AHC: ideal British 1930s/40s artillery, 20mm and above

... in British Army service, that is. Includes field artillery, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, mortars, mountain/jungle pieces. Towed or self-propelled. Make deals abroad to speed up the availablity of pieces deemed necessary.
Bonus points for putting the ww1 left-overs and RN surplus guns into good use.
 
... in British Army service, that is. Includes field artillery, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, mortars, mountain/jungle pieces. Towed or self-propelled. Make deals abroad to speed up the availablity of pieces deemed necessary.
Bonus points for putting the ww1 left-overs and RN surplus guns into good use.
Regarding leftovers and surplus... Others have suggested that greater use could have been made of the 3" 20CWT in the AT role. (Both on towed and SP mounts.)
 

Driftless

Donor
I'm thinking 1933 or thereabouts for a starting point.

The QF 2 pounder has a historic great reputation as a "hole puncher", but for various doctrinal reasons an HE round was not put into use. How about the British license build the Belgian 47mm model 1931 AT gun? It had very good anti-armor performance, plus it had a useful HE round. It was compact enough to be mobile and concealable. It was ready to go in the early 30's, so no potential for a tangled and disruptive developmental cycle (not that 2 pounder had any issue there, but the ordnance folks wouldn't know that upfront). Or, transplant the gun onto the analog of the OTL 2 pounders carriage, if you must.

Also, how about a updated pack gun in the 2.5" to 3" range? God knows the British had plenty of jungle and rough and rocky colonial country where such a weapon would have been useful. The Commonwealth troops in Malaya, Burma, New Guinea, Greece, Norway, and even East Africa would have appreciated a weapon like that.
 
Last edited:

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I'm thinking 1933 or thereabouts for a starting point.

The QF 2 pounder has a historic great reputation as a "hole puncher", but for various doctrinal reasons an HE round was not put into use. How about the British license build the Belgian 47mm model 1931 AT gun? It had very good anti-armor performance, plus it had a useful HE round. It was compact enough to be mobile and concealable. It was ready to go in the early 30's, so no potential for a tangled and disruptive developmental cycle (not that 2 pounder had any issue there, but the ordnance folks wouldn't know that upfront). Or, transplant the gun onto the analog of the OTL 2 pounders carriage, if you must.
I find the mv of the AP shot Belgian suspect - IMO too high for such a lightweight carriage. Barrel length is short, too. Look at the case and barrel lengths of the Belgian and of the "comparable" Czech gun - 20 versus 40 cm and L33 and L43 respectively. The Czech gun was light because of its primitive horse-drawn carriage.
So, something about the Belgium gun does not feel right. But I'm no expert ...
The 2pdr was too complicted and heavy. IMO the 2 pounder could be kept as OTL but with two small changes, best if both:
- bored out to 47mm - and renamed the three pounder
- the HE shell follows the pattern of the Soviet 45mm, thus with more filling.
Simplifying the carriage would be nice too ...


Also, how about a updated pack gun in the 2.5" to 3" range? God knows the British had plenty of jungle and rough and rocky colonial country where such a weapon would have been useful. The Commonwealth troops in Malaya, Burma, New Guinea, Greece, Norway, and even East Africa would have appreciated a weapon like that.
The UK had the 3.7" pack howitzer - simply make more of them. Already in production.
I know, 100kg heavier than a 75mm weapon. But does 630 vs 730kg a difference make? When in "pack mode" broken down into parts anyway ...

As to other artillery - instead of the 3,45" 25-pounder either develop a new 32 pounder in 3.7" calibre, or stick to the 4,5" howitzer. Or develop a new gun in that calibre round. We are taking vehicle drawn and rarely manhandled ordnance here, so whatever you go with will weight 1,5+ tons. IMO a 2 ton 4,5" howitzer is acceptable.

Oerlikon - buy it in 1935 and develop belt feed ASAP.

Pom-pom:
- go with the HV version ASAP
- simplify loading arrangements
- maybe stop with quads?

Although naval artillery is a separate can of worms
 
Last edited:
UK already has a reasonably powerful 47mm, the Vickers' 3pdr (not to be confused by the weaker 3pdr made by Hotckiss).
As the next-tier wepon for anti-tank job (but also as 'general' artillery piece), the 3in 20cwt as basis. Both 3pdr and 3in new designs will need to use latest metalurgy in order to decrease the weight of guns.
For AA, Bofors 40mm is the money in the bank, as is the Oerlikon or perhaps Solothurn of 20mm.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
So, simply put the 3pdr Vickers on a modern carriage? I suppose that this could work ...

If we are thinking "cheap" - use the thousands of WWI 18 pounders as tank guns - or mount them as assault guns. At c.500m/s they will adequate against tanks until 1941 or '42. And with HEAT a year or two longer.
 

Driftless

Donor
I find the mv of the AP shot Belgian suspect - IMO too high for such a lightweight carriage. Barrel length is short, too. Look at the case and barrel lengths of the Belgian and of the "comparable" Czech gun - 20 versus 40 cm and L33 and L43 respectively. The Czech gun was light because of its primitive horse-drawn carriage.
So, something about the Belgium gun does not feel right. But I'm no expert ...

I've got no more specific data than the Wiki info on the Belgian gun, but they did use the same system in a number of configurations (towed, SP, fortress), so they had some confidence in it apparently.

The Czech, Austrian Bohler, and French 47mm designs of the mid to late 30's had some very good characteristics and each would have been more versatile options than most of the various 37mm and 40mm(2 pounder) guns - at least through the battles of 1940. After that, the British(and everyone else) needed some more juice.


The 2pdr was too complicted and heavy. IMO the 2 pounder could be kept as OTL but with two small changes, best if both:
- bored out to 47mm - and renamed the three pounder
- the HE shell follows the pattern of the Soviet 45mm, thus with more filling.
Simplifying the carriage would be nice too ..

That should work too.


The UK had the 3.7" pack howitzer - simply make more of them. Already in production.
I know, 100kg heavier than a 75mm weapon. But does 630 vs 730kg a difference make? When in "pack mode" broken down into parts anyway ...

I think weight does matter for this purpose. Reading about the tremendous amount of effort the Australians went to getting the 25pounders lugged up the mountain ranges in New Guinea is what planted this thought in my head. On the extreme lower of the scale, the Japanese type 92 gun (70mm) weighed in at 216kg with carriage. It was a kinda-sorta cross between a mortar and direct fire weapon. It served the Japanese well, and US forces were happy to put captured units back into service until local ammo was consumed. Find a middle ground in there weight-wise versus performance.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
I'm fairly certain that the Australians would had been delighted with the 3,7".
It's weight was less than half of the 25 pounder. And it could be broken down into several loads ...
As you've said the "m" word - go with simplest 2" and 3" mortar designs. And don't make the 4,2" mortar into the beast it was. Simply streamline Brandt's design into what the Soviets ended up with (and the Germans copied).
And call it the 4,5" :)
 
I've got no more specific data than the Wiki info on the Belgian gun, but they did use the same system in a number of configurations (towed, SP, fortress), so they had some confidence in it apparently.

As many times before, English-language Wikipedia fails when it is about peculiarities of non-US and non-UK/CW gear. French Wiki states 675 m/s for AP shot, ie. barely better than the Austrian/Italian Boehler 47mm.

The Czech, Austrian Bohler, and French 47mm designs of the mid to late 30's had some very good characteristics and each would have been more versatile options than most of the various 37mm and 40mm(2 pounder) guns - at least through the battles of 1940. After that, the British(and everyone else) needed some more juice.

Czech and the two French 47mm cannons were reasonably powerful, in the league of the Vickers 3 pdr - 780 m/s and above. The Boehler was second league, with Belgian and ww1 Hotckiss 47 mm, under 690 m/s for AP shot.
The viability of the British 47mm for AT work can be improved via installation of the Littlejohn adapter.
 
As to other artillery - instead of the 3,45" 25-pounder either develop a new 32 pounder in 3.7" calibre, or stick to the 4,5" howitzer. Or develop a new gun in that calibre round. We are taking vehicle drawn and rarely manhandled ordnance here, so whatever you go with will weight 1,5+ tons. IMO a 2 ton 4,5" howitzer is acceptable.
18pdr on a gun/howitzer mount introduced in the early 20's due to motorising the artillery with a 32pdr following by 1940.
 
Would we not be best to go to 4 inch were nearly at 105mm instead of the 25 pounder and shell weight would be about 32 pounds also simplify he logistics with the navy? Also could they work on a AA gun together in the said 4 inch range as the early 4 inch aa not to far off the early 3.7 inch guns in muzzle velocity 712m/s vs 792m/s.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Would we not be best to go to 4 inch were nearly at 105mm instead of the 25 pounder and shell weight would be about 32 pounds also simplify he logistics with the navy? Also could they work on a AA gun together in the said 4 inch range as the early 4 inch aa not to far off the early 3.7 inch guns in muzzle velocity 712m/s vs 792m/s.
1 - why not a 4" howitzer - the Army was used to the 3,7" calibre - a 32 pounder in that calibre could be made.Still needs to be designed from scratch.
2 - please check for difference between howitzer and cannon - the army did NOT need a 4" field cannon.
3 - true, the Army might had standardised the heavy AA cannon with the navy. However, the heavy AA in all other countries were in the 85-94mm range - with the UK contribution being the 94mm outlier - maybe 102mm was a step too far? I don't know ...
 
Would we not be best to go to 4 inch were nearly at 105mm instead of the 25 pounder and shell weight would be about 32 pounds also simplify he logistics with the navy? Also could they work on a AA gun together in the said 4 inch range as the early 4 inch aa not to far off the early 3.7 inch guns in muzzle velocity 712m/s vs 792m/s.

1 - why not a 4" howitzer - the Army was used to the 3,7" calibre - a 32 pounder in that calibre could be made.Still needs to be designed from scratch.
2 - please check for difference between howitzer and cannon - the army did NOT need a 4" field cannon.
3 - true, the Army might had standardised the heavy AA cannon with the navy. However, the heavy AA in all other countries were in the 85-94mm range - with the UK contribution being the 94mm outlier - maybe 102mm was a step too far? I don't know ...

British 3.7in AA gun was closer to the german 105mm and British 4in, than it was to the 88L56. Shell weight of 13kg at ~800 m/s, while the 88L56 was good for 9.4kg at 820 m/s, and 15.1 kg at 880 m/s for the 105mm. The new (1936) 4in was good for 15.9 kg shell at 810 m/s, rate of fire no worse than of the 3.7 in.
So I'd agree with skipping the 3.7 in and jumping on the 4 in band wagon, economies of scale being the main reason.
A new 4in howitzer also makes sense, the 18 pdr left-overs gaining a more modern carriage until the new piece is developed.
The early 4in cannon from the Royal Navy was with separate loading - use that to the advantage and interduce modular charges, thus turn it into gun-howitzer? Use it until more modern stuff is developed, and even after that since it outranges 95% of German ww2 artillery, while it could harm a well-armored tank?
 
That was my think on the matter as well i was think on the lines of a early 105mm light gun when possible, they also get to reused alot of machine tools so save money. the army has experice with this size of gun as they had like 25 of the early 4in cannons around london at the end of the war so you got gun's to trial thing's with.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Playing the devil's advocate - maybe the weight of the 3.7in AA gun was the upper limit of "easy enough to move"?
AFAIK the 10,5cm cannon FLAK was used in static emplacements/railroad car mountings, with the 88mm serving in the field?
 

trurle

Banned
... in British Army service, that is. Includes field artillery, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, mortars, mountain/jungle pieces. Towed or self-propelled. Make deals abroad to speed up the availablity of pieces deemed necessary.
Bonus points for putting the ww1 left-overs and RN surplus guns into good use.
Oerlikon - buy it in 1935 and develop belt feed ASAP.
Polsten 20mm gun. Effective, rugged, cheap as dirt. It got upper hand even over Oerlikon IOTL.
 
Playing the devil's advocate - maybe the weight of the 3.7in AA gun was the upper limit of "easy enough to move"?
AFAIK the 10,5cm cannon FLAK was used in static emplacements/railroad car mountings, with the 88mm serving in the field?

The 3.7 in was not in the category 'easy to move'. It weighted almost twice as much as the 88mm Flak 36 - there ain't such thing as a free lunch.
British/CW have had 20mm, 40mm and RAF fighters to serve in the field.
 
And don't make the 4,2" mortar into the beast it was. Simply streamline Brandt's design into what the Soviets ended up with (and the Germans copied).

The Soviet/German 120mm mortar weighed (280kg) twice what the 4.2" did (143kg). Though it did fire a much heavier bomb 15.4kg to 9kg
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
The Soviet/German 120mm mortar weighed (280kg) twice what the 4.2" did (143kg). Though it did fire a much heavier bomb 15.4kg to 9kg
I exagerrated its weight, I believe. I always think of it with its "mobile baseplate - c. 300kg.
So, same weight for not far from "twice the bang" :)
Maybe the US equivalent, sans rifling?
 
Maybe the US equivalent, sans rifling?

The US 4.2 fired a slightly heavier bomb to a slightly longer range and weighed slightly more. I would have the Soviet 107mm (4.2") Mortar it fired a 10kg bomb and weighed roughly the same as the other Allied mortars but had a range of 6,300m
 
Top