For you mortar men out there?

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

I suggest you purchase a dictionary and look up the definition of indirect fire. Right or wrong is not determined by a popular vote. 

Thanks, but I was in a combined arms battalion for the last two years of my military service, so I'm quite aware of what direct fire is.

That, and instead going on and on trying to explain to everyone here what indirect fire is and isn't, you'd do well to listen to the guy in this topic who was an FO in 82nd and is quite familiar with the methods that were used in the 40s - because, unless I am mistaken, he's said that the procedures to call for indirect fire hadn't changed significantly since the end of WWII and the time when he served. 

[chuckdyke]

Ok if 2+2 =5 it is because you guys say so. Like the Chieftain said about his military service it has nothing to do with computer gaming. I went to the trouble of providing the screenshots. That you chose to ignore it I take with a pinch of salt. I just advice some new guys to look at the direct fire option first especially when your shells are limited. The 60 mm mortar is most of the time better used in what this game calls direct fire. Us ignoramuses call it indirect because the unit doesn't have LOS and, in the past, called for a fire mission which is not necessary.   

[Combatintman]

7 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Right or wrong is not determined by a popular vote. 

Neither is it determined by being the most persistent and vocal person in the debate.  One of the people with whom you are disagreeing @Ultradaveis or was responsible for the planning and execution of indirect fires as a profession.  You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials, so guess who is more likely to be believed.

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

You, on the other hand, appear to lack the same credentials,

Oh the internet is full with Medal of Honor and VC's What has military service to do with computer gaming? Zilch is the answer, sorry to disappoint you. We play a game here nothing more and nothing less. I know how to plot direct fires and indirect fires in the game. I just illustrated that you could do both in some instances with the mortar out of sight of the enemy unit. Cover is the same the HQ is the same Angle and Direction of Fire is the same and the units are the same. It becomes indirect when you go through the silliness of going through the Fire Control Centre by radio to achieve the same result. To claim that 2+2 =5 because the claimant is a professional mathematician doesn't impress me. As a player of the game, you experts are only as qualified as me. Not in editing in that I am a novice. 

[domfluff]

9 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I see. It doesn't take a lot of time to do the calcs to switch from the observer's iine to the firing line. And for mortars, time of flight is quite significant when compared to howitzers (factor of 2x - 3x depending on range), so that calculation is even less of the total time. So while it might be marginally easier to have an observer on the line of fire as opposed to a significant angle, that's going to be a VERY small difference in the total fire mission time.

So for indirect fire I would not expect to see much difference in on line of fire or off line of fire FO location. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with that by getting too much into the details of the data calcs.

For direct fire, it should be quite a bit faster because the mortar crew is observing and rather than plotting anything, they will quickly convert a "drop 100" adjustment, for example, to a quick adjustment of the elevation of the piece and fire again. 

If you are using some kind of hybrid where it's sort of direct fire because you have someone a distance away yelling corrections or giving hand signal corrections (never heard of doing this btw), without firing charts, then being off line makes a difference, and the mortar crew would have to do some trig to convert. (much easier to have a plotting board than try to draw and solve the triangles). So in THAT sort of hybrid case, it should make a difference. This hybrid is what chuckdyke keeps describing. They are different things. 

But you specifically asked about an indirect call for fire using the fire support tab, which implies a FDC of some kind with therefore charts and darts with firing sticks/tables.

I hope that's helpful. Incidentally, these basic indirect fire principles apply to howitzers as well. Of course, for direct fire of a howitzer it's a different thing entirely than with a mortar.

Dave

So, a couple of thoughts/clarifications here, because I'm curious. I'm not referring to anything that Chuckdyke has talked about in this thread.

The original post was asking if there was a difference in-game between the physical location of the mortar team, the observer and the target, in particular for spotting rounds.

So:

(I'm mostly considering this in the context of the modern titles, so potentially all of the available kit)

1) With an FDC, I was under the impression that the whole spotting round-adjust-fire for effect cycle wasn't required.

That means that the closest representation in-game of this capability would be a TRP, would it not?

 2) The question that was originally posed in this thread is whether the physical location of the mortar, the FO and the target matter, and whether these are better lined up.

Without an FDC, TC 3-22.90 (Mortars) is pretty clear that the FO should be within 100m of the mortars if possible, or else within 100m of the gun-target line. That seems mostly to make the trigonometry easier to do - there's no real reason why that couldn't be done as accurately with any degree of displacement, but that would make the sums a lot more fraught, and require an accurate idea of your relative position - so this is presumably done for reasons of practicality.

In-game, if there was any difference in this to be seen, then presumably the difference you'd see would be in how quickly the spotting rounds get turned into fire for effect? If the FO was more than 100m off-line, then the accuracy of their adjustments would have an increasing amount of error to them (since the basic trig fudge will get increasingly wrong the more you deviate from the G-T line). If this was something the game models (and my brief testing seems to suggest that it is not), then the spotting rounds for an Observer that wasn't on the G-T line could be all over the place, no? And if those spotting rounds were wild, then the time it would take to adjust them onto the target would be greater, so the effect modelled would be (should be) that an FO not on-line would take longer to turn a mission into a fire for effect.

Actual call-in times would be similar - there will be a minor effect of having an FO in shouting distance, particularly in EW scenarios, but that's a secondary, and much more minor point.

 

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

So:

(I'm mostly considering this in the context of the modern titles, so potentially all of the available kit)

1) With an FDC, I was under the impression that the whole spotting round-adjust-fire for effect cycle wasn't required.

That means that the closest representation in-game of this capability would be a TRP, would it not?

The fire direction center does the calculations for defection (azimuth) and elevation for the firing unit. There are two general types of fire missions "Adjust Fire" and "Fire for Effect" that a FO would call for, and they are exactly what they sound like. So for adjust fire, one round at a time is sent out, the FO sends back corrections, and the last correction should be 50m, so you get close and then call, "Drop 50, Fire for Effect" and the battery or mortar section sends the FFE, whatever that is determined to be (which is determined by the FDC normally, based on the FO target description in the call for fire).

Fire for Effect is exactly that. FO calls in a fire mission with coordinates, FFE, and target description and gets, say a batter 3 rounds on target. The possible error here is greater, unless the FO has a pretty much perfect location coord of the target. Sometimes that's possible (crossroads visible on a map for example).

And of course, if you are in a hurry (and who isn't in combat?), you can abbreviate the adjustment, maybe "Add 200, Fire for Effect" rather than a couple more rounds to get within 50, realizing that the FFE might be less accurate, depending on how good you are at estimating distances at a distance, target movement, etc.

What a TRP does for you is cut time by having firing data to that point already calculated, and typically TRPs are selected so that their location is accurately placed, such as a crossroads, the tip of a treeline, a bridge - anything that can be very accurately picked from a map. The battery (or mortar section) would have pre-calculated firing data to the TRPs on the list, including time round data, so that a FFE call can go out quickly. A typical use would be to specify "From AB001,  Add 400, Fire for Effect, Infantry Company in the open"   AB001 being the TRP number. We had TRP numbers assigned by maneuver unit in blocks when I was doing this. 

In either of these cases you are still going through the FDC, just different procedures/data.

Of course if your FO is standing next to you or can shout, the mortar crew just dials in the pre calculated data. Keep in mind that 60mm mortar crews will be moving around a lot so TRPs are kind of useless for them. They'll know where the TRP is but have to recalculate the data anyway. 

As an artillery battery we knew we'd be moving a lot too, because counter battery location radar was something that WAS quite good back then. Rule of thumb was 6 volleys from a position and time to move. So when you set up in a new position first thing is to recalculate all the TRP data, which you may be doing in between on call fire missions. We had 2 plotting boards, but they'll be busy, because one is primary, the other is the checker, and they'd be plotting a mission AND repotting the TRPs simultaneously. We practiced this a lot.

Now with the more modern titles, like BS, and SF2, the FOs have the advantage of GPS, so they at least know their own positions very accurately. Cold War, GPS was just coming available, not in wide use and certainly not to the FO level. Laser designators were just making their appearance, usually for designating for air strikes. Our XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery did have a limited supply of rocket assisted 155mm rounds (can't remember the name - first ones available), and those were final guided by laser. Pretty much just in field test mode then. Computerized fire control was in its infancy during the time covered by CMCW. TACFIRE was just being tested - computerized fire control system. Very bulky, kind of balky. We had FADAC (Field Artillery Digital Analog Computer). We never used it. It weighed 400 lbs, didn't work after being airdropped (we broke several) and was really slow. We could easily beat it with good old charts and darts, which did not change significantly from WW2, through Korea, Vietnam and the CW period. Same techniques, updated data, more radios to comminicate.

I think most of this is represented in game pretty well. There are 2 things I'd love to see in CM:

1) The ability to call a FFE on a map location, without having any eyes on it or a TRP. In real life this is common. You might have a sound contact or saw a unit that went out of sight behind a rise or treeline and you'd call in a FFE on a map location. Might be accurate, might not. But you'd do it.

2) An initial call to shift from a TRP, rather than wait for the TRP mission and then adjust. Again a VERY common call for fire.

Your last part is correct. Without a FDC and being significantly off line, corrections are going to be iffy for accuracy. I expect you'd do very rough in your head conversion of the adjustment, or the FO would do it before stating the correction. For example a 45 degree offset means .7x the stated correction, that sort of thing.

Dave

Edited June 16, 2021 by Ultradave

[domfluff]

Cheers, I appreciate that.

Of these:
 

23 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

1) The ability to call a FFE on a map location, without having any eyes on it or a TRP. In real life this is common. You might have a sound contact or saw a unit that went out of sight behind a rise or treeline and you'd call in a FFE on a map location. Might be accurate, might not. But you'd do it.

2) An initial call to shift from a TRP, rather than wait for the TRP mission and then adjust. Again a VERY common call for fire.

 

1) Sounds like it could be modelled effectively by allowing Emergency missions to be called from out of line of sight. That would require some restructuring of the order of things (i.e., you'd presumably have to select target, with a text prompt for out of LOS, and if this position is out of LOS, you'd only have Emergency available to you, with the other options greyed out).

2) I think I can see why this isn't done. TRP + adjust seems like it works very well right now (it's clearly the best way to use DPICM, for a start), but with the current system I don't know how you'd select the TRP and then a displacement off that point, without a fairly major rework.

Both options sound good to have, mind you, but the former sounds like it would be less of a pain to add.

[Ultradave]

I agree. I’d still like to see both though as they reflect real world use. Maybe someday. They’re on my wish list

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

The ability to call a FFE on a map location,

I think it depends on the authors of a scenario: As a suggestion in the briefing, you get your TRP's and can't put them anywhere but an x-number of landmarks in which are typed in red. It depends also how the C2 is respected with the TRP's. Example a scout out of contact spots enemy movement the player can then call an arty strike on a TRP. It needs to be overhauled, on Hotseat at home it is easy to make some house rules in this regard. At least you can make a suggestion in the briefing to get a more realistic game advice how the TRP's should be used. 

[Ultradave]

The authors of a scenario can’t do anything it if the capability isn’t physically in the game. It’s real life capabilities and usage that would be nice to have the option to use in game. 

Maybe even a scenario editor option to turn on off based on country doctrine, training.

Its the same as a TRP really except the calculations are real time on a target of opportunity.

Dave

Edited June 16, 2021 by Ultradave

[Combatintman]

5 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

Oh the internet is full with Medal of Honor and VC's What has military service to do with computer gaming? Zilch is the answer, sorry to disappoint you. We play a game here nothing more and nothing less. I know how to plot direct fires and indirect fires in the game. I just illustrated that you could do both in some instances with the mortar out of sight of the enemy unit. Cover is the same the HQ is the same Angle and Direction of Fire is the same and the units are the same. It becomes indirect when you go through the silliness of going through the Fire Control Centre by radio to achieve the same result. To claim that 2+2 =5 because the claimant is a professional mathematician doesn't impress me. As a player of the game, you experts are only as qualified as me. Not in editing in that I am a novice. 

This is what the OP said (my bold) ...

This got me thinking ... with indirect fire there are 3 points:  TARGET, FO, GUN.  Does it improve zeroing to align these points in a straight line or relatively straight line.  I mean in real life, it seems aiming in a single dimension is an easier problem than two dimensions.

Thoughts and/or experience (virtual or real)?

If you hadn't noticed, the title of the thread is 'For you mortar men out there?'

Therefore - the real experience of someone who has planned and executed indirect fires for a living is relevant.

I accept that the OP also wanted game advice and am not disputing that one iota.  Your mistake was to jump on my first post and say 'He is discussing the 60mm in the direct fire mode on platoon level.'  It is clear he wasn't.

[chuckdyke]

23 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

It is clear he wasn't.

Time to cool it! I just gave him a tip with the best of intentions previously. In the game it doesn't make any difference if an FO is on one dimension, or two dimensions if he can spot there is no time bonus if he spots on one dimension. We don't even know where the off-map assets are. I had a look at Seven Winds in BN. That Scenario relies on artillery and 81mm mortars which are all off map. I think the LOS of the spotter is the only thing which is relevant in the game. Kind regards

[Ultradave]

28 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

 We don't even know where the off-map assets are.

It’s worth pointing out just for info that this is completely true in real life as well. Might have a rough idea of where company mortars are, but not the direct support artillery battery, Bn mortars or anything at a higher level. They could be anywhere.

And really don’t care as long as they provide service

Dave

[Bozowans]

10 hours ago, Ultradave said:

I think most of this is represented in game pretty well. There are 2 things I'd love to see in CM:

1) The ability to call a FFE on a map location, without having any eyes on it or a TRP. In real life this is common. You might have a sound contact or saw a unit that went out of sight behind a rise or treeline and you'd call in a FFE on a map location. Might be accurate, might not. But you'd do it.

2) An initial call to shift from a TRP, rather than wait for the TRP mission and then adjust. Again a VERY common call for fire.

I've always wanted something like that. You could call fire missions on targets outside of LOS in the CMx1 games, yet they removed that in CMx2 for some reason. I read a WW2 memoir a long time ago, written by a company commander, that described walking artillery onto a target using sound instead of sight. It was in the middle of the night and they couldn't see much, but they knew Germans were out there assembling for an attack somewhere (from the engine noises and whatnot). They called in artillery, listened for the boom, then walked the rounds closer to where they thought the Germans were.

To add one more thing, I think it would be nice if you could adjust the intensity and duration of a FFE on the fly, without having to call it in all over again. Like if I call a light or harassment mission onto some suspected enemy position, then later I see that the rounds are landing right in the middle of a huge group of enemies I didn't see before, I want to be able to change the mission to a heavy one. I want the FO to be yelling into the radio to fire faster instead of one round a minute or whatever. I'm not sure how something like that would be done in reality though.

It would also be nice if you could repeat a fire mission onto the same spot as before, without having to wait for the spotting rounds again.

[Ultradave]

1 hour ago, Bozowans said:

I've always wanted something like that. You could call fire missions on targets outside of LOS in the CMx1 games, yet they removed that in CMx2 for some reason. I read a WW2 memoir a long time ago, written by a company commander, that described walking artillery onto a target using sound instead of sight. It was in the middle of the night and they couldn't see much, but they knew Germans were out there assembling for an attack somewhere (from the engine noises and whatnot). They called in artillery, listened for the boom, then walked the rounds closer to where they thought the Germans were.

To add one more thing, I think it would be nice if you could adjust the intensity and duration of a FFE on the fly, without having to call it in all over again. Like if I call a light or harassment mission onto some suspected enemy position, then later I see that the rounds are landing right in the middle of a huge group of enemies I didn't see before, I want to be able to change the mission to a heavy one. I want the FO to be yelling into the radio to fire faster instead of one round a minute or whatever. I'm not sure how something like that would be done in reality though.

It would also be nice if you could repeat a fire mission onto the same spot as before, without having to wait for the spotting rounds again.

Both of those are easy in real life, and would certainly be done. The second is simply "Repeat, over" assuming that you want the same mission again immediately after. The FO can also request a mission final data be recorded as a new TRP, then making it easy to call another FFE a bit later, when "Repeat" wouldn't be appropriate. In the first case the FDC would automatically assume that the first FFE wasn't effective enough and more rounds needed, since no adjustment was given.

The first would be something like FFE, same data, [new target description].  The FO provides the target description, and the FDC sets the mission parameters based on that (battery 3, or whatever, where "battery 3" means 3 rounds from each of all 6 guns - they will be fired as fast as each gun reloads, no waiting, unless there is some reason not to) So his initial mission description might have been something like "infantry patrol in the open" and the new one could be, say, "mechanized infantry platoon in the open"  That gets a much bigger response from the FDC.

Dave

(amazing how this stuff comes back when answering questions )

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Ultradave

[chuckdyke]

7 hours ago, Ultradave said:

t’s worth pointing out just for info that this is completely true in real life as well.

What I understand is we have the following references. The map for preplanned artillery missions and TRP's, the FO his position is known to the fire control center, or he makes his position known and then the landmark references the HQ's can use when they need support. Now my question is this why we need the fire control center to plot indirect fire missions when the FO, HQs are in contact with each other not only by radio but often in full visual contact as well. I just sort of innovated by a so-called direct fire.

[Ultradave]

The FO's position is generally NOT known to the FDC (Fire Direction Center). And like I said, it's not really necessary to know. The FO is walking or riding with the infantry. The FDC will only know very generally where that is. That's why one of the parts of a call for fire is the FO providing his azimuth to the target. The FDC doesn't know WHERE he is except he's on that line plotted back from the target, but providing that azimuth gives them the FO's reference as to what the FO is saying is Left/Right or Add/Drop corrections. Plot those corrections, then calculate new firing data to that new plotted point as deflection and elevation for the guns. The guns don't get L/R A/D - they get deflection and elevation and time (if applicable) provided by the FDC, which is in control of the mission. 

Sorry, not sure which HQ are you talking about when you say in contact with the HQ? As a FIST Chief I was within reach out and touch distance of the infantry company commander so it was really easy for him to say "Get me some fire on this hilltop" or whatever. The FOs walk or ride with the Platoon Leader, so same thing there (CW period) In WW2 you usually had a FO with each infantry company, not platoons (talking US). So the FO might be with the Co Cdr in which case he'd get a request relayed from a platoon leader, or he could be up front with the lead or center company and then could directly call it because he's looking at it (whatever "it" is) Depends on the situation (that's a running joke in the Army "Depends on the Situation"). 

If you are going to call a fire mission on a TRP, the FDC has the list of TRPs and firing data for them and will send that firing data to the guns/mortars. If it's a grid location, then the FDC calculates on the fly data to hit that point. The guns don't have firing data. The FDC provides it. The guns have no permission to fire until the FDC sends them the elevation data. With that data they are free to fire. They will have already been told something like "battery 3 rounds HE, Time" of something similar while data is being calculated so they are busy getting the rounds ready to go. 

I know you keep talking about 60mm mortars and they generally will not have TRPs to work with. Pointless because 60mm mortars are always moving. No use having a bunch of TRP data, when you have to figure out new firing data every time you move for a short range weapon. They are meant to be close support weapons and they are more of a special case. There you would estimate range, figure an elevation to hit it, determine adjustments, dial them in, fire again. 

Thing to remember about TRPs is that they are preselected, then the firing unit calculates firing data to each of them FROM ONE KNOWN LOCATION. If they subsequently move their battery position they have to recalculate all that data - deflection and elevation and time from the NEW battery location to the TRP.

Hope that helps.

Dave

[Ultradave]

Reading your question again I’m thinking maybe it’s confusing who has the data. The guns don’t have firing data for TRPs. The FDC does and sends that data to the guns for the mission. The FDC controls the execution of a fire mission after receiving the call for fire. The guns get provided type of round and fuse, how many, deflection, elevation and time from the FDC. Same for every mission. A gun crew has no idea whether it’s a TRP or target of opportunity they are shooting at. 
 

Dave

(I also ran a FDC at both battery and battalion level. My favorite jobs I had. )

Edited June 17, 2021 by Ultradave

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

The guns don’t have firing data for TRPs.

TRP's Have as I understand multiple uses in the game, they also stimulate the role of bore sighted weapons for AT-Guns. 

 

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

They are meant to be close support weapons and they are more of a special case. There you would estimate range, figure an elevation to hit it, determine adjustments, dial them in, fire again. 

That is the way I use them just below the crest of a ridge or a hill. By their employment I call it indirect fire on platoon level, I was puzzled why some people use them for indirect fire using the FDC as you call it and waste their ammo on spotting rounds. In the game I use their HQ to get a contact icon and see or I get an LOF from a concealed position. By the way when I play Germans, I use their MG42 in HMG mode the same way it is a little harder but possible. Kind regards 

[Bozowans]

5 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Both of those are easy in real life, and would certainly be done. The second is simply "Repeat, over" assuming that you want the same mission again immediately after. The FO can also request a mission final data be recorded as a new TRP, then making it easy to call another FFE a bit later, when "Repeat" wouldn't be appropriate. In the first case the FDC would automatically assume that the first FFE wasn't effective enough and more rounds needed, since no adjustment was given.

The first would be something like FFE, same data, [new target description].  The FO provides the target description, and the FDC sets the mission parameters based on that (battery 3, or whatever, where "battery 3" means 3 rounds from each of all 6 guns - they will be fired as fast as each gun reloads, no waiting, unless there is some reason not to) So his initial mission description might have been something like "infantry patrol in the open" and the new one could be, say, "mechanized infantry platoon in the open"  That gets a much bigger response from the FDC.

Dave

(amazing how this stuff comes back when answering questions )

 

This is all really interesting, thanks for taking the time to write all this stuff out.

Since you've actually done this stuff, would you say the call-in times in CM are realistic? Like in the modern titles, it surprises me that US forces can accurately bring in off-map mortars anywhere in just 2 minutes flat. What's the fastest things can be called in? Or is there a lot of variability depending on what conditions are and so on.

[Ultradave]

It's been so long that I can't remember exactly what the standards were that we were required to meet, but from a battery in a set position, if I remember, I believe we had to have the first adjusting round out in 2 minutes or less from the end of the call for fire being received. That would be the same for a FFE mission.

We planned to be on the move quite a bit to avoid counter-battery fire, so a "hipshoot" where you get a fire mission while driving to a new position, I think we had either 6 or 9 minutes, can't remember for sure. 15 minutes to fire off the drop zone after a parachute drop. (THAT one is a real challenge).

We were fast and consistently beat the required times. I had an excellent fire direction center team. My team sergeant was outstanding and we worked really well together.

I think the times are realistic. In CW and BS the times are longer than what I would normally expect, but the electronic warfare environment is to blame for that. Makes it much harder to communicate. That extra time would simulate trouble getting the call for fire to the battery and communicating adjustments. Calculating data and firing the rounds wouldn't' be affected. So overall, yes, I think they are in the ballpark. Note though that I can only speak for US, British and Canadian (I've had experience on exchanges with British and Canadian artillery and they are much the same as the US).

Dave

Edited June 17, 2021 by Ultradave

[chuckdyke]

Yes, from making contact till the artillery arrives was just minutes. They called it in fifty meters or half a football field in front of their positions. The FO's did their job and give credit where it is due they were from NZ.