Jeff Pattison Posted June 21, 1999 Share Posted June 21, 1999 Didn't see anything in the forum that discribed it. Is it going to be realistic or simplified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 You get one FO unit per battery. Delays are assigned based on experience of the FO, its state, and type of weapon. Also, if the FO is firing at a pre-registered zone the delay is almost nil, and the accuracy is increased a whole bunch. You can also order your artillery to fire a "wide" pattern. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Can a barrage in progress be shifted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 Yes, but only within a certain range. Beyond that and you will have to cancel the fire mission and designate a new one. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRourke Posted June 22, 1999 Share Posted June 22, 1999 perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scurlock Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 How 'bout HQ units? Shouldn't they be able to call in artillery same as the FO's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 They shouldn't be able to, and hopefully they won't. FO units represent gunners (artillery specialists) with training and experience in calling and controlling artillery. HQ units represent an agromulation of experienced grunts who know how to walk for days on end, can run up and down hills, and know what the sharp side of a bayonet is for The skill sets are different, and shouldn't be confused. Scurlock, your timing is impecable. I was just been re-looking at the pictures of the 'improved' artillery routines at CMHQ, and some other things occured to me that hadn't been covered in the thread on arty that wound up yesterday(?). Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HQ units represent an agromulation of experienced grunts who know ... what the sharp side of a bayonet is for<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Well, how 'bout that! This here can opener actually fits on the end of a rifle!" (stolen from a "Willy and Joe" cartoon) Hehehe, arty snob-ism, I love it . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>some other things occured to me that hadn't been covered in the thread on arty that wound up yesterday(?).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Go it, JonS! We'll get the God of War out of abstraction yet . -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 I would agree that larger artillery should require specialist spotters as is the present case in the CM demo. But for the battalion-level or lower (60/81mm mortars for the US, 50/81 for the Germans, etc.), I don't it's unreasonable to allow a platoon HQ a random chance to link up with some mortars for indirect fire. (Historical students of WW2 artillery are free to correct me, of course, on the likelihood of artillery links getting to platoon-level.) For that matter, do the smaller mortars (60's & lower) have the ability to be used in some form of indirect "spotted" fire? I would like to believe that these mortars won't be constrained to being direct-fire weapons only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 Even 81's used dedicated FOs... still do. There is more to calling in fire than just talking on a radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 Well, if you note my previous post, I suggested that a platoon HQ could be given a RANDOM chance to link up with mortar batteries. Or possibly, even allow a "FO" ability to be assigned to a specific platoon HQ based on the scenario mission when designing a scenario. It would be prudent, of course, not to allow ALL platoon HQ's to have automatic linkage to mortar batteries. But in wasn't it also prudent that some FO's would often operate closely to some HQ or another? After all, the FO could get the battery access, but they didn't always operate fully independent from the company & battalion HQ chain. If they did, it would've been the recipe for far more friendly fire incidents than was the historical case. The present FO arrangement isn't really a detraction from CM. Heck, from the comments I've read on recent CM improvements, this looks likely to be the best artillery access system yet attempted in a WW2 tactical wargame. But FO teams will sometimes get nailed in these games, of course, as was the case in real life. So I again pose the suggestion that for low-level (integral battalion/company) mortars, it wouldn't be unreasonable for some select HQ units (at least the company HQ) to have a possible "backup" FO capability to a specific battery, if the battery's main FO team is taken out. And this should be guided by nationality and timeframe too. I certainly think that the British would've had backup spotter teams in the later war years. And again, is there a way for the smaller mortars (like the US 60's in the demo) to operate with some kind of "spotted" fire without requiring direct LOS to the target? Also a minor issue, but I'm still curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 Except for occasions where a platoon or company commander was fighting from a prepared position and called fire on pre-plotted points (which CM models using TRPs) I haven't read of infantry or tank commanders calling artillery down themselves. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 Again, I am not referring to the ACTUAL infantry/tank unit commanding officer making the fire call. I am referring to some arbitrary FO being assigned within the command UNIT. I find it a bit difficult to believe, for Western Allied armies, that infantry company HQ's didn't have some inherent FO for the battalion/company mortars. And no evidence has yet been presented to confirm the same. Ambrose's "Citizen Soldiers" gave some details on artillery access being performed by a low-level (company/platoon) HQ with a high level of flexibility in '45, but I don't remember exactly where in the later chapters this is mentioned. Not the standard reference, but that's all that comes to me for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 22, 1999 Share Posted December 22, 1999 Try seaching. There was a discussion about this 3, maybe 4, weeks ago. Dunno exactly. Anyway, I think the outcome was that HOs would be able to control on-board mortars indirectly as long as they were within command radius. There a was another discussion within the last week (?) along the lines of, if an on-board mortar moves at all, it will no longer be capable of indirect fire for that scenario, regardless of who's calling it in. As to your specific question regarding FO capability within HQ units; well, in the real world FO parties are independant, not part of any HQ. They may work very close with the HQ, and may geographically be within metres of them, but they remain seperate. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique [This message has been edited by JonS (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Spook, The short answers to your questions are: 1. Can 0n board mortars (And arty for that matter) fire indirect fire? Yes and No. Yes if they have not moved yet (this represents them being in place with wire run out the whoever is FOing for them (mortars sections diud not carry radios just wire.)TRPs and most importantly and FDC being set up. Once they move no more FDC. 2. Can regular platoons and HQs do IF spotting. No. For the most part, the Capability was not there, that's why there were specialist FOs. (Limited commo capabilities even with the walkie talkies, freqs available, structure of WW2 commo nets etc, come into play in that decision also.) For detailed discussion on these matters and others pertaining to indirect fire check out: On board field artillery http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002023.html 60mm and free tubing too easy http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001650.html Mortars http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001418.html Unlearning Artillery http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001525.html Q about arty FOs http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001720.html 1 spotter 1 gun or battery? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001876.html hope that helps. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 JonS & LOS: Your combined responses are helpful to me, and allowing "static" (never-moved) onboard mortars an indirect capability is appropriate to allow. Removing this ability with the mortar team's movement also sounds appropriate. Thanks. It's not overly important an option to provide an FO within a HQ unit (platoon/company). But I'm not yet convinced that FO's truly were independent of the command chain---leastways, not in every army in WW2. Think of it this way: if an infantry company comes under fire, then isn't it more appropriate for the company commander to determine the need for fire support, and therefore asks the FO to get battery access? The FO is the one who can get the shots placed accurately, but he'll probably want authorization first from a local commander that the fire support IS needed. (I've only started reading/posting of recent, and missed all earlier discussion on this topic.) And thanks again for the topic links, LoS. That's helpful for reference. Regards, Ed [This message has been edited by Spook (edited 12-22-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Spook/Ed, I see your point about the chain of command (though it doesn't exactly work that way in RL), but look at it this way: The infantry squads ARE under direct control of the HQ units, so you could just roll them all up into the HQ unit as he has control anyway, and the same for the MMGs and Bazookas be kind of a boring game though Having the units broken down the way they are gives you more tactical flexibility. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 The FO's are part of the HQ... they are just repesented as a separate unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Spook "But I'm not yet convinced that FO's truly were independent of the command chain." FO's were not even part of the battalion or even the regt. Fo's are part of the artillery corp, and are detached from the Artillery Battalion's on the basis of need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knaust Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 In my battle with SS_PanzerLeader, after wiping out all his hellcats, im going to blast off all his residual infantry with some 105mm offboard artillery. But...the FO seems frozen in his 3mins standard procedure...simply these 3 mins wont diminish...is there some reason other than mercy for SS_PanzerLeader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 23, 1999 Share Posted December 23, 1999 Spook, You can co-locate your FO with anyone you want including the company commander. But there's more to FO Ops than you think. The FO for one thing is carrying his own radio. Back in those WW2 days radios did not have dozens of channels like they do nowadays. Remember that battalion/regimental/division nets are fairly complex things with individual channels for fire control and other functions. Nowadays it's a fairly easy task to switch over your Singars to the artillery preset, authentic and go but in thosedays most radios had the crystals in them which worked for a specific channel (s) only. So you couldn't switch freqs as you can nowadays. (Believe it or not when I first came into SF we were still using the trusty old AN-GRC109!) Now whenever possible they would run wire all over the place to make it easier to call for fire but it was still a specialist task though that's not to say others wouldn't have picked up at least a working knowledge along the way. The there's the whole reporting/working structure of artillery to the infantry. The artillery works for the division arttillery commander who parcels out support as he sees fit in support of the mission taking into account whether it's a DS or GS battery capablity, situation etc etc (METT-T). Artillery is a precious resource even if you have tons of it, it has to be used to support the commander's intent (not the company comander he's one step above peon in the overall scheme of things) so the FO ensures through his presence, reporting relationship and capability that arty is going to the right place at the right time in support of the fire plan. It was not till much later (post WW2) that communications/training and doctrine began to change to the point where allowing the masses access to fire support began to happen in a more standard common fashion and by the way, it is once again being taken away from them. Sure enough, in the US army, platoons learn the call for fire procedure but the reality of the matter is they seldom do call their own fire or have their call for fire requests honored unless it goes through an FO/FIST/FDC/ etc which was a BIG gripe during the Gulf War, that and the fact that artillery branch at least back then was much more interested in fighting it's own war (artillery raids, interdiction ops deep battle blah blah) than they are actually supporting the guy on the ground. ANyway, there's a lot more to gthat goes into FO than just Capatain Miller grabbing the handset from his radioman and calling in fire, (even if he knew teh technical porcedures, which he most likely would not)in fact he wouldn't even be able to talk to the fire support center or FDC to make the barrage happen. Chees... Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted December 24, 1999 Share Posted December 24, 1999 Los said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now whenever possible they would run wire all over the place to make it easier to call for fire but it was still a specialist task<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Los is dead on with all this. And just to amplify the above, wires don't move once you lay them. So this was pretty much only possible on the defensive. Thus, on the attack, communications had to rely on the radio which, as Los described, was a lot more primative than it is today. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>a BIG gripe during the Gulf War, that and the fact that artillery branch at least back then was much more interested in fighting it's own war (artillery raids, interdiction ops deep battle blah blah) than they are actually supporting the guy on the ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehehe, I gotta object to this. Yup, we were sure as Hell fighting our own war over there. Even for us guys in direct support roles, 80% of the missions we fired were counterbattery. HOWEVER, keep in mind that at least in 2MARDIV's sector (and we had some Army attachments ), intel said the Iraqis had 10 times the number of tubes we did. They shot some at us, but they shot more at you grunts. And we shut them the Hell down . But there were so many, they took a lot of killing. We were so busy keeping the heat off the grunts that we didn't have much left to take out mere MG nests . Anyway, at the time, it looked like the better idea to keep you guys from being shelled to bits than to do direct support. But we sure gave you grunts a lot of indirect support -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted December 24, 1999 Share Posted December 24, 1999 Sorry Bullethead, Once again I failed to add the caveat that the Marines have successfully kept their artillery branch from straying from their true mission (same goes for their air support too.) My comments were directed at the Army. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts