Artillery Adjustment Values Incorrect

[RecceDG]

Playing the HUMMV Recce scenario last night, I got my first chance to adjust crew-commander-fired artillery, and discovered a pair of errors - that can (happily) be easily fixed:

The proper sequence for adjusting artillery involves first correcting for line, and then for range. When you adjust for line, you have positive information (in the form of the mil scale in the binos) so you can make a direct correction.

In range, you have to use bracketing procedure, because the only pieces of positive information you have are:

a) plus of target
b) minus of target
c) target effects (so on target)

So there is a specific procedure to follow that will get you on target 100% of the time if you follow it correctly.

Unfortunately, the drop-down boxes that contain the correction values don't support this very well.

1) Line corrections can be very small; as small as 5 metres. If this box has to be a drop-down instead of just a fill-in box, it should be something more like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 75, 100, 250, 500. Currently the smallest line correction is 50

2) Range corrections are typically powers of two, plus 100 and 50. So 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

DG

[Hub]

Unfortunately, the drop-down boxes that contain the correction values don't support this very well.

1) Line corrections can be very small; as small as 5 metres. If this box has to be a drop-down instead of just a fill-in box, it should be something more like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 75, 100, 250, 500. Currently the smallest line correction is 50

2) Range corrections are typically powers of two, plus 100 and 50. So 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

DG

I would also like to see these values added to the artillery drop down

[Johnny]

Playing the HUMMV Recce scenario last night, I got my first chance to adjust crew-commander-fired artillery, and discovered a pair of errors - that can (happily) be easily fixed:

The proper sequence for adjusting artillery involves first correcting for line, and then for range. When you adjust for line, you have positive information (in the form of the mil scale in the binos) so you can make a direct correction.

In range, you have to use bracketing procedure, because the only pieces of positive information you have are:

a) plus of target
b) minus of target
c) target effects (so on target)

So there is a specific procedure to follow that will get you on target 100% of the time if you follow it correctly.

Unfortunately, the drop-down boxes that contain the correction values don't support this very well.

1) Line corrections can be very small; as small as 5 metres. If this box has to be a drop-down instead of just a fill-in box, it should be something more like 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 75, 100, 250, 500. Currently the smallest line correction is 50

2) Range corrections are typically powers of two, plus 100 and 50. So 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600

DG

I agree with your procedure - but not the line correction.
It makes no sense to move 150x150 meters impactarea (battery) 5 meters to one side. So IMO keep the 50 meters as a minimum.

[RecceDG]

It does when you are dealing with dead ground ahead/behind the target.

The whole trick to properly adjusting fire is to only work off of positive information. The mil graticle in the binos give you positive information for line, but the only three things that give positive information for range are "impact behind target" (target obscures impact) "impact in front of target" (impact obscures target) and rarely, "on target" (the adjusting round causes visible target effects, like setting a vehicle on fire)

That's why the first correction is always for line - to get the fall of shot on the OT line so each subsequent correction provides positive information.

Attempting to do range corrections when the fall of shot is not on the OT line can get you in real trouble - dead ground can play tricks with your eyes and confuse distances. I've seen this in RL, where I cheated on the line correction ("it's not on but it's close enough") and rounds I thought were hitting right on target were actually 800m beyond it.

Arguably 5m is too small, depending on the angle of the gun-target line relative to the observer and dispersion footprint of that particular gun system. But 50m is way, way too large a minimum. The largest practical minimum line correction is 10m. I make sub-50m line corrections all the time.

In range, different story. If you are +/- 5m in line, when you reach the 50m range bracket, you are within the FFE footprint for a battery and are "close enough" (100m for a regiment) Range is just 50, 100, and then powers of 200m. But line needs to be precise.

The ideal state is the corrections not being limited to drop-downs, but rather text boxes (so if I want to make a 38m line correction, I can) But I'm working off the assumption that there is a technical reason for drop-downs vs text entry - thus the explicit list.

DG

[Ssnake]

Even though I may appear a bit passive in the discussion, I would like to let you know that we will try to implement your suggestions (as time permits). Inactivity does not indicate that we're unwilling to deal with the issue, it's just that there is so much else to do that it may have to wait until we do a serious change to the artillery model as a whole. There is so much wrecked in this area that cosmetic changes won't do much good.

[RecceDG]

No problem. :)

Believe it or not, I *do* understand.

Note, however, that the values on the corrections aren't cosmetic. They actually prevent... well... "prevent" is perhaps harsh.. let's go with "inhibit". They inhibit the proper use of the correction procedure.

The lack of line corrections smaller than 50m is the biggest problem. It makes adjusting arty through the binos much more difficult than it should be.

Happily, fixing this one should be stupid simple. Al probably has the allowed correction values defined as constants in a header file - change the header file, and problem solved. If it takes more than a few minutes, I'm a monkey.

The next biggest problem is probably the fact that there's no accuracy or speed bonus to a TRP. However, I don't have a feel for how much work it would be to fix that, and I agree that there are other things in the pipeline (like the AI aims low bug) that have much higher priority.

Next in line after that is the shape of the beaten zone being square instead of round/oval.... and yeah, that has "overhaul of artillery model" written all over it and so probably is not a quick fix.

Just so we're clear here Nils, "perfect is the enemy of good enough", and obtaining perfection is an iterative process. I understand the constraints you're working under, and I'm not beating you up here.

DG

[TopKick]

RecceDG, if SB Pro was an artillery sim I'd agree with you. If SB Pro was a Chopper sim, I'd say fix that useless Hind flight model first. SB Pro is a Tank sim. We have tanks being killed by machine guns and near misses. We have stubborn machine guns that might fire or not. We have AI gunners that can't hit targets that are close enough throw stones at. I say fix all the problems related to Gunnery, weapons, armor tactics and performance issues first. The other junk should be be fixed in a lower order of priority. Eventually, you can count on lots of things being corrected or implemented.

[RecceDG]

Oi

and I agree that there are other things in the pipeline (like the AI aims low bug) that have much higher priority.

Did you not see that?

DG

[-=UK=-Tanker]

What is the *attitude* adjustment for? i can get my head round the rest but the attitue is somthing that is confusing me could some one help me here?

[Rata18]

For linear sheath, the orientation of the beaten line?

[TopKick]

RecceDG quote:

Did you not see that?

Yes, I read that.

In SB Pro, I have no problem putting artillery on target whether the procedures I use are correct or not. Therefore it’s not an issue with me. I generally leave artillery calls to the AI FO and he has yet to complain about procedures. It’s not a showstopper like an inaccurate AI tank gunner. Since I discovered the gunnery problem about three days after I got SB, I haven’t bothered to run a complete scenario. The only time I crank up SB now is to test problems others mention, and to check out new skins. I can’t make artillery not work.

[RecceDG]

What is the *attitude* adjustment for? i can get my head round the rest but the attitue is somthing that is confusing me could some one help me here?

"Attitude", in Real Life, is only used in Linear fire missions. You pass the guns the target grid, the length of the impact zone, and the attitude (an angle in mils) and the guns shoot so that the impact area starts at the target grid, and then runs along the attitude bearing for length metres.

In SB ProPE though, there is no such thing as a "linear mission" - or really, *every* mission is a linear mission, because the beaten zone in ProPE is a rectangle (where you control the width and length of the beaten zone). In ProPE, the centre of the beaten zone appears to be the target grid plus a random offset, and then you specify width and length, and attitude rotates the rectangle around the centre.

It effectively replicates the user interface for plotting artillery on the <F5> map screen.

If the beaten zone is kept square, attitude has little real effect on the mission, and the mission more-or-less simulates a real-life "radius" mission (where the beaten zone is roughly circular with the centre at the target grid and radius meters across)

If one side of the beaten zone is reduced to the minimum allowed, then ProPE does a reasonable job of simulating a linear mission, and attitude becomes very important - especially when you are trying to hit vehicles on a road, for example.

This is not to be confused with DIRECTION, which is the bearing between the observer and the target (the OT line) This line is what determines what compass direction "left", "right", "add", and "drop" actually resolve to. ProPE is nice to you; it doesn't make you pick/measure direction like you have to in real life. Instead it fills in direction with the actual bearing between the unit calling for fire and the target grid - which is the proper thing to do 99% of the time anyway. But you CAN change it via the corrections UI, if you want to.

So summing up:

1) If your mission is square, ignore attitude.

2) If your mission is linear-esque (longer than it is wide) attitude rotates the beaten line.

3) Ignore direction.

I'm going to make a tutorial on this eventually.

I can’t make artillery not work.

Play the HUMMV recce scenario, print the map, and don't use <f5>

DG

[TopKick]

RecceDG Play the HUMMV recce scenario, print the map, and don't use <f5>



I made my own little scenario to test artillery once again. This is the setup:

I printed out the map of the AO. Of course I knew my own position to start with. From an M1A1, I located three targets - a tank platoon, a hilltop, and a village. I called the three artillery missions using eight digit coordinates obtained from the printed map. Each initial call was for “fire for effect” on the target. The first two missions were dead on and no adjustment was needed. The third target required an adjustment (I didn’t read the coordinates correctly from the printed map) of left 200 meters and add 50. Target!

How’s that?

[RecceDG]

Fine, you're a natural artillery god. Good for you.

Us mere mortals would like to have the adjustment values fixed.

DG

[Hackworth]

That's the King of Battle to you... So, for which country are you wanting to set this up? Or do all the countries represented here call in ARTY the same way you are proposing? I agree it's simplified, but, take a look at the product. It doesn't say ARTY sim on it, or FO sim on it, somewhere it aludes to armored sim. I'm sure it's on the_List somewhere to implement a better adjustment of ARTY, but this is hands down better than SB 1, IMO, and users need to use ARTY without doubling the size of the manual to teach them.

[RecceDG]

As far as I can tell, this is NATO standard.

Arty is the primary offensive weapon of recce.

And we're talking about a stupid simple easy change that is not a zero-sum with other direct-fire gameplay bugs.

Sheesh!

DG

[TopKick]

Fine, you're a natural artillery god. Good for you.

No. Just an old soldier with plenty of experience.

[-=UK=-Tanker]

Hey! Thanks guys now i understand a bit more than i did before, just gotta keep practicing and il get there :)

[Grenny]

Just my 2 cents:

I (strongly)believe it is better to allways add a few(one 100) meters to your range guess and then zero in from behind the target....
Why? Your chances are better just in case the 1st round falls short :wink:

[gtxc01]

I called the three artillery missions using eight digit coordinates obtained from the printed map.

Now that motivates me. Guess I can break out the old protractor and start polishing up on my call for fire. The last time I did it, I was calling 105's and my first round didn't land in the impact area, but rather in a wildlife sanctuary (I know, kinda odd they would put a wildlife sanctuary next to a range for HMG's and Arty). Double checked the grid I sent to the FDC, and it was right on. The arty officer said the rounds were probably from the '70's at the youngest, and coupled with a worn out tube it sent the round probably a good 250 meters off target. Talk about not instilling confidence in calling danger close missions! Anyway, we were taught we'd get chewed on by the FDC if we ever sent a range correction of less than 50, since the ECR of 155mm is 50m. Also was taught never to make a correction of less than 30 on the left/right adjustment unless recording a target . Regarding earlier post, you are always supposed to bracket. First correction should be 400m if target is over 2000m away. 200m if he's between 1000 and 2000 meters.

[Ssnake]

Even though many of you seem to think that everything is just fine, eSim is determined to improve the model, and be it just because we want to sell our licenses to artillery units as well.

[RecceDG]

Anyway, we were taught we'd get chewed on by the FDC if we ever sent a range correction of less than 50, since the ECR of 155mm is 50m.

It's similar here, but the depandancy is on the number of tubes firing. Smallest range correction for a battery is 50m, for a regiment it is 100m.

So once bracketed, for a battery "add/drop 50, fire for effect", for a regiment "add/drop 100, fire for effect"

Going directly into FFE on anything other than a TRP is a big no-no here. At least one round adjust fire first.

Also was taught never to make a correction of less than 30 on the left/right adjustment unless recording a target .

For us, first correction is for line (although can incorporate a range correction to establish bracket at same time) and is supposed to be whatever it takes to get the round directly on the OT line - I've seen "right 27". MULTIPLE line corrections are considered bad form though.

Regarding earlier post, you are always supposed to bracket.

Agreed - once bracketed, if you follow the procedure, you literally cannot miss.

First correction should be 400m if target is over 2000m away. 200m if he's between 1000 and 2000 meters.

As far as I know, we don't have any explicit rules of thumb for the size of the first correction. We're taught "be bold" on the first correction to ensure that the bracket is established right away. They don't want to see this:

*first round lands left and long*

"left 26, drop 100"

*round lands on for line and long*

"drop 100"

*round lands long*

"drop 200"

*round lands long*

"drop 800"

*round lands short* - bracket established.

Better than the initial correction be a nice bold "drop 800" and get the bracket established right away.

Note, BTW, that that's the correct procedure for establishing a bracket - drop X, no bracket, drop X, no bracket, drop 2X, no bracket, drop 4X etc.

DG

[TopKick]

I always tended to plot where my rounds hit on a map and make adjustments after measuring the distance on the map. That seemed to ass-off everyone but it worked. When I could not determine the corrections that way, I would bracket and adjust.

One thing to remember is that when you start to bracket your target, the target ain’t stupid. They will prepare and or move while you attempt to get steel on target. Chasing moving targets with arty is somewhat complicated. If the mission was to get the enemy to move, you succeeded.

From what I understand now, artillery is so accurate today its amazing.

[gtxc01]

From what I understand now, artillery is so accurate today its amazing

I never got as straight an answer as I wanted on that one. I'm not an Arty guy, but my Staff Platoon Commander at The Basic School was an Arty captain. As an interesting side note he had to order a direct fire mission against some Fedayeen with two 155mm tubes while firing two other missions at the same time with the rest of the battery. Hairy situation, to say the least. Considering that the computers in the FDC take into account the earth's rotation when they are computing the lay for the guns, I'd say that the modern stuff is scary accurate. Couple that with the ability to go from a convoy to having rounds down range in two minutes with two tubes, and that's even crazier.

I always tended to plot where my rounds hit on a map and make adjustments after measuring the distance on the map

I can imagine that would work, but I bet you had a lot of practice to get good at it. I can't claim to be able to spot impacts and plot them fast enough to make it more effective than going through the bracketing procedure.

It's similar here, but the depandancy is on the number of tubes firing. Smallest range correction for a battery is 50m, for a regiment it is 100m.


Shoot, in our organization I doubt anyone can imagine anything bigger than a battalion firing a mission, but I bet that would be awesome to see a whole regiment. Makes sense that the min correction would be larger. No joke on being bold with the corrections.

DG and Top, I enjoy hearing from folks who've "been there, done that" or have enough knowledge to talk details on things like this. Thanks for chiming in. I think I'm going to really like this community.

[RecceDG]

From what I understand now, artillery is so accurate today its amazing.

My understanding is that the biggest source of inaccuracy these days is the individual variations between gun tubes and the atmospheric conditions on the way to the target.

Well, if you have access to a GPS and a laser rangefinder/bearing device (like the FIST-V, or the laser binos + PLGR, or the laser in the Coyote surv package) you lase the target from your absolutely known position, and that gets you a 10 figure grid. The guns shoot an adjusting round, and you lase the CRATER, and send the 10 figure grid back to the guns. The difference between "what you wanted" and "what you got" is applied to the computer at the gun CP, and from that point on, the guns will hit whatever you lase, first round. (until atmospheric conditions change enough)

The gun you adjusted with should be on within a couple of metres, and the rest of the battery should be on within the footprint of the battery.

I've never done one of these shoots, so I can't vouch for it being truth... but I'll tell you, most of the gunners I have known have been very serious students of their craft, so I tend to believe what they tell me.

DG

[gtxc01]

My understanding is that the biggest source of inaccuracy these days is the individual variations between gun tubes and the atmospheric conditions on the way to the target.


Yep, that's in line with what I've been told. Interesting about lasing the target and the impact point to apply a correction. Now if you could transmit data in real time, everybody could have a display of the location of all known enemy units. I suspect that sort of thing is integrated into Blue Force Tracker, though I haven't read much on it.

Don't know if you guys have it, but we've got a copperhead round that is laser guided. Kind of expensive though, and only for high value targets, like MBT's I suppose. I'd hate to have to justify my round expenditures to the boss.

[RecceDG]

This was fixed in the first patch (2.256?) I've verified that the correction values are now correct, and it makes the process of adjusting fire MUCH nicer and more realistic. Thanks guys!

DG

[Bobomite]

I don't have much to say about calling in the artillery. Ususally let the AI do it.

However the one thing I had noticed was that you cannot tell what it is you are calling in. Ditto in scenario creation.

I have tried to give "light" artillery support, and the only way seems to be to assign 1 tube support. However, whatever they are firing is big, because even 1 tube can make quite a carnage.

I am working on a set of Iraq scenarios and what I was looking for was 60mm or 82mm mortar support for the insurgents... I guess these would be on-map units basically, but anyway this thread made me think of this.

In addition, I was wishing for the ability to specify how much ammo they have. (To limit them to 1 or 2 fire missions only.)

Anyway it's a great sim - not complaining at all! Just something I was thinking about.

Matt

[HAVOC131]

This may help you with your IRAQ missions.
Iraqi military doctrine combines elements of British and Soviet military doctrine modified by Iraq's own combat experience. Although Iraqi doctrine embraces modern concepts of maneuver, coordination of combined arms, flexibility, defense-in-depth, and counteroffensive strikes, a disparity exists between their theory and its execution on the battlefield. The Iraqi military proved itself unable to adapt to changing battlefield conditions and cope with the high tempo, deep battle of fire and maneuver waged by Western armies. Moreover, the relative lack of action from the Iraqi air force during the Gulf War demonstrated another characteristic of their doctrine-military conservatism. The Iraqi army deploys its units in a Russian army style combat formation referred to by the Iraqs as a battle formation. Instead of referring to 1st and 2nd echelons of a battle group, the Iraqs use the term forward groupings and depth groupings. Under this concept, Iraqi brigade-size battle formations are organized into forward battle groups and depth battle groups. The Iraqi army is responsible for ground operations, airborne ground defense, and joint amphibious missions with the Iraqi navy. Ground based air defence is a function of the air force. The army and Republican Guards have been primarily deployed in position to handle internal security tasks. In 1998 this was the force structure of Iraq.
7 Corps HQ (including 2 Republican Guard Corps)
23 Armored/Mechanized/Infantry Divisions consisting of 3 Regular Army Armored Div. 3 Regular Army Mechanized Div. 11 Infantry Div. 6 Republican Guard Divisions (4 Armored/Mechanized, 2 Infantry)
1 Presidential Guard/Special Security Forces
10 Special Forces and Commando Brigades.

Equipment:

2,300 assorted tanks including T72/72M, T62, T54/55/M-77, Chinese Type 59/69, UK Chieftain MK 3/5.

2,500 APC/AIFV including BTR 152/50/60, OT-62/OT-64, MTLB, M113A1/A2, Chinese YW-531, UK Panhard M-3, and BMP1/2

1,500 assorted reconnaissance vehicles including BRDM-2, UK Saladin and Ferret, and French AML-60/AML-90

1,750 towed artillery pieced including US 155mm M109A1/A2 SP, 152mm 2S3 Sp, 122mm 2S1 SP, 127mm ASTROS 2, 122mm BM-21, 122mm D-30/D74/M20 twd, 155mm G5 twd, 130mm type 46/59-1

5,500 assorted ADA guns

Probable Republican Guard Battle Group:
35 Tanks T62/55, Type 69
12-24 IFVs/APCs
6 Guns/Howitzers
6 Mortars 82mm
4 BRDM (ATGM)
4 Recoilless Rifles

Probable Regular Army Battle Group:
44 Tanks T72
35 IFVs BMP-1
6-18 Guns/Howitzers
6 Mortars 82mm
4 BRDM (ATGM)
4 Recoilless Rifles

Maximum Range of Mortars (meters)"1998"
60mm Hand Held 1,600m
60mm Tripod 2,500m
82mm Russian/Chinese 3,040m
82mm Yugoslav/Chinese 4,945m
100mm Chinese 4,750m
120mm Russian/Chinese 5,700m
120mm Russian with RAP 7,000m
120mm French with RAP 13,000m

Hope this helps,
HAVOC131 13F 82nd AB out....

[Bobomite]

Hey right on thanks a bunch Havoc! That is really good.

The scenario set I am working on right now is set in 2005 - just US and Iraqi forces vs. insurgents. (There are 4 diff. scenarios.)

But this is inspirational to try something from the beginning of the war. :)