another question

[paulo]

I was playing a battle in 1942, Russia vs Germany. I played the Russian side and chose to have 4 122mm howitzers. By turn 3 I only had 2 of them come up on the bombardment screen. For the rest of the battle only 2 were there. The other 2 were not destroyed or hit by anything. I'd appreciate any ideas on what might have happened. TIA

[gila]

Sounds like some were out of contact and useless,keep them apart but not too far apart, try to keep the "0" arty unit in sight of others in the battery and in comm with the A0 or sub commanders.

[paulo]

Thanks for the quick response. It sounds like you are correct- I did have them spaced pretty far apart. Thanks

[Griefbringer]

In my experience, up to 5 hexes away from the platoon command unit tends to be safe distance for maintaining contact. Farther away than that, and you might be running into troubles with maintaining contact.

On the other hand, bunching your artillery pieces too close to each other tends to make them more vulnerable to enemy counter-bombardment.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

In my experience, up to 5 hexes away from the platoon command unit tends to be safe distance for maintaining contact. Farther away than that, and you might be running into troubles with maintaining contact.

On the other hand, bunching your artillery pieces too close to each other tends to make them more vulnerable to enemy counter-bombardment.

The voice command radius is in the 5 hex range.

And IRL, artillery pieces set up about 10-15 meters apart since there was just one radio (or telephone), at the battery command post. The BCP handled the fire requests and corrections, calculated solutions on the arty board, and then shouted fire orders to the guns (post-war, tannoys could be used to save on throat lozenges and in the 70s we had FACE to do the computations rather than a fancy slide rule. Mortars still used a fancy circular plotting board/slide rule combo).

The SP series has always treated individual guns more or less as if they were each a battery command post. Which is of course, simply bonkers.

(Andy, grumbling and muttering while recalling days of joy pushing 25 pounders around waterlogged Otterburn ranges as an army cadet in the 70s )

Andy

[Griefbringer]

I presume that self-propelled artillery pieces could have had their own radio sets, and thus would have been able to spread farther away from each other if necessary.

Speaking of WWII British artillery usage, this site contains a wealth of information:

http://nigelef.tripod.com/

I have only managed to trawl through a small part of it so far.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

I presume that self-propelled artillery pieces could have had their own radio sets, and thus would have been able to spread farther away from each other if necessary.

Speaking of WWII British artillery usage, this site contains a wealth of information:

http://nigelef.tripod.com/

I have only managed to trawl through a small part of it so far.

Those would usually be positioned at the same sorts of short distances, and would link up using the tank telephones rather like tannoy was used for towed arty.

Remember that in those days, radios operated on networks. They still do today. You do not want administrative gun-laying "chatter" going across a radio network. Frequencies were limited, so the network would be used for the important stuff (FOO to BCP comms etc). Back in the 70s, I participated in a joint fire exercise of 2 mortar platoons operating under one BCP with an observer firing on two separate targets, all on the one radio net frequency. (We had 2 mortar platoons in our battalion, but they were 4 packs, not 6-packs). That was a "fun" exercise for the range safety staff (white hats) to oversee - making sure that a correction for one platoon was not mixed up with the other's etc... And the 2 platoons were deployed side by side in a single line 5-10 metres apart per tube even then.

guns were not positioned far apart in pre-computer days. Otherwise separate calculations had to be made for each and every piece. each calculation would have to be made manually and plotted on the arty board.

Guns also had to be close by and in line of sight so the sights of the key piece could see the others for a process known as paralleling the sights (or pieces) - been a long while!. There was a mirror extension above the gun sight which you lined up with each subordinate piece's sight mirror. That applied equally to SP arty. That ensured that when each sight was set to a particular azimuth, all the other pieces were also on the same bearing - my "010" is also your "010".

Paralleling the sights off a key piece only works if the guns are close. if the guns are scattered (more than 100m apart probably?) - then each and every gun would have to be individually surveyed-in. Deploying close together, only the one position (for the key gun) has to be properly surveyed in (use of theodolites and maps etc to determine exact position of a stake that the key gun is placed close by and is sighted to).

That is why guns and mortars were set out in simple straight lines, at regular intervals and not dotted about the countryside. (There is also the case of battery self-defence against an attack - esp in jungle where a patrol could then easily overrun individual guns so scattered. A concentrated battery can more easily provide sentries, be fed and other administrative things). Also - ammo supply to a concentration of guns is much easier than if they were scattered about. When guns were in position and were likely to be there a while, then tow trucks would retire to a rear position and then be used for administrative stuff - e.g. bringing more ammo up from the rear, rations etc. or the drivers might be detached and used as ammo preparation numbers rather than be allowed to sit around and make tea .

The key piece (the right hand or left hand one depending on army) was the one that was plotted by the BCP. When ranging, it was that piece that fired. The others of the battery were basically "slaved" to that key piece. If there were individual small corrections required e.g. to concentrate the fire of the battery on a point rather than fire parallel, then these were small individual adjustments from the key piece setting, but it still took a bit more time to manually calculate these off the key gun's setting, relay the settings to each gun individually etc.

Dealing with scattered guns really would only become practical once fire control computers began to arrive i the 70s. However even then (and now) - the practicalities of resupply, security and so on etc mean that it's more practical to deploy the guns close together.

The Japanese did have a reputation for deploying singleton guns linked by dug-in field telephones. But responsiveness to fire requests in such circumstances would tend to be low.

The British would deploy the 2 troops of a battery some way apart (150-250 metres) on occasion. They used a simple "link" system - the data for the key gun at the #1 troop would be relayed to the #2 troop, and the BCP there would apply a straightforward triangle correction to its key gun, the others would fire in parallel to that piece. However the UK arty went for speed and weight of response (fire the guns at a high rate with speedy response to the call for fire in the general area, basically with minimal corrections or ranging - and gain a quick neutralisation of the enemy troops) since they believed in suppressive fires. That is why they stuck to the 25 pounder.

The Americans tended to believe in "destruction fire" at this point in time - so preferred the heavier 105mm howitzer, and would take the extra time to plot the "toe in" of individual pieces for a "concentrated sheaf" as well as spending more time on ranging by an observer - the UK would fire the guns in parallel in what the USA termed the "simple" or "parallel" sheaf as soon as they were in 50 yards or so of the target (if observed).
More about what the USA call "sheafs" and as far as I recollect we Brits call "concentration" here http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/sheafs.html

Cheers
Andy

[Griefbringer]

So a historically accurate method to deploy artillery battery on the map would be to have them in line right next to each other, with possibly even several pieces in the same hex? That said, gaming-wise that makes them more vulnerable to counter-bombardment.

I think I will try to stick to using artillery as an off-table asset, much easier that way. In any case, my needs for on-table indirect fire support are usually better catered by mortars, and those tend to come with 2-3 pieces per unit, providing for appropriately dense deployment with the whole section in a single hex.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

So a historically accurate method to deploy artillery battery on the map would be to have them in line right next to each other, with possibly even several pieces in the same hex? That said, gaming-wise that makes them more vulnerable to counter-bombardment.

yes, that would be correct.

Unfortunately, the design of the game makes on-map arty ridiculously easy to spot since it insists on putting smoke over the pieces (even if not actually located). No need for counter-mortar radars etc in WinSPMBT - they exist in the 1930s...

Maybe some day I'll get deep into the spaghetti and fix that little design "quirk".

I think I will try to stick to using artillery as an off-table asset, much easier that way. In any case, my needs for on-table indirect fire support are usually better catered by mortars, and those tend to come with 2-3 pieces per unit, providing for appropriately dense deployment with the whole section in a single hex.

That is why mortar elements are that way. Those who love "individual" mortars because thay allow each to be directed onto different targets - are merely using another design "quirk" from the original game (which had to fit a 640K IBM PC of stone age vintage). Each piece in SP as-designed is its own Battery Command Post. Not true, even today with cellular radio nets and individual computers available on each field piece - totally impractical in real life.

And your description is how I tend to do it too. On-map non-SP arty is rather too vulnerable. Mortars can be reasonably easily picked up and moved, or even shuffle off a couple of hexes themselves, arty needs larger trucks to shift them and these are very vulnerable.

Andy

[Griefbringer]

Another issue with the on-map deployment of artillery pieces is the proximity to the front. Depending on the size of the map, the deployment zone in SP games is around 1-2 kilometers wide. I am not sure what actual artillery doctrines say about the subject, but I feel this would be rather close to the front for divisional artillery (with 10+ kilometer ranges) used for indirect fire.

That said, if a scenario depicts one side having broken through the front lines and rampaging in the enemy rear areas, then artillery assets on the map would probably fit in. Or if some of the divisional guns have been pushed to provide direct fire support eg. for bunker busting or anti-tank purposes.

Battalion or regimental level infantry guns woud presumably be deployed a lot closer to the front line than the divisional artillery pieces, and thus would probably be more appropriate choice should one be fielding on-map artillery. And since they tend to have more limited ranges than divisional pieces, there is usually not even an option to take them as off-map support.