15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

[na4222]

Thanks for sharing the video. Some lovely footage in there, including super rare 15 sIG 33 on skis!

Best,
Nezar

[yantaylor]

Hi Clive, I am afraid that the Colonel is "hedging his bets" [LOL] and said that he can find no evidence in that link to suggest that low ranking officers could order such a concentration.

Yan.

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive, I am afraid that the Colonel is "hedging his bets" [LOL] and said that he can find no evidence in that link to suggest that low ranking officers could order such a concentration.

Yan.

Authority could be passed down. As Sheldrake states normally it was with the troop commander. If he wasn't at the OP his junior could be given the authority by their commanding officer. Neutralising the target was more important than the rank of the person at the OP. If senior officers at regimental, divisional or even higher levels considered the OP that has selected a target of importance they would command heavier guns to come under the OPs control as well as those he was authorised to call in to action.

[Yoozername]

As far as the German 13th company use and authority over the IGs, the officers from the 13th company acted as FO's and they used land lines over radio as a preference. They were not that far removed from the guns, perhaps 1-2 miles. They could bring down fire very quickly and that was the designed purpose of the IG. That is, the division guns were not as responsive and were dedicated to other missions. The Regimental commander had authority over the 13th Company, of course, and could order specific targets as far as supporting attacks, but the FO's could and did call in defensive fires as needed. The fast-firing 7,5 cm IGs could bring down a decent barrage even in a two gun platoon. The 15cm sIG33 had a very powerful projectile for a Regimental weapon. A ricochet shot from one of these would be terrifying to troops in the open, and it was a proven bunker buster also.

In most situations, all German weapons would have to resort to 'direct-fire' under attack from mechanized forces.

[Sheldrake]

The problem with the infantry gun concept is that its a piddling amount of firepower. 6 x 7.5cm is enough for a defensive fire some 200m wide. Its just about enough to take on targets such as a single machine gun or a platoon position. It isn't enough for the Regiment to take on an enemy battalion without support from the divisional artillery. I am not quite sure what a pair of 15cm howitzersis supposedto accomplish other than bolster morale or demolish hard targets at point blank range. Two medium howitzers is about half the size of an acceptable indirect fire unit. It doesn't have a high rate of fire and can't put down the weight of fire needed in defence that could be delivered by a pair of 81mm mortars.

[yantaylor]

I don't think Britain ever adopted the Infantry gun, at least not in WW2. Maybe they found that it was not worth the effort.
Many nations did though, most just called them battalion guns.
Would you class the American cannon Company as an Infantry gun unit? It was held at Regimental just like the German 13th Company and were utilized primary to support the Infantry battalions in that Regiment.

Yan.

[Yoozername]

The sIG 33 was a regimental weapon of specific uses. The German regiment had twelve 81mm mortars to put down 81mm fire, so it doesn't have to do that. Obviously, the sIG 33 is used primarily to destroy harder targets than the regiment's other weapons can't. It had greater range and accuracy than the 81 mm, of course.

The 7,5 cm IG had a rapid rate of fire. It had greater range and accuracy than a 8 cm GrW 34 and could offer some defense against armor and destruction of harder targets. Its deadliness does not fall off with range like a machine-gun does. It can fire in the lower register, for direct fire missions and a mortar can not.

Sheldrake's remarks do not square with a prime source.

The US used their regimental weapons in indirect fire missions primarily. They were just vulnerable and were often brought into division fire plans, unlike the German regimental guns.

The infantry gun concept largely died off after WWII. Communication improvements, negated the need for a quick responding indirect fire weapon at regimental level (besides the 120mm and 4.2 inch mortars). Any direct firing weapons that could take out bunkers and the threat of armor was better handled by bazookas/RPG/recoilless guns/etc.

[Sheldrake]

I don't think Britain ever adopted the Infantry gun, at least not in WW2. Maybe they found that it was not worth the effort.
Many nations did though, most just called them battalion guns.
Would you class the American cannon Company as an Infantry gun unit? It was held at Regimental just like the German 13th Company and were utilized primary to support the Infantry battalions in that Regiment.
Yan.

There is the argument that both were a crutch (e.g. baby walkers/stabiliser wheels/comfort blankets) to comfort the infantry who did not entirely trust the divisional artillery and wanted some entirely of their own. All their own; that no one could take away from them and they did not need to share with anyone else. Its why they liked short ranged guns that could not cover the divisional area.

I had a conversation once with a very bright infantry staff officer back in the 1980s. He was telling me how the infantry were considering specifying an improvement on the 81 mm mortar. It could be breech loading - with a longer range and a wider variety of munitions and fired from under armour. I pointed out that the requirement could be satisfied with the obsolescent FV433 105mm SP gun which would have the added advantage of integrating with the divisional fireplan. Not so keen.

At the time, developments in C3 enabled fire to be concentrated and distributed when needed during the battle, rendering concepts such as a dedicated close support battery or integral cannon companies as inefficient anachronisms.

The trick the Royal Artillery pulled was to persuade the infantry and armour that if they did without a dedicated close support battery the Gunners would give them three plus as much fire when they needed it - just trust us...

[Yoozername]

Nice stories. But the reality is that the infantry gun concept came from WWI. It came about due to the need for regimental units to have responsive artillery. They could not rely on Division artillery. Post WWII, communications and operations had advanced that the whole concept was widely dropped.

I have never heard of your 'crutch' argument. I suppose you can cite something? Or is this from your active imagination?

[Clive Mortimore]

The British went and spent a lot of money and time on developing and making the 95mm Infantry Howitzer. It had problems but none more than any other cobbled together mid war weapon of any of the combat nations. Its biggest obstacle was the Infantry them selves. Adding yet another weapon to their armoury was not welcomed as it would have meant a reduction in bayonet strength.

[yantaylor]

I don't think the Germans, Russians and Japanese ever dropped the infantry guns, the battalion gun concept was certainly in use until the wars end.
Guns like 65/17 Modello 13, 70mm Type 92 and 76mm M1927, certainly saw some action.

But would you also call the 47mm guns used by many as infantry guns?
The Böhler was used in this role as well as a anti-tank gun by quite a few nations.

Clive, was the 95mm you refer to, this gun?
https://www.quartermastersection.com/br ... dnanceQFMk

Yan.

[yantaylor]

Was the American Army the first to come up with the term "Final Protective Fires"?
I have never heard of it until yesterday and I have been told that it was unique and only used in WW2 by the US Artillery.

Yan.

[Clive Mortimore]

I don't think the Germans, Russians and Japanese ever dropped the infantry guns, the battalion gun concept was certainly in use until the wars end.
Guns like 65/17 Modello 13, 70mm Type 92 and 76mm M1927, certainly saw some action.

But would you also call the 47mm guns used by many as infantry guns?
The Böhler was used in this role as well as a anti-tank gun by quite a few nations.

Clive, was the 95mm you refer to, this gun?
https://www.quartermastersection.com/br ... dnanceQFMk

Yan.

Hi Yan

No that is the 3.7 inch mountain gun, used by the Commonwealth mountain artillery units. Also used by some field regiments in Burma and New Guinea and by air landing regiments before being issued with the US 75mm Howitzer. In looking for a good photograph of the 95mm Infantry Howitzer I have come across quite a few websites with a picture of the 3.7 inch Mountain Gun calling it the 95mm Infantry Howitzer.

The British 95 mm Infantry Howitzer was this weapon. http://www.westwoodworks.net/howitwas/w ... 40Gun3.jpg It was a cut down 3.7 inch AA gun barrel, with a 25 pdr breach and 6 pdr recoil system on a new box trail carriage. It was the field gun partner of the 95mm tank howitzer as mounted Centaur, Cromwell and Churchill CS tanks. As I said it had a few teething problems but I am sure they would have been over come. It just wasn't wanted despite about 700 being made. Had the British army had a different doctrine regarding infantry guns then I am sure it would have been a successful weapon.

[stg 44]

The British went and spent a lot of money and time on developing and making the 95mm Infantry Howitzer. It had problems but none more than any other cobbled together mid war weapon of any of the combat nations. Its biggest obstacle was the Infantry them selves. Adding yet another weapon to their armoury was not welcomed as it would have meant a reduction in bayonet strength.

They would have been better off modifying the 25 pounder into a lighter infantry gun.

[yantaylor]

Wow that is totally different gun entirely.
700 produced too, did they sell them on or scrap them?

Do you know were I could find some decent data on the Ordnance QF 95mm Infantry Howitzer?

Yan.