Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Discussions on the fortifications & artillery used by the Axis forces.
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Yoozername » 12 Sep 2017 17:48

The Germans used bolt action rifles through the war also, why? because they had them. And things being the way they are, you go to war and production with what you got.

I think this is turning into another one of your threads that does not follow your own OP. Why didn't the Germans make 88mm infantry guns? Answer... why would they? Why 88mm if it does not share at least a projectile with the FlaK or other 88mm weapons? Or 105mm for that matter? As I said before, the 75mm IG fired a very light 12 pound shell at low velocity. It's accuracy was not very good either. It was a prewar design that fit into a prewar doctrine and most nations, including the Soviets that you put links to, dropped the whole concept due to lack of range, vulnerability, inability to be multi-purpose, inaccuracy and just being obsolete.

The issues with the 15 cm sIG33 came about in 1939. That is, when there were no SP versions. The motorized and panzer divisions felt they could not keep up with the heyday 'blitzkrieg'. This is what I am referring to. And the Germans did not have the resources to make thousands of SP versions for all the infantry divisions. the Soviets, BTW, used the German design...doesn't read like much of a great endeavor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_mortar_M1931_(NM)

The ZIS-3 served in light artillery role. It had a 13 Km range, greater than the 122mm howitzer M1938 (M-30). It fired a larger projectile than the German 75mm IG if you want to compare them. Compare that to many other weapons also. The Soviet infantry divisions were smaller compared to other nations. Generally, after 1942, the Soviet infantry corp had light (76mm), medium (122mm) and heavy (152mm). The ZIS-3 had a high rate of fire and a useful antitank capability. Not every German tank was a Tiger II...

Can't use Zis-3 ammo in those.


Ugh, no that was not the point. The many thousands of ZIS-3 could share ammunition with the many thousands of T-34/76 and SU-76 and other Soviet 76mm weapons lik the F-22 and USV. So, you really have no point.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 2861
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby stg 44 » 12 Sep 2017 20:05

Yoozername wrote:The Germans used bolt action rifles through the war also, why? because they had them. And things being the way they are, you go to war and production with what you got.

Except the Germans continued to manufacture and improve on the infantry guns throughout the war and never seemed to lose a preference for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_In ... C3%BCtz_37

Yoozername wrote:I think this is turning into another one of your threads that does not follow your own OP.

Threads and discussions evolve, if you think I'm the only poster that has threads like that, you clearly aren't paying attention. Are you going to turn this into a thread where you're difficult and start descending into personal attacks?

Yoozername wrote:Why didn't the Germans make 88mm infantry guns? Answer... why would they? Why 88mm if it does not share at least a projectile with the FlaK or other 88mm weapons? Or 105mm for that matter? As I said before, the 75mm IG fired a very light 12 pound shell at low velocity.

Higher HE content and a weapon that is lighter than a 150mm infantry gun that is still useful for bunker busting, which the 75mm version was not.
Why 88 if it doesn't work with any other 88 shell? You do know that none of the other infantry guns of any caliber shared compatible shells with the other guns of their caliber, right? You make it an 88 or 105 because you already have barrel boring equipment of that caliber, which is why the StG 44/45 used the 7.92 caliber rather than move to a smaller, lighter more aerodynamic caliber with better section density despite research into small arms pre-war proving that it was much more efficient. It was just simply cheaper to make a gun of an existing caliber with existing equipment than having to develop a brand new caliber and boring equipment for it.

Yoozername wrote: It's accuracy was not very good either. It was a prewar design that fit into a prewar doctrine and most nations, including the Soviets that you put links to, dropped the whole concept due to lack of range, vulnerability, inability to be multi-purpose, inaccuracy and just being obsolete.

Which gets to my question of why the Germans continued to invest so much in them despite those drawbacks; apparently they found them useful enough to continue to make thousands of them throughout the war and continually upgrade them to keep them relevant to battlefield needs. I'd say they probably did that because they couldn't field nearly as many tanks and SP artillery guns as the Allies could; the Soviets seem to have just replaced infantry guns with tanks and SP weapons, like the SU-76.


Yoozername wrote:The ZIS-3 served in light artillery role. It had a 13 Km range, greater than the 122mm howitzer M1938 (M-30). It fired a larger projectile than the German 75mm IG if you want to compare them. Compare that to many other weapons also. The Soviet infantry divisions were smaller compared to other nations. Generally, after 1942, the Soviet infantry corp had light (76mm), medium (122mm) and heavy (152mm). The ZIS-3 had a high rate of fire and a useful antitank capability. Not every German tank was a Tiger II...

It fired a shell with much less high explosives, though the round was heavier (it had to be given the speeds at which it was fired). So for that range and weight it had very limited HE content; that was exactly the reason the Germans abandoned the 75mm field gun in WW1 and switched to 105/150mm howitzers for division weapons. Later they tried to use PAK40s in the indirect role with poor results.
The Zis-3 was fine against Panzer IIs/IIIs/38ts, but had some issues penetrating uparmored Panzer IVs except at closer ranges. There is a reason the Soviets phased them out during the war for heavier field guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/85_mm_divisional_gun_D-44
The 85-mm divisional gun D-44 (Russian: 85-мм дивизионная пушка Д-44) was a Soviet divisional 85-mm calibre field artillery gun used in the last action of World War II. It was designed as the replacement for the 76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3).


Yoozername wrote:
Can't use Zis-3 ammo in those.

Ugh, no that was not the point. The many thousands of ZIS-3 could share ammunition with the many thousands of T-34/76 and SU-76 and other Soviet 76mm weapons lik the F-22 and USV.

No, actually the F-22 used different ammo than the Zis-3 and used different ammo than the tank 76mm guns. The actual projectile was similar, the propellant case was different as they were different guns. Just like the PAK40 and German tank guns.
But that is missing the point, the Zis-3 was a division level artillery piece that could double as an AT gun, it was not a regimental artillery piece like an infantry gun; they filled different roles and with the Soviets phasing out their infantry guns, they lost that capability for first support beyond mortars below the division level. Given that their infantry divisions were half the size of the German ones, that wasn't an issue for their doctrine, but meant that a German division generally had as much firepower as a Soviet infantry corps.

Yoozername wrote:So, you really have no point.

No, you just don't want to see the point. Or can't see it for some reason.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Yoozername » 12 Sep 2017 22:54

76mm Complete Round, Fixed, HEAT, UBP-354M

This high-explosive anti-tank round is fired from 76mm divisional guns M1902/30, M1936 (F-22), M1939 (USV), M1942 (ZIS-3); tank guns M1939/39 (L-11), M1939 (F-32), M1940 (F-34), M1941 (ZIS-5); and self-propelled gun M1942/43 (SAU-76). All of these weapons except the M1942 and M1942/43 are obsolete in the Soviet Army.


Sorry, but you are incorrect. These weapons shared ammunition. It was actually a (bad) design requirement that they could.

The infantry guns therefore, would be a lower volume production and burden on the supply and manufacturing.

I equally feel your argument that the Germans 'continuously' improved the IG hasn't any real truth. They used up obsolete 37mm carriages and didn't introduce it till June 44? Can you lay out the continuous improvement till then from 1930's? Do you have anything that shows that IG were anything but expensive weapons that were not kept in the first or second lines of German defenses anymore?

I don't get your point regarding the Soviets barely fielding a 85mm divisional gun at the last gasps of the war? So what? They increased the T34/76 to a T34/85 also. The Germans went for bigger guns too. What does that have to do with your discussion? Did the Soviets make a 85mm IG? No, if anything, that alone kills your argument.

Threads and discussions evolve, if you think I'm the only poster that has threads like that, you clearly aren't paying attention. Are you going to turn this into a thread where you're difficult and start descending into perso


I will just point out your obvious incorrect statements for now. You thrash about from one to the next, let me catch up, OK?

The 7.5 cm Infanteriegeschütz 42 (7.5 cm IG 42) was an infantry support gun, used by Germany, during World War II. The requirement for this weapon came out of combat experience in 1940 when the existing IG 18 was felt to be outdated.

However, by the time Krupp had completed the design a hollow charge shell had been designed for the IG 18 and the gun was not put into production.

In 1944 the requirement was raised again and the barrel from the original design was mated with the carriage from the PAW 600 gun. An order was given for 1,450 guns.

The first IG 42s were delivered in October 1944 equipped with muzzle brakes. It is unclear how many were taken into service until the end of the war.


Sounds like a real game changer.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Yoozername » 13 Sep 2017 16:15

Another good reason that IG fell from favor was that most 81mm (at least US and German and others) could fire a heavy round. The German 75mm IG had a little over a pound of explosive in its projectile. The US M56 Heavy 81mm had 4.3 pounds. The US 81mm heavy casting for the M56 was also used for the excellent WP round also. The US halftracks in armored units usually carried a good percentage of these (heavy HE & WP) to screen tank units and also engage ATG and bunkers etc.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Vqj3D ... ii&f=false

If anything, the Germans might have developed and used the PAW 600 to replace IG and have a multipurpose weapon.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Sheldrake » 14 Sep 2017 22:00

stg 44 wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:
stg 44 wrote:BTW how did the Germans make infantry guns work if the US had such problems with them?


Interesting and good question. Need to think about it.

Any thoughts yet?

Clive Mortimore wrote:Other armies seemed to have worked out that close co-operation between the artillery and infantry was an alternative route. The US 105mm M3 was a much larger weapon and wasn't so easily manhandled therefore losing quite a bit of its usefulness as a weapon that could be quickly brought into action to support the infantry. The British spent a long time developing their own "heavy weight" infantry gun, the 95mm. http://www.westwoodworks.net/howitwas/westwoodworksinww2/images/1940Gun3.jpg which the army, especially the infantry did not want.

From what I've been able to find, their 95mm gun was a frankenstein's monster, cobbled together from whatever was at hand, with resulting problems that ensured it never really got much use.

As to the M3, it was substantially lighter than the German 150mm SIG, so it couldn't have been that much of a problem to manhandle if needed.



The difference between an infantry gun and any other form of field artillery is its command status - under command as opposed to in support or direct support. The Germans were less lavish in their communications than the US and a prior history of poor co-ordination of artillery and infantry dating to WW1. The Germans preferred the guarantee of a penny packet of artillery under commands compared to a lower probability of a lot more guns when they needed them. The US Infantry was generally well supported by field artillery with well equipped FOO teams. The US Infantry were less reliant o the cannon company.

The British 95mm saw service in the CS tanks assigned to each tank unit. They were only used collectively on D Day when they equipped the RMASG

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 2861
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby stg 44 » 14 Sep 2017 22:21

Sheldrake wrote:The difference between an infantry gun and any other form of field artillery is its command status - under command as opposed to in support or direct support. The Germans were less lavish in their communications than the US and a prior history of poor co-ordination of artillery and infantry dating to WW1. The Germans preferred the guarantee of a penny packet of artillery under commands compared to a lower probability of a lot more guns when they needed them. The US Infantry was generally well supported by field artillery with well equipped FOO teams. The US Infantry were less reliant o the cannon company.

The British 95mm saw service in the CS tanks assigned to each tank unit. They were only used collectively on D Day when they equipped the RMASG

Sure, but couldn't mortars have done much the same?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Yoozername » 14 Sep 2017 23:09

You do know that none of the other infantry guns of any caliber shared compatible shells with the other guns of their caliber, right?


I believe the Soviet 76.2mm 'infantry guns' DID share projectiles with other 76.2 mm weapons. So, you might be incorrect about that also.

Sure, but couldn't mortars have done much the same?


?????

Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1202
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 22:38

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Clive Mortimore » 15 Sep 2017 09:07

Sheldrake wrote:
The British 95mm saw service in the CS tanks assigned to each tank unit. They were only used collectively on D Day when they equipped the RMASG


The 95mm tank gun was not the same weapon as the 95mm infantry gun. They fired the same ammunition but the design of gun was completely different. From my understanding the infantry gun was designed around the tank gun's ammunition, they were not designed together like the 6pdr guns.
Clive

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Sheldrake » 15 Sep 2017 22:25

Clive Mortimore wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:
The British 95mm saw service in the CS tanks assigned to each tank unit. They were only used collectively on D Day when they equipped the RMASG


The 95mm tank gun was not the same weapon as the 95mm infantry gun. They fired the same ammunition but the design of gun was completely different. From my understanding the infantry gun was designed around the tank gun's ammunition, they were not designed together like the 6pdr guns.


The weapon is the ammunition. The equipment is the delivery means....

British towed 95mm gun = pointless oananage. Smaller calibre and lighter than the WW1 4.5" replaced by the dual purpose 25 pdr Gun Howitzer. By the time it was designed there were better ways of lobbing HE at a target.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Sheldrake » 15 Sep 2017 22:36

stg 44 wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:The difference between an infantry gun and any other form of field artillery is its command status - under command as opposed to in support or direct support. The Germans were less lavish in their communications than the US and a prior history of poor co-ordination of artillery and infantry dating to WW1. The Germans preferred the guarantee of a penny packet of artillery under commands compared to a lower probability of a lot more guns when they needed them. The US Infantry was generally well supported by field artillery with well equipped FOO teams. The US Infantry were less reliant o the cannon company.

The British 95mm saw service in the CS tanks assigned to each tank unit. They were only used collectively on D Day when they equipped the RMASG

Sure, but couldn't mortars have done much the same?


Yes, but....

Yes, big mortars 4.2" - 120mm provide the infantry commanders with their own firepower under command. But this is largely because the range was far less than that of field artillery and could not be diverted to what the higher command might regard as the main effort. .

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 2861
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby stg 44 » 16 Sep 2017 00:26

Sheldrake wrote:Yes, but....

Yes, big mortars 4.2" - 120mm provide the infantry commanders with their own firepower under command. But this is largely because the range was far less than that of field artillery and could not be diverted to what the higher command might regard as the main effort. .

Right, same as infantry support guns, they must a lot lighter, but cannot conduct direct fire.

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 6261
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Carl Schwamberger » 16 Sep 2017 00:44

A number of comments have been made here about the German 75mm LiG & how it was used. I'd recommend Siegfied Knappes autobiography. This English language account describe how Knappe spent from 1941 to 1945 in a cannon company of a infantry regiment. He worked his way up from a wireman to FO & eventually in 1943 a officer & spent the last two years commanding the company. His description of the use of the company changed from 1941 to 1942 & during the remainder of the war are instructive.

I don't have title or author at hand, but there is a similar account in the US Field Artillery Journal by a US Regimental cannon company commander in the US 1st ID from 1942 through 1945. Much of his observations parallel Knappes.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 979
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Yoozername » 16 Sep 2017 03:35

A number of comments have been made here about the German 75mm LiG & how it was used. I'd recommend Siegfied Knappes autobiography. This English language account describe how Knappe spent from 1941 to 1945 in a cannon company of a infantry regiment. He worked his way up from a wireman to FO & eventually in 1943 a officer & spent the last two years commanding the company. His description of the use of the company changed from 1941 to 1942 & during the remainder of the war are instructive.


I would be most interested. No minimizing stg44's experiences, but it would be gold to read this.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 2861
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby stg 44 » 16 Sep 2017 04:06

I found this report arguing for the return of a cannon company to infantry regiments in the 1990s:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a210927.pdf
Looks like the articles about the experience with regimental cannon companies might be in the May 1946 Field Artillery Journal. There was a mention of the regimental cannon companies being a mistake from the commander of a US infantry division; he apparently couldn't find an appropriate use for them.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: Why no 88/105mm infantry guns?

Postby Sheldrake » 16 Sep 2017 08:14

Carl Schwamberger wrote:A number of comments have been made here about the German 75mm LiG & how it was used. I'd recommend Siegfied Knappes autobiography. This English language account describe how Knappe spent from 1941 to 1945 in a cannon company of a infantry regiment. He worked his way up from a wireman to FO & eventually in 1943 a officer & spent the last two years commanding the company. His description of the use of the company changed from 1941 to 1942 & during the remainder of the war are instructive.

I don't have title or author at hand, but there is a similar account in the US Field Artillery Journal by a US Regimental cannon company commander in the US 1st ID from 1942 through 1945. Much of his observations parallel Knappes.


Sorry but that must be a different book. ;) Knappe may have started in a Cannon company but he wrote of forming an artillery battalion for the reconstructed 71st Infantry Division in which he served at Cassino and then served on Weidling's staff in Berlin in 1945.


Return to “Fortifications & Artillery”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], juestr