Division usage of Artillery

[John Kettler]

H1nd,

You are quite welcome here, and most of the people are both nice and helpful. This is indeed Grog Land, and there are many inhabitants whose depth and breadth of knowledge would put many so-called experts to shame.

Since we are a polyglot bunch, with lots of Members knowing English as a second or even third language, miscommunications are inevitable and a fact of life. For that matter, these things occur between American English speakers and Commonwealth English speakers, sometimes even from country to country.

Real life example: Statuesque Brit blond comes to the States and is lounging poolside in her bikini. Along comes an appreciative American male and compliments her on her fanny AKA bum on the other side of the pond. Understand that "bum" here is a demeaning term for a homeless person, where over there it means backside. With me so far? British girls, though, find having their fannies complimented more than a bit cheeky (no pun intended). Why? "Fanny" there refers to a gal's private parts! Isn't English great?

Am intrigued that JasonC was publicly rebuked, yet some Members have repeatedly behaved, toward me and others, in ways which make what happened to you seem like a warm hug by comparison. In your case, you two were doing what we call talking past each other. You asked a question. He replied authoritatively. You responded, not realizing you'd gotten a definitive reply. That's when things went awry. Simple case of crossed communication wires. No big deal.

General observation: We're all supposed to comport ourselves per the Forum Rules, but some seem to forget what they agreed to as a condition for being here or deliberately choose to flout the Rules. The last can prove a disastrous strategy, as the long list of the Banned will attest! Some have come close because, regardless of intent, what was said came off as attacking and insulting. I number myself in that category, having been too pushy, regarding an antitank ammo issue, over in CMFI Land not all that long ago.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

I blame it on the ammo gremlins! They carry rounds off. That must be the explanation, since surely the type of fire, fuzing, target and intensity of fire have nothing to do with ammo consumption, right?!

On a more serious note, ISTR the larger the caliber, the longer the delay in the game. Is this true, though for DIVARTY in CMBN, where presumably the same FDC is doing the firing calculations for, say, both the 105s and the 155s in the U.S. case? Certainly, the general rule makes sense when changing levels of command, absent skip echelon procedures.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

First, it's a game. Have some fun with it.

As for artillery use, as mentioned, the different combatants had similar equipment, but vastly different capabilities as to its implementation.

Most had one battalion (3x batteries) of 150mm and 3 battalions (total of 9x batteries) of 105mm. The 105 batteries (9) were typically paired with specific infantry battalions (9 in a division). The heavy (155) was allocated by the commander to the main point of effort.

Usually. This type of organization evolved from WWI experience.

The Germans kept to this type of use the most.

The British/Commonwealth were very flexible, using communications networks to enable a single FO to call in every tube in range in an entire corps. So, if the allocated artillery couldn't get the job done, they could call more. It helped that the artillery COMMANDER was the guy acting as FO. It was not a request: it was an order.

The US fell in between but gradually adopted the British/Commonwealth methods.

All of the above is VERY rough and will be picked apart as being too simplistic and not reflecting some actual use. But that's how it starts.

Now, if you have a division, it is part of a corps. That corps usually had some more artillery. In German, the ARKO; artillery commander, attached to a corps headquarters. They would help with the main point of attack. They would have 150mm or even 170mm artillery. (170 was rare, but a very accurate, very long range piece.) Of course, Germans being Germans, they had to make due with a lot of captured equipement, so you'd find just about anything.

Flipping at random to the 10th PzGr Division in Nafziger's OOB book, they have 2 regiments, each of 3 battalions. (Most German armored units had 6 infantry battalions, using "infantry" to signify men with rifles, not tanks.) The artillery regiment had 2 105mm battalions (3 batteries of 3 guns in each battalion). The other battalion had 2 batteries of 3 150mm guns and 1 battery of 3 100mm guns. (I should be making a difference between "gun" and "howitzer". The German 100mm gun (Kanon) was a long-range weapon. The 150's and 105's (haubitze) were short-range howitzers. FWIW.)

3rd PzGr had 4 gun batteries and Wespes, as well, which just shows how different the divisional organizations could be.

Hope that helps. A bit.

I am the very fortunate owner of a mint 1st edition of Guderian's XIX Panzer Corps and the Battle of France by Major Florian K Rothburst

I believe this is a reprint, but it is hard to tell if it was ever actually printed. It is paperback and still runs over $100.

http://www.amazon.com/Cut-Scythe-XIX-Korps-1940/dp/1847914985/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1391145037&sr=1-1&keywords=rothbrust

It includes the XIX corp attack order for the Meuse crossings and the organization for Arko 101 to support the crossing. - to support the non main divisional effort (2nd Panzer) - 48 guns - to support the main divisional effort (1st Panzer) - 236 guns. It then breaks down by Battalion the assignments for each unit. It also includes the 1st Panzer's fire support plan and the breakdown of units they had for direct supporting fire. Fascinating details including the Luftwaffe support commitment - 910 aircraft broken down by type(The Luftwaffe apparently provided 2 spotter aircraft as well). PM me if you are interested in the info.