Why is artillery barrage half as effective as before?

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

We have always deviated by request.

[fsn]

In WW2 25% of the British army were gunners. Most armies were at that level or close to it.  There is masses artillery, but a lot more vehicles to bring manoeuvre back to the countryside as well as craters!

My favourite artillery support is HMS Warspite.

[Dr Dave]

My favourite artillery support is HMS Warspite.

That's because you have style and Goode taste!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

But you would have it chasing bicycles !! (Nelson really did). The real reason a barrage should be less effective than a fire mission is simple - the target has had time to take cover.

IanS

[fred.]

[Risaldar Singh]

In bkc v4 it is halved then rounded up, so its 2 attacks, not 3 for a Barrage.

Most historical barrages will never do more than 2 attacks. Barrages were kak, and are now are even kakker. Not a word I know. Somewhere out there is an artillery snowflake who is very relieved at this new rule.

Yes, I wasn't very clear: I was describing the effect in BKCII to highlight the lack of lethality before it was weakened even further in IV. 

[Dr Dave]

But you would have it chasing bicycles !! (Nelson really did). The real reason a barrage should be less effective than a fire mission is simple - the target has had time to take cover.

IanS

Not sure why I'd have it chasing bicycles?  :-

Barrage or concentration - the target always has time to take cover after the first few rounds have landed if you assume they are infantry or on foot (horse transport, trucks and AFVs might have a trickier time) unless each real gun only fires one round almost simultaneously. The AS90 Burst fire drill didn't exist (and it doesn't anymore either after accidents). The "barrage" and the "concentration" terms are bkc constructs and are not real world artillery techniques. A battery is simply told the nature of the target, how many rounds to fire and the range / bearing to the target. What the new "barrage" rule implies is that the gunners fire slower / less effectively when told it's a "barrage". My point is that they aren't aware of this - they are only told to fire. Barrage or concentration, the target will react and move or go to ground if it can. What I cannot grasp - and no one seems able to explain - is why someone felt that a barrage was too effective and need to be reduced from typically 3 dice to 2 dice for a German 105 mm battery for example.

[Dr Dave]

But you would have it chasing bicycles !! (Nelson really did). The real reason a barrage should be less effective than a fire mission is simple - the target has had time to take cover.

IanS

Actually HMS Warspite (Gawd bless 'er) is a good example:

She is requested by the FOB to fire a concentration at a target and gets off a salvo of her 6x 15", the target (if infantry or on foot) takes cover / goes to ground – and assuming a game turn is several minutes (or longer) she then fires another salvo. The targets in the template are hit by 12 attacks.

OR...

She is requested by the FOB to fire a barrage at a target and gets off a salvo of her 6x 15", the target (if infantry or on foot) takes cover / goes to ground – and assuming a game turn is several minutes (or longer) she then fires another salvo. The targets in the template are hit by just 6 attacks this time.

One point in mitigation is that, as the rules state, "an artillery barrage covers a much larger area". It's about 27% larger for a 50% reduction in attacks.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Dave :-

1) Shells is heavy - 25 to 35 pounds for the projectile + cartridge case.

2) Gunners get tired


Thus the initial 2-3 minutes of a bombardment will be fired at a higher rate - lets 2 rounds per minute for a typical WWII field piece, then drops considerably, a sustained rate of 1 round per minute. There are Russian figures - admittedly post war - which give the weight of shell needed to neutralise (in BKC terms Suppress) or suppress (not covered) troops over given areas.

I am of the opinion that artillery need to be watered down considerably. It also needs to have army doctrine built into the rules. So for WWII after 42 the British and US armies could, but very rarely did get every gun in range on a target, and would have up to 3 batteries on call to battalion, with one under command, with DF and FPF tasks set up. On the other hand the German doctrine was designed to rapid response and their 50mm mortars were considered to be part of that. As German signals gear was worse even than the British they found it very hard to fire impromptu missions. The French in 1940 seem to have relied on pre-planned missions, as did the Russians. In both those armies radio kit was very poor, so modern style on call fire wasn't possible.

IanS

[Dr Dave]

Dave :-

1) Shells is heavy - 25 to 35 pounds for the projectile + cartridge case.

2) Gunners get tired


Thus the initial 2-3 minutes of a bombardment will be fired at a higher rate - lets 2 rounds per minute for a typical WWII field piece, then drops considerably, a sustained rate of 1 round per minute. There are Russian figures - admittedly post war - which give the weight of shell needed to neutralise (in BKC terms Suppress) or suppress (not covered) troops over given areas.

I am of the opinion that artillery need to be watered down considerably. It also needs to have army doctrine built into the rules. So for WWII after 42 the British and US armies could, but very rarely did get every gun in range on a target, and would have up to 3 batteries on call to battalion, with one under command, with DF and FPF tasks set up. On the other hand the German doctrine was designed to rapid response and their 50mm mortars were considered to be part of that. As German signals gear was worse even than the British they found it very hard to fire impromptu missions. The French in 1940 seem to have relied on pre-planned missions, as did the Russians. In both those armies radio kit was very poor, so modern style on call fire wasn't possible.

IanS

Yes - Warspite's shells are very heavy - hence machinery to do the lifting and ramming, plus turrets often had spare crew resting - but I take your point. But the same applies to 25pdrs anyway. 2 dice barraging a dug-in target during a set piece show. I rather not bother with the hassle. It is even less pointless than before. But I take your point. IIRC there's a RN chap who had his leg broken on D-Day when one of her shells slipped from it's loading cradle. He claimed to be the only person actually "hit" by a 15" shell and survive!  

Doctrine - yes definitely agree. the drifts are, I think, huge and are there simply to mitigate against the large areas. Why artillery doesn't get more accurate with FAO observation is beyond me. If I had the nerve to ask our gunner students about drift in cwc they'd either laugh or slap me! Drift is a function of range between guns and target, not observer and target. But that's a different issue.

[Big Insect]

The use FAO to Target for measuring drift/deviation is just a simple games mechanism to try to replicate drift from actual guns to target, so as to avoid the need for a lot of book-keeping around off-table assets. 

It's a compromise but it does also attempt to rectify the quality of information going back to the gun batteries from the FAOs.

Cheers
Mark

[Risaldar Singh]

Dave :-

1) Shells is heavy - 25 to 35 pounds for the projectile + cartridge case.

2) Gunners get tired


Thus the initial 2-3 minutes of a bombardment will be fired at a higher rate - lets 2 rounds per minute for a typical WWII field piece, then drops considerably, a sustained rate of 1 round per minute. There are Russian figures - admittedly post war - which give the weight of shell needed to neutralise (in BKC terms Suppress) or suppress (not covered) troops over given areas.

I am of the opinion that artillery need to be watered down considerably. It also needs to have army doctrine built into the rules. So for WWII after 42 the British and US armies could, but very rarely did get every gun in range on a target, and would have up to 3 batteries on call to battalion, with one under command, with DF and FPF tasks set up. On the other hand the German doctrine was designed to rapid response and their 50mm mortars were considered to be part of that. As German signals gear was worse even than the British they found it very hard to fire impromptu missions. The French in 1940 seem to have relied on pre-planned missions, as did the Russians. In both those armies radio kit was very poor, so modern style on call fire wasn't possible.

IanS

I would agree that artillery would benefit from having concentrations watered down somewhat (or capped at least). Same with army doctrine, that would be a nice addition. The main problem is getting the different systems right. For instance, the French system in 1940 absolutely did not rely on pre-planned missions the way the Russians did. In fact, it was much closer to the US system, with less technology, worse signals and better maps, and was widely recognised as being far more proficient than the German system at rapidly bringing large masses of artillery to bear.

[Dr Dave]

it does also attempt to rectify the quality of information going back to the gun batteries from the FAOs.

You're right - that's certainly a factor - but not as significant as the level the guns are held at or their distance from the battlefield.

[Raider4]

. . . As German signals gear was worse even than the British they found it very hard to fire impromptu missions.

Oh? I've just started reading 'Small Unit Actions during the German campaign in Russia' - in the very first example given there's plenty of impromptu fire missions being called in to attack Soviet bunkers, artillery and infantry units.

[Risaldar Singh]

Oh? I've just started reading 'Small Unit Actions during the German campaign in Russia' - in the very first example given there's plenty of impromptu fire missions being called in to attack Soviet bunkers, artillery and infantry units.

I think the word "large" was missing from the original statement. The German system was geared towards providing maximum flexibility and responsiveness at lower levels at the expense of easily massing fire at higher levels.