Artillery question

[kaleun]

Probably asked before but:
After the artillery was toned down, does it do any good to have arty at all? In attack? In defense?
How do you use it?

[obvert]

It's still very useful. Especially in static battles, where you have time to get it dug in. It takes a while for arty to get the forts built, but when they do they aren't as vulnerable to counter fire and can do some damage over time. A good way to burn an opponent's supply as well if that is a concern.

[kaleun]

Mostly useful in defensive roles then.

[crsutton]

No, artillery is a support device and just like other devices(MMG, HMG, squad type, AA guns, armored cars tanks and so on) make that unit stronger and more likely to win. Just like in the real war. Look at an American 1944 infantry division and compare it to a similar Japanese division of the same AV. What do you see? More and better guns. Lots more. All other thing being equal this give the American division more firepower than the same Japanese unit. For Japan this only gets worse as time passes. Artillery was toned down as a bombardment weapon but you need to look at it for what it is, a support weapon. And it is always better to have as much on hand as you can.

If you want to test this. Air transport a division to some base on the map. Artillery and heavy support weapons won't transport in aircraft. And then try doing some fighting with that unit minus it's support weapons.

[Sardaukar]

Indeed, artillery helps a lot with both defence and attack. Bombardment attack was toned down and is not harassment/recon tool in that role.

[kaleun]

No, artillery is a support device and just like other devices(MMG, HMG, squad type, AA guns, armored cars tanks and so on) make that unit stronger and more likely to win. Just like in the real war. Look at an American 1944 infantry division and compare it to a similar Japanese division of the same AV. What do you see? More and better guns. Lots more. All other thing being equal this give the American division more firepower than the same Japanese unit. For Japan this only gets worse as time passes. Artillery was toned down as a bombardment weapon but you need to look at it for what it is, a support weapon. And it is always better to have as much on hand as you can.

If you want to test this. Air transport a division to some base on the map. Artillery and heavy support weapons won't transport in aircraft. And then try doing some fighting with that unit minus it's support weapons.

I don't mean embedded artillery in a unit, rather the dedicated artillery units that are separate and don't seem to do much during attacks, and of course seem to take damage when bombarding.

[obvert]

I've noticed a big difference with arty around in a big battle. It works. The Japanese get some pretty interesting 30cm guns as well.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: kaleun

No, artillery is a support device and just like other devices(MMG, HMG, squad type, AA guns, armored cars tanks and so on) make that unit stronger and more likely to win. Just like in the real war. Look at an American 1944 infantry division and compare it to a similar Japanese division of the same AV. What do you see? More and better guns. Lots more. All other thing being equal this give the American division more firepower than the same Japanese unit. For Japan this only gets worse as time passes. Artillery was toned down as a bombardment weapon but you need to look at it for what it is, a support weapon. And it is always better to have as much on hand as you can.

If you want to test this. Air transport a division to some base on the map. Artillery and heavy support weapons won't transport in aircraft. And then try doing some fighting with that unit minus it's support weapons.

I don't mean embedded artillery in a unit, rather the dedicated artillery units that are separate and don't seem to do much during attacks, and of course seem to take damage when bombarding.

Yes, he was using the example of the organic guns to show that the guns do have an impact. The inorganic stand alone LCU artillery units will add the same enhancements. You just don't see artillery alone wiping out whole units like it did in the good 'ole days.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: kaleun

No, artillery is a support device and just like other devices(MMG, HMG, squad type, AA guns, armored cars tanks and so on) make that unit stronger and more likely to win. Just like in the real war. Look at an American 1944 infantry division and compare it to a similar Japanese division of the same AV. What do you see? More and better guns. Lots more. All other thing being equal this give the American division more firepower than the same Japanese unit. For Japan this only gets worse as time passes. Artillery was toned down as a bombardment weapon but you need to look at it for what it is, a support weapon. And it is always better to have as much on hand as you can.

If you want to test this. Air transport a division to some base on the map. Artillery and heavy support weapons won't transport in aircraft. And then try doing some fighting with that unit minus it's support weapons.

I don't mean embedded artillery in a unit, rather the dedicated artillery units that are separate and don't seem to do much during attacks, and of course seem to take damage when bombarding.

Yes, he was using the example of the organic guns to show that the guns do have an impact. The inorganic stand alone LCU artillery units will add the same enhancements. You just don't see artillery alone wiping out whole units like it did in the good 'ole days.

Thanks HB, that was my point. Allied divisions have great organic artillery assets (save for the poor Chinese) but it never hurts to thrown more independent artillery units into your stack. You do have a few units such as commandos that have little or no artillery. If you are going to use them in open combat then you had better give them some support. Many small Japanese (SNLF) units have precious few guns as well. They need help too especially if you want to use them to defend a base.

I rarely bombard anymore. It is Ok for intel gathering and will burn up enemy supply if you have them isolated. And if they are out of supply will pile on disruption and sap morale, but for the Allies, you get a much bigger bang with air attacks.

I did disband some independent Commonwealth 25 pounder units and six pounder AT regiments. All Commonwealth units share from a very limited pool and in 3/45 I still have a few Indian divisions that have yet to upgrade from 18 pounders to 25 and from 2 pound AT guns to six pounders due the shortage. I never disband and American artillery unit. You never should have to.

[towers58]

crsutton,

Great tip on disbanding some of the British indie ART units to flesh out the normal compliment inside a division. Those are the kinds of things I too often overlook.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


I did disband some independent Commonwealth 25 pounder units and six pounder AT regiments. All Commonwealth units share from a very limited pool and in 3/45 I still have a few Indian divisions that have yet to upgrade from 18 pounders to 25 and from 2 pound AT guns to six pounders due the shortage. I never disband and American artillery unit. You never should have to.

did you suffer lots of losses? I am in 7/43 and all my Commonwealth units are fully equipped with 25 pounders with roughly 50 in the pool already. In mid 43 there is a shortage of 6 punder AT guns (who needs them, the Japanese got nothing worth shooting an AT gun at anyway) and the 40mm Bofors many Commonwealth Inf units got. Else I am just fine. Besides that, if you look at tracker, the 18 pounder is nearly equal to the 25 pounder anyway IIRC there is only one point difference in effect between the two guns so I guess one wouldn't notice the difference.

[Gunner98]

I am in 8/43 and haven't taken significant losses but am still waiting for some 25lbrs. I have none in the pool and according to tracker I need 55, there is at least one Ind Div which has not switched yet, did not check the rest. There is 'I think' quite a bit of difference in game, Range 11(18lbr)/13(25lbr), Eff 18/25, Pen 55/60, A Arm 30/35. I don't really know what the values do in the game but the increase in the stats sounds about right.

The 18lbr was a good gun but was old and sloppy. I would suspect that the barrels were largely shot out and there were no more in production. The 25lbr carriage allowed for a much better elevation and the platform traverse was a superb innovation. Ammunition in the 25lbr was a significant upgrade, using separate cartridge and shell with a variable charge vs. a fixed round allowed for much more flexible employment and improved barrel life and maintenance. The screw breach was obsolete for a field gun using cartridge ammunition and the move to the sliding breach in the 25lbr created a good seal, the result was a longer range with less muzzle velocity. I think the 18lbr was a good solid design and it was the high rate of fire which kept it in the game (so to speak[:D]) for so long, she could pump out upwards of 20 rds/pm if need be, where the 25lbr was limited to 5-8 rds/pm - still very fast for a field gun.

B

[n01487477]

The ground war is just a mystery to me... I may know a whole heap about other things but with land combat; I'm a novice ... I need to read more on this ... anyone got some good primer links?

Ground combat at 77,56 (near Wuchow)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 50751 troops, 910 guns, 572 vehicles, Assault Value = 1501

Defending force 22260 troops, 113 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 493

Japanese adjusted assault: 808

Allied adjusted defense: 880

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1981 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 200 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1234 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 204 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 16 (1 destroyed, 15 disabled)

Assaulting units:
104th Division
16th Infantry Regiment
38th Division
4th Tank Regiment
4th Division
7th Tank Regiment
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
5th Mortar Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
56th Field Artillery Regiment
1st RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
3rd Mortar Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
5th Field Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
23rd Army
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd RF Gun Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
18th Chinese Corps
26th Chinese Corps

[jakla1027]

OK I have been gone from WiTPAE for a while, and i don't mean to hijack this thread, but how is land combat these days? I just remember it slacking and not modeled very well, more so with very large forces. (like 2-4 divisions against likewise numbers) Large land battles always seemed to take on a WWI outcome, both sides, (myself vs AI) always attacking each other with neither side gaining or losing ground. Just lots & lots of casualties.

I remember I had about 6 Infantry divisions ( 2 brits, 2 auzie, 2 Chinese) & numerous infantry battalions/regiments. Included were numerous supporting Arty(6 battalions), Tank (2-4 battalions), & AA (6-8) units at Rangoon/Pegu by early 1943. Also all units were meeting their base support needs & with ample supplies. I also had 4-6 Squadrons of fighter bomber/light bombers for air support. Thus all combined i had about 220,000 ground troops to work with. I would try attacking the Japanese forces, which based on Intel numbered anywhere around 70k-120k, both sides were dug in. Over a four month period I would try attacking them they'd try attacking me. Each attack would result in 15-20k casualties for each side, depending on who the attacker was.

Thus I'm not complaining, & heck for all i know i was do everything wrong, but regardless the land combat didn't seem to be the same level of quality/detail as the air or naval combat was.

Thus has their been any improvements to land combat in any way during the last 12 months?

Thanks for any input

[jakla1027]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

The ground war is just a mystery to me... I may know a whole heap about other things but with land combat; I'm a novice ... I need to read more on this ... anyone got some good primer links?

+1 any links would be great[:D]

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

The ground war is just a mystery to me... I may know a whole heap about other things but with land combat; I'm a novice ... I need to read more on this ... anyone got some good primer links?

Ground combat at 77,56 (near Wuchow)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 50751 troops, 910 guns, 572 vehicles, Assault Value = 1501

Defending force 22260 troops, 113 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 493

Japanese adjusted assault: 808

Allied adjusted defense: 880

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1981 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 200 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 31 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 13 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1234 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 204 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 16 (1 destroyed, 15 disabled)

Assaulting units:
104th Division
16th Infantry Regiment
38th Division
4th Tank Regiment
4th Division
7th Tank Regiment
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
1st Hvy.Artillery Regiment
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
5th Mortar Battalion
5th RF Gun Battalion
18th Mountain Gun Regiment
56th Field Artillery Regiment
1st RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
3rd Mortar Battalion
3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
5th Field Artillery Regiment
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
23rd Army
3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd RF Gun Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
14th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
18th Chinese Corps
26th Chinese Corps

Wow! Looks like either very high fort levels, or horrible luck on your part. With all those high-quality troops, it seems like you should have sent those Chinese units packing. My condolences.

[rockmedic109]

Caveat......I know very little about the ground combat model, so my knowledge base should be looked at with suspicion. But here are some observations.



There is a difference between AV and firepower. You can have a low AV and a relatively high firepower. You can start with 1-2 odds on the first combat but cause more losses than you take and eventually get better odds.

Supply, or more approprately the lack thereof, makes a BIG footprint in ground combat.

Pay attension to the terrain, forts and leaders. Great force multipliers.

I think I read that prep points can as much as double your AV.

I think I read that a HQ can add a considerable ammount to you AV as well. I have no evidence either way.

Sorry. No links. My memory is so bad I forgot what this thread was about.

[Speedysteve]

Would the above attack be in jungle/dense forest? If so this seems the norm for my attacks vs Japs in forests. My AV is normally halved and the Jap defender at least doubled

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109
Caveat......I know very little about the ground combat model, so my knowledge base should be looked at with suspicion. But here are some observations.

Hint ... don't drag and drop a whole stack when you assault. Arty is a support element, so bombard with them while you use Divs, Regts, whatever to actually carry out the assault portion of the algorithm. Battles are long term affairs. Use of assets in the way they were intended just might float your boat, yeah?

JWE

[Symon]

double