Did the British use "infantry/support guns" on the Western Fro

[centurion]

Here's another view of the leichtes Minenwerfer. It is set up in direct fire mode, in this case during field training. One of the removed wheels is visible in the foreground. The unit is the Minenwerfer platoon of Sturmbataillon 16 according to what's written on the back of the photo.

Certainly illustrates the dual purpose nature of the 3rd version of the leichtes Minenwerfer. An excellent photo for which thanks. When used in the direct fire gun mode it was muzzle loaded with a ram rod (as opposed to the round just being dropped in as when used as a mortar). Apart from some 19th century hang ons in remoter parts of the Turkish empire it must have been the only muzzle loader to be used in the open field in WW1.

[Tom W.]

The unit is the Minenwerfer platoon of Sturmbataillon 16 according to what's written on the back of the photo.

Actually, each assault battalion had a full trench-mortar company armed with eight light trench mortars. The trench-mortar company was subdivided into four platoons, each armed with two light weapons.

[Tom W.]

"...kleine von der Infanterie bediente Grabenkanonen ..."

A previous thread describes a 37mm Krupp Grabenkanone.

3.7cm Grabenkanone - literally 'trench gun'. Designed by Krupp, utilising 'offspring of the old five-barrelled Gruson revolving guns... when it was replaced by the single shot quick-fire 5cm case mate gun'. Mounted on a U-shaped beam with two different shield options: one (13mm thick) for firing from an enclosed position; larger shield for firing from an open position. The gunner could use a small mirror on the side to observe fall of shot! Smaller version could be manhandled.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=30213&view=findpost&p=238040

[Hans k.]

Actually, each assault battalion had a full trench-mortar company armed with eight light trench mortars. The trench-mortar company was subdivided into four platoons, each armed with two light weapons.

Thanks. I was just quoting what was written on the back of the picture. The full picture shows both of the platoon's trench mortars.

[Joe Sweeney]

German field gun deployed in the direct fire AT/infantry support role.

The intended replacement for the converted minenwerfer (600 built but too late for action) http://www.landships.freeservers.com/jpegs/37mm_tak_rheinmetall_3.JPG

The Austro Hungarian contribution http://www.landships.freeservers.com/7.5cm_gebirgskanone_m15.htm

Centurian,

Isn't that gun the 7.7 cm Infanteriegeschütz L/27 and not the actual 96? I think this is an actual true Infantrie support gun with reduced diameter wheels and lower armor shield removed.

Joe Sweeney

[centurion]

A previous thread describes a 37mm Krupp Grabenkanone.

3.7cm Grabenkanone - literally 'trench gun'. Designed by Krupp, utilising 'offspring of the old five-barrelled Gruson revolving guns... when it was replaced by the single shot quick-fire 5cm case mate gun'. Mounted on a U-shaped beam with two different shield options: one (13mm thick) for firing from an enclosed position; larger shield for firing from an open position. The gunner could use a small mirror on the side to observe fall of shot! Smaller version could be manhandled.

There was no smaller manahandleable version of the 3.7 Cm The gun using the Gruson tube had no recoil mechanism and therefore had to be very firmly emplaced. An attempt was made as I've described elsewhere to mount this gun on a French wheeled carriage for use as an infantry gun but because of the recoil problem the carriage had to be several times heavier than the gun which had to be fired wheels off for the same reason. It seems that it was fitted with side pieces to the shield (rather like the WW2 British 2 pounder AT gun). Tried out by some pioneers supporting a storm troop it was rejected. A number of accounts say "because the muzzle flash was too strong" but these all seem to stem from a single English language source and I suspect there may be some mistranslation and its referring to the recoil or muzzle kick. Elsewhere the weight is blamed.

[Old Tom]

May I air some general thoughts:

The function of artillery may be described as delivering shell and, very much in the early stages of WW1, shrapnel bullets on appropriate targets. Such fire may be direct or indirect. In the first stages of the war most fire was direct, in other words the gun layers could see the target. To achieve this sort of fire the guns deployed close to the infantry and had to be able to move with the infantry. This is, of course, part of the reason why field guns had shields and was feasible for small scale engagements in open country.

As trench warfare developed artillery was largely concealed and changed to indirect fire. As has been pointed out field guns were occasionally manhandled into the front line to engage specific targets such as well entrenched machine guns, but this was the exception. When infantry advanced movement of artillery to positions of direct fire would take time particularly over wet shell churned ground. Continued artillery support was only possible if artillery observation offices advanced with the infantry and were able to maintain line contact with the batteries. To some extent this is the reason for the ‘bite and hold’ concept, in other words the limit of advance was the range of the supporting guns.

My assessment, for what it is worth, is that, during the period of trench warfare the BEF decided that man handled or horse drawn artillery pieces could not be expected to be able to move with infantry and sought to develop infantry tactics of fire and movement to cope with strong points with infantry weapons.

Tanks provided an answer but were unreliable and slow. However towards the end of the war some tanks were adopted to move artillery.

It may be relevant to reflect that in WW2 infantry deployed anti tank guns as large as the 17 pdr but by then tracked towing vehicles were available, and a one later stage anti tank guided weapons were part of the RA.

Old Tom

[centurion]

Tanks provided an answer but were unreliable and slow. However towards the end of the war some tanks were adopted to move artillery.

It may be relevant to reflect that in WW2 infantry deployed anti tank guns as large as the 17 pdr but by then tracked towing vehicles were available, and a one later stage anti tank guided weapons were part of the RA.

By 1918 the Mk V was quite reliable and as fast as needed over broken ground (it was when warfare was once again mobile that they proved too slow - see one of my earlier posts) They did indeed provide infantry fire support knocking out pill boxes etc during the 100 days. This is what Col Compton had finally envisaged the tanks role as - a machine gun destroyer . Tanks were not adapted or adopted to move artilley - the gun carriers were a completely separate design (and because some one goofed when calculating CoG not very effective). However they were primarily intended to move medium artillery anyway - not infantry direct support weapons. In WW2 the 17 pounder AT was at the limit of what a gun crew could man handle (and attempts were made to build an engine into one of the arms of the split trail but it was finally concluded that motorised guns (tracked) were the future) and the even larger 32 pounder was not proceeded with beyond the prototype stage. The Germans did built larger towed AT guns but crews found them very difficult to manage. Although the Germans (and the Japanese) made use of the infantry gun these suffered from the two historical besetting problems of infantry (battalion) guns - the round they fired wasn't heavy enough for tactical purposes but was heavy enough to be a logistic pain in keeping up with the gun.

[Robert Dunlop]

There was no smaller manahandleable version of the 3.7 Cm.

centurion, Siege Gunner has provided us fresh information. It is so helpful that this Group has several native German speakers, as well as Pals who are experienced in translation and have access to such important documents. There is still so much more to be learned, as fresh content comes to light in English. Turning to Jaeger's account of the 3.7 cm Grabenkanone:

"The 3.7 cm Grabenkanone, the trench gun, was a makeshift design by Krupp, destined for the frontline of the trenches. It was mounted on a simple construction riveted together from sheet steel and U-shaped beams with two different armour shields... A small gun was used to fire from an enclosed position and a large one for firing from an open position. The mount of the trench gun was fixed to the ground by hammering two spikes into it, these being sufficient to take the recoil.

Over short distances the 168 kg of the emplaced trench gun could be broken down into the three loads of tube (38.3kg/86lb), mount (125kg/263lb) and the 13mm thick armour shield used according to the emplacement (25kg for the small and 45kg for the large one) and then carried by the crew. For longer distances it was loaded onto a car."

The 3.7 cm Tankabwehrkanonen was not available until later in the war. It could not have been the subject of the AAR that Siege Gunner quoted from.

Robert

[Old Tom]

Centurion, Many thanks for your corrections. Posts like mine allow you to keep up your rate of fire. However, I did head my contribution 'general thoughts' and tried to to suggest reasons why the BEF did not use artillery in the way the original question asked.

Old Tom

[Pete1052]

The short answer to Rod's question is that most of the belligerent powers in the war had flat-trajectory guns for the direct support of the Infantry when the war started. These artillery pieces were capable of both direct and indirect fire. Early in the war most artillery support was in the direct fire mode but as time went by indirect fire increasingly became the norm. I'll leave it to others to cite the various weapons systems used by the armies and I concede that in spite of my broad generalization there were many examples of artillery support with direct fire that took place during the middle and later parts of the war.

[4thGordons]

Here's another view of the leichtes Minenwerfer. It is set up in direct fire mode, in this case during field training. One of the removed wheels is visible in the foreground. The unit is the Minenwerfer platoon of Sturmbataillon 16 according to what's written on the back of the photo.

Not wanting to reignite this too much

I got to play with what I believe was something similar this weekend, it was certainly designed to be fired with a flat trajectory as well as in mortar fashion.

Please see below

Chris

[Tom W.]

I got to play with what I believe was something similar this weekend, it was certainly designed to be fired with a flat trajectory as well as in mortar fashion.

Yes, that's the 76mm light mortar, new pattern, with flat-trajectory carriage (7,6 cm leichte Minenwerfer n/A mit Flachfeuerlafette).

It's the same weapon as the one in the photo of Sturmbataillon Nr. 16.

[4thGordons]

Yes, that's the 76mm light mortar, new pattern, with flat-trajectory carriage (7,6 cm leichte Minenwerfer n/A mit Flachfeuerlafette).

It's the same weapon as the one in the photo of Sturmbataillon Nr. 16.

I am well out of my area of knowledge here but it looks to me as though the "chassis" (?) "frame" or whatever it is correctly called is different (larger and squarer) on the photo. Is this just a minor variation in mount?

Chris

Edit - this is where I mean, there also look to be a long double handle visible at the rear not present on the example I pictured

[Tom W.]

I am well out of my area of knowledge here but it looks to me as though the "chassis" (?) "frame" or whatever it is correctly called is different (larger and squarer) on the photo. Is this just a minor variation in mount?

There were different carriages made by different manufacturers. Here's the standard layout:

[4thGordons]

There were different carriages made by different manufacturers. Here's the standard layout:

Thanks Tom. much appreciated.

Chris

[Tom W.]

Here's another flat-trajectory carriage variation.