Ineffective Japanese Artillery

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Sredni
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 6:07 am
Location: Canada

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by Sredni »

ORIGINAL: GrimOne

Why does the attacker consistently take more casualties than the defender.??????[&:]

The explanation that I've seen most widely used and backed up with references and experience is that artillery isn't effective alone, and that this is a semi accurate reflection of reality. That counter battery fire from entrenched and fortified units was more effective then assaulting artillery alone (for the most part).

Artillery is further explained as something used most effectively as part of actual assaults, and not by itself unless your goal is to disrupt and cause supply expenditure.

I don't have any experience myself, and I'm not well read enough on the subject to judge, but this is the explanation that seems to have the best support to me.

Our mileage may vary. *shrug*
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 10470
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by PaxMondo »

ORIGINAL: GrimOne

Why does the attacker consistently take more casualties than the defender.??????[&:]


I don't see this "consistently". Post a save to Tech support in a new thread if you do. Arty works fine for me as stated by crsutton above.
Pax
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: oreskovich

Before one of the recent patches artillery was clearly too strong; however, it seems that the fix has sent the problem in the other direction. As the Japanese in China I have about 10 artillery units bombarding Changsha. The units are liberally supplied and have no disruption, fatigue, etc. The Chinese have very little in the way of artillery at Changsha.

Each turn I bombard and end up losing 500 or 600 troops to the Chinese 60 or 70. What gives? This has happened consistently over a number of turns. If the artillery bombardment isn't degrading enemy supply, readiness, etc. then what is it good for?

This is the part that really burns me up. How can the bombarding side sustain more casualties than the bombarded side? I understand counter battery fire and all that, but in this case, the bombarded side has no artillery to counter bombard with. What's happening? Are friendly fire casualties consistently greater than casualties sustained by the target? If this were the case in real life, why would artillery even have been used? (If more of your guys die than those of the enemy, why bother with it?)
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Icedawg
ORIGINAL: oreskovich

Before one of the recent patches artillery was clearly too strong; however, it seems that the fix has sent the problem in the other direction. As the Japanese in China I have about 10 artillery units bombarding Changsha. The units are liberally supplied and have no disruption, fatigue, etc. The Chinese have very little in the way of artillery at Changsha.

Each turn I bombard and end up losing 500 or 600 troops to the Chinese 60 or 70. What gives? This has happened consistently over a number of turns. If the artillery bombardment isn't degrading enemy supply, readiness, etc. then what is it good for?

This is the part that really burns me up. How can the bombarding side sustain more casualties than the bombarded side? I understand counter battery fire and all that, but in this case, the bombarded side has no artillery to counter bombard with. What's happening? Are friendly fire casualties consistently greater than casualties sustained by the target? If this were the case in real life, why would artillery even have been used? (If more of your guys die than those of the enemy, why bother with it?)


no friendly fire in the game, this is what is seen as counterfire.
goran007
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:10 am
Location: croatia

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by goran007 »

Bunch of people playing Allies/Chinese placed 200.000 troops in a Chinese city- HEX 40X40 miles. They misused the system by miraculously building level 6-9 forts in few months. The system of trenches, underground tunnels and bunkers was so well planned that it could house 1/3 of whole Chinese armed forces.

Half of solders fought with knives and sticks but the magnificent Chiang Kai-shek build a iron bunker for every soldier.

considering number of soldiers per hex size (40X40 miles)
total air superiority/air recon of the attacker
a 25pdr shell lands 10 meters from you, chance of being casualty is 50% (http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm)

Fight would probably end like in a Falaise Pocket with 100.000 dead in 2 days from. (artillery/air attack only)

7-22 Aug 1944 (near Caen)[/b]

Before the Allies closed the pocket, the death and destruction dealt against the German Army was horrifying even though a number of Panzer divisions were able to escape from the envelopment. "The battlefield at Falaise was unquestionably one of the greatest 'killing fields' of any of the war areas", Eisenhower noted in his memoirs. "Forty-eight hours after the closing of the gap I was conducted through it on foot, to encounter scenes that could be described only by Dante. It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh." Robert Rogge, who fought with the Canadian Army in Falaise, recalled the destruction:

It reeked of the destroyed [German] army. Burned-out tanks, lorries, motorcycles, and carts were in ruinous heaps. Bloated, black-faced corpses lay everywhere, and the summer stench was overpowering. Dead, grossly swollen horses were carelessly mingled with human corpses and savaged equipment.

The men held dirty handkerchiefs over their faces, but nothing could keep out the stench. It got into their clothes and remained with them for days.

Eight infantry divisions and two Panzer divisions were captured as German resistance in the pocket died down. The nightmarish narrow escape route was later named the "Corridor of Death" by the Germans who survived it.

The defeat of the German forces during Operation Cobra cost Germany over 400,000 men and 1,500 tanks and self-propelled guns, while key positions such as Avranches and openings to Brittany were now in Allied hands.

The 150,000 German troops within the Falaise Pocket finally surrendered on 21 Aug 1944. An estimated 100,000 German troops succeeded in escaping back to Germany before the pocket was completed. Where are 150.000 men that didn't surrender or returned to Germany?

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=112
Jakerson
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:46 am

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by Jakerson »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I was a loud voice in the "Nuclear Artillery" camp. Back then, artillery was devastating. I was losing 3,000 to 5,000 Chinese troops a day. I was losing 600 squads a month in just one hex to artillery bombardments when the Chinese replacement rate is only 200 squads per month. This was in hexes with big forts, and there was no way to defend against it.

While artillery is much weaker now, I far, far prefer the current state over the old state. Even later in the game, when I have tons of artillery myself, I still prefer it.

Arguably, the model now is very good. Artillery in the Pacific did not do bad things to well entrenched troops like at Iwo Jima, Peleliu and Okinawa. it would, of course, rip apart troops in the open, but I've seen it do just that in AE.

If you have too much troops packed up in same hex this is exactly what should happen it provide more targets to the side that had more artillery. When there are too many troops not all of the troops can fit inside the fortifications. A lot of the troops require a lot of supply and Japanese recon planes could spot those elements that are handling logistics and target these with artillery fire.
Jakerson
Posts: 566
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:46 am

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by Jakerson »

ORIGINAL: goran007

Bunch of people playing Allies/Chinese placed 200.000 troops in a Chinese city- HEX 40X40 miles. They misused the system by miraculously building level 6-9 forts in few months. The system of trenches, underground tunnels and bunkers was so well planned that it could house 1/3 of whole Chinese armed forces.

Half of solders fought with knives and sticks but the magnificent Chiang Kai-shek build a iron bunker for every soldier.

considering number of soldiers per hex size (40X40 miles)
total air superiority/air recon of the attacker
a 25pdr shell lands 10 meters from you, chance of being casualty is 50% (http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm)

This is exactly what I mean if you enemy has recon planes, air superiority and a lot more firepower and artillery it is not wise idea to pack up all of the troops in same hex. No matter how big fortification you have you cannot fit your whole army (infantry, guns, logistics and supply inside bunkers). Huge Chinese troop’s concentration would have been decimated in days with just artillery fire and air attacks in the way that they take 5000-10000 men casualties per day and not the way around.

On the other hand if Chinese deploy army on wider front then it is very slow Japanese to destroy troops and take control of battlefield there will be setback here and there but Chinese could always threat Japanese supply lines and make it harder for Japanese to keep their gain without risk of get encircled. This is how it happened in real life Japanese decimated Chinese troops in many places but it was hard for Japanese to control wide areas around them.



goran007
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:10 am
Location: croatia

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by goran007 »


This is exactly what I mean if you enemy has recon planes, air superiority and a lot more firepower and artillery it is not wise idea to pack up all of the troops in same hex. No matter how big fortification you have you cannot fit your whole army (infantry, guns, logistics and supply inside bunkers). Huge Chinese troop’s concentration would have been decimated in days with just artillery fire and air attacks in the way that they take 5000-10000 men casualties per day and not the way around.

Exactly, real strenght of Chinise lays on partisan/guerilla style of play. Game engine should penalize side with weaker firepower when it decides to confront opposing force in conventional fight. As it stands now, much stronger side with 100:1 is penalized if its doing bombardment.

5000-10.000 killed or wounded/200.000 men per day when faced with ratio of 1:100 artillery pieces and more than 1000 guns was right on track what would happen in real life.





mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: goran007

Fight would probably end like in a Falaise Pocket with 100.000 dead in 2 days from. (artillery/air attack only)

Only if the Japanese had the kind of firepower available that the Western Allies had in Normandy. In reality, they didn't have the fire control, artillery tubes, tactical flexibility, or close support aircraft to pull off anything of the sort. As with armor, they simply weren't in the same league as the Germans, Americans, or British. Nor did they have the kind of overwhelming mass of of guns used by the Russians.
User avatar
Icedawg
Posts: 1613
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:55 pm
Location: Upstate New York

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by Icedawg »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Icedawg
ORIGINAL: oreskovich

Before one of the recent patches artillery was clearly too strong; however, it seems that the fix has sent the problem in the other direction. As the Japanese in China I have about 10 artillery units bombarding Changsha. The units are liberally supplied and have no disruption, fatigue, etc. The Chinese have very little in the way of artillery at Changsha.

Each turn I bombard and end up losing 500 or 600 troops to the Chinese 60 or 70. What gives? This has happened consistently over a number of turns. If the artillery bombardment isn't degrading enemy supply, readiness, etc. then what is it good for?

This is the part that really burns me up. How can the bombarding side sustain more casualties than the bombarded side? I understand counter battery fire and all that, but in this case, the bombarded side has no artillery to counter bombard with. What's happening? Are friendly fire casualties consistently greater than casualties sustained by the target? If this were the case in real life, why would artillery even have been used? (If more of your guys die than those of the enemy, why bother with it?)


no friendly fire in the game, this is what is seen as counterfire.

But when the other side has no artillery (or practically none), how is it possible that the counterfire will cause more casualties than the attacker's fire does? This is the part that I find ridiculous - the side with the bombarding artillery almost always takes more casualties than the defender. Even if the defender is a decimated engineer unit with a single aviation support squad and the attacker has 5 heavy artillery regiments, the attacker takes more casualties. What are the defenders doing in this case, throwing wrenches and hammers 5+ km and taking out the crews of the bombarding guns?
goran007
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:10 am
Location: croatia

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by goran007 »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: goran007

Fight would probably end like in a Falaise Pocket with 100.000 dead in 2 days from. (artillery/air attack only)

Only if the Japanese had the kind of firepower available that the Western Allies had in Normandy. In reality, they didn't have the fire control, artillery tubes, tactical flexibility, or close support aircraft to pull off anything of the sort. As with armor, they simply weren't in the same league as the Germans, Americans, or British. Nor did they have the kind of overwhelming mass of of guns used by the Russians.

compared to Allies, Japan had bigger advantage on Chinese than Allies did on Germans.

Nevertheless, 40X40 miles with stacked 200.000 enemy soldiers is a wet dream of every General. That area can be totally controlled by few hundred guns, making impossible any resuply or troop movement by well placed observers on dominating hill tops.

Artillery fire on discovered strongpoints and concentration areas would be devastating. Attacking general would have destroyed the area and army organisation by bombardment far before they would commit 500.000 and endure 50.000 dead to capture it. (numbers like that you could expect in the game)

After a month of siege, in real warfare I would expect that attacker would face no more than few thousand dead for prob 170.000 defenders surrendered and 30.000 killed or wounded.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: goran007

Bunch of people playing Allies/Chinese placed 200.000 troops in a Chinese city- HEX 40X40 miles. They misused the system by miraculously building level 6-9 forts in few months. The system of trenches, underground tunnels and bunkers was so well planned that it could house 1/3 of whole Chinese armed forces.

Half of solders fought with knives and sticks but the magnificent Chiang Kai-shek build a iron bunker for every soldier.

considering number of soldiers per hex size (40X40 miles)
total air superiority/air recon of the attacker
a 25pdr shell lands 10 meters from you, chance of being casualty is 50% (http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm)

Fight would probably end like in a Falaise Pocket with 100.000 dead in 2 days from. (artillery/air attack only)

7-22 Aug 1944 (near Caen)[/b]

Before the Allies closed the pocket, the death and destruction dealt against the German Army was horrifying even though a number of Panzer divisions were able to escape from the envelopment. "The battlefield at Falaise was unquestionably one of the greatest 'killing fields' of any of the war areas", Eisenhower noted in his memoirs. "Forty-eight hours after the closing of the gap I was conducted through it on foot, to encounter scenes that could be described only by Dante. It was literally possible to walk for hundreds of yards at a time, stepping on nothing but dead and decaying flesh." Robert Rogge, who fought with the Canadian Army in Falaise, recalled the destruction:

It reeked of the destroyed [German] army. Burned-out tanks, lorries, motorcycles, and carts were in ruinous heaps. Bloated, black-faced corpses lay everywhere, and the summer stench was overpowering. Dead, grossly swollen horses were carelessly mingled with human corpses and savaged equipment.

The men held dirty handkerchiefs over their faces, but nothing could keep out the stench. It got into their clothes and remained with them for days.

Eight infantry divisions and two Panzer divisions were captured as German resistance in the pocket died down. The nightmarish narrow escape route was later named the "Corridor of Death" by the Germans who survived it.

The defeat of the German forces during Operation Cobra cost Germany over 400,000 men and 1,500 tanks and self-propelled guns, while key positions such as Avranches and openings to Brittany were now in Allied hands.

The 150,000 German troops within the Falaise Pocket finally surrendered on 21 Aug 1944. An estimated 100,000 German troops succeeded in escaping back to Germany before the pocket was completed. Where are 150.000 men that didn't surrender or returned to Germany?

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=112


Um, usually they are fighting a Japanese army in the same hex that is actually larger...so this argument (200,000 Allied troops in a hex) is not the strongest. Unfortunately, the land war has many abstractions (to keep some sanity in the size of the game) and both sides can stack unlimted troops in most land hexes with no penalty. So be it. Density penalties would be a nice feature but it is just wishing for so much more programming in the game that is not going to happen.

Chinese troops were poorly equipped and led but those that survived the first few weeks of battle quickly became veterans and had their own ways of surviving and dealing with the superior Japanese army. To think or assume that they could not dig in and dig in very well if given time is a false assumption. All experienced troops (not necessarily trained, just experienced) learn how to dig in fast as soon as they take a position. I have seen nothing in to indicate that the Chinese soldiers were deficient in this aspect. Once assuming a position a soldier could have a good foxhole dug in about an hour and the defenses would only grow more extent with each day. I would think that most any army that was in position for a week-given decent terrain would be just about immune from any sort of bombardment except for the occasional direct hit and pretty safe in their trenches and holes. Given a fort level of 6 or greater it would not surprise me to see the attacker get the worst of any artillery fight.

In using Falise, you also cite the example of fleeing and defeated troops on the move through a narrow corridor faced with the sort of massive firepower that no other combatants in the war could have delivered. I fail to see how that applies to the game. Anytime a unit retreat after combat in the game, losses are heavy and for the Chinese sometimes brutal. I think this more mirrors your Falise Gap example than an in hex artillery duel between dug in opponents.

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
goran007
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:10 am
Location: croatia

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by goran007 »

Chinese troops were poorly equipped and led but those that survived the first few weeks of battle quickly became veterans and had their own ways of surviving and dealing with the superior Japanese army. To think or assume that they could not dig in and dig in very well if given time is a false assumption. All experienced troops (not necessarily trained, just experienced) learn how to dig in fast as soon as they take a position. I have seen nothing in to indicate that the Chinese soldiers were deficient in this aspect. Once assuming a position a soldier could have a good foxhole dug in about an hour and the defenses would only grow more extent with each day. I would think that most any army that was in position for a week-given decent terrain would be just about immune from any sort of bombardment except for the occasional direct hit and pretty safe in their trenches and holes. Given a fort level of 6 or greater it would not surprise me to see the attacker get the worst of any artillery fight.


Ok. lets say Chinise did dug in, how would that defense look like? Circular all around outer line of the hex?
Lets say Japan attacks it. Would any normal General attack it by charging on every foxhole? No, they would attack it on 3-4 narrow corridors and breaking through to the command strongpoint.
How many losses would attacker endure? Maybe few thousands.
Would the defender been able to react and contain attacker? No. because all soldiers are dug in and he has no reserve.

To have any chance of success in defending General would deploy maybe half of the force all along the line and keep other half in mobile reserve. That mobile reserve has to be large enough and close enough to counter attacking move.

In 40X40 miles and if u have footsoldiers i expect that attacker would need about 7-10 division size units to cover possible exploits by attacker and cointain it.
Those divisions arent dug in, they are if best in the woods. They have to be no more than 5 miles from the front or 1h to be deployed (they are on foot). Best of all massed in assembly areas and are really exposed by going to the line.

Attacker would expect troop movement and would drive them out of cover by simulating assault. How long would those troops last in the open while marching to front line for an hour?

Defense of 40X40 miles area is possible only by Kursk style of warfare. By defence and counterattack, control of the sky, domination in artillery and tanks.


For the Chinese its impossible and they would have been oblitorated by artillery in days.




User avatar
stuman
Posts: 3945
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Elvis' Hometown

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by stuman »

ORIGINAL: goran007


18.000 Japanese killed vs 7.000 Marines killed on Iwo Jima. Those IJA solders didnt die because of mosquitoes. Without firepower they had, i bet that even with 70.000 marines dead on the beaches they wouldn't have captured Iwo Jima.

War is about firepower, generally speaking the bigger the better.

It takes 16 rounds from 5.5 inch gun on 100x100 area for it to take severe morale hit, 2% losses of soldiers in pits or 20% in the open. Drop in morale is severe and solders cant put effective defense.

Air bursting amuntion increase losses from 2 to 10 times.

Statement that artillery not producing casulties in Pacific is bollocks.

u can read about it here: http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm

Interesting. Thx
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

Image
goran007
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:10 am
Location: croatia

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by goran007 »

In using Falise, you also cite the example of fleeing and defeated troops on the move through a narrow corridor faced with the sort of massive firepower that no other combatants in the war could have delivered. I fail to see how that applies to the game. Anytime a unit retreat after combat in the game, losses are heavy and for the Chinese sometimes brutal. I think this more mirrors your Falise Gap example than an in hex artillery duel between dug in opponents.

I am not saying that artillery alone would win the wars but i am saying that there were certain players who managed Chinese forces by stacking them together and putting them to one hex. That was irrational behavior that no General would do, they were asking for kind of losses they saw.

Artillery like it was a year ago penalized stacking and it should. I expect that if Matrix didnt make a change to artillery, today we would see partisan style of play of Chinese what they actually did in war. Same goes for capturing of Japan by US forces in 1945-46.
User avatar
jomni
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Contact:

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by jomni »

Oh my.  People complain... we get a patch... and now other people complain.
It's an endless circle. When will everyone be happy? [:(]
Fishbed
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:52 am
Location: Henderson Field, Guadalcanal

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by Fishbed »

ORIGINAL: goran007
In using Falise, you also cite the example of fleeing and defeated troops on the move through a narrow corridor faced with the sort of massive firepower that no other combatants in the war could have delivered. I fail to see how that applies to the game. Anytime a unit retreat after combat in the game, losses are heavy and for the Chinese sometimes brutal. I think this more mirrors your Falise Gap example than an in hex artillery duel between dug in opponents.

I am not saying that artillery alone would win the wars but i am saying that there were certain players who managed Chinese forces by stacking them together and putting them to one hex. That was irrational behavior that no General would do, they were asking for kind of losses they saw.

Artillery like it was a year ago penalized stacking and it should. I expect that if Matrix didnt make a change to artillery, today we would see partisan style of play of Chinese what they actually did in war. Same goes for capturing of Japan by US forces in 1945-46.

You just can't expect partisan war to be 100% simulated by units on the map. This should remain partly an abstract concept, by tying units up for mopping operations. Besides, the ground concept being "questionable" the way it is considering the losses the Chinese troops may suffer every time they get their ass kicked in a deliberate or a shock attack (most probably I guess because of their low proficiency), what you lost in your artillery attacks, you still get it during your normal attacks, as said earlier. Heavy artillery presence will play a large role in the devastating attacks against uprepared, ill-prepared or inferior Chinese troop concentrations, and it's already nasty enough like that.

AE Hexagones are not 2km wide, for Christ's sake.
User avatar
frank1970
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Bayern

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by frank1970 »

ORIGINAL: goran007

Chinese troops were poorly equipped and led but those that survived the first few weeks of battle quickly became veterans and had their own ways of surviving and dealing with the superior Japanese army. To think or assume that they could not dig in and dig in very well if given time is a false assumption. All experienced troops (not necessarily trained, just experienced) learn how to dig in fast as soon as they take a position. I have seen nothing in to indicate that the Chinese soldiers were deficient in this aspect. Once assuming a position a soldier could have a good foxhole dug in about an hour and the defenses would only grow more extent with each day. I would think that most any army that was in position for a week-given decent terrain would be just about immune from any sort of bombardment except for the occasional direct hit and pretty safe in their trenches and holes. Given a fort level of 6 or greater it would not surprise me to see the attacker get the worst of any artillery fight.


Ok. lets say Chinise did dug in, how would that defense look like? Circular all around outer line of the hex?
Lets say Japan attacks it. Would any normal General attack it by charging on every foxhole? No, they would attack it on 3-4 narrow corridors and breaking through to the command strongpoint.
How many losses would attacker endure? Maybe few thousands.
Would the defender been able to react and contain attacker? No. because all soldiers are dug in and he has no reserve.

To have any chance of success in defending General would deploy maybe half of the force all along the line and keep other half in mobile reserve. That mobile reserve has to be large enough and close enough to counter attacking move.

In 40X40 miles and if u have footsoldiers i expect that attacker would need about 7-10 division size units to cover possible exploits by attacker and cointain it.
Those divisions arent dug in, they are if best in the woods. They have to be no more than 5 miles from the front or 1h to be deployed (they are on foot). Best of all massed in assembly areas and are really exposed by going to the line.

Attacker would expect troop movement and would drive them out of cover by simulating assault. How long would those troops last in the open while marching to front line for an hour?

Defense of 40X40 miles area is possible only by Kursk style of warfare. By defence and counterattack, control of the sky, domination in artillery and tanks.


For the Chinese its impossible and they would have been oblitorated by artillery in days.

Sorry, but mobile reserve does not mean, that the guys are standing on the street, waiting for the order to run to the fights.

I am quite sure, that units in reserve will have their own foxhole to seek cover. It will just be some km behind the frontlines. [;)]
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"

mike scholl 1
Posts: 1265
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 8:20 pm

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by mike scholl 1 »

ORIGINAL: goran007
compared to Allies, Japan had bigger advantage on Chinese than Allies did on Germans.

Nevertheless, 40X40 miles with stacked 200.000 enemy soldiers is a wet dream of every General. That area can be totally controlled by few hundred guns, making impossible any resuply or troop movement by well placed observers on dominating hill tops.

Artillery fire on discovered strongpoints and concentration areas would be devastating. Attacking general would have destroyed the area and army organisation by bombardment far before they would commit 500.000 and endure 50.000 dead to capture it. (numbers like that you could expect in the game)

After a month of siege, in real warfare I would expect that attacker would face no more than few thousand dead for prob 170.000 defenders surrendered and 30.000 killed or wounded.


NONSENSE! The 100,000 Japanese troops dug in on Okinawa held a much smaller area than this and were faced by overwhelming American firepower (everything from 16" naval rifles down to 60mm mortars..., not to mention the air contribution). Nevertheless, it took months of close infantry assaults and heavy casualties to "wrinkle them out" of their positions.

Bombardments "suppress" dug in troops, they don't destroy them. What you are thinking of is a force caught in the open (usually an attacker) such as the Chinese suffered at the hands of the US 2nd Division in the Spring of 1951. The so-called "May Massacre" where the Reds took over 50,000 casualties and left the front littered with bodies for miles on end. That more closely resembled the situation at Falaise you refer to. The Germans, in danger of being totally surrounded, were forced to move in the open to try and escape. These were the same German troops that had been containing the Normandy Bridgehead for months from well dug-in positions.
GrimOne
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 2:09 am

RE: Ineffective Japanese Artillery

Post by GrimOne »

Great to see debate going on this issue
 
Since Bombardment has been totally neutered can we please get the AI to stop using it
 
Here is a typical combat report with the computer playing as the allies
Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)
 
Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 39788 troops, 587 guns, 178 vehicles, Assault Value = 1768
 
Defending force 56575 troops, 643 guns, 566 vehicles, Assault Value = 1941
 
Japanese ground losses:
      27 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      93 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
         Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 6 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
 
And again the next day[>:]
 
Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)
 
Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 39816 troops, 587 guns, 178 vehicles, Assault Value = 1770
 
Defending force 56612 troops, 643 guns, 566 vehicles, Assault Value = 1944
 
Japanese ground losses:
      18 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      117 casualties reported
         Squads: 1 destroyed, 5 disabled
         Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 3 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
 
 
My point is that it is easy enough to win against the computer without it shooting itself in the foot [8|]
 

 
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”