Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Artillery Spotting

 
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] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Artillery Spotting Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
[Poll]

Artillery Spotting


Yes
  76% (59)
No
  23% (18)


Total Votes : 77


(last vote on : 10/27/2009 7:52:25 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 1:17:15 AM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
Quite simply?
I do not know what the hell you are talking about. I agreed with everything you've written thus far?

RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 31
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 1:30:21 AM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Mr RR,

I know that! And vice versa!

That was sort of a rhetorical question based on some of the statements made in this discussion!

Definitely no offense intended! Quite the opposite!

_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 32
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 1:46:59 AM   
Lesbaker


Posts: 170
Joined: 3/6/2007
From: Southampton, UK
Status: offline
I can’t say much on the Organisation and use of Artillery for other nations but for the British over the period that JTCS covers it will be nearly impossible to replicate historically as the formations and the way they were used changed so much during the war years, Here’s a quick (Well really quite long  ) summation of the Royal Artillery’s formations and use over the war years.
ORGANISATION AND GROUPING
 
Principles

The main concepts for the use of artillery were:

Cooperation with the supported arm.
Concentration of firepower.
Surprise.
Economy of firepower - particularly reflected in the use of neutralisation and the ability to concentrate.
Mobility of firepower - the ability to concentrate firepower when and where it was needed without re-deploying the guns.
It being a principle that artillery did not go into reserve, the firepower of the regiments or divisions in reserve was available to those in contact with the enemy.  There were two principles governing artillery command and control:

that command was centralised under the highest commander 'who can exercise effective control without risk of failure', and
Formation, etc, commanders should not have to deal with more than one artillery commander (who was responsible for field, anti-tank and anti-aircraft artillery).
This led to two command and control relationships:

'Under Command'; and
‘In Support’, which made firepower available, normally all guns within range, and enabled firing across divisional and higher formation boundaries.
The British Army did not recognise the principle of Unity of Command in the way that other armies did. The consequence of these simple arrangements was highly flexible mobile firepower that could be provided where and when it was needed.  'Under Command' meant that control was centralised under the commander, while 'In Support' meant decentralisation.  From late 1942 there were in effect only two levels of command with organic guns - division (divisional field regiments) and army (all other field, medium and heavy regiments).  Typically a regiment 'under command' of a division would be 'in support' to a particular brigade, but this did not prevent it firing in support of formations to its flanks.  Corps became the primary level of artillery control for counter-battery action (as it was in WW1) and in the final year of the war for major offensive fire plans.  Control was usually centralised for defensive and major attack operations and decentralised for an advance.  However it was rare for command to be decentralised below divisional level and decentralisation mostly applied to the army artillery being assigned to corps or division level.

Organisation, Affiliation and Equipment
From early in the 20th century the basic organisation of the artillery was divisional artillery comprising 2 to 4 units, called 'field brigades'.  These brigades had sub-units called 'batteries', which in turn were split into 'sections' each of 2 guns.  After WW1 there were additional field, medium and heavy brigades above divisional level.   However, in 1938 the field brigades were renamed regiments, lost their survey sections and reorganised in two batteries of guns, regimental HQ was significantly increased in size including gaining a second in command.  The batteries were reorganised with sections being grouped into 'troops'.   Each field battery of 12 guns was organised as three troops (except RHA batteries that had eight guns in two troops) and medium brigades became regiments of 2 batteries.  The Commonwealth armies followed suit, in some cases not until early 1940.  The field regiments changed again after 1940 as the lessons of the campaign in France were absorbed.

Regiment              Pre 1938              1938 -1940               After 1940
Field                     4 x 6 Guns            2 x 3 x 4 Guns          3 x 2 x 4 Guns
RHA                      3 x 6 Guns            2 x 2 x 4 Guns          3 x 2 x 4 Guns
Medium                4 x 4 Guns            2 x 2 x 4 Guns          2 x 2 x 4 Guns
Heavy                   4 x 4 Guns                  4 x 4 Guns                4 x 4 Guns

Each troop had a command post (CP) as did the battery.   Troops were sequentially lettered within a regiment and divided into two sections (left and right) each of two guns.  Guns being called ‘sub-sections’ and sequentially lettered within the battery.  In consequence guns were colloquially called ‘subs’.
In earlier times the battery commander (BC – a major) had been the battery's observer, although he often brought forward a junior officer from the gun position to act as an 'observing officer'. The 1938 organisation introduced troop commanders who were captains and became their battery's main observers, although the third (in the three troop organisation) was severely limited by poor communications facilities.  They operated as either Observation Post Officers (OPO) if the battle was static or Forward Observation Officers (FOO) if they were moving with the infantry or armour.  The BC remained in the forward area with his troop commanders.  This highlights the distinguishing feature of the British artillery system, the more senior battery officers were forward.  It reflected key lessons of 1917-18:


That artillery commanders and tactical commanders must be co-located at all levels of command.
That artillery command must be well forward.
That artillery command and control must be directly linked to the all-arms tactical plan.
It had many important consequences, not the least of which was that they spoke authoritatively to the supported commanders and gave orders, not requests, to the guns.  It also eliminated the risk of the artillery conducting their own private war controlled from the rear.  In 1941 General Montgomery, as chief umpire on Exercise BUMPER, stated 'the business of the Gunner Commanding Officer is first to train his regiment and then to train the infantry and armoured brigadiers to use it properly'.

The regiment's second-in-command was responsible for its gun area.  Regimental HQ (RHQ) was there and operated by the adjutant. The senior officer on each battery position was the (battery) Captain (BK), who had particular responsibilities for administration. There was a command post officer (CPO) in the battery CP (BCP) and a gun position officer (GPO) at each troop CP (TCP) all with an officer assisting. The CPO was responsible for the overall gun position including its gunnery and local defence.  Mid-war a new role - Section Commander (or section officer) - was introduced.  This was an officer, warrant officer or NCO appointed by each GPO to supervise each section in the troop in addition to their other duties, it was a role and there was no change in establishment.

Medium regiments always had two medium batteries, each with eight guns.  Heavy regiments had batteries of four guns, which were not organised into troops so they had only one CP.  After Dunkirk they had four batteries with 7.2-inch howitzers as these became available.  In 1943 155-mm M1 guns replaced 7.2-inch in two of these batteries and in early 1945 the 7.2-inch started converting to the longer range Mk 6 on the M1 carriage. Super heavy batteries had two guns, with three batteries in each mixed regiment. The various mountain and light batteries varied from four to eight howitzers, and mortar batteries generally had 16 tubes.

With the exception of the heavies, regiments usually had a single type of gun.  However, in Burma after 1942 mixed equipment regiments were common and in other theatres some field regiments had both towed and SP batteries.  In 1944 in Burma anti-tank regiments became dual equipped, each detachment had an anti-tank gun and a 3-inch mortar (12 per battery).

Most field regiments were under command of the divisional artillery commanders, the CRA, a brigadier.  All divisions and corps had their own HQRA, with both command and control roles.  At divisional level this small HQ had 3 staff officers as well as the CRA. Above corps level HQs had an artillery staff branch, usually headed by a brigadier (BRA) at army or command and major general (MGRA) at army group or major command level, with advisory and command roles to and through the Commander and general staff.
Initially there was a second HQRA at corps under command of the CCMA who commanded the corps medium artillery and any GHQ field, medium and heavy regiments allocated to the corps, this position was abolished for inexplicable reasons in 1941.  The basic scale for corps artillery, not always achieved, being two army field regiments, two medium regiments and a survey regiment as corps troops. In France in 1940 GHQ had an additional 19 regiments, half of them medium.  This gave the BEF (11 divisions in 3 corps) 60 regiments totalling 1280 guns.  The British Liberation Army that returned to France in 1944 had 11 divisions (including 3 armoured plus many independent tank and armoured brigades, but excluding Canadian, Polish, Belgian and Dutch formations) in 4 corps with over 65 regiments, of which 30 were in divisional artilleries.

From September 1942 AGRAs were formed as 'army troops' with heavy, medium and field regiments, they provided organisation for the regiments under army command.  An ad hoc medium artillery group was used at El Alamein under command of a regimental commander and several months previously at Bardia.  The creation of AGRAs meant that corps field artillery was reduced to a survey regiment but an AGRA nominally comprised a corps' scale of army artillery.  From late 1943 (after the conversion of some field regiments to medium) the scale of two field, one medium and one heavy regiment per corps increased to one field regiment, one medium regiment plus one medium regiment per division supported and one heavy regiment.  

The AGRAs were under army command and assigned to corps as required, normally one to each corps.  Nevertheless for major operations a corps might get additional AGRAs, and sometimes they were allocated to a division and sometimes additional field and medium regiments were allocated to a division for an extended period.  However, it was not British practice to routinely distribute non-divisional artillery regiments among divisions because this conflicted with the principle of centralised control.  Initially AGRAs were without a signal company. As the war progressed their roles increased, particularly in counter-battery.  Survey regiments remained at one per corps and were not part of an AGRA.
Some army field regiments became semi-permanently attached to independent armoured and tank brigades. There were quite a lot of these.  For example at El Alamein there were 3 armoured divisions, each established with a single armoured brigade. However, there were actually 8 tank and armoured brigades present.  These independent tank and armoured brigades were assigned to infantry divisions as necessary, although sometimes they reinforced armoured divisions.  In either case they often had to be provided with artillery.

Regiments that were not in corps or divisional artilleries or AGRAs were under theatre command and allocated to 'Under Command' of other formations as required.  Some of these regiments were War Office Reserve or WO Pool.  Reserve regiments were for emergencies and could not be allocated without WO authority, pool regiments were allocated as required by the theatre HQ but could revert to WO authority.
By early 1945 in NW Europe 21st Army Group (6 corps) had 7 British and 2 Canadian AGRAs.  The largest AGRA was 1st Canadian in Italy that reached 10 regiments (mostly British), but most were about 6 regiments, while the smallest was a super-heavy AGRA with 2 regiments.  Although AGRAs were formed in India, there were never any in Burma and only one in the final months of the North African campaign (1st AGRA, in action with 19 French Corps in January 1943).  Some army field regiments were converted to medium and heavy regiments as guns became available, and HAA regiments in the ground role were also allocated to AGRAs as the air threat decreased.
The divisional artillery comprised field regiments.  Three regiments in infantry divisions and eventually 2 (one self-propelled) in armoured divisions.  However, forward infantry divisions in an advance were usually allocated a total of four field and two medium regiments, totalling 128 guns.  The additional regiments usually came from AGRAs.   In NW Europe heavy and HAA batteries were also routinely allocated to divisions for counter-mortar tasks.
The 1939 War Establishments were found to lack manpower and in May 1940 revisions were approved but never implemented.  In October 1940 field regiments were reorganised into three batteries each with eight guns (two troops) and their survey sections re-formed.  This change did not happen instantly everywhere and the new organisation for a battery was not finalised until well into 1941, although the proposed organisation and procedures were promulgated in January 1941. Minor changes continued throughout the war.  The changeover took two forms, some regiments changed to 2 batteries of 8 guns while others changed to 3 batteries each with a single gun troop of 6 guns.  The reorganisation to regiments of 24 guns was not completed until well into 1943 because it took some time to produce all the required NCOs and specialists, particularly for regiments overseas. At El Alamein in late 1942 10 of the 39 field regiments still had only 2 batteries.  The new organisation increased the number of vehicles and signallers.  In 1943 establishments were standardised army wide so that similar numbers and ranks were authorised for similar tasks.
By the end of 1943 a towed field battery's war establishment strength was 198 including 10 officers and an SP battery's was 186, again with 10 officers.  Medium batteries (4.5/5.5-inch) were bigger, 252 (still 10 officers), because their gun detachments were larger.  Heavy batteries were only 166 with 6 officers.  These large batteries enabled sustained 24 hour operations.  It also proved a boon in Burma for local defence against ground attack.
An RA regiment comprised several elements from the establishment perspective.  By 1943 these were the regiment itself, mostly RA cap badge, but included attached cooks (from the new Army Catering Corps by this time), a medical officer, and tradesmen from the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME).  Then there was the signal section from Royal Signals, with its own officer and finally the Light Aid Detachment (LAD) from REME, about 13 strong.  The RA soldiers were divided into Tradesmen and Non-Tradesmen.  The former included driver-operators (signallers), driver-mechanics, gun fitters, vehicle- mechanics, equipment repairers, clerks, store men and the 'Battery Surveyors' in the regimental survey section.  By number the main non-tradesmen were gun numbers, drivers IC and signallers. The final element in the regiment was the 'First Reinforcements' who replaced RA battle casualties.  They included officers, NCOs and gunners, including tradesmen, and in a field regiment totalled 54 including 5 officers.
The regimental headquarters was some 88 strong including 9 officers; this figure includes the regiment’s LAD and signal section as well as the 10 strong survey section with its officer.  
The 8 gun field battery included four defence teams equipped with an AAMG (LMG) and ATk rifle.   However, initially only about 30% of the battery had personal weapons, although this changed to 100% in early 1943. The official scale was a pistol per officer, a machine carbine for Warrant Officers, drivers and motor cyclists, and members of LMG detachments. The rest carried rifles. In mid 1943 20-mm AA guns were approved for all arms, with mountings capable of firing on the move and issued to towed artillery regiments, and PIATs started replacing ATk rifles.  However, the extent to which 20-mm AA guns were issued is unclear.  The totals for a field regiment were 25 × LMGs, 13 × PIATs and 8 × 20-mm.
A 1941 25-pdr field battery had 12 motorcycles and 38 other vehicles of which five were for cable laying.   By 1944 the number of motor-cycles had decreased to 7 and 4 jeeps ('Car, 5-cwt, 4 × 4' in British terminology) had appeared, to total 46 vehicles and motor-cycles.
In August 1941 the first Air OP (AOP) Squadron formed, these had light aircraft (Austers) with artillery officers as observer-pilots, eventually there was a squadron per corps (except in Burma), normally providing a flight of four aircraft to each forward division and AGRA. These squadrons first flew operationally in Tunisia.  Each aircraft ('section') with its RA pilot and mixed RA/RAF ground crew could deploy independently.  The engagement of targets found by other RAF aircraft, the Arty/R procedure, and a subject of extensive planning and preparation in the years before the war, continued.  AOPs could engage targets on clear moonlight nights and developed an air photo capability and also directed naval gunfire. In the SW Pacific Australia did not create an AOP organisation and relied entirely on 'army cooperation' aircraft of the RAAF.  Canada (initially), New Zealand and South Africa did not create AOPs either and their formations were supported by British squadrons.
Just as, if not, more significant in 1941, was a ‘bottom up’ tactical innovation that emerged in the surrounded town of Tobruk on the Libyan coast between Australian infantry and British artillery – close affiliation between a battalion and its supporting battery.  This relationship spread rapidly throughout the British and like-minded armies.  It was the critical element for a harmonious and trusting relationship between artillery and the supported arm, and the forward presence of the battery's senior officers was probably its key.  With it came guaranteed fire support because the observers could order targets to their battery.  However, it did raise a problem in that the supported arm tended to view the battery as ‘theirs’, often failing to recognise that artillery fought at both the tactical and operational level, and the implications of ‘In Support’ and mobile firepower.
The main problem was four companies in a battalion but only two observers in a battery, so the latter often had to move between companies in battle. This could be a problem, particularly in Burma, where it was found that a battery had to deploy up to five observation parties.  This was usually achieved by rotating gun-end officers and soldiers through the additional observation parties.  
Close affiliations developed between brigades and their supporting regiments. The regimental commander (CO) increasingly accompanied the supported brigade commander wherever he went and by late 1943 this became official artillery policy, with the CO establishing a small HQ at brigade HQ (a policy first established in 1918).  In regiments without a directly supporting role to, or under command of, a brigade the CO was based at regimental main HQ in the area of his battery gun positions.  BCs mirrored this with the battalions and regiments they supported.
As the war wore on the field role of anti-aircraft and anti-tank batteries increased because their specific targets decreased. The former often provided a significant component of major fire plans and HAA batteries (3.7-inch guns) were increasingly used against opportunity targets.  The main reason that HAA were not used more extensively in the field role was that they were not officially authorised to have the necessary technical fire control equipment until late 1944.

Organisation and Equipment - Observers
From after the Fall of France each troop commander (and BC (Battery Commander)) had an OP assistant, usually a bombardier although the BC's might be a lance sergeant. By 1942 each party had three radios, one fully integrated in their vehicle, one FOO (Forward Observation Officer) man pack and one on the supported infantry or armour net.  The last improved situational awareness and enabled the supported arm to indicate targets to a FOO/OPO. If the observer was unable to see the target then the supported arm directed fire via the observer using simplified procedures (giving either corrections or observations). A third observer party could be deployed from resources at the gun position if the battery was up strength. If a troop commander was required to act as an FOO or liaise with the supported arm then the OP assistant would takeover, inevitably this also happened when observers became casualties.  In Burma additional observer parties were created often led by warrant officers or sergeants from the battery and it was general practice to rotate officers and soldiers through the battery's OPs when conditions were static, although signallers were rotated more often.  In some cases in Burma OP deployment was planned regimentally to ensure optimum coverage in difficult terrain.  
The observation officer's duties (whether operating as an OPO or FOO) were:

Observe and report the tactical situation.
Maintain close contact with the supported arm and give required support at the earliest moment.
Direct and control the fire of the allotted guns.
In most types of regiment BCs and troop commanders had an armoured tracked vehicle; the Universal Carrier (Lloyd or Windsor carrier) called an 'Armoured OP' in field batteries. COs in field regiments were equipped with Universal Carriers from mid 1943.  However, these Armoured OPs were less than ideal so other armoured vehicles were adopted.
OP tanks were first introduced in 1942, by early 1943 batteries in armoured divisions had 2 OP tanks and one armoured OP, in infantry divisions it was the other way around.  Army field regiments had no OP tanks but each tank 'battalion' in tank brigades held 2 tanks for OPs.  Other types of vehicle were also adopted including light tanks, armoured cars and M14 half-tracks ('Truck, 15-cwt, half-track' in British terms).   In early 1944 the official position was as follows:

SP regiments:- CO - Tank OP 3 wireless sets, BCs - Truck, 15-cwt, half-track with 2 wireless sets, Tp Comds - Tank OP 3 wireless sets, GPOs - Tank OP 3 wireless sets (total 13 OP tanks).
Field or RHA Regiments:- BCs - Armd OP 2 wireless sets (Armd Div) or Lt Tank OP 3 wireless sets (INF Div), Tp Comds - Tank OP 3 wireless sets (Armd Div) or Armd OP 2 wireless sets (INF Div). A BCs Lt Tk OP could be a Tank OP as an alternative and in Italy one of the Armd OPs would be an armd car.
Medium regiments:- BCs - Lt Tank OP 3 wireless sets, Tp Comds - Armd OP 1 wireless set or Armd Car 1 wireless set.
Heavy regiment:- BCs - Armd OP 2 wireless sets or Armd Car, Subaltern - Armd OP 2 wireless sets.
In mid 1944 the policy changed again with the decision to remove all heavy AFVs from infantry divisions. SP regiments retained their 13 OP tanks and the other field regiment in an armoured division had 6 for its OPs.  They were withdrawn from all other units although Armoured and Tank Brigades held 8 OP tanks.
The basic policy was that OP tanks should be the same type as used by the supported tank unit.  However, the policy could not always be followed and in some cases Ram tanks were used (a Canadian design used as the carriage for Sexton SPs but not as a tank in armoured units).  Radios were standardised as 2 × No 19 sets and 1 × No 38 set per OP tank and stowage modified for some artillery equipment.  In some cases (eg Covenanter, Crusader and Ram) a dummy gun was fitted to permit space for the wirelesses.  Apart from dummy guns, the differences between OP tanks and standard control tanks was an additional wireless and stowage for other OP equipment.
The tanks held by Armoured and Tank Brigade HQs were a pool for use by regiments in support (or allocated under command) of these formations.  They had RAC crews who were joined by an OP officer and his OPA, unlike the tanks held by RA regiments that were fully crewed by RA (usually the OPO, his OPA, a driver-operator and a driver-mechanic). Armoured divisions also held an OP tank for their CRA.  The tanks for GPOs also provided immediate replacements for OPs.
The observers’ basic equipment was binoculars, map, compass and protractor. Man pack OPs became important in some theatres, this was achieved by reinforcing the normal 4 man OP party with 6 'porters' to help carry the 2 wirelesses and associated equipment.
Batteries also held telescopes, tripod mounted stereoscopic binoculars, optical range finders, directors and artillery boards for their OPs, the last 3 to enable 'silent' or 'instrumental' registration. However, such equipment was not always conducive to a well concealed OP and certainly inappropriate for an FOO.  The Telescope, Stereoscopic, was tripod mounted (full size or 16 inch) with azimuth and inclination scales and gave ×8 magnification, it was binocular and the binocular tubes could be either vertical to provide a short periscope or horizontal to give enhanced stereoscopic vision.
As can be seen the way that Artillery is perform by JTCS at the moment where every Manoeuvre unit can direct fire on to a target conforms well with the way British Artillery was setup near the end of the war; except that they should only be able to call on their Divisions assets, However for early war years most Infantry Divisions had very limited communication with their Artillery and relied on the BC's and FOO's attached to their unit HQs.
Les.

(in reply to FM WarB)
Post #: 33
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 1:52:15 AM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
Wow, Les!

That's brilliant!!

Thank you for the information.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


(in reply to Lesbaker)
Post #: 34
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 4:40:31 AM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Thanks Les!

Most informative. A Commonwealth Field Artillery Offisers Advanced Course in a nutshell! St Barbara would be very proud!
I read every word and learned a great deal!

I raise a cup of artillery Punch in gratitude.



_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to Lesbaker)
Post #: 35
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 9:48:24 AM   
Lesbaker


Posts: 170
Joined: 3/6/2007
From: Southampton, UK
Status: offline
Thank you for your kind words for my inadequate ramblings, I bask in the light of superior beings .

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 36
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 2:36:10 PM   
Dualnet

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
The introduction of FOs is secondary to artillery being controlled by either the organisation it belongs to or has been assigned to.

What I object to is the ability of any unit on the battlefield to spot for all of the artillery on the battlefield from one moment to the other.

If your unit has had artillery assigned to it for a particular job, the artillery wouldn't just switch to a completely different task on the say so of some private. Competing needs would determine that guns be allocated and not switched without the chain of command’s knowledge.

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 37
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/22/2009 11:15:33 PM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline
TRUE!

That's why we have artillery Fire Planning, and more specifically "ON-ORDER MISSIONS" previously planned and identified in operation orders. These would normally be implemented by the Artillery Fire Support Coodinator (an FA CPT at each maneuver battallion; the DIRECT SUPPORT FA Battalion Commander at Regimental/Brigade Level; the DIVARTY Commander at Division level, the CORPSARTY Commander; the ARMYARTY Commander.........
(the above by US doctrine).

As YOU fill all these roles in the game, as well as FO/FOO and maneuver commander at all levels, the speed at which decisions are made and implemented are a function of how rapidly YOU can follow and comprehend the evolving battlefield!




_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to Dualnet)
Post #: 38
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/23/2009 1:15:11 AM   
MrRoadrunner


Posts: 1323
Joined: 10/7/2005
Status: offline
 Pleasant thoughts!
 You da man!

RR

_____________________________

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 39
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/23/2009 3:47:04 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline
Gents:

There has been a lot of discussion that the current artillery spotting rules must be changed from a "realism" standpoint. However; I have read little to nothing on how any of these proposed changes would impact game play.

My view on artillery is that the current rules are adequate and work well within the JTCS game mechanics. Artillery; when one side is blessed with it, works as intended. Combat units can spot and call in artillery fire that will land in the turn following the request. Some artillery; like the Russian BM-13 Katyusha rocket launcher, takes an additional turn to reload its rocket tubes. Pretty straight forward.

IMO; as a JTCS player - not scenario designer, I like this abstracted artillery treatment. I don't want to micro manage my artillery forces. I want to focus on how artillery will support my troop advances - not that my FO is out of position and whoops, that combat unit can't call in fire from a particular artillery battery because it is not in the same chain of command.

Sorry; but for me, it is enough that I need to try to keep my combat units within support range of their assigned battalion HQs for supply purposes.

I am against adding an additional level of complexity (yes, all artillery change support postings advocate an increased level of complexity - adding additional units like FOs. Changing the chain of command to call in artillery strikes, etc.), in the name of "realism". Also any purposed artillery changes that I have read would fundamentally change how artillery spotting works and would have a major and unknown impact on game play. I don't see any of these proposed changes as incremental ones.

Finally; as a JTCS player, I have never played a PBeM game in which myself or any of my opponents have cited the current artillery spotting rules as being so flawed as to negatively impact on game play or flow. This has been my experience and to be frank, I have never considered "revamping" the artillery spotting rules. IMO, it should not have a higher priority versus other JTCS rule issues such as extreme assault, variable visibility, and existence of weird units like the "magical" bombers and "bathtub" navy. (not to open that discussion in this thread!)

Again, I believe the impact of these proposed artillery spotting rules to game play and balance need further discussion.



_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 40
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/23/2009 4:20:04 PM   
kool_kat


Posts: 558
Joined: 7/7/2008
From: Clarksville, VA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lesbaker

As can be seen the way that Artillery is perform by JTCS at the moment where every Manoeuvre unit can direct fire on to a target conforms well with the way British Artillery was setup near the end of the war; except that they should only be able to call on their Divisions assets, However for early war years most Infantry Divisions had very limited communication with their Artillery and relied on the BC's and FOO's attached to their unit HQs.
Les.



Gents:

So; when we boil down Lesbaker's huge post, the conclusion from a game play standpoint is that; with the exceptions of Infantry Divisions during the early war years and Divisional Command, the current JTCS artillery spotting rules accurately depict British artillery spotting functions.

I also read an earlier detailed post that referenced American artillery and the conclusion was that current JTCS artillery rules modeled the American WWII artillery spotting capacity in an accurate manner.

Again; I caution JTCS players who are clamoring for fundamental and rapid change to the current artillery spotting rules, to evaluate "why" you want these changes - especially with so little regard to the impact to game play.


_____________________________

Regards, - Mike

"You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to Lesbaker)
Post #: 41
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/23/2009 9:22:58 PM   
qbert55

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/21/2007
From: Hinterland, USA
Status: offline
I agree with those on the side of avoiding the proposed spotting changes. There are other changes that I think would make the game more playable and that would be a better investment in time. For instance, I think it would be a better use of time to improve the AI. One change would be to adjust the AI play so it does not spend so much time moving trucks and leaders back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth...

If I had my druthers, this change would be much higher on the priority list than the proposed arty changes.

(in reply to kool_kat)
Post #: 42
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/26/2009 11:04:12 PM   
countblue


Posts: 160
Joined: 1/8/2008
From: Vienna,Austria
Status: offline
6. GERMAN

-- High emphasis on preplanned fires-- on a small scale but with higher concentrations.
-- rolling barrages maybe but never as effective as the russians
-- FO should be of importance, subordination of FO under leading assaulting unit (tank)
-- less effective predicted fires on the eastern front(by the map).
-- TOT capability only for units under one command

A: Corps Level
In general german artillery was rare (compare those strength numbers to the allied).
Germans had no heavy Artillery over 15cm with their divisions, those units were all "Heeresartillerie" Corps units.
All this units had forward observers that were attached to the Commanding Officer in charge ususally the Leader of the tank unit which conducted the assault.
Excessive communication support was standard, radio and wired.
In the beginning of the war many times an Luftwaffe Liason officer would accompany them commanding a Stuka "Flying Artillery" commando.

B: Divisional Level
Because of the shortage of artillery, in defensive situations the artillery battailon from each division would be many times split up into its companies attached to the regiments, then sometime no fireconcentration was anymore possible because the local commanders would object and rather keep "his guns for his men".

C:Regimental Level
The small stuff like the regimental and battailon grenade launchers were usually under the command of their units and were fired most of the time with LOS ín direct support mode. They were of relative unimportance in terms of "artillery support" on a bigger scale.

BTW
I think the germans had a harder time with their fire by the map since maps of the eastern front were many times not as reliable as the rest of europe.

Just what came to my mind, I hope its somehow useful.
-----------

I am actually satisfied the way arty works in the game so this post is just for
information not an argument for new rules.

CB


< Message edited by countblue -- 1/28/2009 10:30:17 PM >

(in reply to timshin42)
Post #: 43
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/28/2009 6:36:20 PM   
CaptainHuge


Posts: 28
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I agree with those that caution against affecting the game play too much. One of the things I have found about the Campaign system is that it has captured that rare balance between historical accuracy and playability. Managing detailed command structures for calling artillery fire could easily prove a detriment to the fun of the game.

(in reply to MrRoadrunner)
Post #: 44
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/28/2009 8:39:17 PM   
auHobbes37


Posts: 30
Joined: 5/6/2007
Status: offline
I voted yes.

Also I am not going to pretend to be an expert on this at all, but from what I've read and I could be wrong, the Soviets, Chi-coms, KMT and Japanese ability to call real time artillery fire should be very limited when compared to the US.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 45
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/28/2009 9:04:45 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
Another solution may be to incorporate an "accuracy" factor to an artillery strike.

As it is right now, any combat unit may plot artillery and it will be 100% accurate as long as any other unit keeps LOS to that hex.

So, let's add an accuracy factor.

For countries such as the United States there can be a 90% (or something) chance the artillery will bombard the requested hex. If it falls in the 10% "miss target" factor.. the artillery can "drift" up to a hex or two (the way it does now for artillery landing out of LOS)

The better the artillery doctrine, the less likely for a miss.

The poorer the artillery doctrine, the more likely a miss and drift will occur.

This could be a generalized OPTION for existing & settings could be placed within the SCENARIO editor to allow the scenario designer to better reflect the capabilties of the armies in question for new or updated scenarios.

All one would need to do is something like this:

COUNTRY........DOCTRINE.................DRIFT RADIUS
USA......................90.............................1
Romania................40........................... 3
etc
etc

No new units required.

Jason Petho


< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 1/28/2009 9:06:29 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to auHobbes37)
Post #: 46
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/29/2009 2:55:02 AM   
scottintacoma

 

Posts: 192
Joined: 1/25/2008
Status: offline
Could this be added to DCGs? I like the idea. Also maybe increase the drift for fire by map by the Drift Radius?

Scott in tAComa


(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 47
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/29/2009 12:34:04 PM   
Dualnet

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
Jason,

I must admit I’m not in favour of different drift values.

I don't think a complicated artillery structure is needed, what is needed is to restrict the ability of every unit to act a spotter for all the artillery. My personnel preference would be to leave everything as is except for limiting support artillery fire to that unit’s chain of command. That way the original small scenarios wouldn't be affected but the very large scenarios would work better.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 48
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 8:53:32 AM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dualnet

Jason,

I must admit I’m not in favour of different drift values.

I don't think a complicated artillery structure is needed, what is needed is to restrict the ability of every unit to act a spotter for all the artillery. My personnel preference would be to leave everything as is except for limiting support artillery fire to that unit’s chain of command. That way the original small scenarios wouldn't be affected but the very large scenarios would work better.



I agree here. If we keep it simple and try do do it how it is done in PzC + a separate ammo level for artillery. The designer can place artillery in the oob of the unit that he wants fire support for. For example is you want a certain Corps battery only to fire for division x, you can place the battery in division x.

All the info I read in this thread about artillery is very interesting, but I think we need something relatively simple that can be achieved technically by the programmers. Ammo level for artillery itself would already be a very effective way to represent the quality difference between various nations.

Huib

(in reply to Dualnet)
Post #: 49
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 3:52:14 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
The idea would be an artillery ammo button within the scenario editor that would allow the scenario designer to adjust the various artillery ammo settings.

The designer presses the artillery ammo button:

1. an ARTILLERY dialogue appears:


..............Ammo.........Accuracy......Drift
Allied.........0.................0................0

Axis...........0.................0................0

The values can be defaulted to use the the existing scenario ammo level and accuracy/drift values based on a standard table (a new one that is created based on the various doctrines).

Assuming US vs Romanian (just from using my previous example) with a base scenario ammo level of 80 and 80

..............Ammo..........Accuracy........Drift
Allied.........80.................90................1

Axis...........80.................40................3

2. The scenario designer can then edit the numbers in the dialogue to suit their scenario needs.


..............Ammo..........Accuracy.........Drift
Allied.........80.................95................1

Axis...........50.................60................1

3. Hit OK and then the settings are ready for if the OPTIONAL artillery rule is chosen


In the above example:

The US would have a 80% chance of maintaining supply and a 95% chance that the artillery will hit the assigned hex (if not, it will drift one hex)

The Romanians would have a 50% chance of maintaining supply and a 60% chance that the artillery will hit the assigned hex (if not, it will drift one hex, instead of the default drift of 3 (or whatever value is assigned based on research)).



Hope that is clearer than mud.

Jason Petho




< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 1/30/2009 4:25:18 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 50
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 4:15:02 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
ok..i see what you are saying...but what if...the allied side, or the axis side is a multi-national composition? Say, like german and italian artillery is the western desert? we have 2 different values for the axis side?

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 51
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 4:24:54 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

ok..i see what you are saying...but what if...the allied side, or the axis side is a multi-national composition? Say, like german and italian artillery is the western desert? we have 2 different values for the axis side?


It could be generalized, but would be ideal to have settings for each nation that is in the given scenario.

Jason Petho



_____________________________


(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 52
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 4:59:50 PM   
Borst50

 

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline
I do understand the need for some generalization...and nothing will ever be perfect....however, I was under the impression the point of adding optional rules for artillery was to get away from over generalization...and to focus in the inherent differences in artillery doctrine of the different forces involved? I only point this out as an example. I can this rapidly becoming a nightmare and talking on a life of its own.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 53
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 5:22:17 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borst50

I do understand the need for some generalization...and nothing will ever be perfect....however, I was under the impression the point of adding optional rules for artillery was to get away from over generalization...and to focus in the inherent differences in artillery doctrine of the different forces involved? I only point this out as an example. I can this rapidly becoming a nightmare and talking on a life of its own.



Yes, and it is a valid example. It shouldn't be difficult to tweak the dialogue to incorporate all the nationalities.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


(in reply to Borst50)
Post #: 54
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 7:34:49 PM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline
Sounds kike a good idea. As long as the variables are hardcoded or user adjusted for use in generated and DCG battles.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 55
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 9:13:26 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Currently without a LOS, there's a 2-hex drift in any direction.  I can see a 2-hex drift at longer ranges, but at short ranges I have to worry about a drift back on my own units.  I don't see a mortar crew fouling up that badly at short ranges.  On the flip side, even the smallest error would get magnified over greater distances, and it would be at the greater distances that real skill (or lack thereof) would show itself. 

Is it possible to have a progressive drift?  For example, at 2-3 hexes, there might not be any drift, but from 3-6 hexes there might be a potential drift of 1 hex, and from 7-10 hexes a potential drift of 2 hexes, and more of the same along those lines.  I don't know where you'd make the cut-offs.  These are just given as examples.

If you ran with Jason's proposal, where drifts are possible even with a line of sight, I would imagine virtually everyone would be the same at short ranges, but with increased ranges, there might be a far greater variance.  However, the drift with a LOS might not be as great as the drift without a LOS.  A LOS helps to adjust aim.  I'm not sure a LOS would help for the initial salvo.  But I'm no artillery man. 

< Message edited by 1925frank -- 1/30/2009 10:27:31 PM >

(in reply to junk2drive)
Post #: 56
RE: Artillery Spotting - 1/30/2009 10:38:15 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
The game already reflects inaccuracy over greater ranges.  The effectiveness, as reflected in the attack points, diminishes with distances, which reflects an increasing difficulty of hitting a target within a hex at greater distances.

In real life, I guess artillery would not be shooting at a hex with a diameter of 250 meters but at something smaller.  So perhaps the question is how likely is it that artillery would be off by 250 meters or more?  At what distances would artillery be potentially off by 500 meters?

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 57
RE: Artillery Spotting - 2/1/2009 9:38:14 PM   
Huib


Posts: 585
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: Nederland
Status: offline
The main problem is not adressed with Jason's proposition, which is that every unit can call in any tube that is in range.

The proposition is interesting, but in my designs I probably would only use the ammo level and not accuracy or drift, certainly not if these latter would also apply to mortars. 250 m drift is just too much IMO.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 58
RE: Artillery Spotting - 2/2/2009 3:28:50 AM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
Another idea:  If drift isn't the solution, then perhaps separate attack points for artillery with LOS and artillery without LOS.  Artillery with LOS could adjust to be more effective, and then the question would be the skill needed to adjust accurately.  Artillery without LOS would never know if any adjustment was needed as they would be firing blindly.

The above doesn't answer the question about spotting.  My concern would be complicating the gameplay. 

The game treats artillery and motars the same.  Huib raises the question whether they should work differently.  I'd have to give that more thought.

For the current 2-hex potential drift for firing without LOS, I agree that's excessive for short-range bombardments.  It might be accurate for long-range bombardments, but we'd need imput from others with better info than I have.

(in reply to Huib)
Post #: 59
RE: Artillery Spotting - 2/19/2009 5:23:35 PM   
dgk196

 

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline
Yes, very much so.............

So long as the spotting method reflected the actual capabilities of the various combatants.....

I would not like to see a different version of a one size fits all rule........

Dennis

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> RE: Artillery Spotting Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.438