"Allied Infantry Guns?" Topic

The Germans differentiated between field guns intended primarily for indirect fire (the Feldhaubitze, or field howitzers) and direct fire (Infanteriegeschütze, or infantry guns). The latter, although capable of indirect fire, was mainly intended to provide more accurate direct fire to destroy particular hard points, such as bunkers or fortifications, in support of infantry making deliberate attacks on defensive positions (part of the "Sturm" assault tactic, which also involved pioneers and StuG SPGs).

The Soviets also had particular weapons that would perform this role, like the M1927 Regimental Gun. But what about the other Allies? I gather that the US M2A1 105mm howitzer could do direct fire, but I couldn't figure out if this was all that common and it seems that indirect fire was its primary purpose. The Commonwealth 25-pounder, on the other hand, seems to have been deployed in a direct fire role only as an anti-tank weapon (such as in the Western desert). Did the British not designate any field gun primarily for direct fire? Were American infantry simply dependent on an attached Sherman for direct fire HE? If so, how come the Western Allies never developed the concept of an infantry gun?

Most of that role was either Regimental Gun Company (105mm) or attached Tanks or Tank Destroyers.

Given the level of Motorization and Mechinzation of the US Army infantry guns were not needed the same way.

Given a choice, which would you rather have?

The closest thing you would probably find is the 75mm howitzer that the airborne forces used.

In the Pacific the USMC used the 75mm pack howitzer this way, though they also used tanks and motorized guns whenever they could get some (more and more as the war went on).

I'm not sure what Commonwealth troops did in the CBI and New Guinea. They were at the far end of a shoestring until the late war. Any experts here?

Each U.S. infantry regiment had a gun company of short 105mm howitzers (don't know the gun's official designation, but IIRC it was a shorter piece than the divisional 105s.)

In Europe the 8th Air Force performed the role of the 75mm infantry gun.

Good point. But Allied heavy bombers were notoriously inaccurate in ground support.

Probably even more so then, the Second Tactical Airforce in ground attack.

But I reckon it was a 75 or 105 in a Sherman turret that did the job

The British Army never bothered with infantry guns. They did have lots and lots of tanks to support them though, and a lot more divisional artillery to support them than the Germans. 25pdrs were occasionally used for direct HE fire, but there really wasn't much call for it.

Sorry meant to add…

The number of artillery tubes was similar in British, German and US divisions. 72, 72 64 respectively, they were just distributed differently. The British had all 72 in the divisional artillery, the Germans had 24 as regimental infantry guns and 48 divisional, while the US had 48 divisional and 18 as regimental cannon companies.

As to which system was better? Who can say. It had to fit in with the whole eco system of how divisions fought, as well as what Corps level support assets were available . Infantry guns fell out of use very rapidly after WW2 though.

As wargamers, how much we care depends what level we game at. As a battalion commander, would I rather have a battery of 4x105s, a section of 2x infantry guns and a possibility of support from some 150s, or a dedicated battery of 8x25pdrs?

As a division commander I'd much rather have 72 divisional guns than 48. Some stuff from Corps would be nice too.

AS a company commander. Who do I ask for artillery support and how fast does it arrive?

The Brigade system of the British Army, and its close associates, probably didn't give the required organisation to field something akin to Regimental Gun Companies as seen in the German, Soviet, Japanese and Italian armies. I think arguably the Regimental guns in all those cases were primarily horse-drawn pieces, introduced pre general mechanisation in the relevant armies.

In the inter-war period the British Army did have a Light Regiment armed with 3.7-in howitzers as part of Divisional artillery, which was intended to operate closely with the Infantry Brigades. Once 3-inch mortars were introduced to Infantry Battalions, and Div artillery was reorganised in the late 1930s, the 3.7-in was eliminated from Divs destined for European commitments but did remain in Indian Army formations as I recall.

There was the abortive 95-mm howitzer in the case of the British Army; I must admit I've never fathomed quite where it was supposed to fit into things, I've just seen a few mentions of it replacing the 4.2-inch mortar in the short-lived Brigade Support Groups. Certainly 21 Army Group said they had no need for it and that pretty much did for it.

In terms of being able to 'post' something through through a firing slit of a strongpoint or bunker, by 1943 British and US forces were well equipped with anti-tank guns, and down to Battalion level, so the means for literal direct fire was there. Arguably the USMC Regimental Weapons Company was armed as an Anti-tank Company by 1943, but with the dearth of IJA armour to engage it served as a de facto infantry gun unit. I recall there was an argument when units received the SP M7 to replace the old 75-mm GMC as to whether they should now concentrate on indirect fire more.

Gary

What about A/T guns? I know the 2pdr/37mm didn't have HE capability but the 6pdr/57mm did (at least the British version did) you'd assume if they were attacking fortified positions like bunkers the allied soldiers would certainly utilise an A/T gun, if it was available, in a direct fire role. I'm sure I read that the Americans used M40s in a direct fire role during the Hürtgen Forest battles.

I thought the 95mm howitzer was never adopted.
link

No, it wasn't, re my use of abortive. It was referenced in Progress Bulletin Infantry No.1 in July 1943, at that time in relation to Brigade Support Groups, which had recently been introduced. Reading back it does mention that the 95-mm was proposed to replace 4.2-in mortars, with prototypes being prepared as towed and SP (on the Harry Hopkins chassis). Wheeled guns were 'expected' by Jan44 and SP types by Apr44, both of which seem to have been a bit optimistic. 21 Army Group advised they had no requirement for the 95-mm regardless.

link

PBI No.12 of July 1944 announced that 95-mm development had been passed from Director Inf to Director RA, and that appears to have been the end of the matter for the infantry.

Gary

Infantry guns were breechloading artillery with particularly low velocity shells. The advantage was the guns were small and light enough to be manhandled by infantry. The Germans had 75mm and 150mm models they used to provide their infantry regiments with integral artillery. They could be used both direct and indirect fire modes. The Germans were impressed with the Soviet 120mm mortar and by the end of the war replaced the infantry guns with mortars, being both simpler and lighter. The French had a 37mm infantry gun left over from WW1 (some of their FT17's were equipped with it) and the Russians had 76mm infantry guns but otherwise the allies went ahead and used regular artillery and mortars to fill that requirement. The western allies were sufficiently motorized that moving heavier artillery around was not a problem for them.

Was the proposed British 95mm howitzer in the one they put in the Churchill?

Sort of 'yes' and 'no' it seems…

link

Yes, as in it used the 25-pr shell used in the CS tank with a 95-mm howitzer, but with separate ammunition and three charges, so I would presume no interchangeability between the two rounds? Also the SP 95-mm would have used a modified version of the tank piece.

Gary

The105mm used by US Regitmental gun companies was the 105mm M3. Info here: link

Chris

The Centaur (a Cromwell variant) mounted the 95mm for direct support and was used in Normandy. The British simply used tanks instead of infantry guns. The Churchill AVRE being the extreme example with a massive 290mm for support

What about A/T guns? I know the 2pdr/37mm didn't have HE capability but the 6pdr/57mm did (at least the British version did)

US 37 mm AT gun had HE and cannister rounds and these were generally available. In the European theatre, these guns did not see much use by infantry (being replaced by 57 mm in 1943), but as mentioned USMC employed them in the Pacific fighting. Also, M5 light tank and M8 armoured car were armed with 37 mm guns.

British 2 pdr (which was 40 mm in calibre) IIRC had a HE round developed, but this was rarely issued to the front line troops.

US 57 mm AT gun could fire HE rounds, though IIRC when the gun was first issued to troops only AP rounds were available, with the HE provided later on. There are also accounts of them being used to engage enemy infantry – IIRC in Band of Brothers one is mentioned as providing covering fire for a river crossing patrol in early 1945.

The Germans were impressed with the Soviet 120mm mortar and by the end of the war replaced the infantry guns with mortars, being both simpler and lighter.

Germans were certainly impressed by the 120 mm mortar, but to my knowledge it was used alongside the infantry gun, rather than replacing it. Even the late war Volksgrenadier formations, introduced in 1944, had a mixture of 81 and 120 mm mortars and infantry guns in the infantry battalions and regiments.

As for the weight, IIRC 120 mm mortar is pretty close to the the weight of the 7.5 cm infantry gun, once you take into account the wheeled carriage required for transporting it any distance. Much simpler and with much more powerful round, though.

The105mm used by US Regitmental gun companies was the 105mm M3.

Correcting the link to Wikipedia:

link

There is also somewhere online a period manual for the regimental gun companies, which clearly states direct fire as one of the intended roles for the gun platoons. However, considering the relatively decent range of the weapon, and good radio communications available to US infantry, the howitzers might most flexible in indirect role.

Quite some time and effort would required to bring such a gun to a good position for direct fire. While provided with integral motor transport, gun section would probably do best to dismount fair distance from the intended position to avoid drawing enemy attention – with the gun and ammunition then needing to be man-handled to the actual firing position.

On another note, US armoured infantry battalions had integral assault gun platoons intended to provide direct HE fire – initially armed with the M8 HMC (75 mm howitzer self-propelled), in the late war intended to be replaced with 105 mm M4 Sherman.

Regarding the US regimental cannon company, it was originally armed with eight self-propelled 75 mm howitzers, before being re-organised with six towed 105 mm howitzers in 1943.

The weapon in question was T30 HMC (howitzer mortar carriage), essentially M3 halftrack armed with M1 howitzer, with an additional gun shield placed to the front. This would have made for quite mobile weapon for direct fire support, and provided crew with protection from small arms fire and shrapnel (though rather vulnerable to any sort of anti-tank weapons). Logistically, it may have provided added complications, as the M3 half-track, M1 howitzer or the ammo for it were not used anywhere else in infantry division.

This vehicle is not to be confused with the rather similar M3 GMC (gun motor carriage), again M3 halftrack with gunshield in front mounting 75 mm M1897 field gun (of the famous French design). This was issued to tank destroyer divisions, and replaced by M10 Wolverine in 1943.

Both of these armed halftracks were also provided to British army, where they may have seen service in various roles for a while longer than in US army. I think one role was attaching a couple of halftracks into armoured car squadron, to provided mobile HE firepower.

The self propelled 95mm was produced post war and called an Alecto. There are pictures of them in Berlin and in Egypt. I think they were issued to some armoured car regiments as a replacement for the M3 75mm half track mentioned above.

If I remember correctly, the Ian Hogg book on British and US artillery has a picture of the 95mm and mentions that the infantry were already short of manpower and hence didn't want it. I think that improved communication and procedures with the field artillery was a better way to go.