Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I play a QB, pick two axis Art'y spotters, put them on separate hills.

Here comes the Russian peasant horde, down one valley which spotter A can see-- A rains down wrath, runs out of ammo.

Spotter B is looking down the other, lonely valley; he's full of ammo, but he's too fat and slow to make it over to valley A.

I have arty shells which can't be used: game limitation, or realistic representation?

It seems to me (who doesn't know) that it's reasonable to think that it could be decided on the field that spotter B needs spotter A's shells, if indeed there's any real sense in which each spotter has "his own" shells in the first place. ?

Eden

Link to post
Share on other sites

The spotters aren't really arty spotters at all, they're actually mighty and powerful wizards who can summon a shrapnel storm unto their foes.

...well yes, artillery is quite lightly modelled, at least as it comes to the spotter/battery interaction part (the effects of arty are fine). For instance, often spotters had both wire and radio connection available. And artillery is one of those things where simple ammo restrictions or even caliber aren't always such hard-drawn questions, if batteries have large stockpiles of grenades available and if there are more batteries within reach. Even tank commanders could sometimes give fire orders to radio with their radios. And so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Even tank commanders could sometimes give fire orders to radio with their radios."

Well... even on the hi-tech Western Front an allied tank would have to mount a dedicated radio set at the artillery's fequency and carry the FO as a passenger, so it wasn't quite as easy as all that.

If you've got two different FOs communicating with two different batteries, as well as being out of ear-shot of eachother, it'd be a bit of a puzzle how the guy on one mountaintop would know to hand off control to the guy on the other mountaintop! Especially considering neither the Germans nor Russians had anything as handy as the good-old Walkie-Talkie. It could be done given half-a-day to work out the chain of command, but within the confines of a 35 minute scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MikeyD:

"Even tank commanders could sometimes give fire orders to radio with their radios."

Well... even on the hi-tech Western Front an allied tank would have to mount a dedicated radio set at the artillery's fequency and carry the FO as a passenger, so it wasn't quite as easy as all that.

According to Käkelä 1996, on the battle of Kuuterselkä (14-15 June 1944):

When artillery was available, fire control from assault guns was successful. Besides artillery FO, the company and battalion commanders directed fire. The radio equipment on Stu-40's made that possible.
The commander's StuG's had 30W radios. Oh yes, and I know that assault guns are not tanks. Sorry for my inaccurate expression.

If you've got two different FOs communicating with two different batteries, as well as being out of ear-shot of eachother, it'd be a bit of a puzzle how the guy on one mountaintop would know to hand off control to the guy on the other mountaintop! Especially considering neither the Germans nor Russians had anything as handy as the good-old Walkie-Talkie. It could be done given half-a-day to work out the chain of command, but within the confines of a 35 minute scenario?
In real life, a single spotter could order down the concentrated fire of several artillery battalions if things just were properly arranged beforehand. Just read any decent presentation about the battles in Karelian Isthmus in 1944, and you'll know what I mean.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by MikeyD:

"Even tank commanders could sometimes give fire orders to radio with their radios."

Well... even on the hi-tech Western Front an allied tank would have to mount a dedicated radio set at the artillery's fequency and carry the FO as a passenger, so it wasn't quite as easy as all that.

Or a tank commander could talk to his attached FO, who would be 'netted in' to the tank freq, then the FO would relay the firemission over his means (radio) to a battery or batterys for servicing. Same approach for infantry. So, 'not quite as easy as all that', but certainly not hard.

If you've got two different FOs communicating with two different batteries, as well as being out of ear-shot of eachother, it'd be a bit of a puzzle how the guy on one mountaintop would know to hand off control to the guy on the other mountaintop! Especially considering neither the Germans nor Russians had anything as handy as the good-old Walkie-Talkie. It could be done given half-a-day to work out the chain of command, but within the confines of a 35 minute scenario? [/QB]
Well, if you design such a pants command and communications setup you deserve what you get. It has nothing to do with who has what type of radio (althouigh good comms are a critical component to acheiving effective, responsive fire), but rather with the command relationships established before anyone gets anywhere near the enemy.

Also, something that may not generally be realised: in the RA the FOOs didn't 'belong' to their parent battery. They belonged to the divisional artillery commander, and were his pawns to push about. By tradition they would tend to work with the same infantry or armoured battalion, and tend to call for fire from a particular battery. However, that was mostly for ease-of-use and convienience. When required they could call for fire from anyone, and when required they could work with anyone. So, the net effect of all that was that RA FOOs could do exactly what Eden Smallwood thinks they should have been able to do, and they could do it quickly and without fuss.

The US had a broadly similar system in terms of effects at the target end, though the route by which they got there was a bit different.

IIRC, the Germans tended to be a bit more rigid about who could call for fire, who would deliver it. They also seem to have had trouble mastering the art of flexible, massed fire.

The Russians I can't comment on beyond cartoon stereotypes, so I won't. (BTW, that was meant to be derogatory toward my level of understanding of the Russians, not of the Russians artillery)

The Finns, of course, just threw matchsticks at everyone and thus won WWII.

Regards

JonS

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Finns, of course, just threw matchsticks at everyone and thus won WWII.

Regards

JonS [/QB]

Indeed.... even the mosy lowly of finnish infantry grunts could call down whole boxes of matchsticks onto targets using only immitation bird calls to direct and correct the fall of fire.

I have heard it said that the effects were shattering to any troops unlucky enough to come under attack in this way and some of the splinters inflicted were very nasty....

The kind that just break off so you cant pull them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...