Another WW2 artillery what if

Sure, the Russian navy before their subs got out performed pretty dismally in naval combat, but were highly useful for providing fire support for Leningrad and moving units about. Really the German and Soviet navies' both were probably more useful for supplements to ground combat than for fighting the navy of the other side.


Indians weren't used in France and the Polish units only came in later. The latter could be filtered in eventually, but the US and Brits/Canadians used their best for the initial assault and those units, those that survive, would be stuck holding the perimeter for a while while getting more divisions in would be tough, especially after the storm.


Eh, not really. The regular army fought for Germany despite for that oath and by 1944 the SS were conscripted too, which is how Gunter Grass ended up in an SS panzer division at 16.
Some were elite many were not. The Russian units fell apart the first time they faced real combat, the Ukrainians didn't do that well, the Bosnians revolted and killed their German officers, etc.


Because Hitler lived and they ultimately chose to side with him since otherwise it would result in a nasty civil war. I'm talking about an ATL where Hitler is killed so the motivation to fight for guys like Himmler wouldn't be there for the average German; by 1944 only Hitler was still popular among the Nazi leaders.

1.Russian navy died with Russia.Soviet navy do not even try fought anybody,that is why germans could schell soviets forces.After Bagration entire North Army Group was cut - and then,one fucking heavy cruiser destroyed soviet blocking force using Ar-196 seaplanes to coordinate fire.
So much for russian navy and air forces.

2.Then send poles as replacment.We were quite happy to die for allies.And less sodiers to kick off from England after WW2 .

3.Western European were elites,just like scandinavians.And Belarussian and baltic units fought as well as Wermacht.Enough for cyvil war.If you want to knew what western nazis thought about Hitler,read memories of dude who created belgian dyvision.
They really loved Hitler,Charlemagne remnants fought to the end in Berlin in 1945.

4.If he lived,and remember - Wermacht do not supported putch when their enemies were advancing - so,why support when both Allies and soviets are stopped ?
 
You can have all the ammo in the world, but if all you have are 81mm mortars you will get wrecked by an opponent with 105mm howitzers.

Yeah if I were stupid I'd have said "10x the artillery weight but only in 81mm mortars" but I didn't... ;)

Eh, that's very contextual. A big part of the supply problem during the NWE campaign was the port capacity problem and inland supply.

Logistics is contextual. Everything is contextual.

See Green Book on the transport corps in NWE. US Army had many of the exact same problems as Ostheer in NWE: not enough railway personnel or equipment. They were emergency-commissioning civilian railway workers into the Army from places like Cleveland in latter 1944. Total shit show, much like the Germans (though for different reasons), as often happens in war.

Port capacity problem also stemmed from a stupid operational plan. Longer discussion but basically US Army planned for Westheer would be destroyed west of the Seine. When that plan wasn't working perfectly, they saw an opportunity to make it happen by weakening the drive on Brest and using those forces to close the Falaise Gap. When that didn't happen they had both (1) not taken Brest in time to use it [that port figured prominently in planned logistics] and (2) not destroyed Westheer west of the Seine.

Anterior to all these problems is that the US Army got the shit end of the stick in WW2, in terms of production and manpower quality. Nearly everybody smart enough to do so got out of the Army and into AAF, Navy, or at least not in the infantry.

Dumber guys with poorer resources making poorer decisions.

If the US had prioritized good logistics in NWE over garbage strategies they certainly could have made it happen.

How many more tubes did the Germans have to feed?

See above and my post, which says more tubes and shells. Germany focused on its army way more, thus its army was qualitatively better.

It shouldn't have been so. Americans were the actual ubermenschen of the 1940's. Taller, fitter, smarter than the average German/Brit/French/Russkie. Better nutrition etc.

what would they have give up?

B-17/24's - apart from a few VLR's for ASW - were a wildly inefficient way to fight a war. Garbage.

Scrap the entire Iowa Class - actually everything the USN laid down after mid-'42 or so. Tons of candidates.

Looks like their strategy worked out heavily in their favor.

Again it doesn't make sense to say "US won so they had the best strategy." Numerous US strategies could have won the war, many of them stupid.

For example:

Invade Cincinnati. Yeah. Just send in an army and kill everybody there. Makes US a little weaker cuz Cincinnati was making stuff and some soldiers came from there. But so what? US still wins.

How much more artillery did the US really even need?

What does "need" mean? They could also have the won the war with ZERO artillery, using garbage strategies like B-17's. Probably could have used only Spanish War weapons and won. Once Russia survives, US just has to do a little to put Russia into Berlin.

The more interesting question is how do they win most quickly, which involves building a bigger army (thus more shells/guns) and invading Europe in '43 (or earlier).
 
Last edited:
Since the Allies seem to really have gotten their artillery park right in WW2 there is unfortunately not much to really suggest for them for a what if. The Axis on the other hand made a few mistakes with theirs, especially the Italians. However the German army made some pretty big mistakes of their own, one of which was to ignore the 128mm caliber until far too late in the war and instead waste money on a bunch of inappropriate systems.

Examples of systems they wasted money on that proved to be much less than ideal for their roles:

Ultimately the last three were to be replaced by the K44, the PAK 44 turned into an artillery piece once they realized the towed AT gun version was utterly impractical:

It was trying to outdo the Soviet 122mm corps level field gun, arguably one of the most superb artillery pieces of the war (for its class):

The silly thing is such a weapon already existed in the Germany navy's arsenal:

At 30 degrees (its naval mount max elevation) it had a range of 17km. At 45 degrees with a properly designed field carriage it probably could have reached out to 21 km given the performance of the slight lighter caliber 122m A19 with the same relative barrel length and slightly lower muzzle velocity.

So finally getting the point of this what if:
What if the German army and navy worked together better on artillery projects in the interwar and instead of the 4 guns listed above as wasteful they instead replaced them all with the 128mm L45 navy gun with a field carriage specially designed for it? It would be a corps artillery piece for long range interdiction/harassment fires and counter battery work. By the start of WW2 then they'd have the artillery piece in service in 10cm and 15cm SK18 numbers. Not only would it consolidate the types of artillery pieces and help create economies of scale, since it was already developed and the only investment for the army would be developing and producing the carriage as well as perhaps investing in more barrel making equipment it would be much cheaper and save on R&D resources.

Not only that, but it would be easy to convert into an anti-tank weapon much as how the PAK 44 was made into the main gun for Jagdtiger. Here it could even be made into a tank destroyer like the Nashorn even earlier.

It would be longer range than the 105mm SK 18, have greater throwing weight, wouldn't be all that much heavier relative to the resources needed to transport it, and already be developed for the navy. The 15cm SK 18 was simply too heavy and too much gun/too expensive for the throwing weight. The larger caliber Long Tom cannon the Americans used was several tons lighter, but with nearly similar performance.

It was recognized that the 128mm caliber was the near perfect blend of range, weight, cost, etc. between the 105 and 150mm calibers, but only in 1944 before it was too late to really matter.

Perhaps if there is a demand for a self propelled piece it could even get the VK3001H chassis into production as a 'waffentrager' both for a tank destroyer like the Nashorn and a SP artillery system like the Hummel.

Other than the British there probably wouldn't be much of an Allied response as the US already had the Long Tom and the Soviets the A19. The Brits might feel their equivalent BL 4.5 and 5.5 inch guns are obsolete given they were their equivalent weapons, but both would be outranged by the 128mm cannon. Plus despite the Allies lacking an equivalent to the superb 17cm cannon the Germans used IOTL (which the US pressed into service for themselves once they captured some) they didn't change their artillery parks in response.

Thoughts on the impact having a weapon like this that largely outranges most of the Allied artillery park would have? Especially if they can make considerably more of them than the mishmash of pieces they used IOTL in the role. Being able to reliably take out the enemy's artillery, the primary killer in the world wars, as well as hit deep targets is a pretty big deal. The Soviets decided to develop the concept post-war and that ended up causing the US problems in Vietnam and their proxy forces in Africa:

I have another idea - not only 127mm gun for Germany,but also for Japan.And 120mm for Italy.
All made from their naval versions.
How much better Japan and Italy would fare in this scenario?
 
I have another idea - not only 127mm gun for Germany,but also for Japan.And 120mm for Italy.
All made from their naval versions.
How much better Japan and Italy would fare in this scenario?
Depends on how many they could make. For the Japanese their problem wasn't army artillery it was more naval strategy, for the Italians it was the problem of being able to make enough, since they couldn't even make enough of their superb 90mm guns. Frankly for the Italians they'd need to improve most of their gear anyway. I was thinking of doing a thread for all the equipment they could have done better, but that would be a long list.
 
Depends on how many they could make. For the Japanese their problem wasn't army artillery it was more naval strategy, for the Italians it was the problem of being able to make enough, since they couldn't even make enough of their superb 90mm guns. Frankly for the Italians they'd need to improve most of their gear anyway. I was thinking of doing a thread for all the equipment they could have done better, but that would be a long list.

Italians made about 500 90mm guns,right? but,they also have about 40 destroyers,each with 120mm guns.Which mean,that they should be capable of making at least 100 such guns for army.
Their navy also made 135mm guns for their very light cruisers - becouse tey were failure,making them army guns would be more useful.
Althought i do not knew,how much it would help on dessert.

About Japan - i think They would be useful only in Birma,bigger islands,and Manchukuo.Not much help on,let say,Tarawa.
 
Italians made about 500 90mm guns,right?
Yes, per wikipedia 539.

but,they also have about 40 destroyers,each with 120mm guns.Which mean,that they should be capable of making at least 100 such guns for army.
Depends. If they used all their productive capacity for the navy without major pre-war investments in the caliber they'd run into the same problem. That goes back to my other what if about Italy not getting involved in Ethiopia so having more than enough money to modernize the army pre-war.

Their navy also made 135mm guns for their very light cruisers - becouse tey were failure,making them army guns would be more useful.
Interestingly the Germans used a 135mm cannon in WW1, but deemed them too much gun for too little shell/range.
It was a failure? No mention of that in the article:

But yeah, definitely an option. Still given that they phased out the 120mm navy gun they should have spare production capacity for 120mm army artillery by 1940. You could well be on to something with that caliber. It's a high velocity gun, but would make a great corps/army level piece.

Althought i do not knew,how much it would help on dessert.
For the 120mm gun they'd outrange anything the British would have in the same class. Range was king in the desert.

About Japan - i think They would be useful only in Birma,bigger islands,and Manchukuo.Not much help on,let say,Tarawa.
I'm pretty ignorant about the Japanese war effort outside of radar developments, so I'm hesitant to comment there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Yes, per wikipedia 539.


Depends. If they used all their productive capacity for the navy without major pre-war investments in the caliber they'd run into the same problem. That goes back to my other what if about Italy not getting involved in Ethiopia so having more than enough money to modernize the army pre-war.


Interestingly the Germans used a 135mm cannon in WW1, but deemed them too much gun for too little shell/range.
It was a failure? No mention of that in the article:

But yeah, definitely an option. Still given that they phased out the 120mm navy gun they should have spare production capacity for 120mm army artillery by 1940. You could well be on to something with that caliber. It's a high velocity gun, but would make a great corps/army level piece.


For the 120mm gun they'd outrange anything the British would have in the same class. Range was king in the desert.


I'm pretty ignorant about the Japanese war effort outside of radar developments, so I'm hesitant to comment there.

So,Italians could make 120mm gun for army and it would be great,but we could not knew how much could be made.
About Japan - i knew little about their artillery,so i am not sure how much 127mm guns for army they could do.
And,becouse it was great thanks to superior range,it would not work on smaller islands.
Later/1944/ when USA ruled in air,it could be not used safely on bigger islands,too.
So,probably only place when it would work would be Manchukuo and China.
Well,somebody who knew more then me could decide that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top