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

[Jaws]

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

Agree >>>WHEN<<<< the Tanks were intact

[Michael Emrys]

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

Oh yes, agreed. But in discussion a distinction is usually drawn between artillery (cannons and howitzers) and mortars. Mortars I consider as infantry weapons (at least for calibers less than 100mm) organic to infantry companies and battalions usually, whereas the artillery forms a separate arm. During WW II they were generally handled quite differently because of their differing capabilities and command structures. I.e., a company commander could simply order his mortars to fire on a selected target and be relatively assured of having his order carried out fairly quickly. With artillery, unless he had a dedicated battery and an FO with him, he had to put in a request which then traveled eventually to a battery, battalion, or whatever, was then plotted, and then maybe he would get some fire. Generally speaking, the mortars were quicker to respond, the fire was more accurate, and due to the smaller shells could be used closer to one's own position. In bocage fighting (or in any type of close terrain), those were critical factors. And as has been stated before, the Germans generally had more mortars on hand, more ammunition for them—since they were either static or falling back towards their source of supply, and had previously zeroed them in.

Michael

[TheVulture]

What about taking advantage of the new CC system to allow some kinds of 'unspotted' fire. The idea is that a unit (all units, HQ units only, or whatever) can place a 'target point' in its line of sight. Info about this target point then gets shared around via the normal CC method of sharing intel on enemy (and friendly) units. Once it reaches an on-map mortar or FO (or maybe anyone capable of calling in an artillery asset) then they can call in a strike on that point whether it is in LoS or not, subject to whatever errors and delays are deemed appropriate.

If you are feeling malicious, you could also apply a random error to the position of the 'target point' as it appears to units other than the one placing it.

I've not really thought about how well it would work in practice, but it would allow the player to drop artillery on non-LoS areas where it is plausible they would do so in real life, without allowing too gamey exploits (you still have to get some eyes to a spot to fire at it, the delay of the info percolating through the command structure, and the potential innacuarcy stops pseudo-borg use of artillery, and using small 'disposable' units like snipers and partial vehicle crews to get to spots to place markers won't be very effective since the time for the marker to reach anyone who can use it will be too long).

I've not really tried to think of ways it could be exploited yet though...

I don't think the idea uses any mechanics not already present in the game, more or less, so I imagine it is technically feasible. As are 5,381 things already on the wish list. Would it add anything worthwhile though?

[Thomm]

Sounds very clever!

Best regard,

Thomm

[Topo]

Agree, great idea!

[Michael Emrys]

Might work, depending. But one thing to keep in mind is that CC systems during WW II were vastly more primitive than now and what you see in SF. Your average squad leader practically never got to ask for arty and your platoon leader would not have an easy time of it either. Communication at the CM level was mostly by shouts, hand signals, whistles, and runners (and sometimes flares or smoke). Generally, only a battalion or higher HQ had a direct line to arty. Unless you were the lead company and had an FO with you, you had to send a message back to a higher level HQ and then wait.

The Allies were a bit more fortunate than average during the period covered by CM:N in that they had rather more trained FOs and tried to have them where they were needed. So they got relatively fast responses in fluid situations. But still nothing like today.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Oh yes, agreed. But in discussion a distinction is usually drawn between artillery (cannons and howitzers) and mortars.

And tactical fire vs. massed fire. The stuff that Secondbrooks wrote is spot on even for the US and Commonwealth, at least, and probably the Germans too. But what we've been talking about is this sort of situation:

Enemy held hedegrow 50-100m away. No idea if there is someone there or not, want to suppress it before I find out. I have mortars available, but nobody able to spot the hedgerow. So I want to lob some rounds from my attached mortars which have about 40 rounds at their disposal each. The hedge is 20m long so I'll just aim for the one or two spots I suspect the enemy to be in.

So what are the problems with this?

1. The chances of hitting the hedgerow at all, without spotting, is just about zero. Repeated hits are less than zero.

2. Even if by some miracle a round hits the targeted hedgerow, what are the chances that the one in a thousand shot actually lands in a way that causes some discomfort or casualty to the enemy you don't even know is there in the first place? So infinitesimally small it isn't worth even thinking about.

3. What are the chances of hitting a friendly position, known or unknown, to the mortar gunner? Very high.

4. With so few mortar rounds at my disposal, and known targets that will eventually be identified and observed, why would I want to waste my ammo on such foolish and useless activities? I wouldn't. Not in real life and certainly not in a game

Now, where Secondbrooks' comments make sense is a runner comes back from 1st Platoon to Company HQ. He says "sir, the Germans are all over village Booger-sue-mer and we're pinned down in this field here! Can we shake them up while we get our asses out of there?"

In this case blind fire MIGHT be the way to go. The village is a big and distinct enough target that it would be on a map, as opposed to some random hedgerow. It would also be easy to discern on a map, as opposed to some random hedgerow. Therefore, provided the map's coordinates are reasonably accurate and the artillery asset the CO calls up reasonably orientated to the same coordinates, then laying down a bunch of artillery on the village is likely practical in all senses of the word (both to do it and to get a desirable result). There is still danger to the friendlies, but under the circumstances it's likely that the barrage would benefit them more than it would harm them. They'd probably fire 20 or more rounds too, since a couple would do nothing significant. It would also probably take 15-20 minutes to get this setup to go.

What about taking advantage of the new CC system to allow some kinds of 'unspotted' fire. The idea is that a unit (all units, HQ units only, or whatever) can place a 'target point' in its line of sight. Info about this target point then gets shared around via the normal CC method of sharing intel on enemy (and friendly) units. Once it reaches an on-map mortar or FO (or maybe anyone capable of calling in an artillery asset) then they can call in a strike on that point whether it is in LoS or not, subject to whatever errors and delays are deemed appropriate.

This doesn't jibe with reality, though. The precision of maps was simply not up to the task. Usually the spotter identifies a landmark that is on both the spotter's and artillery battery's mapboards, which would be things like roads, villages, bridges, cemeteries perhaps, etc. Then the spotter makes range, angle, and elevation calculations from the landmark to the spot he wants fire directed on. The battery then has to make all kinds of calculations to account for wind, temperature, relative elevations, etc. to hit that one and only one spot.

If there is time/need the battery fires some spotting rounds to see if they are on target. These would have to be spotted, of course, with 2 way communications. When a spotting round hits the right spot the spotter confirms that one individual shot hit the right spot. The battery then notes the gun's position and then translates offsets for the rest of the battery.

The TRP is then formed and given a designation that must be used in order to get fire down on that particular point. As part of a defensive plan these TRPs would be communicated to whomever was deemed in need of them and would NOT be communicated to anybody else. When on the attack TRPs were established inbetween phases of combat, not on the fly. At least not preemptively and without specific intent to use them.

I don't think the idea uses any mechanics not already present in the game, more or less, so I imagine it is technically feasible. As are 5,381 things already on the wish list. Would it add anything worthwhile though?

Before we even consider possibly adding something to the game we must first ask the question... is it realistic? If that question is a NO then it stops there. If it passes that then there are a bunch of other practical questions that need to be asked. In this case we can stop at the first question

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Might work, depending. But one thing to keep in mind is that CC systems during WW II were vastly more primitive than now and what you see in SF.

Heh... that's an understatement

Not only was the equipment far more primitive, but the availability of it was also limited. As such there was no reason to train many guys to know how to call in artillery because the chances were he'd never be in a position where he physically could do it even if he knew how. Instead the average frontline unit would communicate a want and someone, specifically trained and equipped, would get involve to make it happen. Since such guys were in extremely short supply, it took time and effort to get fire called in on a target. The target would also have to be important enough to wait around for all of this to happen.

Which is why there are light mortars attached to the Rifle Companies. These guys were there to plug the gap between rifle and bigger stuff. The medium and heavy mortars were similarly there for the infantry, though of course with less flexibility than light mortars.

In real life the Platoon Leader would communicate directly with the mortar crew, the Company Commander, or the Weapons Platoon Leader depending on how things were organized ahead of whatever combat they were in. Generally speaking the light mortars would establish LOS to the targets they were firing at. That's right... LOS from light mortar DIRECTLY to the target. Failing that the Weapons Platoon Leader would act as the spotter, unless the mortars were parceled out and in that case the Rifle Platoon Leaders would communicate with its own attached light mortar. This would be done verbally since the light mortars did not have radios and generally wouldn't have field phones set up. When the light mortars were parceled out it greatly complicated, even precluded, centralized direction of the light mortars on a single target.

Now, add to this the problems of the communications gear itself. Even today there are a ton of problems with communicating complex stuff like fire missions via radio. Think about it back when ranges were very short and equipment generally incapable of handling (usually) a small range of frequencies without swapping around crystals. Most devices could only communicate on one frequency at a time, while higher up radios had the ability to handle more (usually only 2).

For a Platoon radio to make it to a battery sitting miles back in the rear the amount of hops necessary would probably be at least 4. Each one of them fragile and requiring good radio discipline at all times. When on the move this was even worse because all the operators would tend to have to stop where they had a signal and not move until the entire process was complete. On defense this wasn't as much of an issue because static positions were, at least by design, to be the norm. In all cases, though, the people operating the equipment had other things to do other than manage spotting rounds and what not, so even when the fire mission was a priority it could get bunged up by other communications needs. Once things had to be moved around, however, things would go from bad to worse quickly.

Which is why artillery was broken up into distinct hierarchical units. They simply did not have the communications equipment to reliably maintain efficient centralized, yet flexible, fire control. When centralized fire control was done it was neither efficient nor flexible. Especially by today's standards.

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Now, where Secondbrooks' comments make sense is a runner comes back from 1st Platoon to Company HQ....

He says "sir, the Germans are all over village Booger-sue-mer and we're pinned down in this field here! Can we shake them up while we get our asses out of there?"

In this case blind fire MIGHT be the way to go. The village is a big and distinct enough target that it would be on a map, as opposed to some random hedgerow. It would also be easy to discern on a map, as opposed to some random hedgerow. Therefore, provided the map's coordinates are reasonably accurate and the artillery asset the CO calls up reasonably orientated to the same coordinates, then laying down a bunch of artillery on the village is likely practical in all senses of the word (both to do it and to get a desirable result). There is still danger to the friendlies, but under the circumstances it's likely that the barrage would benefit them more than it would harm them. They'd probably fire 20 or more rounds too, since a couple would do nothing significant. It would also probably take 15-20 minutes to get this setup to go.

Why would random hedgerow be problem? Generic 2-5 hectacer space in vast backwood isn't problem... well getting rounds there is problem for FO and takes time. I don't understand how mortars and Artillery are different here. Mortars beats closer to friendlies, Arty more away from them.

Why should player/or real commander be conserned about friendly fire to his men if he's sole intention is to get artillery fire to somewhere 200-400 meters away from closest friendlies and try to get mortars to fill the cap as well as possible? We can't expect that hedgerow forms neat 20x100 meters boxes which are covering the map and just small scale platoon vs squad action going on. While there's nothing more which would move around. Can we?

I don't know how close to CM:normandy CMBO got the terrain, but there was usually lots of "tunnels" which generated good changes to move large sized units around in haste manner. So there would have been basically more or less constant need to fire unspotted "barriers" with artillery, if FO doesn't happen to be in location where he can establish LOS into predicted route of enemy mass. Personally i've used lot's of unspotted fire in CMx1 to make enemy bleed while it's just getting it's assault organized, or to make it's main body to halt while it's small point element is being engaged and slowly taken care of, be it hedgerows, forests, hills or anything. Be it defending, attacking, or meeting engaging. In CMSF i can't do this, i'd like to able to do it in CM:normandy.

Okay. I'll drop this here, there are good changes that i take this issue too much CMSF-like and CMBO-like, and by so i'm ignorant of what CM:Normany will be like. Besides i cant' force this into game if it has been left out

[Battlefront.com]

Why would random hedgerow be problem?

Because these things aren't generally on maps, or at least aren't accurately depicted. Therefore, trying to communicate the location becomes a significant problem when nobody has their eyes on it. Sure, it could be done BUT with all the problems artillery had getting their rounds on major targets which DID have eyes on them, how effective do you think blind firing would be?

Remember, getting a round close to a hedgerow isn't good enough. You have to get it pretty much on target or it won't do anything. Drop the rounds 10m on the wrong side of the hedgerow and you get no real positive effect. Drop them on the wrong side of a T intersection and you get no positive effect. Drop them too far away and you get no positive effect. Etc. And without eyes on the target itself you're throwing away any chance of correcting what is likely to be an off target barrage.

Why should FO be conserned about friendly fire to his men if he's sole intention is to get artillery fire to somewhere 200-400 meters away from closest friendlies? We can't expect that hedgerow forms neat 20x100 meters boxes which are covering the map and just small scale platoon vs squad action going on while there's nothing more which would move around, can we?

But that's just it... a frontline commander has to deal with a chaotic arrangement of both friendly and enemy units because there are no neat rows to keep track of where everything is. So if I'm lobbing rounds without any idea, none what-so-ever, of where they are hitting... is that a good idea? No, of course it isn't.

But I think you're missing the point here. Why would I, as a lowly Captain of a Rifle Company, be calling in artillery on something that can't possibly cause me any harm at that point in time even if there is something there? It's a waste of resources and, when compounded by thousands of other lowly Captains, bogs down the entire war effort. I'm not kidding here

Plus, we're not talking about 200-400m away if you're unconcerned about friendly casualties. You'd probably have to fire at something 500-800m to be outside of the immediate danger area to your own troops. That's because even with spotted and adjusted fire you're talking about 300-500m possible range of error. Firing blind is obviously going to be even worse. At that range you're dropping rounds (possibly anyway) in another Battalion or Regiment's area of operations. That's never a good thing to do without explicit orders.

Such targets would, by definition, cease to be tactical. They would instead be strategic and/or operational. In that case there would be a TRP and assets set aside to hit that particular target. Which CM simulates quite nicely

I don't know how close CMBO got them, but there was usually lots of possibilities which generated good changes to move large sized units around in haste manner. So there would have been basically more or less constant need to fire unspotted "barriers" with artillery, if FO doesn't happen to be in location where he can establish LOS into predicted route of enemy mass.

Oooo... as much as I appreciate the realism of my own products , I must caution you to NOT use CM as proof of concept in that way. In CM you are able to make massively unrealistic maneuver shifts at the drop of a dime due to the fact that it is a game and the units are all controlled by a single person. In real life such massive, unplanned maneuvers did not develop within the space of a 40 minute battle, therefore having artillery be that flexible just compounds the historical inaccuracies instead of helping to put realistic constraints on them.

Personally i've used lot's of unspotted fire in CMx1 to make enemy bleed while it's just getting it's assault organized, or to make it's main body to halt while it's small point element is being engaged and slowly taken care of, be it hedgerows, forests, hills or anything. Be it defending, attacking, or meeting engaging.

In real life there would be TRPs for this, they wouldn't be fired on the fly.

In CMSF i can't do this, i'd like to able to do it in CM:normandy.

Correct. The lack of TRPs in CM:SF has been a known limitation long before you guys ever saw the game

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

I'd be satisfied with the platoon leader in/on the hedgerow spotting for the mortar behind the hedgerow to drop rounds on the hedgerow containing the suspected enemy units.. I think that's how it worked in CMBO. Maybe let them drop rounds just behind the hedgerow like the Brit mortars do in CMSF.

[Secondbrooks]

But I think you're missing the point here. Why would I, as a lowly Captain of a Rifle Company, be calling in artillery on something that can't possibly cause me any harm at that point in time even if there is something there? It's a waste of resources and, when compounded by thousands of other lowly Captains, bogs down the entire war effort. I'm not kidding here

I'll post just this once about this. Just once i promise.

Now first and foremost. Thanks for replies! they are great to read.

Next: I had my part in very interesting discussion about this. One long line infantry officer was stating very clearly that this would generally be seed of doom. And one somewhat usual problem here with infantry and Artillery cooperation. Company's commander is insisting that if FO doesn't get fire quick in some place where they have met heavy resistance they will have mechaniced battalion going full speed thru them. While FO continues to speak about threat of friendly fire, he can't see targetarea, it would be uneffective etc...

Yeah that is mirrored against bit different kind situation (facing modern mech enemy in meeting engagement battle) but is amusing. Another one is worried that his company doesn't get beat by opponent (after which it beats second company on it's way to depth and so on), while another is more interested in doing technically good fire missions, which necessarily don't fit into way how company might survive the experience.

And yeah if player literally can fill his attack route or defense perimeter with TRPs then it's pretty much dealed with.

[Lethaface]

'Hedgerow'... HHeeeeeddge ROoooow. The word itself is making me sick!!! what a tinny word that is!

It's just that people in France are too lazy too keep their garden experiments in proper shape! That's all what those hedgerows are and will ever be. A bloody uncontrolled Shrubbery!

57 oversized scissors mounted on tanks got rid of m. And that is what has been discussed about years and years before anyone even saw the actual thing ingame? Even calling those scissors an 'invention'?

To compensate for my frustration about this shrubbery out of proportions, as soon as I get CM:N I plan to cause havoc among those failed garden experiments with TRP's from any mortar, artillery piece or general tube in my arsenal!

[Lethaface]

I hope that CM:Bordeuax will feature lots of expensive grape yards that we can plow through with our Tigers as a means of scorched earth policy!

Take that, no more vintage Bordeaux for those tommy's! I'll bet that is going to get morale down to the bottom... If Hedgerows get such a lot of attention i'm sure you can't mis grapeyards, since they are so much more of influence (and genuine interest) in our current world then any hedgerow could ever be! In fact the game would be 'fundamentally flawed' without them as people tend to claim here

Excuse the hedgerow flaming but after reading the word for a millionth time I couldn't take it anymore

[Battlefront.com]

Secondbrooks,

Next: I had my part in very interesting discussion about this. One long line infantry officer was stating very clearly that this would generally be seed of doom. And one somewhat usual problem here with infantry and Artillery cooperation. Company's commander is insisting that if FO doesn't get fire quick in some place where they have met heavy resistance they will have mechaniced battalion going full speed thru them. While FO continues to speak about threat of friendly fire, he can't see targetarea, it would be uneffective etc...

Typical inter-service problem Another famous one from Normandy was the ground Army telling the Army Air Force that it had to come into its bombing runs in parallel to the front. This would mean any bombs falling short would not fall into friendly lines. But the Army Air Force generals didn't like this because they would have more exposure to enemy fire and more difficulty locating the exact targets to bomb. So they did it their way and killed something like 2000 US soldiers, including a general, and basically put a major attack on hold. "We told you so" was probably heard very frequently at SHAEF HQ

It is true that artillery is called in to perform risky missions when the danger of overrun is great. That is understood as a reality and it is why you are able to fire "danger close" fire missions in CM:SF. But what we've been talking about are more operational or strategic in nature, and therefore by definition not a "fire your guns, damn you!!! We're being overrun and you're next!!" situation.

Lethaface,

To compensate for my frustration about this shrubbery out of proportions, as soon as I get CM:N I plan to cause havoc among those failed garden experiments with TRP's from any mortar, artillery piece or general tube in my arsenal!

Spoken like a true tulip grower

Steve

[undercovergeek]

Secondbrooks,

Typical inter-service problem Another famous one from Normandy was the ground Army telling the Army Air Force that it had to come into its bombing runs in parallel to the front. This would mean any bombs falling short would not fall into friendly lines. But the Army Air Force generals didn't like this because they would have more exposure to enemy fire and more difficulty locating the exact targets to bomb. So they did it their way and killed something like 2000 US soldiers, including a general, and basically put a major attack on hold. "We told you so" was probably heard very frequently at SHAEF HQ

It is true that artillery is called in to perform risky missions when the danger of overrun is great. That is understood as a reality and it is why you are able to fire "danger close" fire missions in CM:SF. But what we've been talking about are more operational or strategic in nature, and therefore by definition not a "fire your guns, damn you!!! We're being overrun and you're next!!" situation.

Lethaface,

Spoken like a true tulip grower

Steve

ahem..... begging your pardon sir, but could i just jab you about any infantry pics, any at all, an arm maybe.... even?

[gibsonm]

Lethaface,

Spoken like a true tulip grower

Steve

Suspect the boot / (clog?) will on the other foot, in due course, when its time to discuss polders for the Market Garden module.

[Lethaface]

Well walking a right foot clog with your left foot will probably make the whole experience even worse then it must be! Although clogs filled with hay can keep your feet warm and dry as they say.

My clog does break for visual damage on vehicles or other visual enhancements. New more dense foliage and new buildings, fortications and TRP's will in my eyes be sufficient to simulate a wide range of realistic engagements. I'm sure BF.C will make it all balanced under the suspicious eyes of all you *grogs

I too can't wait to play with a whole bunch of different armored vehicles better matched then any Abrams VS any T-series. But I can't really be bothered by a hedgerow more or less somewhere , be it in Arnhem or in Ville-du-Mer

I'm more worrying about having to wait 20 minutes for any artillery barrage. Got spoiled with CMSF there!

[Michael Emrys]

It's just that people in France are too lazy too keep their garden experiments in proper shape! That's all what those hedgerows are and will ever be. A bloody uncontrolled Shrubbery!

I understand that the hedgerows in Normandy are fast disappearing as agricultural techniques evolve and the land gets put to other uses. There may even be a movement afoot to preserve a few of them so that the touristas can see what all the talk is about. I question how well that will convey the experience of having to fight through mile after mile of them though.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I'm more worrying about having to wait 20 minutes for any artillery barrage. Got spoiled with CMSF there!

Heh. If you think that's bad, imagine what it will be like to wait a couple of hours for your requested air strike to show up and then have it land on your own position!

Fun fun fun!

Michel

[John Kettler]

Lethaface,

A lot more than shrubbery, I'm afraid! See hedgerow cross section here for details.

http://www.lonesentry.com/normandy_lessons/index.html

Am pretty sure the drawing failed to include the stones so painfully dug from the fields over the centuries and used to define their boundaries. Note particularly the inclusion of closely spaced mature trees, an item which gave the glider attack planners fits--over and above the Rommel's asparagus.

Special note to BFC,

The section German Weapons in the above link specifically indicates the Germans were using Fuze MT in addition to Fuze PD, characterizing it as follows: "Also additional fire support was provided by artillery field pieces of 75-mm, 88-mm, and 240-mm caliber firing both time and percussion fire." Airburst 240 mm!!!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Infantry pictures are on hold because we're still recoding animations for the new weapons, adding textures, etc. They are being worked on heavily right now.

Mechanical Time fuzes were in widespread use since WW1, IIRC, so the Germans (and the Allies) obviously had them in WW2. The difference came about later in 1944 when the Western Allies got Variable Time fuzes into service.

Steve

[undercovergeek]

Infantry pictures are on hold because we're still recoding animations for the new weapons, adding textures, etc. They are being worked on heavily right now.

Steve

thankyou - sorry to have pestered - just looking forward to the game and sighting some troops for the first time

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Delighted Fuze MT made the cut, since it figures so prominently in many accounts of GIs under fire, and by no means just 88s. I've read some harrowing accounts with light flak, for example. What's the prognosis for graze action fuzing, please? I know the U.S. 75 mm on the Grant and Lee acquired the capability from French 75 mm ammo in Syria, so it's hardly new by Normandy. Wilson, in Flame Thrower, talks about taking out a position that way, and my 1944 FM 17-12 Tank Gunnery talks about the technique and even has an illustration of how it works. Am also interested in being able to fire HE Delay into buildings to blow them up from within instead of blowing them apart piece by piece from without. Fuze VT is a nonissue in the Normandy game because it wasn't used in land combat until the Battle of the Bulge.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Ryujin]

Speaking of Flamethrower... will there be flamethrowers?

Also after skimming the thread, I have few questions/comments about calling in fire missions.

It seems that landmarks play a a major role in locating targets, it seems that buildings over a certain size and bridges, etc, should work like TRPs. That is if I call in my area target on something big enough to be on a map, I'll get a "bonus" of sorts, probably a faster call and more accurate initial spotting rounds. I'm however assuming it would be more work than it's worth to be able to reference "100m south of the bridge", but at least being able to use the bridge it's self would be better than nothing.

I don't know WW2 firemission SOP, but would it be possible to call a firemission via the polar method from a landmark or other feature? (That is if the FO knows where he is with a good degree of accuracy (probably only when on a landmark), he call tell the guns where he is and give locations of targets in directions and distance from his position.)

In terms of WW2, if you put your FO in the town church, would he be able to utilize this to call in fire on "nondescript hedgerow #3256" with some degree of "accuracy".

This seems like it would be more code-friendly to implement then referencing off some object the FO isn't in/on as it could be easily abstracted.