Using Tanks as Howezters

[Uranium123]

In CMBB is there a plan to make it so the tanks can act like spotters and relay info into headquarters who can then tell the spotters and mortars where to fire and also vise versa so that the headquarters can radio in help from tanks.

[gunnergoz]

Good question, though I sure don't know the answer. Perhaps the new tank unit leaders will have that capability, much like the present dismounted unit leaders do. It certainly would be realistic.

Any BTS types or beta testers care to comment?

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Tanks don't act as spotters for artillery.

What you want is an armored FO?<hr></blockquote>

The title of the subject had me wondering if he meant using tanks as indirect fire weapons - the Sherman's 75 mm gun was frequently used in such a manner in Italy and NWE. Don't know how often the Germans or Russians did the same thing though.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

[Warmaker]

I've seen a few documentaries with US tanks on some slope with their guns at high angles to act as some sort of artillery. Don't know how accurate/effective it was though.

Are command tanks going to be able to call artillery fire in CMBB? Or is there going to be an actual command tank variant for many tank models?

[Slapdragon]

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

I've seen a few documentaries with US tanks on some slope with their guns at high angles to act as some sort of artillery. Don't know how accurate/effective it was though.

Are command tanks going to be able to call artillery fire in CMBB? Or is there going to be an actual command tank variant for many tank models?<hr></blockquote>

It was very accurate and effective, but took a special design of the gun (facilitated by the deep Sherman turret). Every US tank could do it.

However, it was rare, and mostly for preplanned shoots. To simulate this, use a 75mm spotter.

US tanks could call artillery through the net, but very rarely did, not being idea artillery spotting platforms. I do not think other countries did this, except for special built vehicles.

[ex PFC Wintergreen]

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

I've seen a few documentaries with US tanks on some slope with their guns at high angles to act as some sort of artillery. Don't know how accurate/effective it was though.

Are command tanks going to be able to call artillery fire in CMBB? Or is there going to be an actual command tank variant for many tank models?<hr></blockquote>

My father commanded a tank platoon in Korea (38th Infantry, Second Division) and has told me about this exact method used by his tanks. If I recall correctly, he has pictures of his tanks (I think they were Shermans) positioned on sloping ground/embankments to get sufficient gun elevation.

Yeah, he has a lot of interesting stories about Korea and has said a number of times - "Thank God the Chinese didn't have many anti-tank weapons."

He actually did a tank support mission for Chesty Puller one night, for all you U.S. Marines out there. (Paraphrasing the movie Full Metal Jacket - "God Bless Chesty Puller wherever he may be.")

[sturner]

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

Tanks don't act as spotters for artillery.

What you want is an armored FO?<hr></blockquote>

I believe this is correct. It's hard enough to call artillery if you are an infantryman, inside a tank it's much harder. The Russians didn't have the radio nets, procedure, or training to do so. The Germans would pretty much not have the procedure, though some might have the training. After all, to call in artillery, in other than pre-plotted locations, you have to be able to have the battery register you location. Pre-planned arty would be the best and most logical way that tankers could call in arty, and then why not infantry in the same vein?

An by the way Pillar, the Roman legios never defeated a Greek phalanx head-to-head. They only won when the phalanx was disrupted, either through terrain, or by being attacked in the flank or rear.

[Michael Dorosh]

Observation Post tanks were specifically designed to house an FO, sturner.

[gunnergoz]

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

Tanks don't act as spotters for artillery.

What you want is an armored FO?<hr></blockquote>

I beg to differ. They could and did (and still do) call in artillery fire as any other combat unit. And yes, they did also have armored FO's sometimes attached. They could also call in fire from their unit's organic mortars and/or support gun carriages (Sherman 105 and M-8).

[Wolfpack]

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

An by the way Pillar, the Roman legios never defeated a Greek phalanx head-to-head. They only won when the phalanx was disrupted, either through terrain, or by being attacked in the flank or rear.<hr></blockquote>

Of course, that's the whole reason why the Roman legion was a better unit that the Greek phalanx, more control, and adaptability. The legion could fight in almost any terrain and hold it's own, and (usually) hold it's own if attacked in the flank or rear. The phalanx was a great formation so long as you had good terrain, and could ensure a head on fight. Any commander that runs his legion into a phalanx in a head on attack would deserve what he got. Sorry, just had to add that in.

[Schrullenhaft]

Regarding the original question, as others have mentioned it wasn't normal procedure for either the Germans or Russians to have normal AFVs acting as spotters, so I doubt that you'll be seeing this feature in CMBB. The Western Allies could have normal AFV command units (platoon, company, etc.) calling in artillery, but I don't know how common a practice this was.

As someone else mentioned, an armored FO existed for the Germans and possibly the Russians (not sure on that, but it is a possibility). The Germans sometimes had FO's in half-tracks or specially modified panzers (no main armament or sometimes no turret). The intent here was to give the mechanized units an artillery spotter to keep up with them and to give the FO some armored protection and mobility for the radio sets. I don't know if CMBB is going to model the armored FO or not.

As for using tanks in the indirect fire role - the Canadians did it in Operation Goodwood or Epsom with their Shermans. It took a bit of preparation and I believe that it served as just a field expedient method to increase the number of barrels in a barrage and not to provide accurate, directed, on-call artillery fire; a role that it couldn't perform to anywhere near the level of dedicated-purpose indirect fire guns.

[Monty's Double]

Although I've seen plenty of pictures of HQ/command/FO vehicles from various forces, I'm not sure how often the spotting was actually done from the vehicle. In Blackburn's book (and yes, I'm aware of how some of the forum feel about the accuracy of his account) he gives the impression that the usual trick was to park the carrier with the huge radio a couple of hundred yards away and run a line to his OP, which was usually in a windmill, loft, tree, tall cow etc. I get the impression FO's didn't like drawing attention to themselves (just like in CMBO) and sitting in a hulking great vehicle doesn't help much. The current system isn't entirely comprehensive, but I think it is the best solution, especially in terms of playability.

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Monty's Double:

I get the impression FO's didn't like drawing attention to themselves (just like in CMBO) and sitting in a hulking great vehicle doesn't help much. The current system isn't entirely comprehensive, but I think it is the best solution, especially in terms of playability.<hr></blockquote>

This would make a lot of sense, both for CM and in real life. Even for regular tanks, you will read a lot of accounts of a tank platoon pulling up on a reverse slope, completely hidden, and then the platoon leader (and sometimes all TCs) dismounting and crawling to the top of the hill to peer over and see what's on the other side.

[Stacheldraht]

Fwiw, on p. 145 of Belton Cooper's Death Traps he describes tanks being used as artillery in the fighting around the Siegfried Line:

"Just prior to the attack, all the [3rd Armored] division's tanks were incorporated in the division artillery fire plan. Each tank platoon was given an aiming point and the proper elevation and deflection of its guns to strike specific target areas. Excess ammunition was stored alongside the tanks for use during the initial barrage. After the barrage, the tanks could move into their attack positions with a full load of combat ammunition. The tanks firing as artillery gave the division a total firepower of thirty-six artillery battalions."

[Michael Dorosh]

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

As for using tanks in the indirect fire role - the Canadians did it in Operation Goodwood or Epsom with their Shermans. .<hr></blockquote>

The South Alberta REgiment did it in Holland as well, IIRC - and not just a few rounds, but quite often during the winter stalemate. I don't have their history near to hand though, maybe Andreas can come along and call me a liar.

The Canadians also used RAM tanks as OPs in Normandy, to further illustrate your other point. The Germans seem to have had Pz III OP tanks, but I have not seen a reference anywhere to Russian ones. Doesn't mean they didn't, I just haven't seen them discussed.

[Andreas]

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

The South Alberta REgiment did it in Holland as well, IIRC - and not just a few rounds, but quite often during the winter stalemate. I don't have their history near to hand though, maybe Andreas can come along and call me a liar.<hr></blockquote>

Nah, I won't. I understand they did it during ELEPHANT (Kappelsche Veer) and PLUNDER (Rhine crossing). During PLUNDER, pretty much anything with a gun-tube was asked to support the river crossing, IIRC.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Nah, I won't. I understand they did it during ELEPHANT (Kappelsche Veer) and PLUNDER (Rhine crossing). During PLUNDER, pretty much anything with a gun-tube was asked to support the river crossing, IIRC.<hr></blockquote>

I imagine for VERITABLE this was also done - though not necessarily by the SAR. They even used Vickers MMGs to thicken the "pepperpots" (as they called them at the time). Veritable was the largest concentration ground based indirect firepower by Commonwealth troops during the war (again, IIRC).

[Monty's Double]

In "Armoured Guardsmen" (by Robert Boscowan I think) the author was tasked, as battalion gunnery officer to work with the AGRA boys to incorporate his Shermans into a pepperpot operation. He and an arty officer lined up a house 8000 yards into Germany and zeroed in a couple of tanks that were then used to calibrate the rest. IIRC the operation was cancelled, but the principle seemed to work fine. What's interesting is that there doesn't seem to have been a strategy for this, it was done at a fairly low level. Does anyone know if the 105mm shermans used by the US were calibrated for indirect fire, or were they primarily for direct support?

[JonS]

The Commonwealth seems to have used tanks firing indirect on a fairly common basis in NWE - and presumably Italy. The US did also, on at least a couple of occasions, but my info for them is much sketchier. Others have pointed out a series of examples above.

However, there are a few riders

1) except or the Guards example, it seems to usually have been as part of large operations (GOODWOOD, VERITABLE, PLUNDER, etc)

2) when it was done as part of these larger operations, the tanks firing indirect would only engage ONE target in the fireplan. Different tank regiments might engage different targets, but they didn't shift their fire around the battlefield the way artillery routinely does, and they only engaged a target that had been pre-recorded.

In theory, anything can be used to fire indirect, and in the final 6-9 months of the war the RA certainly used this theory to try out all sorts of weapons firing indirect, with varying degrees of success. The problem is, most of these weapons weren't really set up for it.

The 40mm Bofors they used had a nice high rate of fire, but weren't intended to fire at that rate for extended periods. As a result, numerous barrels were ruined.

With the tanks, the guns could cope (see: design specs for low velocity 75mm on Sherman), but the fire control and sighting equipment available, and crew training, wasn't up to making quick switches to support a fluid battle.

As for armoured OPs, the Commonwealth certainly had these - again, I'm not excluding the US here, I'm just not as well informed about them. Often they were a Sherman in which the main armament had been removed to make more space for radios and other FO-ing kit. The barrel was replaced by one made of wood so that the FO vehicle didn't look different - and thereby become a target. There is an interesting photo from Villers-Bocage after Wittman had run amok showing a Sherman with no barrel, and a splintered wooden one on the ground nearby. I think the normal scale of issue was two FO tanks per regiment.

Regards

JonS

BTW, Just got SAR in the mail last night :cool:

Edit: one must keep The Anglophile happy

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

[Terence]

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

Of course, that's the whole reason why the Roman legion was a better unit that the Greek phalanx, more control, and adaptability. The legion could fight in almost any terrain and hold it's own, and (usually) hold it's own if attacked in the flank or rear. The phalanx was a great formation so long as you had good terrain, and could ensure a head on fight. Any commander that runs his legion into a phalanx in a head on attack would deserve what he got. Sorry, just had to add that in. <hr></blockquote>

Yeah. What he said. Why would anyone fight a Greek phalanx head on if he didn't have to? Any formation that depends on the cooperation of the enemy attacking the way he is supposed to sounds like a bad idea to me.

[JonS]

Oh yeah - in CM terms. If you really want to use Shermans firing indirect, just give the Allies a couple of 75mm spotters and a TRP. And if you really want to get pedantic, suggest that they don't move the fire away from the TRP.

An armoured FO would be nice though, to support armoured battles. As someone above pointed out, FOs supporting infantry would walk with them, keeping their radio-link carrier back aways for safety. That's fine, and do-able within CM, but deosn't really help much for armour-heavy battles. What would be really nice is the ability to dismount and remount an FO team from an OP tank, but now we're really getting into la-la land

Regards

JonS

[gredeker]

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

Oh yeah - in CM terms. If you really want to use Shermans firing indirect, just give the Allies a couple of 75mm spotters and a TRP. And if you really want to get pedantic, suggest that they don't move the fire away from the TRP.

<hr></blockquote>

I'll second that, but I'd make it a green or conscript spotter to help enforce the "suggestion". Heck, you could make the spotter padlocked in a corner of the map surrounded by unscalable cliffs so he couldn't get LOS, so he'd pretty much HAVE to use the TRP. Of course, he'd then be an artillery target himself...

Hmmm, I'll need to work on this idea.

[Radar]

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

Regarding the original question, as others have mentioned it wasn't normal procedure for either the Germans or Russians to have normal AFVs acting as spotters, so I doubt that you'll be seeing this feature in CMBB. The Western Allies could have normal AFV command units (platoon, company, etc.) calling in artillery, but I don't know how common a practice this was.

As someone else mentioned, an armored FO existed for the Germans and possibly the Russians (not sure on that, but it is a possibility). The Germans sometimes had FO's in half-tracks or specially modified panzers (no main armament or sometimes no turret). The intent here was to give the mechanized units an artillery spotter to keep up with them and to give the FO some armored protection and mobility for the radio sets. I don't know if CMBB is going to model the armored FO or not.

As for using tanks in the indirect fire role - the Canadians did it in Operation Goodwood or Epsom with their Shermans. It took a bit of preparation and I believe that it served as just a field expedient method to increase the number of barrels in a barrage and not to provide accurate, directed, on-call artillery fire; a role that it couldn't perform to anywhere near the level of dedicated-purpose indirect fire guns.<hr></blockquote>

As for Operation Goodwood:

Not so much preparation would be involved, I think each Tank plt was firing on the same quadrant and elevation, IIRC, and the biggest layout was additional ammo laid out and used for the mission. The scale was immense, true, but the calculations wasn't needed to be of very fine quality and so given the plan, the FDC could crank out fire missions very rapidly.

But I think it would depend entirely on the experience and trainning of the subject units to perform such a role, not that it wasn't 'my job' kind of thing.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Radar ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

Within US ARMY Armored units in ETO artillery forward observers were typically attached at the company level. An FO would occupy a standard light or medium tank equipped with command radio sets….SRC-508's I think was the official designation.

Digging through Hunnicutt, I have found no evidence suggesting a specialized Sherman, or Grant\Lee was built for US Army artillery FO's. Standard light and medium tanks were apparently employed by FO's. Hunnicutt does indicate the British Army was fond of altering the innards on Shermans as well as Grant\Lees for command tanks. However, there is nothing at all regarding speacilized Sherman FOO tanks that I was able to find. Modified command tanks were used by battalion level(+) commanders with Grants being particularly prized due to there roominess. These battalion level command vehicles were the AFV's that typically had their main-gun removed to make room for additional radios and other command level do-dads.

An aside…Within US Army (WWII as well as today), Platoon leaders as well as company CO's with armor and infantry units were\are trained in the black arts of calling for artillery fire. In addition, circa-WWII US tanks occupied by Platoon sergeants, platoon leaders and the company HQ tanks were all typically equipped with the more powerful SRC's that were apparently capable of accessing artillery radio nets (this according to FM17-32).

References:

Hunnicutt "Sherman"

US Army Small Unit Actions Series, "The Battle of Singling, Dec 1944"

American Tank Company Tactics (FM 17-32), November 1944

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]</p>

[offtaskagain]

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

Fwiw, on p. 145 of Belton Cooper's Death Traps he describes tanks being used as artillery in the fighting around the Siegfried Line:

<hr></blockquote>

This was also done for Operation Cobra.