That's only half right , lighter but faster firing so better at suppressive fire, was a key part of why the British stuck with the 25pdr rather than follow the trend of increasing calibre like other nations. In other words they most definitely did want a lighter calibre SPG, not until the 60's with its replacement, the Abbot, did they go to 105mm.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Also need to consider as well given the proven effectiveness of British and Commonwealth armoured formations and Armour in this war so far will there be the same impertus to switch? I mean as of now outside of one engagement in the Philippines the US armoured formations are untested in method and material so their will be no push to adopt and armour they possess has performed well in British and Commonwealth hands but pound for pound British armour in the form of the Valiant and victor has proven to be superior and the Ram/Jumpbuck is shaping up off a hull of proven realiabilty will there be the same drive as OTL here.
Reference the Rambuck being a good SPG with the 25 Pounder. That needs good elevation to perform at the howitzer end of the gun-howitzer role. The OTL Bishop using a 25 Pounder suffered a limited range of fire as the gun could not be elevated enough with breech block hitting the floor were it allowed to elevate further. Is the Rambuck possessed of full elevation of it’s 25 Pounder?
Derek Pullem
Donor
Which kind of underlines the Jumbuck / Rambuck being much more suited for Far East theatre of operations as many have said. I do think some may cross the Atlantic as the advantages of "StuG" is underlined by the German use of PzIII in that mode. But as a MBT it probably won't see action in the European theatre
One thing with the 25lbr, the basic gun and mount fits then you can decide on what caliber barrel length you use on the tank. Having a short barrel version in the pacific where you don't need long range fire especially but have a longer caliber for Europe where you might need to have a longer range/higher velocity shell used. You could also look at what the angle of fire the 25lbr has. Having the mount do a higher angle, like a traditional howitzer vs a lower angle like a traditional tank gun, means you can have a capability for the traditional howitzer fire missions of indirect fire.
Sure. But no British WW2 SPG (and few WW2 SPG’s in general) use a turret. This is due to the need for elevation trumping the need for quick traverse in most artillery roles.
You can get a useful amount of traverse in an SPG without a turret. And the full traverse available from a turret is rarely required in the SPG role.
As a general rule of thumb you can get a howitzer of one weight class higher for similar weight. The 25 pounder was a gun with the capability to elevate enough to perform the howitzer role. So the weight of the 105mm was not significantly more than that of the 25 pounder. What’s more the fire rate of the 105 was pretty comparable to the 25 pounder howitzer (with the caveat that actual rate of fire in combat is often calculated differently between armies). From a purely technical perspective the 105 mm howitzer (not the gun) was neither much heavier nor much slower firing than the 25 pounder. At least in indirect fire mode (it couldn’t really do direct fire being a howitzer).
I should probably also reiterate. I am not suggesting the British needed a heavier field gun. The 25 pounder fit their requirements more or less perfectly. I am suggesting that increasing mobility of guns should perhaps be focused on their own heavy Artillery (4.5” and 5.5” guns and heavy howitzers) before the already quite mobile 25 pounder batteries.
Last edited:
The British Army was the first army in the world to have a fully mechanised artillery arm and 4.5" and 5.5" were towed by the AEC Matador, which wasn't the greatest artillery tractor in the history of the world but was cheap, reliable and had a decent amount of grunt. All in all there isn't really much room for improvement in this area.
True, but OTOH the Ram/Jumbuck has near on tank-grade armour, so it will, IMO, be use more in a direct-line-of-sight fire role than a howitzer role.
See again, the thing is mounted in what is effectively a tank, and thus is getting much closer to the front than conventional SPGs. I see this thing as more of a CS design than an SPG.
The 105mm was ~38% heavier overall than the 25-pounder. Also, I don't think it would be as easy to keep up a rapid ROF with the 105mm, the shells being ~1/3 heavier.
Last edited:
Derek Pullem
Donor
I think you're both right - the Ram/Jumbuck is a British StuG - but with the mobility of the British artillery already pretty good then the immediate need for mobile artillery is not so high. And the 4.5" / 5.5" are in more need of a mechanised chassis than the 25 pdr as AtosStark says.
Pretty much the logic the Russians used for their SU-122 / 152 AFV
But he Germans found a direct fire use for artillery with the StuG - and the fact that it could threaten a reckless opposing MBT was a bonus.
I think the Ram/Jumbuck will find a niche in Europe, not as ubiquitous as the StuG but useful none the less. But in the Far East it will be master of all trades - first line tank and a first line artillery piece. All they need to do is fit a DD drive to it.
Ramontxo
Donor
The question wasn't rate of fire, it was sustained rate of fire. There is an legend of the Nazis believing the Thomies having belt feeded hows. The fact that the individual British Royal Artillery Regiment had 24 guns (instead of 18 or even 12 in German Artillery Batallions) was also a factor
You can sustain loading 25-pound shells much easier than 33/34-pound ones.
Back in the early war days of small-caliber AT-gun-armed tanks and separate "CS" tanks with effective HE capability, the CS tanks were part of armored formations. As such, they needed to be maintainable by those armored formations' mechanics and armorers. So commonality of every aspect of the two AFV platforms was exceedingly important to simplify the mechanical aspects of that work.
Fielding CS tanks that have almost-zero mechanical commonality with an armored formation's primary tanks would be a recipe for maintenance-and-repair-effectiveness failure.
It's fine to put SPGs close to t he front lines...be they in forward-deployed artillery battalions or brigades, or per the American approach of directly attaching companies of guns to each forward (particularly infantry) division, under that division's direct command...as long as there are enough maintenance resources that those guns don't have to be maintained by mechanics primarily tasked with maintaining mechanically dissimilar machines.
Since this is a Canadian/Australian design, I suspect it was planned to be tied into the logistics tail of their own forces.
They built a belt fed 3.7" AA gun postwar - I've got a photo and some drawings somewhere.
Ramontxo
Donor
Britain's Monstrous Green Mace AA Gun -
Today's subject is going to cover the Green Mace anti-aircraft gun, a rather odd project, one that had a lot of potential, but found itself in
tankhistoria.com
You are correct, but it would fit on an small warship like an Fairmile D motor gun boat or the Steam Gun Boat