15cm SIG used for Indirect Fire?

[FlashfyreSP]

Having a battery of hard hitting howitzers that could set up to fire in few minutes, fire a mission and then move out in just a few more minutes compared to the several hours that a towed battery would take was a tremendous advantage. One that does not show up in the game because ALL artillery unlimbers and hooks up again way, way too fast (game engine limit).

Very true, and a main reason why the German command ordered the Wespe, the Hummel, the 10.5cm and 15cm Lorraine Schlepper units, and other mountings of light and heavy field howitzers on captured tank chassis built or modified. But the sIG33 series were built more to support the infantry and destroy houses, strongpoints, and other defenses directly, not by dropping shells on things from on high. In fact, one of the versions (and one I missed in my previous post) was built in response to a demand that "...twelve assault-vehicles mounting a heavy weapon capable of demolishing houses with two or three rounds, were ordered to be completed within 14 days."

Sturminfanteriegeschuetz 33B - also known as the StuIG33B. 24 produced from Dec 1941-Oct 1942 by mounting the sIG33 gun on the same hull as the StuG Ausf E and F/8 vehicles, with a completely enclosed box superstructure. This unit used the Fu.Spr.f. set.

[264rifle]

Gentlemen, is there anything in the game that would prevent a player from driving an a SP howitzer (Wespe, Hummel, Sig 33, Sexton, M-7 or M-12) and firing at a house or group of men in a house at 2 hexes range?????

If not, then what is the problem with classifing the sig33 as sp artillery??? Let the player decide how to use them. Just have the point value reflect the true value of these things.

I do not doubt that the Sig 33 vehicles were used at times at very close range for direct fire. Just how often and in what years is the question.

Mr. Coopers book "Death traps" also relates an incident of an M-12 rounding a corner and getting the first (and only) shot off (both units taken by surprise[X(]) at a German tank and destroying it. Does this mean that we classify M-12's as tank destroyers?????

Back to the Sig 33's and radios in the game . I park my Sig 33's 5-15 hexes in from the edge of the map. My FO is positioned 40 hexes (2 Kilometers) in front of the guns. Range of the guns is 4700 meters (94 hexes) I can shoot anything up to 54 hexes from the observer. If the map is bigger or scolls, after taking out the first objective the Sig's reload and move up while the FO finds a new position and we start all over again.

Call me weird, or crazy or even stubborn[:)] But givin all the other aproxamations in the game this kind of works for me.

If the open top Sig's were so good at direct assault why did the Germans make the MK III version ( which had limited elevation and might not be allowed indirect fire in the game) and why did they make the Brummbar at the same time as the Czech conversions. Why were the Brummbar issued to entire battalions while the Sig 33's were issued 6 to a battery and one battery per division or later regiment[&:]

If the Germans were suppling Stug batteries with Beob 253 observation vehicles ( I am assuming for out of line of sight fire[&:]) why wouldn't they make some provision for out of line of sight fire for units that were armoured like tin cans?????

[264rifle]

Gentlemen, it has also occured to me that we may be confusing defintions.

Does "direct support" mean direct (line of sight) fire??? or does it mean something else????

In a book called "The Encyclpedia of Weapons of World War II" edited by Chris Bishop there is an introduction to a chapter on Infantry support weapons. I will quote from the end of this.

"... since 1945 the infantry gun has faded completely from the the modern tactical scene. The mortar is now the dominant infantry support weapon, supplemented here and there by recoilless weapons and missles, but infantry seem to prefer the mortar overall. The weapon was. and still is, portable, has range and firepower to a degree that the soldiers of World War I could not have imagined, and remains completely under the control of the infantry that it supports, just as it did during Wold War II."

I highlighted the last part. Given the communication problems that had come up in WWI. Like using carrier pigeons to get your own artillery to stop shelling you. Or " Sorry old boy, that your entire battalion got wiped out by the gerry machine guns because the the smoke barrage we promised you got called of by HQ. Hard cheese, but HQ thought that the Welsh lowland Volunteer Fusiliers needed more than you and the messengers horse broke it's leg before he reached you. Stiff upper lip old boy"

Does direct support mean local control???

In airpower direct support means taking part in the ground battle. Blowing up the enemy factories is not it. But what is bombing and straffing an armoured column coming up only a few miles behind the front line. It will affect this days battle but the front line troops can't see it or feel it's effect right now so is it direct support??

In artillery does "direct fire support" mean shooting the troops onto the objective by taking out obsticals and field entrechments as apposed to counter battery work or interdiction missions of cutting of reinforcement routes????

When we translate different languages and from different times or tactile doctrines we have to be careful to understand that meanings can change. What was the original intent?

[Riun T]

I suppose we could also be taking the scale of how many of these units would be available,servicable, and purchasable for that particular battalion,location of map{topography might impead quick traverse to the needed front or local}.
And could we at least assume that purchase of these would likely be proceeded by the buildup of Ammo stocks for a prospected advance/assault, where they would be prown to direct fire, OR in amungst the HQ and rear area as support in indirect fire to cover a delay/defend type scenario.
I think that I remember there being a choice with some of the Marine SP arrty units I used last camp. in that the GMC 75's can be bought with either a Direct fire ver. with more HE ammo,two .30 cal side mount AA.s\ NO out of section HQ radio contact,and were very easy to integrate with other units. Another of the varient uses of the purchase list has the same GMC 75 as a halftracked tank killer ver. lots of AP ammo,two .50 cal side mounted AA's/no FO radio contact {indirect fire not possible}.
Last but not least the Indirect fire mostly version which has a differant name,uses the older WW1 75 main gun with a lower rate of fire, but has something like 120 rounds onvehicle [usually more than enough to last a 30some turn light barrage jungle fight ]
and I'll scatter these whereever on the field just to annoy, making answerable to only the FO and HQ to support the whole front. RT
JUST have to admitt that in my early days of experimenting with this game that on more than one assault the penetrating force consisted of the nose of the wedge being 3 SIG15'sOR 3BRAUMBAURS,or my true FAVORITES # WARFRAMMS sandwiched on the flanks by double flamethrower equipped stolen german halftracks, with the adjasant 5 hexs a mad rush of ammo trucks.
GAMEY AS *ELL but fun for the buck, AND NOTHING IN FRONT OF THEM COULD STOP THEM.RT

[FlashfyreSP]

I have always believed that the term "direct support" means the unit is under local control (battalion or lower). The unit is to support the infantry/armour directly, as in not needing to wait for higher command to ok the firing. The Infantry Gun was, in my interpretation, a more modern version of the Napoleonic field cannon, which had limited elevation and was used mainly in the "direct support" of the infantry and cavalry. The IG was by doctrine to be used to reduce obstacles and fortified positions that impeded the advance of the infantry; not for long-range battery fire to interdict enemy movements or disrupt rear-area comms. That was the job of the other artillery, the howitzers.

Here's a comparison of the Charge powder amounts between the 15cm sIG33 and the 15cm sFH18, and the maximum ranges attainable with each charge:
NOTE: the casings came with all 6 Charges included; charges were discarded as needed.
_____________sIG33________________sFH18_____________sIG33 (firing 38kg HE)___sFH18 (firing 43.5kg HE)
Charge 1______130gm+42gm**________62gm______Range: 1475m _______________4000m
Charge 2______101gm+42gm**_______122gm______Range: 2125m________________4700m
Charge 3______117gm+42gm**_______124gm______Range: 3000m________________5525m
Charge 4______103gm+42gm**_______208gm______Range: 3750m________________6625m
Charge 5_______85gm+42gm**_______312gm______Range: 4375m________________8200m
Charge 6_______40gm+42gm**_______475gm______Range: 4700m________________9725m
Charge 7*______n/a________________2.39kg______Range: n/a__________________11400m
Charge 8*______n/a________________768gm______Range: n/a__________________13250m

*both the Charge 7 and 8 were shipped separately, but were found to cause considerable strain on the weapon, and permission was required from a higher formation before they could be used.
**the first number is the amount of Nigl Bl P powder, the second is the amount of Digl Bl P powder. Nigl is Nitroglyzerinpulver, propellant with nitroglycerin. Digl is Diglykolpulver, propellant with diglycol. Bl P is Blattchen Pulver, rectangular flake propellant type. The sFH18 gun used only Digl type propellant.

Source: German Artillery of World War II, Ian Hogg.

[264rifle]

Well Flash, I will agree with you on that last post. But it does not mean that the Infantry guns in question could not use high angle fire to get the job done.

I would be happy with the 15cm infantry gun (self propelled or other wise) being able to indirect fire on the map. It's range is too short to be off map artillery. Or to hit rear areas in real life.

The big sFH 18 really belongs off the map but stuff happens.

Many other countries did use left over WW I guns (or older) for infantry guns that could not elevate worth spit and so should not get to fire indirect (non-line of sight) on map. The Germans seem to be one of the few countries that actually disigned, built and issued modern infantry guns in any real numbers. Well the Russians did too, but their gun was a sawed of field gun with fixed charges and little (?) elevation.

The StuIG 33B and the Brummbar should probably use Line of sight fire also given their lack of elevation even though they used zone charges.

If some hard working person could just put a note in the encyclopedia about scale of issue I hope we could trust the gamers to use the number per game that they feel comfortable with. Then we don't have to try to come up with rarity factors.

If the units are classified as self propelled artillery the gamer can choose if he/she wants to use line of sight fire for fast response and better accuracy (??) while exposing the unit to return fire or play it safe and "hide" the unit and accept the time delay of "indirect fire".
What the AI may do with them I am not sure but it probably won't use them to overrun entrenched positions anymore.

Thank you Flash for doing all the typing to put that chart in here.[&o]

[FlashfyreSP]

I'd like it if the bloody thing could indirect fire too, but I can't justify making it a Howitzer-type class given the nature of the actual weapon and the manner in which the game itself treats indirect fire. If the game code had been done differently, to allow units to indirect fire during the turn at points on the map (similar to the 'z' fire system, but for hexes out of LOS as well), then it would certainly qualify for that capability.

Another note of interest: some IGs had high elevation settings, like the 15cm sIG33 and the 7.5cm leIG18 (both could fire up to +75), but most did not. The two replacements for the leIG18, the 7.5cm IG L/13 and the 7.5cm IG 37, were limited to elevations of around +40 degrees. The last model, the 7.5cm IG 42, could only elevate to +32.

[m10bob]

Gentlemen, is there anything in the game that would prevent a player from driving an a SP howitzer (Wespe, Hummel, Sig 33, Sexton, M-7 or M-12) and firing at a house or group of men in a house at 2 hexes range?????

If not, then what is the problem with classifing the sig33 as sp artillery??? Let the player decide how to use them. Just have the point value reflect the true value of these things.

I do not doubt that the Sig 33 vehicles were used at times at very close range for direct fire. Just how often and in what years is the question.

Excellent points..The problem is the accuracy figure would be adjusted downward for whenever the unit is used for indirect fire, and this would be tragically wrong for its' direct fire role..
We have countless books showing these open-topped sp guns being used for both types of fire mission, and one might consider why they were even designed on (basically) a tank chassis,when a good ol' fashioned limber and caisson might suffice if it were only intended for indirect fire,(at the rear)..
Lack of top or side armor should be no indication of lack of front line suitability, it still has better protection than a cotton shirt.
Yes, we know TD's and SP arty were used on indirect fire missions, but the primary (as designed) missions were not indirect fire.
To make the units able to do both would require more slots which SPWAW may not have,(at least,not in the German OOB's without going into the Czech database again..)
As far as "direct support" is concerned, to my army, it meant any unit which was reserved specifically to assist me in the accomplishment of my unit's mission.This might include F-4's which I never even saw![;)]

[264rifle]

M10bob, there were versions that were towed. but given the short max range of the gun and the time it takes to unlimber a gun, emplace it, fire the mission AND then pack up and move foward as the armoured battle advances even a few kilometers ment that even tractor drawn towed guns could not keep up with the battle. The game condenses what took 1-3 hours in real life to down to 3-5 turns. 1 turn to pack up, 1-3 to move forward depending on distance and one turn to unlimber, emplace and set every thing back up to shoot.
And as a comparison to modern times, what was the designed purpose of the armour on a M-113 APC. was it to enable the M-113 to take part in the battle directly ( I Know they did in Veitnam) or was it to protect to troops from shell fragments as they moved up. APC"s without top cover went out of fashion as more countries got proximity fuses for better airburst capability. a lot of armoured vehicles were catagorized as either bullet proof (and fragment proof) or shell proof (able to withstand a hit from a shell). Army doctrine was supposed to tell the troops which to use when but the bean counters (finance peaple) often screw up the plan leading to things like trying to use big armoured jeeps (Humvees) as urban combat vehicles in Iraq.

American SP artillery was not designed for front line (assault) use. the armoured front sides and rear were much better at protecting the crews from counter battery fire that "cotten shirts". Getting good air bursts in WW II was a real problem. Even the best time fuses have a percentage error. the longer the time of flight the greater the variation. Burst too soon and no real effect on target. burst too late????? well the impact part of the fuse takes over for a ground burst. Time of flight for counter battery work had to be calculated using meteorological data (air temp and pressure, wind speed and direction, both and ground and higher up and more) to even get the shells to hit the battery area let alone set the time fuses properly.

Most countries in WW II had enough problems making enough tank chassis without designing and building new chassis for SP guns. Yes Some countries did design and test some but nobody really found production line space for them. even in the modern era aside from the US very few countries could afford to set up a production line for a SP gun chassis when they could adopt a tank chassis (engine, transmission, steerring gear, and suspension). In the WW II era even large commercial engines were hard to come by.

[FlashfyreSP]

During the post-WWI period, most nations phased out their IG weapons in favor of the infantry mortar, which was easier to set up and use. Germany, however, maintained their 'love affair' with the IG, going so far as to design new versions up through 1944. The towed versions were to be used to support the infantry during advances; while we tend to think of the German Army as a mostly motorized/mechanized one, it really wasn't. More than 2/3rds of the Infantry Regiments were non-mechanized, and while motor transport (trucks and the like) was used often to rapidly move parts of the division or corps, few were actually organic motorized formations. And most of the movement by truck did not involve front-line action; transported units were de-barked at a safe distance from the fighting, and then made their way forwards on foot. Only the panzergrenadier units would make rapid movements close to the front, manuevering around enemy positions. So the need for SP versions of the IG wasn't realized until the beginning of the French campaign, when it was determined that the armoured infantry might rapidly outpace their IG support.

Still, the various IGs performed admirably, even if they seemed somewhat 'out-of-date' compared to the lighter, more easily manuevered mortars.

[Riun T]

ORIGINAL: 264rifle

M10bob, there were versions that were towed. but given the short max range of the gun and the time it takes to unlimber a gun, emplace it, fire the mission AND then pack up and move foward as the armoured battle advances even a few kilometers ment that even tractor drawn towed guns could not keep up with the battle. The game condenses what took 1-3 hours in real life to down to 3-5 turns. 1 turn to pack up, 1-3 to move forward depending on distance and one turn to unlimber, emplace and set every thing back up to shoot.
And as a comparison to modern times, what was the designed purpose of the armour on a M-113 APC. was it to enable the M-113 to take part in the battle directly ( I Know they did in Veitnam) or was it to protect to troops from shell fragments as they moved up. APC"s without top cover went out of fashion as more countries got proximity fuses for better airburst capability. a lot of armoured vehicles were catagorized as either bullet proof (and fragment proof) or shell proof (able to withstand a hit from a shell). Army doctrine was supposed to tell the troops which to use when but the bean counters (finance peaple) often screw up the plan leading to things like trying to use big armoured jeeps (Humvees) as urban combat vehicles in Iraq.

American SP artillery was not designed for front line (assault) use. the armoured front sides and rear were much better at protecting the crews from counter battery fire that "cotten shirts". Getting good air bursts in WW II was a real problem. Even the best time fuses have a percentage error. the longer the time of flight the greater the variation. Burst too soon and no real effect on target. burst too late????? well the impact part of the fuse takes over for a ground burst. Time of flight for counter battery work had to be calculated using meteorological data (air temp and pressure, wind speed and direction, both and ground and higher up and more) to even get the shells to hit the battery area let alone set the time fuses properly.

Most countries in WW II had enough problems making enough tank chassis without designing and building new chassis for SP guns. Yes Some countries did design and test some but nobody really found production line space for them. even in the modern era aside from the US very few countries could afford to set up a production line for a SP gun chassis when they could adopt a tank chassis (engine, transmission, steerring gear, and suspension). In the WW II era even large commercial engines were hard to come by.

NOT meaning to sound like a Knitt picking @rseinine TBT type 264 but why aren't u at least putting some factual referances to your statements I've BOLDed two rather broad sentances and would like further ref. { i've also used, driven,and fought in the M113 for real and seem to think your choice of doctrine for compairing operations is too undefined as well} we considered the small arms and grenade protection parimount because the plough as we used to call it in croatia was fast enough to scoot us out of the ARRTY [:D] and was our best casualty recovery and ambulance we could ask for but as soon as u could consider how much more MAN PORTABLE Anti tank assets have come about since WW2 the thought of long term exposure to full front line conditions is a little unrealistic even for compairing to SPWAW.

[m10bob]

And as a comparison to modern times, what was the designed purpose of the armour on a M-113 APC. was it to enable the M-113 to take part in the battle directly ( I Know they did in Veitnam) or was it to protect to troops from shell fragments as they moved up

Actually, after maybe mid 1965-66, the grunts in Nam had already learned not to ride "in" the M 113, because roadmines tended to heat the interior and vaporize its' passengers.
Once this was learned,sandbags were placed on the roof, and the men rode "ON" them.......
My referance....Me.........

[Riun T]

Hey Bob since your on Howd the 113 handle the early RPG's ?

[264rifle]

Gentlemen, from what I have read the M-113 was designed to resist .50cal fire from the front and .30 cal ball from the sides. I seem to remember that it could be peirced by 7.62 ball at 200yds if the hit was exactly at 90 degrees. Maybe the books I read were wrong. The M-113 and other vehicles like it were refered to as battle taxi's. Compared to the German Marder and other vehicles in which the design objective was to let the infantry fight from within the vehicle. THe expanations that I read (and may be remember wrong?) said that the doctrine used in European combat was for the M-113 to get the infantry close to (500-600YDS???) the objective and then have the infantry dismount and go in with the M-113 providing cover fire from the MG. I took it to mean that the M-113 did not follow closely behind the infantry in the final assault. If that was the doctrine then the M-113 would not need as heavy armour as if it was going to get closer or be used to overrun objectives. Remenber the time frame. First request for design was in 1956, FMC came up with project in 1957, 1958 saw 1.5 million dollar contract for 3 prototypes. US was still considering using tatical nukes only a few miles away from our own troops.

Some writers considered that too much money money was being spent on vehicles with too little capability. Of course when the critics got what they wanted (Marders,BMP's AMX-10s, and finally Bradleys) the vehicles were so expensive that most armies could not afford enough of the new vehicles to go around. And apparently the troops cannot fight from inside the vehicles quite as well as the planners thought.

Going back to WW II and just after. While the troops could fight some what from a half-track style APC it was thought they needed overhead protection. This resulted in the American M-59, M-75 and finally the M-113. The Soviets put a roofs on their BTR-152 and several other APC's While the French and British came up with disigns that had large hatches open up in the sides of their Saracen and AMX VTP vehicles.

What a vehicle (or airplane or even rifle) was designed for and what it wound up being used for 10-35 years later can be very,very different things.

As far as American SP artillery not being designed for assault use. Just look at the things. Most commen WW II versions were the M-7 and the M-12. M-12 fire bagged charge ammo. The crew had to stand on the ground behind the vehicle to reload the gun while stepping over the recoil spade. Most of the ammo and a large part of the gun crew were carried in another vehicle. Could you use one to blast a stubborn bunker or building from a few hundred yds away. Of course but the infantry had better be pretty sure that they had secured the surrounding area before the M-12 was brought up. The Front armour is listed as 1 in (I doubt that the transmission casing was any different than a regular tanks) and the side as .4 in. Maybe a misprint in the book I am looking at but 3/8 or 1/2 in isn't much more than bullet proof.

While the M-7 at least had the full crew and ammo in the same vehicle the armour wasn't any better except on the back (the M-12 didn't have any). However if you were really planning on assaulting a defended position you were supposed to use the M-4 Shermans. Remember that the M-4s weren't supposed to fight tanks, that was the M-10's job[;)]
Besides if you really needed a 105 up close there were supposed to be a bunch of 105 armed M-4 Shermans around. Didn't Army Ground Forces or somebody put the ratio of 105mm to 76mm armed tanks at 4 to 1 or something. That was before reason prevaled. Only other SP guns used longer than a few weeks were half-tracks armed with 75mm howitzers, updated WW I field pieces and a few 105 howitzers. Not bad for fire support but the opposition had better be pretty flimsy to have them LEAD infantry like the Stugs did. See also the M-45 (M-26/M-46 with a 105 howitzer). America had the industrial capacity to build the right tool for the job (IF they could figure out what the job really was) and not use too many conversions and adaptations because nothing better could be made. See any book that shows the large amount of prototypes and trial vehicles that were not adopted for service use. Some sources claim up to 200 electric transmission versions of the M-26 made before the M-26 But not aproved for service use because of faults.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Riun T

Hey Bob since your on Howd the 113 handle the early RPG's ?

I don't know..The RPG7 was in use at that time, and it was effective and distributed like popcorn to some units..
The Viet Cong were pretty much killed off at Tet, (their losses intentionally allowed by their Northern"brothers"), so after that, the majority of the Communist forces were true NVA regulars.
While I have seen the M 112's and 113's being used as I have described, (and hitch hiked on), my small unit was usually airlifted by slicks.We had no APC's,but there were different versions (including "gunships"(?) which had (IIRC) an M 60, a .50cal, and a 20mm cannon..Seems the guntubs had armoured shields on them which originally were swiped from Navy PBR's..
The belly of all AFV/APC's are thin, so they were the target.
264Rifle is correct about the original purpose of the APC's, as carriers, and some in Europe were even modified for NBC, but in combat, rules ( and those original applications) go out the window..


BTW, since we are already off topic, the most "fun" thing I ever saw over there was a V 100, which most civilians have never even heard of!

[264rifle]

To get back on topic a little some sources say that the sIG 33 on the MK I chassis carried only 3 rounds of ammo. Rest of ammo and 2 more of the gun crew were carried on acompaning half-track. One photo of a late model sIGG 33/1 on the 38(t) chassis (rear mounted gun) shows a large flap of the rear armour folded down and a "tray" mounted on it that would hold 3 rounds side by side. No clamps or straps in the photo. Extra work area for fitting fuses etc????

Like using the American M-12 for in your face combat, I am sure the Germans did bring these things up to take out enemy poisitions at point blank range at times. But I don't think it was their main job. And the way the game engine works large HE shells don't seem to work very well against fortifications because of the armour classification. with out code rewrite nothing can be done about this.

Flash thinks that we would be fudging things too much too give these units iderct fire capability in the game because the timing doesn't work out right. The unit can't indirct fire in it's own turn.

I think that we are fudging things too much to make these units big gun Stug's with over run capabilities. Again THe MK III chassis and the Brummbar's were, IMHO, designed for the up close combat. Some even had bow MGs. Ever see a picture of one of the other sIG's with a machine gun??? I Know they were listed but how was it mounted????

[Riun T]

as far as the MG's Iv'e got a pic here of a german "U"shaped or what the captioning says is a hourseshoe clamp, that fastens to any horizontal armour plating to mount a MG34 in an AA elbow anywhere. tryn to locate a scanner!! and is it considered to be cheating to chase these SP units around the battlefield with ammo trucks to make best use of their "direct fire" line of sight doctrine of play? I can't count how many times in ALL the versions I've played of SPWAW that I've specificly purchased support ammo units to muddle along behind my meager Arrty assets. one of my fav's is plunking a ammo truck behind a heavy AT bunker set on the leeh of a hill in a defend/delay.
I'm just sayn that we can haggle the way we all know this game works or we can alter our own play and doctrine of operations style to accomidate the ways in which we think the game "SUFFERS" for lack of a better word!!??  

[264rifle]

Ruin, I think I have seen something like you describe on a Wespe. Having a MG 34 that is clamped to the top edge of what ever armour plate is facing the enemy may be better than nothing but still is not what I would call an offensive weapon.[;)] SP Anti-tank guns built on early 38(t) hulls kept the bow MG. How useful it really was is another story. The first (gun forward) 15cm sIGGs lost it. Weight or space problems[&:] or not needed for the mission[&:]


I don't think it is gamey to purchase an ammo carrier for units that have very low ammo capacity. Thats what was done in real life. THe first Stugg batteries used in France had Beob Kfz 253 armoured observation posts attached to them and Kfz 253 Armoured half track ammo carriers. The Germans also made 102 Munitionspanzer 38(t) (Sf) Ausf K (Sd Kfz 138) from January to May of 1944. A gunless sIGG33/1 that carried 40 rounds of ammo. Plan was to have two of them for evey six Grille in the Armoured heavy infantry gun detachment. So they would have had ammo carriers even for indirect fire. ANd a smart commander would try to hide his ammo from enemy fire.

Since in the game we not only condense time but also space at times (parking your regular feild artillery only 2000 meters (40 hexes) behind the front line would be just asking to have blown up or overrun in real life.[;)]
To me gamey is using weapons that weren't really used in a theater (M-36's in the Pacific) or using more vehicles than would normally be found in an unit. LIke a dozen Sd 234/3's 7.5cm armoured cars showing up in a game when the scale of issue was platoon of 6 to support the other 19 Sd 234/1 2cm cars in the company. Or finding some under priced unit to build a core force around. A player doesn't have to follow a table of organization exactly but it should be a guide in a head to head match IMHO.

And gamey only really applies if you are playing another person who may not be expecting it. WHile a player can select any combination of units in a solitarie game and I might think it a bit strange, it's his/her game. If two players decide to have 5000 point anything goes match up that is their choice also. If some Player in what is supposed to be a "historical" match up comes up with a dozen TIger tanks in August of 1942 and claims that is the historical start date, that is gamey IMHO. only one platoon was avaliable then for the whole East front.

But that is just my opinion of gamey.