Indirect tank fire

[jim crowley]

Just finished reading an article about a small tanks v. hidden A.T. gun duel at Creully, just off Gold beach, PM D Day. (with similar results to the AT gun demo that Fionn has put up at TGN)

What I found interesting, was the fact the AT gun was eventually put out of action by indirect fire from a turret-down tank, using the 'bracketing' technique (the art of landing one shot beyond and one shot short of the target, then halving the bracket and repeating until you hit it).

Just wondering if this will be possible in CM?

Cheers

Jim Crowley

[Guest Big Time Software]

Wow! I have never heard of a tank doing such a thing before. Of course there is no reason why it can't, but the situation has to be exceptional to do this. Really exceptional. So exceptional that we aren't simulating it It would take a lot of work for very little gain in realism.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

I've read about tanks being used for indirect fire, in WWII, Korea and even in Viet Nam. The US Army used to issue gunnery tables to tankers for just this purpose.

I can track down some references if you like, althought the "a lot of work" line implies "delay of game". Which is bad.

[Simon Fox]

I had actually thought about this one before as I had read something about it too (but not the same story as jim's). I hadn't bothered to bring it up as I thought it was interesting but fairly unusual. All these quotes relate to the 712th Tank Btn but are from different individuals

This is in combat:

"Thursday I was one of the fellows who had to go out for indirect firing. The weather was really swell, and it was not bad out there at all. We slept in tents and only fired in the night. Fred Hostler and I were on at two in the morning. We fired eight rounds for a certain range, and then eight more for a different one."

This shows that there was training in it even in the US:

"They sent us to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and we took a lot of indirect gunfire down there, by reading the compass on the tank and the aiming stake and a map, and I believe we stayed there till, I don't remember what day it was, if it was in February, when we left there and got on a train and went to Boston, Massachusetts."

More on combat:

"We were in a farmhouse outside of a town on the other side of Metz, doing indirect firing. So every once in a while they sent somebody up with one officer, we had to register the guns, just to see where you’re

shooting."

I have also read an account of another tank unit being trained by an artillery officer in indirect firing and how they found the skill useful but I can't recall where that one was.

So it was probably a bit more common than you think Steve but seemingly of limited tactical impact. Might be more appropriate to the Sherman 105 "assault gun". Mind you if you had the skill and you had located an AT gun and didn't want to engage it directly.....

[Guest JonS]

This is REALLY off the topic (sorry), but ... in Delta Force you can use

exactly this technique - bracketing - to employ the M203 as an indirect fire

weapon. Takes a while to get used to, and a second 'live' player to spot for

you, but it does work.

BTW, I've only been seriously following CM for the last couple of weeks, but already I'm saving up for a new PC to run this baby

Jon

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Guest Big Time Software]

Charles has piped in on this via an email with me. It would be physically impossible to do this at short ranges with any high velocity gun. Primary reasons are that the shell drop isn't that great, the guns can't elevate much, there isn't any form of propellant manipulation, and it would require a fairly direct line of fire. On top of that someone would have to establish communications with the tank, or conversely the commander would have to stand on the turret, neither of which were very practical in a pinch.

We suspect that the conditions in the stories were short barreled 75 (low velocity) guns firing HE at distances on the outside of their range (like 4000m or so) in ideal circumstances. This could be done, but would be WELL outside of CM's scope. Of course the vehicles could have been 105 Shermans, which would explain everything

And any unit doing "alot of indirect fire" training, as is in Simon's quote, would most likely be some sort of tank more or less intended for that sort of gunnery. I don't think you would catch a M10 or Sherman 76 doing this sort of thing.

Steve

P.S. Hi Jon! Hope those pennies add up fast

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

[Simon Fox]

Steve,

Yes, the unit was one of the independant tank Btn attached to inf. div. so they would have had a mixture of Shermans with 75s or 105s. My understanding is that such units never saw the 76 or Jumbos for that matter A point I might add that scenario designers should take note of- if they weren't from an armoured division you can forget the 76s and Jumbos

[Harold Jones]

I remember seeing pictures of tanks in the Korean lined up firing indirect. They got the extra elevation by moving up and down ramps. This was also done to support a couple of river crossings during world war 2. Assuming you had the correct fire control equipment it would be possible with any tank that could fire a useful HE round. All you need is a gunners quadrant for elevation and a means to determine azimith for defelection. But as far as I'm concerned this falls under the heading of it happened during the war but really wouldn't add a whole lot to game.

[Ken Talley]

Hi Simon,

I have been curious about the introduction of the Sherman (76) into the European theater. Do you know when the first 76's entered combat? Do you know when they became predominant in numbers in the US armored divisions? Also do you know how they were introduced? Were they typically introduced to replace losses on a one for one basis or were whole platoons replaced at one time? I know the British often replaced losses with upgraded equiped. Your Churchill V is damaged and it is replaced with a Churchill VI. So a single Brit unit could have a variety of models within the platoon at the same time. I am curious if the same process was used by US units. Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ken

[dano6]

The idea that only the armored divisions got 76mm shermans is absolutely not true. Many tank battalions recieved the 76mm shermans. They just got them later due to the armored divisions getting first pick most of the time. But this was not always the case. Most independent tank battalions at least had a few of the 76mm shermans by later in the war. A list of confirmed units that had the 76mm will be posted when I get home and have access to my resources.

dano6

[dano6]

The M4A1 and M4A3 76mm(W) were available to the US before the d-day invasion. They were passed over due to the new training for the new gun. It was also thought that the 75mm pea-shooter was adequate to handle german armor at that time. Another blunder by the all-mighty american armored command(ei. Patton).

The 76mm sherman made its appearance in limited numbers mid to late june 1944. The new tanks were given as replacements with new training to the armored divisions first. The new training on the vehicles was something like 4-5 days for each crew and then they were put back into the line.

The 76mm became more widely available as a replacement the later the war went on. Generals screaming that the 75mm pea-shooter wasn't worth a damn, and all, had a huge effect on this. Just from numbers I would say that the 76mm was about 25-33% of active tanks by sometime in december 1944. By early 1945 I would say that the 76mm was 33-45% of active tanks. These are just guesses by the number of 76mm vehicles shipped compared to the number all tanks fielded during these times. Also pictures of column lines of different armored divisions seem to show this kind of distribution.

dano6

[tss]

I'd like to add one more example of tanks being used for indirect fire (and no, I don't think that the thing was common enough to be featured in CM).

In 1942 someone in Finnish army decided to convert a number of captured BT-7 tanks into assault guns. The Finns then designed a new turret with a 114mm Brithsh howitzer mounted for the tank. The resulting monster was called BT-42. Classifying BT-42 is quite difficult, since it had turret like a tank, but it was intended to function like an assault gun.

During Summer '43 a battery of BT-42s was used to shell Soviet fortifications at Karelian Isthmus, with both direct and indirect fire. This was a part of field tests for the new vehicle. The results were quite good as they destroyed a number of Soviet pillboxes. One of the BT-42s was damaged by an AT-gun.

Later, during the battles of Summer '44 some idiot decided against using BT-42s as self-propelled artillery and sent them to front lines instead. The armor of BT tanks had been too weak back in '39 and the HEAT round of the 114mm howitzer could penetrate only the side and rear armor of lightest Red Army tanks. As a result the losses were horrible and their impact to the outcome of the battle was minimal.

-Tommi

[harley desrosiers]

Well I hate to burst your brackets but most low velocity small bore guns on tanks have to bracket the target when they use HESH or smoke rounds.over 1500m, the muzzle velocity is to low for direct fire, ie 533mps or under (At least in the Canadian army anyway).

(ex Cougar commander).

For indirect fire You also use a Gismo called a QFC, Quadrant Fire Control to set the range This is used on the 75mm AT gun mounted on the Scorpion turret to bracket your fire onto your target. Sometimes Ya hit some times Ya miss,

It was used and developed by the British and they had a very similar device use on their guns in WWII. The grandfather of the system used today. But that is just for up and down what about side to side, well most tanks have turret degrees of rotation dial that's used when fireing at night and on preregistered targets of potential enemy routes of advance.

Not accurate but it may just make him think twice about advancing up that route. All modern tank crew rules of ingagement are direct decendents of systems developted in WWI, WWII and Korea.

But what about engagements at 1200-1500m. You use semi-Inderict fire with your gunner sight and bracket your target in two hundred to four hundred meter brackets. Watch for fall of shot and correct. And If your close ie, splashing dirt on the thing, you then go into direct fire mode to take him out. This is where you can use half target corrections and go for the kill. Not fancy, no laser range finder or gyro computer controled guns but a good gunner will hit in 2-3 rounds. And with a good comander who knows how to range estmate a target. usualy 1-2 rounds.

Just an observation, Thanks Harley

[Ken Talley]

Thanks Dano for the info on Sherman 76's. I am guessing then that any unit with a high tank loss would tend to have a greater proportion of Sherman 76's afterwards than a unit with low tank losses. I would imagine that the 7th and 2nd Armored (?) would have received large numbers of replacement 76's after their defense of St Vith. Does anyone know at what point new Sherman 75's were no longer provided to the European theater?

Thanks,

Ken

[Simon Fox]

dano,

It may be that I was exaggerating a little with my use of the word "never" perhaps I should have used seldom instead. It's just that I have read many accounts of vets bemoaning that they never got the 76mm guns and had to make do with the 75mm. The data you present does indicate a substantial flow of the 76 armed version into the ETO but doesn't indicate its distribution between units or the relative priorities for issue.

"At the end of the critique, Patton asked if there were any questions. And I asked him why the armored divisions got the first crack at the new equipment, why didn’t we get some?

He asked me what I thought?

I said we should have gotten some of the new tanks like the armored divisions were getting.

He paused and said, "Politics, son. Politics." It was a good answer."

[Brian Rock]

More on the subject of tanks using indirect fire, from _Tank Aces_ (Ralph Zumbro).

From the Korean War:

"About noon, as the head of the column neared the top of a high hill, Dickson again halted them, warning of enemy tanks dug in and camouflaged on either side of a narrow pass that they'd have to use, through a low hill in the distance, which was part of the next ridgeline.

...He radioed the tankers to use their own guns as artillery and take the T-34 under fire. The enemy tank was dug in on the reverse, or far side, of the next ridge, and with the pilot spottting hits for them, the Shermans of Nordstrom's platoon began to send shells over the hill. The tankers didn't really expect to hit anything, but after only ten shells, heavy black smoke began to belch out of one of the positions, and Dickson called off the fire mission. (239)

In a chapter on the use of tank using indirect fire in Viet Nam:

"One of a tank's lesser-known capabilities is its ability to act as an instant artillery piece. Up until the advent of the Abrams tank, every American main battle tank carried an elevation quadrant and azimuth indicator that allowed it to drop shells with great accuracy anyplace within the range of its gun." (p300)

He quotes First Lt. John Mountcastle, whose platoon took part in a number of these missions:

"The use of tanks in an indirect fire role was certainly not a new idea in 1967. Tank guns had augmented artillery fires in WWII and Korea. I was aware of this, but was still surprised when told that my platoon would be the test unit for a new and challenging mission...

The firing tables for our 90mm high-velocity guns proved to be no trouble for the artillery advisors..."

(He does note their first firing mission was against targets 12 km away - a bit further than the standard CM map)

Unfortunately the book has no specific examples of tanks providing indirect fire from WWII.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Harley,

What you are talking about is direct fire aiming methods, not indirect fire. The difference being that the tanker has a direct line of fire and line of sight to the target area. Bracketing as such is simulated in CM quite well. As you say, 2-3 shells should secure a hit from a good gunner. Conditions and range can make this more or less depending on a whole of things.

Brian, cool stuff. Sounds like the Shermans were pointed up hill (thus making the angle of their guns higher than normally allowed) and using quite extensive communication proceedures. The first bit could be done in WWII, the latter not likely. But both would be necessary to obtain a hit. And of course the range of 12km is way out of CM's scope

Steve

[jim crowley]

As I started this thread, just a bit more info. on the reported action of 6

June at Cruelly (Gold Beach).

The unit involved was Squadron A of the 4/7 Dragoon Guards.

The actual vehicle belonged to Lt. Morrison, commanding 4 troop.

This troop was equipped with 2x 75 Shermans and one Firefly. Morisons tank was a regular 75 Sherman.

There is no indication of range but for an A/T gun (type unkown) to engage and knock out four tanks of the squadron in quick sucession, presume it must have been within 2000 yds (unless an 88).

Morrison's tank was 'turret-down' and he dared not move forward to 'hull-down' for fear of being hit.

He directed his 'bracketing' from commanders normal position within the turret.He obtained a hit on the third shot, then fired three more for effect.

Cheers

Jim Crowley

[Guest Big Time Software]

I just don't understand what conditions there could have been for this to have worked. The gun can only elevate 25 degrees, which isn't a whole heck of a lot.

What I am picturing is that the target was at least 2000m away, if not lot further. There is nothing in your description to say that the tank doing the shooting was within the killing range of the AT gun (i.e. could it have been further behind the dead tanks?). In any case, the tank couldn't have been very much turret down since the elevation of the gun is not great. The AT target was probably behind some sort of small cover, like a dip or small rise.

But here is the big question... who was doing the spotting? And how much time did it take to get the killing shot?

In any case, this is so rare that it is only worth talking about for historical interest. It certainly isn't worthy of simulation. After all, if it was so easy to do Shermans would have tried to knock out everything by indirect fire, since their armor sucked

Steve

[Fionn]

Hey Steve,

Shermans DID try to knock out everything using indirect fire. They just called in the arty whenever possible.

Did I mention I love artillery again after Tun 24?

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers