British Army Nuclear Artillery

[JFC Fuller]

Part of the 1957 Sandys review took BAOR down from 77,000 to 55,000 and reduced the 2nd Tactical Air Force by 50%, this was meant to be offset by the corps level deployment of tactical nuclear weapons. the most famous of these projects was the Blue Water tactical nuclear missile that lasted until 1962 as a programme. Ultimately the British Army was equipped with M110's and Corporals. However, prior to the M110 purchase work was undertaken on an all British solution. Apparently this would have been a 6 inch howitzer firing a 1kt shell code-named "yellow anvil", this first seems to have been conceived in 1956. I have never seen any evidence of any work undertaken on the gun, which I always assumed would have replaced the 7.2inch howitzers of WW2 vintage, only the shell. Anyone ever seen any other details?

"British Nuclear Weapons and Test Ban 1954-73" by John R. Walker specifically mentions a 6 inch shell being worked on by AWRE in 1956-7 that could not have been made ready in time for the tests of 1957.

Additional details:

In 1957 the War Office drew up a requirement for a gun capable of firing a one kiloton nuclear shell to 15,000 yards and also required it to fire an 80 lb. HE shell to 25,000 yards to give an anti-tank capability. In 1959 the requirement was amended to include a counter-bombardment weapon with a range of 35,000 yards and to be airportable. An important feature of the requirement was to utilise existing ammunition and although some experiments were done it did not meet with a great success or enthusiasm from RARDE.

Original source (has lots of interesting stuff): https://www.shorlandsite.com/images/LandRoversMissilesElliott.pdf

 

[uk 75]

Interesting. The towed 8" howitzer was shown in Ian Allen's British Army Vehicles and Equipment as being the predecessor weapon to the M110, just as Honest John was the missile before Lance.

Given the ready availability of the US weapon and its service since WW 2 I would be surprised if a British system got very far, though the same book does mention updating of 7.2 weapon and carriage but not a nuclear role.

 

[JFC Fuller]

uk75,

I was sort of mashing the 7.2 inch and 8inch together, sorry. The 7.2 inch Mk6 used the British 7.2 inch on the M1 Long Tom carriage (probably what your book is referring to) whilst the US M115 used the same carriage and seems to have largely replaced the 7.2 inch. That the Brits at least investigated a 6 inch atomic shell suggests that some consideration was given to a gun to fire it.

 

[CJGibson]

What intrigues me abut these small nuclear weapons being discussed in 1956 is that the British appeared to think that either the Americans would supply them or they would develop their own for Red Hebe, Blue Envoy and Yellow Anvil. I think in 1956 the smallest Britsh warhead was Red Beard, which was 24in in diameter. So was it wishful thinking or did they know something was coming with the change to the McMahon act?

Chris

 

[uk 75]

This is a fascinating subject because there are no references anywhere that I can find.

The British of course had a 6inch naval gun developed for the Tiger class cruisers, but I have never seen any reference to either British or US weapons of this calibre.

The US introduced a 155mm nuclear round for use by the M 109s in NATO primarily, however there was no naval version of this proposed. Britain used the M44 and the M109 but as far as I can recall the only nuclear shells provided by the US were for the 8inch weapons in Germany.

The weapon would certainly have been in keeping with the over ambitious projects floating around but like Blue Water it would be doomed by the cheapness and ready availability of US options.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

A new 6in howitzer would have been a more likely replacement for the 5.5in gun, which itself had replaced a 6in howitzer, then a replacement for the relatively heavy 7.2in. The US 8in nuclear shells had fairly high yields to destroy enemy artillery and rear areas and generally vaporize the enemy into vapor, while small 1-2kt weapons were 'suitable' as anti armor weapon in the front lines. If the British Army was really serious about nuclear artillery, it almost certainly would have wanted both 6in and 8in class weapons.


A US naval 155mm nuclear round was not proposed, but this was because a 127mm warhead was, and indeed the US actually tested a nuclear warhead of this diameter, I think it was called 'Swift' though the work seems to have been aimed more at air to air nuclear weapons. Adapting major caliber naval guns to land service, or the other way around almost never would make sense. The design requirements are much different, at best you would end up using a common barrel.


To find out more on this, someone needs to figure out what facility would have been designing British artillery at the time, and see if they have public archives. Ryan Crierie found some very rare stuff on US artillery, the towed test version of the 175mm gun that was never fielded among other things, via visiting archives, such obscure stuff is not likely to be found another way.

 

[acorning]

There was no real benefit in having UK owned nuclear weapons in 1 (BR) Corps, lots of cost and complication in the NATO release procedures.

Corporal was only used for very few years, one UK regt assigned to 1 (BR) Corps and one to 1 (GE) Corps.

8 inch towed and Honest John equipped three divisional regts each from c. 1962 with two btys of each, two guns/lnchrs per bty. M110 entered service c. 1973 and shortly thereafter reorganised into one bty per div, and HJ being replaced one for one by Lance in a corp regt. The divisional 8 inch bty carried 155mm nucs as well as 8 inch ones with the capability to deliver to the 155mm btys, not forgetting second line stocks of all types plus ADMs with the dedicated RCT regt. 1 (BR) Corps probably had more nuc wpns available to it than the RN and RAF combined!

 

[acorning]

A new 6in howitzer would have been a more likely replacement for the 5.5in gun, which itself had replaced a 6in howitzer, then a replacement for the relatively heavy 7.2in. The US 8in nuclear shells had fairly high yields to destroy enemy artillery and rear areas and generally vaporize the enemy into vapor, while small 1-2kt weapons were 'suitable' as anti armor weapon in the front lines. If the British Army was really serious about nuclear artillery, it almost certainly would have wanted both 6in and 8in class weapons.

I think you'll find that in the mid '50s agreed that the calibre would be 155mm (and 105mm) but there were no defined ballistic characteristics. 203mm nucs were available in 4 yields, starting quite small. The Wikipedia article was totally accurate in this matter but some officious person removed it all so you have to go through the history to find it.

 

[alertken]

Oddly, many discrepancies in published accounts of what was fielded. I would be grateful for input:

SSMs and nominally nuclear-capable artillery were deployed from 1959, with HE payloads. By Heidelberg Agts., 30/8/61, 9/8/62(UK; similar: 8xNATO Allies, 1st.Turk./HJ,’58) warheads had co-located US Army(Field)Arty.Dets. of upto 98 men:
- 26 USAMsl.Det/Dortmund, activated 6/60 for 27/47 Regts./Corporal;
- 22 USAArty.Det/S’lager act’d 16/4/62 for 39Msl.R. M115;
- 69 USAFAD/ Deilinghofen, act’d 9/63 for Honest John/M115 (50Msl.R.and: RCA 1SSM, formed 8/12/61, “nuclear certified”(= Saceur-Declared), 9/64).

BAOR custodials 7/64-15/6/92:570thUSAArty.Gp.,583 Ord.Coy/Simpson Bks, Münster-Handorf.

NORTHAG WSA:VLM Münster-Nord(Telgte),Schirlheide(9xbunkers); Hemer-D’ofen:48xW31; Holzen/Neheimer Forst(2xbunkers).Lance W70: Depot 90/S’lager. Arty.WSA: D’mund-Brackel.


SSMs: *MGM-5B Corporal IIb:113 rounds(75 n.m; Mk.7, 8-61kt)(4/10/61 1st.Arty.Bde(Fd):
. 27 GW(Fd) R./NapierBks.Dortmund: 3/61(27th.Missile R., 18/3/64)-10/65}
. 47 GW R.(Fd.)/Napier: 6/60 (47th.Army Msl.R.,18/3/64)-1/67}ea: 2xbtys,4 (so: 16)xlaunchers.


* MGR-1B Honest John(15nm,W31,2/10/30kt):120 rounds(2x2, 1/11/72:3x2: so 12xlaunchers):
4th.Div(3/71:1st.Arty.Bde): 24 Msl.R./Barker Bks.P’born:1964-1/11/72;/Ubique Bks.D’nd- 2/77
. 1st.Divn.(3/71:1st.Arty.Bde): 39 Msl.R/Dempsey Bks.Sennelager-Süd: 1964- 4/72,
. 2nd.Divn.(3/71:1st.Arty.Bde): 50 Msl.R./N’land Bks.Menden: 6/64 (NATO-operational)-2/77.


* Vought MGM-52C Lance (81 n.m.,W70,1-100kt) 48 rounds (4x3; 8/85,3x4: so 12xlaunchers):
1st(9/77-1/81)Arty.Div.’84:Arty,1(BR)Corps;1/11/85:1stArty.Bde:50 Msl.R/N’land:2/77-15/6/92.


* Howitzers: * M115 (10n.m; W33, 5-10kt. ea: 2xbtys x4, so 24 tubes):
4th.Divn.: 24Msl.R/Barker: 9/63 (24Msl.R,18/3/64)-1969,
1st. Div( 3/71:1st.Arty.Bde): 39 Hvy.R/Dempsey: 16/4/62 (39 Msl.R.18/3/64)-4/72,
2nd. Divn3/71: 1st.Arty.Bde): 50R./N’land: 9/63 (50 Msl.R.18/3/64)-23/4/72.


*M110(8".’79M110/A1(15 n.m.W33:’69-’82;W79,<1.1kt:’82-’87.ea.R.1 btyx4:upto 48 tubes):
4th. Div (3/71:1stArty.Bde.): 24 Msl.R./Barker: (2xbtys)1969-1/11/72,
4th.Armd.Divn.: 26 Fd.R./West Riding Bks.D’mund: 1977-1/1/78,
3rd.Armd.Divn: 26 Fd.R/W.Riding: 1/1/78-1982,
4th. Divn.: 27 Med.R./Churchill Bks.Lippstadt: 2/11/72-1/77,
2nd.Armd.Div: 27 Field R./Churchill: 1/77- 4/82,
2nd.Divn.: 39 Med.R/Dempsey: 1/11/72-1/77,
. 4th.Armd.Divn.: 39 Fd.R/Dempsey: 1/77 (1979: M110A1) - 4/82,
Arty.Divn.(1984:Arty,1(BR)Corps; 11/85:1st.Arty.Bde.): 39 Hvy.R/Dempsey: (3xbtys) 4/82-1987
1st. (’77: Armd.) Div:45 Med.R/Barker:1/11/72(1/77:45 Fd.R) - 1/1/78; /HaigBks.Höhne - 4/82,
1st.Arty.Bde.: 50 Msl.R./Northumberland: 23/4/72-2/11/72.


* M109 (155mm; 11 n.m; W48, 0.1kt. 1xR.p.Divn. ea:3 btysx4 (upto 6, so in all, upto) 48 tubes:
4th.Armd.Divn.: 2 Fd.R./Waterloo Bks.Münster: (M109A2) 4/82-3/87,
1st.Armd.Divn.:4 Field R./Roberts Bks.Osnabrück: 3/84-1987,
4th. (1977: Armd.)Div: 26 Fd.R./W.Riding: 8/74-1/1/78,
3rdArmd.Divn.: 26 Fd.R/W.Riding:1/1/78-3/84,
4th.Div: 27 Med.R./Churchill: 2/69-1/77,
2nd.Armd.Divn.: 27 Fd.R/Churchill: 1/77-12/82,
4th.Armd.Divn.: 27 F.R/Churchill: 1983-3/86,
2nd Divn.: 39 Med..R./Dempsey (2xbtys): 1/11/72-1/77,
4th.Armd.Divn.: 39 Fd.R/Dempsey (2xbtys): 1/77- 4/82,
1st.Armd.Divn.: 40th.Fd.R/Haig: 4/85-15/6/92,
2nd.Div: 42 Med..R./Churchill: 6/67-2/69,
1st.(’77:Armd.)Divn.: 45 M.R/Ubique: 2/67-1/11/72; /Barker (2xbtys.1/77 45 F.R)-1/78,
/Haig (4/82:3xbtys)-4/85;
4th.Armd.Divn: 49th.F.R/Churchill: 4/86-15/6/92.

* MADM (W45,1-15kt)(50), R.E. 10/70-1985: Project Green Light: Custodials det. to 570th.USAAG from 5 Corps/Hanau. Stored Menden/Telgte; removed by NATO’s 10/83 Montebello Decision on Arms Limitation.

 

[acorning]

Quite a lot of errors in the above.

203mm were never known as M115 in UK service, the guns were the old carriages previously used for 7.2 Mk 6 in heavy regts. Obviously they had UK dial sights and the normal UK adaptor for US sight mounts.

27 & 47 were both in Dortmund, in the old airfield barracks with their USAFADs, they converted back to field/medium regts in mid-late 60s and went elsewhere (one to Devizes). The Dortmund SASS closed.

The three divisional HJ/8in regts were 24, 39 & 50, each with 4 HJ and 4 8-in in 4 btys. They were all under divisional command. Their SASS were Sennelager and Menden.

50 converted to Lance and all Lance were in that regt (4 btys, ie each bty had 3 lnchr sects instead of 2) remaining in Menden with their SASS nearby.

8 in were also reorganised into btys of 3 sects, each bty joined an Abbot or M109 regt in Hoehne, Sennelager, Lippstadt and Dortmund, this coincided with the move of 3 Div HQ from UK to Soest so there was one bty per division although 3 Div did not get any M109 until 1980, when the other division got their 3rd batteries. With this a 5th USAFAD was added (26 IIRC) although in the 1970s they changed to USAAD, presumably because the nuclear AD missiles were removed from service so there was no longer any need to differentiate between FA and AD. Conversion to M110 was at much the same time. Also around this time 155mm W48 became available, these were held by the 8-in USAADs, all stocks being in the Sennelager SASS and held in the field by divisional FSS run by each 8-in bty, who delivered to 155mm btys as necessary.

The first bty (in Dortmund) converted to M110A1 in 1979, I don't think the others converted until M110A2 became available. In 1984 or thereabouts, all the 8-in btys were concentrated into 39 Regt in Sennelager, the year before 50 Msl Regt had converted into 3 msl btys each with 4 sections and their SDGs concentrated into a separate battery.

I don't think W79 were ever available.

 

[alertken]

Thank you. ken

 

[alertken]

Shylock deduction to identify BAOR Units' AW operational spells: all Units had kit before/after NATO Declaration (e.g Crookham/Corporal, Gutersloh M109). I have seen (where?) suggestion of max AW deployment of 95xM109, 32xM110, 24xM115. Try this:
Towed 8 in (US parlance, M115): 24 R/Barker: 6/64 - 1/11/72
39 R/Dempsey: 6/64 - 1/11/72
50 R/Northumberland: 6/64 - 23/4/72 (R website says NATO-Declared, 6/64)

SP 8in M.110: 24 R/Ubique: 1/11/72 - 2/77
26 R/W.Riding: 1/1/78 - 4/82
27 R/Churchill: 2/11/72 - 4/82
39 Dempsey: 1/11/72 - 1987 (NPG Montebello Decison: MADM out, M110 AW out, M109 AW reduced by 1987)
45 Barker: 1/11/72 - 1/1/78
Haig: 1/78 - 4/82
50 N'land: 23/4/72 -2/11/72

SP 6 in M109: 2 R/Waterloo: 3/82 - 3/87
4 R/Roberts: 3/84 - 4/86
26 R/W.Riding: 1/1/78 - 11/84
27 R/Churchill: 6/69 - 12/92
39 R/Dempsey: 11/72 - 4/82
40 R/Haig: 4/85 - 15/6/92
45 R/Ubique: 2/67 - 1/11/72
/Barker: 1/11/72 - 1/1/78
/Haig: 1/1/78 - 4/85

 

[Rickshaw]

There was no real benefit in having UK owned nuclear weapons in 1 (BR) Corps, lots of cost and complication in the NATO release procedures.

The revival of this thread brought this to my attention. I would have thought having UK owned nuclear weapons was for that very purpose - not to complicate release procedures from a UK perspective but to simplify them. Without NATO and thereby US involvement, the UK was then free to use it's nukes where and when ever the UK Government cowering in it's fall out shelters wanted to. With NATO and thereby the US involved, it added more layers of complexity to an already complex problem. It also meant that the UK was now free to use it's nukes outside of Europe, if it felt it was necessary. Defence of the Empire, in the view of London, becomes a real possibility for much, much cheaper.

 

[uk 75]

KM (hope you don't mind the abrev my typing sucks!)

I agree with you. Blue Water only makes sense as a weapon to fly out by Argosy/681
to an East of Suez conflict to act as a deterrent to any Soviet supplied systems. Indonesia
being the most likely theatre, if Sukharno had survived.
As this case was so remote, the case of British tactical nuclear army weapons in NATO
was a contradiction in terms as we needed the US to release their huge arsenal, so why
have our own.
TSR2 is another variant of this out of NATO area nuclear logic and falls pretty much for the
same reason. Ironically Wilson did try to offer India V bomber cover against the Chinese.
But as they already could rely on the Russians, they turned him down..

 

[uk 75]

Another thought on this thread.
In the early 60s, the West German Defence Minister, Strauss, wanted to
get hold of lots of Davy Crockett short range nuclear weapons to ward off
a Soviet attack. I think I am right in saying the Brits were never very keen
on the DC as it would have been too risky for our own blokes..

 

[Foo Fighter]

Short range and nuke, not exactly a good pairing tbh. Nuke's need to be a fair distance from team blue imho.

 

[Dilandu]

Interesting. In mid-1950s any nuclear shell of this size would probably be gun-type device. From where Britain wanted to get so much oralloy?

 

[Foo Fighter]

The only obvious source, of course.

 

[edwest4]

Both the Americans and the British were willing to expose troops to atomic battlefield conditions. The US "Atomic Veterans" recently received recognition for the role they played in providing useful data to determine the survivability of a nuclear detonation occurring a mile or two away.

Atomic Veterans Were Silenced for 50 Years. Now, They’re Talking.

Some of the last surviving soldiers exposed to nuclear-bomb tests share their unfathomable experiences.

www.theatlantic.com

The British and Commonwealth troops:

Foreign vets say their radiation exposure ignored - UPI Archives

Veterans representing some 20,000 Canadian, British and Australian soldiers exposed to radiation from U.S. nuclear tests said Monday that, like American...

www.upi.com