Alternative artillery pieces never made

[CB13]

1936 - Germany is rearming....

Instead of paying to develop a new 88mm 25 pounder gun which will require all new tooling (to the dismay of the Treasury), the British Army cunningly proposes an alternative "upgrade" program based on the 84mm 18 pounder gun. In reviewing the number of weapons that appear to be available under the "upgrade" program for the investment required, the Treasury enthusiastically approves the more fiscally responsible "upgrade".

Although continuing to use the naming of "18 pounder" (primary for optics to keep Treasury onside), engineers immediately begin to work on ways to a clean sheet design to maximize the range and destructive power while using the most efficient production techniques available.

With a new carriage already having been designed earlier, the team eventually settles upon a new 21 pound shell with an incremental charge system. Although the new shell is slightly longer, the case is kept to original external dimensions so that the new guns can fire old spec ammunition currently held in inventory. It is noted that where the new gun will be able to utilize the new "supercharge" for maximum range, that separate charge would need to be removed if older guns were required to fire new ammunition in an emergency.

As existing tooling could be used for all prototyping, this process would be dramatically accelerated in the rush to move to full production and adoption.

Although the standard RA version would take priority, a new Birch Gun variant assigned to Armoured Units would take second priority. Once those two models had transitioned to full production, the prototyping teams would transition to a lighter Short Variant that would ideally also be able to be integrated into an armoured chassis to provide high explosive support to armoured units against bunkers and opposing dug-in infantry positions.

 

[Bougnas]

I've suggested howitzer sabots for several scenarios involving SIs or otherwise where artillery is better than OTL in the 20th century. Compared to the OTL artillery tables I use for reference, this would basically allow the elimination of the entire "guns" column. The number of artillery types used in field artillery would be cut by almost half depending on when it was- in the WWI-era it would replace about half the artillery pieces, in the WWII-era maybe only 2 or 3 guns would be replaced.

I've forgotten the exact numbers (and it varies based on the exact gun/howitzer combination), but the shorter barrel of the howitzer actually resulted in less volume the propellant had to expand (and likely reduced efficiency), but sabots can have better ballistics than shells. So it should cancel out and a sabot should give the same performance as the field gun that the howitzer is replacing.

For the US in WWII this would eliminate the 4.5-inch, 155 mm, and 8-inch guns. In one example, the 8-inch howitzer would replace the 155 mm M1, firing a 155 mm sabot to give about the same performance as the 155 mm M1. Perhaps a larger sabot could be used to fire a 4.5-inch shell out of the 8-inch howitzer, giving more range at the cost of the smaller shell.

This would have very interesting effects if applied to naval guns, though. In particular, the 114-130 mm naval guns (taking the US 5"/38 as an example) on ships might be replaced in this scenario by shorter-barreled 155 mm howitzers. The sabot shells, powder charges, and guns themselves wouldn't weigh much more than their 5" gun counterparts OTL, so they would have the same performance and ROF, but they would also be able to fire lower-velocity 155 mm shells at shorter ranges. Light cruisers might carry 8" howitzers instead of their OTL 6" guns, and heavy cruisers might carry 240 mm howitzers instead of 8" guns. In theory battleships would be fitted with 46 cm howitzers instead of 16" guns but there probably isn't enough space in the turret face for them.

I wonder if this could be done with the Red Army's 122mm M1938(M-30) Howitzer, to replace the 107mm M1940(M-60) Gun?
And possibly since the the 152mm M1943(D-1) Howitzer used the same carriage the 122mm M1932/37(A-19) Gun.

This was done by the Soviets on ML-20. Of course it's nice to extend range but it can be a bit expensive and it reduces payload relative to gun caliber and weight, among other downsides. Still worth it as an alternative round.

 

[Questerr]

Since we’re allowed to include SAMs/ADA weapons per the op:

A surface-launched version of the Phoenix Missile - it wouldn’t have the same range as its air launched counterpart, but the US having a ship-based or land-based radar guided missile with fire and forget capability in the 1970’s would be pretty useful against massed Soviet aircraft or missiles.

 

[gatordad699]

Since we’re allowed to include SAMs/ADA weapons per the op:

A surface-launched version of the Phoenix Missile - it wouldn’t have the same range as its air launched counterpart, but the US having a ship-based or land-based radar guided missile with fire and forget capability in the 1970’s would be pretty useful against massed Soviet aircraft or missiles.

Never knew they looked at this. Interesting.
From Wiki. “Sea Phoenix
A 1970s proposal for a ship launched version of the Phoenix as an alternative/replacement for the Sea Sparrow point defense system. It would also have provided a medium-range SAM capability for smaller and/or non-Aegis equipped vessels (such as the CVV). The Sea Phoenix system would have included a modified shipborne version of the AN/AWG-9 radar. Hughes Aircraft touted the fact that 27 out of 29 major elements of the standard (airborne) AN/AWG-9 could be used in the shipborne version with little modification. Each system would have consisted of one AWG-9 radar, with associated controls and displays, and a fixed 12-cell launcher for the Phoenix missiles. In the case of an aircraft carrier, for example, at least three systems would have been fitted in order to give overlapping coverage throughout the full 360°. Both land and ship based tests of modified Phoenix (AIM-54A) missiles and a containerised AWG-9 (originally the 14th example off the AN/AWG-9 production line) were successfully carried out from 1974 onwards.
AIM-54B
A land based version for the USMC was also proposed. It has been suggested that the AIM-54B would have been used in operational Sea Phoenix systems, although that version had been cancelled by the second half of the 1970s. Ultimately, a mix of budgetary and political issues meant that, despite being technically and operationally attractive, further development of the Sea Phoenix did not proceed.”

 

[AJE]

I wonder if this could be done with the Red Army's 122mm M1938(M-30) Howitzer, to replace the 107mm M1940(M-60) Gun?
And possibly since the the 152mm M1943(D-1) Howitzer used the same carriage the 122mm M1932/37(A-19) Gun.

Technically the 122 mm howitzer would replace the 76 mm gun, as the Soviet WWII artillery table shows from another post:

Artillery size	Gun	Howitzer (or Gun-howitzer in some cases)
Mountain	76 mm M1938 (785 kg, 6.23 kg shell, 495 m/s)
Divisional	76 mm ZiS-3 (1116 kg, 6.2 kg shell, 680 m/s)	122 mm M1938 (M-30) (2450 kg, 21.76 kg shell, 515 m/s)
Corps (these shared the same carriage)	122 mm M1931/37 (A-19) (7117 kg, 25 kg shell, 800 m/s)	152 mm M1937 (ML-20) (7270 kg, 43.6 kg shell, 655 m/s)
Heavy (these shared the same carriage)	152 mm M1935 (Br-2) (18,200 kg, 48.9 kg shell, 880 m/s)	203 mm M1934 (B-4) (17,700 kg, 100 kg shell, 607 m/s)

The 107 mm M-60's howitzer counterpart was the 152 mm M-10 and later the D-1, so those would replace it if required.

This was done by the Soviets on ML-20. Of course it's nice to extend range but it can be a bit expensive and it reduces payload relative to gun caliber and weight, among other downsides. Still worth it as an alternative round.

Yes, but they didn't seem to use them to replace the A-19 gun (or do this with any other howitzer to replace its equivalent gun).

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

How about some consideration for the M98 Howtar

View attachment 685425
The Marines fielded some during the Vietnam War, briefly.

Fit a nominal niche in the 1950s or early 1960s. As soon as helicopters could consistently transport the M101 105mm howitzer the M98 became a bit redundant. When the M198 155mm howitzer (eight tons) was selected to replace all USMC cannon artillery the question of air transport returned. There were assorted arguments for introducing a light fire support weapon. Including basic 107mm mortars, 105mm howitzers, and 120mm mortars, among others. Eventually the French RT120 was adopted as a light fire support weapon to supplement the M198 battalions.

 

[fastmongrel]

Sabots could wear out barrels faster plus any shell weighing less than about 70 pounds is a bit of a waste of time. Witness the British 4.5" field gun it had good range but it was replaced by the 5.5" as soon as the war ended because of its puny 55lb shell

 

[AJE]

Sabots could wear out barrels faster plus any shell weighing less than about 70 pounds is a bit of a waste of time. Witness the British 4.5" field gun it had good range but it was replaced by the 5.5" as soon as the war ended because of its puny 55lb shell

But since all countries were too foolish to scrap their 105, 114, and 122 mm artillery until after well after WWII (instead of scrapping them prior to WWI) it's assumed the army leadership would demand them or an equivalent in WWI and WWII. In such scenarios a sabot would be simpler than dedicated field guns.

 

[merlin]

1930 Britain.

Following successful trials with the Experimental Mechanized Force the British Army orders 100 Birch Guns, mainly to preserve the Vickers workforce during the depression.

I wonder what could have replaced it in later years - an enclosed superstructure, and a more modern bigger gun. Maybe after the Medium Mk III '16' tonner was rejected as being too expensive, they deleted the three turrets - instead an enclosed top housing a 3.7" howitzer.

 

[fastmongrel]

The British ended WWI with the 6" MkXIX gun and the 8" MkVII howitzer both using the same MkI box trail carriage. Both guns were succesful but the Artillery wanted greater range and lighter weight. Progress was very slow through the late 20s and early 30s but by 1933 Vickers had made a new 45 calibre 6" barrel mounted on the original MkI box trail. It was not a success recoil was violent and strained the box trail popping rivets and accuracy was poor. Vickers obtained a French GPF 155mm gun carriage and studied the split trail carriage designing a new carriage meant for higher elevation, higher speed towing and ease of setting up. The prototype 45 calibre barrel was redesigned to be 40 calibres long, lighter and to use the latest built up construction rather than the wire wound 45 calibre barrel.

Production of the new MkIII split trail carriage had started in 1938 but because of Naval demand barrel production was delayed, as a temporary measure it was decided to remove the MkXIX 35 calibre barrels and mount them on the new MkIII split trail carriage. With new 100lb 5/10crh boat tailed shells and 50 degree elevation range was raised from the original 18,600 yards to 21,300 yards.

The 8" Howitzer MkVIII barrels were relined down to 7.2" and a new streamlined 200lb shell developed these were fitted to MkIII carriages giving a range of 16,900 yards. Both pieces were accurate, easily towed at relatively high speed and easily emplaced.

The BEF left all its heavy guns behind in France but stocks of 6" and 8" barrels were obtained from the USA and production of the MkIII carriage was sufficent for the army in North Africa. By 1942 the demand for heavy guns had stabilised sufficently for new barrels to be produced. Production of the 6" MkXXIII 40 cal and the 7.2" MkIX 33.3 cal barrels was begun in 1943 first being used in Italy gradually replacing the earlier barrels as they wore out. By D-Day 1944 the Heavy regiments of the Royal Artillery were completely equipped with new production barrels and carriages.

The 6" 40 cal MkXXIII gun on MkIII carriage firing 100lb HE had a maximum range of 24,500 yards at 2,460 fps
The 7.2" 33.3 cal MkIX howitzer on MkIII carriage firing 200lb HE had a maximum range of 19,600 yards at 1,925 fps.

6" MkXIX on carriage MkIII

actually a french GPF-T of 1938

The MkXXIII and MkIX heavy pieces were used by the British until replaced by Self Propelled 155mm and 8" weapons in the early 1960s.

BL 6-inch gun Mk XIX - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BL 8-inch howitzer Mk VI – VIII - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BL 7.2-inch howitzer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cannone da 149/40 modello 35 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Canon de 155 mm GPF - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Monk78]

Is it possible for a twin barreled field artillery piece or howitzer to be operated by Gast principle ?

 

[fastmongrel]

Is it possible for a twin barreled field artillery piece or howitzer to be operated by Gast principle ?

It would be spectacular until it either blew up or ran out of ammunition. It might work as a 20 to 30 mm Anti Aircraft weapon but otherwise it's not practical.

 

[Hammerbolt]

Mid-to-late 30s

Germany navy develops a proper dual-purpose gun, in the 100-120mm range: AAA and anti-surface. A license-production version of the Bofors 40mm is also introduced, replacing the god-awfull 37mm SK C/30. As a result the new heavy becomes the primary weapon for destroyers. The AAA defence of the german navy is vastly improved, making the RAF/FAAs job a lot harder. The Bismarck class, for example, sails with 14 dual-purpose turrets, as well as 8 twin 40mm SK C/35.

 

[tomo pauk]

Mid-to-late 30s

Germany navy develops a proper dual-purpose gun, in the 100-120mm range: AAA and anti-surface. A license-production version of the Bofors 40mm is also introduced, replacing the god-awfull 37mm SK C/30. As a result the new heavy becomes the primary weapon for destroyers. The AAA defence of the german navy is vastly improved, making the RAF/FAAs job a lot harder. The Bismarck class, for example, sails with 14 dual-purpose turrets, as well as 8 twin 40mm SK C/35.

The 40mm Bofors is always a good idea, especially vs. the slow-firing 37mm SK C/30.
Germans have already had a few 105 and 127/128mm guns, not worse than what any other navy was using. Their problem was believing that a 150mm gun was still a thing on capital ships, so the number of 105 or 127/128mm guns was reduced vs. what was possible to install if the 150mm were not present.

 

[Monk78]

Forgive me for reviving this old thread but not sure if this AT gun have been discussed

76 mm divisional gun M1942 (ZiS-3) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Soviet 76mm AT gun could be kept relevant by using more modern AP ammunition. Perhaps more widespread use of HEAT rounds like BK 354 and the BR350N mentioned in wiki

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

1956.

The British Army revives the Railway gun by mounting the 14" guns from the King George V Battleships on railway carriages as the ships are scrapped. These repurposed guns are tasked with raining atomic fire down on an attacking Soviet Army.

 

[Monk78]

1956.

The British Army revives the Railway gun by mounting the 14" guns from the King George V Battleships on railway carriages as the ships are scrapped. These repurposed guns are tasked with raining atomic fire down on an attacking Soviet Army.

Can railway artillery be used in some Cold War era conflicts like Korea Vietnam Iran Iraq etc
Or just too vulnerable to AirPower ?

 

[longtimelurker]

Would something like a Supergun count in this?
Especially if it was used for civilian purposes?

 

[Monk78]

Would something like a Supergun count in this?
Especially if it was used for civilian purposes?

Yes

 

[CaptainCalvert]

I'd like to see the British 3 pounder 47mm improved as gun. Not only could it have been as good or better than the OTL 2 pounder as an AT gun but it could have fired a moderately useful direct fire HE round. Not a game changer but a nice upgrade.
Though not really an alt-gun, a HESH round for the 18 and 25 pounders would be good.