Does ASL represent SMOKE accurately?

[soggycrow]

There is probably a mix of truth to both arguments. I doubt it was as prevalent as ASL makes us believe, but I suspect the real reason battlefront took it out of the CM series was that it was difficult to model well and added too much complexity to the system.

The Call of Duty series of videogames has smoke grenades. If you're in the middle of the smoke you start to see objects/figures at about 3 meters (simulated) or a little less. :blab:

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Guys

I think smoke is very well represented in ASL.

 

[Xavier 658]

I think smoke is very well represented in ASL.

Well, I don't..... and tried to explain why.

You should elaborate a bit Peter

Cheers!

X

 

[DaveStory]

I remember some mention about the German M39 "eggs" being used quite a bit, though I remember looking for production numbers and never being able to find those stats.

On the WP front, I'll quote wikipedia: "At the start of the Normandy campaign, 20% of American 81 mm mortar rounds were WP. At least five American Medal of Honor citations mention their recipients using white phosphorus grenades to clear enemy positions. In the 1944 liberation of Cherbourg alone, a single U.S. mortar battalion, the 87th, fired 11,899 white phosphorus rounds into the city."

 

[Blackcloud6]

At least five American Medal of Honor citations mention their recipients using white phosphorus grenades to clear enemy positions.

Well, there might a misnomer here. The "pineapple" grenade used WP as its explosvie charge. This grenade was a casualty producing weapon and was not intended to lay smoke.

 

[Commissar Piotr]

Hi Guys

Since Xavier asked me to elaborate.
I think smoke works well because the rules is well written and is very functional within the system.
I do not know what else I can elaborate on.

 

[SteveS]

Excellent question:

My own opinion is that smoke is probably completely unrealistic in ASL (I say probably because I don't have definitive knowledge of the history of smoke use). I base my opinion primarily on the infantry-owned smoke grenades in ASL.

I too have never read of smoke grenades being used for cover and concealment in any WWII book I can recall. The smoke I am familiar with is smoke related to river crossings, airborne assaults, etc-that involved in Corps, or Army level operations.

I have been an army officer for 17 years, and have never heard of smoke grenades being used for cover and concealment. I have used (in training) smoke grenades for signalling-thus the presence or color of the smoke is a code.
I have heard of smoke generators and smoke pots planned for use in exercises, but such assets are a Corps-level asset.
I have also encountered artillery-delivered smoke to be used in very particular and pre-planned circumstances-usually related to breaching a minefield and obstacle. But not as an on-call weapon for a company/battalion commander.
M1 tanks have the ability to 'drip' diesel fuel into their superheated exhaust and create a smoke trail out the back. The fact that its coming out the back suggests that it is most useful for either running away, or for follow-on forces (in other words, if you are driving towards the enemy, and smoke is pouring out the back of your tank, you are always in front of the smoke you generate). I suppose they could stay in place and generate a small field around their own position.

Thus, I have no idea what the smoke availability number of squads is supposed to represent. Each US airborne squad has a 50-50 chance of having a smoke grenade available whenever it wants, in unlimited quantities? My suspicion is that smoke is a cool gimmick with virtually no historical basis.

I may be wrong because 1) I haven't read every WWII book out there, and 2) I am not an infantryman-a tanker. Thus, maybe modern day infantrymen really do have obscurant smoke grenades that I've never heard of.

Steve

 

[Pitman]

Steve, a Google books search on the term "smoke grenades" reveals descriptions of infantrymen using smoke grenades to obscure enemy fire during an advance or retreat from WWI all the way up to the Iraq war.

How common this was, I cannot say (it seems less common than using colored smoke grenades for marking positions), but there are definitely accounts of it.

 

[DaveStory]

This has got to be a question for Mail Call! I'd love to see R. Lee Ermey sucking in WP while describing the usage of smoke in WWII.

 

[King Billy]

I have used smoke, including smoke grenades and smoke pots, during training exercises. They were VERY effective. Becuase of the general noise associated with combat, you cannot rely on hearing anyone approaching, and you sure can't see them. It is spooky.

Bill

 

[spwhites]

Hi Guys

Since Xavier asked me to elaborate.
I think smoke works well because the rules is well written and is very functional within the system.
I do not know what else I can elaborate on.

way to go Peter!
:salute:

 

[tekay44]

Whoever mentioned Sledge's book, With the Old Breed, is correct. He tells of a marine lobbing smoke grenades to conceal them as they crossed a dangerous spot.

 

[WaterRabbit]

SMOKE could probably be better represented by the counter (and existing duration mechanics) but with a variable hindrance DRM a la dust...IMHuO

I love the desert -- I despise the desert dust rules. I absolutely HATE the variable dust DRM. This concept of variable SMOKE surfaces time and again, but it is a royal PITA in actual game play.

IMHO, a better mechanism for variable SMOKE would be to have several counters of different 'strength'. Randomly pick one of those each time you need a SMOKE counter and place that on the board. OR better yet make the decision based upon how well it was placed in the first place. If you miss with ordnance smoke, place a +1 strength smoke or some such.

A variable DRM that has to be calculated for every shot is one of the WORST game mechanics EVER devised and should be flushed immediately. :toilet:

 

[Blackcloud6]

I have been an army officer for 17 years, and have never heard of smoke grenades being used for cover and concealment.

Really? Gosh when I was an infantry PL and Co CO we used them often whenever we got them in training to cover dashes and such. Especially when we did MOUT training.

The white smoke grenades are just for this purpose as it spews a really dense cloud.

I think one reason why you may not read about it much is that they were/are issued as ammo. The troops just expended them.

I think the Smoke grenades are modeled well as they don't seem to be used that often and the smoke exponents truely affect availability or lack there of.

 

[Will Fleming]

A variable DRM that has to be calculated for every shot is one of the WORST game mechanics EVER devised and should be flushed immediately. :toilet:

While not feeling as strongly as the WR, I must agree. Those random drm/DRM are a major frustration to me playing the desert. 3 dice is a pain if nothing else.

 

[Tork]

My biggest beef with the smoke rules is the prohibition against using WP during Mud or Deep Snow. As long as the carrier shell explodes, the chemical is going to burn.

At the very least, the WP attack should have its MC/concealment loss function.

The last book I read had multitudes of descriptions of WP used as an obscurant during Feb, March, and April of 45, in snow and mud conditions.

 

[FrankH.]

I think infantry smoke should flip to +1 for final fire.

I would go with this idea.

However, I would have infantry smoke at a +1 level at placement unless the squad's smoke dr < its smoke exponent to simulate the case where few grenades were placed with their smoke dispersing enough to have an effect. Particularly in cold weather.

Also, I see no reason why a single individual or five men might not be able to toss a few smoke grenades, perhaps by SSR. Why does it take an entire squad to place smoke?

Otherwise I think the ASL smoke rules are reasonable.

Frank

 

[George Kelln]

Why can smoke be placed in Mud?

In Italy, there are numerous reports of Canadians. British, US, and even German laying down Smoke screens while tanks and infantry slogged across the MUDDY battlefields.

In addition where does the smoke goes when you miss? Maybe it should be laid down a +1 Dispersed Smoke...

Smoke is very useful for movement, by helping to neutralize those German 9-2, HMG+MMG, 2 x 4-6-7 Death Star that lay waste to the cardboard battlefield.

As well, it helps you get your units up to jump into CC.

:toast:

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Excellent question:

My own opinion is that smoke is probably completely unrealistic in ASL (I say probably because I don't have definitive knowledge of the history of smoke use). I base my opinion primarily on the infantry-owned smoke grenades in ASL.

I too have never read of smoke grenades being used for cover and concealment in any WWII book I can recall. The smoke I am familiar with is smoke related to river crossings, airborne assaults, etc-that involved in Corps, or Army level operations.

I have been an army officer for 17 years, and have never heard of smoke grenades being used for cover and concealment. I have used (in training) smoke grenades for signalling-thus the presence or color of the smoke is a code.
I have heard of smoke generators and smoke pots planned for use in exercises, but such assets are a Corps-level asset.
I have also encountered artillery-delivered smoke to be used in very particular and pre-planned circumstances-usually related to breaching a minefield and obstacle. But not as an on-call weapon for a company/battalion commander.
M1 tanks have the ability to 'drip' diesel fuel into their superheated exhaust and create a smoke trail out the back. The fact that its coming out the back suggests that it is most useful for either running away, or for follow-on forces (in other words, if you are driving towards the enemy, and smoke is pouring out the back of your tank, you are always in front of the smoke you generate). I suppose they could stay in place and generate a small field around their own position.

Thus, I have no idea what the smoke availability number of squads is supposed to represent. Each US airborne squad has a 50-50 chance of having a smoke grenade available whenever it wants, in unlimited quantities? My suspicion is that smoke is a cool gimmick with virtually no historical basis.

I may be wrong because 1) I haven't read every WWII book out there, and 2) I am not an infantryman-a tanker. Thus, maybe modern day infantrymen really do have obscurant smoke grenades that I've never heard of.

Steve

As far as the Commonwealth goes, I don't believe it was very common, if at all - the platoon's 2-inch mortar was used for that purpose. Farley Mowat has a great account of the mortar being used in his book AND NO BIRDS SANG.

 

['Ol Fezziwig]

A variable DRM that has to be calculated for every shot is one of the WORST game mechanics EVER devised and should be flushed immediately.

I disagree; for starters, it's only an additional die, not another 'calculation'. Secondly, the vagaries of wind, the smoke(/dust) itself and terrain distill the need for more complex rules or mechanisms into an additional dr. What one person calls apostasy, another may call elegant...