British Field Artillery Undermodelled?

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The statement that "many US units assigned counterbattery work use 25 lbers" strikes me as an error. No US artillery unit in the ETO was equipped with 25-lbers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why then is there a picture in I believe Chamberlain and Ellis's excellent little monograph, "Field Artillery" in the WWII Fact Files series (admittedly now a 30 year old work), which shows US forces during the winter of 1944-45, equipped with 25 Pdrs with the caption that many units were thus equipped? This is also mentioned, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, by again, Hogg, perhaps the best authority I've come across on WWII artillery.

I have no idea how many units were thus equipped but again, I point out that the 25 Pdr did have a superior range to the 105mm M1.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz:

BTW I've been reading this stuff for 40-odd years and never tire of it. Guess that makes ME odd... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I've been reading and studying the topic nearly as long. I've even got a post-graduate degree in military history as a consequence of my interest (and whats more as a civilian from a military academy).

[Jarmo]

Summary of 25pdr (&other artillery) issues found out so far:

- BTS seems to have modeled the blast value directly related to shell weight.

- Due to this the 25pdr (and other british arty) seem to have too high blast values.

- 25pdr Rate of fire should be higher, at least equal to US 105mm, possibly higher.

- Should the amount of guns/battery affect the rate of fire is debatable.

- Americans used non-american guns sometimes.

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Summary of 25pdr (&other artillery) issues found out so far:

- BTS seems to have modeled the blast value directly related to shell weight.

- Due to this the 25pdr (and other british arty) seem to have too high blast values.

- 25pdr Rate of fire should be higher, at least equal to US 105mm, possibly higher.

- Should the amount of guns/battery affect the rate of fire is debatable.

- Americans used non-american guns sometimes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Babs is bitter and has issues. Can't leave that one out.

[Username]

The US also issued german ATG to towed tank destroyer units. These werent just ad hoc but issued equipment that was supplied with ammo and carried on the TOE.

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username:

I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In addition to the M119/L119 the US purchased, were you aware that the M68 105mm/51cal tank gun mounted in the M48A5, the M60A1 and -A3, and in the M1/IPM1 was a British design, aka the L7?

[Triumvir]

Come on now. Of course it was an American weapon. It has an M before the number, doesn't it?

Other notable American designs are the M9 pistol, M249 light machine gun, M240 GPMG, M93 chemical detection vehicle, M3 MAAWS anti-tank weapon and the M973 tracked support vehicle.

[Redwolf]

You shouldn't forget that CMBO uses a more complex damage model for HE explosions than the blast value implies. The blast value is just a "summary" for the user's convinience, internally CMBO uses at least a blast value *and* a shrapnel model.

You can easily test this by taking a Hummel and a 150mm infantry gun against infantry in foxholes. The inf. gun drives them out of the foxholes in much less time, although it has a lower blast value.

So even if the blast value of the 25 pdr is off, you may see more (or less) correct behaviour against other targets.

[JasonC]

A good summing up Jarmo. On the 25-lber rate of fire issue, I think 5 per gun per minute - thus 20 for the 4-gun "battery" - would be reasonable. They do seem to have reached that ROF. And also, it would put the firing time of a Brit 25-lber module equal to that of a US 105 module, at 6 minutes each - instead of the current 10 minutes for the 25-lber module, which does seem long.

[JasonC]

I'm afraid the Hummel-SiG difference does not show that some internal shrapnel module is being used for all HE effects. The difference in their performance against foxholes is an obvious consequence of their accuracy in meters off target, resulting from the lower velocity of the SiG round.

If you miss by a degree with a slower-moving round, you miss by fewer meters by the time the shell lands; while the same pointing error will lead to a larger distance off for a higher velocity shell.

I'm sure BTS modules that sort of thing carefully, because it is fall of shot, and they do that quite well. The added effect you see from the SiG is simply the result of rounds landing 2m closer, or whatever the difference actually is.

[Redwolf]

I am not sure your mathematical analysis applies. If you miss in a gun shot, the measurement you did wrong is usually not the degree of elevation. The elevation is only secondary. What you failed to estimate correctly is the distance. If you mis-estimate the distance by -say- 5%, you end up with different elevation angles misses for guns with different projectile speed. So you are correct that by a mis-elevation of 1 degree you miss less with the slow projectile, but in practice you will not be off by "N" degrees for two different guns.

But from the same mis-estimate of distance you will mis-adjust the low-velocity gun by more degrees than a high-velocity gun.

Since your target has no height in this case, I am not sure that this leads to the high-velocity be more precise (as it is in hitting a vehicle), but I estimate it is in any case not worse.

It is kind of unfortunate that BTS doesn't publish the shell explosion damage model in some more detail. Not to speak of the hit model against vertical and horizontal targets

[ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Why then is there a picture in I believe Chamberlain and Ellis's excellent little monograph, "Field Artillery" in the WWII Fact Files series (admittedly now a 30 year old work), which shows US forces during the winter of 1944-45, equipped with 25 Pdrs with the caption that many units were thus equipped? This is also mentioned, I believe, if memory serves me correctly, by again, Hogg, perhaps the best authority I've come across on WWII artillery.

I have no idea how many units were thus equipped but again, I point out that the 25 Pdr did have a superior range to the 105mm M1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably goes with the need for the US at the end of 1945 to request the Brits release stocks of Shermans to them in NW because they had underestimated losses. The Brits had in turn overestimated their losses of vehicles in NW Europe so had the necessary spare.....

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

The Brits had in turn overestimated their losses of vehicles in NW Europe so had the necessary spare.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... also, I believe, the Brits converted to 100% locally sourced vehicles for their armoured units sometime around the New Years period, which would have freed up quite a few more.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Probably goes with the need for the US at the end of 1945 to request the Brits release stocks of Shermans to them in NW because they had underestimated losses. The Brits had in turn overestimated their losses of vehicles in NW Europe so had the necessary spare.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction that should read end of 1944... specifically around Oct44 it began to dawn on US planners that they had not allowed enough shipping space for spare vehicles and replacement parts to repair equipment which their own practices had led to be discarded. An effort was made to cannibalise but to make up numbers they had to go "cap in hand" to the Brits.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

An effort was made to cannibalise but to make up numbers they had to go "cap in hand" to the Brits.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Considering how much stuff they had recieved from the US by that time I would think the Brits would have been more than eager to give a small portion back...

[ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[QB]

Considering how much stuff they had recieved from the US by that time I would think the Brits would have been more than eager to give a small portion back...

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Intersting to find out the financial adjustments for Lend-Lease one day (was the equipment returned at "cost" or was there a bit of a "sellers" market oppotunity taken by the UK to make a "profit" ?

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Intersting to find out the financial adjustments for Lend-Lease one day (was the equipment returned at "cost" or was there a bit of a "sellers" market oppotunity taken by the UK to make a "profit" ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there must be some misconception that the US was just giving the stuff away. The only "gifted" items under lend lease, ie the obsolescent destroyers, were paid for by territorial concessions, allowing the US to build bases. Everything else was purchased (though I suspect on credit more often than not).

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

... Everything else was purchased (though I suspect on credit more often than not).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, it was on credit, and I don't think the terms were that great either*. IIRC, the UK paid off the last of its Lend-Lease debts sometime in the 1980s. I'm pretty sure it was after the Falklands War.

I wonder if the Reds ever paid theirs back?

* against that it must be said that in late 1940 and 1941 the risk must have looked bloody awful too

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Intersting to find out the financial adjustments for Lend-Lease one day (was the equipment returned at "cost" or was there a bit of a "sellers" market oppotunity taken by the UK to make a "profit" ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. I would think it would be at whatever they paid for it (plus shipping and handling?). Especially if it was on credit (just subtract it from the bill).

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS:

I wonder if the Reds ever paid theirs back?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC, no.

[Stalin's Organ]

Check out this state department site relating to war debt from both WW1 and 2.

The Soviets didn't oay it all back before the dissolution of the USSR, but were doing so and hte Russian Federation has taken over the obligation.

War Debt

[JasonC]

"it was on credit, and I don't think the terms were that great either"

This is false. In fact, the whole version of what lend lease was, being proposed here, is quite wide of the mark.

Before the LL Act, the UK sold off various investments in the US to finance war purchases in the states. These amounted to $6 billion all told, in the money of the day of course. When the easy sources for such direct payment ran dry, the LL act replaced payment. There was joint economic planning, but no monetary or credit restrictions on UK orders. The understanding was that everything would be settled amicably after the war, in constrast to the tangle of war debts and such after WW I.

And that is exactly what happened. Total US LL to the UK amounted to $30 billion by the end of the war. UK return LL, mostly for ship repairs and fuel, amounted to $4 billion, and that was first subtracted from the total, leaving a net debt to $26 billion.

At the end of the war, LL goods that had cost $6 billion were still present in Britain, as surplus property or not yet delivered. These goods were sold for ~9 cents on the dollar to whoever wanted them, bringing in $532 million from the purchasers. The US claimed a right to that $532 million amount, in return for writing down the LL total the $6 billion face, leaving $20 billion left.

Then there were also some peacetime civilian goods in the pipeline, to which LL no longer applied, with the war's end. The US gave the UK the option of canceling any part of those orders, the goods to revert to the US, or to elect to receive them at their face value. The UK kept $118 million worth. They also kept the $532 million raised from the sale of the surplus property.

These two categories - post war civilian goods, and the cash received for surplus sold - were consolidated into a debt from the UK to the US of $650 million. The terms of the repayment of this debt were a 2% interest rate, and 50 years to repay the principle, which are decidedly easy terms. Especially when you consider that $532 million of the total had just been raised in cash from goods sales.

That still left a balance of $20 billion in net LL from the US to the UK during the war. It was flat written off, not a cent owed on it.

Then because the UK still had serious financial difficulties in the immediate post war period, the US arranged to loan the UK another $3.75 billion in cash. This was an ordinary UK government bond issue on commerical terms. There was an additional quid pro quo, however. Britain promised to make the pound convertible - end exchange controls - under the new Bretton Woods system. And promised to end tariff discrimination against US goods - in trade with the dominions in particular, the "Imperial preference" issue - by ten years later.

Then a year and a half later, after the first attempt to make the pound convertible failed on the exchanges (premature), the Marshall plan was launched, with total aid of $5.2 billion in the first year. Britain was the largest recipient of the aid.

This is hardly, even remotely, "it was all credit, not on easy terms" yada yada yada. If you'd like to read more about the details, I recommend my source, the economic history monograph "A Financial History of Western Europe" by Charles Kindleberger.

[JasonC]

What, a half dozen people and posts all discussing the nature of lend lease and its aftermath, and after my last post just silence? Surely someone has some comment. The picture is a bit different than people were saying before, isn't it? Has anyone's understanding of the subject changed?

Sorry for the self "bump", but I did go to a bit of trouble on the previous post...

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

USeR:

”I wouldnt be caught dead firing anything british though.”

RonS: In addition to the M119/L119 the US purchased, were you aware that the M68 105mm/51cal tank gun mounted in the M48A5, the M60A1 and -A3, and in the M1/IPM1 was a British design, aka the L7?

=========

US Army was also trying to squeeze 100 or so Sherman Fireflys out of the British toward the latter period of the campaign in Northwest Europe.

Throw in the US Army employed the British 4.5 inch howitzer as well. But than I think we have had a disscusion on the 4.5” before.

UsEr: “The US also issued german ATG to towed tank destroyer units. These werent just ad hoc but issued equipment that was supplied with ammo and carried on the TOE.”

Type of equipment issued? Units issued to? Numbers issued? Oh and how about a non-internet based reference please.

[Username]

yeah but what about the yellow shells?