Elmar Bijlsma Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Could anyone enlighten me how on how this splendid field gun got treated in CMAK? Performance wise many people were under the impression that the blast value was a bit high in CMBO and the rate of fire for the FOs were a bit low. I do hope the latter atleast is fixed. Given the bloody nature of the average CM battle a high ROF would be the most IMHO likely. And how many guns per FO for this gun? I'm guessing 2, 4 and 6 guns. How is the gun portrayed? With or without it's base plate? If with, up or down? Does it get an accuracy bonus for the baseplate? It supposedly was more easy to adjust shots due to the stability it provided to the gun. I know, A LOT of questions, but darnit I just love this gun, and after what happened with it in CMBO I just can't contain my patience any longer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma (formerly Tweety): Does it get an accuracy bonus for the baseplate? It supposedly was more easy to adjust shots due to the stability it provided to the gun.Well here is a site that refers to the base plate as an aid for rapid traversing in the anti-tank role. Just the thing when a bunch of Mk IIIs motor through your gun-line! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 a shell to discharge leaflets over enemy positionsThis would be quite useful in CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma (formerly Tweety): And how many guns per FO for this gun? I'm guessing 2, 4 and 6 guns. I'm curious to see how it ends up in CMAK too, but right at the moment I'm even more curious about why you think that 2/4/6 would be good values for 25-pdr FOs? I agree with 2 (a section), and 4 (a troop, i.e. 1/2 an RHA bty, or 1/3 of an early war Fd Bty, or 1/2 of a late war Fd Bty), but 6 has me a bit baffled. I believe 8 as a third choice would make more sense (a full RHA bty, or a full late war Fd Bty) Regards JonS [ November 17, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 A (25pdr) field regiment consisted of 3 eight gun batteries, each divided into two 4 gun troops. One field regiment would typically support an infantry brigade (3 battalions) so one battalion would have the support of a battery Apparently, typical loadout for a gun in the first line was 144 HE, 16 Smoke and 12 AP, although that takes into account the ammunition carried on the tractor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: A (25pdr) field regiment consisted of 3 eight gun batteries, each divided into two 4 gun troops. One field regiment would typically support an infantry brigade (3 battalions) so one battalion would have the support of a batteryLater in the war, this is so. For the first couple of years (up until late 41 in some case) it isn't. 1939-41 RHA Regts had two btys of 8 guns (two troops of 4 guns) (2 x 2 x 4) Fd Regts had two btys of 12 guns (three troops of 4 guns) (2 x 3 x 4) The main reason they both changed to the 3 x 2 x 4 organisation you talk about is encapsulated in your second paragraph. How to support the three bns in a bde with only two btys? The reason for the 2 x 3 x 4 orgn (which was a switch from the earlier 4 x 6) was a 1930s cost-cutting measure - they got the same number of guns in action, but with a lower command overhead by doing away with some bty HQs. However in France, again in Greece, then again in North Africa the big 12 gun btys were found to be unweildy (especially with the reduced command element), inflexible, and made supporting the entire bde difficult. Regards JonS [ November 17, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted November 18, 2003 Author Share Posted November 18, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: .. but right at the moment I'm even more curious about why you think that 2/4/6 would be good values for 25-pdr FOs? I agree with 2 (a section), and 4 (a troop, i.e. 1/2 an RHA bty, or 1/3 of an early war Fd Bty, or 1/2 of a late war Fd Bty), but 6 has me a bit baffled. I believe 8 as a third choice would make more sense (a full RHA bty, or a full late war Fd Bty) Regards JonS [/QB]Did some digging and indeed there is no offical organisation for a six gun battery after 1938. It's just that I read that on occasion they used six. Can't remember where, sorry. I assume it would have been purely an ad hoc organisation if the situation required it and not common practice. So perhaps no 6 gun FO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 Elmar, I had a look at your profile, and something occurred to me: IIRC, the Princess Irene Brigade included a single, six gun, 25-pdr bty in it's organisation. Maybe this is what you were thinking of? Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Is it just me or does anyone else find it significant that 2 of the most famous guns to emerge from WWII were both firing shells that were 88mm in size. It's as if the magical number "88" represents the ideal calibre to deal with either enemy tanks or troops in that particular war. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted November 19, 2003 Author Share Posted November 19, 2003 JonsThanks for giving me a credible escape, but I honestly can't remember where I got the 6 gun battery idea from. I suspect that it is in part me mis-remembering that 4 was the normal size and so 6 must have been the number that gave rise to the 'automatic field gun' myth. And that 6 guns has been a usual number for RHA for ages before. /JonS But can we have some CMAK info on this most famous gun? Or *gasp* a piccie? I am just soooo curious. Pleeeeease? Pretty please? If not to satisfy my curiousity then to stop my whining, which isn't very pleasant in kids let alone an adult. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Why 88mm? It was 3.5 inches methinks. CMAK has 8 gun batteries for the 25 pdr FOs. Saw that at Rune's... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Is it just me or does anyone else find it significant that 2 of the most famous guns to emerge from WWII were both firing shells that were 88mm in size. It's as if the magical number "88" represents the ideal calibre to deal with either enemy tanks or troops in that particular war.Oh, I dunno. If you live in the States, 105 kind of rings a bell. Maybe not as famous as the German 88, which soldiers tended to see everywhere, but if you are thinking of own side's artillery, 105 is usually what comes to mind, even though there were lots of 155s around as well and their effects were more pronounced. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 KR, there is some info here and here regarding the choice of calibre. But, a caveat: it depends on what you see the role of the artillery as. The RA came down firmly in the "supression" camp, which meant that high volumes of a smaller shell, with a smaller lethal area, better suited their needs. IIRC, the US Artillery came down in the "destruction" camp, which meant they tended to larger shells, etc. Regards JonS [ November 19, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 JonS: Which doctrine can most easily be explained in terms of pretzels by self-important speedfreaks, though? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Oh, that's easy: the Look at me! Loook at meeee! Loooook at meeeeeeeeee! Doctrine. It's yet to be proven. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 You're a sick man JonS, a sick man. Regards Jim R. P.S. Thanks for the extra info. on the 25 pdr. Excellent reading. [ November 19, 2003, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: JonS: Which doctrine can most easily be explained in terms of pretzels by self-important speedfreaks, though? Seanachai's love life is best modeled with an uncooked form of pretzel. Limp dough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: Seanachai's love life is best modeled with an uncooked form of pretzel. Limp dough. I have no love life, lad. When you get to my advanced age, superiour intelligence, and taoist wisdom, you find satire so much more satisfying than sex. There's no clean-up afterwards, there' s no need to make conversation with the object of your attentions, but someone will definitely have been screwed. Still, keep trying. I long for a new Mortal Enemy. But the 'limp dough' remark? Wanting. You need to get beyond your 'mighty manhood' to play with the big dogs, kitten. I like the 'Mr Tittles' thing. It's an interesting Username. It reminds me of something I once ran over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Do be gentle with him, Seanachai. He's only a baby, even if he pretends to be a man. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Oh, I think I understand. When something 'pops-up', er, 'down-there', its usually just a hemorroid? 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.