Question/Suggestion about the artillery model

[Scipio]

Why is the artillery delay command only available for preparation barrages in attack/defense battles?

Maybe somebody with more knowledge about artillery can share his wisom with me. I really don't know if WWII artillery was already that flexible.

Okay what we have now : in a attack/def. battle, I can order a fire plan in turn one, this will be executed without delay and always on target, because the target preparation were done before the battle. I can also order a fixed delay for the fire plan. Similar for TRPs, without fixed time of course.

Now I wonder if this is realistic (with WWII equipment, of course): I order artillery fire. Two preparations shells (usually) come down to get the fire to the right place. (Let's assume we have an extra 'Prepare Target' command). This defines (in princip) a TRP during the battle. The TRP exists only until the FO keeps the target tracer to it (similar to the 'Ambush' spot in CMBO). Now I can order the barrage whenever I want to with the delay for 'normal' TRPs.

A critic that could rise : artillery units are not 'locked' to my small part of the frontline, they also have to support other units. This is right, but a once defined target coordinate is written down in a target reference book (at least we did it that way in my mortar platoon during my military service), so they can (in princip) serve different units with small effort.

[Andreas]

I am not quite sure I do understand what you are getting at, so my response may not address your suggestion.

With that said. Ideally every target that is fired on would become a TRP, because it would be noted down by the gunners and next time they could quickly switch back to it. I do not think that was possible with the engine though.

[Scipio]

Technically this is right, Andreas, cause each target coordinate would be 'saved' in the target reference book. I just thought it could cause a problem with the correction orders, cause it would produce a lot of TRPs close together. Bedside that, keep in mind the long delays for Soviet artillery - I don't think that we would have time to define many TRPs.

I can't of course speak about the coding problems, but it looks to me like most of the basic princips are modeled in the game already.

[Scipio]

When I think about it - if the 'Delay Command' we use for fireplans would be available during the whole battle & all battle types, it would do exactly the same.

Maybe it would be a good idea, too, if we could in this case order to fire only spotting rounds and hold back the barrage until we need it.

[ December 07, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Maybe it would be a good idea, too, if we could in this case order to fire only spotting rounds and hold back the barrage until we need it.

Ah! You did read my post on this subject a couple of weeks ago! I am gratified.

Michael

[Stalin's Organ]

It's called (or maybe was called) pre-registration - fire hte spotting rounds a long time before you need to FFE, then you can hit that target time after timewhenever you want to - with or without observation.

That's one thing that TRP's represent.

They also represent specific types of task like defensive fire and final defensive fire.

They're a bit rough in terms of how they represent these things - usually a DF or FDF task would be assigned to a specific unit and not be able to be targeted by other units as can happen in the CM system, but it's an acceptable aproximation IMO....at the moment

[Leit]

"Maybe it would be a good idea, too, if we could in this case order to fire only spotting rounds and hold back the barrage until we need it."

---------------

No. This is far from real life. I explane.

Create in mind a front line. Two sides had dugin and prepared for all. Machiguns, part of AT & Int Guns, prepared tank's positions tested on terrain for future defence... all stable at the trenches but behind them much work and war in progress: artillery MUST stay hidden because of lack mobility it has large vulnerability.

I'll say more: main targets for enemy artillery are your comunications and your artilery but front line.

If we have danger that position discovered that means battery will be destroyed by hidden enemy artillerey first and than enemy artillery will be used to support his advanced units. So batteries often move and regroup to hide their positions, shell other sides to discover enemy artillery.

Any firing before it becomes nessary is undesirable... You have to trust artillery's officers expirience

Hidden battery commander during his covering time on new undiscovered position must get weather forecast every evening-morning and calculate new distances for diferent weathers without any firing.

Form battery commander's place you reqwest for fire is a several numbers in firing plan book. The only thing bother him - fire all rounds, pack guns and escape to enother hidden position AS soon AS possible! :eek: to have a chance to keep off returned shells .

[ December 08, 2002, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Leit ]

[Redwolf]

WW2 batteries were not moving often enough to justify the lack of a delay command after targetting.

I like what TacOps does: it fires spotting rounds until you say you want FFE (although of course the spotting rounds are nonsense once the target is at maximal precision). Anyway, a seperate "fire for effect" and "target" command would be better. Because it would not only allow for initial delay, but also for pausing a barrage.

[Hans]

The type of action you are talking about is

"at my command".

Lots of TRPs would overload a manually operated FDC however. So a unit would only "record as target" if requested by the observer or someone else in the chain of command. Plus as it has been noted the battery/firing unit unless in dedicated support of your unit must respond to other requests for fire.

TRPs are your best bet and CMs simulation reponse to "at my command"

Oh one other artillery note, its not necessary to adjust in your rounds on the target (which tells the enemy that you are registering on him). This can be done by registering on another piece of terrain and then applying the corrections mathematically to the new target. This requires accurate survey and weather data of course.

One way to remove enemy chances of detecting your battery was to register to the REAR or your position then apply the corrections to the battle area - but that required good survey, up to date weather data and gun corrections, and an FDC capable of handling the calculation (well trained).

Hans

[Tarquelne]

Form battery commander's place you reqwest for fire is a several numbers in firing plan book. The only thing bother him - fire all rounds, pack guns and escape to enother hidden position AS soon AS possible! :eek: to have a chance to keep off returned shells .[/QB]

I chose to view that as not an argument against several of the suggestions made here, but rather an argument for the need to include the effect of counter-battery fire in the next CM engine.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Leit:

[snips] Hidden battery commander during his covering time on new undiscovered position must get weather forecast every evening-morning and calculate new distances for diferent weathers without any firing.

I believe that the Royal Artillery expected to receive weather updates (the "meteor telegramme") every four hours in WW2. ISTR reading (doubtless in something by Hogg) that this found to be an insufficient frequency in Korea, when the rapid cooling of the air after nightfall meant that new corrections had to be calculated every hour.

All the best,

John.

[Hans]

"Met" meterological data is better the more you have and from nearest the target location and the firing units location. Unfortunately to manually calculate all of this can kill a FDC crew!

A change in weather also required a recalculation as did calibrating different manufacturing lots of propellent.

Counter fire is an issue that I and others have raised. I think you should be able to purchase counter-fire like any unit. It would tend to disrupt, slow and perhaps end enemy indirect fire on your units.

Targeting your enemies artillery was one of keys to allowing your infantry to close with the enemy. If not the enemy artillery tended to rip your assault apart....as any seasoned Cm'er can tell you

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

... Ideally every target that is fired on would become a TRP, because it would be noted down by the gunners and next time they could quickly switch back to it ...

Actually, (and as Hans said) not all targets are given a target record number in Real Life. Targets are only recorded if the FO specifically says "Record as target VT1024" (or whatever target number he's up to. This can happen at the end of adjustment, or at the end of FFE. This is RA-family practice, but from Hans' comment I suspect it is more widespread than that.

Again TACOPS does this reasonably well; if you want to record the targetadjusted during the game, you as the player have to specifically order it - it doesn't just 'happen'.

Regards

JonS

[Scipio]

Well folks,

the question is, what could be realized with a patch for CMBB, and what is an issue for CM3?

As I said before (based on my limited knowledge about the coding issues), I believe the artillery model could be changed to use the things I proposed.

Counter artillery goes far beyond that.

I just wonder, do you think my idea makes any sense, is realistic and generally is something we want to see?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I just wonder, do you think my idea makes any sense, is realistic and generally is something we want to see?

If you mean in-play addition of TRPs (or something like them), then yes, I would be in favor of that, subject to whatever limitations research indicated were appropriate.

Michael

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Scipio:

A critic that could rise : artillery units are not 'locked' to my small part of the frontline, they also have to support other units. ...

AFAIK (WW2) artillery can have two types of status;

- General support. Responds to any fire request within range (equals relatively long delay because the request is relaied).

- Direct support. Responds primarily to requests from a specified unit with which it stays in contact.

Battalion mortars are always in direct support of their battalion.

Regimental artillery is likely to be in direct support of it's regiment.

Divisional and higher artillery is more common in general support, but can be assigned direct support missions.

Since all artillery in CM is represented by an on map spotter, it can be argued to be in direct support of the on map force. Then the delays of up to 30 minutes seem ridiculus...

Cheers

Olle

[JonS]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

AFAIK (WW2) artillery can have two types of status;

- General support ...

- Direct support ...

Since all artillery in CM is represented by an on map spotter, it can be argued to be in direct support of the on map force. Then the delays of up to 30 minutes seem ridiculus...

That could be argued, but that wouldn't necessarily make it right. The wonderful thing about artillery firing indirect is that it can engage any target within its max range. But, in order to be able to do that accurately, it must have 'eyes' on the ground, which is what the FOs are for.

Now, a single FO can't be everywhere so each battery typically has more than one FO - three FO parties per battery seems to have been a common number.

These FO parties might be close together, or they might be far apart, it really doesn't matter. The important thing is that they have communications back to the battery, and they have permission to fire the guns. The first is a technical problem, the second is procedural.

Technical equipment has a nasty habit of falling over just when one needs it most, so delays due to technical problems can be common, and sustanital, but are usually easy to undertand, if not fix.

But, regardless of how good comms are, if an FO isn't authorised to fire the battery, the battery won't fire. Because requesting and obtaining permission involves dealing with personalities, the delays can quickly become substantial, especially if several FOs are seeking fire from the battery at the same time.

To give a concrete example; say 22(D) Battery is in direct support to 7(WnHB) Bn. What that means is that 7(WnHB) has guaranteed fire from 22(D). the CO of 7(WnHB) decides to do a "two up, two in reserve" advance, with A and C Coys in the lead, and B and D Coys trailing along behind. Bn HQ is between the lead and reserve companies.

Now, 22(D) provides 7(WnHB) with three FO parties. One goes to A Coy, one with C Coy, and the last one goes with one of the reserve companies. The Battery Commander of 22(D) goes with BnHQ.

So, 7(WnHB) as a whole has the guaranteed fire of 22(D) because it is in DS, but if both A and C Coys come under fire, then only one of those companies will receive artillery support - the other one is on its own until the first call for fire has been completed, which could be upwards of half an hour if things are getting hairy. And this is even though, in theory, both companies have guaranteed fire because they both have 22(D) in direct support.

I hope this makes sense and you can relate it to CMBB terms.

Regards

JonS

[ December 14, 2002, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[MGONZOM]

I am not a Reg Leg and do not really know how the batteries work.

Can scenario designers divide the normal ammunition given to one FO to multiple FOs to help with adjustments and multiple trps?

Is it true Germans were capable of splitting their batteries (Two Tubes at VT1108 and Two Tubes at VT1110) targets among the FOs?

How about the Russians, How did their batteries work with their FOs? Obiviously they had a different procedure/Philosophy because of the different delays we get in CMBB for their fire missions?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JonS:

[snips]Now, a single FO can't be everywhere so each battery typically has more than one FO - three FO parties per battery seems to have been a common number.

I have never been able to find much in the way of WW2 arty orbats that specify the number of FOOs, but three per battery seems a generous allowance by WW2 standards. The last time I visited Larkhill (a long time ago) three FOOs per six-gun battery was the RA wartime establishment for field artillery, but the peacetime establishment was only two, the third FOO being a reservist who would join on mobilisation (just as all the rifle sections in the army were supposed to be made up from 8 to 10 men by the addition of two war emergency reinforcements -- I'm not sure how many people believed that this would really happen).

WW2 towed field batteries (or troops, for the Brits) were [Massive generalisation] four tubes [/Massive generalisation]. British organisation would have something like 1 FOO per troop, and I think a ratio any higher than 1 FOO per four tubes would be unusual, apart from the possibility of having the BC establish an additional OP himself. Indeed, I believe that somewhere in the accumulated Hoggery on my bookshelves I could find a statement to the effect that the Italians and Russians were often in the situation of having the BC as the only man capable of directing the battery's fire (for some of the odd Russian 2-gun batteries this would still give you plenty of observation, though).

Originally posted by JonS:

[Concrete example snipped] And this is even though, in theory, both companies have guaranteed fire because they both have 22(D) in direct support.

I'd say that any guaranty of fire was given to the battalion, as the unit supported, not to its sub-units.

I seem to recall being told that "Direct support" meant that the supporting arty provided observers, but did not actually provide a guaranty of fire, as only the "under command" relationship did that. In practice I suspect it made little difference, because the RA have a pretty strong reputation for "customer satisfaction" to maintain. The FDF (in WW2 I think still called DF(SOS)) task, for example, is supposed to take higher priority than anything else except close defence of the battery position. However, it might work differently in other armies -- I don't even know if the Soviets had an equivalent to DF and FDF tasks, although I suppose they must have done.

If somebody could either recommend a good book on Soviet artillery command or find me a research grant to study the formalisation of command relationships through deontic logic, I'd be very happy.

All the best,

John.

[ December 15, 2002, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[Andreas]

Re: noting down targets at the guns. My comment was based on a statement in the memoirs of a Soviet battery officer (2i/c) from 1941 stating that the gunners would write down all the laying information on a sheet of paper at the gun.

Re: FOOs. In 1941, again going from the memoir, it appears that a battery would be directed from a forward OP by the battery commander. The battery officer would be in charge of the execution of fire at the gun pits, the building of the gun pits, camouflage of the guns, ammo supply etc.pp. Only one FOO per battery (of four heavy guns in this case).

Source: W.S.Petrow - 'Kanoniere'; Petrow served in a Corps Artillery Regiment on 152mm and 107mm guns during the battles for Ukraine, and escaped encirclement. He rose to Major General later in his career.

[Scipio]

About the German FOs, taken from 'Handbuch der deutschen Infanterie' (Handbook of German infantry), Alex Buchner

The fire of a battery was guided by the 'Hauptbeobachtungsstelle' - Haupt-B-Stelle, (Main observing post), if necessary with help of sub observing posts (B-Stelle). The B-Stelle was the 'eyes' of the battery, used for reconnaissance of the terraine, the position of enemy and the own forces. The Haupt-B-Stelle also gave the orders to FOs (it could be one or more FO teams). The FO teams consisted of the FO itself, a radio team leader and a radio operator or a field telephone team with a team leader, two telephone talkers, one horse leader and one horse with the cable. The FO were at the front together with the combat troops to report targets and distances, guide the zero in and control the fire missions.

BTW, if the cable was carried by the horse, why do FOs without radios tire so fast?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I have never been able to find much in the way of WW2 arty orbats that specify the number of FOOs, but three per battery seems a generous allowance by WW2 standards. The last time I visited Larkhill (a long time ago) three FOOs per six-gun battery was the RA wartime establishment for field artillery, but the peacetime establishment was only two, the third FOO being a reservist who would join on mobilisation (just as all the rifle sections in the army were supposed to be made up from 8 to 10 men by the addition of two war emergency reinforcements -- I'm not sure how many people believed that this would really happen).

WW2 towed field batteries (or troops, for the Brits) were <Massive generalisation> four tubes </Massive generalisation>. British organisation would have something like 1 FOO per troop, and I think a ratio any higher than 1 FOO per four tubes would be unusual, apart from the possibility of having the BC establish an additional OP himself. Indeed, I believe that somewhere in the accumulated Hoggery on my bookshelves I could find a statement to the effect that the Italians and Russians were often in the situation of having the BC as the only man capable of directing the battery's fire (for some of the odd Russian 2-gun batteries this would still give you plenty of observation, though).

My impression from reading George Blackburn's books is that each troop in the Canadian field artillery (which I assume used the same organization as the Brits) had at least two and more often three officers and their assistants for observation. But they weren't all in the line at once, instead rotating in shifts as circumstances allowed.

He also states that in addition to his own troop, in emergencies or having identified an especially lucrative target, he could call on all the guns of his regiment, the division, or even of the entire corps. This latter would give him well in excess of 100 tubes.

:eek:

Michael

[ December 15, 2002, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

[snips]My impression from reading George Blackburn's books is that each troop in the Canadian field artillery (which I assume used the same organization as the Brits) had at least two and more often three officers and their assistants for observation. But they weren't all in the line at once, instead rotating in shifts as circumstances allowed.

From George Blackburn's "The Guns of Normandy" (McClelland & Stewart, 1995; Constable, 1998) page 73:

"..it will be through the eyes of the six troop commanders -- the FOOs -- keeping the front under constant surveillance from OPs (observation posts) established in close contact with front-line company commanders, that the whole vast network of artillery representatives...will be kept in the picture."

On page 81, he says:

"On all the major training schemes... "fooing" was always reserved exclusively for the elite troop commanders...And now, only thirty-six hours after the Regiment had gone into action for the first time...you and another subaltern are on your way up to relieve two of these troop commanders."

Both these seem to indicate to me that, although the OPs may not always be manned by the troop commanders themselves, the number of active FOs is unlikely often to exceed the number of troops, or, one FO per 4 tubes.

Shelford Bidwell's "Gunners at war" (A&AP, 1970) says that the original 3-troop 12-gun battery with which the RA's field regiments started the war had only sufficient wireless sets to equip two OPs, although I suppose additional OPs in line communication could be set up given the time, the wire and the linesmen. When the re-organisation to a 2-troop 8-gun battery was made, equipment was provided on a scale to permit the troop commanders, the BC and the battery 2-i-c each to establish their own OP, if necessary.

ISTR my father telling me that the tech-ack in an OP party ought to be able to give fire orders if the FOO himself was roving away from the OP, so presumably, in circumstances of extreme gaminess, you could claim 4 static OPs on wire comms with the tech-ack in charge, while the two tp comds, the BC and his 2-i-c all rove away from the OPs with wireless operators. That gives you as many observers as there are guns in the battery, but I suspect that even 4 OPs per battery would be pretty unusual.

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

He also states that in addition to his own troop, in emergencies or having identified an especially lucrative target, he could call on all the guns of his regiment, the division, or even of the entire corps. This latter would give him well in excess of 100 tubes.

:eek:

Michael

I think all this confirms the need, which I've mentioned before, to model the FO and the gun position as seperate entities in the engine re-write. This seems to me to be the only way to show the possibilities of contention for fire from a single gun position between multiple FOOs, or, conversely, for a single FOO to be given reinforcing fires from other batteries.

The following is from Peter Mead's "Gunners at War 1939-45" (Ian Allan 1982), and describes a radio exchange with an AOP over the Anzio beachhead:

Air OP: "Hello Peter Six, Mike Target, Mike Target, Mike Target (a regimental target). Two hundred enemy forming up. Fire by order, scale twelve, report when ready, over."

CRA 1 Div (Brig. Paisley) -- interrupting: "Big Sunray here. Cancel last order Peter Six, give him Victor Target (Corps Artillery), scale twelve. Fire by order, report when ready to Peter Six. Carry on Peter Six, well done, out."

It goes on to say that the fire brought down would have been from 124 25-pounders, 24 medium and 24 heavy guns. That should certainly rattle someone's teeth.

I would love to have the AI in CM able to dish out extra goodies like that to my FOs when they spot an especially profitable target.

All the best,

John.

[Hans]

Battle axe

A story out of Korean

An arty battalion S-3 had gone forward to deliver batteries to one of his OP when he got caught in a Chinese attack. He was with a depleted American company on a ridge line with a balky radio and acoss a half kilometer valley another ridge exploded with MG and mortar fired directed at them. Trumpets sounded and the entire ridgeline came alive as 5,000 Chinese started to come down the far ridge.

The CO went nuts and yelled at the FO and S-3 to get some fire. They tried, they tried every wave lenght and every possible channel...nothing.

Finally with the Chinese half way across the valley and the S-3 nearly horse from yelling into the mike an incredibly calm voice came over

"this is battleaxe do you require support?"

"Damn yes, I got 5,ooo Chinese at XXccccccccc, I need everything you got

"You want everything?"

Hell yes this is XXXX (code name) and we are about to be over run.

Rodger standby.....a few minutes went by and the Chinese were getting to the base of their ridge

"Where the hell is the fire"

"Shot over"

"What" its been thirty seconds and I don't hear anything.....he then heard what he described as a freight train coming in and the entire valley exploded.

4 more times this happened then the calm voice said,

"What is your target assessment"

It took a few minutes for the dust to settle but four or five hundred chinese appeared to have met their match and the rest had gone to ground or were running away.

He then ended the mission. Only later did he find out he contacted the battleship Missouri*

*Missouri had a set of Army standard type radios to assist in coordination

probably a myth but a good story none the less.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Okay what we have now : in a attack/def. battle, I can order a fire plan in turn one, this will be executed without delay and always on target, because the target preparation were done before the battle. I can also order a fixed delay for the fire plan. Similar for TRPs, without fixed time of course.

Now I wonder if this is realistic (with WWII equipment, of course): I order artillery fire. Two preparations shells (usually) come down to get the fire to the right place. (Let's assume we have an extra 'Prepare Target' command). This defines (in princip) a TRP during the battle. The TRP exists only until the FO keeps the target tracer to it (similar to the 'Ambush' spot in CMBO). Now I can order the barrage whenever I want to with the delay for 'normal' TRPs.

My background is that of an 81mm Mortar FO in the Marines.

Two problems.

1) TRPs are not set while 'under fire'. We set up TRPs well in advance. So, that part of the engine is right on.

2) While in theory the battery probably has record of every mission fired, there is nothing to reference it to. With a TRP, you give a designation, codeword if you will, for it and it is noted down. Now if I wanted to fire a TRP mission, I'd ask for the reference point. If I wanted to fire at a point I had fired at already, the FDC would have to waste time trying to find that in their logs. Fire missions are time sensitive. As a mortar FO, I expected rounds on target in 2 minutes or less... that includes adjustment