Heavy artillery unit gets attacked...and then...?

[Matt May]

What will happen when a Russian 152mm or 122mm or German 150mm arty battery gets overrun? These guns had direct fire capability and to assume that they would be abandoned before battle is a serious mistake, IMHO. There are no such arty units in CMBB other than as OBA. Will new units be added? If so, will they be retro-usable in CMBB?

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Matt May:

What will happen when a Russian 152mm or 122mm or German 150mm arty battery gets overrun? These guns had direct fire capability and to assume that they would be abandoned before battle is a serious mistake, IMHO. There are no such arty units in CMBB other than as OBA. Will new units be added? If so, will they be retro-usable in CMBB?

Artillery lines were usually moved farther to the rear in order to prevent such overruns. It was a rare enough occurence that it may not be worth creating a bunch of special rules for. Like any game, CMBB deals with the majority of likely situations, not the exceptions. I am under the impression that artillery in CM:C will be represented in-game by use of FO units. Supply trucks, artillery batteries, and other "impedimenta" of regiments/divisions will be abstracted.

A scenario designer could choose to have onboard guns as Maneuver Elements but would likely not get the advantages of using them for Indirect Fire.

Unless this is something the developer is willing to spend time on working on; there probably wouldn't be much disappointment if it didn't happen given the comparative rarity of such events.

[Matt May]

it may not be worth creating a bunch of special rules for.

There's little need for special rules. Creation of the units would be simple enough - the fire charateristics of the guns is already in the game where those weapons are mounted on vehicles (requireing only slight modification to ROF), and there are already gigantic guns like the 128mmATG to use for size and turning rate and such. The biggest bother would be making a decent set of images, which I'm sure the community would be only too happy to supply in abundance.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by Matt May:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />it may not be worth creating a bunch of special rules for.

There's little need for special rules. Creation of the units would be simple enough - the fire charateristics of the guns is already in the game where those weapons are mounted on vehicles (requireing only slight modification to ROF), and there are already gigantic guns like the 128mmATG to use for size and turning rate and such. The biggest bother would be making a decent set of images, which I'm sure the community would be only too happy to supply in abundance. </font>

[Matt May]

a) how often would these weapons have been employed in a direct fire mode at the expense of indirect fire

Yes, I can picture the scene:

"Hey, Ivan, there's a Fascist tank over there comming this way. Do you think we should shoot it?"

"I don't know, we have orders to fire at map coordinates XZY. If we survive the imminent destruction of our position, we may get shot by NKVD troops for not following orders."

[76mm]

I think the issue is more that a lot of these guns were not designed to be able to swivel, etc. to the extent necessary to readily engage targets that were not obliging enough to approach from head on. Similarly, I think that for indirect fire reasons, batteries were typically laid out in lines, which would make it very difficult to defend from a flank attack. Finally, most such big guns were probably dug-in in positions that allowed them to fire their indirect missions, but not necessarily conduct an all-round direct fire defense.

If someone were foolish enough to attack them from the front, yeah, big guns would probably be able to defend themselves to a certain extent. But if attacked from the flank or rear, or under poor visibility, I think big guns would be pretty much screwed.

I have never really focused on this issue, maybe one of the forum grogs could make an informed contribution here?

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by 76mm:

I think the issue is more that a lot of these guns were not designed to be able to swivel, etc. to the extent necessary to readily engage targets that were not obliging enough to approach from head on. Similarly, I think that for indirect fire reasons, batteries were typically laid out in lines, which would make it very difficult to defend from a flank attack. Finally, most such big guns were probably dug-in in positions that allowed them to fire their indirect missions, but not necessarily conduct an all-round direct fire defense.

If someone were foolish enough to attack them from the front, yeah, big guns would probably be able to defend themselves to a certain extent. But if attacked from the flank or rear, or under poor visibility, I think big guns would be pretty much screwed.

I have never really focused on this issue, maybe one of the forum grogs could make an informed contribution here?

At least one history of a Panzergrenadier Division goes into detail about a battery of 105mm guns that were flanked by a deep-ranging Soviet tank force; one of the gunlayers received the Iron Cross 1st Class for fighting his cannon against them. They were not in an ambush however, they were emplaced. If I can find the reference, I will post it.

I don't believe that whether or not heavy artillery can fight direct fire battles is the issue; the real issue is having the guns portrayed twice in the game - once as an FO and once as a gun. Emplacing an artillery battery and surveying the guns for indirect fire was not something done instantaneously, nor was the stockpiling of ammunition. I would suggest simulating the guns on map would be more trouble than it is worth, and allowing guns to switch from one mode to the other would be unrealistically flexible.

I also expect that if a player really wanted the guns on map, they can be put into a campaign as a Maneuver Element. They would not be allowed to fire indirect (ie the OOB would not contain an FO).

It is possible the designers will allow for guns in a ME to be swapped for an FO attached to another ME, but I don't see much utility in that as most of the time, those ME's would play no part.

I also suspect that despite many of the detailed questions on the forum, much of the detail will be very much simplified in the final product for the sake of playability.

[Renaud]

Ideally it would be best if all these guns had on-map counterparts, as in a very few cases they really were used in direct fire. But you can work around that. You will have to.

German batteries could field a scratch defense force of LMG teams and light infantry culled from the battery, transport, bearers, ordnance men, cooks etc.

If I was simulating an on-map german arty battery, i'd assign a weak platoon of green infantry, 4xLMG and 4x75mm or 105mm guns. For 150 howitzer's and above, they are just to big and slow to react unless they are 150IG. I would just count them dead if they lost the battle (all flags taken).

For the Ruskies, I would try to simulate 122mm and below with something. Above that, simply too big to manuever into position for defense, on short notice. If you lose the map flags, the guns are captured/destroyed.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Renaud:

[snips]

For the Ruskies, I would try to simulate 122mm and below with something. Above that, simply too big to manuever into position for defense, on short notice.

Simply untrue. Effectively all Soviet artillery was trained in direct-fire tank-shooting, were issued with AP rounds, and had tank destruction as a primary or secondary mission. The Germans issued HEAT for anti-tank work to their 15cm batteries; and ISTR reading an account of American 155mm howitzers at Anzio giving a very good account of themselves in a direct-fire fight with Panzers, just with plain HE.

Admittedly something has gone badly wrong if enemy tanks are overrunning your divisional artillery, but that does not make it sensible to pack in without a fight when you have weapons capable of destroying any target on the battlefield. In Royal Artillery doctrine, close defence of the battery position is the top priority task, and the only thing more important than a call for final defensive fire. I doubt that the artillery of other nations do things very differently in that respect.

All the best,

John.

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

[snips]

For the Ruskies, I would try to simulate 122mm and below with something. Above that, simply too big to manuever into position for defense, on short notice.

Simply untrue. Effectively all Soviet artillery was trained in direct-fire tank-shooting, were issued with AP rounds, and had tank destruction as a primary or secondary mission. The Germans issued HEAT for anti-tank work to their 15cm batteries; and ISTR reading an account of American 155mm howitzers at Anzio giving a very good account of themselves in a direct-fire fight with Panzers, just with plain HE.

Admittedly something has gone badly wrong if enemy tanks are overrunning your divisional artillery, but that does not make it sensible to pack in without a fight when you have weapons capable of destroying any target on the battlefield. In Royal Artillery doctrine, close defence of the battery position is the top priority task, and the only thing more important than a call for final defensive fire. I doubt that the artillery of other nations do things very differently in that respect.

All the best,

John. </font>

[Matt May]

the real issue is having the guns portrayed twice in the game - once as an FO and once as a gun.

So there must be some way to distinguish between German OBA fired by 105mm & 150mm field guns and that fired by Wespe's and Hummel's (only the 150mm howitzer is not in the game), right?

allowing guns to switch from one mode to the other would be unrealistically flexible.

Perhaps, but then why is the 105mm howizer in the game?

I also expect that if a player really wanted the guns on map, they can be put into a campaign as a Maneuver Element. They would not be allowed to fire indirect (ie the OOB would not contain an FO).

As the Russian, I might be perfectly happy with that so I could use 152's as AT guns.

I also suspect that despite many of the detailed questions on the forum, much of the detail will be very much simplified in the final product for the sake of playability. [/QB]

...which is understandable, but, again, why does the German 105 howitzer get special treatment?

[PzKpfwIII]

Here is the cite I promised from another thread.

11 July 1942, near Ssemiluki:

Page 348-349 of the English edition of Volume I of Spaeter's History of the Panzerkorps GD mentions that the following apparently occurred when Soviet forces broke into the positions of the 2nd Battery of Artillery Regiment GD.

"Scarcely had a bombing attack by several enemy IL-2s ended, when we heard the shout: Tanks...! Damn! - there they were, rolling towards us!"

One gun crew under Unteroffizier "Communist" Müller (so called because of his political views) accounted for four enemy tanks during the ensuing battle. Müller was awarded the Iron Cross First Class, with the rest of the crew receiving the Iron Cross Second Class, with the exception of the gunner, Obergefreiter Freyschlag, who had already received the Iron Cross Second Class in an earlier battle.

A few months later, however, the truth of the incident became known; Müller had ordered his men to take cover behind a railway embankment. Freyschlag and Gefreiter Willi Müller refused the order and acted alone.

"Communist" Müller was transferred away from the gun crew and to supply duties, and in addition to the four "kill" rings Freyschlag painted on the barrel of his gun just hours after the engagement, the Iron Cross First Class and promotion to gun commander followed several months later. His comrade, Gefreiter Müller, was killed near Guben in March 1945, while "Communist" Müller survived the war to serve as a police officer in Leipzig, East Germany.

Interesting that the battery was ordered to take cover rather than fire back. I have no idea if this was a snap judgement or if that was doctrine. I believe this unit was drawn from the former Artillery Regiment 400 which had experience in France 1940 as well as in Russia throughout the preceding 12 months of combat, but can't speak for the individuals concerned.

A closer read indicates one gun of the battery was deliberately positioned facing to the rear of the battery "we had done so because we were aware of the unclear situation to our left, but also to secure the level crossing."

One could draw several conflicting conclusions from this small snippet.

[ October 19, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

[PzKpfwIII]

From Büchner's GERMAN INFANTRY HANDBOOK

An lFH 18 (105mm howitzer) battery was ready to fire (indirectly) 45 minutes after receiving instructions.

It also mentions that "The lFH 18, since it could be aimed quickly, proved itself well in action against enemy tank targets too and could be used as an antitank gun with hollow-charge shells. For this purpose, all batteries were supplied during the war with a set of HL shells (so-called red-head ammunition)."

I would suppose that is why it is included in the game. The sFH 18 (heavy 150mm) weighed 8 tons and "Setting them up was also a laborious process...." and the book goes on to discuss this.

I don't doubt the 105mm was useful for the defence of battery positions, I just question if it would happen often enough to warrant inclusion, especially if gunlines are located well off the map of most average size campaigns.

Also, the 45 minute response time does not apparently include the initial surveying of gun positions, ranging, etc.

Include the 105s for sure, if they were commonly employed as anti-tank guns, then they should see use as Maneuver Elements just like anti-tank platoons or companies. And in that case, they would obviously not be allowed to fire indirectly. If they were commonly employed in the anti-tank role, I would suggest that their physical layout and circumstance would be much different than if they were surveyed into a battery position for indirect fire.

[ October 19, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Russophile ]

[Renaud]

I wasn't trying to argue history. There are no 122mm or 152mm on board guns in CMBB so you will have to find a work around and rationalization to simulate the battery on board. Examples of this or that artillery engagement are moot.

[Sequoia]

I'd pay an extra $5 if BFC included the additional heavy artillery in the new cmbb.exe but I doubt that's going to happen.

[Steiner14]

I hope artillery-batteries will be modeled operationally (i.e. by trucks). I don't see big problems doing so.

Their corresponding FOs could be moved in a certain radius (operationally) around the battery's location as own MEs.

If an enemy operational breakthrough into the square where the artillery-trucks are stationed happens, then CMC could set them up directly as field-guns for the CMBB battle. Or in the case they even were on the move, set up as pulled by trucks... :eek:

Should make some really new and (for one side) really frustrating CMBB-battles, if maybe the heavy arty of a division is surprised that way by a company of tanks...

[Bruce70]

FWIW, I think I remeber Hunter saying that big guns would be represented in a battle by their carrier vehicles only.

[Steiner14]

Now we only need to know, what he means with 'big'?

180 upwards? Or already 150mm? Or even 105mm?

I'd guess, he means the big calibers, that aren't available in CMBB as models anyway.

IMO everything would be almost perfect, if those who have models, can appear directly on the field, and those who don't have models anyway, are represented by trucks.

[Renaud]

Bruce,

I think the deal is, you can associate any CMBB units you want with a CMC ME unit icon/type. You could use the cmc icon for a tank unit to represent a security platoon or other nonsense. It's up to the campaign designer to have it all make sense, like using proper Op map symbols to give players an accurate idea of the associated CMBB map. Just guessing based on the sketchy info so far.

Steiner,

the issue is that you have to use some stopgap CMBB unit to simulate arty that doesn't have a CMBB unit. Like howitzers over 10.5cm for germans (excepting 150IG) and over 76mm for russians (I think). You might use 85mm AA for rusky 122mm and larger. Rockets and 120mm mortars, that's tougher. Rockets couldn't defend themselves anyway, and you are probably inside the range of 120mm mortars, so they could be considers dead if you take the sector.

[Steiner14]

Renaud,

oh, didn't know the russians have only the 76mm modelled.

On the german side, i think the 150 IG could be used, as model for a 150mm.

But on the other hand, if the Russians have not, then the Germans must be restricted the same way, otherwise in the appearing tactical battles, the Germans would at least get a chance to fight back, while the Russian player only gets three trucks to play with...

I think the designer can't assign CMC-unitsymbols to CMBB-units. This should be hardcoded into CMC because CMC needs to transfer the correct data to CMBB for the correct setup.

[Bruce70]

From the faq thread that I just bumped.

How does artillery work which is not represented "on board" within CMBB--ie, how can my Soviet recon platoon attack that nebelwerfer battery?{-}

Artillery or other units which have no on board representation don't get to be played with. Nebelwerfers that get attacked might be represented only by their transport, so best to avoid getting attacked. -Hunter

Reading between the lines, I assume that:

- if it has an on-board representation in CMBB then it also does in CMC.

- the fact that it has an on-board rep. does not exclude it from being used as off map arty in CMC

- arty that is off map only in CMBB will not have an on map rep in CMC battles (transport units only) but may/will on the campaign map.

I know that is a lot of reading between the lines...

[MPK]

"Rockets and 120mm mortars, that's tougher. Rockets couldn't defend themselves anyway..."

Soviet Rocket Regts and Bns had AT

guns (37mm?) and some light AA..(25mm?)

IIRC.

I really like the idea of being able

to wreak havoc behind enemy lines...

I mean that's what tanks and cavalry

are all about, eh?

But it's also true that rear areas have

their own security troops as well as

various specialists(e.g bakers)wandering

about...

I think you could have some challenging

encounters behind the lines...and some

turkey shoots.

I have played a couple of CM scenarios

devoted to this kind of action...

including one classic where you get

extra points for killing of capturing

a surprised German staff officer (repr-

esented by a Bn HQ)...

[Renaud]

What I mean is the individual 120mm mortars and multiple rocket launchers wouldn't be able to use direct fire in most cases so their lack of representation in CMBB is not a biggie.

Most artillery batteries had some self defense units either organic or attached. Could be represented by some light/green infantry and LMG teams, or whatever that national OOB would justify. At the very least bearers, drivers, ordnance and cooks could be thrown into adhoc defense squads, as sometimes was necessary.

'Big Dora' used in the assault on Sevastopol had an entire Luftwaffe regiment attached, and probably crew of several hundred. Of course this was a 3-storey high 800mm railgun with a 90 foot barrel.

[MPK]

"What I mean is the individual 120mm mortars and multiple rocket launchers wouldn't be able to use direct fire in most cases so their lack of representation in CMBB is not a biggie."

Gotcha...meaning that we can concentrate,

as you say, on indentifying the kind of ad-

hoc forces that CAN be represented...like

serivice troops...

[MPK]

"indentifying"

whoops, a Bushism...

I meant of course, Identifying...

Hey, is this earpiece workin'?