Large Calibre Artillery Effectiveness

[TBlaster]

I've noticed that there is a lot less "splash" damage with artillery compared to CM1. I was playing one match where I pre-plotted a 240m radius area that contained a village using 2 american 240mm artillery guns that pounded the area for 15 minutes using the "medium" intensity setting. When I then assaulted the position my opponents infantry platoon was virtually unscathed within the buildings. Even exposed units in close proximity of the blast survived the impact (about 10 meters from the crater)

During the same barrage one of the explosions wounded a mortar team that was 320 meters away from the impact area. (We confirmed that no other unit shot the mortar team and the casualty had to come from the arty shell)

So I guess I don't understand how the damage is calculated. Angle of impact determines the path of the shrapnel?

[Oddball_E8]

could it be possible that those units werent in the village when you bombarded it and just moved in afterwards?

[MikeyD]

If you look at illustrations of impact fuse artilley lethality patterns you see a lot of 'up-and-out' happening. Hvy artillery seemed to be good at excavating holes in the ground, primarily. That's why they went to all the trouble and expense of timed airburst and later radar proximity fuses. I've seen illustrations of a 75mm Sherman HE's lethality radius. Apparently it was relatively safe to be standing right in front of the shell as it exploded, not so much standing off to the side.

Oh, and I believe the game slightly lowers the lethality of artillery on purpose to adjust for units being unable the spread out from their action squares. So current artillery is meant to reflect bombarding a dispersed infantry squad instead of a concentrated one.

[womble]

I've noticed that there is a lot less "splash" damage with artillery compared to CM1. I was playing one match where I pre-plotted a 240m radius area that contained a village using 2 american 240mm artillery guns that pounded the area for 15 minutes using the "medium" intensity setting. When I then assaulted the position my opponents infantry platoon was virtually unscathed within the buildings. Even exposed units in close proximity of the blast survived the impact (about 10 meters from the crater)

During the same barrage one of the explosions wounded a mortar team that was 320 meters away from the impact area. (We confirmed that no other unit shot the mortar team and the casualty had to come from the arty shell)

So I guess I don't understand how the damage is calculated. Angle of impact determines the path of the shrapnel?

240m across is a pretty scattered shot pattern for two slow-firing tubes. How many rounds did the mission use?

Blast damage can be pretty random (the opposition seem to need direct hits; I take losses from 60mm bombs 100m away), and is mitigated by intervening obstacles. It also has much less effect against troops that have their faces in the dirt.

In addition, there is a 'fudge factor' for blast which is to compensate for the slightly tight intervals the game engine imposes on team members. But I've found 105mm to be pretty unpleasant, both on the receiving end and on the dishing out end. Spraying it all over the county doesn't use it to its maximum effectiveness.

[StellarRat]

I would imagine the blast alone from 240mm should kill or injure everyone within 50 meters (assuming no hard cover.) My guess is the enemy moved in AFTER the barrage. A lot would depend on how the shells were fused too. Instantaneous vs. Delayed vs. Timed airburst . I don't know what fusing options 240 mm had.

My own experience in CMBN is that 155 mm is the best artillery all around. 240 is too slow, too expensive and fires too few rounds.

[womble]

I would imagine the blast alone from 240mm should kill or injure everyone within 50 meters. My guess is the enemy moved in AFTER the barrage.

I suspect your imagination runs a little hotter than reality...

[StellarRat]

I suspect your imagination runs a little hotter than reality...

So, you think the game is wrong? Or you know the real facts about 240mm? ?? :-)

[womble]

So, you think the game is wrong? Or you know the real facts about 240mm? ?? :-)

I don't have any opinion about the game. Do you know the 'real facts' about 8" shells lethality radius in all conditions? Specifically the conditions in TBlaster's scenario? For every shell fall and potential target location?

I can answer that question for you: no, you don't. Point me at some references; you made the claim for "what ought to happen"; I was commenting on what I'd seen in-game in similar situations having watched that sort of diffuse bombardment fall to little or no effect.

One thing I can promise you, is that BFC have done more research into this than you or I ever will.

[TBlaster]

Just to clarify - the platoon didn't move into the village after the bombardment ended. This game was played in Realtime and my opponent and I were using voice comms and discussed the bombardment. The map started out with damaged buildings but none of the buildings were destroyed during the shelling. Now to be fair, I didn't look to see if any of the shells actually hit any of the buildings, but I saw impact craters all around the village area.

The QB map we played on was the one containing 2 village objective areas. A river seperated the two areas and there were rather large hills. The village I was hitting was the center objective.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I used the US 240mm in a recent QB. Or tried to use, I should say. One of the spotting rounds fell well short of the target. and it certainly did kill or wound everyone withing 50m. Oh, did it ever...

[StellarRat]

Just to clarify - the platoon didn't move into the village after the bombardment ended. This game was played in Realtime and my opponent and I were using voice comms and discussed the bombardment. The map started out with damaged buildings but none of the buildings were destroyed during the shelling. Now to be fair, I didn't look to see if any of the shells actually hit any of the buildings, but I saw impact craters all around the village area.

The QB map we played on was the one containing 2 village objective areas. A river seperated the two areas and there were rather large hills. The village I was hitting was the center objective.

Well if the enemy was in stone buildings and none of them took a direct hit I could easily see them surviving.

[cool breeze]

that 240 m radius town area is more area than 42 football fields with nice (stone?) houses (with simulated basements?) and bath tubs and such. How many shots were fired?

[gunnergoz]

FWIW this is the Ordnance data from the ballistics manual 1944:

[Sakai007]

I find 105mm fire to be the most effective in game. The larger calibers don't deliver enough shells, and the lighter stuff doesn't reliably kill light vehicles with near misses. I killed three Marders and immo a StugIII with a few nicely placed 105 rounds in a QB with the same map as listed at thread start. Area fire seems to be a waste of time, linear delivers a much more damaging barrage over an area of ground since rounds fall from point to point and a little high and low of the line you set.

[StellarRat]

I find 105mm fire to be the most effective in game. The larger calibers don't deliver enough shells, and the lighter stuff doesn't reliably kill light vehicles with near misses. I killed three Marders and immo a StugIII with a few nicely placed 105 rounds in a QB with the same map as listed at thread start. Area fire seems to be a waste of time, linear delivers a much more damaging barrage over an area of ground since rounds fall from point to point and a little high and low of the line you set.

I'm sticking with 155 mm. This the standard for modern US Forces now as far as I know and I can see why based on my CMBN experience.

[gunnergoz]

I'm sticking with 155 mm. This the standard for modern US Forces now as far as I know and I can see why based on my CMBN experience.

Yep and it was common as heck in WW2, at least for US forces. A very effective piece.

[Sakai007]

I am curious, was the 155 more prolific during WWII then the 105? I had assumed that as the size, weight, caliber of a weapons system goes down, the more of them are fielded. I also very rarely have had anything larger then 105 batteries under my command during the scenarios included, so I figured they weren't as active.

I read an article about General James Gavin in WWII History magazine and he tells about being saved on a ridge after the Anzio landings by, you guessed it, 155mm Arty fire. The effects of which effectively stopped an Armored thrust to get to the beach head.

[YankeeDog]

105mm was far and away the most common Arty caliber for U.S. forces in 1944, and would definitely be more commonly seen than 155mm at the CM level.

That said, 155mm wasn't rare, either, so it's not necessarily ahistorical to see it in a CM fight.

Stuff bigger than this would be uncommon at the CM level.

[gunnergoz]

105's outnumbered 155's in the division by 4-1 if you count the infantry cannon companies as another battalion equivalent. But when you factor in the great numbers of 155 howitzer battalions that corps and army artillery had on hand, the overall ratio is probably something like 3:2 for 105/155. 155 "Long Tom" Guns were a different matter and were generally used in long range interdiction and counter-battery fires.

[StellarRat]

Yeah, 105's were the standard in US forces in WW II.

I nearly always grab at least one battery of 155mm in QB. The reason I like it so much is that it can be used against armor and hard cover very effectively. When playing with an all infantry attacking force it is my main anti-armor weapon. Because dragging AT guns forward into battle is pretty silly, but moving your FO isn't. I can't really count on 105's against armor and bigger guns are too slow to respond and don't fire enough rounds to adequately saturate an area.

If I KNEW there was NO enemy armor I'd probably pick 105's because they are cheap and effective again soft targets.

[JasonC]

gunnergoz has it basically right. 105s were the standard div arty piece (with 12 155s in IDs only, vs. 54 105s counting regimental cannon companies, and 54 105s only in armored divisions, all SP), but corps level arty added a huge park of 155mm howitzers. The 155s were quite well supplied and shot a somewhat higher total shell weight - though a lower shell number - than the 105s, over whole campaigns (Normandy, Bulge e.g.). (A single 155 shell weighs 3 times what a 105 does, roughly). From the early fall on, moreover, 105mm ammo was less plentiful, since there were so many tubes to throw it, it could not be kept in stock and rounds per day were restricted in most formations throughout the fall. There was less of a shortage in the higher echelon 155s and they fired a higher portion of the missions than you might expect, as a result.

Other higher echelon types - 4.5 inch gun, mostly counterbattery; 155mm gun, rare and likewise; 8 inch howitzer, 8 inch gun or 240mm howitzer - were more rare. Collectively a significant part of the park and in that order.

A normal shoot would be either a lot of 105s or a not much smaller number of 155s, with the former outnumbering the latter by shoot by a factor of 2 or less.

[Sakai007]

Wow, thanx guys!!! It is interesting to me to see the trickle down effect of supply to the battle field. The sheer number of 105 tubes to fire rounds wore down the supply in theater so quickly that their usage was restricted, giving more opportunity to the 155 batteries to do their thing. I must wonder then, with the info given, if larger pieces such as the 8 inch gun & howitzer, 4.5 inch, and 240mm howitzer were used in a context that is relevant to CM? Or was their use mainly for counter battery and preliminary bombardment.

[gunnergoz]

I really can't see anything over a 155 howitzer being used on-call in most of these CM:N scenarios (perhaps other than beachhead ones with ship fire on call). The reason I say that is that these big guns were pretty much reserved for major planned fires against enemy concentrations and rear area targets...not for front-line support of US troops. The accuracy just wasn't there in those days to keep those big guns from accidentally dropping one too close to our own troops and their lethality was so great that even a near miss could be very dangerous.

As always, I'm confident there were historical exceptions to this, but on the whole I think it is safe to assume that most of the time, the best a US company commander could hope to call on was mortars, 105's and 155's for support fires in his immediate area and within scenario time-frames. A scenario with first-turn planned fires for an offensive would be the primary exception I can think of.

[Michael Emrys]

A scenario with first-turn planned fires for an offensive would be the primary exception I can think of.

I wonder if there is any in-game mechanism to only allow certain artillery modules to be used in planned fires, or would it depend on a gentleman's agreement?

Michael

[Sgt Schultz]

I wonder if there is any in-game mechanism to only allow certain artillery modules to be used in planned fires, or would it depend on a gentleman's agreement?

Michael

It can be simulated by only allowing the planned(large) artillery to be available at scenario start, with designer notes suggesting use.

All other calibres could come on as reinforcements.