Bombard missing?

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul

jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Hi Jim
This is from the link you gave.

As you can see this indicates that the role of this powerful recon force when reinforced with the M8 75mm Howitzers was not just reconnaissance, but also limited combat missions to secure routes, take out small enemy recon units, and penetrate the enemy line in weak locations to get behind them.
It was also used in delaying actions to give larger forces time to manoeuvre into position.

The unit in game does indeed only consist of the Howitzers, its ammunition carriers, and a small HQ element, as can be seen by the included extract in my original post.
Unless the included 3 Jeeps were used by an included reconnaissance section, but I think they are more likely for use by the small HQ?
The reconnaissance troop of the squadron, normally reinforced with assault guns, and with light tanks when their use is anticipated, is prepared to fight for information if necessary to the accomplishment of reconnaissance missions.
It also may be used to harass or delay a hostile column, to secure critical routes or areas pending the arrival of other forces, or for counter reconnaissance.

OK.

I didn't realize that the recon troop being discussed had been reinforced for a more active combat role.

That assigns the M8 HTC platoon the same role as a mortar platoon in an infantry battalion, including an indirect fire capability.


Take care,

jim
User avatar
simovitch
Posts: 5875
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:01 pm

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by simovitch »

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

That assigns the M8 HTC platoon the same role as a mortar platoon in an infantry battalion, including an indirect fire capability.

In this case I would also agree, although I would wager the HMC's in troop E of the cavalry recon squadrons were used more as direct fire weapons, but definitely not exclusively.
simovitch

User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by dazkaz15 »

I have just purchased the book for my kindle:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/W ... 1849087971

Ill report back on my finding for the main use of the M8 75mm Howitzer when I have read it all.
At first glance it looks like its primary role was indeed indirect fire support.

This is one of the things I love about this game, the way it gives you a trigger to then dive deeper into the history.
It looks to be an excellent book with a lot of nice illustrations as is common of the Ospery titles.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah

That assigns the M8 HTC platoon the same role as a mortar platoon in an infantry battalion, including an indirect fire capability.

In this case I would also agree, although I would wager the HMC's in troop E of the cavalry recon squadrons were used more as direct fire weapons, but definitely not exclusively.

I concur.

Field Manuals outline any situation which a commander, staff officer, or section leader could face when assigned responsibilities for commanding a unit or a subset of one.

The relationship between standard operations and extraordinary situations in Technical Manuals, whose procurement scope I defined when handling support for the Army's Tank and Automotive equipment, was made more explicit.

There were sections defined as "Operations Under Usual Conditions" and another defined as "Operations Under Unusual Conditions."

If there were an "unusual condition" in a World War II era Recon Troop operation, it would be conducting an attack on an emplaced enemy using organic indirect fire.

I suspect if HTC units deployed as a standard with a Recon Troop were to provide that which is missing from CO -- the ability to use smoke to mask friendly maneuvers, with an "unsual condition" focused on indirect HE fire under dire circumstances.
Take care,

jim
User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by dazkaz15 »

Actually Jim this it the breakdown of actual operations for the Mechanized Cavalry during the war:

The types of missions actually performed by the mechanized cavalry overall were judged to have been in the following order of frequency:
defensive combat 33 percent,
special operations 29 percent,
security 25 percent,
offensive combat 10 percent,
and reconnaissance 3 percent.

L.Rottman, Gordon (2012-07-20). World War II US Cavalry Units: European Theater (Elite) (Kindle Locations 408-410). Osprey Publishing. Kindle Edition.

As I'm sure you are aware not all field manuals, or rules, are followed to the letter, when put into a real situations.
jimcarravall
Posts: 642
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 am

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by jimcarravall »

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15

Actually Jim this it the breakdown of actual operations for the Mechanized Cavalry during the war:

The types of missions actually performed by the mechanized cavalry overall were judged to have been in the following order of frequency:
defensive combat 33 percent,
special operations 29 percent,
security 25 percent,
offensive combat 10 percent,
and reconnaissance 3 percent.

L.Rottman, Gordon (2012-07-20). World War II US Cavalry Units: European Theater (Elite) (Kindle Locations 408-410). Osprey Publishing. Kindle Edition.

As I'm sure you are aware not all field manuals, or rules, are followed to the letter, when put into a real situations.

What their standard TO&E was designed to accomplish in behalf of their parent combat formation and what their actual combat assignments became under the circumstances the parent formation commander faced in combat are two different things.

Cooks also had to fight, but the doctrine they addressed and their assigned equipment was more suited to cooking than fighting.

When I was supporting training and doctrine "customers" with new equipment logistics support system designs, they didn't cite any history as the basis for their requirements.

They referred instead to their operational requirements documentation and its embedded citations to field manuals so we could craft a technical solution to their operational needs.

We knew that the eventual employment of the design(s) may change, but we were focused on meeting or exceeding the criteria defined for that design instead of what we thought "might" happen.

It got so ingrained in me that when I was reading a book on The Bulge and a chapter discussed troops fleeting from St. Vith jumping on the available transport without first performing what we called Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (check tire air pressure, check the oil, make sure mirrors weren't broken, etc.), I thought, "They didn't do PMCS!" until I stepped back to consider that parts of doctrine went out the window when the enemy was going to capture you.
Take care,

jim
User avatar
simovitch
Posts: 5875
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:01 pm

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by simovitch »

Here is a good AAR account of the 32nd CRS, including the deployment in the Ardennes near Monschau. It seems that this particular unit used Troop "E" in the indirect fire support mode quite a few times. But when in this role they were set up "in battery positions" which tells me they had pre-set fire control and communications established.

http://117th-cav.org/History%20of%20the%2038th.pdf
simovitch

User avatar
dazkaz15
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:15 am

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by dazkaz15 »

That was a fantastic AAR [&o]

A must read for anyone interested in the Hofen Scenario.

In all cases where E Tp has been mentioned, it has been in a fire support/artillery role.
During the defence of Monchau though there was a bit about them destroying a few tanks, along with the Field artillery battery, but it wasn't made clear if it was by direct fire or indirect.

A superb read though, thanks for posting the link [:)]
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by Arjuna »

Great reference Richard. Thanks. [&o]
 
As Richard said earlier when we did the original playtesting of these scenarios we concluded that the predominant usage of these SP 105 AFVs was direct and not indirect fire.  However, there is nothing stopping you from cloning the original estab, adding an alternate unit estab with these as a separate indirect fire support unit and then cloning the original scenario and switching to the alternate estab. You switch estabs by selecting Estab Migration... item from the Tools menu. It will automatically prompt you to save the scenario under a different name. It works. Try it. (Thanks Miquel for this feature.[&o])
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
User avatar
BletchleyGeek
Posts: 4460
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia

RE: Bombard missing?

Post by BletchleyGeek »

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
It will automatically prompt you to save the scenario under a different name. It works. Try it. (Thanks Miquel for this feature.[&o])

Is this option available for public builds? It's still a bit rough around the edges, as it needs to have much more robust error control.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”