Questions on TRPs

[Kingfish]

1)How can TRPs be laid in locations that are out of LOS to any spotters?

2)Should the benefits of TRPs (accuracy and response time) still be availible if spotters are out of LOS? IOW, the spotter is the one who determines where to place them, and what grid coordinates they occupy. Without LOS, how does the spotter know to fire at the TRP? How is the request for arty support made so quickly?

3) Shouldn't the area around a TRP be covered with craters? Check out this quote from Bullethead:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Setting up adjusted defensive TRPs is a rather noticeable business. Big guns fire, shells burst (often in areas under enemy observation), and craters are left. Alert enemies will thus deduce where you are planting TRPs and will avoid them, if possible, when they attack you. So does the defender have a chance to spot TRPs on the map? I'm especially interested in TRPs placed during the course of an operation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your thoughts?

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[stic.man]

i believe the trp represents a place that has been pre-recorded by all the artillery pieces on and off the map(off-map arty), check the manual about this.

the arty comes down faster because the off-map mortars/guns already have those coordinates recorded, and can adjust that area faster

dunno about that

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>i believe the trp represents a place that has been pre-recorded by all the artillery pieces on and off the map(off-map arty), check the manual about this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but a spotter is required to designate where on the map that TRP is located, and to coordinate and adjust the IF until they are right on target. My question is how is the location and adjustment of fire possible if the TRP is out of LOS to the spotter?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the arty comes down faster because the off-map mortars/guns already have those coordinates recorded, and can adjust that area faster<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True again, but the whole point of TRPs is to bring fast and accurate IF to a location where the enemy just advanced to. If this location is out of the spotters LOS, how can he know that enemy units are there?

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

Frag Hanoi Jane

[Radar]

In setting up a TRP an FO adjusts with one tube per battery or platoon. That adjustment is then noted in the FDC. Subsequent CFF (Calls For Fire) can be made by the FO from the TRP. Adjustments are made again with one tube. Final adjustment (before FFE) depends on the FO ability and the target. TRP's can be made in and around all types of terrain..including craters and burned out buildings..and thick woods. The flash and smoke are usually very visible (ya gotta know where and when to look).

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

"Your in it now -up to your neck! You got me in the mood to using this thing...I'll use it on you!" -Guns of Navarrone

[L.Tankersley]

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

True, but a spotter is required to designate where on the map that TRP is located, and to coordinate and adjust the IF until they are right on target. My question is how is the location and adjustment of fire possible if the TRP is out of LOS to the spotter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, when you're preparing TRPs in a static defensive position I think that it's a long-drawn-out procedure. This is not something you'd do while under attack, so the observer would be able to go to someplace where he CAN see the impact point. Even without LOS to the impact point I think a trained observer could do a decent job by referring to a map as long as he can see the blast height. Also, I'm pretty sure that in real life almost every time you fire an artillery concentration the coordinates are recorded and assigned to a target number, so if you bring in a lot of fire missions pretty soon you have LOTS of TRPs available. If you want you could consider CM TRPs that are out of sight to be leftovers from a prior engagement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

True again, but the whole point of TRPs is to bring fast and accurate IF to a location where the enemy just advanced to. If this location is out of the spotters LOS, how can he know that enemy units are there?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if for example the TRP is in a valley out of sight, and the spotter sees enemy units move down into that valley, it's not all that hard to work out. A little thought, coupled with knowledge of enemy capabilities and inspection of a map can tell you a lot about where the bad guys probably are. Are you asking about in-real-life, or specifically about CM gameplay issues?

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[jd]

I recently read an example of this in, I believe MacDonald's Company Commander. His unit was in static defense having moved into new digs. That evening, the advance platoon reported vehicle noise. The FO fired some rounds that they "adjusted" more by sound if anything else. They assigned a registration number to where ever it was. The next night or so the vehicle was back in an attack. MacDonald called in a strike using taht registrtion and it had immediate effects.

[Kingfish]

Leland,

I'm specifically interested in how CM deals with TRPs. In particular their deployments and the advantages a player gets from them, regardless of circumstances. Consider:

1) CM doesn't differentiate between TRPs given to the attacker or defender. They both function the same way. That means an attacker who has just now arrived on the battlefield, has only a few tac maps to work with, and maybe a few sketchy reports from recon units, can reap the same TRP benefits as a defender that has spent days on the same battlefield, walking the line, and taking time to register his off board arty.

2)The response time to a TRP is the same regardless if the unit that calls it in has LOS or not. Example:

* The respones time for an off-board 81mm battery firing on a TRP is 22 seconds. If the spotter has LOS to the TRP then the 22 seconds makes sense because it's a simple radio call to the battery to get the FFE started.

* However, if the spotter doesn't have LOS then the info of enemy units near the TRP must be relayed to him. Assume it's a rifle squad that sees an enemy force sitting atop the TRP. They must radio the platoon leader with the info and request for arty, who in turn radios the company CO, and then on to the spotter. This request takes time to work it's way up the chain of command, yet the response time is still the same: 22 seconds. In other words there is no penalty for a spotter that can't see the TRP. He could be 2000 meters away from the TRP, behind a house, in heavy fog and as long as someone else sees a unit to shell the response is the same as if he was there himself.

I believe there should be penalties added to TRPs that are out of LOS to the spotters. The accuracy should remain, but the response time should be delayed.

[JoePrivate]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe there should be penalties added to TRPs that are out of LOS to the spotters. The accuracy should remain, but the response time should be delayed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the way it is right now, a FO out of LOS of a TRP will generally take twice as long to call in fire as one with LOS. There might be some variability in that leading you to believe the delays are the same but they really aren't.

[stic.man]

yeah, um i believe that the time delay that is shown is abstracted, it seems to me that if it says 30 secs , it really takes 55-65.

[John Kettler]

While we're on TRPs, would someone please tell me why they seem to never turn up in QBs?

You'd think that, especially in static defensive situations, the defender would have a chance of getting one. After all, mines, barbed wire, roadblocks and pillboxes are commonly seen, so why not something that allows proper coverage of dead ground and greater timeliness of fire?

I think this thread is most interesting.

Kingfish, believe it or not, there are times when the attacker has far better terrain data than does the defender. History records American commanders securing the surrender of German troops simply by showing, under a flag of truce, the German commander the American commander's map, on which the position, type and field of fire of every single defensive position were meticulously plotted. It is also true that in the Gulf War the Coalition had far better data on Iraqi deployments and unit status than did the Iraqi commanders. As a general observation, though, you are correct.

Regards,

John Kettler

[L.Tankersley]

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

Leland,

I'm specifically interested in how CM deals with TRPs. In particular their deployments and the advantages a player gets from them, regardless of circumstances. Consider:

1) CM doesn't differentiate between TRPs given to the attacker or defender. They both function the same way. That means an attacker who has just now arrived on the battlefield, has only a few tac maps to work with, and maybe a few sketchy reports from recon units, can reap the same TRP benefits as a defender that has spent days on the same battlefield, walking the line, and taking time to register his off board arty.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um....attackers can't purchase TRPs in quick battles. In a designed scenario, it's up to the scenario creator, so presumably they had some rationale; you should take up your complaint with them. But, once registered, I think a TRP is a TRP.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

2)The response time to a TRP is the same regardless if the unit that calls it in has LOS or not. Example:

* The respones time for an off-board 81mm battery firing on a TRP is 22 seconds. If the spotter has LOS to the TRP then the 22 seconds makes sense because it's a simple radio call to the battery to get the FFE started.

* However, if the spotter doesn't have LOS then the info of enemy units near the TRP must be relayed to him. Assume it's a rifle squad that sees an enemy force sitting atop the TRP. They must radio the platoon leader with the info and request for arty, who in turn radios the company CO, and then on to the spotter. This request takes time to work it's way up the chain of command, yet the response time is still the same: 22 seconds. In other words there is no penalty for a spotter that can't see the TRP. He could be 2000 meters away from the TRP, behind a house, in heavy fog and as long as someone else sees a unit to shell the response is the same as if he was there himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think you're really arguing a case for relative spotting (search for this term to find extensive discussion) rather than FOs and TRPs specificially; the arty delay displayed for FOs is the time between the call for fire by the FO and shells starting to land on target. This delay should not be affected by observer LOS, because it is really caused solely by how long it takes the firing battery to align their guns, set their coordinates for the TRP, and so on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe there should be penalties added to TRPs that are out of LOS to the spotters. The accuracy should remain, but the response time should be delayed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting idea to compensate for global spotting through delays (presumably these should apply to any fire mission, not just those against a TRP). I'm not sure I agree, but I might be convinced. My thinking is the FO has a radio, so he at least potentially could be in near-instantaneous contact with friendly units that either do have LOS to the target or at the very least know they have a good reason to want shells dropped on a particular location. (I don't actually know if FOs could use their radios to communication on company or battalion nets, or if there even were such animals in WWII, so I may be off-base here). You also seem to be assuming that you are always trying to drop shells on known enemy units and there might be a delay in the FO learning the targets are there; it's possible you might want a concentration fired on a suspected enemy position with no known enemy units there. In that case, what is the source of the extra delay? Whoever's requesting fire points at a spot on the map and says "I want fire HERE" and the FO does his thing regardless of what enemy units might or might not be there.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Los]

Not that this will necessiarily contribute anything to the specifics of TRP mechanics but...

Kingfish says...

"CM doesn't differentiate between TRPs given to the attacker or defender. They both function the same way. That means an attacker who has just now arrived on the battlefield, has only a few tac maps to work with, and maybe a few sketchy reports from recon units...:

This is absolutely incorrect. Just because the game doesn't force you to go through a laborious hours, days, or weeks-long planning process does not mean that the attacker's fire plan was not well thought out by the notional staff prior to the game you are actually playing. (By their very presence in a scenario TRPs connote a higher degree of offensive or defensive preparation) TRPs, whether they are in the attack or in the defense, represent a distillation of the prewritten fire support annex of the detailed operations order which would have been prepared before the battle commenced. Whether or not the player himself applies any organization to what he is doing on the field is irrelevant to the fact that the presence of TRPs connotes an implied prior planning and preparation process.

If anything, attacks are as a rule generally as well planned out and prepared for as defense. The CM TRPs represent pre-plotted TRPs your manuever units would have created or at least received as part of the detailed plannning process that leads up to doing anything. Game players usually set off with their forces with little or no plan or sketch it out as it goes along in a "let's see what happens mentality". However, even a movement to contact against an unknown enemy would have a detailed plan of preparation prior to the lead elements crossing the LD.

And before anyone leads off with the no plan survives first contact with the enemy crap, one of the many critical purposes of a plan is that it provides a common base for change to react to emergent situations on the battle field. The player, who in almost all games is isolalted of all the real frictions of combat, is generally immune to these forces, regardless of what effects games designers place in their way to provide a little friction, and thus don't need to go through the detailed planning that occurs (in an implied fashion) behind the scenes of the program.

Cheers (and HNY!)...

Los

[tss]

Kingfish wrote:

3) Shouldn't the area around a TRP be covered with craters?

Not necessarily. It may be that the target coordinates are measured without firing either by reading a map (if not much time is available) or by using surveying equipment (very slow). However, coordinates are not enough for accurate fire, but ballistic adjustment (my translation from Finnish "lentoratakorjaus", I don't know the official English term) has to be calculated. Since ballistic adjustment is essentially same for targets in similar range and direction, it can be calculated, for example, by firing calibration rounds in a target that is, say, 500 meters away from the actual target point. This way there will be no craters in the actual target area. Also, air bursts can be used so there will be no craters anywhere.

According to Finnish practices, there were five ways of getting the target coordinates:

1) exact map coordinates (or surveying data, if available). This was the best but also the slowest method and it corresponds to CM target reference points.

2) map grid. The terrain was divided into a grid of 100x100m squares and the fire was called to the target square. This was not as good method as exact coordinates since determining the correct square was not always easy and the target may be between midpoints of two squares.

3) intersection from two FO points. Two different FO points both measure the direction of the target and its position is calculated trigonometrically. Very accurate, but slow and both FOs have to see the target.

4) one FO point. The one FO team measures both the direction and range (using a range-finder) to the target. This was inherently inaccurate because of 1-5% accuracy limit of range-finders in use. This method could be used also with the method 2.

5) I can't just now remember what it was. It had only one FO team but the range was determined without range-finders.

The methods 1) and 3) allowed, in practice, instant strikes without any spotting rounds. With 2) and 4) few spotting rounds were usually, but not always, necessary.

The method 2) was often used during attack when the exact location of the FO team was difficult to determine. The rest methods were more for defence. The method 4) was the only one that could be used against fast moving targets.

- Tommi

[Guest Germanboy]

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

1)How can TRPs be laid in locations that are out of LOS to any spotters?3) Shouldn't the area around a TRP be covered with craters? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My grandfather (check my website for what he did, the one in the profile) told me that they used time-fused rounds for registration of fire. These would detonate in the air above target, so that the target was not alerted to being registered.

Following speculation on my part:

Another possibility would be to use a smoke round (no cratering then).

Actual registration of defensive fire could also have been carried out by specialist units (like the one my grandfather was in) from their well-camouflaged OPs, since they would have had a lot more training, the right equipment and practice in doing that.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[tss]

Germanboy wrote:

Following speculation on my part:

Another possibility would be to use a smoke round (no cratering then).

That doesn't work because smoke rounds have different ballistics from HE rounds. I can't remember the actual figures right now, but I think that a smoke shell had 2/3 range of a HE shell that was fired with same charge and elevation (actually, the figure was given for a gas shell). The reason for this is probably much poorer weight/area ratio.

- Tommi