15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3485
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by David W » 16 Jun 2011 13:21

By the way, that would make sense then, with the other battery presumably having 4.5" guns, and the 155mm replacing 6" howitzers?
That's how I see it too.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4387
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Urmel » 16 Jun 2011 13:23

Wish I was a gunner to better understand what the advantages of the 155mm over the 6" was.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3485
Joined: 28 Mar 2004 01:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by David W » 16 Jun 2011 13:31

Range & effectiveness of H.E round would be the most important factors I guess, and the 155mm wins on both counts I believe.

User avatar
Manuferey
Member
Posts: 4030
Joined: 17 May 2007 14:52
Location: Virginia

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Manuferey » 12 Jul 2011 01:31

Lars Bertelsen wrote:[Posted June 9, 2011]
Here is a picture of a 15,5 cm sFH 414 in a Sockellafette (from Enzyklopädie deutscher Waffen by Gander&Chamberlain).
[...]
Another book picture of a 15.5 cm sFH414(f) in Sockellafette IV has been posted in the following thread:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&start=15

Emmanuel

Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 22:38

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Clive Mortimore » 12 Jul 2011 06:52

JBond wrote:Wish I was a gunner to better understand what the advantages of the 155mm over the 6" was.
David W wrote:Range & effectiveness of H.E round would be the most important factors I guess, and the 155mm wins on both counts I believe.
Hi Guys

The nominal calibre of a gun or howitzer can be very misleading. Weapons of similar calibre like 6 inch and 155mm should perform the same if everything else is the same, design of shell, amount of propellant, volume of chamber, length of barrel, twist of rifling etc. So a well-designed 6 inch would out perform a badly designed 155mm.

The use of calibre to describe a gun is like calling it Bob or Charlie. It is just a name.

In the case of the US 155mm Howitzer M1917 or M1918 and the British 6 inch Howitzer, the US weapon was on paper had a slightly better performance but for practical battle use they were closely matched. The M1917/18 was adopted by the British owing to a lack of 6 inch Howitzers more than performance wise, I think the average British gunner wished there were more 6 inch howitzers as the M1917 was not liked by their British crews. It was soon retired when large numbers of 5.5 inch gun-howitzers became available. The more popular 6 inch carried on in service in Burma until the end of the war.
Clive

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4387
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Urmel » 12 Jul 2011 15:15

Hi Clive

Thanks for that. I was wondering if you could elaborate - from what I can see, the 6" had lower shell weight, lower range, lower rate of fire, higher weight, lower traverse, and better elevation. Unfortunately the 155mm data is not from Nigel Evans' site, so not as reliable.

I am wondering why, if the guns had been even, the Commonwealth chose to send the 6" off to India, and go through the trouble of replacing it with a stopgap in the Western Desert. That only makes sense to me if the 155mm is better.

That the 155mm itself was replaced by the 5.5" gun (not howitzer?) is not surprising, given the superiority of that gun.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1278
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 22:38

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Clive Mortimore » 12 Jul 2011 20:17

JBond wrote:Hi Clive

Thanks for that. I was wondering if you could elaborate - from what I can see, the 6" had lower shell weight, lower range, lower rate of fire, higher weight, lower traverse, and better elevation. Unfortunately the 155mm data is not from Nigel Evans' site, so not as reliable.

I am wondering why, if the guns had been even, the Commonwealth chose to send the 6" off to India, and go through the trouble of replacing it with a stopgap in the Western Desert. That only makes sense to me if the 155mm is better.

That the 155mm itself was replaced by the 5.5" gun (not howitzer?) is not surprising, given the superiority of that gun.
Hi JBond
Hogg's British and American Artillery of WW2 has the following figures for both howitzers.

Performance, 6 inch firing standard 86lb shell, Muzzle Velocity 1,409 ft/sec Maximum Range 11,400 yards
firing 100lb shell, Muzzle Velocity 1,234 ft/sec Maximum Range 9,500 yards
155mm firing standard 95lb shell, Muzzle Velocity 1,475 ft/sec Maximum Range 12,400 yards.

Remember both were howitzers and would very rarely be expected to fire anywhere near their full range, so maximum range is an academic measurement only.

Having made the point that they were howitzers they both had quite low angles of elevation, 45 degrees, 6 inch and just over 42 degrees the M1917. Not much in it. Both were mounted on a box trail so their limited traverse of 4 and 3 degrees respectively was only for the final adjustment. With a crew of 10 it was man the gun spikes and shift it left or right :) Now with the 6 inch being 1078lbs heavier than the 8,184lbs of the 155mm this method of traversing would be a disadvantage for the 6 inch howitzer crews. This may not have been so, most guns and howitzers have a balance point where at a certain elevation and the trails at waist height it can be moved, or traversed with ease. My party trick was to do a full 360 degrees traverse with a 105 light gun one handed (with it balanced). So the weight was mainly a problem for the gun tractor when dragging the howitzer out of the mud. :o

Hogg does not give a rate of fire for either gun but the Chamberlin and Gander's Weapons of the Third Reich give the 15.2 s FH 412(e) a rate of 2-3 shells per minute and the 15.5 cm sFH 414(f) one of 3 shells per minute. This rate from both howitzers would have only been for a short period, lugging a 95 to 100lb shells at a high rate of fire for a long time would be very knackering even for the best drilled crews.

On the battle field any differences were minimal, remember both were designed at about the same time to fulfil the same role so would be very similar performance wise. Neither was better than the other, just the British crews liked their trusty home made gun better than the US built French one. :)

As for the 5.5 inch, it was introduced to me in 1975 when I undergoing my gun fitter training as a "gun-howitzer" as it performed both roles. Much like the Soviet 152mm ML20 (M1937). It will always be the 5.5 inch gun -howitzer to me :)
Clive

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4387
Joined: 25 Aug 2008 09:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Urmel » 12 Jul 2011 22:59

Many thanks for the educational post Clive!
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 16882
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 17:18
Location: Spain

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Sturm78 » 08 Sep 2011 12:03

Hi all,

A small image from Ebay:

Sturm78
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 16882
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 17:18
Location: Spain

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Sturm78 » 28 Oct 2011 10:08

Hi all,

Another image from Ebay:

Sturm78
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 16882
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 17:18
Location: Spain

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Sturm78 » 29 Nov 2011 22:07

Hi all,

Some images from Ebay:

Sturm78
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 16882
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 17:18
Location: Spain

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Sturm78 » 29 Nov 2011 22:09

....Part 2:

Sturm78
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

jopaerya
Member
Posts: 19010
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 13:21
Location: middelburg

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by jopaerya » 20 Apr 2012 09:00

From Ebay this gun in a firing position with nets .

Regards Jos
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Sturm78
Member
Posts: 16882
Joined: 02 Oct 2008 17:18
Location: Spain

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by Sturm78 » 30 Sep 2012 16:48

Hi all,

Another image from Ebay:

Sturm78
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

jopaerya
Member
Posts: 19010
Joined: 21 Jun 2004 13:21
Location: middelburg

Re: 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Post by jopaerya » 27 Oct 2012 12:19

Hello All

Looks to me a 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f) in a concrete emplacement with Luftwaffe soldiers ,
AFAIK the only Luftwaffe unit that used this gun were the Luftwaffe-Feld-Divisions and the
concrete emplacement makes me believe it's a static position .
From the four L.F.D. that were placed in the A.W. , I know for sure the 14, 16 and 17 L.W. Felddiv.
had the 15.5 cm s.F.H. 414 (f)

Picture's = Ebay

Regards Jos
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”