Artillery: HE or Smoke?

[Mad Russian]

I have been having very poor results with my artillery lately. I have been trying to use it as HE like they did in the actual fighting and it does very poorly. If I fire it as smoke I can at least get my guys close enough to offset the losses that I get after the HE barrage does nothing.

Is anyone else finding that artillery is basically a waste of time if you fire HE? Is this a bug or was artillery fire that bad?

Panther Commander

[Boo Radley]

Depends. What caliber are you using? Are you having LOS problems due to smoke or dust? Are you using it on entrenched troops? If you're attacking guys in foxholes and the like, small caliber arty isn't going to have that much suppression power over a wide area.

[Michael Emrys]

As others have noted, there are lots of problems with the way artillery is depicted in CM. Among them is the employment of single batteries. While that certainly could and did happen, it was more common to fire much larger groupings, at least a battalion and often more. The reason for that is, as you have found, it tends not to be very effective in smaller amounts. If a target doesn't rate an entire battalion, it isn't worth shooting at. There are exceptions. Using battery-sized shoots to break up enemy attacks was worthwhile, but against dug in defending troops, it usually just wouldn't cut the mustard. If you really want to see how artillery was used in the attack, set up a scenario where you have a couple battalions worth of artillery at your disposal to support a battalion-sized attack. This is if you are playing the Allies. The Germans may have made do with a bit less, although they too could figure out what a schwerepunkt was.

Michael

[Statisoris]

Unless the artillery had previously had time to be zeroed in on an exact area, or could actually see the enemy forces there was little chance of reliable kills on enemy forces. The artillery area fire did however create confusion and fear in the forces it was targeting. This would usually cause them to slow an advance or take cover. The confusion could then be used as a cover and spare time for advancing, defending or retreating forces. I wish you could have artillery zeroed and on standby to fire and not wait 6 mins, that would make it a little better I've never used artillery that much except for the long starting barrages on known positions. Except for the on field mortars which are nice for accurate kills. Usually when forces wanted to use artillery as a force softening tool it was fired over extended periods of time, several times over several hours or days. Historically American artillery was some of the most accurate and effective during the later war, havent tested this much in game though. The germans had the coolest artillery I think though

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Statisoris:

I wish you could have artillery zeroed and on standby to fire and not wait 6 mins, that would make it a little better

You can...sort of. Actually there are two different methods. One is to target it in the first orders phase. Then you can designate what turn you want it to start falling on. This is a pre-planned mission; its chief drawback is its inflexibility. If you change your mind, you cannot retarget it.

The second method is to have TRPs. These can be used in any turn and also increase accuracy and shorten delays while not committing you to fire the particular mission at a particular time.

Michael

[Wisbech_lad]

Also, depends on level of troops you are facing. IMHO Vet+ troops seem to be much more common in CM games than they were in real life!

Against defending green troops, the suppression effect of even 3" mortar HE seems worthwhile, allowing you to work the assualt force in closer.

Against vet+, better to use as smoke, because the HE won't keep their heads down enough, and the attackers get pinned by return fire. Against regular, depends on situation...

[xerxes]

A good number of players fire arty rather speculatively, they really don't have a confirmed target. The other mistake is to penny packet the artillery. Arty should be used in mass against confirmed targets. Overtargeting with multiple FOs is extremely effective. When you hit with the arty you want to shatter the enemy formation, not just disrupt it.

[SgtMuhammed]

Historically arty concentrations were much higher than we tend to see in CM. In addition to direct support there were prep barrages, and interdiction barrages, and CB fire, all of which added to the weight of steel on the battlefield. Your 105mm direct support barrage is much more effective against troops who have already been pounded by a sustained prep barrage. Also in RL you could adjust your sheaf, or shell fall pattern, to best fit your target and so achieve much better results than we commonly see.

[Soddball]

My one pieces of advice is: as a rule, use mortar spotters for smoke and bigger calibre (88+) as anti-infantry.

25pdr can upset tanks up to and including the Panzer IV (late) by top penetration (although this is rare, only 2 out of 2,000 rounds fired in a test I ran) but higher calibres will knock out guns and hit treads on tanks - plus they'll carve up halftracks and the like quite happily.

Bigger is better. More is better.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

Is anyone else finding that artillery is basically a waste of time if you fire HE? Is this a bug or was artillery fire that bad?

As Boo stated, it depends on the circumstances. You have to foresee the need for HE when purchasing units (the probable amount and potency of the soft units your opponent has), and be aware of the blast values and typical fire mission delays these units have, as to decide whether to order bombardments on the go, or pre-plan them.

Personally, I love the artillery. Yes, it sometimes feels a bit overpriced, but the warm feeling I get from seeing the opponent's infantry flee in blind panic under a heavy artillery barrage is priceless.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

...the warm feeling I get from seeing the opponent's infantry flee in blind panic under a heavy artillery barrage is priceless.

True. Once in BO the Germans were attacking me and had chosen a line of advance that took them through two adjacent patches of trees. So I targetted the two patches of trees. It was hilarious to watch the Krauts take some casualties, break, run into the other patch of trees, take more casualties, break, run back to the first patch of trees, and repeat the whole process over and over until they were all dead. It never occurred to them to run away from the places where the artillery was falling.

Michael

[Sgian Dubh]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Historically arty concentrations were much higher than we tend to see in CM. In addition to direct support there were prep barrages, and interdiction barrages, and CB fire, all of which added to the weight of steel on the battlefield. Your 105mm direct support barrage is much more effective against troops who have already been pounded by a sustained prep barrage. Also in RL you could adjust your sheaf, or shell fall pattern, to best fit your target and so achieve much better results than we commonly see.

I agree with this as I was re-reading Death Traps (history of the 3rd Armoured Division from a Support Liason officer's view). I was again struck by the fact that use every possible gun for prep strikes, including the tanks. If I recall correctly, the prep bombardment for one assault was the equivalent of 90 battalions of arty.

So if you were going to design a scenario where there was an assault, you could either give the assaulting player a huge amount of Arty, or better, just make the area where the bombardment was to take place totally torn up with craters, burning buildings, etc. and some fixed in place enemy assets that are really beaten up. Then the assualting player's task becomes what it was in real life, plunge through the hole that the artillery made, hold and widen the shoulders, and pour the armour through to the rear.

What the assaulting player should not encounter in the 'arty hole' is fresh enemy troops at full strength with no casualties - so provision must be made in the layout of the set-up areas to not allow this.

[CombinedArms]

Here are my CM arty rules, which echo and agree with several statements above, but which might be useful when brought together in summary form.

1. Fire only on confirmed targets--one has too few rounds to waste any. Don't get nervous and blow your arty before you have a good target. Keep retargeting to follow the juciest targets. Save a little arty for the endgame.

2. Bigger is better. 81mm is ok for smoke or targets in the open. It won't do much damage against inf. in good cover. 105 is good against entrenched infantry and might get lucky against vehicles. 155 is lethal against infantry and can also kill or immoblize tanks. If you can buy a 105 and a 155mm FO for the same cost take the 155. It will achieve more kills, even with fewer rounds.

3. US and Brit VT arty is the best of all--even the 105mm is lethal against vehciles.

4.Esp. with 150mm and up, try to find infantry-tank combinations. You'll surely kill some of the infantry and might disable a few tanks with luck.

5 During active play, pretarget slower firing arty on likely target areas, then move if the targets don't materialize. Keep retargeting until you catch the enemy where you want him.

6. Make sure your FO's have direct (blue or green line) observation of the target. This is much more important in CMBB and CMAK than in CMBO, where lack of LOS lead to some delays but could be fairly accurate.

[ January 14, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[MikeyD]

I can only imagine lowering artillery's effectiveness was a conscious decision on BFC's part. They intentionally dropped the reliability of artillery significantly in CMBB over CMBO (offsetting it by giving us the new option of opening barrages). In CMAK I've often seen a 105mm round land right next to an infantry squad in the open without inflicting casualties. Neat trick, since the lethal radius of a 105mm blast should be close to 90m. My guess is they did it either to dissuade us from purchasing artillery, or maybe to convince us to purchase twice what we usually would!

[jjelinek]

For a good practical example, has anyone effectively used the Italian spotter in the Beda Fomm scenario? Or does anyone have any suggestions for this scenario? It seems that because of the hills and because the Italians are advancing that it is hard to get full effect from the spotter. I got a draw against the AI with no help from the spotter, those Matildas were tough. I held all 3 flags.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:

81mm is ok for smoke or targets in the open. It won't do much damage against inf. in good cover.

The 81mm is dandy against troops in trees, provided they aren't dug in. It's less good against dug in troops and virtually useless against buildings.

Michael

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The 81mm is dandy against troops in trees, provided they aren't dug in. It's less good against dug in troops and virtually useless against buildings.

Michael

I partially afree that the terrain plays an important part in the effectiveness of mortar bombardments: they're next to useless in urban areas.

I do however think that mortar shelling can be fatal even against entrenched enemies; it would appear that the shock factor of medium mortar rounds has been increased in the latest CM games. And you've probably noticed that even if the constant mortar shelling doesn't cause immediate casualties, it tends to drive the receiver of the barrage to panic.

[Terah]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Neat trick, since the lethal radius of a 105mm blast should be close to 90m.

90m lethal radius? I haven't actually been hit by a 105mm blast so be kind to me grogs, but I would have WAGed 20%-30% of that radius...

PS: How lethal is a "lethal radius"?

[JonS]

IIRC, 'lethal radius' kills 50% of upright, unprotected men within given radius. Further, again IIRC, the LR of a 105mm round is 45m, not 90.

The British in WWII defined a 'lethal' effect for fire-planning purposes as:

2% casualties to troops in weapon pits, 20% casualties to troops in open

But this was used as an input to describe the desired effects on the target. The desired effect ('neutralising', 'morale', 'lethal' or 'material') was used work out how many shells to fire at the target.

[ January 15, 2004, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]