Indirect Fire by On-Map units

[Philippe]

I know it isn't supposed to happen.

I think the intended scale for a CMx1 battle is probably something like reinforced company fighting same with map to match.

And at that scale the big HE chuckers are only supposed to get into the act if they're being overrun.

That's the theory, but it doesn't seem to work that way in practise.

Maybe because scenario designers insist on making the maps and the scenarios bigger than the authors originally intended. Maybe because my hypothetical premise of intended scale is simply wrong.

But what does seem to happen, every other time I get one of those weapons (e.g. a Priest or a self-propelled Howitzer), is that I sit around scratching my head until I find some terribly clever way to use them without getting blown up.

Now I'm not going to say that most of my solutions are gamey. Most of them aren't. But I can't help but get the feeling that what the scenario designer left out of the scenario when he gave me those four Priests, was the two HQ jeeps with the spotters and radio, just in case I had to set up an impromptu indirect bombardment.

I realize getting guns that size to do indirect fire is a bit more complicated than having the platoon commander spot for the 50mm mortar (and I'm still wondering about that one, but it seems just within the range of credibility).

The primary function of a lot of the HE chuckers is indirect fire. They will get into direct fire situations from time to time, but they shouldn't be prohibited from acting normally if occasion arises. I don't know exactly what that would require in each national army, but I suspect that it would look like the occasional presence (or absence) of a couple of radio-toting HQ sections and some unusual command and setup rules.

I didn't put this in the Real Artillerymen thread because it is about a game function rather than reality, but I hope some of them wander in here to tell me I'm being ridiculous ("Hey, Franz! Go tell that good-for-nothing commander of yours to rupture himself climbing that steeple so he can spot for you !").

[YankeeDog]

I'd be curious to hear from the Real Artillerymen on this one, too.

Not so much the Priest, but I've always assumed weapons like the M8 HMC were really designed for close-in indirect fire, and therefore should be able to do so CM-scale map. Also the German IGs (75mm & 150mm) and some of the related vehicle mounts have very low MV combined with good elevation, and so I would think should be able to do this.

But I don't know enough to say that this was definitively part of doctrine. . .

[Michael Dorosh]

To fire indirectly, guns need to be surveyed in; this is arguably beyond the scope of CM.

[stoat]

Oringinally posted by YankeeDog I've always assumed weapons like the M8 HMC were really designed for close-in indirect fire

The Scott and M4/105 were direct fire weapons. See a bunker, call a tank, bunker gets blasted. I guess an M7 could be used in a close support, but they made the M4/105 so it wouldn't have to.

How are 4 M7s different form a forward observer? If you are desperate, they can be used for direct fire. So I guess they could be included in scenarios. Now, if you had 4 M12s, that is a different story, besause they are of no use in a direct fire role (must be anchored in ground).

[YankeeDog]

Not necessarily. Surveyed location is only necessary if the observer and the gun are sufficently far apart that the gun crew can't simply use the distance and bearing measurements of the observer without modification.

I have read specific instances of tank commanders placing their tank behind a small rise, dismounting and walking to the top of said rise, or a nearby convenient 2-story building, and calling indirect fire in on a target.

But I don't know if this was just a local expedient, or if it was something that was actually trained for.

And I also see no reason why this couldn't be done with a IG or howizter, though I must admit I've never specifically read of it being done, which is why I was curious to hear what the Arty Men had to say.

Cheers,

YD

[Denwad]

i remember seeing a propaganda video of a Gebirgsjäger unit attacking a Russian town. They show footage of a Pak 36 firing at a BT-7 and knocking it out.

Later than that they show several 150mm IG with their guns at very high angles firing on some trenches.

[stoat]

Were the guns on or off map?

[YankeeDog]

Well. . .

in view of the fact that the *max* range of a SiG 33 was under 5000m (IIRC), one engaging in high-angle fire would probably be "on-map" for a pretty high proportion of CM battles. Range falls off pretty quickly once the barrel elevation gets above 50 degrees.

[Battlefront.com]

In theory there are two different types of HE chuckers; direct and indirect. Both are, to a large extent, the same thing. They are just packaged different. Above is a good example... a 105mm M4 was supposed to fire direct LOS to target. That means the enemy could also have the chance to fire LOS direct to shooter. Hence the armor. The Soviets took it to the extreme with beasts like the ISU-152 (shudders when he remembers getting hit by one during early CMBB testing). Yet the same guns, or dang near close it, were also used as towed artillery. Unlike their armor encased cousins, they weren't supposed to get into LOS with what they were shooting at.

Now, in reality both weapons could do the same thing as the other. A M4 Sherman with a 105mm Howitzer could fire indirectly out of LOS. A 105mm towed artillery piece could fire direct LOS. Which is why we support both in CMx1 and will continue to do so for CMx2.

The thing is, you shouldn't have a M7 Priest on the map if you don't want it to get shot up. Instead you should have an offmap 105mm battery instead. It's that simple... if it is onmap artillery it is there for direct fire, if it is offmap artillery it is there for indirect fire. Mortars are an exception since their range is shorter and their employment is not the same as artillery (i.e. they are INFANTRY and not Artillery).

For CMx2 we will have better firecontrol for both on and off forms of indirect fire.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Well. . .

in view of the fact that the *max* range of a SiG 33 was under 5000m (IIRC), one engaging in high-angle fire would probably be "on-map" for a pretty high proportion of CM battles. Range falls off pretty quickly once the barrel elevation gets above 50 degrees.

What was the minimum range?

[JonS]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

And I also see no reason why this couldn't be done with a IG or howizter, though I must admit I've never specifically read of it being done, which is why I was curious to hear what the Arty Men had to say.

Guns firing indirect generally have a minimum range, which often precludes engaging targets within the general size of a CM map. Most mortars in CM have this min-range limitation, but since it's usually only a couple of hundred metres, it generally isn't a problem (except at night or in fog, etc).

I suppose CMx2 tanks and on-map guns could concievably (and somewhat realistically) use the semi-indirect method that CMx1 mortars use, but personally I'm agnostic about it. Generally they'd be so far back anyway, you might as well just use an FO. In practical terms, I can't think of many situations in which guns or tanks would switch from indirect or semi-indirect to direct fire (or vice versa) within the time limits of a typical CM scen (say ~45 minutes).

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For CMx2 we will have better firecontrol for both on and off forms of indirect fire.

w00t!

[dalem]

Is part of the problem the fact that in CMx1 I cannot direct fire into an area that is not in LOS?

If CMx2 allows a form of this - possibly as part of my dream of a better Area Fire mechanism - then wouldn't a lot of the above concern become moot?

-dale

[JonS]

Originally posted by dalem:

Is part of the problem the fact that in CMx1 I cannot direct fire into an area that is not in LOS?

eh? That's pretty much the defn of indirect fire.

Or are you talking about firing through smoke/fog, that kind of thing - seperating cover (no LOS, no LOF) from concealment (no LOS, but LOF ok ... albeit pretty ineffective)?

Jon.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What was the minimum range?

Alas, my Google-fu cannot find an answer. Maybe someone else with better Google skills can.

I did find max. elevation, though -- 75 degrees. That's almost as good as mortars, which usually top out at 80-85 degrees elevation.

Don't have time to do the trig for a specific answer right now, but with only a 240m/sec. MV and a 75 deg elevation, a SiG 33 would be able to drop a round in very close.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snip] Mortars are an exception since their range is shorter and their employment is not the same as artillery (i.e. they are INFANTRY and not Artillery).

For CMx2 we will have better firecontrol for both on and off forms of indirect fire.

Steve

Thanks for the response, Steve.

I have to wonder, though, if the same logic shouldn't be applied to the 150mm Schwere Infantrie Geschutz 33. . .

[JonS]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

What was the minimum range?

Alas, my Google-fu cannot find an answer. Maybe someone else with better Google skills can.

I did find max. elevation, though -- 75 degrees. That's almost as good as mortars, which usually top out at 80-85 degrees elevation.

Don't have time to do the trig for a specific answer right now, but with only a 240m/sec. MV and a 75 deg elevation, a SiG 33 would be able to drop a round in very close. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For CMx2 we will have better firecontrol for both on and off forms of indirect fire.

w00t! </font>

[Guest Mike]

High elevation can be used with direct fire against a target you can see - indeed I imagine it would be the preferred way to attack trenches as it would give a better chance of dropping a round right in the trench than lower elevations.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For CMx2 we will have better firecontrol for both on and off forms of indirect fire.

w00t! </font>

[dalem]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

Is part of the problem the fact that in CMx1 I cannot direct fire into an area that is not in LOS?

eh? That's pretty much the defn of indirect fire.

Or are you talking about firing through smoke/fog, that kind of thing - seperating cover (no LOS, no LOF) from concealment (no LOS, but LOF ok ... albeit pretty ineffective)?

Jon. </font>

[stoat]

This would all depend on the SP's point of view. Since you can look at the field from above, you know how large the stand of trees is and exactly where you want to put the shells. However, the gun only sees 5-10 feet into the trees, max. It has no idea what is behind those 5-10 feet. I agree that this capability would be nice, but in real life spotter planes had to be used to direct fire onto locations like these.

Also, your flat trajectory will make it likely that you will hit a big tree some meters from your aiming point.

[JonS]

Originally posted by stoat:

This would all depend on the SP's point of view. Since you can look at the field from above, you know how large the stand of trees is and exactly where you want to put the shells. However, the gun only sees 5-10 feet into the trees, max. It has no idea what is behind those 5-10 feet. I agree that this capability would be nice, but in real life spotter planes had to be used to direct fire onto locations like these.

No, a spotter-plane isn't required. IRL, when a shell detonates it creates a fair plume of smoke and dirt, which is quite visible, quite tall, and quite enough to adjust on, even if you can't see the exact spot on the ground where the round landed.

However, in CM, if you can't see the exact spot of ground, in effect you can't see anything. For example, you can't 'see' the forest canopy, and you can't 'see' the plume thrown up in-game.

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The thing is, you shouldn't have a M7 Priest on the map if you don't want it to get shot up. Instead you should have an offmap 105mm battery instead. It's that simple... if it is onmap artillery it is there for direct fire, if it is offmap artillery it is there for indirect fire. Mortars are an exception since their range is shorter and their employment is not the same as artillery (i.e. they are INFANTRY and not Artillery).

How to represent accurately the situation where a battery gets overrun? If they are offmap, it can't happen. If they are onmap, they can't fire indirect fire. This is a real situation, and Im sure there are numerous historical examples of this happening.

Also, a mortar platoon needs only minutes to set up, given that there is some precise map location near their position. This is something we were learning a lot while in army.

The marching order of finnish company on foot is usually: 1st platoon, Mortar Platoon, 2nd platoon and 3rd platoon. When 1st platoon has contact to the enemy, mortar platoon deploys to fire with "lyhytkanta menetelmä", which can be represented in CM using platoon leader as FO. The mortar platoon immediately begins to prepare for "koordinaatti menetelmä", which is the normal indirect way.

So, how much it takes to deploy in this way? It depends only about the distance to the nearest precise map location from where to take coordinates from. Ofcourse you need another map location to close the calculation (ie. to verify there was no error when calculating your position). There are other things to do, but they don't take much time. If there is direct sight to precise map location it takes just minutes to deploy to "koordinaatti menetelmä" This is very much something that can be done within the scale of CM. Even in the normal situation where you have to do some more running to get the coordinates it doesn't usually take that much time.

Doing this kind of deployment is something which can not be done in CM as is. If you don't have the mortars on map, there is no way that the enemy can overrun the 1st platoon and then the mortar platoon. There is no way to use "lyhytkanta menetelmä". There is no way the enemy can ambush the mortar platoon. You'll just have the FO. If the mortars are onmap they can't do proper indirect fire. Another thing is if these situations were common enough (Im quite sure they were) and if coding somthing like this into the game is worth the effort (propably not worth it).

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I realize getting guns that size to do indirect fire is a bit more complicated than having the platoon commander spot for the 50mm mortar (and I'm still wondering about that one, but it seems just within the range of credibility).

Actually, Im sure anybody even without any military training ever can do this kind of FO. You just have to point the mortar team to fire somewhere in the direction of the target and use a wild guess of the range. If (when) you didn't hit you can just say: It got about 200 meters short and 100 meters to the right of the target. And the mortar teams leader should have everything he needs to fire another round which should land at least a bit closer. Repeat.

Ok, this might not be fast and it might take many rounds to hit the target, but it is really that simple. Ofcourse this is not the way this kind of firing is done properly. But who cares if you don't have any better way of doing it.