Ok Battlefront it is about time for a CM: Normandy Forum

[Jaws]

Imho the Hedgerow was just the start of the problem. The defence surrounding a field was the main problem. A typical field defence contained MG's, AT weapons, Mortars and basic infantry all cross aimed thorugh a field. And when the field was almost cleared the Germans felt back to the next field surrounded by Hedgerows. Bypassing a field was no option because all fields were flanked by the same kind of Hedgeow defence. The Hedgerow cutter could give the advance to breakthrough that defending pattern but always with the high risk of being flamed by a Panzerfaust when moving through a hedgerow as first unit. So the Hedgerow cutter main advance was to speed up the proces of breaching the Hedgerow but fight behind that was the same with or without a Cutter

[bodkin]

Michael,

Doubler's "Busting the Bocage" - the pre-cursor to "Closing with the Enemy" - is available in full, online, at the US CGSC or CARL site. That is where you're most likely to find anything meaningful, I should think.

Hopefully CM:Normandy will introduce some new features that will help us use the tactics described in that document. With the present set of commands a tank would go through the hedgerow but there is no command to lay down a supressive arc of raking fire to pin any defenders in the far hedgerow leaving the tank vulnerable until it spots a target. Also we need mortars to be able to fire over hedgerows without line of sight to the target point.

[Sergei]

Also we need mortars to be able to fire over hedgerows without line of sight to the target point.

With CMSF British 51mm mortars you could already target spots just behind walls or other obstacles, so I guess this much can already be done.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Yeah, but that is both literally and figuratively a pretty marginal ability.

For fear of gamey area fire BFC have nerfed artillery to pretty much hit only where you can see. It's a decision I very much do not agree with.

[Michael Emrys]

Michael,

Gibsonm has it right:

All depends

Apparently nobody understood my question or you wouldn't all be telling me what I already know. So let me reframe it this way:

Were any records kept by the units involved giving a daily count of hedgerows breached and cleared during the middle of July? (This period would straddle the introduction of the Cullen Plow.) If not, cool. I recognize that not everything was recorded the way we johnny-come-lately wargamers would have liked. But if the records were kept, what do they say? This seems to me an issue of some interest in relation to CM:N.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

...[the] fight behind that was the same with or without a Cutter

Not exactly. Getting into the field with an intact tank or two to take out MG and other enemy positions made a hell of a difference to the infantry who were then much less likely to get pinned and then mortared to extinction.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

With CMSF British 51mm mortars you could already target spots just behind walls or other obstacles, so I guess this much can already be done.

The great bulk of hedgerow fighting was done by the US Army, who—perhaps regrettably—were not equipped with the 2" mortar.

Michael

[Götz von Berlichingen]

ooo if youre in the mood for quick replies - any infantry pics in the pipeline - im spanish and dont celebrate Christmas til 6th Jan so need my own set of bones and pics! and mrs undercover didnt get her pics for Divali!!! and any other fake reasons for more pics i can think of

I second that call.

[Sergei]

The great bulk of hedgerow fighting was done by the US Army, who—perhaps regrettably—were not equipped with the 2" mortar.

Michael

But they had M2 60mm mortars. Maybe not as many (?) or organized the same way, but they fill the same ecological niche.

[flamingknives]

I disagree totally Sergei. The 2" mortar is a platoon level weapon, operated by one or two men as part of the Platoon HQ that isn't really different to a big grenade launcher. While some modern 60mm mortars can (and do) fill this role, a WW2 US M2 mortar is a company level weapon, operated by a dedicated team and is really a smaller version of the 81mm weapons.

[YankeeDog]

I disagree totally Sergei. The 2" mortar is a platoon level weapon, operated by one or two men as part of the Platoon HQ that isn't really different to a big grenade launcher. While some modern 60mm mortars can (and do) fill this role, a WW2 US M2 mortar is a company level weapon, operated by a dedicated team and is really a smaller version of the 81mm weapons.

Not necessarily. I've read US infantry training manuals from the period that specifically teach the tactic of assigning one 60mm mortar team to an advancing platoon, just behind the point squad, so that the mortar can respond quickly and suppress to anything that fires on the point men, such as an MG nest.

But, at other times, the 60mms were definitely kept in battery, and used more like the bigger 81mm mortars usually were.

Based on my reading of the FMs, I think it depended a lot on whether the company was on the attack or defense. On the attack, the teaching seems to have been to sometimes use the M2 mortars as a forward, platoon-level weapon. On the defense, it seems that they were more likely to be kept as a company battery.

I do not dispute your point, though, that there are substantial differences between the design and tactical use of the two weapon systems. the Brit 51mm can be carried and operated by one man, if need be, and can be fired within seconds of stopping. So it's not that different from modern UGLs. The US 60mm is a much bigger weapon, and even when moving with a forward platoon and firing by visual rule-of-thumb, the team would need some time to deploy the weapon on the base plate before they could open fire. So the brits get less firepower and range, but they get it much more quickly. The US gets more boom, but it takes longer to set up. But both could be, and were, used in the forward, platoon-level role.

Cheers,

YD

[Sergei]

I disagree totally Sergei. The 2" mortar is a platoon level weapon, operated by one or two men as part of the Platoon HQ that isn't really different to a big grenade launcher. While some modern 60mm mortars can (and do) fill this role, a WW2 US M2 mortar is a company level weapon, operated by a dedicated team and is really a smaller version of the 81mm weapons.

But they both still do kill people. Try denying THAT if you think you're so smart.

[Michael Emrys]

But they had M2 60mm mortars. Maybe not as many (?) or organized the same way, but they fill the same ecological niche.

:confused:

I thought your point was that the 2" could be fired near-horizontally, and would thus be more useful in close-in engagements. That I would agree with.

Michael

[Sergei]

:confused:

Why would that be my point when I was saying that in the game lets you target ground just behind an obstacle such as a tall wall with your on-map mortars? I was talking about indirect fire in regards to bodkin's post.

[RobVarak]

Man it's good to see discussions like this starting to rage again!

[flamingknives]

It's all down to the bipod. Or was that tripod?

[Battlefront.com]

Apparently nobody understood my question or you wouldn't all be telling me what I already know. So let me reframe it this way:

Were any records kept by the units involved giving a daily count of hedgerows breached and cleared during the middle of July? (This period would straddle the introduction of the Cullen Plow.) If not, cool. I recognize that not everything was recorded the way we johnny-come-lately wargamers would have liked. But if the records were kept, what do they say? This seems to me an issue of some interest in relation to CM:N.

The best thing you could probably find is advance rates at the divisional and corps level. I've got those in a thick report somewhere. But no, I don't think there is any statistical study out there that spells out how many hedgerows were breached on a given day.

As I was saying earlier, the question itself is not really all that relevant to answer since it is so conditional that even knowing these numbers won't really be of use. Pre Culin a combat group could probably only hope to breach one set of hedgerows (perhaps in several places) and fight their way to the other side within the typical CM timeframe. After Culin a combat group could keep going depending on normal, non hedgerow specific, considerations. This is pretty obvious, in fact, because we already know that the advance rates went up dramatically with the Culin in place even if we don't know the actual advance rates in terms of Miles/KMs.

Not necessarily. I've read US infantry training manuals from the period that specifically teach the tactic of assigning one 60mm mortar team to an advancing platoon, just behind the point squad, so that the mortar can respond quickly and suppress to anything that fires on the point men, such as an MG nest.

But, at other times, the 60mms were definitely kept in battery, and used more like the bigger 81mm mortars usually were.

Correct. This is why there were 3x 60mm Mortars and not 2x. The intent was to have the ability for each platoon to be backed up by one mortar OR to pool the mortars for some specific purpose that would benefit the company as a whole. On defense the mortars were more likely to be used in this way, on the attack they were more likely to be parceled out to the platoons.

It's all down to the bipod. Or was that tripod?

I think I should ban people for using the word "tripod" in connection with British kit. You know, just to stop the potential for CMBO scale madness before it starts

Elmar,

For fear of gamey area fire BFC have nerfed artillery to pretty much hit only where you can see. It's a decision I very much do not agree with.

Not really We simply didn't have time to implement TRPs (complex UI coding) which is the primary means of firing blind out of LOS. CM: Normandy will have TRPs, so the problem is solved.

With the detailed C2 and "spotter" system CMx2 has we get away from potential gamey abuses of artillery. We also get rid of unrealistically restrictive constraints of CMx1's "one battery per spotter, one spotter for every battery" problem. Therefore, artillery in CM: Normandy will be superior in functionality to that of any previous CM game.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Steve:

But shouldn't it be possible to throw a few shells in the middle of a wooded area, even without TRPs?

[Secondbrooks]

Steve:

But shouldn't it be possible to throw a few shells in the middle of a wooded area, even without TRPs?

Yeah. This is the main problem i'm seeing. Would like to think that with bocage this is very-very important thing.

Other thing... Would it be possible to leave tubes on hold, after they have finished spotting? Also in CMSF?

[Michael Emrys]

Would like to think that with bocage this is very-very important thing.

Why? As I mentioned earlier, the engagements in bocage were so close that to use artillery would endanger one's own troops. It was possible to fire interdiction and harassment missions into the enemy's rear, but artillery supply for most of the Normandy campaign was so tight that the Allies didn't do that on a large scale SFAIK. Weather permitting, that was done by tactical airpower. I think the Americans, who were the ones mostly operating in bocage country, were trying to stockpile arty shells to have on hand once they broke out of the bocage.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Good on TRPs! The Germans had a lot of ground in Normandy prezeroed and the firepower to use those aimpoints effectively. For example, in Currahee, Burgett describes diving into what he thought was good cover, only to discover the telltale rays showing a mortar bomb had well before detonated in his planned hidey hole, since the Germans had methodically surveyed all the good spots where an attacker might take shelter under fire. Rather unnerving!

Also, I think that a fundamental alteration needs to be made about what the FOs draw LOS to. Obviously, it's nice when they can see the actual impacts on the ground, but absent these, they ought to be able to use the tops of the debris and smoke thrown skyward to figure out where shells and mortar fire are landing. In CMx1, especially since dust was added, this inability to key from something readily visible to the FO was a huge headache and bit me hard in RoW, causing an entire shoot to be wasted, since LOS was obscured after adjustment but before the shoot went out. In reality, all the treetops blown skyward would've been impossible to miss, an adjustment would've been made, and the shoot would've smarted for the recipents. Likewise, pounding a city with sustained artillery fire is very difficult to do when LOS must be measured to the base of the explosion. Yet, we know cities were bombarded, with heavy guns, for protracted periods. Certainly, no one shut off the artillery fire at Stalingrad and Leningrad simply because the air was full of dust and smoke. If it can't be fixed as I've detailed, I think it would be both helpful and historical to give us the capability to register new targets on the fly, permitting continuation fire even after the direct LOS to the actual impact point is blocked. Am also looking for "at my command" and "check fire" (not cancel the fire mission) orders, plus defensive fires triggered by star clusters and similar. I have previously discussed the importance of having separate TRP types for mortars and artillery (because of unit subordination, echelon and responsiveness), the need to be able to plot defensive concentrations, especially mortars, quickly, since American units generally did this even before digging in, and the importance of Fuze MT and of WP, the latter a nasty capability both sides had. I've seen some footage from Italy in which the German dropped 120mm WP mortar fire on a U.S. advance and thoroughly screwed things up. The former is particularly important to modeling the real capabilities of flak units, especially the dreaded 88.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Steve:

But shouldn't it be possible to throw a few shells in the middle of a wooded area, even without TRPs?

Possible? Sure. I could take a mortar right now and punt some shells into a wooded area without any LOS or training But how would I know I wasn't dropping a shell on my buddies? How would I even know I was getting it roughly into the right spot? How many meters is too many? How broken could the terrain be before I don't even know where that wooded area is to aim at? Why would I throw 2 rounds and not 20 since 2 is hardly likely to do anything unless I get REALLY lucky? Should I care that with each blindly aimed round fired I'm telling the enemy "here I am, come and get me"? Sure, if if I didn't care about friendly casualties, ammo supply, giving away my position for no good reason, etc. sure thing... pound away blindly and hope for the best. But how likely was that sort of thing in real life?

Again, I'm not saying that blind firing didn't happen... I'm just saying that from what I can see it didn't happen all that often because practical issues got in the way of theoretical capabilities.

Also, I think that a fundamental alteration needs to be made about what the FOs draw LOS to. Obviously, it's nice when they can see the actual impacts on the ground, but absent these, they ought to be able to use the tops of the debris and smoke thrown skyward to figure out where shells and mortar fire are landing.

Yes, we are looking into this. It's something that's pretty much specialized to situations where the Spotter has some ability to see a forest's canopy (and therefore shell fall), but not the dirt where the trees sit. CM:SF didn't have much concern about this so we haven't addressed it yet.

If it can't be fixed as I've detailed, I think it would be both helpful and historical to give us the capability to register new targets on the fly, permitting continuation fire even after the direct LOS to the actual impact point is blocked.

This is tied into a more complicated "Repeat Mission" command. That's not something we're going to get to for a while.

Am also looking for "at my command" and "check fire" (not cancel the fire mission) orders, plus defensive fires triggered by star clusters and similar... I have previously discussed the importance of having separate TRP types for mortars and artillery

It also shouldn't stop there, which means we slide towards Combat Mission: Artillery Wetdream This would probably come 2nd in popularity to Combat Mission: Engineers Wetdream, which itself would be a part of a 20 part specialized series which would take us until 2042 to finish. Mind you, I'd love to eventually get there, but with the problem of having to simulate everything all at one time, in roughly balanced detail, we have to pick our features carefully.

That being said, over time I do think we'll be able to introduce more command flexibility for artillery. Repeat, Check, and At My Command are all on a wish list dating back to 2005, so I can assure you that the utility of such functionality is not lost on us.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Good news regarding being able to adjust using the burst plume, plus certain other issues and har! har! regarding the Wetdream series! Pity about "Repeat Mission," but I remain hopeful. As for CM:SF, I think some analogous situations exist, as when artillery's landing behind a row of buildings on lower ones that can't be seen or in a square not under direct observation, dropping into a gorge being used as an assembly area, etc. Also, how are we doing on map fire to a grid designation, please? That, after all, is one of the great advantages of artillery, all-weather, around-the-clock fire support--as long as the guns know where to shoot. Of course, Observer Location Error must be factored in. As of the early 1980s, prior to GPS and using maps and compass bearings only, that stood at about 300 meters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[bodkin]

Steve,

Can you say if the SOP of the 29th ID in Normandy will be possible in CM:N? And if not will this doom any tank breaking through the hedgerow to the waiting panzerfausts?

Note point 7:

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/BustingtheBocage.pdf

As I said earlier it seems almost essential using these tactics that tanks should have some sort of area fire command similar to the cover arc command but which dosen't rely on a target being spotted first, instead the tank would rake the given arc with heavy or light fire. Is there any chance this sort of command could be added?

Also the use of 60mm mortars in close range combat maybe shouldn't rely on TRP's. If they are implemented like in CMx1 then they are probably restricted in use and require the player to place them before the scenario starts which means they could be completely useless if they haven't picked where the enemy is. Yet from that link it sounds like the mortar teams would have been pretty close to the action and would have a reasonably good idea where they wanted to target even if they had no direct line of sight.

I obviously have no insight into how breaching hedgerow tactics work in CM:N, and in terms of gameplay my questions may be irrelevant.

Thanks.

[Secondbrooks]

Possible? Sure. I could take a mortar right now and punt some shells into a wooded area without any LOS or training But how would I know I wasn't dropping a shell on my buddies? How would I even know I was getting it roughly into the right spot? How many meters is too many? How broken could the terrain be before I don't even know where that wooded area is to aim at? Why would I throw 2 rounds and not 20 since 2 is hardly likely to do anything unless I get REALLY lucky? Should I care that with each blindly aimed round fired I'm telling the enemy "here I am, come and get me"? Sure, if if I didn't care about friendly casualties, ammo supply, giving away my position for no good reason, etc. sure thing... pound away blindly and hope for the best. But how likely was that sort of thing in real life?

Again, I'm not saying that blind firing didn't happen... I'm just saying that from what I can see it didn't happen all that often because practical issues got in the way of theoretical capabilities.

For example in Finland considerable part of the indirect fire had to be fired unspotted in ww2, as it is supposed to be to day. Mostly just well prepared defese positions allowed both sides to use spotted fire. FO gives just enough space for spotting rounds to not to endanger his own men and then tries to sort things out by that. There's been debates that does FOs get too neat and long training on leading fire of mortars and artillery so that they can "hit oil-barrel" with it, when in reality aprox 90% of firemissions would happen in situation where they don't see their targetarea so such skills are pretty trivial in the first place.

It naturally helps for FO to be in the front just next to Platoon leader of point platoon. And that he is aware where he is at... Sure ww2 era maps weren't the best item for this so it increased distances where first spotting rounds would land as FOs tried to make it sure that grenades aren't landing too close of them. I've read one humoring story about FO requesting fire from cannon battalion. He adds safe distance to it and then safely drops range is some 100-300 meters phases... Problem was that first spotting rounds landed 9 kilometers away from his positions and after several corrections they still didn't hear or see impacts. At some point of time someone chosed to override his fire adjusting orders and dropped some 5000 meters out of it. After that they already started to hear the impacts for spotting rounds.

So yeah it could become rather slow process and artillery wasn't most effective in situations like that, but they were used. Main problems were that danger close stuff, they tried to get cannons to fire from sides relative to unit they are supporting (or even from front, if talking about pocketing units). Mortars were used often as they had many good sides compared to artillery. Indirect commonly weren't trying to hit closest enemy troops, which were in danger close distance anyways, but (possible) enemies behind those. And by that prevent enemy to bring reinforcements into close combat distances.

So it can be used, even lots. Ofcourse another thing is that how much US or German way is different compared to Finnish. As said US didn't train for such terrain, so maybe mindset was different aswell... Finns had to learn to use arty they finally had, as in Winter War is was already teached them to not to expect or request support from artillery. Seemed to take couple battles to get rid of that.

One and main problem in discussions like these is that "hitting oil-barrel" thingy. When it shouldn't need to be able do that, but instead it should hit somewhere "near" (preferably behind) to contribute atleast something for fighting unit. There can be just enemy platoon in direct contact with point units, but behind it unseen there could company or batallion moving in (could be not!) and only way to harrash or even surppress it's effort is to use indirect fire. This is main problem i'm facing in CMSF with it's current indirect fire system if terrain is heavily wooded (sure i'm aware that it isn't supposed to model terrain like that), opposed to CMx1 where i could use unspotted indirect fire.

Michael Emrys: Because there are mortars which can be used.