The other big advantage of the recoil system is that the carriage of the gun could be built much lighter than previous artillery pieces which had to be much more massive to withstand the force of firing the gun. That was an extremely important consideration when artillery had to be towed by draft animals.

The Germans built a 77 mm direct fire gun which was if not copied, at least inspired by the French gun. The Germans also built 10 cm and 15 cm howitzers which used recoil mechanisms. These guns were light enough to keep up with the advancing German troops in 1914. The pre war British army was able to slow down the German advance through Belgium long enough for the French to mobilize but “The Old Contemptables” were largely exterminated in the process, primarily by the German howitzers.

To be honest, although most of the casualties in WW I were from artillery, I think that the trench warfare was largely a result of the state of logistics and communications in the 1914-1918 era. Factories could produce large quantities of manufactured goods including rations and ammunition and deliver it by railroad. The problem is that once the stuff was unloaded from the railroad, it was mostly transported by human or animal muscle power. That means that even if your troops were able to break through enemy lines, you could not keep them supplied and reinforced to withstand counterattacks by forces that could be moved and supplied by train. The state of the art for radios at that time means that they were too big, heavy and fragile to be carried to where they could call in artillery on enemy resistance. Although artillery of the time was about as accurate as modern artillery, its accuracy could not be used since observers could not communicate with the gun crews and most of the shells fired were shot into a general area.

Just before the outbreak of war, the French authorities began a program to obtain modern heavy artillery and raise units to employ it in the field. While they were waiting for the new pieces to arrive, the units – the Régiments d’Artillerie Lourde – were issued by older pieces as stop-gap weapons. Soon after the start of the war, the French authorities began a crash program to provide the older pieces with better mountings and send them to the front.

Is this right? Or is something missing? My recollection of WWI was the French went into WWI with virtually no heavy artillery. They relied almost exclusively on their 75 mm guns. The British Army of 1914 was also deficient in heavy artillery. The Germans relied in part on Skoda heavy howitzers, non German, in 1914. Didn’t trench warfare break out before large numbers of heavy guns made it to the western front? I am not an Engineer but I get the impression that a factory that builds 12 inch naval guns is not easily converted to 6 inch guns for land warfare. Wouldn’t the machine tools be smaller? Who makes the gun carriages in place of the turrets, the different type of ammunition and different types of sights for indirect fire?

He served in the 75mm half-track platoon on Iwo Jima, and it was the low trajectory, excellent direct-fire capability of the weapon that made it so effective on Iwo Jima (it was also capable of very accurate indirect fire.)

It was, I think, the last time the USMC used it in combat. When they returned to Hawaii it was replaced in their unit by Priests. I don't think the 75mm saw duty on Okinawa, and they had to improvise to replace its effectiveness.

Excellent points. I have no idea. We need a professional historian.

Mark?

I think the machine gun made it very difficult to displace an entrenched army with tactics from the prior century, so it became a stalemate.

It was the best in 1897, but it was equaled by almost everyone else by WW1. Among other shortcomings it was not easily capable of high angle fire.

I think you are wrong about the US version of the French 75 mm gun being used on Iwo Jima. I think they used the 75 mm M1A1 pack howitzer. .

I think this was the gun they used:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/99/M1A1-75mm-howitzer-aurora-19910108.jpg

Dan,

I feel very uncomfortable disagreeing with Bruce Gudmundsson. A lot of what I learned about military history is from his books. I would like to here his clarification or why I am mistaken.