'Grazing Fire' (?)

[Jasper]

I keep waiting to see if - following the use of this term - there would be something to describe what it is. But I can no longer hide my ignorance.

Help!

<HR>

Check out military documents written during WWII at: http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/

or

http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/

[This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-15-2001).]

[Tanks a Lot]

grazing fire:

(DOD, NATO) Fire approximately parallel to the ground where the center of the cone of fire does not rise above one meter from the ground. See also fire.

[CavScout]

Should be fire that is low enough so that it can hit both standing targets and those that have gone to ground, or at least prevents them from looking up!

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The descriptions of others is accurate enough, but the military significance may not be obvious.

Aimed fire at a point target is designed to hurt that target alone. But grazing fire is designed to deny an area, the whole length of the distance between the shooters and some marker they aim at. You are not trying to hurt a single, seen enemy. Instead, you are trying to protect friendly forces by preventing close approach to them, by standing, crouching, or crawling enemies.

Grazing fire is most commonly used by interlocking machineguns firing at angles close to parallel to the front. Imagine the front line as the long base of an isoceles triangle. At each end of the line is a machinegun, firing inward. Their lines of fire cross at some point not too far ahead of the defensive line (that distance being the "altitude" of the triangle). This forms a sort of defended zone, ahead of the defensive line, which attackers cannot enter without crossing a machinegun's "fire lane".

Sometimes the defenders in the base itself, will add their own small arms fire, directed more or less straight forward - especially if they have automatic weapons (BARs, SMGs, in modern times rifles on automatic or firing short bursts). The intention is a kind of area fire to prevent the unit from being approached closely (to grenade range e.g.) or overrun.

The drawback of such defensive fire schemes is that they expend large amounts of ammo, since the men and MGs are firing regularly even if the space in front of them is empty and they do not know it. They are also vunerable to the loss of one key MG, opening a gap into the planned fire pattern. But this sort of scheme can defend a smaller unit against even the densest sort of "wave" attack for at least a short period of time (while ammo holds, and everyone is firing). Sometimes long enough to withdraw, support with reserves, or call in supporting artillery fire.

This isn't represented in CM. The nearest approach is the "area fire" option, applied to the "tiles" right in front of your own troops. The difference between that and the real world version, is that in CM you must pick the points to apply the fire to, while in real life the fire covers lines rather than points or small areas near the point of aim.

I hope this helps.

[Jasper]

Thanks. I was reading away about combat in mountains - and the mention was made that aimed direct fire, in contrast to grazing fire, was the way to go. The reason(s) are now obvious.

[Sgt Fred]

Can we get CM2 or CMII or whatever they're going to call these games to model plunging fire? That would be awesome.

------------------

Later, Dave

[Guest Michael emrys]

I've been requesting grazing fire in CM for months now. Maybe it's too hard to program, but it was an important factor in WW II, and its absence in the game leaves a fair sized hole. In fact, enfilade fire of all types was important, and would correct the imbalance against the defender in a more realistic way than the recent reduction of points for the attacker.

Michael

[Bullethead]

Michael emrys said:

I've been requesting grazing fire in CM for months now.

CM already has grazing fire, after a fashion. It was introduced in the 1.05 patch IIRC. Basically, whenever an MG fires, any unit (friend or foe) along the line of fire between the gun and its specific target, and to some distance to either side of this line, is subject to the MG's fire and may take casualties.

This isn't perfect by any means, however. First, CM "grazing fire" only happens when the MG fires a burst at its normal point in the turn. Thus you can't create the constant walls of MG fire like Jason mentioned--if other enemies cross the line of fire between MG shots, they get away clean. Second and IMHO more important, the MG will still only fire when it can see a target. Thus, you can't use this grazing fire effect through a smokescreen or along a pre-set PDF in the dark like is done in real life.

In fact, enfilade fire of all types was important, and would correct the imbalance against the defender in a more realistic way than the recent reduction of points for the attacker.

I completely agree. What I would like to see (for various types of weapons but especially MGs) is the ability to give them a type of TRP-analog. For MGs, this would correspond to previously recorded T&E settings to hit specific points or lay grazing fire along certain paths. When firing at these TRP-analogs, the MGs would blast away nearly constantly instead of the occasional bursts they normally do. And, most importantly, they would be able to fire at their TRP-analogs even if they didn't have an LOS to them, thus being able to use them in the dark, in fog, or when their position is covered by smoke. Then we'd be able to create the type of realistic Final Defensive Fires Jason describes.

In real life, setting up this sort of thing is SOP for all MGs. Upon arriving in a position, the gunners will be given a PDF by their boss and are also expected to record aiming data for various key areas of terrain around their position, so they will be able to shoot in those directions even in the dark. For tripod-mounted MGs, this process involves recording the T&E settings needed to hit the various targets. For LMGs (and even riflemen), the gunners drive small sticks into the edge of their foxholes.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[X-00]

Without accurate modeling of grazing fire the true power of the MG isn't revealed in the game.

Jason was absolutely correct about one of the applications, namely the FPF. But it is also used in kill-zones further forward.

Multiple MG's firing into a kill-zones traps units in them. They can't go forward, sideways or back. Then the arty and other toys does the major killing.

Here, here about plunging fire. This skill is a must for fighting in hilly and mountianous terrain. Nothing is more demoralizing to infantry who think they are masked and out of nowhere multiple beaten zones start killing comrades at random. Rommel was a master at this when he was a junior officer.

I can't imagine the coding difficulties involved though. It was hard enough to learn at the Basic School.

[Dirtweasle]

You' have to increase the ammo for the MGs, and up their cost if you added this feature. Perhaps keep the MGs as is, and (gulp) a whole new MG unit capable of grazing fire.

<<took out a typo>>

[This message has been edited by Dirtweasle (edited 02-16-2001).]

[Bullethead]

Dirtweasel said:

You' have to increase the ammo for the MGs, and up their cost if you added this feature. Perhaps keep the MGs as is, and (gulp) a whole new MG unit capable of grazing fire.

I think you're missing a key point here. The types of fire described in this thread for MGs are basic, inherent capabilities of MGs. MGs have been doing these things since they first appeared on the battlefield 100 years ago and they continue to do so today. Having MGs unable to fire essentially continuously down pre-determined lanes, even while blind, is directly analogous to having anti-tank guns in the game but giving them no AP ammo. It is robbing the unit of an essential, intended capability that it was designed to have from the beginning and which its crew was trained to exploit, not in special situations, but as day-to-day routine. This type of fire is what MGs DO.

For example, you have an HMG unit. Then by definition you have a tripod with a T&E device which was designed precisely to make accurate, blind fire down pre-determined lanes possible. And you have a large crew whose function is to hump all the ammo and spare barrels that you need to do this type of fire. Same with MMGs, for that matter. LMGs lack the ammo, large crew, and tripod, but can still fire down pre-set lanes (although not as accurately) by means of the sticks I mentioned in the edge of their hole.

Look at the Allied MG units in the game. You have the Vickers, the M1917, the M1919, and the M2 (a 1918 design). All of these were WW1-era designs and the Vickers and M1917 actually saw extensive WW1 combat. Now recall what MGs did on the defensive in WW1--picture 1 July on the Somme. The same guns did the same thing in WW2 beside their more modern equivalents, and their descendants continue to do the same thing today.

So we for sure don't need new MG units that have the grazing fire capability. All MGs should have this because it's a basic feature of their design. Also, I'm sure the existing ammo loads accurately reflect the amount of ammo normally supplied to MG teams. Scenario designers can increase this to represent stockpiled ammo in long-established defensive positions or for long-prepared offensives. Thus, I'd leave the MG units alone except to give them their full functionality.

What is needed on the ammo front, though, is something different in terms of how it's used. The "granular" fire system CM uses doesn't seem to lend itself well to the sort of wall of MG fire we're talking about here--too big a gap between individual bursts. IMHO, instead of having the whole ammo point expended instantaneously, the game should somehow stretch it out over a few seconds and allow these "stretched" shots to happen much more frequently than the "granular" shots MGs currently are limited to, so that the effect is a nearly continuous line of fire. The MGs would switch to this "stretched" fire when firing at their pre-designated TRP-analogs.

BTW, we've been talking pretty much solely about defensive MG fire. But the same type of continuous fire on pre-selected targets is also used on the offensive to suppress enemy positions. So both offensive and defensive MGs should have the ability to place several TRP-analogs each in the set-up phase, which they can use as long as they don't move.

I can imagine it would be quite a feat to make the AI able to use this sort of fire effectively. I mean, it never seems to buy arty TRPs already. But even if the AI can't do this right, at least humans should be able to use their MGs as Gawd Himself intended

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Jasper]

Let me see if I understand this right. Grazing fire is (was) often implemented with a MG firing at a fixed point in space. Hold the trigger down and let'er rip until out of ammo. Reload. Repeat until ammunition exhausted, or told to stop.

I though some MG's couldn't sustain long bursts of fire. Like the MG42? Their barrel would melt down or something. So you couldn't use those for grazing fire could you?

So I guess you do this when you weren't expecting to be able to see the enemy cross into the zone of fire - like at night or tall grass that sort of thing. Of course that being the case - then the enemy couldn't see the MG either.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Dirtweasel said:

I think you're missing a key point here...

No I understand the practical application, and thanks for expanding further. My, point,(perhaps unclear), would remain though; if the cost for an .30 cal MG that fires in bursts now is whorth about 20 points? So an MG that fires sustained streams of bullets across a beaten zone, ie grazing fire, ought to cost more. Heck just adjust the ammo on units and the point vales change. Now if that sounds reasonable, then one ought to be able to have units that fire the way they do now for X and grazing fire capable MG units ought to cost X+Y. Seems logical enough to me even.

[Bullethead]

Jasper said:

Let me see if I understand this right. Grazing fire is (was) often implemented with a MG firing at a fixed point in space. Hold the trigger down and let'er rip until out of ammo. Reload. Repeat until ammunition exhausted, or told to stop.

Not exactly. Some guns could indeed keep the trigger down indefinitely (the Vickers, for example) but mostly they fired bursts of several seconds duration with brief pauses of like 1 second between. This was not only to keep the gun on target (MGs tend to "walk" when firing, even with well-set tripods) but also to pace ammo expenditure and barrel heating. Still, even things like MG42s were capable of much more constant firing than they can presently do in CM.

As for ammo, normally they wouldn't have to reload while doing this. One of the crewmen would be hooking new belts to the end of the one currently being fired, so the gun wouldn't run out of ammo until every bullet had been fired.

I though some MG's couldn't sustain long bursts of fire. Like the MG42? Their barrel would melt down or something. So you couldn't use those for grazing fire could you?

This is why I said "nearly continuous". MG42s had a quick-change barrel so they'd shoot off a belt or 2, pause a few seconds to change barrels, then keep on shooting with a new barrel while letting the first one cool. This is another job of the guy hooking up new belts. And another reason for having a large crew for MGs was so they could carry a number of spare barrels for just such situations.

BTW, another thing that bugs me about how CM currently models MG teams is that most of them dont' do anything during the battle except hump ammo. Only 1 of them is firing and 1, maybe 2 others are hooking up or passing ammo and barrels. The rest should be providing local security around the gun with their personal weapons, but instead they just sit there.

So I guess you do this when you weren't expecting to be able to see the enemy cross into the zone of fire - like at night or tall grass that sort of thing. Of course that being the case - then the enemy couldn't see the MG either.

Kinda, but don't confuse low visibility conditions with just being too far away to see an individual point target, especially if it's camouflaged. So, while one of the main purposes of such sustained fire is close-in defense in poor visibility, it is also used in broad daylight. Attacking MGs do this to lay continuous suppressing fire on enemy positions, for example, and defending MGs could do this from long range to support the foward outposts from the rear lines. In both cases, the vibration of the gun scatters the bullets out somewhat at long range so you get an area effect good for both suppression of strongpoints and interdiction of avenues of approach.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Bullethead]

Dirtweasle said:

My, point,(perhaps unclear), would remain though; if the cost for an .30 cal MG that fires in bursts now is whorth about 20 points? So an MG that fires sustained streams of bullets across a beaten zone, ie grazing fire, ought to cost more.

I disagree because I feel like I haven't gotten my money's worth for MGs yet. I paid for this capability when I bought the MG, that being an integral part of what MGs do, and I'm not seeing it. I want a refund

Seriously, I still disagree. MGs were very common and all of them could do this.

Besides, observe how BTS has recently lowered the points available to purchase offensive forces in attack and assault scenarios. This lowered the force ratio for such battle types well below what is realistic. The implicit reason for BTS doing this is that under current modeling, the defense is too weak, so the "Band-Aid" fix has been to reduce the number of attackers relative to defenders.

In real life, you need more attackers per defender than you can now get in CM. The main reason for this, IMHO, is because CM severely penalizes the defense by not allowing it to use its MGs nearly as effectively as it should be able to. So if BTS fixes the MGs, the attackers can go back to having realistic force ratios and there'd be no need to increase the cost of MG units--the presence of defensive MGs is one of the main reasons why the realistic force ratio is so high. And we all profit because the game as a whole, as well as individual scenarios, will be much more realistic.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Radar]

I agree with you Bullethead, MG's are left behind and I don't think the AI will ever be able to fill the shoes of a human opponent.

I would like to see the MG's have a sustained fire mode in the CM arena.

I think the MG has taken a back seat in this respect.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Seriously, I still disagree.

I noticed.

Originally posted by Bullethead:

...scenarios, will be much more realistic.

I would agree with the realism bit. I would be reluctant on handing out the refund though.

I misstated something earlier, my bad. I just checked in the editor and if you max out the ammo on MG teams the cost does not change. I could have swore that the cost went up when you added a bunch of ammo. Tanks and arty stayed the same too...

I could have swore the points went up and down with changes to the ammo loads.

[elementalwarre]

dirtweasle: unit point costs do not change with ammo, special bonuses, fatigue, morale...oh well

bullethead: i and others have repeatedly suggested various commands which, among other things, would enable grazing fire. BTS has said no just as repeatedly. i've given up on suggesting, but i still see grazing fire as a vital missing component, much more than various vehicles or units

this has been puzzling at best. they seemed to listen to your artillery suggestions, at least for a CM II game engine if not necessarily for CM2

however, i'd swear grazing fire is one key advantage automatic direct fire weapons have over non-auto or semiauto. as you've pointed out, this isn't simply my opinion or yours. this is something which many auto weapons are specifically designed for and their doctrine explicitly describes. why BTS has repeatedly ignored or rejected this is, well, weird given their otherwise exceptional attention to accuracy

BTS?

[Dirtweasle]

The URL to the discussion attached below seems to indicate that grazing fire of a sort _IS_ intended to be modeled. I've just read over a dozen, no probably over 4 dozen threads on MG fire, Ammo, Grazing, and plunging fire. (Man this one has been talked into the ground.) Having said that, there seems to be some contradiction. Some posts by BTS seem to be yes, others no.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001969.html

I'd like to see a comprehensive, authoritative answer.

[Bullethead]

elementalwarre said:

i and others have repeatedly suggested various commands which, among other things, would enable grazing fire. BTS has said no just as repeatedly... this has been puzzling at best.

Yeah, I'm completely at a loss here. I mean, BTS got Los on board and all, so I'm sure they've heard this from people they trust .

Oh well. With the recent unrealistic reduction of offensive force ratios, BTS has been forced to admit implicitly that its combat modeling is lacking something essential on the defensive front. The most obvious thing is the lack of MG functionality. So hopefully, now their pride will have been hurt and they'll expunge this blot on the reputation of their otherwise highly realistic game.

What's even more puzzling to me is that the attacking force ratios were reduced and this evoked no comment thread from the audience. Where are the cries of outrage that CM would have a problem serious enough to warrant such a measure? Where are the grogs? Where are the people howling that a 1.75 - 1 force ratio in an assault is woefully inadequate compared to real life ratios?

i've given up on suggesting, but i still see grazing fire as a vital missing component, much more than various vehicles or units

Word up.

however, i'd swear grazing fire is one key advantage automatic direct fire weapons have over non-auto or semiauto.

Exactly. Also, why else do modern forces retain MMGs and HMGs when every swingin' Richard carries an automatic personal weapon? It's because MGs can do things that assault rifles cannot, and that's bring sustained, high volume fire to bear either at a specific point, down a specific line, or even sweeping back and forth across an area. Even if modern MGs can't do the latter as well as their water-cooled predecessors, those water-cooled predecessor are still in CM.

------------------

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

What's even more puzzling to me is that the attacking force ratios were reduced and this evoked no comment thread from the audience. Where are the cries of outrage that CM would have a problem serious enough to warrant such a measure? Where are the grogs? Where are the people howling that a 1.75 - 1 force ratio in an assault is woefully inadequate compared to real life ratios?

I haven't played that many assaults yet, but I do regularly play attacks. My solution? [shrug] I just give myself the +200% bonus. Seems to work out just about right.

Michael