SP arty and indirect fire in CM2??

[aka_tom_w]

I really don't like to ask questions that I "should", (by now), know the answer to.

BUT..

I would be interested to know if it will be possible to use SP arty units and any other on board arty (?) in an indirect fire role in CM2?

As I recall there is no indirect fire from SP arty in CMBO because it was suggested the map was not big enough for the sp arty to be far back enough to be effective.

BUT should we not have bigger maps in CM2?

Does anyone else here feel it might be appropriate for SP arty to take advantage of indirect fire on the bigger maps of CM2?

Is this unreasonable?

I am I crazy? or should we not be requesting SP arty to able to be fire in both direct fire and indirect fire missions?

comments?

I know VERY little about SP arty, so I may be WAY off base on this one.

In CMBO SP arty can only fire directly and is mostly only good against infantry and buildings, whenit can get direct LOS to the target. They are almost useless in tank duals IMHO.

-tom w

[Bullethead]

aka_tom_w said:

Does anyone else here feel it might be appropriate for SP arty to take advantage of indirect fire on the bigger maps of CM2?

Not me. Even if CM2 has bigger maps than are usual for average-size CM1 battles (and I've seen nothing to indicate that this will be the case), there are still beaucoup reasons why on-map indirect fire for anything other than mortars is bogus and should not be included.

1. Minimum Range Still Huge

Very short range indirect fire (less than a couple thousand meters--CM map size range) is achieved like it is with mortars, via very high, looping trajectories. This is only possible with tube elevations above 45^ because arty propellant comes in fixed-size bags so there's only so much you can do with reducing the charge. However, nearly all WW2 SP guns were incapable of achieving even 45^ elevation. Thus, there was no way for them to shoot short-range indirect fire.

2. Lack of Surveyed Firing Points

All indirect fire is shooting at a unknown point from the guns' POV. Indirect fire accurate enough to be seen in the general area by an FO and adjusted onto the DMPI must therefore come from a known point--otherwise, you're shooting from 1 unknown point to another and have no hope at all of hitting anything. The process of making the guns' position "known" (as in located to a gnat's ass in the map coordinate system) is called survey and is begun as soon as guns arrive in a new position. In WW2, this was a very time-consuming process requiring assets not found in the CM OOB and more time than most CM battles last. So even assuming you found a WW2 SP gun with a minimum range short enough to provide useful indirect fire on the typical CM map, it would only be able to do indirect fire if it NEVER moved during the battle.

3. Lack of Communications

Remember this: SP guns were guns first, vehicles second. IOW, in use, they were intended to be controlled just like towed guns--being SP just allowed them to move faster. As such, SP guns often were controlled by telephone, not radio, because while in position they were no different than other types of guns. So, if an SP gun is being controlled by telephone, it can't move because it can't take the wire with it. OTOH, control by radio requires the FO to be using the same type of radio. At least for the Germans, the only FOs with the same type of radio as the SP guns were specialized vehicular FOs. Thus, even disregarding all previously mentioned problems, moving German SP guns could only do indirect fire for FOs mounted in special vehicles.

4. Lack of FDC

FDC means "fire direction center". While this is a modern term, they had such things in WW2. FDC means guys with maps and books of firing data who calculate the elevation and deflection of the guns needed to hit a given indirect target (hence the need for the guns to be surveyed). Guns are not FDCs--FDCs control guns, and without an FDC a gun cannot figure out how to hit an indirect target. So you need at least an arty battery HQ containing this FDC section on the map, as well as its battery of short-ranged, surveyed SP guns, all in communication with each other and the assigned FO, to be able to do indirect fire at unknown points.

5. Lack of Full Crew and Ammo

Many SP guns were SP because the gun was too big to tow without a huge tractor just as expensive as an SP chassis. But with such guns, the SP chassis could only carry a fraction of the crew and ammo. Thus, such guns always had another vehicle teamed with them to carry the rest of the crew and ammo. These support vehicles are not in CM and I doubt they'll be in CM2. So even if all the above conditions are met, on-map indirect fire would only be available to the subset of SP guns not needing support vehicles. Hell, if it was up to me, SP guns needing such support vehicles wouldn't even be in the game because they can't move with a full crew.

6. SP Guns are NOT Battlefield Weapons

SP guns are arty. They are not tanks or assault guns. As such, they should NEVER be used in a CM tactical battle unless the battle represents some battery getting overrun, or some historical situation where the SP guns were pressed into frontline service in emergency. In the vast majority of situations, SP guns should be off the map and represented in the game by an FO unit. Frequent use of SP guns in QBs is highly unrealistic.

Having said all that, compare on-map indirect fire by mortars to the capabilities and limitations of SP guns: Mortars by definition have very looping trajectories so minimum range is never more than a couple hundred meters--no problem there. Mortars can only shoot indirect fire in 2 situations: TRPs and while in command. In the former case, the FDC work is assumed to have taken place before the battle and the mortars can only shoot TRPs if they don't move--this solves the survey problem. In the commanded case, communications isn't a problem because the controlling HQ unit is within shouting/signaling distance of the mortar. Mortars are battlefield weapons and are organic to the line units they support, so there's no unreality in having them on the map all the time. Thus, mortars can do limited on-map indirect fire. But SP guns just don't meet any of these requirements, so they can't do on-map indirect fire in CM1, and I certainly hope they can't in CM2 either.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

6. SP Guns are NOT Battlefield Weapons

SP guns are arty. They are not tanks or assault guns. As such, they should NEVER be used in a CM tactical battle unless the battle represents some battery getting overrun, or some historical situation where the SP guns were pressed into frontline service in emergency. In the vast majority of situations, SP guns should be off the map and represented in the game by an FO unit. Frequent use of SP guns in QBs is highly unrealistic.

I fully agree with all Bullethead said in his post, and this is a key bit of it IMO. If you are into realistic play (I know you care less about it than I do Tom, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that) you should not use these SP guns. The Germans and the Allies had specific tanks to do these jobs (StuH42, Sherman 105, Cromwell VIII and Churchill V and VIII). They did not use the Sexton, Priest, or Wespe and Hummel in a highly dangerous situation for these weapons willy-nilly. The Hummel you lose today will not be around to give you 150mm arty support tomorrow. The highly trained lads from the Royal Artillery in their Sexton are an almost irreplacable assset. When they are gone because they were killed in a direct-fire job, you can not just take some grunts from the PBI to do their job.

I know these guns make a pretty boom and all that, but except for the situation that Bullethead described they should not appear on a battlefield. And yes, I know about the 155mm SP gun that was used in Aachen.

Allowing these guns indirect fire in CM2 will increase the tendency to use them in QBs, which would be unrealistic, and therefore IMO has no place in a wargame that strives to be as realistic as is possible. YMMV.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks for the very informative and thoughtful replies.

I would like to comment on one sort of "philosphical thing".....

Andreas says:

"if you are into realistic play (I know you care less about it than I do Tom, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that) you should not use these SP guns. "

I have always been a proponent of designing this game as historically accurate and realistic as possible. So I asked this question to see if SP arty might have indirect fire capaibility in CM2. Its seems very clear that this would not be historically accurate.

I admit I do play and test the game to look for loopholes and to try to find out where all the gamey eploitation weak spots are before someone uses them on me, but that should not be confused with my keen desire to see the game model the historical accuracy for WWII combat in the ETO in CMBO and in the Eastern Front in CM2 to the highest possible degree.

I mentioned this because I could not sufficiently explain to one of my ASL board game wargaming buddies (NOT a CM convert) why the sp arty in CMBO had no indirect fire capability, he believed him self of higher "grog" status compared to me, and I could not really convince him that this was not some major limitation in the way sp arty was modeled in CMBO.

BUT now, thanks to Bullethead and yourself I will blast him with this new informed opinion.

Thanks so much.

I think CM2 and CMBO should always attempt to model historical accuracy and realism to the very highest degree of detail, (to prevent gamey play for one thing) conceiveable given our comsumer computing hardware limitations.

I was just curious about this indirect fire issue with SP arty and I'm thrilled with the detail with which Bullethead explained it.

Thanks!

And yes I do like to play a historical scenarios so long as it is evenly balanced so either side as a roughly similiar chance of winning. I only explore gamey tacitcs and look for loopholes in CMBO so I can have the thrill of being the first to discover them and post about them here , to make the game even BETTER of course .

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-18-2001).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Tom, may apologies if it came over the wrong way. Some confusion in my mind I think.

I actually don't think it is gamey to use these SP guns, since they are so vulnerable. It is just not realistic. Which reminds me I have to change one of my scenarios (which I made before starting to think about this...)

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Tom, may apologies if it came over the wrong way. Some confusion in my mind I think.

I actually don't think it is gamey to use these SP guns, since they are so vulnerable. It is just not realistic. Which reminds me I have to change one of my scenarios (which I made before starting to think about this...)

No appologies necessary

I was just trying to explain that I like finding gamey exploitable loopholes.

Its sort like a challenge for me

Thanks

-tom w

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

We should have the Brumbar in CM2.*

I completely agree!

*

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

I completely agree!

*

That would be one way of phrasing it, of course. Since they were used on the Eastern front, I think they should be in, time permitting. I would also like to see the Bison and other versions of SP 150mm guns that were intended for an assault role. I had a Brummbär as a 1:72 scale model when I was younger. Not pretty though.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/brum.htm

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Dirtweasle]

I just finished reading; Closing with the Enemy, by Lt. Col. Michael Doubler. There are various sections where he describes that SP Arty, Tank Destroyers and the like were pressed into roles that they were not intended for. He makes the point several times that SP arty was used for direct HE in towns, and in close quarters backing up infantry, busting up enemy prepared postions. Is this book accurate? I realize it is not wise to read just one book and form an iron clad opinion.

I know this is slightly off the path of this thread... and to digress even further, you know there is an awful lot of talk in this book about the Americans using WP. I recall a bunch of threads on this way back where it's use was also made to seem rather small.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

I just finished reading; Closing with the Enemy, by Lt. Col. Michael Doubler. There are various sections where he describes that SP Arty, Tank Destroyers and the like were pressed into roles that they were not intended for. He makes the point several times that SP arty was used for direct HE in towns, and in close quarters backing up infantry, busting up enemy prepared postions. Is this book accurate? I realize it is not wise to read just one book and form an iron clad opinion.

Been a while since I read it - and now no longer have access to the copy. I only remember the bit about the 155mm in Aachen. I know that TDs were often used as direct tank support for the infantry. Are there any more concrete examples in the book? Or does anybody else know something? I have not come across accounts of SP arty being used in such a role in my readings.

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[tss]

Bullethead wrote again lots of good stuff:

SP guns are arty. They are not tanks or assault guns. As such, they should NEVER be used in a CM tactical battle unless the battle represents some battery getting overrun, or some historical situation where the SP guns were pressed into frontline service in emergency.

In my opinion the word "never" is little too strong. I would prefer "very rarely". There were occasions when guns were brought to front lines for silencing some particularly annoying strongpoint before attack (or during trench war, but that is not the point here). However, those guns were brought forward into well-prepared positions and their objective was the destruction of the specific targets.

When I wrote "guns" in the above, I meant both self-propelled and traditional guns. Actually, near Alakurtti Finns once brought even a French "Canon de 155 Long, Modele 1877" to front lines to destroy two bunkers. (Yes, that 1877 was the manufacturing year, the guns were very accurate and had quite effective shell but the rof was 3 shots in 2 minutes, with an experienced crew). In that particular case the Soviet defenders were first forced to take cover by firing a 81mm mortar bombardment so the gun crew could work their ancient de Bange in peace.

- Tommi

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Are there any more concrete examples in the book? Or does anybody else know something? I have not come across accounts of SP arty being used in such a role in my readings.

I haven't read the book in question yet, but I have read of the Third Army War Memorial Foundation. This consisted of approaching a German town (very late in the war) and wheeling up an M7 to fire in a round or two. Then they would wait for a civil authority to come out under a white flag to surrender the place.

As I say, this occurred late in the war when the German army was on the ropes and pretty preoccupied with trying to keep the Eastern Hordes out, so the danger of anyone offering serious opposition was minimal.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Excellent post, BH, as usual, though I must admit that your assertion that no SPA could elevate above 45° took me by surprise. But since I don't have the relevant figures at my fingertips, I'll leave that discussion for a later date.

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Mortars can only shoot indirect fire in 2 situations: TRPs and while in command. In the former case, the FDC work is assumed to have taken place before the battle and the mortars can only shoot TRPs if they don't move--this solves the survey problem.

I just wondered what your take would be on using on-board arty (SP or otherwise) in the same fashion assuming the minimum range requirements are met? That is, it presupposes that the arty has been sited, wire laid, registration shots fired and recorded, etc.

I'm not arguing for this as I too believe for a variety of reasons that IDF belongs off-board, I just wonder how do-able this would be in the real world of WW II vintage.

Michael

[Wolfe]

What were the Bison and Grille? Different sources say different things:

German Tanks of WWII (Forty). pp. 33, 56

* sIG33 - PzKpfw I chassis

* 15cm SP Grille - PzKpfw 38(t) chassis

Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII (Bishop). pg. 112

* sIG33 auf Geshutzwagen I Ausf B - PzKpfw I chassis

* sIG33 ausf Geshutzwagen II Ausf C SdKfz 121 - PzKpfw II chassis

* sIG33 auf Fgst PzKpfw II (Sf) Verlanget - PzKpfw II chassis (longer hull)

* sIG33(Sf) auf PzKpfw 38(t) Bison SdKfz 138 - PzKpfw 38(t) chassis

* sIG33 auf PzKpfw III - PzKpfw III chassis

Handbook on German Military Forces (US War Dept.) pg. 382

* sIG33 - PzKpfw IB chassis (SdKfz 101)

* sIG33 - PzKpfw II chassis (SdKfz 121)

* sIG33/1 - ? chassis (Gw 38: SdKfz 138/1)

* StuH43 Brummbar - PzKpfw IV chassis (SdKfz 166)

Achtung Panzer website

* Sturmpanzer I Bison - PzKpfw IB chassis (SdKfz 101)

* Sturmpanzer II Bison - PzKpfw II chassis

* Bison (Grille) Ausf H/M - PzKpfw 38(t) chassis (SdKfz 138/1)

* StuG33 - StuG III chassis

* Sturmpanzer IV Brummbar - PzKpfw IV chassis (SdKfz 166)

That's a lot of variants for one gun. Will the real Bison please stand up?

- Chris

[edit: removed sFH 13 on Lorraine chassis and Hummel; these are different 15cm guns. Sorry.]

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 03-18-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

Thanks again for all the informative replies!

This is all very new and interesting to me...

-tom w

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Are there any more concrete examples in the book?

Yes, and I was just about to return the book earlier today.

Though there is more general characterizations than specifics, he does say that though the field manual says such and such, in practice the American SP Guns were used for direct HE fire. One passage is; "The best use of this artillery was not even mentioned in FM 100-5: units had great success using self propelled artillery as modern day battering rams" In one example he goes on to talk about that kind of use at Fort Montbarey, and at Metz. There is another mention of it in use with Task Force Bacon, and in a defensive role in the Ardennes. My take on it in context, is that he uses these as examples of fairly wide spread use.

[Bullethead]

Michael emrys said:

I must admit that your assertion that no SPA could elevate above 45° took me by surprise.

I can't say for sure that ALL WW2 SP guns had this limitation, but all for which I have stats did. These include the M7, M7B1, M8 HMC (although this maybe better called a light assault gun than an SP gun), Wespe, and Hummel. And I'm pretty sure the Sexton also, because it had the same hull as the Priest, although I can't verify that right now.

The main reason for this limitation was that despite these guns being intended for use as arty way behind the FEBA, the designers gave them the lowest possible silouhette. OTOH, this also saved some weight and improved stability. But anyway, they achieved this by mounting the guns' trunnions not far above the hull floor. This prevented the gun from elevating to anything near its full extent, or at least recoiling at such an angle. In fact, most couldn't even reach 45^ and so had less max range, as well as greater min range, than the towed version of the same gun.

The M7/M7B1 Priest is perhaps the best illustration here. Its max elevation was only 35^. This caused such problems that during WW2 it was often parked on hillsides to get more elevation. This was even more of a problem in mountainous Korea, so they came out with the M7B2. This mounted the gun MUCH higher to allow the full 65^ elevation possible with the towed gun. Here's a picture on my web page showing an M7B2 parked next to a M7B1, so you can see the difference in height. Note how the trunnions on the B2 are above the top of the hull, thus also requiring a taller "pulpit".

I just wondered what your take would be on using on-board arty (SP or otherwise) in the same fashion assuming the minimum range requirements are met? That is, it presupposes that the arty has been sited, wire laid, registration shots fired and recorded, etc.

Not thrilled . To do this right, you'd have to have full batteries on the map because single guns were almost never detached from their batteries. And by full batteries, I mean the whole 9 yards required to make an arty battery function. Not only all their guns, but also all their ammo vehicles, troop vehicles, support vehicles, piles of shells being fuzed, some sort of tent or covered vehicle for their FDC, some guys forming a thin local security perimeter, a few AA guns, an antenna farm, comm wire laid all over Hell, etc.

All in all, a lot of trash you'd rather not have cluttering up the battlefield, costing you purchase points, or being used in non-realistic ways by your opponents. And all of this just to get on-map indirect fire support, which is why you have mortars. Leave the arty in the rear where it belongs

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

Yes, and I was just about to return the book earlier today.

Good stuff Dirtweasle - and you are probably right about him using examples to indicate wider use, instead of one-off curiosities. As usual my lack of knowledge in things American is showing. So using Priests in this role would be okay.

Anybody got any examples for the Commonwealth or the Germans?

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Wolfe]

** Bump ** on the Bison question. TIA.

- Chris

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

** Bump ** on the Bison question. TIA.

- Chris

Okay I'll bite - just speculating though.

Is it possible that the Bison did not refer to the vehicle base but to the gun? 150mm sIG mounted on (choose your favourite out of three nice new models) AFV chassis was a Bison?

------------------

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Bullethead]

Dirtweasle said:

he does say that though the field manual says such and such, in practice the American SP Guns were used for direct HE fire. One passage is; "The best use of this artillery was not even mentioned in FM 100-5: units had great success using self propelled artillery as modern day battering rams"

Well, this is a very different thing than using them for on-map INdirect fire

Some things to keep in mind about this stuff. First, the Priest was by TO&E the exclusive property of armored divisions. I don't think US infantry divisions ever had any and if they did, that was by far the exception. I'm also pretty sure the same applied to the SP arty of other nations. Second, the main job of SP arty was providing indirect arty support for the armored divisions, just as towed guns did for infantry divisions. Thus, using Priests as assault guns could only be done at the expensive of at least some of the armored divisions' indirect fire support. For the assault gun role, armored divisions had 18 Sherm105s.

So IMHO Priests were only used as assault guns in a limited number of special situations. First, you're talking about an armored division, which weren't as common as infantry divisions. Second, the armored division is doing an assault on a heavily fortified area, which isn't something they were supposed to do much of. Third, the armored division didn't have enough of its regular assault guns available to do the job. And fourth, it either didn't need all its available indirect arty support, or was willing to sacrifice some temporarily to get more assault guns.

So you can see why using Priests as assault guns wasn't in FM 100-5. Such use was ultra vires on all levels from division HQ down to individual Priests. Did it happen? Yes. Did it work? Yes. Was it common? I seriously doubt it.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Well, this is a very different thing than using them for on-map INdirect fire

I'll say.

I was just bringing this as you had earlier said;

...they should NEVER be used in a CM tactical battle unless the battle represents some battery getting overrun, or some historical situation where the SP guns were pressed into frontline service in emergency.

The portions of the book I mentioned do not lead me to believe these were emergency situations, and again in the context of what the author was going on to discuss, it came off as a good example of something more or less fairly common.

Other portions of the book do talk about the comms issues of getting arty set up, particularly earlier on.

BTW - I was just trying to recall where I saw pictures of SP Guns, maybe Sextons or Priests up on an earthen ramp. Maybe a dozer & some engineers make a berm, the Guns though unable themselves to elevate past a certain deflection could be assisted. Just idle thought...

Edited for clarity...

[This message has been edited by Dirtweasle (edited 03-19-2001).]

[Bullethead]

Dirtweasle said:

The portions of the book I mentioned do not lead me to believe these were emergency situations, and again in the context of what the author was going on to discuss, it came off as a good example of something more or less fairly common.

Well, if you're short enough on your TO&E compliment of assault guns, ATG guns, or TDs, to start dragging your arty up into the trenches, you've got a big problem. It might not be a full-blown emergency, but it certainly exceeds the scope of your normal operating parameters

BTW, I have CWTE myself. Great book. I used its bocage tactics section in the great Willy Peter debate some time ago

BTW - I was just trying to recall where I saw pictures of SP Guns, maybe Sextons or Priests up on an earthen ramp. Maybe a dozer & some engineers make a berm, the Guns though unable themselves to elevate past a certain deflection could be assisted. Just idle thought...

Yeah, they had to do this a lot to overcome their elevation limitations. Either find a natural hill in the right place with the right slope, or make one. See my post above with the picture of the M7B2 and M7B1.

This is another reason why trying to use SP guns as on-board indirect fire weapons isn't a good idea. They'd have to be placed on such slopes, which would mean they'd have no LOS toward the enemy, or at least be unable to depress the gun enough for direct fire (Priest had only -5^ depression, less than the slope of the hill). So to use direct fire, they'd have to move, which would prevent them from doing indirect fire.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Dirtweasle]

The great Willy Pete debate.

It really is irratating not to have at least some WP rounds as it seemd to be in wide use. Seems like if you're going to model tungsten capped rounds, you might give the allies WP too.

[gunnergoz]

Had to throw my two bits in on this one.

First, I'm fully in accord with the premise that SP artillery should not normally be present on the pointy end of the battlefield.

That being said, though, second consideration is that these things sometimes did happen and we'd want the ability to represent scenarios where arty assets were indeed present.

M-7 Priests were of course organic to the US armored divisions but don't overlook the fact that there were numerous battalions of non-organic corps level M-7 armored artillery in the ETO. While they commonly supported armored divisions and mechanized cavalry groups, this was not exclusively the case. The armored artillery battalions were real useful as quick-response artillery "fire brigades" in times of crisis and their ability to find good off-road firing sites (that would be denied their towen brethern) made them doubly welcome by all division commanders.

There is ample evidence of M-7's and the 155mm SP guns being used as "door knockers" as the need arose. When these situations came up, you can be darn sure that the offending enemy bunker had been thorougly suppressed because the SP guns were highly vulnerable.

Although slightly off topic, I recall an instance in Korea when the US Army, at considerable effort, brought one of these WW2-era 155mm SP pieces high up on a mountain peak position for use in a nuisance role as a kind of "super sniper rifle." The gun drove the Communists off all the adjoining hills and peaks that were within direct sighting range. POW's reported that this one gun really pissed off the NKPA and ChiComs because they were now on the cold, sunless reverse slopes of those positions!

Finally, I've seen some evidence of veterans by mistake or failed memory referring to the Sherman 105's as "M-7's." From the viewpoint of a tanker, it might make a little sense and the Sherman 105's were usually pressed into the indirect fire role as a supplement to the attached artillery battalion, and added the weight of their fires as a sort of unofficial fourth battery. They did not have the range of the M-7 because they could not use the full charge propellant. Because they were organic to the tank battalions, they were much more likely to be exposed to direct fire situations and their presence in the game is most reasonable.

Still, it should be kept in mind by those attempting to model WW2 doctrine, that the Sherman 105's were not then seen primarily as direct fire weapons, but were rather viewed as a sort of "less vulnerable M-7" that could operate closer to the forward edge of the battle area (FEBA). The 75mm-armed Shermans were in those days viewed as more than adequate to provide HE fire when circumstances dictated its use.

Bottom line: They were there, use them but if you care, recall that they were still farily rare (only 4 present in a tank battalion that had another 54 mediums and 17 lights to do the brunt of the fighting).

But yeah, fer sure, they do go BOOM real nice!