Is it a-historical to use the M7 priest in a direct fire role?

[$Pec5]

Everything I've come upon regarding the use of the US Priest in combat has it being used in an indirect fire role from long ranges. Given that, you'd think that it would only be available as an off-board artillery asset.

I love using the Priest for direct fire support. Having that many shells of 105mm artillery is a lot of fun. But I am confronted with the moral dilemma of, is my use of the Priest terribly historically inacurrate and gamey? Why would it be possible to purchase this as an on board AFV if it wasn't used in direct fire roles?

[womble]

Yes, it's largely ahistorical, and that's pretty much true of all the SPGs in NWE, even some of the ones designated "assault guns" (M8 HMC, I'm looking at you). The Allies didn't even get their artillery positions overrun by (counter)attacks very often, so they have less of an excuse for having their SPA available for on-map use than the Axis do.

Just having a stooge round in the editor/QB picker, it does look like the US, at least, have less options in QBs for picking assault guns on-map: couldn't see any M8 HMC at all. I think BFC have said in the past that the only reason they actually did include the likes of the Priest in the on-map OOB at all was because we, the players, wanted 'em. And they are, indubitably, a heap of fun, so that seems like a fair reason to me

[A Canadian Cat]

I cannot comment on their historical use but I will say - don't do it:D

So far every game I have played that has a Priest or Priests one of them ended up in a huge fire ball. Believe me you do not want any of your troops or light vehicles any where near that fire ball. Go with the 105 Sherman instead. They pack just as much punch but they die less frequently (word of warning though if one does brew up it is only a matter of time before it too goes up in a huge fire ball).

[womble]

I think an M4(105) would have done exactly the same thing, in the same situation: KwK40 hits in the flank are liable to make 'splosions... You don't have to be as careful with 'em as you do with the thin-skinned DFHE support, but they are precious assets and still need keeping out the way of things that can kill 'em.

[Jaeger Jonzo]

I'm reading 'day of the panzer' at the moment and it mentions pushing M8's up front with the point elements in the US push up through southern France, with some Priests not too far down the column line either, as they mention them keep running out of fuel.

Also, when helping out a scenario maker on here recently who was asking if it was right to have a priest in his British recon column I found an actual engagement article mentioning them doing just that!

So in my humble opinion it is historically correct to use them, though no doubt not a common occurrence.

[womble]

I'm reading 'day of the panzer' at the moment and it mentions pushing M8's up front with the point elements in the US push up through southern France, with some Priests not too far down the column line either, as they mention them keep running out of fuel.

Also, when helping out a scenario maker on here recently who was asking if it was right to have a priest in his British recon column I found an actual engagement article mentioning them doing just that!

So in my humble opinion it is historically correct to use them, though no doubt not a common occurrence.

Does "having them in the column" actually mean they deployed to fire over "open sights"? Just checking that the accounts don't have them firing indirect from nearby (a la on map company mortar).

[Vanir Ausf B]

But I am confronted with the moral dilemma of, is my use of the Priest terribly historically inacurrate and gamey? Why would it be possible to purchase this as an on board AFV if it wasn't used in direct fire roles?

Are you by chance having a similar crisis of conscience regarding Wespes?

[$Pec5]

Vanir,

I enjoy you reading into all of my threads as if they're regarding our PBEM. Most of the time, your inclinations are correct. This time, however, they're...correct.

[MikeyD]

I do cringe a bit whenever I see a Priest in my inventory, especially on a typical CM-scale map. Priests make good bunker busters but there weren't that many bunkers to bust in Normandy! This is more applicable to tackling the Gothic Line or Siegfried Line. Hedgerow fighting just cries to fire a faust into the side of a Priest or toss a potato masher into the fighting compartment from an adjacent field.

[Michael Emrys]

Just about any time an SPA in Normandy was close enough to the action to even dream about direct firing, it meant that a column containing them was ambushed or simply collided with an enemy column at an intersection. And usually they did not last long enough to get off any shots.

Michael

[Sequoia]

But thank you Steve and the gang for including them anyway. More toys is a good thing, and it's still more realistic then most movies.

[JonS]

As always; it's the dose that makes the poison.

It seems that the first poster is talking about QBs, and since they're basically a-historical anyway, it seems a bit odd to be commenting on whether M7s (or other SPA) should be present or not. There's no particular reason they shouldn't be present, but if you find yourself facing them in every battle then you could perhaps consider a house rule to limit their use. The rule could be something like: 'if the decimal in a given day's Dow Jones Industrial Average is less than .33 then the attacker/defender/both is allowed to purchase SPA.' They don't have to, but they can. For example, as I write this, the DJIA is 15105.12, and since .12 is less than .33 I'd be able to buy SPA if I wanted to.

For scenarios, the presumption is that the designer has either done some research that indicates SPA was present, or has a reason why he wants SPA in this battle. His battle design, his choice. Your choice is to play or not play that scenario.

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of the M707 recce Humvee in CMSF. Its not BFC's fault that it was all but useless. They weren't the ones to put it into the Army TO&E. Blame the Pentagon! Priest isn't the only awkward-to-use unit in the game. Some players have insisted on a moratorium on purchasing Xylophone artillery rockets. A great way to win the battle in the first 2 minutes of gameplay! Again, don't blame BFC, blame the Pentagon.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Some players have insisted on a moratorium on purchasing Xylophone artillery rockets. A great way to win the battle in the first 2 minutes of gameplay! Again, don't blame BFC, blame the Pentagon.

To be fair, US rockets are prohibited in QBs because their purchase price is screwed-up and has never been fixed, so in that case I think we can blame BFC. German rockets are many times more expensive and consequently not as much of an issue.

[Bradley]

Enjoying my total victory in CMFI's "In For A Pound" (after several attempts) now rings hollow after doing a little research They are fun to deploy and use and were instrumental in winning. A task being effective and keeping them alive, I was fortunate to lose but one.

 

Can Sexton/ Priest be used as off map asset or are there scenarios implementing this?

[Michael Emrys]

Can Sexton/ Priest be used as off map asset or are there scenarios implementing this?

 

Haven't checked on Sexton, but Priests are definitely available for off-map purchase.

 

BTW, some months ago I came across a source that stated that the M4(105) was also mainly used indirectly. I haven't yet encountered a second source to confirm that, but it strikes me as likely. Although labeled as assault guns, they might not have been used in that (direct fire) role much.

 

Michael