Japanese Artillery

[Alamander]

So 1942 is winding down in my game with Mike, and Japan is slowly (and very reluctantly... lol) transitioning from a more offensive posture to a more defensive posture. I am reviewing a stack of artillery that has just moved into a reserve role with the fall of the last major allied redoubt, and I am trying to decide how to best deploy my artillery units going forward.

The 30 cm and 28 cm howitzers, seem to me, obvious in their use. They are best used as point-blank coastal-style artillery where amphibious landings are expected. They have enough punch to knock through a BBs deck armor, but not enough range to challenge anything but the most careless bombardment TF. The lack of range also limits their effectiveness against the allied 155s and 105s in a conventional land battle.

The big mortars, 27mm and 32mm, also lack range but pack serious punch. They seem best used where one expects the allies to attack without much artillery support.

The most intriguing gun is the 15mm T96 gun. Its range is almost unequalled by any artillery tube in the game, and it packs some real umph. It can punch through the deck armor of any allied CA and has enough range to punish most CA bombardment groups. These same traits, however, make it the ideal counter-battery weapon against large allied stacks besieging key bases, like Rangoon, Manila, and so forth. It also comes in several large regiments containing 24 guns each. These are serious units and need to be deployed for maximum effect.

Thoughts on these devices and all the Japanese artillery devices?

[Lowpe]

Your artillery, especially 15cm and up that isn't a mortar, is your best anti-tank platform and needs to be used as such.

You can spare some to defend against a possible invasion, but the vast majority needs to be on the front lines, protected with forts and AA and infantry holding off what is to become the Allied juggernaut.

Otherwise, Allied tanks will eat you alive not to mention their artillery.

Seriously, put on a back burner the idea of punching thru a CA or BB. Won't happen on naval bombardments, and most likely won't on invasions either. Can do a good job against landing troops and the shock attack afterwards though, if it isn't disrupted to hell and back...and on a good atoll invasion it will be, and on a bad atoll invasion you didn't really need it to begin with.

[Alamander]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Your artillery, especially 15cm and up that isn't a mortar, is your best anti-tank platform and needs to be used as such.

You can spare some to defend against a possible invasion, but the vast majority needs to be on the front lines, protected with forts and AA and infantry holding off what is to become the Allied juggernaut.

Otherwise, Allied tanks will eat you alive not to mention their artillery.

Seriously, put on a back burner the idea of punching thru a CA or BB. Won't happen on naval bombardments, and most likely won't on invasions either. Can do a good job against landing troops and the shock attack afterwards though, if it isn't disrupted to hell and back...and on a good atoll invasion it will be, and on a bad atoll invasion you didn't really need it to begin with.

I wasn't really thinking of atolls so much. There just isn't much room within the stacking limits, especially for the heavier guns that come with all the tractors and motorized support that ramp up their stacking limit cost. I was thinking more along the lines of deploying them on full-sized islands where I have forts.

No question that all of the 15 cm guns are all good anti-tank weapons, and I will certainly use the non-T96 guns at major bases. I am not sold on the 24, 28, and 30 cm guns as anti-tank weapons. Certainly they have the anti-armor to devastate a tank, but they lack range and will be supressed fairly easily by allied counter-batter fire. Maybe if they are covered by several batteries of T96s, they will perform better?

TBH, I have not had great success destroying or disabling vehicles with Japanese artillery in the past. It seems that where tanks go, artillery goes, with the allies, and allied counter-batter fire seems to be sufficient to keep me from doing much to vehicles.

As an aside, I intend to buyout and deploy much of the reserve artillery in Manchuria in the next few months. I have already bought out about half of it. So I intend to have a lot of artillery devices to deploy in the coming days.

[Lowpe]

Lol, one of the few places, other than the front lines, I think for heavy artillery is on the isolated atolls like Wake, Marcus and Midway. I believe I used 24cm to great effect against Jocke in an all tank landing.

I believe it is only men that count for stacking limits, at least that is how I always looked at it.

I couldn't imagine fighting the Allies without using almost every large piece on the front lines where they are being used day in and out. If they aren't on the front lines then they are either digging in or recovering. I have had great success using them against Allied/Soviet tanks into late game.

On bigger islands I generally almost always use the air mobile artillery especially in island chains where getting bypassed is a very real concern.

[RangerJoe]

If those big guns are lost, will there be replacements? I don't have my game open.

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If those big guns are lost, will there be replacements? I don't have my game open.

It's Japan, there is always replacements as long as Armaments pool is positive

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If those big guns are lost, will there be replacements? I don't have my game open.

It's Japan, there is always replacements as long as Armaments pool is positive

Thank you. I thought that I saw some with end dates but I am used to the Allied side.

[Lowpe]

All the really big, low count, art units are great PP purchase since price is based on tubes.

Anyone ever buy out the large count 81mm mortar units?

[RangerJoe]

Well, send them to someplace low on supplies and arrange it so they don't receive any. That should make them cheaper.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alamander

Thoughts on these devices and all the Japanese artillery devices?

You need to think where you want it. Forts and terrain.

The arty organic to IJA divisions is a mixed bag, and on average exceptionally poor. Bolstering your divisions with heavier calibre tubes is a good idea.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the qualitative differences. The Allied will have a massive numerical advantage with the number of 105 and 155 tubes in their TOEs.

Lowpe's suggestions of use of arty on islands is a worthwhile consideration as they'll give good returns for fairly small load cost, especially considering the mechanics of amphib invasions and atoll assaults. Also for the fact that they'll act as a bit of a damage soak for air/naval bombardments against defenders.

[Alamander]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

If those big guns are lost, will there be replacements? I don't have my game open.

It's Japan, there is always replacements as long as Armaments pool is positive

Thank you. I thought that I saw some with end dates but I am used to the Allied side.

Yeah... the 28cms have production end dates listed in the device screen, but they don't actually stop production and will keep replacing throughout the war as far as I know. I have already replaced 2 this game past their expiration date.

[Alamander]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alamander

Thoughts on these devices and all the Japanese artillery devices?

You need to think where you want it. Forts and terrain.

The arty organic to IJA divisions is a mixed bag, and on average exceptionally poor. Bolstering your divisions with heavier calibre tubes is a good idea.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the qualitative differences. The Allied will have a massive numerical advantage with the number of 105 and 155 tubes in their TOEs.

Lowpe's suggestions of use of arty on islands is a worthwhile consideration as they'll give good returns for fairly small load cost, especially considering the mechanics of amphib invasions and atoll assaults. Also for the fact that they'll act as a bit of a damage soak for air/naval bombardments against defenders.

I think the qualitative differences do matter, and I think that is why I have struggled against allied artillery in the past (mostly because I ignored them and just went along with the bigger and more is better strategy). This is the core of the question. It seems to me that those short-range, high-caliber tubes are just not effective when confronting allied 155s and 105s, because of the significant difference in range.

For these reasons, it seems to me that the best tubes the Japanese have are the 155mm T96s, and that they have a qualitative advantage over the allied 105s and 155s. It would be nice, however, to use some of these to wear down or ward off the daily bombardment operations that can be conducted when your opponent has an AKE and fuel near your base.

I plan to use some of the big tubes on islands: just not so much on atolls. Maybe one or two. Many of the atolls already have fortresses with guns of varying effectiveness. I agree with Lowpe that they would seem to be very helpful against an atoll invasion that is likely to fail anyway and not very helpful in causing one to fail that would otherwise succeed.

[BBfanboy]

One thing no one has mentioned is accuracy. In general, Allied guns are more accurate than the Japanese ones. Check the accuracy stats in the database.

[Alamander]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

One thing no one has mentioned is accuracy. In general, Allied guns are more accurate than the Japanese ones. Check the accuracy stats in the database.

I'm glad you mentioned that, since I started looking it over again, and I got the dates mixed up. It appears that Japan does not start getting the 15cm T96 guns until January 1945. I must have been looking at 2 mortar groups that come in March 1943 and mixed their arrival dates up with the T96s... lol. I'm not sure how many islands I will still be defending other than Honshu at that point, so deployment should not be much of an issue.

However, the same question does apply to the 15cm T89 guns and 15 cm T45 guns, which I do have now, though these are not as effective.

[rustysi]

Anyone ever buy out the large count 81mm mortar units?

No, too expensive.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Alamander

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Alamander

Thoughts on these devices and all the Japanese artillery devices?

You need to think where you want it. Forts and terrain.

The arty organic to IJA divisions is a mixed bag, and on average exceptionally poor. Bolstering your divisions with heavier calibre tubes is a good idea.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the qualitative differences. The Allied will have a massive numerical advantage with the number of 105 and 155 tubes in their TOEs.

Lowpe's suggestions of use of arty on islands is a worthwhile consideration as they'll give good returns for fairly small load cost, especially considering the mechanics of amphib invasions and atoll assaults. Also for the fact that they'll act as a bit of a damage soak for air/naval bombardments against defenders.

I think the qualitative differences do matter, and I think that is why I have struggled against allied artillery in the past (mostly because I ignored them and just went along with the bigger and more is better strategy). This is the core of the question. It seems to me that those short-range, high-caliber tubes are just not effective when confronting allied 155s and 105s, because of the significant difference in range.

Simply put, the IJA will be at a disadvantage in terms of arty tubes in every theatre outside of China and the inital DEI conquests.

One thing you seem to be missing is that bombardment attacks are one of three possible ground combat events that can happen. Your arty tubes do not exist for the single purpose of counter-bombardment.

The effectiveness of the short-range, high-caliber weapons on counter-bombardment may be poor, but in the event of an Allied deliberate or shock attack, the results will be very different.

For these reasons, it seems to me that the best tubes the Japanese have are the 155mm T96s, and that they have a qualitative advantage over the allied 105s and 155s

The T96 is a late arrival, and IIRC not widely used in the IJA TOE (at least not enough to make up for the gaggle of Allied 105s and 155s at the divisional and corps level.

It would be nice, however, to use some of these to wear down or ward off the daily bombardment operations that can be conducted when your opponent has an AKE and fuel near your base.

Army weapons very rarely engage bombarding ships. It's not their role, that's what coastal guns are for.

I plan to use some of the big tubes on islands: just not so much on atolls. Maybe one or two. Many of the atolls already have fortresses with guns of varying effectiveness. I agree with Lowpe that they would seem to be very helpful against an atoll invasion that is likely to fail anyway and not very helpful in causing one to fail that would otherwise succeed.

Artillery units tend to act as damage soaks when amphib task forces are conducting pre-invasion bombardments, and can keep the battleship shells from falling on the infantry units that will be providing the bulk of your AV. That can be quite key on the first day (which tends to be the decisive day for atoll invasions).