Trp

[weapon2010]

Why are they allowed in meeting engagements?Is there any realism at all for a trp in a meeting engagement?How were trps used in reality in WW2 as it relates to this game?

[YankeeDog]

There were not "TRPs" as such in real life. In-game TRPs are an abstraction of various ways that artillery targets were pre-planned or registered. So it's a bit difficult to answer the question "How were TRPs used in reality?"

IRL, Either defenders or attackers would sometimes pre-register important targets for artillery, and then establish on specific signals to initiate fire on these targets: A code-word communicated by Radio or wire line, a signal flare of a specific color, etc. On the East Front, the Russians even sometimes used colored flags to initiate or cease fire on pre-planned artillery targets.

As for meeting engagements, it depends... QB MEs in general are a pretty artificial construct, so it's difficult to talk about what's "realistic" in this context. But if the meeting engagement is assumed to be taking place in an area where either or both sides have had forces recently, TRPs would certainly not be impossible.

[Blackcat]

The whole business of spotting rounds etc. is, I think, a tad overdone in the CM series. In 1917 the British used predictive artillery fire, that is fire accurate enough to do its job without the use of spotting rounds and registration., since then the techniques have improved (massively so with GPS and digital computers). Yet in CM games we have to go through the process of firing spotting rounds for all types of artillery - even in CMSF set in the early years of the 21st century.

There are, I think, good game-play reasons for this, not least because in CMBN artillery is bordering on a game destroyer. However, the artillery model is not in any real way realistic.

[YankeeDog]

The whole business of spotting rounds etc. is, I think, a tad overdone in the CM series. In 1917 the British used predictive artillery fire, that is fire accurate enough to do its job without the use of spotting rounds and registration., since then the techniques have improved (massively so with GPS and digital computers). Yet in CM games we have to go through the process of firing spotting rounds for all types of artillery - even in CMSF set in the early years of the 21st century.

There are, I think, good game-play reasons for this, not least because in CMBN artillery is bordering on a game destroyer. However, the artillery model is not in any real way realistic.

Predictive fires in WWI & WWII usually took a fair amount of advance planning and measurement; IMHO they're better represented by pre-planned fires and/or TRPs in CM. They were also often (but not always) considerably larger than the typical shoots you see in CMBN, involving entire Companies or Battalions of artillery shooting into a box hundreds of meters on a side. On such a shoot, having the mean point of impact off by a few dozen meters in one direction or another didn't matter so much.

Smaller, "On the fly" artillery shoots in WWII were usually preceded by spotting round(s) & adjustment by observation, especially when the target was in close proximity to friendly troops. In fact, even modern forces with laser rangefinders, GPS etc. still use spotting rounds a fair bit of the time.

[sburke]

A TRP is just a pre registered artillery point. Depending on the actual circumstances if historical or the fictional scenario you are trying to create would determine how realistic or not it is to have them. the more fluid the situation, the less liklihood there would be to have them. For example if the meeting engagement is instigated by one side having achieved a pre planned breakthrough advancing on a specific objective, it could be that nearby crossroads, hills, forests etc would be part of a previously planned artillery plot to isolate the objective from being reinforced. As such it would make sense that one side might have them and the other not. As it would now be in the rear area of the defender (that both sides would be advancing into a no man's land would not have been the norm), the liklihood could be that the "defender" supporting artillery units were drawn from outside the area and have no plotted artillery locations at all.

Again it all depends I think on what the situation is you assume the meeting engagement represents.

might want to review this thread

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99988

[Hawkeyeted]

There were not "TRPs" as such in real life.

(I apologize in that I'm a couple years behind in replying to this....)

There certainly are TRPs used in real life, even in WWII. Army FM 6-20-40, Appx D states:

"Maneuver elements use an easily identifiable target reference point to orient direct fire weapon systems. This is one of our direct interfaces into the direct fire system. All TRPs should be dually identified in terms of the direct fire system and the target numbering system. The symbol is the same as that for a standard target with a target number and a TRP letter. Each TRP should be plotted on the map and identified as a target. Maneuver will call for it to be fired. TRPs are included on the target list and are identified in the

remarks section as TRPs."

An excellent example of TRPs in use is in the book "If You Survive", by George Wilson. He narrates how the 4th ID held off a Panzer attack in the Hurtgen Forest using TRPs. They had registered a series of TRPs in likely avenues of approach. When the Panzers arrived, they did so in the exact locations they had estimated. LT Wilson just radioed up with the TRP name/designators and brought down the Suck.

(If you're into Artillery, the most fastening aspect is "Time on Target" (TOT) in which a series of Batteries can coordinate so that all their rounds hit a target at exactly the same time. It's not as easy as just everyone firing at the same time. Remember, this is about rounds arriving on target at exactly the same time, so distances and Time of Flight have to be factored in. The math and coordination involved is just on the south side of rocketry.)

[YankeeDog]

Sorry if I was unclear; yes, of course TRPs exist IRL.

What I was trying to express above is that TRPs as they exist in CM are a fairly artificial construct that didn't really exist IRL. A single TRP in CM works with a wide range of assets, including any and all available indirect fire support the player has, and TRPs also provide an accuracy bonus to on-map guns and machine guns.

Obviously, TRPs don't work this way IRL; just because the divisional 105mms have pre-registered certain coordinates, doesn't necessarily mean that the local Company 60mm mortars have pre-registered exactly the same points. They might, but they might not.

And direct fire weapons like MGs mapping planned zones of fire and creating range cards (which is what TRPs represent for MGs) is actually a very different process that's not related to the artillery target registration process at all.

It's a simplification, and while all simplifications, it's not perfect. But it's probably necessary as modeling the indirect fire support process in anything approaching complete detail would really be an entire game in and of itself.

And yes, I am well aware of what TOT fires are; it's actually something I would like to see in CMBN at some point, though probably only for pre-planned (Turn 1) fires in a WWII game as they required a fair amount of advance calculation. These days, with computer-assisted calculation TOT fires can actually be done quite quickly on the fly from a single tube, ironically referred to as a MRSI ("Mercy") fire -- Multiple Rounds, Simultaneous Impact.

[Holman]

I can live with the abstraction of CMx2 TRP's by considering them to represent the owning player's prior planning in general. If a particular spot on the map is important enough to deserve one of those rare crosshairs, it's important enough for everybody in the scenario to care about it. Those who can register/boresight/whatever on it will do so.

[altipueri]

I seem to recall reading some cases in the Battle of the Bulge where the ToT ("Time on Target") was slightly out and the leading US tanks and half tracks got hit by their own artillery. But generally for the era it was pretty effective - charging straight into a village that was being shelled - hoping the guns would stop just as you got there.

[Vanir Ausf B]

In my QB house rules TRPs are banned except for the defender in attack/defend games.

[womble]

Another facet that TRPs stand in for (in their own approximate fashion) is spotting by aerial observers, directing fire onto positions that no one on the ground is in a position to call support upon.

[Hawkeyeted]

......I was trying to express above is that TRPs as they exist in CM are a fairly artificial construct that didn't really exist IRL.

The abstract is what you were referring to. Gotcha! :cool:

(I'm still new at CMBN. I used to play Advanced Squad Leader many years ago before computers broke into the war-gaming realm, and the Close Combat series after that. I'm delighted that CM has filled the gap in advanced tactical war-gaming.)