Il Sergente Salvucci
New Member
Someone know the exact organization of the Field Artillery Regiment of the Regio Esercito at the start of WW2?
WW2 Italian Field Artillery Regiment Organization
- Thread starter Il Sergente Salvucci
- Start date
What you mean by "Field Artillery Regiment" ? In Italian army there were Divisional Artillery Regiments and Divisional(mostly Coastal), Corps and Army Raggruppamenti created by Regiments. Those higher level regiments never went to the field working as depots for training and creation of raggrupamenti and gruppi.
Il Sergente Salvucci
New Member
I need more in deep organization
Il Sergente Salvucci
New Member
yes i need more in deep
I'll try:
Using Montanari for Libya:
Two battalions (gruppo) 77/28mm (24 guns total)
One battalion 100/17 (12 guns total - increased by another 12-105/28 in North Africa in 1942)
2-3 sources will claim 8-100/17 versus 12. The argument works like this: All armies used four gun batteries whether British, French, German, or Italian. A battery worked together against the same target or in support of the same friendly unit. For example, an infantry regiment of three battalions was supported by 4-47mm guns (called a company) and 4-65mm guns. Each of the three battalions were supported by 4-77/28 guns or 12 guns total of 77/28 which, for two regiments of infantry, becomes two battalions (called grupos) or 24 guns as above. Originally, all Italian divisions were triangle divisions of three regiments and each regiment had one battery of 4-100/17's (or 105/28) or 12 guns total.
When binary (two infantry regiment) divisions were created, logic dictated each regiment, should have 4-100/17 guns or total 8 guns per division and not the 12-100/17's shown above. When a triangle division has a regiment of infantry taken away (leaving a binary division) the regiment that leaves takes 12-77/28 guns with it (A triangle division would have 36-77/28 guns.). It should also take 4-100/17 guns with it. To not do so would mean the new binary divisions created had 77/28 guns but no 100/17's. Hence, the assumption was made that 4-110/17's left and the new binary division had 8-100/17's.
Not only does the math work but to leave a binary division with still 12-100/17 guns meant that 4 guns had to to be added plus their transport, ammunition trucks, and artillery men so that was one problem. Another was what does the added battery of four guns do? Unlike the other 8 guns, it has no infantry regiment to support. So some sources assume Montanari made a mistake and the number of guns 8 and not 12.
To determine which was correct, I game tested Italian divisions in N.A. and it showed the Italian divisions had 8-105/28's or the possible right number but the wrong gun. My explanation is that 12-100/17's were used but, being an inferior weapon, showed up on the tests as 8-105/28's. The 100/17 fired a 31 pound shell for a range of 9,100 yards versus a 35 pound shell for 13,100 yards for the 105/28, making the 100/17 at most 70% as good and probably less. 70% of 12-100/17 is 8-105/28.
So I support Montanari even though 12-100/17's creates a gun directory mess. There were enough guns available to do this though and even enough 105/28's to replace all the inferior 100/17's.
Using Montanari for Libya:
Two battalions (gruppo) 77/28mm (24 guns total)
One battalion 100/17 (12 guns total - increased by another 12-105/28 in North Africa in 1942)
2-3 sources will claim 8-100/17 versus 12. The argument works like this: All armies used four gun batteries whether British, French, German, or Italian. A battery worked together against the same target or in support of the same friendly unit. For example, an infantry regiment of three battalions was supported by 4-47mm guns (called a company) and 4-65mm guns. Each of the three battalions were supported by 4-77/28 guns or 12 guns total of 77/28 which, for two regiments of infantry, becomes two battalions (called grupos) or 24 guns as above. Originally, all Italian divisions were triangle divisions of three regiments and each regiment had one battery of 4-100/17's (or 105/28) or 12 guns total.
When binary (two infantry regiment) divisions were created, logic dictated each regiment, should have 4-100/17 guns or total 8 guns per division and not the 12-100/17's shown above. When a triangle division has a regiment of infantry taken away (leaving a binary division) the regiment that leaves takes 12-77/28 guns with it (A triangle division would have 36-77/28 guns.). It should also take 4-100/17 guns with it. To not do so would mean the new binary divisions created had 77/28 guns but no 100/17's. Hence, the assumption was made that 4-110/17's left and the new binary division had 8-100/17's.
Not only does the math work but to leave a binary division with still 12-100/17 guns meant that 4 guns had to to be added plus their transport, ammunition trucks, and artillery men so that was one problem. Another was what does the added battery of four guns do? Unlike the other 8 guns, it has no infantry regiment to support. So some sources assume Montanari made a mistake and the number of guns 8 and not 12.
To determine which was correct, I game tested Italian divisions in N.A. and it showed the Italian divisions had 8-105/28's or the possible right number but the wrong gun. My explanation is that 12-100/17's were used but, being an inferior weapon, showed up on the tests as 8-105/28's. The 100/17 fired a 31 pound shell for a range of 9,100 yards versus a 35 pound shell for 13,100 yards for the 105/28, making the 100/17 at most 70% as good and probably less. 70% of 12-100/17 is 8-105/28.
So I support Montanari even though 12-100/17's creates a gun directory mess. There were enough guns available to do this though and even enough 105/28's to replace all the inferior 100/17's.
Last edited:
Is everyone certain that a North African binary division had 12-100mm guns? While most sources say 12, I have found two sources that list 8 guns. If you take two triangle divisions, each of 12-100mm guns, and change them into three binary divisions, they would total 24-100mm guns or 8 guns per binary division. The only way to have 12 guns would be to add 8 more guns from another, outside, source. While this is possible, they would not be there when the binary divisions were created. Instead, they would initially all have 8 guns, not 12. Adding another 4 guns creates another problem. It contradicts the 4 gun battery concept, a virtually universal WW2 concept. A binary division with 12-100mm guns would have two batteries of 6 guns, not 4. Artillery schools were not trained in the use of 6 gun batteries.
The alternative is that they had three 4 gun batteries. Yet this also disagrees with artillery school training. A 4 gun 100mm battery supported it's assigned regiment/brigade (three infantry battalions). So now we have an extra 4 gun battery which is not assigned to any regiment/brigade. It's either acting independently or it doesn't exist and a binary division actually totals 8-100mm guns.
Does anyone else see this problem?
This problem does not exist with the 77mm guns as they numbered 12 guns per infantry regiment or 24 guns for a binary division and 36 for a triangle. No additional guns are necessary. Two triangle divisions total 72-77mm guns and three binary divisions total 72-77mm guns. The dividing of the triangle divisions is easily done.
How did they solve this?
The alternative is that they had three 4 gun batteries. Yet this also disagrees with artillery school training. A 4 gun 100mm battery supported it's assigned regiment/brigade (three infantry battalions). So now we have an extra 4 gun battery which is not assigned to any regiment/brigade. It's either acting independently or it doesn't exist and a binary division actually totals 8-100mm guns.
Does anyone else see this problem?
This problem does not exist with the 77mm guns as they numbered 12 guns per infantry regiment or 24 guns for a binary division and 36 for a triangle. No additional guns are necessary. Two triangle divisions total 72-77mm guns and three binary divisions total 72-77mm guns. The dividing of the triangle divisions is easily done.
How did they solve this?
Francoquarter
New Member
the 100 mm howitzer were 12 per regiment, it's relatively easy find a actual strength of 8 after losses, 8 would be also the common strength in peace time organization. the battery were on 4 guns. there were much more 100 mm howitzer that need for the artillery rgts.
again the 77 mm gun were not in the artillery rgt
again the 77 mm gun were not in the artillery rgt
diciassette2000
Member
As usual, the Royal Army amazes ..... attachment A is extracted from the manual of the Army Officers School 1941 while b is extracted from the same manual of 1942 ..... I leave any comment to you .... However, in all the divisional organic diagrams that I found in about 12 years of research, the divisional artillery group is always shown on 12 pieces divided into 3 batteries of 4 pieces each. The same goes for those in the Army Corps. The only exceptions concern heavy artillery and army materials....
All the best
Maurizio
All the best
Maurizio
Francoquarter
New Member
the 1941 "Nozioni di organica" imho talking of peacetime organization, this not only for the artillery
Slavomir
New Member
Just doing a quick check in my AS files, I can tell that according to "Formozioni Provissorie di Guerra di alcune unita metropolitane per l'A.S." issued May 1940 it is three batteries in gruppo.
Regards
diciassette2000
Member
Slavomir
Very interesting document, where did you find it?? Is it from EMS or NARA ????
All the best
Maurizio
Very interesting document, where did you find it?? Is it from EMS or NARA ????
All the best
Maurizio
Francoquarter
New Member
and the Celere and Motorizzata division gruppi