Urgent for BTS: artillery pattern orientation

[ASL Veteran]

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

Personally I have nothing much against the CM system. It is extremely simply to use and clean. My only qualms about it have to do with responsiveness, speed, accuracy, certainty - all being somewhat too high. But I don't quite see the point in playing "artillery, the atari version", to walk in each shell. It is more work, and its produces much the same result once perfectionist players have tweaked every knob - a little fiddling delay, then a barrage where you want it.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is simple to use. However, I do think that there would be advantages in forcing a player to play with the spotting rounds. First, it would give the opponent a heads up that someone is trying to drop artillery on them. It could give a player a chance to react to the impending barrage. Second, it would increase the frustration level of the requesting player as the centerpoint of your FFE would almost never be exactly where you want it to be. Eventually, you may just have to say "Heck with it, that location is close enough!". I would also like to have the ability to have an FFE ... continuation feature that would stay for a few minutes after you stop a barrage and would allow the FO to re start a barrage from the same location within a fairly short notice. Naturally this would only hold for a few minutes after the initial barrage. Anyway, this is just my opinion of how I would like to play "Artillery Atari" and I do see some benefits to it. Disagree if you like - that is of no concern to me Incidentally, playing with the spotting round would directly speak to all of your issues of responsiveness, speed, accuracy, certainty which you listed above so I have to admit that I'm a little puzzled by your lack of enthusiasm for such a request.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Just curious as to the Urgency of this thread. The CM artillery model isn’t too bad. It’s both elegant and simple. In its present form it is reasonably realistic without drowning the player in the nitty gritty of indirect fire. If anything it already allows the player way more control than is probably justifiable. I disagree that additional control is warranted.

Let's take an example of when most guys would like to have a fire mission. You are advancing and a pesky AT gun or infantry squad is in a building or dug in along a tree line. WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map. On these maps the village you are attacking is a few black dots that denote the village and individual building representation is in most cases an impossibility. Your FO, if he sees the target, swags a grid to the mission and calls for fire. The battalion fire direction center processes the mission (again, do you have priority of fire or is A Company over on your left the main effort?) Once the CFF is processed, it goes to a battery or the battalion. An adjusting round is fired (time of flight about 30 seconds to one minute). Repeat this process until the round gets within 50 meters of the target -- if you are lucky, but that's the standard. A fire for effect mission then is fired with, say, a battery 3 rounds, or 12 rounds in WWII. Elapsed time, anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes IF YOU AND THE GUNS ARE REALLY GOOD, and has satisfied all of the other requirements (good grid, FO with radio, priority of fire, etc).

Having said that, danger close for 105mm is (as I recall) about 300 meters, for 155 it is 400 meters. This should give you an idea of the probable error that can occur in indirect fire.

I recall reading pre-registered fires used by the British in WWI would walk barrages in front of advancing infantry by about 100 meters. However this was shrapnel type ordnance and was being delivered by 18-pounders (75mm-80mm…something like that). While that is not to say that fire missions closer to friendlies cannot be done, it requires some extra care for the artillerymen, FOs, and ground units in contact. Applied to the game, the fact that "what one sees, we all see" makes the use of FA in the game even more tricky to model. How does the sniper observer in contact talk with the FO? If the FO cannot see the target or get a reliable grid coordinate, then calling for fire is indeed much more of a challenge.

On board mortars need a little tweaking in that they should be allowed some form on indirect fire capability. Presently the game is a bit odd and in many cases really pushes the player into using these weapons primarily in a direct fire mode. But this is another story.

[acrashb]

If you can find Bullethead's member number and get a search to work, he had some usefull things to say the last time this was hashed out, a bunch of months ago. Miss him; he know a lot about artillery.

[Michael Emrys]

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

WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know what the correct map scale is, but at the one you have given an area of 1km by 1km would measure 2cm by 2cm on the map.

Unless of course you are using New Math.

Michael

[JonS]

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

...I recall reading pre-registered fires used by the British in WWI would walk barrages in front of advancing infantry by about 100 meters. However this was shrapnel type ordnance and was being delivered by 18-pounders (75mm-80mm…something like that)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Brits/Commonwealth did this in WWII also.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Applied to the game, the fact that "what one sees, we all see" makes the use of FA in the game even more tricky to model. How does the sniper observer in contact talk with the FO? If the FO cannot see the target or get a reliable grid coordinate, then calling for fire is indeed much more of a challenge...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but a FOO in real life can 'see' more than he is able to in the game. If a round lands in the middle of a clump of trees - in the game - the FOO cannot 'see' where it landed. However, in Real-Life, one is able to see the explosion/debris/plume, and from that figure out where it landed. Also, in Real-Life a FOO is able to use his ears, a stopwatch, and a map (and is trained to do just that) to figure out where a round that he never sees must have landed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...Elapsed time, anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes IF YOU AND THE GUNS ARE REALLY GOOD, ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the standard for the Commonwealth in the period covered by CMBO was around 5 minutes from seeing the target to FFE with the Regiment. Nothing about being REALLY GOOD, it was the minimum standard.

This isn't meant to start another pissing contest, its just that my knowledge is largely of Commonwealth (rather than US) gunnery, and I know the two approaches differed in some key respects.

[Wolfe]

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

If you can find Bullethead's member number and get a search to work, he had some usefull things to say the last time this was hashed out, a bunch of months ago. Miss him; he know a lot about artillery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, haven't seen anything from him for a while.

A couple of BH's old posts:

Artillery Range Results

BH's Arty Wish List

- Chris

[JonS]

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

Let's take an example of when most guys would like to have a fire mission. You are advancing and a pesky AT gun or infantry squad is in a building or dug in along a tree line. WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map. On these maps the village you are attacking is a few black dots that denote the village and individual building representation is in most cases an impossibility. Your FO, if he sees the target, swags a grid to the mission and calls for fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1:50,000 maps are great. No problem picking out details at that scale, and obtaining an 8 figure grid (10m accuracy) is no trouble.

Don't forget that relating map to ground and picking targets out is what FOOs do. And what they trained for. In some cases for a very long time. Also, casualties in artillery units are, compared to infantry and armour, light, so the individual and corporate knowledge and skill base tends to be very good.

'Swagging' a grid is not part of any SOP I've ever seen.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Yeah, haven't seen anything from him [bullethead] for a while. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I exchanged e-mails with him about a month ago. He's beta-testing CM:BB.

Michael

[ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Andreas]

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

WWII maps and those of today have a scale of 1 meter = 50,000 meters. A 1,000-meter by 1,000-meter grid square is thus represented by only 2.5 cm by 2.5 cm area on an FO’s map. On these maps the village you are attacking is a few black dots that denote the village and individual building representation is in most cases an impossibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WW2 maybe, although I have seen 1:25k maps galore for that time (if there was time to prepare them, e.g. Normandy). Today, I know for certain that the Bundeswehr has access to 1:10k (!) maps. Even so, on a 1:25k it is absolutely no problem to represent individual buildings. I have a number of the French blue series 1:25k, and their representation of detail is superb. I have a scanned 1944 British Army map of Maltot, that has individual buildings on it.

[John Kettler]

I strongly concur on being able to generate an eight digit grid coordinate from 1:50,000 scale map. I did it routinely when laying out target arrays as a military analyst at Hughes and Rockwell. Indeed, I had whole volumes of classified data specifying target locations throughout the East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland to that level of precision.

Regards,

John Kettler

[acrashb]

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

He's beta-testing CM:BB.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's some good news - and it bodes well for artillery modelling.

[John Kettler]

aaronb,

Amen to that!

Bullethead's absence has been a gaping hole here on the board. He didn't post often, but

when he did, it was a real education for all of us.

Regards,

John Kettler