Page 1 of 2

U.S. Artillery

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 3:07 am
by A Hobbs
I was wondering why the U.S OOB is the only one that gives you on board 105mm howitzers ? Also,why artillery directed by their forward observers gives you a delay of only 0.1 ? Its quite an advantage to be able to shell a different target every turn, its almost like having "golden hexes" all over the map.

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 4:47 am
by john g
Originally posted by A Hobbs:
I was wondering why the U.S OOB is the only one that gives you on board 105mm howitzers ? Also,why artillery directed by their forward observers gives you a delay of only 0.1 ? Its quite an advantage to be able to shell a different target every turn, its almost like having "golden hexes" all over the map.
It is a part of US doctrine, the .1 delay is to help simulate the way the US could bring arty to bear on any target they could see. It is why the US can fight German forces armed with Tigers and SS and not get blown away. Your mission when facing the US is to find and kill all fo's as fast as you can.
thanks, John.

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 5:06 pm
by Larry Holt
Here is a detailed explaination of why from the Internet http://tigertank.com/aslcrossroads/tactical/arty.htm:

American Artillery Practices:

Americans used the British system, but with a very significant innovation. They pre-computed the firing data for a HUGE number of variations of wind/temperature, barrel wear, elevation differentials, etc. Then for each possible variation, they created a separate calibrated tape measure. Along the tape was printed the gun laying information instead of distance marks. When a firing mission came in, the plotting officer would simply go to a filing cabinet containing the hundreds (thousands?) of these tapes and pull out the correct one for the current meteorological and situational factors. Then the tape would be laid out between the two grid points on the map (the battery's and the target's) and the firing data
would be read from the printing on the tape. Apparently there were some other fudges that got thrown in to make the firing even more accurate.

Net result was that there were about three minutes elapsed time from the initial fire support call until shells were making the enemy duck. And the firing was almost as accurate as the spotted German fires. Ergo, very responsive explosions exactly where they are wanted.

Again, a drawback to the American system is that it requires very accurate and detailed maps (say showing individual farm buildings for instance) which must be plentifully supplied to troops at all levels. However, given the availability of such maps then American artillery could be hellacious.

I might guess that temporary lack of such maps may be a reason why certain obvious movements were tardy during the pursuit across France. How would you feel about moving into an area where your artillery could not fire (because the forward troops as well as the artillery had no maps with appropriate grid marks)?

The tape measure system was not the only innovation of the Americans, as there were several others that followed directly from the simplicity of the tape usage.

Since the grid system was so easy to use for calling in fires, it was standard doctrine to train all officers in it (and many enlisted men as well?). In fact the technique was so easy,
that an otherwise ignorant enlisted man could be readily walked through the procedure over radio (and was on more than one occasion) when all his officers had fallen.

Another trick of the Americans, as Jim O'Neil has recently posted in detail, was the Time on Target mission (TOT). With this one, every battery in range was told the grid coordinates of the target and time when all shells were to initially land at the target. Each battery did its normal firing computation and then calculated the time to "pull the lanyards" by backing off the time-of-flight from the target time. TOT was particularly nasty because the initial shell from every gun landed virtually simultaneously before any defender could
take cover. It took too much effort for the Germans to care much for such a technique, and the British were not accurate enough to make the technique particularly useful. Very nasty and only Americans could pull it off (Jim claiming it required as little as 10 or 20 minuts reparation).

Another innovation of the Americans was their ability to obtain accurate fires extremely quickly from a LARGE number of firing batteries. Because of the simplicity and elegance of the tape system, almost any battery in range could fire on any target in any direction. All they had to do was get a request from another firing HQ or even just listen in on other battalion radio nets ("Hey, Red Bravo Two, we have a situation at grid coordinates such and so").

This system was formalized by having a fire mission request being kicked "upstairs" if warranted for a suitably attractive target. The firing artillery battalion might contact the
division which then might also request support from corps. Ostensibly, the inclusion of the division support added an additional three minutes to the fire mission, and including corps assets added three minutes yet again. There apparently was one case in Italy of a piper cub pilot (an artillery spotter) calling in no less than five corps level missions in one hour (this extremity of fire concentration was of course EXTREMELY uncommon, but certainly not unheard of).

Such relatively spontaneous massing of fires was absolutely not true of the German system which required a careful pre-plotting by surveyors to figure out where things really were on the map. In some sense, all American batteries wind up in general support (can fire for anybody). Consequently a given fire request may pick up extra "idle" batteries to thicken the fires. And during emergencies, any battery in range could leap into the fray to save a Yank ground pounder's tail.

Beyoond the above "standard" organizational doctrine, apparently Americans were quite capable of concentrating fire support on as large a scale as needed. I'll offer an example from the German counter-attack at Mortain in August of 1944 (from Saving the Breakout, Alwyn Fetherstone, 1993). Three American infantry companies were trapped by the Germans on top of a hill overlooking the valley that Mortain lies within (this was a bottle neck that a major part of the German attack had to pass through, if it was going to cut off Patton's breakout). The American infantry held out for something like two days against the better part of a panzer/panzer grenadier division that desperately wanted the lousy Yanks off of the hill. The only problem seems to have been that some twelve and a half battalions of Uncle Sam's artillery could be called on in the instant by the infantry, anywhere on the highly visible countryside for miles around. This not only prevented all daylight movement by the German attack, but completely thwarted any attack on the infantry itself, even at night. To imagine the effect of being a German attacking up that hill, think of being on a football field with some fifty to one hundred 20-odd pound TNT explosions going
off around you EVERY second (some two hundred guns each firing every 3 to say 8 seconds). Another way to think of it is to say that, in some sense, you might expect to have a shell land within touching distance of you every 15 seconds or so. Yep, I don't think the US needs to bow to anybody when it comes to an ability to deliver impromptu
concentrated fires. :-< :-< [dead Jerry's] --- [attempt at sick humor]

BTW as a side note, no artillery gun anywhere (in the US Army at any rate) ever fired more than about 800 rounds in any day (Trevor Dupuy, Search for Historical Records of High Rate Artillery Fire in Combat Situations, 1978). This was the extreme high, and a more typical high for any given battery is likely to be on the order of several rounds per gun per day. Apparently logistical limits more than anything tended to prevent firing a larger number of missions.

No doubt more than one German officer assumed he'd have at least the first 15 or 20 minutes of his surprise attack free of defensive artillery fire. And when the artillery did start to come in, he'd expect to be warned by the initial spotting rounds. Instead he found he was under immediate fire placed directly on his men while many were still crossing the start line. I'm sure it appeared to more than one German that the Americans must have known when and where such attacks were coming. No wonder some Germans were impressed with American artillery.

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 6:12 pm
by JTGEN
So why is it that the finnish troops do not have this capability?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 6:17 pm
by Paul Vebber
Did they have a system like the US? Not in 40...nobody did that I am aware of. Any Finns out there have detals on the Finnish doctrine for artillery C2?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 6:52 pm
by 11Bravo
Larry,

Excellent informative and entertaining post (sick humor aside <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ).

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 6:58 pm
by Paul Goodman
Larry,

Great Post! I can't get the link to work. My question is: Is this the so-called firing tables developed by MIT and for which the first digital computer was created?

Paul

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 7:01 pm
by Kluckenbill
Larry - Thanks for a VERY informative post.

Back in the neolithic era (1975) I watched a big TOT during a firepower demonstration put on for our ROTC Basic class. They coordinated everything from 4.2" Mortars up to 8" Howitzers, it was awesome!

It would be interesting to see if you could recreate the Mortain scenario in SPWAW. I think the artillery is certainly capable enough to do the job but I wonder if the modest US contingent would have enough orders to call in all that artillery. I assume they didn't have a dozen extra FO's. Perhaps we should give the US FO's more orders than other armies?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 7:02 pm
by Kluckenbill
Larry - Thanks for a VERY informative post.

Back in the neolithic era (1975) I watched a big TOT during a firepower demonstration put on for our ROTC Basic class. They coordinated everything from 4.2" Mortars up to 8" Howitzers, it was awesome!

It would be interesting to see if you could recreate the Mortain scenario in SPWAW. I think the artillery is certainly capable enough to do the job but I wonder if the modest US contingent would have enough orders to call in all that artillery. I assume they didn't have a dozen extra FO's. Perhaps we should give the US FO's more orders than other armies?

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 7:32 pm
by JTGEN
Paul Vebber:
Did they have a system like the US? Not in 40...nobody did that I am aware of. Any Finns out there have detals on the Finnish doctrine for artillery C2?


In my understanding yes. To what I have heard, it worked better than US.
Here you will find some info:
http://www.winterwar.com/Numbers/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm#Firing%20Technique

I'll give some other sources if I find some

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 7:33 pm
by Voriax
Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Did they have a system like the US? Not in 40...nobody did that I am aware of. Any Finns out there have detals on the Finnish doctrine for artillery C2?
For this we must wait until some finnish artilleryman gives a more precise answer.. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

However in the early 30's Finnish arty experts developed a fire direction method that made it possible to direct the fire from each gun within range in a single target. Regardless of the distance & direction of the gun. And all this needed just one FO, all firing parameters and fire corrections were converted for each battery with the help of a special calculator (saw it in a documentary program..disc shaped thing with lot of diagrams in it).

Voriax

(just a signals guy even though I do have cannons) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Voriax ]</p>

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 7:58 pm
by Larry Holt
Originally posted by Paul Goodman:
Larry,

Great Post! I can't get the link to work. My question is: Is this the so-called firing tables developed by MIT and for which the first digital computer was created?

Paul

The trailing colon hosed it up, sorry. Try this
http://tigertank.com/aslcrossroads/tactical/arty.htm

There is more there too on Soviet, British and German. Unfortunately nothing on the Finns.

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 8:07 pm
by murx
Re:
Consequently a given fire request may pick up extra "idle" batteries to thicken the fires. And during emergencies, any battery in range could leap into the fray to save a Yank ground pounder's tail.

Wouldn't it be a nice touch to a future SP if this would be build in ?
Like raising the arty cost for US player about 1/3 (but this arty could be called at all times) but have a chance-roll if there is additional arty firing ?
Like you order 3 fire-missions from your own twelve tubes but then (maybe depending on mission or actual Allied/Axis points-value) some 4-40 tubes join the orchestra ?
So in a defend mission (or when seriously outnumbered) there is a good chance you get random additional arty firing, making the game historical correct and adding some more uncertainty into the game.
It should be optional only (so one still can have 'set point values) and don't have Axis player mourn about their bad luck being bombed by all those random added arty...

Anyone like that idea ?

murx

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 8:08 pm
by Paul Vebber
Intersting article on Finnish artillery. The big question though is raised in the Lessons Learned section that seems to indicate that while the "system" was sound and may well have rated as effective as teh US system, it was not implemeted as successfully as the US system.

IT also seems to be based on the sort of surveys that underlie teh basic "gold spot" system in teh game. Were the "fire control charts" set up to support specific locations? Its not clear here.

The US system effectiveness was a synergistic effect of radio communications, the grideded map system, and the pre-coompilation of data in teh tape system. These things combined allowed (though it is a bit overdone in the game) the US to "break free of teh gold spot" and deliever rapid fire to any point on the battle field, not just those for which, a pre-computed relationship existed (abstracted in the "gold spot").

The Finns seemed to have teh theory for such a system done, but its not clear that they wer able to implement is as ubiqutiously as the US did.

More discussion of this please! Any other country arty doctrines available...this is important fo CL development <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]</p>

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 8:22 pm
by Larry Holt
Originally posted by JTGEN:
So why is it that the finnish troops do not have this capability?
The link to the Finnish arty site is excellent! It provides:

If the connection between the FO and the battery was in order, the average delay between the FO giving a new target to the battery/battalion gambit was 5 - 8 minutes.

Since a turn is about 2 minutes, the Finns should take 2 to 4 turns to shoot a new target. This compares to 2 minutes for the US army which is about one turn.

So, it seems that both nations are receiving arty support faster in the game than in real life. I believe that this is in line with SPWaW being a game as much as a simulation. If the real lag times were used, the game would slow down and be less interesting.

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 8:25 pm
by Paul Vebber
We tried introducing more time lag, but the AI went snakey, always upadting its spots and never firing... So we left as it is with "same turn" response only available to the US player, others take a turn or 2.

IF you don;t want the US to have this advantage you can make them "like everybody else" by turning of national characteristics in teh pref file

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2001 9:25 pm
by Larry Holt
Try
http://www.jmkemp.demon.co.uk/artillery especially the doctrine link

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2001 1:19 am
by Sami
Originally posted by Larry Holt:


The link to the Finnish arty site is excellent! It provides:

If the connection between the FO and the battery was in order, the average delay between the FO giving a new target to the battery/battalion gambit was 5 - 8 minutes.

Since a turn is about 2 minutes, the Finns should take 2 to 4 turns to shoot a new target. This compares to 2 minutes for the US army which is about one turn.

So, it seems that both nations are receiving arty support faster in the game than in real life. I believe that this is in line with SPWaW being a game as much as a simulation. If the real lag times were used, the game would slow down and be less interesting.

- As the author of the article, I have to comment this. The article concentrates only to the Winter War (1939-1940) -era.

During the Continuation War (where the communication situation was greatly improved, lessening response time), Capt Unto Petäjä developed a new revolutionary fire direction method called "korjausmuunnin" ("adjustment converter" is a VERY rough translation). Can't remember the date, but it was well adopted by artillerists before 1944.

It enabled several different arty battalions to adjust their fire and/or take a fire mission from one FO, if the batteries knew their own location and the location where the FO was.
I.e. if 8 artillery battalions were firing in the same hectare-size area target, the FO could order to adjust the fire "500 m shorter", and each of the artillery battalions could adjust their fire independently and accurately, so that the shells would again hit the same spot. This relieved the FO from the burden to consider the location of different batteries, and making separate adjustment calculations for each of them.

As the ultimate test of the Finnish artillery, during the Battles of Tali-Ihantala, where the Finnish defenders were supported by nearly 21 arty battalions. On average, 11 artillery battalions were used to fire at the same target (theoretically they could've used a lot more bns, but it wasn't practical), and the response time was said to have been (according to a vet's interview) "only a few minutes" IIRC.

OK, I'm off to bed. But the main point of this is confusing post is, that the article is about the Finnish artillery in 1939-early 1940! 15 months later, the technique was improved as a result of combat experience and later even more, thanks to the new better firing technique.

Best regards,
Sami

[ August 16, 2001: Message edited by: Sami ]</p>

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2001 1:54 am
by A Hobbs
Thanks for all the replys. Lary Holt has made a good point, if one turn takes two minutes, then shouldn't all countries have an increased delay for their bombardments ?
When playing as the Americans, it's too easy to destroy the enemy's on board artillery by counter barrage, just see where the smoke is and pummel those hexes at the end of your turn. There's no time to "shoot and scoot".
And there's still that question of why the American OOB gives us on board 105mm howitzers ?

Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2001 2:25 am
by john g
When playing as the Americans, it's too easy to destroy the enemy's on board artillery by counter barrage, just see where the smoke is and pummel those hexes at the end of your turn. There's no time to "shoot and scoot".
And there's still that question of why the American OOB gives us on board 105mm howitzers ?[/QB]
Since most armies have some sort of SP arty, up to 150mm in size, why worry about those 105's. They give you an option not to use the SParty, just as the Germans have their infantry guns, its just that the 105's are better than inf guns since they can fire indirect.
thanks, John.