Artillery Plan Fire

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Mortar rounds falling, say, 50 meters off to one side aren't going to slow them down if they have any experience at all.

if the target is a company, 50 meters off would not matter, as the company footprint is by diameter a lot larger than 50 meters. the problem in CM is rather that mortar fire is too accurate. i'd be butt happy if mortar fire would be less accurate in CM, causing wider dispersion. "target wide" for onboard mortars would make me ecstatic, and being able to adjust area target from LOS-point to 50-100 meters into non-LOS area (e.g. from treeline into the woods) would be simply divine.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

..being able to adjust area target from LOS-point to 50-100 meters into non-LOS area (e.g. from treeline into the woods) would be simply divine.

That seems to me more reasonable, and I would go for it myself.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Something like this occured to me a while back.

I wonder whether it might work to allow FOs (tied either to on-map mortars, or off-map artillery) to call in fire without LOS, but require the battery/mortar to first "register" on a visible point, and then adjust the fire to the target area where the spotter lacks LOS, but with a certain % error. The % error, both bearing and range, would be random, but the magintude of the error would be dependent on the distance from the registered point in LOS to the new target point.

So, for purposes of illustration, say the % error for adjusting fire to a point out of LOS is 40%. Then, a small adjustment like 50m is quite possible -- at worst the MPI would end up 20m away from your intended point in some random direction. But larger adjustments would become less and less likely to end up very near the intended target.

You could even allow successive adjustments out of LOS, but at an increasing rate of error for each adjustment. So a 2nd adjustment LOS might be up to 50% off target, then 60%, and so on.

It would also take more time to call in such an out-of-LOS target, since you'd have to first register a known point in LOS, and then adjust into the out-of-LOS area, which AFAICT is also realistic.

It depends somewhat on what the setting is for the first CMX2, but it seems to me that some sort of system that allows adjustment of artillery/mortar fire into "near LOS" areas, but at some penalty, would be a good thing.

Based on my limited layperson's knowledge, this seems to be a reasonable absraction of how this kind of thing works IRL. But perhaps I'm wrong and should be severely chastised by one of the board's resident artillerists. . .

[Midnight Warrior]

Perhaps division level fire could be controlled by the scenario designer such that at certain times programmed artillery fire would impact and the Bn commander and below would be aware of this planned fire but could not directly control it. This then could be another tool the scenario designer would have to make a battle play out the way he wants.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

..being able to adjust area target from LOS-point to 50-100 meters into non-LOS area (e.g. from treeline into the woods) would be simply divine.

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

That seems to me more reasonable, and I would go for it myself.

Yeah, count my vote for something like this and for YankeeDog's further ideas as well. That said, I would like to have an option that provides one side or both with a capacity of 'spotting with map co-ordinates'. It wasn't like they didn't use them to do that I mean even the Germans went into Russia with maps that had 250 metre squares on them. Obviously not exactly precise but I should think effective enough.

I too would like to bitch about on-board mortars not being able to fire indirectly at unseen and unspotted targets, not even into TRPs. And while on the subject of on-board mortars I would like to add that I think that they ought to be able to fire at wooden bunkers for some suppression effects with direct hits of 81mm types at least.

I definately would also like to have the IGs be able to fire both directly and indirectly in CMx2 since that is what they mostly did AIUI from what I've read.

On having planned Artillery fire in CMx2 I too am also for creeping barrages and curtain/wall of fire as well as better player defined zones and amounts of fire with perhaps multible batteries and multible or phased targeting options as well.

BTW, because I'm such a bloody Artillery layman can someone please explain to me the difference between barrage and consentraited fire for the sake of having a clear opperating definition, thanx.

OTOH what exactly makes you butt happy undead reindeer cavalry? :eek:

[ September 24, 2005, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

By "observed", I'm including secondary effects - the question still stands; how often would a FOO call in rounds on a spot to which he had no knowledge or even inkling of enemy activity? In CM terms, not even a sound contact.

Don't know the US/CW term for the kind of targets but the Finnish designation would translate something like "high propability map targets of opportunity". These include bridges, road intersections, obvious choke points like road in a narrow pass, likely arty battery positions etc.

These would be subject to intermittent harrassing fire and/or intense short interval high density point target barrages at the most likely time of day when there would be activity.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

It would if it were observed, and therefore accurate.

The accuracy of the barrage is not determined by the observation of the fall of shot, it is determined by the effect of the rounds. IRL the shot grouping is always consistent while the arty model in CM is "abstracted".

Mortar rounds falling, say, 50 meters off to one side aren't going to slow them down if they have any experience at all. Might even make them speed up to get more room between themselves and the danger zone, you see.

Given the lethal radius of the 81mm mortar round 50 meters is way too close for comfort. They would hit the deck first and then see what happens. They might indeed speed up but they have to take into account the fact that the possibility they are being bracketed running towards the possible next round would be the least healthy option.

It simply would not be common for a mortar team to waste any of its precious rounds on such a speculative target. They'd wait until the enemy broke cover and hit them then when they would have a chance of actually inflicting some casualties.

Agreed up to a point. However, the mortar team does not normally decide for themselves the targets they engage. They fire them at the targets designated by the HQ unit they are working for. If the Coy CO orders harrasing fire at suspected enemy positions then the mortars will do so.

It also depends on the terrain. Dumping your rounds at suspected enemy positions is sometimes preferable over having a full load of ammo when the enemy breaks cover too close for the mortar to engage them.

[ September 24, 2005, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

the problem in CM is rather that mortar fire is too accurate.

It is not. IRL you can land the mortar round on top each other. To make them scatter you have to adjust the tube for every shot.

However, the lethality of the sub-81mm mortar rounds is IMO overmodelled in the game making these babies far too dangerous than they really were IRL.

being able to adjust area target from LOS-point to 50-100 meters into non-LOS area (e.g. from treeline into the woods) would be simply divine.

I second this. The range could be even as great as 200m though.

[Tero]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I wonder whether it might work to allow FOs (tied either to on-map mortars, or off-map artillery) to call in fire without LOS, but require the battery/mortar to first "register" on a visible point, and then adjust the fire to the target area where the spotter lacks LOS, but with a certain % error.

As it happens this was done IRL (at least in the Finnish arty). The thing is the registration shots do not need to be on the battle field. Any spot will do. The only requirement is the fall of shot needs to be observed so the battery position can be determined for the subsequent fire missions.

With the registration shots done the fire mission shot fall pattern is 100% consistent for every fire mission the battery fires from the same location (unless of course there is significant unobserved changes in the in the parameters like gun barrel wear during that period). It is in fact irrelevant from the fire missions POV if the FO observes the fall of shot or not. The fire mission is consistent. If it lands where it is supposed to land or not is up to the FO and that is why the FO needs to see the fall of shot.

IMO you raise a rather interesting and important point pertaining the arty model in CMx2 and how it should work with relative spotting.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

BTW, because I'm such a bloody Artillery layman can someone please explain to me the difference between barrage and consentraited fire for the sake of having a clear opperating definition, thanx.

There is no difference.

It is a matter of what sheaf you use.

Barrages are normally "unintelligent" wide area fire missions with parrallel sheafs. Point targets require converging sheaf. You can even use stich fire with a single gun.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Tero:

Mortar rounds falling, say, 50 meters off to one side aren't going to slow them down if they have any experience at all. Might even make them speed up to get more room between themselves and the danger zone, you see.

[/QB]

If they've got any training or brains at all they'll be hightailing it out of the target area before the second round lands.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

If they've got any training or brains at all they'll be hightailing it out of the target area before the second round lands.

The million monetary unit guestions are: where does the next round land, how many will there be in the next volley and to which direction will you run to ?

By the time that one round falls there is a high propability there are already several on the way.

If it is a solitary round can be (most propably is) a ranging round. If the enemy has you within 50 meters he will either bracket you or go straight to FFE after adjustment. Since you can not tell what the shell flight time is from the mortar to your position running away may be a valid option. Then again, if you high tail just for the heck of it you might run straight into the next round.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

If they've got any training or brains at all they'll be hightailing it out of the target area before the second round lands.

The million monetary unit guestions are: where does the next round land, how many will there be in the next volley and to which direction will you run to ?

Pick a spot on the clock and run like hell. Hopefully you run right out of his bracket instead of further into it

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Tero:

...With the registration shots done the fire mission shot fall pattern is 100% consistent for every fire mission the battery fires from the same location (unless of course there is significant unobserved changes in the in the parameters like gun barrel wear during that period). It is in fact irrelevant from the fire missions POV if the FO observes the fall of shot or not. The fire mission is consistent. If it lands where it is supposed to land or not is up to the FO and that is why the FO needs to see the fall of shot.

I assume you're talking about a situation where the FO (and battery, of course) have well surveyed maps of the area? Otherwise, I would assume that there would be at least some error from the FO guesstimating the adjustment from the known registered, point (i.e, FO thinks to himself, "Hmmm. . . looks like the enemy position is about 500m ENE, and about 20m higher elevation than the registration point."

[Tero]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Pick a spot on the clock and run like hell. Hopefully you run right out of his bracket instead of further into it

That is not how trained troops with brains would react now is it ? They would pick a near by spot which gives them cover and make a dash for that spot. If no cover is near by you hug the ground and ride it out.

Or that is how we were told to do during training.

[Tero]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I assume you're talking about a situation where the FO (and battery, of course) have well surveyed maps of the area?

That was the überFinnish experience.

But the principle works even in less than ideal conditions.

The principle works also backwards. You order a ranging shot giving fixed values and guestimate where it lands. When observe where the shell actually lands you can determine both the FO's and the battery position relative to the ranging shot and use that data when calculating subsequent fire missions.

Otherwise, I would assume that there would be at least some error from the FO guesstimating the adjustment from the known registered, point (i.e, FO thinks to himself, "Hmmm. . . looks like the enemy position is about 500m ENE, and about 20m higher elevation than the registration point."

That would be the case if the ranging shot was done on the spot and you need to walk the ranging shots on the target. If you are using data precalculated as I described you would cut the number of required ranging shots in half since the range data calculation would be already done. And if your elevation estimation is on the money you can go FFE off the bat.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Pick a spot on the clock and run like hell. Hopefully you run right out of his bracket instead of further into it

That is not how trained troops with brains would react now is it ? They would pick a near by spot which gives them cover and make a dash for that spot. If no cover is near by you hug the ground and ride it out.

Or that is how we were told to do during training.

Well obviously you aren't going to run into an open field and stand there just because someone said 3o clock, 200 meters, and they couldn't see past the next terrain feature.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

the problem in CM is rather that mortar fire is too accurate.

It is not. IRL you can land the mortar round on top each other. To make them scatter you have to adjust the tube for every shot.

yes, but the problem is that you can't adjust the tube for every shot in CM: you adjust once in 60 seconds. the resulting scatter is some form of "abstraction", i guess.

one of my "want to see added" requests in the poll thread was ability to give a two dimensional area for area target command, so that we could adjust the scatter. i hate it when i am forced to waste precious resources on some small 5x5 meter spot for 60 seconds.

in CMx1 i have learned to buy green instead of veteran mortars (and IGs & tanks), so that i can get some scatter. i find veteran mortars close to useless, unless i want to target a single gun somewhere far off, which is usually not the case.

However, the lethality of the sub-81mm mortar rounds is IMO overmodelled in the game making these babies far too dangerous than they really were IRL.

i agree.

i think the general problem in CMx1 is that combat is still too much Hollywood, meaning far too little suppression and far too much blood and superheroes. judging from the mentality expressed in the recent armor over run effects thread, the suppression-superheroes ratio is not going to change, which is a damned shame.

I second this. The range could be even as great as 200m though.

sure, i'd like that, but even 50 meters would make a dramatical effect IMO, not least due to how "zones" (those crucial 30 meters) function in CMx1.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Well obviously you aren't going to run into an open field and stand there just because someone said 3o clock, 200 meters, and they couldn't see past the next terrain feature.

Obviously.

But you did claim (to the effect) that they would haul ass out of the barrage kill zone ASAP with the first round only 50m off.

With the first round that close you would more likely burrow down instantly instead of making a run for it.

[Zalgiris 1410]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

BTW, because I'm such a bloody Artillery layman can someone please explain to me the difference between barrage and consentraited fire for the sake of having a clear opperating definition, thanx.

There is no difference.

It is a matter of what sheaf you use.

Barrages are normally "unintelligent" wide area fire missions with parrallel sheafs. Point targets require converging sheaf. You can even use stich fire with a single gun.

As I said above I'm a layman so what's a sheaf exactly and what do you mean here Tero. Thanks for answering though, however I always figured that a barrage was just a type of artillery concentration. AIUI it was invented by the French on the Western Front during WWI and translates as 'barrier' of felling shell fire intended origionally to create impassible areas of terrain for tactical purposes rather than other kinds such as harrassment fire etc.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

[snips]

As I said above I'm a layman so what's a sheaf exactly and what do you mean here Tero. Thanks for answering though, however I always figured that a barrage was just a type of artillery concentration. AIUI it was invented by the French on the Western Front during WWI and translates as 'barrier' of felling shell fire intended origionally to create impassible areas of terrain for tactical purposes rather than other kinds such as harrassment fire etc.

As often happens, the clue's in the etymology.

You are quite right about the origin of "barrage"; it forms a linear barrier or curtain of fire.

"Concentration", on the other hand, doesn't need much Latin to construe as "having the same centre".

So a barrage is a target where the guns are aimed at a series of points forming a line, and a concentration is one where they are all aimed at the same point.

The term "sheaf" describes the planes of fire of two or more artillery pieces, and tells you how the pattern in which the shells arrive will correspond to the pattern in which the gun positions are laid out.

Having the guns all pointing on the same bearing is known as "parallel sheaf" -- the shells will in principle (ignoring elevation differences and ballistic errors) land in the same pattern on the ground as the pattern in which the guns are disposed.

Having the planes diverge is a "divergent sheaf", where the shells land more spread out than the gun positions; having them converge, a "convergent sheaf", where the shells land more concentrated than the gun positions.

Applying corrections to each gun so that their individual mean points of impact are evenly-spaced is called a "regular sheaf". A "standard sheaf" takes account of the expected burst radius of the shell to produce the desired target effect, and an "open sheaf" is the widest regular sheaf that does not leave unacceptable gaps in the coverage.

I would expect a barrage to be fired using a regular sheaf, although, if you line your guns up at regular intervals the way the Russians did in WW2 a parallel sheaf will amount to the same thing.

I expect a concetration would be fired using a converged sheaf, although I expect a parallel sheaf might do if you want it quickly.

IANAG, but I think that's all more or less right.

An excellent place to learn more about WW2 artillery is Nigel Evan's WW2 RA page, at:

http://members.tripod.com/%7Enigelef/index.htm

All the best,

John.

[Tero]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

The term "sheaf" describes the planes of fire of two or more artillery pieces, and tells you how the pattern in which the shells arrive will correspond to the pattern in which the gun positions are laid out.

Is that really accurate ? Does the pattern of the gun positions really correspond with the sheaf used ?

I have always thought the sheaf is relative to the aiming point (individual gun or battery) and not to the gun position.

Having the guns all pointing on the same bearing is known as "parallel sheaf" -- the shells will in principle (ignoring elevation differences and ballistic errors) land in the same pattern on the ground as the pattern in which the guns are disposed.

You can have the shells land in the same line even if the gun/battery positions are staggered.

Having the planes diverge is a "divergent sheaf", where the shells land more spread out than the gun positions; having them converge, a "convergent sheaf", where the shells land more concentrated than the gun positions.

That is dependent on the battery vs individual gun aim point.

In the low density end is when the batteries use aim point(s) which are parallel and each gun in the batteries fire using parallel sheaf.In the high density end the guns in the batteries fire converged sheaf and the battery sheafs converge.

http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm

[RSColonel_131st]

Arty Grogs.

[JonS]

Yep. More fun than Art Grogs.

[RSColonel_131st]

"Infantry errs, infantry die. Arty errs, infantry die."

You guys gotta love your jobs, huh.