Jump to content

Still disliking Artillery


Recommended Posts

As a gunner myself, I was pretty pleased to see this thread.

One thing that I think may account for the difficulties some players have with field fortifications is how their trenches and foxholes are sited.

I understand there are some issues on how trenches are foxholes interact with line of sight, and how they offer sub-par protection, but a key factor is translating the historical principles of field fortification into gameplay. This is an issue I've been dealing with myself, as frankly placing foxholes, trenches and wire is a bit of a pain at the moment.

One important factor is managing frontage. The width of a sector for the Germans was typically as follows:

Squad: 30-50m

Platoon: 200-450m

Company: 400-1000m

Battalion: 800-2000m

By spreading out and positioning entrenchments in depth, vulnerability to fire can be reduced.

Osprey has Fortification titles that cover German, Russian, and US field fortifications as well as German Defences in Italy specifically. Would it be OK to post some scans to give an overview of what a position would look like? 

I would love to know how many "units" of Trench, Wire, and Foxhole to buy to represent accurate defenses for a platoon, company and battalion.

Edited by DougPhresh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DougPhresh - what mob were you in and what kit did they have?

I was in a TerritorIal Battery for about 20 years (the beauty of being in the TA is the longevity in the same unit) and started on old WW2 kit (5.5's) and ended up on MLRS, so whilst I played with the new kit I know what the WW2 kit could do - my first years was in a BCP and since FACE was always croaking we predicted a lot of targets using log books, displacement graphs and firing tables so I have no problems with the timescales or accuracy BF gives to WW2 Arty, those blokes back in the day would have known their way around a plotting board or whatever they used back then and could probably recite the relevant MV for each Sub in their sleep.

Ahh those were the days - cheep beer and cordite farts in the Gunners Mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 Years with 105mm C3 (Korean Vintage M1 with a barrel 33 calibers long and muzzle brake) in the Reserves, 4 years with the M777 155mm in the Regular Force.

We used a lot of WW2 era fire control techniques, and could plot most of the missions represented in the game, and many more that aren't! Fire plans would be a nice addition. I know Monty liked elaborate barrage plans.

I also had the chance to work around some WW2 kit. The 6, 17, and 25-Pounders were all being restored in the Regiment's workshop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont care what anyone here says the AI cheats with arty If you leave anything in one spot for too long no matter where it is on the map the AI will bring arty down on it and it will always be pin point accurate. I have only been playing PBEMs for a month and have noticed arty is not nearly as scary when fighting humans.. might kill and AT gun or bang up a squad nothing serious, but AI with arty will wipe out platoons and hit all your AT guns on the first turn =p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 Years with 105mm C3 (Korean Vintage M1 with a barrel 33 calibers long and muzzle brake) in the Reserves, 4 years with the M777 155mm in the Regular Force.

We used a lot of WW2 era fire control techniques, and could plot most of the missions represented in the game, and many more that aren't! Fire plans would be a nice addition. I know Monty liked elaborate barrage plans.

I also had the chance to work around some WW2 kit. The 6, 17, and 25-Pounders were all being restored in the Regiment's workshop.

Re  the Fire Control - yeah same here, as mentioned the computer -  FACE (Field Artillery Computer Equipment) was quite pernickety, very good when it was working but often instead of producing firing data would just bring back an error code and we would then have to break out the firing tables, displacement graphs and all of the other tools of the 'steam gunnery' trade, in fact when setting up the BCP (Battery Command Post for the non-gunners) we would always set up the kit ready to do the manual stuff - it was always handy to have someone running through the mission on FAME (yes you've guessed it Field Artillery Manual Equipment) just to have a sanity check and also for speed when/if FACE croaked.

 

Some of the older members had actually used the WW2 Artillery Board to produce firing data but that had been phased out by the time I joined in 1979

 

I like the idea of fire plans, our bread and butter (when I was in a FOO team) was a Company Fire Plan, five Recorded Targets and a Smoke mission with an HE alternative, so Fire Plans entirely in keeping with the scale of CM.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re  the Fire Control - yeah same here, as mentioned the computer -  FACE (Field Artillery Computer Equipment) was quite pernickety, very good when it was working but often instead of producing firing data would just bring back an error code and we would then have to break out the firing tables, displacement graphs and all of the other tools of the 'steam gunnery' trade

I wonder if it was deliberately programmed to sometimes give those error codes during peacetime training exercises, to make sure you still knew how to do the math yourselves? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nah - just the computer needed a lot of TLC which it didn't always get.:D

 

With reference to the math (s), I have the same talent at numeracy as a dead badger, but it's all broken down into small tasks on proforma's so the hardest thing you have to do is a bit addition and subtraction, easier than the mental calculations you have to do when playing darts.

That's the Army for you, breaks things like Angle of Sight, Jump (the barrel moves in-between the charge igniting and the shell leaving the muzzle), rotation of the earth, met (meterology), muzzle velocity and a few other things into simple calculations.

Amazing stuff.

I think the WW2 people had it harder, especially as the British used imperial (yards/minutes instead of metres/mils ) but they did recruit people who were VERY good at hard sums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Osprey has just put out a title on Artillery Tactics in the First World War. While there were significant advances in the intervening years (Especially by the Americans) it does give a very good overview of fire control techniques and how corps and higher assets would be employed. It also goes into detail about fire plans and types of barrage. It is important to remember that British officers in the Second World War would have learned their trade in the First War and the lessons learned were deeply ingrained into how they conducted operations. Operation Cobra and Goodwood both had elaborate fire plans, and famously so did the Second Battle of El Alamein.

https://ospreypublishing.com/world-war-i-battlefield-artillery-tactics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL you are play the wrong humans. :) Artillery is nasty. I often get seriously nailed by a good artillery barrage. I like to think that I can give as good ass I get too.

It happens every now and then usually on an AT gun or a strong position but nothing like the AI. Fighting the AI as soon as a battle starts they will hit 2 out of 3 of your AT guns first turn lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

While I don't dislike artillery in general, I hate how some scenario designers use it. Just now I was playing "The winter of our discontent" as the Germans for this first time, only to find that the Canadian defenders had placed a pre planned barrage directly outside my setup zone. Seriously? Looked like a nice scenario, but into the bin it goes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I dont care what anyone here says the AI cheats with arty If you leave anything in one spot for too long no matter where it is on the map the AI will bring arty down on it and it will always be pin point accurate. I have only been playing PBEMs for a month and have noticed arty is not nearly as scary when fighting humans.. might kill and AT gun or bang up a squad nothing serious, but AI with arty will wipe out platoons and hit all your AT guns on the first turn =p

So don't stop in the same place! I have not seen this BTW... you can usually work out a potential LOS for spotters. I often see the AI shell the field where I was... just don't be there when it does. Even in Defence, you can move. Unless it is an actual 'must hold (like the objective)' once your position is located it is much less effective, so bug out to the next one..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So don't stop in the same place! I have not seen this BTW... you can usually work out a potential LOS for spotters. I often see the AI shell the field where I was... just don't be there when it does. Even in Defence, you can move. Unless it is an actual 'must hold (like the objective)' once your position is located it is much less effective, so bug out to the next one..

Also it might help not to set up or move through locations that are obvious choices. Siting an ATG where it will have maximum field of fire is an invitation to have it shelled. The AI can read a map too (I think) and it can run through the options faster than you can. Just to be prudent, it may shell those locations even if you haven't placed anything there.

BTW, the same tactic can work for you. If you are attacking, and there are some spots on the map where it would be particularly inconvenient if the AI has placed an ATG or an MG, you might just want to drop a few shells on it whether you've spotted anything there yet or not. At the least you might persuade them to move.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gripe with artillery—and it's not even a true gripe really—is the amount of time it takes to effect the battle (unless it is a prearranged strike called in during the set up turn). Usually by the time someone eligible to call for arty is in position to spot a troubling target, call in the strike, wait for spotting rounds, and make the necessary corrections, the problem has been solved by other means. Not saying that this is at all unrealistic or anything like that, just that it doesn't always suit my playing style, which is more along the lines of "get rolling and keep rolling". It's always nice to have a platoon or two of tanks along for the ride to deal with those pesky MG nests.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gripe with artillery—and it's not even a true gripe really—is the amount of time it takes to effect the battle (unless it is a prearranged strike called in during the set up turn). Usually by the time someone eligible to call for arty is in position to spot a troubling target, call in the strike, wait for spotting rounds, and make the necessary corrections, the problem has been solved by other means. Not saying that this is at all unrealistic or anything like that, just that it doesn't always suit my playing style, which is more along the lines of "get rolling and keep rolling". It's always nice to have a platoon or two of tanks along for the ride to deal with those pesky MG nests.

Michael

I have found the below tactic which I learned from @womble a few years ago works well.  womble just re-posted it in the below thread again.  Used with TRPs there are no spotting rounds.  Hope this will help or give you some ideas.   :)

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122074-artillery/?do=findComment&comment=1657841 

Edited by MOS:96B2P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found the below tactic which I learned from @womble a few years ago works well.  womble just re-posted it in the below thread again.  Used with TRPs there are no spotting rounds.  Hope this will help or give you some ideas.   :)

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/122074-artillery/?do=findComment&comment=1657841 

Yeah, I read that too. I admit that it is something I hadn't thought of, mostly because it is a-historical. It is not something that I have ever heard of being practiced during the real war. Harassment missions were certainly used, but for different reasons and with different effects mostly.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...