Absurdly accurate first turn Russian Artillery

[FNG]

Has this been changed? I just re-visited PCK and had a go at a random campaign and got panelled by turn 1 Russian mortars. Losing 40% of your panzers to 120mm mortar fire on turn 1 is rather depressing.

I had forgotten this particular feature and just how much I disliked it. Has it been changed in PCO?

Cheers,

FNG

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: FNG

Has this been changed? I just re-visited PCK and had a go at a random campaign and got panelled by turn 1 Russian mortars. Losing 40% of your panzers to 120mm mortar fire on turn 1 is rather depressing.

I had forgotten this particular feature and just how much I disliked it. Has it been changed in PCO?

Cheers,

FNG

The default for scenarios is that Russian get the first turn pre-planned artilllery, which means that if the Russians have LOS to your units there is a good chance that an artillery strike will occur if the Russian player (either human or AI) has off-map artillery assets.

However, there are a few ways to avoid this . 1) an option has been added in the scenario editor to allow you to toggle preplanned art on or off for either or both sides. So you could generate the random scenario and then edit the Random scenario using the Scenario editor to turn off preplanned art for both sides or -- 2) when creating a random scenario, reduce the artillery available to the russian player. or 3) during setup, make sure your forces are not in the open, and that they are not bunched together.

If you don't care for the mortars landing, wait until you see the Katyusha barrage coming in. You' be really unhappy then, though they are supposed to be a bit less 'accurate' than the other offmap artillery assets.

Thanks
rick

[Zemke]

I think a 40% loss rate of armor due to indirect fire is a lot from one barrage.  Tanks are designed expressly for the purpose of withstanding indirect fire, and unless it is a direct hit, indirect fire should only cause minor damage, optics, radio aerials, and if intense enough maybe running gear.  120mm is great for killing infantry in the open, but I don't think would hurt tanks much unless it were a direct hit, and even then it would depend on where it hit the tank.

[FNG]

To be fair, 40% is unusually high - just happened to be the most recent example. 1st turn Katyushas are less of a problem than mortars because they are far less accurate. Since getting battered earlier, I have remembered the slightly gamey solution of deploying armour as far back as possible and rushing forward on turn one. The artillery then tends to land behind you.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4
I think a 40% loss rate of armor due to indirect fire is a lot from one barrage.  Tanks are designed expressly for the purpose of withstanding indirect fire, and unless it is a direct hit, indirect fire should only cause minor damage, optics, radio aerials, and if intense enough maybe running gear.  120mm is great for killing infantry in the open, but I don't think would hurt tanks much unless it were a direct hit, and even then it would depend on where it hit the tank.

I don't know what the odds to hit a vehicle were in PCK but they were suppose to reflect a very near or direct hit. Maybe because the target was in a corner it didn't scatter as much as in the open.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I think a 40% loss rate of armor due to indirect fire is a lot from one barrage.  Tanks are designed expressly for the purpose of withstanding indirect fire, and unless it is a direct hit, indirect fire should only cause minor damage, optics, radio aerials, and if intense enough maybe running gear.  120mm is great for killing infantry in the open, but I don't think would hurt tanks much unless it were a direct hit, and even then it would depend on where it hit the tank.

According to Otto Carius in "Tigers in the Mud" mortars were the greatest threats to Tigers. Because they could hit the thin armour over the engine compartment and knock the tank out that way.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Zemke]

Due to the high angle fire of mortars, that would make sense, and seeing that few direct fire weapons could pentrate a Tiger, if I would in his shoes, I would be worried about that also.  But the chance of a hit on a stationary tank, much less a hit on the engine compartment, would be very small.  I used to be a mortar Platoon Leader 20+ years ago in the 80s, and I remember out on the range we had a bet with the Forward Observers (FOs), that we could hit this old tank with a direct hit.  It took us a lot of rounds from one gun, not because we had to adjust the gun data, but because mortars are not a point attack weapon, they are an area attack weapon, and with the same data on the gun, we got really close several times, hitting behind it, in front of it, to the sides, finally the FOs called back they has seen "flash", indicating a metal on metal strike, a direct hit.  So yes if can be done, with enough rounds, and some luck, to hit a stationary tank, but it took us 10-20 rounds to do it.  When I talk about data on the guns, we take into account, not only the obvious factors like range, but air density, air temperature, wind, tube temperature, all these variables are taken into account to get the most accurate fire possible and if the FO has the range correct, you will hit +/- 50 meters with one adjustment, and that is good enough in the indirect fire world, because once again, mortars and artillery are area weapons designed to kill infantry.  Shell fragments may cause minor damage to a tank, but will not knock it out, maybe damage it.  Today we can kill a tank with one round, the Excalibur round allows us to do a precision hit, because it is GPS guided, so unless they had GPS in WW II, I stick by hitting a tank with mortars or any other indirect fire weapon is NOT likely, possible, but not likely.

Bottom line, I think 40% of FNGs tanks getting knocked out in one barrage by 120mm mortars is way too high, and unrealistic.

[Erik Rutins]

It's not at all typical in Panzer Command to lose 40% of an armor platoon to any kind of artillery barrage though. With that said, it's been a long time since we've tested PCK, so I am mainly speaking based on more recent experience with PCO. I feel the artillery in PCO is very realistic, more so than in PCK in many respects.

Regards,

- Erik

[junk2drive]

In PC, the off board mortars are a battery. So it is possible for a barrage to randomly hit a tank.

edit, Erik beat me

[Zemke]

Of course it is possible, a battery is 3-6 guns or "tubes" as mortars are called, but the chances would still be low.  Let's say for argument's sake you could achieve a 40% kill rate with one barrage on tanks, if that were so, then it would be a rather simple matter to take out bunkers also, assuming you had a large enough caliber round.  History has shown in WWI and WWII, Korea, Vietnam and still today, without precision guided rounds, it takes a lot of rounds to knock out a bunker.  Why?  Because you have to get a direct hit on the bunker roof.  Thus it would take a direct hit, (and in the right place) to knock out a tank.  Hitting a tank with indirect fire has always been a low chance event.  Granted if you fire enough rounds and the tank just sits there, sooner or later you will hit it, but the most likely thing will not a catastrophic kill, but a mobility kill.

[Mad Russian]

Here is a Soviet small tank that was hit by a 105mm. It killed both the tank and the infantry that was walking along beside it.

In PCO as artillery fires, the first salvoes aren't all that accurate but as it continues firing it gets adjusted on to the target and then there is a better chance for a target to be hit directly.

These were both out in the open.

In this particular case the tank was moving in reverse and came close to the infantry squad which was the target of the OMA fire. The tank just backed into a 105mm. It was the last mistake they would make that day.

About the past 15 scenarios that I've played, I've not had a tank hit directly by OMA until this one. When they do hit they are a game ending shot for the vehicle that's hit.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Zemke]

I never said it cannot happen, just that the chances are low.  The 40% knock out rate FNG suffered is much too high for a 40-60 second barrage of 120mm mortars. 

[junk2drive]

Agreed. And we are not seeing that in PCO.

[FNG]

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I never said it cannot happen, just that the chances are low.  The 40% knock out rate FNG suffered is much too high for a 40-60 second barrage of 120mm mortars. 

I would like to state for the record that this was a spectacularly bad result - the worst I have seen. That said, IMHO, the first turn Soviet artillery (in PCK and PCW) is way too accurate. [Edit] I am happy that this is not being seen in PCO

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: FNG

ORIGINAL: Zemke_4

I never said it cannot happen, just that the chances are low.  The 40% knock out rate FNG suffered is much too high for a 40-60 second barrage of 120mm mortars. 

I would like to state for the record that this was a spectacularly bad result - the worst I have seen. That said, IMHO, the first turn Soviet artillery (in PCK and PCW) is way too accurate. [Edit] I am happy that this is not being seen in PCO

I have seen fairly accurate artillery barrages in PCO. But by fairly accurate, I mean the barrage lands in the general area that was targetted, and sometimes it kills vehicles, whether it's too much or not is tough for me to say. If a side has artillery, and is able to use it, it can be pretty effective.

I recently had occasion to try out a scenario where Russians had a 36 tube Katyusha launcher and had clear LOS to some stationary targets. First turn was rather spectacular, but running that same turn several times, the results were pretty scattered, from loss of one Inf squad, to the loss of two tanks and 1 HT. (from a force total of 15 units). Lesson learned, if you start in the open, don't stand still.

thanks
Rick

[Mad Russian]

Another lesson is that you never know when the other guy has OMA.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ron]

Ouch, I'm reminded also in PC:Kharkov of starting battles in LOS of the enemy. I don't know if it was a result of the small maps or a conscious design decision, but I disliked it intensely. Hopefully with the larger maps that isn't an issue.

I agree with Zemke_4, the chances of actually hitting a point target with artillery or mortars should be fairly low, the chances of 'knocking it out' even lower still as it would have to hit the right place. What kind of damage modelling will be portrayed with AFVs?

[junk2drive]

Track damage right or left or both, slows movement for one, immobile for both
Engine damage, immobile and turret speed slower
Gun damage
Bogging and breakdown, chance to recover

[thewood1]

There was a study done by the brits right near the end of WW2 that surveyed the major causes of AFV knockouts.  Arty was very very low.  I think air was also very low.  IIRC AT guns were the largest cause.  It was shown on the BFC website a couple of different times to dispell the myth of front line air support.  If anyone can find that link, it might lend some quantitative background to this discussion.

I found the name of the abstract published in 1997, but can't find the article any where...

"Artillery Effectiveness vs. Armor” TNDM, June 1997

[Ron]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

There was a study done by the brits right near the end of WW2 that surveyed the major causes of AFV knockouts.  Arty was very very low.  I think air was also very low.  IIRC AT guns were the largest cause.  It was shown on the BFC website a couple of different times to dispell the myth of front line air support.  If anyone can find that link, it might lend some quantitative background to this discussion.

I found the name of the abstract published in 1997, but can't find the article any where...

"Artillery Effectiveness vs. Armor” TNDM, June 1997

Yes I recall a couple threads that specifically targetted the Normandy aftermath and CAS effectiveness, however after a brief and fruitless search dropped it. As I recall the 'Other' category was quite high also, which may or may not indirectly relate back to artillery damage.

I also remember another more recent report which analyzed US 155mm effectiveness with assorted modern munitions and it proved to be quite effective even in not so close proximity, probably due to the size of the caliber and ammuniton types.

In the end, many things require a fudge factor for a game to be playable and realistic. It just raises eyebrows if mortars routinely start taking out AFVs.