Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Best artillery piece of WWII

Discussion in 'Artillery' started by Hufflepuff, Feb 22, 2008.

  1. Sloniksp

    Sloniksp Ставка

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,321
    Likes Received:
    459
    While not sure exactly what "Best" may be, I believe that the 76mm 42' model deseves its recognition.


    An excellent gun!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The most dangerous things for our panzers are the Soviet heavy anti-tank guns, which established in all key points of the battlefiels. The Russians are the masters of camouflage, therefore it's very hard to locate and neutralize their guns.
    Hans-Ulrich Rudel, Luftwaffe, SG2

     
  2. FramerT

    FramerT Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    37

    Me, too.......along with Stalins Organs. I also like the German rail guns like "Anzio Annie".
     
  3. noobsquadron

    noobsquadron Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    1
    The 88 is the best artillery weapon.

    My favorite artirelly piece is flak 105 A-A gun or the Supergun GUSTAV
     
  4. Paul Errass

    Paul Errass Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    46
    How did we get to discussing mortars and machine guns in an Artillery thread ???

    Trust me i'm am ex Gunner and the only time Mortars were Artillery was in WW1 When the original Trench mortar Batteries were run by the RGA, before they were passed to the infantry as a support weopon.

    Rocket Arty has got to be the Katyusha ( Little Kate ) the psychological effect before the salvos landed was enough !!

    Did my training on The 25 Pdr what a top piece of kit.

    Paul
     
  5. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    As I stated the FLAK 88 was not an artillery piece. Its main use was for AA and for AT use. Though it could be used as an artillery piece it really wasn't as effective as one. My vote for the "BEST" would be the 25 pounder.
     
  6. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    Mac brought it up LOL I think some here aren't quite sure what a "Artillery" piece is.:rolleyes:
     
  7. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,344
    Likes Received:
    2,041
    Location:
    Alabama
    True. Mortars are not organized in batteries, their crews wear the blue trim of the infantry and are found in infantry formations.
     
  8. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Unfortunately, Sloniksp, the Soviet 76 is just too light as a general field gun to be in the running in WW 2. Now, the 85mm that was to replace it was a bit better neither comes up to the 25pdr or US 105mm in destructiveness. The German 105mm was by comparison to the two Allied pieces a dog of gun. It was overweight, fired a very inferior shell and was just all around a poor design.
    Now, the Soviet 76 did have some advantage in terms of what the Red Army needed as artillery. It was a light weapon that could easily be manhandled. This was a big advantage in a poorly mechanized army, something the British and US didn't have to worry about. Also, the 76 was a decent AT gun a role, much like the 25pdr, it was expected to regularly engage in.
    But, on the whole the Soviet 76 and 85mm artillery pieces were just too light to compete in WW 2
     
  9. WladyswafAnders44

    WladyswafAnders44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think maybe not the "ultimate" artillery piece but one that was affective in multiple roles throughout the war would be the Soviet 76mm it was easy to produce and could be converted to AA or AT [​IMG]
     
  10. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    Once again I think that trying to determine the "Best" is very hard. "Best" Light,Medium,Heavy? Multi-purpose? Sometimes these question are just too broad. There are so many different types and uses.
     
  11. Chuikov64th

    Chuikov64th Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    26
    Man.......tough question.

    There are guns and howitzers so I will just pick one of each.

    The 75mm PAK 40 AT gun of the german army was lethal so that would be my first choice with the Russian 76mm virtually neck and neck.

    My preferred howie would be the American 155mm hands down.
     
  12. Seadog

    Seadog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    11
    I would not consider rockets to be artillery. In my opinion, the US 105 mm artillery units were very effective. It comes part as the result of a very good weapon, but also from how they were used. The excellent work of spotters, the decent radio communications, and the ability of well trained crews to effectively plot the correct trajectory quickly, all enabled the effective use of the artillery.

    The 105, in both the towed and SP role was a top notch weapon that was great in the every day role. My personal favorite was the 155 for its punch and awe. Especially, in the SP role, even though only 100 served. The 8 inch has always been an incredible weapon, but its low production numbers and the effort required to get it into position did not make it a useful all round weapon.
     
  13. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    why don't you class rocket artillery as artillery? It fits the definition of artillery plus the katyusha Rockets(aka, Stalins Organs) were bunched in battries just like artillery 'guns' and they used indirect fire, therfore I think rockets and mortar's fall into this catagory as well. I do believe there are different types of artillery but still should be classed as artilley
     
  14. Paul Errass

    Paul Errass Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Messages:
    613
    Likes Received:
    46
    Multi launch rocket system MLRS , Missile Air defence and Guided weopons have always come under the Royal Artillery in the UK and as such are definatley classed as Artillery weopons.

    Mortars no........................ !!!

    Its a direct infantry support weopon crewed by infantry not Artillery soldiers.

    Paul
     
  15. Seadog

    Seadog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    11
    From encyclopedia Britannica:
    in military science, crew-served big guns, howitzers, or mortars having a calibre greater than that of small arms, or infantry weapons. Rocket launchers are also commonly categorized as artillery, since rockets perform much the same function as artillery projectiles, but the term artillery is more properly limited to large gun-type weapons using an exploding propellant…

    There is room for argument as the definition varies quite a bit from source to source. Originally the mortar was a large weapon that was hard to relocate. For example the units used during the war between the states. Those mortars used a propellant and shell. Modern mortars like the 60 mm and 81 mm are essentially rocket launchers. They are closer related to the MLRS than to a howitzer. You could make a point that there are two types of artillery. The gun style and the rocket based. It is my opinion that true artillery is gun based.
     
  16. Tomcat

    Tomcat The One From Down Under

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    4,048
    Likes Received:
    266
    I do agree that the "true artillery is gun based" but as I have said I think there is different types and different classes.
     
  17. mac_bolan00

    mac_bolan00 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    717
    Likes Received:
    20
    the thor, for pulverising cities. i wish i had one. the ghetto kids in my part of the city are acting up again.
     
  18. Seadog

    Seadog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2006
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    11
    I saw an interesting account of a soldier's experience with firing 105 mm and a 155 mm smooth bore mortars in the Philippine campaign. They were both breech loading that used existing artillery shells.
     
  19. krieg

    krieg Ace

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,554
    Likes Received:
    30
    i would say i faver the 88mm flack gun. british 25 pounder .. us 105mm
    all round good artillary peaces ... sam
     
  20. Chuikov64th

    Chuikov64th Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    26
    All the confusion about the meaning of artillery has prodded me to adopt a standard. I read one of those Ballantine battle books called "The Guns" by Ian Hogg. He put mortars, guns and howitzers under the heading of artillery. Unless my memory totally fails me here.

    If a Mauser carried by a German infantryman was a rifle and a PPsh 41 was a type of machine gun and they were both considered small arms for the sake of clarity I have to consider "artillery" the same as "small arms", the group titles for sub sets of weapons.

    Artillery. Mortars, Guns, Howitzers and yes rockets and todays fancy missiles.

    Not that I'm an expert, it's just how I make sense of it. Ian Hogg seemed to know exactly what he was talking about.
     

Share This Page