Artillery Effectiveness and SPWAW

[vahauser]

Historians calculate that more than 50% of all battle casualties during WW2 came from artillery (data based mainly on field hospital reports). I’ve seen percentages as high as 90% (American artillery) and as low as 50% (Soviet and Japanese artillery). Note that artillery casualty percentages are mainly drawn from “Big-Six” nations. I have no idea what SPWAW “minor nation” artillery effectiveness was, in terms of percentage casualties caused.

However, as the old saying goes, there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. Consider the following. From March 1943 to July 1943, the 2000 mile Eastern Front was basically “static”. Does that mean there was no fighting going on? No, but it means that there were no significant offensives. But people were still shooting at each other, mainly with artillery. Now, if you have 4 months of “static” warfare, what percentage of the casualties caused during that period are going to be from artillery? My guess is close to 100%. Now, what happens when an Offensive is launched? Well, most of the Front is still static. Some sections of the East Front were “static” for years. Let’s say that out of a 2000 mile front, a 200-mile section is being attacked in an Offensive that has 10 times the combat intensity of a “static” section. That still leaves 1800 miles of front where nearly 100% of all casualties are from artillery (at a lower level of intensity). And if some historian somewhere concludes that overall Soviet artillery caused 50% casualties. Then that means that when fighting “on the move”, the actual casualties caused by Soviet artillery had to be far less than 50%. (If 1800 miles of static front is producing close to 100% artillery casualties, then for the overall average to be 50%, the 200-mile offensive sector has to be WAY lower than 50%, even though the intensity of operations is very high, to bring the average down to 50%). My point in all this is that we simply cannot take an “overall average” and apply it across the board to all situations. But people do this all the time (like the “historical ratings” setting in SPWAW). And this is where sayings like “there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics” come from.

In another thread, Goblin posted a link to a webpage that discussed artillery effectiveness.

Here is a link to a webpage where the technical data that went into Goblin’s link came from (i.e., the technical data source material that Goblin’s link used is actually at the link below).

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/wt_of_fire.htm


If you don’t want to read all the technical material contained at that link, the whole thing can be summarized by the concluding paragraphs at the very bottom of that webpage.

And I quote:
How good are the calculations?
A key question is the goodness of the models. British researchers summarised by an example giving the expected number of casualties as 9%. They then said that it might be as low a 5% or as high as 15% but not as low as 2 or 3% or as high as 30 or 40%. However, it could be argued that there is not, even today, a good model capable of handling all the variables and being used to either estimate the number of rounds required to produce the desired effects or reversible to estimate the effects for a given number of rounds. [emphasis by vahauser]

Data quality is also an issue. Physical effects are relatively easy to model and validate, although the latter may be expensive and apparently similar targets can vary widely in terms of their vulnerability. [emphasis by vahauser] Psychological effects are a different matter, realistic experiments and trials are out of the question on ethical grounds (at least in Western countries, although there are some tantalizing hints that the Soviets may have experimented). Therefore only war provides the data, but is not a good environment for well managed trials and experiments! [emphasis by vahauser]
End quote.

What all this tells me is that every Army had theories about how effective artillery SHOULD be. But nobody knows, even today, how correct or reliable those theories really are (as illustrated by the emphasized passages, especially that first one, in the quotation above). In other words, it is today, and it was in WW2, ALL GUESSWORK. Are the guesses good ones? Nobody knows. Nobody.

And when somebody tries to convince me that X number of rounds SHOULD do Y amount of damage, I am reminded that even the “experts” are guessing, and that NOBODY can predict with such precision that “input X yields outcome Y”. One thing is for absolute certain, though: the Fallschirmjagers at Monte Cassino and the Japanese on Iwo Jima proved that even in the face of what the “theories” said SHOULD have been overwhelming firepower, it didn’t turn out the way the “theories” predicted.

I remain unimpressed by theories and guesses. History has shown time and again that there are factors and variables that are simply unpredictable, perhaps even unknowable. History has also shown time and again that real live humans often prove far more resilient and resistant to “shock and awe” than the theorists would have us believe.

As of today, none of the theories I’ve read regarding artillery effectiveness leads me to conclude that setting SPWAW artillery higher than 100% is “more historical” than leaving it at 100%. Indeed, from what I can tell so far in my games of Enhanced, leaving the artillery at 100% provides exactly the sort of unpredictability (I’ve seen squads wiped out and I’ve seen other squads totally untouched, even in the same hex after a bombardment) that history suggests. And to me, that is a far more historically accurate and realistic representation of artillery effectiveness.

[h_h_lightcap]

so many reasons why this logic isnt logical-----ill take only one and then bow out because you seem to have ALREADY made up your mind-------
 
1. on a so-called static front almost 100% of the causualties are from arty---what???  What about recon patrols?? Local counterattacks to regain postions or to straighten lines  etc--------look arty was very deadly and GOBLIN is right a unit moving in the open getting hit by 155mm should take casualties---period.
 
HH---done and done
 

[Orzel Bialy]

Hmmm....

[vahauser]

h_h_lightcap,

Perception. Even after reading that the British researchers who created the British artillery effectiveness models said that they could not predict with certainty the amount of casualties produced by X number of rounds, or the number of rounds needed to produce Y number of casualties, I read the word “should” in your post.

The British artillery experts would say “could”, or “perhaps high probability”, but they would not say “should”. But you have read the same words from the same technical document that I have. And still you use the word “should”. And then you tell me that MY mind is made up.

And my point about static warfare was that, under such conditions, artillery is well sighted and has been emplaced in prepared positions. The observers and communications nets are well established. Everything is set up as well as possible for effective artillery fire. Static warfare is the optimal situation for artillery. That was my point. I see nothing illogical about saying that when artillery is being employed under optimal conditions, then that artillery will be more effective than when a battle is being fought under the mobile, fluid, swirling, confused conditions associated with offensive operations. Does that really sound so illogical to you?

My mind is open to the possibility that new information could alter my current perception. Today I am convinced that leaving artillery at 100% in Enhanced is the more historically accurate representation of WW2 artillery effectiveness. Does that mean my mind is closed to the possibility of new information? Not at all.

Who knows? Perhaps somebody will present new information that will change my mind. But as of now I remain convinced, by the information that I have read to date, that leaving Enhanced artillery at 100% is the more historically justifiable choice.

[P.S. One of my degrees is in History (focus on U.S. Foreign Policy and Military History) from the University of Texas, and I have been a student of military history for over 30 years. I have done my homework.]

[vahauser]

Orzel,
 
Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, eh?  Interesting symbolism you have chosen. 
 
Perhaps in a thread with a different topic...

[Orzel Bialy]

Just seems fittng...

[KG Erwin]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but when Mike cut back arty effectiveness in 8.4, he was specifically referring to which unit classes? The off-board arty, or ALL arty ? This didn't
include mortars, right?

I only ask because I love mortars, which at ranges of 250 yards (5 hexes) or less are absolute stack-killers. This applies to the 60mm type as well as the 81s.

As for arty in general, I don't have any problem with how they are currently portrayed. It SEEMS to me that the main job of indirect-fire arty (howitzers, gun-howitzers and such) is suppression (softening up the enemy), thus setting them up to be killed by direct fire.

The statistics for arty-inflicted casualties make sense IF mortars are included. I would even hypothesize that mortar fire MAY have killed or wounded more infantry grunts than the 75s, 105s & 155s. No, I don't have any stats to back up this theory, BUT the way it works in SPWaW SEEMS to bear this out.

Note: I don't claim my theory to be correct -- I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

[sabrejack]

I admit freely that I have never seen a 155mm shell explode in real life, but I have seen photos / video footage of it.
 
If 3 or 4 of those explosions occurred in a field, then it would seem to me that anyone in a 50 yard area (1 hex in this game) would be in all kinds of trouble, not in any state to return fire or do much of anything for a while... ?
 
Are there any arty types here who can shed more light on this, as opposed to armchair types like myself who can't back up their talk with real-life experience?
 
 
 
 

[h_h_lightcap]

Vahauser---
 
 
I too have a History Degree and I have 1/2 of my undergrad work at U of texas too!!!!     lived in Austin from 80-91.   Enough with the pissing match and lets talk about what happens in the game....
 
It is in the open when moving that arty is the MOST deadly.   run some tests with spwaw and see ---not deadly as the books indicate----not theory either these are men reporting about their units and the effect on them-----
 
 
HH

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Not to add fuel to the fire, but when Mike cut back arty effectiveness in 8.4, he was specifically referring to which unit classes? The off-board arty, or ALL arty ? This didn't
include mortars, right?

I only ask because I love mortars, which at ranges of 250 yards (5 hexes) or less are absolute stack-killers. This applies to the 60mm type as well as the 81s.

As for arty in general, I don't have any problem with how they are currently portrayed. It SEEMS to me that the main job of indirect-fire arty (howitzers, gun-howitzers and such) is suppression (softening up the enemy), thus setting them up to be killed by direct fire.

The statistics for arty-inflicted casualties make sense IF mortars are included. I would even hypothesize that mortar fire MAY have killed or wounded more infantry grunts than the 75s, 105s & 155s. No, I don't have any stats to back up this theory, BUT the way it works in SPWaW SEEMS to bear this out.

Note: I don't claim my theory to be correct -- I'm simply playing devil's advocate.

Playing Viking#2 alot in PBEM
his mortars always suppress the hell out of me..
[:@]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: h_h_lightcap

Vahauser---


I too have a History Degree and I have 1/2 of my undergrad work at U of texas too!!!! lived in Austin from 80-91.
HH

Texas huh???
that seems to ring a bell with me for some strange reason...
[:D]

[KG Erwin]

Really, though, if arty in-game was as deadly as some statistical studies have shown, then SPWaW would rapidly degenerate into something more resembling WWI than WWII.

Yes, the heavy stuff (150 & above) can kill -- the very reason Mike reduced damage was due to player concerns that arty was TOO dominating.

C'mon, guys, the player preferences allow you to adjust arty effectiveness to fit your particular views, so this renders the entire thread moot, does it not?

[h_h_lightcap]

DAMMIT---
 
First Goblin was right and now Gunny is right too!!!   It is adjustable so why am i worrying?????
 
 
calmer now,
 
HH

[FlashfyreSP]

I'm guessing, vahauser, that your view on artillery barrage damage comes form first-hand knowledge, correct? If not, then why should we 'take your word for it' that artillery in the game at 100%, which is nothing but an arbitrary number assigned to a code routine is 'historically accurate'? Especially after your denigrating comment about the 'faction' in the community striving for 'historical accuracy' (whatever that is, I believe you stated).

'Historical accuracy' is meant to provide the players with the equipment, doctrine, and tactics that the men of the time had, and to encourage them to recreate that history themselves. It is a means of teaching that history, of exposing the players of today to the foundations that much of today's combat doctrine was built on.

But I don't expect you to understand that, since you have admitted you are a 'power gamer'. I know your kind all too well...and your kind are usually looking for all the 'loopholes' and 'cheats' in any computer game, to give you an advantage over those players who don't go to that extreme.

As has been said before...you play your way and we'll play ours. Denigrating us for how and why we do so is not necessary...

[KG Erwin]

Yeah, HH , after a bit of experimenting, you realize that you can make the game whatever you want it to be, so, we all eventually turn into this guy--

what, ME worry?

[sabrejack]

ORIGINAL: Alby


Playing Viking#2 alot in PBEM
his mortars always suppress the hell out of me..
[:@]

Viking#2 suppresses the hell out of everyone!

[vahauser]

Erwin,

My basic premise regarding artillery effectiveness agrees with what you are saying here.

But you have brought up another excellent point as well. Time and again, the game trumps history. As much as I want the game to mirror history, sometimes the game is very uncooperative. And when the really hard choices must be made, the game’s demands overrule history’s demands. The demand of the game’s distorted hexgrid overrides historical movement and sighting and fire capabilities. The demand of the game’s turn-based I-go-you-go sequence of play overrides historical real-time simultaneous movement, command, and combat. The demand of the game’s OOB limits override historical OOBs. And so on. In other words, we can sometimes approximate “history” in SPWAW, but only if the game doesn’t demand that we don’t. The game trumps history.


Sabrejack,

You wrote:
“If 3 or 4 of those explosions occurred in a field, then it would seem to me that anyone in a 50 yard area (1 hex in this game) would be in all kinds of trouble, not in any state to return fire or do much of anything for a while... ?”

And THERE is the rub. When you said “it would seem to me”, then you spoke in agreement with what a lot of people intuitively believe. Hell. It SEEMS to me too, that you plunk 4 rounds of 155mm HE into a hex and anybody in that hex would be in all sorts of trouble. But the results of the British artillery experts and researchers did NOT conclude WITH CERTAINTY that that would, in real-life fact, be the case. The results of the British artillery experts was COUNTERINTUITIVE because it did not conclude that what SEEMED to be true was in real-life fact actually true. The link I provided at the top of this thread stated pretty conclusively that there is no way to predict WITH CERTAINTY that X number of rounds WILL cause Y amount of damage.

The farthest that the British artillery experts would concede was that there was a statistical probability within several standard deviations that X number of rounds would PROBABLY yield Y amount of damage. And the results of that conclusion are very clear to me—namely, that the real-life historical statistical data that the British researchers used in their studies had a WIDE variation in probable outcomes. And leaving the Enhanced artillery settings at 100% provide exactly the wide variations in artillery outcomes that the British artillery experts statistically concluded did in historical real-life fact exist.


h_h_lightcap,

When you agreed with Erwin, you were also agreeing with me. The GAME demands that artillery not dominate and overwhelm the battlefield. So, even if history DID say that X number of rounds WILL cause Y damage (which in fact it does NOT say, but this is a hypothetical example), then that would have to take a back seat to what the game demands. As Erwin stated, very few people want to play WW1 carnage—they want to play Steel Panthers.


Alby,

Your comment regarding Viking2 is quite illuminating. If there is such a thing as a “professional” PBEM player, then it is Viking2. He is able to take units that don’t SEEM to be very effective and then demonstrate that when well-handled those units can be more effective than they SEEM to be.

[P.S. I’ve gone to the Riverwalk in San Antonio and visited the Alamo many times.]


FlashFyre,

I am advocating the Enhanced artillery setting at 100%. I believe that that 100% setting produces the most historical results. If I were advocating artillery effectiveness from a “power gamer” perspective, then wouldn’t I be advocating a higher artillery setting?

Also, one of the reasons (but not the only reason) I’m playing my Group Andrews long campaign is to deliberately use a force that is NOT overpowered. After more than a month of discussion and argument with lots of people on this forum, I did in fact finally conclude that my German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge was a “power gamer” campaign format. And I know how to do that, as you’ve correctly pointed out. Group Andrews was created to try something different, from a non-power-gamer perspective. [As an off-topic aside, I don’t know what I will do when more powerful OOB choices become available to Group Andrews down the road. But that’s off topic and I’ll face those tough choices when the time comes…]


To all of you,

Thank you for your contributions to this thread.

[KG Erwin]

Victor, I don't know what you mean by "power gamer". That term means nothing to me. I am a "historical gamer", but I choose a force that will, with time, become a juggernaut. This is at it should be. As my battalion gets better, my opponent will only gather more forces against me.

By definition, then, I will eventually be fighting an unknown number of D-Days in the Pacific. I'll be getting all of the Bougainvilles and Tarawas and Saipans. I look forward to getting out of the jungle. I WANT to assault those islands. That's what I'm building towards.

[vahauser]

Erwin,

A “power gamer” is a “win at any an all costs, by any means necessary” kind of gamer. FlashFyre is correct when he says that a power gamer will use the game to his advantage by exploiting loopholes in the game. He also used the word “cheat”, but I take his usage to be something along the lines of extreme game rules and loophole exploitation rather than a dictionary definition of “cheater”. Splitting hairs, perhaps, but some of the most skilled and dangerous power gamers I know are also some of the most honest and generous human beings I know.

Anyway, most of my 11 years playing Steel Panthers have been spent as a power gamer. If there is a Steel Panthers rules abuse and exploitation out there, then I probably know about it and have used it. However, I have also been cursed with a thirst for historical knowledge which most of my power-gamer friends do not share (to them, they only want to play the game and history be damned). And that curse haunts me because I want to know what is and is not historical, even if that is at cross purposes with my power-gaming personality. Inner conflict. Ugh.

So while I want to play as a power gamer. I want to learn like an historian. It sucks. I’m not kidding.

[sabrejack]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Sabrejack,

You wrote:
“If 3 or 4 of those explosions occurred in a field, then it would seem to me that anyone in a 50 yard area (1 hex in this game) would be in all kinds of trouble, not in any state to return fire or do much of anything for a while... ?”

And THERE is the rub. When you said “it would seem to me”, then you spoke in agreement with what a lot of people intuitively believe. Hell. It SEEMS to me too, that you plunk 4 rounds of 155mm HE into a hex and anybody in that hex would be in all sorts of trouble. But the results of the British artillery experts and researchers did NOT conclude WITH CERTAINTY that that would, in real-life fact, be the case. The results of the British artillery experts was COUNTERINTUITIVE because it did not conclude that what SEEMED to be true was in real-life fact actually true. The link I provided at the top of this thread stated pretty conclusively that there is no way to predict WITH CERTAINTY that X number of rounds WILL cause Y amount of damage.

The farthest that the British artillery experts would concede was that there was a statistical probability within several standard deviations that X number of rounds would PROBABLY yield Y amount of damage. And the results of that conclusion are very clear to me—namely, that the real-life historical statistical data that the British researchers used in their studies had a WIDE variation in probable outcomes. And leaving the Enhanced artillery settings at 100% provide exactly the wide variations in artillery outcomes that the British artillery experts statistically concluded did in historical real-life fact exist.

I don't mean to be rude, but I for one would not like to be standing on open ground, while even a single 155mm shell exploded within 50 yards of me... let alone multiple rounds falling on the same area.

I'm not saying that your statistics are wrong, but I am saying that I don't think there would be many people who would be willing to attempt to prove them, by standing around while those large artillery shells went off around them.

Does that make sense?