French 75mm vs British 18pdr

[larrikin]

Why is the French gun such a legend comnpared to the 18pdr? What were it's standouts over the Brit gun, or is it just because it entered service so much earlier?

[Jim Martin]

IIRC it's because of its innovation in hydraulic recoil and extremely high-speed breech mechanism; it heralded a revolution in artillery design.

[nigelfe]

Yes I'd agree, it was late 19th C and at that time 75 mm was revolutionary in terms of its rate of fire. Add to this a lot of French 'spin', which they actually believed (always a mistake to believe your own bs). In consequence they never developed a light field howitzer (eg GE 105 mm or UK 4.5 in) and had to resort to 'spoilers' to try and get the howitzer effect. Of course once WW1 started FR undertook a very successful 'crash' development program to design and produce heavy artillery having calimed before the war that such tings weren't needed becasue 75 mm could o it all.

[KingSargent]

Yes I'd agree, it was late 19th C and at that time 75 mm was revolutionary in terms of its rate of fire.  Add to this a lot of French 'spin', which they actually believed (always a mistake to believe your own bs).  In consequence they never developed a light field howitzer (eg GE 105 mm or UK 4.5 in) and had to resort to 'spoilers' to try and get the howitzer effect.  Of course once WW1 started FR undertook a very successful 'crash' development program to design and produce heavy artillery having calimed before the war that such tings weren't needed becasue 75 mm could o it all.

394719[/snapback]

The '75' was used all over the world post-WW1, while AFAIK only British Imperial/CW nations used 18pdrs.

 

The '75' was the first quick-firing field gun and began the Artillery Revolution.

[Pachy]

In consequence they never developed a light field howitzer (eg GE 105 mm or UK 4.5 in) and had to resort to 'spoilers' to try and get the howitzer effect.

394719[/snapback]

At the beginning of WWII the 75 mle 1897 was slowly being replaced by 105 mm mle 1934 Schneider and 105 mm mle 1935 B, both being light field howitzers with a split-trail carriage.

[KingSargent]

At the beginning of WWII the 75 mle 1897 was slowly being replaced by 105 mm mle 1934 Schneider and 105 mm mle 1935 B, both being light field howitzers with a split-trail carriage.

394734[/snapback]

Slowly is the operative word, comparatively few were in service. And the French howitzers lacked the range of the German and US 105s (not that there any US 105s in service when France fell... ).

[Pachy]

And the French howitzers lacked the range of the German and US 105s.

394746[/snapback]

Yeah... I'm not very knowledgeable about this programme, but I'm guessing that :

 

1) French 105s were not required to have the secondary AT capability that the 10,5 cm leFH had since the French artillery had a specific 47 mm AT gun

 

2) for longer range firing, there were long 105 mm guns (mle 1913 and the brand-new mle 1936)

 

3) I'm not 100% sure on this one but I would guess the new light howitzer was to be in the same weight category as the 75 so as to require the same number of horses or the same category of puller (Citroën-Kégresse HTs, Laffly 6WD trucks, etc).

[larrikin]

So the fame is basically because it came first. How did the two guns actually measure up - RoF, accuracy, shrapnel dispersion, HE weight, relaibility, etc?

[zakarpatska]

In consequence they never developed a light field howitzer (eg GE 105 mm or UK 4.5 in) and had to resort to 'spoilers' to try and get the howitzer effect. 

394719[/snapback]

 

Hi All,

 

Does anyone have any information on these 'spoilers'? Were they effective in achieving a howitzer effect? What was the range of the gun with these spoilers?

 

I've heard of these 'spoilers' for the 75 mle before but have never come across any solid information on them.

[KingSargent]

Hi All,

 

Does anyone have any information on these 'spoilers'? Were they effective in achieving a howitzer effect? What was the range of the gun with these spoilers?

 

I've heard of these 'spoilers' for the 75 mle before but have never come across any solid information on them.

394779[/snapback]

They were called Mandrin Discs IIRC, named for a French politician who balked at spending money the Army wanted for howitzers, so he came up with the idea of placing washers on the nose of the 75mm shell to disrupt airflow and lead to a more vertical descent trajectory. The discs came in various sizes, presumably for varying effects on the trajectory.

 

As Ian Hogg put it, there was a fair bit of tooth-sucking among French gunners but they were given boxes of discs and told to get on with it.

 

I would imagine it would take considerable experiment to calibrate the discs and resulting trajectories at various angles of elevation (not that the M1897 had much elevation range without digging the trail in). I have no idea if anyone took up the thankless task, and I have seen no reports of actual combat use.

[superfractal]

So the fame is basically because it came first.  How did the two guns actually measure up - RoF, accuracy, shrapnel dispersion, HE weight, relaibility, etc?

394767[/snapback]

 

I have a book by ian hogg that has both the guns in, if no one beats me to it i will post that information when i get home from work.

[Richard Lindquist]

They were called Mandrin Discs IIRC, named for a French politician who balked at spending money the Army wanted for howitzers, so he came up with the idea of placing washers on the nose of the 75mm shell to disrupt airflow and lead to a more vertical descent trajectory. The discs came in various sizes, presumably for varying effects on the trajectory.

 

As Ian Hogg put it, there was a fair bit of tooth-sucking among French gunners but they were given boxes of discs and told to get on with it.

 

I would imagine it would take considerable experiment to calibrate the discs and resulting trajectories at various angles of elevation (not that the M1897 had much elevation range without digging the trail in). I have no idea if anyone took up the thankless task, and I have seen no reports of actual combat use.

394805[/snapback]

 

Even when they got everything working, the result on target was a mere pipsquaek of an explosion compared to the 105mm howitzer shell.

 

The French 75 was touted as a "wonder weapon" and all the rest of the world follwed suit with their own 75mm/77mm/3inch copmparable guns. The problem was that the 75mm was to be used with shrapnel against troops in the open with the battery firing in direct fire mode. Once everyone dug in, HE (and the weight/power of same) was what did the heavy lifting.

 

To the French credit, they did come on line with the 155mm Schneider how and the 155mm GPF gun in just two years (and the weapons were pretty damn good for 1916).

[GdG**]

I read somewhere that the 75 was still in use in Sub-saharian Africa until the 1980's.

[Yama]

So the fame is basically because it came first.  How did the two guns actually measure up - RoF, accuracy, shrapnel dispersion, HE weight, relaibility, etc?

394767[/snapback]

 

Don't know about the 18pdr. French 75 was superior to German 77mm, that gun was kinda semi-obsolete upon service entry. Russian 76mm 00 and especially 02 were superior though.

 

I read somewhere that the 75 was still in use in Sub-saharian Africa until the 1980's.

394767[/snapback]

 

IIRC, last modernisation for 75 done in the fifties, so it would not surprise me.

[Nic240]

Even when they got everything working, the result on target was a mere pipsquaek of an explosion compared to the 105mm howitzer shell.

 

The French 75 was touted as a "wonder weapon" and all the rest of the world follwed suit with their own 75mm/77mm/3inch copmparable guns.  The problem was that the 75mm was to be used with shrapnel against troops in the open with the battery firing in direct fire mode.  Once everyone dug in, HE (and the weight/power of same) was what did the heavy lifting.

 

To the French credit, they did come on line with the 155mm Schneider how and the 155mm GPF gun in just two years (and the weapons were pretty damn good for 1916).

394835[/snapback]

I think to be fair we have to consider when it was first designed. If you are using horses a 75mm would be a lot more mobile than a 105 or 155mm.

[superfractal]

So the fame is basically because it came first.  How did the two guns actually measure up - RoF, accuracy, shrapnel dispersion, HE weight, relaibility, etc?

394767[/snapback]

 

Actualy all the data i have is;

 

For the 18 pounder,

 

Weight in action, - 3,507lb

Traverse - 25 degree's right and left.

Elevation -5 - 37.5 degree's

Recoil system - hydropneumatic variable 26 inch to 48

 

Ammunition'

 

HE

23.5lb (funnily enough )

Mv 1,625 ft/sec

Max range 11,100

 

Shrapnel

weight not mentioned but it contained 375 lead/antimony bullets.

had time and percussion fuse's

max range 9,400 yards.

 

75mm

 

Weight in action 2,657lb

traverse 3 degree,s left or right

elevation -10 + 19 degree's

Recoil system, itself.

 

Ammunition

 

HE (only)

Weight 14.7lb

m,v 1,995 ft/sec

max range with ww1 french ammo 9,200 yards

 

There is no mention of ROF unfortunatly but the 18 pounder looks like the better gun on paper atleast.

[Pachy]

The 75 had a lot of ammo types, including shrapnel, APHE, incendiary, tracer, smoke, and of course poison gas :/ There were prototypes at Brandt in 1940 to add shaped-charge and sub-calibre rounds to the collection.

 

An alternative to the "spoilers" was to use rounds with reduced propellant charge (cartouche à charge réduite).

[Chris Werb]

The '75' was used all over the world post-WW1, while AFAIK only British Imperial/CW nations used 18pdrs.

 

Those of Sam used an 18 pouneder chambered for French 75 ammo as the M1917. These guns were fitted with pneumatic tyred road wheels post WW-1 - you have to wonder why as the US must have had enough M1897s for their much reduced needs in the 20s/30s. Some, however, were in service in/with the Phillipines in 1941. Others were supplied to the UK where they were used in anti invasion defences or as training weapons.

[Chris Werb]

To the French credit, they did come on line with the 155mm Schneider how and the 155mm GPF gun in just two years (and the weapons were pretty damn good for 1916).

 

And remained in service in Chile in a coast defence role until the mid-late 1990s.

[Pachy]

Those of Sam used an 18 pouneder chambered for French 75 ammo as the M1917.  These guns were fitted with pneumatic tyred road wheels post WW-1 - you have to wonder why as the US must have had enough M1897s for their much reduced needs in the 20s/30s. Some, however, were in service in/with the Phillipines in 1941. Others were supplied to the UK where they were used in anti invasion defences or as training weapons.

394950[/snapback]

I think some of these guns ended in Free French hands and were used in combat in North Africa, particularily at Bir Hakeim.

[larrikin]

Those of Sam used an 18 pouneder chambered for French 75 ammo as the M1917.  These guns were fitted with pneumatic tyred road wheels post WW-1 - you have to wonder why as the US must have had enough M1897s for their much reduced needs in the 20s/30s. Some, however, were in service in/with the Phillipines in 1941. Others were supplied to the UK where they were used in anti invasion defences or as training weapons.

394950[/snapback]

 

Interesting, as the RHA's 13pdr was an 18pdr reduced to 3 inches in bore, the 13pdr9cwt was an 18pdr chamber with a 13pdr round, and the 3inch20cwt AA was a developed version of that. All very strange and incestuous, and still makes me wonder why the Brits didn't stick with the 3inch20cwt gun as an AT weapon at least.

[larrikin]

Actualy all the data i have is;

 

For the 18 pounder,

 

Weight in action, - 3,507lb

Traverse - 25 degree's right and left.

Elevation -5 - 37.5 degree's

Recoil system - hydropneumatic variable 26 inch to 48

 

Ammunition'

 

HE

23.5lb  (funnily enough )

Mv 1,625 ft/sec

Max range 11,100

 

Shrapnel

weight not mentioned but it contained 375 lead/antimony bullets.

had time and percussion fuse's

max range 9,400 yards.

 

75mm

 

Weight in action 2,657lb

traverse 3 degree,s left or right

elevation -10 + 19 degree's

Recoil system, itself.

 

Ammunition

 

HE (only)

Weight 14.7lb

m,v 1,995 ft/sec

max range with ww1 french ammo 9,200 yards

 

There is no mention of ROF unfortunatly but the 18 pounder looks like the better gun on paper atleast.

394920[/snapback]

 

Yeah, the 18pdr is over a decade younger, yet the Brits still seemed to be drooling over the 75 at the start of WWI.

[Chris Werb]

Yeah, the 18pdr is over a decade younger, yet the Brits still seemed to be drooling over the 75 at the start of WWI.

394963[/snapback]

 

The Mk4 18 pounder was more like two decades younger. I'm not sure how the Brits were 'drooling' over the French 75 - we just needed all the artillery we could get.

[superfractal]

Yeah, the 18pdr is over a decade younger, yet the Brits still seemed to be drooling over the 75 at the start of WWI.

394963[/snapback]

 

The 75mm had a new recoil system which meant it could be fired without being hammered down.

The Brits pre war doctrine was based more on mobile warfare , which would make the 75 a far more attractive weapon.

 

However During the war Britain concentrated on producing more heavy artillery rather than lighter gun's so perceptions changed, as when the Brits did finaly get there hands on 75mm field guns they used them as AA guns.

[capt_starlight]

A much better explanation of the characteristics and history behind the British selection of the weapons is at Frontline18 .:. British field guns Ordnance QF 18pdr and Ordnance QF 13pdr. Note that Hogg's figures are an amalgam of the MkIV (higher elevation and range) compared to the Mk1 and II with which the BEF went to war.....

 

Frank