Kcat Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 I can't seem to force a tank to fire on an unsighted area. I wish to lay down smoke from behind a covering ridge. Any rasonably trained tank crew should be able to lob smoke into a general area without having to sight it. Am I missing some way to force this action? I really hate the manual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 You can't do that, the game does not allow it, to prevent abuse of borg spotting. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 And since you're new - "borg spotting" = the (unfortunate, but forced by technology/design/age of game) ability of the player and all units on the map to see anything that any of his/her units can see. (FOO, or mortar doesn't need to 'know' that there is enemy behind the ridge, cos the borg spotter knows! If tanks could do it to, game over!) (In case you hadn't understood) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kcat Posted March 29, 2006 Author Share Posted March 29, 2006 I can see some instances when that is valid. But when several tanks have spotted the positions and retreated a few times. I think it a fair and intelligent tactic to then be able to lay smoke from cover. At the very least have shoot and scoot able to specify, shoot smoke. I still search for a sim that actually allows you to use real intelligent tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kcat Posted March 29, 2006 Author Share Posted March 29, 2006 In real life, didn't german tanks have the wonderful advantage of a lot of radios installed? Seems none of mine do, or they don't have an even crude map of the area, to communicate " lay smoke in grid area...." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 It's the way it is for a reason. You don't just have tanks on the map. They are not all German. You can do a search in the archives on Borg Spotting, that should answer your questions. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Can you provide evidence that such a technique was used? What sort of tanks are you using? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvidae Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Borg spoting is a feature/bug that we must live with ,, however slightly unrealistic limitations on targeting do help to counter-balance the profoundly unrealistic fact of borg spoting . its a compromise bub , and if ya dont like it ,, please feel free ta uninstall tha game and mail me yer game discs, As i see it ,, i can bitch about the things i dont like ,, or i can enjoy the things i do like , So rather than whine about the lack of gurkas ,, indian army, ,, and other colonial forces, plus no ethnic minoritys in regular armys ,, i just play the frigging game, Same goes for your targeting issues ,, Its a great frigging game ,, Best game out there as far as i can see, Most realistic in almost every sense, So a few small niggles aint worth sweating over, So start a pbem and mail somebody their friggin' turn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Corvidae, I think you just about covered everything in that statement! Kcat, Just work around the problem and enjoy the game! And the ONLY way to play CM is against a human opponent! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Tanks are unlikely to be able to do anything of the sort because they are not set up for indirect fire in the first place - they do not have dial sights, do not have surveyed positions, and do not have accurate maps, do not have segmented charges for their guns to allow a variety of ranges to be engaged. You are free to lay smoke along the ridge line of course........ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Tanks are unlikely to be able to do anything of the sort because they are not set up for indirect fire in the first place - they do not have dial sights, do not have surveyed positions, and do not have accurate maps, do not have segmented charges for their guns to allow a variety of ranges to be engaged.Both the Sherman and T-34 had sights for indirect fire; I'd be amazed if most other HE-capable tanks didn't too, regardless of Germanity. FM 17-12 "Armored Force Field Manual: Tank Gunnery" of April 22nd 1943 devotes 28 of its 102 pages to the topic of indirect laying. And of course there are those well-known photos of Shermans in Italy acting as substitute field artillery. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 I know they did stand in some times, but I was under the impression those were carefully planned and not standard practice. But I sit corrected. The other consideration of course is whether the crews weer trained for the role - it might be in the manual, and maybe they even gave it an hour or 2 at gunnery school, but that's not quite the same thing. Edit: What do you mean by "sights for indirect fire"? Do you mean a simple optical sight such as might be on a mortar that can be used to fix the gun's elevation and bearing against an aiming post? Or something more complicated? If the former then you need to have the aiming post in the first place to be able to do anything - not much use in a tactical battle and IMO the reason why mortars can't use TRP's if they have moved. [ March 29, 2006, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Instead of real high-angle indirect fire you seem to be talking about firing on nearby areas out of 'official' LOS but in real life would be targetable, like onto the center of a forested hillside within plain view. Yeh, that could be considered a game limitation. As to actual 'real' indirect fire, one reason on-board indirect fire wasn't included in CM is simply that most high-velocity tank fire would fall miles outside of a typical size CM map! One of the few exceptions to that might be the low-velocity 75mm pack howitzer on the comparatively rare M8 GMC. That would've been alot of extra coding to do something you can otherwise do using off-map artillery and a spotter. German tanks didn't typically have indirect fire equipment. For one thing they didn't have the ammo stockpiles to waste. I believe crews didn't even get trained for indirect gun laying. I recall a story that one JagdTiger crewmember happened to be an ex-artilleryman. He borrowed a gunner's quadrant off a neighboring artillery battery and was able to do some pretty spectacular damage to a nearby town. Early war most German tanks do have radios in the game. But this isn't like the Eastern Front. The Brits and U.S. kept up pretty well with Germans radio-wise, and late war the U.S. thoroughly outclassed the Germans with their radio technology. After all, we had most of their top scientists working at MIT as refugees! [ March 29, 2006, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I know that the NZ tankers in Italy performed indirect fire missions, but IIRC their tanks were not outfitted for indirect fire from the get go. They had to be jury rigged by the division, and it seemed to work reasonably well. So, while it may be true that some Shermans came with indirect fire equipment (I do not know one way or the other), I can state with certainty that not all of them were. Can dig the appropriate link out the NZ official histories if anyone is interested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 NZ had tanks in WW2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Originally posted by McIvan: I know that the NZ tankers in Italy performed indirect fire missions, but IIRC their tanks were not outfitted for indirect fire from the get go. They had to be jury rigged by the division, and it seemed to work reasonably well. So, while it may be true that some Shermans came with indirect fire equipment (I do not know one way or the other), I can state with certainty that not all of them were.I think you might be confusing the M-10s with the Shermans. M-10s were never intended to do any indirect firing, and so were built that way. When the Kiwis got some of the early M-10s they pretty much immediately decided they wanted to do some indirect firing with them ( The same thing happened when they got the towed 6-pr). In order to be able to do that they painted 360 graticles around the interior of the turret (if you've seen the photos of the RMSG Centaur 'Hunter' you'll know what I'm on about), and I think they also grabbed some quadrants from a 25-pr gun bty. Then they did a bit of training, and hey-presto, the A-Tk gunners had found themselves a new leash of life. Erm. That is rather a long way of say that McIvans point about not all Shermans being delivered with indirect kit may or may-not be true, but I'm pretty sure he has got his stories mixed up The relevant OH is here. Jon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Originally posted by zmoney: NZ had tanks in WW2? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellros Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 US Troops also used M10's in an indirect role in NW Europe quite often. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I hate you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 The 10 July 1944 edition of FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery, which I own, devotes an entire chapter, 22 pages in Part I, to Indirect Laying and all of Part II, 101 pages, to Employment of Tanks as Artillery. ISTR that the clinometer in Lend-Lease M4A2s was better than anything the Soviet artillerymen had and was much prized in consequence, this from a piece by Loza, HSU and author of COMMANDING SHERMAN TANKS IN WAR. As for T-34 sighting arrangements, this should help. http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=50〈=en Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 The Russian battlefield site says: The L-11 gun equipped with the TOD-6 telescopic sight and PT-6 periscope panoramic sight. The F-34 gun equipped with TOD-7 telescopic sight and PT-7 panoramic sight, later they were replaced with a TMFD-7 telescopic and a PT-4-7 panoramic sight. Command tanks equipped with an additional PT-K panoramic observation sight. nothing muuch there about indirect fire capabilities as far as I can see 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David I Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Stalin O, Dig your sig. Just wish more did. David 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McIvan Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I think JonS must be correct...the description of marking out the M10 turret rings a bell with my somewhat shaky memory. I was thinking of a shoot the Kiwis did with Shermans against Orsogna at 6,500 yards but, upon looking, I can't see a reference to any additional jury-rigged equipment being necessary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Stalin's Organist, You might wish to reconsider your position. That big cylinder on top of, inter alia, the modern M-109 Paladin 155mm SP is a panoramic sight. The links indicate that a panoramic sight is used with artillery. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/panoramic+sight http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/PANORAMICSIGHT If dictionaries aren't your thing, then this should settle the issue. Please see 1608 here. http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/NAVAL-LANDING-GUN.html Grog points for this one? http://cgi.ebay.com/GERMAN-AUSTRIAN-ARTILLERY-PANORAMIC-SIGHT-GOERZ-WWII_W0QQitemZ6576769990QQcategoryZ36049QQcmdZViewItem Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kcat Posted March 30, 2006 Author Share Posted March 30, 2006 wow. Lots of very detailed posts. I don't think I am going to abandon the game. But it is very frustrating to be deprived of a reasonable tactic. To a few comments posted. Wouldn't smoke shells be a different load? I suspect they were not designed to pack the same velocity as AP, and maybe lighter than most HE. As to detailed maps, I did mention several crews had spotted exposed targets. But still could not fire. At this point, my biggest beef, because I could use the smoke in spite of the indirect fire limitations, is the inability to tell my unit to shoot smoke and scoot. I might lose the unit, but maybe they could at least get the job done. It's the Series of misfortunes scenario I am doing. Best so far is tactical defeat. But in a few more moves I would have taken the position at high cost. Had over a Doz units left. Allies had two guns left. At turn 28? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.