Hallo, gentlemen! Which do you think were the best artillery pieces of WWII and all the XX century? It would be nice to know what you all think. The 88? The Verdun 75? The American 105mm? The 17 or 25 Pounders? Or are they the most famous ones?
I would have to say the 88. The Allies hated that gun. It seemed to have pinpoint accuracy and the sound was terrifying.
My vote goes for the 88 too. A very versatile weapon. Not only was it good in the Anit-Tank role, but also in the Anti-Aircraft role as well. It could be fired on the ground in a fixed position, and if necessary, from it's wheels as well, making it easy to move around from hot spot to hot spot. Just about anyone who came up against it, feared it for it's accuracy and kiling power. _______________ "Would you rather have butter or guns?...preparedness makes us powerful. Butter merely makes us fat." Herman Goering, Hamburg, 1936
Have to say no contest on this one. The 88. Legendary, feared - and justifiably so. Also an extremely versatile design. However much they paid the designers, this weapon certainly 'earned its' keep'.
I give my points to the 88 as well. I think it was in Spain where they first noticed the anti tank properties of 88. Though an anti air gun in the first place the sights of the gun were so sophisticated it could be used for this purpose as well.Well, this is probably due to the usual German efficiency, as you probably would not need that accurate sights for high altitude anti air shooting. The only problem with the usual version was the high profile and not much armor to protect it, so it could be destroyed easily if you got the 88 in your sights. The name though gave it lots of protection, as names like "88" and "Tiger" would make soldiers turn around or hide! As one entity I would choose the Voronov artillery, the Russian artillery. I just heard that it was actually a separate part of the army, the so called high command artillery. Maybe this could be discussed on its own in the forum, as it truly made the difference in the war though the idea was simple, mass destruction inch by inch. I don´t think other nations had it this far developed, though in wwI this was sorta everyday practice ( Somme etc ).
I would go for the 88 too. But I am kind of fascinated with the French 70/15 (I think it's its name), the "Verdun 75", which did not do much at Verdun but was guilty of enormous German casualties in the 1st battle of the Marne. I am always really impressed when I watch the old WWI films and see it firing some twenty shells per minute!!!
I go with Kai on this one: the Soviet artillery was the hell. I really cannot imagine how it was Berlin in April 1945 with 600 "Katjushas" and Rokossovsky, Koniev and Zhúkov's 30.000 guns firing!!!
We need to define Artillery. To me this excludes anti-tank and AA weapons and just deals with direct fire. And I'd stick with the 25pdr: versatile, reliable and accurate. Jumbo
I'd have to agree with Jumbo here, sort of. Jumbo- do you mean indirect fire? In everything I've seen, the 88 is not considered artillery. Artillery is generally considered as weapons that have a sloped trajectory, allowing for indirect fire. A weapon like the 88 used a flat trajectory- you had to be able to see the target and have a clear line to it. Artillery I would consider things like mortars and howitzers, weapons that can hit a target without a direct line of sight. Best artillery- Soviet 152mm guns (not sure of the exact name) and Katyushas. The russians really had the best artillery IMO. Of course, and honorable mention goes to the Karl-Gereat self propelled mortar... [ 16 September 2002, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: CrazyD88 ]
I agree, Crazy. If we mean with artillery anything that is a gun and nothing else then the 88 is clearly the winner. No other gun ever gained such fame. The French 75mm was also a very famous gun and probably one of the best light artillery piece ever built. It certainly gained similar fame in WW1 as the German 88 did in WW2, though in a different field. The 25-pdr was a good gun but the British never really understood how to use it until deep into 1942. The DAK under Rommel made better use of captured 25-pdrs than the British. The Russian guns were good, so were the American ones. It is hard to really make a decision in heavy and medium artillery. The German 17cm artillery probably deserves a mention.
I'd say the major issue with artillery would not be the best artillery piece, but who used artillery the best. Differences in quality were kind of overshadowed by usage. The russian guns may not have technically been the best, but I'd guess that overall they caused more damage that any other nation's artillery. I get the idea that artillery did not change much between WW1 and WW2- with the obvious exceptions of some of the unique german guns...
I agree with Jumbo here; artillery does not include anti-tank guns. It is all the guns which provide fore power from the rear (a barrier). And then I would think, as Crazy says that the quality of the guns did not matter much, but the way it was used. The Soviets had huge amounts of artillery and used it on mass, with a certain accuracy. That is why it was lethal. But I go with the American artillery as well. It was, perhaps, along with the air force, the only American force feared by the Germans. We could deal with the tanks, with the infantry, but not with the artillery. With air recoinassence and a very well developed communication system any II Liuetenant could ask for artillery support anywhere at the front and then a deadly and horribly accurate rain of shells fell on us!
I agree with Crazy. I think how it was used made the difference. The US 75 was a joke as far as artillery but then they started using it as direct fire on individual buildings. One German officer said it was a war crime to use that gun only only 25 yards or so from a building.
Is mobile artillery included ? mobile I mean, self propelled.... if you are all in agreeance the German 105mm was the standard workhouse of the all land units involved. 150mm was a great heavier piece. E
Not to get sticky with details but--you have to admit that the 88 was one hell of an artillery piece--whether or not it was considered one or not. The American Long-Tom, was one of the if not the best piece in ww2. Im not counting it as being in the class of Anzio-Annie or Karl. Thor and Gustav are Mortars so one cannot class these as regular artillery either. The most dangerous artillery piece in the US Arsenal was Atomic-Annie.
For all round use, little beats the 88, especially in an AT role. However, for IDF the 25 pounder reigned supreme; my father's Field Regiment had them, and when they were first used German prisoners asked to see the 'artillery machine-guns' - the rate of fire was that high. I would agree it took us Brits a while to perfect its use, but Alamein saw the start of the learning curve, and by Normandy the best gunners in the ETO were British. (head down in the foxhole, awaiting the flak... )
I would have to disagree a bit... I would consider mortars artillery, again because of the trajectory thing. Mortars have a sloped trajectory, and thus can accurately fire at a target they cannot see. The 88 needed a direct line of sight, since it was a flat trajectory weapon. The reason I would not put something like the Karl as the best artillery was logistics... If we just look at the shot and how much damage is done, the Karl is hard to beat. But we also have to consider the other factors- what it took to actually use the weapon effectively. And in the case of the Karl mortars, they needed too many crew, too much preparation, too much fuel, and the ammo was costly and difficult to produce.
Right about the Karl, Crazy. A logistic nightmare. And right about the 88 too. The target had to be greensighed first. But there you have a VERY accurate weapon.
