Indirect Tank Fire

[Panzer Leader]

I read this on another forum ( Missing Links - a modeling site).

Quote from Mike Foncannon:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Until recently most US tanks were built with an indirect fire capability for their High Explosive rounds.

The M4 up through the M60 series were equipped with the same style "gunner's quadrant" as the the Field Artillery and crews received some training in indirect fire, although this was minimized by the time I entered the Army in the seventies. (The APDS rounds really weren't conducive to indirect fire.)

The tanks also received a set of range stakes. These could be used in the traditional "over-the-hill" indirect fire missions or during periods of limited visibility (night).

For instance, in the defense, in the days before thermal sights, if you had a building or crossroads out in front of your position that were likely to become enemy positions you would set into your position before dark and lay the gun on the prospective target area.

Then using the range stakes, the gunners quadrant and the tank's azimuth indicator you would record the data on your range card (a sketch of area of responsibility) along with the map coordinates. The platoon would do likewise.

So if the bad guys showed up, you could lay your gun in the dark, using the range card data, call in artillery illumination or call for another tank to lay on the same target with their searchlight to start the ball rolling.

Pre-laying the guns cut down on target acquisition times and reduced the searchlight tank's exposure time to the minimum, so he could duck back down.

If you really had to, in the absence of illum, you could also harass the area by firing blind.

Thermal sights made everything so much easier.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting stuff, that.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Panzer Leader ]

[Cribtop Gamer]

Not to hijack this thread, but my question is somewhat related.

Specifically, IIRC, self-propelled (SP) artillery (e.g. Wespe, Priest, M7, etc.) was often used in an indirect role. The main reason these guns were mobile was to keep up with armored and motorized forces, not so that they could be employed as direct fire weapons (although they were used in this role to good effect in urban fighting, where indirect fire was notably less effective than direct fire).

However, the fact that vehicles in CMBO are not required to be "in command" leaves SP arty unable to be used in an indirect role (i.e. they can't pull the "mortar trick" and use a commander as a spotter), which in turn means that you MUST use SP arty in a direct fire role. In that role, these usually open-topped and thin-skinned vehicles are often destroyed by AT guns, tanks, mortars and off-board arty (although I can't wait to use the nasty fully-armored Russian SP guns in CMBB, as Soviet doctrine wanted these bad boys used in a direct fire role, and they were designed accordingly).

All of this means that SP arty, which was highly useful in WW2 is actually less useful in many cases in CMBO than traditional off-board arty.

My question is this. Since vehicles will be subject to command and morale rules in CMBB, will they be able to use commanders as spotters a la mortars? If not, would this be a useful feature to consider for CM2 (I know it's too late for changes to CMBB and that's fine)?

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

[Guest Babra]

A 105mm FO can be calling in rounds from an M7 Priest as easily as towed 105s. Who says it's not?

Want to use Shermans indirect? Get a 75mm FO.

I won't get into the on-map range too short argument.

[Cribtop Gamer]

I would agree, Babra, that on any map other than large or huge it would not be possible to use SP arty indirect because of the minimum range issue.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cribtop Gamer:

I would agree, Babra, that on any map other than small or huge it would not be possible to use SP arty indirect because of the minimum range issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good. I hope you took careful note of what Babra said prior to the map issue. The only on-map armed vehicles that should have indirect fire capability that I can think of are the mortar-armed halftracks and carriers. The others are, I believe, too slow to set up to be included in a CM scenario.

Michael

[Triumvir]

I can't believe that it would take longer to set up SP arty than to set up regular arty (by the by, I don't think 25 pounders can fire indirect in the game either.) Fixing your position and recording centre of arc should be faster on an SP unit than on a towed unit because you don't have to spend the extra time embedding the gun.

The minimum range issue is certainly an issue; when firing indirect, the minimum range for a 155 was, if I recall correctly, roughly 1.5 km.

[Michael Emrys]

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

I can't believe that it would take longer to set up SP arty than to set up regular arty...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, of course not. It's just that for both, the time requirements would exceed the average CM scenario. The exception to this might be with the guns already emplaced having an indirect fire capability if they have a spotter. But since they would lose their IF ability if they move, what's the point of having them on the board in the first place?

Michael

[Slapdragon]

The last time this came up, someone did find a pack howitzer or two whose "useful" indirect fire minimum range was under 1 km and thus inside a huge map (considering that you would not line it up on the edge and only fire to the other edge. A few others came in under 1.5 km, or could be specially emplaced for high angle shoots.

All US 75 and 76mm armed tanks and tank destroyers could fire indirect, and sometimes did.

The main reason that came up in the last thread on this subject was the rarity of having an ARTY piece that close to the front, still in cobtact with its FO, that has a short enough miniumum useful range to be able to fire during the game, and the rarrity of maps large enough to fit all this in, pluse the rarity of a map that large would get fought over in 60 minutes to where the rear area artillery was under fire. Likely getting all of these conditions right was going to be rare, so it was never coded to save time in game design. Most maps would have to be 5 kilometers long to have artillery shoots occur on them.

[Scipio]

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

A 105mm FO can be calling in rounds from an M7 Priest as easily as towed 105s. Who says it's not?

Want to use Shermans indirect? Get a 75mm FO.

I won't get into the on-map range too short argument.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The counter question is : why do we have on map 81mm mortars and mortar HTs if a 81mm FO can do the same?

IMO, if tanks and especially self-propelled artillery were/are able to fire indirect in reality, they should be able in CM, too.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[JonS]

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

IMO, if tanks and especially self-propelled artillery were/are able to fire indirect in reality, they should be able in CM, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scipio,

if you use a 105mm, 75mm, or 25pdr FO then SPA can be in CM, firing indirectly. Just because Off Board Artillery isn't on the map, doesn't make them a non-entity in the battle. Their FOO is their link to the battle. If that link is broken, you (or your enemy) loses that capability, then as now.

IMHO, there are much more fundamental problems with the artillery model than Wah! I can't fire my M4A1 indirectly. Commando Comic # 5324 showed them being fired indirectly, so clearly it was common practice, so why can't I. BTS, fix it or do sumfink

Yes, I am aware that there are better sources than Commando Comic regarding using tanks in indirect fire mode. But what about the completely emasculated TRP presented in the game? Don't you think that's kind of more disturbing?

Regards

Jon

PS. Read what Babra, Michael Emrys and Slapdragon have written. Please.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Scipio]

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

Scipio,

if you use a 105mm, 75mm, or 25pdr FO then SPA can be in CM, firing indirectly. Just because Off Board Artillery isn't on the map, doesn't make them a non-entity in the battle. Their FOO is their link to the battle. If that link is broken, you (or your enemy) loses that capability, then as now.

IMHO, there are much more fundamental problems with the artillery model than Wah! I can't fire my M4A1 indirectly. Commando Comic # 5324 showed them being fired indirectly, so clearly it was common practice, so why can't I. BTS, fix it or do sumfink

Yes, I am aware that there are better sources than Commando Comic regarding using tanks in indirect fire mode. But what about the completely emasculated TRP presented in the game? Don't you think that's kind of more disturbing?

Regards

Jon

PS. Read what Babra, Michael Emrys and Slapdragon have written. Please.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JonS, I have read what they've written. (BTW, it would be fine if some people could refer to their source when they post here).

What do you mean with 'emasculated TRP'? Please excuse, I'm German, and my English could be better.

[Triumvir]

Michael, I've been in an arty battalion and run 15mm guns. To just get the guns ready for firing without camouflaging etc takes about 6 minutes if you have to embed the gun by digging, and about 2 if the gun is self embedding.

In an SP mortar unit, our time to get ready from deployment was about 1 minute.

I think that's well under a CM timeframe. What the real killer is is the minimum range, IMHO.

[CMplayer]

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

Michael, I've been in an arty battalion and run 15mm guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was that a hamster battalion? It's hard

to imagine calling 15mm 'arty' otherwise.

--Rett

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

Michael, I've been in an arty battalion and run 15mm guns. To just get the guns ready for firing without camouflaging etc takes about 6 minutes if you have to embed the gun by digging, and about 2 if the gun is self embedding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it that was some time in recent years? In WW II the same operations could take hours. I can't quote chapter and verse on that at the moment, but I have read that in sources that I respect. The last time we had this debate, several months ago, someone else came up with similar figures (was it Bullethead?).

Michael

[C.M.O.T. Dibbler]

Spinning off on a tangent here...

What would the typical max firing range of an M4A1 be?

-Anders

[Slapdragon]

The secodnary sources for my comments on artillery are:

Field Artillery and Fire Power  by Jonathan B. A. Bailey is the best Field Artillery source for practices. While not targeted on World War Two, it is a great learning tool, and does contain a full discussion of the use of field artillery in that war.

On Artillery by Bruce I. Gudmundsson, which includes some nice technical discussion on artillery at a fairly easy to understand level.

On Time, on Target: The World War II Memoir of a Field Artillery Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne by John D. McKenzie is an autobiography that is nice to read, but is less useful for anything except helping figure out every day practes.

The Field Artillery: History and Source Book byBoyd L. Dastrup is more of a longer scope history piece, but it does help understand how it was employed by World War Two.

Use and Practice of Field Artillery in World War Two. This is a GPO book written in the 1950s as a study of artillery systems and compares the British FO system, the US infantry system, and the German FO system.

[Mark IV]

There are really two types of indirect fire for tanks.

Indirect laying was meant to be accomplished on the battlefield, with little preparation, by one or two defiladed tanks within voice or radio command of a TC or platoon leader functioning as both observer and Fire Direction Control. He would position himself between the defiladed tank position and the target, and instruct them to begin by "laying" the gun on him. A minimum safe elevation would be determined, test rounds would be fired, and the observer/commander would call out the adjustments in elevation and azimuth in mils. The gunner had a chart to consult for approximate settings for the initial range.

The purpose of this battlefield expedient was to neutralize threat locations, such as known AT assets, with either a single tank, while the rest of the platoon maneuvered, or with a platoon, while the rest of the company maneuvered. It is very difficult to picture this technique getting much use on a WWII battlefield.

This was considered a different practice than the use of tanks as an auxiliary to regular artillery.

Roughly a third of FM 17-12, Tank Gunnery, 10 July '44, is devoted to Employment of Tanks as Artillery. Most of the details appear cut-and-pasted from mortar and field artillery training, with commands and instructions adapted for use with tanks. The Section opens with:

"Part II of this manual covers the employment of tanks as artillery. This is the secondary role of the tank. The tank is primarily an assault weapon. It will be effective as such only when the crews are so thoroughly trained in direct fire and have complete confidence in their own ability to engage any target by direct fire methods. To permit indirect fire training to take time or emphasis from direct fire training is to impair the offensive spirit of the tank crews and offensive power of tanks. Training in the secondary role of the tank is undertaken only after the tank crews have attained a high standard in the primary role. However, no tank unit is ready for battle if it cannot deliver effective fire by indirect means within a reasonable length of time." (emphasis in the original).

Minimum ranges and setup times do not appeared to be defined in this manual, but the procedures are complex and technical, including surveying techniques, staking, and taping. The introduction concludes:

"It must be realized that tank units cannot shift rapidly from employment as artillery to empoyment as tanks, and vice versa. The artillery mission requires that units be dispersed and emplaced far to the rear in order to find defiladed positions from which the flat trajectory guns can be fired. It also alters the communications and organization of the unit. The employment of tanks as artillery is a command decision which requires careful weighing of the factors involved."

[Slapdragon]

As a Recap, here is why indirect artillery by on board units is not usually done, while mortars can.

1) Mortars have a considerably lower minimum range, and are more likely to be found right up at the front.

2) Most artillery pieces have minimum indirect fire ranges on level terrain far in excess of the map size in games. A few that do not must either be emplaced specially for high angle shooting (some mountain howitzers) or were infantry howitzers than had some capability to fire indirect.

3) It was uncommon for Allied tanks to fire indirect unless they were tasked to it for the purposes of a bombardment. Indirect fire is not something that could be started on a lark. Most German tanks were not designed for indirect fire.

Because of this, artillery spotters in the game can be used to represent tanks and mobile artillery units, since those units would never appear on board in any case. In scenario design, if one wanted to have a set of tanks fire indirect then rush to the attack, one could incude a 75mm spotter and have tanks enter 20 turns later or so.

Scipio, I am interested in your own cites which show indirect fire from artillery units that were also directly tasked to front line combat. In this I mean, what have you found concerning an artillery piece that fires indirect and direct mission at the same targets in a few minutes of each other (say, less than 30 minutes).

[Scipio]

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

The secodnary sources for my comments on artillery are:

Field Artillery and Fire Power  by Jonathan B. A. Bailey is the best Field Artillery source for practices. While not targeted on World War Two, it is a great learning tool, and does contain a full discussion of the use of field artillery in that war.

On Artillery by Bruce I. Gudmundsson, which includes some nice technical discussion on artillery at a fairly easy to understand level.

On Time, on Target: The World War II Memoir of a Field Artillery Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne by John D. McKenzie is an autobiography that is nice to read, but is less useful for anything except helping figure out every day practes.

The Field Artillery: History and Source Book byBoyd L. Dastrup is more of a longer scope history piece, but it does help understand how it was employed by World War Two.

Use and Practice of Field Artillery in World War Two. This is a GPO book written in the 1950s as a study of artillery systems and compares the British FO system, the US infantry system, and the German FO system.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks

Back to the post by JonS - the reason why I want to know what problem he see with TRP is:

An on map mortar can fire on a TRP as long as he don't move. The problem with the time needed to bring a vehicel into fire position can be avoided the same way.

Of course, that doesn't helps with the minimum range problem - BUT :

a) will we have bigger maps in CMBB?

is it a problem for all vehicels, also with smaller calibers?

[Slapdragon]

Indirect laying, like the scoot and shoot "fast set up" mentioned by Triumvir for a two minute artillery set up, was technically possible in World War Two, but was not really tried except in special conditions and with special support.

Indirect laying required time, training, and intelligence that was not that common in World War Two. At least, most major authorities do not metion it until Korea (although if someone has an example of its common use, I would love to read it).

Scoot and shoot in World War Two meant for the United States being able to be shooting an hour within the time of arriving at a shoot location. It was longer for Germans who had good, but not as extensive communitcaions, and unknown for the Russians. For any artillery unit to shoot indirect except mortars very close to the action (and who had a greater incidence of friendly fire and were less accurate anyway) The unit had to be dug in (or shot in) then leveled. Then a survey was taken from a known point to their point, usually something simple like a crossroads or a house on an aerial map. Then the gunnery computers (people, not machines) would update firing charts quickly to be prepared for action, communicators would wire in or establish a radio link with HQ, and the artillery commander or his assistant would be informed the the unit was on line and ready to fire in support of units in the field. Ammo was unpacked, then missions would start coming in.

To pick up from an indirect fire mission unspent ammo was gathered, wires drawn in, radios packed, and guns limbered.

It would be difficult to have an artillery displace and set up again in the length of a game. Also, it would be hard for it to fire in direct support if it was set up for indirect since a good location for indirect is by nature a worthless place for direct fire.

I suspect there is an exception, and that would be a case like Metz, where artillery was set up to bombard the town, but also fired on anything that fell under its sights, but even here the indirect fire occured several kilometers away, outside of the scope of any game which tried to simulate the fight in front of metz.

[Scipio]

Well, Slap, I don't have doubts that you are right, but the whole setup procedure is been done BEFORE the battle when TRPs are used. Of course, only the defenders has a benefit, cause they are only allowed to use TRPs.

[Slapdragon]

That is the reason I am looking for some sort of evidence that indirect firing by tanks was done as part of a flexible defense by US and commonwealth forces. I have heard it referred to several times, but never really found it anywhere myself.

This would be one of the cases in which indirect and direct fire may come from the same unit, but the closest I get is Korea and US tank fire on hill tops directed by light aircraft.

[Panzer Leader]

Okay, but this talk seems to be verging into an operational level. I was imagining a situation such as a company of infantry told to sweep a town (or somefink).

They get about halfway through and start to encounter some light resistance. They have some tanks behind them on the outskirts, so couldn't they radio to the tanks to open up and blast away at the far edge of town for a few minutes before completing their assault?

I don't know how realistic this would be, but if I was a company commander, and I knew that the enemy was over the hill and I had a few tanks to back me up, you can bet (if it were possible!) I would radio them to drop a few rounds.

I am not trying to get a change to the rules or anything, but just trying to better understand how this WOULD work on a smaller scale.

[Mark IV]

Proximity to tanks doesn't necessarily give you command of the tanks (in RL). Nor would it necessarily give you their radio frequencies and call signs.

In other words, it the tanks are part of the assaulting force from the git-go, they already have a part to play in it, as direct fire support and as a counter-measure against enemy armor. They would be far more effective in this role (for which they were designed) than in waiting behind a hill, hoping for a call to lob shells in a general direction.

If you want to shoot up the edge of town, a nice hull-down on a crest will do the job far more effectively with direct fire, than employing one of your most powerful mobile assets as an inefficient impromptu arty. Once you're halfway through the town, the tanks would have just as good a chance of hitting you as they would of hitting the enemy, or missing the town altogether, because that is the artillery role rather than impromptu indirect laying.

If they are not part of the attacking force, then you would have no more luck phoning them up and asking for some indirect fire than the Germans would. They would belong to some other command.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Panzer Leader]

That's a good point Mark IV. I would suppose that a company commander of inf would have the ability to communicate with their armour support, whether it be direct or through division. It just seems to me that combat by its nature is crazy and never "text-book" therefore I would further surmise that all sorts of these impromptu solutions to problems would crop up.

For example, in my previous example, it seems reasonable to assume that some tanks would be attached, or at least sent out to support an infantry assault. It also seems reasonable that the CO would be able to communicate with them. Now, if there was no enemy armour to contend with, and the tanks were just sitting there while the infantry had a big threat of getting chewed up ahead of them, the "in direct fir" of the tanks seems like a pretty good solution.

Now, I'm not saying that this happened, or was common or anything. I only mean that their were often unforseen circumstances that led to unusual solutions. That's why the y GAVE the tanks the indirect fire capability, to meet these unforseen circumstances, right?

If you could visualize some recent battles you've had in CM, I would bet you would be able to think of ALL SORTS of cases were a couple of your M4's would've been a big help by lobbing some shells.

That said, I would totally agree that it is a rare occurance at best, and that the ability and training of these tanks and tankers was more a secondary (or even tertiary) ability, but the simple fact that they were TRAINED to do it, and that they had the TOOLS to do it makes me think that there were plenty of cases where it was actually used.

I especially like they idea that it was used for indirect direct fire, such as firing blind in the dark or bad weather. THAT would be a neat feature to have in the game!