Arty

[Kevin Peltz]

You mentioned pre-registered artillery- is this something a player can set before the start of a scenario? One location per battery?

KP

[Moon]

From what I remember the scenario designer can assign "boresightes markers" to each side. It is up to the player to place such markers on the map during setup. Any artillery (from one or more batteries) ordered on these markers will have much less delay and will be much more accurate than normally.

[Rhet]

Speeking on this subject, I imagine that Arty is another facet of CM that requires a degree of abstraction. After all there really is no need to track individual shells here. My question is what kind of Nationality type modifiers are applied to the abstraction? I read an article that covered the +'s and -'s of the American, German and Brittish Arty systems. The readers digest version was:

American - Excellent response time, Good accuracy and excellent weight of fire.

German - Fair response time, Excellent accuracy and average weight of fire.

Brittish - Good response time, Fair accuracy and good wieght of fire.

These qualitative assesments were explained as properties of battery registration and coordination and that it had little to do with equipment. If anyone is interested, I can explain this in more detail.

------------------

Rhet

[Brian Rock]

I'm interested, particularly concerning the claim about the German's having an edge in artillery accuracy. I don't recall having read this before. What are the reasons given for this?

[Fionn]

Principally they were on the defensive during this time of the war and pre-registered LOTS of targets PLUS their arty officers and spotters generally-speaking had a lot of experience..

That's my stab

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet - actually we do track each incoming round of artillery. It's not so hard to do. After all, we track every ordnance round from on-map units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>American - Excellent response time, Good accuracy and excellent weight of fire.

German - Fair response time, Excellent accuracy and average weight of fire.

Brittish - Good response time, Fair accuracy and good wieght of fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would amend this (as CM does) to:

American - Excellent response time, excellent accuracy and excellent weight of fire.

German - Good response time, good accuracy and average weight of fire.

Brittish - Good response time, good accuracy and good weight of fire.

Nobody beats U.S. artillery in 1944-45.

Perhaps I'm using a slightly different scale than you, however (note that there is only one "average" rating in there and all others are good or excellent). I do this because I'm leaving room for the Russians at the low end of the scale in the next game.

Russians - Poor response time (Comrade! You need more artillery? Obviously you are not attacking bravely enough!), abysmal accuracy (Comrade gunner! Just be sure you destroy more enemy than friendly this time!) but massive weight of fire.

Charles

[CRourke]

If CM tracks OB arty, does that mean that it creates an imaginary off map source of the fire?

Chris

[Guest Big Time Software]

No, the shells just drop straight from the sky.

Charles

[Rhet]

Brian sorry it took awhile to get back to this post. I'll try to explain the differences in the systems used by the various countries. I will explain a little about the three factors I quoted and major differences used by the combatents.

Response time is improved by reducing calculations. These being geometry (elevation differences, angles, balistic trajectories etc.), type of shell, weather/wind conditions etc. All three of these countries had charts for these but the Amis & Brits did not have as many factors or detail in the charts as the Gerries. This more simple system allowed the Allies to put a shell on its way sooner. The American system was further boosted by the fact that a FO could call in fire from any battery within range thus selecting closer batteries. The British and German FO's were limited to the use of their own batteries. The more "calculations" that the Gerries did helped them in the next factor...

Accuracy is enhanced by 1) knowing exactly where the Battery is and exactly where the shell is supposed to land and 2) having an accurate flight model for the shell (calculations). The Gerries had the Allies beat in this area. This was a result of the afore mentioned calculations and that they used surveying equipment to set up the battery and the registration points that were used by the FO. The Amis and Brits relied soley on gridded maps for registration of the Battery and the FO. This works well but it is not as accurate as the survey method. It is really hard to set up in the field and say we are exactly on the grid lines of X1,Y1. The Amis edged the brits in this area by having a better map system and that the batteries tended to take more care as to where they set up. The Brits relied on the FO to make more corrections for accuracy.

Finally weight of fire, this comes from simply having more guns firing at the target. The differences between loading rates and explosive content of the shell between the combatents is really neglegable in comparison. The Allies had so much Artillary (material schlagt) this is why they enjoy this advantage. The Amis edge out the Brits here again due to the ability to call in more batteries when needed.

If some of this is still unclear just let me know.

Charles, I think the American accuracy was historically over estimated. I believe this was because when the Amis called in a barrage it was usually one hell of a barrage . They wiped out every thing in the area of the target, even stuff they didn't want to hit . I was talking more about how many shells fall in the pickle barrel. I think this may have been a misunder standing generated by me and my vague post earlier. Apologies. I think your right on the money for the Russians.

Fionn, the reasons you quoted could only have helped. A good stab.

Any one know anything about carpel tunnel syndrome?

------------------

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-25-99).]

[Fionn]

*chuckle*..

Believe it or not I'm a final year (well almost) med student, Whadya wanna know?

1st line of treatment. STOP RESPONDING with long messages hehe .

See my "stab" there .. That's a testament to carpal tunnel syndrome that is ..

Oh boy how BAD were those "jokes"? Pretty damned bad. That'll teach me to post 1st thing in the morning.

[Thomm]

Rhet, if you mean "battle of material" then it is "Materialschlacht" in German !

Regards, Thomm

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet,

Respectfully I must disagree with your characterization of American artillery.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Accuracy is enhanced by 1) knowing exactly where the Battery is and exactly where the shell is supposed to land and 2) having an accurate flight model for the shell (calculations). The Gerries had the Allies beat in this area. This was a result of the afore mentioned calculations and that they used surveying equipment to set up the battery and the registration points that were used by the FO. The Amis and Brits relied soley on gridded maps for registration of the Battery and the FO. This works well but it is not as accurate as the survey method. It is really hard to set up in the field and say we are exactly on the grid lines of X1,Y1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This much I agree with. But I think you draw the wrong conclusion from it. What you describe here is a good predictor of how accurate the first shell will be. In other words, the "registration round" may be more accurate when fired from the German surveyed system than the American gridded system.

But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. American SOP (and I gather that of all WW2 western nations, at least when a radio was available) was to adjust fire. Corrections from the forward observer were expected and could be handled very quickly. The first round - the "spotting" or "registration" round - even in the German system, is likely to land somewhat off-target. The FO simply adjusts from the spotting round and then fires for effect. Even the Germans had to do this, so marginally increased spotting-round accuracy is only a slight advantage at best. (And the American system could be surprisingly accurate, as described in "Hell on Wheels" p.322 where an American Task Force commander calls for fire from an 8-inch gun to knock out a troublesome enemy panzer. Two rounds are fired and the second one destroys the tank with a direct hit). You can’t skip the correction step. And at this point the American system outshines those of all others in several capacities:

1. Time on Target

The American army was well-equipped with radios and the artillery was quick to respond to requests for fire and adjustments to same. It seems that every battle description I read mentions at least once calling for artillery and having the shells leave the tubes literally within seconds of the request. Further, the American system gave a lot of authority to junior officers when it came to requesting artillery support. It was not unheard of for a lowly Lieutenant to be able to bring guns to bear even from Corps level, because...

2. Flexibility

Not only were the guns quick to fire, but they could organize and reorganize dynamically. All the way up to Army level, various batteries could coordinate with one another not only in their ability to join in to support whichever front line unit needed them, but in the timing of the shell strikes. Batteries from different units and in different locations were able to time their firing so that the initial fire for effect would impact at the same time creating massive destruction in an instant with virtually no warning to the enemy or time to take cover. Combine this with the...

3. POZIT fuse

(Also known as the VT8OE or proximity fuse). This allowed American artillery to create deadly airbursts even in open terrain, where the shells would explode several meters above the ground, sending shrapnel directly into foxholes and dugouts. The effects were often devastating. The Germans lacked this capability entirely. (In theory it was possible to set timers on fuses to achieve the same effect but this did not work well in practice and so was rarely attempted). Incidentally, the proximity fuse also made American naval antiaircraft fire in the Pacific extremely deadly, and made the Kamikaze tactics somewhat understandable because "you're not going to survive that AAA anyway".

4. Spotting from the Air

The good old Piper Cub. Looks so slow and cute and harmless, but he has big friends on the ground and he's going to tell them right where you are... It's always nice to have air superiority.

5. Supply

For most of the fighting in NW Europe (an exception being roughly in the September-October '44 period), the US Army artillery was amply supplied with shells and vehicles, both transport and self-propelled mounts. This allowed far greater mobility and weight of fire than that of the Germans. We could afford to get into position fast, and then plaster targets while the Germans had to husband their resources.

Charles

[Doug Beman]

3. POZIT fuse (Also known as the VT8OE or proximity fuse). This allowed American artillery to create deadly airbursts even in open terrain, where the shells would explode several meters above the ground, sending shrapnel directly into foxholes and dugouts. The effects were often devastating. The Germans lacked this capability entirely. (In theory it was possible to set timers on fuses to achieve the same effect but this did not work well in practice and so was rarely attempted). Incidentally, the proximity fuse also made American naval antiaircraft fire in the Pacific extremely deadly, and made the Kamikaze tactics somewhat understandable because "you're not going to survive that AAA anyway".

Yeah, I read an account from Bastogne of a horde of German infantry being cut down by airbursts in an open field.

It took a LONG time for the POZIT fuse to be used in land combat, to keep them from being captured by Axis forces. For a long time the shells were issued only to naval units, if I remember correctly.

------------------

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.

remove the caps letters in my address to email me

[Harold Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It took a LONG time for the POZIT fuse to be used in land combat, to keep them from being captured by Axis forces. For a long time the shells were issued only to naval units, if I remember correctly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I remember correctly they were released for use in Europe in reaction to the battle of the bulge.

------------------

If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway.

[Rhet]

Charles,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Respectfully I must disagree with your characterization of American artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's cool, I am no expert, just an amature military historian. I am open to anyones opinion and even more so to those I respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What you describe here is a good predictor of how accurate the first shell will be. In other words, the "registration round" may be more accurate when fired from the German surveyed system than the American gridded system<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, and as you mentioned above the FO would use the spotting round to adjust fire. However, the accuracy of the first round is important and I'll provide a little more detail to back up this statement. Rarely was the first round on target, this would mean that the FO would radio back the correction to the battery. This "correction" is a visual estimate of the combined range and deflection error (range generally yielding the greater error of the two). Lets say that the FO was able to see the fall of the inital spotting round. If higher ground is not available and the terrain is not condusive to spotting (ie. forests, bocage, marshes, saturated ground etc.) he could miss the fall and would thence have to request another "initial" spotting round (accuracy importance). But, in this case the FO sees the fall and radios back the estimate for the correction. Here we need to talk about the estimate for a second. It is easier to estimate distances the shorter they are. A correction of 30 meters is going to be a lot more accurate than one of say 150 meters. The battery recieves the correction and if it is a gross correction it will take them longer to make the adjustment. The battery finishes adjusting the guns and fires the second spotting round. Upon observing the fall of this second spotting round the FO now faces a decision. If the round is close to the target he calls "Fire For Effect" or he may call back for another correction. This second correction is not is not normally required but it does occure especially when the initial spotting round was way off. Remember, if the initial spotting round was on target or very close the FO could call FFE immediatly or give the minor adjustment and still order FEE. The above process has to be done for each battery as well.

Now FOs' are not the only people on the battlefield watching out for spotting rounds! The above mentioned sequence takes time. A 105mm Howitzer shell fired at medium range would have a flight time in the 13-18 sec range. Extreme ranges could push this time to around the 1/2 minute mark. This does not include the time to determine the required adjustments from the FO's estimate or actually physically adjust the guns. During this time infantry soldiers are looking for cover and vehicle operators are looking for high gear! It is interesting to think about this adjustment time and how it relates to CM's 60 sec. turns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(And the American system could be surprisingly accurate, as described in "Hell on Wheels" p.322 where an American Task Force commander calls for fire from an 8-inch gun to knock out a troublesome enemy panzer. Two rounds are fired and the second one destroys the tank with a direct hit).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles, I know you gave this as an extreme example but I wouldn't want anyone on this board to take this as anything other that what it is. Blind Luck! Eight inch guns are a different matter but normal (WWII Howitzers) artillary was not used to take out tanks. It takes out infantry, fixed fortifications, disrupts communications and discourages tanks (buttoning up, immobilization, forced withdrawl etc).

Charles, you are very much correct in that the American Artillary was the best of the war. No arguement here at all. On the five points you provided in your post:

1. Time on Target - agreed, therefore the excellent rating in response time. This is the time from the Arty request to the time the initial spotting round lands though.

2. Flexibility - agreed, this also improves response time.

3. POZIT fuse - disagree, while this is a devistating improvement to a normally fused shell I believe it is more of a factor of improving weight of fire. In my opinion, it should be considered a force multiplier by improving the shrapnel dispersion on soft targets.

4. Spotting from the Air - agree, this in many cases is better than ground based observations. The observer can better see the fall of the shells, pick out the targets and determine which are the better targets to begin with. This should improve ARTY accuracy for anyone who has it available. Granted in this Theater and time it will be only the allies. I am interested, is this feature going to be included in CM?

5. Supply - agree, I would also include another short period (June 19 through mid July) where supplies were lacking to the Amis as well. This is the time period between the wrecking of the Mulberrys by the channel storm and the time it took to repair the facilities in Cherbourg to a useful state. In fact all offensive operations in the Omaha sector were suspended due to severe shortages of ammo.

This is a great discussion and it has really been a pleasure for me! Well all of this typing aside.

------------------

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-28-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet,

I agree with your general observations that accuracy, even if just for the spotting round, is always a good thing. The more the better.

However (although I have no numbers to back this up so I will state this simply as my opinion) I think it's unfair to imply that German rounds would often land within 30m of the target while US rounds were more likely to land at 150m. (This implication may have been unintentional, I just wanted to point it out). I think the difference in practice would be far less between the two.

And as I said, even if we assume that the Germans have an advantage here (which I'm not really convinced of, at least not that the advantage was significant) the Germans still cannot skip the step of adjustment. So the amount of time elapsed between calling in the mission and firing for effect will be roughly the same for each side except perhaps in the case where the less-accurate spotting round falls out of view and another needs to be fired. But I think you exaggerate how much more this would happen to American artillery than it does to the German.

An example: in many bridge crossings, the Germans attempted to destroy the bridges with artillery fire when they had been unable to do so with demolition charges. I can't think of any examples where it succeeded, at least not in a reasonable timeframe (there's one bridge I do remember collapsing after about 2 or 3 days, but this might have been from airplane bombs - I can't remember). These bridges were usually under direct observation by German FOs. If the German artillery was so accurate that spotting rounds could be placed within 30m on a regular basis, then there's no reason those bridges couldn't have been pounded into dust within an hour. But I believe this never happened.

In fact as far as timing issues are concerned, I think the significant flexibility and organizational advantage enjoyed by the US artillery would overwhelm any disadvantage in spotting-round accuracy, which as I've said I think is quite small to begin with. You're focusing entirely on the time span between the spotting round leaving the tube and the fire-for-effect beginning. But you're ignoring the time it takes for the artillery request to be radioed in from the field and passed up the chain of command and/or handled by the artillery unit. Here the US is the clear winner. Not only could the contacted battery let loose within seconds but they could call on an entire corps worth of artillery to join in as well, literally within moments. The Germans were neither as flexible nor as quick. It all adds up to "time on target", and if you measure it from the moment the FO picks up his radio, I think the US is the clear winner.

I am also forced to wonder just how often the Germans' surveyed system was used to the fullest. I say this because in my readings of first-person descriptions of US troops under artillery fire, I've come across precious few examples of what I'd call "in the pickle barrel" accuracy coming from German artillery. So (this is pure speculation here) I wonder if the German artillery used their survey system in the best of cases, but in the field, under combat strain, casualties, incessant counterbattery fire directed by Piper Cubs, ammo shortages, sometimes a general retreat going on around them, if those batteries might have cut some corners. Or simply not had the maps and other equipment available all of the time. Because in addition to the bridge example mentioned above, I've come across too many descriptions of German artillery falling scattershot into US positions, causing men to go to ground but few or no casualties, for it to be anomalous. I'm not saying that German artillery is somehow weak or inaccurate, or assuming that artillery is guaranteed to cause casualities, just that the German is not more accurate than US artillery.

As for my example of the 8-inch howitzer taking out the panzer, I'm well aware that howitzers don't generally do that. But if you insist that it was blind luck, you might want to consider that the first shell fired sheared off the upper floors of the very building that the tank was hiding in. And the second struck the tank, destroying it. Now you could say that's just lightning striking twice, but I'd say it's more likely to be accurate gunnery. Not a representative example to be sure, but not sheer blind luck either.

You asked about Piper Cubs in CM: we don't simulate them directly. Rather we just encourage scenario designers to take such conditions into consideration when assigning artillery availabilty to each side. Generally speaking, the Americans (and Allies in general) should have more artillery than the Germans. There are always exceptions, of course, so we mainly leave it up to the scenario designer.

By the way I recently read a tragic bit about a Piper Cub literally being shot from the sky by one of its own artillery shells! Talk about bad luck. Or wait, that's another argument in favor of the amazing accuracy of American artillery!

Charles

[Mike D]

This has been a great thread. Very informative for myself and I'm sure others as well. Here is my question. I hear counterbattery fire being mentioned here a couple of times now; so does CM allow counter battery fire? I've seen it in other games (can't think of which ones right off hand), but can't remember how it worked in those games. How prevalent was counter battery fire during CM's time period and if the game is going to include it how will it be implemented? Did the Americans and Brits have a huge counterbattery fire advantage w/ the piper cubs and all the other aircraft flying around being able to radio in German artillery positions? Just curious. Thanks.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[CRourke]

I always figure that the difficulty in destroying bridges with arty was more due to the low HE content of most arty shells compared to say, det charges or bombs. It seems most bridges could shrug off multiple direct hits if they were soundly built.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mike,

Counterbattery fire is well beyond the scope of CM so we don't simulate it. (After all, most artillery in the game is already "off map" and therefore somewhat abstracted).

I think the US was the leader (with the Brits as a close second) in counterbattery capability by 1944-45, largely due to air superiority, but most if not all the major powers made use of the practice in some form or other by late in the war (I do not think it was common early in the war but I could be wrong about that). Even without air superiority, observers could sometimes see muzzle flashes or smoke in the distance and fire back at it, occasionally scoring hits. I think this actually made night-firing more dangerous than day-firing for Allied artillery crews. (I say Allied because the German crews probably had as much or more to fear from air strikes as counterbattery artillery fire).

Charles

[Rhet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think it's unfair to imply that German rounds would often land within 30m of the target while US rounds were more likely to land at 150m.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles, you are correct, the implication was completely unintentional. I was trying to demonstrate the range estimate thing better. Upon re-reading the post it does have a direct comparison "tone" to it. Again this was purely unintentional.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>then there's no reason those bridges couldn't have been pounded into dust within an hour<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This depends on the type of bridge here. I can see this on a wooden bridge crossing a stream but bridges such as those that cross the Rhine or say the brides at Nijmegen (Waal River) are some pretty stalwart bridges. I have a lot of experience in this area (Civil Engineer in the Highway and Bridge business) as well as a great personal resource. My father was a Combat Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as a Ranger (a slight pause here while my chest swells with pride). In discussions with him on this subject he provided a few professional insites. Normal Arty rounds (8" Howitzer, Karlgerat etc. not included ) do not pack enough explosives or have enough kinetic energy to cause appreciable damage to a steel or reinforced concrete bridge (he said a failure could be caused by this method but it is really inefficient and would take a long time). In Fact it even takes careful placement and packing of multiple Demo charges to effectivly disable a bridge of this sort. The old war movies that show a guy running up and throwing a demo charge onto the bridge deck...a big Kaboom...and the whole bridge drops are laughable.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But you're ignoring the time it takes for the artillery request to be radioed in from the field and passed up the chain of command and/or handled by the artillery unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles, I am not ignoring this I have just classified it as response time. I did this so that the different countries could be compared better (more of an apples to apples thing). I did not want to lump response time into the time it takes to correct fire.

You are correct in that Time on target is important but, response time yields no forewarning to the enemy where as spotting rounds do. So the total time from the request to the FFE is considerably shorter for the Amis than the Gerries. With this I agree completely! This really helps if you are in a mobile situation where the enemy is moving through a point you wish to bombard but this doesn't really affect static target situations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now you could say that's just lightning striking twice, but I'd say it's more likely to be accurate gunnery<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accurate indeed!(jaw dropping to the floor) Are we sure this howitzer wasn't being utilized in a direct fire mode? Just asking...

I don't want to come off as a pest here (it may already be to late ) but I think to say that the American Artillary was superior in every way is a little unfair to others. Even the Russians had an edge...to the Russians Arty was the God of War and a massive and numerous god it was!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or wait, that's another argument in favor of the amazing accuracy of American artillery!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!

I know I tend to come off a little Teutonically biased but I really try to stay as objective as possible. In my family you are either an engineer or a military officer or both in some cases. My Grandfater and his Brother both fought in WWII for America and I already covered my Dad. The reasons I tend to know more about the Germans is threefold. First I am of German decent (family arrived in America in 1880's). Second, I got tired of learning military history from "Domestically" written history books alone. Finally, and maybe most importantly, as a kid all of my friends on the military bases were older than me and they would not let me play the allies in Squad Leader. So in order to kick their butts I had to learn how to effectivly use the German units. This required learning all about their tactics, weapon systems etc. Just a little background.

Charles, I really appreciate this debate, it has been quite a pleasure for me. I hope it has been the same for you and that it has not distracted you from the game too much.

------------------

Rhet

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Charles, I really appreciate this debate, it has been quite a pleasure for me. I hope it has been the same for you and that it has not distracted you from the game too much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has, and it has! But in a good way.

If nothing else, I feel like I'm writing bits and pieces of the game manual here so it's at least somewhat work-related, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think to say that the American Artillary was superior in every way is a little unfair to others. Even the Russians had an edge...to the Russians Arty was the God of War and a massive and numerous god it was!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me clarify with regards to the Russians. My comments should be understood to refer to tactical forward-observed artillery in concurrent support of ground combat, often at the small-unit level. In this capacity I'd say Russian artillery was generally lacking.

But that makes sense because the Russians never really intended their artillery to do that job. Instead their artillery was more of an operational weapon - hundreds of guns lined up in a supermassive pounding of (generally) a fairly large enemy unit over a large area, usually before the friendly troops moved in. Sheer power, not pinpoint strikes. Accuracy and time-on-target really aren't issues in that kind of situation.

Oh, and you don't seem Teutonically biased. And I hope I don't seem the opposite. Artillery is one of the things I think the U.S. Army actually got right in WW2. Don't even get me started on the Sherman 75mm gun... oh wait I already did get started on that in another thread.

Charles

[coe]

can someone explain how counterbattery fire works? If you have a 150 mm and you put it

in range of the front line (but out of LOS)

then how is the enemy artilery supposed to hit you if it too is placed behind their lines. (i.e. does it have to have a bigger

range) and how do they spot it (assuming

there are no airplanes around)

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coe:

can someone explain how counterbattery fire works? If you have a 150 mm and you put it

in range of the front line (but out of LOS)

then how is the enemy artilery supposed to hit you if it too is placed behind their lines. (i.e. does it have to have a bigger

range) and how do they spot it (assuming

there are no airplanes around)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Artillery wasn't usually firing from it's max range. Not even close.

As for spotting, as was already mentioned, big guns make quite a flash, and even puff some smoke. Of course, if artillery would be say, behind a hill, it probably wouldn't be spotted.

[GreasyPig]

Wait a minute, You boys aint over. Continue the debate!! This has been a fine read.

What if you took the most common arty piece of the period from both sides and set it up on a fireing range. Who would be more accurate to a single target with one round at varing distances?

I know this has little to do with how the were used but I was just curious.

GreasyPig

[JoshK]

There is one significant way that CM undervalues the effectiveness of U.S. artillery. Due to the proliferation of radios in U.S. formations and the surprisingly easy to learn grid system, U.S. artillery was routinely called down by company and even platoon officers and senior NCOs. This practice became more and more common as the war dragged on, but it is safe to assume at a decreased effectiveness compared to trained FOs. In addition, the FO radio nets were often tied into USAAF forward air controllers, which allowed for close air support in a much less abstracted way than is handled in CM.

However, I can understand how it would difficult to have separate artillery rules depending on what country and what month your battle or operation was in. One way to abstract this would be to have a greater number of U.S. FOs than you would expect to see.