no indirect fire with SU-85 / 100/ 122 / 152 ?

[Trommelfeuer]

@ apex: he said that sturmgeschütze could only fire their main-gun in "den unteren Winkelgruppen von ca. -3° bis +20°" ---> he didn't mention specific angles for different sturmgeschütze but told me in general about it...

...and he said that he never saw sturmgeschütze in indirect fire support role, only direct fire support role, with the sturmgeschütze having LOS to the target.

he also told me a lot about the very deep russian defences at Kursk, and that the german Panzer-spearheads had advanced to deep into enemy territory without infantry support covering their flanks.

My grandfather said that german soldiers had the impression of "drowning" in the vastness of the russian country...and that german forces were too few compared to russian forces...the russian artillery for example was at some areas 12 times the number of german artillery...

MFG, Trommelfeuer

[Trommelfeuer]

Please excuse me for coming back to the topic, but I found something interesting I would like to share with you:

ISU-152 indirect dial sight (non-optical):

The indirect dial sight (non-optical) used was typical of most European artillery sight designs. It includes adjustments for azimuth and elevation with spirit bubble levels (3) to indicate level gun positions. The drum to the left (15) is calibrated for each ammo type and allows proper elevation deviations for the aerodynamics of each projectile. The long levers rising to the right (6,7) are speed adjusting bars. Indirect firing requires a predetermined aiming point to be established before hand and sighted precisely. Then, when an enemy location is indicated on a map for a fire mission, the angle of deviation to the target on the map is determined from the established aiming point. The sight adjustments are set to that angle and the gun traversed until the aiming point is again in the sight. Once the elevation is worked out via a table for the distance required and elevation of both the target and gun-howitzer, the sight is adjusted again and the gun is elevated, now ready for firing. With a forward observer calling in minor adjustments, the gun-howitzer can hit its target after 2 or 3 ranging shots. For a 152mm gun-howitzer the area of complete destruction (except armored targets) around each HE shell blast is roughly 20 meters in diameter.

source:

http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/isu152/isu152a.html

Does'nt that mean, that ISU-152 could be used for indirect fire support when combined with a forward observer?

With friendly greetings, Trommelfeuer

[ March 20, 2003, 03:00 AM: Message edited by: Trommelfeuer ]

[Sergei]

Yes, and no. Yes in the sense that I know that this kinds of things were done. (Finns even had a method for firing indirect with machineguns as a substitute of artillery, but I don't know if it ever became necessary to resort to that.)

But in CM, the only indirect fire on-map weapons are mortars. They wanted to keep artillery simple enough that all you need are FO's, saves a lot of time if you're more interested in infantry and armour engagements. The artillery rules are probably going to be improved a lot in the next engine (gee how we all just keep babbling about that like the second coming of Jesus!), and they have to, if on-board gun batteries are to be implemented. Doesn't mean that it will, though, because in most of cases, all you really need is just that FO. If you think of all the rules necessary and how the present rules aren't enough, you'll understand that it's not easy to keep that within CM's scope and purpose. (Ie. now mortars, to fire at TRP's, must not move, meaning that they can't have alternate firing positions, and in the case of mortar halftracks, they can't first fire at TRP, then move to a different location for direct fire, then move back to original location to fire at the TRP.)

[JonS]

Originally posted by Trommelfeuer:

Does'nt that mean, that ISU-152 could be used for indirect fire support when combined with a forward observer?

Yes. But then, no one has said that the couldn't fire indirect. What people have been saying is that predominantly - and by design and doctrine - they fired direct.

Anyway, in CMBB you can have SU-152s, StuGs, and whatever else your heart desires, firing indirect. The method is simple:

1) buy an FO of the appropriate calibre, then

2) tell yourself that the guns on the other end of the wire or radio are StuGs, SUs, or whatever.

Easy huh? What you can't do is have your cake and eat it. In the snippet you posted it talks about all the requirements for firing these guns indirect. That all takes time to arrange and set up - it doesn't just happen in an instant. So, in CMBB you can have an SU-152 firing direct, or you can have a battery of SU-152s firing indirect via an FO. What you cannot have is an SU-152 switching back and forth as the whim takes you.

Sergei,

Commonwealth MG Bns regularly fired their Vickers on indirect shoots as part of integrated fireplans.

Regards

JonS

[Trommelfeuer]

Thank you very much for not losing patience and providing me (and others) with excellent information on the topic, and explaining it once more to me, I was to stubborn to see that the whole process of setting up an artillery battery for indirect fire support takes a lot of time.

Anyway, in CMBB you can have SU-152s, StuGs, and whatever else your heart desires, firing indirect. The method is simple:

1) buy an FO of the appropriate calibre, then

2) tell yourself that the guns on the other end of the wire or radio are StuGs, SUs, or whatever.

Well, thanks for that idea , I'll do it!

With friendly greetings, Trommelfeuer

[Battlefront.com]

Trommelfeuer,

As others have already stated, the most important question to ask is not:

"Is this weapon capable of firing indirectly?"

but instead:

"Did this weapon fire indirectly as part of its normal, regular use?"

If the answer is "yes", then one has to look at how exactly was that acheived. Firing indirectly took time to establish. If that is the intent of the scenario designer, then you would receive a Foward Observer of the same type of gun/mortar.

But for things like Assault Guns, they were designed for direct fire as you have now learned. Were they in theory capable of firing indirectly? Yes. Was a normal tank also capable of firing indirectly? Yes. But did either do this in the majority of situations? No.

I have a picture somewhere of a platoon of Sherman 75s lined up. Engineers prepared "ramps" made out of soil. This allowed the tank gun to have a lot of elevation it could not have if it were on flat terrain. These tanks fired indirectly. But they should not be allowed to do this within a game of CM.

Also, someone a long time ago pointed out that pretty much all guns, in a tank or on wheels, and their crews have some training and instruments for firing indirectly or directly. However, this does not mean they could or would do BOTH in normal circumstances.

Redwolf,

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)

Actually, there are more fundamental differences. Modern artillery capabilities are very different than WWII because of communications equipment, firing computers, etc. Also, TacOps is at a higher scale than CM, which is significant. Most CM battles are too small for onmap indirect artillery. Because of this we did not invest the time into programming the rules for having dual use artillery.

Steve

[Hans]

Indirect vs direct

Should and could they fire indirect?

Yes they could, I'd say that units above regular in "experience" could (for those units so equipped) could set up to fire indirectly. You are looking at 10-15 minutes and there are severe minimum range penalties. This is due to most of the systems having only one charge-usually the most powerful for direct fire use-this I believe would restrict its use in CM style engagements. I cannot under emphasize the importance of the fixed charge and elevation restrictions of equipped primarily constructed for forward, direct fire.

Think of it this way, if you have a pistol, BB gun or 22 and want to use it indirect what is your biggest problem...think about it

Certainly none of the Soviets and probably most if not all German units couldn't do a "hip shoot".

Its a interesting aspect of war use and could be modeled but it wouldn't be my first choice.

I personally always liked indirect MG fire!

Hans

Former artillery gunnery instructor : ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I have a picture somewhere of a platoon of Sherman 75s lined up. Engineers prepared "ramps" made out of soil. This allowed the tank gun to have a lot of elevation it could not have if it were on flat terrain. These tanks fired indirectly.

Steve,

FYI (rather than any plug for CMxx), I'm starting to get the impression that using Shermans to fire indirect was ... not 'common' exactly, but certainly a task they could expect to perform. Certainly not rare at any rate. This is especially the case from late-ish 1944 on* - I've seen quite a few references to CW applications of it, both in NWE and in Italy.

Hans,

I don't think experience should have anything to do with it. Either an on-map unit in CMxx can fire indirect, or it can't. And IMO, hte StuGs, AGs, Tanks, etc shouldn't be able to.

Regards

JonS

* Two examples of largescale, multi-regiment use were the Rhineland battles and the Rhine crossings. It is not mere coincidence that these were large-scale, set-piece battles.

[ March 21, 2003, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Hans]

Hi JonS

CM has a limitation in that they rate combat experience and not the level of training (which are different). You can have highly rated "elite" infantry who can do nothing but light infantry tactics while you have green infantry trained to perform a variety of tasks, etc

In this case use of these system in an indirect mode requires special training and preparation that is normally not concentrated on in a training situation. ie indirect use usually arises during wartime due to need.

Could units do indirect fire, yep, but when they did so that is all they did you didn't have commonly(as far as I can determine) direct fire units engaging in indirect and back and forth. Now where this might occur is if a notable target was found and a commander or enthusiastic FO/FA commander were to do the set up it could be done. But in the heat of a QB battle setting -with out prior prep-very iffy in my opinion.

Should we as CM commanders have that option? Yes we could but I believe it would have a serious time loss penalty and you would lose that unit for on board direct fire use.

Regards

Hans

[Hans]

Technical note

If you look at the range of a Sherman 75/76mm gun. That is also the minimum range unless you superelevate which is what those ramps were for in the picture.

The problem in using vehicles that cannot be locked into position (think artillery gun spades) is that when it fires the vehicles recoil system will absorb some but not all of the energy and the vehicle will shift. This occurs in dug in spaded artillery also which necessitiates them to relay the gun on a distant aiming point or use aiming stakes etc. In a tank or other vehicle this problem is even worse - ie your accuracy will be rather sad.

[Battlefront.com]

Hans,

Should we as CM commanders have that option? Yes we could but I believe it would have a serious time loss penalty and you would lose that unit for on board direct fire use.

The problem here is twofold:

1. NOTHING put into the game comes for free. Development and testing time is required for any addition. In this case, significant time. If this is a feature that would hardly ever be used because of the real world limitations, and can be worked around using FOs for the most part, then why squander our resources in this area?

2. Allowing players to access tactics which were rarely used, and used only in rather unique and operational circumstances (for the most part), presents problems with distorting reality. In other words, allowing players ahistorical decision making capabilities that real life commanders in WWII obviously did not utlize will produce ahistorical results. The best way to think about this is as if we did away with not only the Rarity option but also unit pricing. There are already ahistorical numbers of King Tigers and such being used, for example, with these features. Imagine what it would be like if they weren't available at all

The facts speak loudly for themselves... these vehicles were not built to fire indirectly as their primary role (or even flexible secondary role) nor was their doctrine in support of such deployment except for unusual situations.

I have never, ever, in all my years of researching ever seen these vehicles firing indirectly as part of an improvised tactical decision done on the fly in the middle of a combat situation. I am sure it happened once or twice, but even 100 times is statistically insignificant. Therefore, this feature flunks the test and therefore should not be included for WWII vehicles. Even when we rewrite the game engine.

Steve

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Even when we rewrite the game engine.

Steve </font>

[kevsharr]

The American's in the Italian theatre used M-10's,M-36's and Sherman's in the indirect fire role actually quite frequently because of the static nature of most of the theatre's combat.I've got several photo's of tank destroyer's on built up ramp's surrounded by heap's of spent shell casing's and ammo crates.When I served on M-60's back in the seventies it was SOP when occupying a defensive position to identify and record the bearing's of likely avenues of approach so in the event of a night attack we could bombard these area's.Since we could'nt see the target area this would be considered indirect fire,we practiced it quite often.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by kevsharr:

When I served on M-60's back in the seventies it was SOP when occupying a defensive position to identify and record the bearing's of likely avenues of approach so in the event of a night attack we could bombard these area's.Since we could'nt see the target area this would be considered indirect fire,we practiced it quite often.

This would be something that I'd like to see taken into account (like guns, tanks & MG's being able to shoot through smoke screens at TRP's). But here we encounter once again the "Omnipresent Commander" issue.

[Battlefront.com]

kevsharr,

the problem is defining "quite often". What we have to do is compare the times it was done with the times it wasn't. And when it was done, was it prepared and predetermined, or something done on the fly during a half hour battle? These are the important issues to look at, not simply "could it happen" or even "did it happen". If you care to search the archives (probably 1999) you can look for "Bovine MG42 Sponge" or somefink like that. My oft repeated example of why this is important to keep in mind

Sergei,

This would be something that I'd like to see taken into account (like guns, tanks & MG's being able to shoot through smoke screens at TRP's). But here we encounter once again the "Omnipresent Commander" issue.

Exactly. Any good simulation *must* keep in mind the overall level of realism. Allowing a tactical capability without adequate historical constraints can in fact ruin the overall realism. Firing indirectly on the fly is one such case, firing through smoke is another

Steve

[Hans]

Battlefront

We are in agreement.

1. Yes direct fire unit could and did fire indirectly if special effort was made.

2. For CM as a simulation it should have this ability HOWEVER, based on time constraints and resources it would have a very low priority (I can think of a number of artillery related issues of far more importance that this one).

3. I once took a look at unusual indirect system for the USA. You could use, very effectively, 50 cals and other MGs for indirect fire*. The problem was the need to train the crews on how to do it. It wasn't deemed "a training priority".

4. Summary: cool but not cool enough to detract from more basic issues in CM.

*MGs for indirect was made into an art by the Germans in WWI, it drop away during WWII due to the technical and training requirements for its effective use.