M1 240mm gun

Indeed, and in the pursuit they were not moved at all. On 22 August 12th Army Group left all the heavy artillery at the Seine and by mid September converted 18 heavy artillery battalions to truck units to move critical supplies forward. The presence of the 240mm battalions at Arnaville was fortuitous; they had just leapfrogged forward.

Anyway, my point was there was no "corps" or "army" artillery in the US Army in World War II. All separate artillery battalions were attached or assigned in support according to operational requirements by army. One corps might have all the 240mm and 8" gun battalions attached, while another might have nothing heavier than 155mm guns and howitzers attached. While typically only 105mm and 155mm howitzers and 4.5" and 155mm guns were attached to divisions in direct support it was not unusual for 8" howitzers to be occasionally attached, but more usual for them to be in general support. It was also more normal to attach separate battalions to divisions, but it was not that uncommon for a FA group to be attached directly to a division for an operation.

Originally there was a "type" corps planned, which would have had a cookie-cutter field artillery brigade attached of three artillery regiments (of 155mm howitzers and 4.5" guns or 8" howitzers and 155mm guns) but that was abandoned in September 1942 and all artillery regiments were organized as separate battalions. Shortly after, experience in Tunisia, Sicily, and Italy demonstrated the merits of heavier artillery and the number of 155mm gun, 8" howitzer, 8" gun, and 240mm howitzer battalions organized was greatly expanded in 1943.

 

Bit of a fan of the rather rare tracked (not SP) T16 or 17 (e1? I forget) carriage.
Duckbilled & 'Medium' bogies, some deployed in Manila... I think.





There's a few other slightly peculiar carriages for it, IIRC.

 

When you get above the 8"/205mm range you really are talking about siege artillery. They can be used for other things but breaking up fortifications is the only reason for their existence.

 

You're right OP! I was referring to land warfare and assumed everyone understood that. Ah yes, "Old Gustav": the siege gun of all siege guns.

And, IIRC, the 15" guns for the unbuilt German BBs went into coastal defense installations, including the whole turret, gun house and all.

 

..well, for the big guns, seems like they had ''good'' duty....not much moving around--and not on foot like the infantry had --or am I wrong? ...

 

had to be a good one

 

..would not the 240mm --with their great range--be placed nearly out of range/out of range of enemy arty?

 

The old sergeants in our 8" Bn. said that in the Korean war they were placed fairly close to the front line in order to reach as far back as possible. I don't know if this applies in WW2 or not. I would assume that this was when the USA had an arty dominance over the North Koreans and ChiCom forces.

 

Very aggressive use of field artillery has long been a hallmark of the American Army...and it occasionally caused problems. One of the many problems the 106th ID faced in the opening stages of the Battle of the Bulge was that VIII Corps had established an artillery groupment of seven battalions of 155mm howitzer and gun battalions, and at least one 8" howitzer battalion far forward in the zone of the 422d and 423d Infantry in the Bleialf-Auw valley, in some cases less than a mile from the front. Protecting and then displacing that mass of artillery (along with three divisional battalions) away from the German advance resulted in a lot of confusion, traffic jams, and losses.

 

yes, that would make sense
...I was just wondering about the 240mm ''situations'' ....in Italy, the war was not as fluid as say North Africa or Europe.....so they didn't displace as often...?....if the war was fluid, did they set up sometimes and then not fire/or not fire many rounds before they had to displace--because of the time needed to set up?? I know this was probably true even with smaller arty.....I was in mortars and know somewhat how it works
...I'm just wondering and trying to imagine

 

I was fascinated by a forward observers account of calling in a ToT (all shells landing at the same moment) on a single panzer and a few troops hiding in a defile. He had several batteries at his disposal, 105s and 155s, and the timing and placement was perfect. Everything in that little gully went up in the air at the same moment. He recounts the story because observers don't usually get to see the havoc they create, but in this case they ended up advancing in a jeep through that scene and he was able to stop and look around. The telling observation was that the panzer had not been hit, but every member of the crew was inside with the hatches open, all stone dead. No blood. No signs of injury, just sitting in their positions dead from the shock wave of all those shells exploding around them at the same moment.
Now, I wonder what a Time on Target strike from two or three batteries of 240s would look like. I suspect the shock wave of so many large shells would throw armored vehicles around like toys.

.

 

...that's why I asked the above question about where units were placed.....I remember reading long ago how some arty units were captured at the Bulge
..was it normal to be so far forward = also regarding what part/time of the war?

 

....for the TOT to be as effective as that--- [ getting even close to individual tanks ] -- each battery would've have to have been registered/etc for each target --generally speaking ..and/or a gun in each battery would've have to have been registered on that area target ...in theory, the guns are set up for a certain distance in between shells.....so, the chances of hitting or even getting close to tanks so as to ''throwing them around'' with each shell is not high......if there are a great number of tanks, you might get close/hit a few ....
....I was in mortars...even with direct fire, it took a few rounds to get close to the target....we did hit ''small'' targets with direct fire, but you had to have luck and be good
..now, each individual mortar could be targeted on a point target---all on the same spot--but this is not what arty/mortars are designed for ....for a point target, each mortar would be given a slightly different deflection.---because the mortars were spread out and not ''perfectly'' aligned.....one time, we tried this, but they gave wrong deflections/etc and the rounds were spread out = perfectly aligned, 2 mortars each impacted on each side and 2 on target---

 

Bronk, it's called a "closed sheaf". Normally only the gun(s) doing the registering would be close to the target but in the case where the observer requests a "closed sheaf" the other guns are turned inward and otherwise compensated so that they all land together. I'd also like to point out that for the guns to be that accurate the FDC would also need current and accurate weather data!

 

I don't recall all the circumstances, only that it was a defile and they were watching the road through the bottom for Germans fleeing ahead of an advance. They may have already fired in there and had the location plotted, but I don't really recall. It just stuck with me because of those dead tankers killed only by the shock wave.

.