Artillery vs. Hard Targets

[Dilger]

Today I shelled a crossroad juction while playing a user-made scenario. By chance I caught a mass of American Armor with my 150mm. As it turns out, the shells knocked out 8 Sherman tanks which for some reason had crowded together. In other games Artillery has little effect on Armor targets. Has anyone come across any data which would indicate the historical impact of

artillery attacks on American armor. The tallies I've come across include everything from mines to AP rounds but nothing about artillery. How realistic were the results of my game?

[KiwiJoe]

Artillery was and is deadly to massed afv caught stopped and crowed in a known location.

[Herr Oberst]

150s toss out a pretty large shock wave. Often times you only have to be close to effectively disable an AFV.

Through the roof, or knock off a track or shock the crew into abandoning. As long as it doesn't come after me three turns later, I'd call if a successful arty strike.

[Andre76]

I've read of Tiger I's cought in massive arty navel bombards on D-day that was thrown up-side-down! I think that answers your question....

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

André

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Dilger:

Most likely the other games you mention were of a larger scale. "Steel Panthers" for example uses 50m hexes (I think). So if you land arty in the same hex as a tank in "Steel Panthers" that is the same as a miss in CM most of the time...

So, in CM if you actually are 'on target'...you are way beyond the accuracy portrayed in most other games. You are literally dropping shells on top of the enemy.

And as others have said, if you can get on target with this accuracy artillery can kill anything on the battlefield. There is reason artillery is still called the "King of Battle".

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Keith]

What probably happened is that the artillery immobilized many of the tanks by shredding their tracks. The crew then bailed. This is entirely realistic.

[Chicago Boy]

From Steven Zaloga's excellentnt book LORRAINE 1944 "A portion of the main column led by Panther tanks attempted to infiltrate towards the village down a sunken farm road around 0850. The lead Panther was disabled by an infantry team, and before the column could extract itself from the gully, a forward observer from the 949th field arty directed fire on it. Over 300 rounds of 155mm howitzer fire pummeled the column, knocking out 5 Panthers and 48 half-tracks"

[virtualfreak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andre76:

I've read of Tiger I's cought in massive arty navel bombards on D-day that was thrown up-side-down! I think that answers your question....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow!can you send me a picture?

[tss]

Chicago Boy wrote:

Over 300 rounds of 155mm howitzer fire pummeled the column, knocking out 5 Panthers and 48 half-tracks"

Heavy artillery can definitely knock out even heaviest tanks. However, I'd like to point out that 300 rounds of 155mm howitzers is a pretty heavy barrage (and practically impossible to achieve in CM) and I'd suspect that only thick concrete fortifications can survive that.

The Finnish artillery doctrine stated that 48 150 mm rounds landing in a 100x100 meter area in one minute would be enough to destroy the combat effectiviness of all enemy troops in the area. With 300 rounds one could cover about 500x100 meter area taking into account the fact that the fire will be spread on a longer period and thus be less efficient.

- Tommi

[Guest Michael emrys]

You sure about that last part, Tommi? If the whole battalion was firing, they could lay down that many shells in 5-6 minutes.

Just wondering.

Michael

[Bombardier]

There is a great picture of three Pz IV flattened by Russian artillery in Janes's Tanks of WW II

[tss]

Michael emrys wrote:

You sure about that last part, Tommi? If the whole battalion was firing, they could lay down that many shells in 5-6 minutes.

That gives those men that are furthest from the initial point of the barrage 4-5 minutes time to find cover. Sure, they can't entrench themselves in that time but they may find small gullies and things like that.

In artillery barrages the first set of explosion is the most important. That's why it is best to avoid spotting rounds and fire the first salvo so that all rounds land within few seconds (with as many guns as possible).

Also, I don't know about the US artillery doctrine but Finnish one explicitly forbade firing two 48 round 150 mm strikes without giving the guns time to cool in between. The reason for this is that otherwise the gun barrels will wear out very quickly and accuracy is lost. Of course, some times this rule was not followed but those cases generally happened only when Soviets were close to making breakthroughs.

I can't remember how long the cooling time was supposed to be with the 150 mm guns but I think it was about 10 minutes between strikes. There was also a hourly limit that couldn't be exceeded but I can't remember the details.

I don't know whether other armies followed this practice. The Soviets didn't, at least initially. One Winter War battery commander told in an interview that he was almost sent to Siberia when he stopped firing because his guns were red hot and they feared that a round would explode in a barrel.

- Tommi

[tss]

Replying to myself to point out one obvious thing that I forgot to put in my post:

Sure, they can't entrench themselves in that time but they may find small gullies and things like that.

Of course, it would be a little difficult to hide a Panther inside a ditch or a truck behind a large rock so the temporal dispersion of the artillery rounds doesn't matter so much when the targets are large and can't move.

The lessened effect comes when firing infantry targets.

- Tommi

[Bruno Weiss]

I'm not veteran enough with CM to know all the variables of how this is modeled, but a tank crew faced with incoming fire from artillery of that caliber (size of the explosions and shock waves), suffers quite a bit of moral loss, or at least a high degree of motivation to get the devil to somewhere else. Sitting inside a tank with 150mm explosions taking place outside would be like sitting inside a garbage can with someone pounding the outside of it with a sledgehammer. Definately would get one's attention.

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

"Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben"

Bruno "Stachel" Weiss

[Jeff Duquette]

This is part of a report produced by the 21st ARMY Group, ETO. Data was collected from actual tank damage assesments between March - May 1945. You can view part of this document at:

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/tank_casualties.html

The study included the examination of 333 Commonwealth tanks damaged/destroyed in combat. The following distribution of tank damage and cause of damage was determined:

<LI>Biggest tank killer was AP shot...41%

<LI>Second biggest killer was shaped charge (or hollow charge)...35%

<LI>Third was from anti-tank mines...21%

<LI>And last -- with only a 3% share -- tank damage atributable to H.E.

2% of the tanks examined during the study were damaged by unknown causes.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 09-23-2000).]

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

This is part of a report produced by the 21st ARMY Group, ETO. Data was collected from actual tank damage assesments between March - May 1945. You can view part of this document at:

<LI>And last -- with only a 3% share -- tank damage atributable to H.E.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I wonder if this means that artillery doesn't hurt tanks (comparatively speaking) or merely that tanks don't usually stand still while they're getting pounded?

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>dNorwood wrote:

But I wonder if this means that artillery doesn't hurt tanks (comparatively speaking) or merely that tanks don't usually stand still while they're getting pounded?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I think it means Germany was on her last legs defensively at that point in the war(March to May '45) and probably didn't have an abundance of artillery. There was an earlier thread which had German AFV damage caused by the Allies, I'll see if I can find it and repost.

[Los]

Just a quick note: The fact that the brits lost 3% of the tanks they happened to count in that one theater does not mean that if you are foolish enough to have all your tanks bunched together tight enough that a barrage falls exactly on them that you will lose only 3% of that total. A 150mm shell which lands directly on top of a tank is more than capable of penetrating and detroying the tank.

It's why units are greatly dispered when ever possible in operations. A tank company dispersed in column on tactical movement will take up 600-800 meters! An infantry company in column road march can take up the same.

I fact I had a situation where a number of German MkIVs were sort of bunched up at a choke point and all I had was a 4.2 mortar, (the tanks were literaly on top of one of my TRPs). I pulled down a barrage on them in the hopes of catching their exposed crews by surprise. Not only did I get some of the crews I even got an immobilized tank out of the deal. Smashing!

Los

[Los]

Just a quick note: The fact that the brits lost 3% of the tanks they happened to count in that one theater does not mean that if you are foolish enough to have all your tanks bunched together tight enough that a barrage falls exactly on them that you will lose only 3% of that total. A 150mm shell which lands directly on top of a tank is more than capable of penetrating and detroying the tank.

It's why units are greatly dispered when ever possible in operations. A tank company dispersed in column on tactical movement will take up 600-800 meters! An infantry company in column road march can take up the same.

I fact I had a situation where a number of German MkIVs were sort of bunched up at a choke point and all I had was a 4.2 mortar, (the tanks were literaly on top of one of my TRPs). I pulled down a barrage on them in the hopes of catching their exposed crews by surprise. Not only did I get some of the crews I even got an immobilized tank out of the deal. Smashing!

Los

[Jeff Duquette]

ding...ding...ding JoePrivate has got it right. Look at the dates over which the study I refer to above was conducted. The dates should provide some clues as to the nature of the numbers presented. Several things are going on there which could potentially skew the statistics indicated in this document, and therefore skew the conclusions one might draw from it.

<LI>One: The situation facing 21st Army Group during this late period of combat in ETO was relatively fluid. Once the Rhine was forced during Varsity organized German resistance was becoming rather scarce. Significant artillery concentrations on the part of the German Army were therefore probably few and far between.

<LI>Munitions availability by this late date would probably have been somewhat scant for whatever German Artillery that may still have been functioning within cohesive units.

<LI>I have read some indications that German availability of prime movers was severally strained by this point in the war. This would further reduce the ability of a retreating formation to retain their organic artillery, as well as further limit the ability to concentrate whatever artillery may have still been available.

From Danny Parkers: The Battle of the Bulge, Hitler’s Ardennes Offensive, 1944-1945

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In the immediate battle to rupture the American lines the German artillery was instrumental in the Nazi advance. However, as the battle progressed both the supply for the artillery as well as its transport to the fighting front became problematic. Road conditions and fuel shortages made it extremely difficult to move the artillery forward; the situation was further aggravated by the lack of prime movers. According to the artillery commander for Heeresgruppe B, "There was a shortage of towing mediums and transport space was lacking for ammunition and motor fuel. There were no tractors for the heavy army batteries of 22-35cm and even a chronic shortage of movers for the lighter guns.

For instance, in the case of the XLVII Panzerkorps, both the 766th Volkartillerie Korps and the 15th Volkswerfer Brigade were without any prime movers, having "loaned" them to the Panzer Lehr Division which had arrived in the Waxweiler area with no organic transport for its divisional tubes. The web of problems that beset the artillery, particularly the shortage of ammunition and fuel, led to an early decision to leave half of the weapons behind—there clearly was no reason to haul around guns for which there was no ammunition.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In spite of the late date of this particular British Army study, it is interesting to note the number of tanks being damaged\destroyed as a result of shaped charges. Presumably this statistic is -- to a great extent – a function of the availability, reliability, and power of Panzerfausts.

But what about the question at hand? I think you will find – with a little digging –you will most likely come to the conclusion that tank damage/destruction as a result of indirect artillery fire is most often a function of massed concentrations of artillery i.e. battalion, division, and even corps artillery massed fires.

A couple good references are:

George Blackburn’s “The Guns of Normandy”. A best seller and a good read.

&

“FMFRP12-3 “Artillery in the Desert” (A US Army study of German and British Artillery Practices in North Africa 1941 – 1943). Available for viewing on line from the USMC War Fighting and Doctrine web page.

Lay down enough High Explosive in a small enough area and your bound to get some AFV kills. Conversely mass enough tanks in a small enough area, subject the area to an FFE and it is probable that you will kill AFV's. However, (and I am relatively new to CM, so correct me if I’m wrong) off map artillery typically consists of one or two batteries of medium or heavy artillery (105mm +). The game scenarios I have seen are not typically modeling massed battalion or regimental fires. What would be the point in playing a scenario of CM with that much artillery available.

JoePrivate: I would be curious to see the US ARMY stats you alluded to.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dNorwood:

But I wonder if this means that artillery doesn't hurt tanks (comparatively speaking) or merely that tanks don't usually stand still while they're getting pounded?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I want to put some emphasis on this point too. From all my readings on this subject, it would seem that artillery falling among armor encouraged them to move on along. They didn't like it. Although it was unlikely, it could definitely score a kill on them, and nobody wanted to be the unlucky guy of the day.

In general fighting men don't like to be shot at by things things/persons they can't shoot back at. If you can shoot back, you at least feel like you're holding your own. If you can't, well there's no use hanging around.

When the tanks were able to break through the front and into rear areas among the artillery, the shoe was often on the other foot. Although the cannon cockers may have been issued anti-armor rounds of some sort, there might not be very much time to shoot them. Then it was time to spike the guns and haul ass.

Michael

[Andre76]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by virtualfreak:

Wow!can you send me a picture?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, there was now picture of it in the book. But I think the book's name was "Panzer Commander". It was about Colonel Luck and his combat experience from Russia, Africa and East/West of Europe. Very good book!

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

André