Talk:Ordnance QF 25-pounder

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force World War II task force

I don't see why the

Agreed. Bukvoed 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The Short 25 Pounder is sufficiently different from the standard gun to warrant its own article. In addition, the gun had an interesting development and service history which deserves to be covered in more detail than present. For instance, the development of the gun was a significant achievement of the Australian defence industry during WW2 and was probably the only artillery gun the Australian Army has ever customised to meet its needs. --

Nick Dowling 04:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Disagree. The Australian short 25 pounder shares very little in common with the full sized one. It shares only the breech block and ammunition, other than that it is almost a completely new gun. An analogy might be the difference between the US and British 75mm, both are tank guns, both fire the same ammo, one is based on the french 75mm, the other on the 6 pounder.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.253.146 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Given that the article has none of the content either of you mention here, there seems to be no reason to keep the split in place currently. If you can demonstrate some of this content then feel free, but given that all of the existing versions include such information, I'm skeptical that it warrants such a section. I am re-merging for now.Maury 13:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the short refers to in being used in SE Asia in WW2. Whose definition of SE Asia is being used here? My understanding is that the theatre boundary between SW Pac and SEAC put Borneo in SW Pac, there was definetely no shorts in SEAC because there was a far better version of 25 pdr there, the Jury Axle version. The brains of the Aust Army got together and produced the short, which the actual gunners seemed to think was a bit of a dog (read a few Aust arty unit histories), a couple of Brit NCOs got on the case, produced the jury axle, which everybody seems to have a great success. Nfe 09:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The jury axel, while an improvement, was designed to allow easier towing by vehicles such as jeeps on narrow vehicle tracks in places like Burma. The baby 25 was a pack gun designed for use in places where often the only tracks were walking tracks such as in Borneo & New Guinea. The jury axel version was air transportable only in something the size of a Dakota whereas the broken down pack gun or individual parts thereof could be transported by almost any aircraft capable of landing on the often short & narrow New Guinea highland airfields or could be air dropped. Australia had only a handfull of British pack guns at the start of WWII & didn't need or use them in north africa or the middle east where Australian troops had already been fighting for some time. Japan changed all that, especially in New Guinea (the Japanese did have mountain/pack guns). Since the need was urgent, it was simpler to modify an existing design already manufactured in Australia (over 1,500 standard 25 pounders) rather than start from scratch & had the advantage of ammunition comminality with the standard weapon. If either Britian or USA could have supplied pack/mountain guns in sufficient numbers & quickly enough or if Australia had already been manufacturing them under licence, then the baby 25 would not have been developed. 101.173.8.47 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was for use in jungle areas such as Burma that the 3.45 Burney was designed although the war ended before it could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with weapons like the Burney is that it is similar to the current Carl Gustav. It is a direct fire weapon. If you can't see what you are firing at, its a bit limited, such as in jungles like Borneo or especially the New Guinea highlands. Fine if you want to take out a bunker 100m in front of you. Not so easy when its 25m infront but 100m higher than you or you can only see 50m. The baby 25 pounder was all about PNG. Australian gunners prefered the standard 25 pounder or the US 105 pack gun, no doubt. But US & UK pack guns were rare till late in the war (for non US or UK forces). There is an astounding story of a single standard 25 pounder that Australian gunners managed to manhandle up to the first ridge in the Kokoda Track long running battle. It made it into action but was never going any further. Consider the fact that 2 Australian divisions ended up fighting this battle (one at a time) & a single artillary gun made to to the first ridge is telling. The Baby 25 was a gap filler (like the Boomerang fighter), nothing more. There were better weapons out there but Australia did not have access to them. The Boomerang fighter however, once repurposed (enough alternative interceptors available), turned out to be one of the best ground support fighters of WW2. 144.139.103.173 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the merge between the Short 25 Pounder entry and this entry which Maury Markowitz instituted, despite the vote on this topic being even (I note that Maury didn't bother to vote). --

I didn't bother to vote because no one informed me of the vote. Since, as you say, the vote was split, the revert notice should have been removed. I simply came to one of the pages I wrote, which I do periodically, and found a merge notice. The notice clearly made sense, so I took the time to do the merge. Then there was a revert and a mention of this after it was reverted.

Look, the article in question is ONE PARAGRAPH. That's shorter than most of the versions listed on the page now. I'm sorry if you feel otherwise, but there is clearly no argument to me made for the split as the article exists in its current state. Since I am the vote breaker, we now have three votes to two, the merge vote passes. Maury 13:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To settle this, how about we take it to

Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers? Oberiko 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks for explaining your rationale Maury. I actually agree with it, though I'll probably re-create the short 25 pounder article when I re-find the interesting article I read on its development and use. In future, however, could I suggest that you cast your vote and then wait a few days before taking action after breaking ties on issues such as this? Also, if you're having trouble tracking changes to entries you've contributed to you should add them to your watchlist. --

Nick Dowling 09:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The merge seems correct to me. That is not to say there cannot be a short 25 article eventually. As Wikipedia grows I'm sure it will happen and if someone reads a really good book or long article, feel free to make a thorough page about it. But as an alternative to the one paragraph article, it belongs here (for now). Avraham 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is not the place to get a vote. For that, use, disputed mergers. If you put a merger on disputed mergers, it implies it's obvious or uncontested.

This text was inserted into the head section by an anonimous editor and was later removed by other editor, apparently because of the wording. Nfe 02:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above author is incorrect. The last use of the 25 pounder (Mark 2) in combat was not in 1972 but in 1975/1976 (November 1975/January 1976) in Angola by the South African Defence Force (SADF). The gun was used against the MPLA/Cuban forces. South Africa sided with and fought alongside UNITA. The last battle took place outside LUSO where super charge was used at twilight to target a fleeing vehicle thought to contain MPLA/Cuban commanders. This probably was the last time super charge was used in combat. 4 guns were used. The gunnery unit was 42 Battery. Based in Potchefstroom South Africa. The gun was the primary weapon used to push back MPLA/Cuban forces in central Angola. (198.54.202.146)

Can somebody confirm/disprove the information ? Bukvoed 19:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum, claiming 'firsts' or 'lasts' is always a bit dodgy. However, in this case try 2003, TV news footage clearly showed green coloured 25 pdr being used by Kurdish forces in N Iraq. I also understand that 25 pdr remains in service with the Irish army's equivalent of the TA/National Guard.

We trained on 25 pdrs in the OTC 77-81 and I remember our AIG joking about our call-out liability and the possibility of us being sent to Belize where the guns were still in service. Not sure when they stopped, but until reading this page today I had been under the impression that Belize was the last location where the British Army still used 25 pounders in normal service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.254.5 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 1972 documentary showing 25 pdr's being used during the

Dhofar Rebellion here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.185 (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Should probably be moved to Ordnance QF 25 pounder, in line with the titling of other British gun articles. Emoscopes ^Talk 10:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Consistency is a worthwhile approachGraemeLeggett 12:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of factual errors on this page. For example even the title is wrong! 'Ordnance' in UK service meant basically the barrel assembly, hence gun names include both carriage and ordnance mks.

A reliable source of info is here http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/25pdrsheet.htm The page about gun characteristics explains things like ordnance. The ammo page also gives relevant details and the nonsense about most 18/25 being lost in Norway is highlighted in the info about numbers on the Intro page to guns.

Charge super did not require a muzzle brake. Charge super was part of the original ammo design, but could not be used with the Mk 1 ordnance on 18 pdr carriage (the Range Tables say so).

The muzzle break was introduced for anti-tank shooting when the separate increment was introduced. Furthermore 25pdr was not originally designed to fire high angle,it could only do this by eitehr digging a hole for the spade or building a earth platfome for the wheels, even then you needed a dial sight adaptor and this wasn't available until later in the war!

I think its a matter of opinion whether 25pdr was lamented when it went, nostalgar perhaps, lamenting no. During the '50s 85mm had been developed and 110mm investigated. 25pdr was replaced by Abbot, this of course, did not fire 'NATO std ammo' although it was 105mm (actually despite what our US friends might think there is not such thing as a NATO standard for a 105mm arty round - unless you can quote the STANAG number!). By the 1960s 25pdr was well past its used by date for NATO's Central Front. In any event while it was withdrawn from field service by 1967 it remained in the TA training organisation, eg OP Btys and UOTCs, until the 1980s although by this time ammo was being sourced from all sorts of places. Nfe 11:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is this all about: "The introduction of NATO standardization led to the replacement of the gun with the 105 mm, but many of these proved to be less reliable in combat as a result of trying to make a larger gun of the same weight as the 25 pdr. This kept the 25 pdr in operation with mountain and airborne units for many years, its replacement generally being mortars as opposed to newer artillery units." ? Seems like total tosh to me. Nfe 12:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 pdr was well liked and respected by troops and when the Otto Melara 105mm replaced it many troops were less than enthusiastic about the replacement, which was itself eventually replaced by the L118 light gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.241.31 (talk) 10:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know about the sources for this information when you are ready to do so. MPS1992 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any British military history or personal memoirs written by British and Commonwealth soldiers who used the 25 pdr in-anger during the period 1940 to the nineteen-sixties. Any books dealing with the subject during the period by John Weeks and/or Ian V. Hogg. Hogg was in the RA BTW.

BTW, the lack of robustness of the 105mm is actually stated on the relevant article page.

Peacetime troops will often be critical of equipment and it is only after it has been used in anger and it has saved their lives a few times that the true qualities of a piece of equipment can be truly appreciated. No-one who used the 25 pdr in action had anything but good words to say about it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.167 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1. MV for max range is not that of charge 3, it's charge Super, 1700 f/s is the Range Table standard MV for this charge. Of course the RT standard MV is not the max MV. The 'MV expected in a new Gun', given in the RT is higher, and the actual peak MV is higher still and occurs after a few hundred rounds have been fired by a new gun.

2. Weight, as for all guns this is tricky. UK Handbooks usually provide at least shipping weight and in action weight. In addition there's the towing weight and a 'bare' weight. Weight in action usually includes some ancillary stores such as shovels, as well as gunnery stores such as fuze indicator(s). Towed weight includes items carried on the gun such as aiming posts, sights in cases, etc. There was also a marked weight differences between Mk 1 and the narrower later carriages, not forgetting the extra weight of the muzzle brake and double shield where these were fitted.

3. Ammo, there were several more types than those listed, in addition other types were developed but did not enter service.

4. Crew size, UK guns don't have crews, they have Detachments. The Gun Drill Book det size was 6 men (this exluded the driver), the official reduced det size was 4 men.

Nfe 04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Barrel is 31 calibres. Not sure where this comes from. The usual definition of calibre length is the distance from the face of the breech in the chamber to the end of rifling at the muzzle. On this definition calibre length is slightly over 28. Perhaps the length of the muzzle brake has been included to give 31.

Nfe 01:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Where does the claim of German use in Normandy come from? This seems highly unlikely because German policy was to use captured guns against the enemies that did not use them (for obvious reasons). Hence in Normandy 122mm Howitzers (captured from the Russians) were used. Furthermore Germany had not captured very many 25pr Mk2, a few in Greece and a few at Tobruk, those captured in 1940 were all Mk1. Second point UK seldom, and in Normandy almost never, used 25 pr for counter-battery, that's why they had many regiments of medium and heavy guns and the target acquisition and fire control arrangements to use them for counter battery. Nfe (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nfe, you're providing interesting infoemation. Can you please share the sources from which the info was taken? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The various issues of the Range Tables, Handbooks for the gun and the Gun Drill book.

122mm in Normandy 'Larkhill's Wartime Locators' published last year (which incidentally makes no reference to locating German used 25 prs and includes virtually every HB location acquired in every theatre). Into service date of Mk 2 is available from many sources. Figures for 1940 losses are in a report in National Archives and reprinted, eg in Farndale's 'Years of Defeat'. Total numbers of 25 pr in Greece and Tobruk in 1942 are widely available. Haven't a clue about a primary source document for German policy, it is referred to in various sources (eg in connection to the loss of a US 8 in battn in late 1944 and the guns taken East), it's also borne out by various Red Army field/antitank guns used in western theatres and I've yet to come across any reliable report of Western ones being used (ignoring larger calibres in coast defence roles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfe (talk • contribs) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The use of captured guns by either side depended to a large extent on whether there was an ample supply of captured ammunition to make the effort worthwhile. Most RA gun crews would not have surrendered, or abandoned their guns, until the ammunition had run out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the Italian 20mm Breda Model 35 anti-aircraft gun. Large numbers of these guns & significant quantities of ammunition was captured in north Africa & was widely used by both Australian & British AA regiments & various RAN (especially) & RN naval ships operating in the Med. It was said that you could identify an Australian warship by the colour & quantity of AA they could throw up compared to the British (the Italian tracer was a different colour). In the case of ships - they were additional to the ships normal (British) armament, with the Australians tending to jamb on as many captured guns as they could get.144.139.103.173 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The description of ammunition is incomplete because it does not cover the cartridges and their propellant.

The picture of ammunition is highly misleading and must be removed. It shows two shells 'mated' to cartridges this is fiction.

Cartridges and shells were never mated - not in their packaging, not for loading and not when loaded. The normal cartridge (containing red, white and blue bags) was closed by inserting a leatherboard cup, the super cartridge propellant 'bag' projected beyond the metal cart case.Nfe (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first is covered

here, the second can be adressed by a caption. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

If you have access to sources, could you edit both articles please. I only have access to "popular" treatments of the subject or the web.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is misleading because it misrepresents 25-pr ammo. A caption saying here is a misleading picture of 25-pr ammo is a very silly idea. Get rid of the picture. Nfe (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is misleading in that it shows shell and case together and so implies they might come like that. However the picture also shows the shells alone in reasonable definition and colour. Possible misunderstanding can be addressed with a caption which is what I have done. Should a better picture turn up then that can be used instead. Looking at the media available already "File:25 pounder projectile CMHM Brantford.JPG" from a Canadian Museum shows the two nearly together (and cold use a caption as well) but is of only one type of shell. So for the moment the current one will have to suffice. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the caption shoiuld also point out that the shell colour schemes shown represent both UK WW2 and NATO colours (eg smpke as eau de nil is NATO, the UK colour was light brunswick green), and point out which is which. The ammunition that entered service (but the paper etc refills are not) is covered in detail in Range Tables and the various editions of the gun handbook. There's also a post war ammo handbook that deals with all the many different marks of cartidges.Nfe (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the fine detail goes on the image page itself, the caption is half way between a title and summary of the image - at "thumb" its hard to even tell the shades of colour.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd edited the description on the image file. More can be added yet. the modern Smoke is Base Ejecting Mk 6 if i guessed the stencilling right but if you could confirm that.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC BE smk was the shell with the most Marks, but I'm not sure that it ever reached Mk 6 in UK service (4 or 5 only?) so it may be from another country.Nfe (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, there are some very strange markings. The left hand smoke has an eau de nil body (NATO standard but should have a brown not a red band which was pre-1955 UK), the HE in the centre seems green (NATO standard), but should therefore have a yellow band. The fight hand smoke is the wrong colour green for anything but assuming its supposed to be light brunswick green then the red band is correct.Nfe (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying this page should have a "In Popular Culture" section but if this is true, it might make an interesting note on the film's article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the guns in the film are 25-pounders (it's been a long time since I last saw A Bridge Too Far) then I don't think that's a particularly noteworthy point - you would expect any properly resourced and researched film to feature the correct type of artillery. --IxK85 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WW2 movies often don't or more accurately can't - due to no authentic material still around to utilize - Battle of Britain being an exception. As I said, this would be more properly noted in the film's article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to quibble, but the tone of the article will be improved by consistent spelling (correctly "25-pounder") and not using the abbreviation "25-pdr" in prose passages —other than quoted matter, of course. I'm applying for the title to be moved to accord with the consistency. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says it was introduced just before the war started, the info-box says it entered service in 1940. Which one is it? 81.227.190.9 (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly it is referring to the small number of 25 pdr guns on 18 pdr carriages that were issued. Similarly a small number of 17 pdr anti-tank guns were issued before the new 17 pdr carriage was available, and so they were mounted on a 25 pdr carriage. These interim 17 pdr guns were code named 'Pheasant'.

In British Army usage the 'gun' and the 'carriage' were separate items, and for example a new carriage would be designed when the Army went over from WW I spoked solid-tyred wheels to pneumatic tyres in the 1920's-30's, but the 'gun' part (barrel, breech etc.,) would remain the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.73 (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]