Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Hi, in accordance with British infantry division organziation, they only had 72 x 25- pounder field guns while her German counterpart had bigger cablier like 36 x 10.5 cm and 12 x 15 cm haubitze. I would think British divisional firepower were less powerful than her German counterpart. Why British not depolyed their 4.5 " (114 mm) or 5.5 mm ( 140 mm ) guns in their divisions ?
And British infantry main fire support weapon were only 2 " and 3 " mortars, why she also not invented and deployed infantry guns like German 7.5 cm le. I.G. and 15 cm s.I.G.
And exactly how many 2 " and 3 " in one individual infantry battalion in 1942, anyone know that ?
And British infantry main fire support weapon were only 2 " and 3 " mortars, why she also not invented and deployed infantry guns like German 7.5 cm le. I.G. and 15 cm s.I.G.
And exactly how many 2 " and 3 " in one individual infantry battalion in 1942, anyone know that ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 3370
- Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Kelvin, Why would you think that 72 x 25pdr were less effective than 48 x German guns ? You should also remember that British artillery was much more flexible in use than the German artillery. The British Army didn't use infantry guns because they were a waste of time basically.
A British Infantry Battalion would have had 6 x 3" Mortars in the Mortar Platoon and 13 x 2" Mortars, this being one per Infantry Platoon and four in the Carrier Platoon.
A British Infantry Battalion would have had 6 x 3" Mortars in the Mortar Platoon and 13 x 2" Mortars, this being one per Infantry Platoon and four in the Carrier Platoon.
Alan
-
- Member
- Posts: 1221
- Joined: 16 Jan 2005, 07:01
- Location: Alberta, Canada
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
The 25-lb gun was not the most powerful or longest ranged weapon on the battlefield.One point is the gun fired a projectile only slightly smaller than the US 105mm (25 pounds versus 33 pounds) to the same range and with a smaller and more easily handled gun. The 25-lb barrel was also more long-lived. Artillery weapons' life expectancies are based on how many "full charge" (e.g. tabular charges for reaching maximum range as designed without any modifications to the charge or projectile) rounds could be fired: for the 25-lb gun, it was 10,000 effective full charge (EFC) rounds. To put this in perspective, Soviet sources note that their powerful long range 2S5 152mm gun only had a life expectancy of 300 EFC rounds, and that the early T-72 125mm 2A46 gun had a life expectancy of only 200 EFC (e.g. sabot) rounds. Of course, firing reduced charges increases life expectancy and "super-charges" reduce it (e.g. each "super-charge" is rated at 4 EFC for life expectancy computations for the 25-lb gun). Some guns were still fitted with their original barrels when placed out of service in the 1950s.
Something else you want to conider is "rate of fire" The 25 pdr could fire 8 rounds per minute (rapid) and 3 rounds per minute for prolonged firing. The 4.5 and 5.5 could only fire Rate of fire: 2 rounds per minute (rapid) and 1 round per minute for prolonged firing. thus even though they fire a smaller and some what less leathal round, the 25 pdr could swamp the target with rounds.
The 25 pdr can be placed in firing order on its platform in 1 minute. where as the other 2 would take considerably longer
Something else you want to conider is "rate of fire" The 25 pdr could fire 8 rounds per minute (rapid) and 3 rounds per minute for prolonged firing. The 4.5 and 5.5 could only fire Rate of fire: 2 rounds per minute (rapid) and 1 round per minute for prolonged firing. thus even though they fire a smaller and some what less leathal round, the 25 pdr could swamp the target with rounds.
The 25 pdr can be placed in firing order on its platform in 1 minute. where as the other 2 would take considerably longer
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
The Commonwealth adopted a different organizational structure, but don't assume their divisions fought at a disadvantage in terms of artillery. As Alanmccoubrey mentioned, their flexibility allowed them to call in much heavier assets into battle, for although the 4.5" and 5.5" were retained at Corp and Army levels, it wasn't uncommon to have them lend support to battalion-sized skirmishes on occasion.Kelvin wrote:Hi, in accordance with British infantry division organziation, they only had 72 x 25- pounder field guns while her German counterpart had bigger cablier like 36 x 10.5 cm and 12 x 15 cm haubitze. I would think British divisional firepower were less powerful than her German counterpart.
And British infantry main fire support weapon were only 2 " and 3 " mortars,
Unless I am mistaken the division also retained a heavy mortar platoon (or was it company?) of 4.2" mortars.
-
- Member
- Posts: 3370
- Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
The MG Battalion had the 4.2" Mortars in 1944 but Kelvin was asking about the 1942 battalion so I chose not to confuse the issue.
Alan
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
In 1942 the British was only just starting to receive the 4.5-in and 5.5-in gun/hows.
The reason they weren't at Divisional level was due to a doctrinal difference of opinion, driven by a shortage of firepower in WWI. In that earlier war the British did start with heavier and longer ranged guns held at Division, but they found that their potential was wasted. Essentially, the bigger/longer guns were easily capable of supportting battles on either flank of the owning division but generally didn't because of fragile comms and commaners not wanting to release 'their' resources. So, the bigger/longer guns were pulled back into Corps-level (and eventually Army-level) artillery regiments and brigades, from where they could - and did - all support any division within the Corps, and/or concentrate on the Main Effort. With a bit of tinkering - and a lot of development in terms of comms - this new organisation drove doctrine.
Come WWII, the same doctrine was in effect. The division held weapons that it could use to fight battles within it's own divisional AO, while Corps held rarer resources that could be quickly switched between divisions as required. The 4.5-in and 5.5-in definately fitted into that scheme. Their range was well in excess of a divisional frontage, plus they were a lot rarer than the 25-pr, so holding them at Corps and using them from there as required made obvious sense.
The reason they weren't at Divisional level was due to a doctrinal difference of opinion, driven by a shortage of firepower in WWI. In that earlier war the British did start with heavier and longer ranged guns held at Division, but they found that their potential was wasted. Essentially, the bigger/longer guns were easily capable of supportting battles on either flank of the owning division but generally didn't because of fragile comms and commaners not wanting to release 'their' resources. So, the bigger/longer guns were pulled back into Corps-level (and eventually Army-level) artillery regiments and brigades, from where they could - and did - all support any division within the Corps, and/or concentrate on the Main Effort. With a bit of tinkering - and a lot of development in terms of comms - this new organisation drove doctrine.
Come WWII, the same doctrine was in effect. The division held weapons that it could use to fight battles within it's own divisional AO, while Corps held rarer resources that could be quickly switched between divisions as required. The 4.5-in and 5.5-in definately fitted into that scheme. Their range was well in excess of a divisional frontage, plus they were a lot rarer than the 25-pr, so holding them at Corps and using them from there as required made obvious sense.
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Hi, Alan, did British army increased the number of mortars when she invaded Normandy in 1944 for each infantry battalion ?Alanmccoubrey wrote:Kelvin, Why would you think that 72 x 25pdr were less effective than 48 x German guns ? You should also remember that British artillery was much more flexible in use than the German artillery. The British Army didn't use infantry guns because they were a waste of time basically.
A British Infantry Battalion would have had 6 x 3" Mortars in the Mortar Platoon and 13 x 2" Mortars, this being one per Infantry Platoon and four in the Carrier Platoon.
And BTW, how many Bren MG did each infantry battalion possess either in 1942 or 1944 ?
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Hmm. Given the button counting going on, I have a feeling I wasted my time
-
- Member
- Posts: 3370
- Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Kelvin, Have a look on this link it has battalionorbats for many nations during the war. One day you really must tell us all why you want to know all these intimate details of so many different armies.
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Gen ... te_map.htm
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Gen ... te_map.htm
Alan
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Hello, Alan, thank for your link and I answer your question in Bren :
In accordance with 1941-42 British infantry battalion organizaiton :
One section had 1 x Bren LMG
three section became platoon , one plation had 3 x Bren
Three Platoon became company, one company had 9 x Bren
Four companies became battalion, so one battalion had 36 x Bren.
plus another 13 x Bren in carrier platoon ( Each carrier had 1 x Bren)
plus 3 additional Bren in administraton platoon in each infantry company, total 4 companies is 12
So, 36 + 13 + 12 = 61 x Bren in each infantry battalion during 1941-42
In accordance with 1941-42 British infantry battalion organizaiton :
One section had 1 x Bren LMG
three section became platoon , one plation had 3 x Bren
Three Platoon became company, one company had 9 x Bren
Four companies became battalion, so one battalion had 36 x Bren.
plus another 13 x Bren in carrier platoon ( Each carrier had 1 x Bren)
plus 3 additional Bren in administraton platoon in each infantry company, total 4 companies is 12
So, 36 + 13 + 12 = 61 x Bren in each infantry battalion during 1941-42
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
Hi, from my another post on HG, I answer your question on Bren in earlier post, please check.
-
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: 18 Jun 2010, 14:13
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
JonS wrote:
Hmm. Given the button counting going on, I have a feeling I wasted my time
Not true! I thought it a concise and useful explanation of the rationale behind the decision to hold heavier artillery at corps level and higher.
Hmm. Given the button counting going on, I have a feeling I wasted my time
Not true! I thought it a concise and useful explanation of the rationale behind the decision to hold heavier artillery at corps level and higher.
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
I have to concur with the Member for Britain above.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
British prefered keeping heavier guns in Corps level, was somewhat similar to Russian practices. Russian Rifle division only had 36 x 76.2 mm guns and 12 x 122mm howitzers and most of guns or heavier gun formed in Artillery Brigades to support the main attacking point. But in some way, Russian and British command were inflexible. and cannot match their German counterpart.
Re: Why British division did not have 4.5 or 5.5" gun and IG
The Russians aside, because I have no knowledge about their doctrine. I have to disagree with the above.But in some way, Russian and British command were inflexible. and cannot match their German counterpart.
The British artillery's T.o.T during WWII was always one of the best.
They had in place by late 1942 a system that could call in fire from any thing from a single Regiment up to a whole army. You don't achieve that by being in some ways inflexible!
And doctrinaly (if that is a word!) they were always ahead of the Germans, who for them, were uncharacteristically relatively inefficient in their handling of artillery throughout the whole war.