M7 Priest--How Often Used for DIRECT Fire?

[Childress]

not having been born within the sound of Bow Bells...

The mystery deepens...

[cool breeze]

The mystery deepens...

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Andrew H.]

Is this cockney slang? Or a vegetable?

Cockney is non-rhotic. Must be a vegetable...

[dieseltaylor]

M7s are not mobile artillery, they are tank hunters:

First off all my tank was unbottoned and should have seen and fired first. But what realy puzzles me: how the heck this mobile artillery piece shots on the move and gets a first round hit?

That video sums up pretty much why I find it difficult to take CMX2 seriously. There is no way in hell that should have happened.

As for M7 DF in passing

On to Luzon and the Villa Verde. --- The engineers had scraped out a firing position for us and it worked out well. We could fire across this valley at Jap positions as close as 600 yards and any range beyond. I don't know how many rounds we fired from there, but it was a lot.

http://carol_fus.tripod.com/army_hero_donald_boyd.html

[JasonC]

dt - operative word "Jap". Equals no anti tank assets to speak of (pretty much). Sure they'd park opposite entrenched infantry positions for direct fire when there was no effective reply.

Don't disagree on the video, however. The Priest wouldn't fire that much off axis without aligning the vehicle, it wouldn't get the first shot vs a keyholed tank watching a fire lane, and if by any stretch of the imagination it did, a shot on the move would be wildly inaccurate.

Granted the range is practically point blank for cannon fire. But they'd still realistically crawl into LOS facing the keyhole, stop as soon as even a smidgen of LOS existed, halt completely and fully align the vehicle on the target, all before trying to fire. They might even get off the first shot in that case, if they didn't go all the way into full LOS (let alone across it), and their "opener" was HE at e.g. a barely visible section of track of the enemy tank, just visible around the edge of the "keyhole".

But straight across the tank's entire field of view, moving? They'd get plugged themselves. If the tank fired first and managed to miss, they'd probably keep booking out of LOS. If they did stop to duel, they'd be flustered and the keyholed tank would likely get off a second round before they got off their first. Etc.

[sburke]

That video sums up pretty much why I find it difficult to take CMX2 seriously. There is no way in hell that should have happened.

and most of the time it will not. If it were a regular thing, that I'd be freaking over, but it isn't and I don't. For it to NEVER happen would mean a lot of other things never happening that should. Re run that same turn a few dozen times and count the number of times that happens.

Why is it gamers seem to be the last ones to understand what the limitations computers impose on the games they play? Every game has them and for the forseeable future every game will continue to have them. Is there any comparable game you would take seriously (that is not meant to be sarcastic- it is a genuine question - there aren't any out there that I have seen that aren't either totally about eye candy or just aren't any good - I have yet to see anything of CM's caliber.)

On the other hand think about what you are seeing here. When would the US army ever rush an M7 past a town occupied by German tanks. Kilkess's joke notwithstanding, M7's are not tank hunters, they really are artillery pieces. If you play the game totally unrealistically to begin with, do you really have any business calling the game itself out for anything that happens that normally shouldn't?

[John Kettler]

womble,

I think your characterization of the spotting situation is somewhere between off and way off. An SP howitzer crew isn't standing around spotting. It has other things to do, such as pulling projectiles and cartridges, opening cases, adjusting powder increments, talking to the FDC/monitoring the net and more. The crew has to be ready to spring into action and can't do that if everyone's doing sector search.

Here is a very detailed look at M7 issues. FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL, December 1943

www.71afa.com/Field%20Artillery%20Journal/M7.pdf

Special note to BFC,

This article shows SPA FO sections (one per battery) consist of seven men, ALL of whom are cross trained in the FO function and can take over. In addition to the jeep, there's also a halftrack.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor,

A fascinating story told by a little heard from branch of the Army. Appreciate your sharing this.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Killkess]

I simply also dont buy that "it is just a 1 in 1000 thingy" anymore. There are thousands and thousands of computations happening during a normal scenario. One will unavoidably see multiple of these outliners accure. I almost cant remember the last time i played a whole scenario without several "WTF"-moments.

Combine this with at times dubious spotting routines, rediculous long range smg shoting, almost inneffective MGs etc. and u start to get frustrated very quickly.

[womble]

womble,

I think your characterization of the spotting situation is somewhere between off and way off. An SP howitzer crew isn't standing around spotting. It has other things to do, such as pulling projectiles and cartridges, opening cases, adjusting powder increments, talking to the FDC/monitoring the net and more. The crew has to be ready to spring into action and can't do that if everyone's doing sector search.

In normal operations, you'd be right. But when you're ahistorically tear-assing across the battlefield under the guns of the enemy pretending like you're a Firefly crewed by John Wayne and Audie Murphy, with Barkmann and Wittman along to fight the aliens, I submit that you won't be setting fuse timers and bagging charges (one of the crew will be loading the full-power HEAT round, kept handy in the storage bins that allow fastest access and loading). Nor will you be receiving indirect fire instructions (since Rgt probably doesn't know where you are, or they'd be having eleven kinds of kittens and a conniption fit all at once; maybe Donald is on the radio telling them to quit with the negative vibes). If you'd said the crew couldn't look out because they are too busy clinging on for dear life or hiding down on the floor of your cabriolet from the hail of small arms fire you expect from the enemy-held buildings you're crossing in front of, you'd be closer to the mark.

It's also worth noting that in "normal" operations, most of the crew are outside the vehicle, dealing with ammo from supply trucks. Take a look at an M7 in game: there simply isn't enough room for the weapon to be operated with all the crew on board, especially with all the underfloor storage.

This is a prime example of why BFC are so reluctant to let us have general access to toys and techniques that were used very occasionally (and usually in specific circumstances). We, gamey bastiches as we are, collectively, will abuse the bejazus out of them, and there's no way BFC can write the game to accommodate all those abuses.

[John Kettler]

womble,

That's pretty funny! Now, let's look at a couple of real items of information. Based on my limited knowledge of the M7, there's no way to carry HEAT ready to go. Why? Projectiles and cartridges are stored separately and "married" at the gun right before firing. The M7 carries additional ammunition in a trailer. Trucks would have to be brought in eventually to replenish that trailer. The M7, though, carries a fairly impressive 69 rounds, as detailed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_Priest

In looking at the pictures, it's apparent that the front of the vehicle has three people in it already: the gun commander, the gunner and the driver. The rest of the men are in the considerable remainder of the fighting compartment. While in an extended engagement, there would be ammunition stacked in the firing position, as seen in one of the mashup pics, the M7 could be fought using nothing but what was on the vehicle. Note also the degree of exposure of the men when the M7's in action.

http://militarymashup.com/artillery-sp-m7-105mm-priest.htm

The previously cited FIELD ARTILLERY JOURNAL indicates out of 7 men, only one would be found outside the vehicle when in action. Being forced to put one man outside of the armor might reduce some of the excesses you decry.

"It is largely self-sufficient, for there is room in the vehicle for the crew necessary for operation of the weapon, and all essential equipment. Even while firing, the Chief of Section, gunner, driver, and Nos, 1, 2, and 3 cannoneers are inside, protected by armor. A good load of ammunition is carried in an armored trailer and so, if the M7 gets within range of the enemy, it has all it needs to go into action."

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

and most of the time it will not. If it were a regular thing, that I'd be freaking over, but it isn't and I don't. For it to NEVER happen would mean a lot of other things never happening that should. Re run that same turn a few dozen times and count the number of times that happens.

sjburke

Whilst I applaud your desire to stand up for the game, and your request for someone to repeat the action another 24 times, I think we have a fundamental problem here. I am prepared to believe that due to the way BF have chosen to design the game we have to make some allowances for the visual not matching the actual. However we are also told the shells are individually calculated and therefore pretty darn accurate.

Bottom line movement and firing, and spotting all seem banjaxed. In this particular instance we are looking at something that in RL be in the millions to one against column - not because in RL it never happened that an M7 drove past a lurking enemy tank but in the fact it had a shell up the spout and was able to fire considerably off its angle of movement. AND the German tank never thought to fire.

BF have really got to nail the moving tank is king nonsense. I don't give a monkey if it screws the non-stop players. Perhaps there are two games here which have been crunched together and the WEGO players have ended up with a pup. There needs to be a fundamental think on whether the game can be split so that both parties have a game that is believable not just the RTS.

[sburke]

sjburke

Whilst I applaud your desire to stand up for the game, and your request for someone to repeat the action another 24 times, I think we have a fundamental problem here. I am prepared to believe that due to the way BF have chosen to design the game we have to make some allowances for the visual not matching the actual. However we are also told the shells are individually calculated and therefore pretty darn accurate.

*snip*

Perhaps there are two games here which have been crunched together and the WEGO players have ended up with a pup. There needs to be a fundamental think on whether the game can be split so that both parties have a game that is believable not just the RTS.

Just for clarification - I don't play RTS, ever. I am strictly a WeGo person.

As to the other, there seem to be a fair amount of threads on "how can you even play this I had this one scene where.... fill in example"

I play a lot - I have 3 PBEM opponents and I also had to play a lot of scenarios against the AI for testing. While yes there are occasions where I see things that likely shouldn't happen, they are far from so broken/often as to totally ruin the game as I keep hearing.

Respectfully I wonder how the heck folks are playing the game to get those results.

It isn't about defending the game, I have nothing at stake here in terms of any ego attachment to BF or a financial commitment. I certainly don't program so it isn't like I am just being lazy to not have to fix things. The only option that leaves is either I am just trying to be a contradictory PitA (which I probably can be at times, but honestly I am not trying to do so here) or for some reason I don't seem to get the same results anywhere near as often as some others. Which then leads me back to my question. How are folks gettting these results they say they see all the time? Could it be a matter not just of the game, but HOW you play it? I am not talking RTS vs WeGO here. It is just a thought as unless my PBEM partners tell me I am just oblivious, I am just not gettting overwhelmed with these kinds of issues.

[Andrew H.]

The only other exception I am aware of is some bunker busting work against fortified positions, sometimes with SPA even bigger than the Priest. In those cases it was a matter of a static enemy position in a known location, which could be engaged "assymmetrically" with little danger to the gun, but where numerous high caliber shots might be needed to get the desired direct hit, and where indirect fire would be ineffective. This is a traditional "assault gun" role, basically. Sherman 105s were made for it, but Priests (and SPA 155mm howitzers) got pressed into that role. In the operational histories one can find such cases at the west wall in the ETO fighting, for example; in the fighting for Metz; some block-busting work in the Aachen city fight, similarly. That is about it.

I hope that helps.

I found a couple of instances on Sicily in the Sicily/Italy Green Book:

As the [German] tanks waddled slowly down the highway, Battery B tried to engage them with direct fire, but a high wall near the bridge not only limited observation but also prevented the howitzers from opening fire. German infantrymen, who crossed behind the tanks, turned to engage the Americans near the railroad bridge. The tanks continued moving slowly along the road, seemingly intent on going through the American beachhead.

Battery B tried to displace to positions from which it could fire on the tanks, but the Germans spotted this movement. In the ensuing fire fight, the tanks knocked out two of the American guns and two ammunition half-tracks. The exploding ammunition drove the Battery B crews from their other two guns, although one crew returned to its vehicle and moved it onto the highway, just around a bend in the road. No sooner had it gone into

position than the lead German tank rounded the bend. The American artillery crew fired first, and missed. Then the tank fired, and also missed. The second rounds from both vehicles, fired almost simultaneously, struck home. Both the tank and the self-propelled gun started to burn furiously.

p. 402

But the German tanks never reached the 1st Division beaches. Nor was there any thought of American re-embarkation. The 32d Field Artillery Battalion, coming ashore in Dukws moved directly into firing positions along the edge of the sand dunes and opened direct fire on the mass of German armor to its front. The 16th Infantry Cannon Company, having just been ferried across the Acate River, rushed up to the dune line, took positions, and opened fire. Four of the ten medium tanks of Colonel White's CCB finally

got off the soft beach, and, under White's direction, opened fire from the eastern edge of the plain. The 18th Infantry and the 41st Armored Infantry near the Gela-Farello landing ground prepared to add their fires. Engineer shore parties stopped unloading and established a firing line along the dunes. Naval gunfire, for a change, was silent-the

opposing forces were too close together for the naval guns to be used.

pp. 170-71. [Note: I am assuming that the 32d F.A. Battalion is equipped with m7s, both because of how they came onto shore, and because the M7 equipped FA battalions were assigned to support armored divisions, which is what seems to be happening here. But I haven't been able to confirm this.]

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks for the reply sburke.

AH - great sleuthing. From that we see an M7 in position, loaded for bear, can miss.! : ) But yes really nice find I am well-impressed.

and a linky for anyone else wanting to grab their .pdf

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/006/6-2-1/index.html

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/006/6-2-1/index.html

[Wicky]

The 32d Field Artillery Battalion, coming ashore in Dukws

Sounds from the description it was this

[JonS]

No, I'm pretty sure 32nd FA Bn was towed 105mm. It was one of the bns in 1st Inf Div throughout the war.

Also if it was an armoured field artillery battalion it would probably be listed as "32nd Armoured Field Artillery Battalion" in the Green book.

Edit: ninja'd by wicky

[JasonC]

To JK in re "to carry HEAT ready to go" - I didn't work on Priests, before my time and all, but I did work on modern US SP artillery pieces. And yes there is a meaningful sense of having HEAT rounds ready to go. The 105mm fires semi separate loading ammunition, which means the powder charges are taken from separate canisters, the back of the round / shell casing itself is unscrewed and the right number of powder charges is dropped inside - this varies by range for indirect fire, notice. Then the round is then reclosed, and a fuze (which can vary by the missing) is screwed onto the top of the shell. Before the shell is fuzed it is inert, so as a safety matter that is the last action in readying the round. (The fuze doesn't arm, itself, until accererated by being fired, another safety precaution - but the shell is safest when completely unfused).

Now, when firing indirect, this ammo operation can spill out of the vehicle for convenience and easy organization. Rounds may be prepped somewhat ahead of time for typical missions or for registrations already fired, so that the charge number and fuze type is known. But in principle you wait until the mission is called to maximize the flexibility you get from varying the powder charge as well as the solution elevation for a specific range, and to adjust the fuzing to the target called (quick for exposed infantry, delay for dug in positions or buildings, etc). You lose those points of flexibility if you have prepared the rounds ahead of time.

But when you expect direct fire action, the last thing you want to be doing is fishing around in the ammo containers and charge canisters, handling loose powder bags in the back of the 'track, dropping fuzes as the driver hurtles around the battlefield, etc. So you prep rounds ahead of time. The charge doesn't matter very much for direct fire - they will all get there, and maximum charge will give the highest muzzle velocity for flat trajectory shots (though it is also tougher on the barrel, longer term). Specialized direct fire rounds like HEAT have their own fuzes, and for the rest you would prep mostly quick and a few delayed and store them separately to use the one needed for a given direct fire target.

Modern SP have ready racks at the back of the track, in the turret bustle. But any way you had to do it would be better than long delay between shots in action. All the slower ammo prep steps are needed for adjusting range by adjusting powder, or adjusting fuzes for target types, and in direct lay those simply aren't nearly as important as reloading speed. So you'd get the ammo prep done ahead of time - assuming you saw direct fire action coming. If it was a surprise engagement, you'd get to try to do all of the above while also prepping rounds to fire, racing to get ahead of the tube throwing the things.

FWIW...

[Andrew H.]

But when you expect direct fire action, the last thing you want to be doing is fishing around in the ammo containers and charge canisters, handling loose powder bags in the back of the 'track, dropping fuzes as the driver hurtles around the battlefield, etc. So you prep rounds ahead of time. The charge doesn't matter very much for direct fire - they will all get there, and maximum charge will give the highest muzzle velocity for flat trajectory shots (though it is also tougher on the barrel, longer term). Specialized direct fire rounds like HEAT have their own fuzes, and for the rest you would prep mostly quick and a few delayed and store them separately to use the one needed for a given direct fire target.

Yeah, I thought it was interesting in the green book example above that the priest was able to reload almost as fast as the tank, despite having to deal with a separate charge (as well as, presumably, a larger shell).

[JonS]

Yeah, I thought it was interesting in the green book example above that the priest was able to reload almost as fast as the tank, despite having to deal with a separate charge (as well as, presumably, a larger shell).

As already noted, twice, the Green Book examples you gave were for towed 105mm M1, not SP M7.

[Andrew H.]

As already noted, twice, the Green Book examples you gave were for towed 105mm M1, not SP M7.

The second rounds from both vehicles, fired almost simultaneously, struck home. Both the tank and the self-propelled gun started to burn furiously.

It's maybe not clear, but the two examples aren't the same unit or the same action.

[JonS]

Quite right - my mistake. On p.393 the composition of Bernard's reinforced Bn Gp is laid out, although unusually the parent unit for the tanks and the two SP artillery btys (and the engineers) isn't identfied.

Edit: ah, found it. On p.352 Bernard's guns are identified as coming from 58th Armd Fd Art Bn.

32nd Fd Arty Bn, though, was towed - I checked Stanton's WWII US Army OoB book last night.