Trommelfeuer Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hi there! I just wondered why I could't use my SU-122's and SU-152 for "indirect-fire support" in the "von Lauchert" scenario.... SU-152 could fire it's 152mm ML-20S-howitzer in angles from 5° to +18°, SU-122 could fire it's howitzer from -3° bis +25°.... The effective "direct-fire" = anti tank range is about 700m...I knocked out 11 Panther D's at ranges from 86 - 300m, but I wonder why I shouldn't be able to use these babies as artillery pieces, firing over the edge of a hill or out of a hole...? When I could use my SU's to lay indirect fire in the path of the enemy in CMBB, it would be much more realistic...SU's had panorama & telescopic sighths for indirect / direct fire... A 152mm shell needs almost 4.5 seconds to travel the distance of 2000m, so when the CMBB player could use an artillery spotter in combination with SU-batteries, there would be something more to worry about for the CMBB-germans... This is a pic of a "naked" ML-20S-152mm howitzer without SU-152-hull: SU-85M SU-152 Here is an interesting article about german STurmgeschütz in indirect-fire support role: http://www.militarygameronline.com/Panzer/signal1.html The new comrade of the infantry is not a tank, but belongs to the genre of the artillery. It's fighting tactics are similar; as the Sturmgeschütz takes position and fires from a standstill... If the advance of the infantry is blocked by enemy resistance, the armored gun moves forwards to attack the enemy directly from a short range Is there any chance of patching this some day ? MFG; Trommelfeuer (MFG=Mit freundlichen Grüssen = with friendly greetings) [ March 16, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 All on-board assets are incapable of indirect fire, with the exception of mortars (AFV or foot-based). I doubt that this will be changed, especially since the next patch should only address bugs and not add any features. Perhaps with the next engine (CM II) on-board assets will be capable of indirect fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 Right, I forgot...no new features in upcoming patches...sorry....so let's hope there will be nother CM engine some day including this option... MFG; Trommelfeuer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 The fact that SP guns can only be used in a direct fire role reflects, AFAIK, a deliberate decision by BTS. I think the feeling is that otherwise SP guns could more or less take over the game. My understanding is that, while, in real life, SP's were frequently used in an indirect fire role by all the warring sides (as were, e.g. Sherman75s), it would unbalance the game to have this happen in CM. Usually, when SPs were used for indirect fire in RL, they were arranged in batteries somewhere to the rear and given a deliberate fire mission. Picking up indirect fire missions while on the move in an assault role would arguably not be realistic. It would certainly have a major impact on game balance. Meanwhile, you can think of some of the FO controlled fire missions as drawing on SP guns (esp. when in conjunction with armored units). [ March 16, 2003, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Err, Trommelfeuer, all your examples quite clearly talk about direct fire use of the assault gun. The reason they were introduced (and why they were so heavily armoured) was because a DF asset that was well protected and highly mobile was needed. That role was filled by the Stugs and SUs. While they could fire indirectly, that was neither their primary design purpose, nor their main use. The Soviets loved to use their artillery in DF anyway. Also, shooting indirectly on the hoof is not so easy, but takes some preparation and materials. While the crews may or may not have been able to do it, it would not have been an effective use of the asset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 As no-one else has mentioned it, the 85 and 100mm guns are anti-tank pieces, and so wouldn't be used indirectly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Indirect fire. Any type of gun can do (even MGs) but you have to have some preparation and special training to do it effectively. 1. You need to know where you are at (survey) and need to know the ballistic characteristics of your weapon at elevation and charge (this requires bulky manuals, a special device to do the "leveling" and the mathemical ability to conduct the calculations. 2. You can fudge this by firing a sighting round which can be adjusted but even that requires a certain amount of advanced training. 'Lobbing' can work but it's slow and the gun tends to shift during this type of work making adjustment difficult. 3. The abililty to lock the gun in position (emplacement) and an external aiming point or aiming site. 4. Most AFVs used fixed ammo which gives you just one charge setting (usually very powerful) which makes short range shooting impossible -unless you have a great deal of elevation - and if you do the accuracy will decrease greatly. That is what I remember from the class on "why you slap the infantry when they request the tanks to fire indirect" from FAOBC. Basicly you can do it but its difficult, requires a lot special training and is very difficult at short ranges. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Gentlemen and Peng posters http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/basicgnryV2.htm This website will give you an idea of the difficulties involved in doing indirect fire (accurately) AND hiting the same place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 Well, the chosen examples may not be the best, but german "Sturmgeschütze" were used in indirect fire support role, to suppress enemy infantry / lay fire on fortifications....early german Sturmgeschütz-crews were no tank-crews but artillery-men.... You may be right in saying that SU-85mm and SU-100mm were only of use in the anti-tank use...but the SU-122 & SU-152 both fired heavy HE shells, and I think in CMBB for example in the meeting engangement "von Lauchert", it would be nice if you could place one or two batteries of SU-122 and SU-152 behind the hill 1.500m behind the "ravine" on russian's right flank, with a observer nearby on the hilltop, and have them lay indirect fire on the advancing german Panther-spearheads 2000-2500m ahead.... Would have a devasting effect on any nearby german infantry, cause the Panther commanders to button up most of the time, perhaps immobilize one or two Panthers, slow them down, let more russian reserves be able to rush to the ravine...oh come on guys, show some imagination on that point, and don't tell me such a thing would be nearly impossible, they just have to fire over a small hilltop, and if the first 5-6 shells go elsewhere, who gives a fart? they'll surely achieve something, at least scare the **** out of the germans... MFG, Trommelfeuer [ March 16, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by Trommelfeuer: Well, the chosen examples may not be the best, but german "Sturmgeschütze" were used in indirect fire support role, to suppress enemy infantry / lay fire on fortifications....german Sturmgeschütz-crews were no tank-crews but artillery-men....While they may have been used for this in indirect fire then and now, they were designed for and predominantly used in DF mode. That is the whole point of having a fully armoured gun. The AARs confirm it, the website you have linked to confirms it. The book 'The history of Stug Brigade 276 confirms it. I'd be interested in seeing some confirmation of this 'wide-spread' use of Stugs and Su122/152 assault guns in indirect fire. So far we have, well, nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 16, 2003 Author Share Posted March 16, 2003 Hmmm...what about this? The concept of the using howitzers on armored self-propelled carriages to support the advance of attacking infantry is said to have originated with later Generalfeldmarschall Erich von Manstein when he was still an Oberst serving as Chief of the Operations Section of the Army General Staff in 1935. The term he used to describe this new form of infantry support was “Sturmartillerie” to differentiate from conventional artillery and to stress the primary role of the new weapon, which was to provide fire support to infantry on the attack http://www.angelraybooks.com/diewehrmacht/gallery/a3.htm StuGs were initially fielded in independent batteries in 1940 though some were assigned directly to special units like the Großdeutchland Motorized Infantry Regiment. They were used in support of the infantry, but were often utilized in the anti-tank role which they were never designed for. This is demonstrated by their armament of a short, low-velocity 75mm L/24 gun that had little anti-tank capability over 500 meters unless one of the relatively uncommon hollow-charge rounds was available. The initial stages of the campaign in Russia demonstrated that the anti-tank role would be a vital necessity and a new, longer, medium velocity L/48 barrel was designed for the 75mm gun, but the StuGs equipped with the new gun didn't arrive until shortly before the '42 campaigning season began.http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel/stug.html So-couldn't we just say that Sturmgeschütze were used in an artillery = indirect fire support role in early time of Barbarossa, later in the war they became more and more tank destroyers? I read a lot about the second world war but I don't own the books & have no scanner....but I remember reading something about the german Sturmgeschütze in indirect fire support role... Besides, I didn't say that the SU-152 and SU-122 were widely used in the indirect fire support role, I just wondered why a 152 / 122mm howitzer shouldn't be able to do so. And that't why I asked the question.... MFG, Trommelfeuer [ March 16, 2003, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by Trommelfeuer: So-couldn't we just say that Sturmgeschütze were used in an artillery = indirect fire support role in early time of Barbarossa, later in the war they became more and more tank destroyers? I read a lot about the second world war but I don't own the books & have no scanner....but I remember reading something about the german Sturmgeschütze in indirect fire support role... In ww2 the term artillery included direct fire, especially anti-tank and anti-aircraft but also DF units like infantry guns. The fact that the StuGs were manned by artillerymen doesn't neccessarily mean they were meant for indirect fire. As other had said, they were used that way, but the conclusion here is wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: Picking up indirect fire missions while on the move in an assault role would arguably not be realistic. It would certainly have a major impact on game balance.This is not true, as shown in TacOps which has on-map indirectly firing artillery (SP and towed). The reason why it isn't inbalancing the game is that the indirect fire is subject to the rules of targetting through adjustment and generally less precise (and the shell flight time is longer). That makes for a nice and realistic tradeoff, only if you are willing to expose the unit you are capable of seriously shooting up targets like only a bigass direct fire gun can. For CMBB, if you compare the shell pattern of indirect fire and direct fire for the same weapon you will find that the indirect fire will not have the devastating effectivity that the big SP guns now have in CM. Both games also limit the ammo for on-map vehicles. I combination with the wider pattern that makes for an another tradeoff. In addition, the limitations of the targetting model for indirect fire in CM introduce even more reasons to revert to direct fire even if you had the choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by Trommelfeuer: So-couldn't we just say that Sturmgeschütze were used in an artillery = indirect fire support role ...LOL. As Redwolf has said, Artillery (note the capital 'A') encompasses direct as well as indirect. The StuGs were designed as a mobile, armoured version of the IGs. As such it is no surprise that they were crewed by gunners rather than tankers. It is also no surprise that, given the IG lineage, they were designed for direct rather than indirect fire support. The Germans retained a very strong fondness for direct-fire artillery-support long after most other nations had hidden their guns away on the other side of the hill. The notable exception was the Russians, who for their own reasons maintained a strong direct-fire doctrine. So it is no surprise that they, too, developed large calibre assault guns. Besides, I didn't say that the SU-152 and SU-122 were widely used in the indirect fire support role, I just wondered why a 152 / 122mm howitzer shouldn't be able to do so. And that't why I asked the question....Perhaps, but if your overall argument was a little more coherent, it would be far more compelling. Regards JonS [ March 16, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 As Redwolf said, in WW2: Artillery = DF and indirect fire. Nowhere in your links does it say anything about indirect fire. If the Sturmartillerie's newfangled role of fire support for the infantry in the attack was such a revolution, then I would be interested in what ordinary gunners were supposed to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 Well, gentlemen, you got me "knocked out" here... I think I've got to go back to "Sturmgeschütz" classroom and get some more background information...thanks for the answers. With friendly greetings, Trommelfeuer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: As no-one else has mentioned it, the 85 and 100mm guns are anti-tank pieces, and so wouldn't be used indirectly. the 85mm was actually field artillery - designated as a divisional piece to replace the 76.2's mostly used, and in it's unmounted form was fitted with all the requirements for indirect fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Every day's a school day. I should have specified the SU-85 and SU-100 as AT vehicles - tank hunters 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Trommelfeuer, you are under a misconception. When you quote "They were used in support of the infantry" that in no way implies indirect fire. The Sturmgeschütz was the successor to the light artillery in WW1, which employed infantry guns in a direct fire role. Obviously, that approach had shortcomings, and putting said IG on a chassis solved those problems. Principally, StuGs were able of indirect fire, but rarely used in that role. I recall one mention somewhere where Panzer IV (short) were used in an artillery role (they also had special equipment for that), too, but it was uncommon to say the least. The traditional role of the StuG was infantry support, hang back while the infantry attacks, and when they run into a MG nest or bunker or something else that gives them trouble, bring forward the StuG and get it over with Also, yes, StuG crews were artillerymen, not just early in the war, but there's no rule that artillerymen may not fire on a target they can see apex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 Originally posted by apex: Also, yes, StuG crews were artillerymen, not just early in the war, but there's no rule that artillerymen may not fire on a target they can see John Salt told us a nice story in the pub on Saturday, about some Pommy gunners using a 5.5" medium piece to blow a Panzer III to smithereens in the desert, to the great upset of a tank-hunting detachment stalking it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 German guns didn't usually carry indirect fire equipment so it'd be hit-and-miss using them for indirect fire. And I read the General staff even frowned upon long range direct-fire bombardment as a waste of ammo! As for the Russians, I'm not so sure. But I am certain the indirect fire range of any one of the heavy guns on Russian vehicles would certainly overshoot all but the most grotesquely large scenario maps! What's the range of a 152mm gun fired at 45 degree angle? I'd guess something like 4-8km depending on charge size? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trommelfeuer Posted March 17, 2003 Author Share Posted March 17, 2003 I'm sorry, I should have asked my grandfather before starting this topic... (my grandfather was in the Waffen-SS-"Totenkopfdivision") I just spoke to him on the phone, and he said it too, Sturmgeschütze had to see their target in order to hit'em...so I was wrong...no indirect fire for theses babies...please excuse me for wasting your time... (he explained the whole thing in more details, but my written-english is not the best...as you can see...so I won't try to translate it all...sorry...) I also asked some questions about Kursk, and he told me that russian T-34 often did "ram-attacks" against german Tigers / Panthers to immobilize them or set 'em on fire...(german tanks had benzin as fuel, russian tanks had diesel...)... Thank you very much for your precious time. MFG; Trommelfeuer [ March 17, 2003, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchildstein (ii) Posted March 17, 2003 Share Posted March 17, 2003 if it helps to clarify at all, 'assault gun' pretty much means a direct fire vehicle like the german stug75, stug105, brumbar; or for the soviets su-152 and such... the other category is 'self-propelled artillery'... i'm not sure about soviet classifications but for the germans these would have been the open-topped 105s (wespe) and 150s (hummel, bison, etc.)...this class of vehicles was used primarily for indirect fire... actually, the bison or whatever may have been used in a more assault role... anyway the basic rule was that if it was fully armored, it was used in a direct fire role, and if it was open-topped it was probably for indirect fire... by the way the stug evolved into a 'tank destroyer' dual role with the fitting of the longer 75mm guns... but was originally 'infantry support' (short 75) of this entire 'class' of vehicle my favorite is probably the basic jgdpz iv with the 'regular' and not L/70 gun... yes technically it's a tank hunter but if you jigger the ammo loadout it can carry a lot of HE with AP to spare... having said that, it would be pretty cool in cm if... the crew intimately knowing the trajectory of their gun they could fire into certain blind spots... but maybe with 'borg spotting' that would be too powerful an advantage 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Trommelfeuer, post it in german Sadly my grandfather passed away before I got into wargames apex 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevsharr Posted March 18, 2003 Share Posted March 18, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: [QB] [German guns didn't usually carry indirect fire equipment so it'd be hit-and-miss using them for indirect fire.] I guess that's with the exception of the 88mm 18,36 and 37 flak gun's which all came equiped with indirect fire system's as well as direct fire and I believe they really were extensively used in the indirect fire mode at least later in the war given their size,especially on the western front. The Bison was a 150 mm gun mounted in a Hetzer type hull and represented a kind of next generation indirect fire weapon being fully enclosed but the armor was way to light for it to be called an assault gun.Except maybe if it was modelled in CMBO [ March 17, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: kevsharr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.