Any 'real' artilllery men out there?

[JasonC]

SHP said arty today "work to achieve "first round, fire-for-effect" massed fires through a variety of means utterly unavailable" in WW II.

Somebody forgot to tell the artillery of WW II that. TOT shoots were perfected during WW II, and were widely used, though not standard. But sometimes every gun in a corps would fire at a single town, with all rounds arriving within 15 seconds of each other. It took a while to set up but it was done.

As for the question about resulting barrage shapes, they aren't quite like the rockets, no. Those are normal around the aim point, though with wider lateral dispersion it is true. But if you look, you will still notice that half the shells land in well under half the area.

In a parallel shoot, the distribution of shells left to right is not a normal distribution with thin tails, with most shells landing in the middle half of the width. It is much more nearly a "flat" probability distribution. There might still be thinner tails at the edges, for the last 20-40 yards or so. But the middle portion would be a probability "plateau", not a sharp peak.

As for the fear that arty would dominate if shown with realistic blast areas and with realistic improved effects against moving units, I don't think so, and I doubt those worried about it have thought it through. The total number of shells fired isn't going up, and the area they are spread over is. A typical CM barrage hits harder under its beaten zone today, than it would with such revisions.

What you'd see is unlucky units hurt by first shells that landed reasonably close while they were "up", and a few others hurt by the occasional very close round after they went prone. You'd see far fewer mission outright miss all targets. But for the rest, you'd see the men all hit the deck over a wide area as the rounds come in, most of them not ending up close to a round, then recovering fairly rapidly.

Try firing a single 105mm module target wide at a whole company, one keeping proper intervals not all bunched up, and you will see what I mean. They are under the barrage and men do get pinned. But not many are actually hit.

The main difference would be, even less concentration of shells in the center area, more at the edges of a "wide" size pattern. And "up" units more likely to take hits before they've had one close enough to duck.

[TufenHuden]

How about the 198's or 155mm-USMC also

had some 8inch howitzers too but that's

probly-Viet Nam/70's vintage-I'm was just

a lowley mudd rolling 0311 grunt USMC-

I just know M-16/203/M-249-SAW ....

[0811]

Originally posted by JonS:

Ah, no. The tightness of the pattern has nothing to do with the FO.

The FO decides the shape, and corrects where it will land.

The CP (FDC, whatever) and the gun crews determine how well the pattern will be shaped. If your bty fired sloppy patterns, it was because of you - the det commander. Not your FO

I guess in your Army the FO didnt have the training to make that happen. In the USMC, the FO does have a role in the pattern. If the battery is layed correctly, the patterns will be tight. Thats why the battery fire's a round or 2 for spotting and its corrected till its on target. maybe your experience and method for laying a battery is different ??? I can only testify to the USMC and its equipment from the 80's 90's which is far supperior to that of WWII. In my opnion, I'd say the patetrns for CMxx are fairly correct. Maybe they could be a little bit tighter in some instances.

In Desert Storm in 1991, we did Hasty emplacements, and had rounds down range in support of the grunts in under 5 minutes. Out of 7 guns in out battery, 1 gun was down for repair, we fired over 500 rounds and threw one round out in 2 1/2 days. The FO's consistently commended us for tight patterns which were dead on. thats why I take exception to your comment. Not bad for a bunch of Jarheads huh ?

"It's hard to be humble when your the finest...USMC"

0811 OUT

[ August 27, 2005, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: 0811 ]

[flamingknives]

If I may do a spot of cut'n'paste:

Posted by 0811:

I guess in your Army the FO didnt have the training to make that happen. In the USMC, the FO does have a role in the pattern.

Posted by JonS:

Ah, no. The tightness of the pattern has nothing to do with the FO.

The FO decides the shape, and corrects where it will land.

Who does the calculations for where each gun should be pointing?

AIUI, Commonwealth batteries, at least in WWII matched every gun to the same bearing. Pattern was determined by how the guns were laid out and how good the gun crews were at getting the right bearing and elevation

[JonS]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

If I may do a spot of cut'n'paste:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Posted by 0811:

I guess in your Army the FO didnt have the training to make that happen. In the USMC, the FO does have a role in the pattern.

Posted by JonS:

Ah, no. The tightness of the pattern has nothing to do with the FO.

The FO decides the shape, and corrects where it will land.

Who does the calculations for where each gun should be pointing?</font>

[0811]

Originally posted by JonS:

5 mins from "fire mission!" to "splash!" eh? A bit slow, doncha think? { <--- NOTE WINKIE }

Let me explain alittle further. Guns were hooked up to the trucks ready for a move. We were 3 miles behind the grunts when we got a fire mission. Unhooked the guns, spread the trails, layed the battery and sent first rounds down range in 5 mins. :eek:

I'm sorry for sounding a little harsh in my posts JonS. I have been having a rather lengthy and disturbing battle of words with a US Army 1st Lt. regarding tactics and his opinion that the USMC should be disbanded because the USA already has an ARMY. He has all but called the USMC a bunch of brainless morons. It has me in a defensive mode right now and on edge. I've gotten off track of this thread and hi-jacked it. Sorry for that.

Salute

0811

[ August 28, 2005, 03:45 AM: Message edited by: 0811 ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by 0811:

Let me explain a little further. Guns were hooked up to the trucks ready for a move. We were 3 miles behind the grunts when we got a fire mission. Unhooked the guns, spread the trails, layed the battery and sent first rounds down range in 5 mins. :eek:

Yeah, I know what a crash action is. I'm a gunner too ... remember?

TBH, 5 mins doesn't sound all that flash to me. I mean, it is good, but it's not great, y'know? One of the btys of 56 Hy Regt were doing crash actions in 25 seconds. In 1942. Granted it was in training, not action. Still.

Regards

JonS

[ August 28, 2005, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Londoner]

Mike,

The relative lack of mainstream literature on artillery, without going into the journalistic stuff is frustrating.

For the baby grog like ourselves, who typically doesn't want to wade through tons of math, I found a rather old but interesting publication last year -

Our old friend Shelford Bidwell & Dominick Graham.

Fire-Power, the British Army Weapons & Theories of War 1904-1945. ISBN 1-84415-216-2

The title is obviously jazzed up somewhat, to entice the casual reader no doubt, but it only deals with artillery. IIRC it elaborates on all the topics currently being discussed in this thread (from a British perspective obviously).

It can be a bit stale in some places (unsurprisingly perhaps!) but all in all I found it an enlightening read.

[ August 28, 2005, 07:10 AM: Message edited by: Londoner ]

[0811]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 0811:

Let me explain a little further. Guns were hooked up to the trucks ready for a move. We were 3 miles behind the grunts when we got a fire mission. Unhooked the guns, spread the trails, layed the battery and sent first rounds down range in 5 mins. :eek:

Yeah, I know what a crash action is. I'm a gunner too ... remember?

TBH, 5 mins doesn't sound all that flash to me. I mean, it is good, but it's not great, y'know? One of the btys of 56 Hy Regt were doing crash actions in 25 seconds. In 1942. Granted it was in training, not action. Still.

Regards

JonS </font>

[flamingknives]

Given that it's 56 Hy (heavy) regiment, and in 1942, that would suggest the use of the 7.2" howitzer on carriage howitzer mk1 (Linky) which has a box, not split, trail. It's probably a figure to firing the first round.

The RA are nutty about firing quickly. There's a story relating to the fighting in Normandy, possibly during Op. Totalize, about a gun crew, keen to increase rate of fire, who stood a primed shell a little too close to the recoiling breech. They didn't find much of that detachment.

[SHP]

ARTEP standards were for an M101A1 battery to be laid for direction using an M-2 aiming circle in four minutes for six guns, from the command "Battery Adjust! Aiming Point this Instrument". Each weapon had to refer to the safety circle within +/- 2 mils to confirm the accuracy of the lay. My expectations of FIRE FOR EFFECT upon receipt of an adjust fire, target of opportunity mission was typically two adjustment rounds. After that, I'm wondering lots of stuff as to why? And there are a ton of POSSIBLE REASONS why a mission isn't shot to standard. Who's fastest? Who cares. I wanted steel on target as fast as safely possible. It did no good to hit friendlies quickly, and 105s are close support indirect fire weapons with a real range/deflection probable error issue. Check the TFTs to confirm.

"Crash Action"? Sounds like a hip-shoot in my past. Using alternate methods of lay (DAP/Howitzer Back-lay perferred in U.S. Army) wasn't especially accurate for direction of fire, battery position was questionable if in march, and target location was typically funky-leading to a preponderance of suppression missions.

[SHP]

"...Somebody forgot to tell the artillery of WW II that. TOT shoots were perfected during WW II, and were widely used, though not standard."

No doubt, but not habitual, even for the U.S. Army. TOT shoots normally constitute pre-planned fires at the artillery brigade/divarty level, and are far more a function of communications than fire direction procedures. My reference to first round fire-for-effect was against targets of opportunity engaged by a battalion or battery. Modern survey control has changed the way we fight along with automated fire direction. In W.W.II, it was an extrordinary F.O, coupled with a superb battery or battalion on a well surveyed battlefield who was able to engage targets of opportunity with first round "fire-for-effect" HE missions. Not common at all, very unusual in the east, and CMBB is very lenient, I believe, in the responsiveness of indirect fires, if not sheafs.

[Wisbech_lad]

OT. My father was a gunner, well, for a very short time (basic training in RA for national service, but he was transferred to the Guards to try and teach them maths after that)

He was Gunner Reed. In the bed next to him (alphabetical order) was Gunner Rhea...

[YankeeDog]

I can't provide any first-hand knowledge myself, but here's a link I found very informative:

WWII Artillery Notes Webpage

It has a good section on sheaf types, including time to FFE, expected area of effect, etc. for various battery types, and nationality specific notes. It seems to be well researched, but perhaps some of our more knowledgeable Grogs can verify its accuracy, (or pick it apart mercilessly, if warranted ).

[JonS]

The nationality specific stuff is either pants or way too superficial. The rest of it is ok as far as it goes.

[Andreas]

IIRC for that site the nationality stuff is from a presentation given at some wargamers' convention many years back?

[JonS]

n/t

[Drusus]

I was a mortar platoon leader in finnish army. 25 seconds to get a shot off is something we could never do with 81mm mortars, because calculating your current position is usually slow. Ofcourse if you happen to be in a accurate map point (crossroads or something which you can take accurate coordinates) then I think it would be possible, but not safe to do. Mostly because the aiming of the mortars would have to be error prone. Ofcourse our team members had just 6 months of training, and 4 of that with mortars. So we could not do it given perfect condition...

I also was in 120mm company some time (just weeks, but still). As I understand the firepattern of a single platoon is something the platoon leader is responsible for, but if you want the correct pattern from the company, the FO needs to do some tricks (yrjö lauri anybody? ).

One thing which I think isn't quite right in CM. It is accuracy of direct fire with mortars from the run (also, how come it takes +30 seconds to set up for DIRECT fire, there is nothing to do). Seeing the distance without any equipment is DAMN hard. It was not uncommon when we were practising to have the distance off by 50%. Ofcourse then you can easily adjust the fire, and when you hit the target, you can hit it _every_ shot.

Actually, what comes to setting up mortar for direct fire, we could do it in a show in less than 10 seconds. The funny thing is that the group had never used mortar before, and they had 2 days of training. Setting a mortar up in 10 seconds is easy. Getting to know your coordinates and adjusting all the mortars in the exact same direction is slow. Then again after this is done firing is fast, and correcting your fire is seconds.

Oh, one thing still about direct fire. It is common practice, atleast in finnish army, to have your mortar behind cover, but still adjust the fire to hit exactly the target, using only the mortar team. How do you do it? Well, the mortars leader has plenty of time to get into a position where he can see the target when the round is up in the air... Hint how to correct your fire: One finger is 30/6000 circle

[Ardem]

On Kiwi Gunners

I would never knock the Kiwi Gunners, in more then one occasion they help us aussies out. Long Tan would be a prefect example of precision firing.