Artillery

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

The Fire Direction Center clearly does something (which is why using vs. not using one gives a familiarity difference in use of the Artillery skill), but its not clear what the people in the FDC would be doing in GURPS terms, since the rules push everything off on the FO and Gunner. Given that, I think we need to assume that the RAW presume that the FDC succeeds at whatever its task is,

Realistically that's a huge assumption. IME in RL errors by the FDC have the most critical effect on the outcome of the Fire Mission by any of the three elements.

which probably involves a roll against the (notional) Fire Direction/TL skill, which probably has the same specialties as Artillery and similar familiarity issues between weapons, and certainly equipment quality modifiers.

Such a skill existed in 3e. It should get bonuses from Mathematical ability and default to Mathematics, Cartography and Forward Observer.

If the FDC succeeds, everything works as in the RAW; if the FDC fails that should penalize the gunnery roll (or, perhaps more realistically, displace the point that will be struck by a success on the gunnery roll.) Critical failure by the FDC has effects similar to a critical failure by the FO in the rules in High Tech, but, conversely, a success by the FDC will detect a critical failure by the FO before anyone fires -- it won't correct it, it will just let the FO try again before anyone gets killed. (I'm presuming here that one thing the FDC will have is information on the location and disposition of friendly units in their area of responsibility; that seems logical to me, but I don't know enough about real-world artillery operations to know that that is the case.)

Yes that's all quite accurate actually.

Originally Posted by Xplo

Seems to me that giving everyone involved a significant skill (meaning that at some point they need to roll against it) would bloat the number of rolls needed - no one, or almost no one, wants to make half a dozen rolls to see if they can put a mortar on target - and artificially inflate the chance of failure.

It seems reasonable if you treat the mortar as an off map asset, and you are playing the supported unit or FO, but what if the PCs are in the firing unit? They receive a call for fire, a random period of time passes and one character makes a roll for all of them? Furthermore there are three elements to indirect fire, and the rules only account for two of them. If any of the three make an error it affects the entire mission. The FDC is unique in that they are capable of correcting errors from both the other two elements, whereas the other two can both catch errors of the FDC.

I would want to look at how many of these people perform tasks that both require and benefit from training, experience, and/or natural talent.

The FDC is considered to be a more difficult and senior set of billets to the gun crews. It requires a skill set that is difficult to master and at least in my experience (although perhaps other weapons and/or militaries are different) of mortars one is first trained as a mortarman and then selected for the FDC.

Is FDC a difficult role, or is it just punching some numbers into a computer?

It is probably one of the only jobs left where "Computer" is a person and not a device. Much of the calculations are done by hand, and even when a ballistic computer is used the interfaces (at least at TL8) aren't simple. Additionally there are many decisions involved that non-sapient computers couldn't make easily.

Under what circumstances would the task be intrinsically easier or harder?

The usual: time, weather, equipment, extremely complicated fire requests.

If you blew a skill roll, what would happen?

The round(s) could be theoretically as much as 10k off.

Why does mortar fire require two different types of gunners? Do they both benefit from high skill, or does one of them just perform routine tasks? Etc.

(Note: I'm only going to discuss the two man method here) The A-Gunner puts the gun data on the sight, while the Gunner manipulates the Mortar to get it roughly on target, then the A-Gunner adjusts the bipods while the Gunner looks through the sight. If either of them makes a mistake and the Squad Leader fails to catch it, the rounds will be off target.

[Agramer]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Such a skill existed in 3e. It should get bonuses from Mathematical ability and default to Mathematics, Cartography and Forward Observer.

Forward Observer(Artillery)

I was in Scouts(similar to Rangers USA).We were Infantry scouts...ea deep raids,intel,occasional hit and run.
We did have very basic training in F.Observer(Artillery) but Id say we were very far from competent in that roll.

Artillery has their own "Scouts" Forward Observer(Artillery) and they didnt have 10% of training we did but just enough for their role.

And Forward Observer(Artillery) is all you need,since it does cover all those skills for their purpose.

[Ragitsu]

In an odd way, I could picture 3D Spatial Sense as helping.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Ragitsu

In an odd way, I could picture 3D Spatial Sense as helping.

3D Spatial Sense is an extension of Absolute Direction, which acts alot like a compass. High-Tech explicitly gives bonuses to the Forward Observer for having a compass. I don't see it outside the realm of possibilities to give a bonus to a character with 3D spatial sense.

[Ulzgoroth]

Who in this whole process decides where to point the gun? I'd think picking the elevation and direction is the actual attack roll. The mechanical work after that wouldn't be worth more than a small bonus or penalty, unless critically failed.

[Agramer]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Who in this whole process decides where to point the gun? I'd think picking the elevation and direction is the actual attack roll. The mechanical work after that wouldn't be worth more than a small bonus or penalty, unless critically failed.

Forward observer gives coordinates on local map where to shoot(All military maps are divided in grids with designations on x/y hight/width).

Than Plotter does math and tells to what setting to set Artillery weapon(indirect weapons).

That "Aim guy" sets up Arti weapon on ordered setting(by plotter).

Than "mine guy" drops mine down the tube in case of mortar.

In case of mortars..sergeant or so is designated commander of Weapons crew(dunno for really big arty weapons ).

So in essence you need 2 successes to get that mine on target(with some small deviation that is corrected after 1st shoot lands)....

1) forward observer must pass correct data ..(most common reason for "*friendly fire" is FOs wrong info or incorrectly calculated your own or targets hight diff=overshooting..etc)

2) Plotter must make math and tell crew what aiming setting should be set up

3)crew...doing their job..carrying mines,setting aim,etc....
-good crew does it faster

4) leader ... well you got to have a leader ;)))
-confirms that shot is allowed(he has final responsibility)
-If friendlies are in close proximity of target ,he might order 1st shoot intentionally to drop short to avoid risk of friendly fire and than with "better" data recalculate(plotter&forward observer) real shoots
-also good leadership can speed up(by very small margin) whole process

Also dont forget that Artillery never has(or shouldnt have) LOS to target(behind hill,buildings...etc to protect direct hits from cannons and more importantly to hide their position from enemy FOs to avoid counter barrage)


*Friendly fire
-though also common mistake is wrong dechiphering of code.
FOs dont say: Mortar one,Observer A here...enemy is 1 km in front in x14/y25 grid hex,they have forward "palisade"

FOs say something like this:

Delta seven,Delta Seven....Zulu one is here....confirm....(reply from Artillery radio guy)....
Delta seven,Delta Seven .... road block(designated code for enemy artillery) is in sector d16(designates code key book he is using) A 12...repeat in sector Delta 16...Delta 16....Alpha 12...Alpha 12 ....confirm(Arty guy reply s coordinates which are coded also).

Military believes in secrecy and redundancy.

Alpha instead A ....Beta instead B....Shark instead S .....whatever:Reason behind this is pronunciation: Some people pronounce words slightly differently and if there is "static" or other disturbance(weak signal...) recipient wont mistake whole word.
B for D can be mistaken. Beta and Delta is Much harder to mishear.

Also Tank unit uses their own codes..etc to further obscure issues and code key books are changed for new in some intervals.

Since if enemy intel figures out key,they can pick-up transition for pick up/randevo point/supply depo.... and intercept.
Its one big mess lol. :))

Edit: All Armies use it...
Ex Yugoslavian Army used Cities from ex Yugoslavia
Croatian Army uses some mix of Croatian cities and other stuff.
USA(someone who was there will know better) use Greek Alphabet + something
...etc

Edit2:
Ordinary Infantryman regardless Army of origin will be as baffled as enemy with that chatter

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It seems reasonable if you treat the mortar as an off map asset, and you are playing the supported unit or FO, but what if the PCs are in the firing unit?

Fair enough.

The FDC is considered to be a more difficult and senior set of billets to the gun crews. It requires a skill set that is difficult to master and at least in my experience (although perhaps other weapons and/or militaries are different) of mortars one is first trained as a mortarman and then selected for the FDC.

It is probably one of the only jobs left where "Computer" is a person and not a device. Much of the calculations are done by hand, and even when a ballistic computer is used the interfaces (at least at TL8) aren't simple. Additionally there are many decisions involved that non-sapient computers couldn't make easily.

Hmm. So it's definitely a skill. Mathematics (Applied) seems to be the closest match, though there are also elements of Artillery, Cartography, Forward Observer, some Operation skill for ballistic computers, and some kind of professional skill (Soldier, or similar) for procedure.

The question is, do we invent a new skill? It seems to me that anyone on FDC would actually have all of these skills already, making it pointless to invent a new professional skill to cover what he already knows. Perhaps there is a subset of crucial skills (Mathematics and Cartography?) for which you roll against the lowest one.

The A-Gunner puts the gun data on the sight, while the Gunner manipulates the Mortar to get it roughly on target, then the A-Gunner adjusts the bipods while the Gunner looks through the sight. If either of them makes a mistake and the Squad Leader fails to catch it, the rounds will be off target.

Overall, it sounds like everyone has to do their jobs right to put the shot on target, and the more people screw up, the more inaccurate the shot is (or the longer it takes to correct).

[8th Orbital Army]

I'm honestly interested in finding out how many people's characters have called in artillery strikes in an actual role-playing session, and whether they felt that the rules were sufficiently detailed or not.

Edit: I've been quoted below, so removing the post would be pointless, but I apologize for thread****ting.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by 8th Orbital Army

I'm honestly interested in finding out how many people's characters have called in artillery strikes in an actual role-playing session, and whether they felt that the rules were sufficiently detailed or not.

Plenty of examples of it in my campaigns and the 3e rules worked fine.

As SirPudding says, the lack of a skill for the FDC is a bit of a conundrum for the 4e ones.

[Ragitsu]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Plenty of examples of it in my campaigns and the 3e rules worked fine.

As SirPudding says, the lack of a skill for the FDC is a bit of a conundrum for the 4e ones.

As I do not have any Third Edition material, is it a problem?