[KingSargent]

My object here is NOT to exasperate those CW types who venerate the 25 pdr (although I admit to some trollishness in the header :D ), but to see if an alternative approach would have been better as a whole.

DISCLAIMER: I began to consider this for the '25 pdr in tanks' thread, but decided to start a new thread. Now PLEASE, can we avoid the standard 'Sargent is an Anglophobe' and 'the 25 pdr is the best gun in the world' posts? I KNOW the 25 pdr was/is a great gun. What I am looking for is whether its adoption was benefical to the British war effort as a whole.

25 pdr problems:
1) It introduced a new caliber just when a major war was coming. Now this isn't hindsight, they knew a war was coming, that's the only reason they got the 25 pdr. The 25 pdr required new tooling for tubes, carriages, and ammunition = major production problem.
2) It effectively took the 18 pdr out of service, first by having the most modern MkIV 18 pdrs converted to 25 pdr MkI, and then by taking 18 pdr ammo out of the development and production chain.
3) The improvement wasn't worth it.
4) IMHO a new field gun was not the most important need - explain this in a few minutes.

Alternatives:
1) Keep the 18 pdr. Large stocks of guns and ammo existed and presumably machinery in 18 pdr caliber existed; and
2) Develop improved shells for 18 pdr. The actual HE carried was not that different (there were so many 18 pdr shell types that exact comparisons are difficult). The R&D effort that went into 25 pdr shells could have made improved 18 pdr ammunition.
3) Better carriages for the 18 pdr; I am not so much arguing that the existing guns be retained, but that the caliber be retained for production and inventory reasons. The tubes were the important part; new carriages were pretty easy in comparison but new barrel-making plants and rifling machines present production difficulties. The old guns could be initial and emergency equipment and improved 18 pdrs become the standard field gun. New propellant charges and higher elevation could have made the 18 pdr capable of matching the 25 pdr's increases in range over the WW1 18 pdrs.
4) Develop a whole new caliber. The Brits had made a prototype 105mm howitzer Between The Wars. I don't particularly like this, you have the same production problems as with 25 pdr. The only real advantage would be caliber compatability with the French (and later the US, but that's hindsight).
5) Improve the 4.5" howitzer. Now this was a great little gun, but it had poor range. However a new gun in the same caliber could have come out performing like the Soviet M1938 122mm (if I was doing the 'go back in time' bit, I'd take M1938 blueprints along ;) ).
6) IMHO the HE delivery advantages of a new 4.5" howitzer would more than cancel out the advantages gained from going from 18 pdr to 25 pdr.
7) This would mean having two calibers instead of one in the FA regiments, but the Brits had managed to get through WW1 with two calibers and everybody else managed WW2 with two calibers (or more).

Summation:
The 25 pdr adoption created problems in supply of ordnance and ammo in the early war years. Improving the 18 pdr while still making sure it could use up all that nice available old ammo would get improved performance with fewer production and supply problems. A new 4.5" Howitzer presents the same advantages of existing production machinery and ammo stocks, but offers improved HE delivery over the 25 pdr.

The British needed improved artillery, but it is my contention that they could have gotten it quicker and easier without introducing a new major caliber that was incompatable with anything else in service.

[Tony Williams]

I have to admit that the British almost perversely adopted a range of new calibres in the 1930s, for the navy as well as the army (4.5 inch and 5.25 inch). The army not only got the 25 pdr but the 5.5 inch as well, and the AA gun became a 3.7 inch. I agree that this was largely unnecessary and must have caused production problems (especially since the navy continued with new 4.7 inch as well as 4.5 inch - nuts, to coin a phrase). They seemed to have become obsessed with attaining some sort of theoretical ballistic perfection for each type of gun.

Nonethless, the 25 pdr does seem to have been one of the all-time great guns, so it would be a shame to lose it...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Rich]

KingSargent, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 1653, said:

The British needed improved artillery, but it is my contention that they could have gotten it quicker and easier without introducing a new major caliber that was incompatable with anything else in service.

Uh, Sarge? The exact same argument could be made against the US replacing the 75mm M1917A4 with the 105mm M2.

Or against the Germans replacing the 7.7cm FK 16 with the 10.5cm le.FH 40.

And so on and so on? :D

[KingSargent]

Rich, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 1756, said:

Uh, Sarge? The exact same argument could be made against the US replacing the 75mm M1917A4 with the 105mm M2.

Or against the Germans replacing the 7.7cm FK 16 with the 10.5cm le.FH 40.

And so on and so on?  :D

Conditions were a tad different. The US had time to get the 105mm into service (even if the gun to see action before TORCH was the 75mm), but we still ended up short of 105mm ammo in 1944 (thanks again, Congress). Besides the original US plan was to mix 75mms with the 105s.

The Germans did not have a huge inventory of guns and ammo in service to take into account. They could start with a clean slate, and the 105mm was not a new caliber anyway - ie, they had machinery for it.

You will note that I did not argue against new guns, I argued against a whole new caliber for which there were no shell stocks and no production facilities. IOW a performance-improved 18 pdr made on existing 18 pdr boring machinery and firing existing 18 pdr shells while improved shells were being produced gets new weapons into service quicker - and they knew they had a war coming.

[KingSargent]

Tony Williams, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 1755, said:

Nonethless, the 25 pdr does seem to have been one of the all-time great guns, so it would be a shame to lose it...

I stipulated its greatness. But how great would it be considered if the British had lost the war because of an ill-considered caliber change that disrupted the production and supply chains?

I like the 25 pdr. I'm just looking for better options. Wouldn't a 25 pdr MkII carriage with an improved 18pdr tube be just as cool?

[Allan Wotherspoon]

Range considerations aside, was there a significant difference in the effectiveness of the 25pdr HE round vs the 18pdr HE round?

[Geoff Winnington-Ball]

Methinks the essence of the 25 pdr was its flexibility. It could be rotated 360 degrees in no time at all, and could fire up to 17 rounds per minute (the existing record, in combat). Ammunition was light enough to be manhandled with relative ease. The standard in crash-action drills was to have a battery in action in 3 minutes.

No, in the sense of firepower, it wasn't the best gun... but a well-trained field regiment working with the Commonwealth fire control system could devastate any designated target within minutes. I can't see how the 18 pdr could have improved upon that.

[KingSargent]

Allan Wotherspoon, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 1954, said:

Range considerations aside, was there a significant difference in the effectiveness of the 25pdr HE round vs the 18pdr HE round?

I can't find specific data on 18 pdr performance, it would largely depend on the quality of shell - and there multitudes of different 18 pdr shell. IE, if the same quality steel is used the 25 pdr is going to be more effective, but if good steel is used in 18 pdr shells vs the crap steel used historically in 25 pdr shells, the HE charges should be about equal.

The 18 pdr is considered approximately equal in effectiveness to French and US 75mms (since they were they same), but WW2 US 75mm shell carried at least as much HE as the 25 pdr despite the overall shell weight being 40% less. So if the historical British 25 pdr shell is used, I can't see any great difference from 18 pdr.

But would I welcome any hard data on shell efectiveness.

[KingSargent]

Geoff Winnington-Ball, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 2033, said:

Methinks the essence of the 25 pdr was its flexibility. It could be rotated 360 degrees in no time at all, and could fire up to 17 rounds per minute (the existing record, in combat). Ammunition was light enough to be manhandled with relative ease. The standard in crash-action drills was to have a battery in action in 3 minutes.

No, in the sense of firepower, it wasn't the best gun... but a well-trained field regiment working with the Commonwealth fire control system could devastate any designated target within minutes. I can't see how the 18 pdr could have improved upon that.

There was absolutely nothing preventing the British from putting a performance-improved 18 pdr tube in the 25 pdr MkII carriage. The performance you cite was dependent on the efficiency of the carriage, not the gun tube.

IF the shell effectiveness does not overwhelmingly favor the 25 pdr, it would have made more sense from the production and supply standpoints to stick with the 18 pdr caliber in the new gun.

I think Tony Williams was right, the Brits at the time pursued a whole lot of new calibers apparently just for arcane ballistic reasons instead of practicality.

[Tony Williams]

KingSargent, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 2050, said:

I can't find specific data on 18 pdr performance, it would largely depend on the quality of shell - and there multitudes of different 18 pdr shell.

The 25 pdr HE shell contained 18 oz (510g) of HE, the WW1-era 18 pdr HE 13 oz (368g).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

[Richard Lindquist]

KingSargent, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 1840, said:

The Germans did not have a huge inventory of guns and ammo in service to take into account. They could start with a clean slate, and the 105mm was not a new caliber anyway - ie, they had machinery for it.

The Germans did have quite an inventory of 7.7cm guns, yet they made the deicision in 1930 to convert them all to 7.5cm with 7.7cm being deleted as a standard caliber.

As noted, the Brits decided on a 25-pdr (94mm) gun how to replace the 18pdr (84mm) gun and the 4.5in (114mm) howitzer. While the Brits designed a very nice and competent gun, the weakness was lack of shellpower caused by the poor steel in the projectile and the relatively small bursting charge.

The US probably came out ahead in concentrating on the 105mm howitzer from the start. The 75mm gun held on as long as it did because of the horse drawn artillery requirments. Once the decision was made to fully motorize, the 105mm was the best solution.

[KingSargent]

Richard Lindquist, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 2111, said:

As noted, the Brits decided on a 25-pdr (94mm) gun how to replace the 18pdr (84mm) gun and the 4.5in (114mm) howitzer. 

<Mr. Picky> IIRC, the 25 pdr is 87.6mm caliber. 94mm would be 3.7", which in the case of the 3.7 Howitzer also used a 25 pound shell. :rolleyes: </Mr. Picky>

[Argus]

Sarge, you're a bloody anglophobic-yankocentric etcetcetc :P

:D

Jokes asside, this is a good point.

On the production side, the 25pr was, as we all know, limited by the need to be retrofitted into the existing 18pr gun stocks. 87.6mm being the biggest they could hog out the 18pr's lose liner out before they ran into structural problems.

Given this, it seems as if there might not have been too much difference in the gun making machinery required by the two weapons. If they both use the 'same' (the 25pr was 1.5" longer, probably minor other differences?) liner, the rest of the barrels have to be at least roughly simmilar. And in the same vien, I'm pretty sure Australian production of the 25-pr used the 18pr plant and machinery we'd bought surplus (almost new) at the end of WWI.

So the production angle might not have been that much of an issue, in any event, any new production facilities would suit the gun being made.

On the shells, 5oz difference is only two Mills Bombs worth, so I've got no trouble seeing the 25pr as a minor improvement at best, but the steel grade is the big point IMHO. The 25, like the 5.5" was designed to use crap steel to keep the costs of production down. So any improvements to the 18 that would need better steel, have to viewed as haveing a negitive effect on the war effort in comparision to the same number of 25pr shells.

How this would pan out, I can't even guess, but either way we wre talking about a sh1t load of steel.

<Mr. Super Picky>
Ordnance QF 3.7" Mountain Howitzer Mk.1 on Carriage Mountain Howitzer Mk.1

Ordnance
Weight: 3cwt 3 qr (191kg)
Length: 46.8" (1,189mm)
Caliber: 3.7" (94mm)
Breech: Interupted Screw, single motion
Fireing Mech: Percussion
Maximum Range: 6,000yrd (5,490m)
MV: 973fps (297m/s)

Ammunition
Type: Semi-fixed
Nature: HE
Fuses: Percussion, TIme
Weight: 19.5lb
Charges: 3

Carriage
Type: Two wheel, split trail
Recoil: Hydro-pneumatic, vairable
Top Traverse: 20d (356mil) left and right
Elevation: 40d (711mil)
Depression: -5d (89mil)

RoF: 12rpm
Detachment: 9
Weight in Action: 14cwt 2qr (730kg)
</Mr. Super Picky>

The 3.7" AA gun fireing a 28lb HE shell, just for compleatness.

I do like the idea of the PIP 4.5", there's nothing stopping it from useing the same platform traverse as the 25pr, and if the barrel was increased to get the range, a 35lb shell is still going to do some dammage in direct fire.

My only problem with the concept, is ammo cost, it was obviously a sensitive point to British authorities at the time. A 4.5" is going to be useing a round 50% larger than the 25pr, I don't expect the costs would have scaled in the same term's, but I'd say there's little question the 4.5" would have been more expensive to feed. The question being of course would it have made any difference? The logistics alone of shipping 3 for 2 would make a big difference unless the RAA and by extension the whole Army shifted it's artillery dictrine.

The 4.5" would be more effective per round, but we then we come back to the Supression Vs Destruction argument, and for better or worse the CW was hooked on supression and the 4.5" diet wouldn't have fitted in too well with that.

How about bigger stuff, could the 60pr have been PIP'ed, was the 5.5" for its sins the better option (the less said about the 4.5" GUN the better), or should the 6" 26cwt Howitzer have been streched out another 5-10,000 yards?


shane

This post has been edited by Argus: 23 February 2005 - 1731 PM

[Rickshaw]

I think the reason why the 25 Pdr was adopted was to indeed gain better ballistics, rather than better end effects (or the shell exploding). However, it was adopted because of what were percieved to be obvious deficiencies in the previous field guns, the 13 and 18 pdr which had been found in WWI to be inadequate to the task (too short a range, too smaller bursting charge).

Points which are in favour of the 25 Pdr, over heavier calibres are the range and the rate of fire. Points against it are the relative lack of effect and the relative complexity of the gun carriage. The first two were often remarked upon by its victims, the last two were noted by its users.

The possibility of adopting the 4.5in calibre is an interesting one but it comes back to whether or not the cost was justified or that the machinery of manufacture could make the larger tubes as easily. As has been noted, the existing gun lathes, could, with adaption, make the 25 Pdr tubes. I suspect they wouldn't have been able to handle the larger 4.5in tubes, as easily.

[DKTanker]

Regarding putting 18 pounder tubes on 25 pounder carriages, I thought the Brits did just that early in the war when there was a shortage of 25 pounder tubes and surplus carriages.

[KingSargent]

Baron Samedi, on Thu 24 Feb 2005 0051, said:

The possibility of adopting the 4.5in calibre is an interesting one but it comes back to whether or not the cost was justified or that the machinery of manufacture could make the larger tubes as easily.  As has been noted, the existing gun lathes, could, with adaption, make the 25 Pdr tubes.  I suspect they wouldn't have been able to handle the larger 4.5in tubes, as easily.

The 4.5" Howitzer Mark I served through both World Wars. The tooling for both tubes and ammo already existed. Possibly not as much tooling as for 18/25 pdr, but the CW forces went through WW1 with about 1/3 of the Field Artillery being the 4.5", so there must have been some... :D

As you noted about the 25 pdr, one goal was more range. The 4.5" Howitzer's big drawback was a range of only 7000 yards.


One interesting idea that just came to mind - if there was any 18 pdr shrapnel left over from the Great Blood in the Mud, that might have been real handy for encouraging AT gunners to not make a nuisance of themselves. A little smoke in front of the tanks, some shrapnel on the AT positions (after you figure out where they are) and Bob's yer uncle... There was no shrapnel for the 25 pdr.

Shrapnel got a bad name in WW1 for not coming equipped with little tiny wire-cutters and not being able to destroy trenches. But I can see where it could be very useful against soft-skin and open-top vehicles. And troops in the open which of course is what it was designed for.

[KingSargent]

DKTanker, on Thu 24 Feb 2005 0130, said:

Regarding putting 18 pounder tubes on 25 pounder carriages, I thought the Brits did just that early in the war when there was a shortage of 25 pounder tubes and surplus carriages.

Other way around. The 25 pdr MkI was the 18 pdr MkIV with a new 25 pdr barrel. Colloquially known as the "18/25 pdr."

[Rickshaw]

KingSargent, on Thu 24 Feb 2005 0136, said:

The 4.5" Howitzer Mark I served through both World Wars. The tooling for both tubes and ammo already existed. Possibly not as much tooling as for 18/25 pdr, but the CW forces went through WW1 with about 1/3 of the Field Artillery being the 4.5", so there must have been some... :D

Oh, there were some but were there enough? Would be worth trading the 5.5in say for the 4.5in? I suspect not.

Quote

As you noted about the 25 pdr, one goal was more range. The 4.5" Howitzer's big drawback was a range of only 7000 yards.
One interesting idea that just came to mind - if there was any 18 pdr shrapnel left over from the Great Blood in the Mud, that might have been real handy for encouraging AT gunners to not make a nuisance of themselves. A little smoke in front of the tanks, some shrapnel on the AT positions (after you figure out where they are) and Bob's yer uncle... There was no shrapnel for the 25 pdr.

Shrapnel got a bad name in WW1 for not coming equipped with little tiny wire-cutters and not being able to destroy trenches. But I can see where it could be very useful against soft-skin and open-top vehicles. And troops in the open which of course is what it was designed for.

The major reason why shrapnel fell into disuse was because of the fuses. They were too unreliable. It was one of the major reasons why it failed in its wire cutting duties, rather than necessarily because the shrapnel was unable to cut the wire. Get too many blinds they become a hinderance to your own troops, as well as the enemy.

[KingSargent]

Baron Samedi, on Thu 24 Feb 2005 0141, said:

Oh, there were some but were there enough?  Would be worth trading the 5.5in say for the 4.5in?  I suspect not.

We are speaking here of the 4.5" Howitzer, which was Light Field Artillery. The 4.5" Gun was a 4.5" tube in the 5.5" carriage, which was Medium Artillery. The 4.5" Medium Gun had a shell like the 25 pdr, crap steel and very little HE. Aside from a slightly longer range than the 5.5" Medium Gun, it had nothing to recommend it.

As I said, about 30% of the Field Regiments in WW1 were 4.5", so there were some around.

Anyway, it was a neat gun (so neat it never got past Mark 1, the original was good enough throughout its service life). With a little (okay, a lot) more range it could have been more useful in WW2. As I said, if I was doing it my goal would be something like the Soviet M1938 122mm Howitzer, only in 4.5" because the boring equipment and shells were available.

[Tony Williams]

Argus, on Wed 23 Feb 2005 2221, said:

How about bigger stuff, could the 60pr have been PIP'ed, was the 5.5" for its sins the better option (the less said about the 4.5" GUN the better), or should the 6" 26cwt Howitzer have been streched out another 5-10,000 yards?

Or if you retain the 4.7 inch calibre for the navy instead of going for the 4.5 inch you might decide to simplify production and design a 4.7 inch gun/howitzer to fire the new 62 lb shell developed for the L/50 destroyer gun... ;)

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum