howitzers

[johntomkins]

I noticed once i'd gone through the phases of calling in a strike, I was asked general or personel before the confirm stage, what does this mean

[Vencini]

Pg 107 Combat Mission BN manual:

Type - sets the munition mix based on the target type:

General - generic setting

Personnel - weights in favor of airburst antipersonnel rounds.

Note: Planned artillery strikes as well as strikes ordered on a

TRP can airburst if set to a “personnel” target. Not all

shells will airburst. This simulates the use of timed

fuses.

So general agains houses, fortifications,tanks etc...and personnel against infantry, opened vehicles, etc...

Maybe another experienced player may add more information.That answer was easy to me... :cool:

greetings

[winkelried]

Maybe another experienced player may add more information.That answer was easy to me... :cool:

greetings

it's perfect - and when we move later in the war we'll get VT's for the allies :cool:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity_fuze#World_War_II

[GreenAsJade]

I had no idea every single shell falling had one of these complicated thingamajigs in it. Amazing.

GaJ

[YankeeDog]

If you want to get an idea of just how effective modern VT airburst is against infantry without overhead cover, play CMSF a little bit; a linear 81mm mortar strike in CMSF plotted over a trench line will simply clear it out; maybe your grunts will find a few broken survivors once they enter the trench, but otherwise it's just dead bodies. This is one of the reasons why, if you're playing Red vs. Blue in CMSF, you hide your infantry deep inside buildings if at all possible.

But the "Personnel" strikes we're seeing in CMBN right now model the use of precision timed fuses to create airbursts. This is takes much more careful calculation and preparation (which is why it's only available for pre-planned or TRP strikes). It's also less precise than VT fusing, so a smaller percentage of the shells detonate at the correct height -- some detonate too high, some don't detonate until after impact.

Still pretty effective, tho. A linear pre-planned or TRP 105mm strike set to Personnel plotted just behind a row of bocage will really put the hurt on anybody hiding in that particular stretch of bocage, unless they have overhead cover (bunkers or somesuch).

[womble]

Still pretty effective, tho. A linear pre-planned or TRP 105mm strike set to Personnel plotted just behind a row of bocage will really put the hurt on anybody hiding in that particular stretch of bocage, unless they have overhead cover (bunkers or somesuch).

105 is pretty effective in that case if used as "general"... Nasty stuff.

[MikeyD]

I suspect when we get to the Bulge title and the VT airburst fuse finally gets introduced its going to be game-changer, as it was in real life. You can get a preview of the carnage by playing the CMSF or Afghanistan demo and using 'personnel' setting.

[winkelried]

I suspect when we get to the Bulge title and the VT airburst fuse finally gets introduced its going to be game-changer, as it was in real life.

and as it was in CMBO together with the 155mm indirect fire anti-tank gun - good bye

[Killkess]

I wonder when they will at least take away the unrealistic linear target command and the ability to call for unbelieble small point and area fire. I once already asked: Can anybody provide information about the historical use of such techniques?

[womble]

I wonder when they will at least take away the unrealistic linear target command and the ability to call for unbelieble small point and area fire. I once already asked: Can anybody provide information about the historical use of such techniques?

My recollection the last time this came up is that a former artilleryman said that hand calculation and laying of linear barrages was trained while he was serving. Whether that's true of WW2, I have no recollection, but it indicates that it was at least possible without modern ballistics computers.

[Michael Emrys]

I wonder when they will at least take away the unrealistic linear target command and the ability to call for unbelieble small point and area fire. I once already asked: Can anybody provide information about the historical use of such techniques?

This was all argued out way back in CM1 days. Several artillery experts weighed in on how the artillery in that game was very unrealistic and provided examples of what was actually standard practice. The present system, while not precisely as I recall their descriptions, is nevertheless a great deal closer. I wouldn't doubt that it could use yet more improvement, but I for one am counting my blessings.

Michael

[MikeyD]

I recall working with an old WWII jungle fighter back in the 80s. He said that whenever a Japanese soldier was captured and brought behind the lines they would ask for permission to view the fabled American "automatic artillery". They could not believe that we could work such wonders with our artillery the old fashioned way. It was the job of the artilleryman to work wonders.

[Killkess]

Besides some anecdotes from people someone has heard off... any facts?

Ive tried to look up informations in old field manuals, combat reports. I find no evidence. For me this looks way like asimple hangover from CMSF times.

[Killkess]

A shamless bump....