Re: DSII: VTOL Damage, Arty Direct Fire, Terrain's affect on GMS

Nils A Hedglin wrote:

> 2) Does have anyone practical experience with modern artillery? A
> friend & I have been engaged in an on going argument about whether or
> not to allow direct artillery fire.  He keeps quoting that it was
> quite common in WWII.  It keep rebutting that the much longer ranges
> in today's artillery should allow it to avoid being overrun, unless
> something is seriously wrong.  Does modern artillery still perform
> direct fire missions (depress the gun & use the Mark I eyeball for
> aiming)?  In particular, would this be an option if the artillery is
> threatened by enemy troops?

I was in a light artillery battalion (105mm towed) and direct fire was a
regularly practiced skill by all crews.  The sights can be used for
aiming and shells can be fuzed for PD (point detonating) against tanks
or MTSQ (Mechanical Time Super Quick) against infantry, with a range
estimate.  It's planned for in the firebase concept, as the guns are
integrated into the direct fire plan for battery defense, so it's not
exactly a crisis knee-jerk reaction (although the gun crew might beg to
differ).  105mm were used in a direct fire role in Panama in the good
old  WWII Soviet-style method of leveling buildings where sniper fire
was emanating from.  Also, just because artillery ranges are longer,
doesn't mean someone has located the enemy and passed on good
coordinates to generate an effective fire mission.  Since Murphy's Law
is the only applicable law in combat, infantry and tanks will certainly
be able to surprise even the longest ranged guns at some point - a
chaotic, fluid battle provides the best conditions for this to happen.