JonS Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 A couple more Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ... Everything bigger was more commonly fired indirectly even if it was a member of the mortar crew doing the spotting from only a few meters away. ...Splitting hairs now, but I believe that is referred to as semi-indirect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Last one, 'cos I don't know anyfink about the Italians Originally posted by JonS: ... it actually makes it quicker to bring into action, since the guncrew doen't need to prepare the ground - just lower the platform, roll the gun on, secure the tie-downs, and away you go... And shamelessly quoting myself, no less! As an example of the above, Spike Milligan in his first (IIRC) war memoir recounts practicing crash actions, and winning a trophy when they were able to go from driving down the road with their 25-pr. limbered, then recieving a call for fire, stopping, bringing the gun into action, loading, laying, and firing, all within the space of 25 seconds! :eek: Regards JonS [ August 20, 2003, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: ...Spike Milligan in his first (IIRC) war memoir recounts practicing crash actions, and winning a trophy when they were able to go from driving down the road with their 25-pr. limbered, then recieving a call for fire, stopping, bringing the gun into action, loading, laying, and firing, all within the space of 25 seconds! :eek: That's pretty fast alright. I bet that would even beat the crew of an 88 getting into action. Unless of course spike is lying. But Spike wouldn't lie to us, would he? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ... the tricky question of why then give it to the 2pdr? You would want to be able to get that in and out of battery even faster, I should think, yet with the 2pdr you even have to pull the wheels off! Admittedly, you don't have to do all that just to fire the gun, but apparently that was its preferred deployment. ... That's possibly why firing it Porté became so popular for a while. Sadly, having it sitting on the back of a truck turned a small, easily concealed target into a thumping great big one that couldn't really hide at all, and was terribly vulnerable.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: They had trouble finding hull-down (so to speak) locations?you mean like this ... I guess they could find them, but given the short effective range of the gun, perhaps not reliably enough. Spike lie!?! How could you say that, you bounder! IIRC, there is a photo of the crew, the trophy, and a wee board with details on it, so he may be gilding the lilly, but not too much I think. I'll try and find a reference for the order. Regards JonS [ August 21, 2003, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Neat pic, but I wish it showed the rest of the vehicle. I have the feeling it isn't the same as the ones I've seen before. Looks like they had been there for a while; I count a minimum of 27 expended shell casings. Seems like they were having a good day. Michael [ August 21, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Looks like they had been there for a while; I count a minimum of 27 expended shell casings. Seems like they were having a good day. Michael Since most of the things they shoot at, most likely shoot back, I would term that a rotten day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ... I wish it showed the rest of the vehicle. ... Howzat!?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: ....SNIP...As an example of the above, Spike Milligan in his first (IIRC) war memoir ...SNIP...Would that have been titled "Rommel Who?" Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Looks like they had been there for a while; I count a minimum of 27 expended shell casings. Seems like they were having a good day. Michael Since most of the things they shoot at, most likely shoot back, I would term that a rotten day. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: Howzat!?! Not quite what I was hoping for, but sufficient to reinforce my notion that the vehicles pictured are indeed different from what I'd seen before. The CBE forces in the ME seem to have had a very interesting variety of vehicles. I wonder how many are going to make it into CMAK. Or will they just settle on a standard "truck" for each side as with BO and BB? BTW, could those be eucalyptus trees in the top pic? :cool: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 21, 2003 Share Posted August 21, 2003 The top pic was taken in Tunisia, just before (or just after?) the end of hostilities in NA. The 'hull down' pic was taken in Nov or Dec 1941, ie during Op CRUSADER. I think "Rommel: Gunner Who?" was the second or third one - it's set in north Africa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by JPS: Andreas, as per definitions used previously in this thread, also mortars can be considered direct fire. I do not know how they were used in practice in WW I, but your quote from Hogg by itself does not seem to solve the issue. Br, Jukka-Pekka Indeed, it was for info purposes only anyway. Michael, regarding infantry guns - you are quite correct, the Brits never had anything like that, AFAICT. Neither did the US Army. The French early in the war, according to Hogg, had a 37mm infantry gun, which was, again according to him, a bit pointless. Depending on whether this was a howitzer or a gun, I would not fully agree with that however, because I saw a quote from a German report saying that while the PAK36 had outlived its usefulness as an ATG by 1941, it was still useful as an infantry gun. My guess is that the small profile, low weight, and good precision because of high MV would make up a bit for the low HE load. If you want to post a greeting through the firing slit of a bunker, the PAK may well come in more useful than an IG18. Moving to mortars probably makes a lot of sense though. While you lose the ability to fire over open sights on a horizontal line, ease of transport, ease of production, and rate of fire probably make up for this. The Soviets, as is well known, were absolutely in love with direct fire. Given the chance (i.e. no danger to the guns from the Germans) they would roll up everything and the kitchen sink to blast aways over open sights. During the fight for Tarnopol they brought up heavy batteries and Katyushas to bear on the town from the surrounding heights, once they knew the German force had run out of heavy arms ammunition. Late-war assault groups had ridiculous numbers of guns to support relatively small groups of infantry. The concept of fire superiority allowing maneuver was fully understood by the competent Soviet commanders at the end of the war. This is also one reason why the 45mm gun was kept in service for so long past its sell-by date as an ATG. And this was of course the reason why they adopted the German assault gun idea, and implemented it with a vengeance. There is nothing like a 152mm gun in a tracked armoured enclosure to convince a German bunker that the game is up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Code13 Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: ...Spike Milligan in his first (IIRC) war memoir recounts practicing crash actions, and winning a trophy when they were able to go from driving down the road with their 25-pr. limbered, then recieving a call for fire, stopping, bringing the gun into action, loading, laying, and firing, all within the space of 25 seconds! :eek: That's pretty fast alright. I bet that would even beat the crew of an 88 getting into action. Unless of course spike is lying. But Spike wouldn't lie to us, would he? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Most of the comments on the 25pr describe it as haveing quite a low rate of fire, due to separate loading projectile and charge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Part of the belt-fed field gun myth could be that the Pommies had 8-gun batteries, no? ISTR that Blackburn says the 25-pdr has a very high ROF. But looking at Nigel Evan's RA site, he says that the highest ROF ('intense') was five rounds per minute. By comparison, von Senger und Etterlin gives 6-8 rounds for all models of the 10,5cm lFH, and 8-10 for all models of the 7,5cm Feldkanone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 The highest 'official' rate was intense, at 5rnds/min. Official rates were used for fire-planning and when ordered by the FO. However, if the FO just called for a number of rounds (eg, "10 rounds gunfire!") the crews belted them out as fast as they could. From what I can tell, in these circumstances 12 rnds/min wasn't unusual, and Blackburn relates a case were a crew was timed over a minute and managed to belt out 17 rounds! :eek: The ammo was seperate loading, but the breech was well designed to allow for high rates of fire. Also, the 25-pr. ammo was lighter and easier to handle than the 105mm ammo used by the Americans and Germans, leading to lower crew fatigue. Finally, I'm pretty sure the RA had larger gun crews than most, allowing for smoother and faster teamwork. The larger batteries certainly would have had an effect at the target end, as would the commoon use of UNCLE and VICTOR targets. Since the Germans didn't seem to have anything similar as an SOP, I'm guessing that they would have tried to fit the observed effects within their own frame of reference, and found that the only 'free-variable' was a higher ROF, so high that the gun must have been belt-fed Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 17 rpm is quite a good ROF for a magazine fed bolt-action rifle, let alone an arty piece :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: The larger batteries certainly would have had an effect at the target end, as would the commoon use of UNCLE and VICTOR targets. Since the Germans didn't seem to have anything similar as an SOP, I'm guessing that they would have tried to fit the observed effects within their own frame of reference, and found that the only 'free-variable' was a higher ROF, so high that the gun must have been belt-fed The Germans had specialised assets that could enable the equivalent of UNCLE and VICTOR target equivalents. These were ArKos and Höhere Arkos, Corps level and Army level artillery HQs, respectively. These needed to be combined with specialised Feuerleitbatterien (my guess is these are just a large number of signallers), and then they could do it. They did that at Anzio - which may tell us something about the flexibility of the system, compared to the Commonwealth. ISTR there was another such instance either at Zhitomir or on the Mius 1943, can't recall which, and my suspicion would be that this would have been used at Kursk as well, but I have no evidence for that. So they had the idea, they just did not have the means to implement it whereever they went. [ August 23, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: The highest 'official' rate was intense, at 5rnds/min. Official rates were used for fire-planning and when ordered by the FO. However, if the FO just called for a number of rounds (eg, "10 rounds gunfire!") the crews belted them out as fast as they could. From what I can tell, in these circumstances 12 rnds/min wasn't unusual, and Blackburn relates a case were a crew was timed over a minute and managed to belt out 17 rounds! :eek: The ammo was seperate loading, but the breech was well designed to allow for high rates of fire. Also, the 25-pr. ammo was lighter and easier to handle than the 105mm ammo used by the Americans and Germans, leading to lower crew fatigue. Finally, I'm pretty sure the RA had larger gun crews than most, allowing for smoother and faster teamwork. The larger batteries certainly would have had an effect at the target end, as would the commoon use of UNCLE and VICTOR targets. Since the Germans didn't seem to have anything similar as an SOP, I'm guessing that they would have tried to fit the observed effects within their own frame of reference, and found that the only 'free-variable' was a higher ROF, so high that the gun must have been belt-fed Regards JonS The rounds were fairly light, being in two (or more pieces). I remember my dad recalling that for Charge I, Charge II or Charge III you put in different containers of powder. I can't remember for sure if the different charges were colour coded, or if you had to add more than one container (bag?) of powder for different charges. [ August 23, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Michael, I think Blackburn mentions this issue, but I can't recall exactly what he said. I think you have his books? If you want to spend the time looking it up, I'm pretty sure it's in The Guns of Normandy. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Where the hell are the guns?, Appendix D. The 25-pr. initially had three charge bags which 'lived' in the cartridge-case. Red, white, and blue. The blue was removed for Cahrge II, and the blue and the white were removed for Charge I. Later a fouth, or 'super' charge was added to give a higher MV and longer range. When prepping rounds for a fire mission, one of the gun numbers would remove the unnecessary charge bags from the cart-cases, ready for loading. The ability to vary the size of the propelling charge was integral to the 25-pr.s abillity to function as either a gun or a howitzer. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.