhaps be called upon.those commonweath fighter bomber pilots were i believe very accurate.the bofors were effective against most jap a.f.v as well,i understand.starling.
 
No it would still be at a severe disadvantage. It weighed over 1700 kg, and had solid wheels (which are a disadvantage in rough jungle terrain, because the tyre pressure cannot be adjusted for the boggy terrain

By comparison, the "baby" 25 pounder weighed 1320 kg, and had pneumatic tyres, making somewhat more mobile for jungle operations. The smaller 25 lb gun was still not very mobile when compared to the Japanese Type 94 75mm mountain guns, and the 70mm battalian guns. The latter could be manhandled by a team of just six men, and combined all artillery functions, except AA, ie, gun, AT gun, howitzer, into one package. The fact that its performance was very low was more than offset by its ability to actually get into action.

American 105s from the Vietnam war are not relevant to wwii.
 
[B]hey parcy,in the jungle,particulary burma,i would say the baby 25pdr.the 4.2in and 3in mortar,would be about all that one could use,unless you winched a grant up a steep hill,like kohima.otherwise,hurribombers or jugs would perhaps be called upon.those commonweath fighter bomber pilots were i believe very accurate.the bofors were effective against most jap a.f.v as well,i understand.starling[/B]
Each of the weapons proposed by yourself and others individually are superior in performance to anything I have suggested. However, they all have fatal flaws for jungle warfare. In the case of the 25lbers and 105s, its size and mobility. In the case of mortars, they are mobile, but they are not mutirole. Mortars proved pretty poor at busting Japanese bunkers. You need a direct fire HE weapon, or an AT gun for that.

Trouble is, if you have tolug around a morta, a gun a howitzer, and an AT gun as separate itmes, you generate enormous manpower problems, since you have to pull men out of yor frontline Infantry to haul the guns for you. More by accident than anythng, the Japanese solved this with their lightweight ordinance.

If you wanted to pick a European gun type that was suited to the Jungle, I would suggest one of the mountain guns of light calibre that could be broken down into small loads. But even these might not have all the multi-role functions that the Japanese guns had (would need to look at each type).
 
Lets have a look at what I said:

The LeFH 18/40 would however prove just as effective as the pieces brought along by the US during the Vietnam war, and provide greater range.

The US M101 Howitzer used during the Vietnam war weighed 2,260 kg and has a max range of 11,200 m.

So this is just another case of Parsifal twisting what others are saying once more.
 
Lets have a look at what I said:

The LeFH 18/40 would however prove just as effective as the pieces brought along by the US during the Vietnam war, and provide greater range.[/I]

The US M101 Howitzer used during the Vietnam war weighed 2,260 kg and has a max range of 11,200 m.

So this is just another case of Parsifal twisting what others are saying once more
Nothing twisted about it. Referring to a Vietnam situation is not relevant to WWII. And the Americans seldom used their 105 in Jungle areas, except wher is wa accessible by boats or other similar means. this happened rarely. Which explains why the Americans basically abandoned all large scale jungle warfare away from the coastal zones after early 1943.

The german gun would be at a slightly worse disadvantage in comparison to other nominees, because of its solid wheels. Compared to the cut down 25 pounders used in the Jungle, it would also be at a weight disadvantage
 
would you agree with my suggestion that the 40mm bofors was effective against most jap a.f.v,s.starling


Yes, the Bofors would be able to do that, however it is still not a multi-role piece of ordinance
 
Hello parsifal,

I think a Bofors 40mm weighs about 650kg and could only be used in the direct fire role.

So what about the German mountain gun 7,5 cm 36L/19,3 ? These guns would have worked for the jungle just as well.
Total weight about 750kg dismountable into 6-7 parts (IIRC highest positioned gun in WW2 at Mount Elbrus) and a range of 9250m.

Or the 7,5-cm-Gebirgskanone 15 L/15. Total weight 620kg, dismountable into 7 parts, range 6650m.

Lexikon der Wehrmacht - Gebirgsgeschütze

Regards
Kruska
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
704
programa
P
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
21K
Reluctant Poster
R
WWII Destroyers?
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
3K
MIflyer
M
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
525
Reluctant Poster
R
WWII Reconnaissance Vehicles?
Replies
16
Views
896
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register