Walls, Windows and other assorted MOUT problems

[YankeeDog]

Correct. Also, I'd have to check my dusty notes, but the Americans didn't have VT fuzes for the Normandy timeframe and those fuzes were only for bigger artillery (i.e. not 60mm mortars IIRC). The Germans, on the other hand, didn't have squat in that department. I can't remember what the Commonwealth had and when.

So not only is the artillery less accurate, but each shell coming down has far less capacity to cause harm to soldiers in trenches because the shells impact when they hit the ground. You basically have to get a shell into a trench (direct hit) in order to cause casualties OR get lucky to have a shell go off very close to a trench when a solider in it is in a firing position. Otherwise, it's mostly a suppression technique.

Steve

Your recollection is basically correct. While the Americans actually did have the VT/Radar Proximity fuse by D-Day, its use was initially restricted to overwater AA use, out of concern the technology would fall into enemy hands. It was not until some months later that it was authorized for land use.

My understanding however, is that all sides in WWII were somewhat able to achieve airbursts via the use of careful calculation and simple timed fuses. Definitely not a maneuver, "on the fly" technique, but something that could be done in planned fires.

Cheers,

YD

[Sergei]

My understanding however, is that all sides in WWII were somewhat able to achieve airbursts via the use of careful calculation and simple timed fuses. Definitely not a maneuver, "on the fly" technique, but something that could be done in planned fires.

Or by going back some twenty years, planting trees at the places of future suspected enemy positions, and thus achieving tree bursts when the time came. Yes it required some preplanning, but time to time it worked, eg. Germans in Hürtgen forest.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

So not only is the artillery less accurate, but each shell coming down has far less capacity to cause harm to soldiers in trenches because the shells impact when they hit the ground. You basically have to get a shell into a trench (direct hit) in order to cause casualties OR get lucky to have a shell go off very close to a trench when a solider in it is in a firing position. Otherwise, it's mostly a suppression technique.

it's 99% suppression what comes to infantry.

e.g. when Soviets launched the offensive on the Karelian Isthmus in summer 1944 they fired 354 000 shells in two hours mostly on three Finnish infantry battalions. the arty fires were supported by direct fires from tanks & assault guns (ten battalions).

the three defending infantry battalions were dug in, but the soil prevented true deep dug in fortifications.

anyway, the battalions suffered only ~10% killed. they were totally routed though

artillery just pins, not kills. that's why all sides stressed the importance of assaulting the dug-in defenders right after the arty fires (or when shells were still falling).

the reason why arty is seemingly effective against dug in infantry in CM is partly because infantry is unnaturally bunched up. even in CMx1 a squad has, what, 10x10m footprint? going by the book, with full squads, a squad footprint in defence was around 50m in width for WW2. in reality it was often more and for understrength squads.

if there are 50 shells landing on a 100x50 meter area, occupied by a single squad with width of 50 meters, the chances for the barrage to cause kills are pretty slim. say, you need to hit within a meter of a soldier in a trench, and there is a 10 man squad on the area so that only ten of the 5000 squaremeters are occupied (0.2%) and you get 50 shots -- the chances for a scoring one hit are only 10%. to have 50% chance (5x the previous) to reduce the squad to half (5 hits) you need to fire 1250 shells. these numbers are not accurate, but they reflect the difficulty of using arty to kill men taking cover in trenches.

Now, if you aren't already in sight of the trenches conducting an assault or maneuver of some sort, what's the point of suppressing the trenches?

arty is most of all area fire, not point fire. you saturate a large area at once to pin down the defenders for sure. even in well prepared attacks you can't trust to have located all the defensive positions and it may not even theoretically be possible to locate all the positions (LOS blocks etc).

you also fire at potential neighboring positions to isolate the sector you are going to assault, to KO undetected weapons and so forth.

what's more, most attacks are not so well prepared that the attacker would have a good idea about enemy defensive positions.

you may not even have any time for recon and do not know any of the defensive positions -- you are just taking fire from "that treeline" and need to assault "that hill". thus you call down fire at "that treeline", "those woods on the left" and "that hill on the right".

What I'm instead arguing is that the lack of FoW trenches isn't nearly the sort of problem that some have made it out to be.

true, but what about adjusting the other stuff a bit to compensate for lack of FoW trenches?

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

the reason why arty is seemingly effective against dug in infantry in CM is partly because infantry is unnaturally bunched up. even in CMx1 a squad has, what, 10x10m footprint? going by the book, with full squads, a squad footprint in defence was around 50m in width for WW2. in reality it was often more and for understrength squads.

The simulated effects of a squad footprint in both CMx1 and CMx2 are about the same. I've been over this in detail in other threads in the past. In both game systems the blast effects are modified to take into consideration that game conventions require more "bunching" than real life does. In CMx1 it was far more artificial, though, since without these modifications all men in a squad occupied the same pixel At least with CMx2 we start out with the men being directly simulated to be in positions other than on the tip of a pin. But as you point out, the bunching is still a factor and that's why it's taken into consideration within the code.

what's more, most attacks are not so well prepared that the attacker would have a good idea about enemy defensive positions.

It's completely situationally dependent. I've seen pictures of Bosnian and Serb positions, for example, that any numbnuts could see from a thousand meters away without binoculars. And that's a temperate environment.

Also, the greatest amount of surprise comes from bumbling into an enemy position. That happens when the terrain is generally closed in and the attacker didn't use any sort of scouting.

Remember, I'm not trying to argue against the benefits of having FoW trenches since I absolutely agree that it would be better if we had them. I'm simply taking the stated problems associated with the lack of FoW trenches and chipping away at the ones which are spurious (i.e. not really problems or exaggerated problems).

you may not even have any time for recon and do not know any of the defensive positions -- you are just taking fire from "that treeline" and need to assault "that hill". thus you call down fire at "that treeline", "those woods on the left" and "that hill on the right".

Correct, but that's what I am talking about. You, the player, have a real reason to know that the enemy is in that general area because you're being shot at. And because of that, suppression is something that has value at that time. As you said earlier, artillery is an area effect weapon (especially in WW2) so it's not even necessary to know if the enemy is in trenches or sitting around in foxholes or in fact not dug in at all. The player's options are exactly the same... put down artillery on the spot that is giving you problems and hope for the best.

true, but what about adjusting the other stuff a bit to compensate for lack of FoW trenches?

Like what?

Steve

[MikeyD]

A lot of this 'no FOW trenches' problem could be considered player-based. If you want to experience the 'reality' of the battle STAY at ground level and STAY behind your own forward troops! In real life the commander does not (usually) get to hover godlike over the battlefield, zoom instantly from one corner to the next, and rewind to spot exactly where that RPG came from. I'll admit its been awhile since I played the game by 'Iron Man' rules, but if you voluntarily restrict your own gamey spotting abilities - just by a little - FOW spikes exponentially. Try sticking behind your forward elements, you'd be surprised how hard it is to spot well-placed trenchlines during battle.

[Aacooper]

Both sides could fuse their arty for airburst, but it didn't work as well as the Radar Prox stuff that was first used by the US in the Bulge.

Now that I'm used to the many options of CMSF arty (fire pattern, shell type, etc) it'll be interesting to get back to the fewer options of less-deadly WW2 arty. I think the great thing about CMSF is that it will be able to account for US platoon leaders, for instance, calling down arty on the fly, without an FO.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Like what?

stuff like higher cover & concealment for defenders that haven't moved.