My case against artillery effectiveness in CM

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for the cellars, it seems true that since soldiers seemed to use them all the time during bombardments it’s a disaster for any defender in Combat Mission that they’re missing from the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe it would be more of a disaster if your troops were hiding in a cellar during a bombardment in CM.

As an attacker, I would love for the defender to be hiding in a cellar while my attack is getting underway.

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

Dan

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe it would be more of a disaster if your troops were hiding in a cellar during a bombardment in CM. As an attacker, I would love for the defender to be hiding in a cellar while my attack is getting underway<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, troops only hide in the cellars to avoid shelling. As soon as it stops, they run back to their foxholes and MG nests to repel any attack.

This is why attacking troops try so hard to follow their arty onto the target very closely (close enough to take a few casualties from it themselves). They want to be in the other side's trenches before the enemy makes it back to them from the cellars. Or still in the cellars, actually.

If the attackers can do this, then yup, it would be a disaster for the defenders. So if CM ever gets to including cellars and/or dugouts for troops to hide in during shelling, I'm sure such troops will be at quite a disadvantage if they're still there when the attackers arrive.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks Bullethead for that endorsement

As for your two points about CM artillery shortfalls...

The calling down of individual rounds might be reaslistic, but it presents user interface problems. As it is you can cancel a bombardment every 60 seconds, which isn't too far removed from calling down x rounds.

The other problem you mentioned, that of TacAI behavior, is a lot harder to deal with. First, everybody has to keep in mind that the human mind can easily see that something is a bombardment of such and such intensity. This is NOT something that is easy for CM to figure out. A lot of programming and a huge number of CPU cycles would have to be dedicated to figure out what is what.

The thing is that sometimes running is the correct action, other times it is hunkering down. The choice hinges on the exact circumstances which, as described above, are not easy for a computer program to define compared to a human. We might be able to tweak something that, while not a real fix, might on balance be better than the way it is now. The downside is that some situations where the TacAI works correctly now will most likely work incorrectly with the change. However, if the balance leans towards better results then it is a good tradeoff.

Steve

[Jager 7]

What a great topic! Ok...so I'm a little biased.

Wild Bill, BTS, and Bullethead, among others had it right.

They don't call Arty the King for nothing.

Before CM came along no game accurately portrayed arty fire nor even came close IMHO. Now we have a game that models the true devastating nature of real world artillery and some are questioning the validity. I think it is that many of us are used to all those other games doing such a poor job and not giving "The King" his due.

Charles and Steve along with the scenario designers have done their homework and produced a tremendous game that does in fact model the awesome effects of artillery. It is well researched and has obviously been reviewed and tweaked by those who know, in many cases, first hand what they are talking about.

Once again I give a hand to everyone involved to bringing this game to life.

Have a great day.

Out here...

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think it's also important to remember that much of the time no artillery is available in the first place. Even American commanders usually felt like they never had enough of the stuff. So when it is available, it's powerful indeed, but usually you never get as much as you want.

Valley of Trouble was an exception. Steve intentionally made that scenario with lots of crash-bang-boomers because, hey, it's the demo. Demos have to go "boom" so people notice. Its profusion of artillery is atypical in CM.

Charles

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

This is straight off the top of my head, but the American assault (defence would be more accurate I think) at Anzio further supports the argument of artillery as highly effective.

IIRC, the officer in charge on the ground (I forget his name, he reported to Clarke) was an artillery officer by trade. After hecautiousley dug in and secured his perimeter, the Germans moved up and basically surrounded the American beach head. The way I heard it, this American commander was a maestro with artillery, and counter-attack after counter-attack by the Germans was broken up by virtually the artillery alone.

Ober

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

"Them Yankees couldn't hit the broa..."

[This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 06-22-2000).]

[dumbo]

Good thread.

I too feel artillery feels a tad too effective in CM. While artillery was the cause of greatest casualties in the war as has been noted elswhere that also includes non combat casualties (IE: shelling behind enemy lines).

However that aside one the beauties of CM is that arty is up to the scenario designer. Obviously folks like myself will make arty very sparse, others can do as they wish.

FWIW as BTS noted arty in VoT is kind of overboard compared to most quick battles I have played. My concerns over the power of arty has dimished a lot now I have received my full copy. Personally I would sooner simulate heavy arty in a scenario by reducing enemies before the battle rather than giving a player a few batteries of 155mm, that "feels" better to me generally.

By the way BTS your game is awesome, in particular I found the game editor to be a delight to use,

cheers

_dumbo

[Bullethead]

Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The calling down of individual rounds might be reaslistic, but it presents user interface problems. As it is you can cancel a bombardment every 60 seconds, which isn't too far removed from calling down x rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are basically 2 cases when the number of rounds becomes a real issue. One is when you want to synchronize a ground assault with the end of a bombardment. In this case, you have to time your move based on the end of a turn. This introduces a bit of gameyness and turn-based game flashbacks to the otherwise essentially seamless CM gameplay. Plus, the defender knows your bombardment will stop and your grunts will advance at the end of a turn, so has unrealistic knowledge of the timing of your attack.

The other case is when your FO either starts with very limited ammo or starts running low. In this case, a full minute of fire will probably use up more than is needed for the target and/or leave you with too little remaining for an effective final shot.

As to the interface issue, I was envisioning having a pop-up window asking for how many rounds per gun to fire when you give an FO a target or adjust order. Is that difficult to do?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The other problem you mentioned, that of TacAI behavior, is a lot harder to deal with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I can see how making the AI totally aware of what was causing the morale problem in all cases would be a complete bitch and maybe not even possible. I was thinking more along the lines of a tweak just for the particular case of morale failures under shellfire, leaving the existing system in place for everything else. If the game could look at whether the grunts were under a arty/mortar barrage (as opposed to direct HE from like a tank, or smallarms fire), and then look at whether or not they were already in cover, before deciding to run or not, I think this would fix it without introducing problems elsewhere.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Count Sessine]

Gentlemen,

Since the consensus seems to be that the artillery is satisfying as it is presently modelled in CM, I’ll button up for now

As for the Artillery as the number one killer, I wasn’t aware of the statistics made by the US Army, but faced with facts (or statistics), I fold (if that’s an expression in english). However, one could turn the argument about harassing fire around, and state that since no one can tell who gets killed by what kind of artillery fire (FO directed or harassing), one could legimately speculate about the ratio. Its possible that ‘surprise’ harrassing, or interdiction, fire killed more people than frontline bombardments, which after all, couldn’t achieve the element of surprise. As told by Stetter in my first anecdote, fetching supplies in the rear of the frontline could be a rather scary experience because of the random interdiction fire.

I understand the reason behind Steve’s choice of the VoT scenario for the Gold Demo. Good choice. The 105 artillery has presented me with some excellent opportunites of impressing my friends…

Someone mentioned Raymond Gantter’s ‘Roll me over’ book. In a very interesting encounter, where his company unwittingly runs into a prepared german assault, and generally takes a beating during 5 or 6 hours of intense village fighting, the americans finally manages to call in artillery on the village. Three (3!) whole field artillery battalions bombard the village for sixty minutes. This completely levels the village, makes even the americans tremble when they try to light cigarettes afterwards (they weren’t hit), and concludes the battle in american favour.

This incident is telling in many ways. First that sometimes local battles last for longer than 30-40 minutes. Second, (remember this when you design scenarios), that although the 1st US Inf Div was considered a crack formation in the US Army it was by no means used to intense fighting at this point of the war, that is the beginning of 1945. Raymond Gantter himself, and his platoon with him, indeed most of the company, panicked and ran during this battle. It isn’t surprising, when you consider their combat losses: Gantter joined the ourfit in September/November ’44, and by May ’45 he and another guy were the only ones left in his platoon from the previous automn…

Gantter also tells, that during his 10 months as a platoon CO with this outfit, he never, as in never, had the full TOE of his platoon. According to Gantter, his available manpower usually gravitated around 20 men, for a platoon that was nominally 30 or so. This is an overlooked aspect in scenarios, which doesn’t cease to annoy me as I often play as the germans

/CS

[Doug Beman]

On Bullethead's point of only being able to cancel arty barrages at the end of each minute:

Would it be possible to give your arty observer a PAUSE order (or two) followed by a MOVE/CRAWL order to a place from which he would break his LOS to target? I know that moving these guys risks making them visible, but if you have your arty observer correctly placed (correctly meaning according to what I try to do) he should just BARELY have LOS to the target, and be close to good cover so he can duck and relocate if necessary. In the top floor of a big building is one place; have him at a window calling down fire, give him 30 seconds of PAUSE, then a MOVE order to the opposite side of the building. Once he starts moving he'll lose the LOS and the arty will stop.

A bit contrived and, I as I just came up with this off the top of my head, totally untested. I will work on this over the weekend.

DjB

[chrisl]

You can also delay the barrage a few seconds by moving the target a small amount.

[Lt. Kije]

Bullethead said:

[snip] "One thing I do still have a quibble about, however, is the morale as opposed to lethality effects of shelling in CM. And this I think results in higher arty casualties than should be the case. Basically, troops in foxholes under shelling start out pretty safe, maybe the odd casualty or 2 but for the most part intact. But as the fire continues, their morale plummets. This is OK, too, except that eventually run away. They then lose their protection and get slaughtered.

In real life, almost nobody tries to run under shelling, even if they are totally panicked. But CM apparently uses the same panic routine for all situations, from small arms to arty. I'd like to see this changed someday but I can live with it for now. The point, however, is that there's nothing wrong with the arty here--exposed troops SHOULD be mowed down like that. The problem is that the troops shoulnd't have exposed themselves."

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

My Dad was one of those WWII FO's you see in CM, mostly controlling 105's, with occasional 155 fire missions. As you might expect, he was also on the receiving end of German artillery on many occasions. From listening to him, I have to say that Bullethead makes some terrific points. The two that matter the most are:

1. Even 105's are not that devastating if you are not under trees and you are able to get yourself below ground level. Something as simple as a shallow ditch provides a substantial increase in cover; a foxhole even more. Because of the pattern formed by the downward-pointing shrapnel cone o' death, tree bursts are vastly more effective than ground bursts. Ground burst, if you're below ground level you've got a good chance of living to tell the story. (Like the one where a German shell came shrieking in toward you, hit a cow standing in the field near you, taking the poor cow's jaw clean off without exploding, then came skidding to rest on the ground spinning wildly round and round in a circle. Whew.)

2. Veterans learn this and thus are likely to try to force their faces through the earth all the way to China if they panic. Seeing a veteran get up and run in the middle of an incoming barrage would be a rare oddity.

Maybe this could be an interesting way in which CM models green troops differently from vets?

Great work, BTS. And I continue to be impressed by how thougtful and informed the forum participants are. Thanks again, Bullethead.

Lt. Kije

[tss]

I agree with Bullethead in that the FOs should be able to specify the number of rounds to be fired. I'm not an expert on German or American artillery practices but in Finland each fire command included the shell expenditure. The most common amount seems to have been "10 groups", meaning that each gun should fire ten times (giving a total of 40-120 rounds, depending on how many batteries were firing). Usually that kind of a barrage would last for one minute. Also, Finns tried to shoot without spotting rounds whenever possible. Given enough time, the forward observer team would register every probable target in sight so that the FFE could be started immedietely. Mortars were often left aimed at "barrage targets" that were situated in probable Soviet attack lines. Thus, when Soviets attacked at least one mortar could immedietely start firing barrage while others were aimed.

I recently read the memoirs of Lars Holmström who directed over 50000 rounds during the Continuation War. It seems that the usage of different shell patterns was much more common than what I had believed before. He mentions many times having "designed a pattern" that would maximize the damage of the shells. Unfortunately, he doesn't mention how long did it take but it seems that at least when firing at pre-registered targets it could be done relatively quickly.

The memoirs also mention one interesting example on the devastating effect of correctly timed barrages: during the battle of Ihantala (summer '44) a batallion strenght reinforcement troop was sent to strenghten the Soviet attack. During its march to front lines it was hit three times by Finnish barrages that all started without spotting rounds. All three barrages caused approximately 200 casualties so that only about 200 men of the 800 men batallion reached front lines and they were so demoralised that they were useless in battle. This account was told by a Soviet captain who was captured a couple days later during a Finnish counter-attack at Pyöräkangas. In another case Holmström fired a minute-long barrage at a Red Army assembly point with 84 guns at the same moment when the Soviets leaved their foxholes. (Finnish radists had intercepted the attack time earlier so it was known). The barrage was so effective that Soviets couldn't attack at all that day while they usually attacked 3-7 times a day at the area

-Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hello BH,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus, the defender knows your bombardment will stop and your grunts will advance at the end of a turn, so has unrealistic knowledge of the timing of your attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I agree with the problem when your FOs run low on ammo, I don't think it is a problem for timed assaults. First of all, how is the enemy supposed to know what turn you are going to stop the artillery from falling down? And who says that every bombardment is followed by an infantry assault, closely timed to the end of the bombardment? Even a human would be hard pressed to guess when these situations are to happen, but the AI is utterly incapable of it. So overall I would say it is not an issue. And since you can time your attack pretty well as is, I don't think that is an issue either. You might not be able to do it on the exact second you want to, but the limiation does not affect the realism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I was thinking more along the lines of a tweak just for the particular case of morale failures under shellfire, leaving the existing system in place for everything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is our plan, actually We aren't sure if we will break more than we fix, but it is worth a try!

Steve

[dumbo]

Good thread.

Glad to see you are considering a few minor tweaks Steve.

By the way I posted in another thread but its worth repeating that arty maybe very effective but its also very expensive. 3 turns of 203mm artillery costs as much as a King Tiger 8)

[Boeman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

Artillery was the number one killer of troops in WW2.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While heavy artillery inflicted severe losses in human life during World War II; it was actually the infantry motar more than any other weapon (I.E. 60mm), that caused the greatest number of casualties.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true for the Vietnam War as well.

[Bullethead]

Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While I agree with the problem when your FOs run low on ammo, I don't think it is a problem for timed assaults. First of all, how is the enemy supposed to know what turn you are going to stop the artillery from falling down? And who says that every bombardment is followed by an infantry assault, closely timed to the end of the bombardment? Even a human would be hard pressed to guess when these situations are to happen, but the AI is utterly incapable of it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I should have explained myself a bit more clearly then. I realize the AI can't anticipate you so I was talking about playing a human. Also, I was talking about those times when the other guy knows you are about to assault.

This is really not so hard to see coming. To make best use of the barrage, the attacking troops have to make the final charge the moment it lifts. To do that, they have to already be very close to the objective. They will almost always be spotted in some way getting in that close. When he sees them, the defender will try to break up the attack with his own arty. The attacker knows this so is pretty much committed to assaulting within 1-2 turns of reaching the last covered position short of the objective. The defender knows this so can move up any reserves he might have behind the objective without much risk of them getting caught in a continuing barrage. And he can time this because of the turn breaks. This is why I think having the shelling stop mid-turn, at a time known only to the attacker, would be useful.

-

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Jager 7]

Quote: "While heavy artillery inflicted severe losses in human life during World War II; it was actually the infantry motar more than any other weapon (I.E. 60mm), that caused the greatest number of casualties"

Boeman,

Call me a skeptic if you will but I would like to see some stats to validate that statement. Or direct me so I can do the research myself. I have never seen anything like it.

Out here...

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

When the situation is obscure....attack!

CGen. Heinz Guderian

[Guest MantaRay]

Didn't Stalin call Artillery the God of the Battlefield? <---maybe not verbadum there.

Ray

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[Guest grunto]

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

Didn't Stalin call Artillery the God of the Battlefield? <---maybe not verbadum there.

Ray

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'queen of the battlefield?'

the russians were certainly into their artillery. they liked it in a direct fire role too. just think of encountering 76mm HE fire in every firefight, and 122mm and 152mm often. that must have been hell.

in close combat 3 that 76mm infantry gun is 27 points. it is the best-spent 27 points for either side in 1941. it does well - even using plain HE - against the german armor of 1941. i wonder how it will be modelled in the russian front version of combat mission?

yes stalin believed in artillery and they had a lot of it.

they invented the rocket artillery and the germans copied it. it scared the bejeezus out of the germans when they first encountered it in 1941.

'stalins organs'... now that will be cool if combat mission models the sound

andy

[Bertram]

Regarding the casualties of artillery versus mortars: I read somewhere (but I forgot where) that that lots of US casualties in Normandy were indeed from mortar fire. I don't remember if it stated that it was most, but the US army was most impressed with the effectiveness of the mortar.

Only in this article especialy the heavier mortars (120 mm) where credited with (or blamed for)the casualties.

Comparing it to the effectiveness of other artillery however, one should take in accound that the German heavy artillery at this stage probably was severely hampered by the disability to travel and amunition shortages due to interdiction.

The article also stated that only after these experiences the US army became more mortar heavy, especially in regard to the 81 mm mortar.

Bertram

[:USERNAME:]

Steve

In a previous thread it was discussed if it would be possible for infantry in field fortifications to be like weapons crews and be more apt to stay put (something that the patch is addressing).

bullethead is right about infantry assaults using timing by arty. One tactic Ive read is where the US arty would plaster the target with HE with lots of airbursts if possible. As the US inf would crawl forward the FO would then switch to a mix of HE (ground detonating now) and WP. This mix would keep the pressure on the enemy and allow the closing US troops to have some cover from the WP smoke. When it was "GO" time, the FO would have a barrage of WP only followed by one last round of HE by each gun on delayed fuze. The HE rounds would all be fired in unison and the delayed fuze would assure that they would be exploding beneath the ground so as to minimize US casualties. It would also catch the defenders that had popped up to see why the arty had switched to WP only and would act as a "GO" signal so the US troops would all rush the defenders at the same time.

A defenders countermeasure is to fire his own arty behind the barrage of the attacker so as to confuse the enemy FO into thinking his aim is off and then over adjusting his fire.

Finally, arty and mortar fire are slightly different. Arty is much more accurate and less vulnerable to wind errors. Mortars have the distinct advantage of not having an audible signature when its "incoming". Ive read that its a quick rushing sound that is followed closely by the explosion. If you've seen the movie "Platoon", Id imagine it was like that. Mortar rounds literally land on their nose giving a near circular killing area around it. Once infantry are under mortar fire it would pin everyone nearby to the ground. Every millimeter above the surface of the earth is a greater chance of catching a shard of metal. Mortar fire is also quicker. A good 105mm crew can bang 10 rounds a minute. A good 81mm mortar crew with a steep tube could do double that.

Lewis

[tss]

I wrote:

It seems that the usage of different shell patterns was much more common than what I had believed before.

When writing that I forgot that there was a significant difference between Finnish artillery use and artillery in CM. That is, the Finnish doctrine was that the firing unit should always be at least a full 12-gun batallion. (However, in practice this was not always achieved for various reasons).

So, in those cases when a FO called for a special shell landing pattern, it meant in practice that instead of aiming all three batteries to the same position, the batteries were each given a different (but nearby) target.

- Tommi

[JTMauney]

Greetings. Excellent thread, guys. Since I've seen no one directly address mortars, I'll take it on. =)

Background: 6 years infantry mortars, 81mm and 60mm (mostly the former), USMC 1986-1992. Served in all squad positions, FO and FDC Chief. Also attended LFTCPacific Fire Support Coordinator's School and served as 81mm Fire Support Coordinator in the BN FSC Center (The looey wanted to be in the field, so I got the job-- and the education

I'll address several points I've seen brought up in previous replies as I can remember them. I apologize in advance if I drift off into esocteric military acro-babble. I try to avoid that sort of thing, but it happens sometimes. Just ask and I'll be happy to clarify.

1) Rounds impacting trees: You should keep in mind that while "treeburst" can *sometimes* be effective, it is greatly dependent on the tree height and density. Remember that the old 300-series rounds of the 81mm mortar had a maximum effective casualty radius (horizontal, admittedly) of 35m, and a stand of tall pines could cause completely unpredicatable results. Remember, these rounds are not necessarily dropping vertically at longer ranges. This is less of a problem for mortars than artillery, obviously. Even so, many times the FO or FDC chief will opt for "delay fuse." In other words, the fuse will be set for a short delay before detonation, thus allowing it to punch through the canopy and detonate closer to the ground. This can also be used (somewhat less effectively) to try to get the round to punch through a concrete structure. Note, however, that actually HITTING a bunker with a direct mortar round is problematic, at best.

True airburst, while often effective against troops entrenched in open terrain, was very difficult to achieve with the technology of the time. VT (Variable Time) fuses, while they existed for mortars, were fairly rare. They also required very accurate firing tables (giving Time of Flight to within 1/10 second accuracy in dry air) and a measure of lucky guessing to account for wind, temperature, humidity, etc., in the event that firing conditions were less than optimal, (common, of course). The radio-detonated fuses didn't come into service until much later. I may be wrong on this, but I do not believe that any of them saw service in WWII, so their use is really a moot point.

Moving on...

2) Direct Fire vs. Massed Fire: each of these techniques has advantages and disadvantages, and it really just boils down to what you're trying to achieve. Trying to destroy that bunker with a lucky WP hit? Have your best gun team direct lay on it. Trying to hit a squad in the open? Better have the whole platoon massed, under command of a Fire Direction Center and a good FO with the line company HQ. Direct lay is faster, but presents two main problems: smaller volume of fire in time concentration, and exposure of the crew to return fire. If they can lay on the target, it can see them, too. With massed fire, you have the advantage of being in defilade, but skilled FO's (hard to train, harder to keep alive) and a cool-headed FDC are necessary, as well as extensive gun drill. Modern 81's are almost always used in massed fire, "battery-like" methods. 60's are more normally used in direct fire. (Note: this is modern USMC doctrine, where 81's are "BN arty", for all intents and purposes, and 60's are organic to individual line companies. WWII U.S. Army was similar, but not always the same. Each BC had different ideas-- as always.

Normally, massed fire is the way to go with indirect weapons. It makes things like shifting fires, large unit suppression, and effective smoke screening much more manageable. Additionally, you can attach a vehicle for ammo transport and consequently have a much higher round count per squad than a foot moblie, individual tube. (300 series 81mm rounds are approximately 8 lbs. each, depending on round type. For a five-man squad, this means a practical round count of 20 rounds maximum; i.e.- not much).

3) Accuracy of fire - This is a much more unit-dependent issue. A good veteran FO with a good, coordinated gun line and FDC behind him will nearly always get a FFE (Fire for Effect) going in less than 3 adjustment rounds. A junior FO with little field experience might take upwards of 5 adjustment rounds to find his target. Even the most crude of enemy conscripts is going to do the math after the fourth adjustment round lands and make for safer ground.

In a purely defensive situation, the preferred method of fire is, of course, Registered Point (RP). You can either shift from it ("RP Cougar, Add 200, FFE"), or hit it directly. This allows the most timely arrival of rounds on target, and the highest possiblity of effect on target. At the opposite end of the spectrum is an offensive adjustment on a moving target, (e.g.- engaging an advancing squad in the open in a meeting engagement). This requires excellent range estimation skills, a very fast plotter and a smoothly rehearsed gunline with top-notch teams. And a large measure of luck. If you ever find an FO who can achieve a complex FFE target solution with one adjustment round on a consistent basis-- bribe him. DON'T let him leave. Buy him a new car, a new house, a new wife; whatever. Just don't let him get away; he's worth his weight in diamonds.

4) Availability - This is where mortars really shine. An infantry BC *always* wants 105's, 155's, naval gunfire and air on target. He rarely gets, of course, but he wants. =) He always has his 81's, however. (Note: I'm far from being completely boned-up on 1945 Army ETO Infantry BN TO&E, so please feel free to point it out if I'm wrong, here). This is why the 81 is called the BC's "hip-pocket artillery." It may not pack all the punch of a 105 battery, or the sheer terror of a NG bombardment, but it has an advangtage all its own: it's THERE. Ready to fire. It belongs to the battalion commander, and he can order it about at will. (This is another reason the 81 platoon is almost always massed; BC's don't like having their 81's scattered hither and yon, and many even maintain the 60's in three-gun company sections when practicable). Need a smoke screen across that company's axis of advance to screen that flanking maneuver? No prob; call 81's. Need 4-point continuous illumination over that hill for an assault? No prob; call 81's (and pray their FDC chief is boned up on his trigonometry). Mortars' biggest advantage is versatility and the ability to displace much more rapidly than a typical arty battalion. Sure, I love to have 8" guns pounding hell outta the bad guys. Problem is, when they go to move, it takes FOREVER to get 'em set up and dialed in.

Additional considerations lie in the realm of Fire Support Coordination. This is a very complex art form and science that the U.S. and German militaries were just starting to develop in WWII, so I won't go too far into it. Just keep in mind that a 105 arty unit will not always be in direct support (DS) of a BN unless it that BN is the spearhead of an important assault. 155's? Almost never in DS. It can happen in special circumstances, but don't depend on it. No infantry BC worth his leaves would write a battle plan depending on having large-bore arty in DS. It just doesn't happen very often, and is too likely to change at a moment's notice on a large battlefront, (and they don't get any larger than ETO '45).

Much more likely that all large-bore arty will be in some form of regimental or divisional GS (General Support). This means that the request for fire has to go through (at least) one more level of bureacracy. Some Fire Support Coordination officer miles behind the requesting unit's position will have final say over whether or not that unit gets it's arty. This is not something that infantry commanders like; it's just something they deal with. In real life, you won't be told that you have 'n' arty rounds available. You'll be told that a unit is either in DS or GS, and it's up to you to decide if: 1) the unit will be available at all; 2) it will deliver the requested ordnance in a timely manner; 3) it will deliver the ordnance at all.

Mortars don't have these problems. They simply have smaller boom-toys to throw at the enemy. Coordination is done on the BN level, so that if A Co. is scheduled to lead the assualt on Hill #XXX, he KNOWS he will have 'n' number of 81 WP to screen him, followed by 'n' number of bombardment HE, which WILL shift back at EXACTLY X:XX hours, allowing him to plan and time that assault. He also knows that the 81's will still be there, with an FO right on his elbow, if he needs further fire.

In short, do not under-estimate the value of availability and relative predictability. These "-ities" are two of the hardest things to come by on a battlefield.

5) Effectiveness of HE - This is something that is almost always overrated, IMO. At least in terms of its ability to produce large-scale wounds and long-term casualties or kills. For example: a typcial grenade (M67 modern, the old pineapples WWII), will rarely kill someone that knows how to react. Why? Because it a very small amount of explosive spreading a relatively small amount of shrapnel over a very large hemi-sphere. More importantly, that hemi-sphere isn't a true one. Explosions on the ground have a unique property: the travel upwards and outwards. If someone lands a grenade near you (say 5 feet away), and you maintain your cool, you can avoid permanent damage by simply diving away from the grenade and remaining prone, feet towards it, until after the detonation. Now, make no mistake-- it WILL ring your bell. You'll definately be stunned for a moment, and most likely deaf for several hours, but you'll be alive. (Chances are you're already 3/4 deafened from gunfire anyway, if you've been in a firefight for more than 20 seconds).

Quick-fuzed arty and mortars (the normal HE fuse setting), have the same drawback. Troops dug in? Most FO's wouldn't even waste the HE unless it was just to keep their heads down. Your chances of landing one in a foxhole is remote, at best. VT or radio-fused for airburst has a better chance of maybe getting some shrapnel into a hole, but you're still talking about a massive volume of shells per casualty, and an advancing army doesn't always have such supplies of ammo conveniently available. Also, remember that VT was very difficult to use. Better to just smokescreen that dug in unit, flank them with infantry and overrun with AFVs, if available.

WP, of course, is an entirely different matter since it arcs and splashes, but I'll leave that alone, for now.

Anyway, to sum up this rather long and rambling diatribe, I'd like to say that it was drilled into my head very early on that the job of fire support, in mortar, artillery or airstrike form, is to suppress the enemy so that the infantry can advance and assault their position. Any casualties caused by indirect fire are a bonus, but you don't rely on arty to take and hold ground. Only infantry and armor can do that-- arty and mortars support them in their effort. It should be noted that this is modern doctrine with 50 years of hindsight on WWII. Tactics on the ETO may not have been quite the same, so CM might actually reflect differently on this doctrine.

In regards to CM, I must say that I've seen too many veteran squads scatter like frightened geese under the effects of artillery and mortar fire. This, IMO, is unrealistic. Suppressed? Certainly. Pinned? Probably. But panicked? Unlikely. Maybe after five minutes of bombardment, but they'd be crawling away from it by that point, and very few artillery units are going to have the rounds available to sustain a full-battery FFE for an on-call strike for a single BN in a real combat situation for that length of time. Remember, you're talking about a LOT of rounds, here.

As for those artillery officers that advised you, remember this: they're biased. It comes naturally. I'm sure they're very good officers, but they're still ARTILLERY officers, and are thus going to be convinced that the lion's share of winning the battle resides with them, just as infantry and armor officers are convinced likewise. Intra-branch rivalry among the combat arms MOS's is rampant, and it takes several years away from active duty to begin to see things objectively, as I've discovered.

Having received both explosives and small-arms fire in the Gulf (admittedly not very accurate , I must say that training, discpline and good morale play a very important part in a unit's ability to advance in the face of fire, artillery or otherwise. To have a rested, veteran, high-spirits, infantry squad panic and run away like little girls when they come under arty fire, and lose 1/3 of their numbers in the first barrage, is totally unacceptable.

As to those stats you mentioned about arty-inflicted casualties-- I don't trust BDA's and AA Reports. They're ALWAYS exaggerated, and a compilation of them will be even more so. The farther away one is from the action on the ground, the more exaggerated they tend to be, in fact. I remember reading one account of RAF Typhoons that reported inflicting 70% casualties from rocket attacks on a German tank unit. When an allied (Anglo-Canadian, I believe), armor unit attacked along that axis, they found that not only were there plenty of German tank left-- ALL of them appeared to still be operational. A lot of Sherman and Crusader crews paid for this "exaggeration" with their lives. A later analysis of each and every aerial rocket crater on that battlefield found that not ONE rocket had taken out a tank. But, for a few days after that "successful" air attack, RAF planners were absolutely convinced that the way to defeat Jerry was to rocket his armor to death and then send in the foot-sloggers to "mop up." Another theory bites the dust, along with several hunderd real people.

Enough rambling. Any errors are mine alone; please feel free to kibitz. =)

Oh, and... GREAT GAME, guys. Quibbles aside, KEEP IT UP! Go team.

l8r

[Herr Oberst]

Just a lst 2 cents.

Beware of reading any survivors accounts of massive artillery barrages. He is naturally biased.