Tim Posted December 13, 1999 Share Posted December 13, 1999 Will it be possible for onboard short-barreled artillery to fire indirect ? I recently read a book about the Danish Freecorp which fought for the Germans on the Eastern Front and it appears that they almost solely used their Infanterie Geschütz for indirect fire using a FO or radio contact with the platoons themselves. Apparently the maximum effective range for these guns were around 4km but there wasn't stated any minimum. Can anyone help me find additional information about the use of these guns? Tim [This message has been edited by Tim (edited 12-13-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 13, 1999 Share Posted December 13, 1999 Infantry Guns were basically designed for direct fire. So yes, you can do this in CM. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 Steve, I don't think you read Tim's post correctly. He wanted to know if you could fire them indirectly. Personally I think if you are on the defense you should be able the preregister your on board mortars/arty (and HMGs too ) for indirect fire. In fact I think you should be allowed to plaster any part of the map you want in or out of LOS with your on-map arty. It just shouldn't be accurate, pretty inaccurate in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 Hehe... ooooops We are in fact having a long discussion about this amongst our Beta Testers right now. We have finally had some really good info in on this stuff, including a currently serving mortar officer (now an infantry officer) giving his two cents worth (and then some). The code has been changed based on his, and a few others', information. Now the game does... On map artillery can only fire indirectly at a TRP (Target Registration Point) if you never move the unit from its initial setup position. Budge them even a few meters and you lose the ability to hit the TRP. The reason is that setup time and proceedures would realistically not allow the gun/tube to be adjusted to fire at the TRP within the timeframe of a single battle. As for IGs, I am pretty sure they will be allowed to do the same thing, but they were not mentioned specifically in the discussion. Mortars are now allowed to fire indirectly at a non-TRP target if they are within C&C of an HQ unit with LOS to the target. However, a mortar can not fire indirect on its own. This is also something that was agreed to as realistic. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-14-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted December 14, 1999 Author Share Posted December 14, 1999 Steve Thanks for the reply How about making special rules for the IG's, like making it possible for them to fire indirect at a target if the target is within LOS of a FO. Of course the same rule for movement, used for the other guns, should be applied. Of course there is a minimum range for the guns to fire this way. I guess 500m seems reasonable, but I have no data to support this. I must say that I have only read about the guns being used this way in one book, but it was mentioned several times, and was quoted by the FO's. Do you have any reliable data on the ranges and usage of the IG's ?? Tim [This message has been edited by Tim (edited 12-14-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 Tim, I think you'd run into a simple fact that IGs weren't designed to fire indirectly like that and thus: a) I know some didn't have the ability to elevate sufficiently to hit targets within a couple thousand metres INDIRECTLY They weren't set up to fire indirectly.. How would the orders be passed? The officers etc wouldn't be trained (or would, at best, be rusty) in IF routines. So it seems to me that if they were being used for IF then that IF target would have been several kilometres away correct? If it is then this is one of those things which would actually be outside the game scope since if the target can't be on a CM map then it doesn't need to be modelled since it won't impact realism one jot. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guachi Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 The Germans had two common types of Infantry Guns, of 7.5cm and 15cm in calibre. Both had stubby barrels of about 11 calibres in length. Both could elevate their barrels to about 75 degrees. Both had short ranges - 3,500m for the 7.5cm gun and 4,700 meters for the 15cm gun. Why they didn't just stick with mortars for local fire support, I haven't figured out. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Posted December 14, 1999 Author Share Posted December 14, 1999 Fionn Thanks for the reply Well the fact is that I don't know very much about IG's and was suprised to find out they had been used this way. Of course there is always freak accidents in war, but this seemed to be common practice ( At least for Fríkorps Danmark). You are kind of right regarding the range thing. In one encounter it was mentioned that the FO had contact with 2 guns. One was 2km away, which was fine, but the other was 4km away, which was just barely within its range. Again I might have misinterpeted the data, because it was really never mentioned exactly which type of guns they were talking about. The only thing I know is that they were assigned to the battalions heavy company, had a maxium range of around 4km, were of German origin and were mentioned as being "Infantry Cannons". This brings me to another point about Artillery. In the book "Frikorpsfolk 1941-1943" by Erik Haeest which is based on Interviews made in 1975 with survivors from "Frikorps Danmark" the organization of artillery is descibed somewhat different than in CM. Since "F DK" only was a battalion consisting of 3 Infantry Companies and 1 Heavy Company, it seems fair to compare it to CM's scale. In the book they describe an attack on a russian beachhead which they have been tasked to remove. The attack only involves "F DK". From the Regiment they are assigned to, which is part of the 3rd SS Panzer Division, they are given a 10 minute preplanned bombardment. The only other artillery support they have is their Heavy Companys mortars and Infantry Guns which they again use for Indirect fire. The attack starts with a 3 minute bombardment on the beachhead where the enemy is dug-in. During this bombardment 3 HMG's move into position to give cover fire once the barrage has moved. In the mean time 2 Rifle Companys move forward, one on each side of the enemy position. The barrage then moves forwards to bombard the enemy further back for another 7 mins, while the 3 HMG's provide cover-fire from about 1km range. Everything goes well and the position is taken, but then the russians starts an artillery barrage on the positions they just left and the danes have to pull back. I don't know if this represents a typical attack, but it certainly states that battalion were assigned prolonged bombardments. According to the eyewitnesses the artillery was the decisive factor for both the attackers and the defenders. Of course I have only played the BETA Demo of CM, but it doesn't seem to make artillery such a dominant factor as it was stated in the book over and over again. Of course it is only one book, but it is the only one I have found that describes Battallion level combat in detail. I guess this post got a little too long but I hope it makes sence. I wish a merry christmas and a happy new year to all at this forum Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why they didn't just stick with mortars for local fire support, I haven't figured out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because direct fire cannon is a hell of a lot more effective. They have a much higher probability of hitting what they are shooting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 The whole reason infantry guns were built was that they were designed to fire DF right into enemy positions. This is why I feel that even if it can be shown they fired indirectly once or twice it shouldn't be added to the game. A lot of times something can be shown to have happened a couple of times BUT if put into a game it will skew the game since the player's will make it happen every game. E.g. If I could have an IG which could fire directly at anything in its LOS and indirectly to anywhere else on the map I'd NEVER buy offboard arty. I'd go for the far, far greater multi-role capability of the IGs and their ability to be emplaced so as to bolster my MLR with DF when the enemy is too close to safely call in IF. As I suspected though the fact is that this officer had links to the IGs at a range averaging 3 kilometres and was, no doubt, directing their fire at some target 1km + distant from him. By the time you add that in you can see that this would be unsuitable on a CM 3x5km map (which IIRC is the largest you can play any particular scenario on). IGs are very good if handled correctly. A single 105mm IG firing directly can be as devastating as an entire 105mm howitzer battery firing indirectly. The ability to hit, precisely, the enemy position, bunker or house you want and to switch fire rapidly and have a rapid response time is very valuable. Tim, before CM I felt arty wasn't useful in most games and I thought I was terrible at calling in arty since I always seemed to miss my targets etc.. Now I have changed my opinion. I find arty is immensely useful for pinning enemy units, breaking up enemy co-ordination, suppressing them as I assault and in killing a few here and there. You won't kill vast numbers of the enemy once they are dug in but arty can be a decisive weapon when utilised in co-ordination with maneuvre and the shock effect of your on-map men and material. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 To compliment what Steve and Fionn are saying... We are going over this in much detail with the test team but I'll leave you with one point. Many people are understandably mixing the physical capability of the weapon with the operational reality. If you have a single mortar or a single artillery piece on the map you have the crew but you do not have the FDC (Fire direction Center) which actually does all the commo coordination (between the guns and the FO) and calculation of the actual fire mission. This is not done on a gun by gun basis but at the battery level. And in WW2 commo assets were much poorer than today. Individual guns did not have radios, at best they had wire. Company mortars did not have radios at best they might have wire run out to them if they were going to be sitting still the whole. The skill sets required to do FDC do not exist (by TOE at that level) not do the commo assetts to communicate with FOs in the fluid environment that is a CM battle. Not to mention that it is a time consuming process to properly set in a battery (especially in the WW2 days) which could last 15-30 minutes easy. Tim says... "How about making special rules for the IG's, like making it possible for them to fire indirect at a target if the target is within LOS of a FO. Of course the same rule for movement, used for the other guns,should be applied." What you are talking about here, in mortar parlance, is called "direct alignment", as opposed to "direct lay" which is what on-map mortars currently do in CM. It wasn't done very often is it requires careful coordination and training. What's the source that states this was done with IGs? Was it one-off or SOP? And Jason says WRT IGs.. "Why they didn't just stick with mortars for local fire support, I haven't figured out." Another reason is that infantry guns do not have a minimum range limitation that mortars do.(Though we saw this move away from IGs as the years progressed.) Cheers... Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 12-14-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted December 14, 1999 Share Posted December 14, 1999 guachi said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why they didn't just stick with mortars for local fire support, I haven't figured out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, infantry guns where around before battlefield mortars . Hell, from the beginning of arty up until about the turn of the century, all arty had the same role as what we today call infantry guns: blasting the enemy's ranks with direct fire. And even when mortars appeared, the need for infantry guns remained. But they just put them on tracks and called them assault guns . -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Hi Tim, You can recreate that battle you described in CM. The real question is, would it be worth playing? I think the answer is pretty much "no" There is an even better example to prove my point here. The 12th SS division became nothing more than a reinforced battlegroup after tangling with a small US force in Dom Bürtgenbach on the northern wing of the Ardennes offensive. Each "battle" that happened there could be simulated in CM, but the weight of US artillery (including 8in Howitzers!!) slaughtered the SS troopers and vehicles while still in their assembly areas or after they just moved out. If you made a scenario from this battle, the US would win each and every time without hardly any action other than telling FOs where to shoot. The German player would be limited to watching his units die or run away. Not too fun to play out Some battles just aren't good material for CM because of being totally lopsided. Artillery is generally the #1 reason for this. Sure, a stiff battle that you can't win can be fun, but sometimes (like the above example) it is so far in one side's favor that there really is no point Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Fionn, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tim, before CM I felt arty wasn't useful in most games and I thought I was terrible at calling in arty since I always seemed to miss my targets etc.. Now I have changed my opinion. I find arty is immensely useful for pinning enemy units, breaking up enemy co-ordination, suppressing them as I assault and in killing a few here and there. You won't kill vast numbers of the enemy once they are dug in but arty can be a decisive weapon when utilised in co-ordination with maneuvre and the shock effect of your on-map men and material.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've hit it on the head. I was a mortar FO in the Marines, and that is exactly what indirect fire is used for. Never count on doing any real damage... just get their heads down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary T Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 In Alex Buchner's'German Infantry Handbook' he gives the minimum engagement ranges for IG18 as 1000m and for sIG33 1500m. Obviously these are for indirect fire. He also gives the set up times which again are for indirect fire- 30 mins for IG18 and 45mins for sIG33. I have to disagree with Fionn that these weapons were primarily designed for DF fire. They were designed to fucnstion equally well in both modes and were used as such the sIG33 in particular. The latter could also used as part of a divisional fire plan. Whereas the company did not have the FO's of the divisional artillery batteries they did have the training and fire control equipment. To suggest they would be 'rusty' in the IF role is IMHO wrong. But I agree they are far more useful in the DF role. However, I believe that the IG company, if on map, should not be able to fire indirectly (unless using pre-registered points) on account of the set up times previously mentioned. However, they should be available as off map IF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Will we be able to set the TRP during the setup phase of the mission? (I don't see why not, if the men have time to dig a foxhole, I'm sure they have tome to set their mortar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Hi, I too thought it was common for Infantry Guns to fire indirectly. I've seen several photographs and films of German Infantry Guns in action and it seemed pretty clear that these guns were being fired indirectly. The guns were at high elevation and the crews were standing around and not trying to hide. This is true for both the 15cm and 7.5cm IGs. I find it hard to believe that the primary role of the 15cm IG was direct fire, but I guess it is possible. It should also be mentioned that lFH 10.5 cm was sometimes ( often? ) used to fire directly. There is an account of this is Knappe's "Soldat", I think, where he is wounded using a lFH to fire directly at a French MG position. Knappe is wounded in the hand by return fire from the MG. On the other side of the coin the Germans often used the PAK 40 as a field gun as it had a high rate of fire and could reach a 9km range even though it could only elevate to about 20 ( 22? ) degrees. They even had a special term for the PAK 40 in the field gun role, but I forget what it is right now. More fuel for the fire. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Eridani, I'm fairly certain there are off board arty TRPs in the game. I think it's up to the scenario designer as to if you have them for a specific scenario though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 15, 1999 Share Posted December 15, 1999 Yes, TRPs are available only if the scenario designer wants you to have 'em. If you get them you can place the TRPs anywhere you like during the Setup Phase. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Hmmm, now where have I heard the term "TRP" before ... Good to see you guys work so closely together. Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have to disagree with Fionn that these weapons were primarily designed for DF fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gary, the definition for an infantry gun encompasses the fact that it is designed primarily for the direct fire role. Some infantry guns have indirect fire capabilities but it should be noted that the design criteria for infantry guns specify that they must be capable of DF fire and that IF fire is a bonus. Certainly most countries like having their IGs being able to IF BUT the IGs are specialised for DF and anything which would detract from their DF ability but add to their IF capability is not done. Conversely, specialisations which increase their DF fire at the expense of IF capability are allowed. Still, it's semantics since we're talking design philosophies here. It should be noted I'm making a distinction between designed for uses and all the weird and wacky things soldiers in combat do . Hell PFs and bazookas and RPGs have all been utilised for INDIRECT FIRE in recorded instances so I'm quite sure IG guns and AT guns etc have all been used to fire indirectly at times. I'm also as certain that this wasn't their prime designed capability In any case, my argument was that this wouldn't be suitable for a CM scenario, not that it never, ever happened ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Although my knowledge on IGs is not the greatest, I do believe that their intended role was DF, not IF (although they could do it). First of all, both the IG 18 and IG 33 were fitted with a shield. No weapon designed for IF has a shield, because it is a senseless increase in weight. So that right there tells me that the IGs were intended for DF, at least as their primary mission. Further, the ammo charges show that the gun was designed for short range shots (mostly under 2000m). The max range for the IG 18 is 3800m, the IG 33 4700m. Compare that to FK (Feldkanone) of the same caliber and you have max ranges of 12,300m and 24,700m respectfully. Huge difference. IGs were also parceled out to front line combat units, not rear artillery batteries. This also shows the distinct difference between the two gun types. One is for frontline use (i.e. most probably DF), the other for rear support (definately IF). Anecdotal evidence in my sources shows the guns being used in DF looking positions (i.e. pointed at a target, not the sky). Now, I do not doubt that the Germans sometimes used these as IF weapons, but their primary purpose seems to be clearly DF. You need to remember that the Germans had a SEVERE shortage of artillery throughout the war, so it doesn't surprise me that in some cases IGs would be pulled back and used in the IF role in place of artillery that wasn't available. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Um, Steve, The 25 lber from the UK, and the US' M101A1 both have sheilds, and both were designed as IF weapons (with DF capability of course). And SP artillery usually had sheilds (if you allow the extension of the definition of 'sheild' to include an entire armoured vehicle). Regards Jon ------------------ Quo Fas et Vino du Femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 We are only talking about German IGs specifically. Artillery practices between the Allies and Germany are quite different, so direct comparison is tough to do. The shield is not difiniative proof of a weapon designed for DF as primary use, but certainly shows that the designers intended it for at least a DF role (which was my point). How many pieces of artillery that were designed for IF only have shields on them? There might be an exception or two, but I don't know of any off the top of my head. Ian Hogg classifies the 25 pounder as an IG, and therefore was designed to be used as a DF weapon, at least some of the time. So it makes sense that it had a shield, even if British practice was to use it mostly as IF. Plus, it had almost TWICE the range of the larger IG 33 (a 95mm vs 150mm sizes), which also tells me that the Brits designed the gun more for IF than DF, where as the Germans did it the other way around. I don't know what the US gun is that you mentioned, so I can't comment. As for SP artillery, it comes down to practical use. Armored divisions found that they needed mobile, close support artillery. And if they were ever to be used in such a role, they had to be armored. Especially because such weapons would be operating in areas (in theory) where a front line was not so easy to define. Hence the German Hummel and Wespe both being modestly armored, as well as the Sexton and M7 for the Allies. So basically, if an artillery piece was even somewhat designed to fire DF, armor is important. If it wasn't supposed to be doing IF (or be in an area of questionable safety), it shouldn't have armor. The use of an artillery peice with armor allows it to be used in either DF or IF roles, but the balance of which was used in what role more involves more digging. From the stuff in my previous post, I still think it is clear that the German IGs were designed primarily for DF, not IF. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-15-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 16, 1999 Share Posted December 16, 1999 Shields for the 25 lber were really a left-over from the days the arty fought in the front lines in WW1 . In any case it was good they put shields on since 25 lbers in the desert were utilised as IGs and also AT guns. The brits needed something to back up their pathetic 2 pounders and the 25 lber did the job nicely. It was used at Snipe IIRC. The 25 lber is an exception since it was a gun designed to be an IF gun which had a lot of carry-overs from DF gun design and which, eventually, ended up being used as an IG and AT gun in desperation till suitable AT guns became available and it reverted back to the purely IF role. It was a most interesting weapon. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts