Why does my spotter call fire for effect without seeing any spotting rounds?

[Bulletpoint]

Just had a mission where 2 of 3 mortar strikes went wildly off target because the initial spotting rounds came in far from the spotter, and he happily called fire for effect without seeing anything. (The spotting rounds all fell in a field a good 300 metres behind his position, behind several levels of tall bocage).

It seems that any spotter will call FFE after 5-6 spotting rounds, if he sees them fall or not.

Please note I am not complaining about friendly fire or artillery accuracy, as I am aware this is realistic.

However, was it really standard operating procedure in WW2 to call a fire mission without observing the spotting rounds?

[Michael Emrys]

However, was it really standard operating procedure in WW2 to call a fire mission without observing the spotting rounds?

It wasn't SOP, but it did happen occasionally, nearly always when a friendly unit was about to be overrun and there wasn't time for the full spotting routine. But the situation you are describing is different. The spotting rounds have in fact been fired, but just not observed. It appears to me that FFE in this situation is a bug. And yes, it has happened to me too, fortunately not to tragic effect aside from (usually) wasted rounds. Probably the best thing to do in that situation is to immediately cancel the shoot and start over again, preferably with an observer who is better placed to observe the locations where shells are likely to fall as well as the location that you want to hit.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

And yes, it has happened to me too, fortunately not to tragic effect aside from (usually) wasted rounds.

In this case, I also wasted a lot of time, waiting for the spotting rounds to get closer, which they never did. And then when the barrage finally came, off target, one stray 81mm bomb hit one of my squads right in the kisser... until then everything had gone like clockwork.

Probably the best thing to do in that situation is to immediately cancel the shoot and start over again,

You're right about cancelling. I foolishly thought it would just be a matter of more patience to wait for the spotting process.

preferably with an observer who is better placed to observe the locations where shells are likely to fall as well as the location that you want to hit.

My spotter was in a position with perfect view to the target hedgerow, and unsuppressed.. doesn't get much better

[Bulletpoint]

It seems to me it should work like this:

Spotter: Requesting fire support. Aim at coordinate XX.

Arty: Sure, we just fired first spotting round. Saw it?

Spotter: No, try again.

Arty: Adjusted aim a bit and fired second round. Saw it?

Spotter: Nope.

Arty: Trying third time, any luck?

Spotter: No.

Arty: Well, then probably you own't see any more rounds fired around that coordinate. Give us another.

Spotter: Try coordinate YY then.

Arty, Ok, shifting aim point.

Spotter: Now I saw the round, still off though, adjust 150m east.

(continues until FFE)

[Michael Emrys]

My spotter was in a position with perfect view to the target hedgerow, and unsuppressed.. doesn't get much better

Being able to spot where the rounds fell would be better. Then the observer would have been able to call in corrections.

Michael

[womble]

I'm very nearly 100% sure that a patch or version upgrade was supposed to have fixed this, so that if a spotter can't see their rounds they won't call FFE until they can. As you say, since we aren't allowed to fire at targets where the spotter can't see, it seems a bit odd that they'd call FFE on a target they can see when they've not seen any spotting rounds yet.

[akd]

It is not a bug. Probably just to keep AI from calling and canceling missions over and over again because the spotter is in a ****ty location. You as the player always have the option to cancel if the spotting rounds aren't being walked onto the target.

[YankeeDog]

It is not a bug. Probably just to keep AI from calling and canceling missions over and over again because the spotter is in a ****ty location. You as the player always have the option to cancel if the spotting rounds aren't being walked onto the target.

This. Otherwise, the AI could get caught in perpetual spotting cycle which would tie up both the the spotter and the battery indefinitely. The AI isn't smart enough to know when to give up on a difficult-to-call mission.

My general rule if that if a spotter can't get FFE in 4 rounds, I should probably give up and try something else rather than risk the mission coming in late and off target.

But it's better to avoid the situation entirely. For best chances of a timely, on-target mission, the FO needs good LOS to target area AND a broad swathe of the surrounding terrain, so it's likely he'll see the spotting rounds.

This does make calling in arty especially difficult on bocage maps. This isn't unrealistic, though -- Allied forces had exactly the same problem IRL. Lack of observation points with good broad range of terrain made calling in artillery very difficult, and made what high ground there was in Normandy extremely valuable terrain.

[Bulletpoint]

Being able to spot where the rounds fell would be better. Then the observer would have been able to call in corrections.

Goes without saying...

[Baneman]

This. Otherwise, the AI could get caught in perpetual spotting cycle which would tie up both the the spotter and the battery indefinitely. The AI isn't smart enough to know when to give up on a difficult-to-call mission.

My general rule if that if a spotter can't get FFE in 4 rounds, I should probably give up and try something else rather than risk the mission coming in late and off target.

But it's better to avoid the situation entirely. For best chances of a timely, on-target mission, the FO needs good LOS to target area AND a broad swathe of the surrounding terrain, so it's likely he'll see the spotting rounds.

This does make calling in arty especially difficult on bocage maps. This isn't unrealistic, though -- Allied forces had exactly the same problem IRL. Lack of observation points with good broad range of terrain made calling in artillery very difficult, and made what high ground there was in Normandy extremely valuable terrain.

This does hark back to a complaint I had way back when CMBN first came out - that there is no feedback to the player whether or not the spotter has seen a spotting round.

Would still like to see something of that nature - little circles in the UI going green if spotted, red if not.

It's all very well to say that you should cancel if the rounds aren't being walked onto the target, but often there's more than one mission AND enemy spotting rounds so you really don't know which "bang" is your spotting round. And then remember whether last turn's one was closer or further away from the target...

One more for the wishlist

[John Kettler]

Bulletpoint,

It would be splendid if LOS could be established to the top of the WP smoke/HE burst from the spotting rounds, rather than having to have LOS to the impact point on the ground. Are there situations in which spotting rounds aren't seen? Absolutely, but I've read of an effective shoot, being conducted by an untrained observer (just an EM, not even a noncom of an American unit in major jam at the Bulge), who fired long in thick fog and walked the fire back toward his own position, stopping after each round to listen for screams, then going to FFE once on target. Heavy fog, driving snow and thick dust can all result in spotting rounds not being seen.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Bulletpoint]

It's all very well to say that you should cancel if the rounds aren't being walked onto the target, but often there's more than one mission AND enemy spotting rounds so you really don't know which "bang" is your spotting round. And then remember whether last turn's one was closer or further away from the target...

In my case, the rounds were getting closer to the target. It looked to me like it was working out, and he just needed more spotting rounds to reach it. Then the very premature FFE.

[Michael Emrys]

This does make calling in arty especially difficult on bocage maps. This isn't unrealistic, though -- Allied forces had exactly the same problem IRL. Lack of observation points with good broad range of terrain made calling in artillery very difficult, and made what high ground there was in Normandy extremely valuable terrain.

It is also why the Allies made extensive use of light spotter planes to call in and correct artillery. They were of course subject to weather conditions, but I suspect could fly at times when the fast movers could not.

Michael

[Ultradave]

A couple of comments (and war stories) from a former artilleryman who served long ago enough that the techniques I used were pretty much the same as those used in WW2. Charts and darts, as we said then - no fancy computer stuff. We did have TI-59 calculators with a gunnery chip but they were crap. Being in the 82d Airborne it was years later that we got any kind of computerized fire control. Too fragile to airdrop. So all of our firing data was done with protractors, pins in charts, and "firing sticks" which are specialized slide rules to calculate elevation and fuse timing.

"Normally" a FFE would only be called in 3 cases (#3 only applies to combat situations of course) :

1. Preplanned target where firing data was calculated and checked beforehand.

2. At a known point on the map requiring no interpolation by a FO (like a crossroads, of some other unmistakably identifiable feature)

3. Desperation.

In combat of course it's entirely possible that an observer would not see a round fall or misjudge it due to other explosions in the area or smoke, or incoming fire to the spotter making his spotting difficult. So the scenario about "did you see it" works because chances are that the unobserved round landed somewhere in enemy land. But rather than have the observer call in a new coord though it's usually more effective for the battery to send a round out in front of him to adjust - to the center of expected firing area. If he didn't see the first one there's a good chance he gave the wrong coordinate or direction to the target. That's of course assuming that the firing battery has checked their firing data to the coord and the survey of the adjusting piece.

As an aside, when in training we NEVER followed that sequence. We'd get some report from an observer

FO: "Round unobserved, Repeat. over"

Btry: "Uhhh, did you see ANYTHING? Dud maybe?"

FO: "No, nothing. Round unobserved. Repeat, over."

Btry: (aside to themselves ) - "No f-ing way I'm sending another one if they didn't see the first one"

Next step is to fire an adjusting round to the center front and have the observer adjust THAT one. Meanwhile hoping that Range Control doesn't call on the radio wanting to know why we hit McPherson Church Road or OP11 or some such.

You may wonder why I know this routine in such detail :-). Let's just say I had years of experience as both a forward observer and as a Fire Direction Officer and Brigade Fire Support Officer.

I was always lucky - every time something like that happened (more often than you'd like) we in the Fire Direction Center were right and it was always the gun line that was off (center gun surveyed out 300 mils, wrong charge fired, time round fuse taken off safe but no time set - explodes when armed, which is about 2 1/2 rotations - makes for an exciting day when the Bn Commander is on his way to visit and it happens in the air over him - just a small selection of our disasters which thank God did not kill any troopers).

[womble]

A couple of comments (and war stories) from a former artilleryman who served long ago enough that the techniques I used were pretty much the same as those used in WW2. Charts and darts, as we said then - no fancy computer stuff. We did have TI-59 calculators with a gunnery chip but they were crap. Being in the 82d Airborne it was years later that we got any kind of computerized fire control. Too fragile to airdrop. So all of our firing data was done with protractors, pins in charts, and "firing sticks" which are specialized slide rules to calculate elevation and fuse timing.

"Normally" a FFE would only be called in 3 cases (#3 only applies to combat situations of course) :

1. Preplanned target where firing data was calculated and checked beforehand.

2. At a known point on the map requiring no interpolation by a FO (like a crossroads, of some other unmistakably identifiable feature)

3. Desperation.

So does that imply that the whole "ad hoc fire mission" feature of the game is anachronous? Or that the "walking in spotting rounds" method of correction is squiffy? Or am I misunderstanding?

[SeinfeldRules]

I assume he's referring to first round fire for effects, where the observer calls in for all the rounds without having to adjust first. A noble goal, but incredibly hard to achieve on both the observer and FDC side during the time period. With just a map and compass, target location error can regularly reach up to 500m, even with an experienced observer. And even with batteries that are registered, changing conditions and directions of fire between missions means there is going to be error, error that needs to be compensated for by adjusting the rounds. Observers certainly called for fire on targets of opportunity, but the aggregation of errors meant rounds wouldn't necessarily often land near the target, requiring the observer to walk the rounds on to the target. It's like doing Kentucky windage over really, really long distances.

First round FFEs are much easier to achieve now-a-days; hand held GPS + laser range finders can give 10 digit grids to almost anywhere on the battlefield. A little target location error is still there, but good enough for a 155 round. On the firing side, GPS and digital systems have removed a lot of the error there as well. The firing tables we use are accurate as hell, and generally always have been (it's just physics) - the difference between WW2 and the 70s and today is that computers allow us to calculate corrections (using values from the firing tables built into the system) on every single fire mission for every single round fired out of every single tube. Versus the old school way of using general corrections (calculated from tabular firing tables on a long sheet by hand) from one gun that are "good enough" across the entire battery for all it's missions over a 4 hour time period.

[Ultradave]

So does that imply that the whole "ad hoc fire mission" feature of the game is anachronous? Or that the "walking in spotting rounds" method of correction is squiffy? Or am I misunderstanding?

Well first of all just what Seinfeld Rules say. Obviously he has "modern" experience. Mine dates back to methods very similar to WW2.

What I was trying to say, while giving background, is that the game's methods are generally on target (haha). It's very hard on the spur of the moment to do a FFE with no adjustment and actually hit the target, unless it's to a point known to high exactness to both the FDC (fire direction center) and the observer.

The goal is to register the battery once a day to take out as much firing inaccuracy as possible. For those not familiar, registration uses the #3 gun, which is supposed to be your best piece and crew, and fire and adjust to a known point, and adjust to +/-25, rather than the normal "drop 50 FFE" Then compare "should hit" data to "did hit" data and make minor corrections to firing data from then on. As Seinfeld said - weather conditions change, the way the piece fires after heavy use, etc, will change that data, but you seldom have a chance to do it later in the day, or sometimes at all that day, depending on what's going on. As a substitute you can use another battery's data, knowing that it won't be as accurate as your own (but better than nothing at all). It also made a difference if a weather balloon was flown to get winds aloft. And to show how accurately we calculated the rotation of the earth is taken into account. Howitzer time of flight is about 12-25 seconds depending on size and range. The earth moves a few meters and we accounted for it.

FFE to a call for fire to a grid coordinate provided by the observer was seldom successful. To have a chance to hit a target the size of a platoon trench line, or a CP/OP, etc, that way requires:

1. Observer has to know his own location to within 50m (preferably 25) This is tough in combat.

2. Observer compass direction to target (easiest)

3. Observer estimate of distance from himself to target to at least 50m (preferably 25) (hardest, in fact damned near impossible).

With 2 and 3 the observer can get a grig coord off his map.

Without 2 and 3 he can still get a grid coord by measuring distance and direction on the map to some known feature (crossroads, hilltop), and then direction and distance L/R +/- to the target. Depending on where the target is this method could be more accurate.

It's the accuracy required of the distance estimates that make a FFE on first round so tough.

Today, ALL of this is made so much easier by computers and GPS.

Sometimes I'm amazed at how much of all of this I recall. I think I could still do a pretty good job of running my FDC.

Hope that helps for background. Adjusting fire on a battlefield is not easy. Preplanned fires tend to land where they are supposed to. Easy to get a good coords on a treeline or hilltop or road junction and also quality check firing data carefully. Calls for fire take time to get the FFE to go where it is supposed. Lots of times you don't have that time luxury and it may come down to "drop 200 FFE" and hope for the best.

[Bulletpoint]

What I was trying to say, while giving background, is that the game's methods are generally on target (haha). It's very hard on the spur of the moment to do a FFE with no adjustment and actually hit the target, unless it's to a point known to high exactness to both the FDC (fire direction center) and the observer.

I appreciate you giving details on the background, it's interesting stuff - but really my question was about why my spotter in the game calls for FFE before the spotting rounds are on target, thus wasting the barrage and killing my own troops. As far as I understand your posts, this is not how it was done in real life.

[Ultradave]

Standard Army answer. "Depends on the situation".

I don't know how CM does it but it *could* be if you call for say, an Emergency fire mission, to pick an example. The rounds will come out quicker, possibly the observer might cut short his adjustment (like drop 200 FFE if he thinks he knows). And the faster the battery puts out the rounds from the call for fire the less chance they have to check their data. Trust me, doing it manually it all happens VERY fast, and if you in the FDC and the observer are in a hurry, then (speaking from my own experience) I monitored the charts to watch the 2 guys doing deflection calculations and my team sgt monitored the computer (a person - that's his position name) calculating elevation and time settings. We would both also listen to the data being called out from the other half and give each other a thumbs up if it was ok, down if not. The computer talks to the gun line and if he didn't get 2 thumbs up he didn't send the data. Now this by no means indicated we had made a good check of the actual data. It meant for both of us that the data given was:

1. Correct charge

2. Elevation put it beyond our front lines by a margin.

3. Within a l/r limit that we were confident was also safe (lines being fluid).

So that round, if the &*%$ is hitting the fan and the observer wants rounds on a target 10 minutes ago, may not be going exactly where it was supposed to. Close hopefully, and somewhere out in front of him at worst case.

If you are in a hurry, the observer may make the call and stop adjusting and FFE, because you just really need those rounds out there, right now. Another factor also might be the skill of the observer. FO's have a short life span in real life combat. It takes a bit of practice to get good at reading terrain and estimating distances. Inaccuracies can stem from the FO just not being that good or being pressured by the infantry LT or CPT to "get those rounds out there RIGHT F-ING NOW"

Other times you may have the luxury of more time, and the observer can take some time to adjust.

A good example might be the difference between trying to stop an infantry company moving toward your lines, where you have very little time to adjust (they are deploying to attack you), as compared to adjusting in on a trenchline you've spotted, or a pillbox you want to neutralize (maybe not destroy but at least interdict). They aren't going anywhere, so you should be able to do a better job adjusting and the firing battery can take an extra few seconds each round to better check the data. Those stationary things tend to be in easier to estimate coordinates too. Like a trenchline at the front of a treeline (easy to find on the map), or a bunker covering a crossroad - estimate from the crossroad location. The fewer features around the harder it is to call for fire.

But it's an old Army cliche that everything "depends on the situation".

[General Jack Ripper]

I appreciate you giving details on the background, it's interesting stuff - but really my question was about why my spotter in the game calls for FFE before the spotting rounds are on target, thus wasting the barrage and killing my own troops. As far as I understand your posts, this is not how it was done in real life.

The game is not an exact simulation of real life. In the game, when calling for fire, two spotting rounds are fired.

It doesn't matter where the spotting rounds land, only that the observer can see them.

If the observer sees BOTH spotting rounds land, then your strike will come in on time and on target.

If the observer only sees ONE of the two rounds land, then the strike will come in on time, just not perfectly on target.

If the observer cannot see either of the two spotting rounds, more spotting rounds will be fired until the observer sees one. There will then be a fire for effect call, and the strike will arrive with a high margin for error.

If the accuracy of the strike is paramount: After two spotting rounds are fired, if the observer does not immediately say "fire for effect" cancel the mission and replot it.

If the observer does not see one of the two initial spotting rounds, your artillery will be inaccurate and there's nothing you can do but start over.

[Bulletpoint]

The game is not an exact simulation of real life. In the game, when calling for fire, two spotting rounds are fired.

It doesn't matter where the spotting rounds land, only that the observer can see them.

If the observer sees BOTH spotting rounds land, then your strike will come in on time and on target.

If the observer only sees ONE of the two rounds land, then the strike will come in on time, just not perfectly on target.

If the observer cannot see either of the two spotting rounds, more spotting rounds will be fired until the observer sees one. There will then be a fire for effect call, and the strike will arrive with a high margin for error.

If the accuracy of the strike is paramount: After two spotting rounds are fired, if the observer does not immediately say "fire for effect" cancel the mission and replot it.

If the observer does not see one of the two initial spotting rounds, your artillery will be inaccurate and there's nothing you can do but start over.

Great info, thanks a lot. I had no idea it worked like this in the game. Will come in very handy next time.

[womble]

The game is not an exact simulation of real life. In the game, when calling for fire, two spotting rounds are fired.

It doesn't matter where the spotting rounds land, only that the observer can see them.

If the observer sees BOTH spotting rounds land, then your strike will come in on time and on target.

If the observer only sees ONE of the two rounds land, then the strike will come in on time, just not perfectly on target.

If the observer cannot see either of the two spotting rounds, more spotting rounds will be fired until the observer sees one. There will then be a fire for effect call, and the strike will arrive with a high margin for error.

If the accuracy of the strike is paramount: After two spotting rounds are fired, if the observer does not immediately say "fire for effect" cancel the mission and replot it.

If the observer does not see one of the two initial spotting rounds, your artillery will be inaccurate and there's nothing you can do but start over.

Got any attribution for that assertion, SLIM?

[General Jack Ripper]

Got any attribution for that assertion, SLIM?

That post is based on a recollection of a post Steve made a couple of years ago. I could have a search around.

[akd]

I don't think it is correct, at least in the details.

[Erwin]

U saying it's not in the manual then?