What's the reasoning for the long wait times for artillery in Combat Mission

[Ultradave]

25 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

battery is relocating

Yes. Cold War era, we practiced hip shoots incessantly, because counter battery radar was getting so good that the estimate was 6 individual rounds or 6 battery volleys and a position was assumed to be located. So we operated by being on the move, receiving a call for fire, finding a spot quickly to set up, fire the mission, pack up and move again. In this situation the battery commander is never with the battery. He and the 1SG and a couple others are the advance team scouting the next possible position.  The XO, FDO and Chief of Firing Battery (usually an E7) run the battery and move it. Hipshoots were a little harder for our towed 105mm battery compared to 155mm SP artillery. They can emplace quickly. We had to pound in at least the 2 long stakes in the baseplate to be able to fire. (picture "I've been working on the railroad"  ) Takes a few minutes. 

This is for on-call fires. A preparatory fire for an attack would have to be more set in place firing. Even then, it could be with batteries alternating moving and firing so there is always fire on the TRPs

[MikeyD]

Which reminds me. Cold War and CMBS include electronic countermeasures but hardly anybody ever plays them because it means having your communications net severely degraded or shut down entirely. That means your drones. aircraft and artillery are worthless. Set ECM to max and you might as well be waging war with sticks and clubs.

[BeondTheGrave]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I suspect we're talking mostly about US side call-in times. Things get considerably more complicated when you're on the other side, like Syrians or WWII/Cold War Russians. Then you have extra layers of bureaucracy to wade through. I just checked, it takes 18 minutes for an regular FO to call in a 240mm heavy mortar strike, 15 minutes to call in BM21 artillery rockets, but only 5 minute to call in on-map 120mm mortars. The Russian high command doesn't hand their divisional assets over to just anybody. You aren't calling in strikes so much as requesting a strike from a higher raking officer who then calls in the strike.

FM 100-2-1 says that authority to commit fire control assets for the Cold War Soviets rests at the level higher than the organic placement. That is, final authority to commit regimental artillery sits with the division's chief of artillery. In order for an officer to deviate from planned fires, he would first have to call up his boss and justify the reason for the deviation (as the plan would be passed down to the lower guy as a part of the over all movement and attack plans). The the higher chief would have to think about how the plan was developing and how the deviation would effect the overall plan, then make his decision. According to FM 100-2-1 final authority would rest with the chief, tho it seems pretty reasonable to me that in some cases the chief would have to check requests with the division commander or his CoS. This process of requesting, checking, and redelegating authority would make any serious (above mortar sized) asset take a long time to call in UNLESS authority were predelegated as part of an existing order or fire plan. IIRC the process for calling in air missions is similar, though you have the additional layer of beaurocracy in that its a separate service chain of command. 

Many Western-trained or oriented soldiers and chair warriors see this rigidity and central control as a liability. In the West flexibility is the name of the game. The defense of the Soviet system is simply that the Soviets never intended to reinforce failure. Successful attacks would enjoy the benefit of maximum artillery support, while struggling attacks would be denied everything. A battalion or regimental commander would always conclude that A) their attack was hitting the most resistance, and B ) that their action was the most vital in the division's sector. It was up to the divisional, and EAD, staffs to determine who was having success and who was running into a road block. Reinforce success, abandon failure. I cant weigh which system is better, but that would have been the Soviet defense of their own system. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by BeondTheGrave

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Which reminds me. Cold War and CMBS include electronic countermeasures but hardly anybody ever plays them because it means having your communications net severely degraded or shut down entirely. That means your drones. aircraft and artillery are worthless. Set ECM to max and you might as well be waging war with sticks and clubs.

Iron mode should probably set all ECM settings to max automatically . No one has any clue how hacked they are among other things. Clearly every satellite in orbit will be a cloud of debris in the first hour.  The Russians and Chinese are trying to cause a cascading series of disasters in orbit just testing their toys.

[Lethaface]

12 hours ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This process of requesting, checking, and redelegating authority would make any serious (above mortar sized) asset take a long time to call in UNLESS authority were predelegated as part of an existing order or fire plan. IIRC the process for calling in air missions is similar, though you have the additional layer of beaurocracy in that its a separate service chain of command.

It could be nice / interesting to have a choice for predelagated priority for on call fires available, next to what we have available now (which I presume isn't predelageted since the long call in times). 

Could just be a question of re-designation of existing assets, with an extra cost of purchase points (and or rarity points) slapped onto the artillery formation. 
Organic artillery inside a taskforce would be always 'predelagated'.

That would allow for scenario's or QBs to either use the normal non-predelagated batteries mainly as preliminary strikes (from the fireplan) or accept delays for 'deviations', while also allowing for quicker fire support at a 'significant' cost (QB) or for scenario's / campaigns: allowing specific predelagated usecases as a flavor.

At least to me it seems that 'predelegated authority for on call fires' should be a possibility for Red in CMCW and especially CMBS, given the modernization and BTG doctrine/theory. 

[chuckdyke]

15 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

That would allow for scenario's or QBs to either use the normal non-predelagated batteries mainly as preliminary strikes

Take the bombardment of Rotterdam as an example. (The Germans regarded the Luftwaffe as a form of artillery.) Their excuse was that the pilots didn't see the flares from the ground forces. The proper protocol should have been using a flare for the final go-ahead of the mission. Using this principle makes for a realistic scenario. You can plan missions and the ground forces having the final say. The FO should be in visual contact with a company HQ who has contact with his platoons. 

[StieliAlpha]

On 11/22/2021 at 1:19 AM, BornGinger said:I just don't understand why a nervous or shattered spotter should take longer time to direct the spotting rounds as he's far away from the enemy when doing it.

Perhaps, because he is afraid of the firing squad, if the shells fall short.

How often do you experience in RL, that things take ages, when a newby is on the job. And seconds, when an old hand does it…

[Probus]

For a reality check, I checked with some friends and my brother. All of which have been under fire and have called in or have asked forartillery support (USA). Both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best was in Iraq at less than 5 minutes for 81mm mortars.  This went up to 15+ minutes for M777/155mm due to having to clear no aircraft in the area. 

These are dated response times and I'm not comfortable with discussing anything else in the modern arena just to "keep the boys safe"/OpSec.

[Holman]

17 hours ago, dan/california said:

Iron mode should probably set all ECM settings to max automatically . No one has any clue how hacked they are among other things. Clearly every satellite in orbit will be a cloud of debris in the first hour.  The Russians and Chinese are trying to cause a cascading series of disasters in orbit just testing their toys.

On the other hand, neither CMSF2 nor CMBS imagines a global/total war scenario but something more localized. All the "canonical" fighting in CMBS is in the neighborhood of the Dnieper River and nowhere else, for example. It's not a general conflagration all across Europe or the world.

CMCW is a different story, of course. Jamming is a certainty, not to mention that every military radio in Europe is in use at the same time.

[MikeyD]

Ooooh, aircraft in the area. I recall an anecdote from Battle of the Bulge were troops watched a passing C-47 Dakota get its wing ripped off by a falling artillery shell. BFC is very generous in not restricting artillery and aircraft at the same time.

[Ultradave]

2 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

Ooooh, aircraft in the area. I recall an anecdote from Battle of the Bulge were troops watched a passing C-47 Dakota get its wing ripped off by a falling artillery shell. BFC is very generous in not restricting artillery and aircraft at the same time.

We had to check fire for any air strikes. 

Also:

2 hours ago, Probus said:

The best was in Iraq at less than 5 minutes for 81mm mortars.  This went up to 15+ minutes for M777/155mm due to having to clear no aircraft in the area. 

Those times sound not much different from 30 years before, and 30 years before, the methods of calling and calculating fire were not very much different than Korean War or WW2. So pretty standard. 

Dave

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 minute ago, Ultradave said:

We had to check fire for any air strikes.

Glad you mentioned that, I had thought that was the case.....I'm guessing nothing's changed, even with widespread use of precision munitions?

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

For a reality check, I checked with some friends and my brother. All of which have been under fire and have called in or have asked forartillery support (USA). Both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best was in Iraq at less than 5 minutes for 81mm mortars.  This went up to 15+ minutes for M777/155mm due to having to clear no aircraft in the area. 

These are dated response times and I'm not comfortable with discussing anything else in the modern arena just to "keep the boys safe"/OpSec.

Yep that tracks.  So people may wonder why modern soldiers have all those mags, the min is 10, about 300 rounds per soldier (don’t care what the manual says), reason is that gives you about 20 mins ability to sustain a reasonable amount of fire downrange.  After 20 mins you start getting worried ammo-wise, but by then support should be on top of you.  A good JTAC can coordinate air and guns so you normally get guns first and then CAS will come in and finish the job.  So basically 15-20 minute wait times are totally realistic.  Only thing faster is UAVs on station on top of you, then you are talking target hand off (but they often see it before guys on the ground do) and time of flight.

Now this is modern dedicated guns vs uncons scenarios.  In a large stand up fight more guns means more coordination etc.  Short answer to OP is “cause that is how long it takes”.

 

[Ultradave]

4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Glad you mentioned that, I had thought that was the case.....I'm guessing nothing's changed, even with widespread use of precision munitions?

It's not the precision munitions or lack of. It's the trajectory of the rounds in the air, vs. the flight path of the aircraft coming in on an air strike. Pilots are not amused when told "Big sky, little bullet"

Dave

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Thought as much.....Cheers. 

 

[Ultradave]

On 11/21/2021 at 8:44 PM, Ultradave said:

Take an 81mm mortar. Slinging rounds down range still involves figuring the range, even if roughly, from that determining the charge to fire, stripping off the excess powder bags, setting the declination and elevation and then firing the adjusting round. Time of flight for a mortar round can be 45 seconds, depending on range. All of those things in themselves don’t take that long but all those little actions add up

 

Dave

It occurred to me I didn't explain the powder bags well. An 81mm shell has powder bags attached between the fins and the bulging part of the round. Depending on the range to the target, some of the bags will be not needed. They are taken off and collected for disposal (burning). Similar to an artillery round having powder bags. A 4.2"/107mm mortar round has something similar, but in this case they are plastic-ish "disks" attached to the bottom of the round. I don't know if everyone knows that mortar rounds have variable powder charges just like artillery. 

105mm artillery rounds are semi cased ammo, and the powder bags are in the shell casing - take off the extra, put in them in the pit (they are strung together in a chain). 155mm ammo is separate loading, with the shell going in and then a stack of powder bags. In this case there is no casing, the bags are in a stack, tied up. Remove the extras, retie the stack, shove it in. 

It takes a short time to do this and if there is time and personnel, the crew will pre-make rounds. You don't want to do too many though, in case you have to move and need a larger charge in the new position.

Dave

[Erwin]

That is very interesting.  In the videos of arty firing the act of placing or removing powder bags is not shown.  One gets the impression that everything is already included in the shell casing.

[Ultradave]

47 minutes ago, Erwin said:

That is very interesting.  In the videos of arty firing the act of placing or removing powder bags is not shown.  One gets the impression that everything is already included in the shell casing.

Yes, there are usually one, two or three of the crew just out of the picture about 20-30 feet behind the piece doing that work. They end up out of the field of view of the pictures of the rest of the crew loading and firing rounds. Also usually out of the pictures would be a stack of rounds in wooden crates, crates of fuzes to mate to them, and a pit or pile for the unused powder bags, and men from the battalion ammo train occasionally dropping off more rounds. The difference for SP artillery is that the ammo carrier vehicle would be backed up fairly close to the SP howitzer and they'd work in between them. For towed artillery the prime mover also carries the ammo for that howitzer.

I'm speaking of US artillery. I know Canadians are much the same, having done an exchange tour with them, so I assume the UK is also very similar.  Don't have experience with others.

Dave

[BeondTheGrave]

17 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Yep that tracks.  So people may wonder why modern soldiers have all those mags, the min is 10, about 300 rounds per soldier (don’t care what the manual says), reason is that gives you about 20 mins ability to sustain a reasonable amount of fire downrange.  After 20 mins you start getting worried ammo-wise, but by then support should be on top of you.  A good JTAC can coordinate air and guns so you normally get guns first and then CAS will come in and finish the job.  So basically 15-20 minute wait times are totally realistic.  Only thing faster is UAVs on station on top of you, then you are talking target hand off (but they often see it before guys on the ground do) and time of flight.

Now this is modern dedicated guns vs uncons scenarios.  In a large stand up fight more guns means more coordination etc.  Short answer to OP is “cause that is how long it takes”.

 

Just out of curiosity how does this change with the incorporation of dedicated manned air assets. IE an overhead Apache team, or a fixedwing on call for your unit? 

Not that that applies necessarily to the CMCW era as AD precluded the possibility of 'orbiting' air assets. But in the CMSF/GWOT situation when something could just orbit the battlefield and watch out, how long would it realistically take to call up the pilot, tell him where you think the baddies are, persuade him not to hit your positions, then for the pilot to line everything up and engage a position. 

[chuckdyke]

2 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

when something could just orbit the battlefield and watch out,

I understand independently in the game the pilot can only detect AFV's but can't tell friend from foe if there is not an observer nearby. Anything else a unit with a 'laser designator' is the best to coordinate attacks on the ground. 

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

Just out of curiosity how does this change with the incorporation of dedicated manned air assets. IE an overhead Apache team, or a fixedwing on call for your unit? 

Not that that applies necessarily to the CMCW era as AD precluded the possibility of 'orbiting' air assets. But in the CMSF/GWOT situation when something could just orbit the battlefield and watch out, how long would it realistically take to call up the pilot, tell him where you think the baddies are, persuade him not to hit your positions, then for the pilot to line everything up and engage a position. 

As I understand it organic air assets get rolled directly into fire planning and have direct contact with troops on the ground for coordination of fires but someone who has served in this type pf organization would have to step in here.  In my personal experience, air showed up much like arty and had to be walked onto the target by someone who knew what they were doing, they were not baked in...but when the showed up, it was worth it.  

Exception was UAVs but they were also linked back to a JTAC/controller, we did not talk directly to the drivers.  But response times and feedback was definitely more intimate.

Edited November 24, 2021 by The_Capt

[SimpleSimon]

Issue I see is improper use of the TRP mechanic. Scenario designers tend to reserve them for defense and rarely distribute any to offense. In reality it should be the other way around. The attacker has initiative so fires have been planned and missions readied ahead of time. It's the defender who needs to prepare for impromptu or "emergency" fire missions on unregistered/unobserved sectors of front. Artillery in defense has a much harder job than artillery in the offense-where planning and initiative yield the greatest benefit of that arm's reach. 

Edited November 24, 2021 by SimpleSimon

[Erwin]

10 minutes ago, SimpleSimon said:

Issue I see is improper use of the TRP mechanic. Scenario designers tend to reserve them for defense and rarely distribute any to offense. In reality it should be the other way around.

Very good point.  Hope designers pay attention.

[Simcoe]

Let's assume that Combat Mission has realistic timings for calling in support fire. 

I think we can all agree the scenarios depicted would occur over a much longer period of time in real life compared to Combat Mission.

With that in mind, doesn't that mean artillery in Elite difficulty is extremely slow?

Many times, I'll call for Fire as the Americans in ww2 and with spotting rounds that's around 12-15 minutes of waiting. Sometimes the shells don't even hit the right area! That's a quarter of an hour long scenario wasted. Even better, I probably could have cleared out the area with normal troops in half that time.

The conclusion of my TED talk... All hail Veteran difficulty!

 

[chuckdyke]

4 hours ago, Simcoe said:

With that in mind, doesn't that mean artillery in Elite difficulty is extremely slow?

Nope you have up to 15 minutes to play with in the beginning of every game. Say the average game is 1 hour it means the strike will take place at the 45th minute mark. Subsequent adjustments can make you postpone your strike at infinitum. Artillery you organize your echelon. Mortars at the front, (which can be used in direct fire mode) heavy stuff on your objectives. With all respect on Veteran you have a very unrealistic scenario. Like hunting for cows in the paddock. My opinion only.