Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
schwarzermai
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 09 Mar 2013 06:52
Location: Germany

Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by schwarzermai » 13 Aug 2020 09:14

Hello

did we ever clarify why some cannons were labeled as "schwer" (heavy)?

schwere 10 cm Kanone 18
schwere 10 cm Kanone 42
schwere 10,5 cm Kanone 35 (t)
schwere 10,5 cm Kanone 332 (f)
schwere 10,5 cm Kanone 335 (h)
schwere 10,7 cm Kanone 353 (r)
schwere 24 cm Kanone (t)

thanks Uwe
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=223633

My Bookproject: "Organisationsgeschichte der deutschen Heeresartillerie im II. Weltkrieg"

http://balsi.de/Heeresartillerie/

User avatar
Leo Niehorster
Member
Posts: 1413
Joined: 21 Jan 2004 22:07
Location: Hannover, Germany

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Leo Niehorster » 14 Aug 2020 08:50

Hi Uwe,

Unless I have misunderstood your question, (and I fear I have, seeing as this is your very special field), guns up to 99mm were considered light (leicht). Heavy (schwer) guns had the caliber of 100mm to 209mm.

Field howitzers were light (leicht) to 129mm, and between 130mm and 209mm as heavy (schwer).

For all types, anything over 209mm was super heavy (schwerste).

--
Leo
Information not passed on is lost.
URL: World War II Armed Forces

User avatar
schwarzermai
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 09 Mar 2013 06:52
Location: Germany

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by schwarzermai » 14 Aug 2020 10:50

Hello Leo, thanks for your help,

my concern is to clarify why some cannons carried the attachment heavily and some not

why "schwere 24 cm Kanone (t)" but just "24 cm Kanone 3"

why "schwere 10,5 cm Kanone 332 (f)" but just "10,5 cm Kanone 331 (f)"

i hope i could clarify my question with this examples.

Uwe
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=223633

My Bookproject: "Organisationsgeschichte der deutschen Heeresartillerie im II. Weltkrieg"

http://balsi.de/Heeresartillerie/

User avatar
Jeff Leach
Host - Archive section
Posts: 1352
Joined: 19 Jan 2010 09:08
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Jeff Leach » 14 Aug 2020 13:25

could the 'schwere' designation from a translation of the gun's original name.

10.5cm K 331(f)
10.5 cm Kanone 331(f)
Canon de 105 mle 1913 Schneider


s 10.5cm K 332(f)
schwere 10.5 cm Kanone 332(f)
Canon de 105 L mle 1936 Schneider

User avatar
schwarzermai
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 09 Mar 2013 06:52
Location: Germany

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by schwarzermai » 14 Aug 2020 19:30

Hello Jeff,

no - the designation of the cannon is independent from the caliber,
i mean the designation in the name!

the caliber of 10 cm+ is "schwer", but only some guns had "schwer" ion their name, no 15 cm gun named "schwere Kanone" and only one 24 cm Kanone.

why?

Uwe
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=223633

My Bookproject: "Organisationsgeschichte der deutschen Heeresartillerie im II. Weltkrieg"

http://balsi.de/Heeresartillerie/

User avatar
Xavier
Financial supporter
Posts: 3256
Joined: 12 Nov 2002 02:01
Location: Swedish guinea

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Xavier » 14 Aug 2020 20:07

maybe to diferentiate versions of the same gun... leuchte and schwere

User avatar
Grzesio
Member
Posts: 754
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 14:55
Location: Poland

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Grzesio » 14 Aug 2020 23:22

And how about actual weight of the gun, its ammunition, the way the gun was moved (number of loads), or the ballistic performance? E.g. how does the comparision of 331 and 332 in these aspects look like? :)

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Aug 2020 01:05

Because every military loves to be consistently inconsistent? Note that the American Army "standard" nomenclature for things changed completely in 1926 and then again some 25 years later. Sometimes using schwer and sometimes not is a minor peccadillo as these things go.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

User avatar
schwarzermai
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 09 Mar 2013 06:52
Location: Germany

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by schwarzermai » 15 Aug 2020 21:53

Richard Anderson wrote:
15 Aug 2020 01:05
Because every military loves to be consistently inconsistent? Note that the American Army "standard" nomenclature for things changed completely in 1926 and then again some 25 years later. Sometimes using schwer and sometimes not is a minor peccadillo as these things go.
maybe ....
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=223633

My Bookproject: "Organisationsgeschichte der deutschen Heeresartillerie im II. Weltkrieg"

http://balsi.de/Heeresartillerie/

JKernwerk
Member
Posts: 1138
Joined: 23 Dec 2010 17:43

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by JKernwerk » 16 Aug 2020 20:19

Could it be that the term has to do with the undercarriage instead of the caliber?
JK

User avatar
schwarzermai
Member
Posts: 1373
Joined: 09 Mar 2013 06:52
Location: Germany

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by schwarzermai » 17 Aug 2020 05:07

JKernwerk wrote:
16 Aug 2020 20:19
Could it be that the term has to do with the undercarriage instead of the caliber?
JK
Hello JK, hm ... i dont know -

here are the details for 331 (f) and schwere 332 (f)

any idea why 332 (f) is desgnated as "schwer" and 331 (f) not?

thanks uwe

Image

Image
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=223633

My Bookproject: "Organisationsgeschichte der deutschen Heeresartillerie im II. Weltkrieg"

http://balsi.de/Heeresartillerie/

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8238
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 12:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 17 Aug 2020 06:44

331(f) Feuergweicht 2300 Kg, 332 (f) nearly double...maybe a hint?

Grüß Dich

Jan-Hendrik

User avatar
Grzesio
Member
Posts: 754
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 14:55
Location: Poland

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Grzesio » 17 Aug 2020 07:29

Looking at the data above, I think too, actual weight of the gun is the key. And maybe its range?

User avatar
Leo Niehorster
Member
Posts: 1413
Joined: 21 Jan 2004 22:07
Location: Hannover, Germany

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by Leo Niehorster » 17 Aug 2020 07:41

Length of barrel: —  possibly L28.4 was not considered enough in a gun to be heavy?
Also, the 331 has a shield, indicating possible front line use, whereas 332 does not have a shield, indicating primarily counter-battery use.

--
Leo
Information not passed on is lost.
URL: World War II Armed Forces

ALVF
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: 22 Oct 2012 10:37
Location: France

Re: Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

Post by ALVF » 17 Aug 2020 08:42

Hello,

In 19th Century, the designation as "schwer" is given by the weight of the tube (Rohrgewicht), especially in german and russian Artillery.
For instance in german Feldartillerie:
-Schwere Feldkanone C/73, 9 cm, Rohrgewicht: 450 kg.
-Leichte Feldkanone C/73, 8 cm, Rohrgewicht: 390 kg.

But, I do not read any text that give the norms at different dates because the weight of a "schweres Geschütz" of 1880 is perhaps "leicht" in 1940.
Yours sincerely,
Guy François.

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”