WWII artillery (and infantry support assets...)

[Kaunitz]

Bear with me. I know next to nothing about WWII artillery. But I was hoping that maybe someone here could help me understand a few things?

From what I understand, the distinction between "howitzers" and "guns" was already becoming blurred during WWII. The difference is that howitzers fire at higher angles (curved trajectory) at lower velocities (shorter barrel), while guns fired at lower angles (flater trajectory) at higher velocities (longer barrel). This gave the gun a longer range (usefull for counter battery fire) at the cost that it could not hit enemy positions in defilade  that well (because of the flat trajectory). This applies to larger scale obstacles (hills), but also to the smaller scale (hitting into trenches). Also, I've read that howitzer shells had more explosive power than similar calibre gun ammunition. Simply because gun shells needed a thicker case in order to bear the stress from being fired at higher velocities. 

So I was wondering if there is any difference in Combat Mission between howitzer and gun artillery? From what I can tell, both types use the same trajectory (the shells roughly come flying from the "friendly side" of the faction, which is set by the mapmaker). Do howitzer shells pack more punch than gun shells? Also, perhaps one type is more accurate than the other? What's your experience/opinion?

Another interesting aspect is that WWII saw the rise of self propelled artillery. Obviously, the benefits are operational and/or related to counter-battery fire evasion and thus have no place in Combat Mission. But it seems as if sp. artillery formations often come with more ammunition? 

---------------------------------------

Last but not least, I also want to point out that assault guns/close support artillery (including the sp. artillery pieces that can be placed on map in CM) are in a bad spot in Combat Mission H2H quickbattles. Partly it's understandable, as it really was in a bad position and was adapted to fill a broader role during the war. Russian and German assault guns got their longer barreled guns to be usefull in the infantry support as well as the anti tank role. Nevertheless, traditional assault guns (e.g. StuHs) were used in the war. Currently, there is no incentive at all to pick these proper - howitzer armed - assault guns in H2H battles. I think they're in need of a price reduction. They're good at collapsing buildings and knocking out strong points (hardly anyone uses bunkers anyway...) and hitting enemy infantry. But the fact that they can't deal with enemy tanks makes them next to useless in H2H quickbattles. Reducing their cost may help? It's a pity that they are limited to scenarios. The same can be said for (manhandled/towed) infantry support guns and tanks, by the way. The H2H quickbattle is a very tank- and anti-tank heavy environment unless you agree on restrictions that usually include AGs/sp. artillery though. For this reason, I think that AGs (not including those that also act as tank destroyers) and sp. artillery should be much cheaper (compared to tanks). 

There are just so many vehicles you rarely ever see. This includes the early StuGs and later the StuHs, earlier SUs & ISUs, Sextons and Priests, Wespes and Hummels, StuPa/Brummbär, PzIIIN, Churchills - the coolest looking tank! , Howitzer Motor Carriages and also all sorts of flamethrower tanks, by the way! As their main use is against enemy infantry, they should be in a different, lower price category than tanks and anti tank guns.  But maybe it's just up to the community to find new house rules for force composition. Limiting armored fighting vehicles or tracked vehicles is not the solution. Rather (or in addition to that) we'd need to limit the number of guns with AT capability (long barrel/high velocity), which naturally includes not just mounted guns (tanks etc), but also ordinary "infantry" ATGs.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Kaunitz

[General Liederkranz]

It’s always seemed to me that the trajectories are the same for guns, howitzers, and off-map mortars, and they look pretty steep. I think it’s up to scenario designers to omit certain assets if the terrain would make them unusable. I recall one scenario in the Troina campaign says the Germans have only mortars because you’re on the reverse slope from them. It would be nice if this were explicitly modeled, since some maps would have tactically interesting dead zones for the enemy artillery. (E.g. in CMFI “Ramparts of the Palikoi” I’m pretty sure the German 150mm sFH 18s should not be able to fire on the steam bed at the bottom of such a steep bluff.)

I would assume that the different explosive content of each type of shell is modeled, including gun/howitzer differences. I certainly notice that mortar shells seem to have a big blast but less effect, which according to my understanding is right. 

[RockinHarry]

Mostly depends on range of gun position to target area. Off board Arty. is assumed to be that far off, that trajectory can reach behind hills and defilades, just like mortars and infantry howitzers can do. But long "gun" type Arty. can do flat trajectory shooting as well and on purpose. Germans used that for "bouncing" shots, when range to target and target area was suited for this very effective type of anti personal shootings. Bouncing shot means, the shells got a delayed time fuze and detonated very shortly after the shot bounced off the ground at very flat trajectory. Guess that was used more in russia and maybe NA for the usually better suited terrain.

There´s always bits of confusion for certain types of gun terminology. I.e the german 7.5cm and 15cm IG while named "gun" (infantry gun) in fact were pure short barrelled howitzers and mainly used for that purpose accordingly. Means they were german infantry regiments own artillery support and rather rarely used for direct fire purposes. So in CMX2 these should be seen rather rarely as onboard assets and more as off board assets that can be purchased from the ingame artillery menues.

Edited June 20, 2019 by RockinHarry

[General Liederkranz]

20 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

Off board Arty. is assumed to be that far off, that trajectory can reach behind hills and defilades, just like mortars and infantry howitzers can do. But long "gun" type Arty. can do flat trajectory shooting as well and on purpose.

I think you're talking about direct fire flat trajectory shooting? My understanding is that even for INDIRECT fire there should be dead zones. Instead of distance helping, the dead zones would be even larger if the artillery is further away, since the shells would come in at a shallower angle. The sFH 18, for example, had a maximum elevation of 45 degrees, so steep hills would get in the way. The US M2A1 had a higher elevation of 63 degrees, so it could reach over obstacles better than the US army's earlier 75mm guns 
(18 degrees initially increased to 45 degrees later). 

https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/

38 minutes ago, RockinHarry said:

So in CMX2 these should be seen rather rarely as onboard assets and more as off board assets that can be purchased from the ingame artillery menues.

This is good to know, thanks! It seems like these maybe appear too often appear in scenarios as extra-heavy weapons. 

[RockinHarry]

50 minutes ago, General Liederkranz said:

I think you're talking about direct fire flat trajectory shooting? My understanding is that even for INDIRECT fire there should be dead zones. Instead of distance helping, the dead zones would be even larger if the artillery is further away, since the shells would come in at a shallower angle. The sFH 18, for example, had a maximum elevation of 45 degrees, so steep hills would get in the way. The US M2A1 had a higher elevation of 63 degrees, so it could reach over obstacles better than the US army's earlier 75mm guns 
(18 degrees initially increased to 45 degrees later). 

https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison/

This is good to know, thanks! It seems like these maybe appear too often appear in scenarios as extra-heavy weapons. 

there´s no distinction between direct or indirect bouncing shot artillery fires. It´s just the observations methods used. Also just the "usable" trajectory angles are mentioned in my prime sources (I.e 270 to 360°). So it all depended upon a guns capabilities (ammo, shooting tables), suitable terrain, observation methods and general task of an artillery unit. The CMX2 games can´t quite obviously reflect this (yet).

With regard to high (elevation) trajectory shooting in the game, I do not believe that´s there any differences between guns and nations. So one size fits all I´d say.

Not to be misunderstood. The german IG (infantry gun) type howitzers were used in direct fire roles, but it wasn´t their main purpose as said. If it made sense tactical wise (MOUT maybe, or long range direct fire observation capability), some of these would´ve been subordinated to infantry combat units, either singly for special combat teams or in pairs. Otherwise these would´ve been used as support weapons for main efforts and under command of regimental HQ.

[BletchleyGeek]

5 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

Means they were german infantry regiments own artillery support and rather rarely used for direct fire purposes.

I am not sure that they were used mostly for indirect fires in the offense - these are weapons optimised for busting fortifications and trenches (it could pretty much fire almost verticall. They also carried out quite sophisticated sights.

I guess that as a very specialised piece of equipment it eventually found its niche as an indirect fire weapon, since the German Army was more commonly found defending fixed positions that on the offensive. 

[RockinHarry]

8 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I am not sure that they were used mostly for indirect fires in the offense - these are weapons optimised for busting fortifications and trenches (it could pretty much fire almost verticall. They also carried out quite sophisticated sights.

I guess that as a very specialised piece of equipment it eventually found its niche as an indirect fire weapon, since the German Army was more commonly found defending fixed positions that on the offensive. 

sorry, WRONG. I could dig any details up from my prime sources (sample shown), but translating and copying would take me more time and efforts than I have right ATM.

[BletchleyGeek]

That wasn't very helpful or very informative. You obviously have more time to go and take a picture of your collection of books (or dig that picture up from wherever, who cares) than to provide a short explanation that would provide some learning or enlightenment.

Don't bother "elaborating" as you are ignored from now on.

THANKS FOR NOTHING.

[RockinHarry]

23 minutes ago, BletchleyGeek said:

That wasn't very helpful or very informative. You obviously have more time to go and take a picture of your collection of books (or dig that picture up from wherever, who cares) than to provide a short explanation that would provide some learning or enlightenment.

Don't bother "elaborating" as you are ignored from now on.

THANKS FOR NOTHING.

well, what should I (or anybody else) think of you just making some educated guess on the matter? What is your info based on if not upon prime sources or other viable data? Don´t take it personal, I have really more to do and it´s not mine fault that many the helpful prime sources  aren´t translated to english (yet). Making a screen and posting sample of my collection (purchased and collected the past 2 decades) just took me 5 minutes. Oh well.. 

[RockinHarry]

bits of stuff from the US, based on intel on german artillery. (infantry gun related info on employment in bold text). Some appear direct translations from captured german documents or field regulations, which are in my possession as well. :)

 

Notes on German Divisional Artillery

Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 6, August 27, 1942.

The organization of the German divisional artillery, like that of our own, includes three
battalions of 105-mm. howitzers, which ordinarily operate in direct support of the three
infantry regiments, and one medium battalion. The medium battalion is composed of 2
batteries of 150-mm. howitzers and 1 battery of 100-mm. guns, and operates in general
support of the division. There is also an infantry cannon company composed of six 75-
mm. howitzers and two 150-mm. howitzers. In addition, in each armored and motorized
division as well as certain assault infantry divisions, there is one armored assault artillery
battalion composed of three 4-gun companies armed with self-propelled 75-mm. or 105-
mm. howitzers.

In addition to this artillery there is in every division an artillery observation battalion
which is composed of a sound-ranging battery and a flash-ranging battery (each separable
into 2 independent platoons), a survey battery, a reproduction platoon, a signal platoon,
and a meteorological section. This battalion works directly under the division artillery
commander.

In general, the tactics and technique of German artillery are very similar to our own, but
a recent report on cooperation between German artillery and other arms brings out several
interesting divergences as well as some slight differences in emphasis.

All artillery orders are given orally at first; later those of the regiment and the division,
particularly the latter, are confirmed and expanded in writing. The divisional artillery
commander’s order is not issued as an annex to the division order, but as a separate
artillery order. Great stress is placed on the use of fragmentary and warning orders, and the
Germans also emphasize that wherever possible orders should be given on terrain
affording suitable observation rather than by reference to a map.

Counterbattery missions of the divisional medium artillery are heavily stressed. While
counterbattery is primarily the task of the medium battalion, the other three battalions may
often take over this function. The presence of the observation battalion is one of the
reasons for emphasis on counterbattery as a divisional artillery function.

Great emphasis is also placed on the battalion as the fire-control unit, and the separation
of the battalion into independent batteries to be used as attached artillery is never
recommended except in extremely large sectors, or under very difficult terrain conditions
such as thick woods.

In the preparation and conduct of fire, simplicity of technique is the goal. Generally a
standard method is prescribed and followed, and variations are discouraged. This is typical
of all German technique in that they deliberately adopt a simple method which will fit the
large majority of cases, and consider that the gain in simplicity is more important than the
loss of several highly refined techniques, each suitable for only a few complex situations.
Reciprocal laying with the aiming circle is apparently the method most frequently used. It
should be noted that this standardization of technique is in contrast to the general tactical
doctrine of the Germans, which insists upon the uniqueness of each problem and the
necessity for working out a complete and independent solution rather than applying a rigid
prearranged formula.

Communications are normally by wire, and the use of radio is limited to periods of
displacement. The one exception to this is the radio communication between observation
posts and gun positions.

In preparation fires each battery normally covers one or more targets, each about 110 to
165 yards in width. At all times emphasis is placed on flexibility of fire plan and
procedure, particularly by using irregular surprise fires on infantry and artillery, and on
enemy command posts, as well as on the point of intended penetration.

The following table shows the maximum rates of fire consistent with efficient
maintenance of materiel:

(graphic left out)

Except in unusual circumstances the artillery “reserve” consists of a large supply of
ammunition rather than uncommitted units.

In order to secure greater effect against personnel in the open, ricochet fire is
deliberately sought by use of delayed fuse. With light howitzers ricochet is believed to be
always obtainable up to an angle of impact of 270 mils, and usually obtainable up to
360 mils. The adjustment is secured with quick fuse, and fire for effect is conducted with
delayed fuse. If for any reason the ricochet fire does not prove effective, fire for effect is
continued with quick fuse.

The Germans believe in a “lone gun”, placed at a sufficient distance from the rest of the
battery so as to appear to be an entirely different position. This gun is used for harassing
fire, fire against high targets, determination of weather corrections, and finally to deceive
the hostile observation as to the true position of the battery.

It is essential that supported infantry commanders be generally familiar with the
characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of artillery in order to secure most effective
cooperation. They must understand: that the effectiveness of artillery depends to a great
extent on the neutralization of enemy artillery, and that consequently some of the fire must
be employed on counterbattery missions; that the ammunition supply is limited, and the
laying of heavy concentrations on important areas means a loss of fire on less important
ones; that the artillery should engage only those targets which justify its heavy fire; and
finally that unnecessary or too hasty requests divert artillery from its principal missions
and destroy mutual confidence.

One factor which insures that infantry commanders will be familiar with artillery
capabilities and limitations is the presence of the infantry cannon company in the infantry
regiment. This cannon company’s presence also has several other effects. First of all, it
settles the problem of the accompanying gun. Second, artillery is relieved of many small
but difficult direct-support missions and is released for its larger missions. Third, and most
important, it lessens the artillery-infantry gap which liaison officers are intended to bridge,
since it means that the liaison is not between two distinct and separate units of artillery
and infantry, but rather between the regular artillery of the supporting battalion and an
infantry unit which already has organic artillery weapons. There is coordination of fire
plans as well as mutual observation by the cannon company and the artillery. Also the
divisional observation battalion lends its assistance the infantry cannon company.

It is essential that the infantry regimental and battalion commanders assist their
cooperating artillery commander by continually informing him of the infantry plan of
action, the infantry’s progress, and its need for artillery support.

Infantry company, battalion, and regimental commanders are made “artillery minded” by
being constantly trained to rely on artillery support to the utmost.

A very important function of the infantry is to seize and hold the forward locations
necessary for artillery observation, thereby facilitating the artillery support. Likewise, the
infantry should be informed of the positions of the artillery forward observers, observation
posts, and command posts.

Finally, the closest support between the two arms is secured by having forward artillery
observers operate with the advance infantry units. Forward observers with pack radio sets
are believed to be the only effective means of obtaining satisfactory observation. Sets are
used both by individual batteries and by battalions, and quite often the battery commander
himself will act as forward observer, particularly at the beginning of an engagement when
he is not familiar with the terrain. Alternate positions for all observation posts are stressed,
and, as one of our observers reports “It is impossible to exaggerate the emphasis German
doctrine puts on movement of observation posts and improvement of observation.”

COMMENT: In summation the above article points out the following noteworthy
features of German divisional artillery:
1. Early counterbattery fire by divisional artillery.
2. Use of battalion as a unit.
3. No set pattern for fire plan in preparations.
4. Ricochet fire.
5. Use of roving gun for registration, harassing fire, and deception.
6. Education of commanders of supported units as to value of—
a. Neutralizing enemy artillery.
b. Conservation of ammunition for important missions.
c. Necessity for observation.
7. Close support through forward observers with advanced infantry, rather than through
liaison detachments with supported unit commander.

[Bulletpoint]

21 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

It's a pity that they are limited to scenarios. The same can be said for (manhandled/towed) infantry support guns and tanks, by the way. The H2H quickbattle is a very tank- and anti-tank heavy environment unless you agree on restrictions that usually include AGs/sp. artillery though. For this reason, I think that AGs (not including those that also act as tank destroyers) and sp. artillery should be much cheaper (compared to tanks). 

There are just so many vehicles you rarely ever see. This includes the early StuGs and later the StuHs, earlier SUs & ISUs, Sextons and Priests, Wespes and Hummels, StuPa/Brummbär, PzIIIN, Churchills  , Howitzer Motor Carriages and also all sorts of flamethrower tanks, by the way! As their main use is against enemy infantry, they should be in a different, lower price category than tanks and anti tank guns.

(For anti-infantry) there's currently no real reason to use any gun bigger than 75mm in this game. I believe it's because infantry fortifications are undermodelled, and big HE is undermodelled. If you can hit them with 75mm, they're done very fast.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[General Liederkranz]

Thanks @RockinHarry, this is great info. In addition to the points you listed, the fact that batteries firing preparatory bombardments would normally hit targets 110 to 165 yards wide is a useful guideline and suggests to me that Area fire missions should probably be much more commonly used than Point, realistically. It's also interesting that the Germans preferred to fire in whole battalion. In US accounts I also read about battalions firing much more often than batteries, yet in CM games we generally think in terms of batteries.

18 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

With regard to high (elevation) trajectory shooting in the game, I do not believe that´s there any differences between guns and nations. So one size fits all I´d say.

I'm not suggesting that there should be nationality restrictions on trajectory, but that realistically there should be some restrictions. My point about the maximum elevations is that it was a real consideration that designers and officers took into account. As it is any off-map artillery can target any spot on the map. It doesn't matter how steep a hill it is, or whether the firer is an 81mm mortar or a 150mm gun. It would be more realistic if some places, behind steep hills, were immune to off-map fire. This wouldn't have to be a detailed model based on the type of guns and their assumed off-map distance and elevation; it could just be a simple rule of thumb. Not that I'm expecting it to happen, since it's a rare issue and probably not worth the trouble it would take to program.

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

(For anti-infantry) there's currently no real reason to use any gun bigger than 75mm in this game. I believe it's because infantry fortifications are undermodelled, and big HE is undermodelled. If you can hit them with 75mm, they're done very fast.

This is a good point. I think that the lack of defined building interiors plays a role too. Hiding helps but it's not enough. Somewhere I think Steve said they initially were going to have multiple action spots inside each building, so you could place a unit in the middle of the building away from all the windows. If the defender could do that, and then tell the unit to Hide, it would create a stronger need for the attacker to bring in large-caliber HE and level the building. 

[Michael Emrys]

2 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

It's also interesting that the Germans preferred to fire in whole battalion. In US accounts I also read about battalions firing much more often than batteries, yet in CM games we generally think in terms of batteries.

This has also been a long time gripe of mine for years and years. In my own readings it seems to me that artillery usage was more often in battalion strength than battery or troop. If a target did not rate a full battalion, then it was to be dealt with by the infantry unit's organic arms (mortars, regimental cannon company, etc.). This may have changed in more recent times due to the increased power of the modern artillery arm, but in WW II it was the case.

Michael

[Kaunitz]

Thanks for all the info so far, guys!

• So it seems as if my assessment about artillery was roughly right? Regarding guns (long barrel, high velocity) and howitzers (short barrel, low velocity), there would be differences in the firing angle and the explosive power.
• The angle is not  portrayed in CM (both come in at a very steep angle). The angle matters as it would create dead ground that artillery can't reach (depending on the terrain and the distance and position/relative height at which the arty is firing), it would affect the chance to hit into trenches, and also it would determine the chance for riccochet fire (coming in at a very flat angle, shells with delay-fuses would bounce off the ground before exploding, resulting in a more effective air burst).
• We're unsure whether howitzer shells have a higher explosive power in CM compared to gun shells of the same calibre.
• Regarding the germans, I don't think that the scale is a real issue (batteries vs. battalions/Abteilungen). You can just buy more batteries to simulate a battalion.  Would you really prefer not to have battery-strength "un-organic" (i.e. not including the infantry's regimental guns) artillery assets available during force selection? 
• From this and the fortifications thread, I also take away that some people are of the opinion that artillery (and also indirectly firing mortars??) is too accurate and should not be allowed to fire "line" or "point" missions in WWII titles. It seems reasonable to me, but of course it should be backed up by actual data. 
• The question of calibre size is also an interesting topic. The overall lack of fortifications makes larger calibres less worthwhile. Just a small example (from wikipedia): The StuG III's long-barreled 7.5cm gun fired shells containing 0.68 kg of explosives, while the StuH's (assault howitzer) short barreled 10.5cm howitzer fired shells containing 1.75kg explosives (shrapnel would be effective up to 10m to the front and 35m to the sides of the explosion). So the difference is much larger than the calibres suggest. The howitzer fired more than double the amount of explosives. 

Another aspect that needs to be pointed out: In reality, troops in proper defensive positions would seek shelter in their dugouts during artillery barrages and return to their fighting positions after the shelling. This is a kind of large scale suppression typically caused by the massed artillery rolling barrages that so often preceeded an attack, with the attacking infantry hoping to overcome the enemy's fighting positions before the enemy had even returned. It's not handled by the game's suppression mechanics, but by the player giving orders to move to and from the dugouts. The problem with this is that crew-served weapons cannot be "remounted" in CM for some reason. It has been pointed out several times already in another context (many people would like to have a "fire and immediately hide/flee to safety" option). As a result, the crews have the choice between taking shelter and effectively losing their weapon or staying and getting killed. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kaunitz

[Kaunitz]

Here's one more thing I keep asking myself. Again, I have no real info on it except for what the internet tells me. I'm just wondering: Did HE shells fired by high velocity guns explode as reliably as those fired by low velocity guns? The reason I'm asking is that one could assume that the flat angle does not trigger the impact fuze as reliably? I mean the tank's muzzle is quite high up (-->tower), which helps to increase the impact angle? But at longer ranges (angle becomes smaller) or if the target is at the same height as the muzzle, there might have been problems, especially if the ground was soft...? I have no clue at what angles those impact fuzes stopped working...? This would perhaps be an important aspect for the differentiation between high velocity and low velocity assets (e.g. assault howitzers) in the game? 

Interesting link on the different explosive charges: https://www.quora.com/Could-WW2-anti-tank-guns-fire-HE-shells-like-normal-guns-could-or-were-they-less-effective-for-firing-this-type-of-shells

Types of fuzes, impact angles: http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/fuzes.html // dispersion pattern: http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/dispersion.html

PS: It seems that some HE shells during WWII were already equipped with more sophisticated fuzes that were also triggered if the shell just grazed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_fuze --> "double-acting fuze"). I wonder how common these more sophisticated fuses were. 

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kaunitz

[RockinHarry]

17 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

Thanks @RockinHarry, this is great info. In addition to the points you listed, the fact that batteries firing preparatory bombardments would normally hit targets 110 to 165 yards wide is a useful guideline and suggests to me that Area fire missions should probably be much more commonly used than Point, realistically. It's also interesting that the Germans preferred to fire in whole battalion. In US accounts I also read about battalions firing much more often than batteries, yet in CM games we generally think in terms of batteries.

Think it depends mainly on target. A point target (obervation post, HMG position, a particular strong point etc.) would see battery or single gun point fire most the time, while off course area targets (larger enemy formations, enemy battery position etc) would more be fought with battery (or larger) area fires. With regard to use of battery or battalion (Abteilung) size game Arty support it´s basically a matter of scale. In fact when assuming we command a Bn size force in a "Schwerpunkt" (main point of effort) or "Brennpunkt" (german term for the to be expected enemy "Schwerpunkt" on own defenses), it could well be a full Arty. Bn would be in own support. This could be supplemented with any other divisional or non divisional support Arty as well, like Infantry gun companies, mortar units, corps Arty etc. Surely the same for other nations. Think for the matter of "balance" (or fairness to any opponent) we limit ourselves more to battery size support units in our games. As @Kaunitz already pointed out, when confronted with massive enemy Arty support one can´t rely on just trenches or FH´s and needs adding loads of shelter and pillboxes as well. Otherwise...game over in few minutes.

17 hours ago, General Liederkranz said:

On 6/20/2019 at 11:33 PM, RockinHarry said:

With regard to high (elevation) trajectory shooting in the game, I do not believe that´s there any differences between guns and nations. So one size fits all I´d say.

I'm not suggesting that there should be nationality restrictions on trajectory, but that realistically there should be some restrictions. My point about the maximum elevations is that it was a real consideration that designers and officers took into account. As it is any off-map artillery can target any spot on the map. It doesn't matter how steep a hill it is, or whether the firer is an 81mm mortar or a 150mm gun. It would be more realistic if some places, behind steep hills, were immune to off-map fire. This wouldn't have to be a detailed model based on the type of guns and their assumed off-map distance and elevation; it could just be a simple rule of thumb. Not that I'm expecting it to happen, since it's a rare issue and probably not worth the trouble it would take to program.

I meant that´s likely how the game models all guns trajectories in general. But´s just a guess.  Hard to tell if BFC can make more distinct off board battery positions with their likely limits on the game maps targets. Could imagine there would be a number of issues with programming. But we can "simulate" in our games by just choosing howitzers or mortars from the Arty menues, to reflect on possible limitations on to be imagined Arty support for a given battle and map pecularities. (making note here for some interesting mission design ideas) German infantry guns (18&33) and (off course) mortars are always available from the Arty menues. Think it´s the same for viable US, CW and other nations ones. Not yet quite acquainted with all of them myself, but I think i.e the US pack howitzers (from cannon Cpy) should possibly considered more for any related mission designs.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

From this and the fortifications thread, I also take away that some people are of the opinion that artillery (and also indirectly firing mortars??) is too accurate and should not be allowed to fire "line" or "point" missions in WWII titles. It seems reasonable to me, but of course it should be backed up by actual data. 

I wouldn´t support this idea as observed and accurate point fire on viable targets was common all through WW2 (and before and thereafter). The games Arty even with TRP provide enough inaccuracies to not acertain safe hits on rather small targets. Then depends on amount of ammo used, as described in the US report further above.

 

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

The question of calibre size is also an interesting topic. The overall lack of fortifications makes larger calibres less worthwhile. Just a small example (from wikipedia): The StuG III's long-barreled 7.5cm gun fired shells containing 0.68 kg of explosives, while the StuH's (assault howitzer) short barreled 10.5cm howitzer fired shells containing 1.75kg explosives (shrapnel would be effective up to 10m to the front and 35m to the sides of the explosion). So the difference is much larger than the calibres suggest. The howitzer fired more than double the amount of explosives. 

It´s actually the difference between direct and indirect fire targets, but yes...I think howitzer ammo usually contains more explosives, but usually there´s more types of that available. Stugs were mainly used on point targets and with their flat trajectories shrapnel radii would be different than any indirect fire howitzers. But depends on target generally. One could both attack a pillbox with AP or HE as both provide an "effect". Similar for buildings, or enemy soft targets. Also to consider tree and air bursts for indirect fire Arty. So i.e placing trenches and FH´s in a forest (or under some trees) is not so good an idea if expecting any sort of enemy Arty and mortars.

 

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Another aspect that needs to be pointed out: In reality, troops in proper defensive positions would seek shelter in their dugouts during artillery barrages and return to their fighting positions after the shelling. This is a kind of large scale suppression typically caused by the massed artillery rolling barrages that so often preceeded an attack, with the attacking infantry hoping to overcome the enemy's fighting positions before the enemy had even returned. It's not handled by the game's suppression mechanics, but by the player giving orders to move to and from the dugouts. The problem with this is that crew-served weapons cannot be "remounted" in CM for some reason. It has been pointed out several times already in another context (many people would like to have a "fire and immediately hide/flee to safety" option). As a result, the crews have the choice between taking shelter and effectively losing their weapon or staying and getting killed. 

Matter of scale again. I´d chop any such extended missions into pieces, by rather making a small campaign of it. Also a bombard/seeking shelter situation would be rather a game in a game and IMO s/b limited just to the opening phase of any mission. But I agree it would be desirable to get an option to remount Hvy.Wpns anytime, incl. AIP and associated AI orders.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Kaunitz said:

Here's one more thing I keep asking myself. Again, I have no real info on it except for what the internet tells me. I'm just wondering: Did HE shells fired by high velocity guns explode as reliably as those fired by low velocity guns? The reason I'm asking is that one could assume that the flat angle does not trigger the impact fuse as reliably? I mean the tank's muzzle is quite high up (-->tower), which helps to increase the impact angle? But at longer ranges (angle becomes smaller) or if the target is at the same height as the muzzle, there might have been problems? I have no clue at what angles those impact fuses stopped working...? This would perhaps be an important aspect for the differentiation between high velocity and low velocity assets (e.g. assault howitzers) in the game? 

Interesting link on the different explosive charges: https://www.quora.com/Could-WW2-anti-tank-guns-fire-HE-shells-like-normal-guns-could-or-were-they-less-effective-for-firing-this-type-of-shells

think WW2 fuzes generally were optimized enough to reliably (more or less) explode in most common situations. Ground condition is always a matter of concern (mud, deep snow, soft ground generally). Beside that I don´t believe that MV or bore/smooth bore gun firing has any ill influences on HE type fuzes generally. As with the ricochet fire example reliable trajectories were assumed to be in the 270 to 360° range as well. Dud rate was mostly from soft ground, very flat impact angle - bounce, bad quality AMMO, sabotage or FUBAR (that ammo guy forgot to remove the security pin etc.). HEAT ammo has some peculiar limitations though, but has mostly to do with the HEAT jet beeing less effective when hitting armor at certain angles, stand-off range and whether been fired from a rifled or smooth bore gun (thus modern tanks mostly carry SB ones nowadays). Also many and most fuzes allow different individual settings (quick detonate - sensitive, delayed fuze, double fuze, or timed fuze for air bursts and such).

[Kaunitz]

 

3 hours ago, RockinHarry said:

think WW2 fuzes generally were optimized enough to reliably (more or less) explode in most common situations. Ground condition is always a matter of concern (mud, deep snow, soft ground generally). 

Yes, I spent a bit more time on internet research and, for example, found this info on one of the more common german fuzes, which would also trigger when the shell just grazed: http://michaelhiske.de/Allierte/UK/Handbook/Pamphlet12/12_003.htm

So it seems that close support (i.e. well armored, directly firing) low velocity assets* posess only few advantages:

• higher explosive power - this was their main advantage; they were required to be capable to collapse a house with only a few shots; this can also be handy in CM games against enemy positions behind houses...; in order to achieve the same explosive power with a long-barreled gun, you'd need to bring a huge calibre, which would not fit into any tower or hull...
• firing above the heads of friendly infantry (that's a rather questionable advantage...)
• better at targeting positions on reverse slopes (but again, these assault howitzers were supposed to fire directly...)

Disadvantages:

• less accurate/harder to aim (they would typically "bracket" their target) 
• smaller armor penetration power (but they often had a stock of hollow charge rounds; also the high HE power of HE howitzer shells would often manage to disable enemy tanks in some way)
• slower reloading (in some cases, the cartridge and the shell were separate)

...................

* How common these were is another topic. I'm refering to self propelled howitzers like the german early (short barreled) StuGs (7.5cm howitzer), later on the StuHs (10.5cm howitzer), the Sturmpanzer (15cm howitzer). The Russian SU-122 (12.2cm howitzer), SU-152 (15.2cm howitzer). As an "infantry tank", the early British Churchills (I, II) also came with a 76mm howitzer. The US had their M8 motor howitzer carriage (7.5cm howitzer) and a 10.5cm howitzer vairant for the Sherman.  

Generally speaking, the history of "assault artillery" (german "Sturmartillerie", slightly similar to the British "infantry tank" concept?) is a rather confusing topic.

• I understand that these units were more often found as part of infantry formations than as part of tank formations, although by no means exclusively. (Some of the later/long-barreled StuGs were just used like tanks in tank formations; The US. assault howitzers were assigned to tank regiments). They were also organised as artillery, not as tank formations (german StuGs in batteries and battalions)
• They were supposed to support infantry, primarily in the attack. They would target MG nests, ATGs, artillery positions and other positions that prevented the infantry's advance, especially if these targets were for some reason out of the friendly artillery's reach. The StuH proved to be very effective at fighting these positions up to a range of ca. 3.500m. Thanks to their high explosive power, they were particularly usefull against strong enemy positions and/or buildings. 
• Unlike "proper" self-propelled artillery, assault howitzers were used for direct firing and therefore had to operate close to or at the front line (--> heavy armor required).
• They were also expected to fill the AT role if needed. While most early designs' howitzers/guns were quite capable of dealing with any enemy tank in the early stages of the war, the armor race meant that assault howitzers quickly fell behind. Some designs (StuGs) were updated accordingly with high velocity guns at the cost of the howitzer's higher explosive power. I aslo suppose that their AT role was more pronounced in the attack - in the defense, the infantry would preferably rely on its ATGs?
• Unlike tanks, assault howitzers were not supposed to carry out an attack on their own. So I suppose they were used in the way that most CM players are already using tanks right now. This also meant that the side armor was not such a big concern for assault howitzers as it was for tanks.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Kaunitz

[RockinHarry]

22 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Generally speaking, the history of "assault artillery" (german "Sturmartillerie", slightly similar to the British "infantry tank" concept?) is a rather confusing topic.

the "Sturm-Artillery" concept actually was a german development from WW1. When late in that war germans attempted moving forward small guns (77mm) with advancing troops, likely as part of the "Sturmtruppen" (assault detachment) concept. These were to support vs. enemy MG positions and maybe some hard targets, not to be dealt with effectively with point fire Arty and such. Pre WW2 that concept was introduced again, but the "assault gun" then made mobile by putting it on an available chassis (Pz-III). Again these were to support infantry formations, thus the introduction of beeing part of regular infantry divisions. There were never enough of them to fill out that role and when eastern front tank threats became serious they had to take AT roles additionally.

[WhiteWolf65]

On 6/21/2019 at 7:13 AM, BletchleyGeek said:

That wasn't very helpful or very informative. You obviously have more time to go and take a picture of your collection of books (or dig that picture up from wherever, who cares) than to provide a short explanation that would provide some learning or enlightenment.

Don't bother "elaborating" as you are ignored from now on.

THANKS FOR NOTHING.

Wow, I don't know if you were being factious or really serious. I hope it is a case of the former than the latter because if it is the latter you are in a bit of a foul mood this morning, IMHO. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by WhiteWolf65

[BletchleyGeek]

I have known Harry for a very long time so there is context to this which, of course, is none of your business.

Take care of yourself and recover soon.

[Kaunitz]

1 hour ago, RockinHarry said:

the "Sturm-Artillery" concept actually was a german development from WW1. When late in that war germans attempted moving forward small guns (77mm) with advancing troops, likely as part of the "Sturmtruppen" (assault detachment) concept. These were to support vs. enemy MG positions and maybe some hard targets, not to be dealt with effectively with point fire Arty and such. Pre WW2 that concept was introduced again, but the "assault gun" then made mobile by putting it on an available chassis (Pz-III). Again these were to support infantry formations, thus the introduction of beeing part of regular infantry divisions. There were never enough of them to fill out that role and when eastern front tank threats became serious they had to take AT roles additionally.

Well yes, it seems as if many nations had roughly a similar idea. Assault artillery were pretty much the tanks of infantry formations and were often distributed in very small junks - even down to single vehicles! - among individual infantry units. Proper tanks (or the British cruiser tanks), by contrast, were preferably used in massed armored formations as an exploitation force. So it's also an operational difference. Understandably, this aspect is not really present in the tactical engagements portrayed by Combat Mission games. 

What I wonder is why it was still deemed neccessary to keep at least some of the weird self propelled howitzers. For example: As a reason for the design of the german Sturmhaubitze (assault howitzer), one can often read that the new, long-barreled StuG-designs could no longer fill their former infantry support role as well as the early, howitzer designs had. So what is it exactly that makes a vehicle better suited for infantry support? Does this just refer to the stronger punch of the howitzer against defensive positions? Was the difference between the 75mm gun and the 105mm howitzer really as big to warrant a separate vehicle? 

[RockinHarry]

4 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

What I wonder is why it was still deemed neccessary to keep at least some of the weird self propelled howitzers. For example: As a reason for the design of the german Sturmhaubitze (assault howitzer), one can often read that the new, long-barreled StuG-designs could no longer fill their former infantry support role as well as the early, howitzer designs had. So what is it exactly that makes a vehicle better suited for infantry support? Does this just refer to the stronger punch of the howitzer against defensive positions? Was the difference between the 75mm gun and the 105mm howitzer really as big to warrant a separate vehicle? 

yes the latter. 105mm had the better punch, while the Stug 75mm preserved mobile AT gun assets in infantry divisions with more accuracy at longer ranges. Think all nations at last realized that limbered AT wasn´t too well suited for majority of defensive tasks overally. Limbered AT was unwieldly to move on battlefield, highly vulnerable and thus couldn´t shifted to the most important sectors quick enough, just in case. Stug III at last was supplemented with similar, better armored types (Hetzer, Jagdpanzer 4+5) while the Sturmhaubitze 105mm got bigger brothers for more special cases (MOUT) with Brumbaer and Sturmmoerser types.

[RockinHarry]

5 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

I have known Harry for a very long time so there is context to this which, of course, is none of your business.

Take care of yourself and recover soon.

glad to see you back, Bletch!  My apologies for the misunderstanding! Wanted to put the topic on better foundations (primary sources) but failed with the way describing my ideas!