Artillery smoke spotting round and LOS

[Darkmath]

Surely, this may have been already discussed, but my search does'nt answer to my questions.

The only way an artillery stike is on target is to target a on LOS point.

If I use smoke spotting round behind a hill in the way that the target point is out of LOS from the FO point of view , the smoke can be seen above the top of the hill. So, the smoke round is not out of LOS for the FO.

But, is CM still consider the FFE as blind targetting in this case?

Another question

In reality, were the smoke shell commonly used during WW2 as a artillery signalling tool?

[ July 24, 2006, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[Joachim]

Yes, discussed often. You need to see the impact point, not the effect.

Dunno about the second question but I guess it was discussed before.

Gruß

Joachim

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Joachim:

Dunno about the second question but I guess it was discussed before.

It was, and the consensus of informed opinion was, IIRC, that smoke rounds were not normally used for spotting. I'd guess that idea crept into the gaming world's consciousness via Squad Leader. I can't say what Avalon Hill based it on.

Michael

[JonS]

Smoke was commonly used as a signalling tool though (as distinct from an adjustment tool). Well, the RA used it that way a lot at any rate.

Bonus question: define 'a lot' in this context

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Bonus question: define 'a lot' in this context

More than once?

The US Army used colored smoke to mark their own positions when an air strike was going in, but that was from smoke grenades. This was in NWE; I don't know about the other theaters, but I suppose it might have been done there too.

Michael

[The_Enigma]

Just outter intrest, am sure that i read somewhere that smoke rounds launched from the arty during ww2 was WP rounds ... is this correct?

[JonS]

some of them.

BTW:

launched = wrong

fired = correct

[The_Enigma]

lol same differance

anyhoo thkz for the info

[Other Means]

A smoke round would have different ballistic properties wouldn't it? Therefore not good for adjusting.

Originally posted by the_enigma:

lol same differance

anyhoo thkz for the info

Speaking of ballistic *places fingers in ears, puts sunglasses on*

[The_Enigma]

Originally posted by Other Means:

A smoke round would have different ballistic properties wouldn't it? Therefore not good for adjusting.

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

lol same differance

anyhoo thkz for the info

Speaking of ballistic </font>

[Darkmath]

So, out of LOS target point but on LOS spotting round effect (smoke,blast)landing in the better case on this target point would be

still considered as out of LOS.

In reality, can the artillery spotter adjust on target the fire mission following the observation (that is on LOS in CM terms)of the blast or the smoke of the spotting round?

[ July 24, 2006, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Other Means:

A smoke round would have different ballistic properties wouldn't it? Therefore not good for adjusting.

True, but it is different in known ways, so can still be used (although not ideal). Also, the smoke plume can be used as a point-of-aim*. It is useful in terrain with limited LOS, of if you don't know where the feck you are (eg, jungle or bocage).

Jon

* In a similar vein, the RA used air-burst ranging in the desert. A gun would fire a round fuzed to detonate about 20m in the air. Two observers on the front, but in seperate - known and surveyed - locations, would observe the fall of shot and shoot bearings to it. Using basic triangulation they could figure out where the round was when it went off. This method was primarily of use in the flat desert.

In a second similar vein the Germans in Normandy used the barrage balloons over the beaches as a reference point and point-of-aim. They couldn't see the beaches directly, but figured out the rather obvious point that the closest ballons were probably directly on the beaches, and fired their artillery accordingly. Once the British figured out what was going on they got rid of the balloons.

[John Kettler]

Darkmath,

As clearly stated in Treeburst155's CM Artillery synopsis over on Tips & Tricks, nothing matters when it comes to delivering observed fire (sans TRP)

except LOS from the FO to the aimpoint at the instant the first spotting round is fired. If LOS exists to the aimpoint then, the fire mission will be on target. I know it seems counterintuitive and maybe even ridiculous or upsetting, but that's the way it's implemented in the current three CM games.

Normal procedure is for the FO to supply target coordinates, wait for the fire direction center to acknowledge receiving and accepting the fire mission (doesn't always happen in real life), wait to be informed the spotting round has been fired and is coming, then watch to see where it lands relative to the target, calling back corrections to bracket the target to a hundred yards in range while being right on it

in deflection. If he can't see it (or sometimes hear it, as in fog or reduced visibility), he calls "Lost" and asks for another round. Sometimes, he'll bring it in fairly close to himself just so he knows where it is, then walk successive rounds toward the target. Once he's got it where he wants it, he calls "On target. Fire for Effect!"

What goes out at that point is function of target type, target size (FO supplied info), fire support assets available and in range, and ammo on hand. It can be fire it now or not until the FO specifically calls for it, known as "at my command."

Usually, it's so many rounds per gun per firing unit, as in "battery volley, six rounds." But if the enemy's swarming the position, not only can the FO, if ammo permits, change the rate of fire from deliberate (slow) to harass or keep heads down, or sustained fire (a pace the gunners can keep up for hours), to burst fire, in which the guns are loaded and fired to their limit and that of the crews. This is an all out effort to put steel downrange fast. An FO can also in real life put a fire mission in progress on hold by calling "Check fire!" Once the supporting unit gets this command, it ceases fire while maintaining its current aimpoint. This order is especially useful when a friendly unit blunders into the strike zone and it is urgent to keep it from being blasted by its own artillery. When the fire mission's done,

the FO commands "Cease Fire!" In real life, the FO can register targets and store them with the FDC, being then able to call down fire on them at will, since all the firing calculations have already been done. In CM, though, it takes TRPs, and they're not available in meeting engagements.

Classically, for the most areal coverage, the guns would fire open sheaf, such that the adjacent frag patterns barely meet. The common pattern, though, is the parallel sheaf, in which the gun trajectories from a given unit are parallel to one another. This gives a denser frag pattern but at the cost of reduced ground coverage. When the FO really wants to kill something and has it well located, he can call a point target and fire a converging sheaf in which the guns all angle in to hit one small space. This how you smash pillboxes with big guns. In CM, though, there is no converged sheaf, no ability to regulate rate of fire, no ability to conform the impact pattern to the target's orientation, no "at my command," and the closest we get to check fire is to move the target line so as to induce a delay while somewhat reducing the rate of shell expenditure. If you cancel the mission, the delay clock starts all over again. Unless you have VT, fuzing is considered impact, with zero delay. This makes it tough to kill pillboxes with artillery, and it hurts the Germans, who liked to use their rangefinder equipped 88s to put mechanically time fuzed airburst fire over crossings, assembly areas, Allied occupied towns, tank attacks with infantry aboard, etc. They used to strip tank descent equipped Russian tanks this way before killing the tanks themselves.

CMBO has the simplest, most forgiving, and unrealistically effective artillery procedure modeling (shells practically laser guided and blind fire can be quite accurate). It's much more demanding in CMBB, and blind fire seldom hits. If you're not paying attention to what's been said about how the FO really works, you can waste shells very easily and accomplish nothing. CMBB added a new mode, called prep fire. This allows the big, long delay weapons to get into the game

and accurately reflects what the Russians, burdened with often low quality and few communication resources, had to do with much of their artillery. CMAK, IMO, takes things too far. Given the FO LOS issue at first spotting round firing time, it's easy in the desert and elsewhere for dust, caused by any number of things, to block LOS and muck up the shoot. This makes bombardments problematic, since the dust(explicitly modeled in CMAK, but only in building collapse for the other two) thrown up breaks LOS. In reality, if I'm pounding a town effectively, I simply tell my fire support to keep it coming on the same coordinates as before. I don't have to see the ground in order to aim, either, for I can adjust off the dirt, smoke, trees, buildings, etc. being blown way up into the air, just as naval gunners did using shell splashes.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ July 24, 2006, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[SgtMuhammed]

One problem with trying to use smoke as a spotting round (in RL not game time) is that it doesn't just go straight up from the point of impact. If you have temperature inversions, or good tree cover smoke can hug the ground for quite a ways before rising.

What was not uncomon was for observers to call fire on a known point and then adjust from there even if they couldn't see what was being hit. Of course when you can't see what was being hit you can't make very good BDA unless you are firing at a fuel dump or something that will give you lots of secondaries.

You have to remember though, that ammo is not unlimited. Smoke is much more useful as a concealing round and as there was never enough (manuever commanders would travel under a constant smoke screen if given the choice, even in garrison) it had to be used for maximum effect.

[Darkmath]

Thank you for your replies.

As John Kettler mentionned it, I regret the time when BTS generously gave us 14 inch spotter in CMBO ; totally unbalanced for a CM battle but nice to see . I don't understand why they get rid of naval gun in CMBB or CMAK; it is better to afford them, just for "what if" case (well, the "what if" should be applied to other unit (how about Volksgrenadier heavy SMG or Maus in CMAK? ), but it is too late now ).

I wonder what blast value should have a 16 inch HE shell if it was included in CMAK?

BTW, in RL, "out of LOS/TRP" fire mission would be as randomly inaccurate as depicted in CM?

[ July 26, 2006, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

[John Kettler]

Darkmath,

IMO, the naval guns should be in all three games, for shore bombardments figured in all three, though not always from battleships. Also, naval guns typically fired by turrets, which were often triple

gun mounts, whereas the standard CM battery is four guns and two for certain larger ones.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Also, naval guns typically fired by turrets, which were often triple

gun mounts, whereas the standard CM battery is four guns and two for certain larger ones.

One the other hand, when doing shore bombardment, using only one gun out of a ship's entire battery was common practice.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

Really? I didn't know that. Hast du eine link,

bitte? The only personal data point I have on this is from a family friend who was on a U.S. antiaircraft cruiser during the Korean War. Said cruiser really unloaded on a massed large North Korean/Chinese (don't recall which) formation by firing 5" VT at maximum rate, basically destroying it in the valley where it was. FO said it was a "charnel house."

When Allied warships beat back the German armored counterattack at Anzio, that was certainly not with each ship firing one gun. The accounts I've seen of Anzio are a much better fit to firing every available tube as fast as possible. I used to have an FMC history of naval gunfire support study done to help make the argument for the Major Caliber Lightweight Gun program which could easily

answer all sorts of questions we might have. I believe, though, I passed it to my brother to support the development of the Command at Sea wargames.

For destruction of a known location hardened target, though, deliberate fire from one gun makes perfect sense.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

JK:

Didn't say it never happened. But general practice for extended shore bombardment seems to have been as I described. That came as a surprise to me too.

A brief search turned up this photo. I have others in books and magazines.

Michael