British WW1 artillery

[monk2002uk]

Here is a computer-assisted design model that I created and printed for use with 6mm figures. It is a British MkII 6" naval gun, typically used for long-range counter-battery or interdiction fire missions.



Robert

[Silent Invader]

  That’s a nice piece

[fred]

That is a big gun!

Does it share a carriage with the 60pdr, there is a similarity to them, though this has a much longer barrel.

[monk2002uk]

Thank you.

fred, the gun carriage is bigger than the 60 pounder. It shares a common ancestry with the early marks of 8" howitzer, as seen in this CAD view of the work-in-progress:



Robert

[fred]

Thanks - that howitzer looks good too.

[carlos marighela]

Fond memories of the old Britains’ 8”
Gun that fired plastic shells for much of the length of the hallway

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

It is a British MkII 6" naval gun, typically used for long-range counter-battery or interdiction fire missions.

What particular features of the gun (not necessarily the model!) were specific to these functions?  Were some artillery pieces better suited to this type of fire mission, and if so, why?

[monk2002uk]

The British naval gun had a flat long-range trajectory. It was designed for use at sea, where distance counted and the need for howitzer-like high trajectory fire was much less than for land-based warfare. This caused problems for naval gunfire support in the mountainous terrain around Gallipoli for example. Guns in general, compared to howitzers, were better suited to missions that exploited the longer range and did not rely on the need for high trajectory munitions.

Robert

[monk2002uk]

Here is the British 8" howitzer printed for use with 6mm figures:



Robert

[Metternich]

I guess realistically 6mm more accurately reflects the scale of the conflict than either 15mm or 28mm.

[monk2002uk]

I think so, yes. Either 6- or 10mm for visual effect but I have participated in games with army corps (typically two divisions per side) where 15- and 20mm figures have been used very effectively. It is not so much the size of the figures but the ground scale that helps most. WW1 had more dense troop concentrations than WW2, by an order of magnitude. Infantry companies fought on frontages that were held by platoons in WW2 for example. Yet the long range weapon systems, including static machine guns, operated at the same sort of distances. In skirmish games you see a WW1 squad, sometimes a platoon, on table along with HMGs. The latter would have been at least two or more tables away according to ground scale. This makes it hard for gamers to appreciate why very wide frontage attacks were needed.

Robert