Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#46

Post by stg 44 » 22 Feb 2017, 16:43

Kingfish wrote: Could it be that battlefield realities dictated how the priorities were arranged, and given the options available the Germans chose the more versatile system?

Sheldrake brought up a good point - the Germans were counting on a quick campaign, so the need for a Corp level heavy gun that could retreat under fire just wasn't seen as necessary.
You'd think so, but then Hitler was demanding insane things. Like the Maus. Or Tiger II. Or Landkreuzer. And so on.
The alternative use is a gun that could rapidly move into position and get into action, which for a fast campaign would be a good idea.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#47

Post by Sheldrake » 22 Feb 2017, 17:22

stg 44 wrote: You'd think so, but then Hitler was demanding insane things. Like the Maus. Or Tiger II. Or Landkreuzer. And so on.
The alternative use is a gun that could rapidly move into position and get into action, which for a fast campaign would be a good idea.
I think you have nailed this and shot your own fox.

Hitler was fascinated with technology, especially offering the biggest etc - like a lot of enthusiasts. He was a soft touch for all manner of technology companies with claims for all sorts of weird stuff. Some of this was good, but a lot was a waste of time and resources. Using a heavy tank chassis to carry a self propelled long range heavy artillery piece looks like the latter.

Just because you could use a Tiger II chassis to mount a 17cm gun does not make it a good idea or that this equipment was for a tactical need. Indeed, this seems to be a theme of Stg 44 threads: odd and even cool looking technological solutions looking for tactical problem to solve!

In this case


User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#48

Post by T. A. Gardner » 22 Feb 2017, 17:37

Sheldrake wrote: 1. The German decision to invade the Soviet Union was based on the over confident assumption that the USSR would collapse within three months. The lack of motorised field and medium artillery tractors capable of coping with Russian conditions is just one of many deficiencies.
This is true, but the point of a "What if" is to discuss alternate possibilities.
2. The German motor industry did not have the capacity to build enough trucks to motorise their army in 1935-1939. Motoring the divisional and medium artillery would be at the expense of motor vehicles for something else. One option was to leave the anti tank battlaions of infantry divisions and companies of regiments with horse drawn anti tank guns. Some German general advocated this in their memoirs IIRC. This would have denuded the German infantry of the motorised elements often used as the advance guards in 1941.
There were companies in Germany that went under utilized. For example, to get the say, 5,000 tractors to motorize artillery would have actually been rather easy. The Wehrmacht simply orders them from Lanz Bulldog, a manufacturer that already produces such a machine. Thus, a manufacturer that is being under utilized would be making many of the tractors used.
Hanomag was also manufacturing tractors. They quit early in the war because the Wehrmacht wanted them to concentrate on other production.

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/Lanz_Bulldog

Lanz produced a crawler tractor starting in 1934 that would have been suitable. Most of their line were diesel or semi-diesel engine machines and were noted for their simplicity and ease of maintenance. A yearly production of say 750 to 1000 would hardly have strained their pre-war resources given that Lanz produced tens of thousands of tractors from the 30's to the end of the war.

I suspect that it's more a case of the Wehrmacht's officers and procurement people being loath to use what is a simple agricultural tractor for military purposes that kept it from being used.

Oh, I did find a few interesting photos along the way researching this:

That rarity of German construction machinery:

Image

A Lanz Bulldog crawler tractor bulldozer!

And the wheeled version:

Image

And, it's apparent that of those manufactured some did end up in military service

Image

Image
Last edited by T. A. Gardner on 22 Feb 2017, 17:44, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#49

Post by stg 44 » 22 Feb 2017, 17:43

Sheldrake wrote:
stg 44 wrote: You'd think so, but then Hitler was demanding insane things. Like the Maus. Or Tiger II. Or Landkreuzer. And so on.
The alternative use is a gun that could rapidly move into position and get into action, which for a fast campaign would be a good idea.
I think you have nailed this and shot your own fox.

Hitler was fascinated with technology, especially offering the biggest etc - like a lot of enthusiasts. He was a soft touch for all manner of technology companies with claims for all sorts of weird stuff. Some of this was good, but a lot was a waste of time and resources. Using a heavy tank chassis to carry a self propelled long range heavy artillery piece looks like the latter.

Just because you could use a Tiger II chassis to mount a 17cm gun does not make it a good idea or that this equipment was for a tactical need. Indeed, this seems to be a theme of Stg 44 threads: odd and even cool looking technological solutions looking for tactical problem to solve!

In this case
Not really, the army was the driver of the Grille project as near as I can tell, so there was a perceived need. We don't have the details of all what the army was planning or thinking in terms of artillery mechanization (as opposed to motorization), but their trend was in that direction for all given the Wespe, Hummel, and Grille. Why is it a fools errand to make heavy artillery more mobile and faster to deploy and relocate as needed? The US did exactly that post-war with the 15cm pieces and up.
T. A. Gardner wrote: There were companies in Germany that went under utilized. For example, to get the say, 5,000 tractors to motorize artillery would have actually been rather easy. The Wehrmacht simply orders them from Lanz Bulldog, a manufacturer that already produces such a machine. Thus, a manufacturer that is being under utilized would be making many of the tractors used.
Hanomag was also manufacturing tractors. They quit early in the war because the Wehrmacht wanted them to concentrate on other production.

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/Lanz_Bulldog

Lanz produced a crawler tractor starting in 1934 that would have been suitable. Most of their line were diesel or semi-diesel engine machines and were noted for their simplicity and ease of maintenance. A yearly production of say 750 to 1000 would hardly have strained their pre-war resources given that Lanz produced tens of thousands of tractors from the 30's to the end of the war.

I suspect that it's more a case of the Wehrmacht's officers and procurement people being loath to use what is a simple agricultural tractor for military purposes that kept it from being used.
If there was a like button you'd get one for this, thanks for sharing the info.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#50

Post by Kingfish » 22 Feb 2017, 17:45

stg 44 wrote:You'd think so, but then Hitler was demanding insane things. Like the Maus. Or Tiger II. Or Landkreuzer. And so on.
All of the above came about from the stark realization that Germany was no longer winning in the East.
The alternative use is a gun that could rapidly move into position and get into action, which for a fast campaign would be a good idea.
Which the Germans already had in the Sturmgeschutz series.

The Germans envisioned a campaign that involved sharp border battles followed by deep penetrations of the kind that afforded them victories in Poland, the West and the Balkans.

In the opening 'break-in' phase the 15,17 and 21s would find plenty of use, but rapid mobility would not be a requirement.

In the follow up phases there would be little need for these massive weapons to keep up with the panzer spearheads, since it was reasoned the front line would be in a state of flux, and whatever opposition was encountered could just be enveloped rather than pounded into submission.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#51

Post by stg 44 » 22 Feb 2017, 17:59

Kingfish wrote: All of the above came about from the stark realization that Germany was no longer winning in the East.
Not really, the genesis of those projects started in 1941-42. The Tiger II project started before Germany even started losing.
Kingfish wrote:
The alternative use is a gun that could rapidly move into position and get into action, which for a fast campaign would be a good idea.
Which the Germans already had in the Sturmgeschutz series.

The Germans envisioned a campaign that involved sharp border battles followed by deep penetrations of the kind that afforded them victories in Poland, the West and the Balkans.

In the opening 'break-in' phase the 15,17 and 21s would find plenty of use, but rapid mobility would not be a requirement.

In the follow up phases there would be little need for these massive weapons to keep up with the panzer spearheads, since it was reasoned the front line would be in a state of flux, and whatever opposition was encountered could just be enveloped rather than pounded into submission.
The Sturmgeschutz did something VERY different than an indirect artillery piece, which led to mechanized howitzers for indirect fire that could keep up with Panzer divisions. Getting heavy artillery to be able to rapidly move about would be highly useful for a mobile campaign...which was confirmed by the experience in Russia, hence the Wespe and Hummel as motorized artillery couldn't keep with the pace. Plus Germany had to plan for the future and future battles with Britain. The VK4501 project, the Tiger program, was also doctrinally invisioned to be a heavy breakthrough weapon for positional fighting, not a heavy maneuver weapon; arguably it was taking over the role of the sturmgeschutz, but for the Panzer divisions. That was planned even before the invasion of the USSR, yet had nothing to do with the planned campaign in Russia.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#52

Post by Yoozername » 22 Feb 2017, 18:28

Sheldrake wrote:
I think you have nailed this and shot your own fox.

Hitler was fascinated with technology, especially offering the biggest etc - like a lot of enthusiasts. He was a soft touch for all manner of technology companies with claims for all sorts of weird stuff. Some of this was good, but a lot was a waste of time and resources. Using a heavy tank chassis to carry a self propelled long range heavy artillery piece looks like the latter.

Just because you could use a Tiger II chassis to mount a 17cm gun does not make it a good idea or that this equipment was for a tactical need. Indeed, this seems to be a theme of Stg 44 threads: odd and even cool looking technological solutions looking for tactical problem to solve!
Bingo!

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#53

Post by Kingfish » 22 Feb 2017, 19:25

stg 44 wrote:The Sturmgeschutz did something VERY different than an indirect artillery piece, which led to mechanized howitzers for indirect fire that could keep up with Panzer divisions.
Understood it was VERY different, but it was the mobile artillery piece the Germans believed they needed at the point of the spear, not a 21cm behemoth several miles from the front line that averaged a round every 2 minutes.
Getting heavy artillery to be able to rapidly move about would be highly useful for a mobile campaign...which was confirmed by the experience in Russia, hence the Wespe and Hummel as motorized artillery couldn't keep with the pace.
Right, having realized the need for IF-capable mobile guns the Germans decided on configuring the divisional field pieces, not Corp level assets which were better suited for static defensive assignments.

Let's ponder the rational of this for a moment...
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#54

Post by stg 44 » 22 Feb 2017, 19:31

Kingfish wrote: Understood it was VERY different, but it was the mobile artillery piece the Germans believed they needed at the point of the spear, not a 21cm behemoth several miles from the front line that averaged a round every 2 minutes.
At the same time that they were making efforts to mechanize divisional artillery, they were doing the same for corps and army level caliber guns, as the Grille project was initiated in 1942 along with the Wespe and Hummel (later in the year of course).
Kingfish wrote: Right, having realized the need for IF-capable mobile guns the Germans decided on configuring the divisional field pieces, not Corp level assets which were better suited for static defensive assignments.

Let's ponder the rational of this for a moment...
The Grille project says otherwise, the thing is it was more technically complicated to mechanize a 8-15 ton gun than a 1-3 ton one. Having heavy artillery capable of reaching far and doing damage around the clock was needed as the Luftwaffe did not have tactical night bombing capabilities until later in the war and even then were, like that of all powers in WW2, limited.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#55

Post by Yoozername » 22 Feb 2017, 19:48

I basically think that stg44 misunderstands the role of these weapons.

The concept that these long range weapons needing Wespe or Hummel type mobility and protection has clouded the discussion. They are best used as long range indirect interdiction, counter battery and hard static target destruction They are very cumbersome, especially the towed K18, and mobility, emplacement and withdrawal makes them vulnerable in mobile warfare. The thought that such an expensive asset might be used in any direct fire/front line mode boggles the mind.

I think the attempt to have them 'loaded' on a King Tiger extended chassis, so that they can be somehow unloaded, is another mistake. The benefit of something like the Hummel is that the excess weight, wheels and trails, etc., can be replaced with a vehicle mounting. A weapon like a SP K15 or K17 should have minimal armor in a SP mount. the main attraction is the mobility and ridding the need for long set up times.

Artillery like this needs much more than just shells and again, the artillery battery is not some free roaming combat unit. I can see missions where a mobile mount can move a gun or two several km ahead of the other elements to do a mission and then return. basically, the tracks extend the gun range.

i don't think that a K15 could not be put on a Panzer IV improved chassis if it had reduced armor weight. The gun could have a muzzle brake added, and a spade at the back of the tank to reverse the vehicle into dirt once a position is decided on. A similar concept to the US SP artillery long tom for instance.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#56

Post by Sheldrake » 22 Feb 2017, 20:07

Kingfish wrote:
stg 44 wrote:The Sturmgeschutz did something VERY different than an indirect artillery piece, which led to mechanized howitzers for indirect fire that could keep up with Panzer divisions.
Understood it was VERY different, but it was the mobile artillery piece the Germans believed they needed at the point of the spear, not a 21cm behemoth several miles from the front line that averaged a round every 2 minutes.
Getting heavy artillery to be able to rapidly move about would be highly useful for a mobile campaign...which was confirmed by the experience in Russia, hence the Wespe and Hummel as motorized artillery couldn't keep with the pace.
The Sturmgeschutz was a way for the German infantry to have the kind of "infantry support tank battalions" that the Panzer arm did not want to provide. There was a big debate before the war about how tanks were to be employed with Beck envisaging around one third as infantry support battalions. Lutz and Guderian won the battle for tanks to be massed in panzer divisions where they would not be used in penny packets. But from 1940 on wards more and more tank chassis were built as "StuG" - turretless AFVs with tank main armament under the control of the artillery rather than panzer arm. This was not a new exciting form of artillery, but a way for German gunners to muscle in on the Panzer role.

There is a further question about the value of 17cm long range guns in mobile warfare, given that an aircraft could deliver a greater weight of fire concentrated anywhere on the front to a greater depth than heavy artillery. Guderian broke through at Sedan without any long range artillery, a pattern followed in Russia. The British chose not to develop long range artillery in WW2 precisely for this reason - (but then bought American 155mm guns when they understood the limitations of Ww2 airpower).

Heavy artillery was THE key weapon of the 1914 -18 war of position. By 1939 it was a useful tool, but it wasn't a war winner, and far less important than command of the air, and lower artillery priority than decent anti tank and AA guns.
Last edited by Sheldrake on 22 Feb 2017, 20:17, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#57

Post by stg 44 » 22 Feb 2017, 20:15

Yoozername wrote:I basically think that stg44 misunderstands the role of these weapons.

The concept that these long range weapons needing Wespe or Hummel type mobility and protection has clouded the discussion. They are best used as long range indirect interdiction, counter battery and hard static target destruction They are very cumbersome, especially the towed K18, and mobility, emplacement and withdrawal makes them vulnerable in mobile warfare. The thought that such an expensive asset might be used in any direct fire/front line mode boggles the mind.

I think the attempt to have them 'loaded' on a King Tiger extended chassis, so that they can be somehow unloaded, is another mistake. The benefit of something like the Hummel is that the excess weight, wheels and trails, etc., can be replaced with a vehicle mounting. A weapon like a SP K15 or K17 should have minimal armor in a SP mount. the main attraction is the mobility and ridding the need for long set up times.

Artillery like this needs much more than just shells and again, the artillery battery is not some free roaming combat unit. I can see missions where a mobile mount can move a gun or two several km ahead of the other elements to do a mission and then return. basically, the tracks extend the gun range.

i don't think that a K15 could not be put on a Panzer IV improved chassis if it had reduced armor weight. The gun could have a muzzle brake added, and a spade at the back of the tank to reverse the vehicle into dirt once a position is decided on. A similar concept to the US SP artillery long tom for instance.
Wow that might be the most obvious strawman I've ever seen. I never said it was to be used for direct fire, not sure where you got that from. The Tiger chassis seems to have been the only chassis that was capable of handling it out of the box prior to a purpose designed waffentrager (all the US post-war heavy gun chassis were specially designed to haul the heavy guns, they weren't existing chassis); the one attempt to mount a really heavy 240mm on an existing chassis resulted in the 58 ton M26 chassis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T92_Howit ... r_Carriage
In the future such a gun was mounted on a much lighter, purpose built chassis, but for some reason around WW2 getting those light chassis for that role seemed to be an issue. The Grille mount for the heavy guns was meant to only be an indirect fire weapon, not an AT gun or direct fire weapon.
I'd like to know why they couldn't do a stripped down chassis to mount something like the K18 series on a 20 ton chassis.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#58

Post by stg 44 » 22 Feb 2017, 20:19

Sheldrake wrote: The Sturmgeschutz was a way for the German infantry to have the kind of "infantry support tank battalions" that the Panzer arm did not want to provide. There was a big debate before the war about how tanks were to be employed with Beck envisaging around one third as infantry support battalions. Lutz and Guderian won the battle for tanks to be massed in panzer divisions where they would not be used in penny packets. But from 1940 on wards more and more tank chassis were built as "StuG" - turretless AFVs with tank main armament under the control of the artillery rather than panzer arm.
So what does that have to do with heavy artillery operating in an indirect support capacity? That is a totally different role than what the Grille 17 would do. I'm talking about SP heavy indirect fire artillery and you're talking about StuGs, a total non-sequitor for this discussion. StuGs were assault artillery, that has nothing to do with the OP.
Sheldrake wrote: There is a further question about the value of 17cm long range guns given that an aircraft could deliver a greater weight of explosive at a greater range. Guderian broke through at Sedan without any long raneg artillery. The British chose not to develop long range artillery in WW2 precisely for this reason - (but then bought american guns when they realised that there were limitations to Ww2 airpower)
Aircraft couldn't consistently deliver fire support at all times of day, in all weather, at nearly as low of a cost as artillery and without the risk a pilot would take nor with as great of accuracy without getting close to the target and risking the aircraft. While supplementary in their roles, aircraft couldn't entirely replace artillery and can't even today. If you were right, why did everyone keep making heavy artillery right to the end of WW2 and beyond? The US created a mechanized 170mm, 203mm, and 240mm weapon system post-war and used it despite having greater air support than any nation EVER.

WTF are you talking about, the Brits fielded >200mm artillery pieces in WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_8-inch ... 80%93_VIII
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_9.2-inch_howitzer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/240_mm_howitzer_M1

And some slightly smaller guns too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_7.2-inch_howitzer

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#59

Post by Yoozername » 22 Feb 2017, 20:28

Wow that might be the most obvious strawman I've ever seen. I never said it was to be used for direct fire, not sure where you got that from.
The 'wow' factor comes from people asking you how many T34s your 'Grille' is going to take out since it is delaying the Tiger (see the title of this thread). I guess the answer is plenty...and indirectly at that. Wonder weapon!
The Tiger chassis seems to have been the only chassis that was capable of handling it out of the box prior to a purpose designed waffentrager
Again, it needs a front mounted engine/tranny...how is the Tiger chassis 'out of the box' going to do that? Even your 'Grille' had to be extended on a Tiger II chassis.
I'd like to know why they couldn't do a stripped down chassis to mount something like the K18 series on a 20 ton chassis.
No idea what you are talking about...

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#60

Post by Kingfish » 22 Feb 2017, 20:38

stg 44 wrote:At the same time that they were making efforts to mechanize divisional artillery, they were doing the same for corps and army level caliber guns, as the Grille project was initiated in 1942 along with the Wespe and Hummel (later in the year of course).
Which I would argue was about the time the Germans realized they weren't going to blitz their way to the Urals. The reality on the ground prompted them to begin looking at adding mobility to their artillery, but that mindset wasn't in play in the opening phase of Barbarossa, let alone when the Tiger was being envisioned
Having heavy artillery capable of reaching far and doing damage around the clock was needed as the Luftwaffe did not have tactical night bombing capabilities until later in the war and even then were, like that of all powers in WW2, limited.
The question is when was the need for such a gun mounted on tracks realized? Poland? Norway? Northern France?
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Post Reply

Return to “What if”