Guideline for artillery puchase in QB

[Scipio]

Maybe some of you get bored (like me) by the big barrages and monster shells that can be seen in much battles - okay, mea culpa, mea culpa .

Well, maybe some of you are interested to have a guideline for a - IMO - more realistic purchase. Of course, it's always an agreement between the players.

You find it on my site.

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[Vanir Ausf B]

Nice presentation and well thought out, Scipio.

Some people may not be aware that Fionn's "75", "76" and "Recon" rules all have optional limits on arty purchases as well, though most don't use them, it seems.

Yeah, mea culpa too

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Some people may not be aware that Fionn's "75", "76" and "Recon" rules all have optional limits on arty purchases as well, though most don't use them, it seems.

Yes, their's a small, nearly unknown sentence about it, but only a limitation of the caliber - I could still purchase a half dozen or more 105mm/155mm in a 3000pp battle (depend on the force type).

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Yes, their's a small, nearly unknown sentence about it, but only a limitation of the caliber - I could still purchase a half dozen or more 105mm/155mm in a 3000pp battle (depend on the force type).

I see nothing wrong with that much arty in that size battle, and this isn't because I'm an old cannoncocker

In WW2, most US and German infantry divisions contained an arty regiment that itself contained a number of 105mm arty battalions at least equal to the number of infantry regiments. In addition, the arty regiment often also contained a battalion of 150 or 155mm howitzers, and more arty was often attached from corps.

Now assume an infantry division is attacking with 2 infantry regiments and holding 1 in reserve. Further assume that one regiment is the division's main effort and the other is making some sort of subsidiary attack, and that in each attacking regiment, 2 battalions are attacking and 1 is in reserve. Thus, the division-level attack boils down to 4 battalions, 2 of which are making the main effort.

If the division's arty regiment contains 3 battalions of 105mm and 1 of 150/155mm, that gives 4 arty battalions supporting 4 infantry battalions before considering additional support from corps. Because 2 of the infantry battalions are making the main effort, they will get more arty than the other 2. And one of these main effort battalions would probably be more in need of support than the other. Thus, it could easily happen that this infantry battalion would get the 150/155mm battalion and a 105mm battalion, the other main effort battalion would get a 105mm battalion, and the remaining 105mm battalion would get divided between the other battalions on the subsidiary mission.

In CM, a single FO unit controls a single battery of 4 guns. An arty battalion usually contains 3 batteries, so you need 3 FOs to represent the support given by a battalion of arty. Now, in a 3000-point battle, you're talking about an attacking infantry battalion more or less. If you consider this to be the main effort battalion with the highest priority for fire support, then having 3 each 105mm and 150/155mm FOs in the battle is perfectly reasonable.

The Brits did things a bit differently. Their infantry divisions usually had 3 arty "regiments" each of 3 "batteries" each of 8 x 25pdrs. So in a similar situation to the above with 4 infantry battalions attacking, they might have 1 regiment supporting each main effort infantry battalion and the 3rd regiment supporting the other 2. This gives 3 batteries per main effort battalion. Because a Brit battery had 8 guns, you need 2 FOs per battery. Thus, a main effort Brit battalion could easily have 6 x 25pdr FOs.

All the above, however, opens up a big can of worms because FOs in CM have capabilities in some ways far exceeding those of real life WW2. They can move all over the map like they have radios instead of telephones, and can do so without the emcumbrance caused by the extreme weight of a WW2 radio. Plus (and in part because of the real WW2 limits on FO movement and communications), at least some of the available arty support for each battalion would probably be firing planned barrages instead of being on-call. So in these ways, CM arty is more flexible and responsive than it was in the real thing.

OTOH, CM FOs have some severe limits that WW2 FOs didn't have. They can only adjust on-going FFE in a 100m radius, which is WAY too small. They can't shoot linear patterns. They can't shoot MT airbursts, mix airbursts and groundbursts in the same FFE, they can't shoot WP, they can't shoot illumes, and their FFE stops the moment they die instead of continuing for the number of rounds they called in. Plus now they can't use TRPs in anything approaching a realistic manner. So in these ways, CM arty is considerably less flexible and powerful than the real thing.

My own opinion on all this is that the various inaccuracies of CM FOs in both directions more or less cancel out (except for the TRP thing, which REALLY hurts the defender). Thus, I think having the number of FOs for a 3000-point battle as derived above is the most realistic solution. This is certainly more realistic than arbitrarily limiting the amount of arty support an attacker can have to less than this amount. Hell, he should have the option of getting more from corps guns.

IMHO, it's a great pity that BTS has chosen to reduce the attacking side's force ratios in attack and assault scenarios to considerably less than what is considered the minimum for these situations in real life. This makes it nearly impossible in a QB to give an attacking battalion the amount of arty it should really have, among other things. Thus, battles are reduced to pushing around tanks and grunts without adequate fire support, with the result that they die more than they should. This might be entertaining to some, but it's not how you're supposed to fight a war.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Bullethead]

Whoops, I see I forgot to say something about fire support from corps. Rather than edit the post above, I'll do it separately.

First off, in WW2, almost all arty in a division was howitzers. These things had short range for arty, on the order of 10-15km. As such, given their usual distance behind the FEBA, they weren't much use for deep missions. So they were used almost entirely for direct battlefield support of their division's troops, whether on-call or by barrages. This made divisions pretty much self-sufficient in this regard.

Corps level and above was were you usually found actual guns (as opposed to howitzers) with much longer range as well as usually bigger shells. Because divisions could usually take care of their own battlefield needs, these bigger weapons mostly did deep missions, taking advantage of their longer range. However, for various reasons, they were still sometimes used for battlefield support--that just wasn't their main job.

As a result, imposing some sort of limit on the amount of really heavy arty available in a battle makes historical sense. After all, the deep missions are important, too, and using the big guns for battlefield support means some deep missions don't get shot.

So where do you draw the line? Regular attacks normally wouldn't have such support, IMHO, unless there was a shortage of lighter stuff. Nor, I would think, should the big guns be found in company-sized battles because these just don't seem important enough for them by and large. OTOH, if the company is assumed to be trapped behind enemy lines, or off on a recon mission there, then the big guns are probably the only thing that can reach them. Thus, I'd think the main type of battle in which to have the really heavy stuff is a battalion-sized assault. The battle is large enough, and hard enough, to justify such firpower to ensure success.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Kurtz]

Guidelines?

Buy as much as you can!

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

SS-Weihnachtsgrenadiere

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

The Brits did things a bit differently. Their infantry divisions usually had 3 arty "regiments" each of 3 "batteries" each of 8 x 25pdrs. So in a similar situation to the above with 4 infantry battalions attacking, they might have 1 regiment supporting each main effort infantry battalion and the 3rd regiment supporting the other 2. This gives 3 batteries per main effort battalion. Because a Brit battery had 8 guns, you need 2 FOs per battery. Thus, a main effort Brit battalion could easily have 6 x 25pdr FOs.

All the above, however, opens up a big can of worms because FOs in CM have capabilities in some ways far exceeding those of real life WW2. They can move all over the map like they have radios instead of telephones, and can do so without the emcumbrance caused by the extreme weight of a WW2 radio. Plus (and in part because of the real WW2 limits on FO movement and communications), at least some of the available arty support for each battalion would probably be firing planned barrages instead of being on-call. So in these ways, CM arty is more flexible and responsive than it was in the real thing.

Brit/Canadian FOOs had incredible flexibility in what they could call down - by using the code words MIKE, UNCLE or VICTOR, they could call down the fire of one regiment, of the entire divisional artillery, or even the entire corps artillery (a VICTOR target would call down 9 regiments of 25 pounders plus medium and heavy batteries as well - a lot of firepower that at times was entrusted to a single FOO).

What you must already know, however, is that a FOO has to have a damn good target in order to call down the guns of the division - target suitability that goes beyond CM. Since prepatory barrages are (according to the manual) out of CM's scale, one can see that the kinds of targets available to our on-call artillery represented by CM are probably not something a real life FOO would have called a Victor Target down on.

Your figure of 6 25 pounder FOOs for a battalion attack seems high, and you yourself state that most of that arty would be prepatory. If there is a problem, it is that the FOOs in CM cannot call down fire from more than one battery, whereas historically, Brit/Canadian FOOs could. FOOs could also specify the number of rounds - "Five rounds gunfire, FIRE!" In CM, we fire in 60 second increments not knowing how many rounds will be left at the end of the minute.

Don't know how CM portrays German or US artillery, but the flexibility it gives Canadian and Brit FOOs seems to jive with what I've read in Blackburn and other books (Firepower by Bidwell and Graham discussed Brit artillery in detail, also).

[Bullethead]

Michael Dorosh said:

Your figure of 6 25 pounder FOOs for a battalion attack seems high, and you yourself state that most of that arty would be prepatory. If there is a problem, it is that the FOOs in CM cannot call down fire from more than one battery, whereas historically, Brit/Canadian FOOs could.

Just for the record, I didn't say "most" of the arty would be firing barrages, I said "at least some" But even if the guns were firing barrages, barrages from divisional guns would mostly be falling on divisional battlefield objectives, i.e., the CM battlefield, due to their relatively short range. Thus, the defender should be sucking up that fire, or have casualties inflicted arbitrarily in the set-up phase to represent its results.

There's no way to do this in CM except by having the barrage guns be represented by FOs. If you have a neutral 3rd person to help, he can actually fire the barrage as planned per your orders by playing a few hotseat turns, then exit the FOs used for this and send the game to you. But otherwise, the only alternative is to normal FOs under full player control.

The reason for 6 x 25pdr FOs is to give the battalion the full number of tubes it should have supporting it. 1 regiment = 24 x 25pdrs = 6 FOs the way CM does things. Having less FOs means having less tubes, in which case, how do you justify their absence? In the normal context of the war, the only way I can think of is by saying your battle is a diversion and the real fight is happening just off the map edge with another infantry battalion. Somehow, this just isn't satisfying to me

I agree, it would be nice to vary the number of guns represented by 1 FO unit. I hope we see an option someday where we can have 1 FO control a dozen or more guns, or even less than 4 to represent damaged batteries.

FOOs could also specify the number of rounds - "Five rounds gunfire, FIRE!" In CM, we fire in 60 second increments not knowing how many rounds will be left at the end of the minute.

Completely agree.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Michael Dorosh]

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't know what a FOO represented - I agree with you that I don't like each FOO representing only 6 tubes. You are correct in saying the only way to get enough tubes to simulate a regiment in CM is 6 FOOs - we agree that this isn't satisfying!

Guess this makes us grogs, eh? Ah well, it would be a dull game if all we had to do was drop 25 lbr badness on our enemies every battle.

Will be interesting to see how Russian artillery is handled in CM2. I may very possibly be dreading that...

[Guest ckoharik]

Correct me if I am wrong (non-grog) speaking, but IIRC the Soviets used artillery mostly in the preparation of an attack and less in the actual execution. So, I wonder if it would be feasible to have some sort of pre-assault artillery figured into the game.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

Originally posted by ckoharik:

Correct me if I am wrong (non-grog) speaking, but IIRC the Soviets used artillery mostly in the preparation of an attack and less in the actual execution. So, I wonder if it would be feasible to have some sort of pre-assault artillery figured into the game.

CM could offer an automatic move in attack and assault maps where the defender is being bombed without the attacking player's control. Artillery for this would then be available for a lower price.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

One thing not yet mentioned is that the defender's side in CMBO is also undermodeled. In real life during artillery attacks, people often had trenches with extra dugouts and they could enter bunkers they had no business to be in in combat. Whereas in CMBO the foxhole is all you can get for infantry and support and you cannot enter bunkers.

I found artillery > 155mm to be too inaccurate in combination with the number of shells. The chance to hit one given target with one FO with default ammunition is lower with the bigger guns, not higher. So, if I was to shop bigger arty, I would probably buy several FOs, but I never did, since I found other units to be more valuable for the points.

I would love to see the ability to choose patterns for artillery. In the short time I played Brigade Combat Team I noticed that this opens some interesting decisions to make. Temporary illumination from flares would probably be a great game feature.

BTW, what is the typical divisional artillery you are talking about and where starts "strategic" artillery that was not attached to specific units?

[This message has been edited by Martin Cracauer (edited 03-26-2001).]

[Olle Petersson]

Bullethead has written some excellent comments.

I'd just like to put in some of my views:

- The arty units don't always just hang around waiting for some FO to call for their assistance. They may very well be on the move between firing positions...

Reducing the number of FOs a bit to reflect this shouldn't be unrealistic.

- Howitzer range was mentioned. How about mortar range? The 81mm/3" mortars have a maximum range of less than 2.5 km. My guess is that there would rarely be more than one mortar battery per attacking battalion within range...

Hence; no unlimited 81mm mortar hailstorm.

- There's always a limit in ammo availability. In a mobile attack this limit would be smaller than after a long buildup.

I'm currently in the process of designing a scenario, where the attacker have quite a few FOs, but each FO have a reduced amount of ammo available.

The result is that the attacker can opt to make a short high intensity barrage, or spread it out over time and area...

Cheers

Olle

(Posting 991)

[Scipio]

Pals, I understand your arguments, but don't see the sense of the discussion.

The guideline is as optional as the rules of 75/76. If you won't use them, don't do it.

It was only my intention to offer a clear rule for those who have seen enough oversized barrages.

I guess the most of my former opponents would be glad if I had developed the guidelines earlier .

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[argie]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

- Howitzer range was mentioned. How about mortar range? The 81mm/3" mortars have a maximum range of less than 2.5 km. My guess is that there would rarely be more than one mortar battery per attacking battalion within range...

Hence; no unlimited 81mm mortar hailstorm.

Cheers

Olle

(Posting 991)

The 3" and 81mm mortars were part of Bn OoB. They have from 6 (11/2 FOs) to 12 or more (3 FOs) of those in each Bn, according to the unit type.

As they are a Bn organic unit, is supposed that they will be on range and on call to the Bn operations. This way, the range limitation BH uses for Arty doesn't apply to them (in fact, they are infantry heavy weapons, not arty).

120mm in German Army were a Rgt asset, so they will be more limited, but still easily available on CM Battle. 4.2" USA were a Corps asset, although widely spread on USA Divs. British 4.2" were part of the Divisional MG Bn.

Ariel

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 03-26-2001).]

[argie]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Pals, I understand your arguments, but don't see the sense of the discussion.

In your first post you said:

Originally posted by Scipio:

Well, maybe some of you are interested to have a guideline for a - IMO - more realistic purchase.

Then, we were discussing on realism in CM

You must let clear if you want a realistic purchase (then all could be purchased, as you don't know what the enemy could throw at you IRL for sure), or a "game balanced" purchase, which seems to be the case

There is no "realism" in the Rules and Guidelines, but a game balance concern, IMHO.

Ariel

[argie]

Sorry, double post.

[This message has been edited by argie (edited 03-26-2001).]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by argie:

Then, we were discussing on realism in CM

You must let clear if you want a realistic purchase (then all could be purchased, as you don't know what the enemy could throw at you IRL for sure), or a "game balanced" purchase, which seems to be the case

There is no "realism" in the Rules and Guidelines, but a game balance concern, IMHO.

Ariel

Well, if you prefer : I made a guideline to give players with lower interest on artillery a guideline for a balanced purchase. Damned hair splitter .

But thanx for the hint. I changed the text on my site to avoid further discussions about the realism.

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[This message has been edited by Scipio (edited 03-26-2001).]

[Nabla]

I have an arty question that may be a bit out of topic, but the right people - the historians - seem to be right here.

The question is: how effective was the real 81mm mortar in creating smoke covers? I mean, in my opinion in CM the 81 mm off-map mtr is a cheap überweapon for the attacker, because you can practically turn a bright day into a foggy night with a couple of those. Was it really as good as in CM?

[This message has been edited by Nabla (edited 03-26-2001).]

[Bullethead]

Martin Cracauer said:

One thing not yet mentioned is that the defender's side in CMBO is also undermodeled. In real life during artillery attacks, people often had trenches with extra dugouts and they could enter bunkers they had no business to be in in combat.

Yeah, the defense in general has a lot of unrealistic disadvantages in CM--more than the attacker IMHO. I'm sure this is why BTS lowered the purchase points available to the attacker in a QB, in a effort to give the defender a better chance to win. If you accept this, then imposing even more limits of your own on such things as arty availability is logical.

I don't accept this thinking, however. I consider it a bandage over the underlying modeling problems. Besides, in real life, the last thing you want is a "balanced" battle--you want a walk-over. And military planners go to great lengths to achieve this. So to me, realistically the attacker should usually have overwhelming force and should usually take his objectives. It's the defender's job to make him pay as high a price as possible for this, but he must accept the likelihood of being driven back. CM's victory determination system, however, pretty much precludes an "AAR screen" defensive win in these conditions. But that's not important if you know who really won.

Oh well, this is another subject entirely. To get back on track...

BTW, what is the typical divisional artillery you are talking about and where starts "strategic" artillery that was not attached to specific units?

I don't entirely understand your question but I'll give it my best shot.

"Divisional" arty means guns owned by the artillery formation within the division and ultimately controlled at the division level of command to support the division's over-all mission. In most armies, a division was supposed to contain 3 line regiments (tanks and/or infantry) and 1 arty regiment, which was the "divisional" arty. Unless detached by higher HQ, the division always had its divisional arty available. The main mission of divisional arty is to help the division achieve its tactical goals.

Divisions are grouped into corps. Attached to corps HQ are usually some number of independent (meaning not part of a division) arty units. The guns in these units were usually bigger and had longer range than those in the divisions. As such, they mainly were used for the operational-level goals of corps-level commanders, although they could add their fires to those of a division's guns to help achieve tactical goals as well. Arty really isn't a "strategic" weapon.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[bigmac@work]

Hi Scipio! I've visited your site and looked at your artillery suggestion chart (LOVE your sounds, BTW!). Very detailed work and I can tell you've put a lot of work into it. However, my question is this: I currently use Fionn's short-75 rule to much satisfaction and success against several of my PBEM opponents. I guess I don't understand why your suggestions would be preferential over those. Currently with Fionn's rule, my opponent and I are limited to off board Arty of no greater than 105mm in size. I think the inherent price of these if chosen in a 300 point battle would be penalty enough, yet I see you've limited yourself to much smaller arty in QB's of the smaller this sizes. I apologize if this is a no-brainer question, but I'm afraid I'm not overly knowledgable in the ways of Ary. Could you please elaborate? Thanks.

bigmac out!

[Scipio]

Originally posted by bigmac@work:

Hi Scipio! I've visited your site and looked at your artillery suggestion chart (LOVE your sounds, BTW!). Very detailed work and I can tell you've put a lot of work into it. However, my question is this: I currently use Fionn's short-75 rule to much satisfaction and success against several of my PBEM opponents. I guess I don't understand why your suggestions would be preferential over those. Currently with Fionn's rule, my opponent and I are limited to off board Arty of no greater than 105mm in size. I think the inherent price of these if chosen in a 300 point battle would be penalty enough, yet I see you've limited yourself to much smaller arty in QB's of the smaller this sizes. I apologize if this is a no-brainer question, but I'm afraid I'm not overly knowledgable in the ways of Ary. Could you please elaborate? Thanks.

bigmac out!

Well, I won't restart the discussion about the realism of my guideline again , so I better say: it's my personal opinion that the few platoons or maybe a company hadn't usualy heavier support then by small mortars and light 75mm artillery. Maybe it's superflous, I haven't proof all possible cases, but I guess it's anyway not possible to purchase 105mm (or other) artillery in the smallest sized battles because of the lack of purchase points. I only included them for completeness. Question answered?

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

Keine Gefangenen!

Visit my Combat Mission Sound Mods site!

Scipiobase

Join the Blitzkrieg Wargaming Club

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by argie:

1) The 3" and 81mm mortars were part of Bn OoB. They have from 6 (11/2 FOs) to 12 or more (3 FOs) of those in each Bn, according to the unit type.

2) As they are a Bn organic unit, is supposed that they will be on range and on call to the Bn operations.

3) 120mm in German Army were a Rgt asset, so they will be more limited, but still easily available on CM Battle.

1) The exact number of mortars is fairly unimportant, IMO. It's the number of batteries on call that's important.

German battalions had about 12 81mm mortars, half of which were typically distributed amongst the companies (as shown by the two on-map mortars in each heavy company). The rest is a single battery and should be represented by a single FO.

My points are;

- that you shouldn't have more than one FO per battery available.

- only one battery available per battalion (and you rarely have more than one or two battalions).

(CMBO is clearly unable to handle the different types of arty doctines in a more detailed manner than this.)

2) See my 2nd point above. They are available, but only to their organic battalion. It's the all too common misuse of massed 81mm mortar barrages that I'm objecting to.

3) The sources I have say they were battalion assets, but then Jason C says they were rare on the western front, so I don't know exactly what to think...

Cheers

Olle

[MrSpkr]

Martin-

Definitely agree with your observations on trenches and bunkers. American troops LOVED the bunkers in the Seigfried line because they provided some shelter from the elements. Bunkers often became quite crowded during the occasional artillery barrage (imagine that!).

MrSpkr

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

But we're saying goodbye to them all

We're Harry's police force on call!

So put back your pack on

The next stop is Saigon

Don't bless the few bless 'em all!

[This message has been edited by MrSpkr (edited 03-30-2001).]