ORIGINAL: Kull
ORIGINAL: bklooste
Also are your losses to art 47% ?
None of us can really say. There's a perception issue in that some folks are looking at the "Bombardment" attack as the major use of artillery, when in fact it was the exception. WW2 didn't involve set piece battles ala WW1 with weeks of preparatory artillery bombardment. In the vast majority of cases, artillery assaults were intended as support - and followup - to infantry assaults. And this is represented in game, insofar as even during a deliberate or shock attack there's an artillery bombardment phase.
Historically artillery was more effective in conjunction with an infantry assault as the enemy knew there were infantry to deal with and had to come out of their fortified positions to deal with them. Assume even the simplest of defensive positions - the 2-man foxhole. If all the enemy is doing is sending in artillery rounds, where are you? Hunkered down at the bottom trying to dig in even deeper. Only a direct hit into the foxhole will cause casualties. But if there's an infantry assault coming at you too, well then, you have to stand up and face it, and insofar as any portion of your body is now above the rim, suddenly you are at risk of shrapnel injuries that would have been impossible otherwise. And if the position is being overrun or panic ensues and your unit leaves their positions and runs to the rear? Well now you are in the REAL artillery killing zone. And neither of those happens absent the infantry assault.
At the risk of hitting your own troops during the assault? I would think the attacker would feel the brunt of an artillery barrage from the defenders, not the other way around. You make a good point though about having to defend during an attack and risk exposure. But those same troops would be suffering from disruption, fatigue, and morale issues which could make them as ineffective as suffering actual casualties from being bombarded every day. Look at the cases when shelling would occur during meal times in areas under siege. Wasn't there a case during the Bulge campaign where a group of American soldiers lining up for breakfast where killed by an artillery barrage? Not every soldier in a fortified defence, is actually under cover every minute of every day. Rear areas are not all hunkered down in foxholes or bunkers, supplies have to be moved, units repositioned...etc. I just think artillery, whether causing actual battle casualties or not, has become too ineffective in other areas, namely in causing disruption.
I agree that during deliberate or shock attacks defensive artillery firing can be very effective. The huge losses suffered by forces undergoing a failed shock attack is still modelled in the game and reflects the killing capacity of defensive artillery, not to mention the attackers disruption level skyrockets. A successful attack also reflects the killing capacity of attacking artillery when the defender's position breaks and runs, again causing high losses and disruption. Where I get caught up is when you have been air and ground bombarding for weeks or a month in a siege situation, and you launch an attack and there is no sign of any negative disruption or fatigue modifier. If anyone is following the artillery testing thread happening right now, disruption appears to be recovered as quickly as it is gained, and defender's experience levels are actually going up during these bombardments. If all that is being accomplished is a greather use of supply by the defender, a player that prudently stocks up huge supply reserves in critical bases of fortification levels of 4 and larger, can last for months longer now. That has the potential to severely limit the early expansion phase of Japan. I won't even mention the effect if may have in the large cities in China where, if supply is not cut completely, some positions have the capacity to never be taken, also taking into consideration the numbers of troops available to defend.
bklooste mentioned about the defensive artillery barrage during Kursk on the start positions of the Germans prior to the assault. Casualties I believe were light, but the disruption to attacking units was substantial, affecting their combat effectiveness from the get go. Again, not actual casualties, but the disruption caused by artillery is a key factor.
Just my observations of potential pitfalls with artillery being scaled down in siege situations, right or wrong.
