Artillery spotters still being ID'ed too easily?

[ng cavscout]

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html

I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me.

[Keke]

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Keke:

Dave, you fool, the bodies were so badly mutilated they were not identifiable anymore. :mad:

Edited for :mad:

Oh, and I suppose your Finns swallowed their light machine gun or whatever before they died so my Russians couldn't find it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[ng cavscout]

Thanks Keke, how do you do that? Forgive my ignorance.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Dave H:

Soddball, I never thought I would say these words about you, but I think you may be on to something. My worst example of spotting was the exact opposite of the long-range X-ray vision you're talking about here. In a PBEM versus Keke, my Russian infantry battalion actually eliminated one of his uber-Finn infantry units. One of my squads ended up standing directly on the Finn body icon, and still the only ID they could get was "Infantry?" Before anyone asks, the Russian squad was regular, in command, and not even under fire. I guess I should have been glad my Russians were able to tell there were no wheels attached. Otherwise they might have mistaken the Finns for a truck.

So we have Germans successfully identifying Forward Observers, mortars, and HMGs in the back of a truck or inside a halftrack at 1,500 to 2,000 meters, and a regular Russian squad unable to identify an eliminated Finn unit at 0 meters. Peculiar. :confused:

I don't think that there is an issue related to which side you're playing. I'm sure that if I reversed the tests to have a Russian platoon HQ observing German units the results would be identical.

[Keke]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

Thanks Keke, how do you do that? Forgive my ignorance.

Copy image location (right click on a picture; with IE copy it from the properties), then use the image button in reply, and paste the picture location there.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Dave H:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:

Dave, you fool, the bodies were so badly mutilated they were not identifiable anymore. :mad:

Edited for :mad:

Oh, and I suppose your Finns swallowed their light machine gun or whatever before they died so my Russians couldn't find it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. </font>

[ng cavscout]

thanks

[Dave H]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html

I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me.

Thanks for this link. Fascinating look at life in any army. I especially liked his remarks about the Hero of the Soviet Union award (Stalin wanted artillerymen nominated) and the incident about shooting down their own balloon.

This guy certainly didn't try to embellish his role in the war. He made it sound very much like a young guy just doing his job. He seems like someone I'd like to have known.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:

In my tests units in halftracks are not spotted at 2km, highest distance I got was below 1000m. As you know HTs are not fully enclosed, and HQ units have binoculars. FOs on jeeps were identified basically the same as on trucks (and units on the back of a tank would be identified probably even quicker, haven't tested).

Like I said, heavy equipment teams correspond to the same spotting rules in CM, the logic being simply that heavy equipment (like mortar tubes, MGs, radios and accessory equipment) is quite visible (and it's way more difficult to move stealthily with such heavy equipment). For more on this (also with regard to game mechanics, i.e. how to display information to the player), see the previous posts. Until we get individual soldiers displayed the identification of "units" will remain a "gamey" part. You might not agree with this and that's ok, but the game is consistant in this respect.

Martin

Have a look at the scenario I have sent you. Units in halftracks consistently appear as "Infantry Sounds?" at ranges around 2km in this test scenario. That makes it easy to determine whether a halftrack is carrying infantry or not. I know that halftracks are not 'fully enclosed' but unless you're looking down into the halftrack, that argument is utterly irrelevant. The only way you should be able to tell whether a buttoned halftrack at 2km range has infantry inside it is to stuff a shell through it and see who jumps out. You should not be able to pick up "Infantry Sounds?" from inside!

There is a distinct difference between identification of a unit in a jeep and a unit in a truck - something on the order of 500m difference. It is significant, because even though units in both truck and jeep are 'spotted' at 2km, they aren't 'identified' in the jeep until around 1,500m.

I am well aware that CM:BB is finished, and that changes to CM:AK are unlikely, but this niggle could easily be exploited and I still remain to be convinced that it is 'realistic'.

The picture posted relates to something slightly different to what we see in CM:BB. Anyone know of any images of 'radio' spotters in WW2?

[ng cavscout]

OT, but interesting.

http://www.iremember.ru/index_e.htm

They have interviews with Soviet soldiers from many different branches. I am reading the interview with Antonina Aleksandrovna, a sniper. Very interesting site.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Soddball:

The picture posted relates to something slightly different to what we see in CM:BB. Anyone know of any images of 'radio' spotters in WW2?

Finnish FO team checking coordinates for a target (1941):

[Redwolf]

I don't think the issue of not identifying units even at point-blak range and when they are eliminated has anything to do witht he long-range spotting.

It is a documented aspect of CMBB's extreme fog of war setting (I often prefer full FOW).

[Moon]

OK, so after trucks, jeeps, ignored T-34s and ignored walking FOs, now we're talking about halftracks.

Units in halftracks consistently appear as "Infantry Sounds?" at ranges around 2km in this test scenario.

Soddball, I haven't looked at your new test scenario, but I don't think it's much different from what I have made, and I simply do not see what you say, and certainly not consistently.

At around 750m the FO in the HT was finally spotted as "Infantry Sounds?". Spotter is a conscript PlatoonHQ with binoculars (like in your original test, which I haven't gotten from you). The FO on the truck in the background is ID'd, the other one on the jeep is spotted as "infantry?". Distances are roughly 2000m and 2200m respectively.

Is it unrealistic that an observer with a pair of binos is able to see that "something is in that halftrack" at 750m? Certainly yes if whoever is in there would want to make sure to remain unseen; of course you can "hide" in such a vehicle. But CM isn't assuming that quite frankly, just like you can't hide an infantry squad in a cellar in the house in the game, although they could in real life.

The main thing I am concerned with at this point is if the simulation "as is" is genuine, or if we have a bug somewhere. If we do it gets fixed for CMAK, but so far I don't see one. Everything else is open for debate certainly, but pardon me while I go get some other work done.

Martin

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:

OK, so after trucks, jeeps, ignored T-34s and ignored walking FOs, now we're talking about halftracks.

Well, pardon me if I investigate around the subject, rather than simply sticking to a single issue. If you're struggling, perhaps Steve or Dan would like to pop their heads in and discuss it.

Soddball, I haven't looked at your new test scenario, but I don't think it's much different from what I have made, and I simply do not see what you say, and certainly not consistently.

The reason that you don't see what I say is because you haven't looked at the test scenario. Have a look at mine, because it is very different in style from what you have there and is both more thorough and more scientific.

IMAGE SNIPPED FOR BANDWIDTH

At around 750m the FO in the HT was finally spotted as "Infantry Sounds?". Spotter is a conscript PlatoonHQ with binoculars (like in your original test, which I haven't gotten from you). The FO on the truck in the background is ID'd, the other one on the jeep is spotted as "infantry?". Distances are roughly 2000m and 2200m respectively.

So, in fact, you can confirm that spotters on trucks are correctly identified at 2km range as spotters. We both agree that this occurs. Where we disagree is that you consider it perfectly acceptable, whereas I consider it unrealistic, even risible, that identification could occur so precisely at such a range.

On to my other point, which you also seem to be struggling with:

Is it unrealistic that an observer with a pair of binos is able to see that "something is in that halftrack" at 750m? Certainly yes if whoever is in there would want to make sure to remain unseen; of course you can "hide" in such a vehicle.

I assume that you don't mean that units in CM can 'hide' in vehicles, because as we both know they can't.

But CM isn't assuming that quite frankly, just like you can't hide an infantry squad in a cellar in the house in the game, although they could in real life.

That is assuming that the house had a cellar. You're comparing apples and oranges.

The main thing I am concerned with at this point is if the simulation "as is" is genuine, or if we have a bug somewhere. If we do it gets fixed for CMAK, but so far I don't see one. Everything else is open for debate certainly, but pardon me while I go get some other work done.

Martin

The test scenario you have run shows quite clearly that there is a problem, and yet as soon as I broaden the issue to include other, relevant topics, you seem to get confused. I'm not doing this for some kind of perverse pleasure, I'm doing it because I believe that there is an issue here with unit spotting and identification. You seem to assume that there is no issue. Whilst I appreciate that the burden is on me to provide the evidence, I would be interested to learn on exactly what basis BFC decided that accurate identification of a unit on the back of a truck was historical, and why they felt that it would be possible to accurately identify a radio spotter, but not to accurately identify an infantry squad.

You can quite clearly see from Keke's posted picture that the 'spotters' look an awful lot like regular infantry. Their equipment is not twenty feet high, twelve feet wide, and painted bright orange. They are not staggering under the weight of hundreds of pounds of machinery.

Let me summarise, to try to make matters clearer. I believe that my initial observation has led to a series of other observations, all related to spotting and unit identification. These include:

1a) Unrealistic observation of certain units on the back of trucks - specifically at long ranges (2km).

1b) Support units can be identified much too easily at long ranges (2km) when on trucks. These support units include machine guns and mortars, and radio artillery spotters. Artillery spotters without radios are not affected because you can't get them in a vehicle. There is no logic here. How do I tell the difference at 2km between a split squad, one of whom is carrying an LMG-42, and a HMG-42 unit? Obviously, I can't.

1c) When compared to how easy it is to identify units in jeeps - which are also wide open and uncovered - the jeep is a far better means of hiding the identity of a unit than a truck. The logic of this is unclear.

2) Unrealistic spotting of units inside halftracks at long ranges (2km). I am not referring to when a unit appears in the halftrack. Run my test scenario, and whilst playing as Germans, view the unit properties for the halftracks. You will see "Infantry Sounds?" listed as the cargo. Unless the halftracks have recently had their armour plate replaced by chicken wire, I fail to see how it is possible to spot enemy units inside them.

These are some of the issues which I have raised, and I hope that they are now clearer to you.

[ July 11, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Soddball]

One final point. I just extended the testing map to see what the longest range ID'ing occurs at.

The Maximum Range at which this identification occurs is 2,470m. It occurs with all units in trucks at that range. The truck is identified as a "Truck?", and the unit onboard becomes either an Infantry Squad?, Mortar?, Machine Gun?, Spotter? or whatever.

[ July 11, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html

I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me.

Don't look that bulky to me. Granted a good deal could be dug in and not visible. The most obvious thing is the range finder and that could be in use by any gun crew.

[Michael Emrys]

Sounds to me like when the spotting and ID routines were written certain simplifications were used, and now we have stumbled on a case where those simplifications break down.

[Ain't I great at stating the obvious? ]

Michael

[Moon]

Awesome Michael.

Soddball, thanks for making your point(s) clearer to me. I ran your test scenario and was able to identify two possible issues - jeeps, being smaller in size, are more difficult to ID, and this seems to affect any passengers. The difference between jeeps vs. trucks isn't great (in meters), but it's there.

Secondly, I wasn't even aware that passengers are listed for halftracks in this way. Certainly doesn't make sense. I have asked Charles to look into both issues.

As for the other things you have brought up during your "quest" - I have replied to them, so I won't repeat. 1a is something we might just have to agree to disagree over. 1b isn't true because infantry squads as passengers are ID'd (as "infantry squad?") at the same ranges as support teams.

Martin

[Snarker]

Soddball, I just ID'ed and knocked off all your FO's with rubberband guns at two miles. Now leave poor Moon alone and send a turn so I can do the same for your grunts.

Actually a good catch, fellas. Being as my artillery usually rains down on my own guys, I'm rooting for this issue to remain as is!!! LOL

[Lt. Kije]

Just a note from real life. My Dad spent the entire duration of the European Theatre (D-Day plus 6 to VE Day) as one of those artillery spotters. For forty years I listened to him tell stories about what it was like. He said that only one time in his entire service was he singled out as a target by anything other than small arms at close range, and it sure wasn't at 2km or while riding in the back of a truck. It was at less than 1km and exceptionally exposed in his role. (I won't bore you with the details.)

Just a data point. One forward observer walked all the way across Europe without encountering even once what is common in CM.

-- Lt. Kije

(By the way, I found redwolf's summary of the TacAI's behavior spot on, and would like to note that one of the things that distinguishes a CM veteran is that he will take advantage of the TacAI's unrealistic hyper-knowledge, by not choosing targets himself. Big hint to new players. Don't try to help.)

[Lt. Kije]

- double post -

[ July 11, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Lt. Kije ]

[YankeeDog]

Well, I'm kind of late to this issue, but I'm always looking for a chance to throw my $.02 in, so here goes. . .

I think Soddball has brought up some very good points, especially with regards to the spottability of units in trucks.

I am extremely skeptical that an observer could pick out an Arty FO riding in *any* vehicle at 2km, no matter how good his bioculars or optics were.

I think it might be useful to take a more detailed look at the kind of FO radios and other equipment that supposedly differentiates them from other infantry here - there seems to be some misperception as to exactly how much they would be carrying, and how identifiable their equipment would make them at long range.

I am more familiar with US military equipment from the era than I am other major combatants, so I will stick to what I know here. This means that what I am saying is not directly applicable to Soddball's experiences and tests in CMBB, but since any major changes to the game at this point are going to be for CMAK, and not CMBB, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to talk about US Army equipment. I would love it if some grogs familiar with other combatants' radios & c. would chime in on this.

First, radios: The most likely radio a US Army Artillery FO would be carrying from late 1943 on would be the SCR-300 - this is the famous "Walkie Talkie" backpack unit that I'm sure everyone has seen in various war movies. This unit was also the standard Company-level radio. Especially with the antenna down and the unit closed up (i.e., not transmitting or receiving) the SCR-300 looks a lot like a backpack. This is the way it would normally be carried around until needed both to protect the unit and also to conserve battery power. It's more angular than a soft-sided canvas fieldpack, but I doubt this difference could be discerned through a pair of binoculars at long range unless the subject wearing the SCR-300 was standing still and the observer had time to carefully inspect the subject. It would be easier to identify a unit carrying the SCR-300 as a 'radio unit' while the radio was being used (primarily by behavior, but also because the antenna would be up and the handset out). While fairly long when fully extended (I'm guessing almost 2 meters based on pictures), the SCR-300's antenna was not especially thick nor was it intricate or unusual in layout - it was basically like a modern car radio antenna, just somewhat thicker and longer.

I'm not sure what the US Army did for Company-level and FO radio communications before 1943. As a side note, the SCR-300 was a major advance in wireless communications technology in a number of areas, including range, signal clarity, reliability, portability, and ease of use. This should probably be reflected in CMAK by a drop in US Artillery delay times, and perhaps even general command delays, once the SCR-300 comes into service.

The US army also had the smaller BC-611 "Handie-Talkie", and I suppose this might have been used by some FO teams, but it's much shorter range (officially up to about 4.5 km, but practially speaking usually under 2km, and sometimes down to a few hundred meters depending on conditions) suggests to me that it would only be useful perhaps for battalion-level FO teams attached to nearby mortar batteries. I suppose it's possible that an FO team could move forward with a BC-611 and relay information to another team between the battery and the FO with a larger radio, though. From what I have read, the BC-611 was used mostly for itra-company communication and was also sent forward with OP teams to allow them to quickly report any observations.

There are a number of larger, at least somewhat man-portable radio sets that the US Army used in WWII. None of these that I have seen are really small enough to be carried any distance by a 2-man FO team, though, and my reading suggests that they were generally used more for battalion-level and up command posts, radios at the artillery batteries themselves, etc.

FO would, of course, have equipment other than just a radio, such a maps, binoculars, etc. All of this equipment would be carried in rather nondescript-looking cases, though and in any event I have never seen anything to suggest that US Army FO carried any observation equipment that looked dramatically different from what a Company HQ, or in many cases even a Platoon HQ would be carrying.

So, my very-long winded point: At least in the case of the US Army, FOs did *not* carry huge radios with large, easily spottable antennas sticking up, or any other equipment that would make them easily identifiable at long range. The equipment they did have was no different than that of many HQ groups. Therefore, the idea that an Arty FO could be easily identified while riding in/on a moving vehicle of any type at 2km+ range strikes me as extremely unlikely no matter how good the optics and experience level of the spotter.

In addition, at least in the case of the US Army, the vast majority of pictures I have seen of infantry being transported show the trucks with the canvas cover up. Even when the Canvas cover was down/off, the 2 1/2 ton truck had sideboards on the cargo area that would partially obscure an outside observer's view of who/what was riding in the truck. As such, *best case* scenario (for an observer) is that the observer gets a view of heads, helmets, and maybe rifle muzzles when observing passengers in a US truck. Worst case, he can't see jack unless he's looking at the truck rear-end on. In any event, I don't think heavy equipment like larger radios, MGs, or mortars, which presumably would be riding on the bed of the truck between the soldiers' legs, would really be visible at all by to a nearby oberver, let alone someone looking though binoculars 2km away unless they had a viewpoint that allowed them to look down into the bed of the truck.

It seems more likely to me that heavy equipment could be spotted in a smaller vehicle like a Jeep. There's a lot less space in a jeep, so presumably some of the team's equipment is going to be sticking up, or even lashed to the side. On another side note, I don't see how larger Heavy Weapons teams could all fit in a Jeep anyway. I used to drive a Jeep CJ-7, which is actually considerably larger than the WWII era MB Jeep, an there's no way I could have fit 6 men plus a large object like a .50 cal or a 60mm mortar, plus ammo for same, in my Jeep. Maybe if a couple of guys rode on the hood or the running boards, but this would limit speed, especially cross-country, considerably. Eventually, and hopefully for CMAK, I would like to see a reevaluation of small transport vehicles' carrying capacity, perhaps with a new 'small team' capacity category for vehicles like the Jeep and Kubelwagen.

I like the idea of IDing FOs as "HQ?"s at long ranges, since their kit is rather similar. Even better, I like the idea of having a new "Infantry Team?" spotting designation, denoting a unit that is clearly smaller and different in kit than a squad, but specifics are still unknown. At the very least this should change TacAI behavior to make it less likely to be able to (unrealistically) ID and target high-value units like FOs at very long range. The player could still conjecture a unit's exact type based on behaviour, but would take more prolonged and careful observation as to position and behaviour, which strikes me as realistic. I also think that at least truck passengers should have their status changed to "partially covered" or something like that to make them more difficult to spot and identify - in many cases, truck passengers are actually less visible than Halftrack passengers.

Cheers,

YD

[Paco QNS]

All you wanted to know about military radios:

http://www.armyradio.com

German WWII radios, see Section VII for backpack (and Section XIII):

http://www.armyradio.com/Default.htm?http&&&www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/William_Howard_German/German_Radios.htm

and Russian Military radios, see Section III :

http://www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/William_Howard_Russian/Russian_Mil_Radio.htm

Regards.

[kenfedoroff]

Soddy,

Good work on the spotting issue.

I am looking forward to a more realistic (in my opinion) set of parameters for the specific I.D. of Inf. units at long range (+1,000 yd), whether they are in vehicles or not.

I know Battlefront takes great pride in the realism embedded in the simulation aspect of their games, and I have no doubt they will rectify this particular spotting issue...

...And if they don't, they will have "Soddy, Forum Pitbull", chewing on them again. Of that, I have no doubt as well.

Sincerely,

Ken