16 replies to this topic

[gregoryk]

Gents,After a lot of review, including the US Army 1945 artillery field manual, and discussions with veterans and "red legs," it appears that deviation dice for indirect fire have the patina of realism, but in fact just are not the way rounds landed. Certainly there were cases of short rounds, or Danger Close, but no self-respecting FO called in fire for effect unless the spotting rounds were on target. They would not deviate the way they do in MP, or in many other games that use similar random deviation systems. I am changing the way artillery varies in MT to be deviation die minus a certain number for different nationalities, but even that is not indicative of how indirect fire artillery was and is ranged in. We have been using artillery a lot in our games, and can testify to its success at pinning and suppressing troops, even tanks, but that it does not kill unless it catches soft targets in the open, whether in woods or in fields. So not having it deviate by much or at all does not make it necessarily a killer.I think I will come up with a Danger Close situation where short rounds occur with certain die rolls To-Hit. Note that we use a simpler method of targeting than the RAW MP method, which saves a lot of time. A simpler method of deviation will save even more.Cheers,Gregory

[Kenny Noe]

I like the idea of a Danger Close rule. Should be interesting.In Modern (post 1990) I will have a rule for most modern armies that deviation will be half of regular roles. Meaning that the player will roll a 4 sided die along with a normal deviation die. The deviation distance will only be 1, 2, or 3 inches and the 4 will be direct hit. The six sided die will be for direction only.The reason for this is GPS technology applied to Military uses make artillery targeting even more accurate.

[gregoryk]

knoe wrote:

I like the idea of a Danger Close rule. Should be interesting.In Modern (post 1990) I will have a rule for most modern armies that deviation will be half of regular roles. Meaning that the player will roll a 4 sided die along with a normal deviation die. The deviation distance will only be 1, 2, or 3 inches and the 4 will be direct hit. The six sided die will be for direction only.The reason for this is GPS technology applied to Military uses make artillery targeting even more accurate.

Kenny, I think that they would probably not even deviate unless they rolled a '20' or maybe a '19-20.' Artillery just did not get called in for effect until the rounds were on the target. Artillery is a killer. I can put you in touch with someone who was part of the armored corps and the whole calling in of fire. He can describe his experiences and the techniques they employed. Also, I can send you the 1945 Artillery Army Field Manual, all 497 pages of it, by yousendit. It is a 30.1 MB file. Fascinating reading.Cheers,Gregory

[Mark 1]

I believe there are three issues at play here.1 ) Was the fire mission called on the right target? In the several combat descriptions I've read when artillery fire landed "somehwere else" (other than on our hero's head), it was not at all clear that the enemy knew where their target was. They were firing upon their suspicions rather than on visible identified targets. This would be hard to model, except in a double-blind game.2 ) Did the fire go were it was supposed to? In competent armies it does. There's work involved, but once the guns are sited, surveyed, and ranged-in, the round just don't land somewhere other than where they were intended. Except perhaps for the occasional short.3 ) How long, and by what process, did the rounds get there? Here is the question of ranging shots and correction. This can be well modelled by the current MP approach. One must simply accept that only a single ranging shot is fired until the deviations have been walked onto the intended target. Perhaps an errata to the rules can provide the incentives to play it this way -- as in shorter times to correct ranging shots, and limited numbers of barrages but not limited numbers of ranging shots, or some such...Just some notions.-Mark 1

[Kenny Noe]

gregoryk wrote:

Kenny, I think that they would probably not even deviate unless they rolled a '20' or maybe a '19-20.' Artillery just did not get called in for effect until the rounds were on the target. Artillery is a killer. I can put you in touch with someone who was part of the armored corps and the whole calling in of fire. He can describe his experiences and the techniques they employed. Also, I can send you the 1945 Artillery Army Field Manual, all 497 pages of it, by yousendit. It is a 30.1 MB file. Fascinating reading.Cheers,Gregory

Gregory, In MPC the deviation die is only a d6. Indirect fire doesn't use a d20... I'm not disagreeing that Artillery is a mighty force, it's not called King of the Battlefield for 'nothin;... :) However until the utilization of GPS tech. Landing a Atry shell exactly where it was called is impossible. The deviation is only a 50yd to 250yd shift and after firing from 10,000yd or more even a 250yd shift is pretty close. Using a d6 there is little less than a 17% chance the target will deviate at all. Yes, the initial spotting round may be even further off target and the FO will adjust to try and get the center of the barrage on taget, but even that is difficult.Remember, we are trying to simulate combat conditions. The FO rarely had time to call in 2 or 3 spotting rounds and make precise adjustments to get every barrage exactly on target.I served in the Army and have plenty of Field Manuals... Thanks

[Kenny Noe]

In today's US Army Artillery arsenal there is a GPS guided 155mm projectile that when launched is deemed "on target" if it hits within 10 meters of the target.I watched "Future Weapons" series on the Military channel (Great Series!!!)... And they showed test firing of this projectile where it was initially fired on target and landed within 5 meters of "x". Then they launched 12 degrees off target (total of 4 miles off target) and watched (via radar) as the projectile self corrected and landed within 7 meters of the target.Great stuff....

[Kenny Noe]

mark1 wrote:

I believe there are three issues at play here.1 ) Was the fire mission called on the right target? In the several combat descriptions I've read when artillery fire landed "somehwere else" (other than on our hero's head), it was not at all clear that the enemy knew where their target was. They were firing upon their suspicions rather than on visible identified targets. This would be hard to model, except in a double-blind game.

Agree that during combat the FO is not always looking at the target rather a map and grid coordinates while taking fire. This is extremely difficult to model on wargame board with our "God's eye" view.

2 ) Did the fire go were it was supposed to? In competent armies it does. There's work involved, but once the guns are sited, surveyed, and ranged-in, the round just don't land somewhere other than where they were intended. Except perhaps for the occasional short.

Again I also agree that competent armies can land a barrage on target... If they have the time, are not under fire, and are able to get all the correct information relayed properly from the FO to the Battery.

3 ) How long, and by what process, did the rounds get there? Here is the question of ranging shots and correction. This can be well modelled by the current MP approach. One must simply accept that only a single ranging shot is fired until the deviations have been walked onto the intended target. Perhaps an errata to the rules can provide the incentives to play it this way -- as in shorter times to correct ranging shots, and limited numbers of barrages but not limited numbers of ranging shots, or some such...

MPC already has a mechanism that allows for up to 100m correction of artillery deviations w/o having to re-roll any deviation. This allows the player to correct their barrage each turn w/o penalty.

Just some notions.-Mark 1

Thanks

[Mark 1]

Some clarifications of what I meant, and further observations/thoughts ...

knoe wrote:

mark1 wrote:I believe there are three issues at play here.1 ) Was the fire mission called on the right target? ...

Agree that during combat the FO is not always looking at the target rather a map and grid coordinates while taking fire. This is extremely difficult to model on wargame board with our "God's eye" view.

Quite so. Additionally, during combat the FO, even if looking at the battlefield, may not be able to spot individual units to target. Consider the scenario: A unit is advancing out of a woodline across some open terrain. They receive incoming fire. The FO, in the woodline, can not spot the firing units. But he already has considered certain areas that he suspects the enemy might occupy. He takes a quick look at the battlefield, where the enemy fire is affecting his troops, where he would or would not be able to spot enemy shooters, and makes a decision of where the enemy is probably shooting from -- say perhaps from behind a small rise on his left, a position that would be in full defilade from his view. Instead of calling fire on a spotted enemy, he calls down the guns on where he suspects the enemy is located.But our heros are not there. They are much further away, along the edge of a small woods on the left that isn't even visible to the FO due to the rise. They see the arty fall several hundred meters away, chalk it up to poor shooting on the part of their adversaries, and continue firing unhampered by the barrage.Kenny is right -- the "God's eye view" of gamers means we won't see this. Rather, we will measure for line-of-site and announce that the FO can't see the shooting units, so he won't (can't) call fire on them.I think that many/most of the first-hand accounts of soldiers watching enemy artillery plow up empty fields can be explained by this kind of scenario, rather than by the guns simply putting shells somewhere other than where they intended. But these shoots never even occur in most wargames. So we should consider either:a ) Accepting that we ignore these "shoot at suspicions" events, and understand that our artillery fires will be on-target far more often than in real life because we ignore the events that make up so many off-target shoots, or...b ) Create a mechanism for "shoot at suspicions" artillery fire. Pre-planned Map Fire ain't the answer. These are reactive, called-for fires. But bringing them into the game would be dependant on defeating the "God's eye view" of gamers.

2 ) Did the fire go were it was supposed to? ...

Again I also agree that competent armies can land a barrage on target... If they have the time, are not under fire, and are able to get all the correct information relayed properly from the FO to the Battery.

Side note: We are talking past the competence issue for now. But we might at least mention that not all armies are competent. I would not want to vouch for the hit-what-we're-aiming-at abilities of a 1937 Chinese artillery battery. However many of the armies that have a reputation for poor combat efficiency were at least competent in getting their artillery rounds to fall where they were intended. Examples include French, Italian, and Russian armies in WW2 -- all of which were known for being quite slow in calling their fire in, and were observed plowing up fields from time-to-time, but all of which had artillery troops that were actually very well trained and quite capable of putting large numbers of rounds where they were wanted.I think that the updates to the artillery rules contained in the WW2 Data Book are quite good in giving some depth to the differences between artillery capabilities of various nations in WW2. In particular, I think that the challenge in gaming is to model the complexity of calling the fire in, rather than modelling the artillery missing the target.Oh, and artillery should really be a (THE?) killer on the battlefield. Throughout the last century of warfare far more casualties were generated by artillery than small-arms fire. That doesn't mean, though, that a single firephase should wipe everyone out. Low per-turn casualty rates are OK, as the redlegs should be firing for turn upon turn to make their thunder effective.

3 ) How long, and by what process, did the rounds get there? Here is the question of ranging shots and correction. ...

MPC already has a mechanism that allows for up to 100m correction of artillery deviations w/o having to re-roll any deviation. This allows the player to correct their barrage each turn w/o penalty.

I think there is room for more improvement here. Some possibilities come to mind:a ) Correcting a barrage by 100m is not the right approach for what we are discussing. I agree that correcting all the guns, and keeping them all firing into the same beaten zone, is not easy. So 100m corrections makes sense, and gives us the ability to structure rolling barrages well. But the issue I am contemplating is ranging shots. They must be correctable by far more than 100m per call. I don't even know of a reason to limit the corrections. As long as the fires stays within the same map grid I expect an FO could correct for a Km or more, no?b ) I believe that there is a call-for-fire time penalty for making substantial corrections. That is appropriate for full barrage fire (the synchronizing of all the guns). But ranging shots should not require such large time penalties, unless the communications link is tenuous (ie: wire messages relayed through multiple operators, vs. a switchboard connection directly to the battery command post). So long as a direct link has been established corrections to ranging shots should suffer no delays, occuring next turn. c ) Ranging shots do not come in exactly on target. This is already modelled by both the deviation die and the barrage template. I think that ranging/spotting rounds should be placed by both deviation and the barrage template, and the point-of-aim marker removed. Corrections should come from the actual strike location. But we still need a mechanism for accounting for the difference between the point-of-aim and the point-of-strike of the spotting round. Perhaps a new deviation role for the corrected targetting, but with a smaller deviation amound (1/2 vs. full deviation) would suffice.Using this approach I think we might see a call for fire flow like this:1 ) FO calls for fire. Some time delay is suffered, depending on the national characteristics of his army's artillery and commo skills. Finally, a link is established, and a spotting round flies downrange.2 ) A deviation roll is made, and a template location roll is made, and the strike marker is placed. Next turn, the player can either fire for effect, with a 1/2 deviation roll (providing the variance between strike and point-of-aim, which the player knows but shouldn't know), or he can correct his fire and place another spotting round downrange. 3 ) With the second (and subsiquent) spotting rounds, no deviations are required. Only the template to determine actual strike location. But when he is ready to fire-for-effect, the 1/2 deviation is again made, to simulate the variace between observed strike and point-of-aim, which needs to remain somewhat random as the FO should never actually know how far away the strike was from the point-of-aim.None of this addresses my first issue, which I fear can not be addressed without better hidden unit mechansims.-Mark 1

[Kenny Noe]

ok this is getting big... and I need to break it up a little.... So bear w/ me. :laugh: mark1 wrote:

Some clarifications of what I meant, and further observations/thoughts ...

knoe wrote:

mark1 wrote:I believe there are three issues at play here.1 ) Was the fire mission called on the right target? ...

Agree that during combat the FO is not always looking at the target rather a map and grid coordinates while taking fire. This is extremely difficult to model on wargame board with our "God's eye" view.

Quite so. Additionally, during combat the FO, even if looking at the battlefield, may not be able to spot individual units to target. Consider the scenario: A unit is advancing out of a woodline across some open terrain. They receive incoming fire. The FO, in the woodline, can not spot the firing units. But he already has considered certain areas that he suspects the enemy might occupy. He takes a quick look at the battlefield, where the enemy fire is affecting his troops, where he would or would not be able to spot enemy shooters, and makes a decision of where the enemy is probably shooting from -- say perhaps from behind a small rise on his left, a position that would be in full defilade from his view. Instead of calling fire on a spotted enemy, he calls down the guns on where he suspects the enemy is located.But our heros are not there. They are much further away, along the edge of a small woods on the left that isn't even visible to the FO due to the rise. They see the arty fall several hundred meters away, chalk it up to poor shooting on the part of their adversaries, and continue firing unhampered by the barrage.Kenny is right -- the "God's eye view" of gamers means we won't see this. Rather, we will measure for line-of-site and announce that the FO can't see the shooting units, so he won't (can't) call fire on them.I think that many/most of the first-hand accounts of soldiers watching enemy artillery plow up empty fields can be explained by this kind of scenario, rather than by the guns simply putting shells somewhere other than where they intended. But these shoots never even occur in most wargames. So we should consider either:a ) Accepting that we ignore these "shoot at suspicions" events, and understand that our artillery fires will be on-target far more often than in real life because we ignore the events that make up so many off-target shoots, or...b ) Create a mechanism for "shoot at suspicions" artillery fire. Pre-planned Map Fire ain't the answer. These are reactive, called-for fires. But bringing them into the game would be dependant on defeating the "God's eye view" of gamers.-Mark 1

This one is pretty simple to resolve... 2 words.... Blind Barrages. See MPC Chapter 10 page 10.2.Thoughts??

[Kenny Noe]

Part two....mark1 wrote:

Some clarifications of what I meant, and further observations/thoughts ...

knoe wrote:

mark1 wrote:I believe there are three issues at play here.

2 ) Did the fire go were it was supposed to? ...Again I also agree that competent armies can land a barrage on target... If they have the time, are not under fire, and are able to get all the correct information relayed properly from the FO to the Battery.Side note: We are talking past the competence issue for now. But we might at least mention that not all armies are competent. I would not want to vouch for the hit-what-we're-aiming-at abilities of a 1937 Chinese artillery battery. However many of the armies that have a reputation for poor combat efficiency were at least competent in getting their artillery rounds to fall where they were intended. Examples include French, Italian, and Russian armies in WW2 -- all of which were known for being quite slow in calling their fire in, and were observed plowing up fields from time-to-time, but all of which had artillery troops that were actually very well trained and quite capable of putting large numbers of rounds where they were wanted.I think that the updates to the artillery rules contained in the WW2 Data Book are quite good in giving some depth to the differences between artillery capabilities of various nations in WW2. In particular, I think that the challenge in gaming is to model the complexity of calling the fire in, rather than modelling the artillery missing the target.Oh, and artillery should really be a (THE?) killer on the battlefield. Throughout the last century of warfare far more casualties were generated by artillery than small-arms fire. That doesn't mean, though, that a single firephase should wipe everyone out. Low per-turn casualty rates are OK, as the redlegs should be firing for turn upon turn to make their thunder effective.-Mark 1

I believe that the competence question might be best handled on a per scenario basis. (This brings back horrid memories of the "TQ Wars" that we had many years ago... )Yes Artillery IS KING of the battlefield. (IMHO)... Now does it wipe everyone out, that depends on your defination of "wipeout". MPC rules state that after resolving the hits and partial hits in a barrage everything in the beaten zone is pinned. We modeled Artillery in MPC to have different affects against infantry vs vehicles. I would also recommend reading the artillery rules in the WWI databook. They can also apply to post WWI.Would like to add that the first thing we at ODGW rank when playtesting rules is "playability". Realism is a close second, but it is second. We would like to be as realistic as possible but in some cases it's near impossible to do....onward to part 3....

[Kenny Noe]

... and last.... part 3...mark1 wrote:

Some clarifications of what I meant, and further observations/thoughts ...

knoe wrote:

mark1 wrote:I believe there are three issues at play here.3 ) How long, and by what process, did the rounds get there? Here is the question of ranging shots and correction ...

MPC already has a mechanism that allows for up to 100m correction of artillery deviations w/o having to re-roll any deviation. This allows the player to correct their barrage each turn w/o penalty.

I think there is room for more improvement here. Some possibilities come to mind:a ) Correcting a barrage by 100m is not the right approach for what we are discussing. I agree that correcting all the guns, and keeping them all firing into the same beaten zone, is not easy. So 100m corrections makes sense, and gives us the ability to structure rolling barrages well. But the issue I am contemplating is ranging shots. They must be correctable by far more than 100m per call. I don't even know of a reason to limit the corrections. As long as the fires stays within the same map grid I expect an FO could correct for a Km or more, no?

I disagree... The correcting fire for artillery in MPC is 0m-100m (0 inches up to 2 inches). Anything after 2 inches and the artillery barrage will need to be recalculated from scratch. We'll need to get Bob B. involved in this... He has a better understanding of Artillery and MPC mechanics....

b ) I believe that there is a call-for-fire time penalty for making substantial corrections. That is appropriate for full barrage fire (the synchronizing of all the guns). But ranging shots should not require such large time penalties, unless the communications link is tenuous (ie: wire messages relayed through multiple operators, vs. a switchboard connection directly to the battery command post). So long as a direct link has been established corrections to ranging shots should suffer no delays, occuring next turn.

As I understand current MPC rules the time penalty would be part of the re-laying of the barrage marker and re-rolling the deviation.

c ) Ranging shots do not come in exactly on target. This is already modelled by both the deviation die and the barrage template. I think that ranging/spotting rounds should be placed by both deviation and the barrage template, and the point-of-aim marker removed. Corrections should come from the actual strike location. But we still need a mechanism for accounting for the difference between the point-of-aim and the point-of-strike of the spotting round. Perhaps a new deviation role for the corrected targetting, but with a smaller deviation amound (1/2 vs. full deviation) would suffice.Using this approach I think we might see a call for fire flow like this:1 ) FO calls for fire. Some time delay is suffered, depending on the national characteristics of his army's artillery and commo skills. Finally, a link is established, and a spotting round flies downrange.2 ) A deviation roll is made, and a template location roll is made, and the strike marker is placed. Next turn, the player can either fire for effect, with a 1/2 deviation roll (providing the variance between strike and point-of-aim, which the player knows but shouldn't know), or he can correct his fire and place another spotting round downrange. 3 ) With the second (and subsiquent) spotting rounds, no deviations are required. Only the template to determine actual strike location. But when he is ready to fire-for-effect, the 1/2 deviation is again made, to simulate the variace between observed strike and point-of-aim, which needs to remain somewhat random as the FO should never actually know how far away the strike was from the point-of-aim.None of this addresses my first issue, which I fear can not be addressed without better hidden unit mechansims.-Mark 1

This is an interesting alternative to Artillery resolution. My initial concern with out playtesting is how this might effect playability and the speed / flow in which we would want to maintain / enhance. I understand your desire to model more realism and applaud your solution. But will withhold additional comments until others can comment. Thanks for your input.

[gregoryk]

Gents,One of the reasons I proposed that deviation is not the correct method for determining final aiming point is that call-for-fire would not be made until the spotting round had arrived on the intended target, whatever that may be. The difference in the artillery doctrines for each army illustrates how quickly they can accomplish this across the nominal six-minute turn without having to track the spotting rounds and do any of the fancy, fiddly work (see Advanced Squad Leader to see what that can result in). I suggested that the chance of a Danger Close result would be small, say using a D20 critical failure roll, as it was during WWII, though it happened, and was infamous when it did.I have already modified the way we have artillery land, with rules to subtract numbers from the deviation die rather than halving them to account for the accuracy that almost every artillery branch had.Cheers,Gregory

[Mark 1]

gregoryk wrote:

One of the reasons I proposed that deviation is not the correct method for determining final aiming point is that call-for-fire would not be made until the spotting round had arrived on the intended target, whatever that may be. The difference in the artillery doctrines for each army illustrates how quickly they can accomplish this across the nominal six-minute turn without having to track the spotting rounds and do any of the fancy, fiddly work ...

Well that makes sense to me! I had forgotton that the turn represents roughly 6 minutes of (elastic) time. Quite agree that multiples of 6 minutes is too much for ranging in the fire. Also quite agree with the goal of reducing / eliminating the "fiddly work".The one part that seems to be missing, though, is the impact on the potential target player of seeing those spotting rounds. Let's face it, if you had just occupied an open ridgeline, and then saw individual 150mm shell splashes walking their way towards you, you might go through some form of decision-making process about the wisdom of staying put vs. bugging out.So perhaps the shooter needs to make the spotting rounds visible somehow, even though they are not dangerous? A possibility would be if player A calls for artillery, on each turn of delay that he must undergo (per national characteristics) he must place a single shell splash within X inches of his target location, where X = 2x the number of turns remaining until the artillery comes, + 2.So if he faces a 3 turn delay, on the first turn of delay he places a shell marker within 8 inches of his target point. On the second turn within 6 inches, on the third turn 4 inches. He gets to place them wherever he chooses within that distance, and he can not place them on top of any enemy units or structures.Thus, even though player B does not know exactly where the barrage is targetted, or even when it will arrive, he gets a pretty good idea (and a sense of impending doom) from seeing the splashes walking in.Or is that too much fiddly work too? Maybe instead just have player A announce "a shell splash in this area" indicating a region of the board?

I suggested that the chance of a Danger Close result would be small, say using a D20 critical failure roll, as it was during WWII, though it happened, and was infamous when it did.

Sounds fair enough to me. So if a critical failure results, a round falls X distance short? Or if a crit failure, a round drops directly on the head of the nearest friendly unit?But I would still suggest retaining the deviation rolls for un-observed / un-corrected fire, and for TOT barrages, which by doctrine were not preceeded by any spotting rounds.-Mark 1

[Cpt M]

I've been following this discussion for some time with some interest. First, I've some experience in the real world of 'calling fire' (National Guard from 78-82; yeah, I was a 'No Go'!) and one of the gamers in my group retired out the US Army as an artillery instructor (who loathes just about set of rules on the market for the way they handle artillery). So my perspective regarding artilley may be a little different.....First, within the span of a 6 minute turn, having a player adjust fire is patently unrealistic. For the British and US during WWII, the average cycle from calling in the fire request to recieving the full shoot was 2 to 3 minutes. Yes, 2 to 3 minutes. This is based on actual results from the field and covers the whole procedure from request, adjust and arrival of the full shoot. (This would be for your average, ordinary plain vanilla shoot; a TOT (time on target) took a bit longer due to the additional plotting involved.) Turn around time for other nations were longer, due to their particular doctrine (the US and Brits had, by far, the most developed and sophisticated system and had it from the very the begining of the war). BUT, the additional time was in the call and set-up time, not the adjustment time. Once the spotting shot is fired, the adjustment was the same for all countries. The idea that you take many minutes (even 6) to get your rounds onto the target is (I know this is harsh) a wargaming fantasy...Second, the notion that you 'walk' your rounds into the target is also unrealistic. After you call in your fire request, the FDC sends the first shoot (or spotting shot) and you make any adjustments off that and then order the full shoot. One adjustment and only one is the rule. Any FO who needs to walk his rounds into the target over an extended period of time, with multiple spotting shots is going to find himself busted to infantry, double quick time! (Personal experience: during my time in, anyone with a radio was expected to call in fire and were trained, to a minimal degree, in the basic technique. That included even a lowly tank jockey like me, and, even I could get our organic mortars on target without walking the rounds all over the landscape.) Third, given the short turnaround time (as long it takes for the tubes to adjust and send their rounds; or well under 30 seconds) between the first spotting shot and the full fire mission, the only thing any infantry caught in the open is going to be able to do is HIT THE DIRT! You see one spotting round and self preservation takes over. And the LAST thing ANY grunt is going to do is stay upright thinking 'Hmmmm... I wonder where that is going to land...' Or start running for who knows where. You do that, you die. Period. What infantry does is take cover and do it NOW! The best and most effective way to avoid getting whacked by arty is to grab the ground (or, better yet, go underground).So, what does this mean in game terms? One, no deviation for observed fire. Period, full stop. Now, if you want to roll for availability, that's another thing altogether. If the battery is organic (ie, battalion mortars) then you should have them right now (you own them outright). If its a direct support battery for your battalion, you may get them quick, but they may also be grabbed by the FDC for other shoots. If its division and above general support, you may have to get in line if its a big op or they're responding to a full scale broad front attack. Two, if a grunt gets hit by a spoting round, it drops to cover; it doesn't run, it doesn't think, it just drops to the ground and makes like dirt. Because, by the time the spotting shoot falls, its too late to do anything else and, besids, when the bad stuff goes BOOM! that is the safest place to be. Anyway, these are just some quick impressions. (And don't get me started about the way some rules handle armor....)

[gregoryk]

mark1 wrote:

But I would still suggest retaining the deviation rolls for un-observed / un-corrected fire, and for TOT barrages, which by doctrine were not preceeded by any spotting rounds.

Is this true? I know that ToT missions often used preregistered points, but they would not fire that much poundage without knowing where it was going to land. Never heard that they did not use spotting rounds...Gregory

[Mark 1]

gregoryk wrote:

Is this true? I know that these missions often used preregistered points, but they would not fire that much poundage without knowing where it was going to land. Never heard that they did not use spotting rounds...

My understanding is that the essence of a TOT was to have rounds from all firing tubes in all firing batteries impact at the same moment. That would be defeated if a round just happened to "wander by" prior to the shoot.And so, as I understand it, a TOT did not have spotting rounds. That was one reason that it took a high level of proficiency to master. (There were numerous other reasons too, but that was one.)Of course I could be wrong. Would happily bow to the greater wisdom of our resident redlegs.-Mark 1

[gregoryk]

I am sure many of you have seen this article, but for those who have not, it is a great explanation of how artillery works.Gregory