Post Boer War British Army Recommendations.

[AJE]

thnks for the link.

I was making two points, one on the Gun/Howitzer and there is nothing in the article about that. The basic issue is that for a QF gun you can accept a recoil of around 1m on the barrel before going back into battery. For a howitzer its about half that. A gun firing on a generally flat trajectory has to have higher barrel pressure than a howitzer lobbing stuff. Trying to make a gun howitzer is feasible but its harder than making a gun and a howitzer as separate items especially if one type is intended to be firing DF all the time. The 25lb benefits from WW1 experience and is really a light howitzer that can do gun like things sometimes and it has radios to the FOO.

That makes sense. In that case, there's always the solution I usually propose for ISOTs/SIs in the pre-WWI era- to simply invent sabots for artillery. Then field gun shells can be fired out of the howitzers, and because they're lighter than howitzer shells their muzzle velocity will be higher to approximate the trajectory of the field gun. The only disadvantage of this is that field howitzers tend to fire slower than field guns (they usually had separate loading charges and shells, and they were bigger and heavier), but for heavier guns/howitzers this shouldn't be the case.

Either way, most artillery fit into a simple table from about 1900 until today. This example from another of my posts shows the German artillery in 1914:

Gun size	Gun (high velocity, light shell, long range, low elevation)	Howitzer (lower velocity, heavy shell, shorter range, high elevation)
Mountain	7.5 cm Gebirgskanone L/17 M 08
Light field	7.7 Feldkanone 96 n.A. (445 m/s, 1020 kg)	10.5 cm FH 98/09 (302 m/s, 1145 kg)
Heavy field	10 cm Kanone 04 (551 m/s, 2428 kg)	15 cm sFH 02 (325 m/s, 2035 kg)
Heavy/siege	13.5 cm Kanone 09 (695 m/s, 6730 kg)	21 cm Mörser 10 (335 m/s, 7029 kg)

Heavier siege weapons like the 280 mm French and Russian howitzers, the US 240 mm, the British 9.2" howitzer, and heavier 305 mm (12") and 380-420 mm (15-16.5") howitzers would go in further rows below this, usually under the "Howitzer" column.

By 1918, Britain's table would look like this:

Gun size	Gun (high velocity, light shell, long range, low elevation)	Howitzer (lower velocity, heavy shell, shorter range, high elevation)
Mountain		QF 3.7-inch (297 m/s, 730 kg)
Light field	QF 18-pounder (492 m/s, 1281 kg)	QF 4.5-inch (310 m/s, 1370 kg)
Heavy field	BL 60-pounder (650 m/s, 4471 kg)	BL 6-inch 26 cwt (430 m/s, 3693 kg)
Heavy/siege	BL 6-inch Mk XIX (720 m/s, 10340 kg)	BL 8-inch Mk VIII (460 m/s, 8740 kg)
Siege		BL 9.2-inch Mk II (490 m/s, 16460 kg+9-11 tons of earthen bedding)
Heavy siege		BL 12-inch
Super-heavy siege		BL 15-inch

But in 1914, the table looked like this:

Gun size	Gun (high velocity, light shell, long range, low elevation)	Howitzer (lower velocity, heavy shell, shorter range, high elevation)
Mountain	QF 2.95-inch (393, 586 kg)
Light field	QF 18-pounder (492 m/s, 1281 kg)+ QF 13-pounder* (511 m/s, 1014 kg)	QF 4.5-inch (310 m/s, 1370 kg)
Heavy field	BL 60-pounder (650 m/s, 4471 kg)	BL 6-inch 30 cwt (237 m/s, 3507 kg)- though obsolete
Heavy/siege
Siege		BL 9.2-inch Mk I (362 m/s, 13577 kg+9-11 tons of earthen bedding)

*The British were the only army to my knowledge that had separate field and horse artillery.

So adopting a sabot to fire gun shells out of howitzers would allow Britain to get rid of most of the "Gun" column and just use howitzers, except for light field guns. That would allow them to build a modern 6-inch howitzer instead of the 60-pounder, and possibly get rid of the QF 18-pounder (in favor of the 4.5-inch howitzer) while using just the 13-pounder for any field gun use. The extra resources for that gun could then go into designing a modern 8-inch howitzer which could also do the role of a 6-inch gun with sabots, providing every capability on the table for Britain in 1914.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That makes sense. In that case, there's always the solution I usually propose for ISOTs/SIs in the pre-WWI era- to simply invent sabots for artillery. Then field gun shells can be fired out of the howitzers, and because they're lighter than howitzer shells their muzzle velocity will be higher to approximate the trajectory of the field gun. The only disadvantage of this is that field howitzers tend to fire slower than field guns (they usually had separate loading charges and shells, and they were bigger and heavier), but for heavier guns/howitzers this shouldn't be the case.

Either way, most artillery fit into a simple table from about 1900 until today. This example from another of my posts shows the German artillery in 1914:

Gun size	Gun (high velocity, light shell, long range, low elevation)	Howitzer (lower velocity, heavy shell, shorter range, high elevation)
Mountain	7.5 cm Gebirgskanone L/17 M 08
Light field	7.7 Feldkanone 96 n.A. (445 m/s, 1020 kg)	10.5 cm FH 98/09 (302 m/s, 1145 kg)
Heavy field	10 cm Kanone 04 (551 m/s, 2428 kg)	15 cm sFH 02 (325 m/s, 2035 kg)
Heavy/siege	13.5 cm Kanone 09 (695 m/s, 6730 kg)	21 cm Mörser 10 (335 m/s, 7029 kg)

Heavier siege weapons like the 280 mm French and Russian howitzers, the US 240 mm, the British 9.2" howitzer, and heavier 305 mm (12") and 380-420 mm (15-16.5") howitzers would go in further rows below this, usually under the "Howitzer" column.

By 1918, Britain's table would look like this:

Gun size	Gun (high velocity, light shell, long range, low elevation)	Howitzer (lower velocity, heavy shell, shorter range, high elevation)
Mountain		QF 3.7-inch (297 m/s, 730 kg)
Light field	QF 18-pounder (492 m/s, 1281 kg)	QF 4.5-inch (310 m/s, 1370 kg)
Heavy field	BL 60-pounder (650 m/s, 4471 kg)	BL 6-inch 26 cwt (430 m/s, 3693 kg)
Heavy/siege	BL 6-inch Mk XIX (720 m/s, 10340 kg)	BL 8-inch Mk VIII (460 m/s, 8740 kg)
Siege		BL 9.2-inch Mk II (490 m/s, 16460 kg+9-11 tons of earthen bedding)
Heavy siege		BL 12-inch
Super-heavy siege		BL 15-inch

But in 1914, the table looked like this:

Gun size	Gun (high velocity, light shell, long range, low elevation)	Howitzer (lower velocity, heavy shell, shorter range, high elevation)
Mountain	QF 2.95-inch (393, 586 kg)
Light field	QF 18-pounder (492 m/s, 1281 kg)+ QF 13-pounder* (511 m/s, 1014 kg)	QF 4.5-inch (310 m/s, 1370 kg)
Heavy field	BL 60-pounder (650 m/s, 4471 kg)	BL 6-inch 30 cwt (237 m/s, 3507 kg)- though obsolete
Heavy/siege
Siege		BL 9.2-inch Mk I (362 m/s, 13577 kg+9-11 tons of earthen bedding)

*The British were the only army to my knowledge that had separate field and horse artillery.

So adopting a sabot to fire gun shells out of howitzers would allow Britain to get rid of most of the "Gun" column and just use howitzers, except for light field guns. That would allow them to build a modern 6-inch howitzer instead of the 60-pounder, and possibly get rid of the QF 18-pounder (in favor of the 4.5-inch howitzer) while using just the 13-pounder for any field gun use. The extra resources for that gun could then go into designing a modern 8-inch howitzer which could also do the role of a 6-inch gun with sabots, providing every capability on the table for Britain in 1914.

The problem with using sabot is the weight of the shell. The rifling will probably be inappropriate for the lighter shell.
The best option if you were going that route is to invent Probert Rifling:

QF 3.7-inch AA gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like the Mk IV this was based on the 4.5 inch barrel design lined down to 3.7 inches, and using the 4.5 inch size cartridge. However, Colonel Probert changed the barrel to have gradual rifling: the rifling groove depth decreased to zero over the last five calibres of the barrel before the muzzle. This smoothed the two driving bands of a new design shell giving reduced air resistance and hence better ballistic performance, and causing far less barrel wear. The maximum ceiling for the gun was about 15,240 m (50,000 ft). It was mounted on the Mounting Mk IIA and therefore deployed in static emplacements only. In service from 1944 to 1959.

It was initially designed to deal with barrel wear, as with the system you only had to reline the barrel once every 50k shots, but the Brits realized you could neck down a shell and the increased throat wear wouldn't matter thanks to the driving band system used, so you effectively have a sabot effect without needing a sabot, just a slightly more complex driving band and of course the more complex rifling. Progressive rifling was already known for rifles and IIRC used for the Carcano in the early models, so it is pre-WW1 doable.

 

[AJE]

The problem with using sabot is the weight of the shell. The rifling will probably be inappropriate for the lighter shell.

There were a few Soviet, German, and British pieces that had rifling to handle very light shells (HEAT or APDS) in addition to their normal shells. Those kinds of rifling should work.

The best option if you were going that route is to invent Probert Rifling:

QF 3.7-inch AA gun - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was initially designed to deal with barrel wear, as with the system you only had to reline the barrel once every 50k shots, but the Brits realized you could neck down a shell and the increased throat wear wouldn't matter thanks to the driving band system used, so you effectively have a sabot effect without needing a sabot, just a slightly more complex driving band and of course the more complex rifling. Progressive rifling was already known for rifles and IIRC used for the Carcano in the early models, so it is pre-WW1 doable.

That would no doubt help, but not in combining the 2 gun types. Probert Rifling can just as easily be applied to both guns and howitzers, making both equally more powerful. So a howitzer using Probert Rifling might match a normal field gun in muzzle velocity, but not a field gun that also has Probert Rifling applied. So field guns would still be used for that system (or at least they would lose some capability by not keeping field guns and adding Probert Rifling to them).

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Pretty steep requirement for the era, if they included refueling as 'maintenance'

Run a horse team without maintenance at full load for 12-16 hours, you would have a team of very dead horses.

As I point out in other threads, don't let perfect be the enemy of 'good enough' in retiring Ol'Dobbins to the Farm or Glue Factory.

If they wanted to Standardize on a heavy Truck, they should have done what the US did in the War, Standardize a Truck design and build the Hell out of it.
Subsidize the Truck Manufacturer, not the end user.

If you build something as good as a GMC or Studebaker, companies across the country will buy them, and them more will be built

I think its 48 hours of engine operation, before maintenance or cleaning.

And this really is a an attempt to standardise a lorry performance ( two actually) but its 1901 so no major manufacturers and encourage manufacturers to step up, lots of handbuilt carriage makers trying their hand at the new stuff. A list of WW1 British army MT is basically everything being built and the subsidy is to make a market which it does offering the subsidy B encourages people to buy a lorry not a new horse team, but it also encourages them to hire a driver, and for the livery stable to turn into a garage with mechanics which ends up with much more capability in society as a whole.

Ford Mack Avenue Plant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

that's the Ford PLANT in 1903.

Its 1901 they are doing this which is very advanced thinking but its nothing like WW2 or 1918 scale even do all the BEF divisions had a M/T company of 45 3-ton lorries, 16 30-cwt lorries, 7 motor cycles, 2 cars and 4 assorted trucks for the workshop and stores of the Supply Column itself responsible for transport from railhead - divisional depot. With additional companies for non divisional units ( mostly artillery ammo). Total monthly petrol consumption was 842,000 gallons rising to 13,000,000 in 1918 ( which would include aircraft fuel).

 

[yulzari]

Progressive rifling was already known for rifles and IIRC used for the Carcano in the early models, so it is pre-WW1 doable.

Just to be deeply pedantic.
The Carcano used a gaining twist rifling whereby the twist of the rifling got faster/steeper as it went up the bore. It is also known as progressive rifling.

Progressive depth rifling is when the depth of the rifling decreases from the breech to the muzzle and does not imply a change in the twist of the rifling. The lands remaining the same diameter throughout. Only the groove being deep at the breech and shallow at the muzzle. To be confusing it also is sometimes called progressive rifling.

Progressive depth rifling became significant with French developments in muzzle loading military rifles in the early 19th century. It was decided to rifle existing smooth bore muskets but trials showed that the metal was too thin at the muzzle so, expediently, the rifling groove depth was reduced towards the muzzle. It was then found that such expedient rifle muskets shot more accurately than those made with constant depth. This was for muzzle loading so the bullet pushed down into the breech expands upon firing into the deep grooves and is progressively squeezed by the progressive depth rifling on it's way to the muzzle. In the case of the British Pattern 1853 Rifle Musket the groove went from 0.013" at the breech to 0.005" at the muzzle so we are hardly in AT squeeze bore territory. For those even more pedantic than I, this was done post Crimean War following French experience and the earliest ones did not have it.

So beware of both the gaining twist and the reducing groove depth rifling systems being called progressive rifling as they are different. I am sure somebody must have used both to further confuse the issue.

Complete trivia: reproduction Pattern 1853 rifle muskets made by Parker Hale in England were made exactly (and with original gauges) the same as the originals with progressive depth rifling. Modern Italian copies use constant depth rifling for cheapness. This is why the two differ in their behaviour with different ammunition.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There were a few Soviet, German, and British pieces that had rifling to handle very light shells (HEAT or APDS) in addition to their normal shells. Those kinds of rifling should work.

They weren't that much lighter than traditional shells and HEAT and APDS in WW2 were noted to be inaccurate.

That would no doubt help, but not in combining the 2 gun types. Probert Rifling can just as easily be applied to both guns and howitzers, making both equally more powerful. So a howitzer using Probert Rifling might match a normal field gun in muzzle velocity, but not a field gun that also has Probert Rifling applied. So field guns would still be used for that system (or at least they would lose some capability by not keeping field guns and adding Probert Rifling to them).

If a howitzer matched a field gun, then it's not going to be able to function as a howitzer at high angles.

 

[jsb]

to simply invent sabots for artillery.

.... in WW2 were noted to be inaccurate.

Considering that OTL Sabots where not really accurate till post WWII why are we trying to use them for WWI? When the shell shortage is going to hit any ability to make Sabots that will be expensive and require quality control and precision manufacturing?

 

[marathag]

That and sabots create danger space. They will drop, and its best not to have Blue forces under them and be hit with them.

 

[jsb]

*The British were the only army to my knowledge that had separate field and horse artillery.

French HA for example, Canon de 75 modele 1912 Schneider 965 kg (2,127 lbs) v Canon de 75 modèle 1897 1,544 kg (3,404 lb)
Not sure if its the same 75mm shell but its got far less range (9 v 11) so might just be a reduced barrel, but with such a weight difference probably more like a reduced charge in a different case at least?
Physics is hard to change and you are limited in options if you are using the same size mounts.

 

[riggerrob]

Considering that OTL Sabots where not really accurate till post WWII why are we trying to use them for WWI? When the shell shortage is going to hit any ability to make Sabots that will be expensive and require quality control and precision manufacturing?

Both HEAT and Sabot ammo suffer when fired from rifled barrels, which explains why modern Russian tank guns are not rifled.
High Explosive Anti-Tank ammo depends upon a shaped charge producing a focused cone of briliantly hot metal to penetrate armour. Spinning the cone produces a spiral flame that is less damaging.
Armour-Piercing Fin-Stabilized ammo uses long, thin penetrating rods. If the shell is not perfectly balanced, the rod will corkscrew through the air, limiting accuracy. The British 17-pounder gun fired APDS but they found that the muzzle brake inferred with shedding the sabot, also reducing accuracy.

 

[AJE]

They weren't that much lighter than traditional shells and HEAT and APDS in WW2 were noted to be inaccurate.

They were light enough to approximate a field gun shell (about 60% the weight of a full shell).

Considering that OTL Sabots where not really accurate till post WWII why are we trying to use them for WWI? When the shell shortage is going to hit any ability to make Sabots that will be expensive and require quality control and precision manufacturing?

Because they eliminate the need for field guns and allow the entire army to standardize on howitzers. (And the accuracy and precision manufacturing issues are no worse than any other shell.)

French HA for example, Canon de 75 modele 1912 Schneider 965 kg (2,127 lbs) v Canon de 75 modèle 1897 1,544 kg (3,404 lb)
Not sure if its the same 75mm shell but its got far less range (9 v 11) so might just be a reduced barrel, but with such a weight difference probably more like a reduced charge in a different case at least?
Physics is hard to change and you are limited in options if you are using the same size mounts.

Forgot about that one. It did use the same ammunition with a reduced barrel, but the gun was unrelated. It was a variant of the standard WWI Schneider gun design, meaning it was essentially a scaled-down version of the Schneider 105 mm, 155 mm, etc. guns.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

The British were the only army to my knowledge that had separate field and horse artillery.

Its a distinction without meaning. Any artillery integral to a cavalry division has to work at the pace and mission of the cavalry. The real distinction is between the Field and Garrison Artillery and the Field and Foot Artillery in the German, field and coastal in the US, one can do hard sums the other can't.

allow Britain to get rid of most of the "Gun" column and just use howitzers, except for light field guns

Well the light field guns are the 18lb and a 4.5'' howitzer cannot do the job of a 60lb or larger gun. Incidentally relining the barrel of a 4.5 would have meant taking the gun out of the line, far easier to make another gun.

Because they eliminate the need for field guns and allow the entire army to standardize on howitzers

No it means you are using howitzers in the role of a field gun.

The alternative being to change the 18lb to a box trail which gives 37.5 degrees of elevation, and outranges the otherwise comparable 45 by around 50%. But in 1916 when that's introduced it is generally firing indirect and was the main weapon used for barrage fire, heavier guns were used but ineffective in terms of destructive power but very effective as counterbattery or area denial weapons.

But once again until you have a reliable method of communicating from an observer that can see a target to the gun position and the gun position knows where it is relative to the observer ( its all very well the observer giving an accurate position but if the battery does not know where it is the maths they have to do will be off, a lot) you have to use the Howitzer as a DF weapon and fire shrapnel.

Shrapnel ( i.e. the balls fired in a shrapnel shell not the fragments of casing) is designed to project forward for an 18lb for around 300 yards 200 bullets' the detonation blows off the cap and fires a big shotgun forwards in a cone of about 300 yards on either an instantaneous fuze or as intended pre war a time fuze detonating at a specific range. An HE shell by contrast is descending at a steep angle ( or its meant to) exploded normally on contact outward sending shell cases out in a sphere, unless the gunner is exceptionally lucky the blast effect will be minimal so the damage is mostly shell fragments, unless you can walk in the fire onto target and the physics you need to know has been discovered damaging anything is pure chance. And in 1914 the target is the enemy infantry. The guns also use fixed ammo so can burst fire 4-5 times as fast as separate charge weapon.

One exception being other artillery where large shell fragments can damage the gun or its mechanisms, which is why the brits were content to use cheaper shell cases that gave out big fragments, by then howitzers and heavier guns were used for CB work and gas ww2 anti material like trucks work.

Once the war becomes static ( and static is a function of speed at which you can lay cable) and once you have observers flying above the battlefield, either directing fire or taking pics to make maps to do predicted fire (wartime invention) or have flash sound rangers wired in ( wartime invention) indirect fire by howitzer or gun becomes feasible and when you have an FOO with a radio able to call back fire missions you don't need guns except for long range work.

 

[AJE]

Its a distinction without meaning. Any artillery integral to a cavalry division has to work at the pace and mission of the cavalry.

Sorry, I poorly worded that part. I meant to say that they were the only country that had separate guns for the field and horse artillery (although apparently I was wrong, as the French also had that).

Well the light field guns are the 18lb and a 4.5'' howitzer cannot do the job of a 60lb or larger gun.

Which is why they wouldn't do the job of a 60-pounder or larger gun. Going by the table the 60-pounder's job would be done by a 60-lb sabot for the 6-inch howitzer, and the 6-inch gun's job would be done by a 6-inch sabot for the 8-inch howitzer. Those pairs of guns and howitzers were used at the same command level, and had similar weights and muzzle energies.

The alternative being to change the 18lb to a box trail which gives 37.5 degrees of elevation, and outranges the otherwise comparable 45 by around 50%.

Yes, that is a possibility and by late WWI, guns and howitzers often shared the same carriage. But the gun wouldn't have the shell weight as the howitzer so that wouldn't allow the howitzer to be replaced. Giving the howitzer the gun's muzzle velocity with a light sabot shell would make the heavy howitzers as good as heavy guns, and thus make the heavy guns unnecessary.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

For British naval guns at least, each size bracket generally fired a shell twice as heavy as the size below and half as heavy as the size above, until you got above 12", where it became 1.5x approximately. In the mid 20th century, the list goes something like:

Name / Calibre	Projectile Weight (approximate)
QF 1 pdr (37mm)	1 to 1.5 lbs
QF 2 pdr (40mm)	2 lbs
QF 3 pdr (47mm)	3 lbs
QF 6 pdr (57mm)	6 lbs
QF12 pdr (3")	12 lbs
BL/QF 4"	25 lbs
BL/QF 4.7"	50-62 lbs
BL 5.5"	82 lbs
BL/QF 6"	100 lbs
BL 7.5"	200 lbs
BL 8"	256 lbs
BL 9.2"	380 lbs
BL 12"	850 lbs
BL 13.5"	1 250 lbs
BL 15"	1 920 lbs
BL 18"	3 320 lbs

From just banging around some ideas, and drawing in too much hindsight, I thought of this. Today, many if not most armies typically have in their inventories a 105 mm (4.2") howitzer and a 152-155 mm (6"-6.1") gun-howitzer. The smaller piece fires a shell around 30-35 lbs and the larger around 100lbs.

If I were trying to apply that line of thinking to the 1902-1913 British Army, I'd want to see just how many off-the-shelf naval designs could be stuck on land carriages, to keep costs down and drive towards standardization. For the heavy pieces, as in OTL, 6" is about right, and since it's too early for a gun-howitzer, I'd want a gun and a howitzer, and a traction engine and later a Holt tractor moving around such pieces.

The smaller piece is a bit trickier... I like the idea of a QF 4"/L40 Mk. IV, sans the jam-prone semi-automatic breech mechanism. The QF 4.5" howitzer will do as well, being the spiritual predecessor to the 25 pdr. Both would somehow need to be brought into production earlier. A mini-Holt or even a steam or ICE truck could tow these.

With standardization on 4 types of piece plus some kind of 12 pdr for the RHA and heavy/superheavy siege and railway guns, more focus could be brought onto gradually improving each piece.

Also, on the matter of cartridges, ~7 mm, high-velocity cartridges like .276 Enfield (7 x 60 mm) and .280 Ross (7 x 66 mm) had problems early on especially. The .276 Enfield left excessive metal fouling in the barrel, and the Ross bullet tended to break apart on impact rather than penetrating, which was especially dangerous as it was briefly popular as a big game cartridge. Both were a lot more powerful too- great for sharpshooters in a colonial brush-fire brigade, not so much for Tommy Atkins who won't shoot until he can see the whites of The Hun's eyes.

The energy of the 3, per wiki:

.303 with 174-grain spitzer bullet : 3 265 joules / 2 408 foot-pounds @ ~2 500 fps muzzle velocity
.276 Enfield with 165 gr spitzer bullet: 3 894 j / 2 872 ft/lb @ ~2 800 fps
.280 Ross with 140 gr spitzer bullet: 3 550 j/ 2 620 ft/lb @ ~ 2900 fps

and by comparison,

US .303 Springfield with 150 gr spitzer bullet: 3 293 j / 2 429 ft/lb @ 2700 fps

 

[AJE]

If I were trying to apply that line of thinking to the 1902-1913 British Army, I'd want to see just how many off-the-shelf naval designs could be stuck on land carriages, to keep costs down and drive towards standardization.

Almost every gun on the list could be and was put on land or railroad carriages in WWI or the Boer War. Percy Scott adapted the QF 12-pounder, the QF 4.7", and the QF 6" during the Boer War, and the rest were adapted during WWI. They weren't preferred by the British and were replaced by purpose-designed guns when possible though. Specifically the QF 4.7" was specifically rejected in favor of developing the BL 60-pounder, the early BL 8" howitzers Marks I-V were replaced by the dedicated BL 8" howitzers Mark VI-VIII, and the BL 6" gun Mark VII was replaced by the dedicated BL 6" gun Mark XIX. Those adapted guns seem much heavier than their purpose-built counterparts, and in particular have lower elevation for the BL 6" gun (the Mark XIX actually has a much shorter barrel and lower muzzle velocity but still has better range because it can elevate more).

In short, the British seem to have had less success than the Soviets, where the 100 and 130 mm guns were the basis for extremely successful field and anti-tank guns (the 100 mm is the most-produced tank gun of all time, and the 130 mm was one of the longest-range artillery pieces until the 1970's). However, even the Soviets appear to have extensively changed the design to make successful artillery, leaving little more than the barrel and the cartridge chambering unchanged from the naval guns they were based on.

For the heavy pieces, as in OTL, 6" is about right, and since it's too early for a gun-howitzer, I'd want a gun and a howitzer, and a traction engine and later a Holt tractor moving around such pieces.

The smaller piece is a bit trickier... I like the idea of a QF 4"/L40 Mk. IV, sans the jam-prone semi-automatic breech mechanism. The QF 4.5" howitzer will do as well, being the spiritual predecessor to the 25 pdr. Both would somehow need to be brought into production earlier. A mini-Holt or even a steam or ICE truck could tow these.

Usually a howitzer is bigger than a gun of the same weight and organization level. 6" shell weights worked for a howitzer, but a 6" gun would be in the larger category along with an 8" howitzer. Similarly, the 4.5" howitzer is good, but the QF 4" is much too large and heavy for a light field gun- even anti-tank guns barely got that big in WWII.

 

[ArtosStark]

To add something that hasn’t been discussed yet, in 1914 there were 364 officers and 934 other ranks in the Army Veterinary Corps. In comparison the BEF had 148,164 animals of all kinds in late 1914.
The AVC had been created after the Boer was because of the massive cost in animals driving up cost and reducing effectiveness of the army. It was a very effective organization but there were simply too few of them in those early days and losses of horses and mules was pretty horrendous.
By wars end another 1306 officers would be commissioned and enlisted ranks would grow to 41,775. Having more staff to handle the animals in the BEF from the start could help reduce those early losses.

 

[jsb]

To add something that hasn’t been discussed yet, in 1914 there were 364 officers and 934 other ranks in the Army Veterinary Corps. In comparison the BEF had 148,164 animals of all kinds in late 1914.
The AVC had been created after the Boer was because of the massive cost in animals driving up cost and reducing effectiveness of the army. It was a very effective organization but there were simply too few of them in those early days and losses of horses and mules was pretty horrendous.
By wars end another 1306 officers would be commissioned and enlisted ranks would grow to 41,775. Having more staff to handle the animals in the BEF from the start could help reduce those early losses.

Yes, but I think its one of the units that's most transferable from civilian life, so would it not be a good idea to simply subsidise a few hundred young vets through training so long as they agree to a term of service obligation in an emergency?

 

[ArtosStark]

Yes, but I think its one of the units that's most transferable from civilian life, so would it not be a good idea to simply subsidise a few hundred young vets through training so long as they agree to a term of service obligation in an emergency?

Probably, yeah. Working with the Royal Veterinary Society would help. Any way to get some more vets in uniform early would help with wastage and improve mobility.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Yes, but I think its one of the units that's most transferable from civilian life, so would it not be a good idea to simply subsidise a few hundred young vets through training so long as they agree to a term of service obligation in an emergency?

Scholarships in exchange for service in the reserve forces would be a good idea for a number roles not just veterinary (and Medical) training.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Probably, yeah. Working with the Royal Veterinary Society would help. Any way to get some more vets in uniform early would help with wastage and improve mobility.

By 1918 half the vets in the UK were serving