Hmm,T. A. Gardner wrote: ↑13 Oct 2021 03:32Yea, 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.
Agreed. Thats the kind of thinking that delivered the Davie Crocket Weapon System...

The battalion level Nuke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Croc ... ar_device)
My reference was to the effectiveness of the 25 pounder as a close support weapon, where it offered the right balance between damage to the enemy while minimising friendly casualties. Without wishing to evoke a national sterortyle, minimising friendly fire casualties was never a big issue for either the Soviet or Ameircan armies.

Sure, post WW2 the major armies adopted 105mm, but during WW2 88mm was good enoiugh. No one considered the 8.8cm 88mm HE round as in effective. Modern thinking considered 105mm to be ineffective against hard targets. So please remind me, what extra tactical benefits do 105mm 37 pounder rounds bring over 89mm 25 pounder ones?