Artillery Support

[zmoney]

On board mortars are great for taking out AT guns. So I'm glad they're going to be represented in this way.

[scottie]

Yes, there will be separate MEs of Battery or Battalion Size running around, Regimental, Divisional or Army assets

Battalion size ME's .... i cant wait !

[scottie]

im maybe wroing but i think i remember reading one of Stephen Ambrose's books where it suggested that Battalion on Battaltion attacks were as big as most battle were on the Western front (bar a few exceptions) i.e taking into account reserves not fighthing (so it was actually a regimental attack but only a single battalion was forward).

I know greater numbers were used on the eastern front but was there many cases of Division on Division or regiment on regiment ?

If not then Battalion sized ME's moving into attack sounds about right for CMC.

Scott

[C'Rogers]

Two questions.

1) A high level (crack) ME with guns is supporting a low level (green) ME of troops going into battle. Will the quality of the FO for the battle be determined by the level of the gun giving support, or the level of the troops receiving it?

2) By whatever means the above is determined, is there a penalty for losing an FO. If I have a crack FO for a mortar who dies in battle will I have a crack FO for the next battle or is he lost?

Two clarificaions. I am going to give statements about the nature of the game as I understand how it has been laid out, if someone could say whether I am right or wrong it would be appreaciated.

1) There is no way to attack/damage/kill the units of a tile without actually having a ME move in to engage (no artillery bombardments or air attacks).

2)I have a battery of guns with three MEs in support range, of which I think all will be in battle. The battery can only be used to support one of the MEs, and which it chooses to support must be done before the battles commence.

Go away for a week to come back to see not only an update but with a picture, good to see.

[Ike]

C'Rogers: The answer to your two questions are: (1) Correct; and, (2) Entirely correct.

My question: (a reference to Cordwainer Smith's SF stories if it matters) does the "C'" refer to cats or camels?

[Hunter]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Two questions.

1) A high level (crack) ME with guns is supporting a low level (green) ME of troops going into battle. Will the quality of the FO for the battle be determined by the level of the gun giving support, or the level of the troops receiving it?

2) By whatever means the above is determined, is there a penalty for losing an FO. If I have a crack FO for a mortar who dies in battle will I have a crack FO for the next battle or is he lost?

The FO will be crack (level of guns). At the moment, there is no penalty of losing your FO, except that he wont get to shoot the rounds. We could think of making a penalty though, reduce the morale of the unit, or readiness, or lose ammo, whatever makes sense.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Hunter:

The FO will be crack (level of guns). At the moment, there is no penalty of losing your FO, except that he wont get to shoot the rounds. We could think of making a penalty though, reduce the morale of the unit, or readiness, or lose ammo, whatever makes sense. [/QB]

Don't be too quick to penalise artillery quality for the loss of FO's. You should be able to lose a couple before quality really begins to suffer (batteries always had effective 'spares', especially if you are not allowing a battery to support more than 1 ME at once). Morale on the other hand could take a hit for a few hours. The supported ME shouldn't get an instant replacement (next CMC turn), it should take a couple of hours plus transit time for the battery commander to work out what happened, and send a replacement FO IMHO - that is the real penalty, lose support for up to half a day.

[Steiner14]

Hunter, thanks for the infos.

I'm very interested to see the final game.

[c3k]

I agree with Sailor Malan regarding FO loss penalties.

Additionally, perhaps the replacement FO pool would gradually lose quality. (I imagine that there would be a pool of replacements at the same quality level as the original. If the pool is depleted, new replacements get added to the pool with a lower quality level. This keeps the pool filled. As they sit in the pool, unused, their quality level gradually rises to the same level as the originals. This represents in-unit training, etc. The penalty is incurred if the pool is depleted and replacements get sent forward without enough time in-unit.)

Regards,

Ken

[C'Rogers]

Thanks for the reply. I really know very little about gun batteries beyond that suffering multiple FO casulties could not be good. How many/what damage I am sure others will have much more knowledge than myself.

[Runyan99]

From what I know, at least about the US army, it seems that almost any officer with a line of communication to the battery would be capable of calling in fire, not just specialist observers from the artillery unit itself. I suspect CM probably over-estimates the importance of the FOs somewhat.

This seems especially true in defensive situations, where officers all along a line might have access to call artillery on registered points of their front.

[Peterk]

From reading "Soldat" (author escapes me at the moment) the Germans definitely used members of the artillery group sent to and embedded with the infantry to call down the shells and correct, and it required special training and good knowledge of the guns to do so.

Are you talking modern US Army or WWII? Doctrine has most likely changed.

[Peterk]

<quote>This seems especially true in defensive situations, where officers all along a line might have access to call artillery on registered points of their front.</quote>

The would be represnted by TRPs more than a spotter calling down an ad-hoc barrage.

[Runyan99]

Originally posted by Peterk:

<quote>This seems especially true in defensive situations, where officers all along a line might have access to call artillery on registered points of their front.</quote>

The would be represnted by TRPs more than a spotter calling down an ad-hoc barrage.

Except that in CM you still need an FO to call fire, even on a TRP.

I'm thinking of WW2, not modern. On the top of my head is an incident or two where the author of Company Commander, captain MacDonald, has access to an artillery battery himself, from the comfort of his defensive bunker.

[Andreas]

I do not think the Wehrmacht, or indeed the Red Army, worked like that with higher-level support. Battalion mortars are another story.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Hunter:

Mixed units such as Infantry Battalion with a few field guns can provide support to other units, although it would be unusual to, since there are probably better things for the force as a whole to do. The AI will rarely use a mixed force like that to provide support.

I think this is very unrealistic. A prime constraint on the ability of using battalion mortars or IGs to support another battalion would be the lack of signal and FO team assets, plus the fact that the firepower of the battalion assets are a critical element of the battalion position.

I think just restricting this ability a bit for the AI, while leaving it up to players whether they want to use it or not, is not sufficient, and I would eliminate it completely. In my view, only regimental level fire assets should be allowed to give support on a flexible assignment basis.

All the best

Andreas

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Hunter:

At the moment, there is no penalty of losing your FO, except that he wont get to shoot the rounds. We could think of making a penalty though, reduce the morale of the unit, or readiness, or lose ammo, whatever makes sense.

I would not introduce such a constraint, it appears quite artificial to me. A time delay in getting the new FO through should be fully sufficient. You will probably need something like that in any case to model damage to phone lines, etc.

Of course, once a previously supported unit loses its FO, it could become more difficult for it to hold, and you may want to consider introducing a morale penalty for them, but not for the gunners. But it sounds as if that is what you are considering in any case.

Regarding replacement FOs having lower capabilities, that again seems artificial to me. I would not go there.

All the best

Andreas

[Ike]

As I recall the history of WW2, the limiting factor for most of the war and most of the armies was the necessity to have a wire landline in place from the battery or battalion fire direction control center to the front line CO or FO in order to call in the fires. Perhaps in the American (and hence British, Commonwealth, and other Western - maybe not Russian) Army by 1945, radios were small enough, powerful enough and widely available enough to enable a company commander or platoon leader (less likely IMHO) to call on fires. But, as usual in military practice, because of the continuation of the methods of calling artillery fires in use prior to widespread availability of radios, there would have to be an assignment of fire support in order for the line unit to have that ability. That's how the signal folks know who to run the land lines to and from, e.g.: "42nd FA Battalion will, on order, fire missions in support of 27th Infantry Regiment, beginning 0530, 21 April 1945."

It requires an entirely different internal organization and fire planning/plotting to allow effective fire support from multiple batteries/battalions of field artillery for infantry/armor units in an ad hoc manner, as opposed to assigned fire support. That is to say, the difference between the above example of the 42d FA Bn versus the battalions of the 27th Infantry Regiment being able to simply "net on" the artillery common net and call in fire support on an as needed/required basis. The "as needed" method also requires a considerably larger number of gun and heavy mortar tubes deployed and available to fire than were available from - roughly - 1940 through 1944 in most armies.

[C'Rogers]

I would not introduce such a constraint, it appears quite artificial to me.

Here is a question relating to this. Does training a person allow them to call in better artillery support in real life or is it almost entirely the skill of the gun crew? Can any observer with minimal training adequetly call in support.

To be put this way; would there be any significant difference between an FO who has called in artillery on numerous occassion and had experience working with a battery versues an FO who was doing it for the first time with just brief traing? If you have the most skilled battery in the world is it only of minor importance the skill of the person calling in the artillery?

I had always thought that it was the former and that the accuracy of artillery depended significantly on the directions of the observor calling artillery. Of course I could see how I may be wrong, and calling in arty may be a simple issue of giving some numbers on a map (I am sure someone will tell me one way or the other).

If it is the first case than a drop in unit quality makes sence, if it is the latter than a time/morale penalty makes more sense for the replacement FO.

My main worry is, that under the current system where there is no penalty, won't FOs after they have directed all the ammo just become a quick disposable scout?

[Andreas]

Of course training makes for a better FO. But you are making an assumption that a replacement FO is automatically lesser quality. What if he is the battery commander who has loads of experience, or another FO who just got re-assigned and is equally experienced?

The penalty ought to be a time delay, nothing more, in my view. Anything else is just not particularly realistic.

All the best

Andreas

[JonS]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

To be put this way; would there be any significant difference between an FO who has called in artillery on numerous occassion and had experience working with a battery versues an FO who was doing it for the first time with just brief traing? If you have the most skilled battery in the world is it only of minor importance the skill of the person calling in the artillery?

Doctrine plays a part in this.

In UK-style armies, the skill is all with the FO. A superior FO will get superior performance out of an average bty, but an average FO will only get average performance out of a superior bty (generally speaking. There are likely to be mitigating factors in both cases). FOs senior officers (senior captains and up) and are widely experienced in gunnery before they start training as FOs, and that training is in itself very through. The role of UK FOs is to arrange and co-ordinate fire support, of all kinds. In a very real sense, the 'brains' of the system are forward with the grunts.

In the US - AIUI - FOs are junior Lts, who may be in their first 'slot' within a bty. In battle, their role is to adjust missions, and that's it. Decisions about the number of rounds to fire, the type of guns and ammunition to use, etc, are all handled at the arty HQ (who cannot see the target). The US FO is just a 'smart' pair of eyes. A poor FO will have an effect on the quality of missions, but it won't be as marked as in the UK system. Similarly, a really outstanding US FO will only have a limited impact since his freedom of action and role is severly constrained. A bad bty/bn, on the other hand will make it's presence felt to a much greater degree.

Sorry, I can't comment on the German and Sov approaches.

[ July 11, 2006, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Andreas]

Took you a while to show up here. What kept you?

All the best

Andreas

[JonS]

You seemed to be doing ok.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

My main worry is, that under the current system where there is no penalty, won't FOs after they have directed all the ammo just become a quick disposable scout?

Wire spotters may become scouts, but they will be anything but quick.

[Andreas]

The time delay will take care of this, I believe.

All the best

Andreas