Infantry Smoke Grenades

[dalem]

Maybe I'm the only one who is comfortable with this level of abstraction, but I am fine with assuming that sometimes infantry smoke is being used and we just don't see it. If I move a squad across 'Open Ground' (which we already accept is not a billiard table but has bushes, dips, boulders, dead cows, etc.) and it survives without a a scratch whilst lead is whipping around, well, maybe they used a few smoke grenades to make that happen. Maybe they didn't. Just because I didn't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't. That's a wargame standard.

So to me, infantry smoke is sort of like counting each individual bullet, or worse yet, demanding that MG tracer rounds have a chance to cause fires in dry terrain (which request I've thankfully not yet seen).

Engineers or bunker-busters, well, probably a different story, and I'll let the real researchers do all the hard work there, but regular infantry smoke? No need to bother at this scale.

-dale

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dale wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Maybe I'm the only one who is comfortable with this level of abstraction, but I am fine with assuming that sometimes infantry smoke is being used and we just don't see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a resonable position to take. A Squad's ability to avoid casualties is based on its Experience, the circumstances, and luck. This implies that the squad will do eveything it has at its disposal, based on its experience and circumstances, to accomplish its goal with as few casualties as possible. It is therefore not unreasonable to ASSUME that a whole bunch of "tricks of the trade" are employed by squads to acheive this. Holding up helmets to see where snipers are, faints to one side, covering fire, etc. and smoke all fall into this category. It is not necessary to explicitly simulate each of these things. That would make the game unplayable, not to mention undevelopable.

This is one of our beefs with games like Squad Leader. They singled out a couple of these "tricks" (like kindling fires, smoke, etc.) and rather arbitrarily removed them from the other hundred things that a squad could have done in theory. Now that these elemenst were given their own rules, people used them with impunity. And therefore, they took on weight and importance that was out of balance with the other hundred things that were NOT chosen for such special treatment.

Abstraction in simulations is an art, so there are no perfect formulas. However, the more you try to reduce low level abstraction the more stress you place on the system as a whole. That is why we are VERY carefull to not give special attention to one element unless it really deserves it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Engineers or bunker-busters, well, probably a different story...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Use of smoke grenades by engineers was fairly common. However, not for masking their own movements as much as blinding a fixed enemy location. We did not design Combat Mission to be the be-all-end-all of specialized warfare, like carefully planned bunker reduction tactics, so we did not spend the development time necessary to this issue. There are other specialized combat tactics that we did not explicitly simulate, so just chalk this up to "we can't do everything all the time"

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your assumption that since it is in the FM that it was regullarly practiced is also "speculation"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus the original stipulation

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At least from a Doctrinal perspective -- US ARMY Infantry should employ smoke grenades for screening tactical movement<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, Andreas is also correct<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

who is Andreas?

So we are to assume that combat anecdotes, after action reports, and official training doctrine are all unreliable sources of information for researching a historical topic. Sim-sala-bim look into my crystal ball and I shall tell you tales of the past

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

who is Andreas?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me - again, Doubler has shown at least one, probably two instances where the FM procedure went out of the window as soon as it was shown to be untenable. He wrote a masters thesis, so he could restrict himself to that sort of basis. I am sure that this can be extended to a lot more examples, maybe even smoke grenades. To assume that because it was in the FM it was done in practice is speculation. Los has said he did the research, and I trust him on that, and I trust any research more than that what was in the FM was done in practice. Simsalabim, research throws out speculation based on documents.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doubler has shown at least one, probably two instances where the FM procedure went out of the window as soon as it was shown to be untenable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If A than B? Sorry the logic seems a bit watered down. The 1943 FM 17-12 details TC engagement commands…the same commands are employed by TC's in the present version of FM17-12. There's one simple example of doctrine being employed even after contact with the enemy. I suspect I can dig a few hundred more if I were so inclined.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>maybe even smoke grenades.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me the money! Speculation.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So we are to assume that combat anecdotes, after action reports, and official training doctrine are all unreliable sources of information for researching a historical topic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not at all. However, singling out ONE of these things, and not looking at it in the context of the bigger picture, is not a good way to do historical research. It is also wrong to take something that you read as FACT simply because it is in print. That is a standard rule So take everything you read with a grain of salt, flesh it out with other sources, and... most importantly... look at the whole thing as a WHOLE when attempting to draw rational conclusions. Then use your deductive and rational powers of reasoning to come to a conclusion that is more likely than not. We have done this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If A than B? Sorry the logic seems a bit watered down. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the logic is sound. What Andreas wrote was meant to illustrate that simply looking at a FM and quoting it as if it were THE authority on the actual use is an assumption. Or to use your word, "speculation". It was not meant to PROVE that the FM you referred to was ignored because some other FM was documented to have been.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Show me the money! Speculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Los researched the Hell out of this. Not only does he have 23 years of military experience (and combat experience), but he is also an excellent researcher with lots of very difficult to find sources at his disposal. Not only did he dig through plenty of Army documents, but he also asked a couple of WWII Airborn vets for what they really did in combat. I don't have the results of that handy (it was about a year ago at least!), but the veteran's recollections sided more with the thought that smoke grenades as a masking agent for squad movement was not commonplace.

If this is not good enough for you, feel free to compile your own counter case. Otherwise, don't expect us to change our minds one bit.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Show me the money! Speculation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff - I don't have to, I said maybe. My logic is not watered down, and you choose to ignore that Los has undertaken additional research. Doubler has shown that FMs can not be taken as the last word on an issue in every case by providing two cases in which they were not. This proves that you will need further evidence than a FM to prove your case in every issue from the date he publlished his thesis and was awarded his degree for it. So, if they are unreliable in case A then we must assume that they can be unreliable in case B. Not saying that they are, but saying that they can be. This is sound logic when you are a researcher. BTS have gone the extra mile and undertaken additional research that seems to be based on a variety of sources.

To me, weighing the issue from what I read here, that beats your FM. Since neither of us has been there, it will in the end remain a matter of speculation. But there is nothing wrong with informed speculation, if that is the best you can hope for. You just have to weigh the information and trust your judgement.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Guest wwb_99]

Also, remeber that US and British platoons have smoke locally avaliable in the form of 60mm/2" mortars. You can place smoke anywhere the HQ can see.

A question for BTS: I have not tried area-firing into smoke, as I would think that the fire does not carry through the smoke to whatever the hell my opponent is masking on the other side. Is this a false assumption?

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

I have not tried area-firing into smoke, as I would think that the fire does not carry through the smoke to whatever the hell my opponent is masking on the other side. Is this a false assumption?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The outgoing fire will continue on it's way until it hits something solid.

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

"He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..."

- Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent

[Guest wwb_99]

It seems to me that outgoing fire targeted at a specific area tends to be shot into the ground of that specific area. Which makes sense if you are shooting at crawling squishies.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

Also, remeber that US and British platoons have smoke locally avaliable in the form of 60mm/2" mortars. You can place smoke anywhere the HQ can see.

A question for BTS: I have not tried area-firing into smoke, as I would think that the fire does not carry through the smoke to whatever the hell my opponent is masking on the other side. Is this a false assumption?

WWB

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but you can not have that in CM b/c of relative spotting. In effect your area target could always hit the right spot, as long as another unit looking from a different angle has LOS to behind the smoke. There has been a huge discussion on this about 8 or 9 months back. Another reason, BTW, why smoke ought not to be modelled outright, as it would result in an extremely skewed game, since you can not fire into it. If you could fire into it, the game also would be skewed, just in the other direction.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

The outgoing fire will continue on it's way until it hits something solid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. You cna shoot at the ground right in front of the smoke, and the weapon has some beaten zone that might extend behind the smoke a shor distance, but you cannot fire a machine gun through the smoke.

A little bit of a shortcoming. It would be nice to have some way of ordering a machine gun to lay grazing fire in a certain direction.

Actually, I like that idea. A orders choice for MGs to lay a firelane in some direction (selected like a 'rotate' command), and the MG just area fires along an axis. The code may not allow for this kind of thing though, since then you would have to basicaly allow the MG to fire without a target...

Jeff

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jeff - I don't have to<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me thinks you "don't have to" because you can't. I vote that LOS is right, is that the gist? I thought BTS wasn't relying on the voting method for resolving conflict (do a search) Perhaps you have some additional historical information to contribute that will simply blow the lid off this…uhmm…controversy?

Sounds like LOS is really the guy that has the goods. Let me ask you something Andreas…Have you read this study by LOS? Can we all take a gander at this thing (do I need to do a search )

[Jeff Duquette]

Ooophs…so you can't fire through smoke? Or have I misinterpret the above postings? I've never tried it before.

[Chupacabra]

Jeff D. - You're being needlessly confrontational and obtuse. Your argument thus far has been based on the manual - which as others have quite adequately shown, was not always adhered to. If you can't prove that it was in this case, any further arguments basically boil down to "mommy, why can't I have it?"

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Jeff Duquette]

Just havin some fun

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A little bit of a shortcoming. It would be nice to have some way of ordering a machine gun to lay grazing fire in a certain direction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

See Andreas' post above. He is exactly correct. Firing into smoke would remove all reason to have smoke in the first place, at least as the spotting model is right now. When we move to a Relative spotting model (in the future) we will allow blind firing into smoke.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The code may not allow for this kind of thing though, since then you would have to basicaly allow the MG to fire without a target...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, this would be a problem. Not one we couldn't work around, but not worth the coding effort at this time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Me thinks you "don't have to" because you can't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, because he doesn't need to. In any normal forum for debate a person is entitled to make up his mind as to which side is more right based on their presentations and/or track record.

Andreas is saying that Los/BTS has presented a better case than you. In fact, you haven't really presented a case at all. Just a quote from a FM and some attempts to confuse sound research techniques with pulling stuff out of one's posterior.

As for Los' "report", this is not some sort of University class. There is no "report". We have a bunch of emails going back and forth between each other and some discussions within our Beta Testing group. We don't need him to write out some formal "report" to make ingame decisions. If we required this sort of detailed documentation for every game design decision Combat Mission wouldn't even be at the Alpha stage.

So I again put it to you Jeff... if you can't make a sound counter case, then you have no merrit for disputing our decision. You can continue as you are now (i.e. not presenting a counter case), but there is really little point in terms of affecting change.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Me thinks you "don't have to" because you can't. I vote that LOS is right, is that the gist? I thought BTS wasn't relying on the voting method for resolving conflict (do a search) Perhaps you have some additional historical information to contribute that will simply blow the lid off this…uhmm…controversy?

Sounds like LOS is really the guy that has the goods. Let me ask you something Andreas…Have you read this study by LOS? Can we all take a gander at this thing (do I need to do a search )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay Jeff, to take it slowly:

Evidence presented by you: one manual, US Army 1943. I trust you have read it, and I trust that you are correctly giving us the gist of the contents.

Evidence presented by BTS: Los has done research as described on page one of this thread, interviews with vets, trailing for info. He is also a vet with actual combat experience. Also a German FM showing that shooting into smog was SOP for the Germans. I trust BTS to do their job right and to have correctly informed us about this.

Further evidence from Doubler's research: Pre 1945 FMs are not reliable evidence, because combat procedures followed needs on the ground, not some theoretical treatment by pre-war army bureaucrats, whose only combat experience (if any) was in WW I.

Now I have to weigh these three bits of information. Surprisingly enough your evidence does not make the cut and I judge you don't have a leg to stand on, as concerns the evidence presented. That is my personal opinion, and I have never made any claims otherwise, if you don't believe me, get back to my posts and read them. I do that numerous times a day, because I unfortunately have not got the time to do first-hand research on every matter. It is called analysis,(removed b/c it was needlessly confrontational - apologies).

As for your other question, no you can't shoot through smoke.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Firing into smoke would remove all reason to have smoke in the first place, at least as the spotting model is right now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is also in the German Infantry Squad Handbook to pump all available firepower into any smoke grenade's "cover" on the assumption that someone would be up to something.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so which is it

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>theoretical treatment by pre-war army bureaucrats, whose only combat experience (if any) was in WW I.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Los has done research as described on page one of this thread, interviews with vets, trailing for info. He is also a vet with actual combat experience.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So on the one hand combat experience is a determinant…on the other hand it is an asset?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

So on the one hand combat experience is a determinant…on the other hand it is an asset?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have a nice evening Jeff - I have conclusively shown that you are wrong, and that is quite enough for me. My life does not revolve around debating with you, and I am sure that everybody with an ounce of reason in them reading this page will see who they can trust on this, BTS or you.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Los]

By all means anyone with documented evidence of infantry smoke usage please send it along to los@cris.com

I can assure you that Steve is not against anecdotal evidence from combat veterans. Rather than hash it outr here just pass it along to me. Good research information will not be wasted on any field as it relates to CM I assure you.

I do not maintain that the information I have come up with on infnatry smoke grenades or any other WW2 subject is final (nothing ever is). We remain indebted to all who contribute.

Cheers...

Los