Jump to content


Photo

Effectiveness Of Artillery Against Entrenched / Dug In Infantry


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 105 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:World War II history. Crime and action novels

Posted 16 September 2017 - 1148 AM

The Brits used their 25 pounder quite a bit in the anti-tank role in North Africa because most of the anti-tank guns they had were the 2 pounder, which was becoming outclassed by heavier axis armor.

 

Standard 25 pounder HE was effective against the light Italian tanks, and older German models.  The Brits developed a dedicated anti-tank projectile for the 25 pounder.. It was solid steel , weighed 20 pounds but had a higher velocity.


Edited by 17thfabn, 16 September 2017 - 1149 AM.


#22 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 16 September 2017 - 1201 PM

IIRC those shells were more effective against AFVs because the heavier casings meant larger fragments.

 

Yes, but they will also have much less velocity so net gain is unknown.



#23 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:everything (almost)

Posted 16 September 2017 - 1239 PM

 

IIRC those shells were more effective against AFVs because the heavier casings meant larger fragments.

 

Yes, but they will also have much less velocity so net gain is unknown.

 

There is more to anti tank work than punching holes in armor. Larger heavier fragments are more effective at cutting tracks, smashing road wheels, destroying external equipment, etc. even with lower velocity. Remember velocity limit of steel projectile against steel target.



#24 Gavin-Phillips

Gavin-Phillips

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:England, UK

Posted 16 September 2017 - 1335 PM

What about the concussive effects of a large calibre round impacting close by the trench/fortification where the soldiers are sheltering?  Even if the trench itself isn't hit, surely there must be some effects from the blast on the troops?



#25 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,296 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 16 September 2017 - 1517 PM

Yes, but lethal effect is only to be expected from really big calibres (203 mm and more) or really close hits if the troops are in the trench (around a corner).



#26 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 16 September 2017 - 1909 PM

The Brits used their 25 pounder quite a bit in the anti-tank role in North Africa because most of the anti-tank guns they had were the 2 pounder, which was becoming outclassed by heavier axis armor.

 

Standard 25 pounder HE was effective against the light Italian tanks, and older German models.  The Brits developed a dedicated anti-tank projectile for the 25 pounder.. It was solid steel , weighed 20 pounds but had a higher velocity.

Fired at Super Charge iinm. 



#27 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 17 September 2017 - 0714 AM

 

The Brits used their 25 pounder quite a bit in the anti-tank role in North Africa because most of the anti-tank guns they had were the 2 pounder, which was becoming outclassed by heavier axis armor.

 

Standard 25 pounder HE was effective against the light Italian tanks, and older German models.  The Brits developed a dedicated anti-tank projectile for the 25 pounder.. It was solid steel , weighed 20 pounds but had a higher velocity.

Fired at Super Charge iinm. 

 

 

A little trivia - I read somewhere that the New Zealanders found the AP projectile worked fine vs the thinner, Japanese tanks without supercharge, therefore they never fitted muzzle brakes to their 25 pounders. I have seen pics of NZ 25 pounders in Korea with and without them fitted.



#28 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,105 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 September 2017 - 1304 PM

It's hard to understand how earthen works could resist heavy artillery given the size of the craters they produce, especially re: battleships and heavy cruiser preparatory bombardment of Japanese islands and how ineffective they were

#29 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,812 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 20 September 2017 - 1955 PM

17pdr on 25pdr carriage

21586680_1980800495499270_50164305457954



#30 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,638 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 20 September 2017 - 2204 PM

It's hard to understand how earthen works could resist heavy artillery given the size of the craters they produce, especially re: battleships and heavy cruiser preparatory bombardment of Japanese islands and how ineffective they were


Earthworks slump back into the place of the craters in part. They don't collapse because part of the design accounts for the angle of repose of the material.

#31 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,946 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 21 September 2017 - 0710 AM

It's hard to understand how earthen works could resist heavy artillery given the size of the craters they produce, especially re: battleships and heavy cruiser preparatory bombardment of Japanese islands and how ineffective they were


Probably a combination of factors. Naval guns aren't ideal for shore bombardments because of the flat trajectory of the shells, the Japanese were very thorough builders and at first the bombardments were not long enough.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users