Thoughts on TRPs

[Speedy]

I have recently been playing around with the QB generator and noticed that in any engagement type both attacker and defender are able to purchase TRP's and deploy them anywhere on the map.

This to me seems illogical and open to exploitation, especially as they are very cheap and it is easy for either side to cover the main areas of a map with them allowing quick response, no warning (no spotting rounds) accurate artillery fire without a spotter needing LOS.

Surely only the defender in attack and assault battles should have access to TRP's.

[Broadsword56]

Huh????

Why wouldn't an attacker want to have all the TRPs he possibly could? Especially when they allow an attacker to kill/suppress areas without having to get a LOS and needlessly expose troops to fire? Especially when bocage prevents getting a LOS to much of anything beyond very short range? Defenders can have TRPs too, so where's the unfairness of that? Unless we want to go back to Civil War tactics and shoot all the guns over open sights, TRPs are an essential part of how artillery worked in WW II.

[LJFHutch]

I'm going to have to agree with Broadsword here, and to add to that I feel that if attackers were not able to purchase TRP's it would feel very artificial.

[James Crowley]

As a recent 'victim' to TRP-based artillery in a PBEM, I tend to agree!

There certainly seems to be no logical place for them in an ME, since neither side would have had the opportunity to recon the ground sufficiently.

As for attack/defend, assault/defend scenarios, it does make more sense for them to be limited to the defender.

Perhaps the cost could be varied so that anyone can take them but will pay more if they are in an ME or are an attacker in a defend scenario. That would reflect the additional work required to get the necessary intel.

[YankeeDog]

Not sure I agree that TRPs should be limited to the defender as a rule. IRL, in set-piece attacks, attackers often pre-registered artillery on suspected locations of enemy positions well ahead of the main attack. Indeed, this is one of the major reasons for doing recon and probing attacks ahead of the main assault.

TRPs are a bit out of place in an ME, but then again QB MEs are such an artificial construct to begin with, it's a bit pointless to talk about "realistic" purchase restrictions in this context.

[winkelried]

Fully agree with broadsword here. look at my campaign 415th Infantry Regiment assaults .... There the U.S. literally plastered the battlefield with TRPs to support the assault. It is part of good assault/attack planning to do this. I am rather surprised, when I get as an attacker in the situation to have artillery, but no TRPs.

[Killkess]

The point is that for pre-registered artillery you have to... register in the first place. No defender would simply stay in place when the attacker does the registering. If the fire-zones are not registered by spotting rounds before how does the artillery know it will be on target?

A defender can do this work prior to the engagement by trail-shots while the enemy has no way to observe the registering shots. The attacker simply can not register fire zones without telling the defender what he is up to do next....

[sburke]

Huh????

Why wouldn't an attacker want to have all the TRPs he possibly could? Especially when they allow an attacker to kill/suppress areas without having to get a LOS and needlessly expose troops to fire? Especially when bocage prevents getting a LOS to much of anything beyond very short range? Defenders can have TRPs too, so where's the unfairness of that? Unless we want to go back to Civil War tactics and shoot all the guns over open sights, TRPs are an essential part of how artillery worked in WW II.

I would agree except in our current battle just because it is me getting plastered.

The only possible alteration I would think to have for this is in a hasty attack versus prepared assault. In a hasty attack perhaps a more limited quantity of TRPs, however in a prepared assault all combatants practiced a well orchestrated preparatory bombardment. Am on the recieving end of quite a deluge of firepower right now and I don't feel it is at all unrealistic or gamey, painful perhaps but well within the realm of WW2 combat experience.

[sburke]

The point is that for pre-registered artillery you have to... register in the first place. No defender would simply stay in place when the attacker does the registering. If the fire-zones are not registered by spotting rounds before how does the artillery know it will be on target?

A defender can do this work prior to the engagement by trail-shots while the enemy has no way to observe the registering shots. The attacker can simply not register fire zones without telling the defender what he is up to do next....

Doesn't much matter if you have plenty of artillery to use harassing fire as your registration process and plenty of aircraft to report fall of shot. The position of the defender isn't what is important, it is the attack plan and how the supporting fires are integrated. So for example I know I am going in a particular direction and any attempt by the defender to maneuver reserves is going to take X route. It is perfectly logical to pre register to interdict that route and isolate the battlefield. The point of the TRP isn't that it targets your existing locations, it targets your LIKELY locations or supports an attack plan.

[Speedy]

Doesn't much matter if you have plenty of artillery to use harassing fire as your registration process and plenty of aircraft to report fall of shot. The position of the defender isn't what is important, it is the attack plan and how the supporting fires are integrated. So for example I know I am going in a particular direction and any attempt by the defender to maneuver reserves is going to take X route. It is perfectly logical to pre register to interdict that route and isolate the battlefield. The point of the TRP isn't that it targets your existing locations, it targets your LIKELY locations or supports an attack plan.

The problem here though is that in real life the defender knows where the attacker has dropped artillery and therefore likely preregistered the location and can take countermeasures for that.

Whereas in the game the defender has absolutely no knowledge of where the attacker has pre-registered artillery.

Anyway my understanding was that the pre-registered artillery bombardments of attackers where modelled through the setup phase registering of timed artillery strikes.

[YankeeDog]

...The attacker simply can not register fire zones without telling the defender what he is up to do next....

Sure he can. In effect, every harrassing fire, every prep barrage, every interdiction concentration, etc. Fired by the attacker in the hours or days leading up to the main attack is (or could be) a pre-registration. The defender would certainly ge a good idea that something big was coming up, but exactly where and when would still be a mystery.

And if a defender pulled out of every spot targetted by harassing fire or a mortar stonk in the 24 hours prior to a major assault, he'd probably have to abandon the sector entirely.

Now it is true that in situations where the attacker has already penetrated through a first line of defense, and is confronting with a second or third line, TRPs would be more difficult to register for the attacker. And a well-prepared defender might prepare fire solutions well inside his initial line of resistance (e.g., Kursk).

Really, it all comes down to how stable the line of contact has been prior to the attack. If the front has been in more or less the same place for a while, then TRPs are justifiable for either side. After the attack has penetrated a few km, then TRPs don't make so much sense for the attacker, but are still justifiable for a defender who has had time to prepare a defense in depth. If the situation is that the attacker has broken through even further, and things have moved to full-out maneuver warfare, then TRPs don't really make much sense for either side.

Now, how to integrate this into your QB purchase rules, I have no idea. But I really don't think a blanket "no TRPs for attackers" is justifiable on realism grounds.

[sburke]

The problem here though is that in real life the defender knows where the attacker has dropped artillery and therefore likely preregistered the location and can take countermeasures for that.

Whereas in the game the defender has absolutely no knowledge of where the attacker has pre-registered artillery.

Anyway my understanding was that the pre-registered artillery bombardments of attackers where modelled through the setup phase registering of timed artillery strikes.

As the defender you already know the objectives and that an attack is coming. Isn't that knowledge somewhat unrealistic if you didn't know that from preregistration of artillery? The whole configuration of any scenario precludes the fog of war that in real life would have been there and it goes both ways. (Assuming we are not discussing a meeting engagement here).

Just out of curiosity and trying to understand where you are headed with this. Assuming you did note the fall of harassment fire, correctly concluded it was preregistration fire and that it portended a potential coming attack. What counter measures are you thinking you would implement? For the sake of argument let's use Bois de Baugin as an example. In the scenario itself you are already given units to reinforce the original 6th company. You know the crossroads is an objective and you know the dominant terrain features. That is about all that could have been expected.

[SlowMotion]

I think in many cases artillery targets had been registered days if not weeks before a major attack. After this many parts of the defense line were under artillery fire for days. So if might be difficult to take counter measures if you have shell holes pretty much all over the place.

[womble]

...After the attack has penetrated a few km, then TRPs don't make so much sense for the attacker...

Unless the attacker has, as you previously mentioned, good aerial FOs and air superiority, when arty could be registered anwhere within range of the battery.

[Pak40]

Surely only the defender in attack and assault battles should have access to TRP's.

There have been many cases where attackers have per-registered artillery, especially on fronts that have been static for any duration of time. Fluid fronts like August to September 44 might have less cases of this.

Maybe pre-registered art. should be limited or eliminated on meeting engagements, but I think even that is not realistic. Aircraft often spotted for artillery, so ground units don't necessarily have to be in visual contact to adjust the fire.

[Sgt Schultz]

How about a variation on a theme?

Variable TRPs

Editor/Purchase defined by titles like ..."Recent", "Aerial", "Registered", or whatever.

Each type gives a different amount of time and accuracy bonus.

Let's say as an example the "Registered" is our best TRP type and gives full bonuses like what we have now. A "Recent" would give less of a time bonus and be less accurate.

Rarity points for TRPs to make it worthwhile, along with variable standard pricing. "Registered" could eat into your Tiger points.

A designer could put only certain types of advantages on the board for each side, instead of giving the fingerprint of an angry god to anyone with a TRP. Unless that is what is called for of course.

ME allows "Aerial" or "Recent" TRPs only.

What say ye?

-

[Pak40]

Sgt,

I like those ideas. Especially rarity points for TRPs.

One major thing would have to change: Currently anyone can simulate pre-registered artillery anywhere on the map if placed in the setup phase. One can also put time delays on these to make them come in later in the battle.

[dpabrams]

Don't waste your points on TRP's. Pre-bombardment is dead on and throw in the 60mm Mortar and you are on your way to victory as an attacker or assaulter. Pre plotted artillery and direct fire mortars have killed more people than the plague.

[Killkess]

Aircraft often spotted for artillery, so ground units don't necessarily have to be in visual contact to adjust the fire.

You speak about a completely different topic in this case. Even if we speak about aerial FOs these will have to use spotting rounds before going over to FFE. I tend to believe that the initial precission of an aerial FO would be lower. Its much harder to judge its own position correctly and giving the right ammount of corrections if you fly over the battlefield.

[Pak40]

You speak about a completely different topic in this case. Even if we speak about aerial FOs these will have to use spotting rounds before going over to FFE. I tend to believe that the initial precission of an aerial FO would be lower. Its much harder to judge its own position correctly and giving the right ammount of corrections if you fly over the battlefield.

No, it's quite on topic. I was responding to someone else's idea that there be different types of pre-registered TRPs.

The accuracy from aerial FOs could be quite good. These are piper cubs that work closely with artillery battalions. They literally are based near them right behind the front lines and don't have to fly too far to find targets. So, as long as they have accurate maps and good training, they will know where they are. Often they were used to register fire on to known towns behind German lines but they were also used to call in fire on moving columns of enemy. There were used to good effect in the Bulge when visibility was good.

[Killkess]

What i meant was that the ability to call for artillery via aerial FOs is another topic than using TRPs. The aerial FO would allow you to make normal artillery calls on the whole map (including spotting procedure), the other would give you the ability to fire "blind" on almost every location without delay.

[womble]

What i meant was that the ability to call for artillery via aerial FOs is another topic than using TRPs.

Not entirely, it isn't. Aerial FOs allow you to set up TRPs anywhere within range of the battery. You don't need an infantry FO to get anywhere near a place you want to set up a TRP, and given the Amis' plentiful arty shellstock, if they're out by 200m or even half a click in the grid ref they give to start with, it just means a larger first-shot correction. This can be done the day before, or 2 hours before.

The aerial FO would allow you to make normal artillery calls on the whole map (including spotting procedure), the other would give you the ability to fire "blind" on almost every location without delay.

Yes, they're different if you only consider them during the timescale of the game.