Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Accuracy
Roman    5/25/2006 1:00:00 PM
I am just wondering, what is the accuracy of modern artillery pieces (for a given range and weather conditions) assuming the use of ordinary (non-guided) projectiles?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Carl S    RE: IsoT Finnish View of the Red Army   6/2/2006 4:35:19 PM
So, IsoT, what did the Finns think of the Soviet artillery?
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE: IsoT Finnish View of the Red Army   6/3/2006 3:35:12 AM
If you're adjusting on BT (ie GT) then its a bit more difficult to judge the switch than it is if you're using OT because you have to visualise BT on the ground, of course it depends on how big angle T is. Conversely, using BT may make bracketing a bit easier sometimes. If routinely using a mean QE does that mean there was periodic redistribution of guns between btys to try and group them by MV? Unlikely to be a problem in peace. Soviet cas from GE arty was a mean of 51% and 61% in the last year of the war. I'm unconvinced about ponderous GE arty, it's not something I've ever seen mentioned in any UK sources. The short lived 18 Arty Div on the E Front was reputably pretty slick, they did some Brit type things such as putting majors and LTCs forward in AFVs and gave them the authority to order massed fire. Gave them PzG coy escorts, which is the most sensible use of infantry that I can think of :-) 18 Div also had some form of electronic fire control system but I've never found any reliable details.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE: Neutralizer Reply   6/3/2006 6:54:04 AM
I think both Carl and you had made reference to the innovative stuff being done by 18 Arty Div. Can't agree that a major or LTC required a pzgr. co. as security, if that was one of their techniques, particularly if they've the means to redeploy to an alternate O.P if threatened. "18 Div also had some form of electronic fire control system but I've never found any reliable details." Seems either Carl or you mentioned something to this effect on a related question I had about 78th Sturm Div. I only remember reading that Von Mellenthin was frustrated by 18 Arty Div. (I think)clogging an MSR either during a retreat near Kiev or while trying to reconfigure for a counterattack nearby Zhitomir/Fastov late fall, 1943. Mentioned as much in PANZER BATTLES. I can't recall if we reconfigured the guns by MV throughout the battalion. Don't think so. But we absolutely would periodically do so within the battery. Average shooter with the battery's best crew. ALWAYS a heavy competition to crew base piece. Base Piece was always in center platoon, with the next closest average shooter, thus in a six gun battery, #3 and #4 were the center platoon and came closest to reflecting the battery mean. FOs were expected to position themselves within 400 mils left or right of the G-T line to mitigate the effects of angle T whenever possible (800 mil primary sector of fire).
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE: German Artillery   6/3/2006 9:38:46 AM
The only worthy source I have on the 18th arty div is Bruce Gudmundsons 'On Arillery'. He indicates the original Pz Div type reconissance battalions was retained (modifications?). That may be where the "escorting" Pg companys came from, if the rifle type scout companys were retained. The computer might have been mechanical/analog. Warships of the era usually used mechanical computers, so its possible they adapted from those models. Gudmunson also refers to a teletype used to tranmit firng & survey data between the central CP & battalions/batterys. Laying out the complete organization & equipment of the 18th div along side the same for the corps artillery groups/brigades of the German, US & British Armys it seems the 18th was not all that radical. The teletype would be handy, and palcing the observers in their own armored cars is nice. But the complete motorization of the artillery battalions and service units in the div was something the US & Brit Armys had already done across the board. Gudmundson makes a big deal out of the 18th Div plaicing all the battalions on common survey, and the common communications network. But these two items were standard for the US & Brits for several years. Perhaps he meant common survey as routine for German artillery as a radical new idea. LIke Nuetralizer I have found little of real value on Wehrmacht artillery in British sources. I spent many hours ransacking back issues of the Journal of Royal Artillery of the 1930s & 1040s, turning up only a couple minoir boilerplate articals. Lots of items about grouse shooting in India, or a sad complaint from 1943 on the necessity of selling the regimental yacht. But next to nothing on the enemy. What I have found are dozens of second & third hand remaarks about the Wehrmacht artillery being slower to shoot & slower to mass battalion fires. A fair portion of these remarks derive from Germans. Unfortunatly none provide the usefull details. The item provided by IsoT is probably the best I've turned up.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer    RE: German Artillery   6/4/2006 4:35:33 AM
One of the related issues for the E Front is the state of mapping available to the Germans, particularly once they got further east. This would have affected their gunnery. I think it highly unlikely, verging on the impossible, for the Germans to be using a machine to calculate firing data. There's no way they could have run a step-wise integration, and that only leaves polynomials, and I don't think mechanical devices were up to that either, and it took another 30 years for electronic calculators to appear. Can't see much benefit using a machine to add up corrns for non-std conditions with a man looking up the data in FT/RT either. My guess is they calculated map data, which was then sent to the batteries who applied corrections for non-std conditions. I've never seen any photos of a GE CP at work, the nearest is a photo of a couple of guns with a NCO (?) standing just behind them with what might be a FT/RT in his hand. Of course the speed of response to a CFF includes the tactical decision making as well as the technical processes, and this may cloud the issue for those on the receiving end. My guess is that after WW1 the Brits concluded there wasn't anything they could learn from the Germans about arty and continued to evolve their procedures in their own way. The one exception is changing from zero lines to centres of arc. It's just possible GE used the latter, the Brits considered changing in 1918, then in the 30s modified their sights and directors in a way that would accomodate it but didn't bite the bullet until the mid 50s.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Accuracy/Neutralizer-Carl S. Reply    6/4/2006 12:55:45 PM
Neutralizer, I noticed that your site is linked at the Morris Swett Technical Resource Library, at Ft. Sill. Well deserved. I've put an e-mail through to the Bundeswehr Liaison officer at Ft. Sill asking if there may be any relevant translated materials that he might offer or direct to that would provide some insights to German technical fire direction methods at the battery/battalion level, to include metro/survey-particularly as they relate to eastern front operations. We'll see.
 
Quote    Reply

IsoT    RE: IsoT Finnish View of the Red Army   6/7/2006 7:14:53 AM
Pretty much the same thing Germans felt: Great volumes of fire, but controll was a bit lacking. Their (Soviet) systems were OK for open landscape where singöle FO could direct fire ovver broad landscape, but in heavily wooded terrain they just could controll fire effectively enough. as noted in the bit about Winterwar you digged up. The speed was still on finnish side. Soviets felt that Finnsih artillery did much better job in Continuation war than in Winter war. This is mostly beacuse now artillery had plenty of ammunition and much more and heavier cannons. Karelian isthmus battlesTali-Ihantala battle as prime example of both of these Soviets just pounded away the front line with barrage, The soil was sandy in Souther Carelian isthmus, and thus the fortificatios and trenches just ceaced to exist. After initial barrage soviets had firing at targest of opportunity was lacking. There is a good bit of Tali-Ihantala in wikipedia. Oh and some infantry officer was a bit cross about Tali-Ihantala as he felt that artillery too all the glory. 8) Finns also devised new FO method in '42/43 that transferred all the calculations from FO to battery. Thus speeding up and simplifying the process. (This system is still used today, if computers ceace to work.)
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Accuracy- Carl S., Neutralizer, and IsoT Reply    6/8/2006 11:55:05 AM
I just spoke with LTC Norbert Koeser at Ft. Sill, who's referred me to LTC Bollinger (a lovely champagne house)at the German Field Artillery Association w/ a phone number. I'll give him a call shortly and perhaps...
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Liason Officers at Sill   6/8/2006 12:30:27 PM
How many nations have a Liason Officer at Ft Sill, and what role do they play? I know the UK and Canada have one, and I see from this thread that Germany has one.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Liason Officers at Sill   6/8/2006 2:10:43 PM
French were there back in my day.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics