Using howitzers in an AA role greatly reduces the number of different cannon you need.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑09 Oct 2021 05:50Interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure how it is germane to the question?

Using howitzers in an AA role greatly reduces the number of different cannon you need.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑09 Oct 2021 05:50Interesting anecdote, but I'm not sure how it is germane to the question?
Exactly.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑09 Oct 2021 15:44The more important question would be sorting out priority of fires. Both in choice of fire mission in the moment, and in choosing battery positions. I can see a lot of difficult choices for the commanders and staff at all levels. Had a lot of staff confused when the USMC 'universalized' cannon battalions into a single staff & comm configuration and dropped the labels of Direct Support, General Support, ect.. The greater flexibility created confusion in some minds.
Which reminds me the Base Defense Battalions of that era did have their 3" & 5" cannon configured for use against both aircraft and surface targets.Sheldrake wrote: ↑10 Oct 2021 09:30Furthermore, weapons and units are deployed within a doctrinal context. The USMC are specialists in littoral operations. If the problem is what artillery is useful on a shallow beach heads with shipping a key constraint then mulkti role artillery makes sense, as per, the AA in Normandy, for the British at least. These matters are irrelevant in a larger land campaign.
Part of the answer lies in looking at the entire Brit fire support kit for the division/corps. When examining these questions its best to consider the context & overall system of weapons for the forces in question. ie: The Navy or USMC Base Defense Battalions had a relatively specific role, tho in the case of Guadalcanal were used on & across the edge of doctrine. The cannon used by those battalions were chosen for their configuration or suitability for that role. The German 88 was chosen to fit a somewhat different context & doctrine. & the 3.7" for year another variation in tactical system/doctrine. Apples are different from Oranges because they grow on different trees. To completely understand the difference you have to look at the entire biome, not just the fruit or even the tree.The previous paragraph explains nsome of the hurdles to unsing the 3.7 inch gun as an anti tank weapon. But were the British wrong to focus on the primary role of Heavy AA during 1938-41?
Not actually Carl. The 3" Gun Group of the Defense Battalion was explicitly an AA unit and the 5" Gun Group was explicitly a CD unit. While the 3" Gun M3 did have the capability of 1 degree of depression, so could and did engage surface targets, the design of the Mount M2A2 in that case left the gun crew badly exposed as was discovered at Wake. The gun used by the CD Group was the pre-dreadnought 5"/51, which was an anti-torpedo boat gun. Its P13 and P15 mountings had only a maximum of 20 degrees elevation and so could not be configured as AA guns.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Oct 2021 21:35Which reminds me the Base Defense Battalions of that era did have their 3" & 5" cannon configured for use against both aircraft and surface targets.
Hogg is not enough, outdated and written too much from the British perspective (though he does his best).Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Oct 2021 21:37We digress as is usual. To get back on track I need to take a look at my copy of Hogg & see what alternatives the Germans might have manufactured. Any further thoughts on this general topic ?
Well, you got me on the 5". Extrapolating trajectory at 20 degrees elevation allows it to only reach 3200 feet altitude at some ranges. I guess if your naval base is attacked by torpedo bombers thats ok, otherwise...Richard Anderson wrote: ↑11 Oct 2021 16:58Not actually Carl. The 3" Gun Group of the Defense Battalion was explicitly an AA unit and the 5" Gun Group was explicitly a CD unit. While the 3" Gun M3 did have the capability of 1 degree of depression, so could and did engage surface targets, the design of the Mount M2A2 in that case left the gun crew badly exposed as was discovered at Wake. The gun used by the CD Group was the pre-dreadnought 5"/51, which was an anti-torpedo boat gun. Its P13 and P15 mountings had only a maximum of 20 degrees elevation and so could not be configured as AA guns.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Oct 2021 21:35Which reminds me the Base Defense Battalions of that era did have their 3" & 5" cannon configured for use against both aircraft and surface targets.
The replacement for the 3" AA Gun, the 90mm M1 and M1A1 Gun on Mount M1 was even more problematic as a "dual-purpose" weapon given it had no depression capability and was only able to achieve a zero degree elevation by removing the elevation stops.
Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑10 Oct 2021 21:37We digress as is usual. To get back on track I need to take a look at my copy of Hogg & see what alternatives the Germans might have manufactured. Any further thoughts on this general topic ?
Im unclear on exactly what the Germans were thinking in their selection of the 105mm projectile. I have some clues for the US decision, but its a lot more vague for the FH18 & ammunition. Their familiarity with effects of the 105mm HE round and wartime experience with the FH16 & predecessor must have influenced them.nuyt wrote: ↑11 Oct 2021 20:51I am reading 9cm allover.
Germany develops a 9cm gun howitzer as main divisional artillery weapon. They have two options: the 9cm Rheinmetall (sold to China in the 1920s as the Solothurn 9cm to camouflage its origin) and the late 1920s Bofors 9cm (a Krupp design as the company was controlled by Krupp until 1933, after that a more covert relationship continued). The Wehrmacht turns the two designs into a successful hybrid Rheinmetall/Krupp production model by the mid 1930s and the Germans have a similar weapon as the British 25pdr (9cm). To complement the 9cm they return to the 12cm howitzer calibre and the 12 or 128mm field gun, plus 15cm Bofors (Krupp) howitzers. But instead the Wehrmacht relied on a mixture of 75mm field guns (scaled down from 77mm) and the horse drawn 105mm lFH18 developed in the 1920s.
It was most likely settled on because even in WW 1 105mm had become a widely used caliber. For example, the Schneider Canon de 105 mle 1913, was a WW 1 workhorse complementing the 75mm. It kind of makes sense that as gun size increased, the 105mm replaced the 75mm and the 150 / 155mm replaced the 105mm as the divisional heavy artillery.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021 18:46Im unclear on exactly what the Germans were thinking in their selection of the 105mm projectile. I have some clues for the US decision, but its a lot more vague for the FH18 & ammunition. Their familiarity with effects of the 105mm HE round and wartime experience with the FH16 & predecessor must have influenced them.
Mocketh not the supposedly puny 89mm calibre 25 pounder.T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021 19:01The British opted for the 25 pdr because they saw it as a combination artillery piece and antitank gun trying to get a quart out of a pint pot.
It was not a "got ya", I suspected you knew better, but had a brain freeze.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021 18:35Well, you got me on the 5". Extrapolating trajectory at 20 degrees elevation allows it to only reach 3200 feet altitude at some ranges. I guess if your naval base is attacked by torpedo bombers thats ok, otherwise...
Yes, I realize that and that any steely-eyed American Army or Marine Field Artilleryman could work around it, but it is irrelevant given the Coast Artillery and Ordnance considered it enough of an issue in the 3" M3 Mount and 90mm M1 and M1A1 Mount that it was specifically addressed in the design of the 90mm Gun M2 and M3 Mounts. For the M3 "Anti-torpedo boat/Antiaircraft" mount depression was increased and a sturdy gunshield was incorporated in the mount to protect the crew. You will find as well that many of the ATB batteries were placed on elevations, for the simple reason that the high-Mv "flat-trajectory" naval gunfire was less effective in firing at them, and were sited to bring fire on enemy ships and boats at under 1000 meters to ensure first-round hits.Elevation to zero degrees or below matters only if you are attacking a target with negative angle of site, down hill. I don't have the trajectory charts for the 3" AA guns but some extrapolation & arithmetic indicates that shooting at a ship at 5000 meters range with a cannon/ammunition of a 850 mv would put the elevation at 4+ degrees. 10+ degrees with other combinations.
'Flat' trajectory is a term & concept we were not taught in artillery school. & not much used in the workday vernacular of my peers. maybe in some other army, but not in my experience. With high mv cannon the projectile trajectory as a elipse becomes important & tube elevation is a thing beyond 1000 meters, unless you want your projectiles skipping off the sod or waves in random directions.
Yea, but the Russians and Americans are both firm believers in the concept that there is never enough overkill in firepower...Sheldrake wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021 23:59Mocketh not the supposedly puny 89mm calibre 25 pounder.T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑12 Oct 2021 19:01The British opted for the 25 pdr because they saw it as a combination artillery piece and antitank gun trying to get a quart out of a pint pot.
German Italian or Japanese troops on the recieving end of three rounds gunfire from a British field artillery regiment did not ignore the incoming on account of its poor fragmentation pattern and weak HE charge. They hit the dirt or became casualties.
The poor fragmentation pattern and weak busrting charge allied with vaccurary made for a barrage or concentration that could be approached with confidence by friendly forces. Germans could not understand how the British could follow up their artillery fire so closely with infantry. The Eberbach papers include a report by Heinz Harmel(?) explaining British tactics by inventing non lethal "glass shells" which allowed the British troops to get to close enough to assault before the defenders recovered.
The 25 pounder is probably the best close support artillery piece of the 20th century - and maybe beyond that.
THe desgtructive power of 105mm ammunition is overrated. If you want to cause serious hurt to dug in troops or armoured vehicles the minimum calibre is 150mm.