Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 3/17/2009 5:42:27 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Here is the situation:

There is an enemy truck driving down the road. You have a 75mm howitzer 3km away behind a hill. You also have an StuG IIIE 500m away that can see the truck. Which weapon has the better chance of knocking out that enemy truck?

My bet is on the StuG. But here is the rub. The 75mm howitzer has an AP rating of 90 in TOAW III and the StuG IIIE has an AP rating of 78. This seems ass-backwards. Both use a nearly identical 75mm weapon. Further, the StuG IIIE has a superior fire-control system (based on Zeiss optical targeting) and the 75mm howitzer has basically no fire-control system at all (compared to the StuG). Further, the StuG has a clear line of sight to the target while the howitzer is firing blind.

So, here is my question: In TOAW III is there a way to model the increased effectiveness of direct fire compared to indirect fire?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 3/17/2009 6:05:39 PM

Shazman

Posts: 118
Joined: 1/4/2009
Status: offline

It's a truck, not a tank. Use the machine gun.

Isn't there a chance to hit that favors the StuG and doesn't the artillery get a top penetration bonus? Seems it should.

< Message edited by Shazman -- 3/17/2009 6:06:16 PM >

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 2

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/11/2009 2:42:06 AM

Central Blue

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The 75mm howitzer has an AP rating of 90 in TOAW III and the StuG IIIE has an AP rating of 78.

This is the point of having something like a system to assign values to these things -- not that I am suggesting you are against that...

What I am playing around with would rate the German 7.5cm IG as AP 68 and the 7.5cm FK18 at 66 because the standard HE round is slightly less weight.

If the gun on that Stug is the KwK 37, then that rates 65 assuming they can sustain a rate of fire of four rounds per minute as long as they have ammunition -- which everyone always does in this game. Add 2 for the mg (assuming they can change barrels, or 1 if they can't)

quote:

is there a way to model the increased effectiveness of direct fire compared to indirect fire?

That I couldn't tell you. I think it would be easy to build a test though of one stug or one FK18 firing on one truck.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 3

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/11/2009 6:17:44 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Here is the situation:

There is an enemy truck driving down the road. You have a 75mm howitzer 3km away behind a hill. You also have an StuG IIIE 500m away that can see the truck. Which weapon has the better chance of knocking out that enemy truck?

My bet is on the StuG. But here is the rub. The 75mm howitzer has an AP rating of 90 in TOAW III and the StuG IIIE has an AP rating of 78. This seems ass-backwards. Both use a nearly identical 75mm weapon. Further, the StuG IIIE has a superior fire-control system (based on Zeiss optical targeting) and the 75mm howitzer has basically no fire-control system at all (compared to the StuG). Further, the StuG has a clear line of sight to the target while the howitzer is firing blind.

This argument would be convincing -- if the scale of the average TOAW scenario was 1 km or so.

It isn't, and since in the average scenario the average truck in the average adjacent hex is not in the line of sight of that StG, the argument seems a little more complex to me than you imply. 75 mm howitzers can work over trucks trying to come up that road on the other side of the town and behind the hill better than StG's can.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/11/2009 6:23:25 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 4

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/11/2009 5:24:43 PM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This argument would be convincing -- if the scale of the average TOAW scenario was 1 km or so.

It isn't, and since in the average scenario the average truck in the average adjacent hex is not in the line of sight of that StG, the argument seems a little more complex to me than you imply. 75 mm howitzers can work over trucks trying to come up that road on the other side of the town and behind the hill better than StG's can.

Wait a minute Colin. Why assume the StuG doesn't have a line of sight? It's a FEBA weapon as opposed to in the rear. This is usually apparent by their placement in the equipment list. Trucks are at the bottom, where the game engine should give them any justifiable extra protection.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 5

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/11/2009 6:41:38 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
This argument would be convincing -- if the scale of the average TOAW scenario was 1 km or so.

It isn't, and since in the average scenario the average truck in the average adjacent hex is not in the line of sight of that StG, the argument seems a little more complex to me than you imply. 75 mm howitzers can work over trucks trying to come up that road on the other side of the town and behind the hill better than StG's can.

Wait a minute Colin. Why assume the StuG doesn't have a line of sight? It's a FEBA weapon as opposed to in the rear. This is usually apparent by their placement in the equipment list. Trucks are at the bottom, where the game engine should give them any justifiable extra protection.

One has to use the average case to assign values -- else most of the time the value will be further off than otherwise. I've met people who are 4'2" -- but if I was buying clothes for an unknown adult, I'd do better going with 5'9" or so.

So... Average hex size? 10km? Two hexes, two objects located randomly within those hexes. What odds they are in sight of each other?

Admittedly the situation is more complex than that -- but still. The howitzer is able to fire on the truck in a greater number of cases than the StG is.

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 6

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/13/2009 5:16:55 AM

macgregor

Posts: 990
Joined: 2/10/2004
Status: offline

I don't want to discount the obvious study you've made, I just figure that; In defense, the Stug would pick off incoming vehicles, while on the attack, they would only fire once they had enemy units in sight. What they definitely would not do IMHO, is fire indiscriminately at coordinates a la artillery as they don't carry enough ammo. Certainly not the tank destroyers. I believe some carried the 75/18 so perhaps those, though it would seem a waste of ammo.

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 7

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/13/2009 6:35:00 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I don't want to discount the obvious study you've made, I just figure that; In defense, the Stug would pick off incoming vehicles, while on the attack, they would only fire once they had enemy units in sight. What they definitely would not do IMHO, is fire indiscriminately at coordinates a la artillery as they don't carry enough ammo. Certainly not the tank destroyers. I believe some carried the 75/18 so perhaps those, though it would seem a waste of ammo.

This is the heart of the issue and is why Colin's reasoning is sub-par on this issue.

_____________________________

(in reply to macgregor)

Post #: 8

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/14/2009 2:26:45 PM

Caz Collins

Posts: 17
Joined: 3/9/2009
From: United States
Status: offline

Macgregor makes a comment that "This is usually apparent by their (trucks) placement in the equipment list. Trucks are at the bottom, where the game engine should give them any justifiable extra protection." I did not know that equipment placed near the bottom received some sort of protection in combat resolution; no offense, but is this true?

Thanks

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 9

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/14/2009 10:49:20 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Caz Collins,

The active defenders tend to be at the top of the equipment list and the passive defenders tend to be at the bottom of the list. So yes, in a general sense, to answer your question.

_____________________________

(in reply to Caz Collins)

Post #: 10

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/15/2009 9:24:05 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Caz Collins,

The active defenders tend to be at the top of the equipment list and the passive defenders tend to be at the bottom of the list.� So yes, in a general sense, to answer your question.

The position in the list is a reflection of the relative contribution to the fighting power of the unit. Whether something is an active defender or not is irrelevant. A hundred artillery peices will be ranked above one squad.

Anyway, the order of equipment in the unit is not relevant to anything except reconstitution and the 3D icon, which both depend on the first item in the unit.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 11

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/15/2009 9:27:16 PM

golden delicious

Posts: 5575
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: London, Surrey, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I don't want to discount the obvious study you've made, I just figure that; In defense, the Stug would pick off incoming vehicles, while on the attack, they would only fire once they had enemy units in sight. What they definitely would not do IMHO, is fire indiscriminately at coordinates a la artillery as they don't carry enough ammo. Certainly not the tank destroyers. I believe some carried the 75/18 so perhaps those, though it would seem a waste of ammo.

This is the heart of the issue and is why Colin's reasoning is sub-par on this issue.

I think the whole debate misses the point. In fact direct and indirect fire use different calculations in TOAW so an indirect attack and a direct attack with the same AP strength will not have the same effect. I suspect if you performed a test of an artillery unit and an assault gun unit against a group of soft targets (they would have to be active defenders or they would RBC), you would find that the assault guns were more effective at destroying them than the artillery.

_____________________________

"What did you read at university?"
"War Studies"
"War? Huh. What is it good for?"
"Absolutely nothing."

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 12

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/16/2009 12:28:53 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

golden delicious,

Thanks for clearing up an issue that has nagged at me for some time.

_____________________________

(in reply to golden delicious)

Post #: 13

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/16/2009 9:18:33 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

quote:

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I don't want to discount the obvious study you've made, I just figure that; In defense, the Stug would pick off incoming vehicles, while on the attack, they would only fire once they had enemy units in sight. What they definitely would not do IMHO, is fire indiscriminately at coordinates a la artillery as they don't carry enough ammo. Certainly not the tank destroyers. I believe some carried the 75/18 so perhaps those, though it would seem a waste of ammo.

This is the heart of the issue and is why Colin's reasoning is sub-par on this issue.

Kind of a non-sequitur. Macgregor's post is directed at Central Blue, and supports my reasoning. How macgregor's post can simultaneously be spot on, support my argument, and demonstrate that my reasoning is 'subpar' escapes me.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/16/2009 9:39:34 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 14

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/17/2009 2:27:13 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

I was referring to ammunition supply. The StuG has a limited supply. This is the heart of the issue.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 15

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/17/2009 7:02:19 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

I was referring to ammunition supply.� The StuG has a limited supply.� This is the heart of the issue.

I don't think so. If it was, one would have examples of StG's with ammunition trucks beside them conducting artillery barrages.

Anyway, this to some extent misconceives the issue. The question is not whether an StG could or couldn't conduct long-range indirect fire missions: it wouldn't.

A StG is a heavily armed and armored combat vehicle designed for direct combat, with a crew trained for direct combat, and organized into units formed for direct combat. It's going to be sent to areas where it will serve in direct combat, and it will not be deployed to conduct indirect fire missions -- nor does it seem to me that the unit would have the necessary equipment or training to do so very effectively if it was asked to conduct such a mission.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/17/2009 7:10:22 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 16

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/18/2009 3:52:47 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

Perhaps you misunderstand me. The StuG has a limited ammo supply. I'm not talking about indirect fire. I'm talking about having a limited ammo supply. The JSU-152 has even even more limited ammo supply. But the Pz-IVD has a more generous ammo supply. Ammo supply. That is the heart of the issue.

Here are two weapons:
StuG IIIG (22 rounds of 75mm HE)
Pz-IVD (60 rounds of 75mm HE)

Both have identical AP ratings.

Ammo supply. That is the heart of the issue.

What is the ammo supply of a 75mm pack howitzer? 30 rounds? 50? 200,000?

Ammo supply. The heart of the issue.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 17

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/18/2009 7:04:46 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

Perhaps you misunderstand me.� The StuG has a limited ammo supply.� I'm not talking about indirect fire.� I'm talking about having a limited ammo supply.� The JSU-152 has even even more limited ammo supply.� But the Pz-IVD has a more generous ammo supply.� Ammo supply.� That is the heart of the issue.�

Here are two weapons:
StuG IIIG (22 rounds of 75mm HE)
Pz-IVD (60 rounds of 75mm HE)

Both have identical AP ratings.�

Ammo supply.� That is the heart of the issue.

What is the ammo supply of a 75mm pack howitzer?� 30 rounds?� 50?� 200,000?

Ammo supply.� The heart of the issue.

It's a red herring, but your 'ammo supply' argument isn't worth much.

In point of fact, a 75 mm pack howitzer has an 'ammo supply' of one shell. That's how many it can carry on board.

You park a truck with two hundred shells next to a StG, and park a truck with two hundred shells next to a 75 mm howitzer, and the StG has more shells. Take the truck away, and the StG still has more shells.

'What is the ammo supply of a 75mm pack howitzer? 30 rounds? 50? 200,000?' In this sense, a StG could have exactly the same ammo supply. Just move its support vehicles up along with it just as you would the howitzer's.

Now, the StG is designed to move into direct combat as a complete package, with a protected ammunition supply -- and in this sense its 'ammo supply' is limited. The 75 mm howitzer's abilities in this direction are sharply limited -- and if used in direct combat, its 'ammo supply' will be even more sharply limited. It'll all have to be off the vehicle.

That's why the StG is an 'active defender' but the 75 mm howitzer isn't. On the other hand, the howitzer is presumably in a battery with all the goodies to permit aimed indirect fire.

That's the difference. It has nothing to do with 'ammo supply' at all -- except inasmuch as the ability to carry and protect the 'ammo supply' confers an advantage on the StG -- not the howitzer -- for direct fire. Both have whatever 'ammo supply' their supply situation and support units confer. Tell the StG that it can just stack the shells next to the open hatch and blast away and it'll have fully as large an 'ammo supply' as the 75 mm.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/18/2009 7:14:44 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 18

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/19/2009 4:47:17 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

I disagree. What does it mean to be Green 100% and Red 0% in regards to supply? Green 100% = full standard ammo allotment available. Red 0% = out of ammo.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 19

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/19/2009 6:01:40 PM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

I disagree.� What does it mean to be Green 100% and Red 0% in regards to supply?� Green 100% = full standard ammo allotment available.� Red 0% = out of ammo.

If you look up the TO&E for an assault gun battalion, I imagine you'll find about three times the personnel that the crews of the guns themselves would account for. You'll also find scads of trucks, etc.

The ammo supply is not just what is on the guns.

Essentially, both the original post in this thread and your argument rest on a tactical view of the situation. This isn't 'Steel Panthers.' An assault gun battalion is not just assault guns, and the next hex isn't just what you can see.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/19/2009 6:03:50 PM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 20

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/20/2009 12:37:14 AM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

Colin,

You are still missing the point. 100% Green supply has to mean something. So, does Red 0%, and everything in between.

Further, when you are talking about a game that scales down to 6-hours per turn, then ammo allotment is crucial.

_____________________________

(in reply to ColinWright)

Post #: 21

RE: Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire - 4/20/2009 4:07:46 AM

ColinWright

Posts: 2604
Joined: 10/13/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Colin,

You are still missing the point.� 100% Green supply has to mean something.� So, does Red 0%, and everything in between.

Further, when you are talking about a game that scales down to 6-hours per turn, then ammo allotment is crucial.�

I'm not missing any point. A StG battalion with 100% supply doesn't just have a full load in the assault guns; it has full loads in its ammunition trucks. I'm confident that by the time it's down to one full load left for each StG, it's getting ready for a refill.

As to scaling down to 6 hours per turn, you have to look at the average. That would be at least one day turns -- and at that scale, what matters is what the total on-hand ammunition supply for the unit is -- not for each piece.

What's best is always what describes the most common situation. In TOAW, that's something like one day/half-week turns and 5-15 km hexes. There's little point in considering what happens at the extremes.

Finally, and even if you find out that a StG battalion carried around only x shells but a towed artillery battalion went around with 3x shells, that still won't demonstrate much beyond the fact that they were intended for different missions. The StG battalion is a direct combat formation -- and by the time the allotted shells are used up, it's probably exhausted its fuel stocks, a third of the StG's have some degree of damage or have broken down, etc. No real need for hauling around some inordinate amount of ordnance. The unit will need other services before the shells are exhausted.

The artillery battalion, on the other hand, is intended to bang away endlessly without necessarily suffering any wear and tear. If it has more shells, that's because it will use more.

I think that you are still thinking in terms of the individual piece and its capacities. TOAW is not a tactical game.

What's relevant is the entire unit, its capacities, and its probable mission. So it's almost irrelevant if a StG can carry fifty shells into action with it but the 75 mm howitzer cannot. The 75 mm howitzer will rarely enter 'action' at all in the same sense the StG will -- not unless things have gone badly askew. You might as well note that a Bf 109 has a far higher rate of climb than a StG. They're not carrying out comparable missions.

< Message edited by ColinWright -- 4/20/2009 4:09:40 AM >

_____________________________

I am not Charlie Hebdo

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 22

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design >> Direct Fire versus Indirect Fire

Page: [1]