Tero

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410: BTW, because I'm such a bloody Artillery layman can someone please explain to me the difference between barrage and consentraited fire for the sake of having a clear opperating definition, thanx. There is no difference. It is a matter of what sheaf you use. Barrages are normally "unintelligent" wide area fire missions with parrallel sheafs. Point targets require converging sheaf. You can even use stich fire with a single gun.

Originally posted by YankeeDog: I wonder whether it might work to allow FOs (tied either to on-map mortars, or off-map artillery) to call in fire without LOS, but require the battery/mortar to first "register" on a visible point, and then adjust the fire to the target area where the spotter lacks LOS, but with a certain % error. As it happens this was done IRL (at least in the Finnish arty). The thing is the registration shots do not need to be on the battle field. Any spot will do. The only requirement is the fall of shot needs to be observed so the battery position can be determined for the subsequent fire missions. With the registration shots done the fire mission shot fall pattern is 100% consistent for every fire mission the battery fires from the same location (unless of course there is significant unobserved changes in the in the parameters like gun barrel wear during that period). It is in fact irrelevant from the fire missions POV if the FO observes the fall of shot or not. The fire mission is consistent. If it lands where it is supposed to land or not is up to the FO and that is why the FO needs to see the fall of shot. IMO you raise a rather interesting and important point pertaining the arty model in CMx2 and how it should work with relative spotting.

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry: the problem in CM is rather that mortar fire is too accurate. It is not. IRL you can land the mortar round on top each other. To make them scatter you have to adjust the tube for every shot. However, the lethality of the sub-81mm mortar rounds is IMO overmodelled in the game making these babies far too dangerous than they really were IRL. being able to adjust area target from LOS-point to 50-100 meters into non-LOS area (e.g. from treeline into the woods) would be simply divine. I second this. The range could be even as great as 200m though.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys: It would if it were observed, and therefore accurate. The accuracy of the barrage is not determined by the observation of the fall of shot, it is determined by the effect of the rounds. IRL the shot grouping is always consistent while the arty model in CM is "abstracted". Mortar rounds falling, say, 50 meters off to one side aren't going to slow them down if they have any experience at all. Might even make them speed up to get more room between themselves and the danger zone, you see. Given the lethal radius of the 81mm mortar round 50 meters is way too close for comfort. They would hit the deck first and then see what happens. They might indeed speed up but they have to take into account the fact that the possibility they are being bracketed running towards the possible next round would be the least healthy option. It simply would not be common for a mortar team to waste any of its precious rounds on such a speculative target. They'd wait until the enemy broke cover and hit them then when they would have a chance of actually inflicting some casualties. Agreed up to a point. However, the mortar team does not normally decide for themselves the targets they engage. They fire them at the targets designated by the HQ unit they are working for. If the Coy CO orders harrasing fire at suspected enemy positions then the mortars will do so. It also depends on the terrain. Dumping your rounds at suspected enemy positions is sometimes preferable over having a full load of ammo when the enemy breaks cover too close for the mortar to engage them. [ September 24, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: By "observed", I'm including secondary effects - the question still stands; how often would a FOO call in rounds on a spot to which he had no knowledge or even inkling of enemy activity? In CM terms, not even a sound contact. Don't know the US/CW term for the kind of targets but the Finnish designation would translate something like "high propability map targets of opportunity". These include bridges, road intersections, obvious choke points like road in a narrow pass, likely arty battery positions etc. These would be subject to intermittent harrassing fire and/or intense short interval high density point target barrages at the most likely time of day when there would be activity.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: 1. Do units in real life carry their wounded around for the rest of the battle? Propably not. They could detach men to carry them to a safer location or even the designated WIA collection point. Which could take for all intents and purposes the rest of the battle in CM universe. 2. Do soldiers carrying wounded get to use their weapons, or do they drop the wounded each time they see a target? No and no. From what I have read the men in process of recovering the wounded would leave their weapons and they would be covered by the other members of the squad. There is anecdotal evidence from the Western Front which would suggest both sides would stop firing when they see a recovery of the wounded is in progress and resume when the recovery is completed. Anecdotal evidence from the Eastern Front is quite the opposite, even to a point where wounding the enemy was desired so the WIA would attract recovery and the medic or other men doing the recovery would become casualties themselves. 3. Should a soldier carry a wounded comrade away from potential aid, or should he carry him to that aid? Please ellaborate. 4. What if there is a medic unit, how should this play into things? AFAIK there was some sort of designated medic in practically every platoon level formation. Separate medic units would be field hospitals and WIA collection points. Stretcher bearers were more often higher level HQ pukes like cooks and bakers who were impressed to the task than actual medical troops. 5. What if the wounded guy is 10m back from the rest of the unit? Does someone go back for him? Propably. The more cohesive the unit the more likely they are not to abandon their WIA. In the case of the Finns they would even risk casualties to recover their fallen if at all practicable. 6. Can anybody cite some sorce that shows that a single soldier can carry another soldier for any significant length of time on his own? What would you say is significant length of time ? 7. What do you do if the unit comes under fire? Do you see if the wounded guy takes additional hits? If so, then wouldn't it have been better for the unit to have left the wounded guy behind where it was probably safer? This applies to retreating units. No advancing unit would take their WIA along. Retreating units would abandon equipment so they can carry the wounded with them. If they come under fire the rest of the unit would most propably cover the WIA and men carrying him while they make their way to safety.

Could the WIA be made out of split squads and have them head out towards the friendly edge of the map when the platoon has sustained enough casualties ?

Could the sewer movement option made to work to simulate this ? Say, give a platoon orders to "sewer move" to this location and then have them reassemble near that location after a period of time.

Originally posted by Philippe: Tero, any chance you could comment on the limbering/unlimbering process? But of course. Are you satisfied with the CMx1 model ? Not completely. The guns work pretty well when static but if you need to move them the realism is not complete. Can you make any specific recommendations? Realistic reverse, shoot'n scoot, related dedicated and enhanced gun emplacements, "turret down" spotting also for guns as well as vehicles. If a carrier is going to unload its ammunition completely, how quickly should it happen and what is the range of the time-frames? I'd say it would be more realistic to have variable ROF for the guns where they could have, say, 20% of the total ammo load available for rapid fire at a time and a period of slower ROF to represent bringing up more ammo from the limber/vehicle/cache. Should large caliber shells unload at the same rate as small? No. But that could be counted in as longer set up/slower ROF time for the larger caliber guns.

Originally posted by JonS: Wrong again pal - 6-pr/57mm fired HE. I stand corrected. I'm the victim of CW/US mythological historical research because I've taken their word the 6pr/57mm (like the 2pr) was not supplied with HE and this is why it (both) was superceded by the 75mm as the main gun in the British tanks. BTW: can you give me directions to valid sources ?

Originally posted by JonS: Total: 11 (max, generally less) All of them with HE. A British bde with: * 6 x 6-pr in each bn. Total: 18 AFAIK no HE and consequently of little use as IG. An American Regt with: 6 x 105mm in the regt cannon coy. 12 x 57mm in the regt AT-pn 3 x 57mm in each bn Total: 27 Of which 6 with HE, the rest AFAIK without HE and consequently of little use as IG. You tell me which army under-supplied their regt-sized units with DF firepower. The CW and the US. Because their DF guns carried no HE.

Originally posted by JonS: While I might agree with that on the face of it, given the context of this thread I can only take it to mean that you think the US/CW would have won faster and more convincingly (whatever that means, given the end result in all three theatres*) had they had horse drawn IGs. Which is complete BS. It would be BS if that was my point. And the end result is totally beside the point in the context of this debate. My point is rather the opposite to what you think it is. With organic IG's German (and Soviet) infantry had more indepedent DF (=tactical) firepower than the US/CW infantry. That extra firepower facilitated them in both offense and defense. I very much doubt the US/CW would have been better off with horse drawn IG's. However, I think the Germans and the Soviets would have been worse off without them. The IG's are/were severely handicapped in CMx1 because of the limitations to their movement, ie in CMx1 you can not shoot'n scoot with an IG or an ATG, nor can you move it realistically. Beside the airborne pack-75 I know of no other proper IG in their inventory while the Germans and the Soviets had several.

Originally posted by JonS: You also seem to be deliberately overlooking the A-Tk Pns in each CW bn, which over a Bde provided more guns that the Germans regimental IG pns. For the Americans there were the regimental cannon companies, as well as that A-Tk pns they also had. And you seem to be overlooking the German A-Tk Pns which were separate from the IG pns. What is more, AFAIK the CW/US ATG's were did not carry as much HE as their German or Soviet counterparts nor were called upon (or even supposed to be called upon) to engage soft or point targets as a matter of course. Mobility? What ... is this a strawman? Shells flying through the air are far more maneauverable than horse drawn guns. Do you have comparative data on how much faster the motorized guns were deployed than the horse drawn guns were ? In DF situations, mind you. Also, the Brits (and US-ians) seem to have coped ok with ****ty terrain in Italy, Burma, and the Pacific. Strategically, yes. But still I would not say the conquest of Italy was a resounding success or that the retaking of Burma was easy. Same goes for the Pacific. And Europe, though there it was less of a problem anyway. Last time I checked Italy was in Europe. But yes, in NW Europe the terrain beyond the immediate Normandy coast was far more suitable for motorized/mechanized warfare than NE/E Europe or Italy. Finally, I don't see the 150mm SiG as being particularly maneauverable with any traction, but especially when drawn by horses. I quite agree. But the 37/45/75/76mm high MV infantry guns which were far more proliferate than the 150 sIG. Finally, the decision to move away from IGs by the US and the CW was a deliberate doctrinal thing, not an 'oh, whoops, we got rid of all the horses, so we better get rid of these IGs too' kind of cock-up. Agreed. But nevertheless the organic firepower of the US/CW infantry formations was below that of the German or the Soviet infantry formations. Your cause and effect are all arse about face. Well, the way I see it the organic firepower of the US/CW infantry formations made them rely on higher level fire power support. I know it is a simplyfication but IMO the task of the US/CW infantry was to fix the enemy so the higher level ordnance can pulverize them while the task of the German and the Soviet infantry was to take on the opposition regardless of the available higher level fire support. This difference can be seen in the organig fire power of the respective infantry units.

Originally posted by flamingknives: No, I wouldn't. Having an eight gun battery of 25pdrs in support of each battlion, plus access to corps level artillery, is much more artillery firepower. All you need is the FO to come with. Yes. But most armies did the higher level arty support as well so lets stick to the tactical level fire support. You think you could get a horse team through that? Far better than your average motorized limber. That sort of terrain is what mortars and pack howitzers are for. Yes. But a horse limber can carry more ammo than a pack mule. Better leave mortars out of this because they are a different kettle of fish. The same way you get food, ammunition and replacements. Cute. I still claim the horse team would remain mobile longer than a motorized limber in difficult supply conditions. At the other end of the scale, the 25pdr could be used as a single gun to take out point targets only a few dozen yard from a platoon position. Exactly. And how was the 25pdr attached doctrinally to the company level combat unit as opposed to purpose built IG's ? In addition, there are also 2" mortars ranging out to 500 yds. IMO these suckers are overmodelled in the game. The Finnish veterans say especially the "whip" (45mm AT gun or the 76mm IG) was nasty while the 50mm mortar was not especially feared. Well, in a static slugfest, you don't need to run about with it. Granted. But you implied urban combat with the sniping of individual houses and I though you meant in towns and not isolated villas or farm houses in the open country side. If it's a DF gun, with or without horses, vs. a FO, who's your money on? Depends on the target being engaged and how much ammo you can waste.

Originally posted by flamingknives: Where's the cocked eybrow smiley when you need it? I put is somewhere but somebody took it. The vast majority of allied artillery was towed, but they also used pack howitzers and their vehicle tractors were at least as mobile as a horse team. No contest. But wouldn't you say the German infantry had more organic arty in it that could move at the same pace and in the same terrain the infantry could walk in ? Seriously, could a horse team tow an infantry gun anywhere more easily than a Quad could tow a 25pdr? Hmmmmm..... deep forest, hilly terrain, bogs and marshes.... Is a manhandled gun much more mobile than a Churchill? How do you forage fuel for the Churchill when you are at the end of the supply line ? If the Germans did enjoy any artillery superiority, then would it not have been due to being in defensive positions rather than any notable mobility advantage? Up to a point, yes. The thing is they could deny the mobility in places like Italy (or Normandy) and when the process is being slowed down to a crawl being motorised loses much of its advantage and the battle becomes a slugfest. 'Only' indirect fire support? That's not too shabby if you can whistle up Uncle targets and the like. Indeed. But DF infantry guns do not have anywhere near the kind of safety zones you need for big arsed Uncle or Mike targets. Finally, there are accounts of 8" howitzers being used to demolish a single positon, or using an 8" howitzer to 'snipe' individual buildings in direct fire. I do not doubt that. But how fast could the gun crew wheel that thing up and down the street when the battle was raging and they needed to engage new targets ?

Originally posted by flamingknives: That may be true of some of the armies, but the British and American artillery were entirely motorized, save for those deployed where vehicles could not be. Very true. And that is propably why they employed precious few infantry guns. Come to think of it, they did not make as much use of towed artillery as a part of the infantry formation in general. In a sense their arty being fully motorized put them in a tactical disadvantage when their infantry had to operate in less than ideal terrain conditions. This might be why the horse drawn German infantry could put up such an effective fight in places like Italy where they could bring in heavier DF ordnance while the US/CW forces could rely only in indirect fire support.

Originally posted by Philippe: I think the question that needs to be answered first is whether the ammunition was completely unloaded or not. And this is probably going to vary from national army to national army. And we're still waiting for Real Artillerymen to weigh in on what that was. Being a mere coastal arty man I can only say this: there are very few in our midst who can give the word on WWII era arty practises that is not based on books. However, having been "fortunate" enough to manhandle a WWII 45mm AT gun during my service the procedure was that some of the ammo was carried by the ammo carriers and their task was to run it up from the cache (coastal arty being fixed on locations) once the ready rounds were expended. I have no idea what was actually done, but I keep thinking of halftracks as mechanized caissons, which is probably wrong. Not wrong, the perspective is a bit narrow though. Most arty in WWII was still horse drawn so "abstracted" ammo load carrying for infantry guns in CMx1 was done by horse limbers not represented in the game as such.

With the reverse/forward command for guns you need also to have additional new commands and entrencments/gun positions which allow shoot and scoot and covering of the the guns during barrages and such like.

On a related note: how do things stand with the musical chairs representation of vehicle crew casualaties in CMx1 ? I hope with 1:1 representation you get mobility kills when the driver gets hit or the gun gets inoperable when the gunner gets zapped.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: One thing though... since we aren't doing the huge spread of stuff like we did for CMx1, this should make things easier. Will the available stuff be based on historical formation compositions and variations therein or are you simply limiting the models available for purchase in general ?

Originally posted by YankeeDog: Heh. Considering I've already talked about one group of non-US/CW troops (Germans), I think what you meant to say is "And you might also consider the fact that some troops are Finnish." Or "And you might also consider the fact that some troops actually used smoke grenades effectively in close combat." Nevertheless, point taken: When and if CMX2 does a setting involving Finns, infantry smoke is warrented. I suppose pinecones and toothpick modeling will be needed as well. But of course. And lets get some Komsomolets arty tractors thrown in for good measure so that there will be some cross country mobility for the Finnish on board arty and ordnance.

Originally posted by YankeeDog: Hollywood movies are generally viewed as pretty weak evidence when you're trying to prove a historical point. And you might also consider the fact that not all troops were US/CW.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Why would anyone use a smoke grenade in "close combat"? 1) To blind the enemy (tank, pillbox, bunker) before you make your move 2) Obscure his vision in order to confuse and unnerve him (It is quite amazing what a smoke grenade and a battle cry can do in favour of your rush onto the enemy, especially when it is your troops who are outnumbered 1 to 3 and not his.), 3) to conceal your numbers (see #2) and true intentions and actions (cover your retreat as well as lateral movement, bringing in reinforcements etc)

I'm fairly sure that the changes to LOF as described already take care of that issue. You can't fire through a vehicle that is blocking LOF, but a vehicle could move through the path of the round at some point. I tend to agree with your comment on making in-flight checks for large-bore weapons and not small arms. There aren't many large-bore weapons on the map and their rate of fire is low, so tracking each round would seem feasible on an "as often as possible" basis. </font>

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st: No reason why broken LOF shouldn't do the same in CMx2. Except for added realism.