Jager 7

Great thread but I have yet to see anyone address the real issue. So far everyone is comparing oranges to apples. Indirect fire arty (105mm, 155mm and even the huge German Rail guns) fire at Low Velocity with rather high trajectory. Naval guns are in effect big rifles. They fire large projectiles at High Velocity. Most of their destructive and penetration power is a result of this high velocity. Naval guns are designed to penetrate heavily armored capital ships first....provide shore bombardment secondly. Have to research 14" muzzle velocities but 16"/50 had an MV of about 2,700 feet per second...or roughly the same MV as a 7.62mm bullet fired from an American M-60 MG. I imagine a 14" would have a somewhat lower MV but not much lower. The key is the rifle-like high velocity and relatively flat trajectory. Not really sure if the concrete bunkers in CM should be able to withstand a direct hit from a 14" naval gun but I will say they should be resistant to all forms of "Indirect artillery" fire. If the bunker has thick enough walls it could withstand a 14" hit. My 2 cents worth. Out here.... ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian

Chupacabra quote _________________________________ "Er, are you sure? Everything I've ever read on artillery (which is admittedly limited) led me to believe that a graze burst was a shell which detonated upon grazing something light, like wire or a tree, hence the term. This is obviously not a burning issue, but I'm curious " ____________________________________________ No problem...but yep...I'm sure. Graze means it detonates on the ground...as opposed to an air burst. By the way, it's what I do for a living. (Marine FO) ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian

The frequency of air burst by artillery would be in direct proportion to the density of the woods/trees. The more woods the more "tree bursts". I think they are modeled quite well in CM. By the way....the term "graze burst" means it detonates on the ground. It's not a fuse setting. In CM you have two choices from what I have seen. There are regular Point Detonating fuses (PD) that detonate upon impact and you have Variable Timed fuse (VT) it you're the allies....sometimes. The VT as has been explained in other threads is a specially designed fuse to achieve an air burst...about 20 Meters above the ground. Hope that helps some. Out here....

IntelWeenie, I like that idea. If during the FFE phase the rounds keep impacting until the AI shuts them off...or...you could have a random number of turns (minutes) that the fires will continue to rain down after the FO's demise. More experienced FOs have their rounds cease at the end of the current turn regardless...a less experienced FO he might get one or two more complete turns of Fires before they cease. I agree that all should stop if the FO is KIA during adjustment...that's realistic. Out here...

MB, I signed up for it today too...Click on the "Find Opponents Here" banner at the top of the main page. From there you can email all the other members. Also there is a rules section and a section that explains the rankings. It looks pretty good. Out here... Jager 7

Very nice Apex...and thank you. Out here... Jager 7

Thanks Colonel, I signed up too. Looks like a good system. Out here...

I agree, the way it is now is no problem at all. The FOs of both sides are treated the same by the game so it's no big deal. Yes, you must take care of those FOs. By the way, anyone notice how much smoke there ISN'T available in 1.05? I like that a lot better too. Out here...

Def Bungis, I see what you are saying. I was just explaining the real world stuff. In CM I take it that if the FO dies, his Fire Mission dies with him at the end of the turn. This would reflect that for game purposes he is giving the battery REPEAT after each volley. Now, in CM's defense there is no way to know how many rounds are "allocated" for that fire mission. I mean, the game doesn't go into that detail. A future patch might be nice to say - call for fire on a target and specify the number of rounds you want to expend on that target. (Arty Spotter has 100 rounds...sees enemy assembling in trees, targets them and designates 30 rounds in his FFE.) Then if you want more you can REPEAT the mission as many times as you like until the ammo runs dry. That would be realistic and the death of the FO would at least guarantee the remaining rounds called for would arrive in the last target area and not end with the turn but with the end of the current fire mission. It's not a bad idea...maybe BTS will see this..LOL. Out here...

From Tero: > "Just a point of logics: by whom ? What if it was just a broken phone wire or static on the radio waves, should the battery cease firing as a point of procedure whenever the FO goes off the air AFTER they have been given the "Fire for effect" command ? How can they know the FO is dead and not just hiding and not able to answer ?" No...if the battery is already in Fire For Effect they will continue to fire until they deliever what they told the FO they were going to fire...more about that later. If there is bad comm, or whatever and it is during the adjustment phase the battery WILL NOT fire. >>Arty doesn't like to shoot where no one is watching, dangerous for the good guys. "Not unless the FO is incompetent. And even then the FO calls the shots, litterally, not the guys at the battery looking at the map that has the friendly positions, precalculated target references and suspected enemy positions determined BEFORE the battle began. They are the to give support, NOT second quess the FO's firemissions." The supporting artillery WILL cease firing adjustment rounds as soon as they lose comm with the FO. They will not needlessly endanger friendlies. Map plots of friendlies may be old...only the FO has a handle on where the friendlies in his zone are currently. Now, if the battery is already in the Fire For Effect phase of the mission they will continue to fire. However, They will not continue to fire until all the rounds are expended etc. The battery, (specifically the Fire Direction Officer) allocates a number of volleys to the Fire Mission and advises the FO of this during the Message to Observer...after the initial Call for Fire has gone in to the battery and before adjustment begins. I didn't say anything about the battery second guessing the FO. If he is hors de combat there will be no other Fire Missions until he is replaced by another FO or someone who assumes his role. Def Bungis, Technically the FO doesn't have to call a REPEAT after each volley. He will recieve the allocated Fire For Effect, ie, a battery of three rounds or ten rounds or whatever. After that is completed and he still needs more fire he can then REPEAT the FFE or return to one round adjustment, or simply end the mission. Phram 911, There are usually 3 FO teams per infantry battalion. The battery if it is in direct support of that battalion will not fire all of it's rounds in support of one FO. The FO tells the infantry company CO how many rounds he has available etc when he reports. This changes daily and in combat with American artillery in WWII there was probably a great deal of ammo available. In tough situations I'm sure the CO or other people got on the radio if the FO was dead and continued the mission. There is no facility for this in CM. There are two-man FO teams in CM so if the actual FO does get hit the radio man apparently takes over in CM. All in all I have to say that arty and FOs are handled quite nicely in CM and are probably about as realistic as we can expect at this point. Hope that adds to the discussion. Out here...

Def Bungis, Wow, I haven't seen that yet....doesn't sound good if that is the case. The last rounds fired should impact and then no more. Hmm, will have to look at that one.

I need to ammend something I posted above..."do I think an FO should be spotted at 1K meters in CM....No". I would like to clarify that. I'd say no, if the FO is in woods...in any other terrain and he moves at all I would say there should be a fair chance he gets spotted. 1000 meters in the game is a long way...in the real world it ain't all that far. You have to figure the other guy has binoculars too. Out here...

If your FO gets snuffed the fire mission should be cancelled. Arty doesn't like to shoot where no one is watching, dangerous for the good guys. Out here...

Just an oberservation -- get it? Seriously, it's not hard to spot an FO. It's especially not hard to spot one that has been lax about his security. Just look for the radio antenna of his RTO, or a glint of glass in the sun, that would be his binoculars..."Implements of command" were what the Japanese in WWII called these items and targeted them aggressively...with much success. Do I think CM should be able to spot an Arty Spotter from 1K meters?...no. Yet they are a high priority target for everyone and once spotted had best be moved..if they survive. Another thing to look at if you are playing in a PBEM game is where might your opponent put his FO. If you can get a handle on that you might just be able to flush that pesky FO or nail him. There are only so may really good Observation Posts in any one scenario. Out here.... ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian

Lorak, Addendum; I reread your post and saw you were not talking about the FO moving and losing his TRP, but the on board firing units...my mistake. The only problem with having a recorded target "TRP" that all can fire on is that it would have to be a mortar target recorded by the mortar FDC...which would not be usable by off-map artillery...and vice versa. A single recorded target, if that is what we are considering a "TRP" to be, is only good for a single firing arm...arty or mortar...not both. The reasons have to do with position survey of the battery and or mortar section. Out here...

Lorak, If you think of a TRP as a previously fired and recorded target then it almost makes sense. Again, registration is a different animal. The only problem is that if an FO has a "TRP" outside his LOS he can achieve first round effects each and every time he calls for fire. This would be exactly the case if the target had been fired previously and the replot data recorded by the FDC. No problem, some FO prior to game time called in that target, adjusted on it and had the Fire Direction Center at the battery record the data and add it to their firing solution. However, that being the case the FO should not lose the ability to achieve first round effect simply because he moves. A recorded target has nothing at all to do with the FO's location once he has fired on it. In other words he could go back to the rear for coffee, call the arty battery and request fire on "Tgt # AE1006" and be confident that the rounds would have decent effect. Once the target is recorded the firing data stays valid until the Battery moves...not the FO. Does that make sense? The TRP as it is represented in the game is an abstract tool combining some real and some fictional assumptions. Not a big deal but I agree that if used at all as they are portrayed presently in CM they should be restricted to Defenders use only. They would have had time to fire on and adjust onto those targets and get excellent target data. In a defensive situation of this nature not only would the Spotter (FO) have first round effects he should also be able to call for and recieve rounds within the same game turn. Just my opinion based on real world arty. Out here...

Ben, I think if TRPs are used at all they should reduce response time only and not improve first round accuracy. A normal American 105mm Spotter in CM has about a 2 minute lag from targeting to FFE. I'd like to see that reduced to say 30 seconds. This would reflect a Priority target. Having a Priority Target or in CM a "TRP" still does not insure accuracy in real life. The problem with treating the TRP as a registered target is then we are assuming the artillery battery has already fired on and recorded that target...not a likely occurance inside the scale of the game. Yet really the only way to improve arty accuacy of that first volley. Registrations are done usually only once a day and then not usually against an active target. Registration is used simply to ensure accurate firing of subsequent missions. Now here's an idea for future patches or revisions. How about allowing the FO to adjust onto a target he can see and then record that target and place a Target symbol on the map? That would allow the FO to refire that target with first round accuracy any time thereafter. Might be very complicated to program but would be a very realistic feature. The bottom line is realistically the the only way to get accurate artillery fire is to adjust it during the game. The TRP should not really be an aid to first round accuracy although it could be used to shorten response time. Out here...

There have been a number of questions on this board lately about the accuracy/inaccuarcy or overaccuarcy of artillery fire as portrayed in CM. The following list shows first, the requirement, who or which agency is responsible for that requirement, and lastly whether or not CM assumes the requirement to have been addressed before game time. REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCURATE PREDICTED FIRES 1. ACCURATE TARGET LOCATION - FO - NOT ASSUMED 2. ACCURATE BATTERY LOCATION - Battery Exectutive Officer (XO) - Assumed 3. ACCURATE AMMO & WEAPON INFO - Battery XO & Fire Direction Officer (FDO) - Assumed 4. ACCURATE METEOROLOGICAL INFO - FDO/MET or Operations Officer - Assumed 5. ACCURATE COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES - FDO - Assumed. In other words, by the time your Arty Spotter in CM is calling for and adjusting rounds the four other requirements are already assumed to have been met by the firing unit. The only variable left to overcome is the skill of the Arty Spotter and whether or not he has a clear LOS to the target...and of course whether or not he survives to continue to put steel on target. Hope that gives all an idea of what goes into arillery accuracy and how it is modeled in CM. My assumptions that four of the five requirements are assumed for game play purposes are derived from my own game experience and were not given to me by Steve or Charles. Out here....

Jeff, Interesting observation. There is no reason why VT (Variable Time) fused shell should be any more accurate than an shell fused with a point-detonating Quick fuse. The VT fuses cause air bursts and consequently have a potential to create more casualties on the ground. Out here.... ------------------ When the situation is obscure....attack! CGen. Heinz Guderian

Ok....time to toss my hat in on this one. First, I for one have yet to see extremely accurate Off-Board arty in CM. Nothing near the 30 Meter sheaf referred to. Not calling anyone a liar, I have just never seen it. Secondly, that link to all the metro and ballistic data is great. It proves that there are indeed many variables that affect the fall of shot in artillery. Having said that let me add one more item.... ...That is why God made FO's. We identify the target, we locate the target, we call for fire on the target and last and most importantly....we ADJUST fire onto the target if there is time. In CM all arty missions I have seen are Adjust Fire missions. This adjustment and prior registration by the battery has eliminated or reduced the effects of most of the variables. It is very easy to adjust artillery fire onto a target and achieve a Fire For Effect that has a sheaf of 100 meters in radius. If we call for a Converged sheaf (all guns are dialed in to hit the same point) we can cut that radius in half or less. To summarize; if the fire is observed and adjusted by an FO, you had better hope the supporting battery runs out of ammo or find a new place to hide. Fionn, VT is nasty stuff, shame on you for using that against your opponent. And by the way...VT has a somewhat greater casualty radius per shell as it is an air burst with nothing but air to slow down the fragments. Can't say whether this has been factored into CM or not. Hope that helps explain away some of the thoughts that artillery is most often inaccurate. Out here...

John, You are correct about the two types of arty targeting in CM and about the advantages and disadvantages. However there is something I would like to clear up and it has been bugging me since I first played the demo months ago. A TRP (Target Reference Point)in reality is used for direct fire weapons only,(tanks, MGs, TOW missles etc) not artillery. There is no such thing as a TRP for artillery. The TRP in CM is an abstract variation on what artillery calls "Priority Targets". PTs are those targets designated by the manuever commander that for whatever reason he feels are luctrative or threatening. What it means to the arty is that every time they finish a fire mission they come back to lay on their priority target grid. There can be up to three priority targets per battery. Being already layed on the target will speed up response time but not necessarily increase accuracy. Increased accuracy will only be the case if the target has already been adjusted on preivously and recorded as a target with the refined data added to the solution. There is such a thing as artillery registration but that is used to obtain accurate firing data for subsequent engagement of targets. The bottom line is that first round accuracy for a fire mission is only as good as the FO's target locating abilities and skill, the Fire Direction Center's accuracy with their computations, and the gun line's application of firing data to the guns themselves. All can be adversely affected by weather, wind, range-to-target, powder temperature and ammunition lot etc, etc. Firing at an unobserved target via a map spot is obviously inaccurate and will continue to be so as long as there is on FO to adjust it. However, if the battery did a precision registration sometime previously they can often times be very accurate even against an unobserved target. I hope that helps some. I think TRPs as they are in CM should probably be renamed as Priority Targets or preplanned targets and their accuracy should not be very good if there are no "eyes" on to see the impacts. By the way, preplanned targets are usually only map spot grids added to a target list reflecting known enemy locations or structures etc. In other words, they aren't any more accurate than anything else. The good news is a trained (veteran)FO can adjust onto a target he can see very quickly and accurately. I love arty topics...can you tell... Have a great day Out here....

One more time.... http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/bobhome.html

Hey guys, I believe this is an historical site for those interested in the Battle of Britain, it's not a game but looks like a cool site. here's the link. <http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/bobhome.html <http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/bobhome.html> Out here...

My experience also is that FO's are not that easy to spot unless they do something careless or stupid (me not them ). By the way and not to nit pick terribly but it's all indirect fire. You are referring to targeting a location that is unobserved by the FO correct? You can do this but generally it takes longer for the fires to arrive and then that fire tends to be more scattered I believe. Out here....

Just got this from a friend of mine....I checked the link and it is good. "60 years ago this summer the Royal Air Force stood alone against the superior numbers of Germany's Luftwaffe in one of history's greatest air battles-the Battle of Britain. To commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Battle of Britain (July 10-October 31, 1940), the Royal Air Force has constructed a Web site for military history buffs. The site offers the complete Fighter Command Operational Diaries, published in full for the first time and placed online day-by-day over the actual period of the battle. Additional content includes overviews of all the major aircraft involved, and information on commanders, units and stations. <http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/bobhome.html <http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/bobhome.html> >"