AXIS : Gustav Line BETA AAR Round Two - Eye of the Elefant

[Bil Hardenberger]

Sorry for the delay guys. GaJ is taking his time with the next turn.

[snake_eye]

@Bil

Filling the gap with a very serious enquiry:

You have two Brumbar’s and you can only have them execute direct fire, thus exposing them unnecessarily.

Don’t you think that it will be wiser to have them execute indirect fire mission from behind a crest and in any case out of an enemy LOS.

I guess that your answer would be “affirmative”

So do you think that the day to have that possibility implemented in the game might come or is it too difficult for BF to take it in account?

BTW your analysis about the 2 HT’s destroyed on the road is fantastic. Someone, half joking, suggested to look through the holes and aligned them. That reminded me that at close range with a field gun like a 105mm you could fire on coming infantry, sighting them through the open breach, then loading and firing. Looks like you have applied that somehow for finding the average whereabouts of that gun, either a Tank one and or an ATG one.

[Bil Hardenberger]

@Bil

Filling the gap with a very serious enquiry:

You have two Brumbar’s and you can only have them execute direct fire, thus exposing them unnecessarily.

Don’t you think that it will be wiser to have them execute indirect fire mission from behind a crest and in any case out of an enemy LOS.

I guess that your answer would be “affirmative”

So do you think that the day to have that possibility implemented in the game might come or is it too difficult for BF to take it in account?

I think that if used tactically the Brummbar, or most other SP guns would actually fire direct. What is the min range when firing indirect? That would probably be farther than the extent of the map (purely guessing here) so this would have to be/should be an off map asset. So to answer your question.. for these types of guns.. no.

However ask me the same question re: HMGs and you'll get a different answer.

[John Kettler]

snake_eye,

A useful serious question. Some quick research indicates the converted sIG 33 howitzer was elevation restricted by the mount and fighting compartment layout to a mere 30 degrees of elevation, significantly restricting use in indirect fire.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmpanzer-iv-brummbar-sd-kfz-166.htm

By contrast, the sIG 33 could fire as high as 70 degrees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sIG_33

Bil is an early CSI, but where he got those laser sticks is beyond me. Suggest we ask Phil to incorporate a zero sag string model to allow Bil to do this shot source location in a more historical, and dangerous, manner!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vark]

I've seen a picture of a Sturmpanzer IV at full elevation, during the Ardennes, engaged in a fire mission, so some sort of indirect fire could be used, not sure how common though.

[Hister]

What were the most common self propelled guns used for indirect fire on each side (German/Western allies)?

[Rocky Balboa]

@Bil

Filling the gap with a very serious enquiry:

You have two Brumbar’s and you can only have them execute direct fire, thus exposing them unnecessarily.

Don’t you think that it will be wiser to have them execute indirect fire mission from behind a crest and in any case out of an enemy LOS.

I guess that your answer would be “affirmative”

So do you think that the day to have that possibility implemented in the game might come or is it too difficult for BF to take it in account?

It is obvious that the commanders intent is to use the Brumbar in direct fire mode and this is why they are deployed forward to support the attack. If the commander wanted to use them in the indirect fire support role then he would have deployed them farther to the rear and off map.

This is one of those situations where you can't have it both ways, I suspect it would take quite a bit of time and coordination for the Brumbar's crew or any SP gun of this era to transition from direct to indirect fire role. Now if this were a modern era game and we were talking about a weapon system like M109A6 Paladin then there could be a case made for allowing this to happen

[womble]

I would like to see BF allow the camera to be locked at eye level for the duration of a game. That would add a significant level of realism with the minimum amount of programming. It would also discourage the use of the target tool for checking LOS, and encourage people to use their judgement more.

Yeah, that might work. For masochists. If "eye level" had any real relationship to any "eye" in the game you cared to consider (ATM, in FI, minimum view height is significantly over 2m). If the image on screen was as clear and precise and fully 3D with steroscopic and parallax effects perfectly tied to the player's POV.

No. It would just make switching between units even more of a pain than "Iron" mode.

[John Kettler]

Rocky Balboa,

Not difficult if already surveyed in. I've read an account in which a sIG 33 unit in Russia switched from indirect fire into defiles in which Russian infantry was assembling to attack, to direct fire once the range closed. I agree that a hip shoot, barring a whole series of formation flying miracles, was not possible in the period, unless, say, bombarding a city, as in the famous Sturmtiger footage.

Regards,

John Kettler

[snake_eye]

I have read a long time ago that the minimum range was something around 450 meters to 600 meters. Unable to check it again, that’s too bad.

The 15 cm s.I.G.33 has a 5140 yards max range with a HE round, 5000 yards approximately for the Brummbar (15 cm Stu.H ;43 (L/12). The gun has a 73° elevation againt the 30° available on the Brummbar.

We have to consider that the Brummbar was designed as a close combat artillery support for the Infantry. That means that besides a direct fire it had indirect fire as well.

In many instances it was not possible to engage and or support the infantry by a direct shot, simply because the LOS did not permit, but an indirect shot. There are a lot of obstruction in a battle taking place in a city and or a small town.

I shall be interested in having a correct gun data.

[womble]

Rocky Balboa,

Not difficult if already surveyed in. I've read an account in which a sIG 33 unit in Russia switched from indirect fire into defiles in which Russian infantry was assembling to attack, to direct fire once the range closed.

Going from observed, directed indirect fire to shooting over open sights is about a thousand times easier than the other way around, though I remember an account of how a "rough and ready" baseline could be organised by "compass, map and table" pretty quickly being posted here by someone who's done it in at least near-modern mobile arty.

[Michael Emrys]

I have been reading recently that in US service the 75 mm M8 HMG and 105 mm M4 assault gun were more commonly used indirectly, or off-map in CM terms. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?

Michael

[JonS]

I remember an account of how a "rough and ready" baseline could be organised by "compass, map and table" pretty quickly being posted here

I don't know about "pretty quickly", but as long as you have a couple of radios, a LOT of ammunition, and no particular time pressures, then rough and ready improvised indirect fire is almost trivial to accomplish. The massive advances made in the art over the last century, which revolutionised the entire conduct of conventional warfare, have been to do with speeding up the process by reducing or eliminating the need for a lengthy and time consuming adjustment procedure, and allowing multiple fire units to benefit from the adjustment of any of them (instead of each unit having to conduct its own adjustment).

[MikeyD]

I have been reading recently that in US service the 75 mm M8 HMG and 105 mm M4 assault gun...

They were considered light artillery and the crew was thoroughly trained in proper artillery practices. I would wager it was rare for them to be fired over open sights as direct support weapons. Maybe firing artillery missions from a hillside into a distant town but not blasting away at targets of opportunity like a tank gun.

[Bil Hardenberger]

The Nineteenth Minute

GaJ is getting very cagey with his units.. firing for a couple turns then dislodging. This time my HQ unit on the Right Tit spotted this team jumping into these foxholes on the sunken road. Nice fallback position.

I am closing in on the Right Tit Sniper.. the team in red will be getting very close next turn. Still no spot on what the second team that is also in this area is.

My Elefant came under fire this turn from what must have been an ATG. Took a couple hits.. no real damage.. I think the optics got skewed a bit.. he will be pulling off this position and heading somewhere out of the line of fire of this gun.

Where did the fire come from? I apologize if this is too analytical for some of you..

The line of fire traces back to the ridge between hills 126 and 128.. probably close to the farmhouse.. that position would allow the gun to cover the Ridge road, some of the left valley approach, and the area behind the S Ridge (NAIs 4 and 3)

Spotted another bunker next to Tame overwatching the left valley approach. Good sighting GaJ. He's going to be a tough nut and he will cover any approach I attempt on the flank.

Pssst... for those of you who scroll all the way down, I am moving on Hill 109 next turn with part of 2d Platoon. I have smoke dropping from the Brummbar and a mortar to provide some cover. Fingers crossed.

[c3k]

Woot! I'm a scroller! I know Bil's plans! I'm a scroller, a happy scroller!!

[Andrew H.]

The Nineteenth Minute

My Elefant came under fire this turn from what must have been an ATG. Took a couple hits.. no real damage.. I think the optics got skewed a bit.. he will be pulling off this position and heading somewhere out of the line of fire of this gun.

I love looking at pictures of the Elefant. Does the Zimmerit really only go halfway up?

[MikeyD]

Does the Zimmerit really only go halfway up?

Here's the 'coolest' Elephant pict I could locate. On the Elephant 'halfway up' is higher than a man can reach standing on his tip-toes.

[Aragorn2002]

Here's the 'coolest' Elephant pict I could locate. On the Elephant 'halfway up' is higher than a man can reach standing on his tip-toes.

I love details like that. It really makes me happy. ;-)

Personally I always make a small sketch of the map I'm playing on to note enemy positions. I tend to forget from which location exactly enemy fire came and it is kind of emberassing to be reminded the hard way.

Interesting AAR so far.

[snake_eye]

I have been reading recently that in US service the 75 mm M8 HMG and 105 mm M4 assault gun were more commonly used indirectly, or off-map in CM terms. Can anyone confirm or disprove this?

Michael

That's right. I have pictures of M8 along hedges in Normandy providing a fire base for indirect fire to assist the infantry during a German counter attack. The M 4 105 was more frequently used in indirect fire again to support infantry. Artillery FO were detached among the units and had radio link with the artillery HQ to shoot on order. That way different units in different places could fire all at the same time at the same target.

[snake_eye]

I love looking at pictures of the Elefant. Does the Zimmerit really only go halfway up?

Yes it does; It was done that way since, the upper part was considered to be out of reach of someone hand if he had tried to stick a mine on the side of the tank, while standing on the ground.

Don't forget also that the Zimmerit applied in two coating was adding around 200 kilos of weight to the tank.

So there was no need to apply it, specially if it was to be of no use

[snake_eye]

About direct versus indirect fire, I just thought about the fight for the town of Metz in October '44. M12 155mm were used against some fortification with some success directly firing from very short and even point blank range. Needless to say that the Germans were barricaded in these and that they did not want to surrender despites the fact that they were unable to counter the infantry closing in, all exterior defenses having been suppressed. The M12 crew were not too exposed, that explain their close direct fire action. I still believe that BF should allow us to put some tracked units (M8, M4 105.....Brummbar and the likes) having the capacity to use indirect fire to be set out of the map, specially if that one has a small size. What more normal for a company commander to rely on indirect fire support to counter an infantry attack and or support his company assault.If that option is done, the marked units would stay the entire battle length out of the map.

[Michael Emrys]

Yes it does; It was done that way since, the upper part was considered to be out of reach of someone hand if he had tried to stick a mine on the side of the tank, while standing on the ground.

Don't forget also that the Zimmerit applied in two coating was adding around 200 kilos of weight to the tank.

So there was no need to apply it, specially if it was to be of no use

After the Germans developed a magnetic AT mine, they figured the Soviets would do the same, so they also developed the Zimmerit paste to foil them. As it happens, the Soviets never got around to producing a magnetic AT mine, so all that effort by the Germans availed them nothing.

Michael

[snake_eye]

After the Germans developed a magnetic AT mine, they figured the Soviets would do the same, so they also developed the Zimmerit paste to foil them. As it happens, the Soviets never got around to producing a magnetic AT mine, so all that effort by the Germans availed them nothing.Michael

Absolutely correct Michael. I could add that the US Intel teams had a lot of difficulties once in Germany and even after the end of the war in finding the recipe of the Zimmerit, The story does not say if it was found and what arose from that eventual finding

About the indirect fire support giving to a Infantry company

Naturally, we have to take in account that these units would be firing on registered grounds. That would explain the short time it takes them to assist the company fire plan.

In reality small observation plane (Cessna bird dog) were frequently used on the front, not without risk for the pilot, with considerable results, being sent by the artillery HQ

If these were implemented in the game, then BF would have to think about the AA..

Well that is a huge work to do and a bit of dream (about the future of the game) is allowed.

[snake_eye]

That's right. I have pictures of M8 along hedges in Normandy providing a fire base for indirect fire to assist the infantry during a German counter attack. The M 4 105 was more frequently used in indirect fire again to support infantry. Artillery FO were detached among the units and had radio link with the artillery HQ to shoot on order. That way different units in different places could fire all at the same time at the same target.[/quote

Actually I meant The M7 priest and not as I wrote it wrongly the M4 105mm.

As a matter of fact the M4 105mm was rather used against pillboxes and heavy strong points in its infantry support role. Naturally it could be used for indirect fire mission, but that was not its primary role. The M7 priest was meant for that.:cool: