Spotting Small Arms Fire: Too Easy?

[Determinant]

Here's the thing: Take a random dip into most military histories written post the introduction of smokeless powder for small arms. And off the top of my head:

Boer War - Colenso

WWI - Dorsets on the Somme

WWII - Platoon 18

Post War - Murder of JFK in Dallas

Modern - 'Black Hawk Down' as told to Mark Bowden

In all accounts through the period there is one constant: people are getting hit and nobody has a freaking idea where the fire is coming from.

How often in CMBO have you taken small arms fire that has hit your little pixel guys and not been able to identify the source?

Fair enough to spot AFVs firing main armament (or God forbid a recoiless rifle) but all you have for small arms is the muzzle flash and some crack and thump. If you are standing in line of sight of an unsuppressed firer and you can't see his muzzle flash then the first you will know about it is when your mates start falling over. And you won't know why...

Don't get me wrong. I love CMBO as is - but I do think it is unrealistically easy to spot SA fire - especially say coming down a keyhole into a flank. Perhaps there should be a 'realistic option' in a future release where you get killed without knowing how or why and everything takes ten times as long.

Just to play once so as to appreciate Sherman's 'War is Hell' quote.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Good point.

[offtaskagain]

It also seems a bit easy to me too. Especially long range HMG fire. Muzzle flash during the day doesn't even exist so you could only get general location by sound. Even then that echoes which throws of location estimation too. The only way i've ever noticed at the rifle range is to look for debris kicked up by muzzle blast. .30-'06 class guns kick up the leaves in front of a bench rest for a good 5 feet or so. I'd imagine dust would do it as well though i've never shot in a really dry area.

[MajorBooBoo]

The US forces (someone MUST have been getting a kickback), used non-smokeless powder in their small arms in WWII. This continued into the Korean War (mostly because they had stocks of it). I dont know if there is a game that uses this info (maybe panzer elite).

The US MGs in korea were limited in tactics because of this. They would develop a cloud after awhile and the enemy could mortar the position out of existance. You could follow the tracers back to teh cloud of smoke. BARs took on a new role as mobile MG substitute so that the real MGs could lay in wait.

[Andrew H.]

I think that this spotting issue has a couple of sub-issues wound around it.

First, if you Play Green Troops , you'll find that things are spotted less easily. (In general, playing green troops leads to results that jibe more accurately with a lot of unit histories, including MGs breaking up attacks at a range of ~500 meters. I think that BTS's plan to have the standard unit level be green/regular (rather than regular/vet) will help with some of this.

Second, generally, I wonder how much of an issue this is for squads (as opposed to sharpshooters or MGs. I have read accounts of troops taking fire and not being able to tell where it's coming from, but I had the impression that this was more like harassing fire. In a normal CM type situation, when a squad fires at another squad, spotting should occur pretty quickly, since you have (1) 9-12 people firing, including a LMG or equivalent; and (2) you have 9-12 people trying to figure out who fired. In a situation like this, it's likely that the firing squad would be spotted pretty quickly.

I think that there are a couple of exceptions that would apply to the general principle of quick spotting. First, if one unit has great cover and the other unit does not, esp. if the other unit has a compromised spotting ability, it should be harder to spot the concealed unit. This should include, say, a running squad being fired at by a well concealed squad, especially if the firing squad is shooting from a flank. If the running squad is suppressed, it should be even more difficult to spot the firing squad.

I know to some extent CMBO does model this, though; I can't really judge how realistically, though. My green troops often have trouble spotting enemy units, though.

Also, absolute spotting is going to create some lack of realism, and there doesn't seem to be a way around this.

[Determinant]

I think you have a good point with Green Troops. I am obviously not that much in love with 'reality bites' because funny old thing I tend never to use them. Shame on me!

But I do think that the problem of spotting SA fire is a more general problem than not being able to spot snipers.

If you will forgive me to quote from the Kirke Report (which, wrong war but full of lessons of general application, was the British Army's report on lessons learnt from WWI) says the following:

'In South Africa (Boer War) we had a vast superiority in artillery - yet at Colenso and in the other battles of 1899 our guns were entirely ineffective against the concealed Boer marksmen. In the late war (WWI) the concealed machine gun dominated the battlefield. It is to be noted, however, that in both wars the defensive power of small arms fire depended on concealment - once the defenders' small arm weapons are located their sting has been drawn, and the balance of advantage reverts to the attack with its possession of the initiative and power of manoeuvre'

So once spotted small arms defenders can be defeated by manoeuvre or by fire power. But can they be spotted?

Here is Sydney Jary, a young platoon commander with 4th Bn Somerset Light Infantry, on that fateful August Bank Holiday Monday 6 Aug 44 (Michael Wittman met his death on this day I believe)in front on Mt Pincon in Normandy:

'Any movement by 'B' Company to our front brought down instant and concentrated Spandau (MG42 HMG) fire. The same applied to us, a few hundred yards to their rear. Fortunately the enemy did not seem to have any anti-tank guns so our armoured friends were safe, but the fact remained that about 12 spandaus had halted a battalion attack without our locating even one of them.'

So we have a battalion attack pinned down all day by concentrated SA fire and not spotting anyone. Realistic perhaps but I don't want to play a game like that.

I am not sure if there is an answer to any of this. Is it possible to capture the texture of an infantry battle within the constraints of a game? CMBO feels right to me in its portrayal of armour on the battlefield but the infantry don't seem quite right somehow - too easy to spot and then too tough once spotted and engaged...

It will be interesting to see how the grunts fare in CMBB. Think of the long defence of the fortress of Brest Litovsk; Von Mellenthin's account of the Russians in the Balka to the rear of 3 Mot Div. Tough soldiers, well camouflaged and dug in, fighting a determined defensive battle.

Combat Mission can model a wedge of big cats crashing into hordes of oncoming T34/76s at Prokhorovka. But can it finesse the small stuff? Can anything? Would it still be a game worth playing with extreme realism settings?

[SGT_Gold]

Originally posted by MajorBooBoo:

The US forces (someone MUST have been getting a kickback), used non-smokeless powder in their small arms in WWII. This continued into the Korean War (mostly because they had stocks of it). I dont know if there is a game that uses this info (maybe panzer elite).

The US MGs in korea were limited in tactics because of this. They would develop a cloud after awhile and the enemy could mortar the position out of existance. You could follow the tracers back to teh cloud of smoke. BARs took on a new role as mobile MG substitute so that the real MGs could lay in wait.

The US went to smokeless powder after the Spanish Mausers caused them so much trouble in Cuba. Any large volume of fire using 'smokeless' powder will leave a discolored cloud hanging around the fighting position. The further away you are the easier it is to see it.