Self-propelled artillery

[Imhotep]

I started the Abrupt Halt scenario and was a bit surprised to see an M7 Priest self-propelled artillery vehicle as the lead vehicle at the front of the troops, fifty yards from the enemy. Then the first shot at one of my tanks came from a Wespe (PzA II) self-propelled artillery vehicle, which destroyed my Sherman.

The M7 Priest and the Wespe are howitzers, which would typically fire indirectly from a distance of several km from the front line, and so, realistically, they wouldn't even be on the map in most circumstances.

In the game, the Wespe has a 42% chance of penetrating the frontal armour of an M4A3 Sherman, which also feels unrealistic to me.

Any thoughts?

[kevinkin]

Not sure about the penetration value. That might depend on range, but it does seem too high unless the software is abstracting a kill via a non penetration result.

There is currently no indirect fire or off-map units. The US had assault tanks; Sherman tanks with direct fire 105 mm HE. The use of the M7 this way would be specific to the engagement being simulated. Perhaps the US commander was fired on the spot when the M7 went up in flames. It would have been rare to take a Priest on a joy ride so close to the front. Something that radical should be explained in the description so the player is not left scratching their heads. In SF, I like to use self-propelled artillery carefully toward the end of the battle once the enemy is in known locations and can be engaged safely. They can be useful in that last charge at an objective e.g. prep fire before close assault. PS: if there is a historical reference to this battle and the M7, I stand corrected.

[peterk]

Yeah, there are some "creative mixes" of armor units in quite a few scenarios. I was disappointed I didn't get more plain Shermans in that scenario.
The open topped vehicles didn't stand a chance of sticking around long enough to do much when I brought them in close.

Flamethrower tanks are also showing up a little more than I would like.

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by kevinkin:

Not sure about the penetration value. That might depend on range, but it does seem too high unless the software is abstracting a kill via a non penetration result.

There is currently no indirect fire or off-map units. The US had assault tanks; Sherman tanks with direct fire 105 mm HE. The use of the M7 this way would be specific to the engagement being simulated. Perhaps the US commander was fired on the spot when the M7 went up in flames. It would have been rare to take a Priest on a joy ride so close to the front. Something that radical should be explained in the description so the player is not left scratching their heads. In SF, I like to use self-propelled artillery carefully toward the end of the battle once the enemy is in known locations and can be engaged safely. They can be useful in that last charge at an objective e.g. prep fire before close assault. PS: if there is a historical reference to this battle and the M7, I stand corrected.

No indirect fire or off-map units is a big omission.

Self-propelled artillery being so close to the enemy - dozens of metres - would only likely happen if something had gone very wrong, such as a convoy being ambushed. Having these self-propelled artillery vehicles on the front line in an assault gun/infantry gun role is unrealistic. There are other vehicles that fulfil this role, such as the M4 Sherman 105mm for the US, or the Grille (SIG 38(t) M) self-propelled infantry gun or StuH 42 assault gun for the Germans.

Since I've only started playing the game, I don't know know whether all scenarios treat self-propelled artillery vehicles in this manner.

[Daffy&Gwidion]

Just for the record, I believe "Abrupt Halt" is a hypothetical, not historical, scenario. These ahistorical matches are something I do _not_ generally support as they tend to lead to very unlikely situations. During the testing period last fall, I harped on the concept of "context and continuity", that even when the scenario designer makes stuff up, they should attempt to stick to the historical context (type of situation during the time period) and the forces used should maintain continuity with the time frame of the scenario (tactics, OBs, equipment, doctrine). I would encourage people to keep this in mind when designing scenarios for others to play.

As for the realism of seeing SPA in the forefront of an advance, the people commenting here are correct. In general, that would not be done. However, there are many historical examples of these lightly armored, open topped gun and howitzer carriers being used in very close proximity to the enemy. Two famous examples come to mind. M-12s were used in a direct fire mode against the fortifications in the Brittany ports. M-7 priests were used in direct fire mode during the Borolo landings in Sicily. There are many, many, more cases.

With a little research, just about any weird situation can be found in WW2, I'd just feel a lot better about user generated content reflecting some of that research.

[Imhotep]

Originally posted by Daffy&Gwidion:

Just for the record, I believe "Abrupt Halt" is a hypothetical, not historical, scenario. These ahistorical matches are something I do _not_ generally support as they tend to lead to very unlikely situations. During the testing period last fall, I harped on the concept of "context and continuity", that even when the scenario designer makes stuff up, they should attempt to stick to the historical context (type of situation during the time period) and the forces used should maintain continuity with the time frame of the scenario (tactics, OBs, equipment, doctrine). I would encourage people to keep this in mind when designing scenarios for others to play.

As for the realism of seeing SPA in the forefront of an advance, the people commenting here are correct. In general, that would not be done. However, there are many historical examples of these lightly armored, open topped gun and howitzer carriers being used in very close proximity to the enemy. Two famous examples come to mind. M-12s were used in a direct fire mode against the fortifications in the Brittany ports. M-7 priests were used in direct fire mode during the Borolo landings in Sicily. There are many, many, more cases.

With a little research, just about any weird situation can be found in WW2, I'd just feel a lot better about user generated content reflecting some of that research.

Self-propelled artillery brought closer to the front line for bunker-busting duty in a direct fire role would still likely be carried out at long range - the M12 could fire armour piercing rounds through seven feet of concrete at ranges up to 2,000 yards (1,830 meters) [Wikipedia].

Here's a good post from another internet thread:

Basically the Priest was used in direct fire mostly in extreme situations when it was a matter of defending the battery, or the equivalent while the formation was displacing under attack. There are lots of examples of that from the Bulge period, and there they did excellent service in such direct roles. But it was not anything they sought. The weapon system was dramatically more effective over the horizon, and was expected to live long enough to fire thousands of shells - 1-2 orders of magnitude more rounds through the tube than any direct engagement piece could expect to deliver.

The only other exception I am aware of is some bunker busting work against fortified positions, sometimes with SPA even bigger than the Priest. In those cases it was a matter of a static enemy position in a known location, which could be engaged "assymmetrically" with little danger to the gun, but where numerous high caliber shots might be needed to get the desired direct hit, and where indirect fire would be ineffective. This is a traditional "assault gun" role, basically. Sherman 105s were made for it, but Priests (and SPA 155mm howitzers) got pressed into that role. In the operational histories one can find such cases at the west wall in the ETO fighting, for example; in the fighting for Metz; some block-busting work in the Aachen city fight, similarly. That is about it.

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/104916-m7-priest-how-often-used-for-direct-fire/

[kevinkin]

Yes, they were used in set-piece planned direct fire from protected positions that used the howitzer's range to maintain a safe distance. Using them as the point of attack needs some explanation in the description as I mentioned. All war game scenarios have a degree of history or not. None is 100% historical mostly due to the maps and LOS/LOF they provide.
It's difficult to exactly reproduce the battlefield many years after the fact even with good topos at hand. In very detailed sims like CM, the designer needs to use their experience to produce a playable balanced battle. It's actually easier to provide that in a hypothetical scenario. So much of warfare is just unfair.

[Imhotep]

I had a look at the force compositions for the other scenarios that come with the game. It looks like Abrupt Halt is the only scenario that has self-propelled howitzer artillery (as opposed to assault guns or self-propelled infantry guns), so that's okay. I was concerned that the other scenarios would also have them.