Every book I read by a German soldier (SS or Wehrmacht) when mentioning their encounters with the Americans, they always remark about how precise and deadly their artillery. In one book, a German tanker is remarking about how Russia let go a barrage of everything they had (which is was many pieces) and he stated that they used so much artillery and even though the Russians were typically not that accurate, it was like being in a sector targeted by the American artillery. Rommel also make this remark after the Kassarine assault, they, knew they were facing green troops in the Americans and thought another attack would net the same results but the Germans were introduced to the American artillery for the first time and were astonished by its precision. What made the US artillery standout? Where did they get the precision they were famous for? Was it the spotters, the weaponry, some technique? Anybody know? Otto Carius said that his group shot at a column of Shermans from 3000 meters and their rounds fell short. He then said a few seconds later, an artillery round hit 150 meters behind them, two seconds after that it hit 80 meters in front of them and then a couple of seconds more and it was fire for effect dead on top of them. He said it was so fast that some of the crew could not get into their tanks fast enough and were cut to pieces by it. He started screaming at them to get in their tanks when the first ranging round hit but they were inexperienced and had no idea the import of what was going on and what was coming and that few seconds delay at reacting cost them their lives. Johann Voss mentions how surprised he was when moved to the western front that the Americans could put all their rounds into a small sector and concentrate it without ranging. He said that he had never seen anything like it. I know the Americans were not that impressive with towed anti-tank artillery so I assume this was a reference to howitzers. It wasn't that they couldn't shoot it, it was that they couldn't get it into place fast enough.
American artillery was effective for several reasons. The 105mm and 155mm guns were astonishingly accurate and very rapid firing. The 155mm gun was probably the best gun used during the war. It had very long range, was very destructive, and was easy to move into place. Also American forward observers were well trained and communicated to gun batteries via field telephone or radio which allowed adjustments to be made rapidly. Also American artillery had a nearly unlimited supply of ammo which allowed anything that was perceived as a target to be carpeted with a barrage very quickly.
I think you are right GG from what I read at the link Angie posted. One of the notes were that the British and Americans could respond to an artillery request in 2-3 minutes whereas the other nations it was more like 12 minutes. I remember Bradley remarking how effective the Long Toms were in Sicily. The M43 was a self-propelled version of this gun that had a range of 14 miles firing a 155 round. They also had a version of self-propelled gun (T92) that shot a 240 mm shell (9.5 inches). I think these guns could be called "closelldo" guns. You are right about the 105mm too. They must have bought those at a "fire sale" (pun intended) because they had a scad of those things. They stuck them on everything. They would have put them on Jeeps if it wouldn't have blown out the tires. I always wondered why the 105s were popular. I bet accuracy was a primary factor. Is it safe to say that the 105mm was better than the 88mm of the Germans? Also, I know the British had quite an assortment of artillery. The 4.5 inchers, 6 pounders, 25 pounders. Did they use any self-propelled Long Toms?
(jimbotosome @ Nov 27 2005, 07:34 PM) [post=42156]Also, I know the British had quite an assortment of artillery. Did they use any self-propelled Long Toms?[/b] Not in WW2, though a number of M40 SP 155mm did serve in the British army post-war until 1960.
(jimbotosome @ Nov 27 2005, 03:06 PM) [post=42130]Every book I read by a German soldier (SS or Wehrmacht) when mentioning their encounters with the Americans, they always remark about how precise and deadly their artillery. In one book, a German tanker is remarking about how Russia let go a barrage of everything they had (which is was many pieces) and he stated that they used so much artillery and even though the Russians were typically not that accurate, it was like being in a sector targeted by the American artillery. Rommel also make this remark after the Kassarine assault, they, knew they were facing green troops in the Americans and thought another attack would net the same results but the Germans were introduced to the American artillery for the first time and were astonished by its precision. What made the US artillery standout? Where did they get the precision they were famous for? Was it the spotters, the weaponry, some technique? Anybody know? [/b] A large number of the British troop contingent as well as many Australians in Tobruk during the siege were artillery gunners and caused Rommel plenty of headaches with their acute precision against his tanks and troops.
I didn't want to make this a separate thread so jumped on the back for a response. I read this in a story about Tobruk. 'Bush Artillery'. This was a group of cooks, supply troops, HQ staff etc. who manned a whole range of captured Italian field artillery, anti tank and AA guns. They carried out their normal duties, but manned their guns during attacks. Their weapons included an old Italian 149mm gun in a coastal emplacement. What type of piece is the 149mm? Good , bad, useful?? Thought Redcoat might know!
(jimbotosome @ Nov 27 2005, 07:34 PM) [post=42156]Is it safe to say that the 105mm was better than the 88mm of the Germans? Also, I know the British had quite an assortment of artillery. The 4.5 inchers, 6 pounders, 25 pounders. Did they use any self-propelled Long Toms? [/b] 1. You cannot really compare the 105mm, which was "pure" field artillery, with the 88mm, which was basically an AA gun used in other roles. For one thing, the 88mm fired high velocity fixed ammunition, which meant that it could not be used in a howitzer role and the charge could not be varied. 2. The British did use the towed version of the Long Tom. For instance, in NW Europe from June 1944 to May 1945, the British fired approximately 149,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition.
(spidge @ Nov 28 2005, 06:50 AM) [post=42165]I didn't want to make this a separate thread so jumped on the back for a response. I read this in a story about Tobruk. 'Bush Artillery'. This was a group of cooks, supply troops, HQ staff etc. who manned a whole range of captured Italian field artillery, anti tank and AA guns. They carried out their normal duties, but manned their guns during attacks. Their weapons included an old Italian 149mm gun in a coastal emplacement. What type of piece is the 149mm? Good , bad, useful?? Thought Redcoat might know! [/b] A gun of that size is always useful The poster handtohand22 recently pasted a photo of an old Italian gun in a coastal emplacement near Tobruk. I wonder if they are one and the same ???? View attachment 1300
(redcoat @ Nov 28 2005, 11:19 PM) [post=42170](spidge @ Nov 28 2005, 06:50 AM) [post=42165]I didn't want to make this a separate thread so jumped on the back for a response. I read this in a story about Tobruk. 'Bush Artillery'. This was a group of cooks, supply troops, HQ staff etc. who manned a whole range of captured Italian field artillery, anti tank and AA guns. They carried out their normal duties, but manned their guns during attacks. Their weapons included an old Italian 149mm gun in a coastal emplacement. What type of piece is the 149mm? Good , bad, useful?? Thought Redcoat might know! [/b] A gun of that size is always useful The poster handtohand22 recently pasted a photo of an old Italian gun in a coastal emplacement near Tobruk. I wonder if they are one and the same ???? View attachment 1300 [/b] Coincidence or not??
One of the keys to American artillery success (besides good fire-direction techniques and quality production factors) was the TOT, or Time-on-Target barrage, which was highly advanced. Logically, I haven't got the background on it in front of me, so I'll have to find the book at home. images/smilies/default/blush.gif
A TOT is a very effective method of using artillery that was still being practiced when I served and still being used today. What happens is several batteries of artillery fire at the same time using longer or shorter fuzes, depending on range, trajectory, etc. This causes all of the rounds from the separate batteries to land at the same time so that the enemy has no time to react and take cover. From late 1944-45 American batteries also used the variable time fuzed shell or VT shell. This was a shell that emitted a radio signal causing it to explode when enough of the signal was being reflected back from the ground. It made getting good airbursts much easier than with mechanical fuzes.
(GarandGuy @ Nov 29 2005, 02:26 PM) [post=42268]A TOT is a very effective method of using artillery that was still being practiced when I served and still being used today. What happens is several batteries of artillery fire at the same time using longer or shorter fuzes, depending on range, trajectory, etc. This causes all of the rounds from the separate batteries to land at the same time so that the enemy has no time to react and take cover. From late 1944-45 American batteries also used the variable time fuzed shell or VT shell. This was a shell that emitted a radio signal causing it to explode when enough of the signal was being reflected back from the ground. It made getting good airbursts much easier than with mechanical fuzes. [/b] Wow, that's incredible. What kind of time accuracy can the rounds have? How close do the simultaneous detonations occur?
(GarandGuy @ Nov 29 2005, 07:26 PM) [post=42268]A TOT is a very effective method of using artillery that was still being practiced when I served and still being used today. What happens is several batteries of artillery fire at the same time using longer or shorter fuzes, depending on range, trajectory, etc. This causes all of the rounds from the separate batteries to land at the same time so that the enemy has no time to react and take cover. From late 1944-45 American batteries also used the variable time fuzed shell or VT shell. This was a shell that emitted a radio signal causing it to explode when enough of the signal was being reflected back from the ground. It made getting good airbursts much easier than with mechanical fuzes. [/b] The batteries do not all fire at the same time. They fire according to their range from the target, so that all the rounds arrive at the same time. It works just as well with percussion fuzes as it does with time and VT fuzes. It is time ON target, not time fired. In practice, the rounds would fall not at precisely the same second - they didn't have that degree of precision - but within a few seconds. The British used it too and incidentally used "VT" proximity fuzes from the Battle of the Bulge onwards.
I stand corrected on the exacts of the TOT! Then again, I wasn't a redleg, just an 0311 (rifleman). But one thing angie, I wasn't saying that VT fuzes made a TOT more effective, just that they were one more of the very effective weapons that American arty used. In Nam we'd call for a TOT whenever we were going to land in a 'hot' LZ, and our arty guys would fire point detonating fuzes and airbursts so that the entire area was cleared before we landed.
