American WW2 Artillery Support?

I've heard a lot of claims about the American troops' had plenty of access to artillery and air support unlike other nations, much like how the Russians were swimming in PPSh-41es or that the Germans were comparatively loaded with machine-guns. Unlike those other claims however, the claim applying to Americans requires a bit more to understand it than a look at a theoretical infantry platoon's equipment.

Does anyone have some insight to shed some light on the claim for me?

Here's a link to the official US army history of the battle of the Ardennes. The chapter comparing German to American artillery is "The Artillery Arm in the Ardennes." http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_25.HTM#p656

According to it, American superiority in artillery was basically total except for the initial attack. (Due largely to cut communications and bad positioning.) Basically, the Americans started out with more guns and ammo, the Germans had very serious supply problems, and even if they hadn't they quickly outran their guns.

I remember reading in the novel "Brothers in Arms: The 761st Tank Battallion: World War II's Forgotten Heroes" by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar that Patton ordered all American artillery under his command to fire into the woods at a "'likely German target'" at midnight on the night of the 31st as the Third Army's salute to the Wehrmacht.

The book noted that observers reported Germans screaming for hours after the extremely brief barrage ended.



That's pretty neat.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm3JodBR-vs

So then it is likely the Americans' supposed precedence for artillery in WW2 simply stemmed from good logistics allowing them to use it constantly?

with that said, by the closing of the falaise pocket and the extended campaigns, driving into berlin, the allied supply line was prettttty damn stretched from mulberry, the man made harbour and the cherbourg area.

I wonder if there were any sort of communications organizational differences between the Americans and everyone else that may have contributed to the belief the American troops could more easily get artillery on call.

i want to say there was... i can't source any evidence, but i feel like each squad had a radio in contact with their platoon and thus the company with access to fire support.

as well, i'll say that i feel like allied intelligence, and therefore zeroing and fire support preparation would of been better.

Excellent logistics, excellent supply of maps and an excellent communications net

US Radio Nets were open which means that they are able to route requests very quickly rather than passing them up, down and sideways through channels

Here is good information on shell differences:
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/19890-soviet-vs-us-vs-german-artillery/page-2#entry252451

US had better ordnance.

Here is stuff on organization:
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/19890-soviet-vs-us-vs-german-artillery/page-2#entry259046


Here is something I posted on the forums a while ago:
"The US needs to have a LOT of artillery options. The US were true masters of artillery usage (with the one caveat being that good maps needed to be available). They had easy access to excellent guns, excellent ammunition, precalibrated "tapes" that prefigured most of the necessary equations, and often gave the artillery units a lot of autonomy to jump in on any attacks if they had the tubes and ammunition available.

The different artillery systems in the war:

The Wehrmacht could bring localized fire fairly quickly and accurately but could not mass artillery strikes and were not the fastest to react as they had to calculate accurate fire each time.

The Brits could bring down strikes faster but not quite as accurately and their organization could also manage larger concentrations when needed.

The Russians could not respond quickly at all and not so accurately but they were able to mass truly spectacular volumes given time.

The US was almost as fast to respond as the Brits, often more accurately (so long as good maps were available) than the Germans, and could do so frequently in great concentrations. "Time-On-Target" would be an order given to artillery units of strike at a given time and place given to units. Any other unit in range hearing the orders and had the spare ammunition was free to participate. And using their pre-figured tapes they knew when they had to fire so their caliber guns would arrive at the same moment as all the others."



Germans did not prioritize artillery.

Lots and lots here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1981

US artillery was motorized, well supplied, superbly made and there was always lots of it. It was directed by trained FOs fully equiped with radios and directed using premeasured tapes for thousands of weather conditions.

There is a reason that there was a German joke:

To figure out who you faced shoot a round in their direction.

If they respond immediately with accurate rifle and Bren fire you are facing the Brits.

If the response is a fusilade of rifle and smg fire, they are Russians.

If they are American there will be silence for a few minutes and then your entire position will be obliterated with artillery or an air strike.

If I am an infantryman... I want to be a US infantryman. With a radio.

Excellent logistics, excellent supply of maps and an excellent communications net

US Radio Nets were open which means that they are able to route requests very quickly rather than passing them up, down and sideways through channels

Don't forget Time on Target.

A call could be made on the open net with coordinates and a time to strike. Since the US units had premeasured tapes with all the calculations already done, anyone with available tubes and ammunition could join in and they will be hitting with thier 105s or 155s or 120mm mortars or 81mm in the same place at the same time.

The big thing US units needed was accurate maps.

Thank you very much everyone, good stuff my brain yearned for.

There is a reason that there was a German joke:

To figure out who you faced shoot a round in their direction.

If they respond immediately with accurate rifle and Bren fire you are facing the Brits.

If the response is a fusilade of rifle and smg fire, they are Russians.

If they are American there will be silence for a few minutes and then your entire position will be obliterated with artillery or an air strike.

If I am an infantryman... I want to be a US infantryman. With a radio.

This one of the reasons inciting the question to be kicking around in my head.

i love the idea that, y'know you didn't have anywhere else to be, and there was an ongoing artillery strike you could just join in on the fun. xD

It's like there's a party in the arty units and everyone's invited!

i love the idea that, y'know you didn't have anywhere else to be, and there was an ongoing artillery strike you could just join in on the fun. xD

I heard another story that a veteran Wehrmacht officer who had at various times faced different adversaries during the war of his opinion of them.

He said the Russians were unnecessarily wasteful of their men and the British were professional soldiers and gentlemen. When asked about the American soldiers he said "I don't know, I never saw them. All I saw were explosions."

Something I briefly mentioned in the first post but I haven't seen it 'round here yet - what about the American air support? Was their predilection for it based off similar facts to their artillery, or was there something else to it?

Something I briefly mentioned in the first post but I haven't seen it 'round here yet - what about the American air support? Was their predilection for it based off similar facts to their artillery, or was there something else to it?

That same book I posted above has got another chapter comparing the effect of the Luftwaffe on the ground battle to the effect of the Air Force. ("The Air Weapon" if you're ctrl + f ing.) The two questions are actually pretty interrelated since one of the main reasons the Germans had no ammo for their artillery is that the bombers were beating the living crap out of their supply lines. Basically it sounds like the Germans had ~ 1,500 aircraft, but very few of them actually managed to make it to the battle. (~60 - 80 per day by the end, and those almost exclusively at night.)

as far as the RAF were concerned, according to wikipedia, Johnson J.E's "Wing leader" published in 1956 describes the term "rhubarb" as:

"operations when sections of fighters or fighter-bombers, taking full advantage of low cloud and poor visibility, would cross the English Channel and then drop below cloud level to search for opportunity targets such as railway locomotives and rolling stock, aircraft on the ground, enemy troops and vehicles on roads".

given such an attitude and the prevalence of aircraft like the mosquito, p47, i imagine the stance would have been similar; only the targets changed, i imagine the USAF and RAF with the exception of planned close air support operations and missions like a rhubarb, would of focused on armoured columns and logistics and other similar targets of opportunity, squadrons would have been briefed before sortie.

+1 This is a culprit that tends to get de-emphasized. German logistics, mobility, and supply were poor in 1944 compared to earlier periods of the war. Small amounts of ammo and fuel, and slow to resupply compared to opponents.

So then it is likely the Americans' supposed precedence for artillery in WW2 simply stemmed from good logistics allowing them to use it constantly?

Well ...you can't have a party without the arty...