PDA

View Full Version : What was the most domanting weapon of the war



RifleMan20
07-21-2007, 01:12 AM
What was the most domanting weapon of the war...was it the 88....was it the u-bout.....the sherman....panzer....it could be anything but i have to say the all supeiror 88 flak...this weapon could take down tanks, infrintry, planes, and some other stuff

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 04:15 AM
Actually thats quite easy! The most dominating weapon is man himself. They use all the other weapons. :D Besides him I would have to say the airplane then tanks. IMO the airplane played the most major role in WW2. This pales in comparison to man. I dont care how many tank, planes, ships...etc you have they are worthless with out manpower.

overlord644
07-21-2007, 07:38 PM
i think that the B-29 or maybe another bomber did the most damage and crippled the enemy's military defenses and industrial power

RifleMan20
07-21-2007, 10:47 PM
yeah but the 88 wuld take those planes down with the help of man but if those planes go threw the 88s then the defenders are screwed

AllHailCesar
09-25-2007, 10:01 PM
I think small arms. Because they were most tactical and numerous.

jacobtowne
09-26-2007, 11:01 AM
I find it difficult to compare a submarine with a field piece. One is designed to ambush ships from under the sea, the other for land battle.

Air power in the Pacific was certainly a decisive factor. It was carrier-based aircraft that brought the U.S. into the war on December 7th, American control of the skies that allowed successful amphibious landings, and aircraft that helped bring Japan to its knees.

But throughout it all, it was men with rifles and other infantry weapons who captured land objectives.

During the six-month struggle for Guadalcanal, the great turning point of the war against Japan, a small number of fighter pilots, flying almost daily sorties against superior Japanese air squadrons, made the difference between success and failure.
On the other hand, the Marine artillery regiment helped turn back the two large Japanese land assaults against Henderson Field.

I suppose we could make a case for almost any of the many weapons in use, including the men, as stated above. For example, Tarawa was a squad leader's fight. As soon as battle was joined, it was the courage and especially the initiative of individual Marine squad leaders that carried the day.

Returning to my first sentence, American submarines played a key role by sinking so many Japanese cargo ships that Japan was ultimately denied access to its oil source in the Dutch Indies.

Is any one factor or weapon dominant? I don't know.

JT

pdf27
09-29-2007, 01:48 PM
Radio, followed by mass produced motor lorries.

Radios returned command and control to the battlefield. Prior to WW1, control had been by voice and courier and battles were concentrated in time and space enough for that to work, by and large. In WW1 the battles were too large in both width and depth, as well as too intense for voice control and couriers to work - probably the greatest reason it was such a bloody and protracted conflict. The introduction of manpack radios prior to WW2 returned command & control to the battlefield, and set up the war of movement that was WW2.

Mass produced motor lorries is the other factor introducing a war of movement. The US civil war and to a lesser extent WW1 were railway wars - the campaigns were pretty much entirely dominated by where the railways went, which put a cap on the exploitation of any advance, as well as limiting the peak speed of advance to that of a walking soldier. In WW1 lorries started to be used, but it wasn't until WW2 that they really started to supplant rail as the main means of shifting logistics. Again, this made wars of movement possible again, as well as removing a major advantage held by the defender (it is massivelty easier to move troops and supplies within your own territory on railways you own than it is to move them across a recent battlefield).

There were very, very few weapons in WW2 that didn't exist in WW1 in some form or other, without decisive effects. Manportable radios, radar, sonar and atomic weapons are about the only ones I can think of.

Gen. Sandworm
09-30-2007, 04:02 AM
Radio, followed by mass produced motor lorries.


Might add to this Liberty ships. Weapons arent much good if you cant get them to the ppl that need them.

From wiki:
Early on, each ship took about 230 days to build (Patrick Henry took 244 days), but the average eventually dropped to 42 days. The record was set by Robert E. Peary, which was launched 4 days and 15 1/2 hours after the keel was laid, although this publicity stunt was not repeated -- and in fact much fitting-out and other work remained to be done after the Peary was launched. The ships were made assembly-line style, from prefabricated sections. In 1943, three new Liberty ships were being completed every day.

pdf27
09-30-2007, 05:13 AM
The thing about radio and motor lorries is that they were decisive for all powers, in all theatres of war. Liberty ships were only decisive for the British, and important for the US and Soviets.
Being British of course I am inherently likely to rate them highly, but objectively I really don't think they were all that important. The U-boats were effectively beaten before the prewar stock of shipping available to the UK would have been destroyed. The big effect of the Liberty ships was bringing forward the date at which the Allied amphibious counterattack could take place.

Rising Sun*
09-30-2007, 07:29 AM
Lots of valid comments about what was important and how it was used, but the original question was about the most dominant weapon.

If we get off that into all the other developments, we'll get down to things like the importance of manufacturing improvements in producing more efficient electric motors that powered a whole lot of things, including various weapons systems.

Maybe this topic should be split so that the weapons are kept separate from other important things?

Not that I think there could ever be an definitive answer to the original question because there's no way to compare an infantry long arm with a field piece with a bomber with a submarine etc etc etc.

Drake
09-30-2007, 08:28 AM
Though one could argue, that neither liberty ships nor radios and trucks are actually weapons. But when it comes to overall importance they would definatly rank high.
Another one in that section could be the first true implementations of combined arms on the tactical doctrine level. As far as actual weapons go, I would split my vote between tanks and single engine combat airplanes (fighters, fighterbombers, ground support) both weapons which finally had matured prior and during ww2.

HG
10-26-2007, 09:40 AM
The airplane and aircraft carrier. The aircraft changed a battle in such a way that the ground forces could not do anything about it and thus can win a war. The aircraft carries, because they can destroy a whole navy with it's airplanes and can also change the tide of battle. The carrier showed that the battleship is not so powerful as it was always believed to be and that one aircraft carrier can take out a battleship at ease.

Then I would say it must be artillery and tanks. Tanks and artillery proved to be the best support of an attack on the enemy and then air cover comes in the whole thing again.

jrw1268
10-28-2007, 11:39 PM
The Atomic Bombs

Major Walter Schmidt
05-26-2008, 01:28 PM
Naah. The C-47 skytrain... or the Ju52. Logistics man!:)

herman2
05-26-2008, 02:21 PM
The Atomic bomb was the most awsome dominant weapon of WW-2. Nothing can compare to it. Truman should of sent a half dozen more A-bombs over to Japan and one or 2 to the Emperors palace to end the war more quicker than it lasted.

Churchill
05-26-2008, 02:51 PM
T-34, definitly. The sheer numbers produced caused the Germans to waste war production on tanks that didn't suvive that well. Remember, Stalin said: "Quantity has a quality all its own."

Warpig
05-26-2008, 03:14 PM
The most domanting weapon of ww2 was the english vocabulary.

The most dominating for me would be the Tiger I tank.

herman2
05-26-2008, 03:16 PM
The most domanting weapon of ww2 was the english vocabulary.

The most dominating for me would be the Tiger I tank.

The Atomic bomb would of made minced meat of your Tiger 1 tank. Atomic bomb Rules!:D

Warpig
05-26-2008, 03:17 PM
The Atomic bomb would of made minced meat of your Tiger 1 tank. Atomic bomb Rules!:D

I'm sorry but thats just wrong, if they dropped a Tiger tank instead of the A bomb Japan would obviously sink, there is nothing better than a Tiger, well 2 Tigers:mrgreen:

redcoat
05-26-2008, 06:09 PM
Artillery. The cause of most casualties on the battlefield in both WW1 and WW2

Major Walter Schmidt
05-26-2008, 08:54 PM
The Atomic bomb would of made minced meat of your Tiger 1 tank. Atomic bomb Rules!:D

Most japanese houses were made of wood, bamboo and paper. Incindiary raids were more effective and way cheaper than nukes.

Churchill
05-26-2008, 09:18 PM
Go napalm!!!

RifleMan20
05-26-2008, 10:37 PM
The 88 would blow all those things listed, it can shoot down your planes walter, it can blow you Tiger up warpig, it can destroy your enola gay that holds the atom bomb hermit, it can do anything. Its like your own personal slave, in the metal, artillary kind of way

Major Walter Schmidt
05-26-2008, 10:42 PM
What about the LandKreuzer?

Kimura
05-27-2008, 09:01 AM
The most dominating weapon was IMHO weapon concept quantity over quality. The sheer mass does count the most.
That side that can provide continous replacement on hardware and soldier will win the conflict. The factor if the enemy
got Tigers or whatelse at hands comes very little to bear.

Rising Sun*
05-27-2008, 10:45 AM
Artillery. The cause of most casualties on the battlefield in both WW1 and WW2

Generally true, but in much jungle fighting it came down to small arms, grenades and, at times, small artillery like knee mortars.

The one weapon which swept the battlefields in every theatre was, in the end, the PBI with a rifle and bayonet.

herman2
05-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Generally true, but in much jungle fighting it came down to small arms, grenades and, at times, small artillery like knee mortars.

The one weapon which swept the battlefields in every theatre was, in the end, the PBI with a rifle and bayonet.

The Atomic bomb caused the war to end thus it is the most dominant weapon. The war did not end because of bayonets and arrows. The Atomic Bomb was the ultimate wepon of both wars.

Major Walter Schmidt
05-27-2008, 11:34 AM
The Atomic bomb caused the war to end thus it is the most dominant weapon. The war did not end because of bayonets and arrows. The Atomic Bomb was the ultimate wepon of both wars.

And why did the allies win in Europe...:roll:

Warpig
05-27-2008, 12:30 PM
The 88 would blow all those things listed, it can shoot down your planes walter, it can blow you Tiger up warpig, it can destroy your enola gay that holds the atom bomb hermit, it can do anything. Its like your own personal slave, in the metal, artillary kind of way

The Tiger was armed with an 88 so a tank + 88 is obviously better than an 88 on its own.

Major Walter Schmidt
05-27-2008, 01:02 PM
What about a Flakzwilling 8.8 Auf Maus?

RifleMan20
05-27-2008, 03:13 PM
The Tiger was armed with an 88 so a tank + 88 is obviously better than an 88 on its own.

True, but if i see you first i would win, but really your right too so its a win lose situation

gumalangi
05-30-2008, 04:19 PM
this quite difficult,..

but tiger1 seemed fit my choice,. as for the allies,. every germans armours with big gun over their front will reminded them straight away of a scary tiger, despite of their number limitation.

tiger lead to tigerphobia to many allied tankers,. it was lead to death punishment for a russian tankist to show some degree of tigerphobia,..

and during Western allied campaign in Europe,. claimed they saw tigers approaching for their excuse of defeat or retreat,.

bwing55543
05-30-2008, 09:40 PM
A-bomb, hands down.

Nickdfresh
05-30-2008, 10:53 PM
Go napalm!!!


Read the book "Flyboys" by James Bradley, and you might not be so enthusiastic...

http://books.google.com/books?id=09sgEfKbRaAC&dq=flyboys+bradley&pg=PP1&ots=opSTFmubPg&sig=QsaHAtlzwYwnCAlz-SPl_VvA4aw&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B2GGGL_enUS204US205%26sa %3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd% 3D1%26q%3DFlyboys%2Bbradley%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

I think there's something in there about a mother finding that her baby had literally cooked and burst while strapped to her back as she ran from the fires of Tokyo to the river...

Major Walter Schmidt
05-30-2008, 10:57 PM
Well, fir tanks, its the T-34.

Churchill
05-30-2008, 11:22 PM
Read the book "Flyboys" by James Bradley, and you might not be so enthusiastic...

http://books.google.com/books?id=09sgEfKbRaAC&dq=flyboys+bradley&pg=PP1&ots=opSTFmubPg&sig=QsaHAtlzwYwnCAlz-SPl_VvA4aw&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26rlz%3D1B2GGGL_enUS204US205%26sa %3DX%26oi%3Dspell%26resnum%3D0%26ct%3Dresult%26cd% 3D1%26q%3DFlyboys%2Bbradley%26spell%3D1&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

I think there's something in there about a mother finding that her baby had literally cooked and burst while strapped to her back as she ran from the fires of Tokyo to the river...

I was just showing support for the weapon at hand...

gumalangi
05-31-2008, 01:48 AM
i dont fancy landmines, napalm and nukes,.. you basically killing civilians more than the combatant,.. no matter how accurate they are,..

Major Walter Schmidt
05-31-2008, 10:47 AM
speaking of wich, the US and Russia have not signed the anti-cluster bomb treaty thet was made recently.....

Churchill
05-31-2008, 01:32 PM
But France, Britain and others have. All the smaller countries must come close to the two big ones, so about half have stopped using the cluster bombs. Even if half have stopped, that's about one half not enough...

Major Walter Schmidt
05-31-2008, 04:51 PM
We shouldnt have to use those bombs in the first place, cluster or not.

Il Duce
05-31-2008, 11:03 PM
I would go with the 88, just because of it's many uses

RifleMan20
06-01-2008, 01:33 AM
Yes it is Il Duce, It was practically used on every front and protected the fatherland for a long time untill we, as in the allies, found a way around it

Major Walter Schmidt
06-01-2008, 11:09 AM
Well, in every war, isnt it the quality and number of the soldiers and the cunning of the generals?

RifleMan20
06-01-2008, 11:51 AM
Yea but if their technology is WAY behind then their in deep crap

Ashes
06-03-2008, 02:36 AM
No idea how many victims the 88 FlaK claimed in the air, or on the ground, but it must have been immense, a more deadly piece of equipment is hard to find, and the PaK 43 continued the carnage.

By all accounts it wasn't quite as powerful as it's British and American counterparts, so it's hard to understand why the Brits never used the similar 3.7cm gun in North Africa as the Germans did with devastating effect in the flat desert landscape.

Brits just kept them for [at times non existent] AA work.

They eventually got a good gun in the 17 pounders, but the 3.7's might have been put to better use earlier.

George Eller
06-03-2008, 03:09 PM
-

Field Artillery: The King of Battle
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/fa.htm


The history of the United States Field Artillery began in 1775, when Henry Knox was appointed Chief of Artillery of the Continental Army. During the War of Independence, the Field Artillery evolved into a formidable entity on the battlefield, prompting General Marquis de Lafayette to remark at the Battle of Yorktown, "Upon my honor I speak the truth. American Artillery -- one of the wonders of the Revolution." During the Revolutionary War, the Colonies' artillery, under the command of Alexander Hamilton, performed greatly at the Battle of Trenton, and the skill of American gunners forced the British to siege trenches at Yorktown.

Throughout the early years of the country, artillerymen were considered the Army's elite. Their pay was above the rate for infantrymen and even the cavalry. In 1784, when all of the Army was abolished except for a single detachment of 80 men to guard government stores, those men were artillerymen. Thus the artillery is the only part of the Army which has been in continuous service since the revolution.

During the Mexican War, the Field Artillery played a key role in campaigns that ranged from the Battle of Palo Alto to Mexico City. In fact, the nickname, "Redlegs", comes from that era when artillery uniforms had a 2-inch red stripe on their trousers and horse artillery men wore red canvas leggings.

The Field Artillery was also a dominant force in many of the Civil War battlefields. Leading artillerymen who became combined arms leaders included Joseph Hooker, Braxton Bragg, William T. Sherman, A.P. Hill, and Stonewall Jackson.

In 1907 the Field Artillery became a separate branch after parting ways with the Coast Artillery. The Field Artillery and the Coast Artillery were each organized with specific missions obvious from their names, and during World War I the Coast Artillery was given the additional job of developing railroad-mounted and antiaircraft artillery pieces.

During WWI the Field Artillery became one of the most dominant forces in the trench warfare of France. It emerged from the "war to end all wars" as the greatest killer on the battlefield, responsible for 75% of all combat casualties.

Throughout World War II, in Europe, Africa and the Pacific, the Field Artillery once again proved a decisive factor causing America's great combined arms leader, General George S. Patton, to observe, "I do not need to tell you who won the war. You know, the Artillery did."

Development of bigger and better guns and vastly improved field artillery tactics and techniques for using them was rapid with the onset of World War II. By the end of the war, artillery firepower had grown beyond all dimensions previously known to man. During this war, new weapons were developed which were to revolutionize our concept of war - guided missiles, radar, and nuclear weapons.

-

An interesting comparison of the German and U.S. Armies in the Autumn of 1944 from the book “Lorraine 1944 Patton vs Manteuffel” by Steven J. Zaloga (Osprey, 2000, pp 19-30)
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showpost.php?p=73555&postcount=1


Nevertheless, US infantry formations often enjoyed significant firepower advantages over their German opponents. What the squad and platoon lacked in organic firepower was made up in artillery support. While German and American artillery divisions had similar artillery strength on paper, in reality the US divisions were more likely to actually have their establishment of weapons and more often had adequate ammunition supplies. However, the real advantage in infantry combat was communications, especially in mobile operations. The US infantry had far better and more lavish radio equipment than the Germans. At platoon level, the US Army used the SCR-536 "handie-talkie", a small hand-held AM transceiver. At company level, they used the man-pack SCR-300 "walkie-talkie" FM transceiver to communicate with the battalion and higher headquarters. The German Army had no platoon radios, and their older AM man-pack radios were deployed no lower than at company level. The widespread use of dependable radios meant that US infantry could call for fire support during mobile offensive operations much more easily than their German counterparts.

The US Army deployed better communication equipment, and it was more widely distributed. The SCR-536 was a small hand-held originally designed for paratrooper use. The US Army was the only force in World War II to use radios such as this widely at platoon level. This assisted in coordinating fire support, such as the 60mm mortar seen here in action near Perriers-en-Beaufice on 12 August 1944.

In another important tactical innovation, the US Army in Europe regularly deployed an artillery forward observer team with forward infantry companies. The officer was equipped with a man-portable radio linked to the artillery net, and was assigned both to call in and to correct fire. American units in key sectors also enjoyed the added firepower of corps artillery, and infantry divisions often had additional artillery battalions allotted to their support for special missions. US infantry also had better armored support, often having a tank battalion and tank destroyer battalion added to each division.

The German infantry tended to hold a disparaging view of American infantry, judging them to be less aggressive in close-combat tactics. This was in part a reflection of the stagnation in German infantry tactics. Experienced US infantry units, painfully aware of their firepower shortcomings when up against German infantry squads, were perfectly happy to use the killing power of artillery when it was available instead of suffering needless casualties. This difference in outlook was in part a cultural clash: the pragmatism of the GI versus the romantic fighting spirit of the German Landser (fighting man)....

....If there was one combat arm in which the US Army had unquestioned superiority over the Wehrmacht, it was the artillery. This was not simply a question of quantity. The US field artillery battalions were more modern than their German counterparts in nearly all respects. While their cannon were not significantly different in capability, the US field artillery battalions were entirely motorized, while German field artillery, especially infantry division units, was still horse-drawn. US heavy artillery was mechanized, using fully tracked high-speed tractors. The high level of motorization provided mobility for the batteries, and also ensured supply.

The US field artillery also enjoyed a broader and more modern assortment of communication equipment. Another US innovation was the fire direction center (FDC). Located at battalion, division, and corps level, the FDC concentrated the analog computers and other calculation devices alongside the communication equipment, permitting prompt receipt of messages and prompt calculation of fire missions. This level of communication allowed new tactics, the most lethal of which was TOT or "time-on-target." Field artillery is most effective when the first few rounds catch the enemy out in the open. Once the first few rounds have landed, enemy troops take cover, and the rate of casualties to subsequent fire declines dramatically. The aim of TOT was to deliver the fire on the target simultaneously, even from separate batteries. TOT fire missions were more lethal and more economical of ammunition than traditional staggered fire-strikes, and effective communication meant that the batteries could switch targets rapidly as well.

-

Rising Sun*
06-04-2008, 04:41 AM
-

Field Artillery: The King of Battle


In the British military tradition, at least as we've inherited it down here, the artillery has long been referred to as the Queen of the Battlefield. I don't know that either of the other arms was ever referred to as the king of the battlefield.

It might have been derived from chess, where the queen is the most powerful piece on the board and is suggested to have derived her increased powers over the original game from the development of artillery. Given that the king in chess is the least useful attacking piece on the board and has to be protected all the time, it would make sense that no other arm in the army is referred to as the king of the battlefield.


Raymond Keene, in Chess: An Illustrated History, notes an increased mobility in chess in the late fifteenth-century, which he suggests is caused by three factors: 1. castling was introduced; 2. pawns became able to move two squares on the opening move rather than one; 3. and the queen, as mentioned earlier, emerged from the earlier Persian vizier and became the most powerful piece on the board, able to move an unlimited number of squares horizontally, vertically or diagonally. Keene views this last as "mirroring the contemporary introduction of artillery, as a long-range means of molesting the opposition, in the sphere of battlefield technology" (p.24).

Marilyn Yalom, in Birth of the Chess Queen: A History, has a different explanation, however. She suggests that the emergence of the queen piece in chess as the most powerful piece on the board today paralleled the rise of powerful women in myriad royal courts of medieval Europe. In contemporary times, she asserts, the chess queen has become "the quintessential metaphor for female power in the Western world".

Keene disagrees. According to him, these sudden shifts "must be explicable in terms of the overall Renaissance dynamic the increasingly urgent perception of distance, space and perspective which distinguished that period of human intellectual development". The queen's new power specifically reflected the introduction of siege artillery at Constantinople in 1453 and "had nothing to do with the example of powerful, warlike females such as Joan of Arc or Elizabeth I" (p.32).

Yalom's argument is perhaps more compelling. Even if siege artillery was an important factor to be absorbed in this war model, why was it the queen that was granted the additional powers? Put another way, why was the most fearsome war technology in history gendered female when introduced into chess? http://www.sportswebconsulting.ca/sportsbabel/2006/03/the-chess-queen.htm

Nickdfresh
06-04-2008, 06:48 AM
In the British military tradition, at least as we've inherited it down here, the artillery has long been referred to as the Queen of the Battlefield. I don't know that either of the other arms was ever referred to as the king of the battlefield.
...

Tanks of AFVs?

Rising Sun*
06-04-2008, 07:52 AM
Tanks of AFVs?

Pursuing the chess argument, they could qualify like the chess king as being unwilling to advance without the queen's protection at times, and unwilling to advance against the enemy queen. For example, often rather timid in the bocage in Normandy in 1944 and in the jungle in Vietnam.

George Eller
06-05-2008, 01:02 AM
In the British military tradition, at least as we've inherited it down here, the artillery has long been referred to as the Queen of the Battlefield. I don't know that either of the other arms was ever referred to as the king of the battlefield.

It might have been derived from chess, where the queen is the most powerful piece on the board and is suggested to have derived her increased powers over the original game from the development of artillery. Given that the king in chess is the least useful attacking piece on the board and has to be protected all the time, it would make sense that no other arm in the army is referred to as the king of the battlefield.

http://www.sportswebconsulting.ca/sportsbabel/2006/03/the-chess-queen.htm
-

:)

Yes, I am aware that in the game of chess, the queen is the most powerful piece.
Artillery may be referred to as the "queen of the battlefield" in British military tradition.
But in American military tradition it appears that the field artillery is referred to as the "King of Battle"

Note: the title was "King of Battle" - not "King of the Battlefield".

-

Jargon Database.com
Army
http://www.jargondatabase.com/SubCat.aspx?id=44

King of Battle
Artillery
http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1380

Queen of Battles
Artillery.
http://www.jargondatabase.com/Jargon.aspx?id=1337

-

Urban Dictionary: king of battle
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=king+of+battle

the strongest person in the game.

-

Field Artillery: The King of Battle
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/fa.htm

-

FIELD ARTILLERY KING OF BATTLE
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fieldartillery/message/1024

-

Welcome to the Field Artillery website!
KING OF BATTLE!
http://www.branchorientation.com/fieldartillery/

-

King Of Battle
http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/cadence/marching_cadence/king-of-battle.shtml

-

King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army's Field Artillery by Boyd L. Dastrup
The Public Historian, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 154-155 (review consists of 2 pages)
Published by: University of California Press
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3377982

-

DASTRUP, BOYD L. King of Battle: A Branch History of the U.S. Army's Field Artillery
Washington, Office of the Command Historian. 1992, First Printing. Soft Cover, 4to - over 9¾" - 12" tall. VG+, wraps with card covers. White cover with black text. ROTC sticker inside front cover. Few light cover smudges, internally clean and tight. Letter from Malone, Chief Historian enclosed; o CMH Pub 70-27. xii, 381 pages; 25 cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. 319-356) and index. Very Good +.
http://www.antiqbook.com/boox/ver/026513.shtml

-

Field Artillery The King of Battle
http://www.lotsasites.com/topic?topic=artillery

-

'King of Battle' still reigns
by Spc. John Crosby
115th MPAD
http://rosemarysthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/04/king-of-battle-still-reigns.html

-

'King of Battle' Thunders in Afghanistan
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/may2005/a052005wm1.html

-

U.S. Marines in Japan
http://www.okinawa.usmc.mil/public%20affairs%20info/Archive%20News%20pages/2007/070427-king.html


Forward observers act as eyes for 'King of Battle'
Cpl. Warren Peace

CAMP FUJI, Japan (April 27, 2007) -- Dictionary.com defines indirect fire as "fire delivered on a target that is not itself used as the point of aim for the weapons." But that definition is not completely accurate. Modern mortarmen and artillerymen always have eyes on their targets. They are called forward observers, and they are the first piece of a complex puzzle that comes together to form the "King of Battle." ...

-

"King of Battle" advanced google search - 19,100 results ( 5 June 2008 )
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22king+of+battle%22&btnG=Search

-