Arty- Willy Pete and friends...

[Simon Fox]

BTS

Just following up on my previous thread like most others here I would like to see WP included but would rather it wasn't if it is only going to be modelled as a form of smoke. In some of your replies to my and other comments you have equated the effectiveness of WP with HE in a way that I don't think is reasonable. As I perhaps failed to emphasise my main concern initially was that WP has a fairly potent psychological effect (for an account of an american on the receiving end of WP you can find one in Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers"). Otherwise it would be difficult to explain why it was used in preference to HE in the hedgerows. After all 75mm HE even if delivered by a direct fire weapon has a very limited capacity against a well dug in enemy. By its very nature WP might be more effective in such a situation. My inclination is that HE would make you "burrow down" deeper while a cloud of WP would make you want to get the hell out of there!

Following up on your point about the chemical mortars: "In fact it's entirely likely that the 4.2" mortars used WP because, being "chemical mortars", they had no little or no high-explosive on hand." I am afraid that you are quite wrong in this respect. In all 18 chemical mortar battalions were deployed in the ETO although probably only 15 saw action. I think that each battalion consisted of 4 companies of 8 4.2" mortars. Commonly the battalions were attached to specific divisions but such was the popularity of these weapons that they were also on occasion attached in company force. Fire missions generally employed a mixture of WP and HE or HE alone. This is reflected in the manufacturing data for 4.2" shells for the period:6.4million HE, 3million WP, 300,000 FS smoke. These units were first employed to support the invasion of Sicily as the following AAR attest:

"...Despite the weight and ammunition problem, it is a magnificent and extraordinarily effective weapon. The mortar is most effective with white phosphorus and HE. The Germans are very allergic to white phosphorus anyway and we would root them out of their holes with well-placed rounds of phosphorus and, when we had them above ground, we plastered them with HE. We killed large numbers of them that way, and they sure dreaded the mortars. They are the equivalent of real artillery. We also used them in the assault coming ashore. I have said we used them; I really mean the supporting chemical troops used them. They did such a good job with us, we got to regard them as our own people. The prize package was one day when a chemical officer actually dropped a round of HE from one of his mortars into the open turret of a German tank..." - Lt. Col. Wiegand, CO, 2nd Bn, 179th Inf

"...The 4.2 chemical mortars are marvelous weapons. After we had a platoon attached to the battalion, I was scared to death they would take them away from us and attach them to some other outfit, the demand for them was so great. The Germans were deathly afraid of them and the prisoners told us that they thought they were some kind of new secret weapon like an automatic cannon, because they had such tremendous effect and could be fired so rapidly. I do not recommend that they be made organic to the infantry. I much prefer that we have attached chemical troops as we had in Sicily. Their cooperation and proficency was all anyone could ask for. We shall always want a platoon attached to us, and we think that the best results are obtained by cooperative, attached units like we had. Without exageration, I would say that the 4.2 is the most effective single weapon used in support of infantry I have ever seen. We have yet to see an enemy position that was tenable when we fired on it with WP and HE from this mortar. They can reach into almostly perfectly defiladed positions, and their effect is devastating..." - Lt. Col. Patterson, CO. 3rd Bn, 180th Inf

Oh and by the way surely you never expect me to be brief do you

[Brian Rock]

Did a bit of web browsing on this today. It doesn't seem to be easy to find much in the way of hard data regarding WP. One interesting set of statistics is the use of WP by Patton's 3rd Army:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Third Army artillery fired 5,870,843 rounds of ammunition during the fighting...

Third Army's nine chemical mortar companies expended 349,097 rounds of 4.2 inch mortars, including 189,095 rounds of high explosive and 160,002 rounds of white phosphorous. Chemical warfare supplies included 32,454 gallons of flame thrower fuel and 335,944 grenades.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.arcent.army.mil/pages/patton-a.htm

Without reading too much into a single source, while 160,000 rounds of WP is not insignificant, it seems to be only about 2-3% of the total indirect fire ordinance.

(To further complicate things, I've never heard of the "chemical mortar companies" before - were they the only units firing WP? Are they considered part of the "3rd Army artillery"? Dunno...)

My understanding is that current use of WP is more often as a marker than as a weapon, and certainly M48 crews were told to use it for that purpose in Viet Nam, but I don't know of any reference to it being used this way in WWII.

I did stumble across an anecdotal reference to WP usage in Shermans:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tony D’Arpino: I think Sergeant Warren used to have the right idea. I can remember him, God rest his soul, saying, I made tank commander for a couple of weeks, that’s another story, but he used to tell me, "Listen, if you ever become tank commander," he says, "never mind getting the high explosive shells. Get the white phosphorous." He says it does the same job and twice the damage.

Ed Spahr: Well, they’d have knocked us out quicker, I think, if I wouldn’t have fired white phosphorous that day. Because that one tank stopped.

Tony D’Arpino: Nobody got much white phosphorous until Sergeant Warren.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.tankbooks.com/giffdarp.htm

No idea how typical this was, or how readily crews could get their hands on WP in any case.

Now I presume nobody needs to discuss WP grenades...

[Pixman]

Dear Steve and Charles:

My 2 cents

Premise 1 - The WP round was developed and mass produced both for direct fire ordinance and mortars for a reason.

Premise 2 - It was clearly applied in a variety of ways in combat, especially in the bocage.

Premise 3 - Several war veterans (non-coms and officers alike) have espoused its effectiveness and specifically differentiated it from HE and regular smoke.

Conclusion - WP needs to be in the game, separate and apart from regular smoke which also had its own unique role. For me, at least, the impact on the interface is not an issue.

Analogy: IMHO, fighting in the bocage without WP is akin to fighting in Finnland without ski troops.

Last comment: Having WP in the game is much more important to me than having shadows under vehicles.

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pixman, you are missing the whole point of the argument against WP from CM's perspective. You seem to think that WP use was common (therefore making its inclusion manditory), but we strongly disagree. So far our readings support our view that WP was quite uncommon. Nobody has presented evidence to counter our findings, but in fact have reinforced them. We welcome more evidence on the WP matter.

We could include it anytime we want, but NOT until there is some way to make sure it is used as it was historically. In order to do that we have to identify why WP's use on the battlefield was limited (and it was, from everything we have read, very limited).

Putting in WP without historic constraints would be harmful to the game as a whole, and we will not stand for that. So while we have not rulled it out, we aren't going to go slapping it in without doing it right. As of yet we haven't really figured out how to do this.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-09-99).]

[Pixman]

Steve, thanks for the response. I think I understood all of your points before, but they are certainly clearer to me now. The point I was trying to make was specifically regarding fighting in the bocage. I do not refute that WP was not commonly allocated in the war overall, but it seems to have been more prevalent in hedgerow country. I strongly concur with not wanting to make it overly available compared to historic reality. But I figured you could make some allowance depending on where the scenario is being fought, i.e. Carentan peninsula = WP available; Arnhem = WP unavailable.

I will join the troops trying to gather more evidence on this subject although I sense that it may be too late to get WP into version 1.

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pixman, limiting something based on scenario is impossible thanks to our editor However, we might be able to do something that would restrict WP in some other way. The idea of having WP isn't off the table yet.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

I guess you know by now that I'm with Pixman on this one. It seems to me that if you want to simulate particular engagements and specific operations where it had a documented impact then WP needs to be available and correctly modelled. However, I take your point that excessive use of this munition would result in: (1) ahistorical usage, (2) possibly excessive reliance and (3)incorrect simulation of most battles. Perhaps if it were available as an option to the scenario designer it would be properly implemented. After all its up to the scenario designer to ensure that an historical battle is as closely modelled as possible in terms of the forces available. Of course there will always be those who create totally ahistorical scenarios I am assuming of course that the designer may specify ammunition loads and availability (I hope this is in as it would be nice to simulate the shortages which historically affected some battles).

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Perhaps if it were available as an option to the scenario designer it would be properly implemented.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of the ideas we are kicking around.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Of course there will always be those who create totally ahistorical scenarios <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, you mean 10 Jagdtigers and 15 King Tigers going up against 20 Shermans and 10 Pershings? Nah, who would do such a thing?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am assuming of course that the designer may specify ammunition loads and availability (I hope this is in as it would be nice to simulate the shortages which historically affected some battles).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this is allowed. Takes a bit of time since it is done on a unit by unit basis, but then again you aren't really supposed to have a company of tanks

Steve

[Guest KwazyDog]

Dont forget the 5 batteries of 300mm rockets vs the 3 batteries of 14" Battleship guns. You know its bound to happen Steve

I do like the idea of the WP being left up to the scenerio designer though. Maybe for random scenerios it could be based on date, assuming they were used mainly in the hedgerow country...

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-17-99).]

[Ken Talley]

This is the message that won't end. I pulled out my copy of "Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo, and Schimdt". All three battles took place in 1944 with two in France and one in Italy. There were no references to WP in the Arnaville action although smoke was used extensively to cover the river crossing as well as withdrawal.

In the Altuzza battle, there were two references to WP support of one and two company sized assaults towards Mt Altuzzo. On 14 Sept, one 4.2 Mtr platoon fired 20 rounds of WP in support. On 15 Sept, one 4.2" Mtr platoon fired 7 rds HE and 42 rds WP in support. These two references are on page 165 and 198.

In the Schmidt battle, there were also two references to WP support. The initial 2 November battalion sized assualt on Vossenack was supported by Company B's 4.2" Mtrs, 86th Chemical battalion with 274 HE and 225 WP rounds. These rounds were fired directly into Vossenack causing fires and smoke. On 3 November, Company B fired 71 He and 63 WP rounds as the 112th infantry began its advance against light opposition from Vossenack to Schmidt and Kommercheidt. These references are on pages 268 and 285.

The Three battles book goes into extreme detail and does show the use of WP in two of the three battle examined. Although I believe that the support by the mortars was small in comparison to the total artillery support in both attacks. Up to this point, I haven't seen a reference to any artillery using WP other than 4.2" mortars of Chemical batteries. So should artillery WP be restricted to 4.2" Mtrs only? Either way here is some additional information for what it is worth.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 08-17-99).]

[Guest KwazyDog]

Whilst somewhat on the topic, can ammo supplies between battles in a campaign be controlled by the scenerio desiager?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ken,

4.2" mortars were VERY rare in NW Europe. So rare, in fact, that Charles ALMOST didn't bother including them at all It is our understanding very few were in NW Europe as most were in Italy (which make sense).

Also note the bombardment of Vossenack was a strategic bombardment, not a tactical one. Therefore, this example doesn't mean anything to CM since it is outside of its scope (like carpet bombing). What we are looking for are examples of WP used in a tactical role. The *only* strong tactical case so far fin favor of WP is for hedgerow fighting. And even this was very specialized and limtited.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-18-99).]

[CRourke]

Boy, this really is a vampire of a thread.. anyone have an oaken stake?

I think 90% of the folks out there feel that the inclusion of WP would be awfully nice, but its not a make or break when it comes to realism or to whether or not we buy the game.

Its like exotic vehicles.. sure, they got used at one time or another, but I think the west front can be adequately simulated without WP (or without Pershings). Consider it for a follow up patch, and for the love of god, lock this thread.

Chris

[Pixman]

With all due respect Chris, locking this thread will serve no purpose other than to waste all of the effort people have put into it so far (and I am speaking of others much more than myself). As far as I am concerned, all Steve or Charles has to do is make a final determination on WP and then the issue is closed. While the issue is open, the thread should stay open.

I will be happy with whatever decision is made. I just think the ammo was a legitimate part of the war in the bocage, albeit uniquely and narrowly applied. The concern about creating unrealistic scenarios exists whether WP is included or not. To me the most persuasive arguments for leaving it out would be that it is hard to model, would seriously encumber the interface, or would significantly slow down the release of the game. So far I have only heard reference to the interface issue.

Having or not having WP will hardly make or break the game. I don't think anybody here thinks it will. But if it does not cost much to get it, why not have it? I am just so glad that we have the luxury to kick around a nuance like WP instead of something more serious like,"will there be smoke" (or "weather", or "night fighting", or "command and control")? But, since all of those things, and many others, are already in the design, WP seems like a pretty good topic.

This thread is a sure sign that we have come a long way.

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

The enchanter may confuse the outcome, but the effort remains sublime.

[Lee]

I agree, whether CM has WP shells in it or not is

not a huge deal. It would be nice to have them to

simulate certain scenarios and unusual battles,

but it's not critical by any means.

Since we are talking about 4.2 inch mortars and such,

I was wondering if it would be accurate at CM's scale

to simulate counter-battery fire against enemy

artillery? If the battle lasted awhile might there

be time to try and suppress enemy off-board artillery?

[Guest Big Time Software]

No counter-battery fire in CM. It really is outside of CM's scope. Most battles are only 30-60 minutes long, and artillery support shouldn't be a huge part of any scenario (quantity wise). The point is that the person using artillery will run out of fire missions LONG before counter-battery fire could be coordinated by the other side.

Steve