Slight OT: Infantry Guns

[Q-Ball]

German, Russian, and lots of armies in WWII made extensive use of Infantry Guns. The Wehrmacht had Infantry Guns, and used them at the Regt. level for direct-fire support mostly (I think), with a smattering of indirect. The Infantry Gun concept probably spawned the Stug (hey, what if it was on TRACKS, and ARMORED?), and other mobile Inf Guns (the sig33 series). At any rate, the Infantry Gun seemed pretty integral to Wehrmacht tactical doctrine.

Not in the US Army though.....not an "Infantry Gun" to be found. Why? What was the firepower substitute for the US Infantry Division?

US Army Regts had a Cannon Co. with the M2 105mm, though this weapon didn't have a gun shield, and was used usually (I think) in indirect fire role. The US Army didn't have an equivalent direct-fire weapon to the Infantry Gun. (Well, except piles of tank-mounted 75mm guns, since US Infantry Divisions routinely had attached armor support).

Anyone knowledgeable at this level of firepower doctrine why the US Army didn't consider Infantry Guns?

[2ndACR]

Not sure if they did, but they had the Priest with a 105mm gun mounted that could be used direct fire. They also had a slew of 75mm armed half tracks.

I also think IIRC, they had a 105,, armed Sherman variant that was a close support weapon.

[ComradeP]

I've been wondering about that myself. Infantry guns, and infantry support firepower in general (MG's, mortars), were one of the few areas where the Germans had an edge over the Americans.

[johnfmonahan]

Tank destroyers were used extensively as Assault Guns. The 105 armed Shermans and the Priests were in Armored units. But remember, Infantry divisions usually had at least one Tank and one Tank Destroyed Bns attached. That's as many as a German Panzer division. And SP arty was occasionally used in the direct fire role. 155 SP gun in Aachen.

The Americans were not short support firepower, believe me. The true constraint on support is ammunition. We had it. In unbeleivable quantities. And the non-divisional units to shoot it.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

German, Russian, and lots of armies in WWII made extensive use of Infantry Guns. The Wehrmacht had Infantry Guns, and used them at the Regt. level for direct-fire support mostly (I think), with a smattering of indirect. The Infantry Gun concept probably spawned the Stug (hey, what if it was on TRACKS, and ARMORED?), and other mobile Inf Guns (the sig33 series). At any rate, the Infantry Gun seemed pretty integral to Wehrmacht tactical doctrine.

Not in the US Army though.....not an "Infantry Gun" to be found. Why? What was the firepower substitute for the US Infantry Division?

US Army Regts had a Cannon Co. with the M2 105mm, though this weapon didn't have a gun shield, and was used usually (I think) in indirect fire role. The US Army didn't have an equivalent direct-fire weapon to the Infantry Gun. (Well, except piles of tank-mounted 75mm guns, since US Infantry Divisions routinely had attached armor support).

Anyone knowledgeable at this level of firepower doctrine why the US Army didn't consider Infantry Guns?

From what I have read, the M2 was supposed to be used in the direct fire infantry support role. However most divisions pulled the guns out of the inf regiments and consolidated them with the regular artillery as extra but inferior 105 howitzers.

The Germans were the first to formally adopt "infantry accompanying guns" as a lesson-learned from WWI when the infantry were unable to get fire support as soon as the formal artillery program completed. So they stripped some guns as much as possible and told the infantry to pull them into the attack so they could get support up front when they really needed it. The British and the Americans looked at the same war and their "lesson-learned" was to put observers with radios up from with the infantry to call in support when and where it was needed.

I'm pretty sure that this info is from one of Hogg's books but I don't remember which one (and it could have even been one of those Ballentine paperbacks with the horrible illustrations).

[Klydon]

The Japanese were big on infantry guns as well.

The big thing from a doctrine stand point of view is that the infantry guns were under direct control of the infantry units. They were not "attached" like assault guns would be. Of course, the infantry had the responsibility of pushing them around as well.

I know the US did not have them and I don't think the Brits used them either and I am pretty sure the Italians took a pass as well.

I think there were several factors in the case of the US and Brits that precluded using infantry guns and that was neither country worried about prime movers for their artillery. Especially in the case of the US, there were a lot of "turf wars". It is a gun so therefore the artillery has to be in charge of it and is not willing to share and the artillery sees no need to give the infantry control of their own guns.

There was a difference with mortars as well, especially big mortars. Hogg had this in one of his books as well. I think with the Russian 120mm mortar, it was controlled by artillery units. German infantry had control of captured versions.

[Q-Ball]

Maybe it is as Pompack says, with turf wars also a factor. US Infantry commanders had very close control of the 82mm Mortar platoons, that was kind of their "pocket artillery", but the US Army was probably #1 when it came to providing close fire support using divisional artillery. They had well-trained forward observers, top-notch communications gear, more tubes than the Germans, better mobility, and more shells. All of this added-up to better fire support from the other end of the telephone line.

The US Army was in many ways a kind of curious doctrinal beast, the "Tank Destroyer" doctrine being one excellent example.

[KenchiSulla]

Do not rule out the british, they made good use of artillery as well.... but dont believe they used infantry guns...

I know the dutch army (I know I know, it lasted just 5 days) made good use of (ancient) infantry guns in a direct fire role.. but that was in a pure defensive role...

[jomni]

Infantry guns can hamper mobility (if not tracked). 
I guess US and UK forces wanted mobility in their infantry formations and the Germans made tracked infantry guns. 

[Navodchik]

In Finland the rough terrain often prevented the use of direct artillery fire support. Our artillery also consisted various different type of guns, some of them were obsolete and dated back before WWI. However, when it comes to the indirect fire and especially defensive fire, I think that our artillery did its difficult job remarkably well. Best example of this would of course be the battle of Tali-Ihantala 1944, where out artillery had a significant role when Soviet attack was stopped. The man and genius behind of Finnish artillery was General of Artillery Vilho Nenonen (in my avatar pic) who developed especially the firing methods and theory and so he helped our little artillery to become accurate and precise instrument of war. Nenonen was perhaps more scientist than a soldier, but his methods could be used as a "backup" even today when all hi-tec systems fail...

And OT may it be, but I couldn't resist saying this, when I did my serving in Finnish army (Coastal artillery) in mid-nineties (I feel so old today!), I was fortunate enough to have my basic artillery training with sligthly modified German WWII 88mm Flak-gun. My job in gun crew was aim the gun vertically. When the commanding officer of the shooting excercise gave the command: "Rapid fire!" (Pikatulta!) I learned why those 88's were so feared about fifty years earlier. The gun was capable of quite quick and accurate firing when the whole crew knew what they were doing. Of course, it also came in to my mind that 88mm gun was very vulnerable against enemy fire...

[PMCN]

The infatntry guns were obsolete weapons that were available so they became incorporated into the German army.  The lack of such obsolete weapons is why the US never went that route as far as I understand the situation.  The Sherman tank was basically their version of the infantry gun; it was intended as an infantry support tank.

I think the same reasoning applies to the commonwealth forces.  The British army didn't have any of these old guns to dispose of, I know the canadian army didn't have much in the way of artillery anyway at the start of the war in 39 so there is no reason to add it in.  The existence of large quantities of older obsolete weapons is the primary reason they were in the TOE, that they are useful is the reason they stayed and so far as I am aware the German's built new guns to keep them in, but my references are on the other side of the atlantic so I can't be sure.  The 75mm Half track was an improvised weapon that worked well so they kept doing it, is also the same sort of thing.