Bug: Field Guns In Indirect Fire Mode: Shooting Into The Ground

[Michael Emrys]

I don't think so. He said that mortars could only conduct high angle missions (which is true) and distinguished that from Hows (and iGs, etc) which were able to conduct high angle, but could and usually would (in the specific case of the German guns, which are the only ones relevant to CM) conduct low angle direct fire missions.

What he actually wrote was:

I'm sure the high angle was designed to allow the IGs to hit the sides of steep hills or mountains. Just like the high angle of the Flak36 was designed to hit aircraft. The physics of the return trip to Earth would make it unlikely to land where expected even if one tried to use it like a mortar.

The first sentence is a bit ambiguous, but if one reads it that IGs and other high angle guns only used maximum elevation to fire at targets higher than themselves, then it is simply wrong. As for the last sentence, if meant to apply only to IGs (and not to AAA, the mention of which in this context strikes me as a little odd, to say the least) it is a great exaggeration. In fact, firing either an IG or a howitzer at maximum elevation usually insures the smallest CEP, barring high wind conditions.

Michael

[c3k]

You can't go into "mortar emulation mode" to fix this problem. It would look a little too ridiculous.

And I don't think that guns like the Flak 88, which could go to the required elevations, ever tried to shoot miles into the air to hit ground targets that were close but behind an obstacle. I think the accuracy after wind and aerodynamics from imperfect projectile shape would be so bad that it could come back right at the shooter.

The infantry guns can elevate very high but they cannot "play mortar".

First, the strawman: NO WHERE did I imply that any weapon capable of high angle fire should do so. The Flak example is simply an egregious example that YOU introduced.

As to "mortar emulation" mode, well, if you're unfamiliar with the weapon system, how and why it was designed, and how it was deployed, a bit of research should fill in the voids.

The lIG was USED in high angle fire to drop shells behind intervening obstacles. In the balka country and steep-sided river beds of Russia, it was VERY useful for dropping rounds on targets hidden by the terrain.

As some of the pictures posted above show, the weapon was used at that high angle.

The training was there. The weapon even had a special breech mechanism to account for the high angle of the barrel.

Ken

[Redwolf]

FWIW this problem is very easy to reproduce if you just place the target unit right in the "shadow" of a ridge. The guns will consistently shoot into the ridge and neither gunners nor spotter ever stop it. The only difficulty in testing this is the random rules for who's in contact and the fact that sometimes the guns went back into "undeployed". Might be the deploy bug being worked on for 2.01.

I also had an unstoppable firing gun after the spotter got killed.

ETA: test scenario available upon request

[JonS]

Emrys:

the inherent differences between a mortar (always arced trajectory) compared to an infantry gun (flat or moderate arced trajectory)

Diesel:

The 2-in and Brixia are both more akin to modern grenade launchers than mortars. The 2-in doesn't even have a bipod, the Brixia has a breech, and they both have triggers.

[JonS]

In fact, firing either an IG or a howitzer at maximum elevation usually insures the smallest CEP, barring high wind conditions.

In fact, that isn't true at all.

What's that saying? In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.

[akd]

FWIW this problem is very easy to reproduce if you just place the target unit right in the "shadow" of a ridge. The guns will consistently shoot into the ridge and neither gunners nor spotter ever stop it. The only difficulty in testing this is the random rules for who's in contact and the fact that sometimes the guns went back into "undeployed". Might be the deploy bug being worked on for 2.01.

I also had an unstoppable firing gun after the spotter got killed.

ETA: test scenario available upon request

Feel free to PM me for e-mail, although simply uploading the scenario and posting a link here would be quickest (i.e. with Dropbox).

[agusto]

I also had an unstoppable firing gun after the spotter got killed.

You can stop any on map artillery (mortars, howitzrs and such) from indirect/ direct firing by issueng them a "cancel target" command. They will comply instantaniously and will be ready for a new fire mission.

I think this should work even after the spotter got killed.

Btw, couldnt this be a bug too? I think it is possible to cancel a fire mission and issue a new one within the same turn if you click the on map arty piece istelf and use the "cancel target command" instead of "cease fire" via the spotter. Gotta test this, will post results here.

EDIT: I just tested that. If you issue the "cancel target" to any indirect fire weapon that is currently on a fire mission, its status on the spotters menue will be correctly displayed as "cease fire". So that s not a bug, just a possibility to end a fire mission after the spotter got killed.

JonS,

What's that saying? In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they aren't.

I dont think this is true either.

Any theory is always based on a limited number of factors that did appear relevant to the one who created the theory. In practice however, there may be factors involved that were not previously known to the one who made the theory or that were not considered to be relevant. Besides that, there may be factors involved that are impossible to be known exactely. Thus any theory can never be persumed to be correct without beeing proven by practice while practice itself must always be considered as correct because practice in fact equals reality. Thus in theory, theory and practice are not the same .

Take physics, for example. You have a theory and conduct an experiment and the outcome tells you that the predictions made by your theory do not match the result of your experiment. This now leaves us with 3 relevant possibilities if we dont consider the possibilty of the experiment failing due to incompetence:

1) The theory is correct and you did the correct experiment to prove the theory. Thus reality must be wrong.

2) The theory may be correct but the experiment was not the right one to actually prove the theory. This leaves the possibilty of reality and theory beeing correct even if the experiment did not give you the results predicted by the theory.

3) The theory is wrong: You did have the right experimental setup to prove or unprove your theory and reailty is true.

Now since reality can never be "wrong", only 2) and 3) can be true statements.

[JonS]

Agusto: take it up with Einstein.