Instead of PAK 97/38 independent artillery regiments

[sillygoose]

Canon de 75 modèle 1897 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Many were captured by Germany during the Fall of France in 1940, in addition to Polish guns captured in 1939. Over 3,500 were modified with a muzzle brake and mounted on a 5 cm Pak 38 carriage, now named 7.5 cm Pak 97/38 they were used by the Wehrmacht in 1942 as an emergency weapon against the Soviet Union's T-34 and KV tanks. Its relatively low velocity and a lack of modern armor-piercing ammunition limited its effectiveness as an anti-tank weapon. When the German 7.5 cm Pak 40 became available in sufficient numbers, most remaining Pak 97/38 pieces were returned to occupied France to reinforce the Atlantic Wall defenses or were supplied to Axis nations like Romania (PAK 97/38) and Hungary.[16][17] Non-modified remainders were used as second-line and coastal artillery pieces under the German designation 7.5 cm FK 231(f)[17] and 7,5 cm FK 97(p). The few 60 Mle 1897/33s captured by the Germans were given the designation 7.5 cm K232(f).[18]

Historically over 3,500 French 75mm artillery pieces were modified to serve as anti-tank guns where they performed relatively poorly. What if instead of this the guns were kept as artillery pieces and used existing stockpiles of captured French and Polish (who had over 1300 of this guns in 1939) munitions in independent artillery regiments that were to be corps attachments? Given their high rate of fire they would seem to be a very good saturation fires weapon against both tanks and infantry, both of which were frequently used in tight masses in 1942 and beyond and would form ideal targets to for this sort of weapon. Due to the light weight even if horse drawn they should be able to rapidly move into position to deal with break-ins or breakthroughs as they appear and can be simply attached to existing infantry division artillery regiments for targeting purposes. They could even use French factories to make more ammo if needed.

Even assuming only 2012 are retained for German use they could theoretically form about 42 regiments of 48 guns. Seems like that would have been a better use than as a mediocre desperation AT gun, which actually cost a fair bit to modify and then used different ammo than all the stockpiles captured.

How do you think these regiments would perform as an as-needed firepower enhancement for divisions from corps reserve from 1942 onwards?

 

[bintananth]

Badly.

As early as 1862 Europeans had observed what Americans and Confederates who weren't idiots were doing to stay out of the direct line of fire when "I can see you, and if you see me this will get very ugly for both sides."

EDIT: 80% casualties within 5 minutes was not an exaggeration back then because it actually happened at least once during the US Civil War.

 

[sillygoose]

Badly.

As early as 1862 Europeans had observed what Americans and Confederates who weren't idiots were doing to stay out of the direct line of fire when "I can see you, and if you see me this will get very ugly for both sides."

EDIT: 80% casualties within 5 minutes was not an exaggeration back then because it actually happened at least once during the US Civil War.

I'm not sure how that is relevant to anything I wrote.

 

[Buba]

NO.
1 - The mle 97 was not really suited for AT work due to issues with mount and sights.
2 - For some reason nobody used such small calibre weapons as corps assets (at least on large scale).
3 - too small shell and not a howitzer - the Waffenamt would say - suXXor to da maXXor.

If you wish to give more oomph to the Wehrmacht, then impress the 1500 (? more?) mle 17 155mm howitzers. Under 4 tons with limber, can be towed by 6 good / 8 average horses.


The cost of converting mle 97 to PAK38/97 was a question of paying for a moderately/quite useful AT/field gun, or not having one at all, as there was some bottleneck with 5cm barrel making.
Maybe issuing them at IR and not PzJGAbt level, instead of the SiG 15cm (4 for 2?), would be helpful?

 

[sillygoose]

NO.
1 - The mle 97 was not really suited for AT work due to issues with mount and sights.

With a purpose built carriage and sights they did actually do quite well in French service, but those were expensive and the Germans cheaped out due to being unable to afford the proper stuff.

2 - For some reason nobody used such small calibre weapons as corps assets (at least on large scale).

I thought the French did as an additional fire asset. That's kind of what gave me the idea.

3 - too small shell and not a howitzer - the Waffenamt would say - suXXor to da maXXor.

I get what you're saying, but they could saturate a target in the open extremely well as WW1 demonstrated. 300,000+ German casualties at Verdun don't lie. The 75 was their main gun for that campaign. You don't need a howitzer for defeating targets in the open, only in trenches. Hence the point here of using them as concentrated anti-breakthrough support weapons to be attached to a threatened division as needed; it would simply drop in to the existing artillery regiment to get fires requests. Artillery fire can pretty easily mission kill tanks and at very least separate them from supporting infantry which made they easy to pick off with infantry weapons.

If you wish to give more oomph to the Wehrmacht, then impress the 1500 (? more?) mle 17 155mm howitzers. Under 4 tons with limber, can be towed by 6 good / 8 average horses.

Those were more useful in France for costal defense and in Africa.

The cost of converting mle 97 to PAK38/97 was a question of paying for a moderately/quite useful AT/field gun, or not having one at all, as there was some bottleneck with 5cm barrel making.
Maybe issuing them at IR and not PzJGAbt level, instead of the SiG 15cm (4 for 2?), would be helpful?

The problem with low level use is their heavy weight and violent recoil as well as unique ammo. IIRC they were used as division guns in their anti-tank company. The 'abteilung' use was for self propelled versions.

 

[Buba]

Informative, thanks!

Another nail in the coffin - horse draft - too slow moving to be a corps asset?

As to weight - Pak 38/97 same class as 6 pdr (lighter?), slightly lighter than PAK40 or SiG 15cm.
True that 1200kg is no longer "elbow grease" mobile, but not that bad

 

[sillygoose]

Informative, thanks!

Another nail in the coffin - horse draft - too slow moving to be a corps asset?

As to weight - Pak 38/97 same class as 6 pdr (lighter?), slightly lighter than PAK40 or SiG 15cm.
True that 1200kg is no longer "elbow grease" mobile, but not that bad

Good question. Not sure to be honest. The 75s were so light though that they'd actually be reasonably fast in use and could use the Russian ponies, which while weaker than standard draft horses they were well suited to heavy work and the climate.

Slightly lighter than the PAK 40, which was nearly exclusively used at division level only. SIG 33s were used at infantry regimental level, but there were only 2 per regiment, so those could be motorized more easily. You'd need a prime mover or tractor for something that heavy and couldn't reposition it by hand. Horses could do it, but they're not great for AT guns due to how vulnerable they are to enemy fire and how conspicuous they are.

That's why even horse drawn 75s as artillery were more viable. In my not so humble opinion

 

[ATP]

NO.
1 - The mle 97 was not really suited for AT work due to issues with mount and sights.
2 - For some reason nobody used such small calibre weapons as corps assets (at least on large scale).
3 - too small shell and not a howitzer - the Waffenamt would say - suXXor to da maXXor.

If you wish to give more oomph to the Wehrmacht, then impress the 1500 (? more?) mle 17 155mm howitzers. Under 4 tons with limber, can be towed by 6 good / 8 average horses.


The cost of converting mle 97 to PAK38/97 was a question of paying for a moderately/quite useful AT/field gun, or not having one at all, as there was some bottleneck with 5cm barrel making.
Maybe issuing them at IR and not PzJGAbt level, instead of the SiG 15cm (4 for 2?), would be helpful?

1 - at least in polish army it could be modified to target tanks with new sights,some was even made that way,and our army considered how many more is need.
They used anti-bunker ammo capable of piercing 70mm steel - which means,all tanks in 1939.

 

[Buba]

at least in polish army it could be modified to target tanks with new sights,some was even made that way,and our army considered how many more is need.

But without further work - which was not done - to the trail it could not traverse fast enough.
Not to mention that on-mount traverse was limited due to box trail.
Hence "as built" the mle 97 made a poor AT weapon.

 

[ATP]

But without further work - which was not done - to the trail it could not traverse fast enough.
Not to mention that on-mount traverse was limited due to box trail.
Hence "as built" the mle 97 made a poor AT weapon.

Indeed.Till 1942 it would be made,but then we would face T.34,which it could destroy,and KW1,which would laugh at 75mm no matter what would it fire.

 

[sillygoose]

Indeed.Till 1942 it would be made,but then we would face T.34,which it could destroy,and KW1,which would laugh at 75mm no matter what would it fire.

75mm guns could and did knock out the KV. Even an HE shell could mission-kill it.
Armor was as little as 70mm at various points. Hit it multiple times in a single spot and it would crack given the 'quality' of Soviet armor.

And here are the US AP values for their version of the French 75:

75 mm Field Gun M1897 on M2 Carriage - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Buba]

In Darth Vader voice:
Do not underestimate the power of new munitions, such as HEAT and sub-calibre rounds ...

 

[ATP]

In Darth Vader voice:
Do not underestimate the power of new munitions, such as HEAT and sub-calibre rounds ...

Indeed,in 1942 we would probably have it.Polish medium tank,23tp/which was only planned in 1975/ would probably get french 75mm,too.
But,considering how bad we were in making tanks,it probably woud be not done yet.

 

[Chiron]

Fob them off to the Romanians and Hungarians.