Artillery

[panzermartin]

Some questions here. How flexible is artillery nowdays and how this is going to be represented in CMSF? I think arty is already pretty accurate in CMx1 with mostly quick responses and all. I was wondering how much better this is going to get with all the technology available. I guess US player will have a dozen of options to bring indirect support in the field, choosing ammunition type, salvo patterns etc. On the other hand syrians(given their strategic inferiority) will rely mostly on mortars and that's it..or not? I dont recall Iraqis being able to field effectively something larger than that in OIF(except maybe some rushed inaccurate rocket salvos) so I doubt any other mid east country is able to do much better than that..any thoughts from arty grogs are much appreciated.

[Peter Cairns]

A lot of recent stuff about the intelegence about Iraq's defensive set up suggests that saddams paranoia, did as much to bugger up their C3 as the allies did, So you could argue that they might be a fair bit more effective.

I doubt that we will see huge artillery barrages, but the ability to open up and give a good minutes D-30 fire should be in there.

As many people here have said about the only effective way they could use artillery would be to pre target it from concealed positions on a likely choke point and hope that a stryker unit drives in to it.

Peter.

[oren_m]

The Syrian army relays heavily on it's artillery power, they have some 10 artillery regiments.

Here is some of their arty capabilities:

D-30 2A18M 122-mm Towed Howitzer

2S1 M-1974 Gvodzika

9K51 BM-21 Grad

[ March 31, 2006, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: oren_m ]

[cassh]

Counter-battery radar and highly accurate positioning systems (GPS & inertial guidance systems etc) and gun-section/vehicle level computerise fire control, plus air superiority means realistically Syrian gunners are going to have a bad day at the office following most salvos they fire - especially static D-30s etc. If they shoot-and-scoot they may survive a while - but from memory a D-30 isn't quite as speedy as say a 105mm Light Gun in the sequence :- unlimber - fire - limber - piss off quick time... Therefore, I would say the rarity-cost for Syrian artillery would most likely be quite high in the game.

[ParaBellum]

The possible balancing problem caused by the state-of-the-art artillery of the US army is yet another thing that bothers me about CMSF. It will probably need to be restricted in a scenario (much like air support) somehow for playabiltiy reasons, but I somehow doubt I will enjoy such a "one hand tied behind my back"-approach. Same with airpower. I'm looking forward to see how BFC manages to put this all together into an interesting wargame.

[flamingknives]

Did you enjoy CMBO/CMAK?

Allied forces in those games rarely had anything like the artillery support that they had in the actual event.

There are so many parallels with CMSF that I can't imagine that it will come across as being any worse in that respect.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

The possible balancing problem caused by the state-of-the-art artillery of the US army is yet another thing that bothers me about CMSF. It will probably need to be restricted in a scenario (much like air support) somehow for playabiltiy reasons, but I somehow doubt I will enjoy such a "one hand tied behind my back"-approach. Same with airpower. I'm looking forward to see how BFC manages to put this all together into an interesting wargame.

In any conflict, one side is often going to have a theoretical technological or material advantage over the other. All this means, however, is that in a typical engagement, that side should win. All CM:SF scenario designers will have to do is pick atypical engagements. This doesn't mean the US side has been unrealistically hamstrung just to make the game balanced. It just means the designer has to be more selective about the sorts of engagements picked for a scenario. Take Iraq now, for instance. I bet there are hundreds of combat reports to draw on of engagements that did not go all the US side's way. Maybe a patrol was ambushed? Maybe unexpectedly heavy resistance was encountered and the Air/Artillery support was being used elsewhere at that moment in time. We shouldn't think it is unrealistic for the US side to lose now and again in CM:SF.

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

All CM:SF scenario designers will have to do is pick atypical engagements. This doesn't mean the US side has been unrealistically hamstrung just to make the game balanced. It just means the designer has to be more selective about the sorts of engagements picked for a scenario. Take Iraq now, for instance. I bet there are hundreds of combat reports to draw on of engagements that did not go all the US side's way. Maybe a patrol was ambushed? Maybe unexpectedly heavy resistance was encountered and the Air/Artillery support was being used elsewhere at that moment in time. We shouldn't think it is unrealistic for the US side to lose now and again in CM:SF.

I wonder how many times a company-battalion sized US force in Iraq went into action against enemy forces and didn't achieve its objectives, suffering a defeat.

The whole "selective scenarios"-approach to accomodate for the vastly different force capabilities is a big problem for me, based on what I've seen so far about CM:SF, which is not much.

I've said it in another thread before, but I wonder how many times I can read in a briefing that the airforce is grounded due to a sandstorm and artillery support is unavailable while I'm being ambushed by enemy forces intel hasn't picked up just to provide a somewhat balanced fight.

[ April 01, 2006, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[panzermartin]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

but I somehow doubt I will enjoy such a "one hand tied behind my back"-approach.

Me neither. I really hope we wont have to exclude artillery along with CAS in CMSF QBs for balancing gameplay. Arty was always fun in CM adding some extra tactical choices I dont want to miss.

Btw, according to WinSPMBT, Syria's arty arsenal includes a wide range of heavy mortars of 120/160/240mm caliber. I guess mortars are harder to spot so the syrian side may have some indirect support options after all. SP artillery can survive a bit longer as well. It's all up to BFC and how they will portray the strategic situation in the end. Also, since the Stryker force will be the most forwarded element in the battle, maybe US player wont have 24h round the clock artillery support.

[Loaf]

I have read about US counter-battery radar picking up incoming mortar shells and calculating the impact point and the firer's location while the first rounds were in flight! You won't live long firing any sort of artillery against US forces nowadays I suspect...

Iraqi insurgents fire mortars from built-up civilian areas because they know the US will not use counter-battery fire against them. They try to fire a few rounds and get out of Dodge before US ground forces or helicopters can get to them...

[MikeyD]

A question from a mere civilian, how often would a unit under Company size have artillery support backup as they go off on patrol or recon? The major U.S. innovation in Vietnam was the firebase, scattered artillery outposts to support wandering partols. I don't really know how closely and reliably artillery is linked to infantry nowadays.

One artillery-related U.S. 'goodie' was developed for Bosnia (though there's not been much call for its use in Iraq). Anti-artillery electronic countermeasures. Basically, nobody nowadays uses old mechanically timed fuses for airburst anymore. They're all radar altimeter type (the original VT fuse from WWII). The U.S. has developed an emitter that sends false radar altimeter returns to the incoming shell causing the round to burst well away from the target. Quite clever, actually. And for the units with this device it substantially reduces the effectiveness of the opponent's artillery - airbust being most lethal. But it sounds more like protection for fixed installations, not moving forces.

[Bruce70]

So the Syrians would probably get together as many mortars as possible, fire as many shells as they have the guts for, and then run away leaving the mortars behind. After the counterbarrage they go back and see what can be salvaged. AFAIK mortars are relatively cheap. Obiously they wont be able to do this indefinitely...

[mav1]

It would be good to have medium and heavy artillery ( 3500 - 19000kg )on the map ( not just as off map artillery ) as individual guns, giving direct fire support. This would stimulate rear guard actions, desperate situations and units that have been surrounded by the enemy.

To my knowledge not all field artillery in combat mission was present on the map for use as direct fire support. I remember the Hungarians having no field artillery in CMBB.

[Kurtz]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Anti-artillery electronic countermeasures.[snip] But it sounds more like protection for fixed installations, not moving forces.

The ones I've seen were man-portable devices.

The Russians have similar systems mounted in BTR vehicles (with huge antennas).

The obvious counter-countermeasure to these countermeasures would be RF-homing guided shells.

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by oren_m:

The Syrian army relays heavily on it's artillery power, they have some 10 artillery regiments.

Here is some of their arty capabilities:

D-30 2A18M 122-mm Towed Howitzer

2S1 M-1974 Gvodzika

9K51 BM-21 Grad

Its not so much the systems that provides for good artillery, it is the targeting method and control. No MiddleEastern country, except Israel, come close to US capabilities in that regard. And the US has really good counter-battery radars. D-30 shoots, round goes up into air, counter-battery firing solution is calculated before the round impacts. So, within minutes, the least the D-30 tube gets is a 155 battery 3 in return, but more than likely, a 1000lb LGB dropped from the CAS stack in orbit on high.

During OIF1, when RCT-1 was south of Al-Kut, a BM-21 fired in our general direction in anger. If I remember right, it happened about 0400 local in the morning. About a dozen 122mm rockets impacted on a road intersection about 5 klicks behind us. Actually, the RCT COC was about a klick away from that intersection as well. But no one was there to get nailed. If a company or other unit was there, they would have been hit pretty good. 1st Bn, 11th Marines, the RCT's artillery battalion, was johny-on-the-spot with their counterbattery fire.

Even at that distance, the attack was very loud and the rapid succession of impacts really made us wonder what the hell had happened. The company went to 100% alert, but there were not any charging Iraqi infantry to follow up the attack. Too bad...

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

A question from a mere civilian, how often would a unit under Company size have artillery support backup as they go off on patrol or recon? The major U.S. innovation in Vietnam was the firebase, scattered artillery outposts to support wandering partols. I don't really know how closely and reliably artillery is linked to infantry nowadays.

Every patrol that leaves the wire in Iraq can call for artillery. I imagine it is the same in Afghanistan. But CAS is more responsive and used much more frequently. The problem with artillery after OIF1 is the collateral damage, the deconfliction of fires required, and that it is not as accurate as some kind of PGM. Mortars fired from the FOB are much more responsive, but are even less accurate. Walking artillery or mortar rounds through the fields and villages to your target to get good effect just does not work when fighting insurgents.

Not every US base has artillery, just key ones. And it usually just a few guns, each one pointed in a differect sector. If your target was outside a sector, then you would have to wait for the gun to shift. And fire for effect is one round at a time, unless the other guns shifted as well.

But for major operations, like Fallujah, artillery could be massed somewhat, but nothing like it was for OIF1. I would LOVE to see a battalion 5 fired in CM:SF.

One note about counter-battery radar. It only covers one sector at a time, which is fine when you expect the enemy coming from one general direction. But when the enemy fires at you from random places, you have to get a little lucky. Of course you cover the mostly likey and past firing spots. The insurgents keep repeating themselves.

At our FOB, we put up several fake counter-battery radars after it became apparent that they knew what direction our radar was looking. Sneaky bastards.

[imported_Captain_Wacky]

Originally posted by cassh:

Counter-battery radar and highly accurate positioning systems (GPS & inertial guidance systems etc) and gun-section/vehicle level computerise fire control, plus air superiority means realistically Syrian gunners are going to have a bad day at the office following most salvos they fire - especially static D-30s etc. If they shoot-and-scoot they may survive a while - but from memory a D-30 isn't quite as speedy as say a 105mm Light Gun in the sequence :- unlimber - fire - limber - piss off quick time... Therefore, I would say the rarity-cost for Syrian artillery would most likely be quite high in the game.

If we pick them up on counter battery radar our rounds would be going out towards them before theirs even hit the ground. I'm not sure how much shootin & scooting would help.

[M1A1TC]

Its called "Gvozdika, not "Gvodzika "

[cassh]

Captain_Wacky said -

If we pick them up on counter battery radar our rounds would be going out towards them before theirs even hit the ground.

Are you sure of that - I believe a well drilled battery and TOC will get their CBF off in 2-3 minutes - and that is considered fast? Flight time of a 122mm shell from 10km?... Not sure the maths will sum but you may be right. Regardless we agree a D-30 isn't going to remain a threat for long once it's gone pop.

[Peter Cairns]

I am not sure if Syrian have any but both China and Russia have some intersting rapid fire mortar systems.

Things like the 2S23 is a light six wheeled 120mm mortar that at 10 RPM is not bad in terms of shoot and scoot. The chinese also do an 82mm mortar that can fire 4 rounds in 1.5 seconds.

Add to that 122mm Katyushas and their is currently the ability to deliver a lot of rounds rapidly and then to move.

Where their are deficiencies are in command and control and electronic warfare.

What the Syrians or others need to add are firstly the ability to disperse their launchers away from to traditional lines of tubes and batterys to individual launchers that still with the ability to rapidly and accurately combine their firepower on a single target.

Given that the CM:SF scenario gives the Syrians 6 months to plan what they need is a laptop system that lets them quickly calculate if a target position is within range and a target solution. Given that the don't have GPS this will as with the former Soviet Union rely on pre surveying positions.

Oddly enough given things like Google Earth and the availability of satellite imagery this kind of thing might be easier than before. The ability to get the information to the guns, mortars and rockets is more difficult, but a system that let the targeting ukit just put out a call and anyone who gets it doing their own calculation might be the best they can hope for.

It would mean that artillery support would be at best random, but given that it is difficult to see a conventional battlefield artillery C3 network surviving, it might be the best they can do.

As to EW there are two obvious low cost possibles, one is a form of simple Inferometer system. fitted to shells or rockets in basically involves building aerials in to movable fins. When a round is fired it will be detected by counter battery radar, but will at the same time detect the radar.

A round is fired directly west. If the Radar is dead ahead it will not interfer with either of the aerials. If it is to the south it will be detected by the vertical fin on the south side, and will cause it to flick causing the round to turn to the south. It will continue to do this until it looses the signal, which will be either when the radar switches frequency, turns off, or is dead ahead. The horizontal fine does the same for altitude.

The second candidate would be a hand or light vehicle launched UAV, probably with a light HE sharapnel warhead, even directional like a canister round. These would be launched roughly towards the US position with a seeker set for the band used by Us counter battery radar.

Such UAV's would be light, cheap, stealthy, disposible and fire and forget. They might not be hugely effective, but beggars can't be choosers.

Peter.

[Bigduke6]

I think a more likely approach would be pre-surveyed firing pads, i.e., concrete slabs set up all over the country and with the firing data already computed. That's what the Israelis and the Jordanians do on either side of the Dead Sea, you can see the pads built into the side of the roads.

I would assume the Syrians already have firing positions set to protect against Israeli advances from Lebanon or the Golan; in six months one would think the Syrians could manage a good deal of firing pads in directions the Americans are likely to come. With a bit of earth-moving the firing pads become semi-hardened: you dig trenches for crews, maybe pre-position ammo, that sort of thing.

Not a war-winner in and of itself, but just the sort of thing to speed up Syrian artillery flexibility, and it's cheap and has been a known technology for at least a century.

[cassh]

Peter - I think a smart Anti-Radiation-Sell would require proper first-world development and manufacturing over a period – not something the Syrians can knock-up in the work-shed, and more importantly any such munition would require the ability to calculate a targeting solutions mid flight using dual sensor/receiver telemetry to perform basic triangulation - and have the propulsion to get their - otherwise if it merely turned to face active radar it would be susceptible to radar-painting disco...

Bigduke6 - I think you're nearer the mark here. Not sure ground markers are always necessary - but definitely pre-surveyed target-reference-points and pre-surveyed firing points would be the standard response for artillery targeting.

As for command and observed fire-control I think the Syrians will face a much greater challenge as much of the wired infrastructure will be directly attacked in C4I targeting and wireless communication will be jammed incessantly in the EW battle. In a mobile convention fight the Syrian gunners are going to moving or hiding, but probably not much shooting.

[flamingknives]

I don't think that guided shells would be at all feasible for Syria. For a start they spin, making guidance tricky, and secondly they have to survive setback (gun launch) loads in excess of 10,000g.

Rockets, on the other hand, are easier, being fin-stabilised anyway and are subject to much lower launch loads

[Peter Cairns]

Just general points.

The Russians do have a number of guided shells and mortar and rocket rounds, which come in everything from 120mm Mortar to 152mm conventional artillery.

A fin based system would be pretty basic and not particularly accurate, but the idea is to force the US to be more careful wiyth how it uses radar. The same could be said for radio, it would probably be worth the Syrians time to fire radio homing rounds towards the US at every opportunity.

As far as I am aware the russians also produce radio jamming shells.

Getting any kind of communication is going to be difficult for the Syrians. At it's crudest they could go for flares or even sirens. In terms of radio what they would need is a burst code with the target zone reference which could be blasted out on a frequency that the US used, as the only way to stop that would be to have blanket jamming on a frequency you used.

To work the Syrian gunners would need to listen in for US battlefield communications and then wait till one of there own units sent a signal on that frequency.

Of course the other Syrian option would be to radio locate US forces by listening for radio communications. This would be passive and difficult to coordinate.

As to flat pads as to obvious and not that necessary. Most modern vehicles can level themselves. A better system would be to use pre war GPS and a barcode label maker. You go about the country taking GPS readings, and then printing out waterproof labels to stick on lamp posts, fenceposts, bridges, buildings whatever.

Come the war, you drive up, scan it with a hand held unit (the ones they uses in supermarkets) and you knowwhere you are.

Cheap passive and reliable.

Peter.

[cassh]

flamingknives, regarding guided artillery shells - have a look at this Rhinemetall 155mm GPS Corrected Artillery Ammunition in development