"American Artillery"

[Hanno Spoelstra]

From gettyimages.com:

American Artillery

Artillerymen of the US 9th Army dig in under shellfire to protect the newly-captured Duisberg to Cologne road, Germany 28th March 1945.

Photo by Fred Ramage/Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Image #: 51338530
Date created: 28 Mar 1945

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

From gettyimages.com: American Artillery

Artillerymen of the US 9th Army dig in under shellfire to protect the newly-captured Duisberg to Cologne road, Germany 28th March 1945.

"American Artillery? ... the Guns themselves are 25pdrs ...

[lynx42]

And Pommy helmets.

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally Posted by Hanno Spoelstra

From gettyimages.com: Artillerymen of the US 9th Army dig in under shellfire to protect the newly-captured Duisberg to Cologne road, Germany 28th March 1945.

One explanation as to why this photo is identified as “American Artillerymen”, and if the date is in fact correct, is that on 28 March 1945 the United States Ninth Army was still under command of 21st Army Group, so it wouldn’t be that unusual to find Royal Artillery operating in the Ninth Army area. The United States Ninth Army did not revert back to under command of 12th Army Group until effective 2 April, 1945. The United States Ninth Army had served under command of 21st Army Group from approximately 20 December 1944 to 2 April 1945.

Cheers

[Gerry McGinty]

I know this will be more tantalising than helpful but a couple of years ago, I found a similar photo showing US army personnel using 25 pounders and trawled the internet for answers.
Now my first thought was that it started a thread on MLU but I have searched and can find nothing so it must have been on some other forum.
I kept all the replies in a file which unfortunately was lost in a major computer crash.
So much for being unhelpful, the tantalising bit is that a couple of replies stated that the US army did, in a small way, use the 25 pdr. and even quoted battery numbers. I think (could be wrong - usually I am) that the reason quoted was that there was a sudden shortage of ammo. for the 105mms. and that as a temporary measure the British guns were loaned to the Americans.
I apologise for being so vague but I would love to rediscover the truth behind all this.
Best regards
Gerry McGinty

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Gerry McGinty

So much for being unhelpful, the tantalising bit is that a couple of replies stated that the US army did, in a small way, use the 25 pdr. and even quoted battery numbers. I think (could be wrong - usually I am) that the reason quoted was that there was a sudden shortage of ammo. for the 105mms. and that as a temporary measure the British guns were loaned to the Americans.

Now that you mention that, I seem to recall something in that vein myself, but can't for the life of me remember where it was or the details!!

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally Posted by Gerry McGinty

that the reason quoted was that there was a sudden shortage of ammo. for the 105mms. and that as a temporary measure the British guns were loaned to the Americans.

Hi Gerry;

The shortage of 105mm howitzer ammunition started as early as Normandy and plagued the Americans late into 1944. This was brought about by both problems with manufacture in the United States and shipment overseas and by problems of cross channel supply and logistics within the United States Com Zone ETOUSA on the continent itself. There were restrictions placed on the use of 105mm howitzer ammunition (ie. X number of rounds per) until the supply situation was sorted out, but I haven’t come across anything that even suggested that 25 pounders were lent or issued to the Americans (and it may be, that I myself just haven’t come across this information yet, but I find it odd that 25pdrs would be lent or issued to American artillery batteries in North West Europe). The American batteries themselves, due to shortages and restrictions on the amount of 105mm howitzer ammunition they could fire, supplemented their firepower by the use of captured field pieces and ammunition during this time.

Cheers

[bram risseeuw]

US field Artillery of World War II by Steven J Zaloga pages 36/37:

Following the heavy losses of US equipment in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge, Britain loaned 100 25-pdrs and 300,000 rounds of ammunition to temporarily equip US field artillery battalions until additional supplies arrived from the United States. Many of these were used in batallions of the US Ninth Army, which at the time was attached to Montgommery's 21st Army Group.

[Gerry McGinty]

Hi Bram
Thank you for your reply. Is that an Osprey book?
I still can't remember where I read this info. or saw the picture I mentioned but pehaps it was browsing through a book in a shop because I have many Osprey books but not this one.
However, again thanks - you are helping me get to the bottom of this which has been bugging me for ages.
Best regards
Gerry

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally Posted by bram risseeuw

US field Artillery of World War II by Steven J Zaloga pages 36/37:

I'm surprised that not even the volume dealing with the Ardennes in the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, 'Official History' series of the UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II - The European Theater of Operations - THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGE - by: Hugh M. Cole, published by: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, D.C., 1965, or any of the other volumes of the above mentioned make any reference to "Britain loaned 100 25-pdrs and 300,000 rounds of ammunition to temporarily equip US field artillery battalions until additional supplies arrived from the United States. Many of these were used in batallions of the US Ninth Army..."

Cheers

[bram risseeuw]

Hi Gerry,

yes it is an Osprey book: New Vanguard 131

I seems Mark W Tonner has his doubts, but Steven J Zaloga is most of the time very well informed and official publications are not always as complete or correct as they pretend.
An example are the official lists of the "Quantities of Lend-Lease Shipments"
I can not find deliveries of 105 mm howitzers on those lists, while I know for sure a lot were delivered by lend-lease.

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally Posted by bram risseeuw

Hi Gerry,

yes it is an Osprey book: New Vanguard 131

I seems Mark W Tonner has his doubts, but Steven J Zaloga is most of the time very well informed and official publications are not always as complete or correct as they pretend.
An example are the official lists of the "Quantities of Lend-Lease Shipments"
I can not find deliveries of 105 mm howitzers on those lists, while I know for sure a lot were delivered by lend-lease.

I have no doubts as to Steve Zaloga's findings and I am well aware that 'official publications' sometimes leave much to be desired, I just merely meant that I find it surprising that the supply of 25 pounders to Americans has never popped up before in anything that I've read or studied.

Cheers

[bram risseeuw]

Sorry Mark I got the wrong impression, no hard feelings I hope.
By the way do you have the figures of the lend-lease 105 mm howitzers M2A1What I know: UK 16, China 476, France 239, Latin America 223 (figures same book as before). My question: how many 105 mm howitzers were delivered to the different Latin American countries (105 mm ammunition was delivered to Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela).
Also 18 105 mm M3 howitzers were delivered to Brazil.

Cheers,
Bram