Smoking the Battlefield

[Wilhammer]

Surely written about in the past, but lets revisit this for the sake of review and the newbies.

Smoke is a valuable offensive tool, and sometimes just as valuable defensively.

What I would like to have put together is a guide to smoke usage, arranged by Weapon, Emit Time (smoke once it hits has a time before it is effective), persistance (how long does the smoke stay in effect), and coverage (realtive value; a 60 mm smoke round blocks less well than an 81 mm, and a 105 does better still).

Perhaps this should be added to the Artillery Tables recently posted here, except it needs to take into account the direct fire weapons.

With much CMing behind me, I have noticed that the Attacker uses far more smoke than the defender does. It is nearly mandatory for a succesful attack to be combined with a smoke barrage, while most defensive smoke use rarely includes a barrage, and if it does, it is not nearly as thick or ammunition consuming as one that needs to be sustained for the offensive.

Considering the above, is it not reasonable to recognize that a defender gets more firepower out of his off board arty than an attacker does?

And, since the attacker must depend on smoke more, should the attacker have a higher quantity of direct fire smoke than normal?

Arty costs the same whether attacking or defending, but I suggest that the defender gets more killing power from his as he does not have to divert some of his fire missions to smoke missions.

Then again, if timely executed, a smoke barrage THEN -FFE barrage- WITH infantry/armour combined arms sequence attack works well enough, a defender can't really stop it from succeeding.

BTW, in a QB I typically spend everything I can on Off Board Artillery. Smoke for approach coverage, and heavy stuff for killing seem crucial to any success.

[tiborhead]

You're right Wilhammer. When attacking, I usually buy at least 2 FOs and use one strictly for smoke, and the other for killin'. I usually use an 81mm mortar (Americans and Germans) for smoke, and a 105, rarely 155mm, for suppression. It's common sence to save the 81mm for smoke as it has a ton of ammo, and a rapid arrival time. A guide to using smoke seems like a good idea, as I always manage to overestimate the lasting effect of my smoke screens. :mad:

[Doug Beman]

It's just my impression that smoke rounds have the same effect (time between impaact and smoke, duration, coverage etc) regardless of arty type.

DjB

[olandt]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

It's just my impression that smoke rounds have the same effect (time between impaact and smoke, duration, coverage etc) regardless of arty type.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are SOOO wrong. I just tried to use 60mm mortar smoke to block LOS from a pillbox. Didn't last long (the smoke and the moving tank). Whereas the 14inch Naval gun smoke the computer used on me a while ago (very amusing) lasted forever.

[Greenman]

Maybe I'm not using em right, but the 60mm mortar's smoke placement leaves a lot to be desired. Small loads, random placement, and limited effect.

Am I doing something wrong?

[ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: Greenman ]

[Wilhammer]

60mm as smoke is not very good, but sometimes all you have.

My uses for it;

1. Damn, that enemy ATG! Smoke it and shell it with 60mm.

2. Damn that enemy AFV! Smoke him too.

3. Limited success for taking a small point, like a section of woods or a building by laying smoke just before you move on it.

As a general smoke screen, forget it.

[Greenman]

Thanks ...

I have fond memories of effective smoke screens when I played the demo (Valley of Trouble), since I got into QB's I've gone light on the OBA and have missed the smoke ... relying on the mortar teams has been sad. Those allied inf really need all the help they can get.

[Michael Emrys]

I think someone (BTS?) once posted a chart listing smoke duration for the various calibers of arty, but that was a long time ago. From my own experience, 60mm lasts about a turn, 75-81mm two turns or a little more. I don't think I ever used anything bigger for smoke.

Michael

[Compassion]

I've used American 105 for smoke laying... nice big plumes of smoke covering relatively large areas for 2-4 turns.

[lcm1947]

I never use smoke or hardly anyway because I really don't understand it so this is a very interesting topic to me. The chart idea would be a great aid as far as I'm concerned and second the motion. I in the past just figured well it'll start when it starts and go ahead with my plans knowing it will appear when it feels like it, but to actually time an attack or something knowing exactly when or how long it'll last would be extremely helpful.

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

Does anyone else smoke a town before they enter it?

[Sergeant Saunders]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars:

Does anyone else smoke a town before they enter it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, last night, I sent 5 Churchill Crocs into a town and they kinda burned it down. There was a LOT of smoke.

[Peter Svensson]

This is interesting. I never realized smoke shells have different durations. I think I'll run some tests and add the durations to my artillery table, if the differences are significant.artillery table

[Mark IV]

I thought smoke duration also depended on weather conditions? Didn't damp and snow have shorter duration?

Personally, I think smoke is a necessary evil. I would WAY rather be dumping HE on my hated enemy's head. But if you have to attack across the open, it makes nice temporary cover, though I couldn't imagine dedicating an entire FO to smoke only. It also wouldn't be quite as nice if defenders could shoot suppressive fire through smoke...

I don't know how often smoke rounds were used on a large scale in WWII. Smoke generators were used for large ops like river crossings instead of (or together with) arty smoke, and are way more effective if the wind cooperates.

[Brian Rock]

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

Then again, if timely executed, a smoke barrage THEN -FFE barrage- WITH infantry/armour combined arms sequence attack works well enough, a defender can't really stop it from succeeding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. When I use smoke I tend to do the opposite - FFE while I have clear LOS to get as many shells on target as possible, then if necessary smoke to cover my advance against the survivors.

I must confess I'm not particularly expert in the usage of smoke, and often screw up the timing, placement and quantity, so I'm prepared to learn a bit more about it.

[Guest Babra]

Smoke is tricky, but can really mess up a defender. I've had more than one "foolproof" defensive set-up foiled by an attacker's smoke. All those cleverly intersecting fields of fire aren't much good when the cottonballs start blooming. Previously covered weapons can suddenly find themselves very exposed and alone.

[Wilhammer]

How I use it offensively:

It really depends on the size of the map, but lets say it is medium and you want to spend 1500-2000 points.

Split squads and send the "B" units out in front, varying degrees of depth beyond the "A" providing overwatch. "B" bounds, halts. "A" bounds to "B". "B" leads next cycle.

Soon, something wil open fire on a "B" unit. Since it is low morale, it typically will suffer few casualties and run away. Its morale state is moot, as once it merges with "A", it will assume "A's" state.

Except for guns, RLS and snipers, most infantry are deployed in clusters.

As needed, we further define and collect intel while plotting an attack and a barrage. A smoke mission is planned as well, but since I typically use light stuff that shoots quicker, I have to delay plot. My goal is for the Big Stuff to land about 10 seconds before the smoke mission. The smoke deploys, the Big Stuff is either lifted, or best drifted to behind the enemy position.

Under smoke and during the barrage, I have the assault move through, and the location usually falls. The barrage that was drifted backwards is designed to pick up a few more casualties as the enemy force withdraws, and to catch any units moving in to reinforce.

I often times drop barrage after the smoke and delay my movement so that the defender will raise his head in expectation of my attack, and increase vulnerability of the Big Stuff.

The barrage is immediatelly lifted, and the smoke is replenished (this is when the chart would come in handy, how soon would I have to have the second smoke barrage land?), my men are launched to assault a stunned enemy.

Mix up the methods, and the opponent is jumpy.

However, its greatest weakness is the pathetic amount of ammo given FOs.

[edgars]

Another thing about smoke, but not exactly about arty - has someone looked at various tank smoke dischargers? Does the smoke from discharger on the Humber Scout Car last longer than on Sherman? Is there a difference between various Sherman models? What about Germans tanks?

I would do this myself but I don't have the time, huge pile of work...

[Peter Svensson]

I was interested enough to look at smoke duration and add the data to my artillery table. It turns out there's some difference in duration between the calibers. Weather does not seem to affect smoke duration, however.

http://www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/arty.htm

http://www.speakeasy.org/~petersve/arty.xls

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ]

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ]

[ 08-24-2001: Message edited by: Peter Svensson ]

[Wilhammer]

Very bice. Did you notice any difference in time after the shell hits that the round emits smoke?

Notice that the 150 rocket has an interesting characteristic I was not concious of, because I have never bought rockets. It fires 50 rounds very quickly and puts down a very long duration smokescreen of 2.5 minutes.

That could prove most useful.

[Peter Svensson]

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

Very bice. Did you notice any difference in time after the shell hits that the round emits smoke?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I looked at that, and it seems all smoke shells are identical in this respect. They all start putting out smoke 30 seconds after landing, or the at the end of the turn, whichever comes first.

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

Notice that the 150 rocket has an interesting characteristic I was not concious of, because I have never bought rockets. It fires 50 rounds very quickly and puts down a very long duration smokescreen of 2.5 minutes.

That could prove most useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I guess they weren't Nebelwerfers for nothing. While the dispersal is huge, the smoke clouds are also big, and should provide meaningful cover even with just one FO. Two simultaneous 150 rocket smoke missions on the same spot would be a cheap and fast way to create a huge, dense smokescreen.

I'm a little surprised the larger rockets don't have a smoke capability. Weren't they Nebelwerfers too? Maybe someone can enlighten us.

[leakyD]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter Svensson:

I'm a little surprised the larger rockets don't have a smoke capability. Weren't they Nebelwerfers too? Maybe someone can enlighten us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

great thread gang-

and peter, mucho thankos for the arty chart. been working on gettin my smoke skills dialed, and this has helped.

I may be reaching here, but i believe the reason the Neb's don't have smoke is due to the theatre of operation. seems LARGE amounts

would be needed on the eastern front, not the western (esp, since significant Counterattacks we're possible there). maybe it was an operational/supply issue (ie-use the ammo where it's most needed, esp for late war germany).

case in point - why no sturm tigers for CMBO? operationally, made more sense to have them where they were needed most: eastern front.

i'm playing the CMMC, and a guy was asking why the 88 Flak couldn't direct fire HE, as it did in real life (the area we are attacking in has some LONG open areas - man, i coulda use some long reaching HE!). my retort was that it was perhaps operational to the theatre, and the long, open steppes of Russia encouraged using the HE there, as opposed to the western front, where large open areas were not a common.

can't wait to see what a couple of 300mm batteries of NW smoke would look like. got a funny feeling Jerry's gonna need it over in the east....

[Andreas]

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

great thread gang-

and peter, mucho thankos for the arty chart. been working on gettin my smoke skills dialed, and this has helped.

I may be reaching here, but i believe the reason the Neb's don't have smoke is due to the theatre of operation. seems LARGE amounts

would be needed on the eastern front, not the western (esp, since significant Counterattacks we're possible there). maybe it was an operational/supply issue (ie-use the ammo where it's most needed, esp for late war germany).

case in point - why no sturm tigers for CMBO? operationally, made more sense to have them where they were needed most: eastern front.

i'm playing the CMMC, and a guy was asking why the 88 Flak couldn't direct fire HE, as it did in real life (the area we are attacking in has some LONG open areas - man, i coulda use some long reaching HE!). my retort was that it was perhaps operational to the theatre, and the long, open steppes of Russia encouraged using the HE there, as opposed to the western front, where large open areas were not a common.

can't wait to see what a couple of 300mm batteries of NW smoke would look like. got a funny feeling Jerry's gonna need it over in the east....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nebelwerfer was only a code-name for the rocket artillery. The heavier calibres were specialised bunker busters, different job from what the 150mm was intended for. The 150mm had chemical rounds produced for it, the others did not, AFAIK.

8,8cm FLAK used DF HE in north-west Europe. I am a bit surprised you can not do that in CMMC, are you sure about that? What you can not do in CMBO is indirect fire HE from the 8,8cm. I believe it ought to be possible, but it is not modelled.

I don't think this has anything to do with more open spaces in Russia and the Ukraine vs. France. There are a number of spaces with long LOS possible in North-West Europe (Pas de Calais, Norddeutsche Tiefebene, large tracts of Belgium, the Netherlands). BTW, there were Sturmtigers on the Western Front. The fact that CMBO does not model them is due to a choice by BTS to focus on other vehicles.

[leakyD]

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

Nebelwerfer was only a code-name for the rocket artillery. The heavier calibres were specialised bunker busters, different job from what the 150mm was intended for. The 150mm had chemical rounds produced for it, the others did not, AFAIK.

8,8cm FLAK used DF HE in north-west Europe. I am a bit surprised you can not do that in CMMC, are you sure about that? What you can not do in CMBO is indirect fire HE from the 8,8cm. I believe it ought to be possible, but it is not modelled.

I don't think this has anything to do with more open spaces in Russia and the Ukraine vs. France. There are a number of spaces with long LOS possible in North-West Europe (Pas de Calais, Norddeutsche Tiefebene, large tracts of Belgium, the Netherlands). BTW, there were Sturmtigers on the Western Front. The fact that CMBO does not model them is due to a choice by BTS to focus on other vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey a-

thanks for the NW clarity. not *totally* up to speed on their history, so i appreciate the insight.

as for the HE for the 8.8 in CMMC, someone was complaing about not having any, so i presumed it was unavailable. maybe it was a supply issue (as supply is modeled quite acuratly in CMMC).

and sturmtigers on the western front?

really?

i had no idea.

maybe CMBO whould be re-written after CMBB so i can have an sturmy-tiger in the Aachen fights (or wherever they were used). we'll see who knocks *who* down then!

again, thanks for the clarity.....

[rexford]

Advanced Squad Leader treated smoke in an unusual manner, it did not totally rule out line of sight to targets but lowered the hit probability.

The thinking was that smoke did not produce a tight blanket of sight limiting cloud, but a relatively broken "mass". Depending on random factors, one could either see nothing or see the world.

Smoke was also treated as a limited use/availability ammunition. Sherman 75mm gun would have smoke 28% of first attempt tries during June 1944, and white phosphorus (WP) during 58% of first tries.

U.S. 81mm mortar would have 72% first attempt availability with WP, no mention of smoke rounds.

U.S. 60mm mortar fires WP with 58% and 42% first try availability.

White phosphorus in ASL was less effective than smoke in hindering LOS and hit probability.

Smoke and WP effect could be increased by firing different weapons at the same target, which would "add" modifiers.