Quoted Text
The sIG 33 was far too large for its intended role as an infantry gun, which by definition needs to be relatively mobile and able to be rapidly deployed near the front line.
Given when the gun was developed (1933), it's state-of-the-art. Mobile warfare was largely a theoretical concept in the early 1930s, and we know what the British military establishment thought of the idea (zilch). Even in the German military establishment, the concept of
Bewegungskrieg ("mobile warfare," with the term
Blitzkrieg coming only after-the-fact) was highly controversial.
If you look at German doctrine between the wars, they were anticipating re-fighting the Western Front against fixed French fortresses (the notion of attacking the Soviet Union wasn't even being seriously considered for a variety of reasons). The large punch and relatively short range of the sIG 33 would not be a drawback, and as we know, it was intended to be pulled by horses; even larger guns (e.g., the sFH18) were often deployed early in the war in combo mechanized and horse-drawn batteries.
Did the gun become outmoded by the advances in warfare? Yes. But I think its production right through to the end shows it served its needs. In some respects, it could be argued the concept of an infantry gun was a WWI idea that persisted even into later years, but which has been for the most part replaced by air power and mechanization. In other words, was the survival of the US 105mm into Vietnam proof of the gun's superiority as an artillery piece, or simply proof that the Army had a ton of them after WW II and continued making use of the technology because it didn't know that other measures were superior? It's an interesting question to me.
