PiggDogg Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 I have been around for a few years (53). I have played army as a kid (yep, that was a long, long time ago. Lol.). I have read about & studied WWII, the Civil War, Korea, Napoleonic Wars, etc. for nearly as many years (by crackie, I remember the good old days). :eek: I'm pretty well versed in US military history & organization. However, I don't know everything. I am quite familiar with the US 105 mm, 75 mm, & 155 mm guns &/or howitzers. I am well aware of the 60 mm & 81 mm mortars. I aware of the 8 inch guns & howitzers. Once again, I am pretty well versed in US weapons. However, I don't claim to know everything. Someone, please tell me about the US (& for that matter, the Brit) 4.5 inch guns. :confused: Quite honestly, I don't want to be totally uninformed. However, I have never heard of WWII US 4.5 inch arty until CM. Maybe they are a holdover from WWI? :confused: What was their organization? Where were they used? Who/what units used them? How were they used (Yeah, they were loaded & fired at the enemy)? When where they used? Why were they used since 105 & 155 mm arty was available? :confused: I wish to be informed. Cheers, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 Its a British gun, predating the 5.5" by a bit. Very long range (for its day), and good accuracy at range, but had a fairly small HE payload. Often used for CB work due to its range and accuracy. Used at Corps/Army level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 are you sure it is a britsh gun? i don't recall the brits using the 4.5. i'm not sure though you may be right, just does'nt ring a bell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted December 17, 2001 Author Share Posted December 17, 2001 In addition to my above questions: Did the US use the 4.5 inchers at all? Did the US use the 4.5 inchers to any real extent? Did the US use 4.5 inchers to an extent so that they should be reasonably available in CMBO? :confused: :confused: Duh?? Cheers, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 Non-divisional artillery pieces included battalions equipped with these same weapons, as other, heavier pieces. A companion of the 155mm howitzer was the 4.5" gun (an indigenous 120mm gun was one of the few failures of the inter-war design projects). The tube of this gun was of British design, while the carriage was that of the 155mm howitzer(carriage commonality between companion guns and howitzers was one of the hallmarks of U.S. artillery designs). Unfortunately, the 4.5" -- although well liked by American artillerymen - was not a very efficient weapon for its size. The shell (also of British design)was of low-grade steel, thick-walled and with a small bursting charge compared to the shell weight. The 4.5" projectile weighed 54.90 pounds, but had only a 4.49 pound bursting charge, while the 105mm howitzer projectile weighed 33 pounds, but had a 4.8 pound bursting charge. Its range was insufficient to compensate for the relative ineffectiveness of this round and as a result it was withdrawn from service soon after the end of the war. A much more effective weapon was the M1 155mm gun, known as a "Long Tom" (an appellation with a long and glorious tradition in the U.S. It combined long range, accuracy, and hitting power with a well designed, mobile carriage. All from the site: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/artillery.asp Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PiggDogg: In addition to my above questions: Did the US use the 4.5 inchers at all? Did the US use the 4.5 inchers to any real extent? Did the US use 4.5 inchers to an extent so that they should be reasonably available in CMBO?<hr></blockquote> Yes. Yes. Debateable. From Runes' site: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>As of 8 May 1945 there were a total of 238 separate field artillery battalions in the ETO, including: ... Seventeen 4.5" gun battalions: The 172nd, 176th, 198th, 211th, 215th, 259th, 770th, 771st, 772nd, 773rd, 774th, 775th, 777th Colored, 935th, 939th, 941st, and 959th;<hr></blockquote> So, rather better than 7% of the US non-divisional artillery were 4.5". Also, there were more 4.5" Bns than there were 240mm. So if you think that the 240mm should be included, then the 4.5" should certainly be included. Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted December 17, 2001 Author Share Posted December 17, 2001 Jon, Honestly, for the sized games that I play (1500 pts) no nuke arty should be available. Certainly not 240 mms, 8 inchers, or even 155 mms. Possibly not 4.5 inchers which (as I had professed) were hardly available. For a 1500 pt game, 105s should be somewhat available. Just an opinion. Scipio's arty rules are pretty darn good. Cheers, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 I asked this question several months ago for the same reason and got very extensive and learned answers, amounting in the end to a post-graduate course in WWII artillery as we got into other unusual gun sizes. Probably some forum members aren't willing to repeat all that great information. But it's out there somewhere if you have the patience to do a search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted December 17, 2001 Author Share Posted December 17, 2001 CombinedArms & everyone else, Thanks, but send more info if you go it. Cheers Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Equinox Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 I'm guessing CombinedArms is referring to this thread. I havnt had time to read alll of it just yet, but Im guessing thats the one. [ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Equinox ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted December 17, 2001 Author Share Posted December 17, 2001 Equinox, thanks for the link to the thread that CombinedArms had referred to. Quite informative thread & pretty well answered my questions. JasonC did it again in that thread. He is 'da man' with data and info. :eek: :eek: Cheers, Richard :cool: :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 17, 2001 Share Posted December 17, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PiggDogg: JasonC did it again in that thread. He is 'da man' with data and info. :eek: :eek: Cheers, Richard :cool: :cool: <hr></blockquote> The only remaining question is... did you visibly age whilst reading Jason's posts? Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted December 17, 2001 Author Share Posted December 17, 2001 Jim, <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> The only remaining question is... did you visibly age whilst reading Jason's posts? Regards Jim R. <hr></blockquote> My already little bit of hair has now turned gray & fallen out. Cheers, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts