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

[Juha]

Now German equivalent (more or less) to No 18 and 38 sets was Torn. Fu.d2, voice 0.3W and Morse 1W, contrary to Britsh one man radios it needed 2 man crew and British Inf.Batt. had 16 sets, the German one had only 4. I'm not sure what radio set the FOOs used, in the WM infantry divs artillery observers might well use Torn. Fu.c or .f, 0.6W radio.

Juha


PS On mortars. British had 3" (in reality 82mm) medium mortars, Germans had 80mm medium mortars, British had 107mm heavy mortars, Germans had 120mm, either captured from Soviets or German development of the Soviet one, 12 cm GrW 42. The difference in mediums was not big, especially from 1942 onwards, when British increased the range of their medium mortar. In heavy mortars Germans' had some 50% more range and some 66% heavier shell.

 

[bbear]

Ok, thanks Juha for taking the time to respond. To make sense of such a variety of radios perhaps one needs your wide knowledge of organisational, operational and technical histories at the same time. So thanks again.

I'm still drawn to 'all round fittedness' in scoring or describimg what is good about a gun to an armed force, including supply amd communications. That is, I'm more drawn to that than a 'biggest bangs at longest range'' way of looking at it.


---
On mortars : wkipedia says that Russsian and German 120mm mortars were both derived from Frech 'Brandt' types. Agreed that the UK 3" mortar needed an upgrade, so choosing to enter the war with no battalion gun was possibly premature but economcally prudent I understand. Agreed on the advantage of German heavy mortars. One of the 3.7" howitzers last conventonal jobs was counter Mortar for exactly that reason.

The idea of radio as a technical limitation to or eabling technolgy of artillery is clearly some way off the pace. But perhaps the difference would be a matter of the peple involved, the educational level of raw recruits, morale, leadership, ways of working, the whole command control and communication system rather than just the tools

 

[Juha]

I'm not army specialist, I have read quite a lot on German armoured and motorized units but that's long ago. And on British army my knowledge is mostly limited on ETO 1944-45 fighting, built-up area tactics and Desert armoured warfare. On battlefield communications I rely heavily on Rottman's WWII Battlefield Communications Osprey Elite 181. IMHO usefull booklet on the subject.

On mortars, it's interesting that Mortier Brandt de 120 mm Mle 1935 didn't make any impression on British and Germans in 1940. At least in theory there was a squad of 2 these mortars in each French infantry regiment in 1940. The effectiveness of Soviet 120mm mortar was a shock to Germans. Finns (Tampella factory) had developed its own 120mm mortar by 1935 but lack of funds delayed the order to Nov 1939 and it missed the Winter War. Finns had concluded that medium mortars were ineffective against dug in infantry so they thought they needed a heavier mortar as well. Mortars suited well to the Finnish doctrine. There is some more info on the Soviet and Finnish 120mm mortars here: http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/MORTARS6.htm

In you take into account the command and control in artillery evaluation, IMHO you should do some in depth research on artillery tactics of different nations, on flexibility of its use, how easy it was to give control of the artillery assets of several formations to one FOO to maximize the effect of an artillery strike and so on.

Juha

 

[bbear]

That's a fantastic reply Juha. I was going to go deeper into Finnish use of force anyway (partly because I can't make sense of what the German's and Soviets were doing on the Eastern front - I mean two professional armies apparently ignoring 'General Winter'. 'Motti'.. hmmmm....). So Rottmann Osprey elite 181 and website suggestions will be taken up, the webbsite looks good, thanks. The only reason I can think of for the non-impact of the 120mm mortars in the battle of France is - it was over too quickly for any weapon or formation to do much.

Yes, i see, complex command and control and radio communications systems would take me ast WW2 itself right to modern days and similarly problems of co-ordination would I'd guess go back to classical times. So back to in-depth basics - or for me, onwards to a new subject. General strategy even.

Thanks again.

 

[Juha]

Hello bbear
maybe you know this already but anyway, IMHO an excellent site on British artillery in WWII British Artillery in World War 2

Juha

 

[bbear]

Hi Juha,

yes , thanks for that. I did have it in my list of references but I need to read more of it. The Rottman book I bought - I can resist anything except temptation.

Thanks for the 'gen' and thanks to Parsifal for the 'like' - it's appreciated.

cheers