Redleg Bob

I don't know much, but I know this -- a lot of really strange things happen around explosions and fragments. Sometimes you get hit, sometimes you don't. It all depends on the mood of the war god. But I can imagine multiple folks being tossed in the air if a grenade landed in a foxhole -- after all, one I saw tossed ripped the pig iron silhoutte on the range right in half when in landed beside it.

Joachim, I guess my vision is that the two convoys are seperated by, at most, the width of a single large building, so it is difficult to engage them entirely seperately as you describe. I think you are absolutely right -- it would be foolish to disperse one's combat power needlessly, and in the absence of immediate mutual support would amount to piece-mealing your units into an enemy strongpoint. However, having two tanks up front (behind the jeep scout) on a front that is still narrow avoids the sort of double-envelopement that he's already been caught in one, and that would surely spell the demise of his forces as they are mowed down in the process of dismounting the vehicles. I just get very nervous about the thought of moving through non-permissive territory without flank security. But we can't really say for sure without seeing the map. Terrain will ultimately dictate the proper course of action. Thanks, Bob

In your initial post, you make a contention that I believe is untrue -- specifically that two columns running on parallel roads are twice as vulnerable as a single column. Actually, I think that configuration is much more flexible and lethal. The most probable enemy course of action is that he will have small groups that hold your convoy in place while a larger group assembles and bogs you down in the city. The most dangerous enemy course of action is that he will allow you convoy to pass between two sets of hidden units on either flank and then launch an ambush from elevated positions firing down into your thin-skinned vehicles. A two convoy configuration enables you to outflank an ambush on one or the other very quickly, prevents him from occupying the middle row of buildings (as the occupiers would be taken by the whatever unit wasn't attacked, and generally secures you movement through complex terrain. Just a thought.

JasonC, Hate to be the guy to bring up old issues (i.e. not earth density), but I was wondering if you could help me out about this time fuze thing, as I obviously more of a recent vintage Redleg. For all those in the forum who didn't know, the process nowadays for using a time fuze (in a manual environment) is quite simple. The Fire Direction Center, which calculates the firing solution for the guns, extracts a fuze setting off of the Graphical Fire Table (GFT) and sends it along with the other information to the guns. The Section Chief of the howitzer announces the firing data (e.g. HE, Time, Deflection 1300, Quadrant 475, Time 17.6) and the Ammo Chief selects a time fuze, uses a fuze setter to rotate the timer around to the correct value, and places the fuze on the round. The Chief gives the command to fire, the pressure of the burning powder thrusts the rounds forward which begins the timer. When the time runs out the fuze explodes and causes the round to detonate. From the time the gun receives the data, the round should be downrange in no more than 30 seconds. Is this how it worked back in the day? Was it just a lack of fuzes, or has the technology changed quite a bit? Thanks for the help! Redleg Bob P.S. The early post that elucidated the problem with point detonating fuzes is why US forces currently use VT or base ejecting (still in the air, only something comes out of the round like bomblets or burning felt wedges or whatever) projectiles in every indirect system from 60mm mortars on up in combat.

I think the real issue with indirect vs. trenches is not necessarily that FA is an inappropriate suppressive weapon against trench networks, but rather, that CMXX does not allow the player to select an appropriate munition and/or shell/fuze combination. Of course indirect fires aren't working -- HE Quick (A point detonating High Explosive round) is exactly the wrong shell to use! While I recognize that proximity fuzes were likely rare and expensive in WWII, I do not understand why an FO cannot select a time fuze instead, as these fuzes are much cheaper and easier to use. Further (and this is getting a little out on a limb) the best thing for hasty trenches IMHO is a 50/50 HE/WP mix (Shake and Bake) which destroys equipment, kills people, and completely obscures the trench itself. But, to be honest, that may be a bit boring for people who aren't FA types and CMXX really is geared toward CO and Bn manuever tactics, which it models quite well.

Although you seem incredulous that your infantry can only run for 2-3 turns, this seems pretty valid to me. Running with a full combat load is an absolute smoker, compounded by the additional fatigue that comes with psychological stress (thanks SLA Marshall). Crunchies can only move so fast, which is why dismounts in the open is an FOs dream ...

In CMXX I have two strategies for the integration of indirect fires: 1. Take an FO and sit him on key terrain overwatching what I anticipate to be the decisive point in the engagement. 2. Plan a schedule of fires and hope that my manuever remains synchronized with my fires for the duration of the operation. Both of these techniques require a degree of foresight that I don't necessarily possess with as much consistency as I'd like. Is there a better way? At a broader level, why is it that only FOs can call for fire? Why can't the maneuver commander drop down to the fires net? Why can't an FO call any asset available? It seems like my "81 FO" should be able to drop to the 105 FDC and put bigger rounds on target? Finally, why can't my FO set the shell/fuze combo? Did WWII cannon batteries not carry time fuzes and PD? Is all this done for historical accuracy or for playability purposes? I guess someone has to be an FA geek, and I it seems that that someone is me ...