Q about arty FOs

[Guest L Tankersley]

What happens when a FO team dies? Specifically, if there's a fire mission in progress, will it continue? Or does the elimination of the FO team essentially send a FLASH cease-fire message to the battery?

I can understand if the battery is linked to the FO it might be simpler from an implementation standpoint to just immediately cease firing, but it seems to me it would be more realistic for the current salvo to play out. The battery probably wouldn't fire all remaining ammo on the current target, but it seems reasonable to me that they would at least throw a few rounds out there on the last designated target.

I don't know that much about WWII artillery procedures, though, so I could be all wrong about this.

Leland J. Tankersley

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What happens when a FO team dies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. Hope it gets answered .

Brings up another point. Seems to me in CM that when an FO calls for a fire mission, the OBA battery will keep shooting and expend all remaing rounds unless you cancel the target. Now, in my *modern* experience, an FO isn't going to set up a fire mission that way. First, that's too open to wasting ammo. Second, you need to stop shooting periodically to let the smoke and dust settle enough so you can see if you need a repeat. So instead, the FO's going to specify a specific number of rounds of FFE (as well as type of round and fuse). Once the FO gives the signal to FFE, the battery will shoot this specified number of rounds (if available) and then stop. I'm pretty sure WW2 FOs did things this way, too.

Is there any hope of getting this feature in CM? It would really help in conserving OBA ammo if we could specify the number of rounds to shoot.

Also, will it be possible to call for airbursts with mechanical or variable time fuses?

-Bullethead

[Los]

RE: Bulllethead's Q...

Well in a way by cancelling the fire mission manually you are pretty much doing the same thing. I guess it's a minor abstraction but then again this isn't an FO simulator. You have one advantage over a real FO in that you know to the round how much ammo is dedicated just to you. Conserving or expending rounds is totally in your hands already though there is some abstraction involved.

Los

[Fionn]

Bullethead,

There was a discussion of this and I think basically Potitz fuses were only issued very late in the war if at all so I think that automatic airbursts aren't being modelled.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Bullethead]

Los said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well in a way by cancelling the fire mission manually you are pretty much doing the same thing. I guess it's a minor abstraction but then again this isn't an FO simulator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, considering you don't know the ROF of the OBA battery, you don't know how many turns the ammo will last. And if the firing starts in mid-turn, you can only stop it at the end of that turn or 1 full minute later, if you want to conserve any. Pretty hard to make the ammo come out right and far less control over it than an FO would have in real life.

As to this not being an FO sim, sure. Don't make the player have to adjust fire. Fine. But IMHO arty deserves more detail than it gets in most wargames. After all, it did cause way more battlefield casualties than all the grunts and tanks put together. So a bit less abstraction is in order, IMHO.

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think basically Potitz fuses were only issued very late in the war if at all so I think that automatic airbursts aren't being modelled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read that although they'd been used against planes for some time, the 1st *authorized* land use of VT fuses was during the Battle of the Bulge. Specifically, the defense of the Elsenborn Ridge on the northern shoulder. The arty had had VT fuses available but hadn't been allowed to shoot them for fear the Germans would find duds and copy the design.

HOWEVER, all the time before and after that, right up to the present, mechanical time fuses were available. This is how you get airbursts w/out VT fuses or tree branches. You know where the gun is and where the target is, you know the trajectory of the shell, so you know the time of flight. This is all given or you couldn't shoot the mission at all. So you then set the fuse accordingly. True, this doesn't give you as consistently perfect airbursts as VT fuses, but it works well enough. In fact, today's arty still shoots a lot of mechanical time fused shells because you can jam the radar in VT fuses.

Anyway, IMHO airbursts from mechanical time fuses were very significant. It's what you shot at troops in the open. And it's why the grunts hated the 88 as much as tankers--being a flak gun, it had a lot of time-fused HE shells available to airburst over grunts.

-Bullethead

[Fionn]

Good points and I hadn;t much thought about the timed fuses.

Well, I guess the same advice as usual goes out.. Get some source data, come up with a best guess of which guns would have had mechanical fuses ( the Flak88s yes, the Pak 88s no etc).

and then send it in to BTS.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Bullethead]

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Get some source data, come up with a best guess of which guns would have had mechanical fuses ( the Flak88s yes, the Pak 88s no etc). And then send it in to BTS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the plus side, BTS reads this board. On the down side, I can't look up every gun (I haven't even seen a list of what all guns are in the game). So I'm afraid all I can offer here are generalities.

Mechanical time fuses were invented before the turn of the century and were standard arty equipment by WW1, when they were used extensively for shrapnel and gas shells. By WW2, they were much more efficient and reliable and were used extensively on HE shells (with shrapnel shells being obsolete).

However, setting the fuses correctly requires the fire control assets of artillery units. Thus, infantry guns generally didn't have mechanical time fuses, even if they used the same gun type as the arty units. Neither did anti-tank guns, as you mentioned. In addition, mechanical time fuses were very rare for guns bigger than 155mm because the real heavies were primarily used for reducing stronpoints, not mowing down troops in the open.

Flak guns were a special case. Time-fused HE was their primary ammo, to make all those black puffs you see in bombing pictures. And they usually had really fancy fuse setters built into the guns themselves, hooked directly to the fire control computer system. Stick the nose of the shell into the socket and voila! the fuse is set to go off at the proper distance. The arty usually had to make do with setting the fuses by hand. So flak guns were more likely than arty to get the fuse set right for a perfect airburst. Especially because the high MV of flak guns made for flat trajectories, meaning they were usually shooting direct fire. Very nasty indeed.

So in general, in WW2 you had infantry guns and ATGs using direct fire and point-detonating fuses, light-medium arty that could use indirect mechanical time fuses to good effect vs. appropriate targets, and flak guns that could be devastating with direct fire airbursts.

-Bullethead

[Fionn]

SO, there should be:

up to 105s with time fuses.

AAA with time fuses (not the small ones though I suppose (20mm etc... how the hell would you time fuse all the shells with the speed at which they fire? )

No rocket arty.

Well BTS will see and read this. It's up to them to see if they feel the case is proved I suppose

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

Bullethead makes a good point that there should be more discussion on artillery. BTW I have done a fair amount of called fire myself. Here's some of my thoughts...

"Well, considering you don't know the ROF of the OBA battery, you don't know how many turns the ammo will last."

I didn't mean to minimize this issue, I have experienced it myself but after using arty enough have a pretty good idea of how long x amount of rounds will last. BTW ROF with arty and mortars is a variable thing. The timing issue is also difficult to nail down.

Keep in mind that unless it's H-Hour on the day of an attack, TOT preps are difficult to coordinate to the satisfaction of the FO. (due to the commitements of thebatteries) Certainly if a battery is in direct support of a single FO then he has a great deal of control over the employment of that battery. However most of the time he puts in a request and it is put into a cue at the FDC(Fire Direction Center) Now they may be already two or three missions in the cue. More importantly there may be another FO supporting Charlie Company a klick away also hopping up and down that he has an emergencey that has to be dealt with. That doesn't mean TOT can't be done, it just means that TOT my not arrive when the FO wants it. He might want a TOT concentration in three minutes but the FDC can't deliver for 6 minutes. Granted we are only talking of variations of minutes but minutes in CM is a longtime!

If there is to be a request to fire x amount of rounds per fire mission then I would recommend that the player not no how many rounds he starts out the game with since that is unrealistic in itself. Especially since in most cases you don't have batteries in direct support dedicated just to one FO or company but it is in general support to a number of companies or battalions.

In fact in the scenario editor there should be two types of arty support for each tube type, Direct Support and General Support. DS FOs should be costed at least twice as much as GS FOs. This represent the major resource commitment from higher to the misison of your unit which has the luxury of having a whole battery at it's beck and call, with dedicated rounds just waiting for you to call them. This type of support is in the minority in most situations.

Then there's general support batteries which are the majority of cases (hence the cheaper costing). In this case you are just another pig at the trough hoping to gtet some rounds when you need them (It's not that you won't get them sooner or later).

ANd to get even more realistic the general responisveness, accuracy and ability to control minutely the outcome of a fire mission should be adjusted by time of month since the Americans at least got a lot more adept (and fancy) at artillery use as the months wore on.

Los

P.S> "On The Front Lines" (formerly called "The Sharp End") by John Ellis. A great book!

[Bullethead]

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>up to 105s with time fuses.

AAA with time fuses (not the small ones though I suppose (20mm etc... how the hell would you time fuse all the shells with the speed at which they fire? )

No rocket arty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Today 155mm uses a lot of MT fuses. I'm sure they had them in WW2, but probably mostly for the shorter-ranged howitzers and less common for the Long Toms. Primary mission of the guns would be the deciding factor, I'd say. Those guns intended mostly for direct support would have them for sure but those dedicated to general support might not have very many, if any, available.

Light flak was, from what I understand, impact-fused. Due to its rate of fire, it was expected to get actual hits on the planes where bigger guns had to rely on fragmentation from near-misses. However, I know the 40mm Bofors AA shells had a timer that automatically blew them up after a few seconds if they hadn't hit anything. This might have just been a naval type of ammo--the purpose was to keep stray rounds from falling all over the taskforce--but the same concerns would apply in land settings.

I never heard of any rockets with MT fuses but that don't mean there weren't any.

-Bullethead

[Moon]

Fionn, I must admit that I have not read this thread in detail so I apologize if it's not relevant what I am saying - but VT fuzes are already in the game. Check the available arty in the unit menu of the editor. I can see at least two or three different guns with VT fuzes in there!

[Bullethead]

Very good points, Los.

Los said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Well, considering you don't know the ROF of the OBA battery, you don't know how many turns the ammo will last."

I didn't mean to minimize this issue, I have experienced it myself but after using arty enough have a pretty good idea of how long x amount of rounds will last<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but that still leaves the problem of when the rounds start falling compared to how many you want to shoot. If the shooting starts near the beginning of a turn, then you can break the ammo up into turn's-worths pretty easy. But if the rounds start in the middle of a turn, then you're going to have to shoot 1/2 a turn more or less than you want to on that target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Keep in mind that unless it's H-Hour on the day of an attack, TOT preps are difficult to coordinate to the satisfaction of the FO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, during a fluid battle situation FOs have to take a number and get in line. Their missions go in the order the arty commander thinks is best based on his own concerns and appreciation of the situation.

But even so that is, IMHO, the time when they have the most control over direct support guns. When a big attack is about to start, the arty prepfire is all planned out by the arty S-3 shop based on known target locations and the attack plan of the grunt commander. There might be a battery or 2 eserved for the FOs' emergency direct support use during the big shoot, but often it isn't until the prepfire is over that batteries get released to FO control.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If there is to be a request to fire x amount of rounds per fire mission then I would recommend that the player not no how many rounds he starts out the game with since that is unrealistic in itself. Especially since in most cases you don't have batteries in direct support dedicated just to one FO or company but it is in general support to a number of companies or battalions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent points. The FOs are miles away from the batteries so have no idea how many tubes or how many of what type of rounds are really available.

As to your DS/GS description above, I think you and I are using these terms to mean different things. Below is what I mean when I use them. This is how the US does things now (and seems to have done in WW2). Other countries (especially the Russians) could well have done things differently, but all arty is subject to the same underlying principles so this is probably pretty close for everybody.

Many divisions include a regiment of arty. Usually, this regiment is broken up with a battalion in direct support of each grunt regiment in the division. These DS battalions are often equipped with the smaller-caliber and/or shorter-ranged pieces on the regiment's TE. Often these DS arty battalions are further divided so that 1 battery is DS for each grunt battalion in the grunt regiment, meaning that down on the firing line, 3 grunt companies are arguing over who gets the services of the guns right now. In addition, as grunts advance and retreat, DS batteries have to leapfrog to maintain the proper range, so some aren't always available. This is why FOs have to wait in line.

If the arty regiment is big enough, it will have 1 or more additional battalions. These are the GS battalions, the only ones the arty regiment CO/division CO usually exercises command over. These are usually used for division- or corps-level fire missions; pre-assault bombardments, counterbattery, and deep interdiction, such as shelling road junctions in the enemy rear. As such, the GS battalions usually have the biggest, longest-ranged tubes in the arty regiment.

The secondary mission of the GS battalions is reinforcing fire. This means they go into a temporary semi-DS role when the usual DS battalions don't have the macho to solve the current problem. What usually happens is that the GS battalion is subordinated to the over-worked DS battalion and is controlled from the DS battalion FDC. The DS CO/S-3 uses the GS guns either to hit additional targets in his queue that he doesn't have enough DS guns for, or adds their fire to particularly stubborn or lucrative targets already engaged by DS guns. Once the emergency is over, the GS battalions revert to their usual missions and chain of command.

Because the DS battalion FDC handles reinforcing fires, it's transparent to the FOs. They are not in contact with the GS battalions, they just notice that their fire missions are getting answered quicker and/or with greater force than before. This is because the GS battalions don't usually have FOs of their own or, if they do, they aren't in the crucial location. And the DS FOs usually don't have the radio freq of the GS battalions anyway. (NOTE: helpful radiomen at the DS battalion FDC often inform the FOs that GS help is now available, but this is FYI stuff, usually not affecting who gives orders to the GS guns.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the scenario editor there should be two types of arty support for each tube type, Direct Support and General Support. DS FOs should be costed at least twice as much as GS FOs. This represent the major resource commitment<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent idea, but I'd modify the concept some and use different names for the types of arty support based on my blather above .

Seems to me there are 3 basic cases:

1. The FO is calling on the usual DS battery supporting his whole battalion and has to wait in line with the FOs of the other companies. So this guy would be cheapest because he'd have longer delays in getting fire and probably fewer rounds available. Maybe call him a DS FO.

2. The FO is calling on the usual DS guns but the brass have decided he gets exclusive or at least high priority use of them. So he's more expensive due to short delays and more available ammo. Maybe call him a Priority FO.

3. The FO has GS guns providing reinforcing fires as well as the usual DS guns. He would also be fairly expensive--delays would be shorter than normal, although maybe not quite as short as having exclusive DS control, but he'd have a lot of ammo and some of it would be BIG. Maybe call him a Reinforced FO. Of course, this type of FO should only be used in "hitting the fan" scenarios, usually on the defending side.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ANd to get even more realistic the general responisveness, accuracy and ability to control minutely the outcome of a fire mission should be adjusted by time of month<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet troop quality of the FO modifies the base delay time and also accuracy. Maybe you could abstract the sort of thing you're talking about by using higher quality FOs for scenarios later in the war.

-Bullethead

[Fionn]

Jesus Moon, will someone tell Charles to stop adding stuff without telling us. Every build is like pandora's box. You play it and go HEY he's changed the entire unit purchase screen etc etc.

I mean that last build... Talk about shock when we started playing it eh?

Which units have VTs Martin? I just looked at the Allied arty and didn't spot any.. Which ones are you referring to?

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Moon]

Bullethead-

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But if the rounds start in the middle of a turn, then you're going to have to shoot 1/2 a turn more or less than you want to on that target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You understand much more about this topic than me, but is it really realistic that an FO could/would tell the battery to fire for 10 seconds?

[Guest L Tankersley]

Waaaaaaaah! I just wanna know what happens when an FO dies!

Although I think I've learned by observation that if an FO goes down, his guns won't fire any more. I'm not sure yet whether there may be some rounds already "in flight" that could impact shortly afterward.

[interesting discussion, guys - I know a little of this stuff but it's always nice to learn more from those in the know.]

Leland J. Tankersley

[tss]

You understand much more about this topic than me, but is it really realistic that an FO could/would tell the battery to fire for 10 seconds?

No, but he could and would say something like "x rounds, fire for effect", where x is the number of rounds that the FO estimates to be enough to reach the desired effect.

-Tommi

[Guest JonS]

Good points Los, but remember different countries have different doctrines. In the Commonwealth each battalion has a battery of field arty (25pdrs in WW2) in DS (if the Bn is in the line of course) with heavier stuf (5.5") in GS. (started writing this before Bulletheads last)

Moon, does this mean that the FO you select can ONLY fire VT fuses? Or can you pick before each call for fire during the scenarion?

Bullethead - the FOs are a long way from the batteries, but they still now exactly how many and what type of gun are available, and approximately how many rounds and what types are available also. Remember, this is their job and what they're paid to do. I think it would be odd if the FO wasn't informed that he was about to get 155mm instead of 105mm. The size of the round has a huge effect on planning - with larger rounds you'll need less of them, but will probably be dealing with a larger impact footprint (due to range and doctrine), will have to consider the increased safety distances (I said 'consider', not 'enforce'. if you want to drop rounds on the freindlies that's your call ), and so on.

I like the idea of the 3 tiered FO thing.

Thanks

Jon

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Bullethead]

Moon said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>VT fuzes are already in the game. Check the available arty in the unit menu of the editor. I can see at least two or three different guns with VT fuzes in there!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very cool . And these guns (and all the others with the same role) would be the ones using MT fuses as well.

-Bullethead

[Bullethead]

JonS said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the FOs are a long way from the batteries, but they still now exactly how many and what type of gun are available, and approximately how many rounds and what types are available also<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the perfect world, yup . But sometimes the word doens't get passed. Also, the FO doesn't know how many rounds are "his" unless he has exclusive control of that battery.

But IMHO more importantly, the FOs in CM are abstracted. Real life FOs belong to the arty unit and are just attached to the grunts. Because they work for the arty CO, they are better informed about the status of their parent arty unit.

But also in real life, sometimes there ain't any real FOs left so grunt company and platoon commanders have to do the job. This situation might go on for days or weeks, depending on replacement supply. While this is going on, the grunt officer, being outside the arty chain of command, is unlikely to be in the loop about the status of the arty unit supporting him.

I think I read somewhere that the CM FOs represent both regular FOs and grunt commanders calling for fire. In this latter case, which I think was pretty common, the amount of info available would be pretty limited. I've read many accounts of grunt commanders calling for fire only to be told, "We're bugging out right now. Sorry we forgot to tell you before." Or something like "OK, we can shoot that registration 200m to your front, but all we have available right now is 240mm. Keep your heads down."

But anyway, this abstraction was one reason why I said reinforcing fires would be transparent to the FO. I was thinking of the grunt commander not knowing until the last minute what kind of support he'd be getting.

The other reason....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think it would be odd if the FO wasn't informed that he was about to get 155mm instead of 105mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. An oversight on my part, based on habits of thought acquired in an arty regiment that was exclusively 155mm in its last incarnation. But you're right, when we had a mix of calibers, you had to know what was coming.

Problem is, I'm not sure CM allows for variable gun sizes to be called on by the same FO. If it does, then no problem, you pick the one you want and duck down accordingly . If it doesn't, then you'd just have 1 FO for each size of battery available.

Hmmm. Interesting problem. But it only really comes up in the case of the reinforced FO, where different calibers might be available at different times. Especially if the FO was really a grunt commander. It would be pretty cool if the gun type available was random from turn to turn .

-Bullethead

[Moon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think I read somewhere that the CM FOs represent both regular FOs and grunt commanders calling for fire. In this latter case, which I think was pretty common, the amount of info available would be pretty limited.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That reminds me of something I read in "Rhinelander" (I think). I think it was a platoon sargeant that got to call in arty (because everybody was dead more or less...) and called for "big brothers", thinking it was 81mm or maybe 105mm arty. He got those 8 inch beasts.. oops

[Los]

Wow so many good points to discuss and address so little time! Let me take a crack... (BTW I'm trying to keep this WW2 oriented not modern arty oriented as much as possible)

First off regarding direct support and general support, I have not been talking about TOE designation. (Well it is but in CM terms we must concentrate on actual operational uses more than TOE!) A unit might be desiganted in TOE as a DS battalion but realistically it's actually mission dictated. Whether a unit is operationally in direct support of your unit or in general support is an operational matter which changes with every misison. Though it seems in the defense, things worked closer to BH's model than in the attack. Since it is the goal of the commander to mass his fires (and combat power) at the point of decision rather than water them down by spreading them out everywhere.) Theoretically there is enough arty in a division to parcel it out as Bullethead describes in detail. However realistically the batteries and battalions go where they are perceived to be needed before the start of an operation so that a regiment's battalion support may go somewhere else or in fact may be concentarted in DS of only one battalion. (Or even one comnpany!) This is why battalions can always rely on their own organic support (mortars, maybe sometimes the cannon company, though these weren't as successful as hoped, and German HW company IG guns etc.)

DISCLAIMER: ALL THIS IS AND CAN BE DICTATED BY THE SCENARIO DESIGNER SO MOST ANYTHING YOU WANT CAN BE DONE!

Remember most all divisions also have a divisional artillery commander (i.e McCcauliffe in the 101st) whos job it is to untlize the divisions's artillery as he saw best during any given operations.) Artillery officers ALWAYs feel that they know a better use for their assetts than the infantry does, (It's virtually a disease in the modern army, those guys are always off to fight their own seperate battle rather than supprt grunts in need..Brits in WW2 especially earlier on suffered heavily from this infantry-armor-artillery "parochialism".) BTW I realise after a second reading of BH's post they we ARE talking about almost the same thing so there's not much disparity here.

"Excellent idea, but I'd modify the concept some and use different names for the types of arty support based on my blather above."

ACtually I am using the terminolgy that you would find in an Army operations order, both WW2 (i.e. per FM7-20 the infantry battalion-modern and WW2 era copies) and today. You either have artillery in Direct Support (most likely from a DS battery as you describe) or in General support. And since there are no artillery TOEs in the scenario editor only spotters and their assigned rounds, this should be how the FOs are purchased (DS or GS) with associated variances in responsiveness and rounds available.

REgarding an FO calling in arty and knowing when its coming. I need to slightly modify what I've been saying now that we are getting into calling in fire more deeply. A FO WILL know how many rounds and when they are coming in. But it may not be what he requested.

I may need an immediate suppression fire mission (BTW you usually request actual individual rounds per se, depends on the relaitionship to the firing unit, are you one of their guys or Cpt so and so, CO of baker company) and I may need it now. Eventually they will tell you what's coming in and when. So eventually you will be told when the adjusting fire is outbound ("Shot, over") and when it's should have impacted ("splash over") so in a way in CM when you see a time to impact, its prety realistic but this TTI (or TOT if you will) should vary greatly depending on whether you have a DS battery working for you (note usually the point of attack or the support force providing overwatch for the attack has this) or whether you have only GS. (i.e. All the other losers out there.)

REgarding actauly rounds available to the battalion I really doubt this is so. You may know how many rounds YOU want fired and they may give you that many, but once the FO leaves the comfort of battery HQ, he is not kept up to date on the S4 situation back there as a matter of course. In fact the FO does not talk directly to the battery but talks to the FSSC (Fire support Coordination Center..nowadays sometimes called the FDC, though really that's the guys with the slide rules that actually calculate where the guns will shoot). Normally the FSSC is a battalion or brigade assets that draws resources from the pool of batteries that it controls.

REgarding quality effecting FOs, I'd be surprised if BTS already didn't have this in here, though in general, arty didn't suffer the kind of turnover and ups and downs in performacnce that line battaions had due to losses. After all, whene ths last time anyone ever saw a dead artilleryman? (My take off on the old cavalry joke from ACW)

Cheers...

Los

[Guest JonS]

Regarding losses to Gunners, there's a bit in Hastings' "Overlord" about casualty rates. I don't have it to hand right now, but basically IIRC gunners were only slightly more at risk than Eisenhower and Monty

Regarding the TOE allocation, something to bear in mind is the allocation of FOs. Each battery was notionally in DS of a BN and had/has 3 FO parties and the BCs party. The battery commander wil, generally, hang out with the Bn CO. Each FO party will, generally, hang out 1/company - most likely with the coy OC but could be with the lead platoon.

Of course the Main Effort will recieve a greater allocation. Also, Bns and Coys in reserve will likely have their FOs stripped away for use where the action is.

Jon

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Bullethead]

Los said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Though it seems in the defense, things worked closer to BH's model than in the attack. Since it is the goal of the commander to mass his fires (and combat power) at the point of decision rather than water them down by spreading them out everywhere.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the attack, the main difference in arty employment is that the GS battalions might be shooting closer to the FEBA early on, maybe even in the DS role, to help effect a breakthrough. And there's usually 1 grunt regiment in reserve so its usual DS battalion can be employed on other tasks until that regiment goes into the line. It might be helping break through, or it might be limbered up closely following the grunts and go into direct support of the lead regiments from on the initial objective, to cover the advance of the other guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>since there are no artillery TOEs in the scenario editor only spotters and their assigned rounds, this should be how the FOs are purchased (DS or GS) with associated variances in responsiveness and rounds available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they keep saying CM is still a beta, so maybe BTS is open to changing how you buy FOs, to reduce abstraction a bit .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A FO WILL know how many rounds and when they are coming in. But it may not be what he requested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. And that's my problem with the way CM currently models OBA fire mission durations. Either the FO gets the number or rounds he asked for, or he gets less. But in either case it's a definite number of rounds for the fire mission, it's not a continuous barrage that goes on until the player cancels the FO's target.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact the FO does not talk directly to the battery but talks to the FSSC (Fire support Coordination Center..nowadays sometimes called the FDC, though really that's the guys with the slide rules that actually calculate where the guns will shoot). Normally the FSSC is a battalion or brigade assets that draws resources from the pool of batteries that it controls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Us Jarheads do things a bit different. FOs usually talk to the DS battalion FDCs but might get to talking directly to the battery the FDC assigns to the mission for actual adjustment purposes. Don't know if that happened in WW2, though. Also, to us the FSCC is a division-level thing, where you tie in air and naval gunfire support with the division's own arty. It's where you plan things like SEAD missions, which are beyond the scope of CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After all, whene ths last time anyone ever saw a dead artilleryman? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you've never seen one, check out the last few pix at http://people.delphi.com/jtweller/gulfwar.htm .

Seriously, it can be pretty dangerous to be a cannoncocker. The other side's arty and air have you as their #1 tactical target. This is because arty is THE decisive battlefield weapon. The side with a marked arty superiority is going to win because all those grunts and tanks are just cannonfodder . Thus, both sides try real hard to get arty superiority, which means at the top level, the 1st phase of a campaign the arty duel, the struggle for arty superiority.

Once this is decided, it becomes pretty safe to be a cannoncocker on the superior side. The other side no longer has much that can hurt you. Then you can lay waste to all you survey pretty much with impunity, like the victorious God of War you are . Like we used to say, the battlefield has 3 zones from front to rear: where they do the dying (grunts and tanks), where they do the killing (arty), and where they plan the funeral (HQs).

So, as to JonS's assertion about US arty casualty rates in France, it's not surprising they were pretty low. We had arty superiority almost from the get-go. First off, we had total air superiority. So our cannoncockers didn't have to worry about the biggest threat, enemy TacAir. Second, the German arty wasn't much of a counterbattery threat, either. Our air was strafing the Hell out of it all the time. And the Germans didn't have as much arty as we did anyway, so they couldn't go toe-to-toe in counterbattery wars.

That said, you can see how much it sucks to be a cannoncocker on the inferior side. Just ask the Iraqis .

-Bullethead

[Los]

"Either the FO gets the number or rounds he

asked for, or he gets less. But in either case it's a definite number of rounds for the fire mission, it's not a continuous barrage that goes on until the player cancels the FO's target."

Except that in real life the FO more often than not does not ask for a specific number of rounds. He asks for a fire mission in fact he may just call for things like "immediate suppression" etc. he doesn't say I need ten roudns here or fifteen rounds there. He asks for a fire mission and when it's done he calls it off. Of course if he is being fancy or really trying to pinpont something he may ask for rounds.

"Us Jarheads do things a bit different..."

AHh and therein lies the rub! In fact a few times during or discussion I wanted to mention that on the whole the Marines seem to have a much better system of allocating fire support and definately air support than does the army/airforce. Actually a better way to put it is that they control the parochialism of the seperate arms better. However don't confuse Marine procedures as being synonomous with army porcedures or even those of other countries (Or modern proc. being the same as WW2) though PACWAR CM is hopefully coming soon!

For instance in WW2 there was less independence of individual batteries running off and dong their own thing as there is nowadays where battalion fires are rare.

P.s. I was joking about the dead arty thing.

Cheers...

Los

[tss]

Except that in real life the FO more often than not does not ask for a specific number of rounds. He asks for a fire mission in fact he may just call for things like "immediate suppression" etc.

The artillery practices varied from a country to country. In Finnish army the observers would explicitly state the desired shell amount, either as numbers or using more abstract "tuliannos" (literally: "fire portion"). The number of shells in a "tuliannos" depended on the size of the firing artillery. Unfortunately, I don't remember any exact figures but generally, a single "tuliannos" would be heavy enough to surpress the all enemy activity in a 100x100 meter square.

In addition, in defence there would be pre-registered barrage areas ("sulku"). Each battery would have a preallocated firing schedule so that the FO could call simply: "one 'sulku' to area X" and the battery would fire the shells. If one barrage was not enough, the FO would then ask for more.

Finnish artillery was also very flexible in the target selection and there were no intermediate steps in the fire allocation chain. As I have mentioned before, once a 2nd Lieutenant directed the fire of all batteries in range to a single point target. (The shells landed one minute before the scheduled start of a Soviet armored attack. The attack was canceled.)

-Tommi