Indirect Fire by On-Map units

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Drusus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by JonS:

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

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

What was the minimum range?

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>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

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

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

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

What was the minimum range?

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>

[SgtMuhammed]

Name one. You mean to say a case of an artillery battery firing indirect at an enemy unit one minute, and in the space of 30 minutes having its position overrun by the same enemy unit? Because that is what you are talking about simulating in CM.

You can simulate an artillery battery being overrun by having the guns on map - you don't need to simulate their firing as the likelihood of them firing indirectly at the same unit that is about to overrun them has to be absurdly small.

Unless you have some examples?

During the Ardennes the 109th FA had its batteries as close as 3kms behind the front line. During the battle for Hosingen C battery had to fight off advanced elements of 26th VGD before they could help the Hosingen garrison against the rest of the division. It can happen.

[JonS]

It happened to 102 Bty, 12th Fd Regt, RAA, at FSB Coral too, except that half the bty kept firing the indirect msn while the rest engaged in direct fire to avoid being overrun (not altogether successfully - one gun was temporarily captured). Still, the indirect msn was miles away, and likely wouldn't be part of the same scen. One scen would have the diggers with a smaller than usual allocation of arty, provided by an FO. Another scen might have the bty posn, with half the guns with no ammo (or very limited ammo) because they're busy shooting off into the boonies and not directly part of the local battle.

The question I have is; how likely is it for a bty to be

1) engaged in direct and indirect fire,

2) on the same CM map, and

3) within the length of a typical CM scen?

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by JonS:

122m/s^2 at 75° gives a range of about 100m, neglecting air resistance. Hang time would be wicked, making accuracy ... dubious.

Anyway. ~100m. Sure, that's within the practical limits of a CM scen, but I still feel that as an abstraction having guns represented by either FOs (if they're firing indirect) or the guns themselves (if firing direct) works ok. Even if the guns the FO is calling for would otherwise be on the CM map.

Heck, if it's really that big a deal you could do both. Have the guns on the map in defilade, and the FO forward, and have the mental and moral discipline to only fire one at a time.

I don't know personally about 75mm IG 18 or 150mm sIG 33 accuracy but all sourses and referrences to both IGs describe them as extremely accurate guns especially when compared to mortars, even at short ranges. The Germans bloody loved them.

I like your technique proposal about how to employ the IGs in CMx2 if they are actually treated accordingly and as you describe I've always wanted to use them for both kinds of fire, controlled by other observing unit for indirect steep fire and say keyholed/FPF/defilade whatever kind of direct flat angle fire.

Sorry I may just be a small minded grog about IGs and yes it is that important to me!

[ August 31, 2005, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Drusus:

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.

When I was in an infantry battalion recce platoon (26-27 yrs ago) we used to call down mortar fire into a 1000m x 1000m grid square on a map as the first reference!!

[JonS]

pfft. Grunts.

BTW (and I may have already asked you this) did you know Brent Kerr?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

As far as that aspect alone goes, it could be handled by a rule that allowed indirect fire by a unit that has not moved from its startup position. Somewhat the way that on-map mortars are able to hit registration markers if they haven't moved.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by 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.

Quite so. Furthermore, you can hit any spot on the ground that you can observe more precisely as long as wind isn't a problem, because the high angle diminishes the range aberrations of the gun.

Michael

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by JonS:

pfft. Grunts.

BTW (and I may have already asked you this) did you know Brent Kerr?

Kiwi grunts maybe, our standard was 200 meters on first round with 50m FFE by round 3.

As to untrained observers, most batteries don't have the ammo to just fire wildly around the map. But yes it can be done.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

will Shock Force have onmap indirect fire? is it used as a part of the Support Fire system?

and most importantly, can we use AMV AMOS of the Finnish module in direct fire role and how will STRIX ammunition be simulated?

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

will Shock Force have onmap indirect fire? is it used as a part of the Support Fire system?

We hope so, but it is a low priority for us right now. There is pretty much only a single weapon for both sides that fits into this category and only occasionally, and that is the 60mm mortar. Most of the time it should be offmap and larger mortars should almost always be off map. So its just a matter of time before it gets added, though not necessarily for the first release.

And yes, when an on map indirect fire capable weapon is set up to fire it will be in the Support Asset Roster. That doesn't mean you can actually get it to fire since you have to have communications to it, but it will be there to select.

and most importantly, can we use AMV AMOS of the Finnish module in direct fire role and how will STRIX ammunition be simulated?

Irrelevant. Since the Finns will win any battle they fight we see no reason to do a Finnish Army module

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We hope so, but it is a low priority for us right now. There is pretty much only a single weapon for both sides that fits into this category and only occasionally, and that is the 60mm mortar. Most of the time it should be offmap and larger mortars should almost always be off map. So its just a matter of time before it gets added, though not necessarily for the first release.

very reasonable.

And yes, when an on map indirect fire capable weapon is set up to fire it will be in the Support Asset Roster. That doesn't mean you can actually get it to fire since you have to have communications to it, but it will be there to select.

cool

Irrelevant. Since the Finns will win any battle they fight we see no reason to do a Finnish Army module

true enough, but AMVs are used by other nations as well.

more seriously speaking any chance we could get a general non-major-European-nation non-nation-specific module some day? wouldn't need to have perfect OOBs and TOEs, just some common equipment like CV90. the meaningful differences between a Norwegian, Finnish or Dutch CV90 are so small that they could be modded by players by just changing textures, if the base model was there. or what about making some sort of in-house licensing for the engine, or just for some tools or service to import content made by strict BFC specific specs, so that a group of fans could make a "mod" that BFC could then sell as a mini-module?

[hellfish]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

more seriously speaking any chance we could get a general non-major-European-nation non-nation-specific module some day? wouldn't need to have perfect OOBs and TOEs, just some common equipment like CV90. the meaningful differences between a Norwegian, Finnish or Dutch CV90 are so small that they could be modded by players by just changing textures, if the base model was there. or what about making some sort of in-house licensing for the engine, or just for some tools or service to import content made by strict BFC specific specs, so that a group of fans could make a "mod" that BFC could then sell as a mini-module?

I hope at least one or two CV90s make it into the European module.

[Battlefront.com]

CV90s are cooooool!

Steve

[hellfish]

I hope thats a yes.

So maybe we'll see the CV90120 too?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i gather that it means not only will we have CV90120 but we will also have CV90AMOS firing STRIX on-map! and of course i wouldn't buy the module unless it has Finnish T-55 so that i can blow up M1A2SEPs and T-90s from 4000 meters. damn them if they can't get the unit markers right in the textures! Musti RRs mounted on sledges pulled by reindeer ARE in - that one we can take for granted.

i believe most would be satisfied & happy to have greatly simplified TOEs and OOBs for the lesser European nations. just some general common crap that's easyish to add after the other modules are done. if it's not easy to add, or if there's no good info easily available, just leave it out. if it's not hyper realistic 99% of people won't care and 95% won't notice. yet 90% of them will be a lot more interested to buy the game if they can command silly weenie troops of their pathetic eurotrash nation rather than those yankee bastards or their british spaniels.

[hellfish]

The Finns would take reindeer with them to Syria? Hardcore, man...