15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1268
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 22:38

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by Clive Mortimore » 04 Mar 2018 20:42

stg 44 wrote: They would have been better off modifying the 25 pounder into a lighter infantry gun.
Hi Stg

The Auzzies did with the Baby 25 pdr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_ ... nder_Short It remained an artillery weapon.
yantaylor wrote: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.
Hi Yan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_ ... m_howitzer or I an Hogg's book on British and American Artillery of the Second World War.
Clive

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by stg 44 » 04 Mar 2018 20:49

Clive Mortimore wrote:
stg 44 wrote: They would have been better off modifying the 25 pounder into a lighter infantry gun.
Hi Stg

The Auzzies did with the Baby 25 pdr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_ ... nder_Short It remained an artillery weapon.
As an infantry howitzer it would have been pretty much exactly what was needed. The problem was trying to use it as a divisional artillery piece instead.

yantaylor
Member
Posts: 842
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by yantaylor » 04 Mar 2018 20:51

Hi Clive, I checked out that link, but I am still lacking some key stuff, here is what I have done so far, the question marks are for gaps in the data;

Ordnance QF 95mm Infantry Howitzer
Year: 1944.
Type: Infantry Support Howitzer
Origin & Make: . ????????????????????????
Total: 700 or 800.???????????????????????
Crew: 6.
Calibre: 95mm L/.?????????????????????????
Barrel Length: 2.17m.
Length of Weapon: m. ????????????????????????????
Elevation: -5° to +30°.
Traverse: 8°.
Carriage: Box Trail.
Breech: . ???????????????
Sights: .????????????????????????????
Shell Weight: HE kg????????????????????????????????????
Muzzle Velocity: 330 m/s
Weight in Action: 945 kg
Maximum Range: HE 7.315m.
Rate of Fire: 7 rpm.
Traction: Motorised (Jeep). ???????????????????

Regards
Yan.

Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1268
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 22:38

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by Clive Mortimore » 04 Mar 2018 22:18

stg 44 wrote:
Clive Mortimore wrote:
stg 44 wrote: They would have been better off modifying the 25 pounder into a lighter infantry gun.
Hi Stg

The Auzzies did with the Baby 25 pdr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_ ... nder_Short It remained an artillery weapon.
As an infantry howitzer it would have been pretty much exactly what was needed. The problem was trying to use it as a divisional artillery piece instead.
Trying to use the 25 pdr in the jungle was the problem and the short 25 pdr was the solution.
Clive

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 2583
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by Sheldrake » 04 Mar 2018 23:05

yantaylor wrote:Hi Clive, I checked out that link, but I am still lacking some key stuff, here is what I have done so far, the question marks are for gaps in the data;

Ordnance QF 95mm Infantry Howitzer
Year: 1944.
Type: Infantry Support Howitzer
Origin & Make: . ????????????????????????
Total: 700 or 800.???????????????????????
Crew: 6.
Calibre: 95mm L/.?????????????????????????
Barrel Length: 2.17m.
Length of Weapon: m. ????????????????????????????
Elevation: -5° to +30°.
Traverse: 8°.
Carriage: Box Trail.
Breech: . ???????????????
Sights: .????????????????????????????
Shell Weight: HE kg????????????????????????????????????
Muzzle Velocity: 330 m/s
Weight in Action: 945 kg
Maximum Range: HE 7.315m.
Rate of Fire: 7 rpm.
Traction: Motorised (Jeep). ???????????????????

Regards
Yan.
This never went into service as a towed equipment. Who cares whether 700 or 800 were in different stages of completion before being scrapped ;) The Wikipedia mentions some of the organisational and logistic issues of an infantry howitzer that I have already posted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_ ... m_howitzer

This equipment did enter service as armament for CS Tanks - see countless threads on this topic. Despite the wargamer enthusiasm for CS tanks, the firepower available to the FOO was far more use in most circumstances. The 95mm gun had its finest hour -almost literally, on D Day when 80 CS variants of the Centaur were used as a single use assault gun brigade to add close support for the assault landings. After D Day itself the performance of the RMASG Centaurs illustrated the limitations of this Infantry Howitzer. The range was little more than half that of the 25 pounder, so less flexible and the trajectory was too flat to be much use in the counter mortar role.

The British had plenty of armour to support infantry and no Guderian inspired hang ups about concentrating all the tanks in armoured divisions. The British did not need to invent the Stug to bypass the RAC. If British infantry needed to take out a bunker, the could have called on a gun tank or a CS tank or an AVRE.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2156
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by Yoozername » 05 Mar 2018 03:44

The US Army usually had a tank battalion or a TD battalion attached to a infantry division. They had plenty of mobile firepower in the division, it seems a bit off to have the 105mm infantry guns. If anything, they should have cobbled them onto the M5 tank chassis.

yantaylor
Member
Posts: 842
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by yantaylor » 05 Mar 2018 21:05

Funny enough Yoozer, the Americans did try to cobble the 105mm How to a M5 tank chassis.
It was called the T82 HMC and featured the the 105mm M3 Howitzer mounted on a M5A1 Light Tank.
Only two prototypes were built and tested in 1944, but the idea was dropped.

Yan.

KrankenPz
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 24 Oct 2019 07:03
Location: Ballarat

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by KrankenPz » 03 Dec 2019 09:38

stg 44 wrote:
04 Mar 2018 16:20
Clive Mortimore wrote: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.
The Aussies did exactly that in the Pacific...

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3058
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by stg 44 » 03 Dec 2019 16:21

KrankenPz wrote:
03 Dec 2019 09:38
stg 44 wrote:
04 Mar 2018 16:20
Clive Mortimore wrote: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.
The Aussies did exactly that in the Pacific...
Sort of. It was still an regular artillery piece, just stripped down to make it easier to use in the confined jungle terrain, not an infantry gun like the 105mm US pack howitzer.

KrankenPz
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: 24 Oct 2019 07:03
Location: Ballarat

Re: 15 cm sIG 33 indirect fire question

Post by KrankenPz » 05 Dec 2019 08:19

Agreed, it wasn't used in that role, but they did do what Clive suggested in terms of modification.

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”