WWI Artillery....

[Lucky13]

Which was the best piece of artillery during WWI if you look at mobility, accuracy and firepower?

[trackend]

French 75

[HealzDevo]

Don't really think I know that much about WW1 artillery...

[Glider]

British 18 pounder. The French 75 fired to light a shell which is why the British 13 pd gun wasn't used more widely.

[trackend]

Over 20,000 75's where produced and although not a heavy shell it could fire 15 aimed rounds per min up until the introduction of the 75 in the late 1800's most artillery required re sighting after each round, the 75 had a recoil system that allowed all shots to stayed on target. By the end of WW1 improved ammo had increased the range to around 10000 yards.
The weapon even lasted until WW2 being mounted on the M3 half track and the B25

[Joe2]

Agreed.

[comiso90]

No doubt the French 75. The rate of fire was unprecidented and was the first truly modern piece of artillery

[Joe2]

The fact it went so long means it must be good...like the Lee-Enfield

[Glider]

Sorry folks but the 75mm was a remarkable weapon in many ways but it didn't fire a big enough shell to do much damage to the German trenches. As we all know, WW1 was about trenches and for that reason it wouldn't make my list as being the best.

Another first for the 75mm was it was basically copied and installed on the Lee Grant Tank.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by Glider

Sorry folks but the 75mm was a remarkable weapon in many ways but it didn't fire a big enough shell to do much damage to the German trenches. As we all know, WW1 was about trenches and for that reason it wouldn't make my list as being the best.

Another first for the 75mm was it was basically copied and installed on the Lee Grant Tank.

"Best" has a lot of definitions... just like the "Greatest"..

For me, the innovation of the gas cylinders earns it a place of distinction...

The best shouldnt be defined by who killed the most people.

[HealzDevo]

At least I mean the portable stuff. I know about the German Big Bertha which was such a massive gun and fired a massive round but it could hardly be described as portable...

[Glider]

Originally Posted by comiso90

"Best" has a lot of definitions... just like the "Greatest"..

For me, the innovation of the gas cylinders earns it a place of distinction...

The best shouldnt be defined by who killed the most people.

The thread is the best in WW1 not the best when it came out. I do agree the French 75 was a remarkable piece but for WW1 it was found wanting.

As mentioned earlier, the British developed the 13pd which had a similar performance to the 75 but like the 75 was to small for WW1. So for WW1 then in my mind at least, the 18pd was a better weapon.

[Emac44]

I would say the use of artillery came into its own on another plain during WW1. Prior to its use before WW1. Such things as box barriage creeping barriage preparatary fire etc etc. Came into its own with development of not only the GUNS but on how it was used and with improvements in communications other than by courier or flags or bugles or even pidgeons as that had been used previously. You can single out which Gun may have been better or lacked this or that. But all weapons have good and bad points or lack this or that etc. But WW1 in my opinion was a Gunners War as far as artillery went. Its not so much the GUNS themselves but how they were used and the desired effects that were needed in a battle or how to support infantry or break up infantry when the need arose etc. The GUNS themselves could and were used not only as a moral boost but could break that moral in an enemy just as effectively as anything previously developed. More physcological breakdowns can occur under constant artillery fire and the casuality rate as far as battle field physcosis is well documented due to constant shelling on troops by a determined and well directed artillery fire. Even the sound of certain types of shells once fired can un-nerve the receipants of that fire it was directed or fired at etc. And of course the ARTILLERY usage continued into the next World War and same effects were recognised. So I am not going to debate which GUN was better but how it was used in effectiveness . Both the Allies and the German Austrians had great GUNS and used them effectively. And their usage came also with a another concept Anti Aircraft Artillery which was beginning to be used during WW1. The Gunners and hoiw the GUNS were used saw a need in Anti Aircraft Fire and thus new techniques were developed from older artillery practises. But to me the GUNS are useless unless there are improvements of communications to go along with the GUNS use. And WW1 saw the use of telephone lines of communication and constant updates of information from such things as aerial observation by either balloon or aircraft or more use of ground Foward Observers. These may have been primative at first and they were in accordance with our own technologies of today but without some type of targetting for the GUNS and filtering of information back to the Gunners etc. The Guns would be useless on a battle field if information wasn't available. So before you debate which GUN was Good or Bad etc. Take into account of how those GUNS were used and for what for

[peter benn]

Speaking of the "creeping barrage," has anyone else seen that History Channel (??) clip of the British or Canadian large artillery gun rocking backward on its huge wheels with every recoil -- and a pair of soldiers shovelling dirt into the exposed wheel ruts with every pass? As if that was as good a way as any to make the "creeping" adjustment?

Earplugs, like parachutes, were considered unimportant by the British. My maternal grandfather, a Lt. in charge of one gun, had tintinnitus for the next 50 years....

[trackend]

Originally Posted by Glider

Sorry folks but the 75mm was a remarkable weapon in many ways but it didn't fire a big enough shell to do much damage to the German trenches. As we all know, WW1 was about trenches and for that reason it wouldn't make my list as being the best.

Another first for the 75mm was it was basically copied and installed on the Lee Grant Tank.

Agreed GL but it was a light field piece against just trenches the big Howitzers and Trench Mortars came into there own but for stemming attacks and the ability to move into new firing positions at short notice I still rate the 75 which meets two of the three criteria laid down in Lucky 13's original post as for fire power it is all relative to the target, a 8 inch howitzer will make a bloody big hole but lacks the fire power to stop advancing troops. A flank positoned MG slaughters them despite its small caliber IMO its different tools for different jobs so you can only compare fire power of say one howitzer to another howitzer and not different weapons.
Having said all of that it's not to say I do not see your reasoning for not selecting the 75 but I just have a different take on it.