The 13 and 18 Pdr British Artillery Guns in WW1

[kcirdrab]

I amazed at how spindly the 18 pdr. is, this was being used as a primary weapon by England in 1-9-1-6 ... it looks like something from Waterloo. I can`t believe Haig tried to take Deutscher fortified field positions using this as a primary agent & expected them to be seriously affected : o

[dibw29]

@kcirdrab You guys really know very little about WW1, don't you?! The inference from your comment is that the Brits had rubbish kit and the Germans had all the best gear - typical misinterpretation. The 18 Pdr QFR was very similar in characteristics to the French "75" and German 77mm FK 96, and all were designed to support infantry, not destroy fortifications. The 18 Pdr actually fired a heavier projectile than the French and German guns. Waterloo?! I don't think so.

[kcirdrab]

@dibw29 - Hey bud watch the mouth. I`ve read some of the actions of the Somme & "supporting infantry" from 1915 to mid 1918 meant firing these frail things at field works to facilitate assault actions by the England`s infantry, & no wonder these ops usually failed when you look at this rickety old thing. Shame we can`t see a shell detonating from 1 of them as I bet it would be a good laugh.

If I was English infantry going over in 1915-1918 backed by this, I wouldn`t have a lot of confidence.

[dibw29]

@kcirdrab Firstly let's stop with the "English" - we're talking British, Australian, Canadian, NZ etc; even the US used British and French Field Guns for the few months they were in the War. You miss my point - the 18 Pdr was as good as its rivals. As for "old", it was new at the time (!), and more recent than the 75 or FK96 (1904). Destruction of field fortifications was a job for heavier guns. Want to stand next to an 18 Pdr shell going off? Be my guest; you wouldn't be laughing!

[kcirdrab]

@dibw29 - "England" is a generic term for the Anglosphere so knock it off with the petty points.

I didn`t miss your point about its competitors I ignored it as being besides my point. As to "old", it looks like a relic of the Napoleonic war to me.

As for taking on field works, the RGA was in limited supply in 15 & 16, & Haig was using this as a primary weapon to assault field-works.

Laughing standing next to a shell going off from this? No ... but I`d feel pretty confident in a dugout.

[dibw29]

@kcirdrab "England" is most definitely NOT a generic term for the "Anglosphere", anymore than it's appropriate to call a Canadian "American" so it's hardly a petty point. And if you think a breech-loading, recoiling, rifled field gun looks like a Napoleonic smooth-bore muzzle-loader, I guess there ain't much left to discuss. Ref RGA - true; that leaves 60 Pdrs and 4.5" Hows that were reasonably effective vs trenches, although few in number. And Haig didn't take over from French until Dec '15

[kcirdrab]

@dibw29 - England is the generic term for the Anglosphere in the same way the Athenians, Spartans, Macedonians, etc are called "Greeks". I`d drop that if I were you as you`ve been owned on it.

This gun`s a pretty rickety old thing as a tool for the positional warfare engagements of 1915/18 whichever way you try to cut it

4.5" H. & 60 pdrs guns better? yeah, so were 9.2"s, 12"s & 15", what`s that got to do with a discussion about 18 pdrs?

My Haig comment referred to the Somme in 1916.

[dibw29]

@kcirdrab "Owned on it"?! Don't be so ignorant! Britain is made up of 4 different countries, not a conglomeration of City States - your Greek example is fallacious. The "rickety old thing" was only 10 years old in 1914 - the Light Gun I've used in Iraq and Afg is over 25; still does a pretty good job. And you haven't managed a "discussion" about 18 Pdrs yet, other than to say they look "spindly" and "rickety" - degree in ballistics for that one?! What IS your point?

[kcirdrab]

@dibw29 - The Macedonians wern`t a city state, nor most of the Greeks. All those Anglo nations you mention (inc. USA) are extensions of English power, the foundation of their cultures.

The 18pdr might have been up to chasing Boers about the Veldt but due to its lack of weight it wasn`t up to what England`s divisions were tasked with in 1915-18 - assaulting Deutscher infantry division entrenched. Haig launched offensives heavily reliant on this gun, which looking at it clerely weren`t justified.

[dibw29]

@kcirdrab This is going to take 2 replies. Greek City States are way off topic (although largely you're incorrect) so let's ignore. We will also have to park your misuse of "English" instead of British, Imperial (old) or Commonwealth (newer) as similarly O/T. The18 Pdr came into service in 1904 - 2 years after the end of the 2nd Boer War (but was designed out of that experience) so didn't chase any Boers, and remained the mainstay of the RFA throughout the Great War (in terms of numbers).

[dibw29]

ALL of the major combatants had a preponderance in Field Guns as they were cheaper and quicker to manufacture, and whilst the Germans had an initial advantage in "heavies" the BEF won the production War and overhauled them by 1918. Given that the 18 Pdr had a heavier shell than the French and German guns and was effective and robust (couple of mods to the basic design over 4 years of war), and that the Germans experienced similar tactical shortcomings to the Allies, why pick out the 18 PDR?!

[kcirdrab]

@dibw29 - Bud you & I don`t check each other`s boxes at all do we.

Most of the Greeks weren`t in city states.

"England" - you`re way off on that 1 too but if "parking it" is your way out fair enough.

My point on the Boer issue is this gun came out of that experiences but wasn`t up to what England had coming at it thru Belgium & France in 1914

'Effective & robust' - yeah maybe at Waterloo not Loos - Somme - Arras.

Why`m I havin a go at the 18pdr? Because that`s what this film`s about : /

[dibw29]

@kcirdrab The one thing we can agree on is that we don't agree. You can't say I'm "way off on the English thing" as I AM English (of Scottish descent, so Brit), and I know my own (and European) history a lot better than you do as you amply demonstrate. You're displaying some astonishing cultural arrogance to suggest otherwise - as well as a lack of knowledge beyond Google. "Parking it" is hardly my way out, but you've got to recognise a brick wall when you see one and I'm getting bored.

[dibw29]

Anyway, with ref to the 18 Pdr thing we're at another impasse; your reference back to Waterloo shows that we've got nowhere - you don't recognise the difference between WW1 breech loading guns with recoil systems and black-powder smooth bores, so what hope? An 18 Pdr (or 75 or FK96) has far more in common with modern field guns (which I have been working with for 15 years) than with C19 cannon. I think you're thrown by cosmetic issues like the "old" wheels without understanding the science.

[dibw29]

As an example look at the propellant systems and methods of achieving obturation and then do your own comparison - C19, WW1 and now. Anyway, I'm going to have to call it quits (which you'll no doubt interpret as "being owned" or taking "a way out" - your call, but I think you're better than that) as I have a job to do - in Field Artillery. I've quite enjoyed the discussion, even if we don't agree; at least the Great War isn't forgotten.

[kcirdrab]

@dibw29 - 'You enjoyed the discussion, but you`re bored & my knowledge all comes from Google". Mmm, yeah ok bud.

There`s more to a gun than a firing mechanism, there`s weight of shot, i.e. "Firepower", & this old crate wasn`t up to assaulting the fieldworks put up by the Deutschers in '15-18. I said it visually "looked" like a Waterloo gun, not that it was a gun from that action.

I`ve made hit after hit on your position on this 1 but you`ve just stood there like Haig oblivious thruout - lol

[megatwingo]

Interesting video!

[Cynisca]

Both my grandfathers were artillerymen.....and used these guns..

[blacklegionairsoft1]

i love how we were just over 20 years until the second world war, and artillery carts still looked like the ones used in the American Civil War. a lot can happen in in 20 years!!!

[fp470]

@blacklegionairsoft1 Alot of the artillery carriage did not advance that much. The carriages were relatively effective. The only true need was for inflatable tires, which was a process started in the 1920, in the west, as mechanisation took off.

[B29Bomber]

Very nice vid, WWI was a bloodbath.

[tecna64]

the second one an even bigger massacre since the civilians were also being bombed to hell,not only soldiers