Indirect Tank Fire

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

...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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They didn't really give tanks indirect fire ability. All cannons have some indirect fire ability, by virtue of being able to point up, and let gravity do the rest.

You can do indirect fire with a deer rifle. With the proper elevation, you can make a round come down very close to the point of origin. You cannot, however, hit anything. A good officer could certainly achieve better results than that with a tank platoon, but not as well as the artillery and mortar units that were trained and equipped to do it. It is simulated (sort of) with the 75 FO...

I think the indirect fire training for tankers was more of an anachronism, myself. There are recorded instances of its being used in WWII, but they were recorded because they were exceptional. If a tank is on the CM map I want it laying crosshairs directly on my hated enemy and planting some HE +/- a couple of meters, not merely somewhere in the general vicinity.

Also, you don't know whether there is "no enemy armour to contend with" until you have fully occupied the town, and even then you must be prepared for counterattacks (play many rune scenarios?). A commander who left his tanks behind a hill to experiment with arty, and then ran his troops into German AFVs, would be derelict of duty. The troopies tended to like some armored backup in town situations anyway... there was more future in rubbling an infested building than in countersniping all afternoon.

[Michael Emrys]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen photos of Sherman tanks being used in the indirect fire role in Italy, but these were in extensively prepared positions including earthen ramps to give their guns adequate elevation.

Michael

[Slapdragon]

Sure, I have a photograph of an gorup of M10s firing irdirect as a battery. It was part of the US "every gun in range" concept.

Here is the rub though. You are an Infantry commander moving through town, Things get tough, and you need some artillery. You call up your armor support somehow and ask for indirect. Assuming that they can do it, they stop whatever they are doing, move to a protected position and begin locking down their survey location. Possibly they need to call back for a survey team (not too hard -- US had lots of survey teams) but they have just embarled on a process that will take them no less than half an hour assuming they are good at it, have a sight in hand, and the entire tank platoon is ready to roll. Only in the longest games will shell #1 hit, only if the tanks are 1.5+ km away, and only the highest skilled tanks will come in at all.

The one thing the US had was gobs of artillery. Unlike the system used in the game, the US actually gave the ability to call artillery down to platoon leaders and above (although for assaults FO teams would be used because they were more accurate) and because US divisions had mobile switch boards and a signals detatchment 3 times larger than German signals and infantry commander in a serious jam could call all the way to Division or possibly Corps with and Artillery request and get it acted upon far faster than locally supporting tanks could provide indirect fire. This is why we never see infantry commanders calling for indirect fire support from local tanks, but often calling for supplemental artillery support not assigned to them to handle tough situations (see Gattner, McDonald, Ambrose, Billoski, Boyle, Mansoor, and Weckstien for references to artillery support of infantry. The first two in particular).

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

You can do indirect fire with a deer rifle... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Machine guns have been used historically in an indirect role. It takes hundreds of them, but at Vimy Ridge they seriously interdicted German movements immediately behind the front. It's hard to move when it's raining bullets.

As far as WW2 tanks go, every pic I've seen of Shermans laid out for indirect work show them in prepared positions, on bulldozed firing steps or ramps, with boatloads of ammunition stacked up nearby, hatches wide open for ventilation and to throw the expended ammo out. Definitely not a front line operation. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's not possible, but when it's rare to the point of obscurity, should it be allowed? I don't think so.

[gunnergoz]

My impression is that indirect fire missions by tank units was usually most common under two circumstances:

-during "all-out" offensives when every shooting tube counted to suppress or destroy the enemy in the target zones, and

-during phases of battle when the tanks could not function effectively on the front lines, usually due to mud, snow, or especially terrain.

If the tanks could use their mobility and firepower on the battlefield to good effect in support of operations, they seem to have been much less likely to be called upon for indirect fire missions.

BTW, TD's could and did provide similar indirect support but the 76mm HE round was not quite as effective as the 75mm round, perhaps because it had a thicker case and less bursting charge.

The upshot for CM is, I think, that if the tanks can't be well used on the CM battlefield, we'll not see many of them and you may as well load up on artillery (which might in fact include tank tubes). It sort of works out like real life did.

[gunnergoz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

They didn't really give tanks indirect fire ability. All cannons have some indirect fire ability, by virtue of being able to point up, and let gravity do the rest.

-snip-

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree on this one. It was clearly doctrine and training in the WW2 US Army mechanized forces for tanks and TD's to be equipped and trained for artillery-type indirect fire. They had the artillery quadrants and similar tools to do the job and they did so with some frequency. There was no "random lobbing" of rounds as implied by this post, rather the use of tanks in this fashion was only permitted because the troops were adequately trained and equipped for the task. If they weren't so prepared, the act would be folly, a waste of ammo and probably as dangerous to nearby friendly troops as to the enemy.

[Triumvir]

Michael, yes it was in recent years. Based on how we set up our 25 pounders, though (and I recognise that we weren't doing so for firing, just for saluting) and since the basic principles of aligning your gun haven't changed that much since 1916, I don't think that hours is an accurate assessment for how long it would take to prepare an artillery position. If you count stocking the position with rounds, that's different. But simply deploying and firing whatever rounds are on hand should be in the scope of a CM game.

As for hamsterwerfen, our primary weapon, we actually used a squeezebore chamber that gradually translated our little hamsters into a chunky cylinder of furry firepower ala how hamsters roll over when you tickle their bellies.

Anyway, back to the topic; I think that the capability definitely exists for indirect fire for all tank guns (the Americans did it in Vietnam and I believe the Israelis did it in the War of Attrition), that it was doctrine, but that the likelihood of it happening on a CM scale is so low that it may not be worth coding it in.

Imagine, if you will, having the tank sit still for five turns (or less, depending on experience) before it becomes available for indirect fire; and if it moves, it needs to stop and reregister.

Not particularly fun and not particularly likely to be used. There's a reason why assault guns were so popular then; quick directly applicable firepower.

[Kurtz]

A small question: Since tanks use fixed ammunition (shell and cartridge) as opposed to artillery, in which shell and powder charge is two separate units (and the charge can vary in size), the minimum range would be longer for a tank gun firing indirectly (since it always use "max" charge). I assume the minimum range listed for artillery is calculated on the basis that the smallest charge is used. Wouldn't minimum range using max charge be considerably longer than when using the smallest charge?

If I'm wrong I'm sure the Arty Grogs will correct me.

[JonS]

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

[QB]A small question: Since tanks use fixed ammunition (shell and cartridge) as opposed to artillery, in which shell and powder charge is two separate units (and the charge can vary in size), the minimum range would be longer for a tank gun firing indirectly (since it always use "max" charge). I assume the minimum range listed for artillery is calculated on the basis that the smallest charge is used. Wouldn't minimum range using max charge be considerably longer than when using the smallest charge? QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurtz

It depends on the elevation. For artillery, there are two elevations for each charge which will give you a specific range: low angle and high angle.

What you say regarding tanks firing indirect is basically correct: They had fixed ammo, and a relatively limited elevation range (especially when compared to artillery) which would limit their effective range to a relatively narrow band between min and max elevation. Unless I miss my guess, this is why the photos you do see of tanks and TDs firing indirectly so often show them on a bulldozed ramp - the ramp allows a higher elevation and therefore a 'better' minimum range, as well as more 'plunging' fire at all ranges.

Regards

Jon

[JonS]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO, the problem with TRPs is not who or what can fire on them, but rather the rather pathetic range you can adjust off one before time and accuracy penalties start stacking up. I think 20m is the max distance.

Really, any adjustment up to 3-400m from a TRP is should - IMHO - be swift, and show a fairly steady decline in accuracy out to that range.

In the attack (and defence, for that matter) FOs are trained to lay out TRPs at regular intervals on 'likely' enemy locations and approaches. The beauty of a flexible artillery system such as the Brits and US had is that any target near one of these TRPs could be engaged quickly and accurately by initiating a fire mission at an adjustment from a previously recorded TRP.

Of course, to balance all this, there is the overall swiftness of the artillery as presented in CM. 2-3 minutes to get from the initial call for fire to FFE is very quick, even today using similar methods but vastly better communications and computing resources. In Real Life 5-10 minutes is more likely:

Time 0: call for fire

Time 90 (seconds): first round of adjustment

T 120: Round impacts

T 125: observer calls first adjustment

T 160: second round of adjustment

T 190: second round impacts

T 195: call of 2nd adj

T 230: 3rd rnd of adj

T 260: 3rd rnd impacts

T 265: 0bserver calls final adj and goes to FFE

T 300: first rnd of FFE lands.

Now, thats only using 3 rnds in adjustment, which is pretty slick. A mis-read on the opening grid can easily push that out to 8 rnds or so in adjustment, each one taking up about 1 minute in total.

For my money, time spent on improving the artillery model for CMBO, CMBB, or CMWhatever, would be much better spent addressing the limited way TRPs can be used, a better adjustment model, and a better range of impact distributions, rather than futzing around with indirect fire for tanks.

Regards

JonS

BTW, FWIW, Belton Cooper in "Death Traps" also makes mention of tanks firing indirect. From a fair ways behind the line, in muddy conditions, on a narrow front, and for a major offensive (into the Rhineland). Not exactly your everyday, run-of-the-mill situation. But, I'm a bit dubious about this book having read it - some of the things he comes out with are ... odd. When he stays in his lane and writes about his job I have no problem, but when he starts banging on about grand strategy, etc., I (IMHO) think he oses some credibility.

[Mark IV]

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

I have to disagree on this one. It was clearly doctrine and training in the WW2 US Army mechanized forces for tanks and TD's to be equipped and trained for artillery-type indirect fire. They had the artillery quadrants and similar tools to do the job and they did so with some frequency. There was no "random lobbing" of rounds as implied by this post, rather the use of tanks in this fashion was only permitted because the troops were adequately trained and equipped for the task. If they weren't so prepared, the act would be folly, a waste of ammo and probably as dangerous to nearby friendly troops as to the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess what I meant was that nothing special was engineered into the gun or the controls to provide the tank with indirect fire capability. If they had been serious about it, they would have designed the gun to elevate further, and provide other artillery trappings. Tanks-as-artillery was a field expedient in actual practice. The "training" and quadrants were provided, but I sincerely doubt that the bulk of officers and crews were proficient in their use.

The post is not attempting to portray "random lobbing". The analogy, however poor, was only to illustrate that the direct fire gun could be used as artillery, even though that was not its primary role. Doctrine and training are pretty well covered by the statements from the manual I posted earlier; tanks in indirect fire roles are explicitly of secondary importance in the manual.

Here's some more: "Part I of FM 17-12 takes up some phases of indirect fire. It includes firing the single tank from fully defiladed positions and firing several tanks, up to a platoon, from similar positions. In Part I methods are given for adjusting fire when the observer is on or near the line of fire and, in general, in a position where he can see both the tank and the target. In this case his procedure is basically the same as when he is observing from his tank with direct fire. He gives his commands direct to the gunner. More advanced methods are classed as use of tanks as artillery because a different approach is taken to the problem. In both observed and unobserved fires discussed in Part II [Employment of Tanks as Artillery], sensings or data are obtained in a form which cannot be utilized by tank gunners. These are converted to commands which are delivered to the gunners by the tank position commander (the platoon leader or platoon sergeant). Several other elements such as changes in communications and consumption of quantities of ammunition in excess of organic loads are also inherent in the methods discussed in Part II."

In RL, I would not want much "close" artillery support from a tank company (referring to the example that began the thread), and I don't think that's how they were used. The manual states: "The object [of unobserved indirect fire] is to mass the fires of the company on an area normally 200 x 200 yards."

Kurtz: The 105mm tank gun did have variable powder charges for the HE round, btw, just like a "real" artillery piece.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Michael, yes it was in recent years. Based on how we set up our 25 pounders, though (and I recognise that we weren't doing so for firing, just for saluting) and since the basic principles of aligning your gun haven't changed that much since 1916, I don't think that hours is an accurate assessment for how long it would take to prepare an artillery position. If you count stocking the position with rounds, that's different. But simply deploying and firing whatever rounds are on hand should be in the scope of a CM game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For my part, I would submit that there is a world of difference between making your gun go bang and actually having it hit a distant target that you cannot see.

The kind of preparation I've had described to me once a battery had been given the order to unlimber involved: (1) locating their position precisely on the map (not so quickly done reliably before GPS); (2) surveying the site and laying out aiming stakes; (3) actually siting the guns, which might include leveling the ground (send for the 'dozers!); (4) laying wire and establishing radio comms; (5) breaking out the ammo. I may have left out some steps. Some of these might run concurrently, but some of them could involve lengthy delays, such as waiting for the 'dozers or setting up the comm net.

Indirect fire by artillery is necessarily a precision drill. Many complex parts have to fit together for it to work properly (i.e., to drop the shells where they are desired and not somewhere else...like on your own troops, for instance).

Michael

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

(1) locating their position precisely on the map (not so quickly done reliably before GPS); (2) surveying the site and laying out aiming stakes; (3) actually siting the guns, which might include leveling the ground (send for the 'dozers!); (4) laying wire and establishing radio comms; (5) breaking out the ammo. I may have left out some steps. Some of these might run concurrently, but some of them could involve lenghthy delays, such as waiting for the 'dozers or setting up the comm net.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steps 1, 2, and 3 can be done by a recon party before the guns even arrive. However, once the guns arrive they still have to unlimber, set up, and get parallel before the battery can report ready. With a bit of training a towed battery can do this within about ten minutes of arriving at the new position. Ammo prep can be done concurrently, even whilst engaged in a fire mission. Though, for tanks the cramped quarters and small crew sizes (cf a artillery bty) might make that impractical

Using modern radio comms, this means that the bty is ready to fire from then on - assuming the radios work!

In WW2 it wasn't quite so simple. Setting up the radio net took ages, with people racing around all over the countryside laying wire to other btys, regt HQ, and forward to the FOs. This would be the real time-breaker.

In case you aren't aware - a gun battery has a LOT of bodies floating around. An 8 gun bty has in the order of 100 people at the bty posn, plus another 20 odd in FOO parties and liason teams. Of that 100, only about 1/2 directly man the guns, the rest man the radios, calculate the firing data, and bring ammo from dumps in the rear up to the guns. Having a gunners quadrant in the tank is all very well, but in a tank compnay, there just aren't the spare bodies floating around to fulfill these other functions. So who would do them? The Gunners are busy gunning, so the best I can come up with is a temporary cross-attachment from the artillery tohelp them out. Not an ideal situation in which to establish team work and fast drills.

Regards

Jon

[Roborat]

Just a quick comment on the arty set up issue. I am familiar with the Canadian 105 towed, which is the exact same gun the US used in WWII (as well as in the priest), in fact, I was told of some guns in current service that were used in Korea. Anyway, the standard doctrine was that the guns are ready to fire within 5 minutes of arriving at the position, and is an easily met timing, except for putting up cam nets, which will add a little time, but this is usually done as circumstances permit, and would not delay the operational readiness. In an emergency, the guns can be firing in two minutes. The gun position would already have been surveyed and the gun positions layed out before hand. The comms weren't that important, wire is nice, but simply yelling and relaying firing data works just as well. The key is the foos setting up in their forward positions and establishing comms, but that was radio, not line. As far as I have been able to tell (grandfather in Canadian Arty in WWII) the basic techniques (and actual equipement) were not much different than used today, and the times would be about the same.

The point is that the time frame is entirely within the scope of the game, at least for the allied side. The range issue, however, is an entirely different issue.

[Slapdragon]

US National Guard has 105mm Howitzers still, M101s from World War Two, and they also specify a 6 minute setup and 2 minute shell turn around.

But, this unit does not use WW2 radios, and I doubt the Canadian military still uses the 536 net of the 1940s. Also, books on artillery in WW2 say pretty clearly that "shoot and scoot" was invented by the US when they thought that they would be facing blitzkrieg, and in 1942 a 15 minute setup time to fire was considered quite good for a "hasty emplacement". US units were a bit faster and more accurate than Commonwealth because they used computer (real computers, not the human computer with a slide rule) prepared firing charts that dealt with more variables and were figured to finer accuracy. That means an artillery unit will not be available for indirect fire, assuming that it is 1.5 km or more away for the 105, for 1 minute to pull up stakes, movement time, plus 15 minutes to emplace. Say they are displacing 1km meters for some reason. At move towed speed on raod, you have 3 more minutes. So from pulling up stakes to reposition is 19 minutes if everything goes perfect.

Now add the Battery HQ, Commo, and support units associated with a battery of 6 105mm cannon.

That is not to say that the largest boards and the longest games could not have this happen once. Clearly it would be possible to model a 105 battery at the outside limits, even if historically batteries did not fire direct then indirect in short order.

[Mark IV]

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

Just a quick comment on the arty set up issue. I am familiar with the Canadian 105 towed, which is the exact same gun the US used in WWII (as well as in the priest), in fact, I was told of some guns in current service that were used in Korea. Anyway, the standard doctrine was that the guns are ready to fire within 5 minutes of arriving at the position, and is an easily met timing, except for putting up cam nets, which will add a little time, but this is usually done as circumstances permit, and would not delay the operational readiness. In an emergency, the guns can be firing in two minutes. The gun position would already have been surveyed and the gun positions layed out before hand. The comms weren't that important, wire is nice, but simply yelling and relaying firing data works just as well. The key is the foos setting up in their forward positions and establishing comms, but that was radio, not line. As far as I have been able to tell (grandfather in Canadian Arty in WWII) the basic techniques (and actual equipement) were not much different than used today, and the times would be about the same.

The point is that the time frame is entirely within the scope of the game, at least for the allied side. The range issue, however, is an entirely different issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess we're starting to talk about two different things here, but the Priest was Self-Propelled Artillery, not a tank, and they had damn well better be more adept at setting up indirect fire than a bunch of treadheads.

This nice Canadian site shows a Sherman in the artillery role (it also says that armoured regiments were "often" used for this purpose). Note attached dugout living quarters, and especially the angle of the gun. I don't think this round is coming down on the same CM map the tank is parked on!

Indirect Fire with Tank

Screwed the pooch all the way round on that link, which is much too large for the UBB frame. Here is the regular link to the site Canadian Armour and damn HTML anyway.

[ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

[Michael Emrys]

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

The gun position would already have been surveyed and the gun positions layed out before hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then, in preparing a CM scenario, will there be prepared, surveyed positions on the game map? What happens if the player decides for some reason that he would rather have his guns tanks firing from other postions? Doesn't that take us right back to the original problem?

It seems to me that the people who are advocating on-board IF aren't thinking these things through in their eagerness to push their position.

:confused:

Michael

[Scipio]

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

IMHO, the problem with TRPs is not who or what can fire on them, but rather the rather pathetic range you can adjust off one before time and accuracy penalties start stacking up. I think 20m is the max distance.

Really, any adjustment up to 3-400m from a TRP is should - IMHO - be swift, and show a fairly steady decline in accuracy out to that range.

In the attack (and defence, for that matter) FOs are trained to lay out TRPs at regular intervals on 'likely' enemy locations and approaches. The beauty of a flexible artillery system such as the Brits and US had is that any target near one of these TRPs could be engaged quickly and accurately by initiating a fire mission at an adjustment from a previously recorded TRP.

Of course, to balance all this, there is the overall swiftness of the artillery as presented in CM. 2-3 minutes to get from the initial call for fire to FFE is very quick, even today using similar methods but vastly better communications and computing resources. In Real Life 5-10 minutes is more likely:

Time 0: call for fire

Time 90 (seconds): first round of adjustment

T 120: Round impacts

T 125: observer calls first adjustment

T 160: second round of adjustment

T 190: second round impacts

T 195: call of 2nd adj

T 230: 3rd rnd of adj

T 260: 3rd rnd impacts

T 265: 0bserver calls final adj and goes to FFE

T 300: first rnd of FFE lands.

Now, thats only using 3 rnds in adjustment, which is pretty slick. A mis-read on the opening grid can easily push that out to 8 rnds or so in adjustment, each one taking up about 1 minute in total.

For my money, time spent on improving the artillery model for CMBO, CMBB, or CMWhatever, would be much better spent addressing the limited way TRPs can be used, a better adjustment model, and a better range of impact distributions, rather than futzing around with indirect fire for tanks.

Regards

JonS

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

About the TRP - if I understood right - I agree, the possible adjustment should be bigger. But the artillery system is anyway wrong, so I hope it wil be changed for CMBB. I was in a 120mm mortar platoon in my military service. The biggest errors are

1) if the guns are adjusted on a target once, they can fire on that target again with VERY short delay (if the distance between the TRPs isn't to great)- the target coordinates are written down. So in princip, every excuted fire order produce a new TRP (for this FO only, of course)

2) in CM, we can only order a barrage. Someone on this board has written that a barrage is the only thing that makes sense within the timeframe of a CM match (I think it was Steve, but I'm not sure). But I disagree with that. I guess it can be said that we have a similar need for artillery support like a real troop leader - and sometimes I want a barrage, bud sometimes I only need a few rounds per turn to disturb the opponents deployment.

3) The allies only (that's in princip wrong, too) can purchase a spotter for VT shells OR a spotter for HE shells. But in reality, all kind of shells are available (if supply is working good, of course), but NOT in unlimited numbers. For example, we usually had the same number of HE and VT shells, 2-3 starshells and only a view smoke rounds if nothing else was ordered. But surely not 180 smoke AND 180 HE shells. More sensefull would it be to preset this in the purchase and share out the 180 shells between the different ammo types. BTW, I'm not sure if they where common, but weren't phosphor shells used sometimes, too?

About the delay - IMO, it's realistic. But it mostly depends on the quality of the FO. An experienced FO (should) need only two or three rounds for adjustment.