Hello there I have skimmed through the topics here and have not seen discussion around the 25pdr. In my view the 25pdr was a brilliant weapon. In the early war when the British army was plagued by out dated materiel, and having to play catch up with German tactical doctrines, the 25pdr gave hope to it's weary men. A thing that irritates me is to see people whining about the germans beeing able to use the 88 in every role thinkable, and the british never converted their AA guns. This is all wrong. Their AA artillery was used in air burst against German infantry in Normandy. (11th armd history, accounts that the men compained about the sharp cracks of the supersonic projectile passing overhead) The 25pdr gun was designed to cope with direct fire. A feature that saved the 8th army in Africa before the post phoned deployment of the 6pdr ATgun. The 25pdr was fitted with a ring that could be dropped to the ground giving the gun 360 rotation. A targeting telescope for direct fire was also fitted. Since the gun calibre was relatively small (88-89mm) a lot of people have discredited the gun. However with the 3 charge the indirect fire range is around 13km. In my view the versatility of this gun earns it a place in the hall of fame for WW2 weapons.
On the other hand, the 25pdr says volumes about the failure of the British Army to evolve useful and successful anti-tank tactics in the interwar period. The 25pdr was first and foremost an artillery piece. That it had a dedicated anti-tank capacity and was intended for use in that role implies that the British expected their forward lines to be overrun in armored assaults and that the artillery would be required on a fairly regular basis to defend itself against tanks. After all, this is the reason for the turntable, direct fire sights and, supplying an anti-tank round. As an artillery piece the 25pdr was a reasonable design and effective in the role. But, building in a dedicated AT role was a waste. The British would have been far better off devising a useful anti-tank gun and proper tactics for dealing with tanks as did the other major powers.
The failure was also political - very little money was available for development and the 25-pr evolved from the designs of WW1. The USA was equally badly-prepared ; in fact, only the Germans seemed to be ahead of the game with regard to ant-tank warfare. The 25-pr seems to me the artillery equivalent of th Bren gun ; reliable, versatile, ubiquitous and loved by all who used it. Long-lived, too - the 25-pr stayed in British front-line service until 1967. BTW, a very warm welcome to the Forum, Jaeger - I hope you find much to enjoy here.
Thank you for the warm welcome. Back to the 25pdr. My grandad had only praise for this gun. The mobility and easy concealment of the gun made it good for attack and defence. Getting the direct fire up in the line would have done nicely in April-May in 1940. (the british forces landing in Trøndelag DID bring their early converted 25pdrs to Norway, and the germans captured them. The Germans used the captured 25pdrs from Norway and the campaign in the west.) As for proper british AT guns, it really was a question of little resources and poor timing. In 1936 the 2pdr was a good AT gun. But by 1941 it was only useful for close defence. The worst part is that as the 6pdr was making it's long awaited debut, the royal ordonance was already working on the 17pdr gun. They knew that the 6pdr would be too weak in a matter of months.
I believe the delay in getting the 6pdr into service was more to do with the losses in France 40 which had the British Army decide to continue with the 2pdr which was in place rather than the 6pdr available 'soon". The 25pdr was a GREAT weapon, used in all Theatres of war it served its Gunners well. In addition the British Artillery systems allowed the 72 x 25pdrs of the Div Arty to deliver a heavy & accurate barrage. TAG, as the US Army had either 37mm, Home built English 57mm or re-jigged 3" AA guns, the British were well ahead in the 2 pdr & 6pdr and miles ahead with the 17pdr. As with all Democracies, they spent more time enjoying peace than in preparing for war. Something the USA didnt take enough advantage of during 1939-41 when they saw war as inevitable
Ali you are quite right with the losses of AT guns in '40. As a matter of fact the british ordonance built an extra assembly line of 2pdrs at the expence of 6pdr production. Hence my phrase 'post-phoned deployment of 6pdr.'
25 pdr ammunition is still made today, by the Pakistan Ordnance Factory. A good book which includes much about the 25 pdr is "The Guns of War", by Blackburn - a memoir of his time as a Forward Observation Officer with a Canadian 25 pdr unit in 1944-5. Very gritty, with no holds barred!
Good recommendation, Tony - Blackburn's book has a permanent place on my 'Normandy' bookshelf. The 25-pr is also immortalised in the 'Hell's Highway' scene in 'A Bridge Too Far'. I met an artillery veteran at Arnhem some years ago who confided that he loved the film for just that one scene - it was so realistic that it always 'took him back'.
Sorry for butting in as a new lad but I agree with the afore mentioned politics, this has been the back breaker of the British Army for years. The British Vickers 3.7" Anti aircraft gun would have made an excellent AT gun (As we see it modified in the 20 Pounder as used in Korea) but it was stated at the time that they found it unsporting to use and Anti aicraft gun as an AT weapon. The Germans loved the Vickers 3.7" and continued to produce ammo for them after they captured a batch at Dunkirk. The Vickers was used once in the AT role but without any resonable accuracy at Tobruck when it was being over run by the Afrika Corps. Plans by the end of the war were to have a modified 3.7" AT gun as the A43 Black Prince (Super Churchill) was not just designed for the 17 Pounder but to accomodate bigger guns as well like the 3.7"
Hello Lodgix - a very warm welcome to these forums and let me assure you that you are not butting in ! We try hard not to be a bunch of elitists and this isn't a private club ; good contributions are most welcome from anyone..... Going back to the 3.7", I think that one of the major factors militating against more flexible useage earlier in the war was that the recoil system and mounting was excessively cumbersome, according to Ian V. Hogg.
Yes, The 3.7" was built as an AA gun and therefore not suited to AT work. Not to say a bit more effort would have seen it "lightened" and capable of AT fire. But the 17pdr wasnt far away, so the investment in time wasnt given. The 3.7" also saw ground action at the "Admin Box" in the Arakan and by Australian Forces in Borneo in 1945
Thank you for the warm welcome and a merry christmas to you all. I think the long story short of British kit is that it was needed as quickly as possible, easy to manufacture, cheap to produce and easy to get to the front. Hence the successfullness of the 25 pounder. I have several photo's of the 25 pounder as a re-enactor nearby in Leeds has one along with Morris Quad that tows it.
The 25pdr was a very good artillery weapon, despite its design being hindered by both lack of money and muddled thinking. However, the muddled thinking had nothing to do with any faulty anti-tank doctrine, but the view that a role still existed for a direct fire artillery weapon The design was the result of the British Army looking to replace both the 18 pounder field gun and the 4.5 inch howitzer, which had both played important roles within the British Army during the First World War. The idea was to build a single weapon with the direct-fire capability of the field gun with the high-angle fire of the howitzer.. Unfortunately, development during the inter-war period was severely hampered by a lack of funds, and so it was eventually decided to build a so-called "new" design from the stocks of existing 18 pounders. These were converted by using new liners which turned the weapon into a 25 pdr, and the fitting of pneumatic road wheels to allow towing by motor transport. The 'new' gun was also mounted on the original 18 pdr's single-trail design, which already had the circular track under the trail. The first 25 pdrs which were converted from 18 pdrs were known as 18/25 pdrs, most of these were lost at Dunkirk The Mk 2, 25 pdrs, were new build weapons with a number of modifications on the original design. The fact that the weapon had some anti-tank capability, like the 18 pdr did in WW1 was an added bonus, but it was never at the forefront of the designers minds when they came to design it. The weapon was designed to provide direct or indirect artillery support. [ 24. December 2005, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: redcoat ]
Quote: "The 25pdr was a very good artillery weapon, despite its design being hindered by both lack of money and muddled thinking." It seems that most British weapons before 1940 were down to lack of money and muddled thinking, Traditionalists wanting one thing and the visionarys wanting another, they seem to understand what they want (to a degree) but lack the ability to design something that fits the bill (as it were), the classic example is tanks. Despite inventing the thing, by 1939 there are still auguments as to what its purpose should be. Hense the invention of 3 classes of tank.
