Why are there no Russian 85mm ATG's?

[Matt May]

The Russian 85mm obr. 44, 100mm obr. 44 anti-tank guns are missing from the OB. I can understand the 100mm because it was exceedingly rare, but the 85mm was more common. Also, why are there no heavy Russian artillery guns (122mm & 152mm), except as OBA? I tried the search for this issue, but couldn't find anything. Thanks.

[ October 19, 2005, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Matt May ]

[stoat]

I have no idea about the AT guns, but I do know why the large caliber artillery pieces aren't included. They weren't used for direct fire. There is no reason to set up your artillery within a kilometer of the enemy. You keep it behind the lines, or in this case off of the map, and send spotters forward to identify targets. This keeps your guns safe and prevents you from having to continually move them farther back away from the battle.

[Mad Russian]

Originally posted by Matt May:

The Russian 85mm obr. 44, 100mm obr. 44 anti-tank guns are missing from the OB. I can understand the 100mm because it was exceedingly rare, but the 85mm was more common. Also, why are there no heavy Russian artillery guns (122mm & 152mm), except as OBA? I tried the search for this issue, but couldn't find anything. Thanks.

The 100mm ATG is there. It's available in early 1945. Nobody's large artillery is in the game. The maps are too small for their normal deployment. Only if they are overrun would they make to the front lines.

Hope this helps.

[JasonC]

They were used for direct fire on defense, all guns were. 122 longs and 152 gun-howitzers were incorporated into gun lines as "animal killers" when necessary, much as the Germans used their 88mm Flak and their 105mm cannons (as opposed to howitzers) against Russian KVs in 1941.

The Russian 85mm is represented only by the AA gun, which is accurate for 1943, that is what they used. But its ammo is so undermodeled that they can bounce from StuG fronts at medium range.

The Russian artillery park is thus underrepresented on the high end. You are best off taking 57mm ATGs to deal with serious German armor. SU-152s also work, though they are vulnerable themselves and not as stealthy.

Plus you can make up for missing or undermodeled items by overusing a few overmodeled ones, starting with the IL-2...

[stoat]

Originally posted by JasonC:

They were used for direct fire on defense, all guns were. 122 longs and 152 gun-howitzers were incorporated into gun lines as "animal killers" when necessary, much as the Germans used their 88mm Flak and their 105mm cannons (as opposed to howitzers) against Russian KVs in 1941.

I agree completely. What I was saying was if you have a 500m x 500m QB, what do you do with a battery of 152mm artillery? Especially if your enemy has mortars or FOs. They're just shell magnets, after the first round.

[MPK]

"but I do know why the large caliber artillery pieces aren't included. They weren't used for

direct fire."

They were at Ponyri, during Kursk...

For just one example.

"The Russian artillery park is thus

underrepresented on the high end."

True...and not only are the guns not in

the game (the Germans can deploy the

150mm FH) but neither are the tractors;

eg Stalinetz and Komsomolets, to move

them around...and the 76mm & 85mm AA

guns that are in the game are rendered

less useful by being immobile...

[Matt May]

Originally posted by stoat:

I have no idea about the AT guns, but I do know why the large caliber artillery pieces aren't included. They weren't used for direct fire. There is no reason to set up your artillery within a kilometer of the enemy.

Is that to say that your lines are never broken and artillery positions overrun? This is a glaring oversight on the part of Battlefront.

[Matt May]

While I appreciate the lectures on Russian vehicles mounting the 85 and 100mm guns and placement of artillery on the battlefield (which I am already well aware of), my point was to find out why these guns aren't in the game. (I guess I haven't been lucky enough to be able to deploy the 100mm as I haven't seen it appear on the (unrestricted) purchase list in the time frame it was available.) I don't buy the arguments about the heavy arty being excluded because of range issues when the 105mm howitzers are there. If the range argument is accurate, then why are the German mobile arty pieces, the Wespe and Hummel, represented? They should also be miles behind the lines in most cases. If CM was originally supposed to be "ASL for the computer" then why have they ignored these important units which were included in ASL?

[Brent Pollock]

Heck, the Germans get the 128 mm PaK...

[76mm]

I don't think that Battlefront ever claimed that CMBB was "ASL for the computer," and they don't give two hoots how something was done in ASL.

[Matt May]

Originally posted by 76mm:

I don't think that Battlefront ever claimed that CMBB was "ASL for the computer," and they don't give two hoots how something was done in ASL.

No, Battlefront didn't, but CM WAS orginally supposed to be "ASL for the computer". I guess I mentioned ASL because I consider it the yardstick to which I measure other games. That issue aside, I wonder what will happen in CMC when a Russian heavy arty unit gets overrun - will CMC assume that the Soviets just abandon their heavy guns for that battle?

[76mm]

The lack of heavy arty in CMBB is a pain; from what I've seen on the forum, if a heavy arty unit is overrun in CMC, all that will appear in CMBB is their transport, rendering the guns rather vulnerable and making it a very wise idea to keep them far to the rear.

Not the most satisfying solution, but nothing can be done since the guns are not available in CMBB. Also, I wonder if it is not realistic--if a 152mm battery was overrun, would the crew stick around to fight, or try to flee with or without the guns? I would think that in most cases, the guns' ability to put up effective resistance would be limited.

[JasonC]

"what will happen in CMC"

I can explain how I handled it for a campaign of my own. The Russians had one battery of 122s on the field. They would be represented by 85mm AA in a tactical fight. Not exact, to be sure, but it gives them some AT ability beyond 76mm. For 120mm mortars I had a similar issue, and decided to just represent them with on map 82s, and you are out of luck for the higher firepower if you get caught with them on-map. All the more reason to keep them off and use them indirect.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Matt May:

While I appreciate the lectures on Russian vehicles mounting the 85 and 100mm guns and placement of artillery on the battlefield (which I am already well aware of), my point was to find out why these guns aren't in the game. [snips]

I imagine that the reason no Russian 85mm towed ATk guns are included in the game is that none were included in WW2.

Zaloga and Ness' "Red Army Handbook" (1998), TN-30-430 "Handbook on USSR Military Forces" (1945) and Foedrowitz' "Soviet Field Artillery in WW2" (1996) all fail to mention towed 85mm ATk or field guns.

Valera Potapov's excellent "Russian Battlefield" site states clearly that the D-44 85mm Divisional Gun was not ready in time to see service during the war, and lists various 85mm experimental guns, none of which were accpeted for service:

http://www.battlefield.ru/guns/field_16.html

Chamberlain & Gander's WW2 Fact File "Light and Medium Field Artillery" (1975) lists the D-44 divisional gun, and mentions a model 1943 85mm gun, for which no picture seems to be available.

Given the state of knowledge of Soviet equipment in the West in 1975, I am strongly inclined to believe that on this occasion Chamberlain and Gander are mistaken. The D-44 is a very well-known gun, and I can hardly imagine that Zaloga, Ness and Foedrowitz just forgot about it.

Do you have any other evidence for the use of 85mm Divisional Guns by the Red Army in WW2?

All the best,

John.

[JasonC]

John - They issued 85mm *AA* guns to separate *AT battalions*, as early as Kursk. They were meant to be used in an anti-tank role. A typical tank corps had one of these battalions attached. Some sources call these AT guns, but I agree with you they were not dedicated ATGs - they were instead AA guns in an AT role. As an example of the confusing designation, see Zetterling and Franklin's "Kursk 1943", page 49. (The chapter bibliography cites CC Sharp, "The Soviet Order of Battle in WW II", on this point).

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JasonC:

John - They issued 85mm *AA* guns to separate *AT battalions*, as early as Kursk. They were meant to be used in an anti-tank role. A typical tank corps had one of these battalions attached. Some sources call these AT guns, but I agree with you they were not dedicated ATGs - they were instead AA guns in an AT role.

Yes, I'm aware of that, I was focusing on the D-44, which I believe was a '45 rather than a '44 model when it comes to year designations, but seems to be the gun the original poster has in mind.

I suppose confusion with the AA gun in the ground role might explain Chamberlain & Gander's belief that there was an 85mm Divisional Gun in '43. They say:

"...during 1943, a new gun appeared that added weight to the barrages then becoming commonplace on the Eastern Front. The new gun was the 85mm Model 1943 or 85-43, and was often referred to as a divisional gun. As things turned out the 85-43 spent most of its life being used as an anti-tank gun. It was produced in relatively small numbers."

That doesn't sound very much like AA in the ground role to me, but I can hardly think what else it might be supposed to refer to.

All the best,

John.

[JasonC]

The D44 designation is taken to mean it was intended as a divisional gun. This US army source says it was intended as a replacement for the ZIS-3 -

https://www.infantry.army.mil/museum/outside_tour/guns/soviet_85mm.htm

Has a picture anyway. As for the model number, it is M1945 not 44. I've seen the year of service variously as 1944 or 1945.

But the M1939 AA gun was around from the start of the war. There were 2630 of them in service on the day of the invasion, over 9000 were fielded by the time of Kursk (to that date, some lost of course, etc).

When the Russians captured a Tiger and tried out their guns against one, the M1939 AA gun performed the best, penetrating the front armor at 1000 meters. That was in April of 1943, and led to two orders. One, that future tank gun development should try to replicate the performance of the M1939. Two, 85mm AA guns used in direct fire role against German tanks, in independent AT battalions.

At the time of Kursk, the independent AT battalions with numbers from 728 to 757 had 12 of these each (M1939s that is). I don't find 734, 737, 739, 742, 748, 750, or 754 in the Front OOBs, but the other 23 are all accounted for - 6 in Bryansk Front, 5 in Steppe, 3 each in Voronezh and Central, 2 each in Western and Southwestern, 1 in Southern, and 1 listed in Stavka reserve with a known deployment region in the Ukraine. The other 7 might also have been in Stavka reserve, I do not know.

As for what the original poster "meant", it is more than I know. But the numerous Russian 85mms doing AT work at mid war were 1939 era AA pieces. And they were quite good at it, much better than CMBB gives them credit for. Try killing a Tiger I from the front with one at 1000m in April 1943. In CM, the ammo is so undermodeled it will bounce from a StuG front at half that range.

[Aragorn2002]

Since I never use them and never seen them in CMBB I've decided to take a look at the Soviet 100 mm ATG and the German 128 mm PAK...May 1945 or so...and I believe they are switched. What turns up is a Soviet 100 mm with a German gunner and a German 128 mm with a Soviet gunner!

Now this is strange, isn't it?

[Matt May]

Thanks for the help, John & Jason. My source was the ASL soviet artillery notes. I had assumed that they had done their homework, looks like they got a poor grade on that assignment. Just goes to show you that plagurism doesn't pay!

[John Kettler]

stoat,

Your statement regarding Russian heavy artillery not being used for direct fire is fundamentally incorrect. Not only was it used in defensive situations, but all you have to do is watch Battle of Berlin footage to see 122mm, 152mm, and if memory serves, 203mm (with that weird unpowered track instead of wheels) being employed in Direct Fire mode offensively. This was done over and over again as a high leverage(fast response, much greater accuracy) complement to the relatively inflexible and slow indirect fires. The Russians reckoned such direct fires to be 10X as effective,

for a given weight of fire, as indirect fires. The SU-122/152 & ISU-152 (the ISU-122 generally being a dedicated tank killer) merely made such direct fires mobile. As of 1989, at least, when I left my job as a Soviet Threat Analyst, this was still true. In my view, Russian heavy artillery ought to be there, and its absence deprives us of many interesting gaming possibilities. For example, not only is it difficult to properly depict late war city fights,

but this applies equally to any number of breakthrough scenarios, starting in the earliest days of the war. I remember reading historical accounts in the old AFV-G2 armor magazine about StuGs breaking through the lines and savaging the Russian artillery positions. Just such a scenario is why Russian artillery was invariably equipped for direct fire against tanks and AFVs, typically with either APHE or HEAT. Equivalent measures were taken against infantry attack; some of the smaller weapons had canister ammo for precisely such a situation. Likewise, when CMBB was in development I argued in vain for the capability to employ Katyushas in the direct fire mode. This was done historically and was very exciting for the panzer formation which thought it would gobble up the "helpless" rocket launchers.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ October 25, 2005, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Matt May]

Likewise, when CMBB was in development I argued in vain for the capability to employ Katyushas in the direct fire mode. This was done historically and was very exciting for the panzer formation which thought it would gobble up the "helpless" rocket launchers.

Regards,

John Kettler [/QB]

"Very exciting", eh? I would imagine so! Thanks for the input from an expert!

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

stoat,

Your statement regarding Russian heavy artillery not being used for direct fire is fundamentally incorrect. Not only was it used in defensive situations, but all you have to do is watch Battle of Berlin footage to see 122mm, 152mm, and if memory serves, 203mm (with that weird unpowered track instead of wheels) being employed in Direct Fire mode offensively.

Newsreel footage was notoriously unreliable and in the majority of instances shot away from the front line. I would be loathe to use this form of "evidence" as concrete proof of any type of military practice. Given the vulnerability of artillery crews and camera crews alike to small arms fire, I'd suggest that additional sources would be necessary before accepting newsreel footage as indicative of actual practice.

[Andreas]

From all my readings of Soviet officer memoirs it is quite apparent that both 122mm and 152mm guns (more the former, since these were divisional guns) were used to fire over open sights. Defensively the guns were to be placed in such a way that they could fire over open sights to defend the battery position, and offensively they would be used to support attacks by smashing German fortifications. 203mm I can believe in exceptional situations like city fights (think of Aachen where the US Army brought SP 155mm forward to deal with German defenses), but not really regularly. Far too valuable for that I would have thought.

BFC made a decision not to include heavy artillery above the standard medium divisional gun. Unfortunately for the Soviets that means the 76mm, since the 122mm was their heavy gun. Regimental artillery is included on both sides, but again the Soviets get the short end of the stick, since they do not have an equivalent to the 15cm sIG33 on the regimental level. Both sides do have heavy AT, and medium AA as on-board pieces, as the upper envelope of what is modelled.

Regarding Katyushas firing directly at attacking armour - I have a hard time imagining that this would do real damage. It may still leave an attacking tank formation in disarray in the real world by smashing vision blocks and removing antennas, but these things are unfortunately not modeled in CMx1 games. Maybe the odd mobility kill. Shrug - would not be high on my list of 'stuff I think is crucial'. I'd rather have seen the 10cm K18, SP 88mm HTs, or Soviet tanks being able to tow guns, but I am weird that way.

All the best

Andreas

[juan_gigante]

In Antony Beevor's "The Fall Of Berlin", he mentions that the Russians actually used a few 203mm SP guns, specially made for the task of destroying buildings.

I just think that big guns are cool, and that they would be fun to have, in addition to being able to create a more realistic scenario. Perhaps along with CMC we would see a CMBB patch that might add the heavy artillery units that wouldn't likely appear in a standard CMBB game but whose inclusion is warranted in a campaign game.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

In Antony Beevor's "The Fall Of Berlin", he mentions that the Russians actually used a few 203mm SP guns, specially made for the task of destroying buildings.

I guess that Beevor looked at the pictures of these things, saw the tracks, concluded that they were SP, and wrote it in his book.

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I just think that big guns are cool, and that they would be fun to have, in addition to being able to create a more realistic scenario. Perhaps along with CMC we would see a CMBB patch that might add the heavy artillery units that wouldn't likely appear in a standard CMBB game but whose inclusion is warranted in a campaign game.

I would replace 'Perhaps' with 'It is unfortunately about as likely as the sky caving in that'

All the best

Andreas