Best Artillery of WWII

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
atkif
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: 31 Jul 2002 23:26
Location: canada

Post by atkif » 01 Sep 2002 09:25

Russians are the best.
Katyushas ruled .

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 14986
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
Location: UK and USA

Post by Andy H » 01 Sep 2002 19:40

Does anyone know who commanded the 68th Armoured Artillery Btn to which Logan is reffering, in regards to Kasserine.

:D Andy from the Shire

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 02 Sep 2002 07:45

Harri wrote:
Tiwaz wrote:And about plotting and grid like firing method... This discussion has been done elsewhere as well... I just wish I would remember exactly where.


Tiwaz:
It was in "What if / Military History Forum" thread called "Soviet Union vs. Western Allies -1945" sub-pages about 7 and 8:

http://theforum.skalman.nu/viewtopic.ph ... &start=150


Thanks. I knew it was there somewhere but in a hurry didn't have time to go through all pages.

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 02 Sep 2002 17:06

Logan Hartke wrote:I believe it was in the book Frozen Hell where they speak of the guns shooting through the ice like that and being pre-plotted into a certain grid-like fashion. I am about 85% sure, but you might need to check me on that. That's where I learned about their methods.


Hi.

Firing to the ice in attempt to break it and make effective obstacle to men and AFVs proved to be almost useless during wars if icecover is thick (like it was during Winter War). You need heavy artillery (which we didn't had), lot's of ammo (which we didn't had) and still you manage to pierce justs few tiny little holes through steel ice (a Finnish term describing hard, solid ice), which enemy can easily avoid. During Winter War there were attempts to saw the ice to make breach. Those attempts failed miserably on those temperatures, breach iced in few hours so deep that it could carry a man with full battle gear.

After Winter War Finnish developed the only effective method to make water barrages on the ice, still in use... An ice-mine which is a bottle filled with explosives and detonated with pressure fuze. A line of those mines positioned under the ice and detonated on other end causes all bottles to explode in series and makes a truly insurmountable obstacle.

Here is series of pics from military excercises:

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kotilaik/kuvat/rosojaa.jpg

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kotilaik/kuvat/jaapum.jpg

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kotilaik/kuvat/jaapum1.jpg

http://www.students.tut.fi/~kotilaik/kuvat/jaapum2.jpg

---------------
pictures: http://www.students.tut.fi/~kotilaik/

Nice looking series or what? But that was just 100 metres or so.. just think about 5 kilometres of that barrage exploding on front (and hopefully back) of you. :lol:

Anthony EJW
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: 31 Aug 2002 22:52
Location: Great Britain

Post by Anthony EJW » 02 Sep 2002 21:49

Cheshire Yeomanry wrote:After much thought I decided not to vote on this because the heading is a bit vague and open to interpretation.

It's very hard to define especially on the allied side because mostly the weapons were standardised. The American ordanance was good. I've always been led to believe that British counter battery fire was very good?.


:D Andy, from the Shire


I recall reading that the British army developed a more systematic counter-mortar programme based on findings from operational research after the Normandy battle. This led to the establishment of the 1st Canadian and 100th British Radar Batteries. These units, equipped with anti-aircraft gun laying radars were used with remarkable effectiveness to suppress and destroy enemy mortar fire, used first in early 1945 in the Rhineland.

Agree that the title is a bit vauge. Probably the US arm; though for sheer size Red Army's artillery was pretty awsome. For their final attack on Berlin, April-May 1945 the Russians used some 42,000 guns and morters.

User avatar
Ritter
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 22 Oct 2002 04:41
Location: Schwarzwald

Post by Ritter » 23 Oct 2002 21:53

[quote="Henric Edwards"]BTW; am I the only non-Finn that voted for Finland?[/quote]

Nope, I voted for them aswell.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 16 Dec 2002 13:55

Oleg -

The point about fixed artillery groupins being the preferred method in the West as opposed to in the Soviet army does not really apply to the Germans, who generally organised their independent artillery in batallions. They complemented these with independent artillery staffs, who would control whatever artillery resources were available. There also seems to have been no standard allotment of GHQ artillery units to corps and higher formations, the amounts varied widely.

cheers

User avatar
Rokka
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 12 Dec 2002 15:36
Location: Finland, Lappeenranta

Post by Rokka » 18 Dec 2002 11:22

Finland !!! but not the reason, that I'm finnish... :D

-joni-

Mark V
Financial supporter
Posts: 3925
Joined: 22 May 2002 09:41
Location: Suomi Finland

Post by Mark V » 18 Dec 2002 20:08

Well, this is complicated issue, which is hard to estimate - but IMO:

When considering the equipment available: Finland was absolutely the best (other armies artillery officers would probably have bursted to tears and fled to enemys side, if they would had been given such limited, elderly and poor equipment and such jungle of gun types and calibres, not forgetting the catastrophical lack of ammo during Winter War - Finns did make it work against all odds)

When considering absolute effectiveness: US Artillery - without a doubt.

User avatar
Tiwaz
Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 10:36
Location: Finland

Post by Tiwaz » 19 Dec 2002 02:38

Ah indeed... If only our grandparents would have had even average quality guns and decent amount of them and ammo and we wouldn't be having this discussion...

User avatar
Ike_FI
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 21:32
Location: Helsinki. Finland

Post by Ike_FI » 19 Dec 2002 23:48

I happen to have an interesting related article at hand. Here's a part of it's english summary:


From the start of the 1920s, the Soviet Union had strongly developed its artillery equipment. The older patterns of gun were modernized and the development of new types was started. By the time of the Winter War the average range of Soviet artillery had increased by 30-40 per cent. During the Winter War the front also had new equipment right up to the 203mm heavy howitzer. Changes were also made to the organization of the artillery. One of the Red Army's principles was the massing of artillery. This was evident not only in the artillery's organization but also in the adoption of powerful rolling fire. However, the density of fire per hectare of target by this type of fire was lower than the concentration fired by a Finnish regiment.

During the Winter War the Soviet Union concentrated an overwhelming mass of artillery on the Finnish front. In the final stages of the war against Finland there were estimated to be about 5,700 guns of various types opposed by 476 Finnish guns. The battle at Summa on the Karelian isthmus provides an example of relative firepower when one day in February 1940 Soviet artillery fired 149,985 shells while the Finnish army expended only 5,962 shells.

The disproportion was reduced by the Finnish artillery's accuracy, rapid switching of fire and excellent adaptability to terrain. Camouflage and crosscountry mobility, practised in peacetime, were factors which enabled the artillery with its slender resources in equipment to support the infantry battle.


- written by Artillery Col. (ret.) Jyri Paulaharju and published in "Sotahistoriallinen aikakauskirja 19" (2000), a periodical publication of Society For Military History.

One interesting point mentioned elsewhere in the article is that Finnish units used to camouflage and change their positions during the nighttime to keep their location unknown to the enemy, whereas less concealed Soviet artillery units (which used to stay near roads) were quite often observed by Finnish recon planes. "Sweat saves blood!"
However, lack of ammunition prevented much of what could have been done. Artillery commander at Taipale sector wrote in May 1940 in his battle description that due to lack of supply, only 80 of 250 observed enemy targets could be shelled during the war.

Some statistics from the article:

Performance at battle of Summa
Guns/km - Art.regiments*/inf.batt. - Fire/100 m of front/min
FIN 4,3 - ~0,4 - 1,3 kg
SOV 30-78 - ~1 - 60 kg
(FIN patteristo/artillery regiment consisted of 2 cannon and 1 howizer batteries)

Number of pieces of Finnish field artillery 30.11.39
light cannons - lt.howizers - hvy cannons - hvy howizers - tot
293 - 70 - 11 - 32 - 406

During the war 315 pieces of mothballed guns without recoil system (model 1877) were returned to use. By the end of Winter War number of guns was 1342 (of which w/o recoil system 500).

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

who had the best artillery

Post by Miss Nimitz » 20 Dec 2002 00:40

Was Big Bertha ww1 or ww2? I'm amazed that Finland has so many votes, I wasn;t aware Finland had that much artillery, didnt they claim to fame as skiiers running rings around Russians and Germans ONLY?

Lord Styphon
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 16 May 2002 04:09
Location: Houston, Texas, USA

Post by Lord Styphon » 20 Dec 2002 05:57

Big Bertha was from World War I. It was succeeded in World War II by such weapons as Anzio Annie and Thor.

If you'll read what our many Finnish members have said, they felt that despite Finland's limited supply of artillery, what the Finns were able to accomplish with it was incredible.

The Finns weren't famous for skiing rings around the Soviets, per se; they were famous for giving the Red Army one heck of a bloody nose when it invaded in 1939. It wasn't enough to win them the war, though.

User avatar
Ike_FI
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 04 Dec 2002 21:32
Location: Helsinki. Finland

Post by Ike_FI » 20 Dec 2002 12:08

Lord Styphon wrote:If you'll read what our many Finnish members have said, they felt that despite Finland's limited supply of artillery, what the Finns were able to accomplish with it was incredible.
.


Finnish artillery ranks very high in "best bang for a buck" contest, or if we're considering the question from the point of view of performance in the circumstances each army operated.
However, the relatively short range of most of their guns and relying largely on horses on transport must be considered as a significant disadvantage if we're talking about some different scenario, for instance blizkrieg-style warfare. US arty had without doubt great adaptability for any kind of missions.

Miss Nimitz
Banned
Posts: 275
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 00:53
Location: San Jose Califirnia

Post by Miss Nimitz » 20 Dec 2002 21:58

Ahhh ha! I just found out this is a Finnish site, no wonder Finland gets high votes...Good on you guys..fantastic site.

P.S I heard big Bertha could fire a shell 50 kilometres, was that true?

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