British Field Artillery Undermodelled?

[Simon Fox]

Leaving aside all the other issues which cripple arty in CM with respect to real life it does seem that the workhorse of the the British Field Artillery regiments in WW2, the 25pdr, get's a bad deal in CM. When playing the Brits I generally try and grab some of the 25pdr observers because that's mainly what they had on tap. If it worked for them, then it should work for me, shouldn't it?

But no, what follows is interminable twiddling of thumbs as you get the laziest barrage ever put out by a FA troop. How in the hell am I ever gonna suppress somefink with that useless desultry barrage. So I investigated, counted the rounds in other words: 12 rounds per minute. Sheesh, that's 3 per tube. Confused, I meandered on my merry way, maybe BTS knew somefink I didn't. Anyway I never bothered to complain, there seemed little point.

Now however I read this little thread (many thanks to Peter for making the effort): http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000789

How much the 25pdr has been shafted is now clear. Let me draw your attention to the following:

RoF US 105mm=16/turn

RoF Ger 105mm=16/turn

RoF Brit 25pdr(88mm)=12/turn

Pig's arse!

RoF Brit 25pdr=RoF Brit 4.5inch

Excuse me, but I don't fink so!

The morale of the story is that if you want to use Brit 25pdrs in CM then the closest thing to reality is the Brit 4.2in mortar. Otherwise unless you want an extremely long lived harrassing barrage, don't bother. The only other way to use them is to target two FOs at the same target, then you get about the proper density of fire you should get for one.

[Guest Babra]

Combined arms doctrine was quite weak among the Commonwealth forces, in some cases (during attacks) forward units had no artillery support at all after the initial push-off, despite an abundance of ready reserves.

If you put the limitations of the 25 pdrs into that light, it's an easier pill to swallow.

[John Kettler]

Simon Fox,

I don't have the citation handy, but according to an account I read Germans shelled by the 25 pdr. were so demoralized by its ROF that they thought it was some sort of automatically loaded weapon. They couldn't believe conventional artillery could possibly fire that fast.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Simon Fox]

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

Combined arms doctrine was quite weak among the Commonwealth forces, in some cases (during attacks) forward units had no artillery support at all after the initial push-off, despite an abundance of ready reserves.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Really Babs I think such a sweeping statement is a load of bollocks. I will happily debate it with you but somewhere else if you don't mind. Just because you're a bitter and twisted little grog about the Stuart recce doesn't mean you have to sidetrack this thread with irrelevancies.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you put the limitations of the 25 pdrs into that light, it's an easier pill to swallow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh thankyou. Now I understand. In real life the Commonwealth were pissweak so BTS crippled the British arty in the game to model this. Consider me to have had my medicine, when's the next dose?

[Monty's Double]

In George Blackburn's Guns of Normandy (he was a 25pdr observer) he states the official ROF for the gun was 3-4 round per minute, but crews often doubled this in practice, and some crews achieved 10 rounds per minute over short periods (like the ones modelled in CMBO). If anything, ROF's of larger guns are overmodelled, but considering its fearsome reputation, the 25pdr does seem to get a pretty poor deal.

[Guest Babra]

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

Oh thankyou. Now I understand. In real life the Commonwealth were pissweak so BTS crippled the British arty in the game to model this. Consider me to have had my medicine, when's the next dose?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, BTS did not "cripple the British arty to model this", and I did not say they did (nor use your foul and childish language -- kiss your granny with that mouth?). What I did say was that combined arms doctrine was quite weak, which makes the decided lack of oompf for the 25 pdrs a little easier to bear.

As for the 25 pdrs themselves, I repeatedly run across references to them as the "best" divisional artillery in any army, though no one ever seems to qualify what they mean by "best".

For a detailed examination of Commonwealth doctrine, several hundred pages worth in fact, I would refer you to "Failure in High Command - The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign" by Lt. Col.-Dr. John A. English, ISBN 0-919614-60-4. I don't much feel like mulling through it to enlighten you, but the short of it is that once moving, Commonwealth forces had real troubles getting sufficient artillery support, regardless of how much was theoretically available "on call". Accept it or don't, but save your gutterspeak for your puddlian friends.

[JasonC]

If you want quick response artillery to suppress targets of opportunity, use the 3" mortar FO. It packs considerably more punch than most people's 81mm, and is flexible enough for that job. Best used against infantry moving in woods or the open, observed. It will KO a few men and drive the rest to ground, temporarily.

If you want to annihilate built up targets, in good cover (foxholes, buildings), then use a 5.5" or 4.5" FO. The barrage will take 3 minutes to land and 3 minutes to finish, but whoever is underneath it will certainly know. Regulars will be thoroughly broken, with serious casualties as well.

Neither is the role of the 25-lber FO. How should you use them? Well, the limitations of quick battle purchase limits can be a problem, but in scenarios or unrestricted games, or large enough fights, you can afford to use them properly. The rest of this post is about how to do that.

Don't take one FO, take 3. That is a firing battalion, and it costs about as much as a typical company with support weapons (for the Americans, or Panzergrenadiers - Brits and VG are of course cheaper before they add vehicles and such).

Pick the initial target line close enough that you think your infantry can reach it in a few minutes, far enough that you think there are enemy units on both sides of the aiming point, counting on a forward-and-back dispersion up to 100 meters each way. Target each FO with observation, at locations about 100 meters apart side to side - or less for a denser barrage. Creep your infantry to within rifle range - 200-300 meters - of the enemy during the "countdown".

When the rounds arrive, leave all three batteries firing for two minutes without adjustment. Then "lift" 80-100 yards, all three batteries simultaneously. During the first two firing minutes, your infantry should move from 200-300 meters down to the edge of the danger zone for "shorter" rounds. This can be quite close to the enemy if the aim points are a bit beyond them. When the "lift" occurs, rush the remaining enemy positions closest to you.

Leave the "lifted" barrage firing for another two minutes. Then walk it out another 80-100 yards in another lift, and fire for two more minutes. Continue to walk the infantry behind the barrage, right through the enemy positions.

The schedule for such a battalion barrage will ideally look like this -

1-3 - arrival countdown

4-5 - first aim points

6 - first lift

7-8 - second aim points

9 - second lift

10-11 - third aim points

12 - third lift

13-15 fourth aim points

The barrage will thus move forward 320-400 yards. It will also extend front to back by 80-100 yards on each side of the aim points, giving an overall depth of 500-600 yards. With an approach by your infantry to 200-300 yards from the enemy beforehand, this will allow your infantry to push ahead half a mile from the locations they were able to reach on their own, before receiving "pinning" fire. Which will carry you across most medium sized maps.

It is not a matter of an annihilation barrage on one dense enemy target. Nor a quick suppression of a firing AT gun or HMG. The first is a job for heavier stuff, the second a job for the 3" mortars. Instead the 25s, used in quantity, should provide a steady rain of shells that keep down the heads of anyone in contact with your advancing infantry. Until that infantry is right on top of them.

You don't particularly want or need high ROF for this role. What you want is enough blast to make even people in foxholes duck, and then you want to keep it up as long as necessary and cover wide areas.

To show that 25s have the firepower for this role, consider the following result from a simple test outing against the AI. I gave the AI a regular German panzergrenadier company, while taking 3 25 FOs and nothing else for the Brits. Meeting, with one big flag for the Germans to head for, on a farmland map with medium trees and hills. Walking the shells about they lasted most of the 20-turn game.

The Germans took 50% casualties (Brits took none - the FOs were never even found), with another 1/6th broken along the way ("!" at the end). 1 cowering man was alive on the objective, as most that made it that far were broken and ran away again. They were never free of the shelling.

Do you have the points to take 550 pts worth of 25 lbers, a full battalion shoot, in QBs, with their strictly limited artillery point totals? No. There is no point in trying to get one battery of the things to do what they were really designed to do. You are better off taking 3" mortars, and if you are attacking and want more artillery, add 5.5" or 4.5" howitzer to thoroughly destroy one identified, dug in position.

But outside the play balance constraints of QBs, you can use them realistically, considering a battalion's worth of artillery support an ordinary alternative to an infantry company or a tank platoon. And when you take a battalion of 25s in support, you will have artillery shooting for you not as a tactical episode, but for nearly the whole fight.

For what it is worth.

[Andreas]

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

No, BTS did not "cripple the British arty to model this", and I did not say they did (nor use your foul and childish language -- kiss your granny with that mouth?). What I did say was that combined arms doctrine was quite weak, which makes the decided lack of oompf for the 25 pdrs a little easier to bear.

As for the 25 pdrs themselves, I repeatedly run across references to them as the "best" divisional artillery in any army, though no one ever seems to qualify what they mean by "best".

For a detailed examination of Commonwealth doctrine, several hundred pages worth in fact, I would refer you to "Failure in High Command - The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign" by Lt. Col.-Dr. John A. English, ISBN 0-919614-60-4. I don't much feel like mulling through it to enlighten you, but the short of it is that once moving, Commonwealth forces had real troubles getting sufficient artillery support, regardless of how much was theoretically available "on call". Accept it or don't, but save your gutterspeak for your puddlian friends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Think you are reading the wrong books

try George Blackburn 'The Guns of War', he was the longest-serving FOO in the Canuckian Army in NWE. Bottomline is that the UK and Canucks had enough arty on tab, and it was extremely flexible, that they could make up for the poor quality of their tanks, and the insufficient weaponry of their infantry.

It was the 'best' system, because of its ability to deliver MIKE, UNCLE and VICTOR targets within a very short space of time, due to the design of the 25-pdr. But really the fire direction system was the key to this. Reference battles would be St. Lambert, the Essex Scottish south of Caen (off the top of my head).

All references by the Germans at the receiving end are of stunned awe. The system was perfected later on in the war. It is quite significant that the only two major defeats of sizeable Commonwealth troops that I can immediately think of are 1st Airborne (out of reach of XXX Corps arty) and Worthington Force (arty called on wrong location, due to inability to read maps). Otherwise breakthrough after breakthrough, right from day one in Normandy stopped in artillery fire (21st Panzer at the beaches, 12th SS NW of Caen, 7th AD after Villers-Bocage).

When designing scenarios, I get around the ROF issue by giving the Commonwealth 2 or 3 FOOs instead of one, but with lower load-out per FOO.

[Guest Babra]

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

Think you are reading the wrong books

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read all of Blackburn's books. I stand by my position.

[Simon Fox]

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

Commonwealth forces had real troubles getting sufficient artillery support, regardless of how much was theoretically available "on call".Accept it or don't, but save your gutterspeak for your puddlian friends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I don't accept. As more than adequately addressed by Andreas there are quite conflicting viewpoints with considerable credibility. Neither do I accept that it has anything to do with 25pdrs as they are modelled in the game. Since I don't accept it it is hardly likely to make it more palatable is it? As for the rest, I find your pompous drawing room pronouncments exceedingly offensive. Kindly save your unworldly lectures for whatever finishing school for the genteel you are in the habit of addressing. I suggest you show some more sensitivity to foreign language speakers, not everyone can aspire to the refined dialect to which you are accustomed.

JasonC,

You are absolutely right that there are plenty of alternatives to the 25pdr which can do the job. I just find the rate of fire somewhat perplexing. A point to note is the different British artillery organisation. A battery was 8 guns and a regiment/battalion had 3 batteries. So as pointed out by Andreas it takes 2 CM FOOs to make up one 25pdr battery and 6 to make up a regiment/battalion.

[Andreas]

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

I have read all of Blackburn's books. I stand by my position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are obviously wrong then.

[Guest Babra]

Silly me to trust the scholarly analysis of a staff school text over the self-effacing memoirs of a grunt peddled to the masses under "popular history".

I concede. British artillery ruled. They were masters of their art, not subject to doctrine, lines of communication or any other earthly interference. BTS, fix or do somefink.

[Andreas]

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

Silly me to trust the scholarly analysis of a staff school text over the self-effacing memoirs of a grunt peddled to the masses under "popular history".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was one example, I had others which you did not address. You are most welcome to your opinion, but if you base it on the Canadian study only, you have failed to convince me. Blackburn has some issues, and he overstates the contribution of artillery, and it may not have been the greatest system, but what Simon is saying is that the 25-pdr is undermodelled in terms of ROF, and it is according to what I read.

You brought up the idea of low ROF arty being some sort of simulation of crappy Commonwealth practice. Well in my opinion that does not wash. We will have to agree to differ here. I think you are wrong, you think I and Simon are wrong. Fine with me.

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[edgars]

This site from Australia states, that 25pdr had a ROF of 5 rounds per minute.

[Andreas]

Jesus Christ on a crutch...

[ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

[Andreas]

Grr, double-post. Hasn't happened in a while.

[Big Ron]

I would guess that BTS in there wisdom have gone with the official figures as an average ROF. It is possible that the gunners interviewed for these books (which I have not read) exagerrated their ROF. Also the quality of gunners is not modelled to my knowledge, only the quality of the spotter. Hence while initial fire may arrive faster and be directed better the ROF remains pretty constant.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ron:

I would guess that BTS in there wisdom have gone with the official figures as an average ROF. It is possible that the gunners interviewed for these books (which I have not read) exagerrated their ROF. Also the quality of gunners is not modelled to my knowledge, only the quality of the spotter. Hence while initial fire may arrive faster and be directed better the ROF remains pretty constant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please note that the 25-pdr ROF in the game is 3/turn, while the 'official' ROF is 5/turn. Nobody is asking for it to be 10/turn, although it would be nice to have the ability to determine fire intensity within certain parameters, e.g. like this:

1) Harassing - low ROF

2) standard - official ROF

3) Intense - official ROF + 50%

4) Super-intense - official ROF + 100%

You would expend your ammo faster or slower, and consequently be able to tailor the fire more to your needs. Having said that, I am not sure how much something like this was going on during the war. It probably was a measure of the demands on the gunners. If they had a high number of conflicting demands, they would presumably service them a lot quicker.

[argie]

Just a link: http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/

[Andreas]

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

Just a link: http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent site - thanks Argie.

[Big Ron]

"Please note that the 25-pdr ROF in the game is 3/turn"

Sorry Germanboy, I hadn't counted. Just trying to stick up for the BTS boys in their absence.

"1) Harassing - low ROF

2) standard - official ROF

3) Intense - official ROF + 50%

4) Super-intense - official ROF + 100%"

Damn fine idea!

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ron:

"Please note that the 25-pdr ROF in the game is 3/turn"

Sorry Germanboy, I hadn't counted. Just trying to stick up for the BTS boys in their absence.

"1) Harassing - low ROF

2) standard - official ROF

3) Intense - official ROF + 50%

4) Super-intense - official ROF + 100%"

Damn fine idea!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks - the counting I left to sad gits like Simon, who obviously have no life, yet still don't manage to return turns. I trust him to count to three though, although even that maybe a mistake...

The village is mine Simon, mine!!!! Za Polska or somefink.

[Simon Fox]

Well obviously they got their figures from somewhere but they're not exactly consistent. One would expect a reasonable rate of fire for a round like the 25pdr to exceed that of the 105mm US and German guns which are 4/min and be less than the 75mm guns which are around 6/min. Instead they are down at 3/min which strangely is the same as the 4.2 inch gun.

[Slapdragon]

The US system of artillery, probably the best for getting shells on target, relied on lavish use of people and equipment. I think the problem with the British artillery you are seeing is that by June 1944 most of the British redlegs could in no way be considered normal troops. They were veteran to crack. Unlike the US they had been fighting since the beginning, unlike the Germans they did not have the crushing losses of people that was forcing German artillery to streamline and give up capabilities.

Perhaps you should try the commonwealth in sets of 2 FOs, and with the batteries vet or even crack.

[JonS]

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

... I think the problem with the British artillery you are seeing is that by June 1944 most of the British redlegs could in no way be considered normal troops. They were veteran to crack. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How could this be seen as a problem? :confused:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... Perhaps you should try the commonwealth in sets of 2 FOs, and with the batteries vet or even crack...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a good suggestion, and it goes some way toward correcting the flaw/mistake/poor modelling of the number of guns in an RA bty, but it still doesn't correct the ROF.

In the game 2 FOs at 3rpg/min = 24 rnds / minute.

In RL , 1 FO with an 8 gun bty firing at 5 rounds per gun per min = 40 rounds/min. IOW, nearly double what you would get from the game with 2 FOs. For that you would need 3, or maybe 4 FOs, but then you would have to hope that players would use them all on the same target.

Yeah, right.

Regards

JonS

Oh, BTW - I think "Redlegs" must be an Americanism. I've never heard of it, let alone heard it applied to the men of the Royal Regiment.