Talk:Ordnance QF 25-pounder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Merge proposal (25 pounder Short Mark 1)[edit]

I don't see why the 25 pounder Short Mark 1 needs its own article. The description is very short and likely won't be expanded much further. It could easily slip into the variants section here on the main article. Oberiko 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Bukvoed 22:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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. (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted merge[edit]

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). --Nick Dowling 23:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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)
To settle this, how about we take it to Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers? Oberiko 14:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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.

Last use[edit]

This text was inserted into the head section by an anonimous editor and was later removed by other editor, apparently because of the wording.

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. (

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

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.

Nfe 02:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Page title[edit]

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)

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


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 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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 03:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


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)

The first is covered here, the second can be adressed by a caption. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The ref does not adequately explain 25-pr ammo, and in fact is wrong, charge super was not primarily for AP.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

these were the guns used in the artillery barrage scene of A BRIDGE TOO FAR, I think?[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Consistent spelling[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ordnance QF 25 pounderOrdnance QF 25-pounder – Prior to revision, the article contained inconsistent usages including "25-pounder" ("25 pdr"), "25 pounder", etc. The term is a compound adjective which needs to be hyphenated. The same applies with "25-pdr" in the rare instances where the abbreviation is acceptable for WP purposes. Bjenks (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.