Questions on artillery methods and doctrine

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Post Reply
User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#31

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Jan 2009, 01:34

JonS wrote:I'm not sure I understand you - I think you have mangled that sentence.

If you mean "is taking part in WWI a pre-requisite for being the best in WWII", then the answer is, of course, 'no'.
as "lagging the rest of the world by two decades " as you wrote, I now understand the base of your claim.
JonS wrote:HOWEVER, it was during WWI that indirect fire came of age, and the artilleries involved in the Western Front learnt an absolutely tremendous amount in the world's largest lab.
AFAIK at Gallipoli and at Eastern Front some live experiments also were made.
JonS wrote:You and your cohort

...says cohort...

Regards, Juha

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#32

Post by JonS » 29 Jan 2009, 01:49

ChristopherPerrien wrote:In terms of organization , I might give an edge to the artillery forces of the UK, WHEN and only when, fighting "set piece" battles due to their more "formal" and extensive hiearchical/stogy organization.
This comment badly misunderstands the UK artillery C&C network. Granted that 'normal' C&C networks (ie, in a inf or armd bde, etc) could be 'stodgy', artillery networks definately were not. The Uniform, Victor, and Whiskey system attests to that.

The final UK and US system was remarkably similar, with the main differences being the US' retained emphasis on destruction fire, and the RA chosing to push their tactical 'smarts' forward with the FOs, rather than holding it back at the FDC.


JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#33

Post by JonS » 29 Jan 2009, 01:52

Juha Tompuri wrote:AFAIK at Gallipoli and at Eastern Front some live experiments also were made.
For the purposes of this debate, Gallipoli was an irrelevant sideshow.

Germany fought on both the Eastern and Western fronts. On the Eastern Front she stitched up Russia (and by extension Finland) but good. On the Western Front that German artillery was given the shaft. Make of that what you will.
Last edited by JonS on 29 Jan 2009, 02:25, edited 1 time in total.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#34

Post by JonS » 29 Jan 2009, 02:11

Harri wrote:Could these "lessons" also be achieved?
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Only Germans had good enough radios at the beginning of WW II needed by fast responding field artillery.
Parham's concentration on the German armour in the forest during May 1940 suggests otherwise. Granted, though, that was an exceptional event for the RA in that campaign. Then again, it was an exceptional event for any army at that point in time.

Also, the Germans aren't the Finns, so I'm not quite sure how this supports your POV?
Theoretical background was perhaps known but was it realized?
Yes, although massive early war expansion and dodgy overal doctrine screwed things up a bit initially.
As far as I know US Army was not especially modern in the 1930's.
You know that bit, where I said "The first half of the war for both [the US and the UK] was abysmal", what do you think that meant?
Did anyone else than Finns use radiosondes (since 1942) during the WW II?
The British generally did not (although they DID use them, and with increasing frequency in 1944, incl tracking of the ballon by radar rather than theo), but who cares? The Finns perhaps used sondes more than anyone, but everyone used met corrections. The sondes were better than other methods. Bully for you. It does nothing to alter the overall conclusion.
If you fight against the superiority (of 10x or 100x) you just have to do something to protect yourself or to be better.
Sure. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
We had only 412 field guns and 73 guns without a recoil system issued to units. Additionally there was a severe lack of ammunition (especially those badly needed). During the Winter War Finns didn't have long-range artillery and really few heavy artillery pieces (only 11% of all, none modern). By 1941 the portion of heavy artillery was already 29% although the number of field artillery units had nearly doubled. In 1944 the portion of heavy artillery pieces was already 44%.
So? Everyone's gun park grew during the war. Again, this is an example of special pleading, and an internal focus vs external.

EDIT:
Did Americans use just-in-time (all weapons fire same target and the whole concentration arrives at the same moment) and joint-fire (combined timed artillery and bomber attacks) concentrations? Finns did both in 1944.
TOT (Time On Target)? Yeah, sure. So did the Brits. Since WWI. During WWII the Brits moved away from TOT since it wasted too much time. The same effect coul be acheived in much less time using British methods.

Did the Western Allies co-ordinate with a/c? Are you kidding? Of course they did, again since WWI. Things took a mighty step backwards between the wars while the RAF concentrated on strategic bombing, but came back on track during 1943.
Not Soviets, not Germans, not Italians, who "everyone"? Why didn't they adopt these techniques if everyone knew them so well? Soviet artillery adopted Finnish style firing technique as late as in the 1970's. And you said it was practiced since WW I by everyone?
Everyone that mattered. UK (and CW), France, Germany. US to a lesser extent.

C'mon Harri, this is basic stuff. If you don't know this already, you shouldn't be trumpeting so loudly.
Last edited by JonS on 02 Feb 2009, 04:33, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#35

Post by Harri » 29 Jan 2009, 02:26

Proximity fuze
Developed by renown physicist Dr. Merle A Tuve at the The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (APL), it is considered one of the most important technological innovations of the World War 2.
...
The radio frequency proximity fuze concept was proposed to the British Air Defense Establishment in a May, 1940, memo from William A. S. Butement, Edward S. Shire, and Amherst F.H. Thompson.[1] A breadboard circuit was constructed by the inventors and the concept was tested in the laboratory by moving a sheet of tin at various distances. Early field testing connected the circuit to a thyratron trigger operating a tower-mounted camera which photographed passing aircraft to determine distance of fuze function. Prototype fuzes were then constructed in June, 1940, and installed in unrotated projectiles fired at targets supported by balloons.[1] The details of these experiments were passed to the United States Naval Research Laboratory and National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) in September, 1940, in accordance with an informal agreement between Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt to exchange scientific information of potential military value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#36

Post by Harri » 29 Jan 2009, 02:46

JonS wrote:Also, the Germans aren't the Finns, so I'm not quite sure how this supports your POV?
The effective use of artillery needs radios. Only Germans had good enough in 1939.
JonS wrote:
Did anyone else than Finns use radiosondes (since 1942) during the WW II?
The British generally did not (although they DID use them, and with increasing frequency in 1944, incl tracking of the ballon by radar rather than theo), but who cares? The Finns perhaps used sondes more than anyone, but everyone used met corrections. The sondes were better than other methods. Bully for you. It does nothing to alter the overall conclusion.
It proves the high technical level of Finnish artillery (although most of the equipment was obsolescent or outdated).
JonS wrote:
Did Americans use just-in-time (all weapons fire same target and the whole concentration arrives at the same moment) and joint-fire (combined timed artillery and bomber attacks) concentrations? Finns did both in 1944.
TOT (Time On Target)? Yeah, sure. So did the Brits. Since WWI. During WWII the Brits moved away from TOT since it wasted too much time. The same effect coul be acheived in much less time using British methods.
Did the Western Allies co-ordinate with a/c? Are you kidding? Of course they did, again since WWI. Things took a mighty step backwards between the wars while the RAF concentrated on strategic bombing, but came back on track during 1943.
No, I don't mean massive hours lasting carpet and drum barrage bombings but individual accurate "fire strikes". I doubt WW I planes and field artillery (without good enough radios) could have co-operated.
JonS wrote:
Not Soviets, not Germans, not Italians, who "everyone"? Why didn't they adopt these techniques if everyone knew them so well? Soviet artillery adopted Finnish style firing technique as late as in the 1970's. And you said it was practiced since WW I by everyone?
Everyone that mattered. UK (and CW), France, Germany. US to a lesser extent.
C'mon Harri, this is basic stuff. If you don't know this already, you shouldn't be trumpeting so loudly.
Actually Germans didn't, that is also basic stuff that matters. German artillery techniques were lightyears behind the Finnish ones. Same words to you about "trumpeting".
Last edited by Harri on 29 Jan 2009, 14:03, edited 1 time in total.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#37

Post by JonS » 29 Jan 2009, 04:34

Harri,
throughout I have been trying - against the tide - to talk about the overall system. I don't really care who had the shiniest guns, or the most flashing lights on their sondes, or the best breed of draft horses. Individually none of those things matter.

Overall, the system the US and UK came up by late 1944 with was light years ahead of what anyone else had. It was flexible, fast, mobile, powerful, and accurate. No one else had the same combination in the same strength. Russian artillery may have been more powerful, Finnish artillery may have been more accurate, individual German pieces were heavier and had longer range, but overall the US and UK had the better system.
Last edited by JonS on 29 Jan 2009, 04:45, edited 1 time in total.

Laurence Strong
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: 16 Jan 2005, 07:01
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#38

Post by Laurence Strong » 29 Jan 2009, 04:46

[quote="Harri"][quote="JonS"]

The weather conditions in Finland are the most demanding in the word (between +35 to -50 degrees Celsius). Most countries can't shoot their guns if a weather is too cold. I would say -20C would stop all activity even today. Finnish artillery could and can still work in all conditions.

quote]

Damn, you obviously were not in my 109 in the winter of 1988/89. It was -40C without the wind chill (-60C) in Shilo Manitoba and we were still pounding rounds down range.

JonS
Member
Posts: 3935
Joined: 23 Jul 2004, 02:39
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#39

Post by JonS » 29 Jan 2009, 04:50

Liar :roll:


;)

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#40

Post by LWD » 29 Jan 2009, 05:31

Harri wrote: ...The effective use of artillery needs radios. Only Germans had good enough in 1939.
....
Care to document that? Certainly by mid war the US and Britian had far more and it's not clear to me that German radios were better than those of the Western Alllies.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#41

Post by RichTO90 » 29 Jan 2009, 06:52

JonS wrote:
Simon K wrote:Was that method unique at the time?
Not even remotely.
Hi Jon, interesting, I think this is the first time in my many years on AHF that I have seen posts modified by a "moderator" who is also one of the prime arguers? Previously I have seen such matters handed off for adjudication to other moderators to prevent conflict of interest. I suppose I should have been paying more attention the last few months, stresses of the new job.

Anyway, firstly the "radiosonde" in its most primitive form was a development of the U.S. Army, by Captain William Blaire of the Signal Corps in 1924 (he also developed the first US Army radar in 1937 as a Colonel). The first true radiosonde was developed in France five years later...thus the use of the French terminology worldwide... :roll:

Development of the radiosonde as a tool of the US Field Artillery was authorized 7 June 1941 when the equipment suite of the Finnish artillery might have been considered very advanced by some at Fort Sill. Prior to that, in common with all western field artillery, the US Army primarily used its balloons in concert with theodilites to calcualte windspeed; the obvious problems with that methodology was the spur for the radiosonde development. By 1944 the radiosonde was common in the US Army for many uses, not just the Field Artillery, since it relieved the Army Air Forces of flying many of the meterological missions that previously had been one of its duties.

Secondly, there was nothing unusual as far as the US Field Artillery was concerned with forward observers not knowing the location of its batteries (that was a concern for the Germans and Soviets) since the methodologies for working that out had been developed at Fort Sill since 1927 when Major Jacob L. Devers became Director of the Gunnery Department of the Field Artillery School. Devers was succeeded by Major carlos Brewer in 1929 and Major Orlando Ward in 1931, by which time the problems of massing fires, rapid engagement without survey, and simplified fire control orders and procedures had all been fully worked out and were in practice. By 1931 the battalion was the basic unit of fire in the US Field Artillery rather than the battery and all that occurred afterwards was technical refinement...even the graphicla firing tables and range fans developed then remained in use as back ups in the case of computer failure well into the 1990s.

Nor have I run into any evidence of the presence of Finnish observers or advisors at the Field Artillery School, anymore than there were British or Germans there (it was a pretty small operation and I doubt that you could even talk ANY European into going there unless it was on pain of death in the 1920s and 1930s...it was pretty damned austere when my Dad was there in 1951-1952 :roll: ).

BTW, most of MY sources aren't on the internet, so no doubt will not satisfy Harri? Well, the US Army Field Artillery Journal (December 1944) is. Otherwise I have "The Golden Age of Field Artillery", which is an unpublished chapter in a biography of Orlando Ward written by Russell A. Gugelar in 1981 using unpublished documents and manuscripts held by the Field Artillery School, the October 1939 Field Artillery Field Manual describing "weather" corrections and methodology, Thomas McCaw's two-volume history of the Field Artillery School, and Boyd Dastrup's (the Command Historian of the Field Artillery School since 1984) three-volume history of the development of the US Army Field Artillery.
8-)

But I suppose all this will be deleted too?

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#42

Post by RichTO90 » 29 Jan 2009, 06:55

LWD wrote:
Harri wrote: ...The effective use of artillery needs radios. Only Germans had good enough in 1939.
....
Care to document that? Certainly by mid war the US and Britian had far more and it's not clear to me that German radios were better than those of the Western Alllies.
The US Army Signal Corps development of FM radios began in 1934 at the Fort Monmouth Signal Corps labs, again under the direction of Colonel Blaire... 8-)

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#43

Post by Graeme Sydney » 29 Jan 2009, 12:13

ChristopherPerrien wrote:By the end of the war the US had the most tactically effective artillery overall. With the advent of the proximity fuse and its use with the standard US 105mm howitzer, US forces had a tactical superiority over all other nations artillery forces of WWII which cannot be denied. The standard UK artillery cannon the 25 pdr was an 88mm weapon and although there was a VT fuse developed for it , it did not see as widespread use as the US 105 VT.
Okay I'm no arty expert as some here seem to be but it my understanding that there wasn't much to choose between the 25prd and the US105mm.

It is my understanding that after WW1 the Brits carefully studied the effectiveness of arty during WW1 and came to some conclusions which pretty much designed the 25 prd. One of the conclusions was for close support to infantry a high frag shell was required. Hence the 25 prd shell was specifically designed and manufactured to frag into small infantry defeating (wounding and killing) shrapnel (rather than big bangs that turned over sods). The smaller shell was also filled with the explosive Radox (spelling) which gave the same bang as the US105mm filled with TNT (total shell weight of 33lbs).

The bottom line was that the 25 prd could be safely ranged in closer to infantry in defence and thus more effect in the close in defence role. Does anyone know the relative S.O.P.'s for the safe range of the two guns (obviously ignoring S.O.S. fire). Off the top of my head I think the 25 prd was 200yrds.

Now don't ask me my source :roll: , but I believe the German soldier had a saying that Russian arty was spectacular, American arty was effective, but British arty killed you! :P :D

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#44

Post by Juha Tompuri » 29 Jan 2009, 12:54

RichTO90 wrote: I think this is the first time in my many years on AHF that I have seen posts modified by a "moderator" who is also one of the prime arguers?
If reading careful enough, one can notice that the posts were not modified, but deleted to put an end to immature behaviour.
Arguing...eh...I do like more facts than fiction/opinions.
RichTO90 wrote:But I suppose all this will be deleted too?
No reason for it.

Let's get back to the topic, please.

/Juha

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4230
Joined: 24 Jun 2002, 12:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Re: Best artillery nation in WW2?

#45

Post by Harri » 29 Jan 2009, 14:37

JonS wrote:Harri,
throughout I have been trying - against the tide - to talk about the overall system. I don't really care who had the shiniest guns, or the most flashing lights on their sondes, or the best breed of draft horses. Individually none of those things matter.
I agree. I'm not talking about any "shiniest guns" but the SYSTEM too: theory and tactics behind everything. Compared to our equipment (weapons, radios etc.) Finnish field artillery was state of the art in the world during the WW II just because of its effective system. I'm talkin about the results.

I'm using Germans as a "gauging rod" because they were generally far better equipped than Finns but their results in combat (with the Finns) were still weaker. So what was wrong with Germans because they had fought in the WW I and were "20 years ahead" of the Finns like you told? That's the point.

I mentioned radios because they were the key points in effective signalling between fire observers and the command post of the field artillery. Finns had tried to develop own radios already since 1920's but they were too heavy (although Finns in the early 1940's developed a very light telegraphy radio for long-range patrol troops).
JonS wrote:Overall, the system the US and UK came up by late 1944 with was light years ahead of what anyone else had. It was flexible, fast, mobile, powerful, and accurate. No one else had the same combination in the same strength. Russian artillery may have been more powerful, Finnish artillery may have been more accurate, individual German pieces were heavier and had longer range, but overall the US and UK had the better system.
It depends on the point of view. Finns definately didn't have the best artillery pieces in the world but a mix of nearly 100 different more or less useful weapon models. That same was true also in other artillery equipment. Alone ammo supply was very difficult. I agree Western allies had very homogenous and modern field artillery. They didn't have to think the problems Finns faced every day. How Finns could still work effectively? We had a very good system and training and used our artillery as well as possible.

Also you talked about mobile artillery. At the beginning of WW II there was no such anywhere. Traditional artillery fires from one position and then moves to another place unit by unit, then fires again and so forth. I don't know why this would be much worse than operating with self-propelled guns? Actually towed guns have also advantages: individual guns are much more easy to camouflage, need less maintenance, are much cheaper etc.

Post Reply

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”