Help support TMP


"Most accurate artillery rules?" Topic


50 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board



1,229 hits since 31 Mar 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP01 Apr 2017 7:05 p.m. PST

In your opinion, which set of WW2 rules are the most accurate when it comes to artillery? Why?

I'm not only asking about effects – do guns do what they did in real life – but the firing process, area of effect, drift, varying effects depending on target (armor vs. dug in infantry, for example), anything else you think important.

myxemail01 Apr 2017 7:31 p.m. PST

I feel that the artillery rules in Command Decision: Test of Battle are the best I have ever seen for a platoon level game (where each stand represents a platoon or its equivalent).

There are differences between nationalities as to how quick the artillery comes in, the blast area is good for 15mm models and smaller, barrage vs armor is appropriate as well as against other targets and situations. This set of rules is the only one that I have seen that artillery also has a suppression effect even if the barrage does not cause the game result of a "hit" on the target. Most other games a "miss" is just that and the barrage having no effect on the target. I find that hard to believe after reading a lot of memoirs where artillery was greatly feared.
Mike

brucka01 Apr 2017 8:11 p.m. PST

Battleground WWII does an excellent job in differentiating between the different countries abilities to call in fire and types of missions available. You can see how thickening, ToT, walking barrages and the Uncle and Mike etc.missions really worked.

christot01 Apr 2017 11:00 p.m. PST

My vote would go for Battlefront WWII, (which I think is what Brucka meant?)
WAY better than CD imho
Good on mission types but also quite clever in not only when artillery can be used but how.
Covers barrages, concentrations, smoke.. everything you need.
A simple little rule linking spotting status to the type of mission possible to be called in limits the employment of the powerful British and US artillery while not making it too weak. Likewise Soviet artillery is suitably treated.

BattlerBritain02 Apr 2017 1:55 a.m. PST

Another vote for Battlefront WW2.

Great portrayal of national characteristics of artillery use.

Andy ONeill02 Apr 2017 2:31 a.m. PST

I would also say Battlefront ww2.
link

Personal logo Dances with Clydesdales Supporting Member of TMP02 Apr 2017 5:37 a.m. PST

I like Command Decision TOB, comprehensive, easy to use, believable effects.

Dexter Ward02 Apr 2017 5:45 a.m. PST

Battlefront: WW2

Personal logo Patrick R Supporting Member of TMP02 Apr 2017 6:43 a.m. PST

BF WWII nailed it on every national level and how artillery was used.

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP02 Apr 2017 7:21 a.m. PST

Thanks all, I'll dig up my copy and give them a re-read.

kallman02 Apr 2017 5:45 p.m. PST

I am going to chime in and say that Battlegroup gets it right. While it does not often kill a lot it does pin units and cause them to take morale tests a plenty. Which as I have learned playing that rule system is how you win. It is not killing more it is getting the other guys to bug out. The artillery rules in Battlegroup get that right.

Martin Rapier03 Apr 2017 2:06 a.m. PST

One our group is an ex-gunner, and the abstractions used in wargames rules for artillery frequently drive him potty.

Having said that, like all gunners, he is convinced that artillery can win the battle all on its own…

christot03 Apr 2017 9:03 a.m. PST

"I am going to chime in and say that Battlegroup gets it right. While it does not often kill a lot it does pin units and cause them to take morale tests a plenty. Which as I have learned playing that rule system is how you win. It is not killing more it is getting the other guys to bug out. The artillery rules in Battlegroup get that right."


That's hilarious….battlegroup doesn't even have smoke rules….

dagc5403 Apr 2017 10:22 a.m. PST

Place my vote for Test Of Battle. I like how artillery fire is conducted before movement. If any unit moves through the artillery blast area, it will suffer the effects from that artillery fire.

UshCha03 Apr 2017 1:22 p.m. PST

Ours,
We covered effets and usage form US manuals. Accuracy is prety good by the 1980's most of the time. The rare occation it was bad is so rare as not to be usefull in a standard simulation.

It does need a simplified ammunition system as you run out of rounds real fast.

Powermonger03 Apr 2017 1:47 p.m. PST

My vote goes to Battlegroup also. Best artillery rules i've seen so far.

Mobius03 Apr 2017 2:07 p.m. PST

Did every Army in WWII use US methods and US manuals?

brucka03 Apr 2017 9:22 p.m. PST

Sorry, yes Battlefront WWII, with Arc of Fire a close second.

Personal logo ACWBill Supporting Member of TMP04 Apr 2017 2:02 a.m. PST

CD Test of Battle gets my vote. Good portayal of national characteristics but simple concepts that don't slow down the game.

UshCha04 Apr 2017 6:48 a.m. PST

Mobius,
Cross validation with a friends WWII data indaicatres that rhe dammage was similar given a similat weight of HR in the shell. Thus niot bad. Certainly I would not extrapolte to Napolionics and paossible not to WW1, I have no data on WWI and rthe sheer weight of fire per unit area may have been higher. Most wargames do not model the full chain of command . Pre planned artillary is likely to have a similat effect and timescales at least as an aspiration.

Mobius04 Apr 2017 8:45 a.m. PST

UshCha, that isn't the common realistic problem in game rules. The common problem is having the artillery on beck and call to the particular calling unit. The artillery is waiting around and no one else in the Division wants or needs it. Then the enemy kublewagon is spotted and 12 minutes of hell is called down on it within seconds. That is what the common problem is.

In one of Zaloga's books on the Soviet Army is a list of how many shells are required to neutralize or destroy a particular enemy force. That is what that target gets depending on what the FO/commander reports. No more, no less. That is the science of war.

deephorse04 Apr 2017 1:36 p.m. PST

Plus it's no good having pretty good accuracy by the 1980s when you're playing WWII.

christot04 Apr 2017 10:25 p.m. PST

"The common problem is having the artillery on beck and call to the particular calling unit. The artillery is waiting around and no one else in the Division wants or needs it. Then the enemy kublewagon is spotted and 12 minutes of hell is called down on it within seconds. That is what the common problem is."
Which is why there has been much support in this thread for BF WWII,
It is difficult in those rules to fully spot a lot of targets. Most things , particularly infantry, spend much of their time classified as "suspected" targets, which limits both what can shoot at them, and the effectiveness of that fire.
Another effect of being "suspected " rather than fully spotted, is that it limits the type of artillery concentration which can be called in to a very basic and simple attack. In order to bring in bigger, stacking concentrations you have to be fully spotted, which is quite infrequent. Even then, your single kubelwagen is not going to receive the full attentions of say , a big British "Mike" or"uncle " target because in order to call those in the spotter needs also a minimum strength of simultaneously fully spotted stands, of multiple platoon or even company strength.
That is part of why BF WWII 's arty rules are so good

Mobius05 Apr 2017 4:01 a.m. PST

Exactly. If the artillery rules have the right "feel" then you are golden.

Marc at work05 Apr 2017 6:10 a.m. PST

I quite like the BGK rules – as they allow the player to pick pre-plotted, timed or "on-demand" artillery, at various costs. These seem suitable for a game involving 50 men and half a dozen tanks IMHO.

If I was playing a larger scale, operational game, then I would want the full spectrum of artillery chain of command to be modelled.
C
But I like the sound of what FoW is attempting (if christ's BF WW11 above refers to FoW – or have I misread that abbreviation?)

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP05 Apr 2017 6:59 a.m. PST

I read where BF WWII has 10 minute turns. Vehicles can move pretty far in that amount of time. How does BF WWII handle the timing issue of where a moving vehicle is when the rounds/barrage land?

Wolfhag

christot05 Apr 2017 9:18 a.m. PST

Not my rules…there are others here who can claim that plaudit.
Battlefront WWII are published though fire and fury and have nothing to do with flames of war. Couldn't be further away from them really. No points system, scenario driven. I agree that all this "battle -whatever " from various companies and rule writers is mighty confusing, still a bit better than intermidley calling your rules "panzer-something "

As for moving through an artillery strike iirc it depends on the type of firemission. Most attacks are made at what happens to be there when the template is laid, except for barrages which are a particular type of mission, in which case units moving through are interdicted.
I assume the rationale is that most fire missions last less than the 10 minutes, whereas barrages are continuous

Mobius05 Apr 2017 10:45 a.m. PST

Whao! Ten minute turns? So artillery can be on call in 0, 10 or 20 minutes? How can that be realistic?

UshCha05 Apr 2017 11:25 a.m. PST

If you have a whole division supporting 50 men you have a serious army list problem. 50 men with no observer would normaly only have pre-planned or FDF's. Calling in fire would need to be at the highest lavel on table and make it difficult to control his troops while calling it and it could take time as it would have to be ranged in. Again if its a sensible game calling fire on a single soft vehicle should "cost" more than the vehicle.

In our own game (bigger scale than 50 men) even with standard artillery allocatoins of ammunition you have to be careful to pick sensible targets or you have none for when its desparate.

Moving targets are very difficult to hit unless thay drive into it.

christot05 Apr 2017 1:14 p.m. PST

"Whao! Ten minute turns? So artillery can be on call in 0, 10 or 20 minutes? How can that be realistic?"

Standard response time for an impromptu target from a single British battery from the FOO making the call to shells being in the air was 90 to 120 seconds…for a multi-battery shoot it would be more like 5 to 10 minutes maximum.
FPF on pre-registered targets would be even faster.

Mobius06 Apr 2017 5:10 a.m. PST

Standard response time for an impromptu target from a single British battery from the FOO making the call to shells being in the air was 90 to 120 seconds.

Granted. That's my point. In a 10 minute turn the artillery would be called and arrive in the same turn as an enemy target is spotted. In that way indirect artillery would be no different than direct fire. And I don't mean direct artillery fire, but direct tank gun fire.


Where is the citation for this 90 to 120 seconds standard response time?

Additional question. Is there a 1:1 relationship between FOO and battery? If not, then what is the filter and who is the gate to promote one and depreciate the others?

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 9:52 a.m. PST

I can understand the different nationalities doctrines like outlined here: link

Doctrine is one part of "getting it right". However, most artillery in games at the company and below level are going to be suppression/neutralization artillery missions.
Destruction missions take hundred (even thousands of rounds) over a period of hours.

So the initial barrage from a 6 gun battery might be 24 rounds in about one minute. The observer could "repeat" as needed considering ammo levels.

So in a game with turns over one minute, how do you "get it right". How many times to you repeat the fire mission? Does the target get to react/move after the first barrage?

The other part of "getting it right" is how close are the good guys to the barrage. In VN when calling in 8" artillery you wanted to be one mile from the impact zone. Minimum safe distances are sometimes computed by adding the maximum pattern radius plus three circular error probable. For medium artillery, it would be 200-400 meters. You can always "creep" the barrage closer. This is why mortars are so valuable and light mortars can sometimes "direct" fire by having the target and burst under direct observation.

Then there is the infamous American "Time on Target" barrage. If you "get it right" with a company level or below game it's basically game over for the defender on the receiving end.

Wolfhag

christot06 Apr 2017 11:14 a.m. PST

Granted. That's my point. In a 10 minute turn the artillery would be called and arrive in the same turn as an enemy target is spotted. In that way indirect artillery would be no different than direct fire. And I don't mean direct artillery fire, but direct tank gun fire.

So, in terms of mechanics, whats the problem?

christot06 Apr 2017 11:14 a.m. PST

"Where is the citation for this 90 to 120 seconds standard response time?"

nigelef.tripod.com/maindoc.htm

christot06 Apr 2017 11:22 a.m. PST

"Additional question. Is there a 1:1 relationship between FOO and battery? If not, then what is the filter and who is the gate to promote one and depreciate the others?"

Yes 1 battery+ 1 FOO
-actually not strictly true for the British, they had 2 FOO per battery (25pdr) , 1 per half battery (troop), each of whom could ORDER the full battery.
If they had the manpower, there might be a 3rd FOO if needed

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP06 Apr 2017 12:29 p.m. PST

Here is what I see as some of the problems with the longer turns and it's mostly about movement and reaction (or maybe it should be called timing):

What happens if the target moves out of LOS?

Target reaction: A spotting round lands 100 meters away. It will take 30-60 seconds (or even longer) for the communication, changes and TOF before the next round hits. A vehicle could be hundreds of yards away. An infantry platoon 100+ meters away. Static targets will cooperate.

The US Time on Target was a way to eliminate the above problems. Light mortars firing a barrage of 5-12 rounds rather than spotting rounds can achieve the same results by forcing the infantry to hit the deck in the first barrage. The next barrage is adjusted onto the target.

Is "getting it right" giving the target a chance to react?

Wolfhag

christot06 Apr 2017 1:21 p.m. PST

I don't see the issue (for a 1 stand/ 1 platoon or 1 section in the case of BF WWII):
well, I do, but that's the inherent problem in any higher level game/higher level time frame.
If you want to play a game with say, a battalion per side,with a time frame of maybe 1 min = 1 turn and allow for all those eventualities – (and many, many more), then go ahead,knock yourself out and write the rules…and most potential players will fall asleep a quarter of the way through somewhere around page 185. The ones who do manage to read them will play one game and give up. I'm not saying that's a good thing, simply the facts about 99.9% of gamers (people).
If you are looking for 1 man= 1 man then yes, those type of details are possible, yet at the same time a game with 50 figures a side has little room for most artillery let alone TOT/ "mike" or any other multi-battery attack.
The compromise is longer time-frame = greater abstraction for higher level games or equally problematic greater detail with skirmish style games where imbalances will occur due to weapon power and the universal issue of player time and space.
Its the classic dichotomy of simulation versus playability

Mobius06 Apr 2017 5:41 p.m. PST

The discussion got around to the variety of national characteristics. But when looking at in a 10 minute time frame are there that many? I mean if it takes 120 seconds for one nation to get shells in the air and another 6 minutes it will be the same in a 10 minute turn.

Lion in the Stars07 Apr 2017 1:46 a.m. PST

It's easier to hit a target the faster you get shells in the air.

A moving target can't displace as far.

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2017 10:27 a.m. PST

The discussion got around to the variety of national characteristics. But when looking at in a 10 minute time frame are there that many? I mean if it takes 120 seconds for one nation to get shells in the air and another 6 minutes it will be the same in a 10 minute turn.

It's easier to hit a target the faster you get shells in the air.

So how would we put these two considerations together into one mechanism? How do we model the increased effectiveness of faster response times when all fire takes place in the same response time in the game structure? Seems like it would have to be modeled as increased effectiveness.

Something like this?
- Any nation can spot, call and fire within 1 turn if comms are in place
- For planned fire, batteries for all nations fire at normal strength
- For impromptu fires:
-- Russian, Romanian and French batteries fire at normal strength (6 minutes to target)
-- German and Italian batteries fire at 2x normal strength (4 minutes to target)
-- British batteries fire at 4x normal strength (2 minutes to target)
-- US batteries fire at 6x normal strength (1 minute to target)

(BTW I'm not saying the numbers above are correct -- just pulling numbers out of the air to illustrate a potential mechanism.)

This is one reason I am kind of turned off by higher unit scales. If you tell me your game makes a US 155mm 6 gun battery several times more effective than a Soviet 152mm 6 gun battery, I look at the weight of shell, rate of fire and range characteristics of both guns and wonder why and how it could be so much more effective. A 10 minute turn hides from me how and why, and instead gives me a "just trust me, it was" in terms of game mechanics.

Its the classic dichotomy of simulation versus playability.

It is indeed.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Personal logo Weasel Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2017 11:34 a.m. PST

Mark – Increasing the strength of the fire makes sense probably (the faster battery is firing for more of the turn) at least on the turn of arrival.

If the barrage continues into the next turn, the difference would disappear.

Otherwise, a modifier to the "delay" roll might work.
The Brit battery (f.x.) can screw up or get the spotting rounds wrong, adjust and then fire for effect all in one turn, the Germans have less of a buffer and the Soviets very little.


Maybe?

christot07 Apr 2017 12:03 p.m. PST

Which is why weight of shell etc and simple hardware "facts" are a chimera, not just with artillery, but with all weapon systems. Doctrine, training and employment are usually FAR more important, and, actually much easier to replicate satisfactorily in higher level systems than in low ones

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP07 Apr 2017 3:17 p.m. PST

Doctrine, training and employment are usually FAR more important, and, actually much easier to replicate satisfactorily in higher level systems than in low ones

Well, yes, but …

The problem is that every sort of national bias then comes in to play, whether in the rules or in the minds of those who play the rules.

If the game mechanisms show the differences, it is possible to "see" why and how different results were achieved by different armies. If you just write the rules so that one side is manned by SUPERMAN and the other side is staffed by GOMER PYLE USMC, well, yeah, you might like those rules and enjoy playing them, but I'm always going to wonder what biases entered into their development.

It is, after all, pretty easy to write rules that based on "Germans are UBER" or "Americans RULE!".

So we might say "easier to replicate satisfactorily" in higher level systems than in low ones. Or we might say "easier to fabricate to satisfy preconceived notions" in higher level systems than in low ones. Both statements fit the same pattern of rules.

Please understand I am not suggesting that all armies are created equal. I do fully understand that the doctrine, training, skills and experience of the men behind the weapons are critical factors in how effective any weapon is in actual combat. But saying we're going to demonstrate that by the easy way, rather than the illustrative way, is not particularly satisfying.

At least for me.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

christot08 Apr 2017 4:09 a.m. PST

Absolutely, there are plenty of rule sets which fall into this trap(spearhead springs to mind) the solution is pretty straightforward, which is to load abilities and restrictions from the front end and divorce them from nationality, don't say "all Germans in 1941 are +1 Firers " simply say "troops may be +1 Firers " perfectly possible to adapt rules( like spearhead)
To do this.

Mobius08 Apr 2017 6:22 a.m. PST

It's easier to hit a target the faster you get shells in the air.
No basis in fact on stationary targets.
After 10 minutes in time it all should normalize. The fast response only matters to moving targets. If the slower firer is calculating it's firing solution while the faster firer is sloppy targeting then correcting it all comes out the same.

Mark 1 is right that national characteristics often results in national favoritism. Like boosting a 25 pdr battery to effectiveness of Russian 152mm batteries with a time effectiveness bonus.

A moving target can't displace as far.
And with IGOUGO systems moving or not moving it is all the same since at the phase of firing the other side isn't moving. Or, does moving give the targets a saving throw?

christot09 Apr 2017 4:15 a.m. PST

"Mark 1 is right that national characteristics often results in national favoritism. Like boosting a 25 pdr battery to effectiveness of Russian 152mm batteries with a time effectiveness bonus."

I can't think (thank goodness) of any rule set which does such a thing. But you DO need national characteristics sometimes.
ToT attacks are a perfect example. Only the US and the CW were capable of conducting them.
The national characteristic should exist in the way that British or Americans should be capable of massing impromptu fires in a way no one else could.
Which(vaguely getting back to the op) is one of things BFwwII does better than any other rule set.

Mark 1 Supporting Member of TMP09 Apr 2017 3:23 p.m. PST

I can't think (thank goodness) of any rule set which does such a thing. But you DO need national characteristics sometimes.

My introduction to wargaming, way back when the earth was waste and void, contained numerous examples. Since that's what I saw when I started wargaming, I have never trusted rules that give nothing more than "because country X is uber" as the reasoning behind different capabilities with similar weapons.

Examples? You can't find any? I can find them without even trying.

For example, go all the way back to Panzerblitz. This was the first WW2 tactical wargame I ever played. I started in miniatures by collecting micro-armor to play on the Panzerblitz board (the cardboard chits were such a disappointment to 13 year old me).

But … in Panzerblitz a German 105mm Wespe battery (6 guns) has the same attack factor as a Russian 152mm SU-152 company (10 guns)? Why? Because they're German, of course. And, given the difference in range and the (H) rating (which reduced the attack factor by 50% beyond half range), that meant that from 1250 yards out to 2500 yards, the Wespe's attack factor was 2X the SU-152's, and of course from 2500 yards to 5000 yards the Wespe was still firing at full effect, while the SU-152 could not even fire.

Tell me that the Wespe could do indirect fire, and the SU-152 could not, and I get it. But tell me that a Wespe battery, firing over open sites at 1500 yards range, is twice as lethal as a full company of SU-152s, and … um … Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

National biases occur frequently in rules I have seen. American writers seem to have all kinds of impressions about how Americans did things. British writers have all kinds of impressions of superior British AND German methods, and frequently dismiss any American or Russian capabilities.

A stark, in-your-face example is the Armor and Infantry rules by WRG. These were the rules I started with in the 1970s (my next step from Panzerblitz with miniatures). They received a major update in the 1980s. The new rules introduced about a dozen "modes" for units, such as skirmishing, or delaying, or reconnoitering. The modes were supported by troop "characteristics", such as thrusting, dashing, cautious, skilled or stubborn, which determined which modes were available to be used. Then you got a listing of which units had which characteristics, so you could determine what those troops could do.

For the British and Commonwealth forces, you got a rich variety of characteristics -- British Regulars were different from Highlanders, who were different from South Africans, Canadians. The Anzacs were different from Maoris, and Indians were different from Ghurkas … and so forth.

For the US Army all infantry was green. Period.

To their credit, WRG described the mechanisms by which some Commonwealth forces could achieve results far and above what US infantry could do. So it wasn't just "well we British make better soldiers, don't you know". But still, the obvious national bias of the author placed an overwhelming stain on the credibility of the authors, for me.

I've been suspicious ever since.

So no, not for me, are the rules that say "German artillery is 3.5x more effective than Russian artillery … because they're Germans." Illustrate it for me … show me, in my games, how better comms and command control lead to more lethal results from fewer guns, and I welcome the rules and the differences.

ToT attacks are a perfect example. Only the US and the CW were capable of conducting them.
The national characteristic should exist in the way that British or Americans should be capable of massing impromptu fires in a way no one else could.

This falls in to the example where a game mechanism could illustrate the effect. Rules that only allow US and British to do ToT work fine for me. Also rules that provide shorter delays for US and British rounds on target, or that allow unit command stands to call artillery (where other nations might require a dedicated FO), and I'm good too.

But it's hard to illustrate those mechanisms in higher unit-scales and longer turn-scales. A 10 minute turn washes away all of the effects we have just described, so that all you're left with is "U.S. and British Artillery fires at 3X, German at 2X, Russian at 1X". This will leave me dissatisfied and suspicious.

Your mileage may vary.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Mobius09 Apr 2017 4:36 p.m. PST

A Russian battery is 4 guns or 4 SP.

A regiment is 4 batteries. I'm not sure if this is broken down into companies, but if there was it would be 2 batteries or 8 guns, SPs.

christot09 Apr 2017 10:32 p.m. PST

Mark:
I've never read panzerblitz, I'm afraid, and as for wrg or any other set I've never understood why a player can't develop the imagination to change stuff like the modes. And if you want thrusting Italians or dashing Russians then have them, the mechanic might be good one even if it's original application isn't.
However, things like troop quality are subjective, things like the ability to fire TOT are technical fact.
BFWWII doesn't make an American 105mm battery any different from a German one. What it does do is allow differences in the way they may be used subject to specific (and reasonable conditions.
Maybe you should read them.?

Wolfhag Supporting Member of TMP10 Apr 2017 8:00 p.m. PST

BF WWII Origins and comments:
Battlefront WWII began life as a training aid for the Army in the 1980's, developed initially by the late Lt. Col. Greg Lyle. We started hosting wargames using these rules at miniatures conventions and gamers found the system easy to play and exciting. New players could effectively manage their units after only one or two game turns.

I think you have to ask exactly what constituted these "national characteristics". Anyone can use the same methods and techniques to one degree or another if you have them.

Take Mark 1's example of German 105's and Russian SU-152's. Both had indirect fire capability but the artillery was much quicker and effective than the SU-152 periscope sight. Also the SU-152 had a ROF of 1.5-2 rounds per minute maximum and only carried about 20 rounds. A German 105 gun could put out 10 rounds in the first minute and sustained fire of 4 rounds per minute. Do the math and see how much more effective it would be but the 152 round is about twice as effective as a 105 round.

The US (Allies?) had ample photo recon to make maps in a short time because of air superiority. This gave their artillery a big advantage. When the Germans were operating in southern Russia in the steppes they had no maps and very little terrain references. The FO and arty battery could not positively identify exactly where they were. Any nationality can have photo recon and map making assets. However, you need air superiority, map printing in the field and communications.

The US and Allies artillery made extensive computations once emplaced which gave them a quick turn around from the FO.

On the Western Front, the Germans had a hard time concentrating their artillery which probably nullified any characteristics they may have had to be more effective. Things like no spotter planes because of Allied air superiority. They could not stockpile ammo because of frequent moving to evade air strikes and counterbattery fire. So the Germans may have had much of the capability of the Allies but because of the circumstances could no pull it off.

During VN the Recon Marines ran "Stingray Patrols" within range of a fire base. A few days before the patrol went out, the team leader selected terrain reference points with the FDC along the path of the patrol and marked these on his map. As the patrol progressed the team lead would call in the next reference point for the artillery to lay it's guns on. When you needed a fire mission ASAP you just radioed "Fire Romeo Papa X-Ray, +3, -2 (offset from the RP) five rounds WP" The rounds could be in the air in seconds and patrols normally had priority.

Artillery at fire bases may have been there for months or years and had their 105's and 155's locked into almost any point within 5-6 miles around the firebase. The point I'm trying to make is that under ideal conditions (yes they do occasionally exist) you can get quick and effective fire.

Wolfhag

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.