Errors in CM !?

[Scipio]

I noticed that artillery comes in vertical to the frontline - that would mean an artillery position like this:

But an artillery position looks usualy this way:

So artillery fire should cover a line parallel to the frontline.

Then I noticed that even the heaviest tanks are able to cross small wooden bridges. Normaly a heavy tank cann't cross every stone bridge.

[Pak40]

Use the TARGET WIDE command to get the wider barrage spread that resembles your second picture. The actual pattern the shells fall has little to do with how the guns are spread. IIRC, forward observers were usually able to request either a tight barrage(TARGET) or a wider barrage(TARGET WIDE)- I forget the actual terms for these (convergence?), maybe someone else can post them. I know I've seen this before in another thread.

As for the wood bridge and the Heavy tanks, you do have a point. However, I think most stone bridges could hold a KT. It all depends on the each bridges construction and condition. It wouldn't be practical to model thousands of different bridges just to account for the different weight capacities.

[ 07-12-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Juju]

I don't know how itshould be, but I do know how it is now:

Arty Spreads-

Regular Impact Pattern Selected:

LOS & TRP: 100m x 50m oriented E-W

LOS, no TRP: ditto

Blind & TRP: ditto

Blind, no TRP: 200m x 100m pattern oriented E-W

Wide Impact Pattern Selected:

LOS & TRP: 200m diameter circle

LOS, no TRP: 250-300m diameter circle

Blind & TRP: 200m diameter circle

Blind, no TRP: 350m to 400m diameter circle

Rockets:

*Always produce a 650-700m diameter circle pattern (350m radius)

**In all cases, center of pattern coincides with center of target area on map.

So, however the frontline is situated, the regular impact pattern will always be oriented east/west.

[Jeff Duquette]

Dispersion patterns for indirect fire typically resemble long elliptical patterns with the long axis parallel to the direction of fire. Range probable error is much greater by several orders of magnitude relative to lateral probable error. I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you say artillery fire should cover a line parallel to the frontline. Distribution of bursts from multiple tubes firing at the same target is called a Sheaf. Sheaves can take on numerous patterns depending on what is arranged between FO and FDC.

[Rick614]

I agree it wouldn't be practical to model weight limits for thousands of different bridges but it would be nice to model a few with a random factor built in. Maybe just a brief condition report available similar to building damage. In the time frame of CM I don't think there would be much bridge inspecting done especially under fire. You pretty much would just have to decide if you want that heavy stuff on the other side and what you are willing to risk. It could lead to some hasty plan changes when your 3 light tanks make it across and one of your heavy tanks ends up in the creek with the other one now sitting by its lonesome.

[Wilhammer]

The modeling I assume is based on the prevalence of overs and unders frequency greater than side to side.

The real result in world war 2 for the Americans, is that most of the time this dispersion pattern, an ellipse, was perpindicular to the front. This increase the risk of friendly fire damage.

During Aachen battles, the American artillery positions were such that this ellipse was parrallel to the front, thus allowing much closer fire to friendly troops.

Anothe BIG example of this problem was the use of carpet bombing. The AGF knew that the proper thing to do was to fly parralell to the front. The AAF wanted to get in and out and minimize flight time and were use to flying the West to East way.

The AAF did not do as the AGF wished, and di fierce damage to our troops.

The depth of the bomber formation does matter, but so to do artillery guns have depth.

The problem is not really one of formation, but axis of fire.

[tiborhead]

Speaking of bridges, I have an amusing story you might get a kick out of. I was playing as the Germans on a map that I had made simulating a generic river crossing. Well, I was starting across a wooden bridge with infantry and a Tiger when artillery began to fall. My infantry ran for cover and got mauled before they could reach the other side, and the Tiger got imobilized by something (still not sure what did this). Anyhoo,the artillery continues to fall and blows the bridge right where the Tiger was sitting! I don't know if any of you have had this happen before or not, but the tank just vanished. Poof. It was gone. :eek:

I think the idea of a random generated weight limit for bridges is very interesting, as TCs no doubt had to make hasty decisions

when crossing unchecked bridges. Good idea Rick.

[Vanir Ausf B]

A while back, some guy who claims to have been a RW artillery officer for 15 year made a post about changes he would like to see in CM arty. I'll cut and paste the relevant stuff here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>X-00 wrote:

(2) Sheaf:

(a)Both the normal and target wide are basically a converged sheaf. An open sheaf (all guns firing the same deflection)was the standard form of delivery

(b)It's east-west orientation should be rotated 90 degrees to reflect (a) above.

© Guns are usually placed 50-100m apart in a Lazy W. Using an open sheaf the rounds would fall on a frontage of basically 150m-300m with a depth of 50-100m (depends on the probable error in range).

(3) C2. Similar to onboard indirect fire, if an allied leader has C2 over an FO that leader should be able to adjust fire. Additionally, in order to increase the importance of Company Commanders if a Company commander can see a target regardless of C2 with a CO he should be able to adjust fire.

(4) Target Shift Time. The 100m adjust radius (the green line) is arbitrary and frankly shows no understanding of how fire direction is conducted. To a Fire Direction Center it doesn't matter if the correction is 50m or 500. For example say an artillery Battery is 5000m from the target and is directed to shift the gun-target line 50m left or right. The deflection correction would be 10 mils (less than a degree)for a 500m correction it would be 100 mils (about 6 degrees). The FDC and the Gun-line can apply these corrections in seconds. Today and then.

(snip)

5. Effects. The effectiveness of an artillery "barrage" significanly decreases after the first "salvo". The Joint Munitions Effects Manual (JMEMs), a classified document, reflects this. Soldiers under artillery fire are very good at finding effective cover after the first "surprise". Veteran soldiers are very good at finding cover. If they weren't they wouldn't be veterans. Additionally, foxholes provides much better cover than is reflected in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Scipio]

Bridges : random weight limit is a good idea!

Artillery : thanks for the Cut&Paste Vanir, that's what I think and have learned in the one year in a mortar company during my military service.

[Nutball]

Right blokes.

The way I see it is I WANT MY FRIGGIN GAME IN THE MAIL SO I CAN PLAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Maximus]

However that still doesn't explain why my troops suck. BTS fix it or do somefink!

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Vanir Ausf B Said: (2) Sheaf:

(a)Both the normal and target wide are basically a converged sheaf. An open sheaf (all guns firing the same deflection) was the standard form of delivery.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheaves typically include:

Parallel

Converged

Open

Standard

Or special sheave geometry depending on target alignment.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Vanir Ausf B Said: © Guns are usually placed 50-100m apart in a Lazy W. Using an open sheaf the rounds would fall on a frontage of basically 150m-300m with a depth of 50-100m (depends on the probable error in range). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This statement is far too generalized. Sheaves are not limited to being fired parallel to battery layout. Fire can be directed parallel, perpendicular, or oblique relative to battery positioning. Again it is really a function of what the FO\FDC needs.

In addition the distances indicated are also an extremely broad generalization. An FFE zone can be as wide and as deep as the FO\FDC wants or needs (given limitations on ammunition and priority of fire). If I am firing an open sheaf at a target and the depth of the target in 500 meters, I simply alter charge setting or increase\decrease elevation between successive sheaves in order to cover the target zone depth I need. Ladder fire.

In addition the depth (and to a limited extent the width) of ground that may actually be impacted by any given sheaf is very much a function of systematic dispersion. A 105mm firing charge 1 M1HE shell at a range of 2000 yards (range probable error is 15yrds) is quite different from a the same gun firing charge 4 M1HE shell at a distance of 6000 yards (range probable error = 31yrds).

Ideally when mortars fire an open sheaf, the distance between impacts of rounds is half again the distance between mortars. Normally, 120-mm mortars are 60 to 75 meters apart, 81-mm and 4.2-inch mortars are 35 to 40 meters apart; thus, in an open sheaf, rounds should land about 60 meters apart. For the 60-mm mortars, which are normally 25 to 30 meters apart, rounds should land about 45 meters apart. But again inherent dispersion between different tubes will not yield these nice neat sheaf patterns where each round is on a nice parallel alignment with the round being fired from the mortar pit adjacent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Vanir Ausf B Said: Soldiers under artillery fire are very good at finding effective cover after the first "surprise". Veteran soldiers are very good at finding cover. If they weren't they wouldn't be veterans. Additionally, foxholes provides much better cover than is reflected in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree. This is why you often read of FO’s firing a quick mission, than holding fire for several minutes in order to get their target back out of their holes to collect there wounded and dead resultant from the last series of impacts. Then another series of rounds are fired. All's fair in love and war sort of mentality I guess.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Scipio:

First Artillery, now mines? Your certainly determined to find some earth shattering flaw in CM.

[Scipio]

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

First Artillery, now mines? Your certainly determined to find some earth shattering flaw in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matthew, I only want to help to make a (very) good game better. Perfection is a neverending way!

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Scipio:

Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. One man’s trash is another’s treasure. Insert favorite cliché here_____________.

I guess I would recommend picking up a field manual on artillery gunnery or mortar gunnery so you can better articulate what the beef is you have with CM artillery. I am not saying CMbO artillery\FO is perfect, but as yet, I also see little validity in the points you are attempting to make regarding an error in CmBO.

[Slapdragon]

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

Scipio:

Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful Rdigeway, or we may have a whole new thread trying toi figure out if a Beholder can be penetrated by a 75/56 cannon, or if the Beholder's Prismatic spray weapon can enthrall SS.

[Andrew H.]

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

Perfection is in the eyes of the beholder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it's pretty clear that Beholders had powerful optics. Adventurers who survived encounters with Beholders almost universally mention the power of the Beholder's eye.

But it's hard to tell whether the Beholder's optics are more powerful than the Zeiss optics in the Tiger tank.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I think it's pretty clear that Beholders had powerful optics. Adventurers who survived encounters with Beholders almost universally mention the power of the Beholder's eye.

But it's hard to tell whether the Beholder's optics are more powerful than the Zeiss optics in the Tiger tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you have any proof that the Beholder Optics are more powerful than the Zeiss on the Tiger. Sure, its big, but its not the size the counts....

[Subvet]

I don't know. Each beholder has 11 optics which can all look in different directions. Not only that, but the optics are quite effective weapons on their own.

[Slapdragon]

Then I think BTS should address the issue of Beholder Optic superiority in the next version of CM: Beyond Greyhawk.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

I think you guys have been spendin' a wee bit to much time at the local Sci-Fi convention. Take your Klingon garb off now and reinsert yourself into reality.

[Stalin's Organ]

Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow

There's Klingons on the starboard bow...

......WIPE 'EM OFF JIM!

[Subvet]

What do Klingons have to do with beholders and their optics??? Jeez, talk about going off topic!

[Slapdragon]

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

What do Klingons have to do with beholders and their optics??? Jeez, talk about going off topic! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everyone knows Beholders are plagued with klingons. They do not have hands to wipe their poorly positioned bums after passing the remains of the gnomes they just ate.

[Subvet]

LOL, I see I'm not the only one who thinks of that when they hear the word "klingon." But wouldn't that definition be spelled "cling-on?" And Matthew was talking about us wearing "Klingon garb." I don't even want to think about what "cling-on garb" would be. Yuck!