Apache Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Given that some scenarios allow spends which include TRPs are there any views as to what a realistic number might be given the time frames and real estate covered by a battle? In CMBO it was suggested to me that 2 is reasonable or 1 per FO. Obviously 15-20 is way OTT. Unfortunately I have to admit to knowing little of the history/tactics in relation to army/division/reg level artillery and it's not really a topic I want to get into too much (like at all). I suspect that placing more than a few well in front of the front line is unlikely but I have heard of artillery being targetted on a force's forward position to allow the batteries to fire to either cover a partial withdrawal or make a mess of any overrun positions. [ October 01, 2002, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Apache ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I've never been a redleg, so the pros can correct me, but from what I've been reading, the number could be highly variable. Probably the biggest factor would have been how long the guns and observers had been in place. In a really fluid situation there would be few or more likely none at all. If they had been in place for a few days, and had the ammo to shoot on ranging in, TRPs could be all over the place. If you are thinking defense, you would place them on assembly areas and routes you expect the enemy to use. If you are thinking attack, you would place them wherever you need to suppress enemy positions. In both cases though, if you are doing your job right, you would also be dropping shells in places you aren't really interested in so as to mask your intentions. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumrox Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 JasonC had a post on TRP's over in the Tips and Tricks section http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001187 He suggests 3-5 per FO for heavy arty and 2-3 per FO for smaller stuff. This was written for CMBO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Very nice summary Michael, we'll have to get you a gunners beret One minor correction though - an FO who has been in position for more than a few hours will have placed targets out all over the place, but won't necessarily have registered more than one or two of them by actual fire. "Silent marking" saves ammo and maintains surprise - would you advance over ground that had a few fresh ranging shell holes and a small FFE cluster on it? As a rough rule of thumb (based on CW/NZ norms): * On defence: approx 8 TRPs per bn frontage, placed in spots as indicated by Michael in the porevious post. * On a mobile advance: approx 1 TRP per bn frontage every 500-750m along the route of advance. (eg, so two bns advancing over 3 kms would have 8 - 12 TRPs in total). Positioning is on or near likely enemy defensive locations and /or objectives. * For a set piece assault: loads of them - one on every identified enemy position, another on each objective, and with more in depth covering likely enemy reinforcement and withdrawal routes. For the two attacking scenarios, some TRPs should be placed so as to provide for the defence of friendlyu elements once they have reached the objectives, so in this case the TRPs will be beyond the objectives covering likely enemy counterattack routes. As a final rule-of-thumb, having TRPs closer than 3-400m apart is generally a waste of time. These are real-world numbers, so will probbly need to be modified for use in CM:BB (or CM:BO for that matter). Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trey Marshall Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 I don't know if TRPs are modeled like this. In field artillery, we use "priority targets" where one target is allocated to main effort maneuver forces. Each battery can have only one active priority target at a time. Basically, the battery "lays" on the target when not engaged in an active mission so when the observer sends "Fire Red!" Red being the Priority target, all the battery has to do is load the shells and fire since data is pre-computed. In the defense, priority targets are normally final protective fires which are linear targets plotted along the most likely enemy avenue of approach. When recieving an order tyo fire the FPF, the battery will fire until the FO requests "Cease Loading." FPFs are stop gap measures to prevent defenses from being overrun. In the attack, priority targets would be plotted in the areas that would have the most impact on the battle. So realistically, you should only have one priority target (TRP) per FO team. As a minor note here, TRPs are used by maneuver forces to designate ground references for direct fire fights while Targets are used by artillery. Anyone in artillery calling targets "TRPs" would receive a good drubbing. Trey [ October 01, 2002, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: Trey Marshall ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Trey, I don't think FPFs are modelled in CM. I think of TRPs as being recorded targets (Victor Tangos in CW parlance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: Very nice summary Michael, we'll have to get you a gunners beret Cool! Should I send you my hat size? One minor correction though - an FO who has been in position for more than a few hours will have placed targets out all over the place, but won't necessarily have registered more than one or two of them by actual fire. "Silent marking" saves ammo and maintains surprise - would you advance over ground that had a few fresh ranging shell holes and a small FFE cluster on it? That's all well and good when you have really good maps and efficient regimental surveying, such as the Commonwealth did in the ETO. I am willing to suppose that the surveying by the Germans may have been not excessively shabby, and the same may have been true of the Soviets as well for all I know. But it was rare, I believe, for anyone to have maps with the necessary accuracy on the Eastern Front. And orientation on the featureless steppes was especially difficult. I am extremely sceptical that silent registration occurred there with any regularity. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Michael, To be honest - I just don't know. My area of concentration has been CW artillery, and I am extrapolating from that. Still - surprise is something all commanders tend to enjoy, and there are few things that ruin that quicker than carefully registering each and every target with fire. One method that can be used is to engage one target, and use taht as a reference for all others within a given radius. To maintain surprise this can even be a null-target. That is, not an enemy position but a prominent landmark near the centre of a complex of targets you will be engaging later. From this engaged target all the other predicted targets can be calculated with much greater confdence (among other things, the registered target takes into account the local met. condiditons). Speaking of maps, I remember reading 'somewhere' (and damned if I can remember where ) that the Germans didn't have much in the way of maps at all for Russia, especially once they got past the border regions. So they took along buttloads of sheets of gridded paper, and in places where there were no maps they would basically draw the map as they went along. The btys would be determined to be at position GR 1234 5678, and then everything else would be taken in reference to that. The OPs were surveyed in accurately, and terrain features would be plotted as and when required. Similarly, of course, the grids of targets would be deducted by the FOOs when required by using basic survey using the OP as the base point (a kind of polar engagement I suppose). Regards JonS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Jon, I have every confidence that you are right as far as that goes, but it still seems like second best to me. No doubt good enough to render the results recorded in history, but still nothing like what the Commonwealth and Americans were accustomed to. I still have a hunch that where greater precision was a necessity, the registrations were shot in mixed with dummy registrations to try to mislead the opposition as to your intentions. That too would be second best in a way since it would still give away what part of the front you were interested in, unless you had a lot of ammo and guns to use setting up dummy registrations all up and down the front. But then, soldiering is full of compromises and make-dos, yes? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Michael Originally posted by Michael emrys: ... No doubt good enough to render the results recorded in history, but still nothing like what the Commonwealth and Americans were accustomed to ...Well, using silent registration combined with a registration or a witness point is the way we used to do it on defence. For Testing an FOs Quick Fireplan* things were a bit different though. We would engage and record the three en. posns. while the cut-offs would just be predicted. The most time was spent getting onto the first target - after that its usually a quick switch to each subsequent target, with much less adjustment required. Still had to go flat knackers to get it all done within the time allowed. ...But then, soldiering is full of compromises and make-dos, yes?...Yup. Regards JonS * FOs Quick FP: # one bty. supporting a coy. quick attack. # Three engaged targets plus two on call. # ?40? minutes until H-Hour A BCs fireplan was similar, but a step up (3 btys supporting a bn atk, loads of tgts, not much more time.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: The most time was spent getting onto the first target - after that its usually a quick switch to each subsequent target, with much less adjustment required.That jibes with what I've been reading. BTW, if you're not already familiar with it, George Blackburn's "Guns" trilogy has quite a bit of description of wartime procedures, especially the second and third volumes. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 Hmmmmmm. Got some calculations to do then. Not sure if it woulf be better to work on a per FO basis or try to calculate a bn/coy ratio? While FPFs are perhaps not the intention of TRPs they could still be used as such. Just for my own rule of thumb I could proably use something like 1-2 per FO forward of the lines and the same on the victory flags, perhaps doubling or even trebling the forward allowance (and cancelling the rear of course) on an assault? Does seem to fit in with JasonCs thoughts on TRPs too. I did use to think that using just two TRPs was pretty useless in CMBO, even with the best thought out placing there were still too many other routes and staging areas to cover. Made placing them a toss of the coin job. I do try to keep it fairly accurate so wouldn't want to be going OTT with them though. Unless I thought I might lose Thanks for the info. Any other thoughts appreciated. [ October 02, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Apache ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts