Matrix Games Forums

All:

I am a recently retired artilleryman and WWII buff so if you have any questions I could take a shot at answering them for you. It may be best to PM me since that will hit my email instead of on the forum since I don't always get a chance to check the forums lately.

Tallyman

I would have thought the American development of VT fuses and the American tactic of Time on Target, in 1944, would have been one of the major developments for artillery.

Good Hunting.

MR

Here's some info on sheafs by gun type WW II era: From Poe's site

Some key differences I've picked up on while reading up:

1. Accurate maps and radios: Brit FO's had these. US plt ldrs had these. Germans did not. Priority of radios for the Germans went to Panzers and Luftwaffe. The German FO used a landline to the firing arty Bn. The German FO called for fire from a surveyed firing point.

2. Fire Direction: German FDC computed ballistic data in the FDC. Think logarithm tables and mechanical calculators. US had pre-calculated solution sets rendered into clear plastic protractors. Not sure about the Brits. Germans would pre-calculate for plotted ("registered") targets and could rapidly engage those as well as targets within about 400 yds of a plotted target. I am seeing estimates of first round impact of 12 min for a target that is not near a pre-plotted target and around 5 min for a pre-plotted target after the call for fire is initiated by the FO.

There's some doctrine stuff that affects massing fires that I am still reading up on.

You should poke around that POE site. He also lists his references and I have seen others refer to those texts.

I think you could use those numbers on sheaf size for WW II through Cold War for 100-200mm rounds. Not so sure mortar lethality has stayed about the same, though.

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

I would have thought the American development of VT fuses and the American tactic of Time on Target, in 1944, would have been one of the major developments for artillery.

Good Hunting.

MR

It was major technical improvements. But what does the distinction is the massive introduction of FM radios and the non divisional organization that allows a very reactive answer from the field artillery. It is called the "quick firing plans" and it started effectively in 1942/43 (Operation Torch, after Kasserine). The ToT can't really exist without.

Interesting thread! All those ideas will make FCRS a far better game. Thank you guys. [&o]

PS: I only wish they do not mean an excess of complexity. Realism is not micromanament but usually is the fastest way to reach it. Games are for fun, with that in mind FCRS will always be a classic. [:D]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
But, if/when you get it working right, this game will be fantastic!

Ahem....this game is already fantastic! [:D]


I do agree however, that it can get even better. That's the goal! [&o]

Good Hunting.

MR

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Ahem....this game is already fantastic! [:D]
I do agree however, that it can get even better. That's the goal! [&o]

True, but you have the v2.04 beta and we don't, which needs to get released so we can see how more fantastic things are now. [;)]

ORIGINAL: Jafele
PS: I only wish they do not mean an excess of complexity. Realism is not micromanagement but usually is the fastest way to reach it. Games are for fun, with that in mind FCRS will always be a classic. [:D]

+1

ORIGINAL: demiller
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?

By doctrine (in the US at least), the CO/S3 is supposed to ask for effects, and let the arty guys figure out how to provide them.

This in no way actually inhibits commanders / S3s from trying to tell the FSO's how to do their jobs.

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

By doctrine (in the US at least), the CO/S3 is supposed to ask for effects, and let the arty guys figure out how to provide them.

This in no way actually inhibits commanders / S3s from trying to tell the FSO's how to do their jobs.

So, like pretty much every other job, then

Hey Rob, can you model the artillery guys making fake static sounds into their radios so they can pretend they didn't hear the S3 micro-managing?

Fortunately FCRS is not another huge micromanaged s*** with an expiration date. We should also model some people´s brain to make them understand basic ideas. [:D]

ORIGINAL: demiller

ORIGINAL: bayonetbrant

By doctrine (in the US at least), the CO/S3 is supposed to ask for effects, and let the arty guys figure out how to provide them.

This in no way actually inhibits commanders / S3s from trying to tell the FSO's how to do their jobs.

So, like pretty much every other job, then

Hey Rob, can you model the artillery guys making fake static sounds into their radios so they can pretend they didn't hear the S3 micro-managing?

I'm sure we can add that to the realism settings of the next game.[:D]

Here is a picture I ran across showing the footprint of the 1940's rocket launcher, 'Katyusha'.

Nothing like a bit of 'Shock and Awe' there!! [X(]

Anyone want to sit here and reload so we can fire at them again??? [:-]



When MRL's fire I want to see a smoke marker put in the hex for realism!!!! [8D]



Good Hunting.

MR

Gentlemen - Just so you know, I have copied large swathes of this discussion into my design doc for arty in version 2.1 of the game. I have a bunch of other ideas too from the playtesters and other commentators, plus of course I look at the odd FM and other authoritative source for ideas.

What we want to do in the end is achieve what James Sterrett calls "selective fidelity". The idea is not to model every little thing in excruciating detail but to focus on the essential elements / decisions / dilemmas and to abstract the rest in a reasonable way given the command viewpoint of the game. This discussion gives me lots and lots of ideas to feed into that process.

Much appreciated, cheers all, Rob