US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#46

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Dec 2016, 19:13

Yoozername wrote:I assume the last line, percentage, is actually tonnage? Clearly it is not rounds? 2/3rd of the heavy rounds are 155mm Howitzer?
No, it is the percentage of the production of that round for that month shipped to Europe.
Again, this is sent. When it docked, unloaded, repackaged and was sent to the forward dumps, and finally delivered and fired....Would be interesting.
That can be roughly estimated by the monthly changes in the reported amounts.
Most people are familiar with the concept of JIT (Just In Time) as it pertains to QC and manufacturing. To say this is the best example of NJIT is an understatement. How much of the March 1945 ammunition sent was actually even fired?
ASF tried to practice JIT, but then refused to accept the theater estimates of what constituted being "in time" and by how much. One of the silliest arguments ensued when the theater tried to demonstrate using actual requisitions that the ASF 75-day turnaround estimate was actually closer to 120-days. That circled the drain for months before ASF agreed to a "compromise" of 90-days IIRC...in the spring of 1945.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#47

Post by Yoozername » 10 Dec 2016, 19:26

Richard Anderson wrote:
Yoozername wrote:Basically my point regarding 105mm ammunition is that it is sending a big box and brass, as well as the real payload (~66 pounds of projectile) on the one way trip to the battlefields (in a 120 pound package). It is nice to have a delivered item such as this, and the rate of fire can be pretty impressive, but logistically it might not be as efficient as something like the 25 pdr. with its ramrodded rounds and bags.
I guess I am not understanding the distinction you are making? The 25-pdr fired separate ammunition, but the propellant bags were in a cartridge. Rounds were delivered as a box of four projectiles weighing about 120 pounds. Where is the advantage?
Do you have dimensions of the box? Is that the cargo shipping box?

I have seen photos like these from WWII, this is from Burma. I assume that they have 8 round 'boxes' behind the weapons. I have to admit that I am in no way an expert on British weapons.

Image


User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#48

Post by Sheldrake » 10 Dec 2016, 19:48

Yoozername wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote:
Yoozername wrote:Basically my point regarding 105mm ammunition is that it is sending a big box and brass, as well as the real payload (~66 pounds of projectile) on the one way trip to the battlefields (in a 120 pound package). It is nice to have a delivered item such as this, and the rate of fire can be pretty impressive, but logistically it might not be as efficient as something like the 25 pdr. with its ramrodded rounds and bags.
I guess I am not understanding the distinction you are making? The 25-pdr fired separate ammunition, but the propellant bags were in a cartridge. Rounds were delivered as a box of four projectiles weighing about 120 pounds. Where is the advantage?
Do you have dimensions of the box? Is that the cargo shipping box?

I have seen photos like these from WWII, this is from Burma. I assume that they have 8 round 'boxes' behind the weapons. I have to admit that I am in no way an expert on British weapons.

Image
25 Pounder shells and cartridges were supplied separately. Cartridges in boxes of eight and rounds in boxes of four. You will see two types of box behind each gun. I suspect they have been improvised from the trays in limbers as this was a non standard deployment of a 25 pdr troop on a barge.

BTW chaps,

Isn't all this ammunition crisis merely the consequence of Eisenhower's Broad front policy. If you have a point of main effort, ev erywhere else can be rationed. if everyone has been tasked with attacking then ammunition is going to run low.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#49

Post by Yoozername » 10 Dec 2016, 20:00


Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#50

Post by Yoozername » 10 Dec 2016, 20:34

BTW chaps,

Isn't all this ammunition crisis merely the consequence of Eisenhower's Broad front policy. If you have a point of main effort, ev erywhere else can be rationed. if everyone has been tasked with attacking then ammunition is going to run low.
Depends, are you asking that the same amount of ammunition is 'delivered' but that a disproportionate amount be given to certain armies? Like during the Market Garden attack? We are back to (b) again? .......(b) inability to move ammunition from ports and beaches to the armies, August through October 1944;....You will have traffic jams and other issues. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work...

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#51

Post by Sheldrake » 10 Dec 2016, 21:03

Yoozername wrote:
BTW chaps,

Isn't all this ammunition crisis merely the consequence of Eisenhower's Broad front policy. If you have a point of main effort, ev erywhere else can be rationed. if everyone has been tasked with attacking then ammunition is going to run low.
Depends, are you asking that the same amount of ammunition is 'delivered' but that a disproportionate amount be given to certain armies? Like during the Market Garden attack? We are back to (b) again? .......(b) inability to move ammunition from ports and beaches to the armies, August through October 1944;....You will have traffic jams and other issues. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work...
That is why generals are paid to make the decision to back either Peter or Paul, and put their main effort at a point of advantage, within the constraints of their logistic capabilities. Op Market Garden was the only attempt to win the war in '44. Everything else until March 45 was attritional nibbling WW1 style.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#52

Post by Yoozername » 10 Dec 2016, 21:56

To equate 8 rounds in the 105mm system to 8 rounds in the 25 pdr. system, we can easily find the weight of 8 rounds of 105mm. That is, 4x120 lbs. is 480 pounds.

4 round 'bundle' system of 25 pdr. projectiles is 137 pounds (it may be less, anyone know the weights? Its 25 pounds X 4+?), that 2X is 274 pounds gives us 8 rounds. Added to this would be the weight of the 8 round case+propellant box. Anyone know that weight? Let's say 30 pounds for fun...Total weight is 300 pounds or so.

So, the 105mm system is 480/300=1.6 or 60 % more.

But, Size is .......
4 round 25 pdr ammo Box P59 Mk2 (4 HE shot)- 19.15" x 8.35" x 7.85" volume is 1255 cubic inches x 2= 2501 cubic inches
8 round cartridge case box is ~ 18" by 10" by 10" = 1800 cubic inches

So total for 8 British rounds is ~4301 cubic inches

2 round 105mm ammo box is 1.8 cubic ft.= 3110 cubic inches...times 4 = 12,440 cubic inches

In rough terms, volume wise, US system is 5 times the space.

The transport is volume limited as well as weight limited. While it is true 105mm might be more powerful than 25 pdr. You could get many more 25 pdr. in a ship, easily 3X as many in, and have plenty of room to spare for light bulky items.



Image

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#53

Post by Yoozername » 10 Dec 2016, 22:05

Sheldrake wrote:
Yoozername wrote:
BTW chaps,

Isn't all this ammunition crisis merely the consequence of Eisenhower's Broad front policy. If you have a point of main effort, ev erywhere else can be rationed. if everyone has been tasked with attacking then ammunition is going to run low.
Depends, are you asking that the same amount of ammunition is 'delivered' but that a disproportionate amount be given to certain armies? Like during the Market Garden attack? We are back to (b) again? .......(b) inability to move ammunition from ports and beaches to the armies, August through October 1944;....You will have traffic jams and other issues. Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work...
That is why generals are paid to make the decision to back either Peter or Paul, and put their main effort at a point of advantage, within the constraints of their logistic capabilities. Op Market Garden was the only attempt to win the war in '44. Everything else until March 45 was attritional nibbling WW1 style.
You mean win the war in the ETO? There was, of course, a war with Japan. But I take your attritional nibbling to be glossing over the breakout and mobile operations that had Germany on the run. Again, logistics rears its ugly head. If one of the chasing armies were glorified with all the fuel AND ammunition it could have, there would still be issues. And Patton lucked out by capturing fuel and other sundries.

It is interesting to discuss the 'Macro' but I am still trying to get the 'Micro' fallacies taken care of...

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#54

Post by Yoozername » 10 Dec 2016, 23:06

From the Liberty ship information below, we can correlate the ratio of 75mm shells to 105mm shells. This is the Sherman 75mm round. Basically for every six 105mm shells, you can have thirteen 75mm shells.
10575.jpg
If you were shipping 76mm shells, this ratio would not hold. They are longer but more about them later. (23.5" vs. 34.5") There is also Pack 75mm shells for the light artillery piece.

The pack 75mm ammunition is actually a semi-fixed ammunition. By that I mean you can get the projectile out and it is not a hard crimped connection. The reason you should be able to do that is that there are actually charges inside that can be taken out to basically have multiple zones and firing solutions like most artillery. No other nation did this, as far as I know, for a tank main gun round.

The 76mm/3 inch certainly did not do it and there was a need to stock both a normal HE charged round and a completely separate reduced charge (RC) round.

If the Sherman could do this (share pack ammo) it would actually make the 75mm high explosive round not only versatile, but also much more effective than the 76mm/3 inch rounds. The 75mm had over 50% more explosive and it was a heavier round also. Something like 14.5 pounds vs. 12.5 pounds. The M42 75mm/3 inch was more akin to something like the German Light Field gun round. Except way too high a velocity.

Its too bad they couldn't as it introduced more logistics issues. The Soviets actually shared 76mm ammunition across almost all weapons. This included the field pieces and the tank guns. Logistically, it has its benefits.
Last edited by Yoozername on 10 Dec 2016, 23:53, edited 1 time in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#55

Post by Richard Anderson » 10 Dec 2016, 23:30

Yoozername wrote:The Sherman 75mm tank ammunition is actually a 'semi' semi-fixed ammunition. By that I mean you can get the projectile out and it is not a hard crimped connection. The reason you should be able to do that is that there are actually charges inside that can be taken out to basically have multiple zones and firing solutions like most artillery. No other nation did this, as far as I know, for a tank main gun round. The 76mm/3 inch certainly did not do it and there was a need to stock both a normal HE charged round and a completely separate reduced charge (RC) round.
While in theory you are correct, Major Jarrett in the desert changed out the early M61 uncapped projectiles for German 75mm AP rounds in order to improve performance of the early M3 guns in the Medium M3 and M4, the propellant charge was not separate bags, but was rather unitary. The Shell, HE, M48 for Guns M1897A4, M1916, M1917, M2, and M3 were issued with different propellant loads as Super, Normal, or Reduced Charge, but were not adjustable. You may be thinking of the Shell, HE, M46 for Howitzers M1, M1A1, M2, and M3. It did utilize a four-section powder bag, which was used to generate a four-zone charge.

It gets more confusing in that in extremis, the M2/M3 Gun could fire the Howitzer round. The Marines did that famously at Betio, which worked, although the crew commented on the jets of flame shooting out of the breech since the case did not completely seat. You can imagine how it effected accuracy.

Nor did the 3"/76mm use zoned charges and the M42A1 HE round used the same propellant without a reduced charge. In fact, the HE used the same charge as the AP and APC. It is one of the striking oversights that they did not think to produce a reduced charge like for the 75mm Gun HE.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#56

Post by Yoozername » 11 Dec 2016, 00:17

Yes, AP rounds have different packing than HE rounds, and sometimes different propellant also. But, even crimped rounds can be wrestled out if care is taken. And, yes, there is some information regarding that incident but it was actually M72 rounds I believe. And they reweighed the powder precisely. It was found to be varying.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display. ... ticles=269
With that operation in high gear, Jarrett started one of the weirdest and potentially the most dangerous munitions operation in the world. Calling upon his wide knowledge of explosives, fuses, and shell cases, he began turning out a hybrid ammunition made up of a little bit of everything. With the Ordnance Corps improvising shell pullers and crimpers, and with Arabs for labor, he began taking shells apart for their assorted parts. American M72 and Mk I high explosive shells provided the primed cartridge cases and charges. German shells were pulled and their cases disposed of. And then, to get the desired velocity of 1,950 feet per second, all sorts of recovered gunpowders were carefully weighed, dumped into cleaned oil drums, and there blended under the hot desert sun with wooden paddles. At one point in this safety-last operation, with Jarrett himself stirring up a barrel of powder with an oar, it is estimated enough propellant was being mixed to blow the whole junkyard into bits should so much as a small spark be struck on one of the steel drums. And there was no shortage of flint-like rocks being kicked around. But the inevitable never happened, and when the hybrid shells went into action they performed so far beyond anything yet on the field that Jarrett was awarded the Legion of Merit medal.
A very good read and a clever man.

I did correct my post in some regards. I was trying to make the point regarding the Soviets. Clearly, having tank ammunition that was compatible with artillery weapons and field guns and antitank guns, may not have been perfect, but it helps when you can shoot and the other guy can't.

And, as far as those marines, they should have consulted the cannon-cockers...IF they had taken the projectile, and used a ram-rod of some invention, they would have gotten a nice shot. The ram-rod makes the rifling bite into the copper and that would make a seal...

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#57

Post by Yoozername » 11 Dec 2016, 01:47

Nor did the 3"/76mm use zoned charges and the M42A1 HE round used the same propellant without a reduced charge. In fact, the HE used the same charge as the AP and APC. It is one of the striking oversights that they did not think to produce a reduced charge like for the 75mm Gun HE.
Well, that it worth a discussion.

Technically, the 3 inch and 76mm shared projectiles, but had different cartridges. They are said to have the same velocity. So, they have the same penetration and flight characteristics. Basically the M10 TD and M5 antitank gun are 3 inch weapons, and the M18 and Sherman 76mm are, well, 76mm weapons. All have the same bore diameter, of course, since they share the same projectiles.

It is true the M42A1 HE round was a high velocity round (2800 fps). It was maybe a bit faster than the M62 round even. Are you saying that there was no reduced charge HE round? Many sources say there was. Its especially hard to fire indirect at that velocity, unless you are hitting things at great range.

The Sherman 75mm HE round is, by its nature, a lower velocity 'stock' item (like 2000 fps). And there is a reduced round for this also. I guess I have to post some stuff.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#58

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Dec 2016, 09:51

Yoozername wrote:Yes, AP rounds have different packing than HE rounds, and sometimes different propellant also. But, even crimped rounds can be wrestled out if care is taken. And, yes, there is some information regarding that incident but it was actually M72 rounds I believe. And they reweighed the powder precisely. It was found to be varying.
Yes, I should read my own manuscript occasionally. I'm afraid the account you found was a bit "dressed up" though. The more likely version is in Hunnicutt, Sherman pp. 89-90:

During the development period of the APC M61, it had been necessary to introduce an interim round to meet the requirement for large quantities of armor piercing ammunition. This was the AP M72 monobloc shot. Rushed into production, this solid steel shot was variable in quality and tended to break up against face- hardened armor.

Tests carried out near Cairo in March 1942 against several German tank hulls re- vealed that the M72 shot was relatively ineffective against the frontal armor at ranges over 500 yards. A successful effort to provide effective armor piercing rounds resulted from the brilliant idea of Major Northy, an Australian serving with the British Royal Army Ordnance Corps. Early in 1942, about 50,000 tons of assorted German ammunition captured during the relief of Tobruk were moved to the Ninth British Army Depot along the Suez canal. Among this vast supply were many of the explosive loaded APCBC rounds for the Panzer IV’s 7.5cm Kampfwagenkanone (KWK) L/ 24. Major Northy noted that if the rotating band was modified, the German projectile could be fitted into a U.S. cartridge case and fired from the M3’s 75. Checking with Major G.B. Jarrett, an Ordnance ammunition expert with the U.S. Mission in the Middle East, he found that Jarrett not only agreed as to the feasibility of the project, but gave it his enthusiastic support.
The German projectile differed from its U.S. counterpart in having a much wider and thicker rotating band, but the basic dimensions of the round were essentially the same. A number of the German projectiles were removed from their cartridge cases and the rotating bands turned down to the U.S. dimensions in a lathe. The rounds were then success- fully assembled into U.S. cases and they chambered properly in the M3’s 75mm gun. These were explosive loaded armor piercing projectiles fitted with a base detonating fuze. This fuze was armed by the projectile rotation when the round was fired. Fortunately, the lathe rotation was insufficient to arm the fuze during the machining operation. Some of the converted ammunition was test fired against a Panzer III hull in comparison with a few of the new U.S. APC M61s which had been flown out to Cairo. Like the German round, the M6l was fitted with an armor piercing cap, but it was inert loaded since the development of a suitable base detonating fuze was not yet complete. The tests showed the penetration performance of the two rounds was identi- cal, but the damage resulting from the German projectile was much greater. Both penetrated the front of the Panzer III at a 1000 yards, but the German round exploded inside the tank. In combat such an explosion would almost always set off the stowed ammunition. With the approval of Middle East Headquarters, the new round was designated as the 75mm AP- Composite and conversion began at full speed. A total of about 17,000 rounds were converted of which 15,000 were the explosive loaded APCBC. The remaining 2000 were high explosive and smoke which were also modified as any reliable round was most welcome for the M3’s gun. U.S. AP M72 and HE Mk I ammunition was used to provide the primed cartridge cases and propellant charges.

Much of the old ammunition was found to contain variable weights of propellant so all the charges were dumped together, mixed, and re- weighed to insure a uniform muzzle velocity. The conversion work took two to three weeks and the composite rounds were sent forward before the action opened on the Gazala line in late May. No information seems to be available on what use was made of the new ammunition. About 6000 rounds were captured by the Germans in the dumps at Capuzzo during the retreat to Alamein. They were then moved to the German base dump at Tobruk where they were recaptured the following November
And, as far as those marines, they should have consulted the cannon-cockers...IF they had taken the projectile, and used a ram-rod of some invention, they would have gotten a nice shot. The ram-rod makes the rifling bite into the copper and that would make a seal...
Um, it was Betio, they didn't have the time and luxury to separate the projectile and case in order to ram the projectile.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#59

Post by Yoozername » 11 Dec 2016, 19:13

Hunnicutt more than likely knew Jarret through the APG museum.

I addition to the field story, a number of German projectiles were shipped back to the states for formal testing. Here is the report synopsis...
http://i.imgur.com/SncD3EU.png

The German K. Gr. Rot 7,5 cm is the projectile that was 'swapped' in from the Panzer IV L24 gun. It actually wasn't much better over 2000 fps, and the Germans got away from the big cavity HE and replaced this design with the Pzgr 39. The Germans found the large cavity, and the resulting thin walls, led to failures against sloped armor. Also, the rear part of the shell takes a beating traveling through sloped armor and leads to fuze failures. So, while it must have been great in the eyes of the early US engineers, the Germans were way ahead than they even knew. The Germans felt that a small 17 gm. RDX explosion was enough to incapacitate the enemy crew. The German muzzle velocity on the K. Gr. Rot 7,5 cm was something like 1250 fps and had 80 gms.of explosive. Of note is that the German K. Gr. Rot 7,5 cm (6.8 Kg) actually weighs more than the US M72 6.32 kg (13.9 lb) or the M61 6.63 kg (14.62 lb), so I wonder if they mixed in German propellants or really had the means to measure the velocity in the field.

As far as the lathe activating the fuze, I would have to check but I don't think the Germans bothered with 'bore-safing' the AP fuze in APCBCHE ammunition. Even if it was activated, it needs a tremendous deceleration to actually explode. The actual HE fuzes like the French ones mentioned in the link are usually bore-safe and then not really 'on' for a small distance past the muzzle (a spring relaxes as it is not being accelerated anymore). Then they are very sensitive and can be set off by passing through a trees canopy.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6350
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: US Artillery Ammunition Shortage ETO

#60

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Dec 2016, 20:00

Yoozername wrote:Hunnicutt more than likely knew Jarret through the APG museum.
Oh indeed he did. He worked for Jarrett for a while IIRC.
I addition to the field story, a number of German projectiles were shipped back to the states for formal testing. Here is the report synopsis...
Good find.
The German K. Gr. Rot 7,5 cm is the projectile that was 'swapped' in from the Panzer IV L24 gun. It actually wasn't much better over 2000 fps, and the Germans got away from the big cavity HE and replaced this design with the Pzgr 39. The Germans found the large cavity, and the resulting thin walls, led to failures against sloped armor. Also, the rear part of the shell takes a beating traveling through sloped armor and leads to fuze failures. So, while it must have been great in the eyes of the early US engineers, the Germans were way ahead than they even knew. The Germans felt that a small 17 gm. RDX explosion was enough to incapacitate the enemy crew.
Yes, the enthusiasm for the German round "confirmed" the decision to replace the M72 AP with the M61 APC, which had 0.144 pounds (65.32 grams) of Explosive-D filler. When the 76mm/3" M62A1 APC was produced it had the exact same filler, since it was believed that was optimal for the round. And 90mm M82 APC had 0.31 pounds (140.6 grams) of Explosive-D.
The German muzzle velocity on the K. Gr. Rot 7,5 cm was something like 1250 fps and had 80 gms.of explosive. Of note is that the German K. Gr. Rot 7,5 cm (6.8 Kg) actually weighs more than the US M72 6.32 kg (13.9 lb) or the M61 6.63 kg (14.62 lb), so I wonder if they mixed in German propellants or really had the means to measure the velocity in the field.
As far as I know they only reweighed the standard FNH powder used in the American cartridge...I always understood combining powders of two different compositions is probably not a great idea and is only engaged in by lunatic navy ordnance types...leading to things like the Wisconsin turret explosion.
As far as the lathe activating the fuze, I would have to check but I don't think the Germans bothered with 'bore-safing' the AP fuze in APCBCHE ammunition. Even if it was activated, it needs a tremendous deceleration to actually explode. The actual HE fuzes like the French ones mentioned in the link are usually bore-safe and then not really 'on' for a small distance past the muzzle (a spring relaxes as it is not being accelerated anymore). Then they are very sensitive and can be set off by passing through a trees canopy.
I don't think the BD Fuze M66A1 or M68 were "bore-safe" either? They only incorporated an inertial safety washer holding the firing pin in place.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Post Reply

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”