Artillery Realism

[Hundminen]

After reading several real-life accounts of life on the western front (including Citizen Soldier, Guns of Normandy, Roll Me Over, etc), I am consistently impressed that the front line soldier stayed "underground" during an artillery barage, usually in a foxhole or a bomb crater. Anybody caught lying above ground level, never mind standing or walking was often wounded or killed in a matter a seconds. Tree bursts (Hurtgen Forest) were another matter altogether.

However, I find in CM, I can consistantly manouever whole platoons right through arty barrages with out a single scratch.

I know the game wouldn't be fun if everybody stayed in their foxhole for 30 turns, but I am curious if the final version will model arty any more realistically than the demo?

Hundminen

[Lorak]

well.. I'm just going to guess at this. but here goes. When watching the rounds land in the demo(counting shells ect..) It seems that at most there may be two cannons firing. This wouldn't cause the wholesale distruction of an actual barrage, which would in fact level the whole city area of LD pretty quickly. More like for this little battle you managed to bribe yourself a couple guns. Just my opionion..

Lorak

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

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

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this is mine. It is my life. Without my rifle I am useless. Without me, my rifle is useless...

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

[Herr Oberst]

I for one would love to set up a TOT barrage in CM just to see the effects.

Nothing like 12-15 barrels or more all timed to impact concurrently.

[Fionn]

1. The lethality of artillery is often really overestimated.

2. You've only seen the SMALL stuff in the beta demo . 150mm arty is MANY times more lethal than 105mm arty. It has a blast FP of over 200 IIRC. 105s have a much smaller FP. So, as you can see a combination of over-estimating lethality and only seeing the small stuff in the demo might give a wrong impression.

[Bullethead]

From what I've seen in the demo (granted, without the Improved Artillery stuff announced at CMHQ), I have to say that arty could be done a lot better.

I also disagree with Fionn--arty effectiveness is not overrated; check the percentage of casualties to shell fragments compared to bullets for, say, the last 100 years. Arty accounts for about 80% of all battlefield casualties. But in CM, arty is fairly neutered in this regard, although IMHO over-modeled in others.

If I could, I would change the following things about how CM does arty:

1. Not enough guns firing at once. Real arty fires DS missions like you see in CM by battery. But all I've ever seen in CM is 2 rounds at once. I'm pretty sure most batteries in WW2 had more guns than this . It would be ideal to allow scenario designers to specify the number of guns in the battery controlled by the FO.

2. No mechanical time fuse airbursts. Against troops without overhead cover, any FO worth is binoculars is going to call for airbursts. In the days before VT fuses (and even still today because the radar in VT fuses can be jammed), mechanical time fuses were used in abundance to do this. Having only point-detonating fuses is highly unrealistic. There was a discussion about MT fuses some months ago but BTS never commented on it at all

3. Not enough control over pattern of shellbursts. One of the advantages of true arty over IGs and mortars is the arty's FDC assets. These enable you to get pretty fancy with the patterns in which shells land in the target area. But I understand BTS isn't going to model this

Because of the above, arty in CM is much less effective against infantry than it should be, IMHO. OTOH, there's this:

4. Over-effectiveness against light armor of light to medium arty. I'm talking about light armored vehicles being damaged or destroyed by nearby explosions (ie, not hits) of small shells (from about 105mm on down). IMHO, the kill mechanism (large fragments) just isn't there, especially considering that small shellbursts are precisely the type of thing light armor is intended to protect against. Just using a "blast firepower" number based on relative explosive content is very inaccurate for modeling effects against armor, regardless of how well it works for killing troops--they are entirely different types of target. Again, there was a big discussion about this a while back, but I don't think BTS ever said anything definite about looking into it.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Lee]

I, for one, would love to hear a comment/update from Steve

on this subject.

I'm also still very curious to see the results from a test with

the 88mm and near-misses against light armored vehicles with the

tac AI turned off so you can target right under a friendly vehicle.

[Major Tom]

Here's an exerpt dealing with the relatively small, yet most efficient artillery arm, that being the British and Canadian 21st Army Group in 1944-45

"Prior to Veritable, back in November 1944, the British 43rd (Wessex) Division had mounted a small attack on Geilenkirchen. ONe of the objectives was the village of Bauchem, which was to be assaulted by the 5th Battalion of the Dorset Regiment.

Bauchem was defended by about 150 men in entrenched positions around the village, and they were bombarded for ten minutes by artillery, delivering 49 tons of shells in that time. Then, without a pause, mortors opened fire for three hours, dumping 44 tons of bombs, plus the addition of a small Pepper-Pot from 20mm, 40mm and 75mm guns - another 19 tons of ammunition - and finally the artillery weighed in again for a further half hour, delivering 73 tons. The whole bombardment added up to 185 tons of projectiles falling in three and three-quarter hours, averaging 1.8 tons on every 100-yard square in the defended area. When the attack went in there was absolutely no resistance by the defenders..."

German casualties were 14%, British casualties were 3. HOWEVER, this is one of the only known instances of total demoralization by artillery alone. Also, casualties were only 14%, not 50% or greater. AND, this was over more than 3 hours of bombardment. Imagine a 180 turn game of just artillery falling on your position, and there you would have a typical artillery bombardment that those stories are most likely talking about. In CE, I was able to inflict casualties equaling 1/3 of 2 platoons by just using all the 81mm mortor shells on their position while engaging them with troops to keep their heads up. My troops were slaughtered, and didn't get many shots on the enemy as they were pinned most of the time, but, by the end of the game (these 2 American platoons didn't move from this area all game, so, only the 81mm mortor could have caused the casualties.

Other instances I was able to crawl through the forest in LD as the germans under constant 60mm Mortor fire, and lost NOT ONE SINGLE TROOP. The heavy pre-battle bombardments aren't mirrored, as, you wouldn't want to spend half the game bombarding the enemy. Plus, there were MANY instances where areas were rained down with shells, and still were relatively unscathed. Not all of these were in deep concrete bunkers. Artillery is powerful in CM, if you know how to use it, you can also learn how to avoid high casualties from it.

I believe that BTS has modled artillery farily accurately, better than any other wargame I have so far seen.

[Guest Big Time Software]

CM fires off-map artillery in batteries of four (4) guns, not two. Four is a common size for a WW2 battery.

According to Trevor Dupuy's Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War, the "proportion of battle casualties causd by artillery or mortar shell fragments" was 55% for US troops in World War 2, not the 80% figure you cite.

Additionally, this 55% figure comes from all forms of ground combat, including extended bombardments (not in sight of the enemy, just a unit being shelled in their positions) which are beyond the scope of CM, yet certainly contributed to overall war casualties (not necessarily because any one such bombardment was so powerful at killing, but because they were frequent). If you subtract out that sort of warfare (since it's beyond CM's scope), then the percentage of shell-fragment-related casualties you'd expect to see in a CM-scale battle would drop even further.

And you are looking only at off-map artillery in CM and expecting it to provide this 55% (or 80%) figure, when plenty of shell fragments in CM are provided by on-map ordnance in the form of mortars, tanks, antitank guns, bazooka rockets, and more. So the proportion of casualties dealt from off-map artillery in CM should drop further still.

Artillery is powerful but it is not the sort of wonder weapon you suggest. Major Tom's post above makes some excellent points which I fully agree with. Also take a look at, for example, Operation Goodwood, in which the preparatory bombardment against the Germans was tremendous. Not only was all available ground artillery used, but 1,595 heavy bombers, 482 medium bombers, and 300 fighter-bombers dropped high explosives as well. The Germans took casualties from this, to be sure. But they were not defeated by it, and in fact Goodwood turned out to be a defeat for the Allies when the German positions recovered quickly and put up a tenacious defense. The same general phenomenon happened at Monte Cassino and countless other places. And these are bombardments that lasted hours. In CM an artillery strike lasts a couple of minutes, at most, and is just a single battery firing. You must lower your expectations of routing the enemy with such a relatively small, quick attack.

For examples at a more tactical level, I suggest the excellent book If You Survive by George Wilson. He was an American company commander in the ETO, and describes several engagements where his entire unit was pinned down in the open under directly observed German mortar and/or artillery fire, for lengthy periods (by CM's standards) like 30 minutes or so, and yet the casualties were often shockingly light compared to what you might expect. The mortars did succeed in keeping all his men pinned down and combat ineffective, however, so it was not without effect. It just didn't often cause that many casualties.

CM does indeed model the VT fuse. It's just not in the beta demo. Please don't make assumptions about what is or isn't in the main game based solely on the demo.

The effectiveness of shells against vehicles has been toned down somewhat since the beta demo. However, you must keep in mind that a "destroy" result against a vehicle in CM doesn't mean that the vehicle was necessarily tossed up in the air and broken in half or anything so dramatic. It could be as little as shell fragments ripping out the front tires of a halftrack, or damaging the engine, or just spooking the crew. This is not such an uncommon occurrence on the battlefield.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just using a "blast firepower" number based on relative explosive content is very inaccurate for modeling effects against armor<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. That's why CM never did it in such a simple way. I'm not sure why you suggest that it does.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 02-26-2000).]

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>German casualties were 14%, British casualties were 3. HOWEVER, this is one of the only known instances of total demoralization by artillery alone. Also, casualties were only 14%, not 50% or greater. AND, this was over more than 3 hours of bombardment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember the Germans were in "entrenched positions." The whole point of that is to protect troops from fire. You pretty much have to drop shells right in the holes and trenches to really hurt anybody, and these defensive positions are a pretty small fraction of the total area in which the shells are falling.

So each individual shell fired has only a very small chance of doing any damage to entrenched troops. The fact that they still apparently inflicted 14% casualties on the defenders to me indicates the fire was very effective. Remember that even 10% casualties is considered fairly heavy to the attackers.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Bullethead]

Thanks for the reply, Charles

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM fires off-map artillery in batteries of four (4) guns, not two. Four is a common size for a WW2 battery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4 is definitely better than 2 But I still only see 2 shellbursts per ammo number decrement on the FO unit. If this has been changed since the demo, then no problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>According to Trevor Dupuy's Attrition: Forecasting Battle Casualties and Equipment Losses in Modern War, the "proportion of battle casualties causd by artillery or mortar shell fragments" was 55% for US troops in World War 2, not the 80% figure you cite.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but consider 2 things. First, WW2 Americans always had arty superiority, so had significantly less losses to arty relative to other nations. Second, the above is just the Americans in WW2. I was talking about everybody on all sides in all wars for the last 100 years. I'm pretty sure that arty accounted for close to 80% of them all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And you are looking only at off-map artillery in CM and expecting it to provide this 55% (or 80%) figure, when plenty of shell fragments in CM are provided by on-map ordnance in the form of mortars, tanks, antitank guns, bazooka rockets, and more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I'm not saying arty in a CM battle should inflict a certain percent of casualties. I'm just saying that due to a number of factors, I don't think CM portrays arty as deadly enough in those situations where it should be most effective. In many ways, CM does arty lethality just fine. But there are others where it doesn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Major Tom's post above makes some excellent points which I fully agree with ... Also take a look at, for example, Operation Goodwood ... The same general phenomenon happened at Monte Cassino and countless other places. And these are bombardments that lasted hours. In CM an artillery strike lasts a couple of minutes, at most, and is just a single battery firing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prolonged, extensive bombardments against troops properly dug-in usually have disappointing results. The whole history of WW1 illustrates this perfectly. No argument there at all.

However, huge bombardments against very strong positions are apples and oranges to FO-directed fire on unprepared positions. Everything is different: scale, the amount of protection to the defenders, the accuracy of the aim, the ability to adjust fire, and probably the type of shell fusing used. hat is more likely to kill the enemy? A long-range, blind MG burst pelting an area of cover, or 1 well-aimed sniper bullet at a visible target? The differences in arty effectiveness between the bombardment and FO-called situations are directly analogous. Therefore, IMHO you should not use the results of huge bombardments as the model for arty effectiveness in tactical situations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You must lower your expectations of routing the enemy with such a relatively small, quick attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having served in the artillery many years, including combat, I think I have reasonable expectations

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>several engagements where his entire unit was pinned down in the open under directly observed German mortar and/or artillery fire, for lengthy periods (by CM's standards) like 30 minutes or so, and yet the casualties were often shockingly light compared to what you might expect. The mortars did succeed in keeping all his men pinned down and combat ineffective, however, so it was not without effect. It just didn't often cause that many casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been in this situation a number of times myself, with similar results. The reason is that the enemy was using point-detonating fuses, which aren't very effective at all against troops on their bellies, even in open ground. The reason is because the fragments mostly are angled upwards from the burst, so the shell has to hit right beside somebody.

This is one of the situations where CM does arty effects correctly--the ineffectiveness of point-detonating shells against prone troops. However, point-detonating fuses are not the arty's only option in cases like this. Airbursts are the answer, which segues neatly into the next topic

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CM does indeed model the VT fuse<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. But it does NOT model the MT fuse (or so Fionn told me), which is something else entirely.

MT means "mechanical time" fuse. It looks and works just like an egg timer on the end of the shell. You twist the nose cap around to the time setting you want and the shell explodes that long after firing. This is a fixed time, determined by the setting. The purpose of the MT fuse is to provide airbursts.

The MT fuse was invented and in wide-spread use starting over 100 years ago. It was invented precisely because of the known ineffectiveness of point-detonating fuses against such things as dug-in troops without overhead cover and prone troops in the open. It was also later put to use by flak guns. Everybody used MT fuses extensively throughout WW2, although the Allies supplimented them toward the end with VT fuses. And MT fuses are still in wide use today, because the radar in VT fuses can be jammed.

What I'm trying to say is that airbursts did not just spring into existance suddenly towards the end of WW2 with the invention of the VT fuse. The VT fuse is only an improvement on the old MT fuse, which had been providing airbursts for decades before. In fact, VT fuses were so named when new because their radar makes them explode at a "variable" time after firing, as opposed to the fixed time of the MT fuse.

Not having MT fuses at all is therefore very unrealistic. All nations and arty guns (not mortars and IGs) had them and used them frequently against appropriate targets, and flak guns had more of them than any other type of HE fuse. So their total absence in CM is like not giving tanks any AP ammo. Just like tanks have different types of ammo for different types of targets, so arty has different fuses for different types of targets. If you can help it, you don't use point-detonating fuses on troops in the open, and you don't use MT or VT fuses on troops with overhead cover.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The effectiveness of shells against vehicles has been toned down somewhat since the beta demo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good to know. I look forward to observing the results

Thanks again for the reply.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4 is definitely better than 2 But I still only see 2 shellbursts per ammo number decrement on the FO unit<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's definitely 4, both in the current game and in the beta demo. It always has been. However there is a small bug in the beta demo that gets the landing pattern wrong, so maybe some of the shells landed so far away that you didn't see them. Also, treebursts are a bit less visible because they don't kick up dirt chunks.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, WW2 Americans always had arty superiority, so had significantly less losses to arty relative to other nations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. The USA did have artillery superiority over the Germans (for example), but we had more of everything else too (troops, airplanes, tanks, shells, fuel, everything), so (again, for example) the German casualty percentages due to weapon types are quite unlikely to be drastically different. And we didn't have "more" artillery than the British or the Russians, as a relative percentage of our total fighting strength. So your point does not hold.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Second, the above is just the Americans in WW2. I was talking about everybody on all sides in all wars for the last 100 years. I'm pretty sure that arty accounted for close to 80% of them all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dupuy's figures for proportion of US battle casualties caused by artillery or mortar fragments:

WWI 71%

WW2 55%

Korea 60%

Vietnam 43%

None of this reaches 80%.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think CM portrays arty as deadly enough in those situations where it should be most effective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the available evidence bears you out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Prolonged, extensive bombardments against troops properly dug-in usually have disappointing results. The whole history of WW1 illustrates this perfectly. No argument there at all.

However, huge bombardments against very strong positions are apples and oranges to FO-directed fire on unprepared positions. Everything is different: scale, the amount of protection to the defenders, the accuracy of the aim, the ability to adjust fire, and probably the type of shell fusing used. hat is more likely to kill the enemy? A long-range, blind MG burst pelting an area of cover, or 1 well-aimed sniper bullet at a visible target? The differences in arty effectiveness between the bombardment and FO-called situations are directly analogous. Therefore, IMHO you should not use the results of huge bombardments as the model for arty effectiveness in tactical situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why I provided the example of If You Survive. It addresses exactly the situation you describe, several times, and describes surprisingly low casualties resulting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I've been in this situation a number of times myself, with similar results. The reason is that the enemy was using point-detonating fuses, which aren't very effective at all against troops on their bellies, even in open ground. The reason is because the fragments mostly are angled upwards from the burst, so the shell has to hit right beside somebody.

This is one of the situations where CM does arty effects correctly--the ineffectiveness of point-detonating shells against prone troops. However, point-detonating fuses are not the arty's only option in cases like this. Airbursts are the answer, which segues neatly into the next topic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember that this is WW2 we're talking about. VT fuses could do the airbursts you refer to, but CM does model this - just not in the beta demo. Everything I've read indicates that mechanical-time fuses were considerably less reliable and less effective in producing airbursts given the technology of the day, which is why the VT was such a powerful technological leap forward. MT fuses were capable of producing effective airbursts, but the timing was difficult to get right. Burst too early and there's no real effect, and too late makes it the same as an impact shell. It's a lot harder to get the timing right with MT versus ground targets than it is versus aircraft using a flak gun, where the target is a big "box" in the sky and you probably have radar guidance, or at least direct-sight high-quality optics, which your average FO/Artillery battery combo in CM does not have. Just because a weapon can do something, does not mean that it does it well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>MT means "mechanical time" fuse. It looks and works just like an egg timer on the end of the shell. You twist the nose cap around to the time setting you want and the shell explodes that long after firing. This is a fixed time, determined by the setting. The purpose of the MT fuse is to provide airbursts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I know what it is. However, like I said, in a fluid battle situation like that modeled in CM (as opposed to a bombardment where split-second timing and target motion are not major issues) the MT fuses of the day were not satisfactorily effective - certainly not compared to the VT. I'm not saying they weren't used, and not that they couldn't make an airburst, just that they weren't usually able to rain down destruction disproportionally greater than the standard fuses in use in WW2, when the target is moving, and the battery has only had a minute or two to zero in, get the time of flight calculated, etc. These are not preparatory bombardments we're talking about here. It's mostly seat-of-the-pants stuff, done quickly, with "low" technology.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not having MT fuses at all is therefore very unrealistic. All nations and arty guns (not mortars and IGs) had them and used them frequently against appropriate targets, and flak guns had more of them than any other type of HE fuse. So their total absence in CM is like not giving tanks any AP ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect, this is a patently ridiculous statement. We do not separately model the MT fuse from the standard impact fuse because, in my view, there was not sufficient difference between the two, given the technology of the time, to warrant the distinction. The casualty algorithms for artillery versus troops in open ground are adjusted to take into account the possible use of MT - i.e. where it would be appropriate. It's an abstraction, yes, but I believe it's sufficiently realistic (and it simplifies the game interface which is an important consideration as well). Lots of things get abstracted in a game, even a "realistic" one like CM. The crucial issue is to abstract only those things that are not sufficiently distinct to warrant individual treatments.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 02-26-2000).]

[Hundminen]

Wow, this is starting to degenerate into to a bit of a flame-up (pardon the pun ).

My point is historically, it would have been rare to see a full platoon walking forward, in an upright position, as if on a Sunday stroll, with bombs falling all about. Secondly, even if troops exposed themselves to accurately placed bombardment while walking like that, they would surely be taking more casualties than we are often seeing here.

In most cases the typical behavior would have been to hit he deck. Then crawling might resume, the speed of which would have depended on the intensity and accuracy of the local bombardment. The other less frequent option would have been to charge forward to within small arms range of enemy lines, which was usually safe from the big arty (except mortar fire).

And as for the effectiveness of large scale barrages preceding attacks, I agree these were often ineffective against well dug-in positions (other than the confusion and disorganization they caused). However, I am talking about exposed troops walking upright(not running, not crawling) in the midst of a clearly accurately placed bombardment.

Hundminen

[Major Tom]

Troops get killed if they are walking through an artillery barrage, it is modled in CM. Remember Moon and Fionn's AAR, when Moon retreated from the forest by the town and was caught in a relatively light bombardment, he lost MANY troops. This was even in a more primative version than the demo we have. Also, the artillery we see in CM is not the devestating bombardments that you see in WWI or even WWII documentaries of bombardments saturating an area. The Artillery modled in CM is TACTICAL close support artillery, not softening up artillery. Basically, what is being argued here is some technicalities which even if changed will not effect the game much at all.

[Bullethead]

Charles-

First off, sorry if I'm coming across beligerent. I know you've worked long and hard on CM and are justly proud of it. And I love 99% of it. All I'm doing here is voicing my opinion that there are certain areas that could probably use some improvement to make the game even better. I'm not dis'ing CM or your work. So please take all my comments as from somebody on your side trying to help you make an even better game, and forgive me if my posts don't convey that.

Anyway...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, WW2 Americans always had arty superiority, so had significantly less losses to arty relative to other nations

I disagree. The USA did have artillery superiority over the Germans (for example), but we had more of everything else too (troops, airplanes, tanks, shells, fuel, everything), so (again, for example) the German casualty percentages due to weapon types are quite unlikely to be drastically different.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We seem to be using different meanings for the term "arty superiority." I'm not talking just about sheer number of guns available. I'm talking about the RESULTS of having a lot more guns. And crushing tactical air superiority along with that. In the WW2 ETO, the German arty could not be employed with anywhere near the freedom of action that ours could. In most cases, if it held still to shoot long enough to be effective, we had enough extra guns available to CB it while still providing fire support to our own troops. OTOH, if the German arty moved in daylight, often our jabos would catch it on the road.

The result is that in this sort of environment, arty doesn't inflict casualties on each side in a direct linear relationship to the of number of guns available to each side. The side with arty superiority, especially when combined with air superiority, inflicts far more casualties per gun than it suffers per gun from the enemy arty. Thus, we had more guns doing more casualties to fewer total Germans, so our arty had to have caused a higher percentage of German casualties than German arty did US casualties.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dupuy's figures for proportion of US battle casualties caused by artillery or mortar fragments.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And again, I'm not talking about just US casualties. Ours are lower than average because we usually enjoyed air and arty superiority. In addition, the total number of casualties we've suffered in all wars this century is much less than those of other nations. So US casualty figures are not, IMHO, representative of the whole.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Everything I've read indicates that mechanical-time fuses were considerably less reliable and less effective in producing airbursts given the technology of the day, which is why the VT was such a powerful technological leap forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

MT fuses were and are considerably less effective than VT fuses, no argument. Yes, setting the time correctly is the tricky part. However, MT fuses were and are still MUCH more effective than impact fuses against the right type of target. If this was not true, why would MT fuses have been produced and used in large numbers, even up to the present day?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's a lot harder to get the timing right with MT versus ground targets than it is versus aircraft using a flak gun, where the target is a big "box" in the sky and you probably have radar guidance, or at least direct-sight high-quality optics, which your average FO/Artillery battery combo in CM does not have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid you have a misconception here. As regards true arty (not mortars and IGs), FOs did not and do not, as a rule, talk directly to the firing arty battery. Instead, they almost always talk to the arty battalion FDC that owns that battery and several others. It is the FDC that computes the firing data, and it has all the fire control assets it needs to accurate determine MT fuse settings for the particular mission on the spur of the moment. In fact, computing the time of flight and thus the fuse setting adds no real work to that already required to determine the correct trajectory to hit the target in the first place--it's all right there in the same data tables.

This is why I keep emphasizing the difference between mortars, IGs, and true arty. Mortars don't have MT fuses. Some IGs at least had them, but usually didn't have the FDC assets to know how to set them properly on the call of an FO. But true arty not only has the required assets, but is organized and trained to use them quickly and accurately.

True, at the receiving end, MT airbursts are not going to be as uniformly at the correct height above ground against ground targets as against aircraft. However, the difference is not one of fire control inadequacy but one of environment. The ground in the target area is not always of a uniform height. And even where it is relatively level, the target area is probably between contour lines on the FDC's map. This means the ground level has to be estimated, as opposed to firing at a known absolute altitude vs. aircraft.

So yes, against ground targets, some MT fuses are going to go off too soon and some too late, even with the FDC's best efforts. But there will still be a significant number of them that go off as desired, and the effect on exposed troops will be much better than that achieved with just impact fuses. Which is why arty had and still has MT fuses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>in a fluid battle situation like that modeled in CM (as opposed to a bombardment where split-second timing and target motion are not major issues) the MT fuses of the day were not satisfactorily effective - certainly not compared to the VT<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, I disagree. Airbursts are only useful against exposed troops, and most exposed troops are moving in the open. IOW, the main targets of both MT and VT fuses are found in "fluid battle situations." And true arty has the necessary assets to set the fuses for such targets.

OTOH, airbursts are only rarely used in bombardments. This is because bombardments are against troops under some form of cover. And when troops dig in, they try to give themselves overhead cover if at all possible. This usually makes shooting airbursts at them a waste of ammo.

Sure, VT beats MT hands down as far as producing consistently perfect airbursts. But MT beats impact fusing by a significant amount (against exposed troops), and was used primarily in fluid situations. The "low" technology of the day might not have had pocket calculators, but it had data tables with all the numbers already crunched.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We do not separately model the MT fuse from the standard impact fuse because, in my view, there was not sufficient difference between the two, given the technology of the time, to warrant the distinction. The casualty algorithms for artillery versus troops in open ground are adjusted to take into account the possible use of MT - i.e. where it would be appropriate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, this is good news. I was under the impression you just didn't have MT fuses at all

OK, I can live with MT fuses being abstracted like this. It's just like how you don't have to tell a tank to shoot AP or HE, it picks the best round by itself.

However, I hope I can convince you to tweak the abstraction to increase the likelihood that MT fuse gets used on exposed troops, at least by true arty. This is what MT fuses were made for and the fire control problems you mention were not as daunting as you believe.

Also on the subject of MT fuses, can guns use them in direct fire? I believe that flak guns usually had few, if any, impact fuses, but their basic ammo load was beaucoup MT fuses for their HE shells. Plus they had snazzy fuse setters often built right into the gun mounting. I understand direct fire 88mm MT airbursts were quite nasty in real life. Also, howitzers used MT fuses in self defense, with an effect similar to cannister.

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hundminen - the "vulnerability factor" for troops in open like you describe has been increased since the beta demo.

Bullethead,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So please take all my comments as from somebody on your side trying to help you make an even better game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Understood, and I thank you for your efforts and attention to detail.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The result is that in this sort of environment, arty doesn't inflict casualties on each side in a direct linear relationship to the of number of guns available to each side. The side with arty superiority, especially when combined with air superiority, inflicts far more casualties per gun than it suffers per gun from the enemy arty. Thus, we had more guns doing more casualties to fewer total Germans, so our arty had to have caused a higher percentage of German casualties than German arty did US casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't mean to restrict my point simply to the number of guns. However, your argument could be extended to virtually any weapons system used by the Germans against the Americans. You could say that, because their tanks were largely restricted to night movements due to air attack by day, that therefore they'd inflict fewer casualties too (as a percentage of the whole). You could even say the same thing about small arms, since the German army was less mobile than the US Army, and reinforcements couldn't always be brought to where they were needed on time, and shipments of arms and supplies and ammunition were often shot up on road and rail. And you've already said it about the artillery. So that's arty, small arms, and tanks all accounted for as being "less". Well, they can't all be less, because it's still got to add up to 100% . Your logic still doesn't hold.

Further, artillery, especially on the defense as the Germans were, doesn't need quite the mobility that you imply it does. I'm sure they had problems dealing with Allied air superiority but I'm not aware of the German artillery arm being reduced significantly more than other German arms (and that's the key) by dint of Allied air superiority. Therefore the German casualty percentage should be roughly similar to what we see from Dupuy's US figures. Perhaps a little higher for some of the reasons you state, but not significantly.

At any rate, you're basically making an educated guess about the German casualty rate from artillery and using that essentially unknown figure to make your case, while ignoring the known figure for US casualties from artillery. If I have to make a decision based on a known quantity on the one hand versus someone's best guess on the other, I'll go with the known quantity. In short, your estimates of the German side, whether right or wrong, do not disprove my arguments based on the US numbers at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So US casualty figures are not, IMHO, representative of the whole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, you do not know this, nor do you know the actual casualty percentages for non-US combatants. You are asking me to ignore the known data and go with your educated guess instead. I would rather base my system on the hard evidence available even if it is incomplete.

Remember that CM simulates only one kind of WW2 engagement: the short-range firefight. This is pretty much the only kind of battle where small arms are effective, so they will cause more casualties here than you'd see in casualty figures that are a compilation of all types of combat. Many "battles" in WW2 consisted of both sides shelling one another and few if any bullets being fired. Lots of artillery casualties get racked up there. But that's not the kind of battle that CM simulates. So you have to expect less from artillery at CM's scale.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, MT fuses were and are still MUCH more effective than impact fuses against the right type of target. If this was not true, why would MT fuses have been produced and used in large numbers, even up to the present day?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can think of plenty of weapons systems that didn't always work as advertised on the battlefield. MT fuses certainly have their uses, and I'm not arguing against their practical use in a situation where time allows, but such artillery missions are beyond the scope of a Combat Mission battle. CM simulates much smaller, quicker, tactical strikes - those that take place far too quickly for gunners of the WW2 era to put together an effective MT airburst attack. That's the key. In CM, there isn't enough time for gunners to make a proper MT-fused attack. They simply didn't have the technology back then to get the split-second timing set correctly on the first couple of shots (except by sheer luck). But that's the kind of artillery mission that's (exclusively) appropriate to the scale of CM, which is why MTs are not appropriate. Remember that CM is a pretty low-level game. If units were companies rather than squads, then I think your reasoning would hold a lot more water. But at the squad level, in battles that last only a few tens of minutes at the most, the timing issue makes MT use impractical. One reason MT fuses are still used today is that they (and the fire control systems that they are a part of) have been vastly improved in the last sixty years. You are greatly overestimating the technology level available to gunners in WW2.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, computing the time of flight and thus the fuse setting adds no real work to that already required to determine the correct trajectory to hit the target in the first place--it's all right there in the same data tables. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, if you know exactly where the enemy is and you have a nice, up-to-date topographic map of the target area. Sorry, but the WW2 US Army often didn't have such data and I'm amazed at how good a job they did (in general) without this sort of information consistently available. Again, in a CM type of engagement, it's a seat-of-the-pants thing, where communication with the FO is required because the maps are often wrong or nonexistent, and correction of fire (and fuse timing, if MTs are in use) is essential. That may no longer be true today, with the greatly improved systems in use, but that's how it often was in WW2. I wish I could remember the source now, but about six months ago I read an account of a company-level US officer calling in artillery and not only correcting the aim of the spotting rounds, but the timing of the MT fuses. Some came in too early (and burst way up high, just sending sprinkles down on the enemy) and then the next several overcorrected and hit the ground before exploding. The process took (IIRC) around 10 minutes to get it right before the FFE began. In the grand scheme of things, that's not too bad. But in CM, that's a very long time. CM allows FFEs within as little as 1-2 minutes, depending on circumstances. No time for MT correction in there. (I suppose I could add a separate system for that, but as I've said, I don't think it's warranted at CM's scale).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again, I disagree. Airbursts are only useful against exposed troops, and most exposed troops are moving in the open. IOW, the main targets of both MT and VT fuses are found in "fluid battle situations." And true arty has the necessary assets to set the fuses for such targets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we are talking about different scales. You seem (?) to refer to larger formations moving in the open, such as a battalion marching up a road. "Moving in the open" in Combat Mission far more often takes the form of a platoon making a mad dash across a small field, behind a building, then over a few more meters of open ground to a small woods. Then hitting the dirt in cover. They're sure as shootin' not milling about in open ground for 5 or 10 full minutes, which is (very roughly) the time it would take to bring in a good MT strike. Sheesh, just the spotting rounds would be enough warning to the troops to get their butts into cover (and BTW, CM does show spotting rounds now, which the beta demo does not). Of course, this wouldn't be the case if you're talking about a larger formation moving in a large expanse of open ground, which is why I'm assuming that's the point you're trying to make. And if so, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that CM's scale is smaller than what you're talking about. And at that smaller scale, troops in battle don't normally spend very long in open terrain (remember, we're talking about already being at or near small arms range of the enemy, not maneuvers even slightly behind the lines).

So when I refer to a "fluid" situation, I'm talking really fluid ones - about one platoon moving this way behind a house, and another rounding that curve in the road and moving into the tree line. All too fast to track with one battery's MT-fused rounds. I think you are talking more about an FO observing enemy grand-tactical movements, perhaps before (even if just) entering a firefight. For example, an FO spotting an enemy group forming up in that valley clearing over there, preparing for an attack. "Hit 'em with MT" you'd say, and that would be entirely appropriate. What I'm saying is that such an engagement is beyond the scope and scale of CM and is therefore inappropriate to CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also on the subject of MT fuses, can guns use them in direct fire? I believe that flak guns usually had few, if any, impact fuses, but their basic ammo load was beaucoup MT fuses for their HE shells. Plus they had snazzy fuse setters often built right into the gun mounting. I understand direct fire 88mm MT airbursts were quite nasty in real life. Also, howitzers used MT fuses in self defense, with an effect similar to cannister.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ian Hogg's German Artillery of World War Two says this about the German 88m flak's standard HE shell: 8.8cm Sprgr Patr...was the standard high explosive shell... When used in the anti-aircraft role it was fitted with the time fuze, the percussion fuze being used only in the ground role. Unfortunately he doesn't go into any discussion about how often the time fuse was used versus ground targets.

CM direct-fire guns don't use MT right now largely because I haven't come across enough data to support it. I'm not saying you're wrong; just that I can't implement it without having to pull 75% of the numbers out of the sky and I'd rather not do that. For example, how many MT-fused shells a typical gun would be expected to carry, etc. And direct-fire HE from an 88m flak is already quite deadly so I don't know if any amplification there is necessary.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 02-27-2000).]

[Guest Babra]

Operational Research Section Number 2, under South African Physicist Brigadier General Basil Schonland, examined all the major weapon systems used in the Normandy fighting. The greatest threat was found to be German mortars. Interviews with Battalion Medical Officers showed that above 70% of all casualties in 21st Army Group were caused by mortar fire (including rockets, but not other artillery types).

As a result of this finding an aggressive counter-mortar programme was developed, and the 100th British and 1st Canadian Radar Batteries were formed. These batteries contained the GL Mk III gun laying radar and were used to locate and suppress German mortar batteries, which they did very well.

"Above 70%" is a pretty significant figure. Since the vast majority of total casualties came from the rifle companies, I think der Hund is right in wanting as accurate an artillery model as possible. It gets the short end of the design stick in most games because it's not as pretty or as interesting as a tank.

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

Floreat Jerboa !

[Guest Big Time Software]

Babra,

Once you get the full version of CM, try a few games in the Normandy bocage country and you'll find that the German mortars do cause a very large proportion of the casualties.

However, keep in mind that the figures you cite are for all forms of combat, while CM is only about the short-range firefight, in which small arms play a greater role. So don't expect to see 70% of CM casualties coming from mortars. This is intentional on our part.

Charles

[Guest Charles]

Hey Guys! Stop arguing with Charles! He doesn't have time to talk since what he really needs to do is sit his big butt down and keep coding, either until he drops or CM is released! Make that until CM is released--he can drop after that!

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

Not THE Charles from BTS

[Guest mch]

Hello to all!

I might be a bit OT here,but...

Did any of the 155mm SP vehicles make

it into the game yet?

[Lurker]

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

As a result of this finding an aggressive counter-mortar programme was developed, and the 100th British and 1st Canadian Radar Batteries were formed. These batteries contained the GL Mk III gun laying radar and were used to locate and suppress German mortar batteries, which they did very well.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I learn something new every day. I never realized that radar was used for counter battery fire missions during the Second World War.

Thanks for the information,

-Lurker

[Bullethead]

Charles-

On the hitting of fleeting targets moving quickly from cover to cover, I agree, you wouldn't shoot MT at them. Mostly because they'd be in cover again by the time the rounds arrived anyway, regardless of what type of fuse you used . I'm talking about where the troops are crossing hundreds of meters of open ground. But I guess we'll agree to disagree on the feasibility of getting MT on them very often .

However, what about when the arty is shooting registrations? You know, where they've already adjusted fire on that target and are just waiting for somebody to walk into the area. Is there a greater chance of MT fuses in such a case?

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

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[John Kettler]

Back in the 1980s the U.S. Army did a major study on the cause of losses to line infantry units. The major finding was that at this level, the main cause was fire from small arms, which inflicted 80% of the casualties. Believe this was published in INFANTRY magazine.

Hope this helps.

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Here's another data point for the artillery realism thread.

The joint U.S. military services use/used (probably computerized by now) a big set of mostly classified loose leaf manuals called the JMEMs (Joint Munitions Efffectiveness Manuals) for target planning and weaponeering. These huge volumes are the bibles for weaponeering (how many of what to load or shoot to get some level of kill against a specified target or target complex) and a must

for evaluating new weapons against defined targets.

The various volumes define the targets, vulnerable components, vulnerability to various kill mechanisms, etc. The weapon volumes provide detailed weapon delivery accuracy, mean area of effectiveness, kill probability against various targets, etc.

You guys would kill to have the info in these books, one of which specifically addresses field artillery firing against troops in several postures. The way that manual models artillery fire against exposed troops is to treat the first volley as being against standing troops, with all subsequent volleys against prone troops. This, of course, models hitting the deck after the first shells come crashing down.

Thought you'd like to know.

John Kettler

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did any of the 155mm SP vehicles make

it into the game yet?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mch - sort of. The German Hummel (150mm) is in there. We haven't got the US M12 in yet. I don't know if we'll be able to squeeze it in or not. I'd like to but there's only so much we can do in what short time is left.

Heh heh I just got a book on the US Pershing tank that describes a variant which carried a SP 240mm howitzer. I think it was built only after the war (?) but it would be fun to ride around in CM in one of those.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, what about when the arty is shooting registrations? You know, where they've already adjusted fire on that target and are just waiting for somebody to walk into the area. Is there a greater chance of MT fuses in such a case?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bullethead - that would be a reasonable use of MT, I think, but it's not (explicitly) supported in CM right now. I'll make a note of it for possible future inclusion.

Charles

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Back in the 1980s the U.S. Army did a major study on the cause of losses to line infantry units. The major finding was that at this level, the main cause was fire from small arms, which inflicted 80% of the casualties. Believe this was published in INFANTRY magazine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was the object of the Study? WW2? Vietnam? Grenada?

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

Floreat Jerboa !