FOs Conduct of Fires Net

[Sublime]

I agree. Only exception is very occassionally ill buy a a su25m and parse one down. Heavy attack preplanned on an obvious enemy OP or defensive point otherwise not used  i really wait till i get te enemy abrams near a kill sack and really pretty confident i can funnel enemy armor into said area. I call it in. If it comes a few min early no biggie. Late wud suck but still no huge biggie as its targwt light and may or may not kill brads (?) But not abrams.  It does shred all subsystems though and ive gotten good at tjming it so they get hit with a few strafing runs right before or during their contact with some atgms and armor.

Ive found the German tactic for superior armor in early east front works in BS toa degree. Once you ID an enemy target especially if u can keep lines of sight so u have several vehicles keyholed engaging one or whatever, but the trick is to open up on armor all at once and use hail fire. This means kornets with tanks firing cannons and saxhorns joining in too..

[antaress73]

I did a search on the internet about real life effects of HE 152mm/155mm and the study I found  would equate the penetration characteristics of a piece of shrapnel (big one) hitting 25 meters from the tank to 25mm APDS at 500 meters. SO it would actually shred exposed sub-elements of the tank and disable them quite easily. that goes for airburst artillery too since it would hit the top of the tank where most of optics, LWR, smoke dischargers are. It was on defensetalk forum and the guy was quoting a study done by NATO, the STANAG 4569 standard. Here is a quote:
 

 

"On the effectiveness of artillery splinter against tanks there is no need for estimates. It is a NATO standard. In particular STANAG 4569:

155mm HE splinters (aka fragments) at 25m have the same penetration effectiveness as a 25mm APDS at 500m (Level 5) and a 155mm HE at 30m is the same as a 14.5mm AP at 200m (Level IV).

While the frontal armour of most tanks will withstand 155mm HE splinters from a blast within 20m the side and rear armour won’t. Artillery shells falling from indirect fire are more likely to hit tanks with splinters from the sides and rear than the front. If the concentration of fire is dense enough to ensure blasts within 20-30m of tanks then those tanks are going to suffer some significant internal damage and be knocked out.

It is also worth noting that STANAG 4569 is based on 152mm and 155mm HE shells with less energetic explosives and mild steel casings. There are HE shells with preformed fragments and high hardness steels and higher energy explosives that produce much more lethal splinters (smaller and faster) and fragments than those used in the STANAG testing. They will penetrate equivalent armour and much longer distances than the STANAG 4569 basis."

Edited July 23, 2016 by antaress73

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Sigh.

I've got places to be today so short reply:


1. It's worth keeping in mind a lot of the airbursting is dumping fragments at unfavorable angles for penetration (again outside of a direct explosion above a tank, nothing is striking a surface at a 90 degree angle).  Also many of the "sensitive" bits are only really sensitive from narrow arcs (or as much everyone goes on about optics,, most fragmentation effects aren't going to do much against the ones on the Abrams at least except from near-frontal.

2. Most fragmentation effects are not "big ones" to the degree to produce reliable results.

3. An artillery hit within 20 meters is practically a "hit."  If tanks sat stationary during barrages waiting to get the heck kicked out of them, then maybe this would be a likely outcome, but generally exploiting the fact that tanks are mobile, they'll just move out of the current impact area.  On the offensive usually it's too kinetic to reliably mass fires  during contact (the reconsolidation or refit phases however...), on the defensive, it's the reason why you have primary-alternate positions for both units and vehicles.

4. The key phrase mentioned earlier was "if the concentration of fire is dense enough" which is much like "if a tank is struck with enough 23 MM" or "millions of angry waterfowl attack" in that well, yeah if you do enough of anything it'll have effects.  But the sort of massing required to use fragmentation to knock out tanks reliably.  It's also worth looking at just how many rounds you get for your fires assets in CMBS, they're provided with the complete ammo loadout with the assumption your BN/BDE or the FA Battery/BN commander isn't going to cut you off after you fired 100+ rounds to try to HE/VT a tank into submission.  

When I did my fires planning for real life training, you might have fire support for a window (like during  the 15 minutes of your assault they're firing as many rounds as the enemy on the objective would require), or a round allocation (like four rounds per gun battery mission), but at the end of the day, the sort of massive concentrated barrage we're all guilty of using is totally impractical in terms of logistics, and we're using it on targets that frankly wouldn't rank high enough on anyone's targeting matrix to draw the attention of a complete battery firing to the point of ammunition exhaustion. 

Which gets to the point of accomplishing the sort of density required to have HE/VT be adequate in an anti-tank role is grossly inefficient.  A very lucky shot could accomplish something, like if you were going heavy HE/VT fires at a mostly infantry objective, and the tank section attached to them got caught in the heart of it, you'd likely see some damage, but there's a reason everyone on the planet fires PD or DPICM type rounds against armor targets instead of VT.   

Edited July 23, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[antaress73]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Sigh.

I've got places to be today so short reply:


1. It's worth keeping in mind a lot of the airbursting is dumping fragments at unfavorable angles for penetration (again outside of a direct explosion above a tank, nothing is striking a surface at a 90 degree angle).  Also many of the "sensitive" bits are only really sensitive from narrow arcs (or as much everyone goes on about optics,, most fragmentation effects aren't going to do much against the ones on the Abrams at least except from near-frontal.

2. Most fragmentation effects are not "big ones" to the degree to produce reliable results.

3. An artillery hit within 20 meters is practically a "hit."  If tanks sat stationary during barrages waiting to get the heck kicked out of them, then maybe this would be a likely outcome, but generally exploiting the fact that tanks are mobile, they'll just move out of the current impact area.  On the offensive usually it's too kinetic to reliably mass fires  during contact (the reconsolidation or refit phases however...), on the defensive, it's the reason why you have primary-alternate positions for both units and vehicles.

4. The key phrase mentioned earlier was "if the concentration of fire is dense enough" which is much like "if a tank is struck with enough 23 MM" or "millions of angry waterfowl attack" in that well, yeah if you do enough of anything it'll have effects.  But the sort of massing required to use fragmentation to knock out tanks reliably.  It's also worth looking at just how many rounds you get for your fires assets in CMBS, they're provided with the complete ammo loadout with the assumption your BN/BDE or the FA Battery/BN commander isn't going to cut you off after you fired 100+ rounds to try to HE/VT a tank into submission.  

When I did my fires planning for real life training, you might have fire support for a window (like during  the 15 minutes of your assault they're firing as many rounds as the enemy on the objective would require), or a round allocation (like four rounds per gun battery mission), but at the end of the day, the sort of massive concentrated barrage we're all guilty of using is totally impractical in terms of logistics, and we're using it on targets that frankly wouldn't rank high enough on anyone's targeting matrix to draw the attention of a complete battery firing to the point of ammunition exhaustion. 

Which gets to the point of accomplishing the sort of density required to have HE/VT be adequate in an anti-tank role is grossly inefficient.  A very lucky shot could accomplish something, like if you were going heavy HE/VT fires at a mostly infantry objective, and the tank section attached to them got caught in the heart of it, you'd likely see some damage, but there's a reason everyone on the planet fires PD or DPICM type rounds against armor targets instead of VT.

I agree with all of what you are saying. War is also an exercice in killing the enemy in the  most COST-EFFICIENT manner and VT isnt efficient in that role in REAL LIFE. But when playing combat mission, anything that degrades an Abrams is useful when fighting as REDFOR (much less important for BLUEFOR). Maybe that's gamey but I also think a strafing run or tungsuska would not "strip" an abrams of most sub-systems in REAL LIFE as it does in the game. We dont have DICPM or PD ammo for arty in combat mission and the Russians would probably make extensive use of it so we use what we can. Playing as Americans, that's much less an issue as things are in the game.

Right now, I use precision guided rounds (3 rounds) on abrams in defensive positions. Sometimes I kill them but all the times I immobilize them on the first try so they cant move "out" of the target zone. Then I hit them again with a three round precision mission hoping to degrade their susbsystems like LWR, smoke grenades, IR Optics (most important, since I can then use smoke to prevent return fire while shooting at them). Airburst having a light to moderate effect would be a plus. Right now, it does not have ANY effect even with mass fire (we tested it ).

As a mostly red player, the Abrams is really what gives superiority to the US side and killing/disabling/degrading them is a priority. In real life, the Russians could bring a lot more assets that are not in the game to deal with them.

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by antaress73

[TheForwardObserver]

@antaress73 To really make sense of those STANAG 4569 figures you'd need to know what 4569 levels the various components of the Abrams are rated for.  I fully encourage this research.  Those numbers are like body armor threat level ratings.  Being rated at a level implies a 90% crew survivability against that particular threat.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer I agree with everything you said with the exception of the level of support and volume you might be able to expect.  You've described what specifically sounds like a training situation with a modest amount of support for pre-planned targets and battlefield shaping provided by 1 unit in a general support capacity.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

43 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

@antaress73 To really make sense of those STANAG 4569 figures you'd need to know what 4569 levels the various components of the Abrams are rated for.  I fully encourage this research.  Those numbers are like body armor threat level ratings.  Being rated at a level implies a 90% crew survivability against that particular threat.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer I agree with everything you said with the exception of the level of support and volume you might be able to expect.  You've described what specifically sounds like a training situation with a modest amount of support for pre-planned targets and battlefield shaping provided by 1 unit in a general support capacity.

Eh.  It's not like I have much experience with FA in a conventional fight outside of training. We also had a pretty pessimistic outlay for FA*Aviation/etc in Korea.  It wasn't really a "spread thin" sort of thing, as much as the first few days or weeks was going to be a lot stuff going on at once, and the problems of one Company Team, or even BN TF wasn't going to rate very high vs theater level targets.  

Also 1-15 FA did drop rounds on a range my Company was on, so there was that as a bit of a distrust of those dudes.  

[antaress73]

1 hour ago, TheForwardObserver said:

@antaress73 To really make sense of those STANAG 4569 figures you'd need to know what 4569 levels the various components of the Abrams are rated for.  I fully encourage this research.  Those numbers are like body armor threat level ratings.  Being rated at a level implies a 90% crew survivability against that particular threat.

@panzersaurkrautwerfer I agree with everything you said with the exception of the level of support and volume you might be able to expect.  You've described what specifically sounds like a training situation with a modest amount of support for pre-planned targets and battlefield shaping provided by 1 unit in a general support capacity.

STANAG 4569 figures for the various sub-systems on the Abrams are probably classified. I was thinking more about the smoke dischargers, APS elements, LWR, antennas. Disabling them would even the field a bit and make subsequent successful ambushes easier.  A direct hit would probably screw sensitive electronics like the balistic computer, IR optics by shock effect (as it does when missiles or APFDS  hit a tank  but do not penetrate).

Edited July 23, 2016 by antaress73

[TheForwardObserver]

@panzersaurkrautwerfer Some good case studies on the level of support you should expect when you someday become BC would be the 3rd ID movement north in '03, and of course Phantom Fury November 2004.  Before deciding to bypass Nasiriyah, 3rd ID came under Iraqi artillery fire from the east bank, and fired 73 missions, and 1,100 rounds in 2 hours. In '04 6,000 rounds of 155 were fired in the first ten days of Phantom Fury.  As a comparison to those large volumes, by 2006 we'd fired 6,000 rounds in Afghanistan total.

Regarding your distrust of Arty, rightfully so.  I've had VT lobbed at my own track before.  End of the day those mistakes can be mitigated by Fisters that are paying attention.  As a general rule, get opinions from your FSNCOs, and if they don't have answers demand that they acquire them.  FSOs are slimey shammers and will always take the path of least resistance, and their lack of experience is only ever surpassed by their laziness.

[antaress73]

26 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

@panzersaurkrautwerfer Some good case studies on the level of support you should expect when you someday become BC would be the 3rd ID movement north in '03, and of course Phantom Fury November 2004.  Before deciding to bypass Nasiriyah, 3rd ID came under Iraqi artillery fire from the east bank, and fired 73 missions, and 1,100 rounds in 2 hours. In '04 6,000 rounds of 155 were fired in the first ten days of Phantom Fury.  As a comparison to those large volumes, by 2006 we'd fired 6,000 rounds in Afghanistan total.

Regarding your distrust of Arty, rightfully so.  I've had VT lobbed at my own track before.  End of the day those mistakes can be mitigated by Fisters that are paying attention.  As a general rule, get opinions from your FSNCOs, and if they don't have answers demand that they acquire them.  FSOs are slimey shammers and will always take the path of least resistance, and their lack of experience is only ever surpassed by their laziness.

Thats not much in Afghanistan . it is because its moutainous and there is a lot of close contact ? Mortars were probably more widely used.

[TheForwardObserver]

@antaress73 Afghanistan began as a light fight, and those numbers have significantly changed as a result of the change in operations there.  Most of the early deploying units elected to forgo the logistical burden of artillery.

[antaress73]

That being said. It shows very well the limitations of a game like combat mission. Most military would apply a general tactical doctrine based on sound and general principles against any opponent. They would not apply (at first)  specific tactics tailor-made for an opponent. that's a luxury we have in a game like combat mission. Airbursting abrams on purpose would not be done in real life by the russkies to degrade sub-systems. Much like SU-25s would not strafe Abramst tanks to strip them of their components and make them easy meat for T-90s. They would try to kill it outright with those huge missiles they carry. They would use DICPM ammo. Contrary to real life, using VT against tanks in the game could be a valid tactic if airbursting would damage sub-systems when exploding directly over a tank or AFV (pretty easy to arrange for such a concentration of fire).  A combined arms approach to fighting the Abrams if you want (death by a thousand cuts). As it is right now, it doesnt do ANYTHING. A light to moderate effect on subsystems would not be unrealistic in my view. Mainly antennas, smoke grenade launchers, LWR, APS would be affected. Nothing internal like IR optics or balistic computer. HEck, even the main gun could be taken out by a fragment in heavy barrages.  That's was my point. While much more realistic and accurate than anything else out there, it's still a game. A real life military would not use a lot of tactics that people use in their games and would be hard pressed to reproduce them effectively because we players are like gods to our pixeltruppen.

Battle Economics and logistics are not a concern in the game (fortunately) or else it would become very tedious.

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by antaress73

[Kinophile]

What are the Russians and Ukies using against each other in the Donbass, to shred each others tank forces? HE/VT, I assume?

 

[TheForwardObserver]

@kinophileI've seen the evidence of all sorts of arty being used in Ukraine, plenty of footage of 2S3s and Grads, but rocket delivered ICM and thermobaric munitions for armor are probably the munitions of choice for Russian and Ukrainian FOs or at least they were during the worst of it.  The MLRS got its rep as a grid square destroyer from the use of ICM and DPICM which are basically cluster munitions, so your coverage is greater than with HE.  

Edited July 24, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[TheForwardObserver]

Looks like a sort of fun that would be too much for me maybe 

[Jammersix]

That's a terrible graphic, from a graphic point of view.

[TheForwardObserver]

lol

[Jammersix]

No matter which side the poor bastard commanding the tank is fighting for, everyone, including his buddies, are shooting at him.

[Kinophile]

lol exactly, aren't they all shooting at their own tank forces attacking infantry? Um guys, you're off by a few hundred meters there....

 

[TheForwardObserver]

Bahahahahaha

Ok I don't know why the cave painter that made this marked enemy on only a few of the 'threats' or why he chose the arrangement he did, but I think we're safe assuming they're all enemy, and what's being depicted is the multitude of threats an Abrams faces-- excluding friendly fire.

Not my optimal place to battle.  I like to be free to employ a wide range of survivability techniques.

Edited July 24, 2016 by TheForwardObserver

[Kinophile]

Technically, that images shows only friendly fire... >:D

Oh we're gonna beat you and beat you..... Forum rules are prison rules,  brah! 

Edited July 24, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

Kind of reminds me of growing up with six siblings.

[Michael Emrys]

On July 23, 2016 at 7:47 AM, antaress73 said:

did a search on the internet about real life effects of HE 152mm/155mm and the study I found  would equate the penetration characteristics of a piece of shrapnel (big one) hitting 25 meters from the tank to 25mm APDS at 500 meters. SO it would actually shred exposed sub-elements of the tank and disable them quite easily. that goes for airburst artillery too since it would hit the top of the tank where most of optics, LWR, smoke dischargers are.

I've thought about this a lot in recent months. I.e., the tops modern tanks' turrets have become awfully cluttered with a lot of relatively delicate sensors and other equipment. I've wondered how much of this could be put under armor. Obviously, some of it must be exposed in order to function, but I wonder how much of it is because they are recent add-ons and perhaps the next generation of tanks will be more elegant designs.

Michael

[TheForwardObserver]

I'm curious how people arrange their Fire Support personnel and who acts as (or ends up acting as) their primary observers.  I've played around with this loads myself.  What support times do you shoot for/settle for?  Do you send your FOs forward, independently of their maneuver units, do you keep them to the rear of their maneuver elements, or are they trail hip on your HQ units?  

What factors and lessons affect your choices?  What problems do you encounter?

 

[Kinophile]

5 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I'm curious how people arrange their Fire Support personnel and who acts as (or ends up acting as) their primary observers.  I've played around with this loads myself.  What support times do you shoot for/settle for?  Do you send your FOs forward, independently of their maneuver units, do you keep them to the rear of their maneuver elements, or are they trail hip on your HQ units?  

What factors and lessons affect your choices?  What problems do you encounter?

 

I play RUS/UKR. 

I take 1 FO per 2 platoons SPGs with 5 TRPs.

Both are crack/elite,  because otherwise v US it's like fighting 15 minutes behind everything. 

I loosely tag one FO with each of my various  main combat groups.  If I have enough of the pasty faced typists I'll keep one FO (w/ associated tubrs)  in reactive reserve. 

My max acceptable wait time is 5 minutes in countryside, 10 mins in urban. I'm ruthless about that,  from harsh experience. I'll maybe accept a longer wait in countryside if I can guarantee the enemy will pause - eg a bottle neck, river crossing, wet/broken ground,  etc. That is,  I rely on terrain factors,  not human/force factors as even a main defence line can fail precipitously, but a 10m wide bridge ain't gettin' no wider.... 

I use TRPs to avoid putting my Fabergé egg FOs in harms way,  eg up high, in obvious spotting sites. I could save on the TRPs,  but I personally have a standing rule to continually suppress identified high vantage points  with mortars/MGs,occasional tank fire - and I've been on the receiving end also. Not worth it. 

Even so, I keep the FOs within about 1-2km (countryside) or 200,000 (urban) of their group's centre of gravity. Just in case, for extra eyeballs and emergency direct lay etc. 

I'll rarely give them an escort, unless they're on a special mission. 

Primary factor for me is Speed of delivery first, Accuracy second -  I tend to target platoon sized units, rather than individual vehicles, using the Iceberg reasoning that a Bradly probably has little ****ty  demon brat infantry near him, or hopefully inside. Tanks rarely are truly alone and usually spearheading something rude,  so it's good to start separating the MBT's from their gremlin escorts. I'm descriminatingly indiscriminate. 

My major problem is tracking the various fires in a fluid RT game, not getting distracted by the combat. It's hard to do, which ties into my tendency to target platoon units and above for simplicity's sake. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by kinophile

[Jammersix]

FOs with UAVs stay behind. The rest move with their HQs.

I do everything I can to shorten the time; I prefer 30 seconds, anything more than 90 seconds or two minutes is useless.