Best Artillery Gun of WW2?

Of course many will be quick to point out that the much loved L118 Light Gun shares many of this same faults. The light gun was meant as a weapon for artillery elements of light infantry units, and that limited role justifies its peculiarities.

I'm a bit confused by this. Could you explain how the role justifies these peculiarities, please? Surely if those things are problems, they're problems no matter the role.
 
I'm a bit confused by this. Could you explain how the role justifies these peculiarities, please? Surely if those things are problems, they're problems no matter the role.

The L118 was designed to be as mobile as possible. It's prefered mode of deployment is slung under an helicopter. It therefore had to be as light and sturdy as possible. This considerations prevailed over others such as easy wide traverse without moving the gun, high elevation, etc.
A split trail design would give more stability when firing over a wider traverse arc, probably allow easier operation without the box "legs" getting in the way. It would also be heavier and less sturdy. Since mobility was valued more than anything else for its role, the box trail was choosen.
See bellow how yhey got max elevation out of the 25pdr, digging a hole behing the gun

25-pdr-7.jpg
 
The 25pdr being nominated shows how emotional factors displace pratical realities. The 25pdr lacked the split trail that its rivals had, requiring a cumbersome wheel mount to have the rapid traverse its box trail prevented, the box trail also reducing elevation, and the caliber (88mm) was also a compromise, lacking the destructive powewr of a 105mm shell. It was handy, and since it was neither a gun nor a howitzer but a bit of both it was popular. But next to the superb US 105mm, with its split trail, excelent ammo, and outsanding durability and praticability, it was too old fashioned.
Of course many will be quick to point out that the much loved L118 Light Gun shares many of this same faults. The light gun was meant as a weapon for artillery elements of light infantry units, and that limited role justifies its peculiarities. So if the 25pdr had been meant for the same limited role, it would have been great, it was the fact that it was meant at the time for field artilery roles that leads me to label it as inferior to other contemporary designs.

You can disagree with people and give your reasons without first having to come up with a psychological theory to explain how your opponents are defective (blinded by emotion!). I was mostly convinced by your post but that opening sentence kinda grates.
 
You can disagree with people and give your reasons without first having to come up with a psychological theory to explain how your opponents are defective (blinded by emotion!). I was mostly convinced by your post but that opening sentence kinda grates.

I fully assume being influenced by emotional factors as well. Some weapons have made an impression on popular culture and our collective memories. Take the Luger, for example. There is nothing wrong with emotion and I never meant it to be depreciative. And I never think of other posters as opponents, this is a conversation, not a contest.
 
The 25pdr being nominated shows how emotional factors displace pratical realities. The 25pdr lacked the split trail that its rivals had, requiring a cumbersome wheel mount to have the rapid traverse its box trail prevented, the box trail also reducing elevation, and the caliber (88mm) was also a compromise, lacking the destructive powewr of a 105mm shell. It was handy, and since it was neither a gun nor a howitzer but a bit of both it was popular. But next to the superb US 105mm, with its split trail, excelent ammo, and outsanding durability and praticability, it was too old fashioned.
Of course many will be quick to point out that the much loved L118 Light Gun shares many of this same faults. The light gun was meant as a weapon for artillery elements of light infantry units, and that limited role justifies its peculiarities. So if the 25pdr had been meant for the same limited role, it would have been great, it was the fact that it was meant at the time for field artilery roles that leads me to label it as inferior to other contemporary designs.

I beg to differ - the RA used the 25 Pounder for more than 20 years and some countries for even longer.
 
I beg to differ - the RA used the 25 Pounder for more than 20 years and some countries for even longer.

Sure they did. The 122mm M38 Russian Howitzer and the 105mm US M2 outlasted it in service. It was handy, sturdy and workmanlike. But by 1945 it was an oddity, a 88mm box trail design in an era of 100 to 122mm split trail alternatives. Lord Alambrooke used to say that in peace time everybody wants manoeuvrability but in wartime what counts is weight of shell...
 
The L118 was designed to be as mobile as possible. It's prefered mode of deployment is slung under an helicopter. It therefore had to be as light and sturdy as possible. This considerations prevailed over others such as easy wide traverse without moving the gun, high elevation, etc.

You may be right about the deployment preference, but I've never seen that done - I've only ever seen them towed, by trucks or HMMWVS or suchlike. As for the rest, the L118 actually is capable of high-angle fire. We just don't like to use it unless we have to, because a) it increases the time of flight of the shell, and b) it increases the likelihood of detection by counterbattery radar. I suppose it also depends on your definition of wide traverse as to what the gun is capable of. If I remember rightly, the gun can be traversed something like 200 mils without moving the trails. But moving the trails is not a difficult exercise - the L118 rests on a gun plate below it's wheels when deployed, and that makes turning it as far as you want something the gun crew can do in seconds. Yes, we try to get the center of arc right when surveying a gun position; but a target being more than 100 or 200 mils off from that has never stopped any artillery unit I've served with from engaging it.

I'll accept that the L118 isn't a perfect light gun, and there are lots of improvements that could be made (the dial sight isn't anyone's friend). But the points you've identified don't really hamper operations with it as much as you might think.
 
I agree. We have it in our airborne brigade (L119 I think since we use US ammo) and most of my artillery friends love it. Some claim they liked the old Oto Melara 105mm even better, even though they all accept it was rather fragile when towed. The box trail on the L118 is a very clever curved design that removes most of the problems and retains the advantage that it's shorter than a comparable split trail when closed. But we retain 155mm for our other two brigades, one of them with M109 SPG and the other with (sigh) WW2 era M114 155mm.
But the 25pdr had an older style box, and should have been a 105mm.
 
Top