M7 Priests used as howizters

[Gregroywuzhere]

Why do M7 priests not show up as artillery for forward observers to call upon? The M7 mounts a 105mm howitzer which should be able to fire over the horizon like all M2 howitzers.

[Blackcat]

The time to set-up grown-up artillery for indirect fire (all that surveying etc.) was judged too long for a CMBN game.

[YankeeDog]

The gun mount on the M7 limited the barrel elevation to just 35 degrees, so on most CM maps, the much of the map would be difficult or impossible for the Priest to hit with indirect fire, because it is only capable of relatively shallow angle fire. In most cases, either the M7 has direct observation of the target area and can fire on direct lay, the shallow trajectory will mean that the round won't clear intervening obstacle(s) or terrain, and still land on target.

Variable charge setting help this issue somewhat, but regardless the M7 would be a tricky asset to use indirect at short range.

As a secondary issue, SP artillery like the M7 would need to to survey their exact location prior to engaging in direct fire, so the game would need to represent this, something the that I don't think the game has any way of modeling right now.

If we actually had M2 howitzers on the split rail carriage as an on-map asset, this might be a different story, as these guns are capable of elevating all the way to 66 degrees.

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, for those who care, in the artillery section of the QB purchasing screen, it lists the M7 as an off-map asset. So if you want to use it indirectly, it's there in that form; although why you would want to spend the extra points for an asset that is functionally no different from the M2 escapes me at the moment.

Michael

[JonS]

although why you would want to spend the extra points for an asset that is functionally no different from the M2 escapes me at the moment.

IIRC, there should be more guns. The SP batteries should have 6, while the towed only have 4.

[Gregroywuzhere]

I brougth this up due to the fact that the German forces have available the 150mm and 75mm infantry support weapons that are capable of indirect fire through forward observation and to my knowledge the allies are deficient with this. Since the designers did not give us the option of having "on map" m2 howitzers, I have come across several instances where an M7 capbable of indirect fire would be more effective in eliminating targets than an 81mm mortar. M7's are very vulnerable to enemy infantry with AT weapons to be used in direct attack. Unlike the StuG's crew casualties on M7 can diable them with simpl MG fire. Then there is the time factor. For an FO to call in an M2 battery can take up to 3 minutes. If an FO or battalion CO or exec is within communication with an M7 section, he can immediately direct fire onto a target that is in his line of sight with exposing the vehicle to attack. Which is the same thing that he would do with a mortar but with much more punch. I would really like to see an on map M2 section added in one of the future modules in order to equal the Axis quick fire heavy weapons.

[womble]

I brougth this up due to the fact that the German forces have available the 150mm and 75mm infantry support weapons that are capable of indirect fire through forward observation and to my knowledge the allies are deficient with this.

And a Priest wouldn't be the answer. Pack howitzers or allied infantry guns would be the equivalent units. If they're not modelled (yet?) then yes, the current Allied force mix doesn't have that specific weapon in its arsenal. Same as it doesn't have anything equivalent to the StuG/JPz right now. Same as the Germans don't have a Ma Deuce equivalent. Why does everyone have to have the same weapons?

...several instances where an M7 capbable of indirect fire would be more effective in eliminating targets than an 81mm mortar...

And in how many of them was the target far enough past the putative barrier which would a) protect the M7 and require fire to be observed for the shell to actually not still be climbing when it passed the target area?

M7's are very vulnerable to enemy infantry with AT weapons to be used in direct attack.

Only if you have to get them within 250m. But that's true of all armour. No Allied tank has good protection against a Shreck that actually hits.

...Unlike the StuG's crew casualties on M7 can diable them with simpl MG fire.

This bit is true. So the Americans didn't have all the same tools the Germans did. So what?

Then there is the time factor. For an FO to call in an M2 battery can take up to 3 minutes. If an FO or battalion CO or exec is within communication with an M7 section, he can immediately direct fire onto a target that is in his line of sight...

You amn't playin' the same game we are. This simply isn't the case. For any indirect asset that's on the game board. The delays are the same as if they were off-board. I don't think the (AIUI) intended fix for this made it into the patch. But still, if the M7 can't see over the obstacle, the minimum range of impact is very long.

[MikeyD]

Neither Stug nor Priest were particularly well suited for bocage country infantry support. The Stug's low gun was hindered by bocage terrain, Priest was too vulnerable to close-in attack in the close hedgerow country. Beyond bocage country when Priest could fire over open sights beyond rifle range and StuG could fire downrange without intervening terrain obstacles their utility goes up. I expect to see more enemy weapons situated beyond effective small arms range when the landscape opens up in the Commonwealth module.

[Gregroywuzhere]

And a Priest wouldn't be the answer. Pack howitzers or allied infantry guns would be the equivalent units. If they're not modelled (yet?) then yes, the current Allied force mix doesn't have that specific weapon in its arsenal. Same as it doesn't have anything equivalent to the StuG/JPz right now. Same as the Germans don't have a Ma Deuce equivalent. Why does everyone have to have the same weapons?

I disagree. Threats in weaponry are answered with counterthreats. Allied armor is inferior to just about every make and model of Axis armor so creative responses are necessary to make up for the disadvantages.

And in how many of them was the target far enough past the putative barrier which would a) protect the M7 and require fire to be observed for the shell to actually not still be climbing when it passed the target area?

Close up fire support is something that the Army never really realized in Europe. In the Pacific on the other hand, the marines would run an M7 or a Sherman right up to a fortification and blast them point blank.

Only if you have to get them within 250m. But that's true of all armour. No Allied tank has good protection against a Shreck that actually hits.

True.

This bit is true. So the Americans didn't have all the same tools the Germans did. So what?

The Americans did have similar tools that could be used and should be available. The M2 105mm howitzer was lighter and more accurate than the German 150mm infantry gun. Battalion commanders had full authority to place their guns wherever they wanted.

You amn't playin' the same game we are. This simply isn't the case. For any indirect asset that's on the game board. The delays are the same as if they were off-board. I don't think the (AIUI) intended fix for this made it into the patch. But still, if the M7 can't see over the obstacle, the minimum range of impact is very long.

You are very correct about that. I am much deeper into designing my own missions and scenarios that take into account many "what if" factors that may not have historically occured in the field. I am also more into designing battalion size battles rather than just small unit fights. I don't believe an M2 section or battery is too large a weapon system to deploy on a battalion size battlefield especially if you are going to use them to blunt an enemy counterthrust over open ground. Anti personnel munitions fired at close range from a 105 can wreak some severe wrath and I would just like to be able to do it and see it as it happens. Japanese banzia attacks in the pacific found this out quite often.

[winkelried]

This bit is true. So the Americans didn't have all the same tools the Germans did. So what?

Both sides apply different doctrines - eg look at the LMG or the tank destroyers. so it is pretty logic that the equipment differs - the equipment normally is an expression of doctrine. If you want to be even on equipment you should play blue-on-blue or red-on-red.

BTW on the US side you have the Sherman "Assault Gun" with its 105mm.

[Gregroywuzhere]

MikeyD,

I agree with your assesments. I've just been playing with situations trying to use M7's as an alternative to Rhinos in cutting swaths in the bocage. Unorthadox in the extreme but I just felt that if I could get an observer or an officer to one side of the hedge to call back to an M7 section to drop a few rounds of heavy on the Germans that the smoke and mayhem would assist in a penetration. For fun I'm also trying a mod that would pit a Marine battalion fightng the Germans in the bocage country. I really love having the option of using offshore naval fire to drop 14 inchers on the bocage. Results have been good so far.

[Gregroywuzhere]

I will be curious to see if an on map 25lber section will be included in the TOE of Commonwealth units in the next module. The Brits didn't go anywhere without having the 25 close at hand. It was also a good AT gun when necessary and to me, the M2 is the American version of the 25. No GI would have left home without one.

[womble]

I don't believe an M2 section or battery is too large a weapon system to deploy on a battalion size battlefield especially if you are going to use them to blunt an enemy counterthrust over open ground. Anti personnel munitions fired at close range from a 105 can wreak some severe wrath...

Apart from the possible lack of canister rounds, you're quite correct there at the end. I thought the question was about M7 Priests though. I don't offhand remember whether either side has any proper towed howtzers purchasable for on-map use, though, so arguing it as "evening up the force selection" with the Germans seems a bit inconsistent. It just isn't the scale of battle that is CM's primary aim. If you want some 105s for on-map scenario-building, you can use the Priest. You just can't use it in indirect mode from on-map. It'd still be great at scything down some conjectural human wave across open fields.

I think the reason that there aren't any towed howitzers or large field pieces is that they simply didn't get involved that often. Once a gun battery was being overrun, in general the battle was lost; if the gunners hadn't run, the attackers would bypass the battery. It's a scenario that's too exceptional to cater for, like the occasional anecdote of ATRockets being fired from buildings, or use of enemy weapons.

Can anyone provide the minimum range of the M2, fired from above 45degrees? My ballistics is too rusty to work it out.

[womble]

MikeyD,

I agree with your assesments. I've just been playing with situations trying to use M7's as an alternative to Rhinos in cutting swaths in the bocage. Unorthadox in the extreme but I just felt that if I could get an observer or an officer to one side of the hedge to call back to an M7 section...

Why not just roll the M7 section up to the previous hedge and try it with DF? Or if you want it to be 'an answer', offer up an off-board battery? You'll probably find that the HE is almost always better applied to the enemy than the terrain, so even if you provide the M7s with this in mind, they won't get used for it.

I have to wonder how much more effective than 75mm 105mm is at blasting holes in the hedgerows, too. There didn't seem to be any appreciable effects on the bocage, the times I've dropped that calibre of arty on troops hiding behind hedges in its usual role, and indirect fire scatters enough that I can't see that changing much. Probably worth running some comparison tests between on-map direct-firing 105s and point target barrages from off-board, given that you can't test 105mm indirect from on-board.

[Gregroywuzhere]

Apart from the possible lack of canister rounds, you're quite correct there at the end. I thought the question was about M7 Priests though. I don't offhand remember whether either side has any proper towed howtzers purchasable for on-map use, though, so arguing it as "evening up the force selection" with the Germans seems a bit inconsistent. It just isn't the scale of battle that is CM's primary aim. If you want some 105s for on-map scenario-building, you can use the Priest. You just can't use it in indirect mode from on-map. It'd still be great at scything down some conjectural human wave across open fields.

I think the reason that there aren't any towed howitzers or large field pieces is that they simply didn't get involved that often. Once a gun battery was being overrun, in general the battle was lost; if the gunners hadn't run, the attackers would bypass the battery. It's a scenario that's too exceptional to cater for, like the occasional anecdote of ATRockets being fired from buildings, or use of enemy weapons.

I still don't agree. 155's, 240's, 8 ichers etc yes but as I stated earlier as to towed field pieces the Germans have the 150mm and 75mm infantry support guns. I just think that the Americans should have the M2 and Brits the 25 "on map" as an option. I don't believe it is beyond the realm of possibility that an M2 could be "commandeered" by an airborne officer to shell a town at close range during an hour long engagement.

Can anyone provide the minimum range of the M2, fired from above 45degrees? My ballistics is too rusty to work it out.

1.55342 mi or 2km I believe.

[Gregroywuzhere]

Why not just roll the M7 section up to the previous hedge and try it with DF? Or if you want it to be 'an answer', offer up an off-board battery? You'll probably find that the HE is almost always better applied to the enemy than the terrain, so even if you provide the M7s with this in mind, they won't get used for it.

I have to wonder how much more effective than 75mm 105mm is at blasting holes in the hedgerows, too. There didn't seem to be any appreciable effects on the bocage, the times I've dropped that calibre of arty on troops hiding behind hedges in its usual role, and indirect fire scatters enough that I can't see that changing much. Probably worth running some comparison tests between on-map direct-firing 105s and point target barrages from off-board, given that you can't test 105mm indirect from on-board.

Good point. Having never seen the bocage I just can't believe that engineers couldn't have used just plain HE to blast holes in them. I used a heavy air strike to attack a German fusilier platoon using the hedgerow as cover. The bomb crater did significant damage to the hedge and then I sent an M7 through it to gain the other field with infantry support. The crater did delay the vehicle as I knew it would but thankfully my heavy MG squed kept the Germans as bay before a panzerschreck could be brought up. This brought to mind a question as to why 9thAF did not just fly a few FB missions to blast the hedges for openings.

[YankeeDog]

This brought to mind a question as to why 9thAF did not just fly a few FB missions to blast the hedges for openings.

CEP on FB bombing runs in WWII was measured in hundreds of meters, so managing to hit the hedges you wanted to hit would take quite a few tries...

[Blackcat]

"I just can't believe that engineers couldn't have used just plain HE to blast holes in them"

They could and did, but it took a lot of time to create a hole and a lot of HE. As a practical solution it was a non-starter. The CMBN version where some engineers walk up place a charge and bang there is a gap in less than a minute is wholly unrealistic, but it does make for reasonable gameplay.

[womble]

"I just can't believe that engineers couldn't have used just plain HE to blast holes in them"

They could and did, but it took a lot of time to create a hole and a lot of HE. As a practical solution it was a non-starter. The CMBN version where some engineers walk up place a charge and bang there is a gap in less than a minute is wholly unrealistic, but it does make for reasonable gameplay.

There was a halfway house alluded to somewhere on this forum a lonng time back, probably before the game was released, where Shermans had wadcutting pipes welded to them somehow which made holes in the bocage when the M4 nosed into it, making bocage-blasting swifter and less TNT-consuming. Would be a beast to code for and represent in-game though :-/

[womble]

Having never seen the bocage I just can't believe that engineers couldn't have used just plain HE to blast holes in them.

I think the first bit informs the latter Google images for "Bocage" don't really get the impression across... too many wargamers' interpretations, for one