Artillery commitment in hasty / deliberate attack v01.02.08

[KenchiSulla]

I've observed that long range indirect fire artillery (both attacking and defending), even when committed to battle, in a hasty attack does not fire at all.

Battle prep points do not matter.

- Can someone confirm this?
- Is it intended?

When committed in a deliberate attack they play a decisive role in disrupting elements.

[GibsonPete]

Rule 23.4.1 to get SU support during a hasty attack the HQ must not have moved, and the unit must be eligible (in command range). Rule 23.4.3 during a deliberate attack the HQ can have moved. Rule 23.6 Headquarters can only commit SU's that pass the required leader checks, are within 05 hexes and trace a friendly path of any length to the unit. If a river is involved 23.8.9 kicks in. Also check 23.6.1 for how vehicles play a part and HQ movement effects leader checks. Or just roll the dice screw the odds.

[jubjub]

- Can someone confirm this?

can confirm.

[KenchiSulla]

Hi Pete,

- the support units are committed to battle but do not fire in the battle (0 shots, 0 HPE).
- divisional artillery also does not fire, only the infantry howitzer units fire (direct, not indirect)

[Joel Billings]

Yes, hasty attacks have no indirect fire phase.

[KenchiSulla]

Hi Joel, so it is a design decision to not allow for indirect fire during hasty attacks (for both defender and attacker). This means that artillery does not play a role at all (exception are the specialized howitzer units part of regimental / divisions TOE as they are used in the direct fire role).

Why is the game adding artillery support to the fight then?

[ShaggyHiK]

In my opinion, this is the worst decision in the combat system at the moment. Hasty attacks are too strong to defend against.
This rule must be reviewed for the defender.

[Joel Billings]

Yes, this has been this way ever since Gary created the indirect fire phase. It's WAD. It does seem a waste of time to commit artillery support units to these battles, but that wasn't anything that was ever looked at. Hasty attacks should be used in very rare situations, mostly just against weak opposition in 41 or when hitting units that have already been in combat and have retreated during the current turn.

[ShaggyHiK]

At the moment, these attacks are great for attacking even relatively strong units, as long as they are not on level 3 fortifications.
Support and terrain other than urban are not particularly useful for repelling hasty attacks or inflicting casualties on the attacking troops.

[tonyhnz]

I didn't realize this was the case especially from the defender point of view.
I kind of agree with shaggy - if i am in a defensive posture wouldn't i have my artillery already set up and prepared to repel an attack.
If the attacker decides to do a hasty then they would not have time to get all their artillery into position to support the attack.

[Yogol]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Yes, hasty attacks have no indirect fire phase.

For the attacker, I can understand this. But not for the defender: if you are dug in with and someone attacks -hasty or otherwise- the defending artillery would certainly fire, no?

[loki100]

you are rather over-estimating how responsive artillery was in this period?

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: loki100

you are rather over-estimating how responsive artillery was in this period?

Your opinion is absolutely correct, the Soviet artillery had a number of shortcomings, the first was the issue of mobility. In the event of an offensive, Soviet artillery lagged far behind the advancing troops, there were also cases due to poor command and control of troops, not knowing how to use or lack of radio stations, when the army command simply did not have information that 3 artillery regiments of the RVGK were on their side, due to for which they simply did not have the information to open fire.
However, if the difficulties were overcome, then the Soviet artillery was no worse than the German, and in a number of indicators even better than it.
In the context of the game, there is no reason for the defender not to use artillery if it has already entered the battle.
If the commander passed the checks and the artillery regiments were in action, why don't they fire? In any defensive situation, the division's art regiments have clearly designated firing sectors. This is the first thing that artillerymen do, this is their main task. And it is very strange to see when 3 regiments seem to step into battle, but no heavy weapon simply opens fire on the enemy.

[Jango32]

To expand on Soviet artillery shortcomings:

https://imgur.com/a/5WEwWhN

[Jango32]

EDIT: looks like the forums had a 500 error and double-posted.

[DeletedUser44]

All I can say is that during my service in artillery, we planned and trained for both "Hasty" and "Deliberate" operations.

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publi ... 131649-870

Scroll down to page 21. It even touches on "Hasty Attacks" and "Deliberate Attacks". (these terms were in use well before WiTE)

The idea of my artillery battalion sitting out during a "Hasty Attack" is completely foreign to me.

Following is training material on "Fire Support Planning" (Basic Officer Course).

https://www.trngcmd.marines.mil/Portals ... anning.pdf

Most important to emphasize, is that "Fire Support Planning" is ongoing, continuous, it never stops - and plans for all possible contingencies, to include:
- advancing to engage an enemy
- breakthrough and exploitation

It is integral in the US Field Artillery Mission Doctrine - which has its roots stemming from WWII.

So, whatever the reasons for excluding artillery fire in the game's hasty attacks... I cannot speak to it. It is not based on anything I know - other than just a game mechanic deemed needed?

[DeletedUser44]

EDIT

Double post, sorry....

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: Sauron_II
It is integral in the US Field Artillery Mission Doctrine - which has its roots stemming from WWII.

Moreover, this goes not only into the Second World War, but also into the First World War, but even deeper into the US Civil War and the Napoleonic Wars.

[EddyBear81]

ORIGINAL: tonyhnz

I didn't realize this was the case especially from the defender point of view.
I kind of agree with shaggy - if i am in a defensive posture wouldn't i have my artillery already set up and prepared to repel an attack.
If the attacker decides to do a hasty then they would not have time to get all their artillery into position to support the attack.

Totally on board : it leads to a "minor" exploit. If you have less powerful artillery than the defender, then it is better to launch a Hasty Attack compared to a Deliberate.

Deciding for a Hasty Attack should only penalize the attacker.

[Iam5not8]

in-game "hasty assault" is more a meeting engagement than a hasty assault as referred in NATO-western doctrines.
It is an engagement made directly from march columns (while on movement).
when I read the links from Sauron (thanks for those, very instructive) , IMHO it refers more to "movement to contact".

Therefore, on the assault side, it is not absurd to not have artillery involved in the engagement (could be challenged on the Self Propelled Arty).
On the defensive side, it is more difficult to assess. But on the Soviet side, the command&control structure was not very agile, and to have a commitment of non-organic arty in a meeting engagement would have been sporadic at least in the 1st years of the patriotic war.

When comparing to more modern doctrine, communications and availability of maps are a key point to consider (not even speaking of data exchange between front units and arty/support ones).