fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Was the 3.7" pack howitzer used much in the East. I have seen a few photos of its use in Burma by the Indian Army but nothing by British or Commonwealth troops.
WWII artillery/anti tank gun....which was best?
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
parsifal
Colonel
The 3.7" AA was in quantity production in Australia by 1940. A lesser output of the complex predictors was also undertaken, but there were never enough. The mobile carriages for some of the guns built were iported from Canada.
The type, along with other examples of heavy ordinance, including the 17pounder were deployed extensively throughout the pacific wherever major Australian forces were engaged or deployed in significant numbers. because of their weight, their ability to deploy in difficult terrain was limited
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww2/civil/vol5/awmohww2-civil-vol5-ch11.pdf
I am not aware of any production or usage of the 3.7 in pack howitzer. It was however used in Burma. Our equivalent to that weappon was the "baby 25 pounder"
QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The type, along with other examples of heavy ordinance, including the 17pounder were deployed extensively throughout the pacific wherever major Australian forces were engaged or deployed in significant numbers. because of their weight, their ability to deploy in difficult terrain was limited
http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/records/awmohww2/civil/vol5/awmohww2-civil-vol5-ch11.pdf
I am not aware of any production or usage of the 3.7 in pack howitzer. It was however used in Burma. Our equivalent to that weappon was the "baby 25 pounder"
QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
stug3
Staff Sergeant
German 150 mm artillery piece, near Kursk in 1942.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
STZ-3 tractors towing 122mm M-30 howitzers M1938. South-Western Front. June 1941
DonL
Banned
To come back to the discussion of this thread,
I think a very capable piece of artillerie for jungle fight would be this piece
10.5 cm Gebirgshaubitze 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think a very capable piece of artillerie for jungle fight would be this piece
10.5 cm Gebirgshaubitze 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
vinnye
Senior Airman
I came across this story from a Arakan Vet who served with the artillery ;
"By careful study of the tidal movements of the sea, it was established that on certain dates and times the beaches would have a wide expanse of firm sand, and the tidal rivers would be shallow enough to be negotiated by the regiment's vehicle's aided by amphibious craft standing by to help out with any bogged down vehicles. The whole regiment would form a broad front at right angles to the line of the sea on the exposed sandy beach, leaving the various coastal rivers shallow enough to drive across. It was planned to split all the vehicles and guns of the regiment into lines abreast of each other. The C.O.'s jeep in front, followed by an assortment of various vehicles, comprising first line 15cwt trucks and jeeps, followed by five ton lorries, with twenty four guns towed by 24 quads ,the four/wheeled drive armoured vehicles, carrying the gun crews and trailers and towing limbers for the guns and ammunition."
Full story ;
BBC - WW2 People's War - The Charge of the 8th FieldRoyal Artillery
So it would seem that the guns were towed by 4 wd quads as Glider said in post 52.
It does not say what size the guns were - possibly 5.5's as Parsifal thought in post 51?
"By careful study of the tidal movements of the sea, it was established that on certain dates and times the beaches would have a wide expanse of firm sand, and the tidal rivers would be shallow enough to be negotiated by the regiment's vehicle's aided by amphibious craft standing by to help out with any bogged down vehicles. The whole regiment would form a broad front at right angles to the line of the sea on the exposed sandy beach, leaving the various coastal rivers shallow enough to drive across. It was planned to split all the vehicles and guns of the regiment into lines abreast of each other. The C.O.'s jeep in front, followed by an assortment of various vehicles, comprising first line 15cwt trucks and jeeps, followed by five ton lorries, with twenty four guns towed by 24 quads ,the four/wheeled drive armoured vehicles, carrying the gun crews and trailers and towing limbers for the guns and ammunition."
Full story ;
BBC - WW2 People's War - The Charge of the 8th FieldRoyal Artillery
So it would seem that the guns were towed by 4 wd quads as Glider said in post 52.
It does not say what size the guns were - possibly 5.5's as Parsifal thought in post 51?
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Great weapon but wouldnt something a bit smaller and lighter be better for Jungle and mountain warfare. The Bofors 75mm M1934 seems a good small gun If I was pushing it through a jungle or up a mountain I know which gun I would rather be struggling with. The only mountain gun still in use is the Yugoslav M48 which is still in use by several countries.
stug3
Staff Sergeant
A Red Army 45mm gun crew firing under cover of a smokescreen.
Glider
Captain
Generally speaking the Quads were used to tow the 25pd and Matador 4WD Artillery Tractors towed the larger 4.5 and 5.5in guns and others of similar size.
parsifal
Colonel
Artillery requirements for jungle warfare are about the least well understood military problems even today, and particualalry for anyone hailing from North america or western europe. its a safe generalization to say that in the main, people from those parts have basolutely no idea of what they are talking about. The overweaning temptation is look for bigger, heavier, meaner guns at every step. That is absolutely the wrong way to approach the problem. even when we do get some appreciation that we have to unlearn our desire for ever more firepower and meannes, we still tend to fall into the trap of not wanting to compromise on firepower too much. Thats only a slightly less dangerous hole to fall into. in general, western equipment for the jungle during the war was far too heavy and unwieldy to be considered ideal.
The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said that artillery is the weapon an army can least do without...and nowhere is that more true than in the jungle.
The Australians along the Kokoda track did entirely without artillery except for a few days from 21 September 1942. When the Japanese were on Ioribaiwa Ridge, at the limit of their advance, two 25lb guns of 14th Field Regiment were dragged up to Owers' Corner from where they were able to fire on the enemy. They gave crucial fire support in the battle, and immediately outgunned and outranged everything else on the battlefield. but after the main battle, the Australaians again found themselves fighting without artillery support, as the 25 pounders they had were too heavy to manhandle into and through the Owen Stanleys.
In 1943, the Australians introduced the the 25 pounder short, and married it to the ubiquitous jeep so as to give some much needed firepower, but the system still remained overly heavy and cumbersome.
The Japanese experience of war in China in the 1930s had taught them that in remote road-less regions the only artillery they would have was what they carried with them. On first landing in Papua they had 17 artillery pieces. These were of three types; 75mm mountain guns, 70mm infantry guns and 37mm guns which could fire an anti-tank or an anti-personnel round. All three could be taken apart and carried by horse or man. When the Japanese advanced into the Owen Stanley Range the carrying of the guns and their ammunition had to be done by men alone. One fifth of their force was needed to shoulder the burden of the disassembled guns and several thousand rounds of ammunition.
The great labour involved was, in the first half of the campaign, rewarded by victory in battle, time after time. The Australians found themselves at a severe disadvantage without artillery support. The Japanese artillery had several times the range of any Australian weapon but in jungle war the gunners usually cannot see the target.
This problem was solved by forward observers. These men advanced with their infantry until they could see the Australians then, by field telephone, directed the fire of their artillery on to the target.
However, in the jungle, transport is difficult, and having artillery that is heavy or requiring large numbers of men to transport is simply untenable. This makes all the heavier German artillery weapons, even their lighter mountain guns, basically not ideal in any remote jungle situation. German guns are notable for their accuracy and stability, which they achieve in part by their relatively heavy weight.
British Guns are similarly handicapped. The Australians found the 25 pdr QF guns difficult to position and use in the jungle because of this, and very manpower intensive. They developed a partial solution in the 25 pdr short. Still heavy and too buly for jungle conditions, but an improvement.
The best weapon in the jungle IMO proved to be the lowly Japanese 75mm mountain guns. Easily broken down into manp portable loads, simple in the extreme, but able to pack a useful punch. There were two 75mm mountain guns that I know of, the Type 91 dating back to 1909, and the Type 94 dating back to 1934.
On the last day at Isurava, six Japanese guns were engaged and at Ioribaiwa there were eight, including their three most powerful ones, 75mm mountain guns. The greatest concentration of Japanese guns during the Kokoda phase of the fighting in Papua was at Oivi-Gorari where 13 were in action. In the disaster that overtook the Japanese there, all were lost.
The Japanese 70mm Infantry gun was extremely useful. Far better than mortars, because of its range, idirect fire capability, limited ATG capabilities and easy transport, they were greatly feared.
The Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said that artillery is the weapon an army can least do without...and nowhere is that more true than in the jungle.
The Australians along the Kokoda track did entirely without artillery except for a few days from 21 September 1942. When the Japanese were on Ioribaiwa Ridge, at the limit of their advance, two 25lb guns of 14th Field Regiment were dragged up to Owers' Corner from where they were able to fire on the enemy. They gave crucial fire support in the battle, and immediately outgunned and outranged everything else on the battlefield. but after the main battle, the Australaians again found themselves fighting without artillery support, as the 25 pounders they had were too heavy to manhandle into and through the Owen Stanleys.
In 1943, the Australians introduced the the 25 pounder short, and married it to the ubiquitous jeep so as to give some much needed firepower, but the system still remained overly heavy and cumbersome.
The Japanese experience of war in China in the 1930s had taught them that in remote road-less regions the only artillery they would have was what they carried with them. On first landing in Papua they had 17 artillery pieces. These were of three types; 75mm mountain guns, 70mm infantry guns and 37mm guns which could fire an anti-tank or an anti-personnel round. All three could be taken apart and carried by horse or man. When the Japanese advanced into the Owen Stanley Range the carrying of the guns and their ammunition had to be done by men alone. One fifth of their force was needed to shoulder the burden of the disassembled guns and several thousand rounds of ammunition.
The great labour involved was, in the first half of the campaign, rewarded by victory in battle, time after time. The Australians found themselves at a severe disadvantage without artillery support. The Japanese artillery had several times the range of any Australian weapon but in jungle war the gunners usually cannot see the target.
This problem was solved by forward observers. These men advanced with their infantry until they could see the Australians then, by field telephone, directed the fire of their artillery on to the target.
However, in the jungle, transport is difficult, and having artillery that is heavy or requiring large numbers of men to transport is simply untenable. This makes all the heavier German artillery weapons, even their lighter mountain guns, basically not ideal in any remote jungle situation. German guns are notable for their accuracy and stability, which they achieve in part by their relatively heavy weight.
British Guns are similarly handicapped. The Australians found the 25 pdr QF guns difficult to position and use in the jungle because of this, and very manpower intensive. They developed a partial solution in the 25 pdr short. Still heavy and too buly for jungle conditions, but an improvement.
The best weapon in the jungle IMO proved to be the lowly Japanese 75mm mountain guns. Easily broken down into manp portable loads, simple in the extreme, but able to pack a useful punch. There were two 75mm mountain guns that I know of, the Type 91 dating back to 1909, and the Type 94 dating back to 1934.
On the last day at Isurava, six Japanese guns were engaged and at Ioribaiwa there were eight, including their three most powerful ones, 75mm mountain guns. The greatest concentration of Japanese guns during the Kokoda phase of the fighting in Papua was at Oivi-Gorari where 13 were in action. In the disaster that overtook the Japanese there, all were lost.
The Japanese 70mm Infantry gun was extremely useful. Far better than mortars, because of its range, idirect fire capability, limited ATG capabilities and easy transport, they were greatly feared.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Parsifal didnt the Diggers have any 3.7 pack howitzers they seem to have been ideal for the jungle as they could be broken iirc into 10 loads.
parsifal
Colonel
Not that im aware of, and certainly not before 1942. Australians painfully manhandled full sized 25 pounders and then the 25 pounder short. We also used the US 75mm pack howitzer, but mostly the 25 pounder short.
none of these weapons were at all comparable to the Japanese guns. It was one area they did really well at.
none of these weapons were at all comparable to the Japanese guns. It was one area they did really well at.
bbear
Airman 1st Class
My Dad was a Montain RA (QF 3.7" Howitzer) Radio Operator: if any allied gun can make the grade for in-close infantry support this obsolete 'screw gun' descendant would be it. In case of any confusion (among juniors not seniors) it is unrelated to the AT/AA/field piece QF 3.7" gun.
Note 'infantry support' and 'obsolete' in the same sentence - not a happy story. Also obolete and witheld from Australians - stinky story? or just about the capture of guns and shortage early in the war?
Tell tale signs are in it's specifcation : separate ammunition, carriage traverse L/R 20 degrees weight 750kg elevation 60 degrees, split trail
In its use : airborn, desert, jungle, mountain, urban, open, forest
Units that had it under command : commando,
Heaviest lump - breech 115kg - just about mule transportable, towable by jeep, plus glider, parachute
Minimum standard range : not far, I can't find a reference but within 100's of yards -apart from over the sights
More than that : RA Officers with RA training plus knackers in the same vice as the infantry (British - FOP often a CP : requests for support are given as orders)
Anecdote : 1944, Antwerp/Scheldt/Walcharen Island, summoned by infantry, 8 rounds HEAT to pillbox from 3.7" how situated 1st floor of house, considering wisdom of a 9th (not much of house left, trail 1/2 way through floor) when white flag raised from pill box
So it had the right thinkng in some ways and in demand by some but too heavy, obsolete breech, obsolete fuzes, no HEAT until 1942, it's a WW1 weapon, we were lucky. The aternatives all fall a bit short in some way, weight especislly. So there was no good allied in-close support artillery for all theatres and uses I think.
Summary: infantry, they need an 'equaliser' they can rely on : our gunners/our infantry : choose the gun and you also choose the human relationship that goes with it.
Dad died a month back- RIP Eric
Note 'infantry support' and 'obsolete' in the same sentence - not a happy story. Also obolete and witheld from Australians - stinky story? or just about the capture of guns and shortage early in the war?
Tell tale signs are in it's specifcation : separate ammunition, carriage traverse L/R 20 degrees weight 750kg elevation 60 degrees, split trail
In its use : airborn, desert, jungle, mountain, urban, open, forest
Units that had it under command : commando,
Heaviest lump - breech 115kg - just about mule transportable, towable by jeep, plus glider, parachute
Minimum standard range : not far, I can't find a reference but within 100's of yards -apart from over the sights
More than that : RA Officers with RA training plus knackers in the same vice as the infantry (British - FOP often a CP : requests for support are given as orders)
Anecdote : 1944, Antwerp/Scheldt/Walcharen Island, summoned by infantry, 8 rounds HEAT to pillbox from 3.7" how situated 1st floor of house, considering wisdom of a 9th (not much of house left, trail 1/2 way through floor) when white flag raised from pill box
So it had the right thinkng in some ways and in demand by some but too heavy, obsolete breech, obsolete fuzes, no HEAT until 1942, it's a WW1 weapon, we were lucky. The aternatives all fall a bit short in some way, weight especislly. So there was no good allied in-close support artillery for all theatres and uses I think.
Summary: infantry, they need an 'equaliser' they can rely on : our gunners/our infantry : choose the gun and you also choose the human relationship that goes with it.
Dad died a month back- RIP Eric
Last edited:
vinnye
Senior Airman
I like that little Bofors - looks like a nice package.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
It may have been mentioned already, but what about the US M116 Howitzer on the M8 carriage?
bbear
Airman 1st Class
For myself i considered the M116 on both M8 and M3A1 carriages : not quite as good as the Japanese 75mm on most specifications and a traverse that is tny (box trail) or comes at a huge weight penalty (split trail).
Also the highest individual load for the dissasembled gun at 107kg is not strictly mule packable ( An ordinary mule weighs 1000 to 1200lbs and can carry a load a third their weight. In my last estimate i didn't take off 100lbs to allow for the saddle and harness. For a minimum mule carrying a maximum load the allowance is 333lb in total including 233lb of gun. The largest pack part of the M1 is 107kg or 239lb and looks like a big awkward top load from the one picture i've seen. So there would possibly be bad tempered mules if the gun is mule packed. And some human attrition from the kicking that would be the consequence of that temper?.
But that was presuming that the artillery piece has to be close to the action to provide close support.
In fact I now think otherwise - because of German and US radio power. The British No 38 set for AFVs had a power of 200mW the no 22 sets for vehicles had a power of around 1 watt. The equivalent for Germany and US as far as i can see is 10-15W (SCR 245 and 15WseB). The american kit also later featured crystal control and modular replacement as opposed to field maintanance. That's a loose summary of internet sources so is subject to correction.
This being the case, for the US/Germans to have artillery up to 8 km away from the action makes sense. The UK decisions to use Mortars and anti tank guns makes a kind of sense but was late and wrong. That's wrong in the sense that a the UK was short of major artillery , had a heavy 3 " mortar with too little calibre and too short range. Also anti tank guns were still arranged wide rather than deep and in general communications were left unfit for blitzkrieg - thats a weak inference from reading so far. The Japanese look more sensible with artillery suited to acting as 'battalion guns' and horizontal projectors and mortars would possibly suit problematic communications, good radios but perhaps not always enough numbers?).
The best heavy mortars seem to have a calibre of 105-120mm fire 6 or more rounds a minute, a range of 6km and weigh 280kg or so. If powerful radio is available then all the great guns mentioned earlier in the thread may get a good report again.
So the possible new 'best beast' for all pockets, suited to a full range of comms support from none to plenty, and for all close infantry mortarable purposes may be this russian one bought from the French
File:2009-11-22-seelower-hoehen-by-Ralf-10.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
plus a separate anti tank gun or bazooka
i'm not expert knowledgeable and i'm taking my sources from
Site Directory
RKK Radio Museum - Communications in WWI and WWII
U.S. Army Quartermaster Museum - Fort Lee, Virginia
Artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and other such places.
Also the highest individual load for the dissasembled gun at 107kg is not strictly mule packable ( An ordinary mule weighs 1000 to 1200lbs and can carry a load a third their weight. In my last estimate i didn't take off 100lbs to allow for the saddle and harness. For a minimum mule carrying a maximum load the allowance is 333lb in total including 233lb of gun. The largest pack part of the M1 is 107kg or 239lb and looks like a big awkward top load from the one picture i've seen. So there would possibly be bad tempered mules if the gun is mule packed. And some human attrition from the kicking that would be the consequence of that temper?.
But that was presuming that the artillery piece has to be close to the action to provide close support.
In fact I now think otherwise - because of German and US radio power. The British No 38 set for AFVs had a power of 200mW the no 22 sets for vehicles had a power of around 1 watt. The equivalent for Germany and US as far as i can see is 10-15W (SCR 245 and 15WseB). The american kit also later featured crystal control and modular replacement as opposed to field maintanance. That's a loose summary of internet sources so is subject to correction.
This being the case, for the US/Germans to have artillery up to 8 km away from the action makes sense. The UK decisions to use Mortars and anti tank guns makes a kind of sense but was late and wrong. That's wrong in the sense that a the UK was short of major artillery , had a heavy 3 " mortar with too little calibre and too short range. Also anti tank guns were still arranged wide rather than deep and in general communications were left unfit for blitzkrieg - thats a weak inference from reading so far. The Japanese look more sensible with artillery suited to acting as 'battalion guns' and horizontal projectors and mortars would possibly suit problematic communications, good radios but perhaps not always enough numbers?).
The best heavy mortars seem to have a calibre of 105-120mm fire 6 or more rounds a minute, a range of 6km and weigh 280kg or so. If powerful radio is available then all the great guns mentioned earlier in the thread may get a good report again.
So the possible new 'best beast' for all pockets, suited to a full range of comms support from none to plenty, and for all close infantry mortarable purposes may be this russian one bought from the French
File:2009-11-22-seelower-hoehen-by-Ralf-10.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
plus a separate anti tank gun or bazooka
i'm not expert knowledgeable and i'm taking my sources from
Site Directory
RKK Radio Museum - Communications in WWI and WWII
U.S. Army Quartermaster Museum - Fort Lee, Virginia
Artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of artillery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and other such places.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Has the German 7.5 leG 18 been discussed? Seems like a hand size for a 75mm infantry gun.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Gruppe_geschuetz_01_%28RaBoe%29.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Gruppe_geschuetz_01_%28RaBoe%29.jpg
bbear
Airman 1st Class
the leg 40 has been discusssed (post 46) and Parsifal summarised the advantages of the Japanese systems with several caveats in post 48.
I'm a bit puzzled, the standard GB AFV radio was the No 19, 5 - 9W. The standard German was FuG 5, 10 W and US most of the war was IIRC SCR 508, 25W. No 38 and 22 were infantry radios. German Befehlpanzern had more powerful radios (20-30W) for contacts to arty and other support, in British 2-in-command had radio contact with rear-link tank etc
Last edited:
bbear
Airman 1st Class
Yes, i should have specified, the AFV No 38 set for AFV was I believe used in specifc units to relay messages received by no 19 set to infantry and vice versa, I've a memory that the pure infantry versios of no 38 set were 120mw but I could only tuurn up online figures for the AFV version - 200mW. No 19 set was also in vehicles, pretty sure the No 22 set was inteded for vehicles but in extremis was remounted on Plywood and thus to an Everest carrrier and carried by 3 guys (my dad did this and I've separate corroboration from the Rhine crossing at Wesel) which IIRC came to a load of 90lb per man. One to carry the set, another the spare batteries and the thiird the rest - theres a picture of a whole No 22 set on the RKK site and a line drawaing on the Tripd site.
Last edited:
