The 25 lber Artillery

[Fluf]

Hi,

I read with interest a thread concerning the veracity of the representation of the 25 pounder field gun as represented in CM. Now I studied cello at university under Donald Whitton - then the principal cellist with the NAC - and we often discussed his experiences as a signaler with the 4th Royal Canadian Field Artillery. He highly recommended the book 'The Guns of Normandy' by George Blackburn, M.C. as "telling it the way it was". Mr.Whitton (known as "The Big D") to his students, was the signaller with FOO "Stevie" Stevenson at Woensdrecht, calling for the Victor target on top of their own position. He survived that living nightmare, amongst many others.

According to both these gents, the normal rate of fire for these guns was 3 rounds per minute per gun, or 5 rounds per minute per gun when "intense" fire was called. They were actually capable of 12 to 15 rounds per minute if they pushed it. The regiment of 24 guns was subdivided into 3 batterys of 8, and each battery into 2 troops of 4. Each troop of four guns had an FOO team, as did each battery, for a total of 9 FOO teams forward with the 3 battalions of an infantry brigade.

The CM representation of the smallest divisible unit of guns delivering fire at the normal rate seems entirely correct to me. This gives the player the flexibility to represent the use of these guns at any level desired from troop to division by the use of game FOOs in increments.

The previous thread examined the question of the quality of the 25 pound field gun, as held to be "one of the finest" in service. I believe that the thread failed to fully discuss why that was so. The regiments of field artillery in Commonwealth armies integrated the 25 pounder into an extremely efficient and flexible system. Units like the 4th Field RCA trained for 4.5 years before going into battle in Normandy. The gun itself was very well designed with innovative features like the attached ground plate (providing a flat stable base to rotate the gun quickly on), excellent range options based on variable shot charges. The gun was coupled with an excellent 4x4 tractor and caisson. All of these attributes which made the gun so successful, however, are really operational qualities which do not translate into CM in any real way. The closest that you can come to reflecting them is to make the 25 pounder support highly available in campaigns to reflect the ease of movement and speed of setup and netting that the field regiments were capable of. Mr.Blackburn cites a setup time of 3 to 5 minutes from road to first round for a troop of these guns.

SO, I say 'bravo' to the designers of CM. I think you've done a fine job here. The graphic representation of the gun is quite wrong - it looks like a US 105mm in the game, which is nothing like the real thing - but it is so rarely onboard that this is a moot point anyway.

Now one fellow in the previous thread suggested that Mr.Blackburns' book wasn't trustworthy, and written to have mass appeal for sales. I suggest that the arrogant windbag actually read the book before daring to question the integrity of the author and insulting the memories of these veterans, for whom this war was not a just a fun computer game. The great quality of CM is that it has heightened the awe and respect I have for the men who actually fought in that war.

[JonS]

Fluf,

my reading of Blackburns' excellent books leads me to think that while there was indeed an FO party for each troop, on operations only one of them was forward at any one time*, and this party would fire the battery as a whole rather than just a troop. This is confirmed from other Commonwealth oriented books I've read on the subject ("Gunfire Target", "NZ Official History WW2: 2 NZEF Artillery", etc.)

By the stage of the war which CMBO represents the Commonwealth were fully in the thrall of massed fire, after their earlier - often disasterous (for the gunners involved) - flirtation with ever smaller fire units.

The problem the most of the posters here have with the way CM represents artillery in general (in addition to specific issues with the 25pdr) is the lack of flexibility. One cannot change the rate of fire, one cannot specify a certain number of rounds on a given target, one cannot adjust the type of fuse fired, one cannot adjust the distribution of the fall of shot, and one cannot adjust the number of guns a FO has under his control.

Certainly there are work-arounds for some of these. Four guns per FO is a reasonable approximation, but that is all it is. For the US forces, and Germany (who both had, mostly, four gun batterys), this approximation is more suitable. For the Commonwealth it is markedly less suitable (IMHO).

Massing multiple CM FOs at a given point to represent a single real-life FO with multi-battery access is one work-around, but it's ... um, it doesn't feel right. It would be like driving four T-34s around together in a tight little group to represent a T-35 or T-28 (the multi-turreted job).

And besides, I feel most players wouldn't want to put all their FO eggs in one basket like that for fear of losing them all in one bad hit, and would anyway rather use them to put distributed fire across the map. So in this case you end up with MORE flexibility than the FOs really had.

Oh yeah ... [envy] lucky you![/envy] I hope you were taking notes while you were chatting with Mr Whitton.

Regards

Jon

*hmm. Let me think about this. Maybe it was 2 FO parties available from each troop, only one of whom would be forward at a time. That would give 2 parties from each bty, working with the 4 companies of the supported battalion. That sounds more like it (IIRC Blackburn makes a comment about the 2 FO partyies having to move around constantly between companies). Plus of course the battery commander (BC) who spent all his time with the CO of the supported Bn and could of course call in firemissions. Anyway - my main point is the massing of fire, not the number of FO parties on the field.

[Michael Dorosh]

If someone wants to compile all these discussions and data on Commonwealth 25 pounders and their represenation in CM, I would love to add a page to my Canadian and British sites. This seems to get discussed a lot, and I don't have the expertise to do it myself. Anyone who wants to help, email me, please!

My dad was a gunner on 25 pounders after the war and he thought they were a good gun, too. I know the infantry vets I talked to were pretty thankful for them.

[Simon Fox]

Fluf,

Good post. You seem to have misunderstood Blackburn on the rates of fire. IIRC he says the 'official' rates of fire were normal at 3 rounds per min (ie harrassing fire) or 5 per min for intense. My impression is that he then goes on to say that most of their crews would fire at well over that (10+ I think) in fact he cites one crew timed during a barrage as firing 17 in one minute (of course that is extraordinary).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The CM representation of the smallest divisible unit of guns delivering fire at the normal rate seems entirely correct to me. This gives the player the flexibility to represent the use of these guns at any level desired from troop to division by the use of game FOOs in increments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The implication of reading Blackburn's account is that calls for fire from FOOs for tactical support of the infantry would not be met using a sporadic fire rate (ie normal). I would suggest that the infantry might get a bit upset in real life if a lazy CM style barrage started landing on the objective Perhaps someone could quote the passage from Blackburn in context so that those who don't have it in hand can see. My impression was that he thought the "official" rates were amusingly low compared to reality. He makes similar comments about "official" ammunition consumption IIRC.

As for FOOs and units of fire from my reading of Blackburn a fire mission for a single troop would be rare. In fact Mike targets seem amazingly common (wouldn't that be nice!). Early war you would see troops and batteries firing single missions but by 1944 I am not so sure, Shelford Bidwell probably has plenty to say on that. I thought it was 6 FOO teams and then the battery commander was with the Inf Bn HQ. Though I guess he could call fire I wouldn't have thought that normally he was roaming around with the forward companies. The FOOs would be with the two leading inf companies.

Just to clarify, that's 6FOOs per regiment operating in support of a brigade. As Jon says 2 FOOs per battery. My understanding is that by 1944 the troop was more of an administrative unit rather that a tactical unit.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Simon Fox ]

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

... The implication of reading Blackburn's account is that calls for fire from FOOs for tactical support of the infantry would not be met using a sporadic fire rate (ie normal). I would suggest that the infantry might get a bit upset in real life if a lazy CM style barrage started landing on the objective ... My impression was that he thought the "official" rates were amusingly low compared to reality. He makes similar comments about "official" ammunition consumption IIRC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder about this. I suspect that for timed barrages and planned harrassing fires the 'official' rates were used - 3 rpm, 5rpm, whatever. Following the rates set out in the Gun Programmes for these planned barrages is important for ammo consumption planning purposes. Note that CM supposedly doesn't really model this part of the battle though. "Outside the scope", etc.

However, for engaging targes of opportunity and dealing with counterattacks Blackburn seems to indicate that a number of rounds was called for - with no rate - and this was pelted out as fast as possible. Blackburn gives examples of 50 and 60 rounds FFE, and then repeats of the same. Note that this is exactly the part of the battle that CM does model.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... 6 FOO teams and then the battery commander was with the Inf Bn HQ. Though I guess he could call fire I wouldn't have thought that normally he was roaming around with the forward companies...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct, he would normally be with the infantry CO, but he could fire if he wanted to or was required to. Also, he has a higher level off immediate clearance: in theory a regular FO can demand his own battery without asking anyone, while a BC can demand the regiment without asking anyone higher up.

Note that the CO of artillery regiments can and did fire the guns too - unusual, but certainly within SOP/doctrine.

As far as CM goes, these distinctions are moot: when firing an FO is an FO is an FO. Though, if you (well, they. BTS that is) wanted to you could have a variety of FOs with differing ranks, number of guns, and ammo allocations. The higher ranking FOs would cost more to buy, and be worth more if lost in battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...My understanding is that by 1944 the troop was more of an administrative unit rather that a tactical unit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again largely correct according to my understanding also, although: each troop had its own command post where bearings and elevations were calculated for that troops four guns. I.e., as far as I can tell, the battery command post didn't do these kinds of calculations, but left it to individual troop CPs to work out, even though both troops were firing on the same target.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, for engaging targes of opportunity and dealing with counterattacks Blackburn seems to indicate that a number of rounds was called for - with no rate - and this was pelted out as fast as possible. Blackburn gives examples of 50 and 60 rounds FFE, and then repeats of the same. Note that this is exactly the part of the battle that CM does model.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly.

Try this:

Take 4 25pdr FOOs and give them 10 rounds each. Then target some German platoon and let them have it. That is the equivalent of Blackburns troop putting out 12 rounds per gun per minute. Now double that to 8 FOOs, that is 1 battery.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Perhaps someone could quote the passage from Blackburn in context so that those who don't have it in hand can see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blackburn, 'The guns of Normandy', p.27f in Robinson Paperback Edition:

"For the gun crews, putting guns in action and firing has become second nature. And while the official "normal" rate of fire for a 25-pdr is three rounds per minute, and "intense" is five rounds, 4th Field gunners can easily achieve twelve to fifteen rounds per minute."

We aim to please

[Andreas]

Forgot to add: Great post Fluf.

[Fluf]

Thanks for all your input everyone. Blackburn's description of gun assignments point to very flexible options - one-gun targets, section (two-gun) targets, troop, battery, regiment, division, and even larger

groups of guns. Furthermore, any of the six troop FOOs (two assigned per infantry battalion, usually one per forward company HQ), 3 battery FOOs (one assigned per infantry battalion HQ), or regimental commander (normally located with brigade HQ), could request fire missions from these different sizes of fire groups, with some restrictions depending on circumstance. Blackburn himself, acting as a troop FOO, called down a regimental or divisional SOS target his first time out. These FOOS were also able to call for fire missions on a shells-per-gun basis, or a fire-until-I-say-stop basis. They could give a simple "repeat" command as well.

The problem with this flexibility was that the FOOs could wind up contending for the same resources during major attacks, and Blackburn mentions a number of occasions where FOO so-and-so tries to call in a target only to be told that "the Colonel has the guns" and he can't receive his fire mission.

Although it would be nice to have this realism in CM, it would also be necessary to emulate the artillery practices for all 6 nations and other artillery types represented in the game in order to be fair - a huge task that would represent an enormous development effort. Perhaps this will be done in the future, but the current system seems like a reasonable compromise to me, taken in proportion to the other compromises needed to make such a complex game/simulator work so well.

I WOULD like to see on-board indirect fire enabled, so that a battalion mortar battery, for example, was able to recieve fire mission requests as a group from a radio equipped FOO somewhere else on the board. I recall that this was an oft requested enhancement for 'Squad Leader' that never made it into the game. Never-the-less, CM is the most engrossing battle sim I have ever experienced and I'm grateful to the authors for their ingenuity and integrity.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The graphic representation of the gun is quite wrong - it looks like a US 105mm in the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the same 3d model. BTS just wanted to spend the time for more important stuff.

Great post. Seems to be creating some discussion too and that's always a good thing.

[Steve N Jackson]

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

It's the same 3d model. BTS just wanted to spend the time for more important stuff.

Great post. Seems to be creating some discussion too and that's always a good thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find it interesting that the "more important stuff" included graphic representations for German Field Artillery and American Field Artillery but NOT British Field Artillery.

[Michael Dorosh]

e

[ 09-21-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Triumvir]

You're treading a _very_ fine line, Mr Jackson. Yes, Slapdragon may be annoying as hell, but this is one of the few things that BTS takes a pretty nasty look at.

Yes, it may be inconsistent -- but it's historically so and I'd suggest you not buck the trend.

Piss him off some other way.

[Desdichado]

Forgive my cherry ass, but slapdragon hasn't posted on this topic. And how is the way Big Time rendered British artillery 'historically so'? I don't understand.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve N Jackson:

I find it interesting that the "more important stuff" included graphic representations for German Field Artillery and American Field Artillery but NOT British Field Artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please note,

It appears the poster "Kim Beazley MP Ma" has assumed my name as a cover sig for his commentary on other threads. Please ignore his comments until someone in authority handles the situation.

Slapdragon

(Steve N. Jackson)

[JonS]

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

... Please ignore his comments ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand you may be about irked by his behaviour, however I would prefer you not advise me whom I can or cannot listen to.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Slapdragon]

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

I understand you may be about irked by his behaviour, however I would prefer you not advise me whom I can or cannot listen to.

[ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problems, I will continue to advise you, and you can continue to prefer what you wish. It all works out perfectly.

[tss]

Just popping out to post links to the Finnish 1936 artillery regulation snippets that I posted last winter:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014344

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=013872

Not that it matters much about discussion on ROF of British 25 lbrs. (Though, IIRC, Finland had few batteries of them in use).

- Tommi

[Hanns]

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

discussion on ROF of British 25 lbrs. (Though, IIRC, Finland had few batteries of them in use)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, bloody Hell! I can just see a new thread now.

What is the maximum rate of fire for the 25pdr?

To which somewill will reply

British or Finnish??

[Roborat]

Off topic question, but is Blackburn's book still in print, and if so, who carries it (in Canada) I just found out from my father that my Grandfather was a Captain in the 18th Medium Battery in Thunder Bay (Lakehead), Ontario during WWII, training the crews to go overseas. I have a renewed interest in the subject of Canadian Arty in WWII now. Or if anyone has any info on the 18th medium, I would be VERY interested in hearing about it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Try chapters.ca

It is still in some retail stores, and I am sure you can get it online.

There are three books in the trilogy.

[Roborat]

Thanks mikey, much obliged, (even if you are a Calgarian ). I'll check on the way home from work tonight. By the way, have you guys been issued the pixilated paint by numbers combats yet??

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Thanks mikey, much obliged, (even if you are a Calgarian ). I'll check on the way home from work tonight. By the way, have you guys been issued the pixilated paint by numbers combats yet??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

CADPAT is supposed to be on the way for October, but we shall see. FEH...you still can't wear the kilt with it. I'm going to miss my Mk III tuck-in shirt, too. Made a man stand out...

[tss]

Hanns wrote:

To which somewill will reply British or Finnish??

Sorry, my mistake. Those guns in Finnish service were actually 18 pounders, not 25. Thirty of them were bought in 1940 and used up to the end of the war.

In general, it is quite safe to assume that if a gun model was used in WWII, it was also used by Finns. Finnish field artillery forces had roughly 100 different gun models in use (or at least in stores, some of the older stuff wasn't sent to front), and that figure doesn't include different coastal gun models (~50).

- Tommi