FO's or On Map Guns?

[Ratzki]

At the battalion and company level, is it more accurate to represent light artillery such as 81mm Mortars and 75mm Guns as FO's or as actual guns and mortar units on the map? I understand the higher echelon artillery being represented by FO's but when these assets were being held at lower levels, how were they most often used? This has been a lingering question of mine for some time, and the game seems to have them willy-nilly shown both ways in the unit purchase section. My gut feeling says that they should be represented as units on the map, but does anyone knowbetter?
I think this would be a minor help to the scenario designers that we have here.

[Mike Abberton]

Not much of an answer, but I'd say it depends on the size of the map and the situation being represented.

To me, the smaller the map, the more an FO makes sense.

[herroberst]

The smallest unit in the game with assigned FO's is a battalion and those FO's usually represent Battalion mortars (81mm or 120mm).

One problem with on map mortars or guns in the game is that you can't really have indirect fires, i.e. an FO tied to the battery by radio or wire. Of course you can have a leader tied to on board mortars for indirect fires and spotting but not artillery. And the game does not portray the "command" tanks pr airborne spotters that were all radios so as to bring in air and artillery more effectively while under armor.

Would guess too that commanders can weight the battle by allocating resources and that goes for fires and direct-firing heavy weapons like infantry guns. So, you, as commander, can make the pick in QBs or scenario design as a way of weighting the battle so-to-speak. This would particularly be the case if you are the main effort in a larger battle.

So, while there are lots of things I'd like to see in the game (airborne spotters, motorcycles, horses) I think the indirect fire system is acceptable. One way to see the affect of airborne spotters would be to have your own forces extreme FOW but the other side completely unmasked - would of course make a huge difference in the game but the air system in the game is really just a very basic "call and pray" system.

[Ratzki]

Yes, the game's limitations with reguard to spotting is unavoidable. It has just always bothered me that some Battalions in the game are given on map units and then the next Battalion might be given an FO of the same type and calibre. Both are Battalion assets, just wondered if as a Battalion commander, you would be using them more as an indirect fire role or a direct fire role.

[Bear]

There are two factors to be considered.

1. The length of the MLR and range of the FO/battery relative to the MLR.
   
2. Battlefield situation: Has the enemy broke through, infiltrated the MLR and overrun or bypassed the FO. And the inverse situation such as a rapid advance that allows the battery LOS to use direct fire...a most desirable situation indeed, a battery in direct fire mode. Also the condition of the battery, are all tubes available and had time to set up for on call barrage.
   

[captainkije]

Agree with those who have said it depends on the situation.

My guess is that a WWII battalion commander would prefer not to have the crews of his heavy weapons exposed to enemy small arms fire. Most crewmen would have probably appreciate this concern. Also, 75's and even 81mm mortars are not easy to move in the time frame of CMBB. With a spotter, the crew can hit anything he can see and there is no time wasted moving that could be used for firing. Hauling up more ammunition to the crew is quicker and less exciting when there are positioned for indirect fire. Trucks could be used.

On the other hand, firing over direct sights is more accurate. If the radio goes out or the wires are cut, you are still in business.

Then, there is always, always the Russians. Have read that they routinely used the cover of darkness to bring up their divisional 76mm and 122mm gun batteries to open sight firing positions. As CMBB reflects, they lacked expertise in indirect fire methods during the early period of the war, not to mention suffering a shortage of radios. Seeing a Russian 122 in a CMBB scenario wouldn't offend my sense of history. Seeing a US 105 would mean the Germans are overrunning the defenses.

[Mad Russian]

The main reason the Soviets developed their line of assault guns was because of how poorly their artillery performed in the follow up stages of an assault/breakthrough attack.

Soviet artillery was great at pounding predetermined targets but not at all good at adjusting that fire on the move.

Enter the SU/JSU assault guns. These were specifically designed to provide Soviet infantry with direct fire artillery support during fluid actions when the towed artillery was out of contact or out of it's element.

Battalion mortars would normally be sighted to provide direct fire for the area of operations they were to support. Normally that would mean mortars on the map not a FO.

The comments about the Soviets using all their weapons direct fire if they could is absolutely correct. That's normally a costly tactic but it's accurate and the Soviets could replace the losses. The Germans were more prone to indirect fire where their artillery assets weren't in as dangerous a position.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ratzki]

What got me thinking about it was that I was looking through the German Kavalry purchase screen and noticed that there was 3 81mm FO's for the Kavalry Battalion, but the Aufk. Battalion gets 4x 81mm Mortar units. Now I know that the Aufk.'s mortars are in two sections of 2x 81mm mortars each and the Kavalry's are in batterys of 4 tubes each. Now all is fine and dandy if I am playing a QB, as I just take what I can get, but when designing a scenario I have the flexabilty to edit and choose. So historically, I understand the limitations of the Russian command limited their use and often dictated a more direct fire roll. But for the German side this was not so much of an issue. I was wondering more if German and for that matter, British/American ect. tended to use there light artillery at the Battalion level as more of a direct fire asset, or did they opt. for more of an indirect roll as a general tendancy.

[Mad Russian]

Here are some mortar facts that I found interesting when looking to see about usage.

This is from "Stalin's Keys to Victory: The Rebirth of the Red Army in WWII" by Walter S. Dunn Jr. page 136.

"When the Red Army moved to the offensive, more sophisticated guns and howizters were required. Light and medium mortar production declined by the end of 1942. The heavier mortars were special-purpose artillery pieces and their numbers grew in the final years. During the war new types were introduced, the M1941 82mm, the M1943 120mm, and a heavier model, the M1943 160mm. Production of the 82mm and 120mm mortars increased in 1942. In the first half of the year, 45,485 82mm and 10,182 120mm mortars were made, in the second half, 55,378 82mm, and 15,164 120mm mortars. In 1943 the production of all types of mortars declined to 69,500, and in 1944 only 7,100 were made. Losses on the battlefield were apparently minor. The new mortar regiments used heavy mortars. Later mortar production later provided rifle divisions with heavier mortars and replaced losses. Total production from 1941 to 1945 was 351,800, compared to 79,000 produced by the Germans."

That says alot. The Red Army is always considered manpower heavy by the Germans and the West. When, in actual fact, they were becoming firepower heavy just like everyone else. The SU/ISU assault guns is a primary example of that. So is the increased percentage of SMG's in Soviet Rifle Divisions as the war progressed.

The Soviets out produced the Germans by more than four times as many mortars and the Germans split their production between fronts. Which says we probably don't have enough Soviet mortars portrayed in our scenarios. It also says they could afford to use them for direct fire 4 times as much as the Germans could.

Hope this helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Dog Soldier]

Seeing a US 105 would mean the Germans are overrunning the defenses.

I would agree if it were a towed American 105mm. Many of these guns were mounted on tracked chassis and used in a direct fire assault gun role. A 105mm gun pointed at a German position had the effect of removing the infantry, either by fire or by them leaving before the shooting started. Bunker busting, or tearing up buildings to get at the enemy infantry was their role.

This was far more common after the Normandy breakout. The terrain in Normandy did not offer sufficient fields of fire for the 105mm in a direct fire role. Same for Salerno and Anzio until the eventual breakout from those beachheads. These mobile 105mm guns had insufficient armor to take on Axis armor. They did fire on enemy tanks if such tanks were coming at them. A 105mm HE round would rattle and have a good chance of damaging vulnerable areas of most German tanks. They did not go hunting for armored actions, IIRC.

Dog Soldier