WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[Juha]

Soren
"Thank you very much for that personal attack Juha! Can't remember when I ever attacked you personally or tried to personify you to deserve that. Oh well.."

Yes, that's true, and I apologize.

"The famous American 155mm Long Tom didn't feature a 360 degree field of fire either, it had the same 60 degree field of fire as the std. 10.5cm LeFH 18 M."

Yes but the long range guns don't have so much a need for that. IMHO the idea behind the 360 deg traverse of post-war Soviet 122mm light field howitzer was to allow easy all round defence in case of fluid situation. Light field pieces are situated rather near the front so they are in greater risk to be run over, also IIRC 122mm had secondary A/T function in those situations. Why 25pdr had that capacity, I don't know. Maybe because of secondary A/T function or because of colonial experience, there were many times no fixed frontline but enemy could be anywhere. Or maybe because both of reasons.

On modern or more exactly on the SP guns of 60s and 70s. For some reasons some SP guns got turrets with 360deg traverse.

"LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar calibre"

I cannot recall Soviet 105mm howitzer, their standard light howitzer was 122mm.

BTW, what is your source of the info that 17cm K 18 had 360 deg traverse, the one of my sources, Encyclopaedia of the German Army in the 20th Century by Bruce Quarrie) that gives the traverse of the gun says that it had only 17 deg traverse. In it there are a picture and 4 sided drawing. According to the text: "In action it rested upon a turntable, the wheels being lifted off the ground. The rear of the trail was mounted on a platform which permitted a limited traverse…" Now that sounds perfectly OK if we remember that the gun weights 17.520kg. But on the other hand I have a handwritten note from 70s, God knows from what source, that the gun had 360 deg traverse.

On 15cm Kanone 18, according to Quarrie it had only 10 deg traverse. Anyway, it was a rare gun, as I wrote only 101 built and production ended in 1943, after losses in east in 41-44 probably not many were around in 1944.

On 17cm K 18, one additional piece of info, it seems that one battalion (probably 12 guns if German heavy artillery battalion had same number of guns than medium arty battalion) fought in Normandy. Commonwealth 21st AG had 5 heavy artillery regiments in Normandy ie 40 7.2in howitzer and 40 155mm gun/cannon.

Juha
and again sorry for my outburst

 

[Soren]

Juha no problem about your outburst, it's that you almost called me a Nazi which I'm bothered about, otherwise why mention Ideals ?? Cause if thats what you truly think about me then I cannot stress enough how completely wrong about me you are!

Anyway getting back on topic:

Both the 150mm 173mm K-18 featured a 360 degree platform:

17cm K-18

15cm K-18

My source is Ian V. Hogg, a weapons historian and an expert on guns of all calibers.

The 21cm Mörser 18 also features a 360 degree platform, and n this picture you can see it retracted on the carriage:

There was also the 24cm K-3 with a range of ~35km and also with a 360 degree platform:

So as you can see Juha the Germans were also very well established in the field of artillery, producing the best guns for any purpose of any country of WW2. (And they continue to do so today)

And no I'm not being biased here, I'm just telling it the way it is.

 

[Juha]

Soren
still not sure on 360 deg on 17 cm K 18, the uppermost photo showed it as Quarrie claimed, the rear of the trail was mounted on a platform. There is a drawing in the book which showed the gun or in fact 21cm Mörser 18, which used the same carriage/lafette, from above and the platform seemed to be something like 2,8m x 1,2 m. I still have difficulty to see how the guncrew lift the rear end of trail with of without the platform and turn the gun around, maybe the long barrel balanced the system when in horizontal position.

I'm not sure on excellence of German heavy guns, many of them were technically brilliant IMHO not all of them were very practical and their habit to built small number of many different guns must be logistically a mistake. And probably many of those very heavy guns were lost during retreats. 24cm K-3 was a good example, only 10 made, it weighted almost 55 tons, had to be transported in six separate loads, that doesn't sound a very practical concept to me. 17 cm K 18 was very good but heavier pieces maybe were uneconomical.

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces. And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40. Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.

IMHO Soviet system of building massive numbers of few good gun types, massing them to one sector to pulverize enemy's defensive lines to ensure breakthrough was simple and effective way to use artillery. Germans warned Finns in early 44 that Soviet system was extreme effective and that there was no way to prevent Soviet breakthroughs. The question was how to stabilize the front again as soon as possible. The Finns didn't believe Germans but thought that they had managed to hold their main defensive lines during 1942 Soviet attacks while inflicting very heavy casualties to Soviets but in June 1944 we found that the German warning had been sound.

Thanks for the source info I read one of Hogg's book in 70s so probably the handwritten notes are from it.

Juha

 

[plan_D]

"The question was how to stabilize the front again as soon as possible. The Finns didn't believe Germans but thought that they had managed to hold their main defensive lines during 1942 Soviet attacks while inflicting very heavy casualties to Soviets but in June 1944 we found that the German warning had been sound."

The Germans used forward trenches with skeleton crews to fool the Soviet spotters into believing this was the front-line, it was an effective counter to the Red Army's massive artillery barrages. Once the barrage was over the German army would move back into place, and the Soviets would be ... well, surprised to say the least.

 

[Kurfürst]

Kurfürst
"For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production."

To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end.

Ah, I see. You run out of silly arguements, so you scrape the barrel for idiotic arguements.

Now Soviet Union liked to keep thinks simple for sake of production and maintenance happened to select the system for their standard light field howitzer. That should make you think twice the merits of the system.

Oh, the merits of the system is perfectly understood, you put a metal turntable plate under the gun to make it traverse faster. On pieces without this turntable, you simply grab the gun an rotate the gun itself. On small guns (below 2 tons) such as these, it can be easily done without a turntable. Clearly putting turntables on even small guns was some kind of British fixation with turntables, hell they`ve even put it on very light 2 pdr AT guns. On heavy guns, it makes sense, that`s why everyone, except the British, used it only on large guns.

I`ve personally seen with what ease a 1.5 ton 75mm gun (a PaK 40) was man-handled. While in an analouge, you`d keep arguing how much of a disadvantage it is for the PaK 40 that it`s barrel traverse is just something like 60 degrees, and there are those jolly 25 pdrs with '360 degree traverse', IRL it looked like the crew grabbing the whole gun on it`s friendlier end, rotating the whole thing 90 degrees in 3 seconds, and was ready to fire in the 5th second.

That`s an ATG gun where it may come in handy very often, at this size and weight, a turntable offers no practical advantage, perhaps it`s somewhat easier for the crew to do. I wonder how often division artilerry, 6-8-10 km behind the frontline, needs to fire 180 back on it`s own HQ, or the supply train of the friendly units on it`s left and right flanks, instead of the 60 degrees or so arc in front of it, ie. where the enemy is. I am sure in your world they keep spinning arty pieces all day. 1 barrage for the enemy, 1-1 for the cooks on both sides, and the leftover ammo is spent on the red-striped trousers behind. Is that how it works in Juha`s World? Well m8, Juha`s World is not in Real World then.

However your ridiculus argument was, that, despite the fact that the 25 pdr is firing a small sized shell containing of only 0.81 kg of explosives (ie. barely larger charger than the Sherman`s HE shell), to appx the same distance, for some reason the 25 pdr is superior because it has a metal disc turntable under it, which means it can fire 360 degree, while the other gun is limited to 60 degrees.

At least in your world, that is.

"No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias."

I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.

Correction. Stupid agenda, born out of ignorance and bias, attempted to be supported by worsening personal attacks.

Now as for your ridiculus claim, as we do the reality check, you could only push your agenda forward by comparing German divisional howitzers to British corps-level artylerry.

Sure. My Big Mac truck is bigger than your Ford Focus. Keep comparing apples and oranges.

"army-level heavy arty"

Heh, what army-level heavy artillery I have mentioned, except Soviet 152mm gun-howitzer and and that because of Soviet had most centralist artillery organisation of 3 nations mentioned, Germans had most decentralized.

That again speaks volumes of your ignorance, as the organisation had rather had to do with the nature of operations (offense/defense), rather than nations.

5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun/cannon were equipment of RA MEDIUM regiments, RA HEAVY regiments had 7.2in howitzers and 155mm gun/cannon as their equipment.

Now, I understand why you`re trying to sell RA medium regiments as if they were some kind of standard divisional arty (obviously, if your agenda is to show , but still they weren`t.

The RA Medium/heavy regiments were bascially the same as corps/army level artilerry attached to the division. Ie. the standard German division, apart from it`s native 10.5cm and 15cm howitzers gets some nice fat 17cm guns and 21cm Mörsers from high command, or even bigger pieces.

And how does the 17cm K18 compare to the 25 pdr howitzers..? Oh I think British artilerry was pretty below-avarage then, because look, my corps level, 18-ton heavy arty piece beats that tiny little howitzer.

That`s the kind of silly logic you follow.

 

[Soren]

Now whats the Problem Juha ??

All the pictures I presented in my previous post feature the 360 degree platform, one even shows a 17cm K-18 in action with it deployed! Ian V. Hogg as-well as any other reliable source mentions the 360 degree platform as-well, they all featured it. Why is it you insist upon denying these facts Juha ??

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces.

British medium artillery wasn't any better than German medium artillery, we've already been through this once. The German 10.5cm LeFH 18(M) both out-gunned out-ranged the British 25 pdr.

And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40. Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.

You can't be serious Juha! What you just wrote is without any basis in reality what so ever!

The Allied AT tank guns were pee-shooters compared to the AT tank guns being produced by the Germans!

Throughout WW2 German AT tank guns were THE best in the world. And thats a fact!

Also why in the world would you ever compare the 17 pdr to the PaK 40 ?? Why not compare it to the more powerful 7.5cm PaK42 KwK42 L/70 ? This gun was as powerful as the 17 pdr, more accurate and weighed less. This gun was also mounted on the German Pzkpfw. V Panther as the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 and it out-performed all the Allied tank guns in the comparative tests at Aberdeen.

But as if it couldn't be worse Juha you then proceed to compare the 5.7cm 6 pdr to the German 3.7cm AT gun, a gun comparable to British 3.7cm 2 pounder ! The German equalant to the British 6 pdr, the 5.0cm L/60, was just as good a hole puncher as the 6 pdr.

Already in 1942 the Germans were deploying high velocity 7.5cm 8.8cm AT guns while the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and low velocity 7.5cm guns. The German 8.8cm FlaK 36 KwK36 L/56, the gun mounted on the Pzkpfw. VI Tiger, was vastly superior to any Allied AT gun when deployed in 1942 and continued to be so until mid 1944.

And in 1943 the Germans introduced the best AT gun of the war, the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. This gun was completely unrivalled by any Allied AT gun. The gun was later modified to fit the inside of a tank turret and became the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71, the main armament of the Tiger Ausf.B and JagdPanther, and with MV of over 1,000 m/s and a penetration performance of over 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armour at a distance of 3,000m it was the most powerful tank gun to be mounted on any tank with a turret during WW2.

The only AT tank gun more deadly powerful than the 8.8cm PaK 43 KwK43 was the German 12.8cm Pak 44 KwK44, the most powerful AT gun of WW2, but even this gun was only marginally better than the 8.8cm KwK43.

When it comes to the lethality of AT guns, velocity is what counts the most!

 

[Kurfürst]

I'm not sure on excellence of German heavy guns, many of them were technically brilliant IMHO not all of them were very practical and their habit to built small number of many different guns must be logistically a mistake.

I am wondering what the heck you`re talking about. Basically, the Germans used the same two divisional arty pieces through the war, just two, the 10.5cm leFH 18 and the 15cm FH 18, plus their deriviates (which did not differ in else but having muzzle brakes).

That is, as much as I can count, just two type of standard pieces that came into the logistical picture (ie. every division has them).

The British...? Well they used the old WW1 OQF 18 pdr and the 4.5" OQF howitzer, later the OQF 25 pdr, the US 155mm M1918.

For heavier standard pieces on corps level, they for some odd reason used 4.5" gun-hos that were not fit for their purpose, and later the 5.5" OBL gun-hos, but before that happen, they the OBL 6" howitzer at corps level. Then there was the poorly executed OBL 7.2" howitzer Mk I, which soon needed a 2nd type of US carriage to cure it`s inherent flaws... anything else? Oh, they also used the OBL 8" WW1 leftover howitzer.

Even the Soviets were not quite standardized. Lots of gun types of the same caliber, and lots of calibers, too. In fact, the Soviet arty array in 1941 was rather confusing. Arty pieces from the Tsarist times etc. The US arty park had many types too, but it become more streamlined as the war progressed.

Compared to that, the Germans had the advantage of standardizing early, building from scratch, and had two rather solid howitzer designs to work with on divisional level - and here`s the important part : THROUGH THE ENTIRE WAR. The 10.5cm and 15cm were available to them all the time, and in numbers - true, they had some leftovers too, but far and few between, never in any big quanitities to make it an army-level problem.

I think as far as standardization of arty goes, they did pretty solid.

And probably many of those very heavy guns were lost during retreats. 24cm K-3 was a good example, only 10 made, it weighted almost 55 tons, had to be transported in six separate loads, that doesn't sound a very practical concept to me. 17 cm K 18 was very good but heavier pieces maybe were uneconomical.

Yet again you`re trying to disprove the rule with the exception. The very heavy arty pieces are rarer kinds, and usually one-of-a-kind. They are special tools for special task.
Yet you want to make them the rule and judge the variety of whole German arty park based on their heavy guns only. Silly isn`t it?

You can`t blame the German army for having access to real siege artilerry, something they definietely found very very handy in numberless occasions during city sieges.

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces. And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40.

Similiar sized...?

The 2 pdr ATG weighted some 757 kg in action. The 3.7cm PaK 35/36 : 435 kg. Clearly these guns were meant for a different philosophy, the Pak 35/36 emphasized much on compactness, and it could easily follow advancing infantry on it`s own on any terrain, and it had HE shells for soft targets, making it a support weapon as well, a bit of a small sized infantry gun. The 2pdr was more of a static piece, and also a contemporary of the 5cm PaK 38 (and far closer to it in weight).

The 6 pdr ATG weighted some 1140 kg in action. The 5cm PaK 38 : 986 kg. Now of course the 6 pdr was introduced service in May 1942, ie. contemporary of the PaK 40, but less capable, having inferior penetration characteristics, and no HE ammunition again.

The 17 pdr ATG weighted some 2920 kg in action. The 7.5cm PaK 40 : 1425 kg. For God`s sake`s Juha, you`re comparing a gun TWICE the size and bulk.. However the 17 pdr not until 1943, and it`s more of a weight/class counterpart of the splendid 8.8cm PaK 43, also from `43 which itself weighted 3700 kg, but were far more capable (and on the 360 degree turntable Juha loves so much and attributes only to the British. It`s not present on the 17 pdr, apparantly the Brits were thinking reverse as usual, the turntable would be rather useful for such a big gun, so they don`t use, but they use it on very small ATGs and light arty, where there`s less of a need).

17 pdr ATG

8.8cm PaK 43

Of course these problems with the comparison Juha himselfs sees and knows very well, the question that strikes my mind is, that how come then the conclusion for the British, who basically got the same stuff, just usually 1.5 years later than the Germans in most cases..?

And of course the comparison of the 2pdr/3.7cm Pak, 6pdr/5cm, 17 pdr/7.5cm PaK is both anachornistic and disregards completely the big difference in the size of these guns. Generally it compares again bigger and later British ATGs to German ATG pieces, not to mention the comparison on penetration figures alone is somewhat misleading, given the British preference (hmm, again followed by nobody else..) for solid AP rounds, which boosted penetration figures slightly, but lacking HE burster inside the shell, the post-armor effects were not the catastrophic as the ones descibed by British experience with German APHE rounds in the desert.

In short Juha`s conclusions are again not supported by the facts. As far as I can see, it`s a case of wishful thinking, that occasionally becomes aggressive and very personalizing (ie. nazi labels etc.).

Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.

 

[Kurfürst]

I would certainly agree that the 360 degree ability is not a huge advantage but it is an advantage. It should be remembered that the 25pd was always designed to be able to act as an AT gun and this ability in a fast moving close range battle must help.

Well here it should be mentioned the 25 pdr itself was much less flexible in this regard. It had only 4 degrees of traverse to the left/right; anything more required the gun itself to be turned on it`s turntable platform.

As for turning around a 'normal weapon' if its dug in, then you stand no chance of moving it in a hurry./

Well, if space limitation is what you refer to, you can`t turn a dug-in 25 pdr either, since you have to turn the whole gun, and if there`s not enough space, the gun`s split forks will simply not allow it. And given the 25 pdr could only manage 4 degrees to the sides without turning... as opposed to ~60 degrees on guns with the usual carriage... it`s soon in big trouble vs. moving targets.

It seems to me the 25 pdr was incomparable less well suited for engaging tanks than perhaps any other divisional light howitzer of the war, that had a full 60 degree traverse wihout having to move the carriege itself.

 

[Juha]

Kurfürst
"I`ve personally seen with what ease a 1.5 ton 75mm gun (a PaK 40) was man-handled."

Now I have heard from men who had to try man-handle PaK 40 during battle that it was "bloody too heavy" for that. Finns thought that it was too heavy to easily man-handle that was a main reason to number of gun losses in 44, other was that the Komsomolsk tractors which Finns used as its tower easily throw tracks, which of course wasn't Germans fault.

"as the organisation had rather had to do with the nature of operations (offense/defense), rather than nations."

Now both German and British artillery organization stayed rather same throughout the war, even if 1939-42 Germany was on offensive and 1943-45 British, how that goes with you argument.

And I was talking on H E A V Y artillery and doubt were they worth of effort even if many of them was technically excellent, bomber was simply more flexible way to deliver heavy loads far away.

"The 3.7cm PaK 35/36 : 435 kg. Clearly these guns were meant for a different philosophy, the Pak 35/36 emphasized much on compactness, and it could easily follow advancing infantry on it`s own on any terrain, and it had HE shells for soft targets, making it a support weapon as well, a bit of a small sized infantry gun."

I compared them because 2pdr was 40mm weapon and yes PaK 36 had many nice features but it was found wanting on its reason etre namely in capacity to penetrate armour, even in 1940 in west that cost lot of German blood.

"2pdr was more of a static piece, and also a contemporary of the 5cm PaK 38"

So name a German unit which used PaK 38 in France in May-June 40, if you can. 2 pdr was there and PaK 36 but PaK 38 wasn't.

"Of course these problems with the comparison Juha himselfs sees and knows very well, the question that strikes my mind is, that how come then the conclusion for the British, who basically got the same stuff, just usually 1.5 years later than the Germans in most cases..?"

Heh, You even quoted my sentence "Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late…"

So I was aware of that.

Soren
"Also why in the world would you ever compare the 17 pdr to the PaK 40 ?? Why not compare it to the more powerful 7.5cm PaK42 KwK42 L/70 ? This gun was as powerful as the 17 pdr, more accurate and weighed less."

Because how many PaK 42 were made, IIRC 150. PaK 40 was Germany's standard A/T gun That's my reason. I don't wrote on KwKs because I also think that Germans were right in the thinking that tank gun needed acceptable HE shell and British were wrong in thinking that AP performance is everything and shot will do and mgs could keep down enemy infantry and A/T gunners. Even if every sqn had 2 3" close support tanks. In a way British thinking was in a line with German thinking with Pz IIIs and PzIVs but Pz IIIs always had also HE shell capacity and that was a fundamental advantage to Germans. I think we can agree at least on that.

"compare the 5.7cm 6 pdr to the German 3.7cm AT gun, a gun comparable to British 3.7cm 2 pounder ! The German equalant to the British 6 pdr, the 5.0cm L/60, was just as good a hole puncher as the 6 pdr."

If you read carefully I was comparing 2 pdr with 3.7cm PaK 36 and 6 pdr with 5cm PaK 38, and if you will check the numbers 6 pdr had clearly better penetrative power.

"Already in 1942 the Germans were deploying high velocity 7.5cm 8.8cm AT guns while the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and low velocity 7.5cm guns. The German 8.8cm FlaK 36"

IIRC there were no 8.8cm AT guns around in 1942 and the fact that Rommel had to use his meagre 88mm AA gun resources as A/T guns and lower the AA defence of his supply lines IMHO proves besides German tactical flexibility also the lack of penetrative power of his A/T guns.

"And in 1943 the Germans introduced the best AT gun of the war, the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. "

IMHO PaK 43 was too heavy, of course maybe a must on Eastern Front but on Western Front PaK 40 was IMHO better being significantly smaller and lighter and adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crodiles. And on JagdPanther I'm sure we agree.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Well here it should be mentioned the 25 pdr itself was much less flexible in this regard. It had only 4 degrees of traverse to the left/right; anything more required the gun itself to be turned on it`s turntable platform. /

No one is disagreeing with that

Well, if space limitation is what you refer to, you can`t turn a dug-in 25 pdr either, since you have to turn the whole gun, and if there`s not enough space, the gun`s split forks will simply not allow it. And given the 25 pdr could only manage 4 degrees to the sides without turning... as opposed to ~60 degrees on guns with the usual carriage... it`s soon in big trouble vs. moving targets./

Tell me Kurfurst, do you know what a 25pd looks like!!

I am wondering what the heck you`re talking about. Basically, the Germans used the same two divisional arty pieces through the war, just two, the 10.5cm leFH 18 and the 15cm FH 18, plus their deriviates (which did not differ in else but having muzzle brakes)./

Correct, no, not even close. The Germans used dozens of different arty weapons including most of their WW1 weapons and captured weapons from Russia, France, Norway and other countries (incl the 25pd).

The British...? Well they used the old WW1 OQF 18 pdr and the 4.5" OQF howitzer, later the OQF 25 pdr, the US 155mm M1918. /

Correct and a few more, but we withdrew the older weapons and replaced them during the war. The Germans kept them in use as long as possible and as mentioned before the Germans had a lot more types than the British.

For heavier standard pieces on corps level, they for some odd reason used 4.5" gun-hos that were not fit for their purpose, and later the 5.5" OBL gun-hos, but before that happen, they the OBL 6" howitzer at corps level. Then there was the poorly executed OBL 7.2" howitzer Mk I, which soon needed a 2nd type of US carriage to cure it`s inherent flaws... anything else? Oh, they also used the OBL 8" WW1 leftover howitzer. /

I don't know where you get your information from. The 4.5in was used with some success through the entire war b ut there is no doubt that it lacked punch which is why it was suplemented by the 5.5in.

Compared to that, the Germans had the advantage of standardizing early, building from scratch, /

Wrong the 15cm was an updated WW1 design.

and had two rather solid howitzer designs to work with on divisional level - and here`s the important part : THROUGH THE ENTIRE WAR. The 10.5cm and 15cm were available to them all the time/

Its worth remembering that the 25pd, 4.5in, 5.5in and 7.2in were all new designs, designed from scratch, available in numbers, through the entire war.

and in numbers - true, /

Partly the Germans had fewer Art guns than the British for each unit of similar size.

they had some leftovers too, but far and few between, never in any big quanitities to make it an army-level problem. /

As mentioned before wrong. Some became standard weapons in particular the Russian 76 in an anti tank role.

 

[Udet]

Juha said, quote:

"To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end."

Whenever i see someone resorting to this sort of arguments -if we can call this an argument-, we are before someone definitely running out of any actual argument.

 

[Juha]

PlanD
"The Germans used forward trenches with skeleton crews to fool the Soviet spotters into believing this was the front-line, it was an effective counter to the Red Army's massive artillery barrages. Once the barrage was over the German army would move back into place, and the Soviets would be ... well, surprised to say the least."

Yes, but IIRC that worked seldom because usually main Soviet attacks surprised Germans. And I'm aware, whatever Germans told to Finnish staff officers, that not all Soviet big offensives succeeded, for example that over Mius in August 43 and those west of Orel against was that Panther Stellung in Autumn 43. But usually Soviet "strategic strikes" achieved a breakthrough.

Soren
"British medium artillery wasn't any better than German medium artillery"

As medium I meant German 15cm sFH and 10cm sK 18 vs British 5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun (cannon). They were clearly most numerous artillery pieces after leFHs and 25pdrs in their respective armies and all weighted around 5,5 tonnes.

Kurfürst
"the comparison on penetration figures alone is somewhat misleading, given the British preference (hmm, again followed by nobody else..) for solid AP rounds, which boosted penetration figures slightly, but lacking HE burster inside the shell, the post-armor effects were not the catastrophic as the ones descibed by British experience with German APHE rounds in the desert."

Now that is to certain extent true but if we look Wittmann in Normandy. In Villers-Bocage as long as there wasn't any penetrative hits his Tiger could ran rampage but the first shot which penetrate put end of that even if the crew could bail out unwounded. And if there had been British infantry around the situation might have been very bad for Wittmann and his crew. Lesson: the most important thing to A/T gun is to ability to pierce armour of enemy tanks.
And combat at Gaumesnil showed that a shot could be very lethal when Wittmann and his whole crew perished after hits from a Firefly.

The effects after hit(s) varied, in the history of 6th Guards Tank Brigade there is a story when a Churchill got 3 KwK 42 hits through turret but the crew bailed out unhurt, only thing which really was hurt was the crew's opinion on the AP qualities of their 75mm gun, they had hit twice into Panther's glacis plate without effect.
And I have read rather sad stories on Panther crews when their tank was hit by Shermans but I don't know if they were British or US so shot or APHE I don't know but from British stories one can see that shot hits brew up panzers time to time.

And at the next armoured conflict on which I knew something from both sides is Oct 1973 Middle East War during which IIRC the most effective tank cannon ammo were 105mm SABOT and 115mm penetrating rod or arrow, both solid.

Kurfürst and Udet
If you have difficulties to accept that what happened in spring 45 had a decisively effect on 3rd Reich arms development programs maybe a look a history book helps.

Juha

 

[plan_D]

"Yes, but IIRC that worked seldom because usually main Soviet attacks surprised Germans. And I'm aware, whatever Germans told to Finnish staff officers, that not all Soviet big offensives succeeded, for example that over Mius in August 43 and those west of Orel against was that Panther Stellung in Autumn 43. But usually Soviet "strategic strikes" achieved a breakthrough."

I don't think they surprised the German defenders, but more often than not they did over-whelm them by late in the war. Nevertheless the Germans did adapt strategy, and it would have proven an excellent method if the numbers had been somewhere near equal.

 

[Juha]

Hello Plan D
IIRC Soviets usually achieved surprise but I don't have time to check all their attacks but surely the attack that smashed AG Centre, Germans excepted attack against Model's AG, which was next to south, and the attack straight after the last German big offensive in East in Hungary in 45, surprised Germans. I think German generals would have adapted to Soviet strategy better without Hitler's interference, but the "hold the line at all cost" mentality tended to turn military setbacks to catastrophes.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Juha,

You're simply not right in your assumption that British guns were better hole punchers for any given caliber, and you're not helping your own argument with your attempts to compare larger caliber British guns with smaller caliber German ones.

As already stated the Germans fielded high velocity 7.5cm 8.8cm AT guns already in 1942, by which time the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and the low velocity 7.5cm M3.

The 8.8cm FlaK 18 36 was succesfully converted into an effective AT gun already in 1938 during the Spanish civil war, so by 1941 the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 was already a dedicated AT gun. In 1942 the Germans started fielding the 7.5cm PaK42 L/70, a gun which features an even better penetrative power than the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36. Both of these guns were highly effective AT guns capable of penetrating the frontal armour of the Matilda Churchill tanks past 3km with their std. AP projectile.

8.8cm FlaK 18/36 KwK36 L/56

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ

7.5cm PaK42 KwK42 L/70

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39 APCBC): 6.8 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39 APCBC): 936 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 2978 KJ

Not until mid 1943 did the Allies (British) field a comparable AT gun, the 17pdr, but by then the German were already starting to field the super high velocity 8.8cm PaK43 which would completely outclass any Allied AT tank gun in terms of armour penetrating capability throughout the war.

8.8cm PaK43 KwK43 L/71

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 1,000 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ

77mm 17 dpr

Projectile Weight (APBC No HE content): 7.7 kg
Muzzle Velocity (APBC no HE content): 883 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ


Now surprisingly enough, eventhough the large difference in power, the weight between the PaK43 17pdr wasn't much at just 300 kg, and this is despite the PaK43 being both a larger caliber and much more powerful gun. The reason for this was the more advanced German gun industry which continually produced more simply designed powerful guns than the Allies, for which there are countless of examples.

Moving on to 1944 the Germans were starting to field the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 AT gun and were already finished with the KwK44 design, thus again allowing the Germans to be one step ahead of the Allies which by then hadn't yet been able to produce a gun able to come close to the performance of the 8.8cm PaK43 KwK43.

12.8cm PaK44 KwK44 L/55

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.43 APCBC): 28 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 860 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 10354 KJ


Now as to our debate about artillery, I still can't follow your reasoning for why you would ever consider 25 pdr a better artillery piece than the LeFH 18, esp. considering that the LeFH 18 both out-gunned out-ranged the 25 pdr. Moving on to heavier artillery the Germans fielded the unrivalled 15cm 17.3cm K-18, so again here the Germans were ahead.

The Allies benefitted from always having more artillery available, true, but that doesn't make their individual pieces better.

 

[Juha]

Hello Soren
now 2pdr (40mm) and 3.7cm PaK 36 can well be compared because a) both were the main A/T guns of respective armies in May-June 40 campaign and b) had calibre more or less same. The difference was in design philosophy. As Kurfürst made clear in his message PaK 36 had some desirable features but it clearly lacked punch as was made terrible clear in France in 40 and in Soviet Union in 41. Most of French tanks, excluding WWI vintage FT-17s and the light tanks which IIRC French called something like tracked armoured cars, with 40mm cast armour were very difficult targets to PaK 36, not to speak French heavy tanks with 60mm armour or GB's I-tanks, only few around, with 60 or 78mm armour. And that led to much unnecessary losses among German infantry and A/T troops.

Now because of failings of PaK 36 IMHO one cannot claim that all German A/T guns were excellent. In fact IMHO only with 7.5cm PaK 40 German A/T units got adequate gun ie in early 1942. 5cm PaK 38 was adequate against British except maybe against I-tanks but by better tactics and flexible use of field artillery and 88mm DAK could handle situation. IMHO was an A/T gun good or bad depends the enemy tanks, so PaK 38 was clearly more acceptable in desert than in Soviet Union.

"The 8.8cm FlaK 18 36 was succesfully converted into an effective AT gun already in 1938 during the Spanish civil war, so by 1941 the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 was already a dedicated AT gun."

It was still a Flak gun not A/T gun and a 88 at frontline in A/T mission was away say from Benghazi and meant less protection to very important supply harbour. And when we remember that the failures in supply was one of main reasons for the downfall of DAK that wasn't a good situation.

"In 1942 the Germans started fielding the 7.5cm PaK42 L/70"

Checked the production, only 253 made, when compared to some 9.000 PaK 40s made, it clearly wasn't a major weapon in Germany's armoury. Same to ingenious 7.5/5.5cm PaK 41.

As I wrote earlier the first combat use of 17pdr was in March 43

"the weight between the PaK43 17pdr wasn't much at just 300 kg,"

I have the weight of 17pdr as 2920-3000kg depending on source and 3650kg for Pak 43

"Moving on to 1944 the Germans were starting to field the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 AT gun"

Now IMHO a 10 ton PaK wasn't a very bright idea, why not use 10cm sK 18 or design 12.8cm sK 44 instead. Same goes to JagdTiger, IMHO with some 73 tons weight it was too heavy and unwieldy, I think Soviet were wiser with 46 ton ISU-122 and -152. And on German side IMHO JagdPanther was a much better weapon than JagdTiger.

British had A/T crisis in desert up to the arrival of 6pdr, cannot recall exact date but at least in Oct 42 it was in use at 8th Army. First Tigers were in action in Tunis early of Dec 42, but because of there was at max 20 of them (The sPzAbt had the early 20 PzVIs and 25 PzIIIs TOE) before March 43 that wasn't a major crisis and in March 17pdr arrived which was more or less adequate against PzVI and V. In NW Europe I cannot remember but a few cases when British had problems with German tank attacks, all after British deep penetrations when their vanguard tank units got in trouble, in Villiers-Bogage, during Goodwood and 11th ArmDiv at W/NW of Vire. But that was more on question of tank armament maybe also on tactical handling of 17pdr units ie they were too far rear. The 21st PzD's attack on 6 June 44 was rather easily handled by British A/T screen same to II SSPzCorps attack against was that Scottish Corridor. If you know more cases of British problems I would like hear on them.

IMHO the best A/T gun was smallest/lightest adequate, bigger than that made them easier to locate and more difficult to handle, less than adequate was a crime against front line soldiers.

"LeFH 18 both out-gunned out-ranged the 25 pdr"
It fired heavier shell but according to my sources had only 72meter longer range, which IMHO was irrelevant.

"Moving on to heavier artillery the Germans fielded the unrivalled 15cm 17.3cm K-18, so again here the Germans were ahead."

I have never argued that British had better or even equal heavy artillery but my point was that contrary your claim that German guns were superior across the board British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and medium artillery was much more numerous and important than heavy artillery. I'm not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate. And as I have wrote earlier even if PaK 40 was less powerful than 17pdr it was adequate in most situations in West and so was a good choice to Germans and 17pdr was a good choice to British, even if it was heavier of than PaK 40 because Germans had better armoured tanks so British needed more powerful weapon as their standard heavy A/T gun.

Juha

 

[Glider]

I have to support everything that Juha has posted. I have some information on the British AT guns that may be of interest

17pd
Projectile weight
17pd APC MV 950 f/s
7.63pd APDS MV 3950 f/s (note: penetration was roughly double the APC shell at 1000yd)
Weight
Travel 6,700lb
In firing position 6,445lb.

So in summary the 17pd seems to be more powerful than listed in the posting above and with APDS penetration more than capable of taking on the panther and early Tiger tanks despite the lighter projectile.

The reason why the 6pd was later than expected was to do with the losses in France. The gun was ready for production in 1940 but it was decided not to distrupt production of the 2pd as numbers were needed to face an invasion and to replace losses. Production had to wait for a new production line to be set up, hence the delay.

Re establishments -
By September 1943 the official position for European Theatres was:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 6-pdr and 4 × 17-pdr in 3 troops.
In early 1944 this changed to:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops.
Its worth noting that the infantry units had their own AT guns initially 2pd changing to 6pd during 1943 as numbers built up.
From 1943 onwards its fair to say that an Infantry Divison was capable of putting up significant resistance to an enemy tank attack.

 

[Soren]

For crying out loud Juha!

Why is it you insist upon dodging the main issue here ?

Fact is the FlaK 18/36 was both an AA AT gun as of 1938, a protective shield even being added to the gun in 41 as a means of better protecting the crew when engaging ground units. This didn't hinder its use as a AA gun in any way though, which you can see below. Besides its success as both a AT AA gun the FlaK 18/36 also operated with great success as an artillery piece, laying down very effective barrages and surpressive fire at long ranges. So the FlaK 18/36 was a multipurpose gun in every sense of the word, being very useful as both an AT, AA Artillery piece. And this gun had been available to the German AT crews since 1938!

As to wether I know of any other incidents where the Allies got in trouble because of German AT guns, YES I do and PLENTY! For one I remember an incident in Bocage where a single 88 carefully placed at a cross road took out tenfolds of Allied tanks before running out of ammunition, and that was without moving an inch from its starting position.

The PaK43 weighed in at approx. 3,300 kg to 3,600 kg depending on the carriage, and so it wasn't much heavier than the 17pdr, despite being massively more powerful than the 17pdr.

Glider,

The APDS ammunition wasn't effective past 500m because of its very bad accuracy, and eventhough its penetration performance looks impressive it fell drastically with armour slope. And then there's the fact that it had a very unfortunate habbit of shattering against the armour of the Tiger Ausf.E, even at point blank range! Imagine the look on a 17pdr gunner's face when he sees his supposedly highly effective APDS round fails penetrating the near vertical frontal armour of the Tiger Ausf.E! Must have been quite a sobering experience!

 

[Glider]

Glider,

The APDS ammunition wasn't effective past 500m because of its very bad accuracy, and eventhough its penetration performance looks impressive it fell drastically with armour slope. And then there's the fact that it had a very unfortunate habbit of shattering against the armour of the Tiger Ausf.E, even at point blank range! Imagine the look on a 17pdr gunner's face when he sees his supposedly highly effective APDS round fails penetrating the near vertical frontal armour of the Tiger Ausf.E! Must have been quite a sobering experience!

The chances of a 17pd hitting a 6ft x 6ft target at 1000 yds was 98%, at 2000yds 80% so I don't know where you get the accuracy problem from.
Re shattering again I don't know where you got your info from, I have never heard of that probem either.

 

[AL Schlageter]

I have heard that the quality of German armour went downhill as the war progressed.