Still disliking Artillery

[JasonC]

Expanding remarks on how much the Germans got from Sigint on the Russian front, not limited to tactical locating and artillery uses, these are bits of the following book -

German Radio Intelligence, by Albert Praun

(by 1944, Praun was a Lieutenant General and Germany's Chief of Army and Armed Forces Signal Communications)

In the course of the campaign Russian tank units frequently gave themselves away by faulty radio communication before

beginning to attack. German intercept personnel pounced on the especially careless requests for fuel which were radioed

by Soviet tank units. Not until the middle of I942 did the Germans find it more difficult to intercept them...

Russian radio traffic was very vulnerable to German interception because of its rigid operating procedure, the failure

to change call signs and frequencies at frequent irregular intervals, and, especially, the gradual deterioration of their

radio discipline. A previously-made observation was confirmed, namely, that the not too intelligent Russian radio operators

at division level and below could handle only simple ciphers. On the other hand, the complicated systems used by the

intermediate and high command echelons, which were handled by special cryptographic staff officers, were reasonably secure.

In spite of this, German strategic long-range radio intelligence was successful, because it devoted more attention to traffic

analysis when message evaluation failed to produce results...

Deviation from strict adherence to regulations was one of the most vulnerable points in the Russian radio service, and provided

German long-range intelligence with reliable information along the entire front, even after the above-mentioned changes in

procedure. The higher-echelon headquarters that were engaged in strategic missions, especially the tank army headquarters,

observed radio silence before launching an operation, or else confined their transmissions to brief test calls, so that little

useful information could be obtained from them. It was different in the case of the GHQ troops assigned to those headquarters

to provide an additional boost. They exchanged lively radio traffic, not so much because of lack of discipline as for

administrative and supply reasons arising from their dispersal over wide areas. They did not use the complicated cryptosystems

of their superior headquarters, but easily-broken field ciphers, with the result that their carelessness nullified the

precautions taken by the higher echelons.

This applied equally to the artillery divisions and artillery corps. In many instances the Germans were able to learn of plans

which the higher echelon headquarters was extremely careful to keep secret by intercepting messages from such units as formations

of the assault specialist, Sokolovski, and the heavy mortar, rocket launcher, and army engineer forces. In general, it was

possible to obtain a fairly accurate picture of the number of armies and divisions, their location and boundaries, the arrival

of reinforcement and the displacement of units, and thus the concentration of forces by observing and plotting the GHQ artillery,

heavy mortar, and rocket launcher units. A captured Russian signal officer explained that this carelessness in radio operations

was due to the shortages of telephone cables and field phones and the distances to be covered.

The heavy mortar and rocket launcher units always carried on a very lively radio exchange. Wherever they appeared the Germans

knew that a Russian attack was under preparation. The presence of army engineer units was often the first indication of an

impending armored offensive, before which they sent progress reports on the construction of roads, the building and reinforcement

of bridges, and the clearance of lanes through the mine fields.

Additional clues to the preparation of offensive operations were furnished by messages from and to supply and service troops...

Intercepts indicating the location of ammunition, fuel, and ration dumps provided reliable information used in the planning of

German air attacks. The greater the strain in the Russians' supply situation, the more intensive was the radio traffic. The

Germans were thus able to draw pertinent conclusions concerning the tactical situation of the enemy forces.

--- end quotations.

The US Sec Def in WW II, Henry Stimson, once famously remarked that gentlemen do not read each other's mail.

War is not a sport played by gentlemen.

[Vark]

And yet, operationally, the Russians caught the Germans by surprise, time and time again. Not much good having a good I-comm capability, if you do not use it to build up a bigger picture. Or is the usual fall guy for the Reich's failings, the inflexible Grofaz and his minions responsible?

When did the Russians learn about the RDF capability of the Germans, given they were capturing rear echelon units quite early on, or did they never cotton on?

[db_zero]

Great info in this thread. On the subject of radio intercepts I recall from one of the many war books I've read, Rommel was very distressed in the waning days of the African campaign by the loss of his highly experienced radio signal intelligence unit. If you haven't read Paul Carrells superb series of books -Foxes of the Desert, Hittler Moves East and Scorched Earth I would reccomend you take a look.

[JasonC]

Vark - they knew a lot more than many of the operational histories let on. But yes, the Russians still managed to achieve operational surprise several times, in important fights. Sometimes that reflected particularly good command and attention to security, e.g. in some of Vatutin's operations that I have seen cover this sort of thing in detail. The German general cited does note that the tank armies (after mid 1942) were much better at op-sec than other formations or earlier armor formations.

There is another reason that the same writer alludes to several times. There was an overconfidence issue and the German highest commands frequently dismissed accurate intelligence as likely disinformation when it did not fit their own subjective assessments of how weak the Russians were. The same can be seen in assessments passed upward by the line commanders. When a Rundstadt or a Guderian said it was time to go over to the defensive and they were right, they were not listened to, but simply fired. Similarly, Halder correctly forecast the Russian counteroffensive in late 1942, but was dismissed as a defeatist for his pains. Before then, von Bock had correctly pointed out that OKW was badly mismanaging the 1942 offensive. Instead of a correction to the division of forces and movements of spearheads in the wrong direction, the result was von Bock being fired and the mistakes continuing.

Smart intel and brilliant line commanders are useless if you don't listen to them...

As for when the Russians learned things, they were already paranoid about German ability to read their radio traffic by the late summer of 1941, but they did not have an accurate assessment of what the Germans were doing or how. When Stalingrad fell, however, one piece of the "haul" was complete archives of the radio intercepts the army's E-war elements had made, and that made it clear to the Russian higher staffs just how bad the problem was and where it was concentrated. The work cited above acknowledges that after that date, Russian security procedures were adequate if the units went by the book - but they didn't. It was failure to follow their own (admittedly, cumbersome) op-sec procedures, especially in the artillery and supply formations, that continued to give the Germans great radio-based intel. If you read the whole work, the Germans did have to adapt as the Russians improved things, but they did so successfully. For instance, in the early war they could read command traffic and use it to assess formations from the top down, but by 1942 that wasn't possible anymore. Russian security had improved at the higher echelons. But the Germans responded by shifting to tactical E-recon, reading the traffic of the smaller units, and building up the formation picture from the bottom up instead of the top down.

The thing the Russians just had no conception of before the post-Stalingrad period, was the sheer scale and professionalism of the German E-war effort. Rooms full of highly trained professional staffs were logging every radio transmission the Russians made, and plotting every emitting radio transmitter, and updating the whole map of all that on a weekly time scale. They had cryptanalysts breaking local ciphers used in single artillery regiments. They were not up against one room of boffins back in Berlin putting together trace reports. It was more like being up against a modern bureaucratic corporation whose primary end product was weekly unit location maps, covering the entire front down to the regiment and even battalion scale.

[Erwin]

Very interesting and edicational posts Jason. Thanks...

[DavidFields]

Can you be more specific what you think improved, and when?

Onboard mortars/artillery or off-map?

So, Redwolf, in general, there are three types of people on this forum.

1. grogs--history/technical types

2. military type people

3. and gamers--that would be someone like me.

When CMBN came out, one could (even more than now) DIRECT FIRE an on-board mortar with amazing accuracy. It was better than MG fire, because of its HE effect, and one could essentially eliminate a target every turn. Put a few shells on target, directly, on the right, then the next minute switch and pin-point a few to a target to the left, for example.

Now, after some patches and engine upgrades, the mortar fire is less accurate, the MG fire is modeled to be more effective--and my sense is that mortar teams are spotted more easily when firing directly.

The grogs can debate some of the details, and the military types can give accounts of their experience--though I am going to go out on a limb and suggest there are no WW2 vets on this forum (I took care of them--literally a dying breed)--but the "feel" is certainly much better for a gamer like me.

[Redwolf]

So, Redwolf, in general, there are three types of people on this forum.

1. grogs--history/technical types

2. military type people

3. and gamers--that would be someone like me.

When CMBN came out, one could (even more than now) DIRECT FIRE an on-board mortar with amazing accuracy. It was better than MG fire, because of its HE effect, and one could essentially eliminate a target every turn. Put a few shells on target, directly, on the right, then the next minute switch and pin-point a few to a target to the left, for example.

Now, after some patches and engine upgrades, the mortar fire is less accurate, the MG fire is modeled to be more effective--and my sense is that mortar teams are spotted more easily when firing directly.

The grogs can debate some of the details, and the military types can give accounts of their experience--though I am going to go out on a limb and suggest there are no WW2 vets on this forum (I took care of them--literally a dying breed)--but the "feel" is certainly much better for a gamer like me.

I am aware of this, I've been around.

I was simply missing which specific patch did something about the overly accurate mortars.

Also, in the early days the problem of overly powerful on board mortars was not simply caused by them being too accurate. The problem was also caused by the back of defending units being treated as if they have no cover at all. Where in reality there would be some kind of dugout, the game only modeled forward cover. Nobody wanted all fortifications to have even perfect 360 degrees defense. But in real life soldiers placing a gun or MG overnight were not completely ignorant of the possibility of mortar fire either. Simply treating the soldiers as standing in the open when a shell exploded behind them was contributing to the problem of death ray mortars. In reality company mortars had to work quite hard to get rid of individual guns. (and none of that goes into overhead cover, but that isn't required for this discussion)

Since I don't do dedicated isolated tests on CM anymore I would be curious to know the specifics of fixes, e.g. the change message in patches or maybe somebody did run isolated tests?

[Redwolf]

Oh and hi from Metrowest, Rankorian.

[Vark]

Thanks Jason, just wonder how much of that meticulous picture was created by Russian maskirovka? Especially if the Russians played on the German perception of lax radio op-sec. It might explain the attitude of near-certainty the Germans seemed to evince about Soviet deployments, especially in the mid to latter war years. Or was it just the case that the intelligence picture took so long to build, bottom up, that it always lagged behind the Soviet operational timetable?

I thought Stalingrad might have netted valuable intelligence on German capabilities, thanks for confirming it, and it reinforces the idea of Stalingrad being a 'turning point' in many ways.

[Sublime]

pssh metro-west isnt Boston. Im in Southie, thats Boston.

[noxnoctum]

Do any of you do this kind of thing for a living (being a grog that is)? It's obvious that there are some very knowledgeable people on here.

I haven't finished university yet (saving up cash for last 2 years), and haven't declared my major... I wanted to go with history at first, but after seeing many of my friends who majored in liberal arts type stuff unable to find a job in their field, I've had second thoughts... but maybe there is something out there if I look hard enough.

[Sublime]

Im trying to. Im about to enter my fourth year at UMass Boston. My major is history. However that said, yes I am quite concerned about wtf I will do for a job.

[db_zero]

Do any of you do this kind of thing for a living (being a grog that is)? It's obvious that there are some very knowledgeable people on here.

I haven't finished university yet (saving up cash for last 2 years), and haven't declared my major... I wanted to go with history at first, but after seeing many of my friends who majored in liberal arts type stuff unable to find a job in their field, I've had second thoughts... but maybe there is something out there if I look hard enough.

As someone who was once in your shoes I'm tempted to say quite a bit, but I'll keep it short.

IMO a college degree in most cases is not worth much these days. I think people have been sold a bill of goods about the value of a piece of paper and taking on huge debt loads for something that in my opinion has lost much of its value is a losing proposition.

In some cases it may still be a good investment, but its not the same world as it was when I got my degree. These days I think a college degree is about as valuable as a high school diploma was when I was in college the only difference being is it comes with a very high price tag. Contrary to the propaganda put out there many colleges are no longer a institution of higher learning for the general good, but big business, run like corporations where the objective is profit at all cost. They have also become corrupt and a revolving door for the well connected. Just look at the California where Janet Napolitano got a cushy massive paying position with the UC system in a secret process without any public hearing. You can bet dollars to donuts that Senator Feinsteins husband who is a UC regent had something with that scheme that is something you see in places like Pakistan and Egypt.

You may be better off putting that money to other uses.

When you see so many with degrees doing low wage jobs with the burden of student loan debt and little prospect for advancement you have to ask would they be better off if they when to trade school and learned something which could lead to a decent starting job that with a few years of sweat and hard work result in a pretty damm well paying position. It may not be glamorous, but as legions of people are now finding out paying exorbitant sums of money for a piece of paper that leads to nowhere and comes with the added burden of years/decades of loan payments isn't glamorous either.

As a newly minted college grad you'll face competition from low wage nations and if the idea stealing billionaire Zuckerberg gets his way you'll have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands H1bs who will gladly work long hours for slave wages to compete against.

The only other advice I have is find something that can't be outsourced.

[John Kettler]

noxnoctum,

Used to: a bit over 11 years as a Soviet Threat Analyst at Hughes and Rockwell. Covered everything from Spetsnaz to space surveillance. Programs included: AMRAAM, TOW, Maverick, GBU-15, B-1B, ATF, Roland, Assault Breaker, WASP, ACAS, NASP and more.

Sublime,

If you're going to go the History route, I believe you'll need a Master's to teach in high school and community college and a Ph.D. to teach at university level. Hope you've got a big piggy bank! Don't know where you stand on the U.S. military, but you may wish to consider that route and doing post grad in Military History, Military Science or some such. Several big name military history types have gone the military route, including Glantz, Dupuy, Alexander, Marshall. With the (insert branch) picking up the tab, you can go to top schools, not merely here, but abroad, to include that OxCam bunch.

I majored for a time in Military History (fine with my boss in Operations Analysis), but was forced out of it by a boss's boss demand I matriculate from a program resulting in a B.S., rather than a B.A. That's why I wound up with a B.S. in Bus Admin. Sigh. Certainly didn't have the math chops for, say, Engineering, so improvised to (temporarily, sadly) get management off my back. I say temporarily because after I degreed, efforts began to force me to get another degree in the hard sciences, despite my excellence in my job. Nearly joined the CIA as a case officer (spy recruiter) trainee, but wound up at Rockwell.

Apropos of the college degree fiasco, as far back as 1976 or so, Professor Samuel P. Huntington was pushing hard for discouraging the burgeoning growth of people seeking college degrees. Why? Because college grads thought for themselves and made demands on a system designed to encourage passivity and conformity. One study likened such people as cogs in the smooth machinery of the state. College grads were more like gears that don't mesh. Factor in massive changes in the nature and shape of the economy (gutting of manufacturing sector, for one) in turn drastically affecting the ability of students to self-finance, as well as a major reduction in educational grants and funding from the government, and it becomes ugly indeed, as you know all too well.

[Sublime]

Im not doing the teaching route - almost for sure. There are other options. I'm all set with the military, I grew up in a military family. Not only that - but the military is all set with me as a convicted felon.

[JasonC]

My recommendation for smart people with good general analysis skills, of the sort attracted to this sort of subject, is not to expect your job to explicitly mention history or anything like it in the job title. Instead, master an important economic skill like programming, accounting, statistical analysis, or general business (microeconomics applied to marketing or pricing analysis, etc). Employers will hire you for those skills but quickly notice the analytic ability applied to general social systems and historical detail. All of those areas wind up using the same mental abilities, and the formal skills just become an entry point for their application to specific problems of this or that company or field.

That is my advice about it, looking back...

[Childress]

Apropos of the college degree fiasco, as far back as 1976 or so, Professor Samuel P. Huntington was pushing hard for discouraging the burgeoning growth of people seeking college degrees.

I'm with the Professor on that score. Some of us dream that ALL degrees, at least in the Liberal Arts, were abolished* and restricted to the sciences. The former tends to result in a inflammation of society by manufacturing under-employed misfits. You see a metastasizing of bureaucracy.

*- I have two thirds of a Masters in French History.

[Erwin]

This is a sad discussion, but I agree with what has been said. I still remember when I were a lad that we were taught that a university education was good for its own sake, broadening the mind, creating a well-informed citizen better able to analyze news and information so as to make good decisions in life etc.

However, economic realities of the past decades have made almost all higher education institutions "trade schools" of some kind where the primary objective is to get a job. My wife has a couple of degrees from USC and worked there afterwards as well. It became apparent to me that well-funded schools like USC are primarily real estate and investment corporations that hide behind an educational sideline so as to keep their privilege tax status.

I get the impression that the only schools (worth going to) where doors will be opened for you after graduating these days are the elite Ivy League. There is little respect for degrees from other schools. Pretty much all degrees from all the 2nd tier universities (that used to be fairly prestigious) have been devalued, and if you go to the third tier...

Certainly in London I noticed that schools that used to be "technical schools" have now been upgraded to universities. Thames Valley University comes to mind. Universities like that cater to foreign students (who can pay well) who go back home with the cachet of having a British or American degree which may be impressive in East Bonga Land, but which won't do you much good in the UK or US.

I fear that the rigid class system I grew up in is coming back with a vengeance and the corruption/degradation of our educational system is the prime mover.

[John Kettler]

A remarkable, sometimes amusing, tangent from the main discussion, and I'm starting to feel the people who made a mess of education (at a bunch of levels) might make themselves useful as artillery targets. Unfortunately, some would require exhumation!

On a more topical note, the link speaks to weight of fire, target vulnerability, effects of cover, casualty radii, casualty criteria and more.

British Artillery: Effects and Weight of Fire

http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[Blackcat]

"I fear that the rigid class system I grew up in is coming back with a vengeance and the corruption/degradation of our educational system is the prime mover."

We are getting awfully close to the banned subject of politics here but I have to agree. In fact in the UK, social mobility (in terms of people from poor or poorish back grounds moving up) has basically stopped. The prime cause of this has been the collapse of the education system into a mish-mash of "progressive" propaganda, teachers focused on meeting targets through box-ticking process and a prizes for all mentality (as if a A level in "Media-studies" could be worth the same as one in Physics). The root cause of much of this nonsense was the lunatic idea by a certain politician that 50% of UK youth could benefit from a university education, which led to nonsense degrees being introduced by fourth rate former technical colleges and fees being introduced (currently £9,000 pa).

Years ago an American correspondent of mine sent me the following joke:

An engineering graduate asks, "What happened with that?"

A mathematics graduate asks, "Why did that happen?"

A liberal arts graduate asks, "Do you want fires with that?"

[Vark]

Blackcat, as a teacher in a UK comprehensive (now an academy) take care in denigrating all in my profession. The majority of teachers work to keep a Victorian system operating whilst being asked, by society, to remedy its increasingly dysfunctional attitude towards children.

My friend in the Foreign Office is increasingly box checking, its a syndrome that occurs in most professions now, apparently, as 'Peter principle' management focus' on claims, instead of the reality.

A comprehensive American survey has shown the key enablers to social mobility are, children brought up in two parent families, who support them and who regularly contribute to communities, via church or charities. The former and later are an anathema to successive UK governments, so we have pointless initiatives targeting, various artificially created groups. Universities are suffering from the dumbing down of GCSE's and the restrictive National Curriculum, which both affect A levels, and as you correctly stated the ridiculous 50 idea. Though that was partly because a majority of industries had scaled back their apprenticeship programmes, to save on costs, and most companies need far fewer staff than before. I guess the idea was that with A levels and a university course 5-6 years would be taken up before they hit the job market and by then the magic unicorns would have solved the fundamental problems with the system.

As for fees' the previous system was unworkable, with students running up massive debts, due to financial incompetence, which rarely were paid off in total. Western nations need to have a mature debate about the role of education, blaming teachers is the easy option, though some of my colleagues do closely resemble the stereotype, much beloved by the media, the majority I know of don't.

[womble]

Blackcat wasn't criticising the teachers, but, as you point out, the way their paymasters demand that they focus their vocation. My wife was trained as a teacher, and would love to return to the profession, but cannot stand to see what political interference has done to it.

The targets for degree-level attainment are a large part of what has cheapened the batchelor's degree in this country. Regardless of whether the actual standard of education has remained high, or whether 50% of 18-21 year olds are actually capable of attaining that standard, there simply aren't that many jobs available that "require" that sort of education, and pay enough to make up the difference caused by being 3-5 years older before starting to earn, and having to pay 30 grand tuition fees on top of that. Which makes the expectations of all these "extra" graduates untenable. I think that's a high price to exact from the wrong people for opening up the opportunity to get a degree to more people.

[Childress]

I didn't start this detour into dangerous waters, but what the hey...

Years ago I had a conversation with a family member, Bill. Bill is an alumnus of Wesleyan and became an energetic recruiter for that university. He's now retired, in his 80s. Wesleyan had long become notorious for its Marxist faculty, speech codes and general leftist bent. Bill, a church-attending Republican, was well aware of this and disapproved. So I asked why he continued his recruiting activities. His defensive response: 'Because they're getting an education!'.

You can't make this stuff up.

[Vark]

I think Blackcat was having a dig, but I'm sure he can defend himself. Womble, I sympathise with your wife's plight, I have only taught 10 years, but see the end in sight for me, especially if my wife's project takes flight. As for the standard of education, it has weakened since I've been in the profession, especially the core competencies required for A level study, especially self-learning and reading.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10250548/School-standards-threatened-by-early-and-often-GCSEs.html

This from todays DT.

[Blackcat]

Mr. Vark,

Yes, I can defend myself when I need to and with regard to what I said above I don't think I need to. I wouldn't dream of condemning all teachers as bloody useless, process-driven, ideological menaces to the mental well-being of their charges. However, a sufficient number of them are just that and having done a PGCE myself I can see where they get it from.

As you say contemporary English society as espoused by our trendy politicians (i.e. all life styles are equally valid, prizes for all etc etc) don't help and they must shoulder their share of the blame. Nonetheless, wherever the balance of blame lies, the net effect is, as you have noted, that the "standard of education has weakened". I'd say it has fecking collapsed, but let us not split hairs.

When you have a situation in which an eighteen year old who cannot string three coherent sentences together gains enough credits to get into a university, if only a fourth rate ex-poly and to do a degree in Medieval Pottery and Flower Arranging, something has gone seriously wrong.

Mr Erwin's comment,

"I fear that the rigid class system I grew up in is coming back with a vengeance and the corruption/degradation of our educational system is the prime mover."

is hard to disagree with, save that I would say the class system had largely gone when I was at school and merit was the key. It is now the wealth of ones parents that has made a massive comeback in determining outcomes.

Anyway, before I get banned for all this politics let me say I am very much looking forward to the Market Garden Module. I have never really got on with the Italian Campaign.