Fire mission employment

[HerrTom]

This is a hopefully simple question for everyone:

How do you utilize your fire support - do you use the whole gamut of options? Emergency, harrassment, medium, light, etc along with quick, short, medium, long missions?  Under what circumstances do you use which combinations?

Do you use linear targets, area targets, point targets, and what do you use each on?

For me, effective use of fire support has always been my weak spot.  One can always improve via vague forum questions!

[DougPhresh]

I run it out of the playbook. As a gunner, it's somewhat cathartic and CM games are much more enjoyable than the Indirect Fire Trainer!

As a rule of thumb, I never use unobserved missions, fire by platoon, and only use emergency for FPF (being overrun).

As for the mission, I would use 1 tube for a team or single soft vehicle, platoon for a squad or a defended point target, and a battery for a platoon.

I can go into more detail later but I'm heading to work!

[Glubokii Boy]

The one arty-option i use far to little i fear is - SMOKE - 

Many times i have cursed  myself after taking unneccesaryly high casualties...

" Damn it ! Why didn't you use your smokerounds, stupid man " 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

On 5/9/2017 at 5:08 AM, HerrTom said:

This is a hopefully simple question for everyone:

How do you utilize your fire support - do you use the whole gamut of options? Emergency, harrassment, medium, light, etc along with quick, short, medium, long missions?  Under what circumstances do you use which combinations?

Do you use linear targets, area targets, point targets, and what do you use each on?

For me, effective use of fire support has always been my weak spot.  One can always improve via vague forum questions!

Unlike DougPhresh I am not a gunner or a military man for that matter :-) However, from a game point of view it depends what you want to achieve. I prefer targeted missions against identified targets. Against tanks precision missions with specialist munitions seem to be the best way to go. If you want a pre assault bombardment perhaps you will want to consider locations that might conceal enemy positions which may interfere with your plan. Consider the artillery assets and air assets you have now and what you expect to have later, As regards target types

Linear and area targets - fire missions where I want to it a larger area

Point targets - Precision missions where I want to kill a specfic target, perhaps a Tunguska for instance

Edited May 10, 2017 by LUCASWILLEN05

[DougPhresh]

As part of a combined arms team, also consider not only the effect on target but how the fits into your general plan. If you have a long fire plan, what are other units doing while they wait for the fire to lift? Firing on enemy positions before an attack is great, having your units sitting idle while they wait for the mission to end makes them targets for enemy fires.
 

[HerrTom]

That's why my go-to tool has been all guns, maximum ROF, and quick or short on enemy positions. Nail them with a lot of steel all at once, then move in.

Defensively, I've gone down to medium ROF and longer fire missions to make my enemy think twice about moving through a chokepoint.

Just recently I tried a medium ROF, long duration barrage on suspected enemy entrenched positions, using perhaps Soviet style fire direction - only ordering the barrage to stop once my men are almost on top of the enemy. I took some casualties from my own artillery, but I'll be damned if it wasn't effective. Suppressed ATGMs and other AT assets and my troops were definitely doing something the whole time the mission was firing, ever it was preparing or assaulting.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Very much a question of 'Horses for Courses'.....Who am I?  Where am I?  When am I?  What am I trying to do?  How well are my men trained?  How much artillery do we have?  What sort (how big) is it?  Who are my opponents?  What are they trying to do?  The list just goes on and on.....

Suffice it to say I'd behave very differently using a Crack US FO with a bunch of Paladins on call (the rest of the force would almost be a nuisance, especially in real time) to how I might with a Green Ukrainian volunteer with a bunch of volunteer artillery units in support. (blast everything, hope some of it hits something important)

[DougPhresh]

With the Ukrainians I've found that using the howitzers on  a fire plan and using mortars on call is the best way to work around their limitations. This is even more true with green or conscript units, you won't be able to call in fire unless you plan well in advance.

[John Kettler]

HerrTom,

Would swear we just had a thread like this, for I remember providing input to it. Unfortunately, I don't recall which game it was for! Might've been CMBS, in fact. What I do recall was people were talking about their philosophy of using fire support; what they bought, why and how they used it. In CMBS, for example, the Americans have potent artillery and CAS, but in Small QBs, especially if the Americans have armor, CAS is out, and even Paladins are, too. So the theoretically most capable nation in FS is, in fact, relatively weak. I fought an action in which all I had were mortars because I couldn't afford even the smallest Paladin formation.

As battle size goes up, the points rise, especially if in full-on attack, but FS is so expensive the Americans can't buy enough to use it the massive way we do in real battles. Apaches are expensive, especially Longbow, but cheaper than fixed wing, but the Tunguska is quite the mood dampener. Its SAM, after all, was designed to defeat a helo that popped up before it could remask--out to the missile's full range. Apaches are pricey toys, and they are quite breakable, meaning a lot of points wasted in order to theoretically have a lot of killing power. Not quite sure how vulnerable fixed wing is to Tunguska, since I'm not sure how the attack profiles are modeled, but there, the math is even more unpalatable. In turn, this means that to use CAS, you also have to do SEAD/DEAD first. This, of course, entails yet further expenditures to do that.

Consequently, I tend to favor FA, precisely because, other than potentially losing a drone or two, it is not foe dependent the way CAS is. Additionally, unlike CAS which may be as little as "one and done," FA is persistent. FA is versatile.

I can inflict rapier thrusts via Excalibur and the somewhat less capable mortar NPM for the 120 mm. 81s are affordable and a must if expecting infantry attack. In one QB, I had one section of 120s as my sledgehammer and sections of 81s to give me the ability to hit several targets in a single turn. This was in conjunction with cratering, wire and mines. Would add I was facing a combined arms attack and had to deal with BMP borne MR infantry if they got close.

As the Americans,  without resorting to the high tech munitions, I can impede and gall with harassing fire. I can disrupt with short, sharp missions. I can fire several hammer blows at different targets, or I can throw the kitchen sink at one critical target. I can blind specific enemy positions or screen whole sectors of the map. Also, since the US has the most and the best thermals, I can put down smoke, generally screw up the Russians's ability to see and shoot, and deliver punishing DF fires while significantly shielded by that smoke. TRPs and drones further leverage my capabilities. Bluntly put, I won't buy CAS unless I have lots of points to play with and can afford the FA needed to provide SEAD/DEAD.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by John Kettler

[Artemis258]

My .2 cents, as this is an area I've been trying to develop myself over the past few games; 

1. Pre-registered fires and, more explicitly, pre-registered target points, are fantastic if you get them right. I've taken to buying many TRPs in battles that they are 'fair' to use on (attack/defend types normally) and putting TRPS in ANY key terrain... This is ESPECIALLY important for ruskies and Ukrainians. 

2. Fire type for me is dependent on the force I'm fighting with. Accuracy and high speed on-call times with the Yanks make the artillery a precision tool for them  - even when not utilising precision rounds I'll emphasise short point-fires to destroy key enemy positions, vehicles and emplacements. Longer ones from the big stuff to bring down buildings. 
For the eastern forces, I tend to go with 'splat tactics'. I've deployed entire fire-fronts in a recent game in order to delay, disorganise or destroy an advance and it seemed to be reasonably effective, in another ww2 game I used a similar tactic against a German assault to an incredibly bloody effect, though it didn't secure me the win. 

3. With the new 'fleeing from fire' mechanic, I've found slightly larger target areas with airburst can be stupidly lethal at higher firerates. This is from single player experience only mind you, but catching moving infantry in the open with airburst is just nasty. 

[General Melchid]

John your memory does not fail, there was this thread by the forward observer fellow...http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123279-fos-conduct-of-fires-net/ with some interesting discussion.

[DougPhresh]

Always glad to see other artillerymen on the board! Speaking from experience, units with laser designators should be able to drop rounds on a point target without as many spotting rounds. I'd also like to see HE Delay fuses for hard targets like concrete structures.

[exsonic01]

On 5/8/2017 at 9:08 PM, HerrTom said:

How do you utilize your fire support - do you use the whole gamut of options? Emergency, harrassment, medium, light, etc along with quick, short, medium, long missions?  Under what circumstances do you use which combinations?

Followings are coming from my play style, and most of my PBEMs are meeting engagement QB. So, my opinions would not be the answer for all-around situation.  

I think 80% of my artillery supports are heavy mission, with short or quick, sometimes medium duration, like "squall" style pouring. Quick but heavy. I choose quick or short mission usually, because my opponent usually retreat his forces when artillery falls. (TACAI retreating issue is also a reason) Any 152/155mm after 1 turn are usually wasted away because the target moves away. If the target is infantry-rich, than medium duration also works. Reason behind the heavy mission is obvious - to bring maximum damage within relatively short time frame of 1~2 turn. 

One of the moment I call longer duration is when I bring 203mm (or 155mm if US) pre-planned strike. 203mm usually takes 8+ min even with elite artillery and elite fire support team without TPS, 4~5+ min with TPS. This is too long, it is unable to react with all the rapidly changing situations. Due to this restriction, if I bring 203mm, I only use it as pre-planned with some delay, to very obvious towns, woods, buildings, or any other key points on the map. With a good battle plan, this can be used as preparatory fire in the middle of meeting engagement. 

I rarely use harassment or light missions. But under some circumstances, I call them to deny area from enemy infantry for some time. Those 'infrequent' missions consume less ammo, so can be fired for longer duration without burden. I usually call those missions with mortar + air burst shell, forcing ATGM teams / infantry squads to run away from, or deny them from very obvious tree lines or woods. Then I could move my vehicles and forces with far less danger of ATGM ambush or being observed during some turns. 

Plus, @Artemis258 is right. TRP is really useful. I bring TRPs to almost all of my games (depending on map), especially for UA or Rus forces. You can bring and field TRPs in the meeting engagement games. For Ukraine, TRP is must-have item because they have no UAVs in this game.

On 5/8/2017 at 9:08 PM, HerrTom said:

Do you use linear targets, area targets, point targets, and what do you use each on?

This really depends, but I think I usually prefer area targets for woods and towns. Linear target for the treeline or building line time to time. I don't think I use point target that much. I usually play without UAVs or only with micro UAVs. In this case, UAV + precision round combo is not allowed. To deliver precision ammo without UAV, you need to bring your fire support vehicle or fire support team to a position which ensures the direct LOS to the target, but it is very dangerous time to time, especially if your target is 'clairvoyant' ones like crack or elite Abrams. Naturally, I try not to rely on precision rounds. 

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by exsonic01

[Erwin]

Harassment or Light fire with Long or Max duration is useful as one can move the FO and adjust the fire "on the go".  It's often faster than starting a whole new indirect fire process.  Most useful when you are not certain of exact enemy positions (and you have a reasonable amount of heavy arty). 

Esp for the Russians it takes a long time to get arty on target.  I find that the Blue forces can usually get their arty on my Red guys faster than Red can.