I am Still getting Obliterated by Indirect fire

[marcbarker]

I have been plating a DCG in all 3 games. And regardless of what side I am on my Armor gets pasted by 81mm mortars, 75mm howitzers. I mean geesh, had a platoon of Panthers going throuh an orchard, 1 hex at a time to try to draw fire to make it safe for the Infantry to move. The blam a series of indirect fire from 4 hexes away hits my platoon disrupts 1 , detsrotys 3. Go figure.

[Jason Petho]

ORIGINAL: barker

I have been plating a DCG in all 3 games. And regardless of what side I am on my Armor gets pasted by 81mm mortars, 75mm howitzers. I mean geesh, had a platoon of Panthers going throuh an orchard, 1 hex at a time to try to draw fire to make it safe for the Infantry to move. The blam a series of indirect fire from 4 hexes away hits my platoon disrupts 1 , detsrotys 3. Go figure.

Might be better to lead with the infantry?

Or use smoke?

Or Engineers and smoke?

Or avoiding areas with lots of LOS?

Or Machinegun platoon and a leader?

Jason Petho

[Arkady]

well, don't use tanks as shields [:)]
if you stay, cover, if you move, run like hell...
exposing armoured vehicles in static position, visible to enemy is not good tactic IRL [8D]

[marcbarker]

But is 81mm mortar rounds effective enough to wipe panthers? Maybe a 75 in the right place or a salvo of 105's or 120mm with a direct hit. These HE Rounds not HEAT. That is why I led with the Armor to Draw ordance, so my infantry can rush open ground without getting tanked up. Smoke a good idea but when you 6 rounds for a 24 turn scenario you tend to be a miser. I almost makes me want to throw my half tracks away to draw fir for the armor. The point is that indirect firing is killing me.

[Arkady]

well, Pather's hull top armor protection varied from 16-30mm, direct hit by 81mm HE somewhere near petrol powered (!) engine can definitely stop the tank

It can also kill tank's leader when he is looking from cupola [;)]

[Arkady]

and WP (smoke shells - filled with white phosphorus) are officially used as weapon against dug-in tanks (static) ...
see http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ortars.htm

eight paragraph: "WP is effective in starting fires in buildings and forcing the enemy out of cellars and light-frame buildings, and is the most effective mortar round against dug-in enemy tanks. Even near misses blind and suppress the tank crew, forcing them to button up."

[auHobbes37]

What is your difficulty setting?

If it is Impossible, that could be your answer.

I play DCG on impossible setting, but adjust the Advantage to normal.

[Borst50]

I empathise with you....but if you think its bad now...wait until your tigers get shredded....that one really hurts. This happens to me all the time, and I firmly believe artillery fire is way way too powerful against tanks!

[marcbarker]

So do I, Take a MAUS and let it get hit with 4 salvos of 105's see how many survie and try it with 81mm mortars...life is grand

[dgk196]

Okay, I'll 'byte'.............

A 'friendly' challenge, if you will.........

How many 'real world' Tiger and Panthers where lost to 'small' mortar attacks?

Bet its happened more times in your examples than it ever did in reality!

If I'm wrong, okay! Prove it! I'll apologize here!

Dennis [;)]

[willy g]

okay, I just played a DCG game for testing purposes, as Germany against Poland, regiment size, advantage set all the way for the Axis, and by turn 10, had lost 11 SP of tanks, half of which were Pz III and IVs, which is ridiculous given that I was moving my tanks each turn as to avoid the Arty. It seems sometimes that the AI just tells its artillery, "shoot wherever you feel like. I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

[marcbarker]

Now try indirect fire on their artillery...point blank with Pz IV vs. USSR 122 kept firing 4 turns to destroy the unit. Yet I move the same Pz IV 4 hexes away and that same artillery price tears me a new one. I for one find it difficult to imagine a large artillery piece sighting a platoon of moving Pz IV's and then knocking out 3 of them. While that same tank platoon while 40 meters away standing still pumping round after round can't knock out 2 before round 3

[simovitch]

ORIGINAL: willy g

...I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

Bob McNamara, Producer and lead researcher for EFII dedicated 2 pages to the manual justifying his decision to minimize tank casualties from HE shell in CS. He displays a declassified document showing how causes of mechanical damage (tank is taken out of combat) from battle is distributed for different types of Allied tanks hit by different types of German shot.

The document showed that 3% of the casualties were from combined direct and indirect HE shot (so casualties from indirect alone were less than 3%.)

The study was taken in the last months of WWII which leads me to believe that the losses were heavily weighted toward AT guns and 'fausts. I would vote for slightly more frequent disabled results than EFII, but definitely less than what I'm hearing about in 1.03.

[Jason Petho]

It's interesting.

When I playtest these DCG's, I rarely lose vehicles to artillery (maybe once every couple scenarios).

I find I lose more vehicles due to the hidden AT guns; even then, that is limited.

Jason Petho

[Huib]

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: willy g

...I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

Bob McNamara, Producer and lead researcher for EFII dedicated 2 pages to the manual justifying his decision to minimize tank casualties from HE shell in CS. He displays a declassified document showing how causes of mechanical damage (tank is taken out of combat) from battle is distributed for different types of Allied tanks hit by different types of German shot.

The document showed that 3% of the casualties were from combined direct and indirect HE shot (so casualties from indirect alone were less than 3%.)

The study was taken in the last months of WWII which leads me to believe that the losses were heavily weighted toward AT guns and 'fausts. I would vote for slightly more frequent disabled results than EFII, but definitely less than what I'm hearing about in 1.03.

Would also be interesting to see that for German tanks and Allied artillery.
These were the figures I read when I made the scenarios around Hamich in Charles MacDonalds Siegfried Line Campaign page 424:

Though CCB had taken its four objectives in less than three days, the results would stand as a monument to the celerity with which an enemy endowed with advantages in observation and assisted by nature can seriously cripple an armored force. The armored infantry had incurred losses of about 50 percent. Of 64 medium tanks at the start of the attack, all but 22 had been eliminated. Including 7 light tanks, total tank losses were 49. Panzerfausts had claimed 6; mistaken U.S. bombing, I; artillery fire, 6; mine fields, 12; and antitank fire, 24. These did not look much like statistics of a breakthrough operation.

Huib

[warhead2]

ORIGINAL: dgk196

Okay, I'll 'byte'.............

A 'friendly' challenge, if you will.........

How many 'real world' Tiger and Panthers where lost to 'small' mortar attacks?

Bet its happened more times in your examples than it ever did in reality!

If I'm wrong, okay! Prove it! I'll apologize here!

Dennis [;)]

correct.statistically this shouldn't be happening. in the previous engine there was a very small %(~1%) chance of an AFV suffering a disabled result that eliminated one vehicle

[warhead2]

I agree

ORIGINAL: simovitch

ORIGINAL: willy g

...I am starting to agree that the effectiveness against tanks is way to good for artillery's standards, however, I have not been able to find any documentation with any quantitative data about tanks lost to artillery fire.

Bob McNamara, Producer and lead researcher for EFII dedicated 2 pages to the manual justifying his decision to minimize tank casualties from HE shell in CS. He displays a declassified document showing how causes of mechanical damage (tank is taken out of combat) from battle is distributed for different types of Allied tanks hit by different types of German shot.

The document showed that 3% of the casualties were from combined direct and indirect HE shot (so casualties from indirect alone were less than 3%.)

The study was taken in the last months of WWII which leads me to believe that the losses were heavily weighted toward AT guns and 'fausts. I would vote for slightly more frequent disabled results than EFII, but definitely less than what I'm hearing about in 1.03.

and I remember the debate
for the record I've been playing this game(s) since november 1997
and was active on the original discussion board dedicated to the game

I even have a campaign still in progress from 1997 that a commenced after the 4th patch to EF
I think I'm in august 1944
I back up the files and reload if I get a campaign ending programming glitch

[MrRoadrunner]

So, the original game was 1 or 1.5%?
The "statistics" from the war show roughly 3%?
The new rules are 4 or 5% depending who you talk to?
Huib's show 11% of all losses, are from indirect fire, in that specific action? (That is if I did my math correctly). Which factored in to total war losses it could be one of the more serious actions where heavier losses occurred?
 
I guess the middle ground could be the 3% number?
 
Ed
 
 

[Jason Petho]

Some interesting statistic from the Dupuy Institiute: International TNDM Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 6, Page 28.

Percentage Loss by Type and Cause (Excluding breakdowns)
Soviet 1st Tank Army, Kursk (July 4 - 18, 1943)

Type...............Lost....Artillery.....Air.....AP Shot....Other...Unknown
T-34.....................451.........14.9.......1.8........8..3...........0..........0
T-70.....................73.........20.5.......2.7........76.7............0.........0
T-60.....................4............0..........0..........100.............0.........0
KV-1 & KV-2..........7.........14.3.......14.3........71.4.........0.........0
Grant.....................22.........4.5.......0..........95.5..........0........0
Stuart.....................9...........0.........0..........100..........0.........0

Jason Petho

[Jason Petho]

Additional data from the same report: Dupuy Institiute: International TNDM Newsletter, Volume 1, Number 6, Page 29.

Percentage Loss by Cause (Excluding breakdowns and Abandoned)

Type.......................Lost.......Artillery........Air.......AP Shot......Other...Unknown
Kursk.........................566.........14.8%.........1.9........83.2...........0..........0
Normandy I.................97...........9.3%.........10.3........54.6.........10.3......15.5
Normandy II.................51............7.8%........19.6........45.1...........2.......25.5
Falaise Pocket...............75...........11.8%.......47.4........14.5.........3.9.........22.4
Ardennes.....................62...........12.9%.......9.7..........58.1..........3.2........15.1
Krinkelt.......................77...........10.4%.........0..........57.1..........32.5.........0
Dom Butegenback........51............5.9%.........0..........68.6..........11.8.........13.7

Jason Petho