Questions for Steve (General PBEM) #5

[Guest Big Time Software]

At the end of the previous thread I answered a bunch of misc. questions, but saved a big one from Ben to start off this new thread. The question was a big one at this crucial point in the battle, and that is "Fionn looks to be in rough shape, what happened?" Well, so far I haven't felt it was time to dive into this question in detail, but with the village basically in Martin's hands and the first US MLR falling to Fionn, Phase One of this battle is pretty much over. Therefore, time to pick apart what happened There was little Martin could do VERY wrong in the first phase, so most of this is about Fionn...

Fionn made several fundamental mistakes early on and, as is often the case in war, they keep coming up to compound his problems with each additional turn. The easier situation to deal with is the village force, so I will give a quick description of what I had INTENDED the defender to do, what Fionn did do, and why it didn't work out for Fionn as much as it could have.

From my design standpoint, Fionn was NEVER supposed to hold that village. He was not told this, of course, but I made the distance to cover too great, Martin's covering force too far forward of the village, and his overall strength too large for Fionn to have made it to the village while the force was still intact. The US commander could have allowed this to happen by being very dumb, but Martin is a good player and did a fine job. OK, so what was Fionn supposed to do then?

Easy... tie up Martin's forces for as long as possible and cause maximum casualties. Fionn did average in both, but could have done much better. The reason for his failing was two fold:

1. He split many of his squads into 1/2 squads. This is allowed in CM, but STRONGLY discouraged. It reduces unit cohesion and makes the units more brittle. It also robs the squad of closely coordinated firepower, meaning the two halves do not equal a whole. Memorize this one because it comes back to really haunt Fionn later...

2. He was too aggressive. He thought that he had enough troops and time to sally forth and whack Martin in the woods to the south of the town. As you can see from the AARs, this was a disaster. So he lost about 1/9th of his force in one turn in that one location. Worse, the crushing defeat lead him to reposition units to cover the big gaping hole in his defenses. Most of these were then caught out in the open during redeployment and were cut down by MG, tank, and artillery fire. End result was that he lost about 1/3 of his entire force without causing much in the way of US casualties.

After this Fionn fell back to the "apartment" complex, losing a few more crucial units in the process (incl. both HMGs). So his last stand didn't have the kind of huge punishing concentrated firepower it could have if he had been more conservative and just tried to mow down as many US troops as possible coming into the village. Personally, I would have hit Martin's larger southern force with artillery too, which would have screwed up his advance and really caused some serious casualties.

If all had gone well for Fionn, and Martin hadn't pulled a rabbit out of his hat, there COULD have been a slim chance of holding onto the village. But far more likely Martin would have secured it once his reserves arrived in any case. In the end, even with all these "mistakes" and thanks to some friendly tank fire, I think Fionn took out roughly 1.5-2 platoons of Martin's nearly 7 that were deployed. Most casualties were spread throughout all platoons, but one of Martin's is down an even 50% for each squad. Ouch!

----

Relief force is a bit more interesting

Fionn was in a tough position here. He had to do an assault on the move from at least three attack positions on unknown enemy forces. At first the attack went really well for him. The tanks did there job nicely (some luck, but there always is) and he cleared the woods in the south very well too. Then he got unlucky (thanks to a good call by Martin) and was seriously harmed by artillery and a bazooka team. A defeat for Fionn in the south, but much of it was outside of his control.

In the north things went pretty well too. He got his troops to clear the roads well and managed to get BOTH armored vehicles out in one piece. However, he was sloppy at the very end when he should have been much more cautious. The result was he ran into a meager force of American infantry (1 HQ, 1 MMG, 1 Bazooka vs. 2 platoons of SMG troops backed by the Puma) and, thanks to some tank fire, managed to lose the bulk of a platoon for the exchange of about 11 US. Main reason was that he had 1/2 squads, secondary reason was that he moved to the edge of the woods bunched up, which gave the Sherman nice concentrated targets. Since he knew there was a Sherman in LOS of that area he should have been much more cautious.

The other force that went with the StuG, along with his main KG in the center, showed another problem Fionn had with his guys -> keeping C&C together. In a few actions from both the north and central sections squads were ordered willy nilly with little regard to where the other was or where their HQs were. This was the major problem of his central force. Martin, OTOH, kept his C&C intact through out each and every turn (I gave him a big pat on the back for that!).

What Fionn did was to send some HTs out with a squad mounted for protection. These were to be a fast recon force. Not a bad idea. But what he SHOULD have done was picked 2 HTs total, but not more than one from each platoon. Each would go to its assigned area and see what was up. The armor would provide covering fire along with his 81mm mortars. Once contact had been made, and targets identified, he would then decide where to put his main emphasis. The south wasn't a great place because the advancing SS Platoon wasn't in position to support his move around the hill (where 3 HTs eventually were KO'd). The North and center offered the best route of advance. The less than stellar troops advancing through the northern woods could then be used as second line reinforcements, while the SS Platoon in the south could have advanced on its own with little support.

The point about taking one squad from each PzGren platoon (third was in the woods to the south) is that this would leave neither platoon with less than 2 squads and an HQ, effectively giving him 2 tactical elements to rush forward and deploy at once. Including the VG squads he mounted he could have had 3 cohesive tactical elements. Alternatively, he could also have used 2 or 3 HTs from one platoon (perfectly good idea), but the important thing would be to use all the remaining squads at once at one of the two locations. Fionn didn't do this and instead sent forces forward willy nilly. One SS squad from one platoon over here, another over there, a VG one over here, etc. In doing so he allowed HQs to be separated from their now scattered squads, and in one case actually had an HQ 100m away from all three of his squads.

In short, the attack was uncoordinated and it cost him DEARLY. When he dismounted to take the US positions he found himself without cohesive platoons. An HQ from one, a squad from another, 2 squads and a HQ from a third, etc. So they got cut down because they lacked the coordinated firepower and leap frog abilities that platoons are designed to provide. And when things started to go wrong, what did he have left to do? The stuff he was rushing forward was pretty much the odds and ends left over, so they weren't cohesive either.

I know Fionn's thinking and therefore why this happened. The artillery scared the piss out of him, and I mean it. It bottled up his southern force, claimed 2 HTs there, and whacked an entire HT and all of its passengers (8 man SS squad). So I think he felt that moving anywhere was better than sitting still. He also overestimated the ability of his tanks and HTs to provide covering fire. I agree that he had to move quickly to some extent, but I would have moved pretty much everything at one time in one direction. Artillery fire can not be corrected that quickly, so it would also have been the safest thing to do from a defensive standpoint. But, as I said way up at the top, before the artillery hit he had already started to loose force cohesion and therefore when he blitzed his units forward he was compounding the problem.

------

Well, Fionn learned a HELL of a lot from this. Right now he is doing the right thing. He has finished what he has started (clearing those two forward US positions) and is reorganizing his forces before moving out again. This is costing him time, but it has to be done. With the addition of some tanks and troops, Fionn has managed to plug up his front. But the going will be very tough from here. Martin has the village for sure and both know it. Therefore Fionn can, to some extent, take his time. But, the fight across the river and up the slope on the other side is not going to be easy due to the heavy losses in infantry (1/3 of his starting inf force or more is gone...). He is also losing HTs pretty quickly and that isn't good either.

The battle is NOT over yet, and Fionn can still win. But a combination of some early errors and good playing by Martin have put Fionn in a tough spot for sure.

Steve

[Guest KwazyDog]

Very interesting post Steve

Personally I also think I would have also marched my infantry forces along the roads a bit deeper into forest along the trails, maybe moving some in very deep, it seems those Bazooka teams are pretty good at hiding themselves, hehe.

I think I would also be pushing the hole in the south, maybe taking the Panther down there. Anyways, this is all easy to say after the fact, hehe

All things considered both players are doing really well considering CM is such a different wargame to others before it. It seems you really need to carefully plan each move to the letter, if just once piece falls apart, it can really cause major problems.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-01-99).]

[Simon Fox]

Interesting analysis Steve, I myself felt that Fionn's relief force was taking an excessive number of casualties but it was difficult to pin down the reasons. This was particularly perplexing to me as I felt that Martin's deployment and handling (and luck) of his delaying force could be better. Definitely I had already told Fionn that he was being far too "cute" with all those redeployments in the town. Far, far better to set up a reasonable defence which allowed for contraction to a smaller perimeter and letting them come.

IMO what your criticisms of Fionn amount to can only be partly ascribed to unfamiliarity with the system, really he is not consistently applying fundamentals which are equally applicable to all levels of scale-concentration of force being one. It seems to me that CM is not to difficult to grasp if you stop thinking game system and start thinking real world. In other words he should trust that you and Charles have done a good job

I also agree that he is being too circumspect in his artillery use. Those US forces on the southern hill could have "benefitted" from a dose of shrapnel.

Even so in Fionn's last AAR he made some pretty spot on analysis of Martin's mistakes in the east. I just had to chuckle to myself reading it as really he had let Martin off the hook a bit with his own mistakes as you described in your post. I agree with KwazyDog (even if he is a "croweater" -Oz joke) that he really needed to dismount his infantry and move through the forest to secure the road. This doesn't have to consist of a sweep just outflanking an ambush can force it to redeploy. He was really lucky that Martin didn't mount a decent ambush there. I think Martin's main mistakes as pointed out by Fionn are with his delaying force. Although if you go back and read his deployment AAR he rightly identifies its task as delay but his deployment and handling has more been one of static defense. He called the wall line his MLR but he doesn't have enough troops to create any such position and his deployment there seemed a bit piecemeal. His MLR should be the river line and bridgehead the wall is an outpost line. Tactically he seemed content to impose quite limited delays on Fionn's forces in the woods. The most effective delaying action is one that is mounted with sufficient force to: (a) halt the enemy and cause him to organise a proper assault (or take heavy casualties) and ( allow a mutually supported withdrawal to a previously identified/prepared position. Because he did this his ambushing units were chewed up (though disproportionately effective due to Fionn's mistakes) and could not fall back to continue the fight.

Overall I think Fionn's had a much tougher job than Martin (especially with all those handy reinforcements!) but should have been a little more patient. Considering all that's happened in the turns to date there is plenty of time left.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn absolutely had the tougher assignment. And he is pretty aware of what he did wrong too. He isn't unfamiliar with CM's system though HOWEVER, this is only the second time he has played a big scenario made by a neutral third party. And this was NOT an easy one for either.

Fionn will readily admit that he is still trying to "unlearn" his previous gaming experience. Hehe, rack up another lesson learned

As far as Martin's defense goes... it worked and worked well. I think Martin could have done things better, and would have been harmed more if Fionn was more coordinated on the attack, but less than 1/5th of his starting force wiped out 1/3rd of Fionn's while he was able to liquidate a full company and take all objectives in that time. He must have done something right because Fionn didn't screw up THAT badly

I also think the wall line was the correct place to put he holding force. It kept Fionn's infantry away from covering fire on the town and screwed up his attack at a distance that allows Martin to redeploy in peace. If Martin held Fionn up at the river, the village force would not have near total freedom of movement like he infact does have.

One thing I just criticized Martin for (BTW, I have dispensed advice to each player about 3 times as if I were their G2) is his deployment of team weapons. They need to be behind infantry cover as they can not withdraw fast enough if someone gets up close. Their range allows them to provide equal or better cover from such positions. Sure, charging an MG position is costly for the attacker, but it is more costly if you can't get to it at all while it is firing at you the whole time you try

Other than that, I think Martin is doing a really good job. I would have deployed a little differently than he did, but his positions have caused Fionn critical casualties and dealyed him for about 10 turns or so. Not bad in my book.

But now we enter Phase II of the battle. I would say that if Fionn gets the better of Martin now he has a pretty good chance of getting into the Village (I think of this as Phase III). BUT, if Fionn is decimated trying to get to the river, it is alllllll over.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

Forgive me if the following seems overly pedantic... this is my attempt to play at being a grog.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One thing I just criticized Martin for (BTW, I have dispensed advice to each player about 3 times as if I were their G2) is his deployment of team weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The designations G1, G2, G3, G4, etc are only at general staff level. At this level the appropriate designation is S1, S2, S3, etc.

Also, the G2/S2 is the Intel Officer. This sort of advice seems more the job of the Operations Officer - the S3.

(BTW, I believe this system originally came from the French - does anyone know when US Army military adopted it? I also seem to recall the Germans used a slightly different system - is this true, and if so does anyone know what the German equivalent was?)

[Guest Big Time Software]

I never was very good at those silly designations

Yeah, I was playing the role of the Ops guy. The Germans did use a different system. I don't keep that system in my head either Someone will answer for sure, but it is something like "1c" or other. I have great books on the German General Staff, but since it is 4:30am here my ability to read is not so good

Steve

[Doug Beman]

Fionn may have been rash in his in-town redeployment, and in his decision to sally forth and assault the treeline U.S. infantry, but what turned these decisions into mistakes was Martin's absolutely cosmically-well-timed reinforcements. Whatcha think would have happened if Martin's infantry had arrived much later, or way the hell on the other side of the town?

DjB

[Doug Beman]

Steve: can a player give orders for a unit to fire at target A, and then Target B, and so on? The reason I ask is that I can foresee situations where a player has a unit in position to fire at many enemies, and the player wants to fire at targets in a specific order, and this order is not what the player thinks the TacAI will decide is appropriate. Can we do this?

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 09-01-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Doug, Martin's reinforcements were meant to simulate a battle of encirclement of the village from the West side off map. Therefore they should have come in right exactly where they did.

The reason Fionn got pasted was that he was outnumbered and then, compounding that, frittered away almost 1/3 of his force on some ill conceived plan to counter attack against overwhelming odds. The truth is that his counter attack was practically wiped out before the reserves even took aim at him. Fionn himself things that it was a very, very silly thing to have done, and I quite agree

Fionn was going to loose the village because I gave Martin enough forces to do it. But if Fionn had defended conservatively, used some artillery, and moved back slowly to consolodate losses, Martin would have paid dearly for the village. And if Martin made any mistakes it would have been worse. As it was, Fionn made all the mistakes and Martin next to none. End result was Martin suffered losses, but not nearly as much as he could have.

To allow a unit to shoot at multiple targets, leave it with NO targeting orders. It will fire at will at whatever seems most tasty. You can also relly upon your units to shift fire from a designated target on their own if it feels the need. Also remember that 60 seconds of combat isn't very long, so your next turn comes up fast.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

(For after Steve's nap)

Steve, will you and Charles be playing? After slaving for these months and years, I'll bet that CM is the last thing you wanna relax with (not when there's so much good beer out there!)

However, I think it might be cool for players (who are much more capable than myself) to "challenge the Maker." If the player wins, he gets something like a ride in the Weasel, or his face gets to be in CM2, or something.

Best,

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

(snort... shuffle...stretch) Someone calling my name?

We will probably sally forth and knock a few heads around, and be knocked around ourselves, once the game is safely up and running (always have to be on guard that first 2 weeks!). As for a Weasel ride... sure, if someone beats me in best out of 5 and knows how to adjust the timing advance without benefit of flywheel markings (they were there 50 years ago, but where are they now?) I will think about it

Steve

[Brian Rock]

Nice quote from Fionn:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I really am beginning to understand why man-portable AT weapons were so effective. It is impossible to spot two men hiding beside the road in some trees or a house until they fire. When they do fire they often claim a vehicle and a valuable squad before being killed or captured. If one slows down sufficiently to clear each little hollow or clump of trees then one allows the enemy to strengthen their main line of resistance as well as calling down artillery on your position. It’s really a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A game that rewards historically effective tactics and gives insight into how and why they worked? Whatever where you two clowns thinking?

B

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe! Well, it must be the beer talking

I really felt bad for Fionn the first time he lost an HT in this game (one in the southern woods). He WAS clearing the woods with infantry, as he was supposed to, but started the HTs down the road too soon. Martin had one bazooka team hidden around a corner and in the woods. When the HT came around BANG, it was hit (just disabled). The HT behind it backed up as a prudent measure to avoid death and wound up backing into another HT coming down the road. While both were trying to get things sorted out, an artillery round came in and SMACKED the HT, brewing it up.

In the mean time his infantry found the bazooka team (which was only 5m out of LOS at the time of the shot) and eliminated it. So although Martin lost a full squad, an MMG, and a zook in that battle, Fionn lost 2 Halftracks as a direct/indirect result of that one small team. And as the game plays now, bottled up another 2 HTs and a StuG for the rest of the game.

Yesh!

Steve

[Guest KwazyDog]

Steve, I thought it was really cool the way the second HT started backing up after the first took a hit. Was this the Tac AI in action (I *think it was ), or was it Fionn whom ordered it?

Hehe, I love that little battle in that clearing, if went exactly as youd expect it to in real life, and could come directly out of a war story...especially the HT backing into the other, hehe

[Doug Beman]

(there was a question here about bazookas in houses, but it was answered in Fionn's thread.)

Instead, I'll talk about Fionn's plans and stuff. Steve said that Fionn overestimated the ability of his tanks and HTs to suppress the US infantry; this is another area where I'm going to have to change my habits. From playing CC3 and SP I got used to being able to spray a couple bursts of tank cannon/MG fire at enemy positions, be they in trench, building or bunker, and have those enemy troops be paralyzed more than long enough to charge infantry a hundred meters and capture the position. With Martin's troops being subjected to this kind of covering fire, and STILL forcing the Germans to pay a high price for each meter, I'd better prepare myself.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 09-02-99).]

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 09-02-99).]

[Doug Beman]

Steve, do you know how many and what sizes of arty shells Martin has fired? Fionn has talked about what arty he's called, and I was trying to get some sorta comparison. This won't be definitive, since the usage will differ, but if we can say, "X of Martin's 105mm shells did Y damage to Fionn's guys here," then we can sorta guesstimate what "Z 210mm rockets will do Martin there."

Also, do you have any hard&fast numbers on scatter for the rockets? Need to get an idea of the death/unit area factor.

Also, last question, about how big is the apartment complex in the map center?

Oh MAN I can't wait til the AAR for 21 and 22 come out (like next Friday, boo-hiss) If the rockets do what they're supposed to, Martin's reaction will be priceless.

DjB

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 09-02-99).]

[Ken Talley]

Hi Steve,

One thing has been on the back of my mind. Will units in buildings under artillery fire suffer panic results and rout out of the building into the open? It seems the standard result of panic is to head to the nearest cover. If a unit is under direct fire and they panic, I could see them running away from the source of fire. But I don't believe they would do that if they are in buildings. How does CM handle panic when under artillery fire?

Thanks,

Ken

[Doug Beman]

Ken, it happened to Fionn's guys in Turn 6; their building got arty'd, they panicked and ran, and then other fire got them. Course, those guys had just been shelled while out in the open, so I'm sure that had something to do with it.

I'm betting that if the building gets whacked by something big enough, infantry (esp low-quality) will get bugged and split.

DjB

[Ken Talley]

Hi Doug,

As you mentioned, I thought of the issue while watching Fionn's troops response to the artillery. But I couldn't tell what was causing the panic.

I can think of a few examples off the top of my head of units withdrawing from defensive positions due to artillery fire. But usually it has been due to long term bombardment over a day or more. There are a couple of examples in the Vossenack battle of whole companies/battalions pulling out of the town when they couldn't take the artillery anymore. But I think the typical response to artillery is to find cover and stay there until the artillery ceases. And I don't think a unit would abandon a stone house or house with a basement or foxholes due to artillery unless there was a direct hit. Even then I am not sure they would move into the open until the artillery ceased. Simply because the danger is much greater in the open than in a building. And I wonder if panic is a generic response that can be triggered by an assaulting infantry squad as well as a artillery barrage alone against a unit in a building.. Which is why I brought up the question.

Ken

[Doug Beman]

Ken said,

"As you mentioned, I thought of the issue while watching Fionn's troops response to the artillery. But I couldn't tell what was causing the panic."

Here's what I gathered happened to those dudes in Turn6: Fionn ordered them to move out of the building toward the center of town, and as they were just leaving the building they got arty'd. That killed a couple, and they got scared and dashed back INTO the building, which then got arty'd, killing a few more troops. The rest went bonkers, fled screaming back OUT of the building and got nailed by direct fire from Martin's dudes.

DjB

[Paul]

Is there smoke available to either Martin or Fionn? Unless I missed it,I dont recall any mention of smoke use in AAR's.

[Guest Big Time Software]

KwazyDog, yes, that was the TacAI moving the second HT out of danger. Did a DAMN fine job too. Too bad Martin sent in a round at the same moment with its name on it...

Doug, Martin used is 105s on the town and some of his 81mm, along with all of his 60mm (he had three of these). He used the bulk of 2x81mm on the woods area. He was correct to use the 105 on the town as it had a much better chance of hurting something in a house than a mortar would. Fionn gave some stats about his artillery, but note that he still thinks he was hit by 155!! artillery, when it was in fact 105

Ken, the units will likely stay in good cover even if getting slammed. HOWEVER, a unit will look at the situation through illogical eyes sometimes. In this case the unit felt that the place it was in was a sure death because it was hit directly several times. If they had been shaken up before this, so much the worse. In any case, the unit must have decided that "running for it" was the better option. As often is the case, they were wrong

We will keep our eye on this sort of behaviour during testing. If the unit seems too willing to run, instead of hunkering down, then it will be an easy tweak to make.

Paul, all artillery 81mm and up has smoke available. But only one type of fire mission can be called down one time. Martin has chosen to use his FOs to lay down HE instead. Fionn has been keeping almost all of his silent up until now. He could have used some smoke here and there, but generally smoke is a double edged sword on the attack. Sure, they can't see you coming, but you can't see what you are running at either. Then when ou get on the other side of the smoke, time to pay the piper

Oh, tanks have some smoke too, but it isn't usefull for much other than a small tactical LOS blockage.

Steve

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-03-99).]

[Simon Fox]

Lots of interest in arty here and I have a few more questions to throw in myself though I would also be interested in the answer to Paul. I presume they have smoke but haven't used it, I love smoke "The thinking commanders best weapon" I have read it called. Smoke the reverse slope you make when you haven't got a reverse slope...boy, I could go on.

Apart than that my questions are:

1) How much flexibility is there in the arty controls? For example if you don't have much ammo can you fire harrassing artillery rather than an all tubes barrage. I am especially thinking of mortars here. A quick "stonk" with a few rounds could be devastating in the right spot, but still preserve ammo. So how is the duration of fire determined. Fionn has defined his ammo stocks in terms of minutes, is that the smallest increment?

2)I seem to recall reading something somewhere (can't for the life remember where) about the nebelwerfer blast being less effective than normal arty (assuming equal shell size). Something about the height of the main shrapnel zone or some such jargon. So it was deadly against upright troops but not so bad against prone or dug in troops. Have you read anything of that nature or am I full of it.

Since you like my Aussie stories Steve (not Ozzie by the way, which is the name of a dumb ostrich puppet on TV) here's an arty one from Peter Brune's "The Spell Broken: exploding the myth of Japanese invincibility" which I am currently reading.

During the operation against Buna (New Guinea) a 25 pdr was hauled through the jungle and sited quite close to the frontlines (about 1km). In addition to its normal role this gun, which was known as Carson's gun after the Sgt in charge, actually engaged in sniping at the Japanese: "The deadly accuracy of the laying gave the OPO (observation post officer) the power of life and death over any individual Jap seen in the target area. Lt T.J (Tom) Handran-Smith, the OPO would sometimes nominate his targets....Handran-Smith spied a Japanese giving orders to a couple of his men. The officer or NCO stopped momentarily in a short shallow tranch...This trench had been accurately registered...Said the OPO, "I nominate that bloke for the next round". Orders were quickly passed the the gun; all eyes were on the Jap. When the 25-pdr fired, the Jap appeared to sense that the round was meant for him. He jumped up on to the parapet with the idea of making a dash... The onlookers assert that the shell hit him in the middle of the stomach. At all events, he disappeared in instant disintegration"

3)So when CM3 comes along (Med and Balkans etc) I DEMAND that special 25-pdr sniper teams (25pdr sniper crew + FO) are included for Aussie artillery. This is in the tradition of me finding an unusual anecdote and turning it into a theatre wide reality ie captured fausts or 4.2" mortars.

[Guest Big Time Software]

For some reason thinking of you guys as big, feathered puppets named Ozzie cracks me up

Answers:

1) You can lift and fire pretty easily. There are delays that usually mean that you can cancel a target after only 30 seconds or less of bombardment. You can also fire Wide if you like. Adjusting fire is also possible.

2) I seem to recall the same thing about NW rounds and was discussed a while ago to some extent. Whatever the answer, CM is capable of simulating the difference. So if true, it is in CM. Charles is the artillery expert (although I have some nice books I don't have time to look at!).

Good story and I totally believe it. I have heard stories about this kind of thing from the Allied perspective when attacking Monte Cassino. Basically the Germans could kill anything they liked, whenever they liked.

3) Sure, so long as we have the gunner yell "G'day Mate, here's a quick stonk for your backside"

Steve

[Guest KwazyDog]

What makes it worse Steve is that that big feathered bird was pink