CMBB (or beyond) Artillery idea

[JonS]

Its well out of context now. I posted it to the email in your profile (combatmission@goathead.org) on the 5th of this month.

[JonS]

As I understand it:

Ordering: The FO calls for the number of guns, the number of rounds, rate of fire. And that is what he gets. The various command posts do the calculations required to get the rounds onto the target, but make no judgement calls about the appropiateness of it on a target they cannot see.

Requesting: The FO (or whoever with a radio) calls for fire, and describes the target. The FDC make an assessment based on the information they have, and deliver a number and type of rounds that seems appropriate to them.

[Slapdragon]

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

Its well out of context now. I posted it to the email in your profile (combatmission@goathead.org) on the 5th of this month.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, if it was important enough to bring up in this discussion, it is important to bring up here. If it turns out to be out of context we can start a general forum thread. We are all friends here, no need to worry about it being in context this very second. If you post the exact text of your question inh fact I can search the spam folder and find it. I already searched for your e-mail address and did not find that (you may have been using a work e-mail address.)

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[JonS]

Apologies for the multiple posts folks.

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

... The US system devoted nearly twice the number of people to communications than the commonwealth system, one of the reasons why the US had a larger tail than other countries <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Numbers? The RA radio nets were noted for their speed and reliability.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(the other was supply)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which would explain why 4 regiments of 25pdrs were handed over to the US during the winter of 44-45...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the CW system, no FO meant no arty generally (I know of exceptions though)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true to an extent - FOs were for calling in fire, infantry were for getting closing with the enemy. Infantry pers were trained to call in fire, but it wasn't their primary role, and they weren't encouraged to do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... while each platoon leader in the US system could call down a barrage with excellent accuracy, kind of useful when the battery FO is 5 km away and has never even seen or heard of your platoon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is just silly.

As Scott has pointed out, both nations developed very, very fine artillery systems, neither of which is well modeled in CM. Your unjustified nationalistic bias, Slap, does you no credit.

Regards

Jon

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

Totally not unjustified, and not nationalistic (I leave that to the uberCommonwealth to handle). Look at CM to see the only places these differences come into the game -- speed for shell arrival and number of rounds available. No one is saying that the CW sucked, just that it was not as good of a system -- as reflected in CM.

I am now very curious, what exactly was your e-mail to me? Can you just append it to one of these posts so as not to add any side issues, and I will open a General Thread.

[JonS]

Slap, it wasn't a question, it was a reply to several of yours in the thread about long range accuracy. Title of the email was "Sight adjustments". The date may differ for you due to timezones.

[hellfish]

The way I recall doing it in the modern US Army is this:

FO: You, this is me, fire mission. Over.

FDC: Send it. Over.

FO: Troops, company strength in a forest. Grid XX xxxx-xxxx. Over.

FDC: Roger. Break.

(pause)

FDC: Mike Echo Five Three and Five Five (battery call-signs, FDC determines what to fire) are in support. HE and ICM. Shot over.

FO: Shot, out.

FDC: Splash, over.

(spotting shell lands)

FO: Splash, out.

(FO makes any adjustments)

FO: Fire for effect. Out.

--

And then the steel rains down.

Was it like this in WWII?

[JonS]

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

...No one is saying that the CW sucked, just that it was not as good of a system -- as reflected in CM...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you now using CM as a source? As in, "if its in CM it must be real"?

[Slapdragon]

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

Slap, it wasn't a question, it was a reply to several of yours in the thread about long range accuracy. Title of the email was "Sight adjustments". The date may differ for you due to timezones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, if I can find it I will reply. The server keeps spam for 30 days so it should still be there.

[JonS]

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

US fire mission procedure

Was it like this in WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nearly but not quite for the CW. See my post about ordering and requesting above.

[Slapdragon]

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

The way I recall doing it in the modern US Army is this:

FO: You, this is me, fire mission. Over.

FDC: Send it. Over.

FO: Troops, company strength in a forest. Grid XX xxxx-xxxx. Over.

FDC: Roger. Break.

(pause)

FDC: Mike Echo Five Three and Five Five (battery call-signs, FDC determines what to fire) are in support. HE and ICM. Shot over.

FO: Shot, out.

FDC: Splash, over.

(spotting shell lands)

FO: Splash, out.

(FO makes any adjustments)

FO: Fire for effect. Out.

--

And then the steel rains down.

Was it like this in WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the system, called the US system, where individual infantry officers control artillery, and works just like this for the individual platoon leader (or anyone with a radio in fact trained to use a map).

JonS, I was merely pointing out that CM has simulated the communication system in the game, and that dozens of discussions have mulled over this very topic on this board without the nationalism clouding everything. Do a search for these discussion to find out the reasons why BTS choose to simulate things the way they did.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Bastables]

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

This is the system, called the US system, where individual infantry officers control artillery, and works just like this for the individual platoon leader (or anyone with a radio in fact trained to use a map).

JonS, I was merely pointing out that CM has simulated the communication system in the game, and that dozens of discussions have mulled over this very topic on this board without the nationalism clouding everything. Do a search for these discussion to find out the reasons why BTS choose to simulate things the way they did.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JonS was a part of many of those early disscussions Slap, he's been around battlefront for quite a while. I my self would like to hear your reasons why in WWII arty you consider "USA number one."

[argie]

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

This is the system, called the US system, where individual infantry officers control artillery, and works just like this for the individual platoon leader (or anyone with a radio in fact trained to use a map).

JonS, I was merely pointing out that CM has simulated the communication system in the game, and that dozens of discussions have mulled over this very topic on this board without the nationalism clouding everything. Do a search for these discussion to find out the reasons why BTS choose to simulate things the way they did.

[ 10-16-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All I've read, which is not a lot and wasn't read in a scholar way, indicated that CW Arty, mostly the British, had one of the better Communications systems in WWII. It was so effective that was used instead of the regular communication system when was available. As FOOs or the Rgt OiC was in direct contact with the unit he was supporting, the communications set of the Arty was co-located with the HQs of the ground forces, allowing them to use it if the other fails. CW arty communications had the reputation of never fail... But I read almost the same about USA comms.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: argie ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bastables:

I my self would like to hear your reasons why in WWII arty you consider "USA number one."

He is not expressing any überAmerican bias. He is merely stating cold facts substantiated by a host of sources (most of which are by incredible coincidence totally impartial sources originating from the US).

These sources have compiled an extensive knowledgebase from all around the world and they have drawn these inevitable conclusions based on totally scientific criteria. And the inevitable conclusion is the US artillery was the bestest, baddest, meanest, accuratest and all in all the only representative of the service in all armies deserving the title "The Best Artillery in the Whole Wide World".

When other people use sources originating from their respective countries and make similar statements they are quilty of being übersomething or another because they do not accept and/or belittle the US superiority. And they are America bashers to boot.

BTW: I too would like to hear his reasons for making such a blatant non-überAmerican stament.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

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

Originally posted by Bastables:

[qb]

yadda yadda yadda

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense guys, but the ubervultures are already circling for a flame war, and as Germanboy pointed out, flame baiting has already started in this thread, so a collected and calm discussion of this subject will soon be impossible. Witness the above comments for proof that the ubercrowd is going to fulminate and meltdown as soon as anyone comments that the Finns / Lithuanians / Gypsies / Alsatians were not able to hip shoot a 155mm cannon.

However, JonS and group whose comments are calm and collected, if you would like to know the citations and reasons for what I am saying, please e-mail me on the side.

[Brian]

Slappy, you appear to be making heavy weather of it to make your assertion, as you have that merely because of numbers that makes the US system "the best". I believe in fact the case could be made that in reality this means the US system was merely bloated, not more efficient.

The British system might not have been "the best" but it definitly was efficient and timely in its provision of firepower on target.

Its communication system was streamlined and efficient as well, in ensuring that the FOO's could call back to their FDC's and be provided with that firepower.

In addition, the British took the development of the provision of timely firepower to greater heights than the US Army did by creation of the ability of a single FOO to direct an entire Army Group's artillery onto a single target.

Claiming that simply because you had more people sitting in the CP means you're more efficient or that your "artillery was the best" is pretty stupid, Slappy.

Now, to turn this discussion more towards game matters, I find it interesting that there is no provision for the style and type of barrages which could be fired such as linear concentrations - where the rounds were fired to fall in a linear formation, along a feature, rather than merely bracketting it. I have no idea if the Americans or the Germans could do it but I do know the Empire forces could.

[Slapdragon]

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

Slappy, you appear to be making heavy weather of it to make your assertion, as you have that merely because of numbers that makes the US system "the best". I believe in fact the case could be made that in reality this means the US system was merely bloated, not more efficient.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would be nationalistic bias -- as I said the people were used to stream line a number of communication jobs, all of which need not be gone into here. I should not e that in the Battle of Britian, it was the British tossing of people at the problem of aircraft direction in the form of regional direction centers hooked by a reliable communication center to dispatch and down to squadrons on the ground that made them so effective, but following your theory this was merely bloat.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The US certianly did artillery well, better than any other country in fact<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this not your original statement ?

Witness the above comments for proof that the ubercrowd is going to fulminate and meltdown as soon as anyone comments that the Finns / Lithuanians / Gypsies / Alsatians were not able to hip shoot a 155mm cannon.

You seem to know an awfull lot about the Finns / Lithuanians / Gypsies / Alsatians and their artillery doctrines and practises. Not to mention the Commonwealth artillery. At least your original statement would indicate this since you use the blanket better than any other country enhanced with the definitive in fact.

You have accused people of being übersomething or another for making the same kind of statements you make yourself. If you follow the "thineself be true" train of thought would it not be logical for you to call yourself an überAmerican ?

I personally do not take offence to your remark as such. But your past performance has shown that you do not actually practice what you preach. As to the supposed remarks that there were nations who could not hip shoot a 155mm: Nobody has not stated that. And that is not the issue. Are you so myopic that you do not see that it is you who is saying in effect that the Americans could hip shoot a 155 ?

Does it really hurt that much to present some proof in the forum in form of sources and comparative facts that would definitively show the apparent superiority of the US artillery doctrine ? You demand it of other people, why don't you practise what you preach ?

Since your knowledge of the Finnish WWII military is so extensive why don't you present comparative facts that clearly show the US artillery was superior in every aspect to the Finnish artillery ? That should not be beyond you.

[Brian]

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

This would be nationalistic bias -- as I said the people were used to stream line a number of communication jobs, all of which need not be gone into here. I should not e that in the Battle of Britian, it was the British tossing of people at the problem of aircraft direction in the form of regional direction centers hooked by a reliable communication center to dispatch and down to squadrons on the ground that made them so effective, but following your theory this was merely bloat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My, how unsurprising that you chose to ignore the other points I made, Slappy. Why am I not surprised.

I gave my reasons as to why I suggested the US Army NOT the RAF might well have merely been bloated by comparing it to the British system which worked and worked as well if not better than the US system, utilising less people.

Indeed, if in reality you knew anything about systems analysis you'd know that merely throwing more people at a problem is not going to solve it. There is a point, usually reached very quickly where the bottlenecks in the existing communication system become even more evident and information flow is confused even more by the gabbling of more people like chickens.

The RA rather than having more people, decided early on it was better to make sure that the flow of the communication was eased. Bidwell goes into considerable detail about how they developed and refined the artillery and air control systems in the Western Desert and then carried them on, into Europe to their advantage. Blackburn provides an excellent view from the user's perspective of how that worked and was used.

Now, you have failed thus far to justify your claim, beyond this assertion that mere numbers made the US Army's artillery fire control and direction system so superior to all other combatants.

Looks to me like you're the one whose made a nationalist boast, no one else in this discussion, Slappy. Even worse, your knowledge on this topic has been shown to be so shallow even an ameoba would be hard pressed to take a bath.

Now, run along while the rest of us get on with a serious discussion.

[tss]

tero wrote:

Since your knowledge of the Finnish WWII military is so extensive why don't you present comparative facts that clearly show the US artillery was superior in every aspect to the Finnish artillery ?

I would like to point out that even after rereading all Slapdragon's posts in this thread I couldn't find any claim that "the US artillery was superior in every aspect to anything". In fact, there's a direct quote to the opposite: "This was called the 'British System' and had advantages and disadvantages over the the 'US system'".

What he has said is that he considers the US system to be the best. To me the argument sounds as: 'when one compares different artillery systems the US one comes out the best even though other artillery systems had some advantages over it on some subjects.'

Now, whether this claim holds or not, I can't say. Most of my knowledge on the subject is about Finnish artillery, and I don't know enough of Western Allied practices to really comment on it on a direction or other.

In general, Finnish artillery was very accurate and flexible, but was it more accurate and flexible than the US one? Beats me.

In the battles of summer '44 it was quite common for a junior Finnish FO to call fire of up to 7 artillery batallions (84 guns) of different caliberes at the same target as a TOT barrage without any spotting rounds. [There was no technical upper limit for the number of firing batallions. However, in practice the fire was usually allocated in 5-7 batallion "fire groups"]. There was one nine-batallion barrage (118 guns) called in by an infantry major.

But there is one important aspect where the US artillery was clearly better than Finnish: radio communications. There was a chronic shortage of radios in Finnish army and far too often FO posts had to rely on field phones or even flare guns or messangers.

- Tommi

[Bastables]

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

The only exception to this was the so called "US System" which placed artillery responsibility not on FOs (although batteries had FOs for larger shoots) but on platoon and company commanders. Read Gantner's "Roll me Over" where he had access at one point to a preplotted 8" battery, 105s, and mortars all by field radio to the main regimental artillery director.

The difficulty with the "US System" was, although it tried to offer the officer in the trench access to every gun in range, there just was not that much artillery available to assure that each platoon leader had several batteries of various sized cannon on call. The US certianly did artillery well, better than any other country in fact (mostly because they placed more people into Regimental and Divisional plotting and communications that other countries, paying for it by having less infantry out front) but in practice the game convention of a single FO for one sort of artillery is not too unrealtistic, and the communication chain advantages enjoyed by throwing people at the problem of com switching and plotting, plus the use of the preprogrammed tables started in 1943 and progressively improved during the war, is well simulated by giving US assets a little faster reaction time for calling arty than other nationalities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US certianly did artillery well, better than any other country in fact

That's the bit that touched the nerve. I mean it's quite definite. But a notorious Uber German player such as myself has obviously read it out of context has decided to ‘strike’ back by asking for actual justifications for this statement.

Regards Bastables the anti USA troll.

I mean really.

[Slapdragon]

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

Looks to me like you're the one whose made a nationalist boast, no one else in this discussion, Slappy. Even worse, your knowledge on this topic has been shown to be so shallow even an ameoba would be hard pressed to take a bath.

Now, run along while the rest of us get on with a serious discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brian, you are demonstrating my point that this subject is not possible for intelligent discussion in the current circumstances because of the flamers and the ubers piling on the rugby scrum. My knowledge of this subject in one way or another is untested and not an issue. Flaming and flame baiting is the issue. Germanboy pointed out that your first comments on this thread were merely flames, and now you continue to show that this subject has too much fulminate to be discussed rationally.

My comment was that the US system was best, but that it had advantages and disadvantages with other systems. I offer anyone (adults only please) who wants to discuss it off forum with me to e-mail my account or join the off forum grogs discussion group, but the topic has already melted down into uselessness by the flame baiting.

Of course, adult comments by adults will be answered, debated, or discussed as recquired.

[Slapdragon]

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

The US certianly did artillery well, better than any other country in fact

That's the bit that touched the nerve. I mean it's quite definite. But a notorious Uber German player such as myself has obviously read it out of context has decided to ‘strike’ back by asking for actual justifications for this statement.

Regards Bastables the anti USA troll.

I mean really.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By all means, please e-mail me in a neutral setting where the flamers are not lurking in the corners and I will be happy to discuss the justification for this in an adult manner.

I should point out that anti-Americanism in wargaming has a long history. US tanks suck, the infantry run away or duck at the first shot, their leaders are incompetent, they kill lots of civilians, have a huge tail and no fighting power, etc. etc. etc. And each comment of this sort may have some truth in it when taken in context. However, just looking at the uberGerman tank threads you can see that any claim that a US tank could kill a German tank at whatever range in whatever situation is often looked at as fantasy.

An example of the idiocy is best illustrated by one of the bad Generals thread. I posted that I felt Monty was not the best choice for the capo of Commonwealth forces, and that I thought Wavell had been a much better General when the cards where down. The first reply back was that I was an anti-British bigot because I liked Wavell better than Monty.

Many of these arguments have the same tenor. No one in this thread has made the claim that commonwealth artillery was anything but excellent, but when the kids think a penis measuring contest is in the wind, only the longest dong will suffice. This is not to say that the people who want backing for my comment are wrong to want it, they are correct and most did so in an adult manner. But as we can see from the above, certian subjects cannot be broached in public for fear of stirring an avalanche.

[ 10-17-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Scott B]

Okay, have to dig back in the discussion a bit to get caught up, but here are some responses to earlier posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally quoted by argie:

I suggest yo to go to the link I posted above. Is a very comprehensive essay on British Arty in WWII, including such things as training, FDCs and FOOS, and SOPs and procedures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did look through it, and it did shape my line of questioning to some extent - I will elaborate further below.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally quoted by Germanboy:

The German system for CBF was well developed, but depended somewhat on static frontlines I believe. My grandfather did that job outside Leningrad. They even had observation balloons earlier in the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To my knowledge this would have consisted of flash and sound ranging batteries and shell-crater analysis - not exactly counterbattery radar (which came into existance during the war), but still effective. In the German system, this would mean counterbattery would be fired by the unit tasked with counterbattery fires, while in the US and Commonwealth armies, it might also be engaged by others as well, if necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also from Germanboy:

The Commonwealth used aerial observers in Austers quite extensively, AFAIK.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is also mentioned on the previously noted link on the Royal Artillery, but it does not answer my question as well as I'd like. By comparison, every American division's field artillery had its own organic spotting aircraft (2 per division, corps, and group headquarters) - it was important enough to them for the heads of the Field Artillery branch to ensure that they had their own aviation, with artillerymen in those planes. I know that the Commonwealth aerial artillery observers existed, but I don't know if they were as widely employed as their US Army counterparts.

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

As I understand it:

Ordering: The FO calls for the number of guns, the number of rounds, rate of fire. And that is what he gets. The various command posts do the calculations required to get the rounds onto the target, but make no judgement calls about the appropiateness of it on a target they cannot see.

Requesting: The FO (or whoever with a radio) calls for fire, and describes the target. The FDC make an assessment based on the information they have, and deliver a number and type of rounds that seems appropriate to them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems to correspond pretty closely with what is recorded on the web page, for what that's worth. And I think that it is an important difference in philosophy, if not so much in effects on target. In either case a trained artillery officer is making a decision of what sort of assets are required. Theoretically, whatever differences that would exist should stem from those nation's artillery procedures, and how many rounds are required to destroy a certain type of target, etc.

The CW system clearly places a lot of trust in its forward observers, relying very heavily upon their judgement as well as their proximity to the action. This has both advantages and disadvantages-- on the one hand, you're utilizing officers with a considerable amount of experience and skill at the cutting edge of maneuver operations, with predictable results - they kicked ass. On the other hand (as mentioned on the web page again), you depend on those two (and sometimes more, but still a limited number) observers to cover a battalion frontage. Since Northwest Europe in general was fairly densely packed, this isn't such a hinderance, but it remains a concern.

The US Army system (I can't really comment on the USMC system in WWII - not that it matters here) placed the artillery under the control of the Fire Direction Center, which responded to missions from both dedicated observers and line units, as well as other FDCs. While theoretically platoon leaders could probably call for fire, in practice my impression is this was more likely performed by the company/battery/troop commander or higher, in the event the fire mission did not originate with a dedicated observer or target acquisition asset. Here, the advantage is near-total decentralization of the ability to call for fire, requiring a fairly high level of trust in the ability of the line unit's ability to call for fires when necessary. The only disadvantage that I would expect would be in errors on the observer's end, although I have not been able to find this listed among the perceived problems in the official US Army Field Artillery branch history.

I can comment on what they did see as a problem, though - here are the main relevant points:

1) The division artillery consisted of 48 howitzers - they considered this the bare minimum, and recommended either adding more battalions, increasing the number of guns in the battalions, or both.

2) The corps level of command had no organic artillery - it was all attached from higher, and as a result could have benefitted from becoming a permanent part of each corps, and developing that important permanent relationship with its parent unit.

3) There was a perceived need for a more solidly centralized system at corps level - this ended up also being addressed with point #2 as well.

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

The way I recall doing it in the modern US Army is this:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Close enough. Of course, against a preplanned target it can merely be, "you, this is me, fire target alpha bravo 1234, over."

At any rate, I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable to conclude whether either system was noticeably superior. I can find sources that claim either, but it certainly seems that US and CW artillery were more often compared to that of their opponents than to each other.

Scott B.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scott B:

To my knowledge this would have consisted of flash and sound ranging batteries and shell-crater analysis - not exactly counterbattery radar (which came into existance during the war), but still effective. In the German system, this would mean counterbattery would be fired by the unit tasked with counterbattery fires, while in the US and Commonwealth armies, it might also be engaged by others as well, if necessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first part is defintely correct, the second most likely.