Comparing WWII medium artilleries

I think this fits perfectly within the frame of comparing WW2 medium artilleries, so I'll just leave it here.

 

"Best fire control with medium artillery"? you name it...

 

From the horse's mouth-This comes from a British website callle "British Artillery in WW2"-I do not agree with the statement on US fire control methods-which l'll dgo over later, yet this sems to support my contention about US artillery made earlier...
n his book 'Gunners at War' Shelford Bidwell wrote as follows:

'According to Marshal Zhukov, it was only in 1945 that the Russians, who consider themselves the most accomplished of artillerymen, even thought of attempting to coordinate movement with fire: their techniques were roughly equivalent to the British methods of 1915-6. The American artillery was admirable, well-organized and with the best equipment on the whole of any; but it was slow, prone to indulge in 'artillery preparation' of the type the British gave up after the Somme and Third Ypres, and all decisions to engage even at battery level were referred back to command posts far in the rear and out of sight of the battle. The British system, so simple, so obvious, so flexible and which had taken so long to be accepted rested on (1) reserve of control at a high level, like the Americans; but (2) off-setting this with intimate trust and liaison at each level of command: no one was ever denied fire when he wanted it as a result of centralization; (3) concentration of fire; (4) giving the right to take decisions to the man at the front; (5) an obsession with speed in reply to calls for fire; and above all (6), on maintaining an elaborate system of radio communications linking every user, every agency, and every battery together.'

"I

 

How true this I don't know but it's an interesting story so I tell anyway.


Late war. A German paratrooper unit is facing a section of the allied front with British artillery support. British got into the habit of whenever they saw a German going for water they waited until he had filled his canteen and was heading back to his position, then once he head back would drop four shells round him an a neat square. At this point the German would of course hit the dirt and his canteen get spilt. The paratroopers were somewhat relieved when the British unit was relieved by Americans.

 

But surely the German soldiers could simply put the top onto their canteen?

 

Sounds like a tall-tale to me...something out of "Commander Mc Bragg"s stories" .whereas my quote came from a British web-site on artillery.. At any rate, here's somehing out of Frank Comparato's "Age of Great Guns: Cannon Kigs and Cannonneers who forged tte Firepower of Artilery " (Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA, 1965)

" The crossing of the Rhine River (24 March, 1945) between Wesel and Duisburg has been described as one of the greatest concentrations of artillery by U.S. Forces Code named "Operation Flash Point" The crossing utlized XVII Corps five divisioin artillery, and 14 batallions "borrowed: from neighboring corps" giving a sizable force (9 batallions (abreviated as bat form here on) 105 mm how, 10 bat. 155 how, 5 bat. 8-inch howitzers, 3 bat. 240 mm how, 6 bat. 3-inch gun (tank destroyer) 3 bat.4,5 inch gun 4 bat. 155 gun, 1 bat. 8-inch gun. "In the 20,000 yard front there was a weapon for every 20 yards ready for a preparation of 989 selected targets, specifically enemy batteries, observations posts, command post etc. At 0100 hrs.Flash Point " began with 1025 guns artillery pieces and mortars firing atotal of 65,261 rounds in the first hour alone-1087 rounds per minute The Germans were stuned, some prisonners came in dazed and shocked, whilke others marvelled at the operation, calling it "kolossal" Enemy cassualities were high but in the first 24 hours of the assault a total of only 38 American deaths ressulted. Firepower had kept the cassualty rate low and its cordinated fire had produced victory..Indeed, one German officer, admitedly on the American front a short time confessed his professional admiration, as gral Rohne had done 25 years before:

" In technology the American excels (said artillery General Thohote) the standarization of pieces, the quality of the ammunition, the quality of the communications equipmet and the adjustment of fres on batallion and division artillery levels are superior. Self propelled weapons such as the 155 mm gun are indications of what the future will bring..Use of the proximity fuse before any other nation brought it into action needs no further praise"

The author goes on to say that German prisonners asked to be shown the US 105 mm howitzers, , which fired so rapidly that they believed they were belt fed...

 

Interesting, because EXACTLY the same story has been told more than once about the 25 pdr. It is included in George Blackburn's terrific book 'The Guns of War' - and he was there!

I have also read an account of a US artillerymen's visit to a front-line 25 pdr unit in Italy. German soldiers were observed in a village some distance away, so one of the 25 pdrs engaged. It followed the soldiers from house to house, systematically dropping each house then following the retreating soldiers like a giant sniper rifle, dropping shells among them as they ran. The Americans were deeply impressed and admitted that their 105s were incapable of such precision shooting.

Incidentally, German commanders had a habit of effusively praising the capabilities of the units which defeated them - it made their defeat look less bad.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

Interesting indeed, because Comparato quotes British officers and gunners who, despite the 25 labelled the 105 mm howitzer "the best gun in the world"

 

I think that, as with all things, people will have preferences - and it is not unusual that British books praise the 25pdr & American books praise the 105mm!
Both guns were rather good - the 25pdr was certainly in service until very recently, and might even still be in service somewhere, and I would be surprised if the same was not true of the 105mm. The 25pdr did have the advantage of the (not quite) self-contained turntable thingy.

 

By all means! l have a preference for Irish whiskey-and some of my coleagues for Russian Vodka-or "one'man's meat is another one's poison"-The US M2A1 (now M101) is indeed in service with the South Korean, Brazilian, Chilean, Mexican,Colombian,Peruvian and Venezuelan Venezuelan armies, the former Yugoslavia turned out an "improved: model known as the model 56,which is also employed by the Salvadorean Army..(and l'm doing this from memory...) The turntable thingy, the do-hicky, or whatcha-may call it is a US modification known as a Panama Mount-

 

See, I am glad someone else considers that as an act of "sniping".

 

There are similar descriptions of The US 105 mm how, and the US M2 155 mm gun-used as "sniper weapons-and Comparato is no slouch..at the time he wrote that book he was a Major in the US Army Field Artillery..which l forgot to mention..sorry about that...!

 

The basic 105mm shell weighs in at about 33 lbs. I think this must give it some advantage in destructive power over the 25 pdr.

 

Yes, I agree with you.

Also a greater proportion of that 33Lb would have been H.E than in the 25Pdr.

 

4.5" (114mm)

Was the 4.5" any relation to the naval 4.5"?

 

Re: 4.5" (114mm)

None at all!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

Re: 4.5" (114mm)

Prior to WW2, the US Ordnance Dept Army . planned to produce a 120 mm (4.7 inch) gun which would utilize the carriage of the projected M1 155 mm howitzer, but for the sake of standarization, when war broke out it was decided to chamber the design to the British 4.5 inch round. This became the M1, which had range of 25,800 yards-about 5000 yards more than its British equivalent..but, after a short prodution run (just over 400 guns) since the shell was rather small for a gun this size and weight.. this weapon was abandoned. Personally, l do noy believe in intermediate calbers between 105 and 155..but that's just my pet peeve...

 

Re: 4.5" (114mm)

The Russians seem to have done very well with the 130mm...

TW

 

Just while we're in the general area I have a question. The British 25 pounder had a 20 pound (ish) AT round available. How effective was the 25 pounder in the AT role?

 

Not bad at all by the standards of the early war. Penetration was comparable to the 2 pdr anti-tank, if not a bit better, and while the hit probability would have been lower due to the more curved trajectory, the damage done on penetration would have been much greater.

TW