Why was smoke used so rarely?

[Zenomorph]

I use smoke rounds as often as I can in these games and usually to good effect. I really don't understand why smoke was so rarely used in the war. I also wonder if I'm possibly taking away some of the historical accuracy and thus taking away some of the challenge of the game (not that it's not still tough to win!). Thanks for any input!

[MikeyD]

I recall one big British assault around Caen where their unprotected left flank was shielded by a massive continuous smoke screen lasting for hours. Ach, I can't recall the details. I had 'virtually' driven that battlefield in Google Earth Street view and even started construction on a map. Was planning to use Churchills. July 10, operation Jupiter, the battle for Maltot I believe.

[kensal]

I use smoke rounds as often as I can in these games and usually to good effect. I really don't understand why smoke was so rarely used in the war. I also wonder if I'm possibly taking away some of the historical accuracy and thus taking away some of the challenge of the game (not that it's not still tough to win!). Thanks for any input!

What makes you think it was used rarely?

[Zenomorph]

I've just read enuf military history to keep my red-blooded male cred going and use of smoke is rarely mentioned. And when it is mentioned, it seems only in cases where it's a very windy day and so commanders are discouraged from ever bothering with it again.

[Childress]

I recall one big British assault around Caen where their unprotected left flank was shielded by a massive continuous smoke screen lasting for hours.

What player is going to drain hours worth of arty assets into a smoke screen? Let's be real here.

[db_zero]

Weather conditions could often prevent effective use of smoke. Logistics also came into play-no available or stuff not where it really needed to be.

Also smoke could be a double edge sword. Could blow back into your direction or in a direction you didn't want as well as blocking the sight of your heavy weapons.

[SlowMotion]

I think it was mostly used when some important goal like crossing a river was attempted.

The river could be covered with smoke to prevent defense fire during the most vulnerable part of the attack.

Many times smoke shells probably weren't available for "normal" routine arty use.

[MikeyD]

If you're talking small scale use, I recall reading one account of a New Zealand 75mm Sherman in late war Italy encountering a Tiger I at close range. The crew fired off its entire ready rack of ammo into the vehicle. One oddity I noticed was they had a surprisingly large percentage of the ready rack made up of smoke rounds! Nearing war's war's end Eisenhower was handed a damning report about Sherman in combat. Practically the only nice thing said concerned the tanks excellent smoke round which 'the Germans do not like', according to the document. I recall another account of a captured German AT gun crew being brought behind British lines, one man was on a stretcher, his hair had turned bright green (like the joker) as an effect of the burning aluminum in the HC smoke round that had taken out the gun. So if you go looking for incidents of the use of smoke in combat start popping out at you.

[BLSTK]

I just finished the Battle of Ecausseville in the "Road to Montebourg" campaign. The only thing standing between the remnants of a German Fusilier HQ and my gaining control of le Chateau was an immobilized HMC8. Although it was out of both HE and AP rounds, it did still have 4 rounds of WP. Needless to say, it was the fusiliers who ended up "immobilized".

[umlaut]

Well, judging from this pic, smoke was used quite extensively - at least sometimes:

http://natlib.govt.nz/records/22905113?search[subject][]=Italy&search[subject][]=Smoke&search[il][subject]=Cassino&search[path]=photos

[kensal]

I've just read enuf military history to keep my red-blooded male cred going and use of smoke is rarely mentioned. And when it is mentioned, it seems only in cases where it's a very windy day and so commanders are discouraged from ever bothering with it again.

It may be that the use of smoke isn't mentioned much because it may not seem a detail worth mentioning in a history book.

[MikeyD]

Ah, I recall an account of the Salerno landing that the allies were pretty much curtained off from the Germans on higher ground by a perpetual smoke screen. Apparent when they did use it they used it BIG. Divisional artillery and naval bombardment kinda' big.

[Michael Emrys]

Ah, I recall an account of the Salerno landing that the allies were pretty much curtained off from the Germans on higher ground by a perpetual smoke screen.

I'd like a cite for that. It's the complete opposite of what I've read to this point.

To respond more generally to the OP, you got some good answers here. Smoke was used and sometimes in great quantity. The Allied seem to have mainly used massed smoke generators for river crossings. The Germans and Soviets used artillery delivered smoke shells. But I would agree with you that its use was not more common than it was. One can think of literally millions of tactical situations where it would have been useful, even decisive, but was not employed. Weather conditions as mentioned may at times have been a factor, but not the whole explanation. I think the main thing may have been a combination of availability and habit. Everything has to be moved to the front through a pipeline that was never as big as one would like, so ammo types had to be prioritized. Between supplying smoke and supplying HE that can actually blow things up, to the officers in charge it was kind of a no-brainer. With hindsight, that might have been overdone. With a good doctrine and practice in it, a little more smoke might have been worth more to the troops in the line than the HE it was replacing. But it was just one of many things that got neglected in the war.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Oh darn, the reference I was recalling was an extended article named 'the battle for Anzio' so its somewhat unlikely the line was referring to Salerno. You'd think I'd know the difference between the two.

[Michael Emrys]

Oh darn, the reference I was recalling was an extended article named 'the battle for Anzio' so its somewhat unlikely the line was referring to Salerno. You'd think I'd know the difference between the two.

Okay. To err is human and all that. But I did clearly recall how many sources that I had read about the battle made a big deal about how the entire lodgment area (except maybe the Sorrento Peninsula) was under observation from the surrounding hills, from which the Germans rained down high explosive death for the first week or so.

Michael

[Destraex1]

I wonder perhaps if artillery created enough smoke dust and debris cover in it's own right in some cases.

[DavidFields]

I'd like a cite for that. It's the complete opposite of what I've read to this point.

To respond more generally to the OP, you got some good answers here. Smoke was used and sometimes in great quantity. The Allied seem to have mainly used massed smoke generators for river crossings. The Germans and Soviets used artillery delivered smoke shells. But I would agree with you that its use was not more common than it was. One can think of literally millions of tactical situations where it would have been useful, even decisive, but was not employed. Weather conditions as mentioned may at times have been a factor, but not the whole explanation. I think the main thing may have been a combination of availability and habit. Everything has to be moved to the front through a pipeline that was never as big as one would like, so ammo types had to be prioritized. Between supplying smoke and supplying HE that can actually blow things up, to the officers in charge it was kind of a no-brainer. With hindsight, that might have been overdone. With a good doctrine and practice in it, a little more smoke might have been worth more to the troops in the line than the HE it was replacing. But it was just one of many things that got neglected in the war.

Michael

I agree.

I have mentioned this before. I keep wanting to use smoke, but keep finding that using HE is usually easier.

Then there is the odd issue that you get a number of rounds for an asset, and if you use them for HE, then you don't have the smoke rounds. If there were dedicated smoke rounds, the situation, I think, would be completely different.

This is less of an issue for AFVs, in my experience, because one does not usually use all of one's ammo. But again, when my choices with a MkIV or Sherman are between screening an enemy unit with smoke, or putting a few HE round into a position, I, reluctantly at times, keep finding that the HE rounds seem like a better idea.

I keep looking for the exception, and would jump on it if I found it, but, practically, I don't use smoke much.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I'm surprised myself that infantry wasn't issued smoke grenades as they seem so useful, especially in town fighting.

I got the chance to talk to a vet who landed at Normandy years ago. Even though it's been said over and over around here that smoke wasn't used on that scale, I had to confirm about the rarity of such items. He said they weren't standard issue and he never used them.

[JonS]

I've just read enuf military history to keep my red-blooded male cred going and use of smoke is rarely mentioned. And when it is mentioned, it seems only in cases where it's a very windy day and so commanders are discouraged from ever bothering with it again.

You may want to revisit the kinds of history you're reading. Smoke was used often, and in large quantities. It is, however, one of those details that's seldom mentioned in most pop history because it's part of the general neglect of artillery matters. More often that not, all you get about the artillery is a bald listing of the number of guns used and/or rounds expended. You hardly ever find anything about the complexity and subtlety of the fireplans that employed all those guns and rounds, or the targets that were being shot at.

Reid's "No Holding Back" is a standout exception here. He goes into a great level of detial regarding the artillery support for Op TOTALIZE, and it's fascinating reading. But the thing to realise that the kind of complexity that Reid details in his book was really rather routine, and not something exceptional or peculiar to that particular operation.

MLRS Books has a bunch of reprints of battlefield tours that were produced in the 1950s, and used to teaching serving soldiers in BAOR how tactical problems were dealt with. They all contain a lot of detail about the employment of artillery.

[Childress]

If there were dedicated smoke rounds, the situation, I think, would be completely different.

Right. The temptation to rain down the HE is too strong.

Evidently smoke generators made their debut in Sept, '44:

Wiki:

Whilst producing very large amounts of smoke relatively cheaply, these generators have a number of disadvantages. They are much slower to respond than pyrotechnic sources, and require a valuable piece of equipment to be sited at the point of emission of the smoke. They are also relatively heavy and not readily portable, which is a significant problem if the wind shifts. To overcome this latter problem they may be used in fixed posts widely dispersed over the battlefield, or else mounted on specially adapted vehicles. An example of the latter is the M56 Coyote generator.

Many armoured fighting vehicles can create smoke screens in a similar way, generally by injecting diesel fuel onto the hot exhaust.

[JonS]

If there were dedicated smoke rounds, the situation, I think, would be completely different.

I agree it'd be different, but 'different' is not synonymous with 'better'.

At the moment, players have to make a deliberate choice - whether they realise it or not - as to whether smoke or HE would better help them in their particular circumstances. That is they have to make a definite cost/benefit decision.

If the arty system and UI were changed to include a dedicated bucket of smoke rounds, then the choice required changes from 'what's my plan and what resources do I need to carry it out?' to 'how do I smash this square peg into that round hole?'

[Zenomorph]

Reid's "No Holding Back" is a standout exception here... .

Thx, Jon! I'll pick that up. While I'm at it, can you recommend any other good reads. I should post this as a new thread. But there's so MUCH I don't follow rt that war. One example that immediately comes to mind is why didn't the Allies - at the Battle of the Bulge - pinch off that salient rather than simply push it back. I've read that Eisenhower was criticized for it but not much about his reasoning. I'm curious as to whether it was too "outside the box" or was it something else. Ike was so brilliant in many respects and I'm guessing there were logistical reasons for his actions. Thanks again!

[DavidFields]

I agree it'd be different, but 'different' is not synonymous with 'better'.

At the moment, players have to make a deliberate choice - whether they realise it or not - as to whether smoke or HE would better help them in their particular circumstances. That is they have to make a definite cost/benefit decision.

If the arty system and UI were changed to include a dedicated bucket of smoke rounds, then the choice required changes from 'what's my plan and what resources do I need to carry it out?' to 'how do I smash this square peg into that round hole?'

I am going to disagree with you, JonS, hopefully in a friendly way. I am going to argue that there are mechanistic issues with the current system that do not allow the player the "deliberate [interesting] choice".

Let's say I have an artillery asset, with 45 shells, 12 smoke.

If I fire the smoke first, then the HE, there is no problem.

But if I fire the HE first, then I have to guess/estimate the number of rounds that will be delivered. I might try not to cut it too close, but if I were off even 4-6 rounds too much HE, I might then have too little smoke to be effective.

If I could "put aside" 12 rounds for smoke, that would be a deliberate choice, and I would welcome that. I could choose to have less HE.

The issue is exacerbated by that important first turn barrage.

[Kudos!, BTW, with the new module, your post turn 1 delays are now shown on turn 1--not just < 1 minute for each asset--another number in parentheses follows]

If one wants to use smoke and HE on an asset, it does not make sense to fire smoke on turn 1, then wait for the delay in calling the HE--the smoke will be gone. It only works to use HE initially, then target the smoke with the delay to blind the target. Again, I think I would use smoke on turn 1 more (or, for the first time), if I could designate some of the rounds smoke.

This will get solved, I think. Given the changes, such as the one I have mentioned above, somewhere along the line I think we are going to get a # of tubes, intensity, duration, --total # of rounds (even if approximate)--. Unless I am missing something (and it would be about game-play or coding, not about realism, because this artillery stuff is highly abstracted), this just seems to make sense.

[JonS]

I don't disagree with any of that

[Battlefront.com]

Also keep in mind that operational smoke for the Allies was often produced by smoke "generators". But, as Childress pointed out, they were mostly for set piece battles. As a rule we tend to shy away from operational set piece elements because (combined) they constitute a distraction from CM's primary focus on smaller scale engagements suitable for interesting tactical challenges.

Steve