Stop dissing the artillery.

[Cpt Kernow]

Harking back to a thread in the protean days of this forum, I am again dismayed to see people questioning the effectiveness of artillery. These questions stem from a very uninformed view of modern warfare.

Fact: In WW2 75-80% of the casualties were caused by artillery. Anyone who has the idea that artillery should only soften up the opfor before the armour and infantry move in must get their understanding of WW2 from Saving Private Ryan. Do not underestimate the awesome destructive power of divisional level artillery assets. Men with rifles hardly killed anyone in WW2 or in any modern conflict.

The way artillery is modeled is perfectly reasonable.

[SMK-at-work]

Casualties were only a small part of losses tho - most losses in combat were troops captured, not those killed and wounded.
 
 
 
 

[Warspite3]

I don't know about AT but in PT artillery is a formitable fighting unit especially at long range. I remember that being my only hope holding the enemy back at times. Put a wall of infantry in front the artillery units and open fire! Then continuously send in cheap infantry replacements to keep filling up your front units.

[ravinhood]

75-80% where do you get those figures Cpt Kernow?

[Twotribes]

From official casualty reports and what caused them. I forget the titles but some where from studies the US army did. The only place this did not hold true was in the Pacific Island campaigns , those were bloody knock down dog fights at close range.

[Jestre]

What are casualties from AFV's main guns categorized as???? artillery????

[seille]

As i wrote in the other thread already.
The PT artillery is way too powerful especially when upgraded.

The artillery in AT is no overkill except you use them in concentrations.

@Cpt. Kernow and Twotribes

Are you guy´s the same person ? Or why can Twotribes answer a question asked to Cpt. Kernow ? [;)]

[PDiFolco]

IMHO the problem is not how effective the AT arty is "globally", but that currently the arty units are individually "too strong", they cause very high losses when they attack, but you have very few of them.
In WW2 there was 1,000s of arty guns, each div and/or above had arty units attached/available. In AT scenarios you have at most 1 arty unit for 10-20 inf/armor.
In fact the same issue exists for tanks : AT "armored" formations have 1-3 tanks and 5-10 inf, and you have quite few of them. Real Panzerdivisionen had 1 tank regiment (100-150 tanks) and 2 Pzgren (Inf) regts (that's 2-3000 men), and UK Armored div were all tanks - 200-250 of them.
 

[Awac835]

I like arty as it is now. With a few units they soften up nice and brake readiness while also killing, if you have 5 arty SF's in a unit or more they will do massive killing.
 
About the ratio of tanks and infantry i think AT hits a nice mix with tanks having a carry weight of 5 each. You could add in a halftrack and have 35 infantry with 3 tanks.
 
I dont think people should get into the nit picks of things. AT is abstracted quite a bit like i think it should be.