Artillery Realism

[ARCHANGEL]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Back in the 1980s the U.S. Army did a major study on the cause of losses to line infantry units. The major finding was that at this level, the main cause was fire from small arms, which inflicted 80% of the casualties. Believe this was published in INFANTRY magazine.

Hope this helps.

John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not looking for trouble here, but I recall the study differently. Maybe someone needs to call the Infantry Center to check, but my memory (and personal experience) is that most casualties were caused by arty, mortars, grenades etc., and fewer were from small arms.

I THINK the study done in the post-RVN period was for RVN specifically. There were other studies from earlier times with other results. It has been a while and I may not be remembering correctly in my old age.

On another part of the debate, I DO recall that DuPuys stats were not necessarily widely accepted as appropriate. That may have changed over the years tho...maybe a call to the CMH would help there.

[This message has been edited by ARCHANGEL (edited 02-27-2000).]

[This message has been edited by ARCHANGEL (edited 02-27-2000).]

[John Kettler]

Babra,

Though I don't remember all the details, I'm certain that World War 2 and Korea were covered, probably Vietnam as well. The whole idea was to investigate whether it was even worthwhile to make further improvements in small arms, given the widespread perception that artillery was the big casualty producer.

What the study found is that while artillery can and does cause lots of casualties, most of those don't come out of the well hidden, dispersed grunts, but the more static, less dispersed units further to the rear.

The message of the study was clear--bullets, contrary to all expectations, cause the vast majority of casualties in the line infantry.

[Guest Big Time Software]

To me, at least with WWII combat, it is obvious why there is two sets of possible data for shell fragment casualties. Overall averages are always deceiving when you are looking at a certain slice of the info. I bet that if you looked at the leading cause of casualties for rear services shell fragments and non-combat related incidents would probably make up 98% of the total, while line infantry would be totally different.

The point is that there were never multiple hour long "shelling" by massed small arms fire on kilometers of front. Artillery was used for this, obviously. Therefore the only time small arms fire could do any damage was in a CM type firefight and therefore there MUST be a higher precentage of casualties due to small arms fire because hardly anybody else would be exposed to such enemy action.

Also, with averages you have to keep in mind that they are very much just that. One CM batle might involve hardly ANY shell fire (and therefore small arms rack up the bulk of the casualties) and others hardly ANY small arms fire (i.e. the attacker gets mowed down hundreds of meters away while assaulting).

Just more food for thought.

Steve

[tss]

Curious. Yesterday I read this discussion on MT fuzes and immediately after reading it I stumbled upon an account where Soviets stopped a Finnish attack against a fortified hill by firing shrapnells, which pretty much by definition implies that MT fuses were used.

However, I don't know about any details about these fire missions.

- Tommi

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I'd like to but there's only so much we can do in what short time is left.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... I'm not saying anything, but you know what I'm saying.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[sbg2112]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... I'm not saying anything, but you know what I'm saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aw, c'mon, everybody knows why it's sub-titled Beyond the Beachhead.

[This message has been edited by sbg2112 (edited 02-28-2000).]

[Fionn]

Hmm, this is an interesting discussion..

Firstly while Bullethead knows I deeply respect his knowledge of arty I'm gonna have to stick to my guns regarding my arty statement.

Arty effectiveness IS often over-estimated by gamers. Gamers expect a 5 minutes barrage to wipe out hordes of enemy troops and be some form of mini-Goodwood prep.

I think a LOT of guys have read books stating that SHRAPNEL causes 80% of all casualties and instantly think that off-map arty is responsible.

Shrapnel can come from tank shells, infantry guns ( a form of arty but NOT indirect arty), GRENADES etc.

In CM the VAST majority of casualties are caused by small arms simply because CM is of the scale where small arms fire is the decisive weapon. Arty can help out tremendously but it isn't a panacaea.

For example in a recent game in the bocage I killed only 10 to 12 UK troops using arty but killed 380 or so with 2 rifle companies using small arms fire. In another game I killed over 200 US troops with just 3 batteries of arty ( 105, 120 and 150mm).

Arty can be hugely effective but only if used properly. One must remember that we're not talking about 5 hour arty preps here.. We're analysing the effects of discrete usage of small amounts of arty against point targets.

At the scale of CM I think arty might get 20% or so (on average) of the kills during battle but that's about all. The 50% or so which I think indirect arty fire got throughout the whole war occured mostly in the rear areas.

That's what I meant when I said the effectiveness of arty is over-stated. People don't realise the a 5 minute barrage in the front lines can't equate to the thousands of shells dropped on Casino etc.

Personally speaking I think CM has got it pretty right. It "feels" right to me at least.

[Guest JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

CM fires off-map artillery in batteries of four (4) guns, not two. Four is a common size for a WW2 battery.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Four guns per battery is correct for the US, however the Commonwealth used 8 gun btys, and the Germans 8-12.

Of course, these are TOE numbers, and for the Germans quite likely to be wishful thinking, but the commonwealth had the resources - and the determination - to keep their artillery park well stocked.

Regards

Jon

(still rummaging though old threads ...)

------------------

Ubique

[dumbo]

Just to take the opposite viewpoint. I think that artillery is a little OVER done in not just CM but many ww2 games with SP3 being a prime villan.

I am judging this purely as a gamer, I dont know nor do I care how historical arty kills are. What i do know is that its zero fun to have artillery as infantry "hoovers" that inflict 70% casualties on infantry underneath them.

This most often occurs when you have a well dug in group on infantry in an urban area. Game artillery gets a few direct hits and wipes out your entire entrenched defence. (I am not singling out CM here). What i would prefer is somekind of supression factor or I would like the computer to cheat by knocking off upto 20% of an infantry unit by artillery fairly easily then get rapidly decreasing returns below that so its very hard to entirely wipe units out by arty (if you care about realism you can make the excuse that the squad has really kept its head down by now and remains "artillery paranoid" for the game length).

One thing which the CM demo scenarios have done well which will no doubt be killed by user campaigns later on is the lack of heavy artillery. I am of the view that heavy artillery (155mm and above) should be virtually non existent for battalion level and below. I have played games where company level games have katyusha units attached to them. Which seems to me totally bizzare as these weapons were used for hour long pre battle barrages not while engaged with the enemy.

As I say my prefence is based purely on gameplay which can spiral down to a "dodge the arty" game or one in which infantry defence is impossible. CM so far does the best job of this of any game I have played. I hope they beef up the arty spread a bit more and tone down the damage or at least allow the users to modify these factors.

_dumbo

[Gregory Deych]

I think the leading cause of rear area troop casualties in American army were car crashes. But I may be wrong.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dumbo, to do as you suggest would turn CM more into a game than a wargame Seriously, we have put a lot of effort into making the artillery effects in CM highly realistic. And yes, it does suck when you get hit hard, but it shouldn't be decisive all on its own. If it is then the scenario was probably poorly designed or the player receiving the hits badly deployed.

As for the whole % casualties from X thing goes... remember these figures are averages for large periods of time. As we have discussed before, rear area troops were hardly ever the victim of small arms fire, so most casualties caused to them were by bombing and artillery fire. When you factor in the huge prep bombardments before offensives (local or otherwise) then you also see higher numbers of casualties by shell fragments. The Germans regullarly took thousands of casualties when the Allies opened up on them especially in Normandy. And entire formations were laid waste from the air.

HOWEVER, CM simulates none of this. Instead it is simulating a firefight within small arms range (for the most part). Additionally, averages are just that. It would be boring to have CM battles where one side just bombards the other for harrasing, softening up, or slaughterfests like Dom Bürtgenbach. So all you are playing in CM is a tiny slice of the total range of combat for WWII, and therefore applying war wide averages is just not going to work.

Steve

[dumbo]

BTS: I hear ya As I said I was speaking purely as a gamer. Besides CM "feels right" when it comes to arty about now.

Thats the reason I have never designed a wargame even though its the genre I like to play. I always feel hindered by reality and the thought of thousands of history buffs picking apart my design for accuracy gives me the cold sweats.

For me the attraction of CM is that infantry are actually useful. Indeed when I get the game I fully intend to design a campign based around commanding an Infantry battalion and light vehicles only as thats the kind of game I like to play. Dont expect to see any heavy artillery

You are gonna get some free game design work out of me ya bums

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 03-13-2000).]

[Snakes]

I think part of the problem with artillery in games and artillery perceptions even in the military are suspect. Everyone believes that the role of the artillery is to kill, kill, kill. While that is always nice, artillery provides much flexibility than the "killing role". I've seen many Artillery Captains at the National Training Center serving as Infantry or Armor Fire Support Officers made scapegoats because the artillery didn't kill X amount of tanks. Artillery is much more effective as a suppression weapon on the battlefield and the results are much difficult to measure. You can't measure stats on how many soldiers were rendered useless in their defensive positions by artillery while enemy armor rolled by untouched. Artillery is not expected to kill tanks (usually) but to influence and set battlefield conditions. Use artillery to fix or turn an enemy, disrupt enemy breach ops, screen an objective with smoke. The trick to using artillery is to pound enemy positions as close to friendlies as possible so that the enemy are rendered useless while friendlies move on the objective and fires are lifted just minutes prior to the assault. If artillery is used more to shape the battlefield conditions rather than concentrating on kills, artillery is much more effective. The kills will come on their own.

Trey

[Guest JonS]

Amen.

It seems like another gunner is stepping forward from the shadows created by the black art

Jon

------------------

Ubique

[This message has been edited by JonS (edited 03-13-2000).]

[Hundminen]

Precisely my point Snakes.

In the beta, I keep wondering if well-placed arty is causing any suppression effects at all.

However, I am hopeful that this will be tweaked in the final version as Steve has said.

[This message has been edited by Hundminen (edited 03-13-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Hundminen (edited 03-13-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh, it certainly does even in the demo. But if you expect a few 105mm rounds to paralyize the enemy to the point of it being a cake walk... no dice

The artillery in the demo scenarios is largely harrassing fire. If used effectively it can give you an edge, but that is about all. In contrast I played a scenario a couple of weeks ago that if you didn't use your artillery well the chances of you winning were slim to none. Even with fantastic results from my artillery I barely won. Not much of the town left either

So although artillery realism has been improved since the Beta Demo, it isn't fundmentally different. Patterns and control have been tweaked, but other than that things are pretty much the same. So if you don't find artillery effective in the demo you might want to take another look at how you are using it.

Steve

[von Lucke]

Hmmm. The problem seems to be that people are expecting artillery effectiveness based on a wider operations area than CM encompasses. On a company / battalion front, during an actual engagement (not prepatory to) I wouldn't expect to see a hail of steel falling from the sky. I seem to recall one account (from "Company Commander"?) where a frantic American CO called repeatedly for pre-targeted arty fire to his front, and only received 3 miserly 105mm rounds per mission! Frankly, all those POTD's of Naval Arty have me worried. I'd rather see my battles decided by what I have on the field, then off...

[Guest Big Time Software]

The naval stuff, as well as several other heavy types of artillery (8 inch Howitzers are pretty nasty too ) are in there for completeness. Hopefully they won't be abused. Same goes for German heavy tanks too. We have the Jagdtiger in there, for example, because it was an active late war front line unit. But if there are 1000 scenarios posted in theory only about 1 of them should have the buggers

Steve

[Spook]

In theory, Steve, you're right. Only 1 in 1000 CM scenarios should have Jagdtigers or rare WW2 "super tanks" running around. But left to human nature, future DYO postings of CM scenarios (like at Gamers Net or wherever) will probably have a 1:4 or even a 1:2 ratio. I've seen FAR too often the human nature of WW2 gamers to gravitate to high-power armor in DYO scenarios. And high-power artillery will likely be liable to similar abuse by being far more prolific than should be the case.

A present curiosity to me is "tweaks" in CM artillery fire adjustment. This may have been related in earlier posts or topics, but I wonder if CM has evolved beyond the demo in "real-time" artillery adjustment. For example, an enemy unit is targeted for indirect fire. In the turn that the shots come in, however, the enemy unit(s) may have shifted position. Is it possible that the target point can "follow" the targeted enemy unit during the real-time execution to some degree, until the shots come in? This LIKELY would be too unrealistic to allow for off-board artillery in a 60-second period, but I wonder if on-board mortars could re-adjust?

If not, that's not a big problem to me. I'm only curious.

Another curiosity I have with artillery "adjustment" would be how well now can a target point of a plotted fire mission (ordered 1-2 turns earlier) be shifted during a pre-turn orders phase, without cancelling and causing a restart of the fire mission request. Is this pretty much the same as in the demo? Can the proficiency of the on-board FO have an effect on this?

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 03-14-2000).]

[spider]

Would i be right in saying that a lot of the casualties were caused by large barrages on rear echelon troops usually, and usually when nobody expected it, if they expected it, as they would in cms missions, theyd all be in foxholes etc.,as far as i know a lot of the losses in the rear were from arts effectiveness against soft skinned trucks and tents..

------------------

This is my rifle,

this is my gun.

This ones for killing, this ones a tasty alternative to turkey at christmas.....

[Thomas Norton]

There is a often cited interview of a captured German SS officer who saw combat on both the east and west front. He was asked what he thought of the the abilities of the various troops he fought against.

When he came to the Americans, he replied he thought they were ok.

OK? What did he mean? Well he replied, you had a very hard time seeing them, with all the shells exploding.

The point was, of course, the American army had a whole lot (most Germans interviewed,after the war, believed every American had a truck!) and could afford to shoot a lot, often. The German's, even the SS, by 1944 (yes, there were exceptions) could not.

This is not to say we will not see the effects of all this fire support in CM. After all, the forces we face are the SURVIVORS of the prior fire support missions. As my parent organization taught me:

FIREPOWER KILLS, MORE FIREPOWER, KILLS MORE.

Words to live by.

------------------

"The Legitimate object of war is a more perfect peace."

[tss]

Combat statistics are a funny thing. Today I had a chance to examine military records of both of my grandfathers. My father's father was wounded when his squadmate fumbled while arming an AT mine and blew up himself and the whole building. Yet, in the record the wounding was described with a phrase: "[something illegilible] 11.3 grenade shrapnels to face and eyes".

In effect, he was counted as an artillery victim while the real cause was an accident.

- Tommi