Artillery "Clinic," anyone?

[Gannon Pitre]

I'm hoping some of you arty types out there might be interested in conducting a little workshop on the use of indirect fire in TACOPS.

I've been running my own little tests, but I've found that 2 minutes talking to someone who KNOWS is usually far more valuable than hours of self-(mis?)directed study...

Some questions to get the ball rolling...

1) How are on-map arty/mtrs best deployed/used? That is, assuming they're safe from DF and Counterbattery, is it better to fight bttys whole, or split into smaller units?

What I'm after here is: are fewer guns on more targets better, or crushing strength on one? I know the short answer is "well, depends..." But we can do better than that, can't we? In the simplest terms, how much is enough? Can two 3-tube mortar units put enough rounds on target to be useful, or do I need to keep all six together on one?

2) Has anyone worked out a chart/list/rule of thumb for equating on-map arty ammo into turns of fire? That is, how many ToF do I have for a given # rounds?

3) Any guidelines or advice on how much fire (on average) is needed to suppress a given unit (I know, "depends...") But say:

INF team (in open, in rough, in woods, in town)

ATGM team, dismount (ditto ditto ditto)

IFV

MBT

You get the idea. Ballpark...

4) From a realism standpoint, what sort of rules do people use to govern arty adjustment? I.E. it seems a little too good to be true that I can dial an MLRS strike right onto a moving stream of vehicles with only 5 seconds till impact...or does it? Perhaps this is a question for MajorH--is this a compromise to make up for a deficit in some other area?

Thanks all--feel free to weigh in with any opionions, tactics, etc, or to push the questions into more interesting or fertile directions.

P.S. MajorH, thanks again for a great game. My girlfriend thinks you are an evil man--she complains from time to time about being a TACOPS widow...

-GP

[Stoffel]

Well,I always keep these artilleryunits together if I want to target infantry or AFV's

More tubes in one marker give you a better hit chance.

Only split them if you want to use them for smoke screens.

About the delays,in 3.0 its not possible to change that.

In v 4 you have a wide range of possibilities to change the delay times or the TOT for each off map artilleryunit

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>it seems a little too good to be true that I can

>dial an MLRS strike right onto a moving >stream of vehicles with only 5 seconds till

>impact...or does it? Perhaps this is a

>question for MajorH--is this a compromise to

>make up for a deficit in some other area?

From my email archives ...

It is intentional that the artillery abstraction includes that detail. In the real world there are a lot of people working very hard in the background to get arty on target and they usually succeed. Also, in the real world arty fire for effect doesn't usually arrive every thirty seconds in a three boom animation. Unless the batteries are only firing one round per tube for the fire for effect, the beaten zone is going to be active with more or less continuous explosions for several minutes. If the target is moving then at some point in the fire mission the real world spotters and batteries are going to change firing data to keep pace with the target. As long as the TacOps combat results are plausible over the span of several minutes of fire then it doesn't matter that TacOps abstracts the continous nature of real world arty fire into discrete pulses of destructive effect and it doesn't matter if rounds can be magically retargeted in mid air.

The current TacOps arty concept was never intended to replicate the detailed, real world procedures involved in getting arty rounds on target. The TacOps arty constructs are meant to replicate effect on target - not call for fire procedures that would in effect become a game in themselves and that would bore anyone but an arty officer to tears. I know that arty rounds travel through the air for many dozens of seconds. I know that one can't magically change a round in a tube, let alone one in flight, from HE to ICM in 15 or 60 seconds. I know that arty salvos can not be instantly shifted 1000 meters while in flight. I consider such details to be largely irrelevant to the arty paradigm presently used in TacOps. What I want TacOps to convey is that modern arty is flexible, is timely, and that it kills a lot of things. TacOps arty fire missions are meant to be an easy to use quantifier of the levels of destruction that are reasonably achievable by arty support over several turns. I don't think it is relevant to the current paradigm for technical procedures and physics realities to be calculated every single time the animation seems to indicate that a "salvo" is landing.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

>is it better to fight bttys whole, or split into

>smaller units?

Except for laying a line of smoke, it is better to keep arty and mortar tubes together in TacOps.

Although the explosion animation does not change (in v3), the actual size of the beaten zone gets smaller when you split off tubes making it harder to have any effect on a marker.

In v4 the explosion animation will be sized to show the actual ground being covered. That should be an eye opener for the many people who have convinced themselves - despite my advice - that it is better to split arty and mortar units into single tube markers.

[Jingo]

I like to split them up mainly to lay down multiple smoke screens. My question is if I lay down multiple smoke screens in *one* location is visibility hampered even further or is this merely redundant smoke? Sometimes, I want to extract an infantry squad from a particularly mean close up combat (50 to 75 meters distance) with OPFOR infantry squads, but one layer of smoke only cuts down the visibility to 100 meters or something. Would it be possible to lay down three smoke screens essentially making it impossible for the enemy to detect me so that I can pull out?

[rich4421972]

At the risk of sounding really dumb (uninformed), I would like to give you my advice for artillery: Sometimes the Bison Mortar carrier will fire spontaneously on an enemy target. The same will happen with the 60mm and 81mm Mortar teams. Incidentally, I think this spontaneous fire is much more accurate than the fire missions that I order through the pull-down menu unless I register the target as a TRP so that the succeeding fire missions get closer and closer to where I want them. Oh, I am a total "saturation bombing" junkie. I love to focus the missions of several teams on one or two targets, if I can. This just works for me. If you cannot do it, though, protect your Bisons with a tank battalion or two because these guys (the Bisons) are the salt of the Earth.

R

[Gannon Pitre]

Thanks all, esp. MajorH. After watching you dissect 1000+ criticisms of TACOPS mechanics, I knew there was sound reasoning behind the arty rules. Sounds good to me.

While I'm on the subject, though...(you knew it was coming ), what's the TACOPS chapter and verse on recon by fire? Just curious, since the "game" seems to be driven mostly by the concerns/wants/needs of its military customers, how is it that what seems to me to be a key point of doctrine is not modelled? Would it result in "gamey" play (i.e. "fakery"), or is below the scale of what's being modelled, or, well...just askin'. As before, wonderful product, sorry to disturb you, keep working hard on 4.0, I am not worthy, etc.

P.S. Has anyone ever pinned you down on "I.L. Holdridge?" Are you related to the famed British Boer War LT Backsight Forethought? Or perhaps the less well-known (but equally great) US LTC A. Tack Always? Once again, just askin'.

Much respect,

Gannon Pitre

aka

Gennady Gollandovich Petrov, OC

321st MRR (BTR)"Big Red"

OFFICIAL MOTTO: "We Were Trackless When Trackless Wasn't Cool!"

[Gannon Pitre]

Jingo: As regards smoke, I think I remember reading (way in the depths of the TACOPS board) that additional smoke missions on the same spot don't result in any additional obscuration--that is, smoke is smoke, and smoke x 2 gets you, well, smoke. The only added benefit you get is that missions arriving later extend the duration of the obscuration. (And as we know, the wise commander notes the start time of every smoke screen he lays...I have learned the hard(est) way...)

Again, I THINK I read this somewhere. It seems to me to be in line with the way the sim operates, too.

RICH: Interesting note on the Bison's "spontaneous fire."

I've observed the OPFOR Mortar units conduct what seems to me to be self-directed mortar fire. That is, indirect fire that takes place during the DF portion of the turn. Relating to your comment, Rich, this would be "spontaneous fire."

At first glance, it seems to me that it WOULD be more accurate; Imagine: YOU see the target, YOU drop the round, YOU see the splash, YOU adjust...

Anybody know about this? Is it what it seems to be, i.e., a mtr platoon SEES a target and FIRES at it? Or are we seeing something else?

If it is "self-adjusted" (or "spontaneous", is this practice a good idea--I mean, is it in line with OPFOR doctrine (not that this would make it a good idea, but I know that OPFOR sets store by DF Sau-122 missions, etc.)

I'm also interested in learning how these "self-adjusted" (if that's what they are) fire missions rate in terms of accuracy, as compared to "standard" indirect mortar fire.

Gannon Pitre

aka

Gennady Gollandovich Petrov,

OC 321st MRR (BTR), "Big Red"

OFFICIAL MOTTO: "Category B, and Proud of It!"

[Gannon Pitre]

Ooh, ooh, thought of something else! (Don't worry, soon I will go to bed and leave everyone alone!)

MajorH, Question:

>In v4 the explosion animation will be sized to show the actual ground being covered.

In version 3.x, the beaten zone shrinks as the number of tubes firing the mission shrinks, although the animation does not. Does that hold true for smoke missions as well, or just for HE/ICM fires?

--GP

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> Sometimes, I want to extract an infantry squad from a

> particularly mean close up combat (50 to 75 meters

> distance) with OPFOR infantry squads, but one layer of

> smoke only cuts down the visibility to 100 meters or

> something. Would it be possible to lay down three smoke

> screens essentially making it impossible for the enemy to

> detect me so that I can pull out?

The game does not currently work that way. When opposing units get within 100 meters of each other the game engine abstracts that into "point blank range" and allows the units to usually see each other and to always have an unblocked line of sight. The concept of the abstraction is that the troops that the markers represent are maneuvering to maintain contact and fight at a scale lower than what TacOps displays. The abstraction is not quite right when a marker has deteriorated down to only representing a couple of troops but such markers usually do not survive very long in a serious firefight.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> ...what's the TACOPS chapter and verse on recon by fire?

> Just curious, since the "game" seems to be driven mostly by

> the concerns/wants/needs of its military customers, how is

> it that what seems to me to be a key point of doctrine is

> not modelled?

It has been on the wish list for years under the title "Area Direct Fire". I just haven't gotten around to it due to the many things on the list that had more of a priority.

I don't think recon by fire is a key point of doctrine. At best it is a "tactic". Units in the attack don't have enough ammo to hose every suspicious terrain feature that they approach. In the real world, the sound of firing carries a good distance and might alert enemy units prematurely that something serious was afoot - which is not always a bad idea.

> Would it result in "gamey" play (i.e. "fakery")

Not necessarily. Most of the time it would just result in the wastage of a lot of ammo, would result in attracting enemy arty, and in revealing the position of the firer, and exposing the firer to more accurate return fire of more enemy units sooner.

However, it is something that ought to get in someday. There was an incident in Desert Storm where a mech company lined up on a ridge line - out of small arms range - above a small villiage of mainly masonry block construction. It was believed that the village was a military strongpoint and contained no civilians. After firing warning shots that produced no response/surrender, the mech unit chewed the buildings to rubble with Bradley 25mm auto cannon fire and then moved on. Without "Area Direct Fire", TacOps can not replicate that engagement.

> Has anyone ever pinned you down on "I.L. Holdridge?"

Actually very seldom, which now seems odd to me. I don't recall it ever coming up during my 20 years in the Marine Corps. The militarily humorous interpretation of my name ["I'll hold the ridge"] never occurred to me while I was in the Marine Corps - I suppose because one is so accustomed to one's name that reflection on it doesn't happen. What now seems odd to me is that I was never kidded about it while I was in the infantry. Only a couple of people have mentioned it - wondering if that was my real name - since I retired from the Corps.

[ May 01, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: MajorH ]

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> I've observed the OPFOR Mortar units conduct what seems to

> me to be self-directed mortar fire. That is, indirect fire

> that takes place during the DF portion of the turn.

> Relating to your comment, Rich, this would be "spontaneous

> fire."

Exactly so. On-map arty and mortar units that have a clear line of sight to an enemy unit will usually engage that target with direct fire without waiting for orders from the player. In this case their indirect fire weapons become direct fire weapons. Since the tube crews can actually see the target the time required to fire the first salvo is much less (actually there is no delay at all), the accuracy of the first salvo is higher than normal, and the accuracy of subsequent salvos increases faster.

Similar bonuses are awarded when a player chooses during the orders phase to manually give an indirect fire mission to an indirect fire unit that can actually see an enemy unit.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> If it is "self-adjusted" (or "spontaneous", is this practice

> a good idea--I mean, is it in line with OPFOR doctrine (not

> that this would make it a good idea, but I know that OPFOR

> sets store by DF Sau-122 missions, etc.)

In the OPFOR doctrine of the 70s and 80s, some self propelled artillery batteries traveled with first echelon attacking forces and were expected to support attacks with direct aimed fire from fully exposed positions.

Momentum was all important under that doctrine.

[MajorH TacOps Developer]

> In version 3.x, the beaten zone shrinks as the number of

> tubes firing the mission shrinks, although the animation

> does not. Does that hold true for smoke missions as well,

> or just for HE/ICM fires?

The LOS blocking effect of smoke always conforms to the exact size and shape of the smoke marker. You can confirm this for yourself by experimenting with the Line of Sight Tool.

[rich4421972]

[ May 01, 2002, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: rich4421972 ]