Vehicle/gun movement improvements?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I think the question that needs to be answered first is whether the ammunition was completely unloaded or not. And this is probably going to vary from national army to national army. And we're still waiting for Real Artillerymen to weigh in on what that was.

Being a mere coastal arty man I can only say this: there are very few in our midst who can give the word on WWII era arty practises that is not based on books.

However, having been "fortunate" enough to manhandle a WWII 45mm AT gun during my service the procedure was that some of the ammo was carried by the ammo carriers and their task was to run it up from the cache (coastal arty being fixed on locations) once the ready rounds were expended.

I have no idea what was actually done, but I keep thinking of halftracks as mechanized caissons, which is probably wrong.

Not wrong, the perspective is a bit narrow though.

Most arty in WWII was still horse drawn so "abstracted" ammo load carrying for infantry guns in CMx1 was done by horse limbers not represented in the game as such.

[flamingknives]

That may be true of some of the armies, but the British and American artillery were entirely motorized, save for those deployed where vehicles could not be.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

That may be true of some of the armies, but the British and American artillery were entirely motorized, save for those deployed where vehicles could not be.

Very true. And that is propably why they employed precious few infantry guns. Come to think of it, they did not make as much use of towed artillery as a part of the infantry formation in general.

In a sense their arty being fully motorized put them in a tactical disadvantage when their infantry had to operate in less than ideal terrain conditions. This might be why the horse drawn German infantry could put up such an effective fight in places like Italy where they could bring in heavier DF ordnance while the US/CW forces could rely only in indirect fire support.

[flamingknives]

Where's the cocked eybrow smiley when you need it?

The vast majority of allied artillery was towed, but they also used pack howitzers and their vehicle tractors were at least as mobile as a horse team. Seriously, could a horse team tow an infantry gun anywhere more easily than a Quad could tow a 25pdr? Is a manhandled gun much more mobile than a Churchill?

If the Germans did enjoy any artillery superiority, then would it not have been due to being in defensive positions rather than any notable mobility advantage?

'Only' indirect fire support? That's not too shabby if you can whistle up Uncle targets and the like.

Finally, there are accounts of 8" howitzers being used to demolish a single positon, or using an 8" howitzer to 'snipe' individual buildings in direct fire.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Where's the cocked eybrow smiley when you need it?

I put is somewhere but somebody took it.

The vast majority of allied artillery was towed, but they also used pack howitzers and their vehicle tractors were at least as mobile as a horse team.

No contest. But wouldn't you say the German infantry had more organic arty in it that could move at the same pace and in the same terrain the infantry could walk in ?

Seriously, could a horse team tow an infantry gun anywhere more easily than a Quad could tow a 25pdr?

Hmmmmm..... deep forest, hilly terrain, bogs and marshes....

Is a manhandled gun much more mobile than a Churchill?

How do you forage fuel for the Churchill when you are at the end of the supply line ?

If the Germans did enjoy any artillery superiority, then would it not have been due to being in defensive positions rather than any notable mobility advantage?

Up to a point, yes. The thing is they could deny the mobility in places like Italy (or Normandy) and when the process is being slowed down to a crawl being motorised loses much of its advantage and the battle becomes a slugfest.

'Only' indirect fire support? That's not too shabby if you can whistle up Uncle targets and the like.

Indeed. But DF infantry guns do not have anywhere near the kind of safety zones you need for big arsed Uncle or Mike targets.

Finally, there are accounts of 8" howitzers being used to demolish a single positon, or using an 8" howitzer to 'snipe' individual buildings in direct fire.

I do not doubt that. But how fast could the gun crew wheel that thing up and down the street when the battle was raging and they needed to engage new targets ?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Tero:

No contest. But wouldn't you say the German infantry had more organic arty in it that could move at the same pace and in the same terrain the infantry could walk in ?

No, I wouldn't. Having an eight gun battery of 25pdrs in support of each battlion, plus access to corps level artillery, is much more artillery firepower. All you need is the FO to come with.

Seriously, could a horse team tow an infantry gun anywhere more easily than a Quad could tow a 25pdr?

Hmmmmm..... deep forest, hilly terrain, bogs and marshes....

You think you could get a horse team through that? That sort of terrain is what mortars and pack howitzers are for.

How do you forage fuel for the Churchill when you are at the end of the supply line ?

The same way you get food, ammunition and replacements.

'Only' indirect fire support? That's not too shabby if you can whistle up Uncle targets and the like.

Indeed. But DF infantry guns do not have anywhere near the kind of safety zones you need for big arsed Uncle or Mike targets.

At the other end of the scale, the 25pdr could be used as a single gun to take out point targets only a few dozen yard from a platoon position. In addition, there are also 2" mortars ranging out to 500 yds.

Finally, there are accounts of 8" howitzers being used to demolish a single positon, or using an 8" howitzer to 'snipe' individual buildings in direct fire.

I do not doubt that. But how fast could the gun crew wheel that thing up and down the street when the battle was raging and they needed to engage new targets ?

Well, in a static slugfest, you don't need to run about with it. If it's a DF gun, with or without horses, vs. a FO, who's your money on?

[JonS]

I must say that I think you are completely out to lunch on this one Tero. You also seem to be deliberately overlooking the A-Tk Pns in each CW bn, which over a Bde provided more guns that the Germans regimental IG pns. For the Americans there were the regimental cannon companies, as well as that A-Tk pns they also had.

Mobility? What ... is this a strawman? Shells flying through the air are far more maneauverable than horse drawn guns. Also, the Brits (and US-ians) seem to have coped ok with ****ty terrain in Italy, Burma, and the Pacific. And Europe, though there it was less of a problem anyway. Finally, I don't see the 150mm SiG as being particularly maneauverable with any traction, but especially when drawn by horses.

Finally, the decision to move away from IGs by the US and the CW was a deliberate doctrinal thing, not an 'oh, whoops, we got rid of all the horses, so we better get rid of these IGs too' kind of cock-up.

Your cause and effect are all arse about face.

Regards

JonS

[Philippe]

JonS, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the question of how many seconds it takes to unload or reload an artillery unit's full supply of shells from a halftrack. And even more interested in hearing whether you think Germans/Russians/CW/Americans unloaded all the ammunition every time they unlimbered. This cuts to the heart of whether the CMx1 limber times are too abstracted.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Philippe:

JonS, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on the question of how many seconds it takes to unload or reload an artillery unit's full supply of shells from a halftrack. And even more interested in hearing whether you think Germans/Russians/CW/Americans unloaded all the ammunition every time they unlimbered. This cuts to the heart of whether the CMx1 limber times are too abstracted.

The CW didn't really use halftracks for towing guns. Trucks, carriers, and de-turretted tanks (esp RAMS) were the norm.

I strongly suspect that "most" rounds stayed on the transport, rather than being unloaded. It saves time, and means that if you need to book, you don't really need to worry about packing up much - or any - ammo. Of course it would depend on the circumstances; static = more unloaded, mobile = less unloaded.

Finally, the gun crews are large enough that it's not really a binary. If the transport stays reasonably close, a ferry option is practical. Besides, the gun can start firing as soon as the first round is available at the gun, not when the last is taken off the vehicle.

FWIW, I'm particularly thinking of the 6-pr/57mm in the above.

Regards

JonS

[SgtMuhammed]

Most artillerymen I knew said they normally left the rounds in the carrier unless there was a big reason not to. They also said that they used to unload them by hand instead of using the automated equipment because they were faster that way.

[Philippe]

Would you agree, then, that the way ammunition gets moved in the limbering/unlimbering process might need a bit of looking at ? If so, how would you propose to adjust it?

The carrier is starting to sound a bit like a small, mobile ammunition dump as well as a set of wheels...

[SgtMuhammed]

I have always felt that the limbering and unlimbering process is rather abstract. The thought of a crew pushing a gun while carrying tens of rounds is rather comical.

I think guns should consist of the gun, crew, and limber/ammo hauler. If the hauler is destroyed and you move the gun you lose your rounds or you can share rounds with another gun. It would be nice to see a system but it is low on my list.

[Tero]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

No, I wouldn't. Having an eight gun battery of 25pdrs in support of each battlion, plus access to corps level artillery, is much more artillery firepower. All you need is the FO to come with.

Yes. But most armies did the higher level arty support as well so lets stick to the tactical level fire support.

You think you could get a horse team through that?

Far better than your average motorized limber.

That sort of terrain is what mortars and pack howitzers are for.

Yes. But a horse limber can carry more ammo than a pack mule. Better leave mortars out of this because they are a different kettle of fish.

The same way you get food, ammunition and replacements.

Cute.

I still claim the horse team would remain mobile longer than a motorized limber in difficult supply conditions.

At the other end of the scale, the 25pdr could be used as a single gun to take out point targets only a few dozen yard from a platoon position.

Exactly. And how was the 25pdr attached doctrinally to the company level combat unit as opposed to purpose built IG's ?

In addition, there are also 2" mortars ranging out to 500 yds.

IMO these suckers are overmodelled in the game. The Finnish veterans say especially the "whip" (45mm AT gun or the 76mm IG) was nasty while the 50mm mortar was not especially feared.

Well, in a static slugfest, you don't need to run about with it.

Granted. But you implied urban combat with the sniping of individual houses and I though you meant in towns and not isolated villas or farm houses in the open country side.

If it's a DF gun, with or without horses, vs. a FO, who's your money on?

Depends on the target being engaged and how much ammo you can waste.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

You also seem to be deliberately overlooking the A-Tk Pns in each CW bn, which over a Bde provided more guns that the Germans regimental IG pns. For the Americans there were the regimental cannon companies, as well as that A-Tk pns they also had.

And you seem to be overlooking the German A-Tk Pns which were separate from the IG pns.

What is more, AFAIK the CW/US ATG's were did not carry as much HE as their German or Soviet counterparts nor were called upon (or even supposed to be called upon) to engage soft or point targets as a matter of course.

Mobility? What ... is this a strawman? Shells flying through the air are far more maneauverable than horse drawn guns.

Do you have comparative data on how much faster the motorized guns were deployed than the horse drawn guns were ? In DF situations, mind you.

Also, the Brits (and US-ians) seem to have coped ok with ****ty terrain in Italy, Burma, and the Pacific.

Strategically, yes. But still I would not say the conquest of Italy was a resounding success or that the retaking of Burma was easy. Same goes for the Pacific.

And Europe, though there it was less of a problem anyway.

Last time I checked Italy was in Europe.

But yes, in NW Europe the terrain beyond the immediate Normandy coast was far more suitable for motorized/mechanized warfare than NE/E Europe or Italy.

Finally, I don't see the 150mm SiG as being particularly maneauverable with any traction, but especially when drawn by horses.

I quite agree. But the 37/45/75/76mm high MV infantry guns which were far more proliferate than the 150 sIG.

Finally, the decision to move away from IGs by the US and the CW was a deliberate doctrinal thing, not an 'oh, whoops, we got rid of all the horses, so we better get rid of these IGs too' kind of cock-up.

Agreed. But nevertheless the organic firepower of the US/CW infantry formations was below that of the German or the Soviet infantry formations.

Your cause and effect are all arse about face.

Well, the way I see it the organic firepower of the US/CW infantry formations made them rely on higher level fire power support.

I know it is a simplyfication but IMO the task of the US/CW infantry was to fix the enemy so the higher level ordnance can pulverize them while the task of the German and the Soviet infantry was to take on the opposition regardless of the available higher level fire support. This difference can be seen in the organig fire power of the respective infantry units.

[JonS]

TBH Tero I don't much care what you, or your toothpick, think. However, the comment below is a good insight to your continual duck, weaving, and obfuscation:

Originally posted by Tero:

Also, the Brits (and US-ians) seem to have coped ok with ****ty terrain in Italy, Burma, and the Pacific.

Strategically, yes. But still I would not say the conquest of Italy was a resounding success or that the retaking of Burma was easy. Same goes for the Pacific.

While I might agree with that on the face of it, given the context of this thread I can only take it to mean that you think the US/CW would have won faster and more convincingly (whatever that means, given the end result in all three theatres*) had they had horse drawn IGs. Which is complete BS.

Regards

JonS

* excluding The Bomb.

[JonS]

And this, because you seem determined to muiddy the waters:

Originally posted by Tero:

You also seem to be deliberately overlooking the A-Tk Pns in each CW bn, which over a Bde provided more guns that the Germans regimental IG pns. For the Americans there were the regimental cannon companies, as well as that A-Tk pns they also had.

And you seem to be overlooking the German A-Tk Pns which were separate from the IG pns.

Not overlooking at all. Taking a standard regt sized unit from a standard inf div we have ...

A German regt with (roughly):

* upto 8 IGs (75mm and maybe 150mm) in 13 kp, and

* 3 x A-Tk guns (75mm, or 50mm for the poor divs) in 14 kp.

Total: 11 (max, generally less)

A British bde with:

* 6 x 6-pr in each bn.

Total: 18

An American Regt with:

6 x 105mm in the regt cannon coy.

12 x 57mm in the regt AT-pn

3 x 57mm in each bn

Total: 27

You tell me which army under-supplied their regt-sized units with DF firepower.

[ September 13, 2005, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

While I might agree with that on the face of it, given the context of this thread I can only take it to mean that you think the US/CW would have won faster and more convincingly (whatever that means, given the end result in all three theatres*) had they had horse drawn IGs. Which is complete BS.

It would be BS if that was my point. And the end result is totally beside the point in the context of this debate.

My point is rather the opposite to what you think it is. With organic IG's German (and Soviet) infantry had more indepedent DF (=tactical) firepower than the US/CW infantry. That extra firepower facilitated them in both offense and defense. I very much doubt the US/CW would have been better off with horse drawn IG's. However, I think the Germans and the Soviets would have been worse off without them.

The IG's are/were severely handicapped in CMx1 because of the limitations to their movement, ie in CMx1 you can not shoot'n scoot with an IG or an ATG, nor can you move it realistically. Beside the airborne pack-75 I know of no other proper IG in their inventory while the Germans and the Soviets had several.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Total: 11 (max, generally less)

All of them with HE.

A British bde with:

* 6 x 6-pr in each bn.

Total: 18

AFAIK no HE and consequently of little use as IG.

An American Regt with:

6 x 105mm in the regt cannon coy.

12 x 57mm in the regt AT-pn

3 x 57mm in each bn

Total: 27

Of which 6 with HE, the rest AFAIK without HE and consequently of little use as IG.

You tell me which army under-supplied their regt-sized units with DF firepower.

The CW and the US. Because their DF guns carried no HE.

[JonS]

Wrong again pal - 6-pr/57mm fired HE.

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Wrong again pal - 6-pr/57mm fired HE.

I stand corrected.

I'm the victim of CW/US mythological historical research because I've taken their word the 6pr/57mm (like the 2pr) was not supplied with HE and this is why it (both) was superceded by the 75mm as the main gun in the British tanks.

BTW: can you give me directions to valid sources ?

[Philippe]

Tero, any chance you could comment on the limbering/unlimbering process? Are you satisfied with the CMx1 model ? Can you make any specific recommendations? If a carrier is going to unload its ammunition completely, how quickly should it happen and what is the range of the time-frames? Should large caliber shells unload at the same rate as small? And if ammunition doesn't have to unload completely, what model do you propose for portraying it?

[roqf77]

tero im looking now, just to help you.

The 6 pounder did fire he. it was available from tunisia.

And the 75mm did not superseed the 6 pounder completely.

cromwells and chirchills were availble in the 6 pounder versions up until the end of the war.

[roqf77]

www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A2719983

its a british account in normandy, but the 6 pounder fires he.

[roqf77]

plus my osprey book, churchill infantry tank book claims 6 pounders had he availble from italy in a large amount.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by JonS:

And you seem to be overlooking the German A-Tk Pns which were separate from the IG pns. Not overlooking at all. Taking a standard regt sized unit from a standard inf div we have ...

A German regt with (roughly):

* upto 8 IGs (75mm and maybe 150mm) in 13 kp, and

* 3 x A-Tk guns (75mm, or 50mm for the poor divs) in 14 kp.

Total: 11 (max, generally less)

A British bde with:

* 6 x 6-pr in each bn.

Total: 18

An American Regt with:

6 x 105mm in the regt cannon coy.

12 x 57mm in the regt AT-pn

3 x 57mm in each bn

Total: 27

You tell me which army under-supplied their regt-sized units with DF firepower.

I'll tell you who JonS, both the US/CW Rgmts/Bgds.

Your figures for the amount of anit-guns organic to the 14th Company of normal German Infantry Rgmts are completely understated.

You should have had it according to their TO&E:

13th Company- 2x 150mm sIGs and 6x 75mm leIGs.

14th Company- 4 Pltns x 3x PAKs each, total: 12 ATGs.

Thus 20 pieces of guns for ordinary German Infantry Rgmts. In the usual German Infantry Division they were supposed to also have a 36 gun ATG Regiment plus a Pltn of 3 ATGs & a Pltn of 2 75mm leIGs in their Reconnaissance Abteilung.

Therefore they had a total of 75 Paks, 20 75mm leIGs and 6 150mm sIGs per Division which comes to a full amount of 101 tactical DF Infantry guns.

(It ought to be noted however, that as the War progressed that these numbers were not maintained, since as with the reduction of Inf Rgmts from 3 Btlns to 2 the level of these guns was also reduced on establishments. AIUI the 3rd ATG Btln was not maintained, while the IGs began to be replaced in the 13th Companies by mortars at the rate of 2 81mms for each 75mm leIG and 2 120mms for each 150mm sIG.)

That's more than the figure for CW Infantry Brigades while AFAIK their Infantry Divisions had nomally no more than 2 ATG Regiments each similarly of 18 ATGs. Thereby giving the CW Infantry Division a total of 90 ATGs to which should be added their three Regiments of Artillery.

While in comparison with the gun support in US Infantry Rgmts, I think that given their better / bigger effects and their capability for very short to medium ranged accurate indirect fire the IGs organic to the German Infantry Rgmts probably more than make up for the disparity in numbers.

Some what related to this is the levels of mortars in these formations. The Germans had a Pltn of 6 81mm mortars in each Infantry Btln, 18 per Rgmt for a total of 54 medium mortars until the loss of the 3rd Btlns.

AFAIK the CK never had more than 40x 3inch mortars per Infantry Division, while the US I'm not sure about though I think somewhere between 24 & 36 81mm mortars though they also had 60mm mortars as well.

[ September 13, 2005, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]