Is Syrian Equipment Fixed? Same with C2?

[Battlefront.com]

I'll tell you, from my own personal gaming experience I've noticed a HUGE difference when I go up against Red forces that are better than average. My casualties go up, my progress slowed, my chances of success lowered.

I remember one Campaign scenario that I tested where the first time through I did well even though I was outnumbered. A few weeks later I went about testing the scenario a second time "knowing" that I could pin and overrun Syrian infantry without too much risk. Well, I got my ass handed to me even though I knew roughly what to expect. "Why won't those buggers just give up and melt away?!?" I found myself saying as my Marines dropped like flies during an assault on their main strongpoint. After the game was over I found out that there was a mistake and all of the Syrians were Veteran instead of Conscript/Green like they were supposed to be. DOH!!!

Steve

[Apocal]

But I don't know, it just feels wrong, if it were a 100m or 150m, I could understand. It'd be really nice if someone could take a closer look in those this, to confirm or deny it. Or tell me what the best way is to verify it.

I'm going to keep mentioning this as long as it busts up my squads: the RPG. In a lot of ways, the RPG represents the "core" of a the Syrian squad's firepower the same way the SAWs do for Army/Marine squads. In my experience, the RPK is nice to have along, but when it comes time to get the killing done, rockets are primary.

That being said, in real life I've seen some truly... unskillful reports, stuff like "4 MAM PIDed at 65m. SAF taken, returned fire, BDA: 250 rounds expended no enemy cas"

[stikkypixie]

Stikkypixie,

"Better part of a turn" means something like 40 seconds? That's not a very long time to wipe out a squad. Plus, what was the experience level of the US squad? Any Leadership or Morale bonuses? In other words, how much of the "extra" time it took to wipe out the US guys was due to a few seconds worth of better survival skills and some body armor? Try the same test against a Green Squad with bad bonuses and see if that makes any difference.

The other thing to keep in mind is that it's hard to compare one squad to one squad because the weaponry and (often) headcounts are different. Generally speaking, the US Army has an edge and the US Marines have overkill.

Steve

Ok, this is last I'll say of this because it's holidays and all . I understand that a US squad is much more lethal, I have no problem with that.

And I replayed the turn, the squad was a regular squad and the "targets" were veteran or better.

Having said that however. I said it took the better part of a turn to hit 1, that is not the same as wiping a whole squad out. Although I was wrong about the time it took.

Hopefully the pictures below will make my point clearer. (You have to click on them)

24s left on the clock (when first soldier runs in to view):

17s left on the clock (when that soldier got shot and the other soldier come in to view)

10s left on the clock (when the other soldiers were hit, though they had time to aim their weapons before their day was ruined)

distance to where targets were hit (31m)

It just seem sooooo odd that a 9 man, supposedly trained Syrian squad can miss that much. Because 30m is pretty damned close. This is why this scenario is so frustrating with less experienced troops. They will miss the US soldier, who will then raise this gun in the middle of the street and gun one or two down in the house, causing the rest to cower. A perfectly good ambush ruined.

[flamingknives]

30m against a moving target wearing body armour?

Plus its 24 seconds, which is decidedly less than half a turn. In fact it takes 7 seconds to down the first man and a further 7 seconds to hit the next two.

What you are really showing is that the Syrian squad, no, half a Syrian squad - those that can see out of the windows - can eliminate all US soldiers they can see within seven seconds.

That's more than a little bit different to the original statement.

[Flanker15]

With the LOS checks having a little delay in between, I had the issue where a unit will leave the LOS before a LOS check happens a number of times.

The main prob I have which has cost me a match a couple of times is: I put a tank covering a road junction, parked just 10m or so down the road. I know the enemy tank will move across the junction and I cover the juction with the target arc. However the enemy tank is always able to drive across the junction before I spot it, or I do spot it but it leaves the LOS before the turret aligns (theres still a prob here that tank will turn its hull to the enemy unecessarlly as the turret turns which mis-aligns to the gun costing vital seconds. It's been mostly fixed in then newer versions though.)

I'm sure BFC will think of a fix for this someday, untill then I'll just keep chasing after the enemy tanks.

[Thomm]

It just seem sooooo odd that a 9 man, supposedly trained Syrian squad can miss that much. Because 30m is pretty damned close. This is why this scenario is so frustrating with less experienced troops. They will miss the US soldier, who will then raise this gun in the middle of the street and gun one or two down in the house, causing the rest to cower. A perfectly good ambush ruined.

Yes, I have also experienced situations such as the one described above. Especially the part with the US soldier shooting back!

Thank God, I do not have any real-life experience that I can relate this result to, nor any hard data. It "felt" wrong, when I saw it, but without detailed information about the algorithms (which hopefully do not have any implicit bias against the Red side), I did not feel that a bug report was justified.

Perhaps the aim point is located on the body armor, and at the short distance the shots are so accurate that most of them indeed hit the body armor and not some extremity or the face. That would make US soldiers even more "bulletproof" at short distances. Hmm, that calls for a WeGo test ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[stikkypixie]

30m against a moving target wearing body armour?

Plus its 24 seconds, which is decidedly less than half a turn. In fact it takes 7 seconds to down the first man and a further 7 seconds to hit the next two.

What you are really showing is that the Syrian squad, no, half a Syrian squad - those that can see out of the windows - can eliminate all US soldiers they can see within seven seconds.

That's more than a little bit different to the original statement.

When the action was played all soldiers in the house were shooting (or can shoot) except for the guy with the RPG as you can clearly see from the first screen shot. And I already mentioned I exaggerated the time.

Even so, do you think this situation feels "off" or not. I'm not saying there is a biased against Syrian squad, only that the accuracy value for their rifles might be a bit on the low side.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Really? News to me. So, since you probably have the equations at your fingertips, what's the answer to my question?

"how long would it take a Conscript BMP commander to see an Abrams at 301m, at 12:32 with the sun in back of him, after a reasonable night's sleep, with nobody else shooting at him, while... etc., etc. "

I'm dying to know

your scenario is too vague. too many missing parameters

Seriously, as far as I know there is no comprehensive study with equations for any of this stuff. There are rules of thumb and/or equations that are extremely "brittle" we can go by. There are questionable, though generally useful, mathematical attempts from people like Dupuy. Lots of stuff out there that isn't applicable due to scale as well. But ready-to-go equations that cover tactical warfare in detail compatible with CM's needs? Never heard of any so if it exists it would be interesting to check out.

i think even very basic ACQUIRE type model would suit CM level. the basic equations are pretty simple (relatively speaking) and are surprisingly accurate when compared to real world trials & exercises.

for a quick starting point for further reading see for example http://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2006/ARL-TR-3833.pdf . it is a bit dated though, missing several of more modern models.

if i were you, i would contact NVESD (www.nvl.army.mil) and ask for their most recent revision of the NVThermIP model -- it doesn't necessarily require military clearance or governmental sponsor, so they just might approve BFC. for a brief demo of NVThermIP see this slide show: https://www.sensiac.gatech.edu/external/products/models_simulations/nvtherm_demo.html or this manual: http://www.zieg.com/links/sensors/NVThermManual5.pdf (note: old revision of the model).

if they don't, and you don't want to get into governmental stuff, just go for less restricted model or create your own based on your specific needs.

there's lots of data out there and it covers in practice everything you will ever need. the stuff you have pointed out are nowhere even close the outer edges of current research. the difficulty is rather to choose where to set the limits of simulation and what it is that CM really simulates (e.g. should you perhaps rather go towards Agent Based stuff, see for example http://www.dodccrp.org/files/IC2J_v2n2_02_Dean.pdf).

anyway, if you really want to get using these types of equations i suggest getting a book called "Electro-Optical Imaging System Performance" (be sure to get the most recent edition, which i think is 4th). it will save you lots of time.

another practical shortcut would be to use a very simple equation together with hand picked stuff from various field experiments (i don't think you really want to simulate stuff like how far the conscript commander's eye is from the display, what the exact air huminidity level is etc).

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I think there's a little too much of the Holywood expectation here. As Apocal said on the previous page, when you read real AARs out of Iraq and Afghanistan you see all kinds of evidence that hitting obvious targets isn't as easy as it would appear to be. Sometimes you see details of firefights that last HOURS and yet no casualties are sustained. And that's not because US forces are afraid to shoot... any look at YouTube will show that to be untrue

URC,

The sorts of things you mention are known to us and they aren't very useful. Definitely not "50 years of studies out there, with neat and tested straightforwad equations waiting for your input parameters." What does exist are some very narrowly defined studies which don't provide equations which are useful to us. First of all, do you really think we should simulate the Human eye and all its physical properties? I mean, do you seriously think that is a wise use of CPU and RAM resources when an approximate evaluation yields similar results without hardly any resource impact and programming time? Why should we spend months debugging calculations that aren't really needed in the first place?

It's one thing to write a program that simulates one narrow aspect of the battlefield, like how sensitive IR equipment is in a hundred different situations, it's an entirely different thing to write a program that simulates pretty much every relevant aspect of a battlefield. Plus, there are massive gaps in these so called "ready to go" equations that makes the value of the few really well suited ones very dubious at best.

Nope, CMx1 and CMx2 are "fuzzy" no purpose. Not only is it impractical, if not impossible, to have a literal mathematical representation of real world combat, it is largely unnecessary.

As far as I'm concerned, CMx2 is a better model for simulating the modern battlefield than anything else out there. Specific programs might do specific pieces better, but none that I'm aware of has the depth and breadth that CMx2 does. We think that should be good enough for a $45 game

Steve

[Delta228]

Combat is easily one of the most complicated experiences of the modern world. What a soldier can see, hear, and do depend on almost infinite factors, many of which cannot be modeled in a video game. A video game can only go so far. A computer, even with all its magical power, can only go so far. So yes, CMSF is not a perfect representation of real combat. It never will be, no matter how many patches BF puts out, no matter how many hours they spend working on the game, it is just that: a game.

That being said, I think BF has done an AMAZING job at representing combat to the (almost) fullest extent possible short of being dropped in Iraq.

So i guess I feel the bottom line is this: Syrian equipment does not need to be fixed, nor should it be, nor will it be, because is really isn't broken. YES a BMP-1 WILL spot slower than an M1, the same goes for a T-62 or 72. We are talking about 20 + year old hardware against the (arguably) best tank the world has ever seen. have you ever looked at the sights of a BMP1? The vehicle is practically blind when buttoned down. You could have a MBT sitting 40 feet off to the right, and honestly, the BMP probably wouldn't notice. And also surprisingly enough, that M1A2 Abrams, with its massive, loud jet turbine engine that is REALLY hard to miss seeing at 100 meters in the middle of the street, is really, really, really hard to spot when its 3000 meters away barely showing its turret over a small rise.

So in short, we can all agree that Syrian equipment (in general) SUCKS! And they are facing the best equipped military in the world. The ability to see enemys in a BMP is much less than in a Bradley or Abrams. Its just the way it goes. Its the difference between a vehicle that costs several hundred-thousand dollars to one that costs several million.

Yes, CMSF is not a perfect representation of combat. But only one thing is, or ever will be: actual combat. And yes, there are problems with the sighting and such in CMSF, however, to "fix" it, it has to be broken, and right now, it's just a little leaky.

[stikkypixie]

I did the same scenario but changed the red to a Stryker rifle platoon. They get better results, although not disproportionate, that is to say they also missed an awful lot. So I guess no major change is needed, I am satisfied .

[Thomm]

I did the same scenario but changed the red to a Stryker rifle platoon. They get better results, although not disproportionate, that is to say they also missed an awful lot. So I guess no major change is needed, I am satisfied .

That is good to read. Following the discussion here, I played my version of Al Huqf yesterday (daylight, crack Red soldiers) and what I saw was exactly along the lines of the issues discussed above: single US soldier moves into LOF of a Syrian squad (at 70 meters, open ground), several soldiers open up on him, missing. He slowly turns around. In the meantime his squad members advance into LOS and open fire on the Syrians which are behind a low stone wall and start to take casualties and cowering almost instantly. The Red squad becomes pinned.

Later, I had one US soldier exposing himself to three Syrian squads. Not only did he not drop to cover despite being in the middle of a hailstorm of bullets, but he effectively started to return fire!

On the other hand, I eliminated a whole US squad without own losses in the beginning of the game, in a house-to-house fight.

Still, I am supporting the theory that crack(!) Syrian troops are undermodelled. That, or their AK rifles really suck.

Best regards,

Thomm

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Steve,

i don't know if you read it, but in my post i wrote "i don't think you really want to simulate stuff like how far the conscript commander's eye is from the display, what the exact air huminidity level is etc". you just appeared to think your sceario was very complex, when in fact it was trivial in its simplicity what comes to the models used by some military simulations.

what comes to your "approximate evaluation", you appeared to think there are no hard answers. the only way to do it, would be to tweak some made-up parameters patch after patch until things would feel right to you. you are wrong. there are definite answers to these types of questions. there are decades of studies (with real world experiments) about this stuff. the whole point is not needing to guess about the real world stuff. how you utilize all that data is up to you.

BTW there are very general models out there, not just "very narrowly defined" studies. please do some reading if you are interested.

As far as I'm concerned, CMx2 is a better model for simulating the modern battlefield than anything else out there. Specific programs might do specific pieces better, but none that I'm aware of has the depth and breadth that CMx2 does.

[stikkypixie]

That is good to read. Following the discussion here, I played my version of Al Huqf yesterday (daylight, crack Red soldiers) and what I saw was exactly along the lines of the issues discussed above: single US soldier moves into LOF of a Syrian squad (at 70 meters, open ground), several soldiers open up on him, missing. He slowly turns around. In the meantime his squad members advance into LOS and open fire on the Syrians which are behind a low stone wall and start to take casualties and cowering almost instantly. The Red squad becomes pinned.

Later, I had one US soldier exposing himself to three Syrian squads. Not only did he not drop to cover despite being in the middle of a hailstorm of bullets, but he effectively started to return fire!

On the other hand, I eliminated a whole US squad without own losses in the beginning of the game, in a house-to-house fight.

Still, I am supporting the theory that crack(!) Syrian troops are undermodelled. That, or their AK rifles really suck.

Best regards,

Thomm

I'm pretty sure there is no distinguish between nationalities. Perhaps fire on the move is just too effective.

[Bolt]

stikkypixie

I'm pretty sure there is no distinguish between nationalities. Perhaps fire on the move is just too effective.

It's easy to check if this is true. Put three US crack troops in the houses, just like in Thomm's test, and make Syrian squad run (or was that a hunt command?) into their sector of fire. If Syrian squad will be able to effectively return fire, then your point that fire on the move being too effectice is true.

I can't check this myself, as I don't have the latest patch.

Delta228

So in short, we can all agree that Syrian equipment (in general) SUCKS! And they are facing the best equipped military in the world.

Well, that as sure as hell is one narrow-minded statement.

Syrian equipment does not need to be fixed, nor should it be, nor will it be, because is really isn't broken.

Look, it doesn't matter, how many millions of dollars one US MBT costs, the blind BMP and very fast spotting Abrams tank are not connected directly. So if one expensive piece of kit can spot fast, it doesn't mean that more cheaper will not be able to spot enemy vehicles which are standing in the open in 300 meters straight ahead and constantly firing at infantry near that blind BMP. I had this very experience in 1.08, playing Red on Red Quick battle.

I'm awaiting for 1.11 patch now to check how does the game feel after all the fixes. Maybe it is much better, who knows?

YES a BMP-1 WILL spot slower than an M1, the same goes for a T-62 or 72. We are talking about 20 + year old hardware against the (arguably) best tank the world has ever seen.

In case you don't know, there are very different versions of T-72 out there, the early ones are really not match for modern tanks, while the latest versions are capable to go head to head with them.

And yes, you are right, that statement about Abrams being the best tank in the world is really arguable.

And also surprisingly enough, that M1A2 Abrams, with its massive, loud jet turbine engine that is REALLY hard to miss seeing at 100 meters in the middle of the street, is really, really, really hard to spot when its 3000 meters away barely showing its turret over a small rise.

You are talking about Abrams in hull-down position at 3km distance. Why? Did anyone here mentioned that it is not right when at such distances and in such conditions Abrams spots faster than Syrian tanks? All I've seen was when people complained that Syrian tanks couldn't spot anything that was standing literally 30-70 meters from them.

I can't talk about these issues, as I haven't tried 1.11 patch yet. But there were issues in the earlier versions of the game.

ability to see enemys in a BMP is much less than in a Bradley or Abrams. Its just the way it goes

What about the latest versions of T tanks?

About the calling in Syrian artillery times. I've managed to find some information about this from em.. I don't know how to translate "методичка"? maybe "manual"? of Russian army. Also, I've spoken to ex-artillery contractor, he said that he will be able to call his old friend officer who is serving at the moment in Artillery school and ask him about the times.

But he will do that after the holidays are over, and it will take time to translate that manual as there are lots of specific terms in it.

[dima]

Feel free to post the scanned методичка in here, even in russian.

[Alek]

Feel free to post the scanned методичка in here, even in russian.

http://voiska.ru/index.php?ind=downloads&op=section_view&idev=3

[dima]

http://voiska.ru/index.php?ind=downloads&op=section_view&idev=3

It asks me to register, won't let me download otherwise. Can you put it on someplace like Rapidshare or MegaUploads?

[Alek]

http://www.rapidshare.ru/876340

Here there are some military Russian manuals on artillery

and as some test scenarios

where we tested ATGM, tanks and RPG-7 (patch 1.10)

[Alek]

Still I wish to tell what incorrectly to do any Syrian tank without devices of night vision Any Soviet tank type (even Т-72 Turms) has no night vision in square inventory.

Only the field-glass in inventory is available.

Example Т-62М on Russian picture shows that two devices of night vision is available in tank T-62M - 1)the replaceable device for the driver and

2) device in a tower

Maybe these devices not so fine as in Abrams 1A2SEP , but the Soviet tanks have night vision and they not blind kittens as in SMSF

[flamingknives]

I might be wrong, but that icon doesn't necessarily indicate what is on the vehicle, but rather what the crew has in addition.

I suspect that the vision devices for the T62MV are active infra-red, rather than passive thermal imagers found on more modern vehicles. Active infra red is an early image intensifier that is sensitive to non-visible IR light, so you can use an IR searchlight (item 4) to illuminate the target without them being any the wiser, unless they are using image intensifiers as well.

[dima]

Still I wish to tell what incorrectly to do any Syrian tank without devices of night vision Any Soviet tank type (even Т-72 Turms) has no night vision in square inventory.

Only the field-glass in inventory is available.

Example Т-62М on Russian picture shows that two devices of night vision is available in tank T-62M - 1)the replaceable device for the driver and

2) device in a tower

Maybe these devices not so fine as in Abrams 1A2SEP , but the Soviet tanks have night vision and they not blind kittens as in SMSF

Again with baseless arguments! What are you 10 years old?!

You show a picture of a tank that says it has night-vision device and then you complain that T-62 is not as good as today's Abrams. Unlike most of the other forum members here you are very lucky to be able to read Russian. So why don't you use it? Do the actual research where it says what kind of device that is and how far does it let tanker to see. That information is available out there in Russian and I could probably find it in 5 minutes. But I think it would be a very good exercise for you to do. It is called - Research.

Now, about your attachment. What is all that? Bunch of missions, bunch of documents. How is it related to the artillery problems in CMSF? What am I suppose to do with that? Spend 2 days reading through them trying to guess what it is they are supposed to prove? You need to show me exactly the page in a document that specifies how long the artillery request should take.

I told all you guys on the russian forum and I will repeat here - if you don't "grow up" (even if you are teenagers) and become serious with your claims no one is going to take you seriously.

- No one will make T-62 NV same as on Abrams just on the basis of picture that says T-62 has some kind of night vision device.

- No one will change artillery arrival time just by you attaching a bunch of russian documents without specifying what we are supposed to read in there.

[MikeyD]

About the T62MV diagram. Note item number 4 in the picture, a large coaxial IR spotlight. On the bow are two driving lamps - a white light headlamp and an infrared lamp. Active IR has had a long career from the FG 1250 IR device on the Panther in 1944 through the M60A3 and T72. Active IR has its utility but its not exactly latest generation technology anymore. It would be pretty much suicide to turn that big spotlight on during a night tank battle.

[Battlefront.com]

Back when Martin (Moon) used to work for a large company that made night vision devices (amongst other things) I had the pleasure of seeing the differences between Gen I passive IR and Gen III passive IR. As it happened, the Gen I device was made in Russia and the Gen III was made from high end components from several countries. The Gen I device cost about $150 and the Gen III about $1500 IIRC. The difference between the two was amazing. Stunning, in fact. The Gen I was maybe good enough to walk around without tripping over something, while the Gen III was able to see things dozens of meters away.

The two things to consider here:

1. Be VERY specific about the technologies being compared. Nobody here would be idiotic enough to suggest that a computer made in the 1990s is about the same as a computer made since, so don't make the mistake of doing this with other technologies.

2. Although price can't be used to quantify differences between technologies, generally speaking there is a correlation between price and quality. The wider the gap in cost typical the wider the gap in capabilities. How much of a gap is obviously up for debate, but it's probable there is a gap. As we say in the US, "you get what you pay for". Sure, western military contractors are corrupt and inflate pricing, but so do Soviet/Russian contractors

Dima stated the bottom line very well. To make changes we need to see hard evidence that what we have in the game is incorrect. If someone can do that then we'll make changes, otherwise we won't. It is as simple as that.

Steve

[Bolt]

Guys who can't read Russian, please excuse me, but I'll qute some text in it.

2 Dima

Check the document named "Методичное пособие кмсп", page 30.

There is planned, not planned and fire adjustment missions. The second one suits CMSF conditions very good as there are no TRP in the game.

ЗАДАЧА № 2

ВЫЗОВ ОГНЯ АРТИЛЛЕРИЙСКОГО ПОДРАЗДЕЛЕНИЯ

ПО НАБЛЮДАЕМОЙ НЕПЛАНОВОЙ ЦЕЛИ

Цель: пусковая установка, батарея (взвод) на огневой позиции, командный (наблюдательный) пункт, живая сила и огневые средства в опорных пунктах (на оборонительной позиции) или в районах сосредоточения, танки, БТР, БМП, в районах сосредоточения, подразделения ПТРК га рубеже развертывания и другие одиночные и групповые цели (кроме отдельных танков и других бронированных целей).

1. Условия выполнения задачи

а) стрельба осколочно-фугасными снарядами с ударным взрывателем на осколочное, фугасное или замедленное действие, снарядами с радиовзрывателем, дымовыми или осветительными снарядами;

б) задача выполняется: командирами рот (взводов) – батареей, взводом, орудием (минометом); командирами батальонов – дивизионом или батареей;

в) цель – неплановая, координаты, характер цели и привлекаемые для стрельбы артиллерийские подразделения определяются выполняющим задачу (командиром батальона (роты, взвода);

г) определение установок – на огневой позиции (ОП) или пункте управления огнем дивизиона (ПУОД) в соответствии с полнотой проведенных в артиллерийском подразделении мероприятий по организации определения установок или переносом огня от плановой цели (ориентира, участка СО) находящейся вблизи от неплановой, по которой требуется вызов огня, с последующей ее пристрелкой;

д) взаимодействие установлено, командиру батальона (роты, взвода) известны сигналы вызова и прекращения огня, передачи управления, позывные радиостанций и должностных лиц артиллерийского подразделения (определен порядок вызова огня командиром батальона (роты, взвода); определены единые ориентиры, условные наименования местности (местных предметов); цели участки заградительного и сосредоточенного огня (3О, СО), ориентиры, по которым может осуществляться вызов огня нанесены на рабочие карты командиров общевойскового и подразделения артиллерии или артиллерийскому командиру вручена выкопировка из карты общевойскового командира с нанесенными плановыми целями, участками 3О, СО и ориентирами;

е) поправка на смещение – любая, дальность стрельбы от 2 км (от 1 км – для минометов) до предельной дальности стрельбы всех систем.

2. Оценка за выполнение задачи

определяется по оценкам условий, приведенных в таблице 2, и выставляется:

"отлично" – если оба условия оценены "отлично";

"хорошо" – если оба условия оценены не ниже "хорошо" или время в норме отлично, а точность "удовлетворительно";

"удовлетворительно" - если оба условия оценены не ниже "удовлетворительно";

Таблица 2

Порядок оценки условий выполнения задачи

№ пп Условия Оценка условий

"отлично" "хорошо" "удовлетворительно"

1 Время вызова огня В норме

"отлично" "хорошо" "удовлетворительно"

2 Точность определения координат цели Отклонения в норме

"отлично" "хорошо" "удовлетворительно"

Таблица 3

Нормы времени вызова огня

Днем Ночью

отл. хор. удовл. отл. хор. удовл.

Вызов огня батареи 2,0 2,5 3,5 2,5 3,0 4,0

Вызов огня дивизиона 3,0 3,5 4,5 3,5 4,0 5,0

The format of the text if it was copied/pasted is ruined, but if you look at that page, you'll get the idea - everything is there. Also, as far as I know, one can't adjust fire mission as in CMBB (although I can be mistaking), so if you want to move your artillery target a little bit, you will have to wait for 9-12 more minutes (if we're speaking about mortars). In RL, it would be task Nr 3 - adjusting fire mission, on page 35 and it would be done much faster, than in game.