Normandy artillery changes I would like to see

[Copper]

1. Harassing fire. A light artillery barrage over an extended period to keep enemy pinned down or to disrupt movement in the area.

2. Pause in fire. To lure the enemy into the open then resume the barrage to get the exposed enemy.

3. A mix or high explosive and smoke shells.

I’m sure you all can name a few you want to see in the upcoming Normandy game.

[Erwin]

per 1) and 2) - can't you get essentially the same effect using the current retargeting method?

What I find frustrating in CMSF is not having ANY clue re how many shells are left. It seems like either the column is full, then after a barrage it can be suddenly almost empty.

[phil stanbridge]

per 1) and 2) - can't you get essentially the same effect using the current retargeting method?

What I find frustrating in CMSF is not having ANY clue re how many shells are left. It seems like either the column is full, then after a barrage it can be suddenly almost empty.

Yeah agree with that, although if you use LIGHT or HEAVY it makes a big difference.

[Blackcat]

Predictive fire from HMG's would be good (think very-very light artillery with 200+ rounds per minute landing in a smallish area). However, that would involve coding in beaten zones and that is something that has been discussed on these forums ever since CMBO was first released.

The modelling of MG effects has come a long way since the early days but it still falls short of their true, leathal ability, especially to shape the battle-zone when used in sustained fire mode.

In terms of pure artillery functions for WWII, I should very much like to see a simple way of using a creeping barrage, one that doesn't need micro-management and involve long pauses. The use of such an artilllery scheme should, perhaps, be restricted to scenarios involving a deliberate assault, but sufficient ammunition would have to be availabe to make it viable.

[phil stanbridge]

Actually speaking of machine gun fire, I actually managed to use my gunners properly for the first time yesterday - British mission, they were some 800-900m away from their target, so I used suppressing fire, which worked a treat - I had an infantry unit close to the target, and could see the AI struggling to cope with the machine gun rounds whizzing over their heads. That was pretty cool, and certainly an improvement from what I can remember.

[womble]

Predictive fire from HMG's would be good (think very-very light artillery with 200+ rounds per minute landing in a smallish area). However, that would involve coding in beaten zones...

Isn't that abstracted into picking an area target for your HMG team, or is there some aspect beyond and further than that which you think could be included in the model?

[Blackcat]

@Wombes,

Predictive fire is not the same as area fire as portrayed in the game. There are two major differences.

Firstly, predictive fire is indirect, in the same way as artillery in the game is indirect. That is to say it is achieved by setting elevation and direction of the weapon so that the rounds land in a pre-determined, or predicted, area. With predictive fire the rounds impact in the beaten zone from a sharp angle, thus enabling fire to be put down over the top of terrain and troops between the weapon and the target area. Predictive fire also enable MGs to be used effectively at much longer ranges (I was trained to put effective fire down at 3000 yards using a GPMG in SF mode) though, given the scale, that is probably not so important in the game.

Secondly, area fire in the game is actually, in MG terms, point fire, in as much as it affects only a very small area of the map (and nothing before or after that point - grazing fire effects of MGs are also not modelled in CM, but lets not get into that).

The game now, I think, does a fair job of modelling the effects of LMGs and thats probably enough for the modern combat it seeks to portray. However, in WWII machine guns were commonly used in more "sophisticated" ways and I should like to see that reflected in the game. A Vickers water-cooled HMG was a very different and a lot more capable weapon than a Bren Gun. I'd like the game to more fully reflect those differences, but I don't suppose it will.

[MeatEtr]

Yeah essentially it's using MGs like artillery. By pointing MGs skyward with a spotter somewhere and hail an area with bullets from above. But didn't this first start in WWI and was used very little in the beginning of WWII? Not sure about this.

What I find frustrating in CMSF is not having ANY clue re how many shells are left. It seems like either the column is full, then after a barrage it can be suddenly almost empty.

I don't see why they shouldn't change this. When arty is tight in a mission you have to baby sit and micromanage it for best effect. When all they need to do is change the user interface to include a shell number and predicted shells spent for a fire mission.

[chris talpas]

Yeah essentially it's using MGs like artillery. By pointing MGs skyward with a spotter somewhere and hail an area with bullets from above. But didn't this first start in WWI and was used very little in the beginning of WWII? Not sure about this.

Use of machine guns in an indirect fire mode was pioneered by a Canadian major Raymond Brutinel and was used quite effectively during the battle of Vimy Ridge.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/lightweapons/machineguns.htm

Chris

[Blackcat]

@MeatEtr

The use of spotters for predictive fire was not necessary or, in a lot of cases, even possible. Despite what the game portrays modern artillery is not dependent on the use of spotters for accurate delivery of artillery fire; where the rounds will land can, within a known element of tolerance, can be predicted. The mathematics behind this were developed in WWI (a lot of the work was done by J.E. Littlewood, the Cambridge mathematician, who joined up as a second lieutenant spent the whole war working on ballistics and was demobed as a second lieutenant) and apply equally to MGs as well as the heavier stuff.

@ Chris Talpas

Interesting article, thanks. A couple of weeks ago I saw a photo dated to the Battle of the Somme which showed a Vickers HMG being fired in indirect mode. So, if the provenance of the photo is correct, it would seem the technique was in use as early as mid-1916. Unfortunately, it was in a library book, so I can't check the unit or reproduce it today.

[Thomm]

Secondly, area fire in the game is actually, in MG terms, point fire, in as much as it affects only a very small area of the map (and nothing before or after that point - grazing fire effects of MGs are also not modelled in CM, but lets not get into that).

Not sure if I understand your point correctly, but I am 99.5 % certain that a bullet in CMx2 kills everything it comes across. So the effects of grazing fire are modelled. It is just not possible to give an explizit grazing fire order.

I wonder if true grazing fire would be much more effective than aimed fire with rapidly changing target.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Boris Balaban]

One request is the amount of shells or rate-of-fire for I found that I would want to just pepper to keep his head down or slow his movment into that area.

I know this reduces my kill probibility but some times it could pay off by keeping his colum moving up untill I get into position.

[roadiemullet]

Indirect fire for on map arty and sp arty would be pretty cool, especially for larger maps. It would add an interesting element to the game if you could neutralise ur opponents artillery base or overrun it with armour.

I guess this is something that isnt gonna be put in tho as im sure it would have been mentioned at some point if it was.

[womble]

Indirect fire for on map arty and sp arty would be pretty cool, especially for larger maps. It would add an interesting element to the game if you could neutralise ur opponents artillery base or overrun it with armour.

Do any of the WW2 carriages allow for enough elevation to fire that close, indirectly? I know arty doesn't have a 'blind spot' that's too close in, but thought that was because you can depress the muzzle and fire direct on targets you can see...

Re: MG fire - I'd forgotten about the indirect fire options HMG mounts permitted. Some ded cleva stuff available IRL, there, including the ability to shoot (well) over your own troops (as opposed to parting their hair as they snake along on their bellies...) to hit the target your rifle squads are advancing on.

[roadiemullet]

Any targets that get close yeah i guess they would be fired on directly rather than aim the gun at the heavens and wait a for the shell to fly up, slow down then return to earth only to land 100m away,

but ive played set ups in the past (on cmbb/ak) where ive been direct firing at an enemy position, only for the enemy to be blocked by a ridge or tree line in between my gun and the target as the enemy moves. The shells fired on the target when visible have been travelling high enough to clear any treeline or ridge or whatever but as soon as a hill or even a house blocks the line of sight the arty piece becomes a bit redundant as an arty piece if ya get me.

Im not gonna start preaching with my limited knowledge about different sp guns as i will no doubt get eaten alive but things like wespe's and hummels have rubbish armour because they werent really supposed to come up against anything nasty. The game forces you to use them as assault howitzers by using them as direct fire weapons which robs them of their true role. Plus I honestly dont think the maps in game are too small for the use of on board artillery, because you can make some real giant combat zones.

[Michael Emrys]

Do any of the WW2 carriages allow for enough elevation to fire that close, indirectly?

AIUI, most of the time the problem is not elevation but spotting for ID fire. Guns or howitzers tied into a communication net with spotters are represented by off-map batteries. I suspect that the main reason such pieces are present in the game on-map is because sometimes the front came to them!

Michael

[Stalins Organ]

There's a great example of machineguns used in WW1 in a 1939 booklet "Infantry in Battle", available as pdf from the Combined arms Research Library - it's about 4.5 mb.

Page 73-77 has an excellent example of a US unit attacking with a MG barrage...albeit it is not indirect.

the whole of the rest of the book is fascinating too of course.....relatively detailed accounts of actions from WW - mostly on hte Western Front and from a US, French or German perspective.

[womble]

but ive played set ups in the past (on cmbb/ak) where ive been direct firing at an enemy position, only for the enemy to be blocked by a ridge or tree line in between my gun and the target as the enemy moves. The shells fired on the target when visible have been travelling high enough to clear any treeline or ridge or whatever but as soon as a hill or even a house blocks the line of sight the arty piece becomes a bit redundant as an arty piece if ya get me.

I get what you mean, now. I suppose the problem here is how the crew know to fire on that target, and how they can adjust their fire for effect. Perhaps you could let HQ squads call in fire from all on-map HE-chuckers in the same way as they can with mortars (i.e. if they're in 'command range' and the HQ can spot for 'em). Otherwise, I can see why the crew would be reluctant to speculatively fire minute-long missions from their limited supply of ammo.

[John Kettler]

We had a thread on wanted artillery features some time back, and ISTR I was looking for check and resume fire commands, the ability to register targets on the fly and call near instantaneous fire on same once registered (have read such an account),the ability to align the volley pattern with the target's long axis (many CMx1 games had poor artillery utility because presumed gun locations put pattern, not across defended position's front, but perpendicular thereto); proper open, parallel and converged sheaves; separate TRPs for mortars, ability to designate mortar and artillery concentration areas as simple zones on the map, fuzing options (Super Quick, Delay, Fuze MT for field artillery, Fuze MT for 2 cm flak and up). The last would greatly improve the potency of flak weapons, a potency they historically enjoyed precisely because they could airburst over a target. Granted, there will be no VT for the Allies in CM:N, but the historical accounts are full of the miseries German flak fire produced using the far cruder Fuze MT. Spotter planes will also be needed.

Regards,

John Kettler