Germ,an Artillery Practices

[Terence]

Comrades!

I need some WW2 information and would like to tap the Battlefront Brain trust.

My questions are:

X)How far behind the front lines would a German 105mm artillery unit be positioned. A 75mm unit?

How many guns per battery might one see?

247.98.2)Is there a standard practice in which German howitzers were set up? Positions? Were gun pits dug? What IS a gun pit.How deep are they. Anyone ever done one on a CM map?

b)Were gun tractors deployed near the guns? How near? Were the guns moved by trucks as well? Was there ever a shortage of gun tractors?

Subsection 20) What other units might one see near a battery of 105mm howitzers? AA guns? How many? What kinds. A Scheirung detatchment? How large? Any other assorted units?

Ponce) Were CREWED German artillery batteries ever overrun by allied advances?

[offtaskagain]

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

Ponce) Were CREWED German artillery batteries ever overrun by allied advances?<hr></blockquote>

During D-Day one of the Rangers that got up Pointe Du Hoc got about a kilometer inland and happened upon a 150mm battery. The crews weren't actually at their guns but gathered in a corner of their field away from their guns. The Rangers stuck thermite grenades in the breeches of the guns and ran. Also, there is the case of the Easy Company of the 101st (of Band of Brothers fame) assaulting a German battery in the midst of a fire mission.

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>X)How far behind the front lines would a German 105mm artillery unit be positioned. A 75mm unit?

How many guns per battery might one see?<hr></blockquote>

1/2 - 1/3 of their max range

4

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>247.98.2)Is there a standard practice in which German howitzers were set up? Positions? Were gun pits dug? What IS a gun pit.How deep are they. Anyone ever done one on a CM map?<hr></blockquote>

don't know. don't know what you mean. probably. some protection for the gun and crew during CB or direct attack. about axle-deep. don't know about the Germans, but there is a scen showing the layout of a commonwealth bty at Michael Doroshs' site.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>b)Were gun tractors deployed near the guns? How near? Were the guns moved by trucks as well? Was there ever a shortage of gun tractors?<hr></blockquote>

depends. depends. sometimes. yes - why do you think most german arty was horse drawn?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Subsection 20) What other units might one see near a battery of 105mm howitzers? AA guns? How many? What kinds. A Scheirung detatchment? How large? Any other assorted units??<hr></blockquote>

varies. perhaps. probably just one. light. bty would probably be responsible for its own local defence. depends. depends.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Dorosh]

Wasn't most German artillery horse drawn by design, rather than shortage of tractors? Or maybe it's a chicken and an egg thing, but they never had enough trucks to begin with - IMHO saying there were shortages of trucks implies that they had them from the beginning.

[Michael Emrys]

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

X)How far behind the front lines would a German 105mm artillery unit be positioned. A 75mm unit?<hr></blockquote>

One-third to two-thirds of their range depending on whether they were anticipating offensive or defensive operations.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How many guns per battery might one see?<hr></blockquote>

The 75s were most commonly found in the regimental cannon company, with six howitzers of that caliber. But I think they were commonly parceled out in pairs.

The 105s were held in the artillery battalions with four to a battery.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>247.98.2)Is there a standard practice in which German howitzers were set up? Positions?<hr></blockquote>

Howitzers in a battery were set up in surveyed and, as time permitted, prepared positions such that they were close enough to each other to make control of them not excessively difficult but far enough apart so that a single bomb or shell would not take out more than one.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Were gun pits dug? What IS a gun pit.How deep are they.<hr></blockquote>

They were dug if it were thought advantageous and there were time for it. Usually not though. Generally gun pits were dug only if they anticipated counter-battery fire. Gun positions would however be leveled if that were neeeded.

Generally a gun pit consisted of leveled ground surrounded by a sandbag wall or earthen berm, usually anywhere from waist high to head high.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Anyone ever done one on a CM map?<hr></blockquote>

Any defender's gun starts the battle in a "foxhole" which for game purposes is functionally equivalent to a gun pit.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>b)Were gun tractors deployed near the guns? How near?<hr></blockquote>

Define near. They were located within minutes. Usually in whatever cover was available in the vicinity. N.B. In the German army, artillery was mostly pulled by horses.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Were the guns moved by trucks as well?<hr></blockquote>

The lighter guns were. If trucks were present in the unit. Again, remember that most of them were pulled by horses.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Was there ever a shortage of gun tractors?<hr></blockquote>

You betcha. That's why they used horses. It was only in the mechanised/motorised divisions that all the artillery was pulled by mechanical tractors.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Subsection 20) What other units might one see near a battery of 105mm howitzers? AA guns?<hr></blockquote>

Quite possibly. Depends on the threat level and availability. But probably more often than not as artillery was a prime target for the air, and was therefore defended where necessary. Figure a minimum of two 20-37mm AA guns per battalion where there was a credible air threat. There were also several HMG teams organic to each battalion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A Scheirung detatchment?<hr></blockquote>

What's that?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Ponce) Were CREWED German artillery batteries ever overrun by allied advances?<hr></blockquote>

Sure. But the Germans were pretty good most of the time about pulling their artillery out in time. I suspect most of the stuff that was overrun was in transit.

BTW, most of what I've written here applies to all of the armies involved in the war. Except for the horses. For the most part, it was just the Germans and their allies who relied on four-legged transport, although the Soviets did too early in the war. And the early war French?

Michael

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[JasonC]

The two most common German field pieces were the 105mm and 150mm howitzers, both with barrels 18 diameters long. They had a maximum effective range of around 11 km, +/- 1km, with the 150mm having only slightly longer "reach". You'd generally find them emplaced ~5 km behind the front, sometimes as little as 2 km when attacking (but generally behind a ridge or something, to avoid direct fire), or a much as 8 km when expecting enemy breakthrough.

Towed batteries - by far the most common - had 4 guns apiece. Self propelled ones were found in the Panzer divisions, for a portion of the artillery, and used 6 vehicle batteries instead - Wespe or Hummel. The extras allowed some room for breakdowns while still having a working firing battery. The gun positions were often battalion sized - 3 batteries in line - to simplify ammo supply and fire direction.

What you'd expect to see in a battery position besides the 4 howitzers, would be towing vehicles, an additional ammo vehicle for every field piece, and a few more for battery personnel and their other supplies - 10-15 vehicles in all. A battery is a company-sized unit in personnel terms, with additional men on ammo detail, doing maintenance and running the motor pool (or tending the horses), HQ, communications and fire direction, and providing security for the battery area, typically with a few MG teams.

In CM terms, you'd want a green rifle platoon split into half squads scattered around the battery area. A half squad 50-100m behind firing guns would be an ammo detail; a couple more might be around a dump; an HQ and half squad typically in a central building (if available - a covered area otherwise); and the last half-squad by the vehicle park. You get the idea.

The prime towing vehicles would generally be parked about 100m from the guns themselves. The ammo vehicles could be near those or running between a dump area and the guns, or occasionally being worked on in the motor pool. One or two vehicles would be parked within about 50m of the HQ, including a staff car, if one is available.

They would always dig gun pits and usually camo the gun positions too, with large, elaborate camo nets suspended on poles, meant to hide the guns from air observation especially. You can make quite accurate gun pits in CM by the method below. They would ordinarily set this sort of thing up before opening fire, especially on the western front. Because doing otherwise was an engraved invitation to a little L-5 spotter plane to call in a big fire mission on top of them, as soon as they opened up.

Here is how you can simulate firing pits. Pick out the gun locations, in open ground and with good wide fields of fire, but not on locations high up, terrain-wise. Then use the height tool to lower the ground 1 elevation level on that exact tile. Next change that tile only to scattered trees, using the terrain tool. This simulates the camo very well. Position the gun on the forward lip of the tile, not all the way down in the bottom of the "dip" created by the height change. Check with the LOS tool that you are not "in too deep" - the forward LOS over ground 1 level higher than the bottom of the pit should be unlimited. Right at the bottom, it should only be about 100m. Makes a nice place for a crew to hide when it has to, e.g. after breaking and leaving the gun.

Gun positions should be 50-100m apart, side to side, and slightly staggered back to front (i.e. not laid out with a ruler). When setting up the other parts of the battery position, remember nothing goes ahead of the guns on their principle direction of fire. That is a loud and unsafe place to be. The ammo operation in particular always goes behind the guns. The HQ and fire direction stuff can be off at one side (often easiest, for various reasons - e.g. only one main direction for surveying things), or behind the middle of the gun line (fast runner communication to all guns) - both work fine, but other positions don't.

Beyond either end of the gun line you'd expect an MG position, with others behind them to create a sort of "box" of MG LOS lines around the battery area. Generally each gun has its own MG team, though with a German battery you might have only 2xHMG, 2xLMG, because the extra personnel to man bigger teams could be hard to find. The MG teams can be regular or green. They train for battery area defense, but rarely see much action.

As for AA, another fellow had it about right. You'd rarely see more than a single light Flak gun, 20mm or 37mm, in a battery position. A whole artillery battalion might have 3x37mm, 2-4x20mm, or 1-2x20mm Quad - or one AA halftrack. These were not organic units, but could be attached from a divisional Flak battalion (common only in Panzer divisions, with both 88s and light Flak) or a light Flak company from the divisional anti-tank battalion (all the infantry formations typically had).

The Germans tried to create a class of infantry divisions that they called "mobile", which meant less than motorized but more than horse drawn. Such divisions were supposed to have enough trucks to move all of their divisional heavy weapons - artillery, ATGs, Flak if any, infantry guns and other heavy weapons - while the infantry either walked or rode bicycles. Long moves away from action were made by train. It was an improved classification. Standard infantry divisions generally had 100-200 motor vehicles plus ~4k horses, instead, with a 4 horse team generally performing the role a mobile division would have a truck for.

I hope this helps.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Wasn't most German artillery horse drawn by design, rather than shortage of tractors? Or maybe it's a chicken and an egg thing, but they never had enough trucks to begin with - IMHO saying there were shortages of trucks implies that they had them from the beginning.<hr></blockquote>

yes that was the case up until 1941, where on the outset of barbarossa most everything the germans and romanians brought in their was horse drawn, but then again so was the soviet forces, i think he is wondering about 1944 i assume and in that case the germans produced quite a large number of tractors to tow their guns with

[Michael Dorosh]

The subject just came up over at feldgrau.com - I asked there, and will ask here - was complete mechanization ever actually a goal in the German Army (not just artillery, but everything)?

People tend to point out the fact that they relied on horses as a drawback or evidence of some kind of inferiority, and perhaps it was, but again - was this a case of the Allies imposing their will (via aerial bombing) or was it a case of the Germans simply not putting a priority on building trucks to replace their draft animals?

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The subject just came up over at feldgrau.com - I asked there, and will ask here - was complete mechanization ever actually a goal in the German Army (not just artillery, but everything)?

People tend to point out the fact that they relied on horses as a drawback or evidence of some kind of inferiority, and perhaps it was, but again - was this a case of the Allies imposing their will (via aerial bombing) or was it a case of the Germans simply not putting a priority on building trucks to replace their draft animals?<hr></blockquote>

Mostly it was a product of the lack of rationalization in the German motor industry that prevented them from producing enough trucks and other motor vehicles to even maintain existing TO&E, let alone complete the motorization of the entire army.

Motorization offers several benefits if you can obtain it. You actually have to transport more tons of fodder for a horse-drawn infantry division than POL for a motorized one. Secondly, horses get sick and tired more often than an MV will and require more man-hours to keep going. They are usually limited to hauling artillery no more than 12 miles (about 20km) per day if you want to keep them alive and healthy. Motor vehicles can do several times that.

So you can bet that the Germans would have loved to motorize their army if they could have pulled it off.

Michael

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Bullethead]

Terence said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>X)How far behind the front lines would a German 105mm artillery unit be positioned. A 75mm unit?<hr></blockquote>

Depends on the type of gun being used and the tactical situation. The Germans had several models of each caliber, each with a different max range. But for any gun, distance behind the front is a compromise of tactical utility and risk. The further forward you place your guns, the more of the depth and width of the enemy each battery can cover. OTOH, the guns are more vulnerable to location by counterbattery units and destruction by enemy ground forces getting through the MLR.

Another thing to keep in mind. Max range is not what arty usually uses for planning purposes in the above decision. Instead, they use a figure less than the max by about 1000m. This gives the gunners a buffer if they need to adjust further out. So while the 10.5cm le FH 18M might have had a max range of 12325m, the Germans probably considered it as having only a 11000m range and would have positioned it based on that.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>How many guns per battery might one see?<hr></blockquote>

On paper, most batteries had 4 guns at full strength. However, heavier weapons often had only 2 guns per battery.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>247.98.2)Is there a standard practice in which German howitzers were set up? Positions? Were gun pits dug? What IS a gun pit.How deep are they. Anyone ever done one on a CM map?<hr></blockquote>

As best as I can determine, the Germans were like most other people in that they lined their guns up in a row perpendicular to their center of arc. Center of arc refers to the guns' field of fire. A conventional towed artillery piece's tube can only be trained within an arc of about 60^. Aiming further to one side required that the crew pick up the gun's trails and physically rotate the whole gun, then reset the spades. So when supporting fires are planned, the officers lay out templates that look like pie slices on the map until they get the coverage they want. This process determines the location and center of arc of each battery.

Gunpits are just foxholes for big guns. They are used when there is a high probability that the guns will take fire and keeping them in position to provide continuous fire is more important than the risk of destruction. Also, set-up time is not an issue. Basically, in WW2 it took considerable time and effort with aiming circles and such, AFTER the guns had arrived in their new position, before they could shoot. So having to dig a big hole first further delayed the process. And of course, getting a heavy gun out of a hole is rather difficult, so dug-in arty isn't going to be able to do a hasty displacement in a bad situation.

The depth of a gunpit depends on the situation. If you expect the guns to have to provide direct fire, say against tanks, then the pit is shallow. It's not deeper than it takes to get the gun tube parallel to and nearly in contact with the surface of the ground. This naturally leaves much of the gun exposed. OTOH, if the gun will only be doing indirect fire, it can be dug in deep because the tube will only be pointing up in the air.

In CM, the defending player always starts dug-in. Hence, his guns are all in pits. They are of the shallow, direct fire-capable type, however. On-map mortars might be considered to be in the indirect fire-only type, but mortars ain't guns.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>b)Were gun tractors deployed near the guns? How near? Were the guns moved by trucks as well? Was there ever a shortage of gun tractors?<hr></blockquote>

German guns were towed by everything from horses to halftracks to tractors. Whatever tows a gun, where it's parked when the guns are in action depends on the situation. Normally, the towing thing would be fairly close to the gun because it carries the crew, essential equipment like aiming circles and stakes, and usually at least some of the ammo.

Horses towed the vast bulk of German arty (that in the infantry divisions) in WW2 so you could say there was always a shortage of towing vehicles, whether tractors, trucks, or halftracks. As the war progressed, even the mechanized divisions ran short on vehicles as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Subsection 20) What other units might one see near a battery of 105mm howitzers? AA guns? How many? What kinds. A Scheirung detatchment? How large? Any other assorted units?<hr></blockquote>

A battery in action would consist usually of 4 guns, 4 towing things (horse teams, trucks, wagons, tractors, whatever), 4 things carrying extra ammo, and several other things carrying the battery HQ personnel and their communications, fire control, and maintenance equipment. Batteries would usually be responsible for their own local security so there would be a very weak perimeter surrounding all this consisting of whatever personnel could be spared with a few MGs and AT weapons. Arty is usually far enough behind the FEBA that sizable enemy ground forces aren't expected--keeping them away is the job of the grunts on the FEBA, after all--so all that really needs doing is keeping away patrols.

The biggest threats to arty are enemy arty and tac air. For enemy arty, you can dig in or you can move; you can't stop it. However, tac air can be stopped. So arty is a frequent beneficiary of available AA assets.

Usually, there's not much else in the way of combat troops around an arty battery. Mostly, you'd have more or less continuous ammo convoys and whatever MPs were needed for traffic control. Like I said, enemy ground forces aren't normally expected so there's not usually a need for friendly forces to counter them. Reserve units for the FEBA might be held at the same depth as the arty, but they'd usually be some distance away to avoid getting caught in counterbattery fire.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Were CREWED German artillery batteries ever overrun by allied advances?<hr></blockquote>

Many times.

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The subject just came up over at feldgrau.com - I asked there, and will ask here - was complete mechanization ever actually a goal in the German Army (not just artillery, but everything)?

People tend to point out the fact that they relied on horses as a drawback or evidence of some kind of inferiority, and perhaps it was, but again - was this a case of the Allies imposing their will (via aerial bombing) or was it a case of the Germans simply not putting a priority on building trucks to replace their draft animals?<hr></blockquote>

The whole issue of German horse use is actually covered very well in the book: "Mechanized juggernaut or military anachronism? : horses and the German Army of World War II" by R.L. DiNardo. A very interesting read, suprisingly enough Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me.<hr></blockquote>

I too have occasionally stumbled upon some real gems in small-town libraries that scarcely had any military section at all. Why they happened to be there I couldn't say, unless it was by a kindly providence that intended to spare me from boredom-induced madness.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

The whole issue of German horse use is actually covered very well in the book: "Mechanized juggernaut or military anachronism? : horses and the German Army of World War II" by R.L. DiNardo. A very interesting read, suprisingly enough Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me.

When is it going to be published in paperback ? I just looked it up and the price is a bit exorbitant.

Well, it is time to start writing Santa soon anyway so I might add that one to the end of the list my sons are going to draw up.

[Simon Fox]

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

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

[qb]The whole issue of German horse use is actually covered very well in the book: "Mechanized juggernaut or military anachronism? : horses and the German Army of World War II" by R.L. DiNardo. A very interesting read, suprisingly enough Astonishingly I happened upon the thing in my local library. Why they would have such an esoteric title on their shelves is beyond me.

When is it going to be published in paperback ? I just looked it up and the price is a bit exorbitant.

Well, it is time to start writing Santa soon anyway so I might add that one to the end of the list my sons are going to draw up. [/QB]<hr></blockquote>

There is little point in you buying it. Right in the final chapter (Conclusions) it clearly states:"Despite the ubiquitous use of horse drawn transport by the German Army in WWII there is absolutely no evidence to support the fallacious concept that they played any role in combat at the level portrayed in games like Combat Mission" (or somefink like that) See there you go, straight from the 'horses mouth' so to speak.

[Sergei]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

So you can bet that the Germans would have loved to motorize their army if they could have pulled it off.<hr></blockquote>

Do you know if they would have been able to supply them with enough fuel?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

There is little point in you buying it. Right in the final chapter (Conclusions) it clearly states:"Despite the ubiquitous use of horse drawn transport by the German Army in WWII there is absolutely no evidence to support the fallacious concept that they played any role in combat at the level portrayed in games like Combat Mission" (or somefink like that) See there you go, straight from the 'horses mouth' so to speak.

Damnation !!!

The rumbling sound you heard was my earth shattering.

Is the cover pretty and are there any nice pictures of horsies in it ?

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: tero ]</p>

[tss]

There's also one consideration that I didn't notice being mentioned, yet.

If possible, artillerymen like to have a nice hill between the firing positions and the enemy so that enemy counterbattery folks can't see the gunflashes.

However, it is strongly advisable to choose positions so that the hill doesn't create a huge blind zone. This is more crucial with cannons than with howitzers because of the different trajectories.

Michael emrys wrote:

Motorization offers several benefits if you can obtain it.

Just about the only advantage of horse-drawn artillery that I can think of was that a horses could take light guns (<= 76 mm) through more difficult roadless terrain than gun tractors of the era.

However, this is not very important thing since in general you don't want to get your guns in the end of a very difficult supply line.

- Tommi

[Tero]

Originally posted by tss:

Just about the only advantage of horse-drawn artillery that I can think of was that a horses could take light guns (<= 76 mm) through more difficult roadless terrain than gun tractors of the era.

However, this is not very important thing since in general you don't want to get your guns in the end of a very difficult supply line.

However, that roadless terrain does not have to be "difficult".

One more thing going for the horse drawn team over the motorized team is the fact that you can place the guns to locations unspotted more readily than you can with a motorized tractor. If you were using a motorized tractor you would leave tell tale tracks marks on the ground that direct the airattacks and spotters right to the firing position. With a horses you could draw the gun through the woods and avoid the fields or other terrain features that are susceptible to damage which is hard to conceal.

Places like that are inside and in the edges of woods and other places some distance away from the road.

Finnish artillery was mostly horse drawn and losses (speaking about the summer of 1944 in particular) to counterbattery fire and aerial attacks were surprisingly low compared to the (early) losses sustained when the horses were plowing the field away from the batteries and the guns had to be abandoned simply because there was no way to tow them away. IIRC Finnish firing positions were located mostly inside woods in small natural clearings that made spotting them from the air that much more difficult than if they had been out in the open.

[Hans]

Another good aspect of horse drawn artillery (My father commanded one of the last US horse drawn units) is that they are fairly quiet, its a lot easier to move them around without having them being heard.

They come with alot of harness which makes it easy for men to manhandle them if you lose your horses(this happened to my Father's battery in the Lousiana maneuver, he was able to move one section using the crews several miles with ammo)

Finally you can eat them if it gets really, really bad.

Of course there are LOTS of things wrong with horses too, like the time the Army provided him with a blind horse.........

[Tero]

Originally posted by Hans:

Of course there are LOTS of things wrong with horses too, like the time the Army provided him with a blind horse.........

Of course no mechanical tractor fresh out of the factory ever sufferend from technical problems.

But a tractor did not bolt off in panic when it came under fire.

Then again staying put would make it vulnerable to beig KO'd. You can get the paniced horse to work again but a KO'd tractor stayes KO'd.

[tss]

One more thing. An artillery battery commander without a dead wish will position his guns at least 200-300 meters away from all notable landmarks, especially from main roads or, God forbid, from intersections of major roads.

This has two purposes:

1) Random artillery harrasment is most often fired at landmarks.

2) Directing counter-battery fire is more difficult without clear landmarks.

There's an cautionary tale of a Soviet 152 mm howitzer battery whose commander thought that it would be a good idea to deploy guns 50 m away from the intersection of two major roads in an area where there was on average several dozens of kilometers between roads (Kiestinki). Before the battery had had time to fire a single shot (or entrench the guns), it was knocked out (2 guns destroyed, most of men KIA or WIA) by a surprise artillery strike that was fired blindly and randomly at the intersection.

- Tommi

[Michael Emrys]

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

Do you know if they would have been able to supply them with enough fuel?<hr></blockquote>

Certainly not after the middle of 1944. Fuel became critically scarce for everybody then.

The Luftwaffe was especially hard hit. As a consequence, pilot training suffered just at a time when well-trained pilots were needed the most.

The Heer seemed to always have enough to fuel their major operations, but they had grave trouble getting it where it was needed due to a lack of motor transport. For instance, during the Battle of the Bulge, they lost roughly as many tanks to fuel starvation and subsequent abandonment as to enemy firepower.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

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

If possible, artillerymen like to have a nice hill between the firing positions and the enemy so that enemy counterbattery folks can't see the gunflashes.<hr></blockquote>

While it's true that a hill would block specific observation of the muzzle flash, the atmosphere above the firing battery and all the dust and humidity it contains would light up and give a pretty good idea where the guns were located. Just parking behind a grove of trees would provide about the same degree of concealment.

I've always assumed that the real reason the artillery liked to be behind a hill was the protection it provided from flat trajectory direct fire weapons.

Michael

[Hans]

Gunfire effects on horses. Horses can be easily made to ignore gunfire sounds. This is done by standing around them while they are secured and firing repeatly -in an artillery battery that is easy you just secure them near the guns during practice. After awhile they ascertain that the loud sound doesn't mean pain.

Horses will also move about under direct control of their rider despite any amount of noise........if not there would never have been any cavalry charges in the centuries past!

[Andreas]

Gunfire effects on horses as opposed to those on trucks/HTs?

The Shrapnell that goes through the radiator of the HT has created a nuisance and some repairable damage to the prime mover. The same Shrapnell tearing a whole in the horse has created a prime mover casualty, and you have to find a new one.

Also, any shrapnell hitting the horse is going to put it out of action, while in a vehicle there are large areas where it does not matter at all.

We have already talked about fodder, the need for a veterinary section (while any village idiot can be a car mechanic, you need special education to become a horse doctor), but there are also problems of exhaustion of the beasts, speed, cross country mobility for anything larger than a light field gun (ever had a look at the limbers and their wheels?) and whatnot. There was also the slight problem with the original German horses dying in droves in the Russian winter, because they could not deal with the temperatures (only one source for that, but it does not sound too far fetched). While the truck will run again once the temperature goes up, the only thing you can do with the dead horse is (b)eat it.

Both are equally unspooked by gunfire sounds though, as it seems. On balance I take an unarmoured HT over a 12 horse limber anyday, even in the primeval Finnish forest, where the BMX bandits roam (thanks for that Simon). On balance I believe the German army would have taken trucks if they had had the choice.