Onboard Field Artillery

[Guest JonS]

Steve, I was really responding to your strong comment "no IF gun had a sheild". AFAIK, ALL guns are designed to have some DF capability. Even the L118 British Light Gun, fielded in the early '80's comes with a DF sight, though it doesn't have a sheild. (well, 'all' within reason - railway guns, and some of the monsters the Germans came up with could probably be excepted. A rule of thumb - as a comment, not for CM consideration! - might be "Guns under 156mm have some DF capability")

The M101A1 was, I think, the standard US divisional direct support artillery piece in WWII, and as such equipped 3 of the 4 artillery battalions in an inf division. It had a 105mm calibre and a range of ~11km. The M101A2 was a lightened version, with a shorter barrel (and therefore less range) and no sheild.

I think the USMC still uses the M101A1, or at least did so until quite recently. We used them in Vietnam and in a reserve capacity until 2-3 years ago. Very good, reliable guns that are very easy to bring into action, but by comparison now have a very limited range. Nevertheless, they are still in use in many places. Actually, I think I recall seeing them in news pictures when the Turks got grumpy with the Kurds earlier this year, and mounted an offensive against them in the mountains.

Regards

Jon

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

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 12-15-99).]

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the USMC still uses the M101A1, or at least did so until quite recently. We used them in Vietnam and in a reserve capacity until 2-3 years ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They replaced them in the regular Marines in the early eighties. I can't remember the piece that replaced it. I was in when the change over took place... around 83-84 if I remember right.

[Bullethead]

JonS said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>AFAIK, ALL guns are designed to have some DF capability.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heheh, there were a couple of bad days in the Gulf when we had to use our (shieldless) 155mm M198 gun-howitzers in direct fire. Amazing how SLOW the elevation handwheel's gearing, designed for minute corrections at extreme range, lowers the tube when tanks come out of the smoke a few hundred meters away .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The M101A1 was, I think, the standard US divisional direct support artillery piece in WWII, and as such equipped 3 of the 4 artillery battalions in an inf division. It had a 105mm calibre and a range of ~11km.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it was called the M2A1 for the shielded version and the M3 for the light version. At least we called ours the M2A1 and it looked just like the ones in WW2 pictures. And yes, the USMC of my day still used them. In the mid-80s, they were the standard weapon of the direct support battalions. By the early 90s, however, everybody's weapon was the M198, although we had the 105s available in depot for special purposes. For example, smaller helos can carry the M2A1 but not the M198.

But back to this whole IG IF thing....

To use modern parlance, IGs were non-selfpropelled assault guns. Their main purpose was direct fire support of grunts in the attack. And some very manly cannoncockers would harness themselves up like mules and drag the IGs forward through the mud as the troops advanced. Naturally, this didn't work well but was the best thing available until a tracked chassis became available.

Sure, IGs could shoot indirectly at need. But this wasn't their primary mission. It was only possible on the defense or as part of a planned bombardment where somebody could work out the calculations, not something they could do off the cuff.

I've seen some photos of Sherman(75)s and even M10 TDs parked on slopes doing IF. This wasn't their main job, either, but they could do it at need. I haven't heard BTS say these vehicles can do IF, I don't hear anybody asking to let them do it, and I seriously doubt this feature will ever be in any version of CM. But letting such vehicles do IF is exactly the same as asking for IGs to do IF. The operational problems involved are the same. The only difference is folks see an IG, it looks like a conventional IF artillery piece, so they think it should be doing IF all the time. That's why I say IGs are assault guns. Think of them as very slow StuGs, not on-board arty pieces.

-Bullethead

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 12-15-99).]

[JohnH]

Hi,

weren't shields used, even on IF artillery pieces, to help protect the crew from CB fire? Doesn't the lFH 18 have a shield? It is not an IG.

Also, weren't the 7.5cm IG and 15cm IG equipped with IF sights as standard equipment?

Wasn't the role of the IGs to give an Infantry battalion or company commander an artillery piece that could not be taken away from him? Wouldn't it be up to the commander how to employ the weapons, DF or IF? I believe the crews were trained in IF.

Wasn't IF the primary role of the 15cm IG? There are lots of photos of the 7.5cm IG being used for DF but I don't recall seeing any of the 15cm IG used for DF. This could just be my faulty memory, however.

Thanks

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>weren't shields used, even on IF artillery pieces, to help protect the crew from CB fire? Doesn't the lFH 18 have a shield? It is not an IG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no. The shrapnel from CB fire on a battery's position can come from any direction. To protect against that, you have to dig the guns in .

Shields on non-IGs had 3 purposes. First, some were holdovers from pre-IF days when all non-siege arty could be considered IGs. Second, shell fuses of all types in the era around the turn of the century weren't particularly trustworthy. Shells exploded in or just out of the muzzle often enough to warrant giving the crew some protection from splinters. And third, sometimes the gun was just so friggin' huge that the crew needed muzzle blast protection to remain effective. Look at those "Big Bertha" mortars the Germans used in WW1 at Liege.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, weren't the 7.5cm IG and 15cm IG equipped with IF sights as standard equipment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, just like today's M198 155mm gun-howitzer, a divisional IF piece, has DF sights standard. Not something you use every day but nice to have sometimes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wasn't the role of the IGs to give an Infantry battalion or company commander an artillery piece that could not be taken away from him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what light and medium mortars are for. IGs were usually regimental or divisional assets. And like I said, they were more like assault guns than arty. Sure, they were there to give grunts a quick-response, heavy punch of their own. But grunts find targets that hit them with direct fire, so they shoot back with direct fire. IGs typcially had neither the range nor the FDC assets needed to do effective IF except in special circumstances.

-Bullethead

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 12-16-99).]

[Gary T]

German IG's were not designed to be primarily to be used as either DF or IF. They were supposed to be equally capable of both. The fact is they were more effective in the DF role but this is more due to the way they were deployed (in individual platoons) rather than any lack of capability on behalf of the guns or crews. This lack of capability for bringing down heavy concentrations of IF fire is probably one of the reason they were replaced in many 13./ by 120mm mortars.

[Knaust]

A little contribution to this topics...

In the History of the 2nd SS PanzerDivision "Das Reich" Anton Fehlau of the Divisional Artillery Regiment says:

"In 1944 during the French Campaign I was a gunner of the 9th Battery 150mm gun. We ceased our counterbattery fire (IF) because of ammo shortage, then we fired our last ammos in order to stop an armoured attack (DF)".

It seems that these guns were used both for IF and DF. Anyway if these guns have both IF and DF capabilities, why not simulate it in the game and let players use them at their will?

[Bastables]

Knaust, the 15 cm Howitzer refered to in your example are just that, Howitzer's or 15 cm FH 18's not the IG's which this disscusion centers on. Although it was informal SOP during 1941 to have Howitzer's and Guns (10cm K18) as part of the spearhead during the drive towards Moscow. This was a reaction to the apparant invunrable nature of the T-34's and KV when matched with the short and long 5 cm Guns of the Panzers and Paks respectivly.

[Fionn]

Gary T,

Infantry Guns WERE designed primarily to be direct fire weapons. Any indirect fire capability was a nice bonus but was just that, a bonus.

What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the 88mm L56 Flak 18 was designed to be equally as good an anti-tank gun as an anti-aircraft gun. This is patently wrong. The Flak 18 was designed to be a good AAA gun. It's AT performance was just a nice bonus.

Same goes for infantry guns... They were designed to move with the infantry in battle and provide DF at targets normal arty hadn't taken out yet PLUS they were designed so as to be on hand during the phase of a breakthrough battle when the normal arty (IF) had to displace.

When StuGs were developed the IGs were replaced by SP IGs. The 120mm mortar issue is a separate one altogether.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Gary T]

Fionn,

But the Flak 18 was not designed with AT use in mind. It just turned out that it was need in this role and was (fortunately for the Germans) extremely good at it. If tank protection had styaed at early 1930's levels it would probably never have been used in the AT role as there would have been no need for it.

In contrast, IG's were specifically designed to to both. Your comparison with 88's does not stand up. IG's IF capability was NOT a bonus - it was a design feature in complete contrast to the 88. The fact they were used (75's at any rate) primarily in a DF role is not the point. They were used in an IF far more often than you would seem to think. THere are plenty of photos of IG gun lines and high angle firing positions. It is not the same as you saying that PF's were also used as IF. They were not designed for that purpose; IG's were. If they weren't why give each platoon the comms staff and equipment to set up fire control links.

As for SP IG's exactly what regular infnatry divisions received these? I don't know of any. The IG's seem to have been replaced firstly by 81mm and then 120mm mortars. If the primary role of the 13./ companies was DF why replace them with an IF weapon?

I thought that CM was supposed to allow us to use weapons as they could be used in reality. If we should want to use an IG in IF then we should be able to (I personally wouldn't as it is a waste of DF firepower).

Its like saying we can't use our Flak 38 against ground targets because it was primarily designed as an AA weapon and it ground role was only a nice bonus.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Gary,

Your points are well taken. However, with the short range of the 75 in particular, it probably would have to be at max elevation to hit anything near its max range in a DF role. So I don't agree that a pic of the thing elevated means it was firing IF. For a weapon like a howitzer, what you said would be true, because the max elevation would send the shell well beyond DF ranges.

From everything that I have read, the IGs were inteneded for DF role. The Germans weren't stupid, and therefore allowed them to be able to fire IF if need be, since the modifications to the gun itself would be minor. This is the same thing as with larger howitzers, but in the opposite. They were designed for IF, but since outfitting them for DF wasn't too much of a problem (and had its uses), they were. Using your logic about capabilities, then you would have to say that a howitzer was designed (and therefore used) equally for both IF and DF roles since it was designed to be capable of both. And that is obviously not true

I stick to what I said above. The IGs were supposed to be used in DF, but situations (and shortages) sometimes dictated that they be used as IF.

Steve

[Knaust]

Im posting my question again....

if these guns (howitzers and infantry) had both IF and DF capabilities why not simulate it in the game and let players use them at their will?

[Bastables]

Knaust, I think you've gotten the answer before you asked your question.

(2nd post by Steve)

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.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-17-99).]

[Kevin Peltz]

I believe that the main purpose of the German IG's were for DF support, and I think that is how they should be used in the game. As stated above in a number of posts, it gave the infantry their own means of dealing with point targets that the artillery would not, or could not deal with. Also, after the French campaign in 1940, the Wehrmacht requested a more efficient weapon that could damage a tank. Krupp generated two or three different types of gun and carriage combinations that were very good, but there was no production capacity available, so the LIG 18 stayed (a hollow charge AT round was produced for it to compensate). The LIG was an excellent weapon for the Fallschirmjager, as it was very airportable (when they still did that line of work), weighing only 400 kg and could be split into four para-drop containers. The sIG 33 150mm could fire HE, smoke, and HEAT rounds. It also could fire the over-calibre Steilgranate 42 stick bomb, which had a range of about 1000 yds, and was "intended as a powerful blast bomb for demolishing strongpoints or wire entanglements." It seems to me that being equipped with AT rounds, and the stick-bomb, would point up the DF nature of these weapons. Besides, in the game, wouldn't you rather smack a tank DF than chase those little guys all over the map with shell craters? I think that there will be lots of IF fire available in the game anyway, especially considering it's scale. I mean the maps are only going to be a few sq km and less than a regiment involved per side (usually).

[This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 12-17-99).]

[Bullethead]

>>>>>>>>> THere are plenty of photos of IG gun lines and high angle firing positions. <<<<<<<<

When are the odds highest that a gun will be photographed? When the friendlies are holding still in defensive positions, or when they are moving forward on the attack?

-Bullethead

[Knaust]

I wouldnt be a little drastic....

It seems to me that wild discussions are arising about topics which need only one answer...although very interesting and full of a lot of info.

Now the (my) question is:

inf guns and howitzers had both IF and DF capabilities no matter how they were often used...ok...we all seem to agree on this point!

Now as i am a little moronic...I would have from BTS two simple,little answers:

Can Howitzers or inf guns fire both DF and IF?

Would it be better to have both capabilities and let players use them at their will?

Bastable's answer seems positive...under certain circumstances they can fire DF and IF...so why there are any more discussions about this topics?...

NO OFFENCE to anyone...anyone can say what he will...only for sake of simplicity!

I repeat (my poor english needs it) NO OFFENCE to anyone!

[Bastables]

Well um after a day or 2 of reflection it has just hit me! (questions) A little off topic true but finding the perfect ambush positions for the Stug's in chance encounter has given my right eye a nervous tic, its not a joke! I'm typing this with my right eye shut.

1. Is the 10cm K18 (its actully 10.5cm but for some reason the Heer called it a 10cm gun, odd) in the game?

2. Did the germans still have 10cm K18 in the west during overlord and the operations thereafter?

[Fionn]

Knaust,

It is possible for most Infantry guns BUT it would only occur sometimes in prepared defensive positions and not with the freedom I think people are thinking.

It would be something which would be majorly abused if it went in also.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Gary T]

Bastables,

I know 12. SS had one battery of 4 K18 in its allocation. The K18 had a longer range than 1FH18 (hence its gun title not howitzer) and was designed for counterbattery work. I don't really see any need for it to be represented as such.

[Los]

This entire discussion revloves around a simple lack of understand of some as to what goes into preparing for and conducting indirect fire (and CM). The discussion is looking to prove that since infantry guns/mortars or whatnot were physically capable of conducting IF due to elevation capabilities or whatnot that they should be allowed to do so on map. The reason you are not allowed to fire individual guns and whatnot in both IF/DF mode was pretty clearly spelled out in my last post on this subject. But I'll say it again one more time...

The abilty to conduct IF (basically the FDC and communications) exists at the battery level not the individual gun level. This is all abstracted through the use of the FO. If you had a new unit type which would be, the HQ for your on map guns and If you could build in some sort of long delay period for moving guns to stop, survey their guns/mortars, establish FDC, prep ammo and run wire between the FDC and the guns and the FO then maybe you could do something. Your are confusing the physical capability of the gun to fire indirect fire, (bTW I could theoretically do that with a Garand too), with the capability of the unit to be able to conduct FDC/FO/IF operations. And please don't confuse any capability modern mortars/guns have to do this since they have the advanced communications to possibly pull this off that WW2 gun crew didn't have.

BTS is in a way working around this by allowing you to hit TRPs from your on map IF weapons PROVIDING you haven't moved them at all. This assumes that they have had the time and inclination to prepare for indirect fire. Or else you simply use on map FOs.

Cheers...

Los

[Gromit]

Los:

Well put (for the second time)

Give it a rest guys... I think you will find that at the scale of CM, BTS's decision makes sense. Remember, we aren't recreating all the things that happened in WWII, that would be near to impossible (not to mention unplayable for the great majority).

Because this IS a game, BTS had to start drawing lines as to what realistic events or characteristics belong in the game and which (although they really happened) tend to unbalance a GAME.

Don't get me wrong guys... I grew up on SL, etc. and love all the details as much as the next grog. I just think our own "history" sometimes gets in the way when you try to apply it to a 3D tactical computer game.

Paul

[John Kettler]

I recently read a post which stated that the 15cm s.I.G. 33 would only be allowed direct fire if on the board in CM. This odd assertion triggered a search by me which turned up this thread.

I would like to ask Fionn et al. why a weapon

supposedly designed primarily for direct fire

would, according to ordnance expert and former Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery Ian Hogg, come equipped with no less than a six-part (six propellant increment) charge, a separate loading case and be able to elevate to 73 degrees? Source: Ian V. Hogg, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc., page 138.

Are not multiple charge increments and high elevation capability the very hallmark of indirect fire systems, since they allow all kinds of projectile delivery trajectories simply unavailable to high velocity, direct fire guns?

It seems to me that a weapon designed for direct fire would logically employ a fixed case, thus minimizing both production expense and system complexity, while increasing rate of fire over the far slower separate loading,

powder incremented system.

There is also the matter of where the weapon fit into the German TO&E. According to Hogg (op cit., p. 138) it formed "part of the equipment of the Heavy Gun Company of the Infantry Regiment."

Restated, the s.I.G. 33, firing a whopping 83.6 lb. HE shell almost six inches in diameter, was the major punch in the regimental commander's fire support arsenal. It was organic to his force, as close as his field phone or even a star cluster, not way up there in division where it might or might not be available when he needed it. With a muzzle velocity of 790 ft/sec, about that of an M1911 .45 semiautomatic pistol, and a max range of only 5140 yards, it stands to reason that the minimum range (on reduced charge) in indirect fire should be well within CM board size limits.

So how about it? Why not return to the Germans an important tactical option and give the Allies still more things to blow up?

Regards,

John Kettler

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-22-2000).]

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-22-2000).]

[Guest Username:]

Yeah I am jumping in..

This discussion is so similiar to the sturmarty pissing contest. That is, real misunderstanding of the weapons AND uses of the weapons.

Heres my take. The inf gun was a direct fire weapon that the german army realized was needed to fill the gap between "regular" division artillery fire and the infantry attack. This is similiar to the Sturmartillerie mission. The germans realized that indirect fire didnt have the flexibilty to adjust its fires to keep up with a dynamic battle situation. It did not have the accuracy either to defeat point hardened targets. The 75mm also was used as a signal device by firing colored shells on positions, a ground commander could call in Stuka attacks or get a FO to switch his corp artillery etc to help out. The 150mm was only brought up front to DF when all else would not crack a particulrly tough position. It was like a siege gun and probably needed alot of coordination to get into position with all other weapons and smoke covering it (it weighed tons i believe).

All of the above is early war "good-time" german operations and weapon use. Notice the offensive nature of everything. Direct fire translates into offensive weapon use for inf guns.

As we all know, German INFANTRY divisions werent on the offensive that much in the later years. They still had these weapons (IG) in their possesion and noone wastes anything. So they were most probably used defensively BEHIND the front lines. They had themselves sited for Direct fire on "backstop" positions behind the front lines and if the ammo was there they would have most certainly been sited for indirect fire on areas in front of the MLR.

Even the germans thought the 150mm wasnt much use in later years except when self propelled. I have read of them being replaced with 120mm mortars.

The US army never needed such weapons because its indirect artillery and FO structure ALLOWED great flexibility and responseness and accuracy in the attack. Sherman tanks were assigned to ALL divisions so US infantry had no use for these weapons.

CM is mostly taking place when these weapons are being used defensively by the germans. I laugh when I think of a horse drawn 150mmIG being towed up to the front lines for a direct fire shoot!!! US 60mm mortars would knock it out!!!

In the bocage especially, every weapon which could fire indirect would. Germans even pulled out 50mm mortars and issued rifle grenades in quantity just to bolster up their boys that had to face the greatest artillery on earth.

So in game terms, yes 75mm and 150mm indirect fire. Onboard only in a scenario like Valley or bocage where the germans have been in position for awhile. Those 75mm could really crank out the rounds BTW.

Lewis

[Bullethead]

Oh GAWD, I thought this thread (and several others very like it) was dead and buried back at Xmas RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, IT'S ALIVE!!!!

Everybody agrees IGs could shoot indirectly PROVIDED the necessary FDC and comm work was done beforehand. Mostly this is outside the scope of CM battles both in time and space, but it could conceivably happen. So why isn't it in the game?

At one point, I think BTS said IGs would function similarly to on-board mortars. They would be direct-only except for shooting at TRPs if they hadn't moved, but no indirect anywhere else even with HQ units. Thus, I was somewhat surprised to find the IG unable to hit the TRP in VOT.

However, while surprised, I am not disappointed to find IGs being direct-only, because I was never happy with the above plan. IGs are things you position in or near your MLR to use their direct fire capabilities. From such exposed positions, indirect fire is not going to be very practicable during an enemy attack due to possible suppression.

Thus, it would be foolish to base your defense in reliance on such indirect fire in addition to the IGs' direct fire--you would not likely have the indirect fire when you needed it and if you did get it, you would unmask the IG before the enemy was in its direct fire killzone.

Because you never have enough time or resources when setting up defenses, therefore, it would be a waste to lavish what you have on something as questionable as IG indirect fire. Save that for the mortars. If you find IG indirect fire more important than their direct fire, position them in the rear (off-board) so direct threats won't distract or suppress them.

So what CM has done by not allowing IGs to fire indirectly is enforce some organizational and operational realism on players. Always being able to have IGs on-map shooting indirect fire is very gamey. Therefore, I am happy with the current situation.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-23-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Keep this in mind: any indirect-fire capabilities of the German 75mm and 150mm IGs can easily be simulated by giving them a 75mm or 150mm artillery spotter. Giving the IGs the ability to do indirect fire on-map seems unnecessary to me, especially given that they appear to have a minimum range of 1000+ meters in that role.

Charles