Designation of canons as "schwer", why?

[schwarzermai]

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

[Leo Niehorster]

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

[schwarzermai]

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

[Jeff Leach]

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

[schwarzermai]

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

[Xavier]

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

[Grzesio]

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]

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.

[schwarzermai]

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 ....

[JKernwerk]

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

[schwarzermai]

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

[Jan-Hendrik]

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

Grüß Dich

Jan-Hendrik

[Grzesio]

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

[Leo Niehorster]

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

[ALVF]

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.