Overall Artillery Discussion

[Mad Russian]

We have a discussion going on FASCAM and the MRLS delivery systems. I'm just as curious about the 'normal' artillery.

What is the difference in the delivery package from WWII to 1989?

Times for mission accomplishment?

Area effected?

Were most WWII armies artillery the same in effective mission effected area?

Were they mostly the same in 1989?

Just some discussion points for artillery when we revisit it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[IronMikeGolf]

Interesting read

[Flef]

for the second world war the British made the best studies. They were particularly focused on reducing the overhitting to spare shells and time for their batteries.

[SwampYankee68]

I know from when I was at Fort Sill in the 80's (Training to be an RTO, not in arty) that they were incorporating computers into the FDCs, so I am sure that the time on target would be much improved from WWII....

[Werewolf13]

I suspect that y'all know of this resource but just in case:

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/Active_FM.html

Lists many army publications. 3 on the list are Artillery tactics and procedures (there are others that deal with Arty too but not pertinent to the question at hand IMO). In general the latest versions are not available to the general public but since FPC:RedStorm concerns itself with 1989 the manuals available will quite probably be pertinent.

[MSGalileo]

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008psa_peo/Demella.pdf

[pzgndr]

This is a great topic. A review of different armies' doctrines for different time periods would be very helpful for realistic implementation in this game series. I know something about the 1980s for US artillery, since I was there and even completed FAOBC (and EOBC too) by correspondence. But I'll leave it to the experts to work out details. Back before digital communications and GPS positioning, fire plans in the 80s (for us) used target reference points (TRPs) and priority fires (gun tube(s) set on a TRP to fire immediately) to help control things, and often with manual 'charts and darts' rather than targeting computers. I'd be interested to see how all this is treated in the game, specifically: call for fire delay times, adjust fire versus fire for effect (FFE), setting TRPs, setting/shifting priority fire(s), effects for smoke and illumination rounds, etc. This is probably all slightly different for other armies, both NATO and Warsaw Pact. So how it all gets handled is important. Likewise, how it's handled for different periods (WWII versus Korea versus Viet Nam versus current) is important too. The key thing is to try to implement realistic rules that highlight the strengths and weaknesses between different armies' capabilities and work it all into the orders cycle so players have to deal with it in a historically accurate sense. Easier said than done! But, if/when you get it working right, this game will be fantastic!

[Tazak]

Some other arty topics I'd like to see discussed:

A. FOO - if/should they be separate units, or modelled with existing HQs as sub-units. If they are modelled should fire missions be brought to bear quicker and more accurate.
B. Mortars - quicker reaction times compared to standard arty guns
C. Counter battery fire controlled via arty/mortar locating radar systems - although suspect this may be more of a option if GSR is introduced.

[calgar]

Hello all,

I highly appreciate the chance to exchange opinions un such a fundamental game element. I don't have enough time to write a anything comprehensive, but I will address a a few issues that jump to my mind.

Smoke

To get closer to real life we would need to be able to specify the time for how long we want the smoke screen to be up. Usually, to get an idea, you would fire four rounds of smoke (155 mm, DM35/DM45) to set up a 500 m screen (so one hex....) and would then start to fire 2 rounds per minute to maintain the screen. Strong winds should make it impossible to set up smoke screens.

Ammo Related Issues

Could it be that you currently only see percentage of HE ammo? It would be necessary to see the other ammo types too. The stocks of Smoke shells seem to be to low. SmArt and Illum rounds are currently not in the game. SmArt should be highly effective against hard targets that are immobile and are in the open. Illum rounds should illuminate its hex and all adjecent hexes. DM26 rounds cover roughly 900 m if handled correctly.

Off-map Art

Some Art units should stay off-map, dependent on the scenario. Maps are often too small to justify the guns to roll up on the battlefield. An ArtBn can easily need a positioning area as big as 29 km^2

Counter Battery

The longer the guns fire, the higher the chances to pin them down. Otherwise is counter-battery fire more a job for Div level units (at least in Ger...) and neither a soviet RgtCdr nor an allied TF/Bde/Bn Cdr should be bothered with that. I think a fair amount of abstraction is OK. At least for me.

Fire Missions

I would change the terms that are currently used to "disrupt" (x1) "destroy" (x2) and "annihilate" (x3). That would bring the terms closer to real life. Suppress should be a seperated fire mission, similar to a x2 mission in terms of ammo usage, but again for a given time frame like smoke, or illum. By the way, how is suppression handled in the game? effects? impact on speed? do mines cause suppression?

MISC

ORIGINAL: TAZAK

...although suspect this may be more of a option if GSR is introduced.

I would say that not all GSRs are able to coordinate counter-battery. careful here.

ORIGINAL: Tazak

A. FOO - if/should they be separate units, or modelled with existing HQs as sub-units. If they are modelled should fire missions be brought to bear quicker and more accurate.

+1

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

...adjust fire versus fire for effect (FFE)

I think this is a nice to have, but out of game scale....the adjusting happens "within" the 500m hex and I think should be abstracted into the overall delay.

Regards,

A

[CapnDarwin]

Good info and very timely with conversations had at Origins about things to do to improve the Arty model in the game. We want to improve both the UI around arty missions/planning and also improve a number of areas like ammo tracking, CB fire, scooting, target priorities, etc. This is a target area for the 2.1 system.

[Tazak]

ORIGINAL: calgar

ORIGINAL: TAZAK

...although suspect this may be more of a option if GSR is introduced.

I would say that not all GSRs are able to coordinate counter-battery. careful here.

Just to clarify I meant that once GSR is introduced ingame then its likely that the same or similar game engine aspect could be utilised to introduce CB radar 'units' without having to write separate code.

About suppressive fire, at the moment if playing H2H then suppressive fire is useful, however against the AI its pointless due to one of the AI perks is to ignore readiness and moral until they both get very low below 10%.

[calgar]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

About suppressive fire, at the moment if playing H2H then suppressive fire is useful, however against the AI its pointless due to one of the AI perks is to ignore readiness and moral until they both get very low below 10%.

If that is the case, suppression should be reviewed too. The effects of suppression is imo closeley linked to Artillery effectiveness. Effects should be (depending on unit type) decreased speed down to a complete halt and decreased spotting abilities.

Another addition to my point "Fire Missions": Mixed barrages (Smoke/HE) to prevent the enemy from peeking through the screen. Another one would be "Overwatch". the effect would be that you allocate a certain area to an Radarsquad or FO and they call in fire once the enemy is moving through it. Could be used to overwatch minefields for example.

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

We want to improve both the UI around arty missions/planning

I would recommend a UI similar to the one in Steel Beasts. Input: enemy unit type, desired effect/fire mission, cover, maybe ammo to be used, allocation of firing units. Output: Ammo consumption, Time on Target, overall mission time.

I think the implementation of such UI improves the immersion of being a Cdr talking to your FDO and figuring out what to do. Talking about immersion, I don't want to open a new thread for this: Does someone know if there are any plans to implement overlays? e.g. fire support overlay, obstacle plan etc...

Thanks Tazak for addressing the suppression issue!

EDIT: A Sync option would be great, so to be able to sync the start of a fire mission with, let's say, another unit crossing a waypoint.


Regards,

A

[Mad Russian]

Something you should all keep in mind is the scope of the series. This series will eventually encompass WWII as well. To do the mechanics right we should have the artillery ability for WWII up through current use. If there are ideas of how WWII artillery was delivered that differs from different time period usage that would be helpful.

For instance, does a WWII artillery fire mission effect the same area as a 1960/70/80/90/+++ mission? I'm sure the response time and accuracy has changed. What kind of an area is covered by each of the missions? Will they all 'fit' in a 500 meter area?

Do we have any students of the art here?

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

Arty does have a suppression effect even if you don't get kills. Losses compound the effects as well.

[bayonetbrant]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Good info and very timely with conversations had at Origins about things to do to improve the Arty model in the game. We want to improve both the UI around arty missions/planning and also improve a number of areas like ammo tracking, CB fire, scooting, target priorities, etc. This is a target area for the 2.1 system.

let me know next time you'll be in Columbus and I'll put you in touch with the good Colonel who has been the arty guru for us in the past. You can buy him a beer somewhere and pick his brain. Plus, he's very good at explaining why things are the way they are.

[CapnDarwin]

Thanks Brant. I'll do that.

[demiller]

Some really good ideas here. As someone who plays Steel Beasts, I'm pretty familiar with the artillery dialog mentioned. While I think some more detail in terms of artillery missions and effects would be great, I have to wonder if the level of detail provided by the Steel Beasts approach might not be too much for the scale of this game?

I'm asking here out of a lack of knowledge, not challenging - would a brigade CO get that specific about the fire missions, or would he specify a desired result and let the staff and FDO sort out the details?

Of course, even if it isn't realistic, it may just be fun to be able to do it!

[calgar]

ORIGINAL: demiller

would a brigade CO get that specific about the fire missions...

In theory he can be as specific as he wants to. In praxis he formulates the desired effect. The FDO does the magic (aka works out the details) and advise him. Still: He decides what the fire mission should be, and the options in real life are:

Annihilate
Destroy
Destruct
engage
illuminate
blind
Suppress
block
overwatch (which I think would be very neat for the game)
harass
interdict



But maybe el hefe has another view on this? I always have to mention that the little I know is from a german perspective. So no guarantee that this is handled the same way in the US.

Bearing in mind that we don't have an FDO to talk to, the level of detail as we see it in Steel Beats is justified imo. (minus the number of tubes) And I would like to repeat how beneficial such a dialog could be for the immersion.

Regards,

A

[Flef]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Something you should all keep in mind is the scope of the series. This series will eventually encompass WWII as well. To do the mechanics right we should have the artillery ability for WWII up through current use. If there are ideas of how WWII artillery was delivered that differs from different time period usage that would be helpful.

For instance, does a WWII artillery fire mission effect the same area as a 1960/70/80/90/+++ mission? I'm sure the response time and accuracy has changed. What kind of an area is covered by each of the missions? Will they all 'fit' in a 500 meter area?

Do we have any students of the art here?

Good Hunting.

MR

Basically there is 3 main periods for the use of artillery since 1916 to the late 80s.


1-1916->1942
2-1942->Late 1960s
3-Late 1960s->Late 80s

They corresponds mostly to the application of specific formulas for the ratio of shells /Ha.These formulaes are empiric until the late 80s. They are based on operationnal feedbacks and are directly bound to the shell HE efficiency as well as the capacity for the battery to spread its shells with a nice and regular dispersion. (overhitting is never good).The shell dispersal over the target was trully an important matter until some SP howitzer (AMX AUf1, MSTA-S, M109A6 mainly) appeared. If the shells are too concentrated in an area of the target it means the possiblity of "underscoring" against the target is greater as the position can be left mostly intact or not impacted as estimated)

By the way the formula depends also of the kill ratio to be obtained and the kind of artillery, mortars are more efficient against entrenched people than the field artillery (a matter of trajectory basically) and a 10% casualty ratio does not have the same formula than a 30% casualty ratio.

Against "urban" areas (villages are urban areas), I remember the shell ratio was calculated per 100m².

I gonna have some look this weekend about this and try to find some documentation in english

Will they all 'fit' in a 500 meter area?

Yes excepted may be for the MLRSs. All ratios are computed per Ha or 100m². The gun themselve are quite accurate since a long time, it is "external" factors (wind, geodesy, positionning of the pieces and of the target, attitude determination of the gun ) that makes the guns inacurate; hence the 300m protection zone for the troops and the correction shots

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Flef
Basically there is 3 main periods for the use of artillery since 1916 to the late 80s.
1-1916->1942
2-1942->Late 1960s
3-Late 1960s->Late 80s

I'd add in our current period as a 4th period. As I alluded to previously, with GPS positioning, secure digital communications and targeting computers, the time delay between "Hey, let's get some fire over there on those guys" to FFE on target (and the effectiveness of that FFE) is greatly reduced. It was because of those previous time delays and accuracy issues that fire planning doctrine needed to be developed with TRPs and priority fires and such.

For THIS game and its orders cycles, it really boils down to what type of ammo to shoot, how much of it to shoot, time delay between the request for fire mission and FFE, and the accuracy and effectiveness of that FFE. Depending on time period and nationality, the time delay and effectiveness differences will be most important. I think that could all be broken down fairly easily and arranged in a spreadsheet for reference and implementation. It would be good to have perspectives from those other nationalities regarding their doctrines during the different time periods.