INDIRECT FIRE

[BOSTON]

Will indirect fire be possible in GB, such as with the use of howitzers and alike? Been thinking about the bombardment prior to Pickets charge and the use of artillery spotters at other map locations. There were something like 30 CSA and 2 USA howitzers at GB.

BOSTON

[Garnier44]

What do you mean by "indirect fire" ? There were howitzers in TC2M.

[BOSTON]

Garnier44 wrote:

What do you mean by "indirect fire" ? There were howitzers in TC2M.

Indirect fire allowed an artillery battery to fire on a target they could not see themselves, but other units could, otherwise, that same battery would only target what is in their LOS (line of sight). Howitzers have a slight loop (arc) in their projectiles allowing them to shoot over obstacles, whereas motars have a high arc. Do a search on howitzers, you might find a better expaination to mine.

BOSTON

[Kerflumoxed]

Indirect fire became common-place with the advent of improved communications which allowed coordination between the rear battery and the FO (Forward Observer). For example, the 155mm battery was commonly the recipient of an FO's data as to firing coordinates and subsequent changes in targeting information (increase/decrease elevation, left or right adjustments, etc.)

Was also used for "fire support" by the infantry, etc. to "soften" a target, repel an enemy advance, etc.

J

[Garnier44]

I know what indirect fire means, just was curious what you were asking. As in, what would it mean to the game if there "was" indirect fire.

[BOSTON]

Garnier44 wrote:

I know what indirect fire means, just was curious what you were asking. As in, what would it mean to the game if there "was" indirect fire.

TCM2 did not have indirect fire, GB is later period of the war, technology has improved, training of units has also improved, What I don't know if some of those improvements are reflected in GB?

[norb]

Probably not. But there will be patches to add features that the majority wants that we missed. We won't need patches for bugs, because it will obviously be bug free

[Jim]

Indirect fire was not intentionally used at GB. The CS managed to shell Meades HQ on 3 July, but that was entirely an accident.

The howitzers present were used primarily as shorter range anti-infantry weapons as they did not have the range or accuracy to compete with the Napoleons or the various rifled artillery in counter battery fire.

-Jim

[BOSTON]

Jim wrote:

Indirect fire was not intentionally used at GB. The CS managed to shell Meades HQ on 3 July, but that was entirely an accident.

The howitzers present were used primarily as shorter range anti-infantry weapons as they did not have the range or accuracy to compete with the Napoleons or the various rifled artillery in counter battery fire.

-Jim

Historicly I don't doubt what you have to say. Terrain that might protect howitzers from direct fire, as far as game play, I thought might have an effect on how one player would conduct a battle. Humprey(s) was a innovator of indirect fire (using howitzers), I'm not sure if he was at GB, but likely if he saw an opportunity to do so, he would IMO.

BOSTON

[Hancock the Superb]

I would like to see it implimented, because during 1st Bull Run, Imboden's battery used indirect fire to hit Burnside's brigade advancing across the Mathews Hill, effectively halting their drive, and allowing enough time for the 4th Alabama, then the rest of Bee's brigade, to counter-attack and save Evans.