Shooting the War

German, French, British, American and Russian Guns of the WWII

As with the tanks, so with the guns: the artillery designers of the
Second World War found themselves caught up in a ceaseless race
to outmatch the ever-improving enemy defences. Ian Hogg shows how
this affected the gunners’ war, and how it resulted in the artillery
revolution of greater ranges, mobility and fire control.

A thorough discussion of the history and development of every artillery weapon used in the Second World War would need several volumes, for the sheer size of the subjects is incredible; the German forces alone disposed over 200 land service weapons in 51 different calibres, without considering experimental models. Britain and America between them fielded about 100 artillery weapons, again not counting experimental models but only those which found their way into the hands of troops. Instead of trying to catalogue every weapon used, therefore, this section merely outlines the principal features of the research which developed during the war, and also brings to light one or two of the more unusual and less well-known weapons which were produced.
There are three main subjects to be explored:
•    The routine improvement of weapons, in order to bring them into line with changing tactics and concepts of employment or to counter improvements in enemy defences;
•    The improvements in ammunition introduced to step up the performance of existing weapons;
•    The application of hitherto untried scientific principles.
In many cases these topics tend to overlap, but rather than try to develop a chronological story with these three aspects jumbled together, it is best to consider them as separate fields.
First, routine improvement. A good example of this in action is the history of the celebrated German 88-mm Flak Gun. This was originally conceived in the late 1920s by Krupp designers attached to the Bofors Company in Sweden. When in 1931 they returned to Essen with the design, the political climate seemed right. A prototype was built in 1932; and due to thorough paperwork it was an immediate success and was issued in 1933 as the 8.8-cm Flak Model 18. It should be stressed, in view of the exaggerated tales which became current in later years, that there was nothing unorthodox about this weapon at all—it was simply a good, sound, conventional anti-aircraft gun. It was taken to Spain by the Kondor Legion during the Civil War and tested in action; its potentialities as an anti-tank gun were also seen, though not advertised. This experience showed that there were a few weak points in the design and as a result, minor modifications were made in the mounting to improve stability and facilitate mass-production. This modified version became known as the Flak 36. In the following year an improved sighting and fire-control system was fitted, and the gun became the Flak Model 37. The 36 and 37 remained in service throughout the Second World War, being used in their primary role as an anti-aircraft gun; as an anti-tank gun, when fitted with shields and direct-fire sights; fitted to coastal craft and U-boats; used as a coast defence gun; and even mounted on a 121/2-ton half-track as a self-propelled gun (though this was not one of its most successful applications).
By early 1939 though, in spite of its excellence, it became obvious that bombers were going to fly faster and higher than before, and the gun’s performance would have to be improved. And so in 1939 Rheinmettal-Borsig were given a contract for an improved model, to be known as the Flak 41. Prototype trials began in 1941 and it was found that the gun, although a most efficient design, had a lot of teething troubles which were going to take time to eliminate. Since no one else had a contract for the gun, the Luftwaffe (which was responsible for Germany’s anti-aircraft defences) was forced to use it or else do without. Consequently the next year saw a great deal of effort thrown in and by March 1943 the first issues were made.
The Flak 41, as finally produced, was a considerable improvement over the 18, 36, and 37. By using a turntable to carry the gun, instead of the more usual pedestal mounting, a much lower silhouette was achieved. The muzzle velocity and ceiling were both improved by adopting a more powerful cartridge, and the stability in action was excellent. The only fly in the ointment was the difficult extraction of the fired cartridge case, which is a flaw of major proportions in a quick-firing anti-aircraft gun. Different designs of barrel were produced in an effort to overcome the trouble, and a special brass cartridge case was developed; but none of these palliatives made much impression and the gun was never the success it might have been.
Some time after Rheinmettal had received their contract, a similar specification had been given to Krupp. Their development, sometimes referred to as the Flak 42, became more and more entangled with their concurrent development of 88-mm tank and anti-tank guns in the hopes of producing a family of weapons which would use interchangeable parts and common ammunition. Before the Krupp version had got off the drawing board, the Luftwaffe was demanding more performance than the design could produce, and in February 1943, not without a certain amount of relief, one feels, Krupp dropped the Flak 42 to concentrate on the tank and anti-tank weapons.

While the 88 shows an example of improvement of a particular calibre, the more common approach was to improve a particular class of weapon by raising the calibre; most anti-tank weapons display this technique. The British army began the war with a 2-pounder; followed it by a 6-pounder and then a 17-pounder; and finally had a 32-pounder in preparation when the war ended, having toyed briefly with a possible 55-pounder. America began with a 37-mm, took over the British 6-pounder and called it the 57-mm; then moved to a 3-inch based on a redundant anti-aircraft gun; then a 90-mm, also based on an AA gun, and was working on a 105-mm when the war ended. Germany also began with a 37-mm and progressed through 28, 42, 50, 75 and 88-mm to arrive at a 128-mm as the war closed.
All these series show steady progression in conventional guns, ally intended to beat the forthcoming increases in enemy armour. However, the flaw in this system becomes apparent on looking at the British 32-pounder or the German 12.8-cm Pak 44— bigger calibres may mean a bigger punch, but they invariably mean bigger guns as well, and this means more weight to move about. This is a considerable drawback for an anti-tank gun which usually has to be emplaced by manpower, and certainly the 32-pounder was too big for its task; even had the war continued, it is doubtful whether it would have been accepted into service.
Anti-aircraft guns tend to show a similar pattern among all nations, always striving to extract more ceiling and greater velocity; the increased ceiling meant that higher-flying aircraft could be engaged, while higher velocity meant a shorter time between firing the gun and the shell arriving at the target, and hence less room for error in the prediction of the target’s position at the time of the shell’s arrival. The two groups of anti-aircraft weapons in common use were the light guns, such as the German 37-mm and the British and US-employed Bofors 40-mm, and the heavy guns, such as the German 88, 105, and 128-mm guns, the British 3.7-inch, 4.5-inch, and 5.25-inch guns, and the American 90-mm, 105-mm, and 120-mm types. The light guns relied on throwing up a heavy volume of fire at a high rate, to counter the low-flying attacker. The heavies fired at slower rates, threw heavier shells, and had higher ceilings to deal with the high-level bomber. But strangely enough, all the combatants had a gap in their defences, which lay between the maximum ceiling of the light guns—about 6,000 feet—and the minimum effective ceiling of the heavies—about 10,000 feet. Below this figure the heavy gun could not swing fast enough to follow a fast low flyer. In an endeavour to fill this gap, development took place in both Britain and Germanyto provide a medium AA gun. As far as Britain was concerned, a paramount feature of any weapon proposed in 1940 was to avoid usurping production already hard at work with the more basic weapons needed for simple survival. In view of this, the first question the designers asked themselves was: ‘What existing gun can be worked over to fill the bill?’ After a few false starts the design coalesced around The existing coast artillery 6-pounder gun, the same calibre as the anti-tank gun but using a heavier cartridge and capable of greater range. This was adapted to a twin-barrel mounting on a three-wheeled trailer, and work then began on designing a suitable automatic feed system to get the rate of fire thought necessary, and a fire-control system to put the shells where they were needed. Since the guns were originally designed for hand loading, the adaptation to autofeed turned out to be more difficult than had at first been imagined; then Allied air superiority gave the project less priority; and, in the event, the twin 6-pounder never entered service and Britain never had a medium AA gun.
The German development was not restricted to an existing weapon, since the ‘gap’ had been appreciated before the war, and in 1936 Rheinmettal was given a contract to develop a 50-mm gun. This was eventually introduced in 1940 in limited numbers for an extended troop trial to assess whether such a weapon was desirable and whether the Flak 41, as it was known, would fill the requirement. For a variety of reasons the gun was not a success, but the experience showed that the medium AA gun was needed, and a great deal of thought went into the design of a completely integrated weapon system, probably the first such system to be conceived as a complete entity. It was to comprise a 55-mm automatic gun, with matched radar, predictor, displacement corrector, and full electro-hydraulic remote control of a six-gun battery. By the time all these theories and designs had been put together it was mid-1943, and the production of such a far-reaching concept was so difficult that the war ended before the weapon was completed. To act as a stop-gap, the now-obsolescent 50-mm anti-tank gun was fitted with an automatic loading system, but this idea fell by the wayside, and it is doubtful if any were ever made. All in all, the medium AA gun story is remarkable in the similarity of British and German experience.

In the field artillery world practically all development was simply a matter of improvement on existing designs. No nation in its right mind would attempt a major re-equipment of its standard weapons in.the middle of a war. The British 25-pounder served valiantly, and modifications to meet special demands included the self-propelled ‘Bishop’ (on a Valentine chassis) and ‘Sexton’ (on a: Ram chassis); the Australian-developed ‘Short’ or ‘Baby’ 25-pounder with a truncated barrel, no shield, short trail and castor wheel for easy manoeuvring in the jungle; it was tried as a self-propelled gun (SP) in many vehicles including the Lloyd carrier, which was asking too much of such a light vehicle; it was strapped to the cargo bed of a DUKW for supporting amphibious landings; and it was even considered for the armament of submarines. Similarly, the American 105-mm howitzer was tried in a variety of SP mountings, starting with a half-track, until the Sherman-based M-7 became standardized as the ‘Priest’; it was shortened and placed on a light carriage for use by airborne units; it was mounted in tank turrets as a close support gun; and, like the 25-pounder, mounted on the long-suffering DUKW.
The German 1E FH 18, more or less the equivalent of the 25-pounder and 105 howitzer, suffered similar, though more drastic, changes. First it was given a muzzle brake and a heavier charge with a long-range shell; then in an attempt to reduce the weight, like the ‘Baby 25-pounder’, the barrel and recoil system were mounted on the carriage of the 75-mm Pak 40 anti-tank gun; the wheels were removed and it was dropped bodily into a tank hull to provide an assault gun; it was grafted on to a variety of tracked mountings. But eventually a complete re-design was called for and Rheinmettal was given a contract. Before their offering was ready, the experiences of the Russian Front had shown that certain features were mandatory in the next generation of field guns. Briefly, these were that the gun must have a good anti-tank performance for self-protection; at the same time it ‘iad to be capable of hiding in forests and firing out at high angles: the range had to be at least 8 miles without demanding special ammunition; it had to have all-round traverse, since Soviet partisans c,)uld attack from any direction; and it had to weigh less than 2.200 pounds. Now even today a designer would have a hard time meeting that specification, but in 1943 both Krupp and Skoda rose to the challenge.
The Skoda version, the 10.5-cm 1E FH 43. was most ingenious: the carriage had virtually a normal split trail at the rear. plus another split trail at the front, beneath the barrel. and a firing pedestal beneath the axle. In action, the equipment rested on the two rear trails and the pedestal, and the front trails were laid on the ground to form a cruciform stable platform above which the gun could rotate through 360 degrees, the four legs giving stability at any angle of the barrel. The novelty of this carriage lay in the fact that the two front legs were not rigidly attached to the carriage; to compensate for eneven ground they were permitted to lie at any convenient angle. A hydraulic system was arranged so that slow movement of the legs—as during folding and unfolding to and from the travelling position—was freely permitted. but fast movement—as the firing shock—would cause the legs to lock rigidly to the carriage and give the desired stability.
Krupp, under the same nomenclature, produced two models; one was very similar in general design to Skoda s. though without the hydraulic system, while the other was based on a more or less conventional cruciform platform of the type familiar in AA guns. However, none of the designs, Krupp or Skoda. were ready for production before the war’s end, and only prototypes existed.