Soviet artillery modelled inaccurately in CMBB?

[Scott B]

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

Disagree. All pre-planned (except mortars), but each phase of the plan is implemented on a signal (codeword on field phone, radio, rocket lights etc).<hr></blockquote>

Kip said that, not me. Although as an aside, mortars can also participate in the timed fire missions. Don't get me wrong - Soviet artillery was used more effectively than German artillery, but I haven't seen evidence showing it was as responsive at the unit level.

Scott

[Scott B]

Actually, while we're at it, I have a more relevant question: what ways could a basic and appropriate system for fire plans be implemented into CM?

Personally, I think just adding TRPs (and as a step further, giving a player 'orders' to conduct certain fire missions in a player made scenario) for attackers would be the fast solution for scenario designers. In QBs... well, I guess I really don't care as much in QBs whether that makes it in or not.

Scott

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scott B:

Personally, I think just adding TRPs (and as a step further, giving a player 'orders' to conduct certain fire missions in a player made scenario) for attackers would be the fast solution for scenario designers. <hr></blockquote>

I have been experimenting with this - the way to enforce the order is to make the spotter a Conscript (if present at the start) or give him a higher quality rating if he enters late in the scenario. With a TRP you then essentially force the player to fire the plan, instead of using the FOO flexibly. In theory at least, I have no idea if it works in practice.

[Grisha]

Taking all that's been said, and placing it into the CMBB environment would probably result in two situations:

• Large to massive indirect artillery support, but on a preplanned basis. Delay times are not an issue, since it's all preplanned.
• Small indirect artillery support, comprising mostly of 82mm or 120mm mortar, with maybe a 76mm gun battery thrown in. It could be either planned, or on-call with delays being comparable to German times.

Simply put, Corps level artillery, and up(152mm+), was never really used as on-call by the Soviets in WWII, so having FO's for this purpose is unrealistic.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

There clearly is a consensus that a move towards artillery barrages, fixed in both location and timing, zero delay, would be the most realistic way to model Soviet artillery. By giving the Prep Barrage spotter the ability to set a barrage to start at a time other than turn one would be a big move towards that.

Scott feels the use of TRP would help, and cunning scenario designers such as Andreas are working on this principle. However, to my mind this is a “fix”, and not really very appealing because it is not historically accurate. Realism, realism and realism are the priority, for me.

When it comes to the question of Soviet, called fire delays we part company. Lets start by just getting Kursk its self out of the way. As things stand, given the figures from Moon, if one plays a Kursk scenario in CMBB the Soviet delays will be historically inaccurate. That’s a shame.

Post-Kursk Scott has made a good case of arguing that Soviet Army and Front level artillery would have longer delays than German because they would not have been accustomed to firing such missions, it was a rare event for them.

When it comes to post-Kursk divisional level artillery, including the 122mm howitzers, I still find it hard to believe that the Soviets took a backward step after Kursk, whatever the operational environment. The same, or improved SOPs, will have been used post-Kursk, in my view.

I agree with much that Grisha wrote, but to “ban all” 152mm CM type called fire would be but tough.

All the best,

Kip.

[Grisha]

Kip,

I really doubt that anything above Divisional level artillery was available for on-call fire with the Soviets during exploitation. And even for divisional level, delay times would've probably been a little longer than German times, because it seems that the Soviets, even in 1945, were averse to using radio due to fears of counterbattery fire. Thus, most contact was still made by land lines. Now, the Soviets were pretty flexible with land lines, laying them right behind a front echelon's advance via artillery FOs, but many times those FOs had no maps, and were in reality more intelligence scouts than anything else. However, in a pinch they could call in artillery, and did, though it took a while to get it all triangulated.

But, all is not lost, because one aspect of Soviet doctrine that did improve significantly was aviation, or ground-air liaison. Shturmoviks, Pe-2s and Tu-2s were available en masse and on-call during exploitation, and VVS liaison officers were assigned to forward units with radios to assist in directing air strikes against German targets. By 1944, the VVS rules the skies over any soviet schwerpunkt area.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

[Grisha]

double post

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

[kipanderson]

Grisha, hi,

You wrote,

“I really doubt that anything above Divisional level artillery was available for on-call fire with the Soviets. And even for divisional level, delay times would've probably been a little longer than German times, because it seems that the Soviets, even in 1945, were averse to using radio due to fears of counterbattery fire. Thus, most contact was still made by land lines. Now, the Soviets were pretty flexible with land lines, laying them right behind a front echelon's advance via artillery FOs, but more often than not those FOs had no maps, and were in reality more intelligence scouts than anything else. However, in a pinch they could call in artillery, and did, though it took a while to get it all triangulated.”

I agree with much of what you say, but, as always, not all.

When it comes to the delay times it is worth remembering that the Kursk times I have given “happened”. Now the times in the Kursk report are longer than German times of the period, assuming the times in CMBO are even nearly accurate, which I am happy to assume they are. The times Moon gives for the delay in CMBB are not “a little longer” as you would like. They are double. They are so long, that in defence at moving targets, they are unusable. 4-7 minutes against TRPs and 8-10 for normal CM type called fire. All this would be fine; I would be more than happy to go with it, “if” it were historically accurate. BTS may have sources that give data for the delay times the Soviet had. If they have, it would be the friendly thing to share their sources. I have shared mine. However, the assumption that Soviet, called artillery fire, SOPs “peaked” at Kursk, took a backward step post-Kursk, is an assumption I do not share. The Soviets got better at everything else, they were on a learning curve at Kursk, and are quite open about it in the report.

The Kursk data is clear, 1.5-3 minutes against TRPs, 4-7 for normal CM spotter type fire. Sometimes against TRPs, 40-90 seconds. Very much less than the times in CMBB, on the info given us so far.

Soviet CAS would be great, but is not a replacement for inaccurate artillery delay times. I know for a fact BTS have contacts in Russia, as they do everywhere with the internet. They may have better sources than the Kursk report. What are their sources for delay times?

My only wish is that “everything”, not just the slope affects of Soviet APC rounds, should be as realistic as possible. I am puzzled that the Kursk data is not accepted until something better comes along.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Understand your point about maps, but that will have applied to all sides on the Eastern Front. The Germans could not provide enough of anything to their troops, and the idea that they always had the correct maps, during all those long, hurried retreats is something I doubt. I guess on both sides adopted methods to try and deal with this.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

[Scott B]

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

Scott feels the use of TRP would help, and cunning scenario designers such as Andreas are working on this principle. However, to my mind this is a “fix”, and not really very appealing because it is not historically accurate. Realism, realism and realism are the priority, for me.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I'm not totally happy with the TRP answer myself, but it'd be a strong step in the right direction. I'd actually shift TRPs on the attack a bit, such that the delay is unaffected by whether the TRP is in LOS, but the sheaf is, contrary to the current model in CMBO. Still not perfect, but requires considerably less coding than full implementation of a pre-battle artillery fire plan system.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>When it comes to post-Kursk divisional level artillery, including the 122mm howitzers, I still find it hard to believe that the Soviets took a backward step after Kursk, whatever the operational environment. The same, or improved SOPs, will have been used post-Kursk, in my view.<hr></blockquote>

That's probably fair. Soviet divisional artillery in a prepared defense should probably perform as well or better than at Kursk during Summer '43 through the end of the war. I'm not sure exactly how much response times should change from 1941 to 1945, but I do believe the improvements from 1941 to 1943 should be much more significant than those from Kursk to the end of the war.

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

Large to massive indirect artillery support, but on a preplanned basis. Delay times are not an issue, since it's all preplanned.<hr></blockquote>

Slight amendment - I'd include "starting November 1942 and increasing in mass throughout the rest of the war." But this is only because I'd like to expand this to include the entire CMBB time period.

Anyway, back to the Kursk times: They are useful and the game should reflect them in appropriate conditions. It is clearly faulty to throw them out entirely, but it is equally bad to make them out to mean more than they say they mean. They are appropriate for specific conditions at a specific time. It is reasonable to infer that for battles occuring later than Kursk but under similar conditions that the artillery response times will be similar. However, it is not reasonable to argue that the artillery response times will be similar under different conditions.

Some of the important considerations for the timeliness of Soviet fire missions at Kursk that may or may not be present in other battles should certainly have significant effects on artillery delay times, particularly as the Soviet system was intended to grant greater flexibility at a higher level of command than will be represented in Combat Mission battles.

Scott

[Grisha]

Kip,

I don't doubt the times you stated for Soviet artillery response during Kursk. I'm just saying that once Soviet operations became offensive it created conditions very different from those at Kursk. On-call divisional artillery during Kursk was probably a lot faster in response than on-call artillery during the Belorussian campaign after the breakthrough phase. Up until the beginning of the exploitation phase, I'm sure response times were similar, if not better. But for a mobile group pushing ahead during exploitation it was probably a lot worse - if artillery was even available.

I guess it really depends on whether it's a set piece battle, or a mobile action. Set piece assaults would have it all there, most likely where it was needed most. Mobile actions would be a different story, because once mobile groups pushed through the breach a lot of the artillery would be left behind.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

First off, Kip... don't be doing those disclaimers again. You make us blush Seriously, your concerns are valid and well expressed. No need to be sheepish about that, unless you fear Mace's well deserved reputation with said animal

Anyhoo...

I think it all boils down to what type of artillery is being used in a given situation in what role. As others have said, the Kursk data you cited is not to be dismissed, but like so many other things it must not be taken out of context and seperated from other data.

The Soviet Artillery arm underwent major changes throughout the war in terms of numbers, C&C abilities, skill, and employment. So we must keep in mind that what might be relevant to one period of time (say Kursk era) might not be applicable either earlier or later.

The general trend was that as the war went on the Soviet artillery arm grew in size, importance, and abilities (especially when benchmarked against "western" practices).

Soviet artillery fire missions can be summed up broadly as such:

1. Operational - preplanned fire missions which were designed to impact enemy forces with maximum shock and destruction in order to achieve a very specific and significant (in scope) goal. This was done by bringing the biggest guns in the largest numbers possible to bear on the target in the shortest period of time.

On the assault it was to demolish known fortified positions and disrupt lines of communication. On the defensive it was to smash assembly areas during an attack or generally cause casualties in anticipation of future action.

These types of attacks were generally planned well in advance and were highly inflexible once the plan was finalized. Such attacks could last for hours without letup. Obviously this type of Artillery attack is outside of CM's scope since there would be no point in playing out such a scenario (don't believe me? Go into the editor and give the Allies a huge number of FOs and let them have at a typical defending German force )

Large assets found only in dedicated artillery units would be assigned in significant numbers. Lower level artillery would also take part to satisfy more local goals in accordance with the larger Operational goal.

2. Tactical, Defensive - When time and resources allowed, the defending Soviet forces would document the terrain and enemy positions in front of it to be used for fire missions.

Specific artillery resources would be allocated to the sector and would be assigned to whatever missions were developed. Generally this would be along the lines of zeroing in on possible assembly areas, roads, artillery positions, fortifications, etc. When conditions were met, such as an enemy force gathering in a suspected assembly area, the commander (generally Battalion I think) would call for the preplanned fire mission to be executed according to plan.

Generally only those assets which were organic to the particular formation would be available. However, additional assets (heavier or not) could also be assigned in unusual circumstances. While the missions could be executed on the fly, they were largely inflexible in terms of what guns were available for action. For example, if the sector was not assigned much artillery it couldn't quickly aquire more support in the event something unexpected happened.

3. Tactical, Offensive - organic and assigned artillery was used to neutralize enemy resistance imediately in front of the attacking units. Sometimes this was done in conjunction with Operational fire, but it could be done on the fly during or after a breakthrough. However, it was generally done with direct fire from Self Propelled guns and light artillery (guns and mortars). When time or coordination permitted, indirect fire could be arranged for as well. But this was generally only possible after the front stabilized to some degree.

Hopefully my definitions jibe with what others here know. Now... on to the implications of this in CM.

There are three primary concerns in CMBB that must be dealt with:

1. Availability - what the chances of a low level unit, such as a Battalion, would have certain assets at its disposal in the first place. The bigger the asset, the less the chance. Going along with the course of the war bigger became more common, but only significantly so in the final phase of the war (i.e. post Bagration).

2. Employment - what type of restrictions/limitations did doctrine, C&C, or otherwise impose on artillery use. The circumstances of use are critical in determining how much these restrictions/limitations imposed on practical issues critical to a low level simulation like CM.

3. Delays - sorta tied in with the above, but since this is the key factor being discussed here I thought I would give it its own place in the spotlight Escentially, given everything above... how long would it take x piece of artillery from y formation to fire on z location in a given situation.

While I do not suppose CMBB's system is perfect, I do suggest that it can adequately simulate the reality of Soviet artillery use during the course of the war.

Availability of a particular type of artillery is largely a function of battle size, battle type, and Rarity (if played with). Don't expect to get guns greater than 122mm in a 500 point QB Meeting Engagement in 1942 for example!

Employment is partially taken care of by the above, but not entirely. So there are other things for the Soviet player (or any other for that matter!) to deal with, such as wire or radio based FOs, location of FOs, etc. While our simulation of wire based FOs is far from perfect, it basically does what it needs to do. You can't run wire based FOs around the map willy nilly like radio ones. We have also reduced the speed of radio based FOs as well, so that should be an unpleasent shocker to some

Now on to delay times...

Delay times are based on the level of attachment. While it is true, to some extent, that a FO is a FO is a FO... and therefore call times should not be significantly different. However, because different types of artillery were utilized in different ways, CM must have a way to realistically curtail unrealistic use of assets in roles they were not designed to be used for.

Basically, this amounts to a rather simple artillery system:

1. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be seen on the battlefield to begin with.

2. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be usefull during the course of the battle, due to delays, unless it is fired either on Turn 1 (prepatory bombardment) or at a TRP (preplanned fire mission). In other words, the more the player deviates from standard Soviet artillery practices... the more he will have to pay for it in terms of C&C delays.

3. Since FOs are generally connected by wire and not radio (even as late as 1945), further restrictions are natural in terms of flexible utilization of FOs.

The same works in reverse, of course, for smaller and more organic artillery. This means that 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same. And of course, SP and artillery capable of Line of Sight direct fire are both common (in general) and not restricted by much of anything.

Sheesh... what a long post Well, basically that is it. We think we have a system which, although not perfect, adequately reflects the reality of Soviet artillery use in WWII during the different phases of the conflict. I'll attempt to answer a few follow ups as I am sure there will be some!

Steve

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by kipanderson on the first page:

... What I mean by this is that the same battery cannot do both in a given game of CM. Nor in WW2 could a real life battery, as I understand things. In WW2 if a given battery was tasked to fire a General Support mission according to a given Fireplan between, say, 0900 and 1100 on a given day, then that is all it did between 0900 and 1100. However, at 1101 it may have been tasked to fire a Direct Support mission in support of a given FO, CM spotter. What WW2 artillery could not do, as I understand it, is be engaged in firing a General Support mission according to a given Fireplan, and then half way through, suddenly fire in support of a given FO/CM spotter because some better target had come up...<hr></blockquote>

Hi All,

sorry to come in so late, and unfortunately I don't have much to offer, but I may be able to clear up the question implicit in the above snip.

In CW practice - and I assume US too since so much was copied from each other - all batterys involved in a fireplan would have definite taskings for the duration of the fireplan, and they could not deviate from the plan without explicit directions to do so from the FO, which in mst cases would only amount to holding the fire on a certain target for a bit longer, or speeding the plan ahead a bit if the attack was going well.

This leaves the problem of how to cope with 'pop-up targets'. Since all batterys are working to the plan, how will these be engaged. Well, some batterys (usually the heavier, longer ranged ones) would be what is know as "super-imposed". They would follow another batterys plan, hitting this target for so long, then that one for a bit, etc, basically thickening the fire on those targets. However, if an opportunity target appeared, then the super-imposed batterys could be targetted onto it with no loss of effectiveness of the overall fireplan as the base batterys are still firing at their original targets.

In this way, none of the batterys are left around, waiting for targets to appear, and when targets do appear, they can be quickly and decisively engaged.

Hope this helps.

Regards

JonS

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

Thanks for taking the time to reply. And I will spare you the long disclaimers in future, but still feel guilty when I criticise you lot! You have brainwashed me!

But, of course, as you have seen it does not hold me back for long.

Will get back to you very soon on one or two points, do not worry nothing too long, but today I have a new computer arriving and will be transferring files and such.

If you could give me until Friday morning,New England time, to get a response in to your comments that would be great.

Will have more waffle for you to read tomorrow; now back getting the new machine to run!

All the best,

Kip.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Sounds pretty good to me BTS.

But one question. Why does the 75mm FO for the Germans take as long as a 150mm FO? Considering how you are planning on using the 76mm FO. I find myself making the 75mm FO elite or crack to speed up the arty delay.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

I await your response

Mr. Johnson,

The reason is that in CMBO's timeframe German 75mm artillery (which was a substitute for 105mm) was controlled in the same way 150mm were. Both were organized in the same Artillery Regiment and Battalion structure. So the firing times between each should be the same. This would not be the case at other points in time as earlier German divisions often had some light artillery assets assigned to the Infantry Regiment.

The concept is that the shorter the line of communication, the less likely there is to be delays or problems. In CMBO the Germans have pretty much everything at either Divisional or Corps level, but as I said earlier on in the war this was not the case. This also varries greatly from nation to nation, year to year.

Steve

[Mr. Johnson--]

thanks, I always thought that delay was odd, because I thought the 75mm was very common. But it makes sense they would move away from it, towards bigger stuff and neberlwefers as the war went on.

Kudos for your attention to detail guys.

[Gregory Deych]

All right, here is a summary excerpt from an order issued by staff of 16th Army in February of 1942 to divisions' artillery commanders.

"Artillery support begins at the time agreed upon by the schedule and goes on schedule. Fire is moved from the forward area inward accordingly to agreed-upon flare signal,radio communication or scheduled time. Fire is moved in 100 meter/3 minute increments from one main line to another. Transition from each main line of fire to the next is done upon agreed signal from battalion commander. Fire support norm during transitions is 2 gun or 1 howitzer round per minute. On main line of fire, the norm is 10 gun or 6 howitzer rounds per 4-gun battery per minute. This rate of fire is carried out for the first 10 minutes of bombardment of the main line, the next 10 minutes are allocated same rate as per transitions. After 20 minutes fire mission is over and further support is given upon request, to neutralize points preventing advance of infantry. During successfull advance, fire can be given to the depth of 1.5-2 km."

[Andreas]

Gregory, I think that is describing an ideal situation, and it did not seem to be achieved during operation Mars (follow-on part) and Little Saturn (initial part) ten months later, based on my reading of Glantz. The reason being that supply routes were the unknown quantity in this equation. It seemed to be impossible to move all the needed stuff (supply, C&C, new formations, artillery) on the few roads (if any) that were available, hence the schedule fell by the wayside. Mellenthin also comments on this failure to follow on for the Soviet artillery IIRC. But since we Germans are an obliging lot, we just counter-attacked places on the shoulders of the penetration, still in reach of the original artillery.

[Battlefront.com]

I see nothing in that fireplan that surprises me. It looks quite simple, really, even if they (as Andreas said) weren't in fact able to do this with great certainty all over the place.

The action breaks down into four phases:

Phase 1 - 10 minutes of intensive bombardment at a given rate of fire.

Phase 2 - 10 minutes creeping fire moving in 100m incriments according to a signal.

Phase 3 - remain on call to neutralize imediate areas of resistance.

Phase 4 - remain on call for firing at targets not already identified at a max range of 2km.

Pretty simple stuff, at least in theory. Now... how it relates to CM...

Phases 1 and 2 are what I would call a serious prepatory bombardment. While this could certainly be within CM's scale, it doesn't make for a very interesting game and therefore should be considered already complete before the game starts. CMBB has options for pre-game casualties, so simply crank it up to simulate the intensity you are looking for.

Phases 3 and 4 are what we have been talking about in this thread, and the details from that fire plan don't give any details about how this was accomplished. So no help there

Interesting stuff.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

I will try not to be too longwinded as we will go round in circles; it has all been said above. On some things we simply may not agree, but not many things.

Just to remind everyone, what one may call Steve’s summing up, or conclusions were,

“Basically, this amounts to a rather simple artillery system:

1. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be seen on the battlefield to begin with.

2. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be useful during the course of the battle, due to delays, unless it is fired either on Turn 1 (prepatory bombardment) or at a TRP (preplanned fire mission). In other words, the more the player deviates from standard Soviet artillery practices... the more he will have to pay for it in terms of C&C delays.

3. Since FOs are generally connected by wire and not radio (even as late as 1945), further restrictions are natural in terms of flexible utilization of FOs.

The same works in reverse, of course, for smaller and more organic artillery. This means that 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same. And of course, SP and artillery capable of Line of Sight direct fire are both common (in general) and not restricted by much of anything”

The first point I agree with.

In the second point Steve is starting to mix and match, in my view. What is happening is what this thread was all about. In order to model Soviet rigidity of artillery command and control, increased delays are being used, instead of fireplans. You appear to be giving Soviet artillery excessive delays in order to encourage them to use TRP. When historically, it appears, delays were not so excessive, and the rigidity came from fireplans. They are very different things. Fireplans first.

I realize it is very late in the day, no doubt too late, but is there no chance of some move towards fireplans? CM is, for me, a simulation, not a game, and using fixes seems wrong compared to the quality of everything else in the game. Charles will not be using fixes to model the difference between Soviet APC rounds and German APCBC rounds. I would put money on it that he has got it all right. There is a consensus, above, that fireplans be used, not excessive delays used to “force” people to use TRPs. All that is needed is this.

For there to be a type of spotter who can set a barrage to start at a time other than turn one. Zero delay. That is it. No timed stop to the barrage, all rounds are fired at the one target. In a scenario, say a fairly average 43/44 assault, the scenario designer may give the player, for example, three 122mm spotters, with a given number of rounds each. All set their barrages in set up or turn one, and then disappear. Go on Steve, Charles really could do that standing on his head drinking a bottle of beer. It would be a huge step towards fireplans and realistic modeling of Soviet artillery.

When it comes to the direct question of the delays to be given to Soviet artillery, let’s concentrate on Divisional artillery.

From above Steve wrote,

“The same works in reverse, of course, for smaller and more organic artillery. This means that 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same. And of course, SP and artillery capable of Line of Sight direct fire are both common (in general) and not restricted by much of anything.”

A straight question follows from this. Will the delays for Soviet Divisional artillery be in line with the lower end of the Kursk range of figures? (Kursk figures, against TRPs 1.5-3 minutes, against other 4-7 minutes.)

Final point, I would add the 122mm howitzers to the list of divisional guns. Used just as much as a divisional gun as it was as an Army gun. Huge numbers of them out there.

Thanks for your time,

All the best,

Kip.

.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In order to model Soviet rigidity of artillery command and control, increased delays are being used, instead of fireplans. You appear to be giving Soviet artillery excessive delays in order to encourage them to use TRP.<hr></blockquote>

Not quite true. We are giving them realistic delays depending on how the player uses them. I think we can all agree that, for the most part, higher level artillery assets were utilized using a ridged system which rellied upon preplanned fire missions. Therefore, breaking with the historically ridged system was not possible to do while also maintaining rapid reaction times. It was a sorta either or type situation.

That is what the delays are there to represent and I don't see any valid argument for saying that this is not correct to do. What I do see as an area of valid concern is how we implement the ability to use artillery with rapid reaction times (i.e. when used in a historically correct manner) vs. ahistorical on-the-fly use. Which gets us to...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>When historically, it appears, delays were not so excessive, and the rigidity came from fireplans.<hr></blockquote>

Agreed. But this is in total agreement with what I have been saying. The reason why ridged fireplans were used was because that is how the system was designed to function. The historical penalty for breaking with this would be delays or, more likely, or no response at all. This would be much more amplified earlier in the war vs. later.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I realize it is very late in the day, no doubt too late, but is there no chance of some move towards fireplans?<hr></blockquote>

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much of a chance. This is a far more complex issue than you appear to think it is. But who knows.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Charles will not be using fixes to model the difference between Soviet APC rounds and German APCBC rounds.<hr></blockquote>

True, but this is just a matter of plugging in new data to already existing equations which took MONTHS to write. So this is an apples to oranges kind of comparison.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>There is a consensus, above, that fireplans be used, not excessive delays used to “force” people to use TRPs.<hr></blockquote>

Well, I don't agree What I see is a consensus that Soviet heavy artillery was utilized in a very ridged way which allowed for rapid FFE times at the expense of tactical flexibility. The realistic penalty for attempting ahistorical flexibility is delays.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>For there to be a type of spotter who can set a barrage to start at a time other than turn one. Zero delay. That is it. No timed stop to the barrage, all rounds are fired at the one target.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, this is more restrictive than appears to be the case historically. A Soviet FO (later on) appears to have had tactical flexibility to envoke a specific fireplan at ANY TIME they wanted to PROVIDED this was planned for prior to the battle. So requiring someone to preplan the bombardment on Turn 1 is not realistic for anything but a more or less operational type barrage. And as I have said, operational barrages are outside of CM's scope for the most part.

The key thing was that the fireplan had to have been conceived of prior to the battle. For example, in a given sector perhaps 10 different locations were identified, coordinates passed to the batteries, assigned specific artillery assets (and likely # of rounds), then assigned codewords/signals to trigger them. The artillery assets might have only been able to perform just ONE firemission. Higher headquarters, depending on the kind of action, would either decide for itself which plans to use and when or to allow a local FO the ability to choose location and timing (either without restriction or within a timeframe window).

This is what TRPs are designed to simulate, and I see no reason to think that they fail to do so. The player (attacker or defender) puts down TRP markers wherever he thinks they should go. During the game he can target FOs to whichever marker he wishes whenever he wishes. The delay for firing on these markers would be trivial (a couple of minutes), which simulates the time to communicate with the battery, for the gunners to drop their coffee or pull up their pants, aim the guns, and commence firing.

The TRP solution does have two problems, however, from a historical standpoint.

1. Player can customize which artillery assets are used to fire on a given TRP on the fly. A fireplan would have been ridged and not allowed this, or at least not to the degree the player can control.

2. Fire missions can still be cancelled or adjusted.

I don't think we can fix problem #1 now, but I have asked Charles to fix problem #2 so that the artillery comes down without ability to cancel or adjust for guns not within organic control.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In a scenario, say a fairly average 43/44 assault, the scenario designer may give the player, for example, three 122mm spotters, with a given number of rounds each. All set their barrages in set up or turn one, and then disappear. Go on Steve, Charles really could do that standing on his head drinking a bottle of beer. It would be a huge step towards fireplans and realistic modeling of Soviet artillery.<hr></blockquote>

It would be a step towards simulating more or less operational fireplans, true. But as I have said, that should not be the emphasis on changes since they are largely outside of CM's scope. Also, such a change to the code is not as trivial as you think and is in fact not the be-all-end-all simulation of fireplans. See above.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A straight question follows from this. Will the delays for Soviet Divisional artillery be in line with the lower end of the Kursk range of figures? (Kursk figures, against TRPs 1.5-3 minutes, against other 4-7 minutes.)<hr></blockquote>

From what I have seen... yes, this is exactly how it works now.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Final point, I would add the 122mm howitzers to the list of divisional guns. Used just as much as a divisional gun as it was as an Army gun. Huge numbers of them out there.<hr></blockquote>

Not exactly correct. It was used, in various numbers, as a divisional gun. True. But from a concentration standpoint more were used in external formations (Corps and Brigade) than were used in divisional formation. At least that is what a quick check turned up.

But IIRC, yes the 122mm is treated as a fairly common divisional type asset. Much like a German Infantry Division's 150mm Howitzer.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

On fireplans:

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much of a chance. This is a far more complex issue than you appear to think it is. But who knows.

Could there be separate TRP's with different delays ?

A separate (organic ?) fireplan TRP with for higher level arty with 0 delay and you would get a number of them (say 3)when you purchase the FO. To supplement them there would be the regular TRP with regular delays for the regular arty. The 0 delay TRP's would not work for the lower level arty, they would have to use the regular one or none at all (since their delay will be shorter anyway).

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Tero,

That is one thought. However, understand that there will NEVER be a "zero delay" artillery strike. It simply is not physically possible. So we are talking about small delay (couple minutes), medium delay (several minutes), long delay (closer to 10), and massive delay (greater than 10). Or something like that

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

I will try not to be too long as I will be repeating myself too much. It has all been said. I will leave you alone after this one.

Above I wrote

In a scenario, say a fairly average 43/44 assault, the scenario designer may give the player, for example, three 122mm spotters, with a given number of rounds each. All set their barrages in set up or turn one, and then disappear. Go on Steve, Charles really could do that standing on his head drinking a bottle of beer. It would be a huge step towards fireplans and realistic modeling of Soviet artillery.

to which Steve responded

“It would be a step towards simulating more or less operational fireplans, true. But as I have said, that should not be the emphasis on changes since they are largely outside of CM's scope. Also, such a change to the code is not as trivial as you think and is in fact not the be-all-end-all simulation of fireplans.”

When it comes to Steve saying it is not a trivial matter to change the code, I am, of course, happy to go with what he says. I know nothing about programming. However, when it comes to the bit about “operational fireplans” I do not agree. This is a bit of a standard defence mechanism for Steve. (Do not worry we all have them, me included!) The Soviet definition of “operational” is,

“two battles, separated by time and distance, where the outcome of one affects the outcome of the other.”

Another way to look at it is that operational means that the maneuver units are battalion combat teams or larger. Tactics, or tactical, refers to the “conduct of the contact battle”. This is CM scale. Now there can be big, and there can be small, contact battles. However, throughout WW2, and on all sides, Fireplans where used in battalion V battalion sized contact battles within individual “assault phases”, i.e. 20 minutes to 60 minutes, over 2km by 2km areas. One example of a typical CM battle.

When it comes to the question of the delays, I asked Steve,

Will the delays for Soviet Divisional artillery be in line with the lower end of the Kursk range of figures? (Kursk figures, against TRPs 1.5-3 minutes, against other 4-7 minutes.)

to which Steve responded,

“From what I have seen... yes, this is exactly how it works now.”

This is very good news. It remains my view that “when” the Soviets did use FOs their delays times, from the summer of 43 onwards, will have been similar or better than at Kursk because they will have been using the same or better SOPs. I have considered all that has been said above but still do not consider it likely that the Soviets took a backwards step post-Kursk, whatever the operational environment. Sometimes people just do not agree on a given issue.

Final point.

I am not saying you have done this, but do be careful that you are not “setting the bar higher” for Soviet delay times than for German delay times. That you judge them equally, given equally reliable sources. If you go off and setup a Kursk scenario the delay times should be similar to those given above.

Thanks for your time, greatly looking forward to CMBB, with or without fireplans,

All the best,

Kip.

[JasonC]

What I think Kip is missing is that pre-planned fire and long delay times are effectively the same thing. If on turn 1 you have a 10 minute delay, it means you can call for the fire at any time from turn 10 to the last turn. You just have to designate the target far in advance. Which is exactly what a fire plan is and does - a designation of the point to fire at far in advance. Prep fires can be delivered beforehand, of course. Planned fires during the game do not need a seperate fire-plan system, since that option is already in the hands of the CM commander.

Say I am planning a Russian assault, and thinking of my fire plan. I send a prep barrage by rockets or 152mm howitzers, say. Then I have 2-3 modules of 122mm support. They are division level assets with medium-long time delay. I also have a 120mm module from regiment with a shorter delay. What does this mean to my planning?

Unless I am daft, I will use the more responsive 120mm module to fire on targets of opportunity as they arise. Which means I won't give that FO fire orders early, but will wait for a target. After I see a target, I will call for its fire, and leave the module blasting for a minute or two. Then I will switch to another target. I use the fast response module for reactive, called fire, in small doses.

But will I use the long-delay 122mm howitzers the same way? No. Because the delay is likely to be too long. And 4-7 minutes is certainly too long for reactive fire. 5 minutes after an ambush, artillery fire is useless for meeting that ambush. The maneuver-arms firefight will be decided in a few minutes. But I can easily call for 122mm fire on the center of the objective village on turn 5. And I know it will land there on turn 10. And perhaps pound it for 4 minutes, before the module runs out of ammo. That is planned fire. I cannot easily change it on the fly, but I can still change it.

If I want a rolling barrage along route alpha, I called for one module of 122mm at phase line 1 - a clump of trees - on turn 1. Then on turn 3, with the first not even arriving yet, I call for 122mm from my second module at phase line 2 - a small group of buildings. On turn 5, the first module lands and pounds position 1 for 2 minutes. On turn 7, I shift that module to phase line 3 - my objective, perhaps. On turn 8, the second module lands on phase line 2. On turn 10, the first module lands on phase line 3.

A fire plan involves multiple batteries on multiple targets at different times. It is easy to set the order of targets to fit within the delay constraints one begins with - provided only that you plan the shoots far enough in advance. The longer the delay time, the farther ahead you have to plan. The more modules you have, the easier it is to cover every possibility even with long delay times. You can do this today, and with e.g. some of the 4 minute delay German modules, it is a useful practice.

What you lose from long delays is not the ability to fire intermediary missions on whatever pre-planned targets you like, it is the ability to *change* the fire plan rapidly, to adapt to new local information gained in the course of the battle. This is exactly what centralized fire plans lack, compared to on-call fire.

It is not a question of how slowly the Russians executed called fire. It is a question of whether the local battalion commander had any authority - de facto, not de jure authority - to call for changes to a higher echelon fireplan, on the fly, due to changes in his local intel and battle assessments. That is, whether the fire is called fire at all.

And the answer is that he did not have such authority. He was not trusted with such decisions. He executed called fire only from his organic artillery weapons - which the Russian system was careful to provide for every echelon from company to division. The higher level commanders planned the fires of their assets, and the lower echelons were expected to coordinate their movements and actions with the overall fire plan - not the other way around.

Which is exactly what happens when you have long time delays and plan out your fire missions far in advance, based on the terrain you see in front of you and your overall plan of attack. You have to "call" for fire early on - so you have to plan far ahead. And then you have to conform your maneuvering to the fire plan. Because 2-3 minutes into your execution, your options are limited to - that fire is going to come down in 2-3 more minutes, or it isn't going to arrive at all, or it is going to take a long time to rework a new fire plan.

There is no necessity to hard wire such fire plans completely before the whole game, as with your "scheduled fire" idea. The player can schedule his own fire, during the game. The fact that he *needs* to schedule it, and in advance, is what "long time delays" mean. He is at the very least well advised to adopt the historical Russian artillery practices, and have his front line lieutenants dance to the tune of his planned fires, and not expect his guns to dance to a new tune called by his front line lieutenants every two minutes.

The system described by BTS will work fine. It will strongly reward proper fire plans and proper use of them, by anyone with lots of long time delay artillery. It won't hard wire this into anything - you will be free to screw it up by acting as though you could relay on called fire, and just always having it arrive too late to do any good. If you want to shoot yourself in the foot that way, feel free. But nothing in the BTS describe system will prevent a proper fire plan - and it will leave some tactical flexibility to them, which the all-scheduled idea would not provide.

About the only "hole" you might worry about, is what about the very first few turns? Because then the time delay for the larger guns may not have been passed, but the prep fire will already have been executed. Well, use some of the organic lower-echelon artillery types to fill that time window if you must (e.g. battalion mortars for early smoke), or use direct fire support (from on-map mortars, assault guns,etc).

Or just include a modest delay in your overall plan after the prep fire - use it for scouting or whatever. There are plenty of realistic options. Attackers can hardly afford to have heavy shells landing every turn anyway, and presumably the prep barrage did the early suppression work.