Shermans using AP in indirect fire mode?

[Caractacus]

Gentlemen,

Neil Barr has quoted a War Office record in 'Pendulum Of War - Three Battles at Alamein'. Said record is from the archive of 1st Armoured Division, and notes a tank commander of 10th Hussars in action on 2nd November '42.

This commander parked his Sherman behind a gentle slope, and stood on the turret so that he could see his targets while his own tank was concealed. He then proceeded to fire AP rounds using indirect fire against Axis armour.

Barr reports that he was credited with destroying 5 German tanks at an average of 'about 6 rounds each' using this method in a single afternoon.

I'd never heard of the like, and wondered if it was War Office hyperbole, a one-off instance from an enterprising commander, or something which could be done on a semi-regular basis conditions permitting?

Thoughts appreciated.

 

[Blackcloud6]

AP rounds have a comparatively flat trajectory. It would be very hard to fire them 'indirectly' like artillery, I suspect that this is BS. What he might have been doing is putting the Sherman in a turret down position, standing on top of the turret to acquire targets then have the tank move just enough forward to unmask the gun (and optics) so the gunner can then acquire and fire. Then the tank moves back into the original position.

 

[[hirr]Leto]

AP rounds have a comparatively flat trajectory. It would be very hard to fire them 'indirectly' like artillery, I suspect that this is BS. What he might have been doing is putting the Sherman in a turret down position, standing on top of the turret to acquire targets then have the tank move just enough forward to unmask the gun (and optics) so the gunner can then acquire and fire. Then the tank moves back into the original position.

I agree. This seems to smack of a bit of extreme hull down fire and you have to take in account gun elevation/declination and slope to target data to truly debunk. Even in CMx1, you can witness the flat trajectory of AP rounds as compared to the 'lobbing' effects of the HE round.

I suggest that you fire this into MYTHBUSTERS. Perhaps they can get a hold of a Sherman for their testing grounds and attempt to set up near identical conditions as described.

Cheers!

Leto

 

[Tanker]

No matter the velocity, the shell should follow a parabolic curve if the barrel can be elevated to 45 degrees. Of course the real trick is to judge the range.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

The single most important data is what range is the engagement at? Its certainly possible especially if firing at the sides of afvs at long range. But this episode is still' direct-fire'. The commander is hardly an FO in this case.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Gentlemen,

Neil Barr has quoted a War Office record in 'Pendulum Of War - Three Battles at Alamein'. Said record is from the archive of 1st Armoured Division, and notes a tank commander of 10th Hussars in action on 2nd November '42.

This commander parked his Sherman behind a gentle slope, and stood on the turret so that he could see his targets while his own tank was concealed. He then proceeded to fire AP rounds using indirect fire against Axis armour.

Barr reports that he was credited with destroying 5 German tanks at an average of 'about 6 rounds each' using this method in a single afternoon.

I'd never heard of the like, and wondered if it was War Office hyperbole, a one-off instance from an enterprising commander, or something which could be done on a semi-regular basis conditions permitting?

Thoughts appreciated.

I'd believe it. I have seen reports in our (infantry battalion that served in NW Europe) archives of PIATs used as mortars, and by those reports, a not unpopular use of the weapon. Yet it is little heard of today. I think a lot of things that really happened are simply not known anymore because they defy belief, and never happened to get shown on TV or the handful of photographs that exist because no one wanted to give away what may have been then-secret usages to the enemy. We're only now just rediscovering a lot of things - some will be lost forever as our vets continue to die off. History has already distorted a great deal.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I saw a short film of a WWII Canadian rear echelon administrative-type using a Bren Tripod to fire PIAT bombs indirectly. I thinks that these Thinks are very common. Thinks like that, that is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCdg0UAtq-s&feature=related

 

[Blackcloud6]

Is still don't believe it. To vary range one also needs to be able to vary the charge as well as elevation. That cannot be done with AP ammo. Because of that, it would be very difficult to hit anything outside of a certain range from the gun. Accuracy would be very difficult and it would take many shots to adjust onto target and still the target would have to be within the range of what the set charge would do at a certain elevation. Outside of extreme luck, to hit with the first round or even after a few rounds would be nearly impossible. The enemy would be then alerted and either moving out or returning fire.

Soldiers tell good anecdotes and they are not always true. I've fired many a weapon of all different type and just don't see this happening. I've direct lay fired mortars at tanks. it is not easy but quite doable but you must have direct LoS to the target. I still think he was likely spotting targets and directing the tank up into a hull down firing position and then repeating this.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

One does not need to change a charge as you describe.

Let's say that LOS and atmospheric conditions allowed the tank commander to have DIRECT obeservation of an enemy formation at 3500 meters. He could well have a hull down and better yet a turret-down position on a gentle reverse slope that allows his gunner to use the existing charge and still have the vehicle being 'turret-down' to the enemy and yet, he could walk in rounds due to his exposure above the tank. In fact, this was modeled in M1 Tank Platoon and I used the tactic with HEAT rounds.

The Sherman tank did have a quadrant but IF the range was within the optics capabilities, the gunner could dial in a range off it instead. So the TC calls out a range, the gunner dials it in (even though he sees nothing but hill) and fires. I hardly call that indirect fire but that is what we are discussing.

The missing information is the range. Much like the supposed PIAT 'indirect' fire, what range is being used? If some Canadian had enough rounds to squirrel them into the wind, could he hit a house at 500 meters???

 

[Caractacus]

Thanks for the comments

Unfortunately I have no specific information on range, gun angle, etc. It's a rather sparse comment with a basic source reference in the book, that caught me totally by suprise.

However, the author did say that '10th Hussars had experimented with this technique during training, and found that the relatively high trajectory of the Sherman's gun made it possible'. No source on that part, so I'm not sure if that's his own conclusion, or part of the official record.

I have seen footage of Shermans parked on a gentle rise, with guns elevated, and assumed that they were lobbing indirect HE. Had never considered for a moment that it might be anything else.

It's interesting that between us all we don't know of another reported similar instance. Still, opinion is obviously divided, so for now I'll put it down as a 'maybe'!

 

[Blackcloud6]

Let's say that LOS and atmospheric conditions allowed the tank commander to have DIRECT obeservation of an enemy formation at 3500 meters. He could well have a hull down and better yet a turret-down position on a gentle reverse slope that allows his gunner to use the existing charge and still have the vehicle being 'turret-down' to the enemy and yet, he could walk in rounds due to his exposure above the tank. In fact, this was modeled in M1 Tank Platoon and I used the tactic with HEAT rounds.

Without being able to vary the charge at the certain position the tanks would be at and elevation of the gun, the rounds could only hit a tank sized target at a vary narrow range band.

I am not convinced in way way given the flatter trajectory of a fast moving AP round that someone could do this successfully and repeatedly in combat. This is definitely is one I would have to see happen before believing it.

That you could do it in a computer game is not convincing to me at all. BTW, HEAT is a much slower and different flying round than AP.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

The M1 Tank uses the 120mm M830 HEAT round which is over 1100 meters/sec. Compare that to any 75mm Sherman rounds.

Shermans and M10s and other AFV did get used as artillery weapons in true indirect missions. I am not so sure that they would change charge as they used fixed ammunition typically. But the common notion of shermans running up a dirt embankment, and the gun superelevated, could certainly be assumed to be firing HE or WP missions.

The charge is varied so that a weapon can fire into a zone (typically). The smallest charge is used that can reach a zone. The gun is then adjusted in elevation to vary its fall of shells in that zone. So, if the enemy target is in the 'zone' then they are in the zone. Since the TC has a LOS, the target is probably under 4000 meters.

My take is that the Sherman WAS truly firing turret down. The TC has LOS and the gunner does not. Since the TC is perhaps 1-2 meters above the gunner's LOS, it was probably a gentle slope. its a great tactic since return fire would have no target except the small TC head to shoot at.

I believe the sherman had the early periscope sight at the time of this incident. I would be interested in its maximum setting.

 

[Blackcloud6]

My take is that the Sherman WAS truly firing turret down. The TC has LOS and the gunner does not. Since the TC is perhaps 1-2 meters above the gunner's LOS, it was probably a gentle slope. its a great tactic since return fire would have no target except the small TC head to shoot at.

What would the gunner be aiming at? Unless there were stakes on the ground there would be no reference point for him to work off of from the TC's commands.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

The gunner would get direction from the TC. That is, rotation of the turret would be 'layed-on' as per the TC's correlation of the barrel and the location of the enemy AFV. Crude but effective. The range estimation would be told to the gunner, who would use his sight to dial in the range. As the report says, it would take about 6 rounds to get on target. The first few may just be ranging rounds as the TC corrected so many mils left or right.

Please note that a enemy AFV target is 'bigger' than many think due to the short rounds skipping and potentially damaging the vehicle. Its always better to be 'short' than 'long'.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

I recall some reports of Germans using the 75mmL24 firing indirect while using HEAT. Something along the lines of lobbing them over at a 'known' enemy concentration. Since HEAT had to be fired in large quantities while firing direct, one would be just bombarding if doing so indirect and without direct FO help either! Supposedly they saw a black column of smoke and called it a day.

I read that 75mmL48 StuG were NOT to fire infirect as SOP. The StuH 105mm would. The StuG 75mm would call in that fire since they were actually artillerymen themselves. The early Stug 75mmL24 sights were ranged out to long distances and they probably could engage with shot and shell large targets like bunkers and buildings. A AP round tearing through a building is effective.

But its my impression that German SOP for most panzers was that all fire be direct and aimed. Ammunition being as precious as it was, I can hardly see Tigers and Panthers blasting steel shot off into the winds. But I seem to recall some very long range 88mm shots in the desert with AP. It was literally indirect fire that was called in by a FO. I suppose the range was registered well with HE and the target, a british tank, was then attacked with AP.

 

[Blackcloud6]

The gunner would get direction from the TC. That is, rotation of the turret would be 'layed-on' as per the TC's correlation of the barrel and the location of the enemy AFV. Crude but effective. The range estimation would be told to the gunner, who would use his sight to dial in the range. As the report says, it would take about 6 rounds to get on target. The first few may just be ranging rounds as the TC corrected so many mils left or right.

Nope, don't see it happening. The gunner will only see grass through his scope, he will have nothing to reference off up for the TC's commands to have any meaning. The only thing that might work is " a little more to the left, up a bit" and such but even then neither the TC nor the gunner will have the same reference.

Please note that a enemy AFV target is 'bigger' than many think due to the short rounds skipping and potentially damaging the vehicle. Its always better to be 'short' than 'long'.

Maybe a range target might seem big but as range increases, AFVs are harder to spot (one reason why the US went to thermals as the primary sight during the day is to spot them faster.) tactically employed vehicles are even harder to spot , ID and acquire. And short rounds will only ricochet if the ground is hard enough and the angle is just right.

BTW, I was a Bradley IFV commander for a few years so I have some experience in AFVs and their gunnery. I was a mortar platoon leader for two years too. I've fired many a weapon in my present job as well.

 

[Blackcloud6]

Since HEAT had to be fired in large quantities while firing direct, one would be just bombarding if doing so indirect and without direct FO help either!

Why would you fire HEAT is large quantities? HEAT is not HE. HEAT requires a direct hit on the armor to work right. Do you know how it penetrates armor? If you just lob a bunch of HEAT rounds, indirectly at a target, you're wasting rounds. HEAT is a direct fire weapon.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Yes and in WWII, German HEAT rounds for the 75mm weapons were noted for innaccuracy. At ranges over 600 meters, it required many rounds to defeat a tank (due to inherent innaccuracy) and it was not liked by the panzermen. If you were to engage an enemy at greater ranges, using indirect fire, then I would venture you would be just bombarding away with no real adjustment to accuracy. You don't seem to be following the conversation. I didn't fire HEAT rounds out of a 75mmL24, the Germans did and I am citing one example of indirect 'anti-armor' rounds in WWII. Which is what this thread is about.

You might Google: FM-17 Tank Gunnery
Armored Force Field Manual



· 57. GENERAL.--a. Indirect laying occurs whenever the gun-.
ner cannot see the target. Battle experience has shown that
indirect laying is extremely common with modern medium
tanks. Antitank guns are often attacked at ranges of 3,000
to 4,000 yards, and even higher, with the tanks defiladed
from enemy view.
b. The first step in indirect laying training is clear cut explanation
that indirect laying requires only that someone who
can see the target transmit to the gunner changes the elevation
and in direction which he applies to the gun in order
to hit the target. Make the men realize that indirect laying
is easy to understand and to use.
c. Before training the men in any type of indirect laying,
explain its employment (par. 58). Drill the crews in indirect
laying by means of simulated firing exercises. After the men
understand the mechanics of indirect laying, have simulated
firing from tactical positions. Conduct terrain walks and
have the crews select defiladed positions. Comment on their
selections, keeping in mind the problem of minimum elevation
(par. 60).
* 58. TYns.-Three types of indirect laying employed in
tank units are:
a. One tank in defllade.-The tank is placed in a defiladed
position. The tank commander places himself where he can
observe the target. He then lines in the gun and target, and
adjusts fire on the target. Communication between the tank
commander and the gunner is ordinarily by voice. The
purpose of placing a tank in a defiladed position and firing
by indirect laying is to enable it to destroy targets without
exposing itself to enemy fire.
50
TANK GUNNERY 58

53 ARMORED FORCE FIELD MANUAL
b. Two or more tanks in defilade.-Where two or more tanks
are placed in a defiladed position, each tank commander may
line in his tank and the target. Usually, where there are
more than two tanks, an observer (the platoon commander
or platoon sergeant) lays them parallel. (See fig. 30 and
par. 63.) One observer (usually the platoon commander or
platoon sergeant) always adjust the fire of all the tanks.
Communication may require voice relay or radio.
48 00M e 1600O
3200o
FIGouR 31.-Measuring gunnery angles in mils.
A platoon commander might use this method of indirect
laying to establish a base of fire with part of his platoon
while the remainder outflanks the target. A company commander
might use it to establish a base of fire with one
platoon while the remainder of his company maneuvers to
attack the objective.
c. Tanks as auxiliary artillery.-The most advanced type
of indirect laying occurs when tanks are used as auxiliary
field artillery. Examples: forcing a river crossing, passage
of defiles, passages of defended mine fields, and like operations.
One or more companies of tanks are placed in position
and their fires massed on a target. The division artil-
52
TANK GUNNERY 58-59
lery command selects the positions, completes the survey,
and prepares data for each tank platoon so employed (considering
the tank platoon approximately equivalent to a
battery of 75-mm artillery). Extra ammunition required
is supplied at the firing position by truck. The organic
ammunition load of the tanks is left intact for use in later
stages of the operation.

I would not mix up your present day experiences with WWII experiences.

 

[NUTTERNAME]

Maybe a range target might seem big but as range increases, AFVs are harder to spot (one reason why the US went to thermals as the primary sight during the day is to spot them faster.) tactically employed vehicles are even harder to spot , ID and acquire. And short rounds will only ricochet if the ground is hard enough and the angle is just right.

Perhaps this exemplifies best what is wrong with your arguments. Its totally off topic. We are discussing AFV in the desert. And you are incorrect about ricochets.

 

[Blackcloud6]

You might Google: FM-17 Tank Gunnery

If you read what you posted in detail it has to do with area fire against unarmored targets where fragments and concussion cause the casualties, not point fire against an armored target which requires a direct hit.

I didn't fire HEAT rounds out of a 75mmL24, the Germans did and I am citing one example of indirect 'anti-armor' rounds in WWII.

What you are describing in this particular instance is not indirect fire.

I would not mix up your present day experiences with WWII experiences.

The basic principles of gunnery have not changed.