Well, I have recently gotten a copy of the book by Horst F. Plank titled "Die Waffen der Koeniglich Bayerischen Armee 1806-1918 - Band IV - Die Artillerie". It is an interesting collection of technical drawings and photos that have largely seen in other works on this subject. It does mention numbers of some of the artillery in Bavarian service verses the remaining states within Germany. Beyond this, I did not see any new information and there is very significant misinformation. Examples of this are the inclusion of the German 15cm sFH 18, 10cm K 18 in a work dedicated to the 1806-1918 era. Despite the "18" designations on these two weapons, they were 1930s era pieces. What is even more confusing to me is that if a decision to include these 1930s-1945 era pieces was made, why not include the 10,5cm leFH 18 and others like the 7,5cm IG 18? These last two again have false 1918 designations but were 1930s designs in order to confuse the regulation of the Versailles Treaty. Another odd error is that an illustration of a 15cm lg. s.F.H. 1913 is credited as a 15cm s.F.H. 1913 on page 176. This is sometimes a confusing issue when reading WW2 German sources because when the old short barreled 15cm sFH 13 was dropped from the Third Reich's Artillery service and the 15cm lg. s.F.H. 1913, designed in 1917, was retained, they switched the designations. I suppose Plank may have been looking at these later, post WW1 works to make this error. I don't want to be too critical here, but I don't see the value in this work. It simply repeats information that has been commonly published and is generally available. While artillery ammunition is covered in a very haphazard way, no other significant information on related equipment, such as transport or gunnery equipment is offered. I also find no greater insights into the tactics, techniques and procedures of the German or Bavarian Field or Foot Artillery in this work. It is nice to see a newer book come out that covers the subject of WW1 Era German or Bavarian artillery, but I am afraid this one really misses the mark. Let me know if you found something in this work that I am not properly appreciating.
