Ultradave

In my real life job I design and test the propulsion plants for nuclear submarines. We don't follow those guidelines. Because, ..., well, submarines.   🙂

In my real life job I design and test the propulsion plants for nuclear submarines. We don't follow those guidelines. Because, ..., well, submarines.   🙂

In my real life job I design and test the propulsion plants for nuclear submarines. We don't follow those guidelines. Because, ..., well, submarines.   🙂

In my real life job I design and test the propulsion plants for nuclear submarines. We don't follow those guidelines. Because, ..., well, submarines.   🙂

I've seen this guy's videos on other weapons too. Nice little range to play on he has there. And yeah, that thing is very loud.

As we move along the right bank of the river from the allied deploy area, we get to the bottom-right/south-west quardrant. 
You already know what some of these are, and the little psychological game I’m playing with them.
The one TRP is near the bridge. If the allies do move this way I won’t have the resources in the village to stop them, but the TRP will let me hurt them as they occupy the village and try to cross.
Next to the bridge is a flak 88, set in a trench, and a bunker with its ammo team.
A pantherturm is positioned to cover the road, and the nearer fields, and is assisted with a 20mm flakvierling. None of these weapons have LOS beyond the near fields. This is good, because when Ian comes to them they will be a surprise, and within rifle support range. provided by the Fallschrimjäger platoon.
Both 88 and the pantherturm have excellent LOS along the ridgeline. 
 

I agree with Bud. The R2V stock scenario is good. One thing I'm liking about the R2V scenarios is that in several cases there is a role for proper use of recon to scout out the opposition. Failure to do so = bad things happening. Very bad things. (Ask me how I know this).  In many CM scenarios the situation is pretty clear and the mission is to have at them. R2V in general is going to require some caution and development of the situation. IMO this is a really good thing. The stock scenario this map is from is a great example of that. As is the one that Elvis posted the edited picture from. You have recon forces and a reason to make use of them.

This is going to be interesting. Having played through the R2V stock scenario several times, this is a different kettle of fish and should be interesting.
 

There are people who don't buy every BF game and module...?
Weird...

It's an animation for the game. To me it's always looked the same, but 40-45deg is probably reasonable. Ballistics with air friction. But you don't know where the battery is (and therefore the range, the charge it fired - all that stuff is abstracted and from the infantry's viewpoint, you don't care at all).  
Maybe this will help. It's an example of 155mm Tabular Firing Tables. It shows examples of all the data and corrections to be applied. It only shows one page of each type of data in the book but if this can't convince you that there is accurate data and that artillery that can fire precisely and firing data that can be calculated exactly, there isn't anything more I can say.  It works. I had years of experience doing it. 
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-40/Ch7.htm
If you REALLY want to get into it try FM 6-40  the gunnery manual.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-40/index.html
Just scroll through the table of contents to see the topics and you'll get a good idea of the complexity involved and the efforts for accuracy. You can probably find places to download some older editions of 6-40
 

Not exactly a screenshot but a bit of a 'curve ball.' (For an Aussie I think I've got my baseball terminology right).
 

Used to carry one on my key ring but it kept ruining my pockets. These days it's sitting on my desk at home.

No, it's not difficult at all. There are firing tables and "slide rules" that will calculate trajectory to the target impact point. For a timed fuse airburst, there is a correction to make so that the elevation to fire makes it so it passes over the target at the desired height, rather than hits the target. The first calculation is to the target ground point so you know the time of flight. Set the time fuze for that time of flight and BOOM, it goes off 10m (or whatever you calculated) right over the target as it passes over. 
VT is a little different in that you don't need the time setting, just the correction for 7m height above the target point. The transmitter will receive a strength signal from the ground return and explode at 7m height (not sure what that height was in WW2 but in my artillery days it was 7m). There IS a time setting so it doesn't go off prematurely, but you don't need exact time to the target.
All the firing data is well tabulated. Just a matter of running some calculations, which don't take long, just a few extra seconds for the calculations (10-30), and a few (less than 10) on the gun to set the fuze (top of the fuze rotates - just match the hairline to the time desired). My artillery experience predates GPS and computers - all manual calculations, so my experience is MUCH more like WW2 and Korea than it is present day artillery (which is all computerized whizz-bang magic 🙂  )
So the answer to your question is any competent fire direction center can make the calculations in little more time than a PD (point detonating) mission, and you should get a battery sheaf of airbursts all at once. Devastating to troops in the open, and effective against trench lines. Adjusting rounds are done with ground bursts to make it easier for the FO to see where the round landed (hard to judge and airburst). Then FFE with the time or VT rounds.
Hope that helps.d
Dave (ex-US Army CPT,  2/321st FA (Abn), 82d ABN DIV)
 
[edit] one other thing I thought of. We only carried about 20% time and/or VT fuzes with us. The rest were PD. Don't know what the ratio exactly was in WW2 and probably varied but my understanding is that they were probably about the same and VT was rare.

"I fart in your general direction"

As a substitute for TacOps that I've been having a lot of fun with you might try "Flashpoint Campaigns" available from Matrix. Same general scale, better graphics. There is an add on Fulda Gap DLC as well. Scenarios and campaigns. Apologies if you are already well aware of this.

+1  ALL THE WAY, Sir!!!

Well, you'd need a guy assigned to a mech infantry division or an armored division. I stayed in the 82d Airborne so no FIST vehicles for me. Once we hit the ground we either walked with the infantry or got moved by chopper. 
Hull down, or moved to a good covered location and dismount to an OP would be my options. But someone with actual experience could say more.

I guess what I was trying to get across in with all my narrative was that while artillery is an area weapon because of it's circular error probability (CEP), in general, firing data from howitzers used for the calculations is VERY VERY accurate. The powder is of high quality and consistent, so you can be pretty well assured that firing round after round they will perform very much the same. The data and the calculations for trajectory, time of flight, etc are very accurate and can be done very precisely. That would be the part you are maybe missing, - maybe I didn't emphasize it enough.
I would never be surprised that ALL of the time rounds from a battery exploded in the air over the target. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were a lot of "misses" where the rounds hit the ground. It is MUCH more likely for that to happen because of an error calculating the data, than the variations or inaccuracies in the rounds and fuzes. They are very consistent. Muzzle velocity of our M102's from my era was about 500m/s. Impact velocity a little less due to air resistance. So yeah, they are moving but nowhere near a tank gun velocity. But we can calculate the trajectory and the time very precisely. 
When I was the Bn FDO we did battalion TOT missions with a combination of ground and airbursts. 3 batteries, (18 guns), 6 rounds each. ALL the rounds landed in a 200m diameter and the time rounds made a cloud of explosions over the target. Frightening in its effectiveness. Satisfying as the man in charge 🙂  Think of that as an enemy infantry company or two in the open and 18 rounds explode all at once, then 5 more volleys spaced about 5 seconds apart. After the first round of TOT the guns fire when ready so it's a continuous series of explosions for the rest of the 108 rounds. It works like a charm.
Note that I can only speak for the US, Canadian and British armies as those are the only ones I have direct experience with.  Also, I'm not trying to oversell the FA. Only that I have experience that's pretty similar to calculating firing data was in WW2. The main big difference we had was an FO (sp4 in this case) with each infantry platoon and a FIST chief ( 2LT) with the infantry company commander, so we could control more missions and were more responsive to what was going on right in front. Each infantry LT platoon leader had an FO from the FA battalion attached to him. It's no problem controlling more than one mission in a battery at once. Gets hectic but we were required to handle two simultaneously. 

Our time fuzes had 0.1 second increments. You'd need that to get the detonation where you want. I can't say for sure about WW2 but I would expect they'd have to be the same just to have any chance of exploding where you want it to. I really don't think time fuzes changed from WW2 to the 70s.
Super accurate timepieces - not really that necessary. The firing data has been accurately tabulated for each model howitzer. For example, we had "firing sticks" that were essentially slide rules that gave elevation and time for the range. There is a different stick for each charge (number of powder bags used). Typically we tried to fire at a range requiring charge 4 or 5 - most accuracy. Then you make a correction to raise the elevation so that the round passes over the target. My experience was with M102 105mm howitzers (the 82d Abn is a light unit so no heavy artillery). Smaller rounds, lower airburst, only because the effective radius of the burst is less for smaller caliber artillery. 
Given time in a position, we would add corrections to individual guns for their position so that the grouping of rounds came out evenly, and additional corrections to hit a center point. We also flew weather balloons to get winds at altitude levels and added corrections for those (daily). And corrections for the rotation of the Earth, which of course varies by 1) latitude, and 2) the primary axis of fire (direction the guns are pointing). Howitzers are low velocity, relatively high elevation weapons so all these things make a difference. 
Adjusting fire - stopwatch is handy in the fire direction center. We know time of flight. In game you can here shot, splash over the radios. Shot is obvious. Splash means 5 seconds to impact. So if the FO is keeping his head down, the splash gives him 5 seconds to take a look, and re-orient himself to the direction. Then he quickly decides corrections, covers again and radios the directions in (left 200, drop 400, etc).
The one time you really need accurate timing is a time on target mission. One battery is 4 or 6 guns. A battalion is 3 batteries. A battalion time on target requires each battery to calculate its time of flight to the target, the battalion fire direction center to synchronize everyone (whether time of day mark or a say, 60 seconds to TOT). Then the batteries each fire at the right time for their time of flight so all rounds arrive together. It can be even more interesting if one battery is firing time rounds and the other two PD rounds. The battalion fire direction officer coordinates all that (I did that job too as  the asst ops officer for the artillery battalion). 
It can get pretty technical but really it's no more than high school math level, and knowing what to do with the data. It helps being good at mental math and visualizing things spacially - being able to know instantly that data sounds incorrect (biggest fear was hitting your own troops accidentally). Today things are much different of course, but I was there in the late 70s and 80s. Computers were just coming in. We had one GPS in the division and it took up the whole back of a jeep. We had an analog computer but it never worked after being dropped in the back of a truck so we stuck with "charts and darts". Batteries were surveyed in position from landmarks. No GPS. You really had to be good (excellent really) at map reading.  So I suppose you could say it was pretty "intellectual"  It doesn't feel that way really. You practice and practice so calculating firing data becomes routine. 

Well, you'd need a guy assigned to a mech infantry division or an armored division. I stayed in the 82d Airborne so no FIST vehicles for me. Once we hit the ground we either walked with the infantry or got moved by chopper. 
Hull down, or moved to a good covered location and dismount to an OP would be my options. But someone with actual experience could say more.

No, it's not difficult at all. There are firing tables and "slide rules" that will calculate trajectory to the target impact point. For a timed fuse airburst, there is a correction to make so that the elevation to fire makes it so it passes over the target at the desired height, rather than hits the target. The first calculation is to the target ground point so you know the time of flight. Set the time fuze for that time of flight and BOOM, it goes off 10m (or whatever you calculated) right over the target as it passes over. 
VT is a little different in that you don't need the time setting, just the correction for 7m height above the target point. The transmitter will receive a strength signal from the ground return and explode at 7m height (not sure what that height was in WW2 but in my artillery days it was 7m). There IS a time setting so it doesn't go off prematurely, but you don't need exact time to the target.
All the firing data is well tabulated. Just a matter of running some calculations, which don't take long, just a few extra seconds for the calculations (10-30), and a few (less than 10) on the gun to set the fuze (top of the fuze rotates - just match the hairline to the time desired). My artillery experience predates GPS and computers - all manual calculations, so my experience is MUCH more like WW2 and Korea than it is present day artillery (which is all computerized whizz-bang magic 🙂  )
So the answer to your question is any competent fire direction center can make the calculations in little more time than a PD (point detonating) mission, and you should get a battery sheaf of airbursts all at once. Devastating to troops in the open, and effective against trench lines. Adjusting rounds are done with ground bursts to make it easier for the FO to see where the round landed (hard to judge and airburst). Then FFE with the time or VT rounds.
Hope that helps.d
Dave (ex-US Army CPT,  2/321st FA (Abn), 82d ABN DIV)
 
[edit] one other thing I thought of. We only carried about 20% time and/or VT fuzes with us. The rest were PD. Don't know what the ratio exactly was in WW2 and probably varied but my understanding is that they were probably about the same and VT was rare.

Our time fuzes had 0.1 second increments. You'd need that to get the detonation where you want. I can't say for sure about WW2 but I would expect they'd have to be the same just to have any chance of exploding where you want it to. I really don't think time fuzes changed from WW2 to the 70s.
Super accurate timepieces - not really that necessary. The firing data has been accurately tabulated for each model howitzer. For example, we had "firing sticks" that were essentially slide rules that gave elevation and time for the range. There is a different stick for each charge (number of powder bags used). Typically we tried to fire at a range requiring charge 4 or 5 - most accuracy. Then you make a correction to raise the elevation so that the round passes over the target. My experience was with M102 105mm howitzers (the 82d Abn is a light unit so no heavy artillery). Smaller rounds, lower airburst, only because the effective radius of the burst is less for smaller caliber artillery. 
Given time in a position, we would add corrections to individual guns for their position so that the grouping of rounds came out evenly, and additional corrections to hit a center point. We also flew weather balloons to get winds at altitude levels and added corrections for those (daily). And corrections for the rotation of the Earth, which of course varies by 1) latitude, and 2) the primary axis of fire (direction the guns are pointing). Howitzers are low velocity, relatively high elevation weapons so all these things make a difference. 
Adjusting fire - stopwatch is handy in the fire direction center. We know time of flight. In game you can here shot, splash over the radios. Shot is obvious. Splash means 5 seconds to impact. So if the FO is keeping his head down, the splash gives him 5 seconds to take a look, and re-orient himself to the direction. Then he quickly decides corrections, covers again and radios the directions in (left 200, drop 400, etc).
The one time you really need accurate timing is a time on target mission. One battery is 4 or 6 guns. A battalion is 3 batteries. A battalion time on target requires each battery to calculate its time of flight to the target, the battalion fire direction center to synchronize everyone (whether time of day mark or a say, 60 seconds to TOT). Then the batteries each fire at the right time for their time of flight so all rounds arrive together. It can be even more interesting if one battery is firing time rounds and the other two PD rounds. The battalion fire direction officer coordinates all that (I did that job too as  the asst ops officer for the artillery battalion). 
It can get pretty technical but really it's no more than high school math level, and knowing what to do with the data. It helps being good at mental math and visualizing things spacially - being able to know instantly that data sounds incorrect (biggest fear was hitting your own troops accidentally). Today things are much different of course, but I was there in the late 70s and 80s. Computers were just coming in. We had one GPS in the division and it took up the whole back of a jeep. We had an analog computer but it never worked after being dropped in the back of a truck so we stuck with "charts and darts". Batteries were surveyed in position from landmarks. No GPS. You really had to be good (excellent really) at map reading.  So I suppose you could say it was pretty "intellectual"  It doesn't feel that way really. You practice and practice so calculating firing data becomes routine. 

They seem about right to me. 7m for VT, for time fuzes we would set the gun elevation to achieve a certain height. 10 meters usually for time rounds.
Also, you can't fire VT over water. The return from the water will be too strong and set off the round.

I guess what I was trying to get across in with all my narrative was that while artillery is an area weapon because of it's circular error probability (CEP), in general, firing data from howitzers used for the calculations is VERY VERY accurate. The powder is of high quality and consistent, so you can be pretty well assured that firing round after round they will perform very much the same. The data and the calculations for trajectory, time of flight, etc are very accurate and can be done very precisely. That would be the part you are maybe missing, - maybe I didn't emphasize it enough.
I would never be surprised that ALL of the time rounds from a battery exploded in the air over the target. In fact, I'd be surprised if there were a lot of "misses" where the rounds hit the ground. It is MUCH more likely for that to happen because of an error calculating the data, than the variations or inaccuracies in the rounds and fuzes. They are very consistent. Muzzle velocity of our M102's from my era was about 500m/s. Impact velocity a little less due to air resistance. So yeah, they are moving but nowhere near a tank gun velocity. But we can calculate the trajectory and the time very precisely. 
When I was the Bn FDO we did battalion TOT missions with a combination of ground and airbursts. 3 batteries, (18 guns), 6 rounds each. ALL the rounds landed in a 200m diameter and the time rounds made a cloud of explosions over the target. Frightening in its effectiveness. Satisfying as the man in charge 🙂  Think of that as an enemy infantry company or two in the open and 18 rounds explode all at once, then 5 more volleys spaced about 5 seconds apart. After the first round of TOT the guns fire when ready so it's a continuous series of explosions for the rest of the 108 rounds. It works like a charm.
Note that I can only speak for the US, Canadian and British armies as those are the only ones I have direct experience with.  Also, I'm not trying to oversell the FA. Only that I have experience that's pretty similar to calculating firing data was in WW2. The main big difference we had was an FO (sp4 in this case) with each infantry platoon and a FIST chief ( 2LT) with the infantry company commander, so we could control more missions and were more responsive to what was going on right in front. Each infantry LT platoon leader had an FO from the FA battalion attached to him. It's no problem controlling more than one mission in a battery at once. Gets hectic but we were required to handle two simultaneously. 

Our time fuzes had 0.1 second increments. You'd need that to get the detonation where you want. I can't say for sure about WW2 but I would expect they'd have to be the same just to have any chance of exploding where you want it to. I really don't think time fuzes changed from WW2 to the 70s.
Super accurate timepieces - not really that necessary. The firing data has been accurately tabulated for each model howitzer. For example, we had "firing sticks" that were essentially slide rules that gave elevation and time for the range. There is a different stick for each charge (number of powder bags used). Typically we tried to fire at a range requiring charge 4 or 5 - most accuracy. Then you make a correction to raise the elevation so that the round passes over the target. My experience was with M102 105mm howitzers (the 82d Abn is a light unit so no heavy artillery). Smaller rounds, lower airburst, only because the effective radius of the burst is less for smaller caliber artillery. 
Given time in a position, we would add corrections to individual guns for their position so that the grouping of rounds came out evenly, and additional corrections to hit a center point. We also flew weather balloons to get winds at altitude levels and added corrections for those (daily). And corrections for the rotation of the Earth, which of course varies by 1) latitude, and 2) the primary axis of fire (direction the guns are pointing). Howitzers are low velocity, relatively high elevation weapons so all these things make a difference. 
Adjusting fire - stopwatch is handy in the fire direction center. We know time of flight. In game you can here shot, splash over the radios. Shot is obvious. Splash means 5 seconds to impact. So if the FO is keeping his head down, the splash gives him 5 seconds to take a look, and re-orient himself to the direction. Then he quickly decides corrections, covers again and radios the directions in (left 200, drop 400, etc).
The one time you really need accurate timing is a time on target mission. One battery is 4 or 6 guns. A battalion is 3 batteries. A battalion time on target requires each battery to calculate its time of flight to the target, the battalion fire direction center to synchronize everyone (whether time of day mark or a say, 60 seconds to TOT). Then the batteries each fire at the right time for their time of flight so all rounds arrive together. It can be even more interesting if one battery is firing time rounds and the other two PD rounds. The battalion fire direction officer coordinates all that (I did that job too as  the asst ops officer for the artillery battalion). 
It can get pretty technical but really it's no more than high school math level, and knowing what to do with the data. It helps being good at mental math and visualizing things spacially - being able to know instantly that data sounds incorrect (biggest fear was hitting your own troops accidentally). Today things are much different of course, but I was there in the late 70s and 80s. Computers were just coming in. We had one GPS in the division and it took up the whole back of a jeep. We had an analog computer but it never worked after being dropped in the back of a truck so we stuck with "charts and darts". Batteries were surveyed in position from landmarks. No GPS. You really had to be good (excellent really) at map reading.  So I suppose you could say it was pretty "intellectual"  It doesn't feel that way really. You practice and practice so calculating firing data becomes routine.