WW2 mortars and artillery. Most important thing to "get right" in the CM2 series?

[YankeeDog]

Do you have any evidence for this beeing realy used?

In regards to point targets, I have read accounts of these being called in occasionally, even from larger tubes. Most extreme example I have read was of a single 8" howitzer tube being called in on a single heavy stone house in Italy. I don't remember exactly where I read it, maybe one of the "Combat Lessons Learned" pamphlets published by the U.S. Army... I don't have time to go digging for it at the moment. But it definitely made an impression on me when I read it.

Not saying it was at all common to use large, higher level artillery assets in this way, but apparently it did happen at least rarely.

[Michael Emrys]

The distribution for an individual gun would be a rather long ellipse by the way.

Well...that depends. A gun firing at fairly short range gives a fairly flat trajectory that will in turn yield a long ellipse as you say. On the other hand, a howitzer firing at extreme elevation has a high trajectory, almost like a mortar, and a much more circular pattern of fall.

Michael

[JonS]

Spelling. Sometimes it's important. And grammar too.

Do you have any evidence for this beeing realy used?

Do you mean 'really' or 'rarely'. And if by 'rarely' do you mean you believe it was actually used a lot?

If you mean 'really' then yes, I have a ton of evidence. Most British formations made something of an art form out of producing effects-based fire plans, that used all sorts of elegant distributions of fire. But they took a while to prepare - 24 hours is probably around the norm, but 12 hours is not unheard of.

If you mean 'rarely', then that turns on the definition of rare. In the context of a full scale attack then no, they weren't rare. In fact, they were the norm. But in the context of the kinds of battles - and scale of battles - that CM models, then yes, they were rare. Partly because full scale attacks were rare themselves, and partly because the targets and effects of supporting fireplans were often 'off map' in CM terms.

[Killkess]

Spelling. Sometimes it's important. And grammar too.

My bad, what i meant was "really". And besides your english lesson: If it was so common, would you pls share your sources with us?

If you mean 'really' then yes, I have a ton of evidence. Most British formations made something of an art form out of producing effect-based fire plans, that used all sorts of elegant distributions of fire. But they took a while to prepare - 24 hours is probably around the norm, but 12 hours is not unheard of.

Both timescales would be out of the scope for the cm-battles. Maybe it would really be a good idea to retricts the linear command to the prepared fire-missions.

[JonS]

pls share your sources with us?

Andrew Lyell , Memoirs of an air observation post officer

BAOR Battlefield Tour Papers , Operation Neptune : 43 (W) Division Assault crossing of the River Seine 25-28 August 1944

BAOR Battlefield Tour Papers , Operation Totalize : 2 Canadian Corps operations astride the Caen-Falaise Road 7-8 August 1944

BAOR Battlefield Tour Papers , Operation Bluecoat, 8 Corps Operations South of Caumont, 30-31 July 1944

Brian A. Reid , No Holding Back: Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944

Denis Falvey , A WELL-KNOWN EXCELLENCE: British Artillery and an Artilleryman in World War Two

Edward A. Oates , Gunfire Target: Six Years with the Royal Artillery

George Blackburn , Where the Hell Are the Guns?: A Soldier's View of the Anxious Years, 1939-44

George Blackburn , The Guns of Victory: A Soldier's Eye View, Belgium, Holland, and Germany, 1944-45

George Blackburn , The Guns of Normandy: A Soldier's Eye View, France 1944

H.J. Parham , Unarmed into Battle: The Story of the Air Observation Post

Howard Carlson , The Wonder Of It All: A Memoir of an Armored Field Artillery Officer In World War II

Ian Gooderson , Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45

Ian V. Hogg , Barrage

J.A.C. Monk , The History of the 7th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery during World War II, 1939-1945

J.B. Bailey , Field Artillery and Firepower

J.H. Newman , 6th Battery, Natal Field Artillery, S.A.A: A saga of gunners in the Western Desert, 12th August 1941-13 June 1942

J.T. Whetton , Z location, or, Survey in war : the story of the 4th Durham Survey Regiment, R.A., T.A.

Jack Swaab , Field of Fire: Diary of a Gunner Officer

Kenneth Macksey , Battle

Owen N Roberts , 31st Field Regiment RA: A Record

Sanders Marble , "The infantry cannot do with a gun less": The place of the artillery in the BEF, 1914-1918

Shelford Bidwell , Fire Power: British Army Weapons and Theories, 1904-1945

Shelford Bidwell , Gunners at war: a tactical study of the Royal Artillery in the twentieth century

Shelford Bidwell , Artillery tactics 1939-1945

Sir Martin Farndale , YEARS OF DEFEAT 1939 - 1941: History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery - Vol 5

Spike Milligan , Milligan's War

Stephen Ashley Hart , Montgomery and 'Colossal Cracks': The 21st Army Group in Northwest Europe, 1944-45

Terry Copp , Montgomery's Scientists : operational research in Northwest Europe; the work of No. 2 Operational Research Section

Terry Gander , Heavy Artillery of World War II

W.E. Murphy , 2nd New Zealand Divisional Artillery

William B. Hanford , A Dangerous Assignment: An Artillery Forward Observer in World War II

Maybe it would really be a good idea to retricts the linear command to the prepared fire-missions.

I can certainly see the argument for that, but on balance I prefer things the way they are now.

[Childress]

So, if BFC wanted to be totally bitchy and realistic about it, what they should really do is only allow one size of target, which is a circle about 70m across (with some slight differences for different calibres). If they were feeling especially generous they could allow linears, and larger or smaller target areas, but only if targeted during the setup phase (to represent the gunners sorting out the calcs in the infinite amount of time available before each scen starts). Once you press go you should be limited to the stock circle for that calibre.

Well, that would certainly end artillery's status as the 'uber-weapon' on the CM battlefield.

[winkelried]

Spike Milligan , Milligan's War

I rely on this source too quite a bit. I would like to add "Blackadder Goes Forth" which adds a lot of insights here too.

And based on my cultural context Louis de Funes in "La Grande Vadrouille" for insights in guiding AA fire and "Mais où est donc passée la septième compagnie" which provides a lots of insight in the targeting mechanisms of guns mounted on the Sd Kfz 251.

[JonS]

I rely on this source too quite a bit. I would like to add "Blackadder Goes Forth" which adds a lot of insights here too.

Yucks aside, have you actually read it? Yes, it's funny, as you'd expect from someone of Spike's talent. But it's also a very good memoir. The war clearly affected him deeply (he did, after all, have a breakdown at Monte Cassino) and he writes with passion, emotion, and pride. His descriptions of combat are clear and lucid, and he obviously used primary sources in places. As for the lunacy, well, let's just say I've seen similar events often enough. They're undoubtedly exagerated - he says so himself - but at their core they're utterly believable.

[winkelried]

Yucks aside, have you actually read it? Yes, it's funny, as you'd expect from someone of Spike's talent. But it's also a very good memoir. The war clearly affected him deeply (he did, after all, have a breakdown at Monte Cassino) and he writes with passion, emotion, and pride. His descriptions of combat are clear and lucid. As for the lunacy, well, let's just say I've seen similar events often enough.

Some time ago I read it. Liked the humourous approach to this very serious affair. (apologize for my spelling). Just watched part of it on youtube a few days ago.

[SlowMotion]

Now it seems that all guns are shooting equally accurately. IMO it should be possible that individual guns might be less accurate than others. So for example when the FO has selected linear target and there are 4 guns involved, there might be one gun whose shells aren't landing as accurately to target area.

[JonS]

the game is called "Combat Mission", not "FO Mission"

If they're going to model rogue guns, then they need to model and provide a UI for the player to halt and adjust the fire of that gun within an ongoing mission. That's a lot of coimplication with very little benefit.

[YankeeDog]

the game is called "Combat Mission", not "FO Mission"

If they're going to model rogue guns, then they need to model and provide a UI for the player to halt and adjust the fire of that gun within an ongoing mission. That's a lot of complication with very little benefit.

It's a valid point that there's a limit to how far artillery modeling can go before it becomes cumbersome and a distraction from the main focus of the game (not to mention a huge development time suck). I'm not sure modeling individual rogue guns is really necessary.

I do wonder, though, if the artillery modeling is too precise in CMx2 (as opposed to how accurate the guns can potentially be, which is a different subject). Would it make things more realistic (without adding undesired frustration and/or large amounts of development time) to have the Mean Point of Impact for all strikes (even point strikes) displaced by a random amount of, say, 0-50m from the targeted impact point (maybe with the avg. displacement lower for smaller, shorter-ranged systems). As far as I can tell, the MPI is always pretty much dead-on in CMx2 (unless it's a truly "off-target" strike), and IRL I assume there would usually be some degree of error -- that is, the guns would never be laid exactly on target.

This may seem like a small thing, but I think such a tweak would give players a strong incentive to use especially larger artillery assets as a broad area bludgeon rather than a precise point scalpel -- if the MPI for your 200m radius circular target on a group of defended buildings is off by 50m, it's not a big deal. But if your point strike on a solo AT gun is off by 50m, you may be wasting shells... and this seems realistic to me, at least for WWII combat.

[Sgt Schultz]

I don't take issue with the game attributes. BFC is known for doing their homework and testing.

There seem to be a lot of folks who are having a somewhat/increasingly negative response to CMBN mortars. I've been on the receiving end of Ami 60s and on-map 81s. They hurt.

My opinion is what we are currently experiencing is a synergy of factors.

1. Although I think we have accurate modeling and TO&E, how many actual real-world units went into battle with all their support? Mortars/artillery fall behind quickly all the time.

2. Full ammo count. Again, probably taken right from the field manuals, but who EVER has all the ammo they are supposed to be issued when in the field, in a war zone, at the end of a logistical tail?

3. Price Structure. Balance is balance. If you price units in a certain way evenly, then it turns out the resource-heavy Allies get all they could ever want. In the field ... probably not so much.

4. Still early enough that counters are not in use. Counter-battery stories will start popping up soon enough from on-map duels. Infiltration of Scout Teams to take 'em in the rear. Early smoke use to close range to kill mortars. More sniper team use for dedicated anti-mortar fire.

------

Once the front lines get more dangerous for the mortar teams, they will go back to indirect fire, with the resulting delays and inaccuracies.

Scenario design makes it easier to allow mortars to affect a battle without dominating it.

Limited Ammo is my personal favorite at the moment. 35/36 HE and 3/5 smoke for either side for on-map 81s. Off-maps get 60+ HE and some smoke at Limited. Average 35 rounds per tube or so. Enough to smack someone/place hard once or twice, but not feed a steady stream of ever-changing death all over the map.

Different Ammo allotments could be allowed for QB purchases to allieviate the casualties there in that world.

My design parameters for artillery - Medium+ size battles. Feel free to use these in QBs with agreements.

All Mortars, both on and off-map, get Limited Ammo(not possible in QB ).

No more than one 60mm team per every three(3) Ami Infantry toons.

No more than two 81mm on-map per side, per Company/3+ toons.

One 81mm off-map or one 105/120 off-map per Company/3+ toons.

This way, everyone gets to blow stuff up... just not the whole map. I may not make 'historical' battles, but I try to think "realistically".

Stop the mortar madness, buy less.

EDIT - I learned these lessons the hard way after releasing two scenarios. Expect them to re-released very soon with proper adjustments to mortars.

[SlowMotion]

Agree that it's not FO mission

Still I think more randomness to some parts of the game would improve things. Just like many on-map units have experience level which affects how well and quickly those units perform, something similar could be used to gun crews. So if some gun is operated by less experienced crew or some members are missing for some reason, it could be that all guns are not performing as quickly and accurately.

Compare tank long range shooting accuracy of modern tanks and WW2 tanks. Big difference. I think the same way WW2 arty shouldn't be as "computer like" as it is in CMSF. They had no computers for arty during WW2, so more possibilities for all sorts of things going wrong.

As player you would have to be more careful with your own units because you couldn't be so sure that all shells are so neatly on target. In some rare cases things could go wrong.

I don't know how such worse performing guns should be handled by the player. I think there were quite many cases IRL where there was no time to keep adjusting fire until everything was perfect. Especially in defense. So if the accuracy problem of some gun was kept within some limit (to avoid this extra UI etc for handling individual guns), I think it would make things look more believable because everything wouldn't be so predictably neat.

[JonS]

Would it make things more realistic (without adding undesired frustration and/or large amounts of development time) to have the Mean Point of Impact for all strikes (even point strikes) displaced by a random amount of, say, 0-50m from the targeted impact point (maybe with the avg. displacement lower for smaller, shorter-ranged systems). As far as I can tell, the MPI is always pretty much dead-on in CMx2 (unless it's a truly "off-target" strike), and IRL I assume there would usually be some degree of error -- that is, the guns would never be laid exactly on target.

For purely predicted targets that would be correct. But artillery in CM is almost invariably being used to fire on targets that the FO can actually see. the whole point of having the FO there is to adjust the MPI exactly where he wants it to be, and this is why CM has the adjusting phase.

In principle, BFC could I suppose make targetting of TRPs that aren't in LOS of anyone (or at least an FO) less accurate, but again you swiftly run into UI complication and gamer confusion, with relatively little benefit.

[xian]

Perhaps a reduction in accuracy could go hand in hand with improvement in mission request times - I still find it odd that it can take 7 mins for an HQ to tell the 60mm next to him to fire at that hedgerow.

[Jammersix]

before or after the funeral?

Before she finds out.

[winkelried]

I've been on the receiving end of Ami 60s and on-map 81s. They hurt.

They should

1. Although I think we have accurate modeling and TO&E, how many actual real-world units went into battle with all their support? Mortars/artillery fall behind quickly all the time.

Maybe they fall behind in the Wehrmacht with all the poor horses. The US were pretty much motorized. No seriousely: That's the point about 60mm and 81mm mortars - the infantry can rely having them with them. The big guns sometimes take time to follow. I work on a campaign where historically the support of the big guns is dripping in on both sides, but not the mortars. They were always where needed.

2. Full ammo count. Again, probably taken right from the field manuals, but who EVER has all the ammo they are supposed to be issued when in the field, in a war zone, at the end of a logistical tail?

This depends heavily on the time period and the situation. You are right sometimes ordnance was limited. Sometimes it was abundant. Up to the scenario designer to get it right.

3. Price Structure. Balance is balance. If you price units in a certain way evenly, then it turns out the resource-heavy Allies get all they could ever want. In the field ... probably not so much.

No comment on QB stuff.

4. Still early enough that counters are not in use. Counter-battery stories will start popping up soon enough from on-map duels. Infiltration of Scout Teams to take 'em in the rear. Early smoke use to close range to kill mortars. More sniper team use for dedicated anti-mortar fire.

I prefer TRPs set where I think the enemy will stay in position a bit longer. Nice effect though.

[Jammersix]

Andrew Lyell , Memoirs of an air observation post officer

BAOR Battlefield Tour Papers , Operation Neptune : 43 (W) Division Assault crossing of the River Seine 25-28 August 1944

BAOR Battlefield Tour Papers , Operation Totalize : 2 Canadian Corps operations astride the Caen-Falaise Road 7-8 August 1944

BAOR Battlefield Tour Papers , Operation Bluecoat, 8 Corps Operations South of Caumont, 30-31 July 1944

Brian A. Reid , No Holding Back: Operation Totalize, Normandy, August 1944

Denis Falvey , A WELL-KNOWN EXCELLENCE: British Artillery and an Artilleryman in World War Two

Edward A. Oates , Gunfire Target: Six Years with the Royal Artillery

George Blackburn , Where the Hell Are the Guns?: A Soldier's View of the Anxious Years, 1939-44

George Blackburn , The Guns of Victory: A Soldier's Eye View, Belgium, Holland, and Germany, 1944-45

George Blackburn , The Guns of Normandy: A Soldier's Eye View, France 1944

H.J. Parham , Unarmed into Battle: The Story of the Air Observation Post

Howard Carlson , The Wonder Of It All: A Memoir of an Armored Field Artillery Officer In World War II

Ian Gooderson , Air Power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in Europe 1943-45

Ian V. Hogg , Barrage

J.A.C. Monk , The History of the 7th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery during World War II, 1939-1945

J.B. Bailey , Field Artillery and Firepower

J.H. Newman , 6th Battery, Natal Field Artillery, S.A.A: A saga of gunners in the Western Desert, 12th August 1941-13 June 1942

J.T. Whetton , Z location, or, Survey in war : the story of the 4th Durham Survey Regiment, R.A., T.A.

Jack Swaab , Field of Fire: Diary of a Gunner Officer

Kenneth Macksey , Battle

Owen N Roberts , 31st Field Regiment RA: A Record

Sanders Marble , "The infantry cannot do with a gun less": The place of the artillery in the BEF, 1914-1918

Shelford Bidwell , Fire Power: British Army Weapons and Theories, 1904-1945

Shelford Bidwell , Gunners at war: a tactical study of the Royal Artillery in the twentieth century

Shelford Bidwell , Artillery tactics 1939-1945

Sir Martin Farndale , YEARS OF DEFEAT 1939 - 1941: History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery - Vol 5

Spike Milligan , Milligan's War

Stephen Ashley Hart , Montgomery and 'Colossal Cracks': The 21st Army Group in Northwest Europe, 1944-45

Terry Copp , Montgomery's Scientists : operational research in Northwest Europe; the work of No. 2 Operational Research Section

Terry Gander , Heavy Artillery of World War II

W.E. Murphy , 2nd New Zealand Divisional Artillery

William B. Hanford , A Dangerous Assignment: An Artillery Forward Observer in World War II

My objection here is purely academic.

This is not a citation, it is a bibliography.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, (a principle I would expect one so well read to understand) I point out that without page numbers, the call for a citation remains unanswered.

The original point was not well questioned. There appears to be a question about whether "other formations" were actually used, but the question is ambiguous.

However, in any interpretation of the question, the question was specific.

Therefore, to be answered with a source, the source must include page numbers.

[JonS]

the source must include page numbers.

Append "p.1-n" to all entries.

Edit: I forgot one -

A.L. Pemberton , The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment, p.1-n

[winkelried]

Append "p.1-n" to all entries.

Edit: I forgot one -

A.L. Pemberton , The Development of Artillery Tactics and Equipment, p.1-n

I think we should be precise here Jon: I propose p.1-n where n is a positive natural number greater than 1.

[Jammersix]

Exactly as I suspected.

Do carry on.

[sburke]

I started to go back through this whole thread but having just read Clay Pigeons of St Lo, I kind of feel I don't need to. The book is a fairly respected if not an actual highly respected source to my knowledge and what he relates about the effectiveness of mortars (and to a lesser extent artillery in general) on both sides and a very common use of linear attacks on hedgerow positions unfortunately dovetails very well with the bitter experiences I have had in CMBN.

Yeah it sucks to be on the receiving end, but that doesn't make the game portrayal inaccurate. If anything it argues that they got it right. I have yet to read a single citation by a combatant that says anything along the lines of "yeah they had mortars, but those things weren't usually that accurate". I expect if I ever verbalized that to a WW 2 vet they'd slap me upside the head.

If players really hate them then in HTH games maybe you just need to agree not to have them, but to base the argument in "they are overly modelled", I'd really need some supporting evidence as everything I have read indicates that they made life a living hell.

Now wait till we get the next set of modules - try reading "A Dark and Bloody Ground". You think it's bad now... MMMM Hurtgen battles.....ooooo...ouch.

[JonS]

Exactly as I suspected.

Do carry on.

Why so precious?

I was asked for sources that indicate that the use was common. Those are the sources that show that. If I give one or two fully paginated sources that's dismissable as anecdote. What you've got these is a variety consisting of memoir, official history, professional history, doctrine, AAR, and the rest, which taken together demonstrate what was requested.

If he's really interested he now has a good place to start.

[DavidFields]

Well, started this thread yesterday.....lots of responses.

I want to make it clear: my interest is to help the CM2 series. I am looking forward to it progressing all the way to East Front 1941 (and then, perhaps, some one will slap together a sort-of Germany attacking Poland Mod).

If the mortars/artillery are not "right", no amount of tinkering with the modeling of Pz-IV armor issues, for example, is going to make things work.

JonS: I vote for "accurate not precise" as the standard pattern.

SBurke, I am now going to drive you, perhaps, nuts--and I have sympathy for you, but here it goes: The WW2 books are not a random data stream. People tend to write about what is unusual or atypical. Your rejoinder may be, "But what else should be go by?"

Ok, take a thought experiment:

A 60mm mortar team runs into a field in Normandy and sets up. They are wearing just cloth uniforms (It is with a jolt that I see modern soldier footage--with all the body armor). The ground has been plowed, but is relatively flat.

The FO is 100s of yards away, with a walkie-talkie the size of a shoe box. Out of visual contact, he only vaguely knows where the mortar team is--sort of back and behind him, according to his hand drawn map, if there had actually been some planning before hand. There is smoke and mist.

With binoculars, he sees a target....several hundred yards ahead, he guesses.

Query: With what accuracy is that FO going to call in the spotting round, even assuming good visibility to the target? [if I were him, I would err on going long, and we he and the mortar are using compasses to set direction? True? Can you imagine how that works if the FO and mortar are not in the same line as the target?]

And each "thump" of the mortar is not changing its baseplate orientation of the mortar in the dirt?

I have the "advantage" of never having fought Modern Warfare. In ROTC in the mid -70s, on mock attacks, calling a mock airstrike on the right hill was considered a high-five moment. [and I wanted to be the Retello, and have that suitcase size radio on my back] Mid-70s being 30 years after WW2.

CMBN is excellent. But, the mortar/artillery part...just ...does not...feel right....yet.

I think it is quite fixable--would me my egotistical response.

To argue with an expert who has 7,000 + posts, and clearly has a very extensive knowledge of WW2 source material may seem foolish, but I am willing to be the fool if it gets me/us the East Front simulation we want. I will admit that the US and Germans in Normandy in 1944 are likely the closest progenitors to current warfare. But I will argue that WW2 was not, mostly, a Modern War. Breed CMSF with CMBB, but keep Blitzkieg (I think that was the name on the original CMBB disc for the first campaign), Blitkrieg in how it plays. Unless you can show that that original simulation was grievously in error.