Using artillery tips.

[Mahatma]

Does anyone have any? I noticed how some artillery companies are much better at bombardment than APer and AArm so it's obvious that these should stay way back. But there are others which are like this:

APer:203
AArm:144
Bombard:98

Is it worth moving them up to defensive positions? Does the AI elect to fire APer and AARm over bombarding when needed?
This APer:203 includes 269 x 7.92mm Kar 98k so maybe it's them who are making the APer look better than it is.

Playing Stuck in the Teeth, it's D1 1000 and I've claimed the three nearest objectives on the ridge but now I *really* want to move up the artillery to provide direct fire support but I'm paralyzed by indecision because I think it's possible that they will suffer horrendous casualties getting to position but also because there are only 3 battalions holding those objectives and there are no other reinforcements available. Except the odd division HQ but they are poor in combat.

Help!

[Lieste]

Some artillery *is* direct fire AT guns on dual purpose carriages. These can be used in defence in the FLOT if required, but are better just out of sight as a second line to stop advancing enemy armour, and 'collect' the first line troops if they are displaced.

Examples:
7.5cm M1897 (french '75' direct fire gun, limited indirect fire capability)
7.5cm FK40 (Pak40 on leFH18 carriages)
8.8cm Flak 36 (AA carriage, multi-purpose (direct HE, direct AT, indirect))
8.8cm Flak 41 (AA carriage, multi-purpose (direct HE, direct AT, indirect))
8.8cm Pak43/41 (Pak43 on sFH18 carriage)
12.8cm K81/1 (A/T gun on artillery carriage)

The disadvantage of all of these guns is the inability to fire searching fires at close range, due to high velocity and flat trajectory from the single piece ammunition. They tend to have superior A/T capability, but extended minimum bombardment ranges. To use them as artillery they need to be *further* from their targets than conventional howitzers or 'guns' with multiple charges, but this makes them less useful as antitank guns (plus the fatigue from firing indirect missions makes their direct combat or movement less effective).

To *not* use some of these guns in the direct fire mode is to sacrifice a lot of combat potential, and ties up infantry occupying the captured ground... so there is a balance in the temporary loss of indirect fire support (mixture of movement time, and the minimum range requirement (though nothing stops a battery firing in depth, or to a flank if targets can be found).

They are large and vulnerable congregations of vehicles though, so movements should only be made to really secure locations, and if possible under cover of poor visibility or night. Once in place they are strong defenders though, especially if undisturbed long enough to dig in. FlaK in the FLOT or immediate rear also have the useful role of deflecting any air that arrives in the latter stages.

There are other guns which while 'pure artillery' are useful antitank guns in an emergency capacity - these include the K18 10cm (105mm) guns ~ the leFH and sFH weapons are capable of far more limited self protection.

[Mahatma]

Thanks for the response. To check I understand:

1. Ideal to move artillery after ~1800 under cover of darkness, to secure positions with good LOS and cover bonuses.
2. Keep the high bombard artillery back, out of LOS so in valleys and behind forested areas. Also useful to secure supply lines.
3. Move the high APer and AArm to defend secured locations like villages and towns. Check LOS during the day so you know where to position artillery at night. Give them time to dig in so set the order to defend with no rest, is that right?

I've noticed that some artillery are on tracks and can't move into forests. The non-tracked are ideal to defend forest edges I would think since the direct fire defense is about 12% vs 33% in the open.

[Phoenix100]

Did you check out Bletch's guide, Mahatma?

tm.asp?m=3286717