Gryphon Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Will SPA guns be included for on-board use too? I know nothing about modern doctrine with regards to close support fire, but using a Msta or Paladin should make things quite interesting (less so for the enemy infantry). Or will these units be represented off-board only? If included on-board, what capability does a modern SPA gun have against tanks? Any special HEAT rounds? And what kind of armor protection do these units sport? Speaking of artillery, is the dynamic destruction of buildings still in? and how far did you guys take it in the end? I can remember a topic from a year ago, but I guess a lot has changed since. Regards, Gryphon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 From what my brother in law has told me (Major in the Canadian Artillery, too bad we mothballed our M109s...) I don't think they're used much for close support by the US. I would like to see a Syrian player be able to assault an Artillery Battery though. As I understand it, you don't want to try and take them in a frontal assault. As a last resort the munitions can be timed to air burst practically as soon as they leave the barrel leaving a lovely burning path of destruction... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I recall reading, in Jane's Ammunition book, that L15 (155mm) shells where the explosive content had expired were intended to be refilled with concrete or some such as a cheap anti-tank shell. It lacks in finesse, but it's still 45 kg moving at 850 m/s. Armour protection for SPs (bar the PzH2000) is limited - good for stopping shell splinters, not anything larger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 While one side of me would want to see SPs included(The same side of me that wants shockwaves ) the other side of me knows it's seriously unrealistic. Nowadays artillery is accurate enough not to need to trundle right up to a target to nail it. And keep in mind that the AT capability of infantry in particular has dramatically increased. Why would you want to get into the range of an RPG/ATGM when you could lob shells from 30km away? Direct SP fire is just like a bayonet... if you need to use it you have already FUBAR-ed the situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 I guess that's what MGS will be in the game for. To lay down a little direct fire HE in support of the boys. Not quite the same as an M109 firing at point-blank, I admit. Does anyone recall hearing any Iraq war anecdotes about artillery firing over open sights onto a target? I can imagine such a thing happening in the inferno of Fallugha. But the modern attitude may be 'LOS works both ways'. A SP gun within LOS of its target may be a SP gun in the crosshairs of a Kornet missile! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Yes, SPA stuff onmap would be extremly gamey. Not going to happen in CM:SF. There is an argument that it shouldn't even happen in a WWII setting since it was such a rarity in general (things like StuGs and ISU-152s, which are not the same beast). Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Aww... no 155mm bunker busters? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Isn't the M109 equipped with a flexible M2 on top of the turret? (Reminds me somehow of the old WWII tank destroyer issue, where they didn't want to equip the TDs with MGs so they wouldn't be used in a tank-like fashion.) So what's the intended to use for the M2 on the M109? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Originally posted by birdstrike: So what's the intended to use for the M2 on the M109? Anti-aircraft. Which might be more than a little laughable these days, but you never know... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 It could also be for self protection from unexpected ground attack. What it certainly isn't is an offensive weapon. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Vehicle mounted .50s are all primarily for AA. Not that anyone actually expects to hit anything but just putting rounds within the field of view of the pilot might just save your bacon. As others have said, seeing SPA on the map would entail a major overrun of an enemy position and from an entirely unexpected and unwatched avenue of approach. After all, driving away is something SP units are pretty good at. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 That's basically what I expected. It sure provides more firepower than your usual self defense weapon - and it doesn't need to be lugged around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 After all, driving away is something SP units are pretty good at.Further, it is what they are trained to do! At the first wiff of problems they pull up stakes and relocate. And that is how everybody (non enemy of course!) wants it. Last thing the guys in the trenches want to hear when they call for support fire is that their artillery positions just got overrun. They'd much rather hear they had to relocate and they'll be back online in a half an hour. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Steve, Don't know about now, but in that same ARMOR article which compared U.S. and Soviet? AFVs in MOUT, there was an illustrated discussion of M109 use for building busting in direct fire. This may've changed since, but it used to be one of the lesser known capabilities under MOUT doctrine. The M109, by virtue of being a gun howitzer, could reach floors neither the M1 nor the Bradley could. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudel.dietrich Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Last thing the guys in the trenches want to hear when they call for support fire is that their artillery positions just got overrun. T[/QB]Or that they were wiped out due to counter battary fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Originally posted by John Kettler: Steve, Don't know about now, but in that same ARMOR article which compared U.S. and Soviet? AFVs in MOUT, there was an illustrated discussion of M109 use for building busting in direct fire. This may've changed since, but it used to be one of the lesser known capabilities under MOUT doctrine. The M109, by virtue of being a gun howitzer, could reach floors neither the M1 nor the Bradley could. Regards, John Kettler IIRK these things aren't ever individually attached to units, but used together in battaries 20-30 miles behind the lines. If you wanted to call one up for a specific direct fire mission (assuming it was OK'd) it would probably take them an hour or more to get there. I believe the role you are referring to is to be handled by the MGS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I think Russian/Soviet doctrine allowed 2S1 122mm SP howitzers to be used in a secondary role as assault guns. I might be wrong... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I still recall seeing spectacular news footage of Russian multiple artillery rockets being used in direct fire against a Russian(?) village that had been captured by Chechen guerillas. Can't recall what year it was. Truck-mounted rocket launcher fired, camera quickly panned right to the far side of a bare potato field, and the artillery rockets slam into the little village. Chilling. Maybe we can convince BFC to include MLRS as a close infantry support vehicle! :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Hell... I'd be happy with just the BM-21. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Originally posted by MikeyD: I still recall seeing spectacular news footage of Russian multiple artillery rockets being used in direct fire against a Russian(?) villageWell... those guys are always using *gamey* tactics anyways... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 I'm 99.9% sure the M109s are not used in direct fire roles. This would be like trying to knock a tack into a wall using a 13th century battering ram If troops can get in close enough to give an M109 a clear shot at a building, then they are probably close enough to deal with the problem through other means. This includes air. The risk of moving an M109 through streets, if it could even negotiate them, would be far greater than wht a JDAM offers, for example. To date I have not heard of a single use of a M109 in a direct fire role in Iraq. If there were conditions for it, we'd have already seen them happen MANY times already. Especially in Fallujah. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Steve, I'm not saying we still train for the use I mentioned, merely pointing out that I remember seeing a discussion and illustration of such a role in the previously mentioned article on MOUT in ARMOR magazine. Certainly, we have many more weapon options now than we did when the article was first written. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted August 23, 2006 Share Posted August 23, 2006 Ah, the Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine Posse. You guys have no finesse – using field arty in direct support – shame on you all!! Actually at LarkHill (British Army School of Artillery) I've seen 105mm light-guns fire HEAT or HESH rounds (cannot remember exactly which one of the two it was, but think it was HEAT) in the AT role at targets. This is used rarely if ever by 7RHA airborne gunners – one presumes to protect the DZ / battery position from roaming enemy armour. But can’t say I’ve ever heard of field guns or SP supporting with direct fire since WWII other than an old 25lber at Mirbat Oman in 1972. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.