Want to see more museum trips & interviews? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
There's old saying "artillery is always late". It's less so if they're attached to your company. Having two or three howitzers or mortars per battlalion isn't enough. You want at least six per battalion and one mortar squad per company...at least. Calling division artillery to have 155mm drop on a sniper or squad is overkill and waste of resources.
Good video. Yes the infantry gun is basically replaced by various mortars, fifle grenade launchers, recoiless and rocket propelled weapons (like Carl Gustav and TOW etc.) in post war times. Also one has to reflect that modern Western Arnies were mostly post war configured for defensive operations. The early war German infantry and Panzer regiments were very good attack units based on specialised tasks. The early Stug and the MG34 were highly suited to breakthrough tactic. Late war and post war emphasis is on blasting the Soviets as they attack.
i almost never complain about video or audio but in this case I found Jens very hard to hear and that compounded with his accent ( which should be no excuse for me) i missed a lot of his words. Nonetheless a lot of very interesting info.
I wish I could afford to support 😟 I always make a point to watch the ads I get for your videos tho! I'm not even sure that makes a difference but I hope it does lol
you've come a long way from "that guy with the german accent who talks about the statistics of WWII" to someone who wheres a tux to speak with experts in their field, durring live interviews. cant wait to see where you go over the next 4 years
reminds me of Ian Mccollum's journey from a guy who reviews funky forgotten firearms to a guy who reviews funky forgotten firearms but with backing from museums & government institutions.
The part at the back that “digs in” to adsorb the recall is usually called a “spade”. The part from the spade forward to the firing area is usually called the “trail”. An AT gun would usually have two trails extended from the firing part with a spade on the end of each trail.
The Swedish king Gustav II Adolf could probably be called one of the earliest pioneers of small, integrated infantry guns during and before the 30 years war. He even experimented with some super light leaher canons (didn't go so well). His work really gave the swedish armies' formations a flexible source of local firepower, independent of the large stationary batteries that the imperials couldn't match for quite some time.
And that's why his successors name was used for the Bofors 84mm "recoilless" rifle m/48, which is essentially a 14kg shoulder fired 20pdr. general purpose field gun... In every squad. It replaced both 6 and 8cm mortars as well as anti tank rifles and the Bofors 37 and 57mm anti tank guns in the Swedish army at the time of it's introduction.
@@SonsOfLorgar How can "Carl Gustav" be derived from Gustav Adolf? It is much likelier that it was named after the then prince and now king Carl XVI Gustav.
Oh Gentlemen...... The guns you are talking about. Are called Carl Gustavfor two reasons. 1. The arms manufacturing plant. Is called Carl Gustav. 2. The king of Sweden is Carl Gustav and he(and his family) own(the majority shares) of the company. By the by, The Swedish crown owns the majority shares in all major Swedish companies.
It is so interesting to hear the facts straight from the specialists and this channel does that. Kudos! If anyone is interested in the leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18, Ian from ForgottenWeapons has featured it in a video of his; just look up "Germany's New Light Howitzer: the 7.5cm le.IG 18"
I was able to handle one a few years ago and it's a surprisingly well-balanced gun, one or two people can move it short distances over flat ground with relative ease, if you want to move it greater distances you definitely need more manpower or some way to tow it, but it in general it's an extremely handy piece of ordnance.
A big thanks to both of you making these great presentations in English. Making good content is a favor of itself-making them in a language that's not your native tongue is another favor. Danke zweimal!!!
At the end, France had 20 times the guns they had in 1914. The Canadians that broke through the Hindenburg line did so partially by firing close to a million rounds in two days. By early October, 12,000 tons of ammunition were fired every day. The French 75s were firing 280,000 rounds a day.
Erich Von Manstein I can’t vouch for the numbers, but the artillery branch would include far more than just the men manning the guns. It would include numerous support personnel, transportation and logistics. Also, what was considered part of the artillery? For example machineguns were originally part of the artillery branch in many militaries. It also wouldn’t be surprising if tanks were part of the artillery.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 More and bigger guns means more crew per gun. Also, lots of the men were logistical support personnel, not actually manning guns, but dedicated to supporting the artillery battalions so they were considered artillery men. The main thing is that by 1918, the French were focusing their dwindling manpower on the gunners, not the grunts.
@@88porpoise in WWI France, the tanks units were called "artillerie spéciale" (special artillery) and were assimilated with the artillery (Estienne was an artillery colonel)
It makes sense for infantry to have immediate access to small field guns in early WWII. They do have need sometimes for heavy firepower and don’t have time to wait around for the artillery in the rear to hit the target, if it is even available at all. While they did have rifle grenades and light mortars they aren’t as effective against bunkers or other fortified positions or even light armor. And rifle grenades are fairly cumbersome to use. Later on they had rocket launchers/panzerfausts/recoilless rifles which give that strong punch and are much more man portable.
The "arms" coming off the back of towed artillery are called Trails. As mentioned in another comment - at the end of the trails were the Spades, the shovel like things that dug into the ground to hold the weapon in place when it fired. There are Handles on the trails which the crew can lift to unearth the spades and turn the entire piece to change it's facing. Towed artillery has a limited traverse for aiming the gun but most be turned in the general direction of the target so that it can be aimed with it's traversing mechanism. The 105mm M3 Howitzer had a split trail en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_howitzer was used by Cannon Companies of Infantry Regiments in the American Army. The 75mm Pack Howitzer had a single trail en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M116_howitzer could be disassembled and was used by Paratroopers, Marines and Mountain Divisions. .
Im not 100 percent sure of this but I think the Swedes in the 1600s were one of the first militaries to implement light artillery tactics in an early form of combined arms. Each infantry division or corps would be assigned a light and mobile artillery piece that was mobile enough to advance close behind the infantry. It not only gave each division or corps a great deal of firepower, but made communication fast. Whereas in the past you may of had to send a rider to communicate with the heavy guns, now you could send a runner and have decisive and quick support. About 10 years ago I was doing research on the Jacobite Rebellions in Scotland. By 1745 the English were adopting Swedish tactics of light artillery in the infantry. Light artillery firing an early form of canister shot / grape shot was one of many reasons the Scots lost at Culloden Moor. It was devastatingly effective against the terrifying Highland Charge. The light artillery acted like a large shot gun on wheels. It was both deadly and a shock to morale. Its interesting to think of the development of light artillery or infantry-artillery from the small caliber horse drawn canons to our modern mortar teams. Heck, most US infantrymen have a grenade launcher on their rifle, it could be argued that each infantrymen is his own light artillery support lol. Id love to see a video covering the development of artillery in the infantry through the Napoleonic and Victorian Eras. Im curious how much (if any) of a roll it played in the Crimean War and / or the Austro-Prussian War.
now I am suddenly reminded of the sIG 33 and how the troops it was attached with using the thing as a gigantic "EVICTION NOTICE" to any skub hiding in a building by pushing it in an intersection for a clear line of fire... and how ridiculously overkill that thing is for an infantry gun
@Bernhardt: Maybe go to the ZMSBw, the “German Mekka of German military history”. The airforce museum is beside and there is a lot of stuff more in Berlin. In Dresden is the Officer School with Tacticcenter beside.
Bernhard, another thing to be said about this gun is that it was used very well as a mountain gun. It could be disassembled in many parts and carried on mules. So they could easily pass narrow mountain trails, perhaps carried on cables on to high positions as well. I have a model of this gun in 1/72. I plan in the future take pictures of it and use them to create a drawing illustration of this gun in the Caucasus.
@@godweenausten there was actually a mountain version of this infantry gun. The 7.5 cm le.GebIG 18. It featured wooden wheels instead of the metal ones and according to Wikipedia, it could be disassembled into six to ten parts (I think this may have allowed it to be carried on a cableway). It also seems to be a bit smaller from the gun you mentioned.
I'm a big fan of the SU-76M because of its excellent infantry support abilities and hybrid design. While not organic to infantry, the emphasis on the mobility of artillery minimized any communication problems.
I love ur videos and thank you for being so informative and unbiased. 1 small tip for future filming though...it's somewhat distracting having that bright light in the ceiling in the center of the shot. Keep up the great work!
The infantry guns were primary direct firing weapons. Artillery became in the cource of world war 1 a primary indirect firing weapon. That lead to a capability gap that was field by systems like the infantry gun.
@@tedarcher9120 They could fire indirect but the primary purpose was direct infantry support. They could fire upper and lower angulation groups (above and below 45°) but with a range of a bit more than 3km (IG18) that is quiet short. That direct fire capability made a difference compared to cheaper mortars, the other classical infantry support weapon.
Last time I just happened to be in that museum during a special exhibition("Male war, female peace?" or something like that), real great. I can definetly recommend it, if someone is visiting Dresden. Also really cool was the Historisch-Technisches Museum (historical-technical museum) in Peenemünde. That one is all about planes and rockets.
The German army was not the only to use regimental guns. The Soviet and US infantry regiments also had regimental cannon companies for direct support. In addition to heavy mortars being used after the war, you also get recoilless rifles that could be carried by hand, or transported by vehicles or aircraft, which could provide direct firepower at the regimental or battalion level both against infantry and armour.
US cannon companies were still used as indirect fire weapons, however, so they weren't really analogous to german infantry guns. It seems to me the tactical role played by the infantry gun was carried out by mortars, extremely responsive field artillery, and plentiful tanks in the WW2 US Army. The cannon companies were frequently folded into the divisional artillery for better control.
Well, I only know a little thing about the US Army, so I don't know how the Wehrmacht utilize their artilleries. But I don't believe there was a huge difference between the US Army and the Wehrmacht in WW2. Infantry Regiment, in triangle divisions, was the basic unit of "combined arms warfare" in WW2. With the smallest "real" HQ with basic operation, intellegence, and administration(basically personnel and logistics) capabilities, infantry regiments could handle a varieties of tasks and threats, and of course asked for all kinds of forces it could handle to be augmented as a whole team for doing the job. Clearly, infantry regiment needed artillery. However, why were there "light" artilleries in the infantry regiments whereas the "heavy" artilleries were in the artillery battalions? Why not put all artillery pieces into the artillery battalions which could support the infantry regiments to avoid issues like maintenance and logistics? Well, the answer is related to how the artillery units worked. According to the Table of Organizations & Equipments, every (triangular) infantry division in the US Army should have three infantry regiments and 4 artillery battalions(one with 155-mm howitzer and three with 105-mm howitzer). It is a straightforward thinking that three 105-mm battalions should support three infantry regiments respectively and the 155-mm battalion should enhance those 105-mm battalions' firepower. Unfortunately, that was not how the artillery units work. In fact, all 4 artillery battalions in the infantry division were commanded by the DIVISIONAL ARTILLERY HQ for a single task. Meanwhile, non-divisional artillery battalions assigned to corps were organized as artillery groups which were also for only a single task. This means it is possible that only one regiment was covered by the artillery fire support from its own divisional artillery units, and the other two regiments' fire support were "unrelated" to their own division. If the infantry regiment commander needed fire support, he must call the Fire Direction Center of the divisional artillery hq or the artillery group which was covering the same area, not directly to the artillery battalion in the same division. In reality, infantry regiment commanders usually required "real-time" fire support instead of those organized by "plans". The simpliest solution is to augment some lightweight artillery pieces directly into the infantry regiment and commanded directly by the regiment commander himself. This is why there was a Cannon Company equiped with 75-mm howitzers, for both direct fire and indirect fire roles, in every US Army infantry regiments in WW2. Even in modern time, the same requirement still exists. But the means are changed from "infantry artillery pieces" to recoilless rifles, ATGMs, and mortar-howitzers, which are usually found in modern combined-arms battalions.
Absolutely wrong. The centralized fire direction center allows any artillery unit in range to respond to calls for fire. This is precisely why US artillery was vastly more responsive than its german counterparts. A single US observer could get fire from many artillery battalions. In reality a US infantry division could normally count on its own artillery plus Corps and Army batteries. Additonally, some US infantry divisions took the cannon companies way from their infantry regiments and put them under the control of divisional artillery so that they would be better employed and *more* responsive to more units. This would never have happened if your theory were correct. The US counterpart to the (frankly obsolescent) german infantry gun was the infantry mortar, which could engage similar targets out to about the same range and was under the control of the rifle company commanders (lighter mortars) and infantry battalion (heavier mortars). Since the war virtually every army in the world has converted to the US system.
@@executivedirector7467 the Germans had medium and heavy mortars. The German 8cm gw34 mortar was more or less equvilient to the US 81mm mortar and the German 10.5cm mortar was more or less equvilient to the US 107mm chemical mortar (called so because it was initially Intende to be a mainly smoke launcher, but was used mostly for HE in ww2) the Germans also copied the soviet 120mm mortar (which was then copied by most armies in or shortly after ww2. The us army still uses a 120mm mortar which it got after ww2) What the us had in terms of mortars that the Germans didn't have were 60mm mortars. The Germans had 50mm mortars but they weren't used the same way. But since the concept was eventually dropped by the Americans and was not generally copied by NATO you can't say the America mortar system of ww2 was copied by most let alone everyone. The US did however adopt the infantry gun concept by the end of ww2, see the M20 recoiless rifle (not to be confused with the M20 super bazooka), while carrying Heat rounds the 75mm M20 was primarily used for direct fire HE support for the infantry. Ie its an infantry gun in all but name. The American 10th mountain division also continued to use 37mm model 1916 Infantry guns when the rest of the us army dropped them (like you, thinking mortars would be fine). Evidently they (the 10th mountain div) were proved correct by the adoption of the 75mm M20 rr in 1945. The us still use recoiless rifles in an Infantry gun role (see m3 K Carl Gustav) granted re oiless rifles are also used as at weapons starting with the M40. But especially due to atgms they are primarily used for their cheap, portable HE rounds
@@executivedirector7467 As if that wasn't efficient enough, there was also a direct line to any air cover - based on the weather conditions, of course.
This weapon needs to be looked at in the context of world war one trench warfare. It could be used to bring direct fire that could move with the infantry , as well as attacking machine gun nests, bunkers, etc., in the same way a TOW or Javelin missile can be used against fortified positions. The US used a light 37mm man portable gun as well in ww1
Not even a gun that small is being dragged across the shall blasted, muddy hell hole of No Mans Land on the Western front by guys on foot. Let alone its ammunition. Stokes mortars were bad enough but they were man portable. One of the main reasons for attacks in WWI bogging down after initial success is literally because they could not even move light field guns across No Mans Land without them getting bogged down and the infantry outran their artillery support envelope. To move artillery up required sappers to start laying trackways through the shell holes and the mud.
The main reason that there are no more "Infanteriegeschuetze" is that the brigade that replaced the regiment got an artillery battallion. In some exercises of the Bundeswehr a mixed battalion was set up with a battery of self propelled howitzers included.
the idea of leIG18 is the perfect example of the best gun as heavy weapon for infantry and worked till attack drons era appeared at the battle fields that means it worked the whole XX century
This discussion reminds me of a World War II Bill Mauldin cartoon, where an infantry officer is speaking into a field telephone near a smoking 60mm mortar. Said he: "Company K Artillery, Capt. Jones speaking."
As esoteric as the subject matter is, I've watched this video numerous times and learn something new every time. From a revisionist point of view, why weren't these mounted to panzer 1s, especially the panzerjager 1 once it was clear they weren't as effective as hoped? With a lower gun shield, they could have stayed behind the infantry and support attacks and defend against enemy assault as well. And I cant imagine how the increase in mobility and ammo capacity could be ignored.
Love this little gun. It practically doubles a company's strength. Does anyone know what the cylindrical protrusion with the (black??) cap is? It sticks out about 6" from the gun shield. A tail light? Thats all I can think of.
at 3600 lbs, that is very heavy for a gun of that size. 75 pac howitzer is about 2000 lbs. was it horse or mule portable like the 75mm howitzer used by the USA?
History Gaming Verified That is a good point. I love learning about all the different half-track / trucks the Germans developed to maximize their mobility and offensive capabilities. It seemed like they had a vehicle for every caliber of artillery. You can see how coveted a Kettenkrad would be so that the infantry could be as mobile as possible with its light artillery.
I hope you do a video on the US cannon companies. In WW2 they had 6 105mm Howitzer M3 is what they were supposed to have but really seemed to be what ever the CO wanted
The US Army had a similar gun. It was called the Pack howitzer, which could be broken down into mule loads. This would also be used by glider born troops. Man portable rockets, Like the LAW and Karl Gustav replaced it. There are also the 40mm grenade launchers and upgraded 81mm mortars which covered the organic support function. Thanks.
yeah, I actually cut out the part with the pack howitzer, since I know they existed (I encountered them in my 2016 video on the USMC Division setup from 1944), but could not provide very much detail during the talk.
The British were developing a 3.7 inch infantry gun in 1942/43 the RA was opposed, but the infantry eventually killed the idea because they considered the crewing requirements to be too manpower intensive.
@Tom Sanders The British artillery was a close second to the US artillery in their methods, and both armies vastly outclassed the germans in this regard. Neither army needed an infantry-accompanying gun. They had extremely responsive fire support from their regular artillery; they had infantry mortars; and finally they had so many tanks that most infantry divisions had a battalion of tanks pretty much all the time.
I was looking for an answer to why the British were the only main combatant to not have an infantry gun but this answered it. I can almost guarantee though that if they had one, they'd have fastened it to a universal carrier. They did it with 2 and 3 inch mortars.
10:39 Jens Wehner is right: Today the Infanteriegeschütz weighs 17 kg is named Carl Gustav, is carried by one man, and with two others carrying the ammunition.
Warum wurden Zentimeter, um die Kaliber der Geschütze zu bezeichnen, benutzt? (1. und 2. Weltkrieg) Heute werden nur noch Millimeter benutzt. Wann änderte sich das?
Since it says the infantry gun should be employed against targets where mortars are not effective, does that mean the Le.Ig 18 is more powerful than the 81mm mortar? If so, why?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized It was "Close Combat" series of games from I believe from Slitherine. Is considered a fine tool for the reserve officer training corp or the OSO also. The particular scenario I described was the "Thin Gray Line" in "Cross of Iron" it helped that the troops were combat veterans or I would have lost my "cool" ;-)
@@dlifedt They began to appear in WWII and we can see that there is the shift towards the heavier mortars over the infantry guns as they were both easier to transport and still had the same or better punch.
more convenient solutions at hand: mortars for suppression, man-portable antitank weapons and underbarrel grenade launchers for point targets. Also nowadays if you need that sort of firepower, you're likely going to get it from armored vehicle.
Question: Are the anti tank companies subordinate to the infantry regiment or were they part of a separate batallion, because in your video on the german infantry division it looked like it was a separate battalion rather than a company attached to each infantry regiment.
before looking into the book: probably both, so organic AT in the regiment and an AT battalion additionally. Looking into the book, yeah, I was correct: 1 Company for each Infantry Regiment and a AT battalion with 3 companies.
They (western militaries)'have tried to replace smaller mortars and these sort of weapons with underbarrel grenade launchers at company level. They just dont have the range or power to do anywhere near as much damage. Small mortars and direct fire high explosive rockets like the matador should be very well stacked in infantry fighting vehicles and any smaller vehicles. it gives you an instant bit of artillery without having to fiddle about with communications or be blown up by an A10. Something crazy like 60% of british casualties were caused by mortars during the Normandy campaign.
@@samstewart4807 Its just a guess. Darchinifel has a comperhensive video, for more detail you will have to look for sources. th-cam.com/video/zt1O8RIX9pw/w-d-xo.html
I wondered why the polish and French campaign salvageable panzer 2s weren't converted to stug 2s. I assumed the weapon of choice would've been the same as in the stug 3- the 7.5cm KwK L/24. If it fits in an sdkfz 251/9, it will fit in a panzer 2 with a hetzer type front armor but at a 50* slope and sides at 30*. Move the fuel tank to the rear like a marder 2 and you have room for crewman #4, the loader and ammo. After 12cm mortars were captured, simply remove the turrets from recent repairable pz2s and use them as 12cm mortar carriers. Maybe mount a low shield around the deck and store ammo. Mount the mortar on a turn table on the floor of the hull and again move the fuel tank to the rear for internal ammo storage. The LiFG 18 would be better mounted to panzer 1s and panzerjager 1s. The panzer 1s and LiFG 18s are both better utilized as indirect fire platforms. Increased mobility and ammo capacity and a radio in each tank would have been ideal. Shoot an' scoot with a battery would be devastating and counter battery proof.
@@demonprinces17 Virtually all German Infantry units were horse drawn. Horse drawn guns don't use rubber wheels which requires oil. One of the main reasons for attacking the Soviet Union was oil. Germany was short of oil before conquering western Europe, and after that they had to supply oil for the conquered territories as well. It all gets down to oil.
@@richardcutts196 Erm, rubber does not require oil, it requires rubber.... as in it is a seperate and distinct material that comes from a completely different source. It is NOT a product of the petrochemical industry. It actually comes from a tropical tree, which is why Germany did not have much of the stuff, as they had no access to the tropics once they were at war. They did not have a whole lot of oil either, but that is another matter.
@@executivedirector7467 they have a different purpose. APC is just an armored taxi, BMP is light anti-infantry and anti-tank support weapon which works as a part of infantry unit. STUG is not a self-propelled gun like Wespe or Hummel, it's an attack gun. Another examples of attack guns are su-76, su-152, etc.
@@tedarcher9120 NO. The APC of WW2 and the 1950s led to the BMP. The APC is indeed an "armored taxi"....tis is exactly why the infantry fighting vehicle (BMP, Marder, Bradley, Warrior etc) was invented. Their lineage is unmistakably through the APC however. The *primary* mission of the IFV is to safely transport the rifle squad and give it a base of fire. The term "self propelled gun" absolutely applies to the Stug. Of course it is different from indirect fire weapons such as the Hummel. It's role of direct-fire infantry support was taken over by tanks. The IFV can do both.
So the RPG/shoulder fired rocket launcher replaced it. Except RPGs aren't capable of plunging fire. I I geuss that's why 50mm mortars are still used in U.S. military.
that is what the US cannon companies use today in place of the 105mm Howitzer M3
4 ปีที่แล้ว
@@herosstratos Not always. For the Mali mission (Desert Falcon, now stopped), mortars were used because the experience during the Battle For Chora showed that only having heavy artillery and one or two ATGWs doesn't work. Insurgents got into the town of Chora and ISAF was effectively reduced to rifles and grenades. Couldn't fire the heavy guns into a civilian area. Which is why that ended up being such a crazy battle; suddenly nobody had any idea if ISAF still had the numbers and fire supremacy and we're not russian enough to murder a couple thousand civilians to kill those two dozen insurgents hiding in that neighbourhoods. If a similar attack towards the main base had taken place in Mali, they could've swept streets with the mortars without the risk of massive loss of life asociated with heavy artillery strikes on civilian neighbourhouds. (not to say firing mortars in neighbourhoods is safe, but 155 mm artillery shell or 81/120 mortar, the latter is still less collatoral damage) So contrary to Chora and other Afghanistan experiences, fire supremacy for the insurgents would've always been off the table, even in towns The worst combat losses and grimmest odds in Afghanistan was when ambushes and surprise raids achieved insurgent fire supremacy, such as the fall of COP Keating, which, not helping my argument, got its main fire from a mortar pit. There were some pretty bad experiences with patrols (non-combat tasks) numbering as low as 7-8 in unarmoured vehicles, despite risk asessments, so those were not used during the last years of Afghanistan. In Mali, not so much. A couple guys on quads were enough to form a light patrol. Plus of course in Mali, no attempt was made to actively control the surrounding desert. It was less about territorial control as about the chances of running into insurgents on the roads and in towns. Insurgents would've always been fought inside the town if it had happened at all. Ranges were much longer and insurgents less well-armed. There was no chance of a couple hundred angry guys with heavy machineguns, RPGs and mortars showing up suddenly. That makes mortars in flexible deployment with a group of heavy mortars as base security a good option. Although to be fair, I think it was also to cut costs that they went for mortars exclusively. There was even an accident there when their ammunition exploded under their hands because it was bad leftover stock that was cheap.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized yes sir they were, but rifle grenades became effective enough to challange infantry guns (in German use) from 1942 when Germans introduced Gewehrgranatgerät - G.Gr.Ger. k98k.
@@ninaakari5181 ...how? I've never saw a rifle grenade that can launch such a heavy projectile up to thousands of meters. The range and power of rifle grenade are inherently limited by the launcher/rifle and the shooter's capability to withstand recoil.
Rifle grenades are a joke compared to 75mm HE, or 80mm mortars... Modern man held rocket launchers may have similar fire power, but not rifle grenades...
I imagine there are times when direct fire is very useful (for example, in built-up areas or trying to knock out a small target). The Germans certainly used mortars a lot more.
Dude, a little more angles on the gun? All the talk in the world of doctrine gets you nowhere if you don't even show us a detailed video of said infantry gun. This video gets a fail. Sorry...
I can see using this type of artillery in WWI but, this type of artillery would not be as effective in WWII. The German infantry would have been much more effective if they used a Garand type rifle instead of the Mauser rifle and also used the MP43 instead of the MP40.
Is this a joke? The reason that big guns became so important in WW1 was they tended to stay in place for long periods of time. It was King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden who started mixing "smaller" guns with the troops.
Germans started ww1 and made the news with their 420mm howitzer, it also enabled them to move fast as heavy static defenses could be destroyed in hours
Want to see more museum trips & interviews?
Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here:
» patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
There's old saying "artillery is always late". It's less so if they're attached to your company. Having two or three howitzers or mortars per battlalion isn't enough. You want at least six per battalion and one mortar squad per company...at least. Calling division artillery to have 155mm drop on a sniper or squad is overkill and waste of resources.
Good video. Yes the infantry gun is basically replaced by various mortars, fifle grenade launchers, recoiless and rocket propelled weapons (like Carl Gustav and TOW etc.) in post war times. Also one has to reflect that modern Western Arnies were mostly post war configured for defensive operations. The early war German infantry and Panzer regiments were very good attack units based on specialised tasks. The early Stug and the MG34 were highly suited to breakthrough tactic. Late war and post war emphasis is on blasting the Soviets as they attack.
i almost never complain about video or audio but in this case I found Jens very hard to hear and that compounded with his accent ( which should be no excuse for me) i missed a lot of his words. Nonetheless a lot of very interesting info.
I wish I could afford to support 😟 I always make a point to watch the ads I get for your videos tho! I'm not even sure that makes a difference but I hope it does lol
@@ElHombreGato thank you very much!
you've come a long way from "that guy with the german accent who talks about the statistics of WWII" to someone who wheres a tux to speak with experts in their field, durring live interviews. cant wait to see where you go over the next 4 years
90% thats an austrian accent?
Very poorly fitting though.
reminds me of Ian Mccollum's journey from a guy who reviews funky forgotten firearms to a guy who reviews funky forgotten firearms but with backing from museums & government institutions.
@@aenorist2431 Sounds the same as southern German.
@@scratchy996 It's definitely Austrian/Bavarian accent, Bavarian and Austrian Dialects are very similar.
The part at the back that “digs in” to adsorb the recall is usually called a “spade”. The part from the spade forward to the firing area is usually called the “trail”. An AT gun would usually have two trails extended from the firing part with a spade on the end of each trail.
The Swedish king Gustav II Adolf could probably be called one of the earliest pioneers of small, integrated infantry guns during and before the 30 years war. He even experimented with some super light leaher canons (didn't go so well). His work really gave the swedish armies' formations a flexible source of local firepower, independent of the large stationary batteries that the imperials couldn't match for quite some time.
And that's why his successors name was used for the Bofors 84mm "recoilless" rifle m/48, which is essentially a 14kg shoulder fired 20pdr. general purpose field gun...
In every squad.
It replaced both 6 and 8cm mortars as well as anti tank rifles and the Bofors 37 and 57mm anti tank guns in the Swedish army at the time of it's introduction.
@@SonsOfLorgar How can "Carl Gustav" be derived from Gustav Adolf? It is much likelier that it was named after the then prince and now king Carl XVI Gustav.
Oh Gentlemen......
The guns you are talking about.
Are called Carl Gustavfor two reasons.
1. The arms manufacturing plant. Is called Carl Gustav.
2. The king of Sweden is Carl Gustav and he(and his family) own(the majority shares) of the company.
By the by,
The Swedish crown owns the majority shares in all major Swedish companies.
The hussites did it first!
@@pinocchio418 You mean en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort#Czechs_and_Hussites ?
It is so interesting to hear the facts straight from the specialists and this channel does that. Kudos!
If anyone is interested in the leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18, Ian from ForgottenWeapons has featured it in a video of his; just look up "Germany's New Light Howitzer: the 7.5cm le.IG 18"
I was able to handle one a few years ago and it's a surprisingly well-balanced gun, one or two people can move it short distances over flat ground with relative ease, if you want to move it greater distances you definitely need more manpower or some way to tow it, but it in general it's an extremely handy piece of ordnance.
A big thanks to both of you making these great presentations in English. Making good content is a favor of itself-making them in a language that's not your native tongue is another favor. Danke zweimal!!!
I really like Jens Wehner. Great interviews, hope there will be more!
MHV looking dapper in his suit 👌
chris younts either that, or he’s up in court 😂
At the end of WW1 40 % of French soldiers were in the artillery. At the end, the Germans were hammered relentlessly. It was beyond your imagination.
At the end, France had 20 times the guns they had in 1914. The Canadians that broke through the Hindenburg line did so partially by firing close to a million rounds in two days. By early October, 12,000 tons of ammunition were fired every day. The French 75s were firing 280,000 rounds a day.
At the end of WW1 French Army had some 10.000 artillery pieces,why they used almost %40 of French Army to operate that guns?
Erich Von Manstein I can’t vouch for the numbers, but the artillery branch would include far more than just the men manning the guns. It would include numerous support personnel, transportation and logistics.
Also, what was considered part of the artillery? For example machineguns were originally part of the artillery branch in many militaries. It also wouldn’t be surprising if tanks were part of the artillery.
@@erichvonmanstein1952 More and bigger guns means more crew per gun. Also, lots of the men were logistical support personnel, not actually manning guns, but dedicated to supporting the artillery battalions so they were considered artillery men. The main thing is that by 1918, the French were focusing their dwindling manpower on the gunners, not the grunts.
@@88porpoise in WWI France, the tanks units were called "artillerie spéciale" (special artillery) and were assimilated with the artillery (Estienne was an artillery colonel)
It makes sense for infantry to have immediate access to small field guns in early WWII. They do have need sometimes for heavy firepower and don’t have time to wait around for the artillery in the rear to hit the target, if it is even available at all. While they did have rifle grenades and light mortars they aren’t as effective against bunkers or other fortified positions or even light armor. And rifle grenades are fairly cumbersome to use. Later on they had rocket launchers/panzerfausts/recoilless rifles which give that strong punch and are much more man portable.
The "arms" coming off the back of towed artillery are called Trails. As mentioned in another comment - at the end of the trails were the Spades, the shovel like things that dug into the ground to hold the weapon in place when it fired. There are Handles on the trails which the crew can lift to unearth the spades and turn the entire piece to change it's facing. Towed artillery has a limited traverse for aiming the gun but most be turned in the general direction of the target so that it can be aimed with it's traversing mechanism.
The 105mm M3 Howitzer had a split trail
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_howitzer
was used by Cannon Companies of Infantry Regiments in the American Army.
The 75mm Pack Howitzer had a single trail
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M116_howitzer
could be disassembled and was used by Paratroopers, Marines and Mountain Divisions.
.
I really like the addition of Jens, you two work really well together
For a ton of soft attack, of course!
Im not 100 percent sure of this but I think the Swedes in the 1600s were one of the first militaries to implement light artillery tactics in an early form of combined arms. Each infantry division or corps would be assigned a light and mobile artillery piece that was mobile enough to advance close behind the infantry. It not only gave each division or corps a great deal of firepower, but made communication fast. Whereas in the past you may of had to send a rider to communicate with the heavy guns, now you could send a runner and have decisive and quick support.
About 10 years ago I was doing research on the Jacobite Rebellions in Scotland. By 1745 the English were adopting Swedish tactics of light artillery in the infantry. Light artillery firing an early form of canister shot / grape shot was one of many reasons the Scots lost at Culloden Moor. It was devastatingly effective against the terrifying Highland Charge. The light artillery acted like a large shot gun on wheels. It was both deadly and a shock to morale.
Its interesting to think of the development of light artillery or infantry-artillery from the small caliber horse drawn canons to our modern mortar teams. Heck, most US infantrymen have a grenade launcher on their rifle, it could be argued that each infantrymen is his own light artillery support lol.
Id love to see a video covering the development of artillery in the infantry through the Napoleonic and Victorian Eras. Im curious how much (if any) of a roll it played in the Crimean War and / or the Austro-Prussian War.
PS Thanks for the thought inspiring video. I really enjoy all your content. Cheers
now I am suddenly reminded of the sIG 33 and how the troops it was attached with using the thing as a gigantic "EVICTION NOTICE" to any skub hiding in a building by pushing it in an intersection for a clear line of fire... and how ridiculously overkill that thing is for an infantry gun
For those interested in the gun itself, Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons has a video examining the le.IG 18: th-cam.com/video/UcZmeeV2ygE/w-d-xo.html
Xavier Thank you for the Link , I will watch it .
@Bernhardt: Maybe go to the ZMSBw, the “German Mekka of German military history”. The airforce museum is beside and there is a lot of stuff more in Berlin.
In Dresden is the Officer School with Tacticcenter beside.
Bernhard, another thing to be said about this gun is that it was used very well as a mountain gun. It could be disassembled in many parts and carried on mules. So they could easily pass narrow mountain trails, perhaps carried on cables on to high positions as well.
I have a model of this gun in 1/72. I plan in the future take pictures of it and use them to create a drawing illustration of this gun in the Caucasus.
Wasn't that a different gun, a Gebirgsgeschutz? It had the same caliber (75mm) though.
@@godweenausten it was a different gun? I thought it was the same.
@@godweenausten yep, there's another gun. Seems you're right.
@@godweenausten there was actually a mountain version of this infantry gun. The 7.5 cm le.GebIG 18. It featured wooden wheels instead of the metal ones and according to Wikipedia, it could be disassembled into six to ten parts (I think this may have allowed it to be carried on a cableway).
It also seems to be a bit smaller from the gun you mentioned.
@@TheStugbit There you go, now we both know something new.
The blade that accepts the recoil is called a spade.
I think he's talking about the trail, as he mentions other designs at that time has two (called split trail) while the LeIG has only one (box trail).
I'm a big fan of the SU-76M because of its excellent infantry support abilities and hybrid design. While not organic to infantry, the emphasis on the mobility of artillery minimized any communication problems.
The SU-76 were indeed organic to rifle divisions in 1944-45.
I love ur videos and thank you for being so informative and unbiased. 1 small tip for future filming though...it's somewhat distracting having that bright light in the ceiling in the center of the shot. Keep up the great work!
In Warhammer 40k they call it heavy bolter.
I think even the Caliber fits..... I read somewhere the Bullets of a heavy Bolter are as big as a fist
wonderful interview!!!
Thank you both.
The great Nathan Bedford Forrest always had a gun up front with his dismounted cavalrymen. A grunt always loves a gun.
Artillery calling a radio station. " what ever you play...play it loud!
MHV is the TH-camr from another universe
The infantry guns were primary direct firing weapons. Artillery became in the cource of world war 1 a primary indirect firing weapon. That lead to a capability gap that was field by systems like the infantry gun.
No, german infantry guns were indirect weapons, they even had two piece loading so you can change propellent charges
@@tedarcher9120 They could fire indirect but the primary purpose was direct infantry support. They could fire upper and lower angulation groups (above and below 45°) but with a range of a bit more than 3km (IG18) that is quiet short. That direct fire capability made a difference compared to cheaper mortars, the other classical infantry support weapon.
Plunging trajectories are more effective against crew served weapons. Especially if they are dug in. Direct fire is more anti tank and fortifications.
Anyone remember that artillery only meme?
I remember. Far too well.
does not apply for this artillery.this 1 is part of infantry battalions.
sry regiment not battalion my bad
Ah, love that little potato thrower.
Complements 'the door knocker' nicely :)
It's all about them Kartoffeln 🤣
Handy weapon from some scenarios in the original Combat Mission series.
My favorite game is the Combat Mission series!
Last time I just happened to be in that museum during a special exhibition("Male war, female peace?" or something like that), real great. I can definetly recommend it, if someone is visiting Dresden.
Also really cool was the Historisch-Technisches Museum (historical-technical museum) in Peenemünde. That one is all about planes and rockets.
shout out to the mini sub in the back!
The German army was not the only to use regimental guns. The Soviet and US infantry regiments also had regimental cannon companies for direct support.
In addition to heavy mortars being used after the war, you also get recoilless rifles that could be carried by hand, or transported by vehicles or aircraft, which could provide direct firepower at the regimental or battalion level both against infantry and armour.
US cannon companies were still used as indirect fire weapons, however, so they weren't really analogous to german infantry guns. It seems to me the tactical role played by the infantry gun was carried out by mortars, extremely responsive field artillery, and plentiful tanks in the WW2 US Army.
The cannon companies were frequently folded into the divisional artillery for better control.
Well, I only know a little thing about the US Army, so I don't know how the Wehrmacht utilize their artilleries. But I don't believe there was a huge difference between the US Army and the Wehrmacht in WW2.
Infantry Regiment, in triangle divisions, was the basic unit of "combined arms warfare" in WW2. With the smallest "real" HQ with basic operation, intellegence, and administration(basically personnel and logistics) capabilities, infantry regiments could handle a varieties of tasks and threats, and of course asked for all kinds of forces it could handle to be augmented as a whole team for doing the job. Clearly, infantry regiment needed artillery.
However, why were there "light" artilleries in the infantry regiments whereas the "heavy" artilleries were in the artillery battalions? Why not put all artillery pieces into the artillery battalions which could support the infantry regiments to avoid issues like maintenance and logistics? Well, the answer is related to how the artillery units worked. According to the Table of Organizations & Equipments, every (triangular) infantry division in the US Army should have three infantry regiments and 4 artillery battalions(one with 155-mm howitzer and three with 105-mm howitzer). It is a straightforward thinking that three 105-mm battalions should support three infantry regiments respectively and the 155-mm battalion should enhance those 105-mm battalions' firepower. Unfortunately, that was not how the artillery units work. In fact, all 4 artillery battalions in the infantry division were commanded by the DIVISIONAL ARTILLERY HQ for a single task. Meanwhile, non-divisional artillery battalions assigned to corps were organized as artillery groups which were also for only a single task. This means it is possible that only one regiment was covered by the artillery fire support from its own divisional artillery units, and the other two regiments' fire support were "unrelated" to their own division. If the infantry regiment commander needed fire support, he must call the Fire Direction Center of the divisional artillery hq or the artillery group which was covering the same area, not directly to the artillery battalion in the same division. In reality, infantry regiment commanders usually required "real-time" fire support instead of those organized by "plans". The simpliest solution is to augment some lightweight artillery pieces directly into the infantry regiment and commanded directly by the regiment commander himself. This is why there was a Cannon Company equiped with 75-mm howitzers, for both direct fire and indirect fire roles, in every US Army infantry regiments in WW2.
Even in modern time, the same requirement still exists. But the means are changed from "infantry artillery pieces" to recoilless rifles, ATGMs, and mortar-howitzers, which are usually found in modern combined-arms battalions.
Absolutely wrong. The centralized fire direction center allows any artillery unit in range to respond to calls for fire. This is precisely why US artillery was vastly more responsive than its german counterparts. A single US observer could get fire from many artillery battalions. In reality a US infantry division could normally count on its own artillery plus Corps and Army batteries.
Additonally, some US infantry divisions took the cannon companies way from their infantry regiments and put them under the control of divisional artillery so that they would be better employed and *more* responsive to more units. This would never have happened if your theory were correct.
The US counterpart to the (frankly obsolescent) german infantry gun was the infantry mortar, which could engage similar targets out to about the same range and was under the control of the rifle company commanders (lighter mortars) and infantry battalion (heavier mortars).
Since the war virtually every army in the world has converted to the US system.
@@executivedirector7467 the Germans had medium and heavy mortars. The German 8cm gw34 mortar was more or less equvilient to the US 81mm mortar and the German 10.5cm mortar was more or less equvilient to the US 107mm chemical mortar (called so because it was initially Intende to be a mainly smoke launcher, but was used mostly for HE in ww2) the Germans also copied the soviet 120mm mortar (which was then copied by most armies in or shortly after ww2. The us army still uses a 120mm mortar which it got after ww2)
What the us had in terms of mortars that the Germans didn't have were 60mm mortars. The Germans had 50mm mortars but they weren't used the same way. But since the concept was eventually dropped by the Americans and was not generally copied by NATO you can't say the America mortar system of ww2 was copied by most let alone everyone.
The US did however adopt the infantry gun concept by the end of ww2, see the M20 recoiless rifle (not to be confused with the M20 super bazooka), while carrying Heat rounds the 75mm M20 was primarily used for direct fire HE support for the infantry. Ie its an infantry gun in all but name.
The American 10th mountain division also continued to use 37mm model 1916 Infantry guns when the rest of the us army dropped them (like you, thinking mortars would be fine). Evidently they (the 10th mountain div) were proved correct by the adoption of the 75mm M20 rr in 1945.
The us still use recoiless rifles in an Infantry gun role (see m3 K
Carl Gustav) granted re oiless rifles are also used as at weapons starting with the M40. But especially due to atgms they are primarily used for their cheap, portable HE rounds
@@executivedirector7467 As if that wasn't efficient enough, there was also a direct line to any air cover - based on the weather conditions, of course.
This weapon needs to be looked at in the context of world war one trench warfare. It could be used to bring direct fire that could move with the infantry , as well as attacking
machine gun nests, bunkers, etc., in the same way a TOW or Javelin missile can be used against fortified positions. The US used a light 37mm man portable gun as well in ww1
Not even a gun that small is being dragged across the shall blasted, muddy hell hole of No Mans Land on the Western front by guys on foot. Let alone its ammunition. Stokes mortars were bad enough but they were man portable. One of the main reasons for attacks in WWI bogging down after initial success is literally because they could not even move light field guns across No Mans Land without them getting bogged down and the infantry outran their artillery support envelope. To move artillery up required sappers to start laying trackways through the shell holes and the mud.
The main reason that there are no more "Infanteriegeschuetze" is that the brigade that replaced the regiment got an artillery battallion. In some exercises of the Bundeswehr a mixed battalion was set up with a battery of self propelled howitzers included.
the idea of leIG18 is the perfect example of the best gun as heavy weapon for infantry and worked till attack drons era appeared at the battle fields
that means it worked the whole XX century
This discussion reminds me of a World War II Bill Mauldin cartoon, where an infantry officer is speaking into a field telephone near a smoking 60mm mortar. Said he: "Company K Artillery, Capt. Jones speaking."
As esoteric as the subject matter is, I've watched this video numerous times and learn something new every time.
From a revisionist point of view, why weren't these mounted to panzer 1s, especially the panzerjager 1 once it was clear they weren't as effective as hoped? With a lower gun shield, they could have stayed behind the infantry and support attacks and defend against enemy assault as well. And I cant imagine how the increase in mobility and ammo capacity could be ignored.
Love this little gun. It practically doubles a company's strength. Does anyone know what the cylindrical protrusion with the (black??) cap is? It sticks out about 6" from the gun shield. A tail light? Thats all I can think of.
at 3600 lbs, that is very heavy for a gun of that size. 75 pac howitzer is about 2000 lbs. was it horse or mule portable like the 75mm howitzer used by the USA?
A nice example for the more offensive infantry doctrine of Germany even after WW1.
History Gaming Verified
That is a good point. I love learning about all the different half-track / trucks the Germans developed to maximize their mobility and offensive capabilities. It seemed like they had a vehicle for every caliber of artillery. You can see how coveted a Kettenkrad would be so that the infantry could be as mobile as possible with its light artillery.
Another awesome and very informative video.
My favorite gun in Graviteam Tactics :)
I hope you do a video on the US cannon companies. In WW2 they had 6 105mm Howitzer M3 is what they were supposed to have but really seemed to be what ever the CO wanted
don't the 75mm pack howitzer M1, this would be a closer analogue of the 75mm light infantry gun
@@r.gilman4261 Howitzer, pack, 75-mm, M1 was replaced by Howitzer, 75-mm, M3 at least on T/O&E.
Nice suit!
so, you want artillery mr bond?
no, i want it visualized!
The US Army had a similar gun. It was called the Pack howitzer, which could be broken down into mule loads. This would also be used by glider born troops. Man portable rockets, Like the LAW and Karl Gustav replaced it. There are also the 40mm grenade launchers and upgraded 81mm mortars which covered the organic support function. Thanks.
yeah, I actually cut out the part with the pack howitzer, since I know they existed (I encountered them in my 2016 video on the USMC Division setup from 1944), but could not provide very much detail during the talk.
Met someone who's unit transported pack howitzers on mules in Italy for the US army in WW2.
The British were developing a 3.7 inch infantry gun in 1942/43 the RA was opposed, but the infantry eventually killed the idea because they considered the crewing requirements to be too manpower intensive.
@Tom Sanders The British artillery was a close second to the US artillery in their methods, and both armies vastly outclassed the germans in this regard.
Neither army needed an infantry-accompanying gun. They had extremely responsive fire support from their regular artillery; they had infantry mortars; and finally they had so many tanks that most infantry divisions had a battalion of tanks pretty much all the time.
I was looking for an answer to why the British were the only main combatant to not have an infantry gun but this answered it. I can almost guarantee though that if they had one, they'd have fastened it to a universal carrier. They did it with 2 and 3 inch mortars.
The carriage probably isn't split because it's easier to pick up and move around as one solid unit. May not seem like much, but every second counts.
10:39 Jens Wehner is right: Today the Infanteriegeschütz weighs 17 kg is named Carl Gustav, is carried by one man, and with two others carrying the ammunition.
The camera angle is an unusual choice.
Hahahs
Warum wurden Zentimeter, um die Kaliber der Geschütze zu bezeichnen, benutzt? (1. und 2. Weltkrieg) Heute werden nur noch Millimeter benutzt. Wann änderte sich das?
kA vermutlich eine Folge von Standardisierung bzgl NATO.
Bernhard = 'Sharp dressed man!"
Since it says the infantry gun should be employed against targets where mortars are not effective, does that mean the Le.Ig 18 is more powerful than the 81mm mortar? If so, why?
I have a high regard for that short 75mm after successfully using it in a computer simulation training in a rearguard action.
which one?
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized It was "Close Combat" series of games from I believe from Slitherine. Is considered a fine tool for the reserve officer training corp or the OSO also. The particular scenario I described was the "Thin Gray Line" in "Cross of Iron" it helped that the troops were combat veterans or I would have lost my "cool" ;-)
The tires look in decent shape!
I assume less need for infantry artillery nowadays is also due to better communication?
Infantry guns are not used anymore because of the availability of mortars from 80mm to 120mm and automatic grenade launchers like the 40mm GraMaWa.
Weren’t the heavier mortars around in ww2 already? Or did the shift from infantry guns start then?
@@dlifedt They began to appear in WWII and we can see that there is the shift towards the heavier mortars over the infantry guns as they were both easier to transport and still had the same or better punch.
Artillery nowday is mobile
After all, you don't want to be around for the retaliation strike, which will definitely come
more convenient solutions at hand: mortars for suppression, man-portable antitank weapons and underbarrel grenade launchers for point targets. Also nowadays if you need that sort of firepower, you're likely going to get it from armored vehicle.
Question: Are the anti tank companies subordinate to the infantry regiment or were they part of a separate batallion, because in your video on the german infantry division it looked like it was a separate battalion rather than a company attached to each infantry regiment.
before looking into the book: probably both, so organic AT in the regiment and an AT battalion additionally.
Looking into the book, yeah, I was correct: 1 Company for each Infantry Regiment and a AT battalion with 3 companies.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized My hoi4 divisions are ruined now
@@AdmiralSnackbar-iw5mg I suspect, I discussed this issue in my historical hoi 4 division guide from 2016.
Like who is it for other then supporting the infantry, giving them the means of artillering makes logical sense.
They (western militaries)'have tried to replace smaller mortars and these sort of weapons with underbarrel grenade launchers at company level. They just dont have the range or power to do anywhere near as much damage. Small mortars and direct fire high explosive rockets like the matador should be very well stacked in infantry fighting vehicles and any smaller vehicles. it gives you an instant bit of artillery without having to fiddle about with communications or be blown up by an A10.
Something crazy like 60% of british casualties were caused by mortars during the Normandy campaign.
what is the circular object behind the host?
Looks like half a midget submarine.
@@ineednochannelyoutube5384 yes I am sure can you post some info on that???
@@samstewart4807 Its just a guess. Darchinifel has a comperhensive video, for more detail you will have to look for sources. th-cam.com/video/zt1O8RIX9pw/w-d-xo.html
The infantry would have been far better served by an organic and cheaper StuG 2 armed with a LeIG 18 than with the actual StuG 3... they didnt get.
I wondered why the polish and French campaign salvageable panzer 2s weren't converted to stug 2s. I assumed the weapon of choice would've been the same as in the stug 3- the 7.5cm KwK L/24. If it fits in an sdkfz 251/9, it will fit in a panzer 2 with a hetzer type front armor but at a 50* slope and sides at 30*. Move the fuel tank to the rear like a marder 2 and you have room for crewman #4, the loader and ammo.
After 12cm mortars were captured, simply remove the turrets from recent repairable pz2s and use them as 12cm mortar carriers. Maybe mount a low shield around the deck and store ammo. Mount the mortar on a turn table on the floor of the hull and again move the fuel tank to the rear for internal ammo storage.
The LiFG 18 would be better mounted to panzer 1s and panzerjager 1s. The panzer 1s and LiFG 18s are both better utilized as indirect fire platforms. Increased mobility and ammo capacity and a radio in each tank would have been ideal. Shoot an' scoot with a battery would be devastating and counter battery proof.
9:29 called a "spade" like a shovel (spade).
with the spades being attached to the trails
.
Strange to think that it brings similar firepower to the table compared to early stugs
Interesting that the gun has rubber tires, since most infantry used horse drawn transport.
This IG is probably from one of the rarer motorised or half track unit then.
Thought all made to be towed by truck
@@demonprinces17 Virtually all German Infantry units were horse drawn. Horse drawn guns don't use rubber wheels which requires oil. One of the main reasons for attacking the Soviet Union was oil. Germany was short of oil before conquering western Europe, and after that they had to supply oil for the conquered territories as well. It all gets down to oil.
@@richardcutts196 Erm, rubber does not require oil, it requires rubber.... as in it is a seperate and distinct material that comes from a completely different source. It is NOT a product of the petrochemical industry. It actually comes from a tropical tree, which is why Germany did not have much of the stuff, as they had no access to the tropics once they were at war. They did not have a whole lot of oil either, but that is another matter.
alganhar1 synthetic rubber uses oil and Germany had no access to natural rubber.
Wow, the suit and tie! You look very impressive. Did you have a hot date or job interview afterwards?
Can you do an episode about guns mounted on German halftracks?
Sadly one file on that was not available in the archives this time.
11:51 I thought you should salut with full hand, not with just 2 fingers.
Ps.
Mayby video about customs and "savoir vivre" in military?
Unless you are Polish....
@@knutdergroe9757 but he is Austrian, that's why I asked
That is not a salute.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized so what is thys?
Cold war stug was called BMP-1. Same basic idea, but infantry can ride inside
Very different concept
@@executivedirector7467 nah, basically the same
@@tedarcher9120 Not even close. The BMP evolved from the armored personnel carrier, not the self propelled gun.
@@executivedirector7467 they have a different purpose. APC is just an armored taxi, BMP is light anti-infantry and anti-tank support weapon which works as a part of infantry unit. STUG is not a self-propelled gun like Wespe or Hummel, it's an attack gun. Another examples of attack guns are su-76, su-152, etc.
@@tedarcher9120 NO. The APC of WW2 and the 1950s led to the BMP. The APC is indeed an "armored taxi"....tis is exactly why the infantry fighting vehicle (BMP, Marder, Bradley, Warrior etc) was invented.
Their lineage is unmistakably through the APC however. The *primary* mission of the IFV is to safely transport the rifle squad and give it a base of fire.
The term "self propelled gun" absolutely applies to the Stug. Of course it is different from indirect fire weapons such as the Hummel. It's role of direct-fire infantry support was taken over by tanks.
The IFV can do both.
I think in modern warfare it is very easy to call in attilery suport.
Even in WW2 it was very easy if you were in the US or British army.
these were the guns killing a lot at omaha beach cause they had doubled the amount
Roman legions had their own organic artillery... so perhaps the concept is even older than you guys give it credit for! ;p
I know this is a dumb question but why was gun shield shaped that way? Seems like a lot of unneeded work to shape it like that.
Protection against Small arms fire
Particularlry chances of ricochets
So the RPG/shoulder fired rocket launcher replaced it. Except RPGs aren't capable of plunging fire. I I geuss that's why 50mm mortars are still used in U.S. military.
These guns are surprisingly well balanced, in Ian's video you can see how easy a single man can lift them up: th-cam.com/video/UcZmeeV2ygE/w-d-xo.html
Because why not?
A bomber can quickly change from bomber to flying hospital to artillery piece. Just saying.
Looking like a snack in that suit 👀
Mortars and direct fire ant tank guns
Because BOOOOOOOM!
Today everyone uses 120mm mortars instead of those weird guns.
or 81mm
Alexander Seven Read again: 2:44 : “against which mortars are not effective enough“. Today recoilless guns, RPGs or ATGWs are used in this role.
Automatic grenade launcher could do a lot of this.
that is what the US cannon companies use today in place of the 105mm Howitzer M3
@@herosstratos
Not always. For the Mali mission (Desert Falcon, now stopped), mortars were used because the experience during the Battle For Chora showed that only having heavy artillery and one or two ATGWs doesn't work. Insurgents got into the town of Chora and ISAF was effectively reduced to rifles and grenades. Couldn't fire the heavy guns into a civilian area.
Which is why that ended up being such a crazy battle; suddenly nobody had any idea if ISAF still had the numbers and fire supremacy and we're not russian enough to murder a couple thousand civilians to kill those two dozen insurgents hiding in that neighbourhoods.
If a similar attack towards the main base had taken place in Mali, they could've swept streets with the mortars without the risk of massive loss of life asociated with heavy artillery strikes on civilian neighbourhouds. (not to say firing mortars in neighbourhoods is safe, but 155 mm artillery shell or 81/120 mortar, the latter is still less collatoral damage)
So contrary to Chora and other Afghanistan experiences, fire supremacy for the insurgents would've always been off the table, even in towns The worst combat losses and grimmest odds in Afghanistan was when ambushes and surprise raids achieved insurgent fire supremacy, such as the fall of COP Keating, which, not helping my argument, got its main fire from a mortar pit.
There were some pretty bad experiences with patrols (non-combat tasks) numbering as low as 7-8 in unarmoured vehicles, despite risk asessments, so those were not used during the last years of Afghanistan. In Mali, not so much. A couple guys on quads were enough to form a light patrol.
Plus of course in Mali, no attempt was made to actively control the surrounding desert. It was less about territorial control as about the chances of running into insurgents on the roads and in towns. Insurgents would've always been fought inside the town if it had happened at all. Ranges were much longer and insurgents less well-armed. There was no chance of a couple hundred angry guys with heavy machineguns, RPGs and mortars showing up suddenly. That makes mortars in flexible deployment with a group of heavy mortars as base security a good option.
Although to be fair, I think it was also to cut costs that they went for mortars exclusively. There was even an accident there when their ammunition exploded under their hands because it was bad leftover stock that was cheap.
A[rt(s)] OP, that's why.
Presentation of this gun by Forgotten Weapons : th-cam.com/video/UcZmeeV2ygE/w-d-xo.html
Panzerfaust or bazooka didn't replace infantryguns. Rifle granades did (and later portable granade launchers/rifles).
..and recoilles rifles
Rifle grenades were a thing in WW1 already.
@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized yes sir they were, but rifle grenades became effective enough to challange infantry guns (in German use) from 1942 when Germans introduced Gewehrgranatgerät - G.Gr.Ger. k98k.
@@ninaakari5181 ...how? I've never saw a rifle grenade that can launch such a heavy projectile up to thousands of meters.
The range and power of rifle grenade are inherently limited by the launcher/rifle and the shooter's capability to withstand recoil.
Rifle grenades are a joke compared to 75mm HE, or 80mm mortars...
Modern man held rocket launchers may have similar fire power, but not rifle grenades...
Duh
screw the inf gun, i wanna see the submarine!
Nightmares, these are very effective in Company of Heroes 2.
What a waste of materials, mortars where cheaper and lighter.
I imagine there are times when direct fire is very useful (for example, in built-up areas or trying to knock out a small target). The Germans certainly used mortars a lot more.
@@jrd33 they could use the 37 mm pak for that
Completely agree.
Dude, a little more angles on the gun? All the talk in the world of doctrine gets you nowhere if you don't even show us a detailed video of said infantry gun. This video gets a fail. Sorry...
I can see using this type of artillery in WWI but, this type of artillery would not be as effective in WWII. The German infantry would have been much more effective if they used a Garand type rifle instead of the Mauser rifle and also used the MP43 instead of the MP40.
Is this a joke? The reason that big guns became so important in WW1 was they tended to stay in place for long periods of time. It was King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden who started mixing "smaller" guns with the troops.
Germans started ww1 and made the news with their 420mm howitzer, it also enabled them to move fast as heavy static defenses could be destroyed in hours
Nice suit!