Best place for an infantry platoon to be in a mortar barrage....?

[RockinHarry]

It's really not that simple. A foxhole or trench with significant overhead cover is now, effectively, a bunker. What's really missing in CM is the inbetween where the positions offer some limited protection from overhead sources of injury. As I stated above, rocks and debris more than shell fragments. Putting a door and some soil on top of a fighting position is not sufficient to protect against significant air burst fragments and not at all sufficient to protect against a direct hit.

Well, I never heard, nor read of any "inbetween" state of overhead cover for foxholes. There´s either (1) none at all (with exception of camouflage means, which is still no "cover"), (2) then the one I mentioned repeatedly, which is the german "Unterschlupf" explicitely built for personell of between 1 to half a dozen soldiers, to protect vs shrapnel and light mortar, (3) or full scale squad dugouts buried several meters below ground to protect vs. anything upto medium - heavy artillery (<=150mm) direct hits.

This is from german references (HDV 316, HDV 130/11, as well as Wolfgang Fleischer´s "Feldbefestigungen des deutschen Heeres" and numerous less specialized accounts on the matter), but I think all other armies have very similar demands on their field fortifications under given circumstances (terrain, time, materials, proximity to enemy ect.)

I think artillery and its effects (incl. air-, tree bursts) are excellently modelled in CMBN. No complaints at all so far.

So with regards to (2) "Schützenloch und Unterschlupf" (foxhole and small dugout), this is the one you see above in the pics from the "St-Lo" book and the most frequently built "hardened position", BEFORE digging of connection or combat trenches would be started. So this actually would be the "inbetween" state of an improved position, from simple foxhole(s) to combat trench.

This "foxhole & dugout" must not necessarily be treated like a bunker. I´d imagine, as said, this foxhole provides overhead cover ONLY when infantry is set on "hide" stance, OR when some sort of "button up" feature would be implemented.

"Button up" = unit takes cover in the (invisible) small dugouts and receives benefit vs. light mortar direct hit & tree- / air bursts. Can´t shoot, nor spot, nor be seen from this stance.

"Unbutton/unhide" = unit receives normal benefits vs. any fire as currently implemented, can shoot, can spot and be seen normally.

That´s the basic idea.

[Redwolf]

Trenches are not designed to protect AT Guns. You should use the Sandbag defensive works for that.

I thought foxholes don't give cover and concealment to guns either?

Sandbags aren't subject to FoW, so you are back to being "off" the historical accounts from Normandy that have lots of hard to see, hard to hit AT guns in them.

[womble]

I thought foxholes don't give cover and concealment to guns either?

That's my recollection too.

Sandbags aren't subject to FoW...

They aren't? I'm sure there weren't sandbags there until the ATG that just got waxed because its first shot missed in my current game fired. I'll go check.

Edit. Yup: no sandbags before the ATG exposed itself (and its fortification).

[LongLeftFlank]

So did you do a test run with it?

How much indirect fire take the soldiers in there compared to regular single trench or foxhole?

I built a position and then proceeded to POINT target the visible sandbags HEAVY - MAXIMUM with 4 x 81mm mortars. They rained nonstop hell for 2-1/2 minutes.

The HMG team whose fighting position is behind the sandbags is safely squirreled away in the wooden bunker, where they remained unscathed for the entire bombardment.

For comparison I put a 3 man observer team HIDING in the trench behind. They were wiped out within the first minute even though they were 2 squares away from the target. The cement bunker in the background is empty. I also stuck a kubel driver behind sandbags opposite that bunker -- he perished too.

So now that the bombardment has lifted, the MG team is free to.... uhh, wait a minute. The wedge-shaped section of bocage has all but vanished. Was this historical, for concentrated mortar fire to clear a huge gap in bocage like this? Long Tom shells that plow into the earth before detonating, maybe I can see that. But medium mortars, whose fuzes are designed to maximize fragmentation above ground, not muffle it in the dirt?

[Redwolf]

I built a position and then proceeded to POINT target the visible sandbags HEAVY - MAXIMUM with 4 x 81mm mortars. They rained nonstop hell for 2-1/2 minutes.

The HMG team whose fighting position is behind the sandbags is safely squirreled away in the wooden bunker, where they remained unscathed for the entire bombardment.

For comparison I put a 3 man observer team HIDING in the trench behind. They were wiped out within the first minute even though they were 2 squares away from the target. The cement bunker in the background is empty. I also stuck a kubel driver behind sandbags opposite that bunker -- he perished too.

So now that the bombardment has lifted, the MG team is free to.... uhh, wait a minute. The wedge-shaped section of bocage has all but vanished. Was this historical, for concentrated mortar fire to clear a huge gap in bocage like this? Long Tom shells that plow into the earth before detonating, maybe I can see that. But medium mortars, whose fuzes are designed to maximize fragmentation above ground, not muffle it in the dirt?

That sounds realistic for 81mm mortar impact.

If you have a C-17 full of 81mm mortar rounds crashing there.

[LongLeftFlank]

You're talking about fortification belts that took months to prepare. Given enough time the Germans could have done similar things in Normandy, but instead they never managed to set up a solid defensive line that lasted more than a few days or weeks (in some spots). And all the while the Allies hammered them, causing casualties and tactical loss of ground. In fact, it could be said that the German's obsession with counter attacking precluded them from setting up an effective defensive line in France once they realized they couldn't push them back into the sea. Though I doubt such a defensive line would have held long anyway.

You're confusing standard defensive tactics with "hardened" defenses. When situations allowed new defensive lines could be created quickly, but they were basically there to blunt the tip of the breakthrough force long enough to conduct a counter attack. German doctrine stressed that such counter attacks had to happen within hours, days at the latest. Not the sort of timeframe for creating on-the-fly hardened positions.

Two issues here. First, the Germans were pretty much always in contact with the Allies from the time of the landings until they were routed from France. While lines on the maps stayed steady for days, the tactical positions often did not. And when the Germans did have a chance to seriously dig in, that's when the set piece battles were mounted with massed artillery. The sorts of battles we don't simulate.

Second, I think you underestimate the resources needed to provide meaningful overhead cover for battalion sized forces. And by meaningful I mean something that's actually got a chance of making a difference. The best thing simple overhead protection does is prevent things like chunks of wood, rocks, earth, buildings, pavement, etc. from injuring the soldiers. This is something we can abstract.

I don't disagree with you that it would be better to have than to not have, but I do disagree with your assumptions that it has much bearing on CM scale battles. In some ways this reminds me of the arguments that we had in CMx1 that we didn't simulate logs, sandbags, extra tracks, mattresses, etc. stuck to the sides of tanks. Some said "they did it, therefore it matters" and we disagreed.

It's amazing how much opinion counts for interpretation of historical accounts.

Sophistry and evasion again, Steve. You keep pretending I'm insisting on the Siegfried line -- just as you did when we had this exact same argument in CMSF days. And I'm a hard core infantry player -- I could care less about mattresses on tanks. That has precisely nothing to do with what we're discussing here (i.e. sophistry).

When the Allied attack has petered out for the day and the Yanks have gone to ground under a steady rain of mortar fire and sniping, the Germans keep a thin screen of infantry in unimproved scrapes just out of sight of his guns. Behind that screen, out of sight and under cover of darkness, the rest of the battered unit is digging like mad -- OPs first for the all-important mortars, followed by machine gun nests and rifle pits. If the Amis start shelling, the landser jump in the holes, then get busy again the moment it lifts. They don't all need boards or logs for roofing -- a bunch of saplings and tree branches holding up 2-3 layers of sandbags sitting on a 2 foot wide slit trench is enough to soak up most shell splinters. If a big shell lands within a meter or two, yeah, you're dead and buried (MIA) regardless, but garden variety mortars whose blast force is not enormous and diffused widely by design (see my post above) aren't going to do much more than pepper the sandbags even if they land quite close by.

By midnight, several layers of these new defensive positions are complete and ready to take up the next day's fight. These aren't continuous WWI style trench lines with pakfronts -- in the bocage they're more of a checkerboard, with undefended field bracketed by artillery and snipers. Some landser rest fitfully in their holes while others continue working, clearing fields of fire for the MGs, laying mines.

WWII infantry of all nations dug these positions. Daily. And roofed them over for reasons that had nothing to do with the weather. This was part and parcel of infantry warfare. It's fundamental, unless you want a game that does only meeting engagements and tank dominated shoot-em-ups. In which case, why choose Normandy for a venue?

[LongLeftFlank]

That sounds realistic for 81mm mortar impact.

If you have a C-17 full of 81mm mortar rounds crashing there.

Hmm. So why wasn't this kind of concentrated mortar fire used to breach the bocage for tanks? Problem solved! Sgt. Cullin, go home.

I am no expert, but I always thought the entire design of mortar shells, from the high trajectory, to the explosive filling, to the casing, to the fuzing, was optimized to spread tiny chunks of flesh-shredding metal across as large a radius as possible. As distinct from throwing up gigantic clods of shattered earth and burying the enemy dead or alive in his holes, like traditional shells.

I mean, the blast overpressure wouldn't be zero by any means, but dismembering a 500 year old earthen embankment filled with rocks and held together by gnarled vines and tree roots? Seems like that would take all day and even then you wouldn't be sure of success since the rounds would impact on the surface and diffuse their blast widely, like they were designed to do.

Is there some kind of penetrating round for medium mortars that I'm not aware of?

[akd]

Hmm. So why wasn't this kind of concentrated mortar fire used to breach the bocage for tanks? Problem solved! Sgt. Cullin, go home.

I am no expert, but I always thought the entire design of mortar shells, from the high trajectory, to the explosive filling, to the casing, to the fuzing, was optimized to spread tiny chunks of flesh-shredding metal across as large a radius as possible. As distinct from throwing up gigantic clods of shattered earth and burying the enemy dead or alive in his holes, like traditional shells.

I mean, the blast overpressure wouldn't be zero by any means, but dismembering a 500 year old earthen embankment filled with rocks and held together by gnarled vines and tree roots? Seems like that would take all day and even then you wouldn't be sure of success since the rounds would impact on the surface and diffuse their blast widely, like they were designed to do.

Is there some kind of penetrating round for medium mortars that I'm not aware of?

Off-map US 81mm mortars have 10 rounds of M56 HE-Heavy (demolition).

[Battlefront.com]

RockinHarry ,

Well, I never heard, nor read of any "inbetween" state of overhead cover for foxholes. There´s either (1) none at all (with exception of camouflage means, which is still no "cover"), (2) then the one I mentioned repeatedly, which is the german "Unterschlupf" explicitely built for personell of between 1 to half a dozen soldiers, to protect vs shrapnel and light mortar, (3) or full scale squad dugouts buried several meters below ground to protect vs. anything upto medium - heavy artillery (<=150mm) direct hits.

You misunderstood what I said. Soldiers, in real world conditions, use whatever they can get their hands on for overhead cover based on a variety of factors. What manuals say they should be able to do in x time is just a guideline. If the materials aren't available, or they can not afford the time to source the materials (i.e. because they are in or expecting enemy contact), then they make do with whatever they can get. A common one I've seen in pictures and mentioned in books are doors from nearby houses. They provide decent cover from incidental effects (debris), but not much more than that. Very small diameter vegetation, which can (with some effort) be cut down, is in the same category.

This is from german references (HDV 316, HDV 130/11, as well as Wolfgang Fleischer´s "Feldbefestigungen des deutschen Heeres" and numerous less specialized accounts on the matter), but I think all other armies have very similar demands on their field fortifications under given circumstances (terrain, time, materials, proximity to enemy ect.)

Yes. I've got a US Engineer handbook from the 1960s which details these things, and far more, in detail.

So with regards to (2) "Schützenloch und Unterschlupf" (foxhole and small dugout), this is the one you see above in the pics from the "St-Lo" book and the most frequently built "hardened position", BEFORE digging of connection or combat trenches would be started. So this actually would be the "inbetween" state of an improved position, from simple foxhole(s) to combat trench.

We do provide Wooden Bunkers for just this sort of fortification. At least that's what I see in those St. Lo pictures.

This "foxhole & dugout" must not necessarily be treated like a bunker. I´d imagine, as said, this foxhole provides overhead cover ONLY when infantry is set on "hide" stance, OR when some sort of "button up" feature would be implemented.

"Button up" = unit takes cover in the (invisible) small dugouts and receives benefit vs. light mortar direct hit & tree- / air bursts. Can´t shoot, nor spot, nor be seen from this stance.

"Unbutton/unhide" = unit receives normal benefits vs. any fire as currently implemented, can shoot, can spot and be seen normally.

That´s the basic idea.

Beter idea... use Bunkers They are already in the game and they provide for exactly what you're looking for.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sophistry and evasion again, Steve.

Oh good god. So I can't simply disagree with you? Glad to know you get to make the determination about what is what instead of relying upon debate to determine that.

I stand by what I said until you say something to actually support your position and refute mine. What you've written so far is not very impressive. It's vague and not compelling.

Hmm. So why wasn't this kind of concentrated mortar fire used to breach the bocage for tanks? Problem solved! Sgt. Cullin, go home.

There were a number of ways to breach bocage, but until the Cullin/Rhino device showed up none were practical on a large scale. And large scale was what was needed. One report I saw estimated that the amount of TNT that would be required to get all units the breaches they need exceeded all stocks of TNT in the European Theater. Yet a certain amount of TNT, well placed by engineers, worked just fine.

I am no expert, but I always thought the entire design of mortar shells, from the high trajectory, to the explosive filling, to the casing, to the fuzing, was optimized to spread tiny chunks of flesh-shredding metal across as large a radius as possible. As distinct from throwing up gigantic clods of shattered earth and burying the enemy dead or alive in his holes, like traditional shells.

Sorta. The thing is vegetation is a vertically aligned element, so think of a Human standing when a shell goes off next to him. Cut to pieces, yes? Vegetation is not immune from the same force either. A couple of rounds should do just about nothing to Bocage, but a concentrated slamming of rounds, as seen above, could do it. 81mm Mortars pack quite a punch.

Looking at the pic it appears something like 200 pounds of TNT + high velocity shell fragments hit that one little patch of bocage. That's roughly equal to 13x 155mm shell impacts.

Off-map US 81mm mortars have 10 rounds of M56 HE-Heavy (demolition).

And that too

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

oops... missed this one...

I would suggest that regardless of prepared positions/cover, the arty is a bit too deadly. I know that stats. are only valid on the long haul, as any single event might be on either end of the bell curve, and I haven't accumulated a large number of experiences with the game. However, there are too few rounds landing - relative to accounts I have read - versus the number of casualties caused, In general. it might be a question of accuracy rather than the damage effect of the round itself, as the few rounds sent my way seem to be dead on - pun intended - more often than not.

It's possible, though think about things in perspective. Artillery is largely an inaccurate weapon when fired unobserved. Correct? Yet various calculations put the cause of casualties in WW2 Western Front from shell fragments at over 70%. Ask yourself... where and how were these casualties accounted for? In the rear where artillery was often firing blind, or at the front where artillery was directed? Where were most casualties on the enemy inflicted? At the front or in the rear?

When you look at it, logically the most amount of casualties from shell fragments should happen where the most amount of casualties in total were sustained. And that would be in the front lines. No doubt massed artillery, which we don't simulate, on front lines racked up quite a lot of that 70%. For sure. But I would hazard a guess at least 30% were sustained in a CM style battle where artillery is (obviously) present in reasonable historical quantities. This would most likely mean a couple of very well placed/times artillery strikes account for about a 1/3rd of all casualties inflicted. Very roughly speaking.

"Or perhaps we just disagree with where the line should be drawn?" Steve.

That may be what is going on here, a question of how much or little to best represent the actual accounts, and of course abstraction versus realism.

As I've said countless times before, it would be wonderful if we could include anything and everything that can be reasonably claimed relevant to WW2 tactical combat. But that's just not possible. So we necessarily narrow it down to those things which are truly needed. There can be disagreement on this because, frankly, there is no line to be drawn. Someone can pick up a single book, point to a detailed account, and show how CM can't handle it. This gets back to my long used "Bovine MG42 Sponge" where US infantry used live cows to provide cover while flanking a MG42 position which had been murderous until then. So lines must be drawn and stuck to or we'll never get anywhere.

But I still would like to see arty being more of a disruptive factor on the short term, only becoming deadlier with more long term/intense fire missions, or when you have direct/point fire on a specific target.

The disruptive factor is not as applicable to the soldiers who are right next to the impacts (they are more likely to be casualties) than it is to the force as a whole. If your lead platoon is hit by mortar fire that tends to disrupt your plans, even if your other platoons aren't taken under fire. Or at least this sort of potential is there.

Sure, we can look into specific instances where there appears to be too many casualties for too few shells impacts. But we must look at it scientifically in order to assess which shells, in what conditions, and to what degree need adjustment. There's no magic number to massage to make the lethality diminish, even if we feel it's necessary.

Steve

[gunnergoz]

Steve, you just have to stop designing these pesky realistic games...

[womble]

Beter idea... use Bunkers They are already in the game and they provide for exactly what you're looking for.

They don't look like an Unterschlupf, but that's a limitation of the game engine, same as trenches are 'superimposed', to avoid FOW dilution.

One thing to note when employing bunkers is that the types are selectable, same as tank types in a platoon, between 'shelter' (wooden, no MG), 'wooden' (with MG) and 'bunker' (concrete, MG).

[RockinHarry]

RockinHarry ,

You misunderstood what I said. Soldiers, in real world conditions, use whatever they can get their hands on for overhead cover based on a variety of factors. What manuals say they should be able to do in x time is just a guideline. If the materials aren't available, or they can not afford the time to source the materials (i.e. because they are in or expecting enemy contact), then they make do with whatever they can get. A common one I've seen in pictures and mentioned in books are doors from nearby houses. They provide decent cover from incidental effects (debris), but not much more than that. Very small diameter vegetation, which can (with some effort) be cut down, is in the same category.

We do provide Wooden Bunkers for just this sort of fortification. At least that's what I see in those St. Lo pictures.

Beter idea... use Bunkers They are already in the game and they provide for exactly what you're looking for.

Steve

With regard to availabilty of wooden bunkers, I agree that could do the trick for the time beeing. At least LongLeftFlanks test scenario setup lets me believe, that with the means currently avaliable, a "hardened bocage defense" (may it be german or allied) can be simulated quite well.

Let me do some analysis:

From looking at the various defense sketches, a german bocage defense sector of about 100 yds is coverd by 1-2 (understrength) infantry squads, streched out to 2-3 men fighting positions (rifle pits = cut into the bocage berm from friendly side, but not necessarily beeing true foxholes) all along the hedge line. In CMBN this would either be just using cover as provided by the bocage berm (to preserve LOS across the field byond) or some foxhole position, more offering all around defense, but maybe limiting LOS across the bocage into the field beyond.

The "dugouts" are mostly of the "Unterschlupf" type, just offering overhead cover for 2-3 men and either connected by ~1 meter of trench to the fighting position (rifle pit), but oftenly, when the rifle pits are of the "cut in" type, they´re somewhat seperated, but still as close as 1-2 meters from the fighting position. I´ve mainly noticed 2 variants of the "Unterschlupf/dugout" type. One is somewhat behind the bocage berm, factually a deepened foxhole (>=2 meters), with 1-2 layers of logs and covered with earth. The other is directly buried under/into the bocage berm, mainly using this natural cover above. It surely is furtherly reinforced by wooden branches, planking or logs.

German "protection" charts from HDV 316, issue 1936 (field regulation of engineer service for all branches) and HDV130/11, issue 1940 (field regulation infantry, field fortifications) give following data concerning overhead cover vs. shrapnel and light mortar to be minimum:

15-20cm log layer, covererd with >=30 cm earth. The log layer(s) can be 1 layer of 15cm diameter logs, 2 layers of 10cm or any other combination, as long as minimum overall cover thickness is applied. Another combination just can be (depending upon material available), digging the "dugout" deeper, having less wooden cover and more earth cover ontop (>=50cm). The space to be "covered" would be kept minimal, generally no larger than an equivalent 2-3 men foxhole (~1,40 x 0,7 meters = ~1 square meter up to ~2 square meters, if extra "comfort" and space for weapons/ammo is to be provided). IMO this could be halfway simulated by the "shelter" type wooden bunker in CMBN, with 1 given per infantry squad and ~100 yards frontline at the bocage.

The setup would probably look like this:

1 Scout section split off from the infantry squads (alternatively a sniper, ect.) serving as observation post at the bocage, with the remaining squad (or HMG section) hiding in the shelters.

Once the main enemy bombardement is over and enemy infantry is entering the "killing zones", hiding infantry would man the fighting positions (bocage or foxholes behind) in "quick/fast" mode. This assumes not any of the shelter/wooden bunkers to be directly hit by anything powerfull enough to destroy it and its occupants.

Now (german) defender has to decide whether to endure extra light mortar fire, with the attacking infantry "leaning onto it", or to rush back into shelter. In case of enemy infantry and tanks approaching to close range, the defender has to fight it out from combat positions, or get trapped (??) in the wooden shelters.

I could think of this setup leading to more "realistic" and intense bocage fighting, as this does make the defender less vulnerable from enemy artillery, in situations, where the defender would not expect immediate attack by enemy infantry/tanks (security range!). Also "faint artillery attacks" could be applied by the attacker (lobbing some "spotting" rounds into the defenders position, letting him believe a full barrage is to follow within a minute or so) and "forcing" him to seek shelter, leaving combat positions, while the attacker rushes quickly to close combat range...

The attacker, once he "cleaned" the defenders position "could" (????) also use the wooden enemy shelters vs. counterattack or enemy artillery. Is that possible?? (..enemy use of undestroyed shelters).

And yes, I might have misunderstood your point about "expedient cover", meant to provide protection vs. non directly related HE effects. I´d consider this futile, but maybe decreasing the footprint of FHs/trenches and letting occupants keeping heads down in "hide" stance would be the better alternative IMHO.

[RockinHarry]

I built a position and then proceeded to POINT target the visible sandbags HEAVY - MAXIMUM with 4 x 81mm mortars. They rained nonstop hell for 2-1/2 minutes.

The HMG team whose fighting position is behind the sandbags is safely squirreled away in the wooden bunker, where they remained unscathed for the entire bombardment.

For comparison I put a 3 man observer team HIDING in the trench behind. They were wiped out within the first minute even though they were 2 squares away from the target. The cement bunker in the background is empty. I also stuck a kubel driver behind sandbags opposite that bunker -- he perished too.

So now that the bombardment has lifted, the MG team is free to.... uhh, wait a minute. The wedge-shaped section of bocage has all but vanished. Was this historical, for concentrated mortar fire to clear a huge gap in bocage like this? Long Tom shells that plow into the earth before detonating, maybe I can see that. But medium mortars, whose fuzes are designed to maximize fragmentation above ground, not muffle it in the dirt?

Thanks for giving that test report.

I´d be interested to know if there were any trees around (high bocage has an occasional one, I know) or within this position and how many of the casualties were from treebursts? I´d assume, even without any (visible) trees around, high bocage qualifies for treebursts as well, as US quick fuzed shells also would detonate above ground, in the small trees / scrub on top of the berm.

Did the wooden bunker received direct hits anytime during the bombardement?

My thoughts on gaping the Y-shaped bocage section with 81mm mortar:

Maybe it´s a special case? The Y-shaped section is already "gaped" due to its placement within the straight bocage lines and it rather looks to me, just the foliage is "blasted", with the berm still intact, thus offering same "cover" (though not concealment) as before. I guess this "gap" created by mortar shelling still does not qualify for tank traversing? Did you use "Alt-T" for tree removal in this screenshot?

Anyway...I´d rather use the (Y-shaped) gaped section in the flank bocage line and not the frontal (enemy) one. It´s unnecessary to "offer" an entry for enemy infantry in this direction and LOF can also be obtained from positions right at the bocage line, with or without a FH/trench one action spot back. A human (enemy) player would find the Y-shaped section quite treacherous (with the AIP more like seeing it as a welcome passage). Same goes for the "sandbagged" position, which actually is on the "wrong" side of the bocage and does not apply to FOW (??, flavor object?). Might be wrong on the latter...

If I´d ordered/purchased the full game yet, I´d probably try to beef up the "Busting the Bocage" scenario with 1 wooden shelter per 1 infantry squad (or its equivalent) and see how it plays out.

[LongLeftFlank]

Steve, thanks for the responses. I appreciate your perspectives. And wood bunkers may be fit for purpose.

Harry, someone else is going to need to run treeburst tests. My test was focused on the protective qualities of having units in wood bunkers as opposed to sitting in open foxholes and trenches.

Re blast effect of medium mortars, ISTR that the blast effects of the standard frag round were so diffuse that the tail of the round would remain sitting intact at or near the impact point.

Also, didn't the Germans have a "bouncing bomb" where the round hit, a small second charge in the nose jumped it into the air and then the main charge detonated?

ISTR we had a bunch of experienced mortarmen on this board at one point....

[Bruce Robert]

Thanks Steve, for responding to my post.

It is a difficult issue, WWII arty effects. I just read an interesting essay based upon British WWII arty effects, and it shows how little can really be claimed scientifically. And clearly, Arty was effective, and the front lines, as you suggest, would probably be where it was most effective.

I suppose one reason behind my thought was that it is a shame to set up a battle and have it effectively ended by some highly effective attack, even if that effectiveness is legitimate; I would say a question of realism versus playability. However, I am not saying that this is the case with CMBN with regard to arty, as much as a concern on my part. I have played in micro-armor battles where air attacks effectively ended the game.

Thanks,

Bruce

[Vanir Ausf B]

Off-map US 81mm mortars have 10 rounds of M56 HE-Heavy (demolition).

Is there any way to control when these 10 rounds are fired? It appears they are always the last 10 to be used.

[akd]

Is there any way to control when these 10 rounds are fired? It appears they are always the last 10 to be used.

Not sure. Have you tried point targeting a bunker?

[Vanir Ausf B]

No, I fired them off into an open field. I'll set up a test against a bunker and report back.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Tried it against a wooden bunker. Again, the heavy rounds were fired last. It appears the only way to access the 10 H56 rounds is to shoot off the other 100 rounds in the battery first.

[RockinHarry]

Harry, someone else is going to need to run treeburst tests. My test was focused on the protective qualities of having units in wood bunkers as opposed to sitting in open foxholes and trenches.

Re blast effect of medium mortars, ISTR that the blast effects of the standard frag round were so diffuse that the tail of the round would remain sitting intact at or near the impact point.

Also, didn't the Germans have a "bouncing bomb" where the round hit, a small second charge in the nose jumped it into the air and then the main charge detonated?

ISTR we had a bunch of experienced mortarmen on this board at one point....

Thanks for your time and efforts! I´ll do some additional tests in the demo, without the bunkers though.

No idea about bouncing bombs. I know of the "bouncing betty" german AP mine. Beside that, germans used low angle artillery shooting with delayed fuzes to achieve airbursts (after shell bounced), which were quite effective in russian open country vs. "mass targets".

[Redwolf]

Speaking of wooden bunkers, is it still the case that bunkers are very vulnerable to vehicle fire as they were in CMx1? In CMx1 bunker were worth almost nothing because the game engine treated them as vehicle, so they could be hit by direct fire, and that made them much less survivable than a unit in a trench or in a foxhole in good ground.

[RockinHarry]

Speaking of wooden bunkers, is it still the case that bunkers are very vulnerable to vehicle fire as they were in CMx1? In CMx1 bunker were worth almost nothing because the game engine treated them as vehicle, so they could be hit by direct fire, and that made them much less survivable than a unit in a trench or in a foxhole in good ground.

I would assume wooden bunkers/shelters beeing similarly vulnerable to direkt HE/AP, as in CMX1. The "hardened bocage defense" as described above, just has its value when the shelters are positioned behind cover (rear slope of a hill, behind a house, high bocage, terrain depression, ect.) out of direct LOF for HE/AP, just providing benefits vs. treeburst shrapnel and mortar hits. I´d like to have true underground cover, but currently the overground bunkers/shelters is the best we have, for the purpose.

[DavidFields]

Well, this thread has evolved significantly from my OP.

Let me partially try to answer my own question, after some experience with the game:

1. If one can, there is the "flee in all directions" tactic, if one is observant enough to see the spotting round. I don't remember doing this as much is CM1. Am I wrong, or has something changed?

2. If unable to flee, I am learning to "hide" more often. In general, out in the open, it seems to me that the realism of following every projectile course in CMBN means that lying flat on the ground is highly preferable to kneeling (much less standing). From a micromanagement standpoint, that means not only putting in cover arcs often, but ending movements with "hide" commands more consistently--I am slowly learning, with my pixeltruppen being a bit annoyed at my previous ignorance. Unlike my conception with CM1, where "hide" to me meant something like "get behind something", here it seems to have a specific anatomical meaning--lie on your belly.