18 pounder replacement pre-1914?

[RobL]

One of the excellent speakers at the WFA conference yesterday mentioned that pre-war, the British Army had wanted a replacement for the 18 pounder field gun, something more like the French 75mm gun - I wasn't aware of this before, has anyone heard of this? Especially interested as to what the 75mm had that the 18 pounder didn't, as the 18 pounder was introduced six years after the 'Soixante-Quinze' i'd have thought the 18 pounder the better gun, even if just by a narrow margin as being more modern

[centurion]

According to Ian V Hogg in 1904 the 18 pounder was "the most powerful field artillery gun in the world" so one cannot see why one would want to replace it with a less powerful 75 equivalent. Changes in ammunition might be a different matter.

[nigelfe]

Who was this speaker? Did they offer any evidence?

18 pr was designed with full knowledge of the FR 75mm. 18-pr, 4.5 & 60-pr were produced as a result of the experience in S Africa. They recognised that the shell was the weapon and wanted the best shell they could get from a gun towable by a 6 horse team (in the case of 18pr and 4.5).

[SiegeGunner]

Did the speaker perhaps mean to refer to replacing the remaining 13-pounders with the 18-pounder, just as the latter was eventually (after long and distinguished service) replaced by the 25-pounder?

[centurion]

There was a request for improvements to the 18 pdr in 1915 - to increase the range. The main defect of the 13 pounder was that the weight of shell was considered to be too light and yet it was of a similar calibre to the 75 and fired a slightly heavier shell so that "something more like the French 75mm gun " simply makes no sense.

[centurion]

Thinking further could your speaker have become confused by the replacement of the 15 pounder Erhardt by the 13 pounder which was indeed "something more like the French 75mm gun "?

[ianjonesncl]

A quick comparison using data from The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Artillery Ian V Hogg

It appears the 18 pounder could deliver a heavier shell but had a shorter range.

[centurion]

A quick comparison using data from The Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Artillery Ian V Hogg

It appears the 18 pounder could deliver a heavier shell but had a shorter range.

See post 5

[Gunner Bailey]

I always thought the 75 had a better recoil mechanism, which allowed a faster rate of fire and less disruption to the aim.

Also the French had a mechanical fuze setting device which again meant a better rate of fire and the ability to change timings faster.

John

[SiegeGunner]

So it's not clear what the speaker really meant. But this does perhaps raise an interesting question, which is 'How much cooperation/interchange of information was there between the artillery manufacturers of the Allied nations?"

[nigelfe]

#5, yep, the Mk 4 gun increased the range to 8500m mid war (Hogg). Subsequently more.

[centurion]

I always thought the 75 had a better recoil mechanism, which allowed a faster rate of fire and less disruption to the aim.

Also the French had a mechanical fuze setting device which again meant a better rate of fire and the ability to change timings faster.

John

The recoil was a function of the carriage and with the introduction of the Mk II Carriage the 18 pounder was as good as (and according to Hogg) better than the 75.Not sure how a French fuze setter would work as the fuze on French shells consisted of a powder filed coil round a cone shaped fuze body and a hole was punched into it at the desired position - not deemed as accurate as the British ring fuzes once manufacturing reliability problems were overcome. In either case a factor of the ammunition rather than the gun.

[Gunner Bailey]

The fuze setter allowed a stardard setting and two shell could have their fuzes set by placing them fuze down in the quite small machine and turning a handle.

[nigelfe]

But did the French use a "Fuze (Bar) Indicator" type of thing to find the individual fze setting for each gun? Actually setting the fuze isn't a major problem, the Fuze Key was adequate, a Fuze Setter gave consistency, but accuracy meant providing the settings peculiar to each gun.

[Old Tom]

Is there a case to argue that the 75 was intended for a somewhat different role than the 18. I suggest that the 75 was mainly, if not exclusively intended to engage infantry over open sights - if that's the right phrase. The 75 has, I think, a somewhat unusual feature in that the wheels are raised by a linkage which, in effect anchors the piece and limits is traverse, but presumably permits its rapid rate of fire by preventing the piece moving. Of course this case is partially defeated by the fact, again I think, that both, in1914, only fired shrapnel. I expect proper gunners will put me right!

Old Tom

[centurion]

I'm not a proper gunner and although I've met a few improper gunners at Woolwich they vouchsafed very few artillery secrets, however both guns were designed with both shrapnel and HE in mind, what ammunition was available in 1914 is another matter.The French fuze setter was primarily an innovation and an advantage it is true - in 1897! By 1914 the gun was outclassed by almost every other field gun available

[nigelfe]

The French had a suspring variety of 75mm field guns, I think the one being referred to in the Deport design produced by St Chamond, correctly designated M1897 I believe. Other French 75 mm field guns were M1912, M97/33. M03, M05, M 06,, M06 PDM, M12, then there were the 75mm mountain guns.

[centurion]

The M1897 was produced under the management of General Deloye. The Mle 1912 (not M12) was produced by Schneider as a lighter shorter barreled 75 calibre gun for the cavalry. It [proved inadequate after 1914 and was replaced by the older M1897) The gun produced by Deport was in fact a design mainly adopted by the Italian Army. During WW1 the French appear to have only had 3 field guns of 75mm the original 1897 model, the cavalry Schneider and the St Chamond produced Deport design of which less than 200 saw service with the French Army. Various 75 mm calibre guns were produced by various French factories for export and/or licensing to countries such as Russia, Italy, Serbia, the USA etc. Possibly this is causing confusion?

[Hoplophile]

The Annual Report of the President, Ordnance Board for the Year 1913, which can be found at the "Archive formery known as the PRO" (SUPP 6/168), mentions a project for the development of a new field gun for both horse and field artillery. This gun was to have a calibre of three inches and fire an 18-pound shell with a muzzle velocity of 1,600 feet per second. It also was to have an elevation of at least 25 degrees. (More was considered better, so as to facilitate firing at aircraft.)

As the original (3.3-inch calibre) 18-pounder had a muzzle velocity of 1,615 feet per second and the French Model 1897 75mm piece had a muzzle velocity of some 1,722 feet per second, the new piece would not be more like the French 75mm piece than the old 18-pounder.

[Rockdoc]

An elevation of 25 degrees would be of little use for AA work. 80 would be more like it and even more would be nice.

To be serious, this sounds very similar to the spec for the 3-in 20-cwt gun that was introduced by the Army for AA work in 1914.The shell was only 16 lb but the muzzle velocity was 2,500 ft/s. It was a very big lump, though, and 20 cwt is a goodly sight more than the 9 cwt of the 18-pdr field gun so it's perhaps possible they were looking for something in between that would still be towable by a horse team.

Keith

[centurion]

The 18 pounder Mk IV on the Mk IV box trail carriage achieved all of that and more! One presumes that the above project never materialised.

An elevation of 25 degrees would be of little use for AA work.

But fairly close to that used for anti balloon work.

[Rockdoc]

I think balloons went up to a couple of thousand feet? If so, 25 degrees would be OK I suppose. Balloons don't move (horizontally at least) so a field carriage would be quite adequate. Hoplophile specifically mentioned aircraft, though, and there's no way that such a mounting makes for a successful AA gun, even though we both know that such mountings were stood on their trails and used for that purpose by both sides. If a gun on a fully-functional, high-angle AA mounting couldn't guarantee damaging an enemy aircraft then the far, far less agile raised field carriage would create an enormous handicap for its detachment - never mind the safety implications.

Keith