BH's Arty Wish List

[Bobbaro]

Glad to see this topic revisited and so done so well. While I don't see any echoing of BH on the WP issue here, I will amend that. I have made somewhat feable and unsuccessful efforts to find support for the quantities they (BTS) want to see documented, before they will consider it, without result.

I suspect that WP was so taken for granted that mention of it gets buried in smoke, so to speak. Its use had to be restricted on account of availability and of being undesirable in a lot of situations where some other munition would work better. A round or two mixed with a barrage or when spotting was difficult seems quite possible

as a matter of casual utility. But it would seem to really be appropriate do the job, when moving the enemy elsewhere is important.

Machineguns and other supporting positions would be good targets when you not only wanted them to duck away from firing their guns, but also wanted them to leave the area until they could stand to return, after which it would be too late. I am not so sure I would want to attack over a well Willie Petered area right after, but then I am ignorant of these details one way or the other, never haveing had the personal pleasure.

It may have been menitioned before as a literature citing, but if so, anyway here again, in his book, A Soldier From Txas, Col. Cecil E Roberts of the 9th Armored Div. wrote casually of WP being used to screen the crossing of the Remagen bridge as though it was not anything unusual to be able to order up a large dose of that munition.

As it had not only screening capabilities, but also was a strong motovater for personnel to move elsewhere pronto for reasons beyond its casualty causing properties, I would just love to be able to place some in effective proximity to guns and other particularly annoying positons. The threat represented by a miss should have a morale effect simular to watching a flamethrower blazing close enough to make one think it possible to be next on the hit list.

The BTS reservation is as I recall relative quantities available in not only in the theater but also at the front line. With the years intervening, that information has been obscured. I am sure some record of it still exists in archives of ordanance shipped, recieved and moved to the forward dumps. So far no one has come up with any FMs which specify standard load outs to the batteries. The only thing I have seen has been anicdoatal mentions, and rather few and far between. WP is a special purpose tool just as appropriate to employ in CM as a back pack flamethrower. However, unfortunantly I can not show in anyway any documentation that would totally answer BTSs reservations.

Just about every speciality in the militery has had it's WWII story told. I wish the Ordinance people were included. You can bet that if the shells were there, they were used when needed.

P.S. It was interesting to me to read about the stuff being used in Japanese AA shells and with some effectiveness. I read of how one fellow piloted his plane back to base after a WP hit and that only on landing was the still smoking bit of phosphorus removed from one of his wounds. Talk about stiff upper lip. Wow!

[This message has been edited by Bobbaro (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Bullethead]

Elementalwarre said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>great stuff! anyone at BTS reading this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hope so

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>7. adjust FFE by 100m increments to anywhere within 200m of target. 200-300m cylinder around target cannot be targeted. 300+m from target is new target

re 7, adjusting FFE: why is 200-300m out from the target not targetable? or did i misinterpret?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something of a misinterpretation. What I suggest is that once an FO has FFE going on a certain point on the map, then the area in which he can move the FFE should be limited as follows: anywhere in a narrow band 100m +/- 10m from the current point of aim, and another concentric band 200m +/- 10m from the current point of aim. If the FO wants to shift more than 200m, he has to start all over again with the spotting round process and long delay.

All the above is an attempt to force shifts in 100m increments, such as happens in real life almost every time. Shifts less than 100m, which is all that CM allows now, just don't happen but once in a blue moon. They are unnecessary due to the kill radius of the shells, and the FO can't see into the current impact area anyway due to smoke and dust. This is why I also suggest the 100m no-fire zone outside the 200m ring.

Note that with the system I propose, it would be possible to shift in steps up to 200m all across the map over several turns. However, the max shift per turn is 200m, and the minimum is 100m, and nothing in between.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>these would be changes in a CM patch, thus the limited, abstracted graphics. right? just ensuring that's the only reason for the graphics suggested<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea when or if BTS would get around to doing any of these changes. But we NEED illume rounds and BTS has mentioned they have a problem with dynamic 3D lighting. So I was just suggesting a way to have illume rounds w/out needing dynamic 3D lighting. Whether BTS likes the idea or not is up to them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>5. smokescreen in roughly twice the time of HE fire mission<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in the orientable linear pattern I also mentioned, instead of the current "snowball" pattern.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect that WP was so taken for granted that mention of it gets buried in smoke, so to speak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read the reports of the German commander of Cherbourg, you will find reference to many of his arty batteries being knocked out with WP shells.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

All the above is an attempt to force shifts in 100m increments...However, the max shift per turn is 200m, and the minimum is 100m, and nothing in between.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reading this again, I find myself wondering if the kill radius in the game is as large as you are positing here. If it is not, than 100 meter increment shifts are going to be too coarse.

Michael

[L.Tankersley]

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

Annoying yes, but consistent.

If you cancel a normal fire order from a tank, and reissue it, the next

round will be considered the first, accuracy-wise. Same with movement,

cancel and reissue, you get a pause.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly parallel, though. If you issue a movement order, cancel it and reissue, you get a C&C delay. If you cancel the order again and reissue, you get the same C&C delay. With artillery, if you target, cancel, and retarget, you get a longer delay time. And every time you cancel and reissue (in the same orders phase) the delay time gets longer. [Well, there's probably a limit somewhere, but it does get longer for a while.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Reading this again, I find myself wondering if the kill radius in the game is as large as you are positing here. If it is not, than 100 meter increment shifts are going to be too coarse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some really good ideas here, BH. But I'd have to agree with Michael on this point, particularly for mortar FOs. Brit 3in mortars will only make an effective kill area of ~40mx20m for targets within LOS. There are certainly a decent number of outliers beyond those ranges, but it only looks like a max of 80mx40m for total coverage to me (excluding about a dozen extreme longs and shorts). Here's a picture (green line points to target; six 3in mortar FOs fired their allotment of 180 mortars each):

http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/Brit_3in_mortars.jpg

A 100m min movement for these particular shell types would be way too big IMO.

And from your numbers previously:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010543.html

The regular spread for guns have a max width of 60m (30m on either side of target center). Moving 100m "sideways" wouldn't even allow those patterns to overlap at all.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Wolfe]

Damn it's late.

Ok, so those lines are actually 40mx40m, not 20mx20m as I first thought when posting the above. But I think the observation still holds. For mortars atleast, getting an effective (tight) spread is important because of their smaller HE blast. A 100m min movement would be too coarse, IMO.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Bullethead]

Wolfe said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Some really good ideas here, BH. But I'd have to agree with Michael on this point, particularly for mortar FOs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First off, I expressly stated in my original post that all my suggestions apply to arty ONLY, not mortars. While some of the things I want changed for arty maybe should apply to mortars also, I leave that as an exercise for the interested mortar expert in another thread. I simply don't know enough about these grunt toys to express an opinion

Now as to the kill radius and how it relates to shifting FFE. First off, all shells have a kill radius extending some distance beyond their point of impact. And shells do not all land in the same hole, so all around the target point you have shells exploding. Their kill radii overlap and extend beyond the furthest craters all around. In the vast majority of cases, therefore, the total area within the kill radius of at least 1 shell of an FFE is at least 100m wide. This, plus the inability to see into the impact area anyway, is why arty usually shifts by 100m jumps.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here's a picture (green line points to target; six 3in mortar FOs fired their allotment of 180 mortars each):<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mind you, I'm only discussing mortars here because this picture also holds true for arty

Your picture shows the typical mortar distribution for an LOS shot: the effective impact area is about 160x80m. That for arty is slightly tighter, but not significantly. In both cases, the kill radii of the outermost shells extends some distance beyond the holes in the map. So the kill zone in both cases is going to be close to 100m wide. You DO NOT need total coverage of overlapping craters to make a kill zone

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[elementalwarre]

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

Wolfe said:

You DO NOT need total coverage of overlapping craters to make a kill zone

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh come on, artillery as instant field plows. think about it

seriously, is the 100m increment true even for 75mm? just making sure it applies to all artillery support

[Los]

Bullethead, I have just read over the topic and your good suggestions though I dont have time to respond in detail now, we will be mulling this over (in fact most of this stuff has already been discussed by us at some point.)

However the challenge for you is this:

You need to do some research to see how many of these points and suggestions would be valid points in A WW2 sim within the contsrains of scale and engine as opposed to how things are done nowadays in the modern era.

They may or may not be, but you can help being part of the solution by bringing forth some comprehensive and agressive research or WW2 arty procedures to back up your suggestions. ( I can help you with some resources reseach) Coming from the infnatry side of the house, I had to do this in spades for CM1 and some things which may seem totally obvious as being valid points turn out not to be so when discussed in eth context of ww2 either in general or country specific. SO get your ass over to the historical section of the libarary (or your own living room) and start forking over some data to me that supports your enhancements wrt WW2. Then the next step is discussion to determine which (if any) of these enhancements is beyond the scale of what the rest of CM2 (i.e. micromanagement)is trying to model (really a Steve/Charles call). SO get cracking.

Cheers...

Los

Historical consultant/researcher

Combat Mission

(I normally don't include that sig but it's just to let you know I'm not busting your balls for no reason, that info I'm asking you about is what we need to consider stuff for inclusion.)

[Wolfe]

Bullethead wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off, I expressly stated in my original post that all my suggestions apply to arty ONLY, not mortars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, no problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First off, all shells have a kill radius extending some distance beyond their point of impact. And shells do not all land in the same hole, so all around the target point you have shells exploding. Their kill radii overlap and extend beyond the furthest craters all around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but for the smaller stuff, the kill radius is much smaller and you will usually need multiple hits to the same area to do any real damage. And the pic above shows 6 FOs firing at the same spot, making a *much* more dense impact pattern than you would ever realistically see in a game. And enemy troops have an annoying habit of wanting to move out of your kills zones. Being able to adjust barrages finely is very important IMO. I too would like to see the maximum arty adjustment allowed (currently 100m?) be increased, but minimum remain as is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your picture shows the typical mortar distribution for an LOS shot: the effective impact area is about 160x80m. That for arty is slightly tighter, but not significantly. In both cases, the kill radii of the outermost shells extends some distance beyond the holes in the map. So the kill zone in both cases is going to be close to 100m wide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here are shells patterns for 75mm arty (again 6 FOs apiece). Target centers are 100m apart (green and blue lines point to target). Even if you go by shell blast radii, there's no overlap.

http://users.erols.com/chare/cm/Brit_75mm_arty.jpg

Maybe I'm using my arty wrong, but I often find myself adjusting in fairly small increments (30m~80m at a time to try to follow troops on the move). I also use small adjustments to delay the start of the bombardment in the next turn. Hopefully that's not considered gamey.

- Chris

[Wilhammer]

http://www.4point2.org/

History of 4.2 chemical battalions.

WP is prominent in this article, including a description of its effectiveness at scaring soldiers, burning them and toasting cover by a German General.

They say that more WP shells were produced for mortars than all other shell types COMBINED. Overwhelmingly, WP was the smoke round used.

I am firmly in the "give me my WP" camp.

[Jager 7]

Not to be a stickler but there is no reason for a firing delay with adjustments of anything less than 1000 meters. (yes, count the zeros) An FO can and does shift his fires several hundred meters if his target location is in error with no noticable delay from the FDC or guns. In CM this would mean that once an FO started adjusting he could shift effortlessly throughout the entire battlefield with no time penalties...realistic...very..but probably not good for our favorite game.

Now he should be made to establish another call for fire after he has effectively neutralized his target to his satisfaction. In other words, if he hurts an infantry squad or HT taget he should have to end the mission and begin again for a new target. But for adjustment purposes, before the FFE goes in he should be able to literally adjust anywhere on the map with no time delay constraints except for the mission processing delay of the first adjustment round.

I know this will cause some a fit...but it's realistic.

Out here...

[Bullethead]

Los said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead, I have just read over the topic and your good suggestions though I dont have time to respond in detail now, we will be mulling this over (in fact most of this stuff has already been discussed by us at some point.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's nice to know. It's all I can ask for .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However the challenge for you is this:

You need to do some research to see how many of these points and suggestions would be valid points in A WW2 sim within the contsrains of scale and engine as opposed to how things are done nowadays in the modern era.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Research? I thought that was your job

Seriously, I'd love to. Expect an email from me shortly taking you up on your offer to help.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[karch]

How about taking counter battery fire into account. Just because you buy the atry, doesn't mean you get to use it. Maybe you could use your own arty rounds for counter battery fire if they are large enough and could have the range. I mean you couldn't call counter battery fire from offboard 105s to counter 155s. There must be some way of handling it. It would suck if you lost $$$$ of artillery you bought, but that's war.

Scott Karch

[Bobbaro]

Good site there Willhammer, if we can get some more stuff like this, maybe we can talk BTS into including WP. It is a shame we have 4.2s without their basic ammo. Now to get more info on what was available to other weapons and the degree of use.

Quoting from that history posted there,

"Over three million WP shells came from filling plants in the United States, more than all other mortar shells, excluding HE, combined. In comparison, the service procured only one-third of a million FS smoke shells, and none containing titanium tetrachloride.

The German army would have been happy to have had the same plentiful supply of WP as the American army, but Germany lacked the raw materials for producing phosphorus, and its army had to depend on inferior Berger mixture or on sulphur trioxide."

[Bullethead]

Wolfe said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe I'm using my arty wrong, but I often find myself adjusting in fairly small increments (30m~80m at a time to try to follow troops on the move)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's not entirely your fault You are using what the game currently gives you in terms of impact patterns and adjustment radius, plus the ability to see into the impact area. I'm just saying that these game features are not realistic. Change the way the game does things, and your tactics will have to change as well.

Another real life thing to consider in this whole adjustment thing is that arty is almost always much further behind the FEBA than mortars. So you're talking 15, 20, or even 30 second times of flight for the shells. This is another factor causing larger adjustments than CM currently allows, if you are trying to lead a moving target.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Bullethead]

Karch said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How about taking counter battery fire into account.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PITS does this. When you set up a scenario, each side has a counterbattery rating, which basically determines its chance per turn to locate and suppress or destroy the other side's OBA.

I've never liked this feature. Counterbattery is a complex art (I know, I've done a LOT of it in real life). The main problem is locating the enemy battery accurately enough to shoot it. These days we have nifty radar that backtracks incoming shells to their origin with pinpoint accuracy in about 0 time. But back in WW2, it was eyeballs and ears, and some special gear to amplify these senses. Unless you had some FO up on a hill or in a plane who could actually see the enemy guns, or some specialized flash/sound ranging units, you probably didn't get a tight enough location to warrant shooting with just the few rounds fired in a tactical battle.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Guest Michael emrys]

I think counter-battery fire usually only occurred in WW II when two armies had been facing each other long enough to locate opposing sites. Then at some point in the opening of an offensive, defending batteries would be saturated before fire would shift to other targets. Silencing of opposing artillery was usually only temporary, but may have been enough to enable attacking infantry to close with the enemy.

My point is that this kind of tactic could only be rarely employed on the Western Front as it was not that common for the front to be static long enough. In fact only two occasions come immediately to mind when it was used (though of course more may exist). And that was by the German at the opening of the Ardennes offensive and by the Allies for the crossing of the Rhine.

Michael

[Spook]

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

They may or may not be, but you can help being part of the solution by bringing forth some comprehensive and agressive research or WW2 arty procedures to back up your suggestions. ( I can help you with some resources reseach) Coming from the infnatry side of the house, I had to do this in spades for CM1 and some things which may seem totally obvious as being valid points turn out not to be so when discussed in eth context of ww2 either in general or country specific. SO get your ass over to the historical section of the libarary (or your own living room) and start forking over some data to me that supports your enhancements wrt WW2. Then the next step is discussion to determine which (if any) of these enhancements is beyond the scale of what the rest of CM2 (i.e. micromanagement)is trying to model (really a Steve/Charles call). SO get cracking.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As an on-board request, Los, could you post some of your references regarding WW2 artillery mechanics? To constrain the scope of this request, which five of these references would you consider the most comprehensive or having the best utility? I'd like to use your recommendations so to do some B&N.com or amazon.com shopping myself.

Thanks for any reply,

Ed

[Bullethead]

Michael emrys said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think counter-battery fire usually only occurred in WW II when two armies had been facing each other long enough to locate opposing sites. Then at some point in the opening of an offensive, defending batteries would be saturated before fire would shift to other targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While a fireplan involving suppression of known enemy arty positions is a standard way to open a major offensive, I disagree that this was the only time in WW2 when CB happened. 2 things only are required to locate an enemy battery, regardless of the method used: 1) properly placed observers, and 2) enough enemy activity for the observers to use.

While WW2 CB location methods were primitive compared to what I used in the Gulf, they were still quite effective within their limitations. For example, a common WW2 technique was to put an FO on a hill, in a church spire, or in a light aircraft, so that he had a field of view over the battlefield. He could easily locate any gun or rocket battery firing within his LOS. Thus, CB fire was very possible even in maneuver battles, provided the conditions of observer placement and enemy activity were met.

Also remember that at the operational level and above, artillery often is the decisive weapon. So the brass put a very high premium on winning the arty battle. Also, artillerymen's favorite target is enemy artillery, not only for professional rivalry but also because that's the main threat to them after TacAir. The result of both of these fixations is that CB fire usually has the highest priority. Arty will often stop supporting grunts to nuke an enemy battery that pops up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Silencing of opposing artillery was usually only temporary, but may have been enough to enable attacking infantry to close with the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This depends on a lot of variables. Such as how the location was achieved (LOS or flash/sound, for example), how the fire was conducted (adjusted spotting rounds or TOT), how much fire landed on the target, what type of fire it was (small shells to big bombs), and the mobility of the battery (fixed, horse-drawn, motorized, or SP).

Often in prepfires, there isn't enough tubes and/or ammo to do everything you'd like even when you mass all you can find. So on the CB side of things, using a few rounds to just scare the enemy guns into moving to a new position will silence them for some time. This allows you to really hammer the enemy MLR and reserves with your available assets. However, on the battlefield, where enemy arty is actively causing you grief, its destruction is more often the object, so things are done differently.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My point is that this kind of tactic could only be rarely employed on the Western Front as it was not that common for the front to be static long enough. In fact only two occasions come immediately to mind...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If there was any shortage of CB missions on the Western Front, I think it was due more to the conditions on that front than anything else. TacAir is the biggest threat to arty by far, and the Germans faced total Allied air supremacy. Also, in the rout trying to get out of France, the Germans lost a lot of arty (along with a lot of everything else), so there wasn't the usual amount to shoot at later.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[John Kettler]

Here are some real world data on WW II field artillery employment, including registration procedures, ammo types (HE, WP), FO options, etc.

Excerpts are from the account of a 68th Armored Field Artillery Battalion FO describing the successful defense of Mt. La Difensa, Italy on December 1, 1943 against a German counterattack. This account is found in THE BATTLE HISTORY OF THE 1ST ARMORED DIVISION: "Old Ironsides" by George F. Howe, Association of the U.S. Army, 1954, pages 266-267.

Were my scanner working, I'd simply post the pages, but a few paragraphs will suffice to make my points.

(FO speaking)

"Someone suggested that we register several concentrations on the slope and sides of the peak, beginning with one of our known concentrations, using white phosphorous shells, and see if we could adjust in the dark. Anxiously we strained our eyes in the direction of concentration No. 1 when we heard over the radio: "On the way!" The flash of orange-in-white in the darkness assured us that here was a way that would work."

The FO then goes on to describe the limitations of gradually moving the concentration where he wanted it, a problem solved by forming a human chain down the slope to watch for the impact and holler corrections up slope.

"I turned and shouted to Hodnicki: "Fire one round WP on concentration No. 1!" Soon he shouted back "On the way!" We hit the rocks and waited. When we heard the shell coming, I peered up and saw the burst about 200 yards away...We moved up the peak pulling the shots with us..."

He continues to move up slope and tweak his concentration locations.

"With approximately twenty minutes to go before the attack I checked the radio to alert the battalion...I smiled to myself when I called over the radio: "2 Dog. 2 Dog. Fire Mission. Over!" "

Battalion fire direction center responds.

"2 Dog.2 Dog.Over!"

"2 Dog.Fire mission. Counterattack. Request concentrations 1, 2 and 3 (one per battery in the battalion; primary defensive concentrations to be added to as needed later on--JJK). Three rounds. Half WP and half HE. Fire at my command. Do not load. Over!"

He then goes on to describe calling in the fire on his planned concentrations, following which he is told:

"Charley on the way! Able and Baker on the way!"

The Germans shift direction and are now closer.

"I called for more artillery fire either by new concentration number or moving from the original by giving slight corrections...Time and again we ordered , "Cease firing," and made corrections."

The Germans push forward in good cover, seemingly unstoppable. The FO pulls in his fires, placing them right in front of the American lines on two sides. In doing this, he remembers what his instructors said:

"Be bold. Make a good jump. Get a bracket."

FO does this fully expecting to have to cease fire from hitting his own troops, but no one was hit. The only other item of interest here is that shortly before he ceases fire, he switches ammo during the fire mission.

"I called for all HE and no WP."

We now have a period account clearly indicating:

* Routine use of WP for spotting rounds

* Routine use of mixed HE and WP

* Target coordinates precomputed; even with

empty guns, time to receive fire = load time

+ time of flight after fire command received

--true for hasty defense (this case)

* FO ability to specify ammo type and quantity

to be fired, as well as ability to order

that fire be delivered at his command

* FO ability to quickly (well within CM time

limits) create multiple TRPs

* FO ability to make minor corrections without

ceasing fire

* FO ability to change ammo types during a

fire mission

* FO ability to change pattern for battalion

volley fires

There is undoubtedly more info like this out there. I say this because I blundered across

a WW II field artillery website a few weeks ago but failed to bookmark it. Nevertheless, what I've posted here seems like a good start.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

While a fireplan involving suppression of known enemy arty positions is a standard way to open a major offensive, I disagree that this was the only time in WW2 when CB happened. 2 things only are required to locate an enemy battery, regardless of the method used: 1) properly placed observers, and 2) enough enemy activity for the observers to use.

While WW2 CB location methods were primitive compared to what I used in the Gulf, they were still quite effective within their limitations. For example, a common WW2 technique was to put an FO on a hill, in a church spire, or in a light aircraft, so that he had a field of view over the battlefield. He could easily locate any gun or rocket battery firing within his LOS. Thus, CB fire was very possible even in maneuver battles, provided the conditions of observer placement and enemy activity were met.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand all that. It's just that so far in my readings, I haven't come across many cases where this was actually done. If you know of more than the ones I listed, I would would be interested to hear of them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Often in prepfires, there isn't enough tubes and/or ammo to do everything you'd like even when you mass all you can find. So on the CB side of things, using a few rounds to just scare the enemy guns into moving to a new position will silence them for some time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, just getting the crews to abandon their guns, if even for a few minutes while they take shelter is often enough to get your infantry close enough to the enemy so that he is inhibited from using FPF, or so I have been lead to believe.

Michael

[Bullethead]

John Kettler said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here are some real world data on WW II field artillery employment, including registration procedures, ammo types (HE, WP), FO options, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good stuff, thanks .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The FO then goes on to describe the limitations of gradually moving the concentration where he wanted it, a problem solved by forming a human chain down the slope to watch for the impact and holler corrections up slope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I can see this. The problem with adjusting fire at night is not just seeing the shellburst itself, which is easy for WP rounds, but seeing where the shellburst is in relation to the desired point on the ground, so you know what corrections are needed. These guys apparently didn't have time for using a coordinated illume mission to light up the whole area, so had to improvise. They put an FO as close as possible to the impact point, so he could see the relevant terrain features in the darkness, and found a way for him to communicate his observations to the guy with the radio or (more likely) telephone to the guns.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"I called for more artillery fire either by new concentration number or moving from the original by giving slight corrections...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

FOs are not limited to always using cartesian grid coordinates when specifying a target location. The can use polar coordinates as well. A concentration (aka registration or TRP) is a known point that the guns know how to hit. So an FO can adjust to a new target by using a known point as the polar origin and giving the direction and distance from it to the new target.

This method eliminates or reduces a lot of error inherent in using cartesian coordinates for each new target. It's a lot easier for the FO to judge the direction and distance from the known point than it is to estimate the new target's grid position. IOW, the FO doesn't need to know where the new target is absolutely, but only relative to a known point the guns can already hit. The result is that the new target is engaged faster and more accurately.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Routine use of WP for spotting rounds<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While in general WP is a common spotting round due to its high visibility, I think the circumstances here were far from routine procedurally .

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Target coordinates precomputed; even with empty guns, time to receive fire = load time + time of flight after fire command received<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what he was doing here was just telling the guns to lay on target and be ready. When you say "Fire Mission" to a battery, you are in effect saying "you work for me until I say otherwise". Fire missions are not just the rounds being fired, although we tend to use that meaning a lot. Technically, a fire mission is an administrative term defining the whole period during which particular guns are under an FO's control.

Fire missions end when the FO says "End of mission", thus releasing the guns to do something else. The time between the initial "Fire mission" message and "End of mission" can vary enormously and during this time the guns may (and often do) engage multiple targets and/or cease fire for a while. So as you can see, it's also possible for a fire mission to start with a command to not shoot, but just get ready.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Bullethead]

Michael emrys said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I understand all that. It's just that so far in my readings, I haven't come across many cases where this was actually done. If you know of more than the ones I listed, I would would be interested to hear of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Offhand, I'm almost certain the guys up on that hill at Mortain did some CB observing but I'll have to check to be sure. However, I do know that CB was a constant occupation during the drive into Cherbourg.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, just getting the crews to abandon their guns, if even for a few minutes while they take shelter is often enough to get your infantry close enough to the enemy so that he is inhibited from using FPF, or so I have been lead to believe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but this reaction is generally not SOP. If the enemy has you located well enough to make you duck, he can kill you any time he wants to. Which he will do if you show him you're not dead yet by jumping right back up and firing again. Therefore, the SOP (if the guns can move at all) is when you jump up, you toss everything within easy reach onto the nearest truck and get the Hell outta dodge ASAP.

On rare occasions, the brass consider arty less valuable than the units it supports So sometimes guns are ordered to remain in place and fire (apart from the occasional ducking for cover), come what may. This usually results in a lot of dead gunners and the grunts often still get overrun anyway.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html