Artillery smoke

[Darius359au]

Ok I dont know if this has been asked before but there doesn't seem to be any Artillery smoke , Ive searched the manual and there seems to be no option.

[ChrisND]

and WP / RP!!! hehe

I won;t ask for Illum though, I can imagine the hell that lighting would play on the engine.

[tc237]

Yeah, would be real nice to have.

I've found my self needing it a few times.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I too have missed smoke… just thought I failed to find it as there are so many new features to learn.

If there really is no smoke that is a big problem. I am one of those who are a fan of the CMX2 engine and CMSF…. but no smoke is a bit of a shocker .

In any WWII/post WWII battlefield you need it. In modern warfare it is a must.

All the best,

Kip.

[thewood]

I have a hard time believing there is no arty smoke. That is something I beat the crap out of TOW about and thought it was its biggest weaknesses.

[Stirling]

If true, that is unforgivable. Seriously.

[Martin Krejcirik]

When was the last time you heard the US artillery used smoke ? Do they even have a smoke rounds ? WP yes, but that's different.

Syrians are probably too rigid to use it too.

[thewood]

It would be all the Syrians have going for them. It is a huge tactical advantage for the US against low tech opfors with no thermal imaging. So in a major assault by either Syrians or US, doctrine would prevent them from dropping at least mortar smoke or WP. Don't still carry WP for 81mm mortars in the US?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Martin Krejcirik:

When was the last time you heard the US artillery used smoke ? Do they even have a smoke rounds ? WP yes, but that's different.

The U.S. doesn't use smoke in Iraq and Afghanistan because the smoke makes it too hard to find tiny groups or individuals and the U.S. generally already has fire superiority, or some potential additional fires might not have thermal imaging.

If the U.S. went to war with a regular army that has tanks with dangerous guns (aka dangerous to U.S. units) and long-range ATGMs with trained crews, then yes they would use smoke and pick off the valuable enemy weapons with thermal sights, then wait for the smoke to clear before doing the detail work as above.

In my opinion, for the war modeled here no smoke for the U.S. is a very serious realism problem, and whether smoke is used in Iraq or not isn't quite relevant.

[SgtMuhammed]

So I take it there are no smoke Hummers in the game either? (Haven't got the full thing yet)

[thewood]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

So I take it there are no smoke Hummers in the game either? (Haven't got the full thing yet)

Only if they are french Hummers

I haven't seen them and don't think they are in, whatever they are.

[Other Means]

Abram's can pop smoke. Looks pretty good too. So it's in the engine, just not in the game. AFAICS.

[SmithyG]

Smoke doesnt seem to effect line of sight. I'll have my stryker pop smoke twice, wait for it to build up and still have the dismounting infantry get shot up.

[thewood]

I sure hope you are wrong. I'll try a hotseat test and check it out.

[Hev]

Ive also taken rounds after popping smoke with my strykers, but the incoming came from a roof top 200 meters+ down the road.

In CMx1 you would need to be on a big hill to see over smoke, now you may be able to see over the smoke from the taller buildings

[Kozure]

I'm also disappointed about lack of smoke.

The second campaign scenario I played (don't know if it's the standard second scenario because I only managed a "draw" on the first "Over the Berm" scenario) I was advancing through a wadi which looked like a huge kill zone for the Syrians.

Advancing carefully (Veteran mode), I managed a Total Victory (Syrian surrender), but I sure could have used some smoke!

[SmithyG]

Originally posted by Hev:

In CMx1 you would need to be on a big hill to see over smoke, now you may be able to see over the smoke from the taller buildings

In my brief tests the enemy infantry was in a trench so I dont think thats it.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Nope, no arty dropped smoke. (yet)

Must say though, and it's probably mean of me to say so, but I had a good laugh about this thread. Someone comes here to point out something appears to be missing. And then guys who hadn't even noticed it missing before then proclaim the sky is falling because of it.

[thewood]

That is mainly because I have been playing around with other things. So I never notice something myself, I am not allowed to comment on it, even if its just to test it.

[Kozure]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

Nope, no arty dropped smoke. (yet)

Must say though, and it's probably mean of me to say so, but I had a good laugh about this thread. Someone comes here to point out something appears to be missing. And then guys who hadn't even noticed it missing before then proclaim the sky is falling because of it.

I noticed it before I came here to post. Artillery delivered smoke is, to the best of my knowledge, still a fairly important component of the modern artillery munitions arsenal.

Maybe not for unconventional counter-insurgency warfare or full on UO, but in the sort of mixed conventional/unconventional battlefield that BFC is modelling here, I would think some quartermaster somewhere would squirrel away a few smoke rounds here or there.

[SgtMuhammed]

I know that every mission we ever planed for at Hohenfels had at least one smoke mission in it. BLUFOR tried to smoke us all the time to take advantage of their thermals. I agree that not much smoke is being used in Iraq or A-stan at the moment but it is a standard part of a Hi intensity battle plan.

[M1A1TC]

Very true. A good smoke arty mission can conceal your advance across very flat terrain (speaking from personal experience in RL)

[SmithyG]

I'm sure they're going to include smoke after they implement its ability to block LOS (which it currently doesnt do).

[Brent Pollock]

I guess I will have to postpone my plans to test if artillery smoke rounds can cause casualties by freak direct hits (no I am not talking about WP hits).