Arty rounds against infantry in foliage

[Euri]

When targeting enemy infantry hidden in foliage of medium to high density what mix of arty rounds do you select, general or personnel?

[Kinophile]

I use personnel only against Inf in the open, or to suppression Inf in a building I need intact. 

(personnel will still bring down the structure eventually, just not as immediately as  General). 

I use General otherwide in case there are AFVs/tanks in with the Inf.

Edited February 29, 2016 by kinophile

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I always shoot anti-personnel in woods.  The fragmentation effects aren't degraded by foliage as far as I can tell.  The improved effects against cover I feel are worth it.  I'll still use general if I'm just looking to rock the woods/kill/damage anything in it, but if I'm going for suspected ATGM positions, or I'm prepping a woodline for an infantry assault, airburst seems to give the best effects. 

[Euri]

I thought it was me...but I see the debate is still open among the community :-) Thanks guys

Btw, do you know what is army doctrine in real life (if there is a doctrine)

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Far as I know it's air bursting.  An impact fused artillery shell doesn't get the sort of fragmentation coverage that airburst does, and the explosion in the trees vs on the ground also tends to drive bits of tree downward and into people which is a messy business.  You're pretty well protected against ground burst artillery so long as you've dug a good hole, not so much air bursting.

If there's concerns about enemy armor in there, it might be firing a mix of both point detonating or air bursting rounds, but if the target is enemy infantry almost always the mission is going to be an air burst.  

[TheForwardObserver]

It seems counter intuitive, but in real life you employ HE/Delay in treelines in the absence of ICM.  That is, if a target description of 'personnel in treeline' is submitted to an FDC and standard targetting practices are being employed the mission will be fired with delayed fuzes which burst .05 seconds after being triggered.  If the Observer chooses, he can specify an alternative be used in the method of engagement portion of the call for fire.  There is an expectation with foliage that HE/quick and HE/VT will not achieve adequate penetration, and HE/Delay will ricochet causing low airbursts.  Additional information can be found in chapter 4 of FM-6-30.

I haven't done any proper testing of the differences between the two in game but as a general rule I mindlessly pick personnel for pretty much any personnel targets and general for vehicles.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Well hell.  I guess I can be wrong about something.  Either way in game I've always personnelled troops.  

Didn't CMSF used to have a "mix" option for general and anti-personnel?  

[TheForwardObserver]

Well hell.  I guess I can be wrong about something.  Either way in game I've always personnelled troops.  

Didn't CMSF used to have a "mix" option for general and anti-personnel?  

Well let's not rule out that the doctrine could be re-evaluated!  These obscure doctrinal nuances are intentionally placed to provide FISTers with the opportunity to interject in the presence of our maneuver brethren.  This is an important self-validation and rapport building ritual to us.  We *need* this.  But to paraphrase something Clausewitz never said; End of the day the battlefield is your blank canvas, the doctrine and tangibles your palette, and those colors can be mixed how you wish

[gnarly]

Well let's not rule out that the doctrine could be re-evaluated!  These obscure doctrinal nuances are intentionally placed to provide FISTers with the opportunity to interject in the presence of our maneuver brethren.  This is an important self-validation and rapport building ritual to us.  We *need* this.  But to paraphrase something Clausewitz never said; End of the day the battlefield is your blank canvas, the doctrine and tangibles your palette, and those colors can be mixed how you wish

Shakespeare would be jealous!  ;D

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Fair enough.  In a lot of ways I'd not cared if it was HE delay or a cannister round firing jujubes (the worst of all candies!) so long as the result was dead dismounts).  Just seemed to recall it was pretty much VT if you weren't aiming to put steel on target (or DPICM back when that was allowed)

[sburke]

Shakespeare would be jealous!  ;D

Yeah really, seriously funny!  I think panzeralphabetsoupname finally met his match.

[c3k]

Well let's not rule out that the doctrine could be re-evaluated!  These obscure doctrinal nuances are intentionally placed to provide FISTers with the opportunity to interject in the presence of our maneuver brethren.  This is an important self-validation and rapport building ritual to us.  We *need* this.  But to paraphrase something Clausewitz never said; End of the day the battlefield is your blank canvas, the doctrine and tangibles your palette, and those colors can be mixed how you wish

THIS is pure genius. Only someone familiar with Officer/Enlisted Evaluation Report system could craft such a well, err, crafted paragraph. I hope this got you your promotion...ahead of your peers.