Russian 203mm B-4 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

Mehring -> Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 1:01:28 PM)

According to ASL ordnance notes, this was a direct fire piece and, if correct, should probably be re-designated as a field gun or suchlike.



Denniss -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 1:42:17 PM)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/203_mm_howitzer_M1931_%28B-4%29
Barrel too short so Howitzer is correct.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heavy_artillery_203mm_m1931_b-4_3rd_belorussian_front_1944.jpg
Does not look like direct fire



Mehring -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 1:54:08 PM)

As the qiki quote says- "These guns were used with success against heavy German fortifications and in urban combat for crushing protected buildings and bunkers. This weapon was used right up until the end of the war in the Battle of Berlin where the Red Army would bring these guns up at point blank range to smash German fortifications with their heavy 203mm shells."

The photo does not appear to be using the gun in that way, but it is 1944. Quite possibly indirect sighting equipment was a later addition.



loki100 -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 3:00:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

As the qiki quote says- "These guns were used with success against heavy German fortifications and in urban combat for crushing protected buildings and bunkers. This weapon was used right up until the end of the war in the Battle of Berlin where the Red Army would bring these guns up at point blank range to smash German fortifications with their heavy 203mm shells."

The photo does not appear to be using the gun in that way, but it is 1944. Quite possibly indirect sighting equipment was a later addition.


problem is the Soviets used all sorts of artillery in a direct fire role that other armies kept back well to the rear. My understanding is the distinction was less clear cut and they had no problem putting high calibre guns into a direct fire role if that was the best way to operate. So larger guns fired 'off the map' (indirect long range fire) or 'over the barrel' (direct short range fire) depending on circumstances.

Bit like with the 152/122mm tank guns (both IS series tanks and the various support guns) they made less of a distinction between HE and AP for tank killing. If a 122mm shell hit a German tank at relatively short range it was deadly (to the German crew at least) regardless of the notional type of munition.



Barny23 -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 3:12:11 PM)

Take a look at this.
Note the firing angle.
http://flyingwithrabidturtles.tumblr.com/post/56975022512/flyingwithrabidturtles-17-7-ton-soviet-203mm-b4
Barny



Mehring -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 3:46:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loki100


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

As the qiki quote says- "These guns were used with success against heavy German fortifications and in urban combat for crushing protected buildings and bunkers. This weapon was used right up until the end of the war in the Battle of Berlin where the Red Army would bring these guns up at point blank range to smash German fortifications with their heavy 203mm shells."

The photo does not appear to be using the gun in that way, but it is 1944. Quite possibly indirect sighting equipment was a later addition.


problem is the Soviets used all sorts of artillery in a direct fire role that other armies kept back well to the rear. My understanding is the distinction was less clear cut and they had no problem putting high calibre guns into a direct fire role if that was the best way to operate. So larger guns fired 'off the map' (indirect long range fire) or 'over the barrel' (direct short range fire) depending on circumstances.

Bit like with the 152/122mm tank guns (both IS series tanks and the various support guns) they made less of a distinction between HE and AP for tank killing. If a 122mm shell hit a German tank at relatively short range it was deadly (to the German crew at least) regardless of the notional type of munition.

True, but the ASL crew know that yet still say it was designed for direct fire. Could be them being sloppy. There's a dearth of info on the gun on line, and it's often contradictory, like self-propelled/track mounted but not self-propelled. I'll drop them a line and see what they say.



vandorenp -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 3:54:46 PM)

I do not have any info to help decide this one way or another. However some points to consider.
* US used very large caliber howitzers in direct fire mode during the liberation of Manila.
* Does confirming the distinction mater in WitE? Is there a category for fighting both ways?

Reminds me of the game design/actual doctrine question regarding US tank battalion use of the 105mm Shermans. Each battalion had a platoon. I have read two official US Army tank battalion AAR's and the account of a WWII tank battalion platoon leader veteran citing battalion SOP to keep these fighting in the in-direct fire role. Yet I also read well researched accounts of the platoon defending a town in the front lines during an emergency. But others cite accounts where these were farmed out to the line companies.



Mehring -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 4:49:14 PM)

I think that something designed for direct fire is much more difficult to use in an indirect fire role than vice versa. I may be wrong but I think you need distinct sighting equipment for indirect fire, also possibly crew training and other materials, depending on your fire control doctrine.

Use in front line would have a direct bearing on retreat losses, which as per Loki's post, should probably be higher for Russian ordnance anyway, on account of their well documented doctrine.

It may also have a bearing on involvement in combat, whether or not it actually gets to fire or not, or becomes a target. All accounts I've found that mention the issue agree this gun took a long time to set up.



Lobster -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/12/2015 4:49:47 PM)

Dude, this is NOT a direct fire weapon any more than a 152mm gun/howitzer. But they did provide munitions that could be used in a direct fire role. There were not many Soviet guns or howitzers that could not be used in a direct fire role.

BTW, I might add that the 203mm howitzers were definitely used in urban settings. It does not take much imagination to realize this would require direct fire. Imagine being in a building when these were used as direct fire at the building you were in. Yikes.

Forgot, Germans called them Stalin's Hammer.

Sources: Glantz, Zolaga, Sharp, et al



darbycmcd -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/15/2015 9:24:10 PM)

Mehring, ASL is a tactical game, so what they mean is, if you see a piece on the board, it is there because it is going to be used in a direct-fire mode. But that is not the same thing as saying it is a direct-fire weapon system. Nearly any artillery piece can be used in lay down direct fire, it really just means you are spotting the fire yourself. But that is not the way you would describe the type of weapon system it is. Just like a tank can tow another tank, but it is not a tow-truck (ok, battlefield recovery system). Even field guns are considered indirect fire weapons.



Mehring -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/15/2015 9:50:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Mehring, ASL is a tactical game, so what they mean is, if you see a piece on the board, it is there because it is going to be used in a direct-fire mode. But that is not the same thing as saying it is a direct-fire weapon system. Nearly any artillery piece can be used in lay down direct fire, it really just means you are spotting the fire yourself. But that is not the way you would describe the type of weapon system it is. Just like a tank can tow another tank, but it is not a tow-truck (ok, battlefield recovery system). Even field guns are considered indirect fire weapons.

ASL represents dozens if not hundreds of indirect artillery types you'd not expect to encounter in most tactical situations and gives a brief history of each in their national ordnance listings. The B-4 listing is very clear, IIRC "designed in 1931, it was to be used for direct fire..." They don't say that about any other similar weapon. However, the game counter is ARTY type rather than INF (infantry gun) which to anyone familiar with ASL, usually denotes an indirect capability and this seems to contradict the listing.

Maybe they know something we don't, maybe it was just badly written. Maybe I'll get a reply from MMP.



micheljq -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/16/2015 5:15:00 PM)

Why they call it a howitzer then, and not a gun.

Michel.



LiquidSky -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/16/2015 9:13:43 PM)



ASL is a good example how lots of detail doesn't equal realism. There is very little about how ASL works that bears any resemblance to real tactical combat. Don't get me wrong though, ASL is a fun game. But a simulation of WW2 tactics it isn't. The game should not be used as a reference for reality .



Mehring -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (4/17/2015 2:04:11 PM)

The issue here is not whether ASL accurately portrays tactical combat but whether or not an historical ordnance listing is accurate.



Lobster -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (5/25/2015 5:17:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/203_mm_howitzer_M1931_%28B-4%29
Barrel too short so Howitzer is correct.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heavy_artillery_203mm_m1931_b-4_3rd_belorussian_front_1944.jpg
Does not look like direct fire


Most certainly does look like direct fire:



[image]local://upfiles/45799/0BB52DEE3ECD44F094F899DDEA3413BA.jpg[/image]



Huw Jones -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (5/25/2015 6:50:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

I think that something designed for direct fire is much more difficult to use in an indirect fire role than vice versa. I may be wrong but I think you need distinct sighting equipment for indirect fire, also possibly crew training and other materials, depending on your fire control doctrine.

Use in front line would have a direct bearing on retreat losses, which as per Loki's post, should probably be higher for Russian ordnance anyway, on account of their well documented doctrine.

It may also have a bearing on involvement in combat, whether or not it actually gets to fire or not, or becomes a target. All accounts I've found that mention the issue agree this gun took a long time to set up.


Yes two different sighting systems are needed, or were in the 80s/90s, when I as a Armourer, so no doubt the same before.

Indirect fire you require OPs, triangulate the firing position etc, I don't recall the terminology exactly as it wasn't my job, just was at the firing positions while others were setting things up.



Mehring -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (5/25/2015 7:00:33 PM)

All the same, never got a reply from MMP which could mean they don't want to admit they were making up their ordnance notes from supposition as they went along.



lowtech -> RE: Russian 203mm B-4 (5/26/2015 6:00:51 AM)

Okay. Briefly a competent commander will analyze the current situation and then bring ALL the relevant combat power to bear in the most efficient manner; while weighing the risks. The Soviets were no different than any other army. So, as usual, Loki100 gets it right:

quote:

So larger guns fired 'off the map' (indirect long range fire) or 'over the barrel' (direct short range fire) depending on circumstances.


When the enemy has a credible artillery threat, generally, a commander needs to keep his artillery so deployed that he can 1) counter-battery as well as 2) support his own forces in the face of an enemy counter-attack. This almost always means in the rear, with adequate transport and supply. IF the enemy's support, artillery etc., is neutralized, AND one is under no restrictions concerning collateral damage, AND one has decent control over the immediate battle zone, ie that the Soviets had pinned the defenders down (more or less) THEN a commander could afford to risk his artillery and the even more difficult to replace specialists that operate it, in a "dangerous" urban zone to blast away fortified positions. The image "Lobster" posted is from March, April 1945 when the Red Army was usually confronted by heavily fortified urban areas in Germany, and the Germans lacked artillery, or pretty much any other kind of support.

Moral: Don't get caught up in the terminology.

PS- Please don't start in on the "differences" between a Light, Medium and Heavy Machine Gun ....[sm=00000117.gif]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375