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.

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.

"...This is why it's useful (as JasonC mentioned) to fire more guns, but during a shorter time." Massing fires rapidly is preferred in nearly all HE fire missions for the aforementioned drop in lethality upon prone troops. Western artillerymen today work to achieve "first round, fire-for-effect" massed fires through a variety of means utterly unavailable in 1941-45. Observer location, target location, and gun location were far more problematic then, than today. I suspect accurate maps in the east were a major problem. It follows that O.P. and gun position survey would be laborious in a static environment and nearly impossible in a fluid battlefield. CMBB seems to generate accurate fires early in the mission, something that I question given the above issues. I play the Germans against the Soviet AI a lot. I'm disappointed most with the absence of Soviet indirect fires, even in the attack. Nor do those fires, when occuring, appear to be observed. The fires rarely adjust, and have the appearance of a pre-planned mission. Gun-bunnies in the U.S. Army are 13B10-40 CANNONEER MOS. As for "gunners", the U.S. Army has a "gunner" on each gun system, typically manning the panoramic telescope to adjust for deflection changes. He still carries a 13B Cannoneer MOS, but his duty position is as "gunner". Also, the A.G. (assistant gunner)controls the elevation of the weapon. I didn't know that the Marines abolished the "gunner" honorific in the late eighties, probably with the retirement of Gunner Boise. I'm glad to hear that they've brought it back.

"...Gunner ?? Not in the USMC. Maybe in the (cough, cough)US Army ." Actually, 0811, my instructor group at Firing Battery Branch, Weapons Dept. included a Marine "Gunner", not gunny. This gentleman had been promoted from E-1 through 0-3 (mustang OCS Marine captain in Vietnam, RIF to WO1 and promoted through WO4. As a warrant-4, he was the junior ranking member of our instructor group. Nobody, however, carried more authority than him, excepting the branch chief, a Marine major. Gunner Boise was his name, and had served in the Corps longer than I (a new Army 2nd Lt.) had been alive. He was one of only two "Gunners" in the USMC at the time, and the title, btw, is uniquely Marine. We have no "Gunners" in the Army.

I admit to being a former field artillery 13A type who instructed at Weapons Dept, USAFAS in the early eighties and commanded a M101A1 battery later. I'm somewhat dismayed by the width of the sheafs fired by the German 105mm systems, which were comparable to the M101 system. They appear wider than my experience. I was trained in a manual fire direction environment at a time when the FADAC computer was the extent of our automation. I later served in a 155mm battalion that had TACFIRE at the battalion FDC. Appropiate enough for the types of missions we shot. Still, our KIWI gunner is correct, for the most part. Modern fire direction lends itself to the automated computation of circular sheafs, for the obvious motive of increased/enhanced lethality. Modern fire direction systems are so much quicker, thus the circular sheaf becomes both practical and desirable. Piece displacement corrections make the new battery position unrecognizable to a Vietnam/Korean/W.W.II vet, yet still attack a circular sheaf 140 meters in diameter. Not so back in the day. Individual gun corrections to achieve that accuracy would have mangled the FDC, and the fire commands to the guns would have been simultaneously confusing and tedious to all but a battery manned by experienced section chiefs from top to bottom. Gun formations, therefore, would reflect the sheaf downrange. For me, every photo of a German, Soviet, or U.S/British battery showed line or lazy W formations-best command and control, communication (FDC wire only to the X.O in many cases!) & deployment considerations. I actually much prefer the 120mm as my direct support indirect fire weapon of choice, and avoid . Much faster response (1-2 minutes instead of 3 minutes), faster rate of fire, tighter sheafs, and greater lethality. I don't agree with the 120mm faster response, however. Initial computations would be as slow, or slower in a 120mm platoon FDC, following the initial call for fire request.