"Direct Fire Priests?" Topic

After a recent game, we were discussing how likely (or unlikely) it would have been for the U.S. Army to have Priests (the SP howitzers, not chaplains!) forward in the direct fire role against enemy towns or buildings.

Appreciate any considered thoughts on the topic…

Well, considering my Grandad took an 8" artillery into direct fire against the Nazis at the Fortress at Brest (3rd Army), I am sure it occurred. Great way to reduce a strongpoint.

I don't know how common it was, but there are many documented accounts of the Priest being used in the DF mode. The Priest would be good for bunker busting or leveling buildings, and it would be relatively safe for the vehicle and crew. Direct fire against enemy armor seemed to be when the Priest found itself in the "Holy Crap!" mode.

Seems like (based on Fort Leavenworth Study) the U.S. had so many tank hunters floating around that they were using them as direct fire bunker busters and what not. My point being that there might not have been much of a need other than in the rare emergency defense situations such as at happened in the Ardennes.

Note below that in adjacent quotes (0n US forces taking Aachen) artillery is present in mass, but appears to be doing indirect, or maybe direct at a distance in some case, support fire on a huge scale. The building are heavily rubled when they go in.

From Block by Block p75 link

The 2/26, given the mission of clearing the densest part of the old city, conducted a methodical, specialized urban operation. Fortunately, Lieutenant Colonel Daniel, the battalion commander, wrote a detailed account after the war of the methods employed.

His preparations began with a reconfiguration of his battalion that integrated the combat arms at the small-unit level. Each rifle company became a task force. In addition to the company's three organic rifle platoons and weapons platoon (light machine guns and 60mm mortars), Daniel added three tanks or tank destroyers, which the company then assigned down to the rifle platoons. The tanks, M4 Shermans, weighed approximately 35 tons and mounted general purpose 75mm main guns capable of firing armor-piercing, high-explosive, and white phosphorus rounds. The tank destroyers were M10s, based upon the M4 tank, that mounted high-velocity 75mm guns highly valued for their ability to penetrate walls and fortifications. It should be noted that the M4 and M10, both of which were about twenty feet long and nine feet wide, were small enough to maneuver even in the close confines of an urban environment. Daniel further augmented each of the rifle companies with two 57mm antitank guns, drawn from the regimental antitank company, two bazooka teams, one flamethrower, and two heavy machine guns (water-cooled .30 caliber weapons capable of sustained fire).

Short answer yes, M7s could and did participate in direct fire. There are even accounts where they fired on tanks. But they were far from ideal for these missions, limited traverse of the gun and the completely open fighting compartment. The preferred vehicle would have been the M4 with the 105mm. That being said even the M12 155 sp were used against bunkers in the Siegfried line.

Sure they did it, but as a matter of expediency rather than as a tactic, and I can't imagine the crews were overjoyed about it either.

M7s were used in two different roles. In US armored divisions, the artillery battalions were composed completely of M7s, and these were intended for the indirect fire role. But the armored infantry battalions were, near the end of the war, given a few M7s to use as "assault guns," which would have been used for direct fire as well as indirect. (They replaced the M8 SP 75mm guns, IIRC.)

With all due respect the M8s were replaced by the M4 105 Howitzer tanks (often referred to as assault guns, although I'm not sure this term was used in WW2), 3 were issued to the HQ Co of every tank battalion and 1 to each of the Medium Tank companies in a Tank Battalion.

BTW this was the role originally intended for the M4A3E2 (Jumbo) but since they quickly proved themselves as the best American tanks for tank vs. tank combat they were more often used for that, although as they were generally at the front of columns they would often be the first tanks to encounter the enemy.

Good input, thanks to all for the discussion.

As a side note, if you go to the same link that I posted earlier, you will see where they took empty trams loaded them with explosives and then rolled the trams down into the center city, somehow setting them to explode on arrival, to see if they could rattle the Germans.

The first tram derailed, and a second got stuck on the first on. Which lead to some bravery by the troops getting it all unjammed so that the third one rolled down the hill and blew up as intended. Apparently to no visible effect on the defenders.

So, I guess, if you are playing at the skirmish level, and exploding trams are an historical method of U.S. urban combat, it doesn't seem too far fetched to allow a renegade Priest into the mix.

The 105mm tanks went to the tank battalions. M7s were given to armored infantry battalions.

I recently read `In the Face of the Enemy: A Battery Sergeant Major in Action in the Second World War' by E A Powdrill on Kindle. It's the memoir of a British gunner during the French campaigns of 1940 & 1944. In the latter he served in Sextons and they did find themselves firing in the direct fire role – sometimes in self defence !