Page 5 of 5

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:19 am
by AbeSimpson
imo the only pink tank in JTCS should be the PantherĀ [:D]

A "Miami Vice" style for vehicles would be fantastic but then we need the original soundtrack as backgroundmusic...[8D]

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:58 am
by Borst50
That shouldnt be too hard to do as West Front already had the music from the movie Battle of the Bulge (1966) in it. Its in German, something about Panzers. [:D].

I was thinking....how about tail fins on the Pershing....complete with brake lights?

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 4:42 pm
by 1925frank
ORIGINAL: AbeSimpson

imo the only pink tank in JTCS should be the PantherĀ [:D]

A pink Panther!

I suppose all the French tanks will have to be yellow? (Just joking.)

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:11 pm
by Borst50
I think Peter Sellers is rolling in his grave. *salute* With Laughter of course. I miss Inspector Cleauseau

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:33 pm
by andym
ORIGINAL: Borst50

I think Peter Sellers is rolling in his grave. *salute* With Laughter of course. I miss Inspector Cleauseau


Peter Sellars was a comic genius

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPyDY5aZyXs


(funny how this has gone off topic)

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:40 pm
by kool_kat
ORIGINAL: andym

(funny how this has gone off topic)

Actually refreshing? [;)]

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:05 pm
by Borst50
thank you sir for bringing back memories of movies i have not seen on years. I agree, Peter was a comic genius! However..he was not the first inspector. Alan Arkin was the original...he did not possess the comedy talent to continue the series. I believe the first move was titled "A Shot in the Dark" , Elke Summer played the femme fatale. This was 1966 or 67...the came the Pink Panther...with David Niven as the theif....and the Pink Panther was the Jewel he was trying to steal.

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 10:32 am
by Crossroads
For someone who did his service in Artillery and who also enjoys the Campaign Series from the Talonsoft days, this topic has been an interesting read.

Thank you for sharing the information. I just wanted to add my 0.02. My apologies for non-native english...

I also wanted to do some additional research in addition to my personal experiences.

As always, it proved that very good summaries are already available. So instead of writing the thing myself, I will just make some brief points. Actually, the lazy sob that I am I finally decided to refer to another internet forum discussion instead... [>:]

The purpose of this post is to add some (hopefully) interesting pieces of information to the generic discussion of Artillery in JTCS. My basic point is to evaluate what was possible to achieve i) during six minutes ii) with WW II equipment and doctrines and add some personal experiences in top of that.

As I mentioned I did my eleven months in the artillery. Our particular arty unit was trained to support operations both at land and at sea. Interestingly, still in mid-eighties, we not only studied but also practiced the old manual procedures that date back to WW II. I do not know whether this was a plan B against EPM weaponry or just something that adds to theory behind arty, but so it was.

So, I practiced the WW II based doctrines. Heck, in our day-to-day operations we still used the trusty old Soviet model 76 mm guns from WW II days to save our actual 130 mm's from wear and tear...

To add to my background, I do not know how it translates but basically I was responsible for calculalting the directions for my battery's four guns, based on the target information I receiced. I also received and forwarded the commands from the commanding officer to guns.

I am not, and have not been working in Army. I am just a civilian. It was twenty years ago. So do not take this too seriously... [:'(]

First, thanks timshin42 for a good summary regarding what arty can do, and for Lesbaker how they actually did it. My intention is to build on with a few examples, based on these postings.

Second, instead of links to Wiki or elsewhere, I thought this discussion I found is as good summary as any regarding the Finnish WW II tactics: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9&t=139608

The discussion basically states everything I wanted to say. My thanks to "JariL", whoever you are :)

Here we go:

<-- snip -->

The main changes in the artillery doctrine during Continuation War (1941 - 1944) were:
1) Use of maps in determining target co-ordinates
2) Development of claculation tool ("korjausmuunnin")
2) Combining all available artillery and mortars under one artillery commander
3) Making FO's "independent"

Basically the idea with the new doctrine was that the FO should be relieved from making any calculations. He should be able to control fire as if he was firing through direct sights. All calculations were to be done in battery positions. To make this fine idea work a new way of calculating values for the cannons was needed. The result was a calculation tool that in Finnish was called "korjausmuunnin".

FO gave target co-ordinates from the map together with distance and direction to the battery. Based on this information the calculation tool was placed on top of the map so that it formed a triangle where battery position was one corner, the target another and the position of the FO the third. The beuaty of it all was that the FO did not need to know where the shooting cannons were. In the matter of fact he did not even need to know which batteries were shooting. In practise this meant that any FO, or actually anyone with a map and acces to radio or telephone, could give firing commands to artillery.

It did not take too long for the troops to realise that as the FO's were no longer bound to one artillery unit, it was possible to combine several artillery units into one whos support could be called by any FO within the shooting range of the artillery units. Heavy mortar units could also be attached to the system as they used the same shooting method. An additional bonus was that FO's who had been a scarce resource all of the sudden became an abundant resource. FO's could be easily attached to and detached from other units when needed.

When the hole thing was formalized all available artillery in a sector was combined under one artillery commander who decided in which order and with what strength each request from FO's was answered. Fire could be prepared in advance if there was time but the system made it possible to start effect shooting within 2 to 5 minutes to unprepared targets as well.


<-- snip -->

Indeed. When I knew the location the FO was reporting from, I could very quickly, with a map, manually determine the location of the target. Then I calculated the directions for our battery's use, and gave it to my four subordinates who then quickly determined the exact bearings for their individual guns to use. Each gun would then individually fire volleys against a single ship, for an example.

I cannot of course have personal experience to confirm the sector wide combined use of artillery and mortar units but that is a historical fact that can be looked up. I am too lazy to bother... Sorry [:)] But the point is that it was a normal practice towards the end of the war to ensure a maximum effect with minimum resources.

<-- snip -->

Finnish artillery pre-plotted targets when possible, but due to its effective methods it could also be directed to hit any target within range very fast. After improvements introduced in 1943 (mainly "korjausmuunnin" aka "corrections converter", which gave values needed for adjusting fire immediately.) While Finnish artillery rarely did direct-fire missions, these were not unknown either. Direct-fire missins were usually handled by units equipped with 76-mm infantry guns (like 76 LK/10-13 and 76 RK/27). Instead of direct fire the popular method for destroying individual targets in the frontline was "tikkausammunta" ("pin-prick shooting") for which usually heavy or super-heavy howitzer suitably far from the immediate frontline was used and FO-team in the fronline adjusted its fire after each shot until the target was hit - with experienced FO-team and howitzer crew this could be done with as little as just three shots per target.

<-- snip -->

We, a basic and simple arty unit, were very efficient against moving sea targets as well. Typically, our FO gave targets not for the towed target raft but towards an area some 50 m behind it, as when given the correct information the very first volley often destroyed the raft (that could be e.g. 5 km forward from our positions).

Regarding the time needed to do this, I can personally back up the 2 to 5 minute time frame against unprepared targets the discussion mentions.

Finally, the beauty of the thing was that indeed the FO did not have to anything about the participating batteries nor where they were. When not using preplanned targets, he just gave his position and the the target, following the results and adjusting accordingly:

<-- snip -->

"...all corrections by the FO were given in meters not in degrees. Thus if the fire missed the target by 200 m to the left seen from the position of the FO the correction was "right 200".

<-- snip -->

[Edit]
Here is a pic of the calculation tool/correction converter. Ahh, the nostalgy. As seen from the pic, the tool was placed on a map, based on our battery position. The FO position was taken into account using the movable circular unit in the tool. After this, his firing orders were manually calculated by us in a manner of a few seconds...
http://www.geocities.com/finnmilpge/korjausmuunnin.gif
[/Edit]

So, from my personal experience from some twenty years ago, I can assure you that "realistically", during a time frame of let us say 12 minutes (two turns, right), I could be directing my four guns towards a sea moving target, then participate (OK, just for a few rounds but this is an example, right) in a preplanned rolling barrage, then point my four guns to silence a pesky AT position that the commanding artillery officer determines to be a valid target.

So, again, just my 0,02 as what "realistic" WW II artillery can achieve.

As for the CS arty spotting, I leave it to everyone to make their own conclusions.

But of course, here is my top three-list regarding artillery in CS [X(]

If you change it, why don't you make a difference as well. And of course, please as an option :)

First, I do not believe the heavier arty is modeled to be effective enough against soft targets in an open position. It should just murder any soft targets that get in its way.

Why don't you give it some real power so it alone could break absolute havoc when used properly? This is an option, right? Or make it capable firing three times per turn if not changing targets? Just some first ideas, no offense...

Secondly, (and my only comment regarding the original topic...) "FO's who had been a scarce resource all of the sudden became an abundant resource".

I would model the spotting rule perhaps in a way that any unit with a radio can spot artillery? At least towards the later scenarios?

Thirdly - and this is my personal favorite: I would allow Indirect fire to participate in direct fire if a targeted unit is spotted with some one who has a radio [8D]

I can guarantee that if I would have been informed that a pesky AT section is halting our advance, it would have shells coming towards it in a manner of minutes. And this definitively would give the game some new perspectives :)

I hope you enjoyed reading this as much as I enjoyed writing this!

[Edit]
Come to think of it, arty and mortar fire as such is modeled quite well in the engine. What I would suggest for my Extreme Artillery (why not? [8D] ) optional rule would be that

i) The combined total of attacking SPs would be calculated for the hex under fire, and one massive attack result calculated, instead of the number of separate attacks currently in place.

This would model the effect of concentrated barrage on a target. If player indeed chooses to concentrate his/her arty fire power the results should be in relation to that. This would also model the short period of six minutes of time, which is not a long time, but still all guns firing into same hex would cause a lot of destruction.

ii) Either make the first platoon with radio able to call artillery (as they would radio the commander, who would in turn radio the artillery commander of the sector), or, perhaps in order to have more fun with this option: put a separate FO officer in game (one per battalion?). The latter would just for the fun of it make it possible to

iii) Make artillery available as direct fire, when target is spotted by the FO unit directly. This would be fun in a manner that the schwerpunkt could have massive artillery support (ie. Extreme Arty) immediately available to them, as long as the FO is alive and well, and sees the target himself.

Just my 0.02 of course.
[/Edit]

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:05 pm
by V22 Osprey
I hate optional rules, which is the only thing I dont like about HPS Panzer Campaigns.I once spent 5 times passing emails from my opponent just to determine optional rules.Optional rules certainly can give a scenario a more of a challenge or make it easier for the newbies, but when Extreme Assault rules came out it split the community.So for example if you hate Extreme Assault, you now only have half the choice of PBEM Opponents because the other half like extreme Assualt.All these realism changes are just turning JTCS into different game and will eventually lead to JTCS' downfall.

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:09 am
by Crossroads
I hear you, V22. But this is a damn-if-you-do-damn-if-you-don't secenario, isn't it?

This is a quite large and active community, so trying to accommodate for the identified major trends of player wishes is a good thing as such. The consensus is to make any considered changes optional.

Simple user interface is also not only a newbie thingie, IMHO, as we each have our own preferences.

I for myself mostly play for the beer & pretzels -experience, simplistic good fun without too much micro management (micro management being the point). Heck, the basic JTCS is still too complicated when compared to Panzer Leader, for an example. Guys, make supply optional! [:-] [;)]


RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:04 am
by Crossroads
ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

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

A quick comment on this one as well...

Actually, when executed correctly, 250 meters, let alone 500 meters, is a quite a drift for artillery. Individual errors do happen, of course.

From that point of view, I assume the abstraction has to do with the time frame of the game. In six minutes, the first volley indeed could be seen to stray from the initial target. It would not take too long to make the corrections for very accurate firing, though, if FO is present and sees the target area. Definitively within the six minutes, I would say.

In the above post, I provided a link to another discussion. The discussion mentioned a real example where a single heavy howitzer was used as a "mortar unit" against a target.

The original report lists that a total of 17 single shots were fired under the spotting FO's orders and corrections. Five of them were direct hits. Then the report continues and states that:

"Longitudinal dispersion was quite large (150 m.) when the advantageous weather conditions are taken account; calm, temperature +14 C."

Reading the original report, this comment actually states that the weather conditions were good and still the dispersion was quite large, 150 meters. I also assume that this means that the howitzer itself was in pretty good condition. Often, the guns were quite overused and worn out meaning there would be problems in accurate to-the-spot shelling.

Again, just my 0.02 regarding the arty accuracy itself.


RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:11 pm
by Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: Crossroads

It would not take too long to make the corrections for very accurate firing, though, if FO is present and sees the target area.

While I agree with all you point out, it was thought a proper FO is not always present, whether that be because of each countries doctrine (they did vary, of course) or FO is KIA or what have you.

Jason Petho


RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:05 pm
by Crossroads
ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Crossroads

It would not take too long to make the corrections for very accurate firing, though, if FO is present and sees the target area.

While I agree with all you point out, it was thought a proper FO is not always present, whether that be because of each countries doctrine (they did vary, of course) or FO is KIA or what have you.

Jason Petho

Yes, I can definitively see also the spotted indirect fire miss the target (This is already the case when a previously spotted hex is no longer spotted when the indirect fire takes place the next turn, right?).

For an example, there can be a case where the indirect fire order is called by a "non-trained FO", e.g. an infantry officer with a map and the means for communication. He might give the wrong co-ordinates, or perhaps use a different map from that of the artillery unit.

On the other hand, if a proper trained FO is available and present for spotting, this is less likely to happen, and any drift would be promptly corrected.

That is why I suggested that indeed if a specialized FO unit is used, direct artillery fire should be available [8D]

Are you able to shed any light as where the 1.05 arty spotting rules are at the moment?

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:36 pm
by Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: Crossroads
Are you able to shed any light as where the 1.05 arty spotting rules are at the moment?

No changes have been made to date as 1.05 is on the backburner until Modern Wars: Volume I is released.

Jason Petho


RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:51 pm
by hurtzDonut
When will said Modern Wars: Volume I be released?

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:40 pm
by Jason Petho
ORIGINAL: hurtzDonut

When will said Modern Wars: Volume I be released?

As soon as possible.

Still lots to do, but every day brings us closer to release.

Jason Petho

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:29 pm
by rich12545
ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: hurtzDonut

When will said Modern Wars: Volume I be released?

As soon as possible.

Still lots to do, but every day brings us closer to release.
Jason Petho

Would this qualify for a DOH response? [:D]

RE: Artillery Spotting

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 5:56 pm
by mheard
No changes have been made to date as 1.05 is on the backburner until Modern Wars: Volume I is released.

Jason Petho

Will Modern Wars I have any changes to the way artillery is handled as per the many excellent suggestions made for spotting, etc.?

Thanks,

Martin Heard