British Field Gun-Howitzer in World War One

At the end of the 1930s the British Army replaced its 18 pounder gun and 4.5 inch howitzer (which both dated from the 1900s) with the dual purpose 25 pounder gun-howitzers.

However, could a gun-howitzer have been developed for the Royal Field Artillery in the 1900s instead of the 18pdr gun and 4.5" howitzer?. And if it was possible would it have made any difference in World War One?
 

Redbeard

Banned
At the end of the 1930s the British Army replaced its 18 pounder gun and 4.5 inch howitzer (which both dated from the 1900s) with the dual purpose 25 pounder gun-howitzers.

However, could a gun-howitzer have been developed for the Royal Field Artillery in the 1900s instead of the 18pdr gun and 4.5" howitzer?. And if it was possible would it have made any difference in World War One?

Probably not, the Entente would still win.

It would be important however that the gun-howitzer can do true howitzer work - ie lobbing shells heavier than the 18 pdr in high trajectories - which is much more effective vs. field fortifications than usual field guns.

But if a good gun-howitzer is in the stocks in numbers after WWI new equipment for the field artillery will be further down the priority list when we approach WWII.
 
Probably not, the Entente would still win.

It would be important however that the gun-howitzer can do true howitzer work - ie lobbing shells heavier than the 18 pdr in high trajectories - which is much more effective vs. field fortifications than usual field guns.

But if a good gun-howitzer is in the stocks in numbers after WWI new equipment for the field artillery will be further down the priority list when we approach WWII.
Very droll. What I meant was, "Would it reduce British Empire casualties significantly or even shorten the war?"

One example I thought of was the Battle of Mons. AFAIK the Germans won because they had more howitzers.
 
I thought that the difference between a gun and a howitzer was more to do with the gun carriage being capable of the elevations necessary for high angle fire, and the provision of indirect fire sights and plotting organization, than the gun tube itself.

Granted a howitzer can get away with a shorter barrel, it doesn't necessarily need that, and all that was necessary to convert the 18- pounder to a gun- howitzer would be some moderate amount of carpentry and watchmaking- but some fairly large and painful changes in doctrine. That may be the sticking point.

You can find any number of popular historians willing to say tremendously rude and condemnatory things about the generals of the British Army, but actually looking closely and trying to reconstruct the doctrine of the time, it looks as if the staff were well aware of the potential of trench warfare, and wanted very badly to avoid it.

All the pre war preaching about war being mobile, structured and decisive is basically about winning the war in the open field before it can degenerate into trench fighting and attrition. Optimists like Haig believed it could be done, and had better be- and that preparing for attrition warfare would be a self fulfilling prophecy.

Pessimists- like Kitchener- believed that there could be no quick victory over something as big and professional as the German Army, and they were right, but the British Army chose to kit itself out in search of a quick decision, at first. That's the head of doctrinal pressure a field gun- howitzer in 1909 or thereabouts would be pushing against.
 
Also bear in mind the whole panoply of mapping predicting fire, observing fire and ammunition types only come into being during the war.

The ability to lob shells is all well and good but ww1 experience was that unless the fire is observed and corrected the chance of damaging even hasty entrenchment is none except by chance.
 
Also bear in mind the whole panoply of mapping predicting fire, observing fire and ammunition types only come into being during the war.

....

Not entirely true. It was greatly improved. More important was by the end of 1914 the doctrine of rapidly manuvering artilery for battery & battalion direct fire attacks was discarded. Artillery was rapidly and bloodily crushed whenever it deployed in view of the enemy.
 
Top