"Artillery & Mortar fire by direct line of sight?" Topic
45 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile ArticleOn the Kokoda Track at Council of Five Nations.
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
robertg | 26 Apr 2017 8:05 a.m. PST |
Regarding towed Artillery and mortars firing at targets they directly see themselves: Should it be allowed as a standard firing mode, allowed if specifically penalised (extra minus to hit, or less effective etc)or prohibited altogether? Obviously it would be possible (and is mentioned in historical accounts), to point a howitzer barrel at a visible oncoming enemy and shoot, but at what realistic expectation of hitting it? I believe most guns had sights that would allow it but was it a standard trained practice or an emergency requirement? |
Rudysnelson | 26 Apr 2017 8:25 a.m. PST |
Small cannon, like the German 75mm infantry gun or the SPG assigned to USA tank companies were used often in direct fire roles. Mortars when I commanded them in the 1970s conducted fire into areas we could see. |
Legion 4 | 26 Apr 2017 8:28 a.m. PST |
Yes, that is sometimes referred to "firing by open sight" or something like that . You can fire FA or mortars directly if you can see the target. Troops are trained to do that. Plus the sights can be used for that option as well. I'd think you should have no penalty for firing direct. You can see the target so it is easier to hit. E.g. during the Lorraine Campaign, France, '44. German Panzers, etc., overran the 90th ID's front line. And made it all the way into the rear areas. Where the 90th's FA had to fire directly at those Panzers. To stop the attack. In battles like Stalingrad, Manila, Berlin. FA was brought up and fired directly into buildings, etc. At the beginning of the Korean War. US 105mm howitzers had to fire directly at N. Korean T34/85s. When they overran the frontline. The 105s even had some HEAT rounds to use for AT work. Probably based on WWII experiences. |
79thPA | 26 Apr 2017 8:32 a.m. PST |
It is common practice, so I am not sure why you would want to penalize it. |
wrgmr1 | 26 Apr 2017 8:53 a.m. PST |
British 25lb artillery were used against German tanks. I would say yes. |
Martin Rapier | 26 Apr 2017 9:05 a.m. PST |
Mortars always fire 'indirect', but if they can see the target, they can adjust the fire themselves rather than rely on an observer. Tube artilley can obviously shoot at stuff they can actually see on a flat trajectory, unless dug into gun pits so deep the barrels can't be depressed (as often happened in WW1). Field artillery tends to be more handy at this than medium and heavy guns, and it is hard to imagine something like a railway gun ever being used of direct fire. Some pretty heavy pieces (155s and 203mm guns) were used as direct fire weapons in street fighting though, and for a while 100mm K18 guns were the only thing which could reliably stop a KV-1. |
emckinney | 26 Apr 2017 9:34 a.m. PST |
"Firing over open sights" actually means using direct fire sights. At least for American 105s, the direct fire sights had to be specifically mounted and were not left on the guns. I'm not clear on whether they interfered with indirect fire sights (I think that they did) or if they were just vulnerable to damage (I think that they were). Accounts of the Kasserine battles note that the American artillery that conducted direct fire was lucky to have the "open" sights available and was unusual in having trained in their use. Obviously, this is going to vary among armies based on doctrine, equipment, etc. Soviet doctrine called for a lot of direct fire by smaller artillery (76mm divisional guns), so they almost certainly trained for that more than others. However, the Soviets were short an immense amount of precision equipment in the early years of the war (definitely through 1942). There's also a limit to how much training time any unit has. The more time you spend training on direct fire procedures, the less time you have to spend on the complexities of direct fire. Some countries may simply not have had direct fire sights available for all of their artillery. Direct fire is also much more dependent on the skill of the individual gun captains. With indirect fire, the battery commander should be giving azimuth and elevation for the guns and the gun captains just line up on that. With indirect fire, the individual gun captains need to pick targets, determine range (or the battery commander is going to find a range and everyone is going to use that range, regardless of the actual exact range), and line up the shot taking wind, target motion, etc. into account. So, it's not so obvious that tube artillery could always fire direct, or would be any good at it. |
Weasel | 26 Apr 2017 9:53 a.m. PST |
Soviet guns were typically issued a few anti-tank rounds for defence, so presumably they could fire direct :-) |
Wolfhag | 26 Apr 2017 10:33 a.m. PST |
I think pretty much any artillery has sights to direct fire. The limitations would be the range (fairly short for howitzers against vehicles) and the tactical situation. Historical accounts I can recall: Marines towing 155mm guns through the valley on Peleliu to direct fire into mountain caves. The also used the 75mm pack howitzers to direct fire into bunkers and pill boxes. German 105mm and 155mm direct fired at Russian tanks and infantry after they broke through the forward defensive lines. This was very effective in stopping exploitations. For large offensives pre-assault barrage Russians would prepare a firing position for towed 152mm and 8" guns. The night before the offensive kicked off the guns were brought forward and emplaced. They opened fire on identified targets in the morning. Generally, any light artillery attached to infantry units would be used in a direct fire capacity and moved forward as the infantry advanced. In WWI my grandfather (US Army) was peeking over the trench parapet observing the German trenches about 800 meters away with his binoculars. He saw a bright flash and ducked down just as a round (probably 75mm) hit the parapet he was observing at. The German gun was probably there long enough to have all of the American lines ranged in. No damage, just a little shaken up. Wolfhag |
LORDGHEE | 26 Apr 2017 10:38 a.m. PST |
Fm- 100 field Manuals on the Soviet army state that the Soviets believed that direct fire was 3x as effective as bombardment. So all soviet guns had a direct fire capability. Mechanized modern guns do they still have this ability. |
ScoutJock | 26 Apr 2017 12:00 p.m. PST |
US Army M12s were sometimes employed in a direct-fire role, such as in the Allied assault on the Siegfried Line, where the M12 earned its nickname "Doorknocker" thanks to the 155mm cannon's ability to pierce seven feet of concrete at ranges up to 2,000 yards (1,830 meters). The vehicle was also dubbed "King Kong" by American operators due to the raw power of its gun. |
Legion 4 | 26 Apr 2017 12:53 p.m. PST |
"Firing over open sights" actually means using direct fire sights. That's the phrase I was trying to remember ! Thanks ! |
Bellbottom | 26 Apr 2017 1:16 p.m. PST |
The British 2" mortar, being lanyard fired, was reportedly liked by Commandoes because they could fire it horizontally (directly) |
number4 | 26 Apr 2017 1:25 p.m. PST |
Bear in mind that if your guns are suddenly in a position to shoot directly at an enemy, they are in a position to shoot at you too and something has gone terribly wrong. It's time to think about saving at least your life, if not your guns. The fact that US artillery batteries were issued Bazooka against tank attack speaks volumes…. 25pdr guns were used as ad-hoc antitank guns in North Africa, but the term should be misused ;) I spoke with a USMC vet who was an 81mm mortarman in the Korean war and he said they never even practiced direct laying |
Legion 4 | 26 Apr 2017 1:41 p.m. PST |
Bear in mind that if your guns are suddenly in a position to shoot directly at an enemy, they are in a position to shoot at you too and something has gone terribly wrong. It's time to think about saving at least your life, if not your guns. Yes, but as we see sometimes there is no choice … The fact that US artillery batteries were issued Bazooka against tank attack speaks volumes….
Depending on the situation a Bazooka may be more appropriate. You'd rather be pulling the guns out of battery if you could. And maybe the Bazookas would buy you some time ? But it comes down to, as it always does… it depends on the situation. And dare I say – terrain … |
Mark 1 | 26 Apr 2017 2:17 p.m. PST |
I think there are actually two topics being interwoven here. I, for one, would be interested in understanding both … 1) Direct fire: This is, I think, the easier issue to understand. The gunner sees a target. He aims at that target. He fires. He either hits the target, or does not. Not very different from other weapons on the battlefield or the wargaming table. We can talk about whether howitzers were or were not good at this kind of work, or whether some particular crew would or would not have been trained for this kind of work, but there is little room for debate that guns and howitzers could do this if required. One need only look at the short 75mm in early German Pz IVs and StuGs, or the even shorter 75mm or 76.2mm in French Char Bs and Russian T-28s to understand that a howitzer could indeed be used to shoot directly at an observed target. However, I wonder about mortars. Please see below. 2) Direct area fire: This is the more nuanced issue to my thinking. Generally, artillery (whether guns, howitzers, or mortars) fire at an AREA, not a point target. They have a beaten zone. The notion is to put several/many rounds into that beaten zone, to threaten any enemies in that area. Usually area fire was conducted at target areas that were not visible to the gun crews. But sometimes, the target areas were indeed visible. But that did not mean it was point-targeting. It was still area fire. The Soviets are the best case example. With shortages of comms and skilled fire control staffs, they often brought their artillery into positions from which the target area could be seen directly. Batteries, battalions, and even regiments of guns would all fire at a target area that they could see. No observers needed, beyond the gun captains or battery command staff. But the guns did not have individual point targets for their aim. Rather, it was an area. When I think of mortars firing over open/direct sights, I think in these terms. I know a mortarman might well try to lay his sight on and shoot at an individual point target. But given the ballistics of mortars, the effect was an area affect in any case. I think it is this second type of fire that was referenced when the Soviets claimed 3x effectiveness. They were speaking of a batter shelling a town they could see. Not a 76.2mm gun shooting at a panzer. I have the impression that direct area fire was fairly common among many armies in WW1 and WW2. Sadly, most wargaming rulesets I've used do not provide for direct area fire. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
foxweasel | 26 Apr 2017 3:38 p.m. PST |
I can only speak for modern 81mm mortars (though they are basically the same as the old 3") when conducting direct fire shoots, we train to hit an individual target as it's no longer a number of mortars providing a belt of fire. If the range to the target has been measured correctly, direct fire is very accurate. By direct, we mean directly controlled by the No1 of the mortar detachment, not direct to the target at a flat trajectory. |
Legion 4 | 26 Apr 2017 3:58 p.m. PST |
Yes, based on my experience/training with 81s. We could easily fire them direct … The trajectory is still an arc. But you can see the target and aim the tube using the sight to hit the target. But again the round's trajectory is not flat but an "arch". |
LORDGHEE | 26 Apr 2017 4:18 p.m. PST |
|
Mark 1 | 26 Apr 2017 5:23 p.m. PST |
The trajectory is still an arc. But you can see the target and aim the tube using the sight to hit the target. Let us explore this a bit more. Please note I will certainly defer to the knowledge of trained and experienced mortarmen, as I am neither. I am just an interested layman who wants a better understanding of this issue. So … if you set your mortar up correctly (for sake of discussion assume all the required tasks are done properly), and fire of 3 rounds, do the 2nd and 3rd rounds land in the crater made by the 1st round? I believe they do not. But I may be mistaken. And I believe the reason they do not is that the mortar has not been designed to deliver point-accurate fire. Layed exactly the same way, the rounds it fires will land in an area around the point of aim. This is a deliberate feature in a mortar, as there is not much value in a barrage of fire if all the rounds land in the same place. At least that is my understanding. Now it may be that I simply do not understand correctly. Perhaps the mortar IS point-accurate, and the round will go exactly (or close to exactly) where the mortar is aimed. Perhaps there is some mechanism for loosening and tightening the distribution of rounds? Or perhaps the act of firing disturbs the point of aim enough that the aim is scattered on subsequent rounds, with each going exactly where it is aimed when it fires? Or perhaps there is some other factor at play that I have not imagined? That is not my current understanding of mortars. As I understand now, if you aim it at one point, rounds will land in a fairly random distribution around that point, sometimes on that point, but often not. My understanding is also that howitzers are not designed with point-accuracy for much the same reason. In this case I feel I am on firmer ground, as I have seen circle of error stats on howitzers and believe with high confidence that if you aim them perfectly you will still suffer a relatively low probability of hitting your target, unless that target is pretty close or pretty large (or very soft, and so at risk from near misses). This is the primary reason that howitzers have relatively short effective ranges when engaging in direct fire (here I do indeed mean aiming at a point target). For example a U.S. 155mm Howitzer M1 (WW2 designation, M114 in the post-war world) is generally stated to have a range of about 900 yards for direct fire, even though it has an effective range of over 14,000 yards for area fire. Anything past about 900 yards, and you are aiming at an area, not a point target. Because even if you DID aim at a point target, your rounds would be distributed in an area. We might be talking about the same technical event with different behavioral / tactical terminology. For example, let us consider a tank within visual range, and a mortar crew that really would prefer said tank not to be there. The mortarmen may indeed lay their mortar sights directly on the tank. Let us assume they are good at their job, and they do everything properly. They have the right range, they have the azimuth, they have appropriately leveled/plumbed their set-up, they use the right charge, there are no adverse weather conditions, etc. etc. Choose any reasonable range. High arch, so probably not close … let's say somewhere between 500 and 750 meters? Or choose another if it gives a better case. Would you expect these mortarmen to hit the tank with one round? Or would you expect them to fire off some number of rounds in order to be confident of at least one hit? If the former, I would say they are engaging in direct fire. If the latter, I would suggest they are engaging in area fire, but are centering their beaten zone around the one target that is of interest to them. Of course what I say doesn't change what they did -- they aimed at a target and shot at it. But technically what happened was they put a number of rounds into an area, with some probability of hitting a tank-sized target within that area. -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Skarper | 26 Apr 2017 9:03 p.m. PST |
Before the better informed nail this down, I'd say that while the mortar has a larger intrinsic error [there is a term for this in ballistics but it escapes me] it is larger than the blast and fragment effect. So if you drop a mortar bomb near enough to your target point, all following rounds will land near enough too. [barring SNAFUs] One mortar will not be able to fire a 'barrage' at least not without a lot of fiddling about. Mortars were usually set up in a line or a pattern so if they fired what I believe is called a parallel sheaf they would produce the required effect. |
Griefbringer | 26 Apr 2017 11:54 p.m. PST |
Notice that there is also difference between mortars. While smoothbore tubes were typical, some mortars (like US and UK 4.2" versions) had rifled tubes and had a reputation for accuracy. |
foxweasel | 27 Apr 2017 2:50 a.m. PST |
Mark you are about right. A well practiced mortar detachment will be able to hit a target with the second round using direct fire procedures. If they are firing on a slow rate they will be able to keep the rounds within 2 or 3 metres each time. When firing a single round, recording targets etc, the No1 of the det will align the vertical line in the sight with the aiming post (about 20 metres in front) he will ensure the bubbles are level for the required elevation (range) and cross levelling gear. This is easy enough with no time pressure. Direct fire procedures are emergency ones, when firing on a high rate (as fast as you can) the No1 will try to keep the bubbles level, but it's just about impossible within the couple of seconds between each round. The aiming post/sight is only checked every 5 rounds after the barrel is scrubbed out. It's all these things that create the beaten zone, and wind, wind is a major factor. You have to consider that the round is in the air for an average of 30 seconds, a lot of time for wind to affect it. Although mortars are generally sited in a rough line 30-40 metres apart, they can all converge on to a single point. You'd never guess I'm a mortar instructor!😁 |
robertg | 27 Apr 2017 3:15 a.m. PST |
Great discussion guys, exactly the sort of things I was thinking about when I asked the question. IMHO wargames rules are a very poor representation of the artillery process even if they can produce viable end results (which is the important part for the rule mechanisms). I dislike the inability of spotters to "walk" rounds towards a stationary target and to maintain a beaten zone effectively. I am of the opinion that, if spotted each sucessive round should have a greater chance of accuracy than the one before it. The fresh roll for deviation each shot makes this a bit of a lottery rather than a skilled process. In response to a comment earlier about why penalise artillery firing over direct sights: because otherwise, with gamers being what they are, you end up with a rash of 105mm and 155mm psudeo Antitank guns being deployed in 1940. The HE vs armour effect of a 105mm is equal at short range and far more effective at long range than the AP rating of a 37mm AT gun. Making it harder for artillery pieces to hit a point target, such as a vehicle, puts them back in their proper support fire role. Could be a minus to hit, could be by limiting number of shots available, could be by enforcing a longer "set up" period before shooting. Don't know yet which would be preferable. |
Mobius | 27 Apr 2017 4:30 a.m. PST |
I think it is this second type of fire that was referenced when the Soviets claimed 3x effectiveness. They were speaking of a batter shelling a town they could see. Not a 76.2mm gun shooting at a panzer. It probably would depend on the length of a turn. Remember back when the topic was indirect fire in a 5-15 min turn. Some rules gave greater lethality to indirect artillery that arrived within the same turn. To be consistent the same should apply to direct artillery. It will always arrive within the same 3-15 turn. |
Just Jack | 27 Apr 2017 6:55 a.m. PST |
Robert, "In response to a comment earlier about why penalise artillery firing over direct sights: because otherwise, with gamers being what they are, you end up with a rash of 105mm and 155mm psudeo Antitank guns being deployed in 1940." I think the artillery pieces firing over open sights are every bit as effective as you're worried they are, but I don't think the game mechanisms you listed ("Could be a minus to hit, could be by limiting number of shots available, could be by enforcing a longer "set up" period before shooting.") are the answer, or at least the correct answer. You have to look at what it wasn't done all that often in real life, and I believe the reason is because of the vulnerability of the piece and its crew, and the idea that the risk vs gain isn't there under normal circumstances. You can move a gun up to the front line and have it deliver direct fire, but what are the chances of the crew being killed or the gun being knocked out? This is exactly the reason armored assault guns were invented; Armies wanted that large bore capability, but needed a means to get it to the front and protect the crew operating it (Stugs, SU-122, M-8 Gun Motor Carriage, etc…). I think the majority of times you saw field pieces used in direct fire roles was in one of two scenarios: 1. Desperation. The guns found themselves on the front line when enemy forces broke through to their positions. The choice was whether to spike the guns and flee, or stand and fight. 2. A relatively threat free environment. I think of Aachen, perhaps Berlin. There is a clash in urban terrain, fighting rages, the Germans are all but defeated, but there are some hardliners holed up in a virtually impregnable fortified building. The Germans are suppressed; friendly machine guns and riflemen have them sealed up in their fortification, there's hardly and return fire, but no one is relishing the idea of going in there and cleaning them out. Bring up the guns! So here comes the Long Tom or the 203mm howitzer; they maneuver it on up to within 75 yards of the fortified building, taking the occasional odd rifle round, then blast the hell out of the enemy position. Very effective, but only because it was a relatively threat-free environment. Skarper (and Foxweasel, too, I'd love to hear your thoughts), "One mortar will not be able to fire a 'barrage' at least not without a lot of fiddling about. Mortars were usually set up in a line or a pattern so if they fired what I believe is called a parallel sheaf they would produce the required effect." I wasn't around the 81s all that much, but I've seen a 60mm mortar fire what they called a 'field sheaf,' which is pumping out pumping out a bunch of rounds as fast as they could, without any manipulation of the sights (I was going to say T&E as that's what we use on machine guns, but I have no idea what it's called on mortars). The recoil of the weapon would change the fall of shot enough to bracket a decent-sized area (say 6 or 8 rounds landing in a 30m x 30m box). Just my 2 cents. V/R, Jack |
Griefbringer | 27 Apr 2017 7:27 a.m. PST |
You have to look at what it wasn't done all that often in real life, and I believe the reason is because of the vulnerability of the piece and its crew, and the idea that the risk vs gain isn't there under normal circumstances. Also, guns couldn't move to the front line on their own (unless they were self-propelled, which were a rare sight except in later war armoured divisions). In infantry divisions, artillery could be drawn by horses or soft-skinned tractors, and this would also make vulnerable targets. Not to mention that to keep the pieces firing you would need to bring in ammo supply with wagon or ammo truck – and you don't want the enemy to turn those into big fireworks. Another issue is that indirect fire provides much more reach and flexibility. A well-situated divisional howitzer battery could effectively deliver fire on any spot with 10+ km radius of the position within a relatively short time of the fire request. That is, as long as there are sufficient observers in the ground to make requests and working communications network. If you are firing over open sights, you don't need to worry about those communications. But you are also limited to what you can actually observe. Of course if you are out on a nice little hill in middle of flat steppe this is less of a restriction than on a foggy morning in the middle of bocage. |
Martin Rapier | 27 Apr 2017 8:22 a.m. PST |
"In response to a comment earlier about why penalise artillery firing over direct sights: because otherwise, with gamers being what they are, you end up with a rash of 105mm and 155mm psudeo Antitank guns being deployed in 1940. The HE vs armour effect of a 105mm is equal at short range and far more effective at long range than the AP rating of a 37mm AT gun." Rather than penalise the guns (there was a reason why artillery was used for direct fire against tanks in 1940/41!), you need to look at doctrine. Using artillery in the front line was extremely hazardous as it risked losing the divisions main source of firepower to direct assault, and was only done as either a last resort or because the guns were firing over open sights to defend their positions against tanks which had already broken through the infantry/AT screen (as at Arras). As noted above, the guns were large, hard to move, hideously vulnerable to fire unless dug in and most importantly, the gunners got into all sorts of trouble if they lost them. I'd just handle this stuff on a scenario by scenario basis, but if you letting players pick kit, the either use sensible 'army lists' or have a massive points penalty for misusing artillery. |
UshCha | 27 Apr 2017 9:50 a.m. PST |
We have noticed the vulnerability of guns in some rules ie less than it should be due to excessive concentration of accuracy vs range, a good MG is effective out much further than some rules allow. Again it creates errors in tactics between the game and the real world. |
Rod I Robertson | 27 Apr 2017 10:15 a.m. PST |
I'm probably not telling anyone anything they don't already know but this is a reminder that not all firing over open sights was an act of desperation or a convenience in a low threat environment. German ad hoc doctrine in France and later in the USSR was to attach either 88mm Flak, 100mm guns or 105mm guns to their armoured spearhead kampfgruppen to deal with the possible appearance of enemy heavy armour on the battlefield. The Italians did this too in both N. Africa and the USSR too. The USSR 76.2mm crash boom and similar guns were often used in a direct firing AT role. So sometimes commanders intentionally put artillery pieces in harm's way to fire over open sights in order to protect against tanks which their own tanks could not handle. Cheers. Rod Robertson. Cheers |
Legion 4 | 27 Apr 2017 10:55 a.m. PST |
So … if you set your mortar up correctly (for sake of discussion assume all the required tasks are done properly), and fire of 3 rounds, do the 2nd and 3rd rounds land in the crater made by the 1st round? To add context to Foxweasel's comments. And yes, I was trained to use 81s at the Infantry Officer's Basic Course[IOBC]. But was not sent to more advanced training at the Infantry Mortar Plt Ldrs Course. However even just at IOBC we learned the basics in using mortars and sending rounds down range, etc. And could use and lead a mortar unit if need be. Which was the case when I was in the 101. At times I was the Company 81mm Mortar Plt PL. The Plt Never had a problem with hitting the targets. More details – Mortars are set up in/along a firing line. As Skarper posted Mortars were usually set up in a line or a pattern so if they fired what I believe is called a parallel sheaf they would produce the required effect. I.e. hit the same target … The mortars in the firing line are laid/aligned by red & white aiming stakes. Each tube is aligned with those aiming stakes to have the rounds all hit in generally the same place, i.e. impact area. Creating a blast radius/impact zone. As Foxweasel posted – Although mortars are generally sited in a rough line 30-40 metres apart, they can all converge on to a single point. Targeting/Firing are based on the FDC's firing solution coordinated with the target's grids. Plus the mortars being declinated/aligned/laid along the firing line. These procedures are generally similar with FA, as well. Plus you can have various blast areas/impact zones created by the rounds hitting on the target. Based on the type of sheaf. E.g. Open or Closed sheaf. So generally … Open – rounds land within a certain blast zone/impact area. Closed – rounds all land very close together. Like at point target, i.e. a bunker or AFV, etc. Rounds also can even be plotted to land along a road, stream, etc. even if the target/road, etc. is not straight. But curved, etc. And also by using the sight on the mortar, "Firing over open sights", if you can see the target you can fire rounds directly at that target. The PL/FDC can order all tubes to hit that specific target. Or even all fire at other targets that are in view. Again this generally is not the way Mortars or FA are employed in a direct fire mode … however … it did and could happen. I've done it … However, the last time I leaded a Mortar Plt was @ 1981 or '82. Foxweasel, I'm an … did I remember the task correctly ? |
Legion 4 | 27 Apr 2017 11:14 a.m. PST |
Skarper – CEP – I was not sure if I remembered it correctly … so I looked it up – In the military science of ballistics, circular error probable (CEP) (also circular error probability or circle of equal probability) is a measure of a weapon system's precision. It is defined as the radius of a circle, centered about the mean, whose boundary is expected to include the landing points of 50% of the rounds. |
Rudysnelson | 27 Apr 2017 11:28 a.m. PST |
Organic mortars would operate in direct support in a different manner than artillery. However direct support guns attached/ organic to the unit would be a different method of control all together. Organic mortars receive more training on 'danger close' fire missions than general support sections. The fire control of the mortars could be 1) What the gunners/section chief see when the rounds land. 2) what the friendly observing troops report to the firing mortars about the rounds landing 3) What the observing troops report to the FDC about the rounds when firing in distant support. |
Legion 4 | 27 Apr 2017 11:47 a.m. PST |
Yes, the organic mortars are part of the Infantry or Armor units. Like 81s at Company level and 4.2s at Bn level. FA is usually only in "direct support" of a maneuver unit by having it's FOs/FIST attached to the maneuver unit. And it is designated as such by the OPORD, etc. To call-in indirect fire in support to that particular maneuver unit. I.e. in "direct support" of that unit. However, the firing Batteries are generally no where near the forward maneuver units. But far behind the front line/FEBA, LD/LC, etc. And never see the targets. Which again is generally the way FA works … |
foxweasel | 27 Apr 2017 11:56 a.m. PST |
Legion, still correct mate. |
Legion 4 | 27 Apr 2017 11:59 a.m. PST |
Thanks Fox ! Good to know I can still remember some things from waaaay back then ! |
Griefbringer | 28 Apr 2017 12:02 a.m. PST |
The USSR 76.2mm crash boom and similar guns were often used in a direct firing AT role. They certainly were, and especially Zis-3 was quite handy since it was designed as a field artillery piece but used the carriage of the Zis-2 57 mm anti-tank gun. This resulted in a relatively low profile, making the gun less conspicuous on the battlefield. Indeed, it was good enough in this role that it was used to arm dedicated anti-tank batteries, in addition to field artillery units. Thus not all Zis-3 guns firing in an anti-tank role were from divisional field artillery batteries (though those could also act in such a role in pinch). Such anti-tank battery would probably be no good in indirect field artillery role, due to lacking necessary signal, observer and fire control assets, as well as the ammo columns needed to bring in large amounts of HE rounds. Similarly, in the dire days of 1941 when anti-tank units were direly needed, some dedicated anti-tank batteries were in a pinch armed with 85 mm anti-aircraft guns. These had quite some punch against armour, but were not ideal when it came to mobility and ease of concealment. Again, such unit might be of limited use in actual anti-aircraft role, despite the nature of their gun. |
Legion 4 | 28 Apr 2017 6:53 a.m. PST |
Something else I remember. Is the mortar sight/targeting system, was not in 360 degrees but 3600 mils. Making the rounds much more accurate. And IIRC FA was the same. |
badger22 | 28 Apr 2017 8:31 a.m. PST |
OK, coming to this late. Legion, there are 6400 mils in a circle. For US Artillery we use probable error. You have PE range, and PE deflection, they are not the same. An artillery shell is more likely to be long or short than off to the side. Mark 1, no guns are as accurate as we can make then, the universe provides all the dispersion you could ask for. I nailed a tank at 12000 meters one day. 1st shot to. As we were doing a registration, which takes a bunch of rounds, I didnt really know what to do. But in 21 years of tossing projos it happened exactly once. With the computers we can shoot what we call a converged sheaf, means all the craters should touch. Never actually happens, but we can make it close. But unless you are trying to kill a bunker, you want them a bit farther apart. we want to chew up an infantry company, not annihilate a squad. And of course us real old farts can do it manualy, but it takes a long time. US artillery does not use the term open sites. If the gun can expect to hit the target using its sights, it is direct fire. If we can see the target, but it is past the point where a gun chief can expect to hit the target, FDC(me) controls the fire. We call this direct aiming. No we dont really want to get in a shoot out with tanks. They are a lot better at it than we are. But, they are also a lot better at driving around than we are, particularly towed pieces. So while we dont want to do it, most of us would rather get shot in the front fighting back than take one up the ass trying to get ready to move. Bazookas and in my time laws and at4 is not really to defend the gunline. I was in charge of the tank killer team in a number of batterys mostly because nobody else wanted to do it and I liked it. But what we were supposed to do was load up in a vehicle and move to a choke point some distance away and set up an anti-armor ambush. Probably die in place, but hopefully gain enough time for the battery to get away.and while that doesnt seem survival oriented, if nobody does it then we all get whacked together. I am sure legion and foxweasel did not get issued a card saying this was a safe occupation. I had the honor of meeting an old artillery officer who had been in my battalion in WWII. He came up into my FDC track and wanted to see everything. The computers of course were something he knew nothing about. But the manual procedures we used were exactly the same as he had used in WWII. So while I cant talk about everything they did that long ago, I am confident I can talk about US FDC procedures. Nice thing about TMP. Almost anywhere else and everybody would be bored stupid over and od fart blathering about this stuff. Here I am confident at least several people will be interested. |
Thomas Thomas | 28 Apr 2017 9:29 a.m. PST |
7.6S para howitzers firing directly were critical in stopping the German PzIVs during the Christmas Day attack (Dec 25, 44). They had lots of HEAT ammo as it was the only type they handn't used much of. In Combat Command I still limit morters to firing indirectly only but the can "spot" for themselves so can certainly engage targets they can see – but using indirect procedures and effect. Artillery in direct fire role has same problem as AT guns – immoblie, fixed firing arc and vunerable to HE and small arms (with often less effective gun shields). As long as your rules of choice account for these issues you don't need special penalties (though perhaps a morale penalty for crews not used to front line hazards). Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Andy ONeill | 28 Apr 2017 9:48 a.m. PST |
I definitely appreciate the posts from veterans. I appreciate pretty much all posts actually. Even when i disagree with posters it's interesting to see another viewpoint. |
Legion 4 | 29 Apr 2017 9:03 a.m. PST |
there are 6400 mils in a circle. DOH !!!! Thanks for that ! Like I said, it was @ 1982 when I last played with 81s, etc.,. I was in charge of the tank killer team in a number of batterys mostly because nobody else wanted to do it and I liked it. But what we were supposed to do was load up in a vehicle and move to a choke point some distance away and set up an anti-armor ambush. That was exactly what I was talking about in my earlier post. I am sure legion and foxweasel did not get issued a card saying this was a safe occupation. You got that right ! Nice thing about TMP. Almost anywhere else and everybody would be bored stupid over and od fart blathering about this stuff. Here I am confident at least several people will be interested.
I agree, even though some have said[some no longer on TMP too], that I mention too many time about my serving for over a decade in the Army. However, since this is a site where we discuss history, war gaming, military modelling, etc. I'd think my experience and training, may be worthwhile in most cases on many topics posted here. And I strongly feel the same about other Vets posting. We just did not read about being Soldiers, Marines, etc., but we did it. Some here said to me I talk like being in the Army was the most important thing I ever did in my life. He and/or she didn't get it. It was … for many reasons many Vets here know and understand. Those 10+ years in the Infantry was much more "important", etc., than any other "job" I had before or since, IMO. [Thanks to all for letting me go OT and air out my feelings on that … Some don't get it and never will.] |
number4 | 30 May 2017 6:54 p.m. PST |
I was in charge of the tank killer team….what we were supposed to do was load up in a vehicle and move to a choke point some distance away and set up an anti-armor ambush. They used mines mostly for that purpose in WWII; in our day, mines were declared non PC and chucking them all over West Germany was deeply frowned on for some reason. No sense of humor those square heads ;) |
Blutarski | 30 May 2017 7:25 p.m. PST |
I have read an account of a USMC non-com in VN using a 60mm mortar tube in direct fire mode to take out an NVA LMG team. Considering that an M79 was capable of point fire accuracy out to a couple of hundred meters, I would suspect that a 60mm mortar would possess a similar degree of accuracy. Japanese "knee mortars" were also considered pretty accurate weapons at closer ranges. B
|
Legion 4 | 01 Jun 2017 6:57 a.m. PST |
Yes, the M203, the replacement for the M79 could be fired at closer ranges thru, e.g. the a window. It could be very accurate in well trained & experienced hands. IIRC, the M203 has a Point target range of @ 150m and Area @ 350m. It fired a Dual Purpose Rd that could penetrate @ 2in of armor. As well as other types. Even a round I forgot the name that would make in a 40mm Shotgun. It seems to me that could be very effective a very close range. In closed or mixed terrain. Each Squad in the US ARMY that were part of a Plt or Co. I served with, way back in '79-'90, had 1 M203 per Fire Tm/2 per Squad. It was a lot of "fun" to fire. |
|