Ineffective Japanese Artillery

[alesha93]

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?

[JeffroK]

1. FOW, maybe the Chinese are suffering more? How do you know what the effect on supply is?
2. Are the Chinese getting disrupted, making an assault easier rather than just killing troops.
3. What is the Chinese fort level, plus they are in good defensive terrain.
4. How many tubes, and what size are they. effective when used in small numbers though)

As, IMHO, the IJA didnt have a world beating artillery system (they were very effective when used in small numbers though) you shouldnt expect a result similar to a stonk by an AGRA or the US equivalent.

[Jakerson]

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?

I think players wanted it to be this way. In real life 70-80% of all casualties suffered in WW2 came from artillery fire. There were cases during world war two at eastern front where whole regiments (about 5000men) where decimated in matter of minutes with artillery fire.

In real life world war two combat everything else was ineffective but not artillery fire.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

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?

I think players wanted it to be this way. In real life 70-80% of all casualties suffered in WW2 came from artillery fire. There were cases during world war two at eastern front where whole regiments (about 5000men) where decimated in matter of minutes with artillery fire.

In real life world war two combat everything else was ineffective but not artillery fire.

No, some very vocal players wanted it that way.

Alfred

[Chickenboy]

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?

oreskovich,

There are many threads on this topic, particularly prior to the penultimate patch (prior to July 2010). Prior to THAT patch, artillery was pretty devastating. It was toned down dramatically thereafter.

Most experienced players will only rarely use 'bombardment' to cause more casualties to the opponents than to yourself. 'Bombardment' still works for reconnaisance purposes and to reduce your opponent's supply levels in hex. Consensus is that having artillery units present with infantry / armor is still beneficial in the 'deliberate' or 'shock' attack modes too-certainly better than not having it there.
But, yeah, gone are the days of buying out the heavy artillery from Manchuria and pummeling tens of thousands of Chinese by dropping 240mm shells on them.

[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.

[JeffroK]

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.

I think AE has arty far less effective against troops in good terrain, after all there are lots of places to hide in a 40m wide hex. "Somme like" bombardments are not a valid tactic anymore.

Like air strikes, I have seen it cause heavy casualties in open terrain.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Arguably, the model now is very good.

Arguably. So much so that I have an argument.

I'm not convinced about what has become of defensive artillery fire when attackers siege a well-entrenched opponent with significant dug-in artillery (think the Japanese on Iwo Jima). I haven't seen enough of these engagements to form a picture yet. Actions against the Chinese, by definition, do not count as the Chinese have poor artillery assets.

My concern will be that the defensive fire will use existing 'terrain' to calculate its effectiveness against the attackers. Again, with the Iwo Jima example: Allied artillery was largely ineffective against the dug in Japanese defenders. The converse was most certainly NOT true. Allied troops, particularly the first morning on the beach were in the open and suffered extraordinary casualties due to Japanese defensive artillery. If, in the game, the Allies are granted the benefits of terrain modifiers to decrease the effect of the artillery, it will make such defensive artillery nearly useless.

So, it remains to be seen, IMO how useful artillery is in the defensive. The July 2010 nerfed artillery substantially. Some for the better, some for the worse. There's some indeterminate effects still needing additional observations.

I do agree with PPs though-artillery against an opponent in an open hex with 0 forts=mass casualties. Akin to ground bombing.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Arguably, the model now is very good.

Arguably. So much so that I have an argument.

My concern will be that the defensive fire will use existing 'terrain' to calculate its effectiveness against the attackers. Again, with the Iwo Jima example: Allied artillery was largely ineffective against the dug in Japanese defenders. The converse was most certainly NOT true. Allied troops, particularly the first morning on the beach were in the open and suffered extraordinary casualties due to Japanese defensive artillery. If, in the game, the Allies are granted the benefits of terrain modifiers to decrease the effect of the artillery, it will make such defensive artillery nearly useless.

I'd like to think that situation is covered by the forced atoll shock attack casualties but I've been wrong too many times to think that I know for sure.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

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?

I think players wanted it to be this way. In real life 70-80% of all casualties suffered in WW2 came from artillery fire. There were cases during world war two at eastern front where whole regiments (about 5000men) where decimated in matter of minutes with artillery fire.

In real life world war two combat everything else was ineffective but not artillery fire.

None of that happened when doing ARTILLERY BOMBARDMENT. Which is basically harassment attack historically, as in game. Artillery works fine when used with defensive stance when enemy is attacking and when using deliberate or shock attack.

70%-80% casualties happened when defensive artillery barrages caught enemy moving in open. DO NOT MISTAKE THIS AS WHAT IS BOMBARDMENT ATTACK IN GAME.

It annoys me when people expect bombardment attacks to devastate enemy. It didn't happen in WW I..it didn't happen in WW II..not in Korea..etc. Lobbing shells between entrenched enemies is not very effective, neither in history nor in game.

Artillery, while powerful, is fire support to other branches of land forces. It cannot win battles itself unless used in combination with other forces.

[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

[JeffroK]

The japanese at Iwo Jima didnt all die in the substantial pre invasion bombardment, they died from rifle, machine gun, flamethrower, grenade, tank, bayonet, artillery, naval gun and many by their own hands.  Arty is only part of the equation.

I'm sure the japanese would like to have read that paper, many times, for example on Okinawa, they emerged from their cover (caves arent mentoned in the paper) to push back an assault. Equally the German & Italians at Alamein seemed to put up an effective defense after being hit by approx 1000 guns.

Plus
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.

How many 100yd x 100yd squares in a 40 mile hex??

[JeffroK]

From the table quoted

[font="arial"]It appears that the British (in collaboration with the Canadians) were the only army to undertake detailed studies into errors and mistakes in the 'wash-up' after World War 2 (WW2).  The task was undertaken by the Field Artillery Working Group of the Standing Committee on the Accuracy of Artillery Fire (FAWG of SCARF). The reason for this work, undertaken by several sub-committees, was concern that predicted fire had been inaccurate, perhaps as few as 7% of predicted engagements being sufficiently accurate. [/font]



Statement that artillery not producing casulties in Pacific is bollocks.

Statement that artillery should cause hundreds or thousands of casualties per day is equally flawed

[Sardaukar]

It still seems that some people do not grasp what Bombardment is in game. Artillery is force multiplier. If you use artillery alone, do not expect a lot, since then there is not much force to multiply, is there? When augmented with assault or used defensively, artillery can be really devastating in game too. As said, there are lot of historical examples, where attacks were totally broken by artillery. It can easily happen in game too.

But this is not what artillery bombardment is in game. Artillery bombardments a la WWI Passchendale or Verdun with week-long barrages did not dent defenders that much. Same happened in WW II Pacific, defenders were often quite unscathed from pre-invasion bombardments in Iwo, Tarawa, Peleliu etc. In all those cases infantry and tanks were needed to kill the enemy and combination of infantry, armour and artillery can be devastating. But offensively, all studies have shown that artillery alone is not that good idea.

[JeffroK]

goran007 said

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.

Artillery expenditure on Iwo Jima was:
from http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/US ... ma-10.html

Ammunition expenditures by the 168 howitzers of the 14 battalions on Iwo were fabulous. A breakdown of the 450,156 rounds fired is shown below:[size="-1"]44[/size] Number and type of weapon: Number
rounds fired   48 75mm howitzers 181,510   96 105mm howitzers 224,851   24 155mm howitzers 43,795

From the sea
The daily allowances of 5-inch bombardment ammunition proved to be adequate in all but a few instances, when permission was granted to exceed the quota. No serious disadvantage appears to have resulted in either case. During the period D-minus 3 to D-plus-35, support ships fired 152,000 rounds of 5-inch common and 17,000 rounds of star shells. When expenditures of all other types larger than 40mm are added to the above, the total reaches a staggering 291,300 rounds with a combined weight of 14,250 tons, 3,000 tons greater than the total used at Saipan.[size="-1"]34[/size] [and approximately equal to the "Little Boy" Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima! -- HyperWar]

[crsutton]

Artillery is now a support weapon and it works fine in that way. Use in in attacks with your infantry units and it adds valuable help. I see nothing wrong with it at all now, IMHO.

[JeffroK]

Reading through the article on British investigation into Artillery in WW2 reminded me of the story from around the Boer War.

The British Army tied "20" goats on a hilltop and bombarded it.

After the bombardment they went to the hill to count the bodies and found 21 healthy goats!!!

One had given birth during the shelling.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Artillery is now a support weapon and it works fine in that way. Use in in attacks with your infantry units and it adds valuable help. I see nothing wrong with it at all now, IMHO.

+1

[janh]

Sardaukar had the point:  Arty contributes to both bombardment, as well as offensive actions (shock and deliberate) and defensive fighting.  If you want to compare numbers to any total artillery casualty statistics, you need to separate out their contribution form the latter two as well.  And apparently no one would argue here that it does not seems to contribute to the model in both cases?  So obviously, the arty model can't be that far off.  Besides, 70% arty casualties seem unrealistic, where did that number come from?  Any Ref?

[GrimOne]

I afraid that no one has answered the question adequately .

Why when the Japanese bombard as per oreskovich's post

"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? "



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



I get the idea of lowering defender supply and causing disruption even if it doesn't cause many casulaties but the game now uses up more supply for the attacker and increases disruption for the attacker at a rate comensurate with the casualty figures.


IMO Artillery bombardment is now broken. I hate to say it but its so bad I have stopped playing the game.