KV-2 and 150mm Inf gun Questions

[kenfedoroff]

OK all you Grogs, Historians, Experts, etc.

1. Were there any Soviet KV-2 or Axis 150mm Inf guns used in Operation Mars during Dec., 1942?

I have read "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat" by Glantz, but going back over it, I can't seem to find reference to either weapon.

2. What was the Soviet doctrine for the KV-2?

I assume it's strictly close support assault artillery since accuracy seems to fall off beyond 1,000 yd.

3. Since they quit making the KV-2 at some point, I assume they weren't worth the trouble and/or production was changed over to something else?

4. Was the KV-2 considered a Soviet corp asset?

5. What is doctrine on German 150mm Inf guns?

6. Is this intended as a direct fire weapon only, or were they grouped together (at times) for indirect fire?

7. Would the 150mm IG be considered a division asset?

8. I am wondering if it is out of line to have both of these weapons (KV-2 and 150mm IG) on the battlefield in Dec 1942. I know they are rare, but, it does seem plausible.

Thanks in advance,

Curious Kursant

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

OK all you Grogs, Historians, Experts, etc.

Most of these, although I might have a vague opinion on, I will leave to those who have more precise information.

But this one I think I can nail:

7. Would the 150mm IG be considered a division asset?

Regimental. There were two of these and six 75mm lIG in each regimental cannon company, six and eighteen respectively in the division.

And this one:

8. I am wondering if it is out of line to have both of these weapons (KV-2 and 150mm IG) on the battlefield in Dec 1942. I know they are rare, but, it does seem plausible.

I don't know about the KV-2, but the 150mm sIG was not rare. Standard TO&E puts six of them in every division. In the attack, they would probably have been attached to the leading battalion of the regiment. In defense, they would probably have been sited to cover the most likely avenue of enemy approach, or the most vulnerable if different.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

About the KV-2:

(1) According to Zaloga and Ness's Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 , only 334 KV-2s were ever built and, "nearly all were lost in the 1941 battles." (p.165) I can't say for sure if any KV-2s were used in Mars as I do not have detailed OOBs for this operation, but I think the chances of seeing a KV-2 in December 1942 is pretty slim.

(2) As far as intended use, KV-2s were designed in 1940 after experiences fighting in Finland led Russian commanders to call for a heavy 'bunker buster' tank, so it was mostly intended for use against heavy fortifications.

(3) AFAIK, the Russians ceased production of the KV-2 very soon after the German invasion to simplify production on a few most needed models (chiefly the T-34 and KV-1, and the T-60/70 once it came online). Zaloga lists 232 KV-2s produced in 1941, and none thereafter.

(4) Zaloga doesn't even bother to show where the KV-2 fit into the 1941 TOEs. This may because they were around for such a short time that he didn't bother. I also suspect that, given their special purpose, they were probably organized into smaller independent formations that would be attached to divisions or corps as needed. I have no hard information on this, though.

150mm IG stuff has already been pretty much covered - it was certainly quite common. The KV-2 was never very common and by December 1942 would have been extremely rare, if there were any still in service at all.

Cheers,

YD

[flamingknives]

3. Since they quit making the KV-2 at some point, I assume they weren't worth the trouble and/or production was changed over to something else?

The KV2 was a pretty poor tank - very large silhouette and if the tank was on any sort of an incline, the turret wouldn't turn, making it a very tall assault gun.

6. Is this [150mm IG] intended as a direct fire weapon only, or were they grouped together (at times) for indirect fire?

ISTR that the there is a 2 gun 150mm arty spotter available to the Germans (in CMBB) that would seem to correspond to the 2 gun regimental battery firing in the indirect role. I'm pretty sure that the 75L11s fire indirect, so the 150mm sIG should too.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I'm pretty sure that the 75L11s fire indirect...

This is a question I have yet to resolve in my own mind. It was certainly a high-angle weapon, yet whether this was utilized to fire indirectly or not I don't know yet. Did it have dial sights? Has anyone ever seen any photos or mention of it in a surveyed site with aiming stakes? If not, then I guess it would have to have been aimed the way mortars are in the game when firing indirectly using a spotter. All the dozen or so photos I've seen of them in action show them firing at visible targets over open sights.

Michael

[Amedeo]

There were a few KV-2 in service as late as 1943; for example during the Kursk operation there were 10 tanks in the 3rd Mech Corps.

Amedeo

[Brightblade]

The author on this site says that the IGs could be used similar to mortars. In addition to that, they could fire directly if necessary.

The data sheets here for the sIG and here for the lIG give the max elevation of both guns of 73°.

I think that pretty much implies that these guns were meant for indirect fire, though not exclusively.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

I think that pretty much implies that these guns were meant for indirect fire, though not exclusively.

I'm not yet convinced that is an assured assumption. There are reasons for high-angle fire that have nothing to do with shooting at targets out of sight of the gun crew, firing into trenches or barricaded/sandbagged strong points for instance. Since the primary mission of the regimental cannon companies was to assist in reducing such centers of resistance, it strikes me as natural that they would have that capability.

Interesting note: the lIG could depress to -10° elevation. What do you make of that, hmmm?

Michael

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

There are reasons for high-angle fire that have nothing to do with shooting at targets out of sight of the gun crew, firing into trenches or barricaded/sandbagged strong points for instance.

How would a gun fire there directly? Isn´t that already indirect fire? Usage similar to mortars?

Interesting note: the lIG could depress to -10° elevation. What do you make of that, hmmm?

Spontaneously I can think of two possible explanations:

1. Firing from a higher position at a rather short distance.

2. Slightly sloped firing position (behind a hill crest or something).

Just the same reasons why there is negative elevation for tanks.

[ August 10, 2003, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> There are reasons for high-angle fire that have nothing to do with shooting at targets out of sight of the gun crew, firing into trenches or barricaded/sandbagged strong points for instance.

How would a gun fire there directly? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, unlike JasonC , I am not trying to be dogmatic on this issue. For all I know, the Germans may have fired either or both of the weapons under discussion indirectly as a matter of course. It's just that in the great majority of photos I've seen (especially of the lIG in action), they are clearly being fired directly. I am just arguing that there is a plausible case to be made that that was their standard usage.

Michael

[flamingknives]

The lIG was almost certainly designed for direct fire, but it could also have been used for indirect fire too.

BFC/BTS/whatever they call themselves seem to thinks so too, as the profusion of 75mm arty spotters have to be supported from somewhere.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I wonder if there isn't some confusion here over the definition of indirect fire. Firing indirectly means firing from behind some obstacle that prevents the gunner from seeing the target and relying instead on corrections from an FO with LOS to the target and communication with the gun crew.

Yes, I guess there is some confusion about the definition of direct/indirect fire.

What you said is certainly true. But IMO firing at a certain (high) angle can be called indirect fire, no matter if the gun/mortar has LOS to the target or not. Do you have any official definitions? Unfortunately I couldn´t find any.

And since tanks usually fire directly, it seems plausible that the designers of the lIG had it in mind that their weapon would be used in a similar fashion.

I never doubted that the IGs primary function was direct (flat) fire. But I think they could be used for artillery purposes as well when regular artillery wasn´t available and that this usage was intended when they were designed.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

The lIG was almost certainly designed for direct fire, but it could also have been used for indirect fire too.

BFC/BTS/whatever they call themselves seem to thinks so too, as the profusion of 75mm arty spotters have to be supported from somewhere.

The first three versions of 75mm artillery in CMBB seem to be the lIG of the infantry regiments (2, 4, 6 guns), distributed to the individual battalions of the regiment (or given to only one battalion).

The 75mm radio spotter however is division level and is probably supported by the 75mm Field Gun 38.

[ August 10, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[Andreas]

One big issue with the 15cm IG33 and its use in direct fire mode is its weight and size. The gun comes in at 1,750kg and is quite sizeable, compared to the IG18. This means that it would be difficult to get it into position to regularly engage over open sights, and even more difficult to get it out in a sticky situation.

Also, the max range of 4,650m would make me suspect that it was, if not designed for dual use, at least best used that way.

The Kompanietrupp of a 13. Kompanie had survey personnel, signals personal, etc. Every gun platoon had Richtkreispersonal (I guess these are gun layers for indirect firing?). All that is needed, AIUI, to make indirect fire possible.

I would hesitate to agree that the cannon company was meant as an asset to be used mainly for firing over open sights at 'centres of resistance'. I think it is more likely that doctrinally it was meant to make the regiment more independent, by providing an artillery element to it. I believe that in later TO&Es, 12cm mortars replaced the 15cm IG33. I would be interested in seeing some more info on this though.

[ August 18, 2003, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Brightblade]

If you look at the IG33 you will notice a steel plate to protect the crew - from direct fire (it´s more or less useless against indirect fire). Standard artillery pieces do not have such a shield.

So it seems to me that the sIG was designed for direct fire (fire over open sights), same as the high elevation suggests that it could be used in a indirect mode.

I doubt that a regiment was supposed to act independently. The smallest independent unit in WW2 was a division.

[ August 18, 2003, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Brightblade ]

[flamingknives]

Define 'independent' wrt combat.

ISTR that elements of a division, be they brigades or regiments, operated outside arty ranges of each other in some circumstances, so they would need organic arty support. Plus, as per the British method of rotating units off the line, this was done in terms of regiments.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

If you look at the IG33 you will notice a steel plate to protect the crew - from direct fire (it´s more or less useless against indirect fire). Standard artillery pieces do not have such a shield.

So it seems to me that the sIG was designed for direct fire (fire over open sights), same as the high elevation suggests that it could be used in a indirect mode.

I doubt that a regiment was supposed to act independantly. The smallest independant unit in WW2 was a division.

Err, both the lFH18, the US 105mm M2A1 howitzer and the British 25-pdr have shields. Shields were used on many guns/howitzers (standard artillery pieces) that could expect to see direct combat, even if this was not necessarily their primary purpose. They are usually not present on the heavy guns, but with the lighter field pieces they are quite normal.

And please read closely - I did not say the regiment would by addition of a cannon company be able to act 'independently'. I said it would be able to act 'more independently'. I am perfectly well aware that the Division was the smallest unit capable of independent sustained action.

[flamingknives]

Looking about the web, I find that the British 25pdr weighed in at 1800kg, had a range of up to 13,000yds and was most certainly used for DF.

[Brightblade]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Err, both the lFH18, the US 105mm M2A1 howitzer and the British 25-pdr have shields. Shields were used on many guns/howitzers (standard artillery pieces) that could expect to see direct combat, even if this was not necessarily their primary purpose. They are usually not present on the heavy guns, but with the lighter field pieces they are quite normal.

Ok then, I´m beaten.

I still have the strong feeling that the IGs, be they light or heavy, were used to fire over open sights, but unfortunately I found no reference to sustain that feeling.

And please read closely - I did not say the regiment would by addition of a cannon company be able to act 'independently'. I said it would be able to act 'more independently'. I am perfectly well aware that the Division was the smallest unit capable of independent sustained action.

You´re right here of course. But I never doubted that. In an earlier posting I assumed that the IGs had that high elevation to allow their use as artillery, e.g. when division artillery wasn´t available.

Still, that says nothing about the primary use of the IG33, direct fire or indirect fire or both in equal shares.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

Still, that says nothing about the primary use of the IG33, direct fire or indirect fire or both in equal shares.

Yep, it would be good to see someone come up with the DV for the blimmin' guns.

My suspicion is that they are far too valuable to be used in the direct fire employment often. Also, they were one of the first heavy guns to be made self-propelled by the Germans (the other one I can think of is the 88 on FAMO unarmoured half-tracks), which would again indicate to me that the towed version was probably not much use as a traditional infantry gun (von Senger und Etterlin criticises it specifically for the weight).

[Michael Emrys]

Andreas, I am inclined to agree with you on the sIG33, that it was probably used IDF more often than not (until it was put on a tracked carriage; I don't know what followed that, although I would be inclined to expect to see it used a bit more up front as assault gun). As for the lIG18, I'm assured that it could be used either way. As to which was its primary mode of employment, I am still up in the air. So far, as I say, the bulk of pictorial evidence is heavily on the side of DF, but I don't give that a whole lot of weight by itself as there could be factors that biased the taking and selection of photos in that direction. There are other factors that point in the direction of its use DF, but so far nothing conclusive.

Stay tuned.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Brightblade:

If you look at the IG33 you will notice a steel plate to protect the crew - from direct fire (it´s more or less useless against indirect fire). Standard artillery pieces do not have such a shield.

So it seems to me that the sIG was designed for direct fire (fire over open sights), same as the high elevation suggests that it could be used in a indirect mode.

I doubt that a regiment was supposed to act independently. The smallest independent unit in WW2 was a division.

Gun shields also protect against shrapnel. 25 pounder had a gun shield too, and while it was used as an ad hoc AT gun in North Africa, it's sole intended purpose was as indirect fire, as used in Normandy and beyond.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Looking about the web, I find that the British 25pdr weighed in at 1800kg, had a range of up to 13,000yds and was most certainly used for DF.

Not after North Africa.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

...it's sole intended purpose was as indirect fire...

Not quite. It was always expected that it would be able to fulfill the DF role as the need arose. But of course that was not its primary mission.

Michael