Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix

[Canoerebel]

Two more days of bombarding by the Japanese at Akyab inflict terrible casualties on the Allies:
 
1/7/43:  Japanese 1697 AV (with six artillery) vs. Allies 2505 AV (six artillery units, but much less powerful tubes):  1004 casualties (10 infantry squads destroyed/70 disrupted), (23 non-combat squads destroyed/72 disrupted), 5 guns destroyed, 6 vehicles destroyed.
 
1/8/43:  997 casualties (17/64 infantry), (18/16 non combat), 8 guns destroyed, 10 vehicles destroyed.
 
There's something wrong with this picture.  I don't think there is any way that Japanese bombardments in Burma would have caused this kind of damage in the war...nor, for that matter, Allied bombardments.
 
Either artillery is still far too strong against unintrenched troops or the Japanese are able to bring to bear far more firepower than actually happened in the war.
 
NOTE:  Please bear in mind that the effect of artillery against fortified positions was addressed by the Hot Fix.  That no longer seems to be a problem; now I'm focusing on the effect of artillery against unintrenched troops.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Two more days of bombarding by the Japanese at Akyab inflict terrible casualties on the Allies:

1/7/43:  Japanese 1697 AV (with six artillery) vs. Allies 2505 AV (six artillery units, but much less powerful tubes):  1004 casualties (10 infantry squads destroyed/70 disrupted), (23 non-combat squads destroyed/72 disrupted), 5 guns destroyed, 6 vehicles destroyed.

1/8/43:  997 casualties (17/64 infantry), (18/16 non combat), 8 guns destroyed, 10 vehicles destroyed.

There's something wrong with this picture.  I don't think there is any way that Japanese bombardments in Burma would have caused this kind of damage in the war...nor, for that matter, Allied bombardments.

Either artillery is still far too strong against unintrenched troops or the Japanese are able to bring to bear far more firepower than actually happened in the war.

NOTE:  Please bear in mind that the effect of artillery against fortified positions was addressed by the Hot Fix.  That no longer seems to be a problem; now I'm focusing on the effect of artillery against unintrenched troops.

IIRC, Canoerebel, Andy Mac indicated in this thread previously that these very changes were being addressed-the effect of entrenchments and supply being calculated. He also indicated that troops in the open or with minimal entrenchments were in a lot of trouble still...

Sounds like he was right on target.

[Andy Mac]

Even lvl 1 fortys have a huge benefit you need to be dug in when arty is around.

p.s. I dont think the Japanese ever had 6 Indpt Arty units plus Div arty concentrated in any theatre of war hell in Burma the alliies never managed it either.

[Canoerebel]

You can't dig in when the base belongs to your opponent.

[Nemo121]

Hmm, troops out in the open being obliterated by infantry leading everyone to realise the importance of digging in in order to survive. Sounds like we're learning the lessons of 1914 again.

Given that artillery probably accounted for at least as many infantry casualties as all other sources combined during the war I have no problem with the above results. Troops out in the open SHOULD be at the mercy of artillery. Artillery is, after all, designed to kill just that sort of target en masse.

[Andy Mac]

I am confused ? - all my units are dug in whether I own the base or not I wouldnt consider haviong infantry hang about in any terrain without at least level 1 forts.

Its just done on a unit by unit basisif you dont own the base same as it always was in stock for the last 4 year ???

Andy

[Andy Mac]

Yup Nemo I agree

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am confused ? - all my units are dug in whether I own the base or not I wouldnt consider haviong infantry hang about in any terrain without at least level 1 forts.

Its just done on a unit by unit basisif you dont own the base same as it always was in stock for the last 4 year ???

Andy

Andy,

I take it you mean this digging in happens automatically?

[Canoerebel]

1. My opponent controls Akyab. I'm sure he's built fortifications.

2. I have advanced an army to besiege Akyab. Since I don't control the hex, I can't build fotifications (unless I'm overlooking a feature to the game that I've never seen before).

3. Somebody said something about "I wouldn't be caught in the open" etc. How else can you advance and take an enemy-held hex? [8|]

4. Unlike Nemo, I have problems with Japanese artillery inflicting 1,000 casualties per day on an Allied army in Burma. Maybe it should happen occasionally, but not regularly. It did not happen in the real war.

P.S. I am NOT saying: "It didn't happen in the real war; it shouldn't happen in AE." I am saying: "If it didn't happen in the real war, and it happens regularly in AE, there may be a problem. It bears looking into."

[Redd]

Andy is right, units do dig in themselves in any hex. My problem is that it takes way too long. Every unit should go to level 1 entrenchment automatically the day after they stop moving. Also, it bothers me that all entrenchment seems to be done by engineers. Everybody digs their own foxhole (well at least the enlisted men do[:D]). I've seen chinese units with hundreds of undisrupted squads but only 2 engineers take over a week (or possibly longer, didn't pay enough attention) to pick up any entrenchment at all. What are all those guys doing, standing around watching each other get blown up [&:]? Going to level 1 right away would feel a lot more realistic, and according to Andy should do a lot to tone down the casualties. I don't know about you guys, but if I was under fire I'd be diggin a hole like there was no tomorrow. Just my 2 cents . [:)]

[Nemo121]

Canoerebel,

Let's take this point by point....

1. Units DO dig in in any hex. This was in WiTP and is in AE. It is on a per unit basis so a unit with lots of engineers will dig in more quickly than a unit with very few - this favours the Allies obviously - and there is a limit to how much they dig in .... I believe the limit is level 6 forts. However pretty much all units can dig in to Level 1 fort level pretty quickly.

2. IJA bombardments killing and disabling a thousand troops a day didn't happen in Burma in real life because they never had the number of artillery pieces concentrated and with sufficient supply to do the bombardments you do. It is pretty poor comparing to say "They didn't kill 1,000 guys a day with 10 guns and 20 rounds per day so I don't see why my 200 guns and 3,000 rounds should?" Obviously those numbers are plucked from the air but they do illustrate the apples and oranges nature of the comparison you are making.

I fully believe that if the Japanese had as many guns as you have AND had the shells for them then the Allies could have suffered a lot more casualties. Do I think the AE ground combat model is perfect? Hell no but I don't think that when the in-game situation is so different than the historical situation that we can use the historical situation as a basis for saying there's a problem.

[BigJ62]

Also, reserve mode can be your friend. On average it takes my units about 2 days to build level 1 forts. Air to ground bombing (at least for the time being) can be very useful as well as ngfs.

[ETF]

So then the allies can replicate a 1000 casualties on the japanese when they are in the open?? Either way I agree this needs to be tonned way down to realistic levels.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: ETF

So then the allies can replicate a 1000 casualties on the japanese when they are in the open?? Either way I agree this needs to be tonned way down to realistic levels.

I'm sure this could be easily replicated for the allies. IRL, unentrenched troops in the open were slaughtered en masse by application of artillery.

I'm quite content with the level of realism at this point. Thanks for the hotfix 1096e, guys-I think this really helped.

[ETF]

Seems high to me. I mean 1000 hits on a large division spread out over 40 sq miles. Let face it not all troops are just walking across a clear field within gunners zeroed in plots. These numbers see off with the # of tubes firing.

[sfbaytf]

Its not about gun tubes per se. You could have 1000 tubes, but unless you have the proper forward observers and communications net, those guns will be lobbing shells to nowhere. Spotter planes are also vital as is the ability to transport the shells.

1000 casualties per day does sound a bit excessive.

[Nemo121]

ETF,

But artillery isn't ever fired with an even distribution and neither are troops spread evenly over that ground. No, troops cluster into groups ( squads, platoons, companies etc ) and so does artillery fire.

Think of it this way... An artillery bombardment by a single artillery unit may represent the firing of a one hour of fire in an entire day. Assume 2 rounds per minute ( quite reasonable ). That's 120 rounds per gun. A single Bn may therefore fire 18 x 12 = just over 200 rounds.

Multiply that by 10 ( because people here are talking about bombardments launched by multiple divisions, regiments, artillery Bns and artillery regimetns ) and you have 2,000 rounds being fired in that day.

When a single round hitting in the midst of a platoon scattered in the open can easily kill or disable half that platoon ( about 20 or so men ) you see that out of 2,000 rounds you'd only need 50 such hits to account for 1,000 casualties.


Really, to anyone who knows anything about land warfare these casualty rates vs unentrenched infantry really aren't out of kilter.

Hell when my granddad faced the Germans in Belgium in 1940 he told me of an entire platoon of Dutch soldiers being buried alive in a position to his left when they were holding near one of the canals. He was adamant that single large calibre shell collapsed their position ( I'm assuming at least 15cm, probably larger and even then only possibly because the position was hasty and the ground soggy and prone to collapse ). Anyways, a single shell there took out 20 or so people ( the platoon had been whittled down due to casualties previously ) even though there were in at least Level 1 or 2 fortifications.

My point is simple: Artillery is an awesome killer. Under the right circumstances it can kill anything on the battlefield including tanks and it most certainly can wipe out unentrenched infantry. If this wasn't so why did the US put so much effort into Point du Hoc and other German artillery positions covering the landing beaches? Answer, those few artillery pieces were recognised as being at least as lethal as the entire Bn defending said beach...

[sfbaytf]

Big difference between Europe and Asia. The Japanese didn't have nearly as many radios, nor were they of the same quality as American radios. Land lines that had to be laid -which took time was also still in widespread use. Observation in the jungle and terrain of many parts of the Pacific theater made observation difficult.

Without a good communications net, observed targets, artillery is not going ot be as effective. You're also going to need a pretty sizable "tail" in the form of trucks, prime movers and repair shops to keep the transport fleet operational. Japan was very limited in all of the above.

WW1 was static trench warfare, by ww2 mobility had returned and that made the job of artillery more difficult-and good communications networks that could relay timely information to the gunners even more important.

In reality the IJA's ability to force march tens of dozen or hundreds of miles with a huge contingent of artillery and keep it supplied and rapidly connected to a communications net that could relay target information is questionable IMO.

Most of the areas had no road net. You'd be lucky to have just a trail. There's was a good reason why mortars and light "mountain gun's" were very useful in the Pacific. Hauling large caliber guns around was a diffuclut and in many cases an impossible task in many parts of the Pacific theater-even for the Americans.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Big difference between Europe and Asia. The Japanese didn't have nearly as many radios, nor were they of the same quality as American radios. Land lines that had to be laid -which took time was also still in widespread use. Observation in the jungle and terrain of many parts of the Pacific theater made observation difficult.

Without a good communications net, observed targets, artillery is not going ot be as effective. You're also going to need a pretty sizable "tail" in the form of trucks, prime movers and repair shops to keep the transport flett operational. Japan was very limited in all of the above.

WW1 was static trench warfare, by ww2 mobility had returned and that made the job of artillery more difficult-and good communications networks that could relay timely information to the gunners even more important.

In reality the IJA's ability to force march tens of dozen or hundreds of miles with a huge contingent of artillery and keep it supplied and rapidly connected to a communications net that could relay target information is questionable IMO.

How much mobility is included in the siege of a base?

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

ETF,

But artillery isn't ever fired with an even distribution and neither are troops spread evenly over that ground. No, troops cluster into groups ( squads, platoons, companies etc ) and so does artillery fire.

Think of it this way... An artillery bombardment by a single artillery unit may represent the firing of a one hour of fire in an entire day. Assume 2 rounds per minute ( quite reasonable ). That's 120 rounds per gun. A single Bn may therefore fire 18 x 12 = just over 200 rounds.

Multiply that by 10 ( because people here are talking about bombardments launched by multiple divisions, regiments, artillery Bns and artillery regimetns ) and you have 2,000 rounds being fired in that day.

When a single round hitting in the midst of a platoon scattered in the open can easily kill or disable half that platoon ( about 20 or so men ) you see that out of 2,000 rounds you'd only need 50 such hits to account for 1,000 casualties.


Really, to anyone who knows anything about land warfare these casualty rates vs unentrenched infantry really aren't out of kilter.

Hell when my granddad faced the Germans in Belgium in 1940 he told me of an entire platoon of Dutch soldiers being buried alive in a position to his left when they were holding near one of the canals. He was adamant that single large calibre shell collapsed their position ( I'm assuming at least 15cm, probably larger and even then only possibly because the position was hasty and the ground soggy and prone to collapse ). Anyways, a single shell there took out 20 or so people ( the platoon had been whittled down due to casualties previously ) even though there were in at least Level 1 or 2 fortifications.

My point is simple: Artillery is an awesome killer. Under the right circumstances it can kill anything on the battlefield including tanks and it most certainly can wipe out unentrenched infantry. If this wasn't so why did the US put so much effort into Point du Hoc and other German artillery positions covering the landing beaches? Answer, those few artillery pieces were recognised as being at least as lethal as the entire Bn defending said beach...

German artillery fire was quite good in WW2. Just look at the results at Sevastopol. And all that without American guns or American radios.