Private Ryan Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 Did Russia's strategy of bringing down large artillery barrage on german heavy armour work? Thanks, Pvt. Ryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 All nations in WWII brought down artillery upon armored forces when possible. Reason is... because it works At the very least the infantry would be stripped off, at best the armor would become immobilized/destroyed. Generally heavy artillery bombardments took the wind out of the attacker even if the reasons were more psychological than physical. If I were a tanker and I saw my infantry running backwards, I'd think twice about going forward much further! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 At the counter attack at Stalingrad the Russians Artillery outnumbered their own tanks ------------------ The names Ash, Housewares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 Artillery is great for forcing tanks to move out of the annoying indirect fire into your skillfully planned direct fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 IIRC, during the Ardennes offensive, the Germans were stopped time and again when trying to break through at the northern hinge by the US artillery. In a couple of accounts I read, e.g. in Toland's 'Battle - the story of the bulge', an otherwise unremarkable book, combined arms attacks by German infantry and tanks fail after the artillery either kills or drives of the infantry, leaving the tanks that have broken through to be knocked out by US AT teams - and as one of my PBEM opponents could tell you, even Tigers are not invulnerable to Zooks Toland, John, - Battle : the story of the Bulge. - New York : Random House, 1959. - 59010805 ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 Top armor is notoriously thin. Unless it is a light/medium mortar barrage, I suspect that most tankers would like to vacate the area. Bigger arty will still cause its own trouble, even if direct hits are not scored. Think of Operation Goodwood, and all the massed arty/bombing. It is really tough to fight effectively in an AFV if you're bouncing around/over/through shell craters all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 Andreas, you are talking about the death ride of the 12th SS Panzer Division at Dom Bürtgenbach. We had a tester Hell bent on making a scenario out of that multiple day battle, but no go. His attempts produced the same exact results as the real thing -> the Germans got slaughtered before they even really began. The US unleashed an unholy quantity of artillery on the poor bastards, including 8 inch Howtizers. The 12th SS was reduced to a battle group after that battle. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerLeader Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 12th SS PanzerDivision...Isn't that the HitlerJugend Division, that fought against the Canadians in Normandy, and led by the brilliant Kurt "Panzer" Meyer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 Yup, the very same. The division never really recovered from the near total destruction in Normandy, but never the less was up to full strength going into the Bulge. But they ran up against the wrong force in the wrong place under the wrong circumstances and were chewed to pieces without doing hardly anything. This was why 1st SS Pz Division was in such a bad situation, because their right flank was the 12th SS and it barely got off the starting line. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PanzerLeader: 12th SS PanzerDivision...Isn't that the HitlerJugend Division, that fought against the Canadians in Normandy, and led by the brilliant Kurt "Panzer" Meyer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ken Tout in 'A fine night for tanks' is very admiring of "Panzer" Meyer, b/c he had a conference with the divisional commander of the 81st Infantry and the Corps commander during operation Totalize within tank firing range and under observation, IIRC, of the front-line. He thinks it was a quality sorely lacking in allied commanders. Steve, that's exactly what I was thinking of - thanks for pointing out where and when. I can imagine it wasn't a lot of fun for the scenario tester. Although in reality the US had to call down fire on their own positions at the real battle, IIRC. Tout, Ken, - A fine night for tanks : the road to Falaise - Stroud: Sutton, 1998. - 075091730x ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted March 6, 2000 Share Posted March 6, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PanzerLeader: 12th SS PanzerDivision...Isn't that the HitlerJugend Division, that fought against the Canadians in Normandy, and led by the brilliant Kurt "Panzer" Meyer?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Am I the only one who though of hotdogs when I heard that name. Skinner:I'm a bomb! Chalmers:Wait those are hotdogs! Wiggum:Armour hotdogs! Chalmers.:What kind of man wears armor hotdogs? ------------------ Visit my webpage! http://cm4mac.tripod.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Kevin- Posted March 7, 2000 Share Posted March 7, 2000 John Keagan said of WW2: To Paraphrase Artillery took care of the infantry, Tanks tried to take of Tanks and the infantry tried to take care of itself. So much for the queen of battle …. The effect of artillery on armor has been a theoretical issue in wargaming and continues to be. I think an artillery barrage Against a concentration of tanks is difficult to model. Since few shells hit or penetrate vehicles, designers are left to provide results based on “moral” not physical calculations. This is a good thread as the messages are all on target. How do designers model the effect of radio antennas blown off, noise, dirt, non-penetrating splinters, and fear (etc)? The physical can be calculated in theory. The moral … never. PS: Platoon scale wargames like EF/WF provide the hardest scale to model. But its still a challenge at all levels. - Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted March 7, 2000 Share Posted March 7, 2000 As far as modeling goes, I believe CM would have the other simulations beat. CM models exactly where the shell falls, and exactly where the tank is. Granted, broken antennas and the like are not directly modeled, but I think we can live with that. In CM, do airbursts damage a buttoned-up tank (i.e. does the code made that distinction vs. tanks)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 7, 2000 Share Posted March 7, 2000 Gotta agree with Aacooper. While Kevin is correct that no wargame will ever get the effects of artillery completely correct (nor any other part of combat either, I might add), CM is the very first WWII wargame I have ever played where I really feel artillery matters like it appears to in historical accounts. From the little 60mm jobs all the way up to the big stuff, the use or missuse of it has a very big impact on the game being played. I think we are down to details with CM's simulation of artillery. Or put another way, we are looking at minor issues in great detail instead of the major ones. This is a good sign that we have got at least the basics and a bit more correct Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts