Self-propelled arty is....

[Battlefront.com]

We've had a detailed conversation or two about tanks firing indirectly. Some apparently were equipped to do this "out of the box". Same for artillery being ready to fire directly "out of the box".

The truth is that neither was supposed to do the other's job except for rare circumstances. However, artillery was more likely to fire direct than tanks fireing indirect. And not because they wanted to either Both required significant preparation to fire in the role it wasn't primarily intended to (less so with artillery).

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Foxbat:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Foxbat:

Factoid: the ISU-152 was actually capable of indirect fire and (at least theoretically) provided with siting equipment.

Siting or sighting? Say what you mean and mean what you say, kid.</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Michael, I am sure he meant to say "indirect-fire" There are pictures of Sherman 75s driven up on a prepared embankment. Got about a 45 deg angle out of the deal, which gave the gun enough elevation to fire indirectly. Not done very often, but I can think of one battle (name slips me entirely) where a large number did this in combo with conventional artillery.

Rhine Crossing</font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mike:

now - as to Artillery - yes lots of things fall under teh term "artillery", but when somenoe says "I bought an artillery barrage down on this position" what do you think of?

Anti-tank guns firing direct? Anti-aircraft firing at bombers?

I think not!!

Yes it can still include non-gun weapons like mortars and rockets, and so SP versions of them can reasonably be called SP Artillery.

There's a reason we don't add an adjective or 2 to artillery to define it's role if it is primarily indirect fire, but we do if it isn't - its an automatic assumption that if something is just "artillery" then it has a specific role for indirect fire.

IMO of course

Ah yes, but that is because you have modified 'artillery' by coupling it with 'barrage' - a word which has a single, specific meaning that involves the use of indirect fire and linear targets.*

If you simply said "I fired artillery at that target" you could mean any number of things, but saying "I bought an artillery barrage down on this position" only has one meaning.

Not just IMO

Regards

Monkeyboy.

* and also with the phrase 'brought down' which implies a high - and therefore (probably) indirect - trajectory.

[ November 27, 2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by JonS:

[QBIf you simply said "I fired artillery at that target" you could mean any number of things,

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

Yes, you COULD mean various things, but if that was all you said then I would assume you meant artillery firing indirect.

If you qualified it with an unexpected target - for example:

"I fired artillery at that aircraft", or "....at that tank" where teeh type of artillery probably was not what I assumed then I would question you as to exactly what you emant - did you mean AAA, or was the aircraft caught on hte ground? Did you mean anti-tank guns?

but saying "I bought an artillery barrage down on this position" only has one meaning.

Not just IMO

[/QB]</font>

[JonS]

You know, I was going to mention AA barrages, but I figured I could safely leave that out as context would give it away.

Apparently not.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Mike:

So you have yourself assigned meanings to words that were not intended by me, and ARE only your opinion.

Look - for your own purposes you can use whatever definitions you want for words. Hell - you can even put them all in your own dictionary if you want. Good luck trying to sell it though. And don't expect everyone to meekly fall into line with "Mike's English"

As for artillery specifics - take it up with the Master Gunner. I'm sure he'd be amused to hear your theories

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

They were not used to engage targets of opportunity, nor moving targets, and the targets the tanks did engage indirectly seemed to have been low priority - almost along the lines of "hey, we've got these tanks sitting around - is there any part of the Reichswald we aren't already shooting up that we can give to these guys?"

You are monkeyboy indeed - I am sure the tanks fired across the Rhine, and not in their own rear area - even gunners are not that thick, that type of idiocy is reserved for the air farce .

Mikielein (I decided to call you this, to me it means the same as 'Mike', I am sure you won't mind?) - maybe you should make clear whether you want to use artillery as an adjective or a noun, since you are just confusing the issue?

Noun - all types of guns that are not handguns

Adjective - (as in 'an a. barrage' or 'an a. tank', or whatever) that depends.

I look forward to more language re-definition coming up

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I look forward to more language re-definition coming up

[unrolls ancient parchment scroll]

[clears throat]

"Ahem. In the beginning..."

Michael

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by JonS:

Look - for your own purposes you can use whatever definitions you want for words. Hell - you can even put them all in your own dictionary if you want.

I don't have to - I got them OUT of a dictionary - the Concise Oxford, 9th Edition, 1995, even published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc New Yorn on acid fre paper no less - so it isn't a case of being seperated by a common language.

Now if you'd care to take your point of discussion back somewhere vaguely near the topic I'll happily get back to it too.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

You are monkeyboy indeed - I am sure the tanks fired across the Rhine, and not in their own rear area - even gunners are not that thick, that type of idiocy is reserved for the air farce

Doh! My bad. In my defence though, tanks firing indirect were used in both cases. I was thinking of one and writing about the other.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Just to add a little more confusion, consider the use of the word 'gun'. [snips] Of course, just about all direct fire, flat trajectory weapons are called guns, whether tank guns, AT guns, or AA guns.

Then there are machineguns, submachineguns (or, if you prefer, machine pistols), handguns, rifles

Rifles?

RIFLES?

Say after me...

"This is my rifle,

This is my gun,

This is for shooting,

And this is for fun."

As this is a respectable board, you don't need to do the actions.

I've heard infanteers get away with calling their rifle a "gat", but always they got a terrible wigging for calling it a "gun".

Heavens to Murgatroyd, it's worse than calling your respirator a gas-mask!

All the best,

John.

[ November 28, 2002, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

Rifles?

RIFLES?

[clears throat thunderously]

I was of course referring to civilian usage here. I humbly beg your pardon for not making that clear.

Michael

[ November 28, 2002, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Zarquon]

I love this board. Is a 75/L48 intended for direct-fire hair-splitting?

Now, regarding assault guns: what's missing in the grogfest discussion is IMO the price issue.

I don't see a reason to produce a StuG when you can have a PzIV, except for the price/man hours it takes. You've got (basically) the same gun, armor protection and mobility with both, but the advantage of having a turret costs you dearly in material, production time and crew training.

For providing direct fire HE support both are equal. The missing turret puts the StuG at a disadvantage for AT work.

So why not call a StuG a cheap ersatz tank?

I've read about the price tag somewhere, does anyone have the numbers?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Zarquon:

Now, regarding assault guns: what's missing in the grogfest discussion is IMO the price issue.

I don't see a reason to produce a StuG when you can have a PzIV, except for the price/man hours it takes. You've got (basically) the same gun, armor protection and mobility with both, but the advantage of having a turret costs you dearly in material, production time and crew training.

There was also the matter of lost production while the assembly lines making the Mk III were shut down and retooled. Apparently this was a big issue.

For providing direct fire HE support both are equal. The missing turret puts the StuG at a disadvantage for AT work.

Actually, from what I've read, it might be the other way around. The turret is most useful when you are on the move offensively and defenders—such as AT guns—are suddenly popping up and you need to target them as quickly as possible.

For doing AT work, the StuGs and PzJgrs were usually deployed in ambush, where a turret was less critical. Of course, a turret is always nice to have if you can get one, which is why nearly all post-war tanks have been so equipped.

So why not call a StuG a cheap ersatz tank?

I have done so in other times and places, but one must take care not to be confusing.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Zarquon:

I love this board. Is a 75/L48 intended for direct-fire hair-splitting?

Actually, it is not just hair-splitting, but quite important when discussing matters WW2 (and not 1995 ). The Soviets called pretty much everything artillery, and e.g. Erickson uses the Soviet terminology in his books. As do Soviet officer memoirs, and the translations of Soviet General Staff studies by Glantz and House. Artillery for them is both DF and indirect. It includes dedicated AT and anti-infantry. The same for the British in WW2, and evidently for the Germans.

[Da Beginna]

It'a all about names - and military organisation.

Weapons are basically a tool use them right and you will make it.

Classify a thing with tracks a tank, a SP Gun or Armored Fighting Vehicle or a Sonder-Kraftfahrzeug ... but try to win.

[ November 29, 2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Da Beginna ]

[coe]

I must say, I had the coolest knockout of an

SU (shoot I can't remember the number but it's the one with the 0 mm armour in the back)....no the grenade launcher didn't do it, nor did the panzerfaust/wurfmine/grenade bundle/sticky bomb....it was a plain old HMG crew. It was kinda funny. Good discipline for the HMG crew to let it go past and then let 'it have a few words from the spandau.....

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by coe:

I must say, I had the coolest knockout of an

SU (shoot I can't remember the number but it's the one with the 0 mm armour in the back)....no the grenade launcher didn't do it, nor did the panzerfaust/wurfmine/grenade bundle/sticky bomb....it was a plain old HMG crew. It was kinda funny. Good discipline for the HMG crew to let it go past and then let 'it have a few words from the spandau.....

Probably the SU-76, aka the Suka ("female dog" if you know what I mean). Gun shield for frontal-armour, no roof and basically open to the rear.

In winter their armour protection doubles, because the crew wears sheepskin coats

[kevsharr]

I have read somewhere that Pz IV's were used to fire air burst's over the Normandy beachead's,is this direct fire or indirect?And Stug's were erzsatz tank's large number's of them being employed by panzer regiment's,evidently because of the large number's produced[over 25.000]so realisticaly as the allies you would expect to encounter these more often than just about any german afv.Also the 88 had indirect firing sight's also so they would be triple purpose artillery pieces,talk about versatility

[ November 29, 2002, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: kevsharr ]

[Andreas]

The PIVs were probably skipping their rounds

The 88 was a very versatile piece of kit, capable of delivering AA, AT, AP (DF and indirect), DF airbursts, indirect airbursts, and it could do all that while balancing fully mounted on wheels or not. It was the all-singing all-dancing true Wunderwaffe of the Germans from the Spanish Civil War onwards.

[demoss]

The ISU-152 is very good at infantry support and fairly lame at AT.

Well, by the time the ISU-152 has replaced the SU-152, the ISU-122 is the better AT vehicle, it's true. But the ISU-152 can still get the job done - it's still got pretty darn good penetration. I wouldn't call it 'lame' by any means. The ISU-122 isn't THAT much better at AT, and it's the best common AT vehicle the Russians have.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Foxbat:

In winter their armour protection doubles, because the crew wears sheepskin coats

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by demoss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The ISU-152 is very good at infantry support and fairly lame at AT.

Well, by the time the ISU-152 has replaced the SU-152, the ISU-122 is the better AT vehicle, it's true. But the ISU-152 can still get the job done - it's still got pretty darn good penetration. I wouldn't call it 'lame' by any means. The ISU-122 isn't THAT much better at AT, and it's the best common AT vehicle the Russians have.</font>

[kevsharr]

Here is a report of Hermann Bix's encounter with a ISU-152"It had just become light on the morning of May 6th,when oberfeldwebel Bix saw thru his binoc.that the russians were felling tree's for a barricade.

"What are they planning now"?he asked Schawafferts.

"Surely they don'nt intend to dig in now,"replied Schawaffert

Suddenly they heard engine noise's.Then a cloud of blue smoke rose into the air behind the barricade.A pair of russian's appeared and pulled the branches of the fallen tree's to the side,and Bix saw the muzzle of a giant gun with a muzzle brake.

"That can't be a tank,"he observed."Load armor-piercing.Range four hundred!"

His gunner had the target in sight.Bix checked his sight once more to ensure it was adjusted properly.Then he gave the order to fire.As it fired,the area around the Jagdpanther,which had gone into cover behind some fir tree's,was shrouded in fumes and smoke.Needles showered down on the tank,blocking the crew's view of the target.Also,there was no spurt of flame which would have indicated a direct hit.

When Bix could see again,he saw that the enemy was still there.They fired a second and a third time,but the enemy gun showed no ill effects.The soviet's now opened fire.The first shot struck the ground about three metre's in front of the Jagdpanther.Smoke and flames were forced into the fighting compartment.

The second shot from the enemies giant cannon raced past a few metre's above the roof of the tank-destroyer,but the third was on target.Bix noticed that the recoil guard of his own cannon rose backward's and felt the blow of the impacting shell.The fearfull crash of the impact left him deaf.Thus he could not hear his gunner report that he could no longer see,as the optic's port had been shattered.

Bix tried to open the cannon's breach in order to peer down the barrel and aim in that way.But he found that the recoil guard was up to the edge of compartment on the inner armor.Now he knew that the gun mantlet had been sprung from it's trunnion's and that the end was near for them.

"Back up!"he ordered the driver,and the tank roared to life and began to move.

"Chief to Hofknecht,"called Bix to the Feldwebel commanding the second vehicle in the dunes.He had heard the order and likewise began to back up.

Bix then called batt.,Leutnant Pintelmann,who had been at the bay,came roaring up just in time to see Bix backing away.

"Carefull,carefull!"Bix warned the Leutnant.But it was already to late.

The mighty cannon again spat a tongue of flame.The Leut.tank was also hit on the gun mantlet and disabled.He was forced to give the order to withdraw.

Feldw.Hofknecht reached a side road and saw the "Battering Ram",as they had named the heavy assault gun,had begun to roll forward slowly.When he had the entire broadside of the newest and heaviest russian assault gun in his sight's he fired two ap round's into it's flank.The crew climbed out and surrendered to the feldw.

Hofknecht saw that the three shot's from Bix's cannon had struck the center of the bow of the assault gun and had penetrated about ten centemeter's.They had been unable to penatrate the thick frontal armor.

That's pretty good armor performance given the range!