Re:Smoke usage

[Blindicide]

Having played a few PBEM games now I have noticed how common it is for people to put down smoke before advancing forward with infantry;a tactic I have copied due to the fact it seems to work,but does anyone have any idea on how frequent the use of smoke was.From all my reading I can only only come up with one instance of it's use and nor do I recall seeing any in photographs.Is the common use of smoke a gamey tactic as I suspect or was it dropped all over the place.

[Compassion]

I use it as a completely gamey tactic because I know where the enemy is and he has a pretty good idea where I am. In reality, you could't waste smoke likethat... at least not in the ways that CM gamers seem to. Wait for the game, I think that will slow up some when you don't play the same scenario over and over again.

[sbg2112]

The only thing I've read about this is from Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy" where he describes an American tactic of using smoke to isolate an objective's defenses from supporting units.

The idea is that if you're trying to take a village in front of you, you lay smoke on the other side of the village (i.e., behind it, from the American perspective).

It would be nice to know if there were other tactics for using smoke.

[Mark IV]

Check this link out! http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/offense2.html (don't know how I've missed this one before).

I have read many accounts of German, Russian, and US use of smoke on the battlefield. Can't cite chapter and verse at the moment and I don't know how to quantify "how common" it was, but there is ample precedent for it.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-11-2000).]

[Guest Bobb]

Opposed river crossings. As I remember the smoke generator was used by the Third Army for the first time over on their front in the vicinity of Metz. Then there was the smoke pot and the shell and the granade, but the generator could really smoke up a neighborhood. I saw it first as a kid near the end as the military punched up the homefront's morale celebrating the billionth gallon of avaiation gasoline produced by the Humble Co. at the Baytown refinery (Texas).

Off the top I recall smoke in the airborn's opposed crossing in the Arhneim battles and in the US's Roer crossing. I am sure readers of history with better memories than mine will recall others.

It seems that extensive smoke was likely to be used as higher echelons recognised a particularly difficult attack was in the offing. It seems to me that small quantities were likely to be used to provide for cover in either the advance or withdrawal more locally and single individual unit use of it immediately on the spot when available and it seemed appropriate.

I wonder why I do not recall it being used in Normandy. Smoking the beaches would have been of use there it seems as reducing aimed fire to area fire would have helped. Perhaps the Navy did not have smoke shells.

Colored smoke was used in signaling, for instance informing air units of friendly ground unit presence and other units of sucessful occupation of objectives. And via shells smoke was used to indicate enemy targets. Now here is one opportunity for CM to improve the reliability of air attacks by target designation smoke.

I seem not recall reading in many first person accounts of smoke being used. Mostly it is in more general histories that cover wider frontages. Possibly the average front line soldier seldom if ever saw it outside of generally reduced visibility due to burning combustable, and dust and/or smoke raised by vehicle movement, impacting bombs and artillery.

[Lanzfeld]

One thing that I just cant figure out is why the Allies didn't use smoke on D-Day to block the German LOS. I just finished reading "Beyond The Beachhead" but I have wondered this for a long time. After the first wave went in the Allies knew about the stong fields of fire for the enemy. The Allies had naval gunfire to use (plenty of smoke). The troops had to cross 700 yards of open beach just to get to the seawall. Why not just absolutly saturate the beach with smoke? Let the Allies at least find thier way to the seawall and beyond. I know there would be mass confussion but there was that anyway! At least when the smoke cleared some of the Allies would find themselves in some good cover.

Replys?

[Thomm]

Wind?

No smoke shells for ships (they lay a smoke screen, but do they have smoke shells)?

[Danno]

Some good points here. After playing the demo scenarios so many times you know exactly where to lay the smoke and sometimes even 'when' to lay it so I agree when the actual game come out things will change in that respect. As for when I would use smoke ( and I'm no master of tactics here) If I had limited smoke and was attacking I would rather have that smoke available to cover a retreat if it came to that unless there was one or two areas that would really have good field of fire on my advance...but I'd save all I could for a possible withdraw.

[Blindicide]

MarkIV Thanx for the link.There's some good stuff on that and related pages but unless I missed it the only smoke mentioned was formed by smoke teams with the infantry on their own position not by artillery as a screen for advancing.

Oddly enough I've just come across another instance of it being used at the start of Operation Tractable in Normandy but this is not at the level of CM i.e.not called in by FOO's.

[Los]

There was lots of smoke usage in WW2 but not as much in the smoke grenade level as there is today which is why currently there are no smoke grenades in the game. (there was some but not enough to justify every sqaud carrying smoke grenades cuz then you will get a ton of smoke. However on the mortar and artillery and smoke generator front there was a lot of usage. I have a report form the 5th Army chemical officer stating that the use of smoke in Italy (For example) FAR EXCEEDS even the wild estimates from pre-war smoke proponents. However notice that when the AI has a smoke capability they will always use it as much as possible since they are trying to stay alive (Talking vehicle smoke here)

As for why there aren't pictures of smoke. Well actuially I would be hard pressed to think of a newsreel of actual combat where you don't see smoke whirling around the battlefield in some form, though it takes a trained eye to have a chance to distinguish between types of smoke in BW films. Also War photographers are looking to publish pictures of stuff they can see, not stuff that is obscured by smoke, which is why you don't see to many smoke pictures...

Cheers.

Los

[Guest Germanboy]

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

The Allies had naval gunfire to use (plenty of smoke).

Replys?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warships use their boilers to produce smoke-screens to cover their movement. Coal-fired ships could simply generate smoke by getting the mix of fuel off balance. I am not sure about oil-fired.

If they fired smoke shells, those would sink to the bottom and obscure Moby Dick's movement, wish is good for him, but not for the ship. When they fire for effect, the only smoke the Captain wants to see is generated by the enemy's arsenal blowing up . I actually wonder if there are smoke shells for ships, I guess they would have had to produce them specifically for D-Day. Any mention of naval smoke shells in the Pacific somewhere?

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

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 04-12-2000).]

[Blindicide]

LOS,any chance of seeing the report?How much is 'far exceeds' and at what level was it used?CM's level or at more of an operational level?I am currently reading Guns of Normandy in which the author states the estimated ammo usage was about 60 rounds/gun/day as an inflated value when in reality they were averaging over 300 and peaking at 1000 rounds/gun/day after his arrival in July 44.At no time in the book has there been any mention of smoke being called in by FOO's other than red smoke to act as markers for Typhoons to take out German tanks.I am still reading through "Tractable",where the author claims so much smoke was put down that units couldn't tell where they were going or see who they were supposed to be following but that was all pre-set and brought in before the advance started.I have also read a couple of other personal accounts of artillery units in the past(one mediums,one mortars) and don't recall any accounts of smoke usage.Maybe I'll have to have another read of the one I've still got.

[Johan Brittz]

Have a look at this link: http://www.bbll.com/army/ch03.html (Chapter 3 Taking The Hill)

it describes an average (but textbook) assault on prepared German defences by US platoons. One of the best descriptions I've seen yet.

Basics: Scout/arty prep/joined by MG suppression/AT's against bunkers/SMOKE/scouts clear wire/assault - works for me as well.

Site also contains some great down to earth descriptions of life as experienced by a "platoon leader" during Pattons advance accross France.

[This message has been edited by Johan Brittz (edited 04-12-2000).]

[Mike Zeares]

That's one of my favorite sites. Excellent material for constructing CM scenarios. Of particular interest to me in that chapter were the two extra heavy mg platoons (from the battalion weapons company, I'm guessing) and the AT guns that were man-handled through the woods to attack the pillbox. I assume these were 57mm's -- useful little things, weren't they? Shifting the arty rearwards to try to catch retreating or reinforcing troops in the open is a good thing to remember too.

-- Mike Zeares

[Los]

It might take a day or two but the report is available on line it's a scan of an original document transferred to PDF. One of the monthly lessons learned documents that they started publishing in early 1944. Each one is about a 6MB DL so I hope you need T1 or DSL for eht searches unless youa re very patient. I'll see if I still have the document on my PC or at least get you the link so you could look for yourself, after doing all eth research for smoke I had to clear of space on my PC.

As an aside you will not find the kind of readily accessible detailed on smoke usage that you will find on other aspects of WW2 combat. (i.e. It took months to confirm that we had a smoke round for the 60mm mortar which was being used during the time frame of CM:BO,which you think would be an easy thing to determine. And we even found erroneous documents publsiehed at the time to the contrary.) In most sources it's a detail normally out of the scope of what the book is trying to do, nor is it a particularly "sexy" aspect of combat operations per se, but then again try and find many pictures of guys tossing smoke or smoke usage in modern combat stuff. (Despite the fact that we live and breathe the stuff these days.)

(Note: Following paragraph has nothing to do with anything anyone has said or done on this thread, it's merely an interesting FYI)

Things are complicated on the gamer/research front by ASL. The SL/ASL franchise (WI do like ASL) has been around for so long and weened so many players that's it's easy to just assume that the ASL interpretation of history and operations at his level is a direct port from real life. (Happens all the time on this board, "Hey a bazooka penetrated my TIGER, That can't happen as I've been playing ASL for ten years and know WW2!") Note: That this phenomenon is not limited to agmes but also happens all the time in books too.

To BTS credit they are more or less devoid of accepting other games as research material and go for primary or secondary sources, combined with their own knowledge (and of others)and experience, combined if at all possible with discussions with those that were there, to implement features within the game. And in the absence of credible, hard, and confirmable (i.e. multiple source) evidence on something, it doesn't go into the game even if it's been in ten other games.

There's been a tremendous amount of research and discussion behind the scenes for many many things in this game, while not yet perfect (nothing is) I've been very impressed with the methodolgy as well as BTS' principles on the matter.

Cheers...

Los

Cheers...

Los

[Blindicide]

Johan.

Nice page,not to mention plenty of other stuff for me to look at later as well.However,was the smoke only used because of what they saw in the wood and if they had attacked before nightfall as per the initial order,would they have used it or would they just have gone with HE rounds.

I would appreciate any other similar descriptions either with or without the use of smoke if anyone has any other URLs.

LOS

I have read bits and pieces from many time periods but CM is getting me to concentrate on WW2 stuff but what I prefer to read is personal rather than third person or strategic accounts working on the basis that although they might claim to being shot at by Tigers instead of PzIV's they should at least be pretty accurate about what they did.To that end,what I have read gives accounts of calling in explosive (rather than smoke) shells to suppress the enemy.

[Guest JonS]

Another reason you probably haven't seen many pictures of smoke in combat is because you probably haven't seen many pictures of actual combat.

What I mean by this is that of all the pictures I've seen from WW2, not very many at all are from what could be considered "in combat". More often they are behind the lines in peaceful areas, or at best in an area overun during an attack, but taken some time later when the attack has moved on. Or, there are the photos taken looking backwards at friendly forces, who are in turn looking forward at the battle - where the smoke is. Artillery smoke doesn't linger long, especially in any kind of wind or breeze, so even a delay of 20-30 minutes before the photographers arrive will mean no smoke in the photos even if the area was previously in whiteout.

Blindcide: the etloh.8m.com link that MkIV put up earlier has many references to artillery smoke in it if you look at all the pages on German doctrine, both on attack and defence.

sbg2112: "It would be nice to know if there were other tactics for using smoke." Umm, smoke can only be used for two things: blinding (observation by the enemy), and screening (movement of friendly forces). Oftentimes these missions amount to nearly the same thing. How you go about acheiving these particular missions in any given tactical situation is part of the black art of being an artillery FO

Oh, hang on - arty smoke can also be used to mark points of interest on the battlefield, but thats kind of a seperate issue.

Regards

Jon

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

Ubique

[Username]

Arty smoke was also used by the germans by firing between the first and second wave of a soviet attack. This would negate the second waves overwatch fire, "backlight" the first wave against the white smoke making tanks/infantry easy to pick off, and disrupt the second waves decision as to when to advance. The commander of an attack would usually go in with the second wave. Typically SU assault guns would be in the second wave and tanks in the first.

Lewis

[Guest JonS]

... and that's called "blinding" ...

[Username]

"Blinding" doesnt cover the phenomena of the first wave units being easy to target. Its hard to model (comes out in PE though)in CM.

"Blinding", according to you is only for blocking observation by the enemy. What I am describing is an attack on an enemys command and control by using battlefield smoke.

US units using WP for smoke missions also used it as a weapon. So add that to the list.

Lewis