ARTILLERY - Views, & information wanted (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

mheard -> ARTILLERY - Views, & information wanted (9/24/2009 1:59:33 PM)

I'm starting this thread in the hope that anyone who has views on how JTCS can be improved/changed with regard to the use of artillery can tell it like it is. This is not to put V1.05 wishlist posts in the 'wrong' place but to be a focus more general ideas and good sources of informaton.

So, the first subject to start with perhaps...

Artillery spotting

'Any unit with a radio can spot for artillery'.

Is this really the case? I mean a 'humble' lieutenant is unlikely to be calling direct for ad hoc divisional artillery fire is he?

What did countries who were not so well equiped with mobile radio devices do? Japan comes to mind here.

Will these couple of questions spark off an artillery debate and does anybody else have questions? There appears to be a load of expertise out there.

I recall seeing a very interesting post on artillery fire & command practice from a Finnish chap who had served in WWII. I cannot find it now. Does anyone know where it is?

BFN,

Martin Heard



mheard -> RE: ARTILLERY - Views, & information wanted (9/24/2009 5:04:41 PM)

Naval Gunnery on land targets

Who knows anything about the accuracy of such artillery and the means used to order and control

a) barrages - pre-plotted in support of sea landings

b) direct support - i.e. ordered ad hoc by land forces. For example, Normandy D++.

I would assume that there was a considerable difference between naval gunfire (German & British) used in the Norway campaign and that used later in, say, Operation Torch. How good/bad was same in the Pacific conflict? Was a navy aircraft spotter only used? How did the US marines communicate from land to ship for naval gunfire & how did the Japanese fare?

BFN,


Martin Heard



countblue -> RE: ARTILLERY - Views, & information wanted (9/25/2009 2:24:14 PM)

Some thoughts that came to my mind:

a.
Of course only qualified officers would have access to call for artillery above their unit level.
Example:
In the german army every company commander could call for his 80mm mortars for support but probably not for 150mm howitzers from his regiment.
On the other hand if his company was to lead an important assault he might be entiteld to do so for this single purpose.
He would need access to a radio equipment on the regimental (Regimentsfunkgerät) level or access to field telephone lines to the regiment which he normally wont have unless a "Verbindungsoffizier (Liason Officer?)" from the artillery unit was attached who was supposed to do the communications.

I guess most of this happened only at and above the battailon level (in the german army). As a battailon commander he would have a radio connection to the regiment where he could call for "fire-support". As a regimental commander he could call for the divisional artillery. Finally as divisonal commander he would be able to access the corps artillery (ususally up to 150mm) and the so called "Heeresartillerie" (those were calibers over 150mm) of course always only in coordination with his superiors.

b.
Countries with no or little radio equipment had to rely on telephone communications and prepared strikes or direct fire. The later beeing not so desireable with big calibers I guess. ;-) Historical comments support this opinion specially for the russians, there seems to be no "dynamic" role for russian artillery except for the smaller pieces at battailon level. Bear in mind that those "smaller" pieces were still up to caliber 120mm mortars. (Stalin: "Every german has an iron cross, every russian a 120 mm mortar.")

c.
I know nothing about the japanese artillery practices.

d.
Navaly artillery is probably a complete different cup of tea. I guess its less exact in a "prepared strike" scenario than land artillery and a dynamic use is not really thinkable. Usually their calibers go way up to 280mm and more so I guess it is very effective.

all this is AFAIK and just my .02
CB



scottintacoma -> RE: ARTILLERY - Views, & information wanted (9/26/2009 10:48:37 PM)

I am not sure, but I believe the Marines, at some level, battalion or regiment, had access to Naval Liason officers for direct call of Naval fire support. Destroyers and Cruisers (5 to 8 inch guns) would have been easiets and quickest to call, the big guns on the battleships less so, and more time consuming.

Scott in tacoma




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.859375