On Map Artillery Farce, Yes Farce

[dalem]

Also, the Americans had the pre-calculated tape coordinate thingies on file. Instead of calculating each fire mission anew, they could just go to the file, grab the right measurement strips, drop it on a map and let fly. I think the Brits had something similar, but the Germans did not as I recall.

-dale

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Yes, really. You'll note that Nigels site explains that the maps were available, even though it was sometimes a challenge to produce them. Quality of maps is always variable, but I fail to see what the problem is with either creating a new grid - as long is everyoine uses the same one it doesn't atter where the origin is.

The "problem" is you claimed the WA had better maps than the Germans.

I also fail to see the heartache is using gridded aerial photos. In fact, I'd say that properly produced gridded photos would make superb maps.

Yes. For orienteering. For fire direction they are less than perfect but perfectly workable. The problem is you need to have adjoining frames taken at the same altitude and attitude. AFAIK only the Finnish army had a purpose built camera which took pictured simultaneously from the horizon making it possible to aling the maps better for corrections.

Given the fact the British system did not establish a wide base for expansion during war time I'd have to say the Germans had the edge on this one.

Your 'fact' isn't, and your conclusion is no surprise to anyone.

Feel free to trash the "fact" in detail. If you can be bothered to actually produce sources that indictate the WA training was better than the German training ?

* Radar spotting and direction

They had ground radars back then?

Yes.

On land and not on ships ?

Without an effective way of including them in the game, toys by themselves are meaningless.

The "one-size-fit-all" approach taken now in less than perfect when dealing with multiple armies with different procedures.

Just to re-iterate: in my post above I said "doctrine, procedures, and equipment" which should generally be taken to mean more than "doctrine" alone.

More is by no means necessarily better. If you subsribe to the catch phrase "all things being equal" you focus by definition on the quantity more than quality.

People habitually trash the Red Army doctrine and procedures eventhough they had more than enough in the equipment department. The WA get exhalted for their doctrine, procedures and equipment as a matter of course. Thus the Soviets get longer delays while the weight of fire they can churn out has no bearing on the proceedings.

[ December 09, 2004, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

That's certainly true. But my impression, and somebody correct me if I'm mistaken, is that the parallel sheaf was by far the most commonly used, not least because it was quick to arrange and get the shells on target.

I was going to say "by far most commonly used" is an overstatement but then I realized that it applies to all other armies in the game except the Finnish army.

The others require a little more calculation, don't they?

Yes. But if you do the math beforehand or you have aids (aid's, aids'? ) the others will not take much more time to set up.

[sand digger]

Originally posted by The Hooded One:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sand digger:

To add insult to injury, one of my 150mm pieces popped in succession one on the turret front and another on the hull front of a Matilda. Which kept firing its MG's throughout

There seems to be plenty of authority around that big HE can readily incapacitate a modern tank, which would be quite a bit larger and heavier than a Matilda. IIRC there was a discussion about HE and tanks here http://www.tank-net.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/Ultimate.cgi

And HE does it in CM too...my Matilda has just been KO'd by one of your 150mm rounds </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Tero:

The "problem" is you claimed the WA had better maps than the Germans.

See Fendick and Blackburn. Both had to use German maps of Germany at times during late 44/early 45. They thought the maps were very poor. And that was likely as good as German maps ever got. Also, numerous anecdotes exist regarding Germans preference for English maps in NA.

[Aerial photos] For fire direction they are less than perfect but perfectly workable. The problem is you need to have adjoining frames taken at the same altitude and attitude. AFAIK only the Finnish army had a purpose built camera which took pictured simultaneously from the horizon making it possible to aling the maps better for corrections.

Yes yes. We all know that the Finnish army won WWII single handedly. However, even those dummies in the RE and RAF managed to figure out how to take strip photos, and grid both vertical and oblique photos to make them useful.

Feel free to trash the "fact" in detail. If you can be bothered to actually produce sources that indictate the WA training was better than the German training ?

LOL. You want me to give you a succinct exposition on global training of the British, CW, and US armies? Piss off. Or try reading something like Harrison-Place, or something from these guys.

On land and not on ships ?

Yes, on land. Those dummies in the RA managed to figure out that there are bits of the world not adjacent to the ocean. Look, if you don't know what you are talking about, feel free to keep your opinions to yourself.

Just to re-iterate: in my post above I said "doctrine, procedures, and equipment" which should generally be taken to mean more than "doctrine" alone.

More is by no means necessarily better. If you subsribe to the catch phrase "all things being equal" you focus by definition on the quantity more than quality.

Yes, but "I" don't. By the end of the war the WAs had a better artillery system and resources than the Germans.

Regards

JonS

[ December 11, 2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[jrcar]

On "photo mosaic" maps.

The Germans tended to take their photos from higher altitude, and the scale limited its use.

They had an excellent mapping service (in the Franco Prussian war of 1870 the Germans had better maps of France than the French!) but were overwhelmed and never got the imagery support they needed, so they tended to fall back on non-imagery production methods.

The Allies (with the awesome help of an Australian, Mr Sidney Cotton) quickly overtook the Germans in the production and use of photo mosaics, and controlled photo mosaics (initially using pre war German equipment).

Controlled photo mosaics are as good as, and often more useful than maps for the ground troops.

Tero when you are talking about images of the horizon are you talking high oblique images? In that case the Allies tended to both excel in the numbers and quality of the aircraft, equipment and training.

While I know a fair amount about this subject (being an Ex Army survey officer and an intelligence imagery analyst) I have seen very little detail on the Finns. What aircraft and camera systems did they use?

And while converged sheaf’s are better for point targets (From memory you were a coastal defence gunner, and that’s the core of that job) parallel sheaf’s are what you use for suppressing an area, and are what most fire missions are, even today.

Cheers

Rob

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

See Fendick and Blackburn. Both had to use German maps of Germany at times during late 44/early 45. They thought the maps were very poor. And that was likely as good as German maps ever got.

On this I have to agree with you. It would seem indeed all the years the Germans spent occupying France they never did any cartographical survey even in the most likely invasion areas.

Also, numerous anecdotes exist regarding Germans preference for English maps in NA.

I am aware of this. The Germans did use captured maps whenever possible.

But doesn't that mean (by the same token) the maps German used in NA were at least as good as the English (WA) maps ?

Yes yes. We all know that the Finnish army won WWII single handedly.

Temper, temper.

However, even those dummies in the RE and RAF managed to figure out how to take strip photos, and grid both vertical and oblique photos to make them useful.

As did most armies. But how many army besides the Finnish army had the cartograpical service specifically developed and operated by the artillery arm.

How many armies had a single camera do the work like this camera ?

http://foto.hut.fi/seura/members/lofstrom.html

The winter period 1926-27 was then taken up by studying the existing literature and by preparations. In the following summer the first aerial photo map for the artillery was presented. The map was received with satisfaction in the artillery, but the experience showed that the measurement of the necessary points in the field was very expensive in our forested country. In the fall the same year, General Nenonen had the idea that photographing the horizons on the same film the aerial photo would give the inclinations of the airplane. The statoscope would give the changes in flying height.

The first camera was built in Finland in 1928; the results were encouraging. Having seen them, Zeiss was ready to construct the camera, and the NENON-camera, Model 30, an aerial camera that photographed the two horizons on the same film with the vertical photo was available for use in the spring of 1930. Thus it was during the three-year period of 1928-30 that an original set of equipment had been developed for the aerial photo mapping of our country. Later on this horizon and statoscope method was applied almost unaltered in principle to the production of photo maps both at the National Board of Survey and in the Army Map Service during some three decades as the foundation of the basic mapping of our country.

LOL. You want me to give you a succinct exposition on global training of the British, CW, and US armies? Piss off. Or try reading something like Harrison-Place,

Before pissing off, I trust you are aware then of his conclusions concerning the quality of the British training and the success of the artillery heavy tactics and doctrine of the British army in his book "Military Training in the British Army, 1940-44" ?

[JonS]

But how many army besides the Finnish army had the cartograpical service specifically developed and operated by the artillery arm.

What possible importance attaches to where the maps came from? Also, what on earth does the uber-Finnish Artillery uber-Map Making Service (uFAuMMS) have to do with a comparison between the WAs and the Germans?

How many armies had a single camera do the work like this [uber-Finnish] camera ?

What on earth does that have to do with a comparison between the WAs and the Germans? Also, see Robs' post above.

I trust you are aware then of [Harrison-Places'] conclusions concerning the quality of the British training and the success of the artillery heavy tactics

Yes, quite thanks. What were we talking about again? Oh, that's right - artillery

[ December 12, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[jrcar]

Tero The "Manual of Photogrammetry" (the bible of photogrammetry) makes only a little mention of the impact of this camera... It looks like this technique was either widely used, or superseeded by later developments. By WW2 this camera alone would not produce better maps (photogrammetry is a system of systems where the impact of a single improvement in one system is limited unless the other systems are also improved). The fact that this invention was in 1930 would lead me to conclude that by WW2 better models of camera were used.

The history section of the Manual of Photogrammetry is very complete, and covers the people and events (such as Fifth International Congress of Photogrammetry) that had an impact on the science of photogrammetry. On P 16 of the 4th edition there is one line that says "Nenonen and Vaisala developed a method of aerotriangulation aided by photographic records of the horizon and statoscope readings".

While important for Finland it appears to have had a shortlived impact elsewhere (again possibly because it became standard practise).

Photogrammetry was rapidly expanding in the 1930's with important inventions being made in a number of copuntries, that all together made aerial surveying so useful by WW2.

While at the start of the war the Germans had the best equipment (but it was relatively poorly used) by 1942/43 the Americans were recognised as having the best cameras for this work. Improved copies of the German ploting machines were being made in both the UK and the USA.

Plus the allies had quantity.

Cheers

Rob

[ December 12, 2004, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: jrcar ]