95mm howitzer & smoke

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Just thought I would extract this tidbit of information Jeff Duquette was good enough to post from within the "King Tiger incorrectly modelled thread".

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I had obtained an original copy of WO185/178 about a year ago from PRO, Kew. There are only about 3 pgs of the unabridged report that actually elaborates on the 95mm and its shaped charge capability. Bear in mind the whole report is about 120 pages long and contains numerous letters, tables and graphs. I have scanned the pages that actually address the 95mm and posted them...

I then wrote:

A fascinating source of information Jeff but I just noticed one thing that seems to have been missed, that scanned report states that the primary role of the 95mm howitzer is "for smoke screening and high explosive". In the games I have played where I have used the 95mm armed Churchill & Cromwell I have yet to see any smoke rounds available for use with this weapon. Is this perhaps an oversight by BTS or have I just been lucky/unlucky? (depends on your point of view of course).

Just to make it clear however, I'm not trying to say this is a huge problem which impeaches the

whole game or anything as the limited amount of ammo able to be carried of 95mm calibre means

that I'm happy to have as many H.E. & "c" rounds as possible! But still a possible error all the same. Does anybody else know whether the primary role of the Close Support tanks for the British changed to High Explosive & "c" charge rounds only by mid 1944 onwards with no need to carry smoke rounds anymore?

Regards

Jim R.

[Panzer_Meyer]

Wow, nice going, here is a cookie.

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

..."for smoke screening and high explosive". In the games I have played where I have used the 95mm armed Churchill & Cromwell I have yet to see any smoke rounds available for use with this weapon. Is this perhaps an oversight by BTS or have I just been lucky/unlucky? <hr></blockquote>

The 95mm AFVs do not have the capability to fire smoke in the game - only HE and HC.

[Ogadai]

Ah, but Jon, the question is, is that correct? Did the 95mm have a smoke round? Was the primary responsibility of the CS How. changed from smoke to HE direct fire, with the adoption of the 95mm to replace the 3in? I must admit I have no idea. Does anybody else on the board?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thought I would bump this to see if anybody else had any ideas as to the missing smoke for the 95mm tank mounted howitzer.

Regards

Jim R.

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff just posted this information:

Service Intstruction Book Churchill VII and VIII of June 1944 lists

Shell, Q.F. High Explosive, 95mm, Tank and S.P. Howitzers Mark IA

Shell, Q.F. H.E./A.T., 95mm Tank Howitzer

Shell, Q.F. Smoke Emission, 95mm Tank Howitzer Mark I

It looks like an error was made and the shell was accidentally left out. I've mentioned it to Charles. If he has anything other than a "DOH! Sorry about that" reply I'll post it here. Otherwise assume it was "our bad"

Steve

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Jeff just posted this information:

Service Intstruction Book Churchill VII and VIII of June 1944 lists

Shell, Q.F. High Explosive, 95mm, Tank and S.P. Howitzers Mark IA

Shell, Q.F. H.E./A.T., 95mm Tank Howitzer

Shell, Q.F. Smoke Emission, 95mm Tank Howitzer Mark I

It looks like an error was made and the shell was accidentally left out. I've mentioned it to Charles. If he has anything other than a "DOH! Sorry about that" reply I'll post it here. Otherwise assume it was "our bad"

Steve<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for the reply BTS, you guys continue to amaze me with your customer feedback. All I can say is that it certainly wouldn't occur with a Hasbro or Microsoft. As for the missing smoke, as I said I don't think it's any big deal especially since I usually want my 95mm armed Churchill's & Cromwell's to have as many HE & "c" rounds as possible and leave the smoke generation to other assets.

Regards

Jim R.

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

It looks like an error was made and the shell was accidentally left out. I've mentioned it to Charles. If he has anything other than a "DOH! Sorry about that" reply I'll post it here. Otherwise assume it was "our bad"<hr></blockquote>

I think the same error may have occured with the 25pr when used on-map. Although, of course, in the case of the 25pr its even less of a problem as that gun shouldn't ever be involved in any direct fire engagements (ie, it shouldn't, historically, be included in any scenarios).

Different story for CM3 though

[John Kettler]

JonS,

I regret to inform you that your statement is incorrect. At least one 25-pdr. battery was so closely pressed during the battle of Villers Bocage that it was "engaging targets over open sights" and was seen doing this by a British tank trooper who was there. I believe his name was Trooper Stewart, and his account is found in OVERLORD, by Max Hastings.

I have posted the detailed version of this before, but am brain fogged and don't recall the thread title. I believe it had something to do with complaints about how certain Commonwealth weapons, such as the 25-pdr., were graphically depicted in CMBO. Would some kind soul please provide the link?

If you can get search to work, you can look under my member number 1056 for threads with titles on the above lines.

Not only should the 25-pdr. be available on the board, if nothing else but to provide potentially

fascinating scenario possibilities based on raids, breakthroughs and such, but so should things like the M-12, and M-40 gun motor carriages which mounted Long Toms and were used in streetfighting

in Aachen, Germany in a direct fire role to such devastating effect that the German commander said something about when they start to use Long Toms as rifles it's time to quit.

I'd love to see the Morris Quad, proper British trucks and trailers, Bailey bridges, pontoons and all kinds of overlooked goodies. I'd like to see German trucks, Horch command cars, armed Kubels, Dodge weapon carriers, MG armed U.S. trucks in several sizes and a 90mm AA gun that looks right. Some of this will come with CMBB; maybe we'll get the rest in CM II. There have been many requests

for the U.S. flak HTs M-16 and M-15.

Personally, I'm all in favor of having as many historically defensible options as possible in my

QBs and scenarios, and I regret that we won't get

motorcycles with sidecars and LMGs for fast light recon work, but if you have a problem with seeing field artillery in direct fire, CMBB is going to make you unhappy and on a grand scale.

Take a look at almost any late war streetfighting footage and you'll find Russian towed 76mm, 122mm, 152mm and even 203mm weapons in a direct fire role while sitting out in the streets. The Russians consider a given weapon in direct fire to be ten times as effective as one firing indirectly, and there's nothing quite like a well aimed large caliber shell to knock the stuffing out of strongpoints and even bring down a building with a single shot. Also, if you read the accounts of the Sturmgeschutz Brigades, it was not uncommon for such units to break through into the Russian rear and savage the Russian artillery in its firing sites. The Russian accounts even describe using whole regiments of Katyusha multiple rocket launchers to fire directly into an oncoming German armored attack.

Summing up, there's the designed role for a weapon, and then there's the real world. Did the Royal Artillery want its precious guns used as AT weapons? Of course not, but the possibility had been anticipated, so AP was available when the need arose in France 1940, in North Africa before the 2-pdr. was replaced, and that or some other ammo helped see off the German attack at Villers Bocage in 1944. The same case could be made concerning the

German 88. The British 3.7" AA could've been similarly employed had someone thought to provide

direct fire sights and the right ammo.

I hope this has been helpful to you.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Simon Fox]

John,

I don't see anything in your post that contradicts what Jon had to say.

The idea that artillery is more efficiently employed firing directly smacks of French pre-WW1 doctrine, since thoroughly discredited by that conflict.

The same applies to the misuse of vulnerable AA guns.

IMO neither the 25pdr or the Sexton have any place on the CMBO battlefield. Irrespective of whatever isolated instances can be dredged up.

[John Kettler]

Simon Fox,

Jon S's argument is that it never happened historically, therefore has no place on the CMBO

battlefield. I have disproved his basic premise. He

therefore has two rational choices: 1) accept the new fact and withdraw his statement OR 2) withdraw

his historical argument but continue the discussion on the basis of strongly held personal preference.

You and he are certainly entitled to your opinions,

but to adapt a quote from then Secretary of the Navy Graham Claytor, neither of you is entitled to his own facts. I produced multiple evidences that your "shoulds" regarding artillery employment in direct fire are flatly refuted by what actually occurred.

To these should be added the multiple facts surfaced during discussions here on how the Germans used light flak, British release of AA units for ground combat, American use of flak assets (90mm AA battalion) for field artillery in the defense of Bastogne and strong favor shown the M-16 Gun Motor Carriage (Quad .50) for ground combat. Other examples include Rommel's commandeering of 88s at Arras, France in 1940 and von Lucke's pistol point appropriation of a Luftwaffe flak battery during operation GOODWOOD.

As far as the Russians go, you might want to consider how relatively primitive their communications were, causing them to have to mass guns trail spade to trail spade in order to mass fires. For decentralized operations such as urban combat, assigning one or more guns to each street makes eminently good sense, and the Russians had thousands of guns available. Even a rudimentary viewing of late war combat footage will serve to illustrate how common the practice was. If you don't believe the footage, then read the accounts. In Cornelius Ryan's THE LAST BATTLE, a Russian artilleryman is told before the massive barrage preceding the assault on Berlin that the muzzle blast of all the guns in an enormously dense concentration firing at once will be so intense that unless he screams continuously his eardrums will rupture from the pressure.

The examples I've presented are not intended to be either comprehensive or exhaustive in nature. They are given to not only to demolish the arguments advanced by Jon S and you, but to provide others here an overview of how weapons are really used in war.

The F-14 Tomcat was designed to provide fleet air defense, and to that end was fitted with a set of sensors and weapons allowing it to fight that engagement from over a hundred miles away all the way down to cannon range. What's it doing in Afghanistan? Dropping bombs! This was never intended by the designers.

Similarly, the mighty P-51 fighter started life as an underpowered, unwanted by the U.S. dive bomber called the A-36. The British were desperate for aircraft, gladly took them, didn't like the gutless low altitude only Allison engine, and trialed the plane with a Rolls-Royce Merlin. All of a sudden the lead sled became an aerial racehorse which, after dumping the dive brakes and such from the design, went on to command the skies.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andreas]

John,

one incident of 25-pdrs firing over open sights in a campaign lasting 11 months, does not thoroughly disprove what Jon said. I actually tried to find that incident mentioned in two histories of 7th AD that I own, and was unable to. Let's assume it happened anyway - does that negate Jon's statement that the 25-pdr in CMBO has no place on the battlefield (for historical scenarios)? I don't think so.

North Africa, and the GPW, as well as AA guns, are a very different story.

[JonS]

John,

er, yeah, what Andreas and Simon said. My post was specifically about the 25pr in NWE. Not the Tomcat(?!?), not US GMCs, not any Russian piece that happened to be towed into Berlin. And not even the 25pr pre-1944.

And even more specifically, it was about the lack of smoke for the 25pr when it is emplaced on-map in a CMBO map.

I had a look through Hastings' Overlord and couldn't find any mention of the incident you referred to.

Regards

JonS

[gredeker]

Jon,

Totally off-topic, but did you send me a turn in our game? I'll be heading home (where my CM-laden computer is) for lunch shortly.

Greg

[ 11-14-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]</p>

[JonS]

I did just now.

[gredeker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JonS:

I did just now.<hr></blockquote>

Cool. It'll be coming back at ya within the next hour.

[Ex Bellator]

As a rather shallow grog-light my only gripe with the 25pdr is the way it has been depicted graphically. Aaaw, BTS why snub my favourite WW2 piece of artillery?

It doesn't really matter as I agree that they probably don't belong on the battlefield in this period anyway, so I almost never use them.

Hmm, I already seem to have beaten myself in this argument, I'll get my coat....

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Simon Fox,

Jon S's argument is that it never happened historically, therefore has no place on the CMBO

battlefield. I have disproved his basic premise. He

therefore has two rational choices: 1) accept the new fact and withdraw his statement OR 2) withdraw

his historical argument but continue the discussion on the basis of strongly held personal preference.<hr></blockquote>Jon said nothing of the sort. He said shouldn't not didn't and I can't see any use of the phrase "never happened". So whatever you've disproved it isn't his premise. A couple of isolated instances does not a typical historical usage make.

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator:

As a rather shallow grog-light my only gripe with the 25pdr is the way it has been depicted graphically. Aaaw, BTS why snub my favourite WW2 piece of artillery?

....<hr></blockquote>

How would you model the ammunition trailer? I suspect that would be the real trap - model the 25 pounder with accuracy, you will be asked "what about the trailer" and "what about the circular firing platform."

Then comes "where is the QUAD gun tractor"...

I don't think any other field piece had the circular gun platform of the 25 pounder - though the 88 AA did have a wild set of limbers and a ground mount that let you rotate 360 degrees.

Tough to model those too, methinks.

[Ogadai]

Let me throw my three-pennieth worth into the ring. John, as others have suggested, an isolated incident does not disprove Jon's comment. As Simon has pointed out, you appear to be reading words that were not in Jon's original comment, erecting what is it called? A "strawman" argument, I think.

At the same time, in an ideal world, yes, the 25 Pdr, indeed, all field artillery would not appear in a CM style engagement. However, in a CM style operation, there is the possibility of the gun lines being over-run, if an attack is pushed fast enough and hard enough. The British field regiments were well aware of that, as were I must presume the American artillery as well, why else the issue of AP rounds and instruction in how to use them?

Many years ago, when I wargamed with miniatures, the club I was a member of did a Normandy campaign. Interestingly, one of the key battles of campiagn was when one of the German Panzer divisions did manage to get momentuum up in the first day and pushed right to the American beach, along the way, outflanking and then over-running several American field artillery units which were caught by surprise. So, it is a possibility that perhaps should be included in CMBO.

However, that does not explain the discrepancy of a lack of smoke rounds for the 25 Pdr on map, as against it off map. Perhaps Steve would care to issue another mea culpa?

Indeed, the last was refreshing indeed to see, if I might say so and Steve is to be commended for it, in my opinion.

[John Kettler]

Gentlemen,

To clarify, I am in no way engaged in erecting strawmen here. I have neither the time nor the energy, Ogadai.

Jon S, your exact phrasing was "...that gun shouldn't ever be involved in any direct fire engagements (ie, it shouldn't,historically, be included in any scenarios)." Since you cited history as your premise, I replied with an example

showing that you had erroneous information and that contrary to what you believed, the 25 pdr. did see action in a direct fire role in the area and time frame of CMBO. My memory was faulty, though, in that it was Trooper Denis Huett of 5 RTR, not Trooper Stewart, who saw, quoting OVERLORD pg. 208 "a nearby battery of 25-pounders was firing over open sights."

You twit me over Tomcats and the like, but I clearly stated going in that they were illustrative

examples intended to back my central argument.

For the record, I have always supported

the inclusion of the full range of weapons, ammo, and fielded combat capabilities in CMBO and beyond.

If you've read my posts, you've seen me ask for vastly improved "Flying Dustbin" spigot bomb performance modeling, pop-up rounds for the German 81mm mortar, ricochet fire for both sides, better penetration and intimidation modeling for the .50 cal. MG, the historically valid inclusion of water cooled .30 cal. MGs in the U.S. weapon lists, and the proper modeling of the sustained fire capabilities of that and the Vickers MMG, to name but a few.

I've also pushed strongly for WP ammo for the Allies in CMBO. As far as I'm concerned, if the 25-pdr. had smoke, and it did, base ejection, I believe, then it should be available in all 25-pdr. batteries, regardless of whether on the board or off it.

Concerning whether I have disproved Jon S's main premise with the examples I've presented, there is an old rule in mathematics and logic which says that a single exception disproves the rule. I have presented many exceptions to what seems to be an amalgam of historical error combined with strongly held personal beliefs by several people here.

Rex Bellator, I sympathize, having built the old Airfix kit as a youngster. From its shape, I at first thought the Quad was armored. Michael Dorosh, you raise some good points, but I remain hopeful we might get the whole thing in CM II.

Some of you clearly disagree with my views. Fine. In all your QBs and scenarios to come be sure to specify no on board field artillery. Realize, though, that the historical facts are against you and that you're denying yourselves not only historical reality but also the rich gaming possibilities inherent in QBs and scenarios arising from having the guns on the board.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Simon Fox]

This is getting pretty funny now. Glad to see John that you have worked out the exact phrasing of Jon's original post. How about taking the next step and considering the difference between his "shouldn't" and your interpretation of it as "never".

Before you start rabbiting on about "erroneous information" and "historical error" you might want to crank down your presumption setting a few notches.

[John Kettler]

Simon Fox,

It is indeed funny that, having challenged me on the basis of misrepresenting what Jon S said, when I go back to the original text you are still on me about it.

I repeat. His own exact words constitute an explicit claim that on historical grounds, the 25-pdr. shouldn't be on the board in CMBO. This is not in the same league as asserting he doesn't want to see it there, a simple matter of personal preference. His is a logical argument framed on the basis of the historical record. I presented historical evidence that contrary to his information and his clearly expressed beliefs, the 25-pdr. was indeed employed in direct fire.

Split semantic hairs and lampoon me if you will, but my fundamental issue here was handed to me by Jon S, in his very words. Thus, the "shouldn't" vs.

"never" argument becomes a nonissue at best, a red herring at worst. The historical basis of his statement dominates, and I refuted it with historical evidnce and cited my source.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Simon Fox]

Based on your method of historical argument then Bren tripods have about a several thousand fold greater claim to historical legitimacy in the period in question than the 25pdr in direct fire mode. Soon no doubt we'll be seeing you lobbying for the inclusion of all sorts of historical oddities in CMBO on the basis that it happened once.

[Ogadai]

John, "shouldn't" doesn't equate to "never". You do realise that, don't you? It rather denotes that Jon believes they literally shouldn't, unless absolutely pressed, be employed in a direct fire role. Doctrinally, the RA determined that artillery was better employed indirectly. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, rather that they preferred and worked as much as possible to make sure it didn't happen.

Indeed, as a counter to your case from Hastings, Blackburn has a situation where his troop of 25 Pdrs was set up on one side of the Orne and some Germans were observed retreating on a ridge on the otherside. They were so untrained in direct fire that despite the pleading of a SNCO to him to give the order to open fire over open sights, they missed the opportunity and the Germans escaped. In the Desert, 25 Pdrs were routinely employed as AT guns and over open sights. By 1944, they rarely were. Their employment had simply changed. Now, the question is, should something which rarely occurred be modelled, and perhaps as we've seen, modelled incorrectly (no smoke) in place of something which was more common, John?

[ 11-15-2001: Message edited by: Ogadai ]</p>