John Kettler Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I believe it was Bil Hardenberger who told me in his AAR thread the T19 Howitzer Motor Carriage http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_t19_howitzermotorcarriage.php was not in service by the invasion of the invasion of Sicily; that it had been replaced by the M7 Priest. What I'd like to know is this: How frequently was the M7 used in the DF role, bearing in mind it's divisional artillery for an armored division and NOT a TD as the T19 was? I freely grant it had DF capability, but to my knowledge, that was for self defense, just as the howitzer with which it was fitted had DF sights but typically operated in indirect fire mode. HEAT was provided to deal with tank threats, but it was a bad day indeed for the gunners when it was needed. The Americans in this period already had an assault gun, too, the T30. Could someone provide some evidence one way or the other on this matter, please? I suspect this DF role was decidedly uncommon but am woefully short on actual accounts. Indeed, much of what comes up in a search relates to World of Tanks and other wargames. Not exactly helpful! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Basically the Priest was used in direct fire mostly in extreme situations when it was a matter of defending the battery, or the equivalent while the formation was displacing under attack. There are lots of examples of that from the Bulge period, and there they did excellent service in such direct roles. But it was not anything they sought. The weapon system was dramatically more effective over the horizon, and was expected to live long enough to fire thousands of shells - 1-2 orders of magnitude more rounds through the tube than any direct engagement piece could expect to deliver. The only other exception I am aware of is some bunker busting work against fortified positions, sometimes with SPA even bigger than the Priest. In those cases it was a matter of a static enemy position in a known location, which could be engaged "assymmetrically" with little danger to the gun, but where numerous high caliber shots might be needed to get the desired direct hit, and where indirect fire would be ineffective. This is a traditional "assault gun" role, basically. Sherman 105s were made for it, but Priests (and SPA 155mm howitzers) got pressed into that role. In the operational histories one can find such cases at the west wall in the ETO fighting, for example; in the fighting for Metz; some block-busting work in the Aachen city fight, similarly. That is about it. I hope that helps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Hey Jason, don't see you around much anymore. Are you playing CMBN or CMFI? Liking them? Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 It's been discussed here before but the only incident of M-7 direct fire in the emergency role that I read about in the ETO happened during the breakout from the Normandy beaches. It was very effective and deadly being as the encounters were in limited light and close in. I'm sure a search would turn up the thread(s) in the CM:BN forum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The book Bloody Aachen (by Whiting?) details the use of M7s in a direct fire/city block leveling roll. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 JasonC, That 155 in DF would be the M12 GMC (not HMC) at Aachen, and as I recall, the German commander thought that was dirty pool. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M12_Gun_Motor_Carriage gunnergoz, Was unaware of that use of the M7 there. Lt Belenko, Wasn't aware of that use, either, but I've long known about the M12 GMC's use there. All, Seems like this DF role was very unusual, in turn raising questions about the rationale for M7 QB inclusion/employment. Since, as I noted earlier, the U.S. already has an assault gun, this strikes me as odd for CMFI. By the time we get to CMBN, the assault gun role belongs to the 105mm Sherman. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Seems like this DF role was very unusual, in turn raising questions about the rationale for M7 QB inclusion/employment. It's been said before by BFC that they're being kind to us by providing the M7 for on-map use. Strictly, the incidence of use of any SPA (real artillery units, not assault guns) by any side was so low that units like Grille, Wespe, Priest and Sexton shouldn't really be modelled. But we want so much to throw HE around that they've accommodated us Since, as I noted earlier, the U.S. already has an assault gun... Though it was, if I'm getting the context right, withdrawn from service by Sicily, presumably because the Sherman's 75mm was considered adequate and ubuquitous enough to fulfill the assault gun (which is somewhat analagous to an Infantry Tank, to my mind) role. By the time we get to CMBN, the assault gun role belongs to the 105mm Sherman. Indeed, but that's so rare, particularly in June, that BFC dediced to satisfy our craving for >75mm DF HE chuckers by allowing the inclusion of SPA in our front line forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerryCMBB Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Hello: Just curious if this is the Jason that did the tutorial scenarios for CMBB (posted on some website)? Seems like a neat idea to help beginners to a system. Gerry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 22, 2012 Author Share Posted August 22, 2012 GerryCMBB, The one and the same! I've been trying for years to get him to write a book, so far, with no effect. Go back and read his posts. Read them all if you can. You'll get quite an education. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 An M7 platoon could be used 'legitimately', for example, overlooking a valley firing over open sights into a village 3/4 mile away. Or perhaps a vehicle called forward to help infantry reduce a particularly stubborn well identified obstacle. Random CM QBs that have them blindly leading the charge into a patch of woodland defy all tactical reason. I have a strong dislike for Priests appearing in QB ME's, myself. StuGs vs Priests should not be considered 'balanced' forces at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 I have a strong dislike for Priests appearing in QB ME's, myself. StuGs vs Priests should not be considered 'balanced' forces at all. Me too. But the do make a nice big hole in the ground when you hit them just right. I thought I had a screen shot of that but I cannot find it. But I did find a nice big explosion from CMAK. At the 58s mark my AT gun scores a hit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 ... they do make a nice big hole in the ground when you hit them just right. ... See? It is possible to dig in during a CM scenario 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 See? It is possible to dig in during a CM scenario Yep - but I don't think I would like to share a crater with this guy though. I found it! The reason I could not find the screen shot of the huge crater left by an exploding Priest was because it was not a screen shot at all. I recorded a movie: http://youtu.be/puoS1STYwzc Now that's dug in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDork Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 That poor crew member. He was probably thanking God he just survived and then... BOOM! That's one heck of a crater. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Is there a limit to how many times a tank can "cook off" in the game? I know I've seen multiple secondary explosions from AFVs that don't make such craters, but if a Priest goes boom more than once, do the craters stack? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Indeed, but that's so rare, particularly in June, that BFC dediced to satisfy our craving for >75mm DF HE chuckers by allowing the inclusion of SPA in our front line forces. 105mm Shermans are in CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 105mm Shermans are in CMBN. Who said they aren't? They cost a lot of rarity points though, especially in June. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 To Mord - I have CMBN and played it a bit right when it came out, but not much after that. I don't have the Sicily module (yet, anyway). I've been playing more hex and counter wargames, and things from other game genres entirely. Oh and working a lot. Not dissing any of the recent stuff, just haven't had the time to get into them as much as I did CMx1, especially CMBB, which was definitely my favorite. Thanks to all for the kind comments... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hessian deserter Posted August 26, 2012 Share Posted August 26, 2012 I had an enemy AI ,M7 immobilize one of my Panthers in CMBN,when I crossed it's direct line of fire while moving up to a small hilltop and I was unable to return fire from my immobilized position on the hill.....And this was from a considerable distance. It surprised me for sure.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killkess Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 M7s are not mobile artillery, they are tank hunters: First off all my tank was unbottoned and should have seen and fired first. But what realy puzzles me: how the heck this mobile artillery piece shots on the move and gets a first round hit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I had an enemy AI ,M7 immobilize one of my Panthers in CMBN,when I crossed it's direct line of fire while moving up to a small hilltop and I was unable to return fire from my immobilized position on the hill.....And this was from a considerable distance. It surprised me for sure.... LOS and LOF are not reciprocal. Especially from a distance, the low velocity 105 round will arc more, possibly clearing intervening obstructions. M7s are not mobile artillery, they are tank hunters: First off all my tank was unbottoned and should have seen and fired first. Why? One pair of unfettered eyes and 3 pairs staring through vision blocks will lose out to 6 guys staring over the sides of an open topped vehicle, I reckon. Then you have to consider the experience level of the vehicles (I'll assume the tank was OK morale wise). And then there's random variation. Even if your assumption of the tank's spotting ability being superior is correct, it only increases the odds of the tank spotting first. Nothing is ever guaranteed. But what realy puzzles me: how the heck this mobile artillery piece shots on the move and gets a first round hit? Shooting on the move is an unfortunate, but necessary abstraction, according to BFC. It's supposed to represent a brief firing stop, and has been made, apparently, much less accurate in one of the patches. You probably just got unlucky. If you re-ran the turn, that shot would likely miss most of the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killkess Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 The main point is that the tank basicly had just a very very little arc to watch at, all they had to watch for was someone moving directly in front. The M7 on the other side had to watch out or every kind af hazzard from multiple directions. I know what BFC thinks about that abstracted "shoting while moving" issue. For this the M7 (in RL) would even had to stop right in view of the tank to traverse and aim. While the tank was able to almost instantly spot a group of scout soldiers crossing the street it wasnt even able to spot a M7 halting, traversing and aiming before it shots? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 The main point is that the tank basicly had just a very very little arc to watch at, all they had to watch for was someone moving directly in front. That's not how it works, and it would be "computationally intensive" (that is, bloody difficult to program) to do it differently. A unit has no conception of its covered flanks and will always attempt to maintain 360 degree awareness, so the "advantage" you're assuming doesn't exist. And no, Covered Arcs won't address the issue, since they only control firing behaviour. Can you even begin to consider how many factors you take into consideration when you decide "that way's safe; no need to watch there"? And how hard getting that right would be for a CM unit? Make it too simple, and you'll get it wrong, and units will get ambushed because the TacAI decided they didn't need to look somewhere they really orter've. Make it anything other than simple, and you can forget RT play. I know what BFC thinks about that abstracted "shoting while moving" issue. For this the M7 (in RL) would even had to stop right in view of the tank to traverse and aim. While the tank was able to almost instantly spot a group of scout soldiers crossing the street it wasnt even able to spot a M7 halting, traversing and aiming before it shots? Tough. It happens some times. Perhaps they got distracted. Or the M7 just got insanely lucky. Did you run the turn again? Did the same thing happen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 somewhere they really orter've. Is this cockney slang? Or a vegetable? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Is this cockney slang? Or a vegetable? It's certainly a "colloquialism"... Whether it's cockney, I couldn't say, not having been born within the sound of Bow Bells... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.