Arty with only 2 guns per battery?

[c3k]

edit: EVERYTHING I posted below is apparently in error. BF.C only referenced a two gun section as a battery once (seemingly mistakenly). I presumed it was not a mistake, hence my post, below. None of it matters anymore, since I've now re-read the original thread.

Thanks,

Ken

Gents,

In the Arty AAR thread, BF.C uses A6 Paladins for their example. (Looks good, BTW!) My question: why are there only two guns in a unit labelled a "battery"? I thought it'd be 4 or 6, depending on timeframe and weapon.

There was a response in that thread which touched on the subject, which intimated that the reason for Iraq deployed artillery to have fewer than standard guns these days was due to the lack of artillery usefulness in a counter-insurgency effort.

Now, if I'm invading a country, I'm NOT going to start with a counterinsurgency mindset or force level.

BF.C, why 2 guns per battery?

If you stick with that, can it be modified in the editor?

Thanks,

Ken

[ December 11, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

[Tarkus]

C3K,

Although not exactly answering your question, have a look at this post from Imperial Grunt. Maybe it's the one you were refering to...

[EDIT. Here's the post]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

John, its not that the US has lowered the number of tubes in its artillery batteries, it is the number of artillery gun sections and batteries that are doing other missions than their primary mission.

When 1st Mar Div re-deployed back to Iraq in March of 04, they originally returned with very few artillery tubes, with the intent of minimizing collateral damage. The 82nd had been using artillery in a counter mortar role extensively, which caused alot of resentment and the Marines hoped to reverse this. Unfortunatly, it did not work out as hoped.

But for Fallujah 1 and 2, very little artillery was on hand as compared to OIF. Then 1st Mar Div had a reinforced artillery regiment (11th Marines). I am sure that 3rd ID and the various Army brigades were full up as well on artillery.

For an invasion of Syria, there would be lots of artillery.

[ December 11, 2006, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

i think the official by book Paladin structure is two three gun platoons, but three two gun platoons is often favoured in practice.

[hellfish]

I think two guns has been kind of standard in Iraq lately. I remember reading an AAR from Fallujah that mentioned that one of the batteries in direct support had only two guns up, and they only fired one gun for most missions (as the missions were usually against single structures or emplacements and didn't require anything more).

Note, that this doesn't mean 2 guns per battery is normal, but thats what they're doing in Iraq right now. During OIF's initial phase I remember seeing 6-gun batteries from the Army and Marines.

[c3k]

Tarkus,

Exactly correct: that WAS the post I was thinking of.

Fytinghellfish,

Agreed, that seems to be occuring in Iraq right now, but CM:SF will be in Syria, in a different context than a counterinsurgency.

Again, my question is, "Why are _batteries_ being portrayed in the CMSF artilley example as having only 2 guns?"

Thanks,

Ken

[rune]

Because the Army assigned them that way. Actually the TO&E says three guns, but in actuality, 3 2gun platoons have been the practice. This was changed in 1996 according to this article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAU/is_1_6/ai_70378800

Rune

[hellfish]

Originally posted by c3k:

Again, my question is, "Why are _batteries_ being portrayed in the CMSF artilley example as having only 2 guns?"

Probably because they're still in early beta/late alpha?

Remember, in those screenshots it doesn't say anything about a battery with two guns. It just has the firing units broken down into two guns. I imagine you could get away with saying the other four guns in the battery are either mobile or rearming from the FAASVs or HEMMTs.

[rune]

No, remember it is the platoon of the battery. More reading.

http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/Go_to_War_Primer/pdf_files/21Battery.pdf

Rune

[c3k]

Ah Ha!

I found it! In Steve's second post in the "An example of Artillery in Action" thread he mentions, "...the other Paladin battery whack the trenches.."! That is why I presumed that CM:SF was using two gun sections as batteries.

It would appear that I jumped on a simple error. If that is so, my apologies. Somehow, having read that sentence, I mentally assigned ALL references to the two gun section to being called a battery. That is not the case. The battery reference only appears once.

I can once more enjoy life knowing that BF.C is NOT going to call two guns a battery. Whew, now I can purchase this game.

Sorry for a tempest in a teacup. Carry on.

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

The reason we break batteries up into sections is because, at the moment, CM doesn't allow a single Asset to be used for two missions concurrently. Therefore, if we kept them bunched up into larger sized groupings that would limit how many strikes could be called down at any given time.

Steve