Tracked FO

[WarHawk]

Does CMBB have tracked forward observers for artillery?

[ParaBellum]

Nope.

The nearest thing in CMBB would be a radio FO in a tracked vehicle (like the SPW), although he still would have to dismount for the fire mission.

[John Kettler]

WarHawk,

Am praying for this in the new game engine. It was historical and I believe deserves inclusion, particularly given the AI's unholy ability to find and target FOs in the present game engine.

Regards,

John Kettler

[WarHawk]

That is one draw back of current system. Tracked FO's would be nice.

[Bone_Vulture]

I'm trying to figure the benefits of a tracked FO vs. radio spotter riding a halftrack... Well ok, if the spotter is targeted only by small arms, an armored transport will be beneficial. Otherwise, it's just a massive target for all the hostile AT assets.

Just think trying to remain stationary for 3-5 turns while enemy tanks are on the loose.

[Tuomio]

I would like to see multiple FO:s commanding the same tubes. Like in SP:WAW, the observers should be cheap as hell and should suffer (usually) high casualty rates. They arent called forward observers for nothing, cant really say the same about CM FO:s, which has to be kept in safe positions so you dont lose your artillery when you lose one spotter.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Tuomio:

I would like to see multiple FO:s commanding the same tubes. Like in SP:WAW, the observers should be cheap as hell and should suffer (usually) high casualty rates. They arent called forward observers for nothing, cant really say the same about CM FO:s, which has to be kept in safe positions so you dont lose your artillery when you lose one spotter.

Historical basis?

Your previous gaming experience notwithstanding, for most WWII armies trained arty FOs and good quality radios were a precious commodity. Having multiple FOs running around a CM-size battlefield linked to the same battery in NOT necessarily realistic. Simply put, such highly trained soldiers are not thrown around willy-nilly.

Actually, arguably the opposite is more true. Often, one spotter could potentially call in support from batteries at various levels of command (and caliber) depending on the importance of the target he was observing.

As such, it would arguably be more realistic to purchase Arty support and Arty FOs separately, but keep BOTH fairly expensive, and allow an indiviual FO to call on any of the batteries the player has available for support. Then if a player wanted to pay the price to have multiple FOs he could, but would have to a premium for such highly trained, and well-equipped units (and the capability they bring).

It is true, however, that late war Brits and Americans especially developed a more flexible arty C&C system that theoretically allowed pretty much any soldier with a gridded map and radio (or wire phone) to call in arty support from any in-range battery. The thing to keep in mind here is that trained, dedicated FOs were generally much more efficient at the job.

Arguably, then, at least for the Amis and Brits it should be possible to call in Arty fire without an FO so long as there is a unit with a radio or wire phone with LOS, but it should take a lot longer to do so.

Looking toward the next CM engine, it would be nice if CM modeled radio and wire communications nets in some abstract manner, and also modeled trained, dedicated arty FOs. The time required to call in Arty fire would then be based BOTH on comm net AND on the presence (or lack of) a dedicated FO.

But back to the subject of this thread - AFAIK, dedicated tracked FOs were rare or non-existent in WWII. I speak here of a vehicle specifically outfitted as a FO platform. I see no reason why a an FO in a stationary Halftrack or Kubelwagen shouldn't be able to call in fire. As already noted, such lightly armored vehicles tend to be deathtraps, but if you can actually get away with using one as an FO chauffeur, I think the game should allow you to do so.

Cheers,

YD

Cheers,

YD

[Tuomio]

Yea maybe i was wrong about the cheap aspect and i need to rephrase a bit since it was just a quick taught. Now there usually is something like 1 spotter per 1k points available in fight per side, but i'm thinking they should be allowed to command the "artillery pool" and not be dedicated.

I find it hard to believe that losing an FO or two in battalion sized battle would end the firemissions for that day. Artillery being so decisive force and all. They were priority targets and had to operate at the front lines, which meant high casualty rates (so i've been told in Finnish army).

[YankeeDog]

I would absolutely agree with you that losing a spotter should not necessarily remove a given battery as a support asset in a battle.

Exactly which spotters should be allowed to access what batteries is actually kind of complicated, but could probably be abstracted for game purposes. For example, for US forces in WWII the Battalion radio communications and higher-level communications were for the most part a separate system, meaning that any request for Arty support other than the Battalion's organic mortars had to be relayed through the Battalion command post (with its fuller suite of comm gear) UNLESS a dedicated FO from a higher-level battery direct radio connection was calling in the fire.

Some kind of abstration that allowed spotters to access "non-parent" arty assets, albiet with some sort of time and/or accuracy penalty, would probably make sense in most cases. In fact, at least for US, British, and German forces, any HQ equipped with a radio or wire phone should probably be able to call in arty (though again with less efficiency than a dedicated FO). I'm less sure about whether lower level Russian HQs should have the ability to call in artillery.

Cheers,

YD

[Corvidae]

Artilery spotters can ride in any vehicle that has the capacity, but it makes them sitting ducks,

still, if you realy want to kill your spotters,

by all means ,,,,

go for it

[jacobs_ladder2]

I believe the Germans used tracked FOs, but I could be wrong. I know they used converted SPWs for their forward air observers in Poland and France (not sure about later).

I'm not sure about this whole "sitting duck" argument. Seems to me that an FO could operate fairly efficiently from a half track depending on how close he got to the action and what kind of AT weapons the enemy had. I think it's important to remember that CM gives the impression that there were herds of tanks and AT guns all over Europe while in reality infantry was far more prevalent.

Also, an FO does not necessarily have to be as "forward" as he does in the game. With a decent pair of binoculars and a vantage point he could do his job from a relatively safe distance (perhaps not even appearing on the map at all).

Another point that might be covered would be the role of artillery spotting from the air. This is something that would be applicable to a CM scale battle.

During operations in Normandy (Cobra and after)the Americans used converted Shermans to carry around spotters for the fighter-bombers and the concept existed as early as 1942.

In Italy, I know a lot of observers drove around in lightly-armoured vehicles or even in jeeps. According to what I have read, it was a very effective means of moving from one vantage point to another. Of course, Italy's terrain is suited to that kind of thing.

Cheers

[Bone_Vulture]

It all falls to the question of what is good for reality, and what is good for CM.

[flamingknives]

The converted Shermans had a FAC in place of the bow gunner. The tank was able to operate normally otherwise.

Churchills in Italy carried FOs as well, but that document did not give details of how he was accommodated. However, it has been noted that Churchill AVREs were able to carry a demolition team in addition to a full crew.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

It all falls to the question of what is good for reality, and what is good for CM.

That's just the point. Depending on how you implement it, almost anything could be good for CM (or for any other title). FOs in half tracks? What the hell. Chuck em into the mix and see how they do. Off map artillery spotting? Fine. In the end you can balance it with something else if that's what worries you.

[jacobs_ladder2]

For example, and this is way off topic so I won't elaborate, but when I see pictures from WWII I notice you always see infantry working alongside armour. In most of the books I've read it looks like it was fairly common practice to have a platoon circle a tank and protect it or use it for cover or whatever. Yet this is not an option in CM. Why?

[ April 02, 2004, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: jacobs_ladder2 ]

[SpitfireXI]

I agree with most of the attitudes regarding FO's in vechicles. If I remember correctly was'nt that the main duty of the Daimler Dingos? Remember Michael Caine in A Bridge To Far? His only job was to call in airstrikes and the sort and he was riding in those little armoured cars.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by jacobs_ladder2:

In most of the books I've read it looks like it was fairly common practice to have a platoon circle a tank and protect it or use it for cover or whatever. Yet this is not an option in CM. Why?

Again... I'd like to see that happen in CM without the infantry getting chopped to pieces in seconds. Well, you can kinda protect your vehicles by setting them close to forests or other good soft cover, so your MG's and such can open fire on all forces trying to approach the vehicle.

[flamingknives]

Michael Caine played Lt.-Col J.O.E Vandeleur in 'A Bridge Too Far', commanding officer of the Irish Guards, IIRC, which is somewhat more distinguished than an FAC.

[eichenbaum]

German Offensive Attack Tactics:

"The artillery forward observer travels in his armored vehicles with the first wave, while the artillery commander of the supporting artillery units usually travels with the tank commander. Assault guns normally also accompany the second wave..."

It's a from German translated doctrine so this is no proof they realy used tracked vehicles. But it increases the chance.

Nils

[Joachim]

Originally posted by eichenbaum:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />German Offensive Attack Tactics:

"The artillery forward observer travels in his armored vehicles with the first wave, while the artillery commander of the supporting artillery units usually travels with the tank commander. Assault guns normally also accompany the second wave..."

It's a from German translated doctrine so this is no proof they realy used tracked vehicles. But it increases the chance.

Nils </font>

[John Kettler]

jacobs_ladder2,

The reason you don't see men hiding behind/using any AFV other than a burning one for cover is because the present engine can't handle something called dynamic cover (evaluating the cover state of what's trying to hide behind the AFV's hull, as both move, relative to the position of all units firing at them). The computational load to do this was judged to be too great a hit on overall game performance. The game does treat dead and burning (both required) AFVs as cover, but this is because

they are unambiguously static and because LOS is blocked by the smoke and flames. Many of us are praying for this feature in the new game engine, generally listed as CMX2. Certainly, the ability to do this is not only logical and tactically valuable, but readily demonstrable on period combat footage and stills going back at least as far as the invasion of Poland.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

The Germans had several tracked or semitracked FO vehicles during WW II. They included:

SdKfz 253 Leichter Gepanzerter Beobachtungskraftwagen (Light Armored Observation Vehicle). In service 1940-1942.

Fully enclosed SdKfz 250 derivative developed specifically as an FO vehicle for StuG units.

SdKfz 250/4 Leichter Beobachtungspanzerwagen (Light Armored Observation Vehicle)

SdKfz 250/5.1/5.11 Leichter Beobachtungspanzerwagen

These vehicles all began to replace the SdKfz 253 in 1943. Differences lie in radios fitted. Not fully enclosed.

SdKfz 251/18 Mittler Beobachtungspanzerwagen (Medium Armored Observation Vehicle)

251 variant equipped basically as for SdKfz 253, but roomier. Not fully enclosed.

SdKfz 143 Panzerbeobachtungswagen III (Armored Observation Vehicle) III. In service 1943 until 1944.

True FO tank based on Panzer III chassis. Dummy main gun. Fully enclosed.

SdKfz ? Beobachtungspanzer Panther

True FO tank based on Panther tank. Dummy main gun. Fully enclosed.

Sources

Chamberlain and Doyle, BELLONA HANDBOOK No. 2 and No. 2, Part 3, Semi-Tracked Vehicles of the German Army 1939-1945 (SdKfz 250 + Others, SdKfz 251).

von Senger und Etterlin, GERMAN TANKS OF WORLD WAR II.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ April 02, 2004, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Bone_Vulture]

I just realized you can also find shirt descriptions of FO vehicles here.

[jacobs_ladder2]

Thanks John for the info. That and the website from bone_vulture are two things I can really use. Oh, and thanks for putting the reference to your source in to the post as well, John. Very much appreciated.

Cheers

[John Kettler]

jacobs_ladder2,

You're welcome. Just glad I had the right references.

Regards,

John Kettler