Fire for Effect!

[165thspc]

Wow, artillery now defined as ONLY that which preforms indirect fire???

FYI - just because a mortar fires ONLY in an arching trajectory, that still does not rigidly define it as indirect fire weapon due to the fact it is intended as a short range weapon that lobs a charge further than a man can throw it, so only works this one way.

This discussion could go on forever . . . . .

Please note: I am only including my humble pinion here. I am NOT arguing or squaring off with anyone.

---

p.s. I hereby withdraw my statement that SPC not be included. the M8 Scott, the Paladin, M7 and the M10 are most certainly artillery!

[golikell]

The M10 is the tank destroyer? That is no arty?

[165thspc]

… and here we go again!

The M10 used a naval gun, intended primarily for indirect fire. The M10 did not have anywhere near the armor required to go head to head with ANY standard tank of the day in a direct fire scenario. Did it sometimes happen? Yes. But that was not the Army doctrine for the use of the weapon any more than it was for the use of the M7 Priest.

[Johnnych01]

@165thspc

artillery now defined as ONLY that which preforms indirect fire

I could possibly have used “usually” but, Arty in the direct fire role should only ever happen when the crews have visual sighting of the enemy, which, being realistic, shouldnt be happening unless you are being overrun. The vast majority of arty engagements will be indirect fire.

[Johnnych01]

Is this the M10 (unofficial nickname Wolverine ? )

[golikell]

Wasn’t that the case with all US tank destroyers? M36, M18, M3, M6, T40/M9? All weak armor. The only exception was the T28.

Edit It seems you are not thinking about the “Wolverine”? They were in Tank Destroyer units… It did, however, see action in the fire support role. But that was not the standard role?
The gun was originally a AA gun, not a naval gun. Later it was adapted to the anti tank role.

[165thspc]

Relative to WW II, the “vast majority” of US engagements will, yes, be indirect fire. However for the Germans, as defenders acting in ambush mode, the vast majority will be direct fire.

The PAK36 88s were used in N. Africa in a direct fire role. The German PAK40 75s were used in direct fire in Europe from Normandy on to the end.

[Johnnych01]

I presume you mean Flak 36 88mm ? And yes, it was used in direct fire mode against tanks etc, but its initial design was for Flak AA engagements and not an artillery piece. I know the Pak 40 75mm was used in the direct role, as it was meant to be as it was designated an Anti Tank gun, not an artillery piece.

Practically any weapon system can be used in a direct role. You can lay an AS90 into a direct role and take out a tank if you want, but it doesnt make it an anti tank gun, its still an arty piece.

I can go on the range next week and fire deliberate shots from my SA80 from behind a brick wall with it elevated to 30 degrees so its being fired indirectly. Doesnt make it an arty piece. its still a rifle …

[RonW]

You are most welcome to join anyway.
It is not as if we are obeying the 10 Commandments.
Enjoy the build and share it with us!

[HeavyArty]

@165thspc

Wow, artillery now defined as ONLY that which preforms indirect fire???

By definition, yes.

Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Artillery [noun]: A large bore mounted firearm (such as guns, howitzers, and rockets), especially such ordnance that is capable of long-range indirect fire at a target too distant to be seen.

Any artillery piece can be used in a direct fire role. Just like any tank, AA gun, or AT gun can be used indirectly, but that is/was not their original design nor designed role.

If this is an artillery campaign, it should not allow AT guns, AA guns, tank destroyers, etc. just because they were once used that way due to the circumstances on the battlefield at a given moment.

[165thspc]

Well if Webster says it . . . .

Just a personal opinion: I think the Flak 36 was always designed and conceved as both a AA and a direct fire weapon.

[Stickframe]

While I have no direct or indirect experience with artillery in any era , the question of purpose, or “role of artillery” is pretty interesting. Under a general search of role of artillery in the US Army, I found this:

And with bit more time, I found this:

which states:

While this suggests some flexibility (within the US Army), the first role is apparently indirect fire. This is followed by:

I didn’t highlight the text, but when doing a word search, this is how it printed out.

I don’t know: a) how long this doctrine has been in place, or; b) if other forces follow a similar protocol.

Interesting nonetheless.

Cheers
Nick

[Armournovice]

Artillery guns, imho, are those used for support of infantry/tanks, like at the start of an attack, also during an attack. Artillery was used also in defense as a way to break enemy formations gathering for an attack, for instance. The infantry support role like the StuG/StuH, was also performed by early marks of PzKpfw IV (up to ausf. D or E). The M8 Scott was a similar tank. The British early cruiser tanks in their CS (Close Support) were not for infantry support strictly speaking, but for providing smoke screen to attacking tanks.
AT, or AA guns are specific weapons, could be part of the artillery force (Royal artillery had AT and AA regiments), but they were targeted weapons, designed to destroy a specific target, Artillery weapons are more like area effect weapons, hence mortars are valid weapons.
Standing down from the podium now…

[165thspc]

As to Doctrine I will again say that the advancing (attacking) Army is of course going to use artillary in its" indirect application whereas the defending Army will be far more likely to use it as direct fire.

[Johnnych01]

Not really. Both forces will have their Artillery well behind the front lines and those Arty units will move with the flow of battle, either backwards or forwards. So an over whelmed defending army will probably be carrying out a fighting withdrawal in contact and all its support units (arty etc) will be constantly firing and moving backwards still well away from any direct enemy contacts. Yes some units may get close to the front if an attacking force advances very quickly and catches the defenders off guard or a unit finds itself being overrun if an attacking force uses bypass tactics and in those instances they may have to turn their their normal long range indirect weapons into close point weapons but thats going to be rare. The majority of Arty units will operate on a shoot and move policy to prevent counter battery fire and as most are Div or Corps assets, they will constantly be being moved from A to B to support what ever task is the next priority or held in a secure area ready for taskings on order.

[phil2015]

I’ve updated the description to narrow the scope. Perhaps someone should set up a not an artillery piece campaign to include all the stuff I’ve narrowed out? We did that for the tank destroyers and some of what people have suggested here would have been fine in the not a tank destroyer campaign, so maybe someone will set up another campaign to get the other stuff…

[18bravo]

During one of my eight trips to Korea, the fires officer, an 0-5, became ill and couldn’t make it. They asked for volunteers to learn the system. I’d say it ain’t rocket science, but since we did have rockets, that would kind of be incorrect. Anyway, I said “I can spell Fires” so they gave me the job in the Korean Special Warfare TOC.
I had at my disposal, with a few keystrokes, every fires weapon on Pen - tube and rocket artillery, AC-130’s, fast movers, and even TLAMs. Now, if you want to go by the definition "ordnance that is capable of long-range indirect fire at a target too distant to be seen." then you’d have to include TLAMs. And V-2s for that matter, although guided and ballistic are two different classes,
By the way, be careful when you do anything for the Army. I ended up being the fires officer two more times.

[petbat]

@phil2015

Perhaps someone should set up a not an artillery piece campaign to include all the stuff I’ve narrowed out?

A few years back, pre-the new site, we had a campaign that was themed simply, 'because I want to build it" . It was open slather. You built anything that you wanted to, any genre, any scale, any way, any how. Maybe it is time for one of those again?

[18bravo]

Again, I’m not big on campaigns, not because I don’t like them (I do) but rather because I always have twenty things going on at once. I think possibly a Land, Sea, Air campaign would be similar to what you’re suggesting, but still have slight limits. Each participant builds a subject from, you guessed it - Land, Sea, and Air. But they can choose any era, subject, or scale from any of the three categories. Obviously it would be more fun if they all had a connection, but we don’t want peoples’ heads to explode…

As an example, I’d thought of building the PT -109, and Me 109, and an M109A-whatever SPG.

Ah, the possibilities - HMS Tiger Battle crusier, Tiger Tank, F-5 Tiger. And my brain didn’t even explode.

'61 Chevy Mako Shark, or the Hyundai Tiburon (Spanish for shark) the USS Shark, and the Northrop F-20 Tigershark…

HMCS Cougar (or ship in same class with proper changes, as I don’t know if there’s a kit)
Mercury Cougar (I have the kit - the '71 XR7 was my first and fourth car, with a couple of '73’s in between) or the Cougar MRAP, and of course the Grumman F-9 Cougar.

The USS Hornet, the Dodge Hornet, and the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet.

This is too easy.

On second thought, maybe all three subjects do need to be connected in some way, however tenuous or creative it may be.

[MoramarthT]

Please remember the original intent was to cover artillery back to the start of the gunpowder era when Bombards were originally siege weapons shooting solid shot at short range (not over open sights, they didn’t have any). Here’s one I made earlier (a lot earlier, last century when I didn’t need glasses and my hand didn’t shake like a jelly in an earthquake). 28mm (1:56th) scale wargaming piece:

Cheers,

M