105mm Artillery Cost

[Zypheria]

I have been looking the diferent army list when I see this:



How can de 155 Artilley being better, cost less than the 105. It's something that repeats along different lists, is it intentional or is an error?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Hello and welcome.
Four gun batteries for 155 vs 6 for 105 would be my guess

[Zypheria]

I'm sorry but I don't get the point about the batteries numbers you are referring.

[Techno]

Welcome, 'Z'......

Cheers - Phil

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

[Jammybee]

There are so many units in BKCIII, there are bound to be a few puzzlers.

Also the 57mm AT guns are a bargain!

[Matt J]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

It's the cost Will. 155's are 10pts cheaper and are far more potent. Must be a typo.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

Wrong in this case Will - Field Btn's had 4 tube batteries. Armoured Field Batteries (Priests) had 6 tubes, as did the regimental Cannon company. What you are saying is more correct for the British.

Incidentally - why does the 25pdr have a restricted arc, I know form personal experience you can easily turn it 360 degrees using the issued scaffolding pole.

[Dr Dave]

105s came in batteries of 6 (medium artillery), whereas heavier guns were often used as fours?
But I'm only guessing

The points / capabilities certainly used to be based on an a single systems performance - not "X" number in a troop / platoon. Otherwise 3x T-34s would have their hands full with 5x PzVI.

It's a typo.

[sjb1001]

Dave - 5 T-34s would struggle with 3 Tigers!! 5 Panzer IV on the other hand; 5 T-34s would have a good to even chance depending on year.

[petercooman]

Ok, have a bit of a question regarding field gus etc, but found this thread and thought it better to put here than in a new one.

Looking at the OP's picture:

Why does a 37mm anti tank gun have lumbering and deploy, and a 155mm field gun doesn't? Is it because they have no move value?

Now seeing that deploy/mount/dismount are all considered move actions, this would mean a 37mm anti tank gun would have to pack up,mount and move, dismount in the next turn and deploy in the turn after that.that's 4 turns, while the 155mm field gun could just mount a vehicle, be moved, dismount and start firing in the same turn?? (considering you make the comand checks)

[Zypheria]

Mmm  :- In fact the 37mm AT skip the mount option. Just Pack Up/Move (only once for the lumbering rule)/Deploy/Fire so 4 orderes.
The "not move value" artilley needs the transport to move so Mount/Move/Dismount/Fire again 4 orders. So both needs 4 orders.

[petercooman]

Ye, but I was making the assumption they were both being towed, as to have the same situation for the sample.

The whole problem is: A deploy and a mount action are also considered move actions.

[sediment]

Just how much deploying does a 37mm or a PAK 36 or IG75 or similar need?  I thought these were light enough to push along by hand at walking pace and that they could stop and be ready to fire pretty quickly (certainly well within an activation within our game).  Thinking about it, weren't they designed to keep pace with infantry and to fire from the march in support.  Do they deserve lumbering and deploy?  Not like they are 88's on a cruciform trail or anything.

Similarly, portees, like the 2pdr and 6pdr in the desert, weren't they designed to drive forwards, swing around and open fire within a matter of minutes (i.e. within an activation in the game), should such mobile units really need to deploy like towed guns, if so, why use them in the game, buy towed AT versions, you can buy two guns and tows for very little more than a single portee.

Cheers, Andy   

[petercooman]

Just how much deploying does a 37mm or a PAK 36 or IG75 or similar need?  I thought these were light enough to push along by hand at walking pace and that they could stop and be ready to fire pretty quickly (certainly well within an activation within our game).  Thinking about it, weren't they designed to keep pace with infantry and to fire from the march in support.  Do they deserve lumbering and deploy?  Not like they are 88's on a cruciform trail or anything.

Similarly, portees, like the 2pdr and 6pdr in the desert, weren't they designed to drive forwards, swing around and open fire within a matter of minutes (i.e. within an activation in the game), should such mobile units really need to deploy like towed guns, if so, why use them in the game, buy towed AT versions, you can buy two guns and tows for very little more than a single portee.

Cheers, Andy  

Just look at these go and dare to tell those guys the can't move faster:

[Dr Dave]

I've a picture somewhere of my 13yr old son pulling a German 75mm IG on his own. He found it easy. They're very nimble.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

It could well be the mission you are intending to use. Setting a towed gun up for indirect fire would take about a 1/2 hour since you need to know where you are, so need to survey it in. With AT guns then it becomes a matter of mass. Weapons up to 60mm are reasonably handy, but the bigger weapons take time to hide, and are difficult to manhandle. So an leIG18 is lumbering despite it's size because it takes time to survey in.

[toxicpixie]

The manual for the 17pdr reckons they take a day to emplace! There's the actual stopping, then finding the right position in the area, preparing the position, getting the gun in, finding ranges, checking sight lines, naking sure the whole battery is mutually supporting, communicating with the arms you're supporting, settling the guns in and sorting egress points, camo'ing up & hiding the gun, ammo etc.

And that's not even for indirect fire, which as Ian says adds a whole new level of fiddling about.

Whilst you can come to a dead stop with a gun from road march, swing it out, jump off the van and just start blazing away I don't think it's very effective (or safe...) unless you're in an utter emergency and don't mind sitting bare arsed naked in a field wherever you happened to stop, flinging shells off with a bit of "it's close enough for artillery work" Some armies procedures and technology makes it much easier than others, but you need good troops, the right kit and little/no worries about getting mullered in the open to pull of stunts like the New Zealanders etc "five minutes from road march to regimental fire" abilities.

There's a reason infantry mortars teams were very often "self spotting", as it were, in BKC terms using their own LoS (or via the other stands in their "unit" as an abstraction)

[sediment]

So AT crews rumbling through Villers Bocage hear the rumble of Tigers in the distance.  Over a cup of tea, they casually measure out range sticks, cut themselves fields of fire, dig a weapon pit and 24 hours later they are ready to fire.  Only problem is, the Tigers are back at the beach.  Oh wait, that didn't happen, they set the guns up pronto and started to fire back as best they could, maybe not harming the Tigers, but the accompanying PzIVs and APCs were shot up.  I seriously doubt any AT officer in WW2 had the luxury of 24 hours to set up and measure out positions, except maybe the prepared positions on the Atlantic Wall or Gothic line, etc.  They might even have spilled a bit of tea in their haste.  I agree if your infantry guns are going to fire indirect via a spotter that it might be useful to know where they were and to range in the guns, net in the radios, etc. but lets face it, the officer had a map, a compass and a rangefinder, which in 1944 was all you needed (it was all I needed to navigate until SatNav and GPS drained my initiative away).  AT guns in the advance would have engaged enemy tanks in sight as required, from the march.  The rate determining step being how long it took to get a gun in position to fire and a PAK 36 and similar light AT guns could be made ready in minutes and they were designed to keep up with the infantry, for the IG75, the clue is the IG bit.  Your "hours to emplace" are for, in game terms, off board artillery firing indirect - they would have needed a significant amount of time to be ready for the next mission after moving.  All that is taken care of in the FOO CV rating - you get it or they aren't ready.  Inaccuracies in positioning of guns, ranging in and inaccuracy of spotters sightings are elegantly handled by the deviation dice.

When we are playing, except for prepared defences, aren't all our engagements emergencies.  I'd see it as a blooming emergency if I saw an enemy armoured vehicle coming towards me while my gun is still limbered.  I reckon the crew would be getting ready PDQ.

Cheers, Andy

[toxicpixie]

Two issues - first, AT guns, especially Commonwealth ones

Actually no, those 24 hours to emplace are in the field manual for the 17pdr

It was regarded as a very unwieldy weapon, and required a lot of prep to get into action *properly*. In BKC terms that's actually all pre-game, and would be in an entrenchment, in cover and preferably hidden with proper fields of fire sorted and a HQ near enough to crank out the rapid fire orders!

Of course (as I said as well!), you can crash into action much quicker, it's just very much not ideal. Heck, even the 2pdr was a sod to get set up - it's why despite the "book doctrine" to dismount the crews in the desert kept them on the trucks as portee's whenever possible.

But when the enemy comes knocking, you don't have that time. It's why Commonwealth commanders preferred to have the tracked tank destroyers follow up close after the assault echelon - they could be driven straight up into the captured positions, ready to fire (mostly), before the inevitable German counter attack got under way. They could then bring the towed guns up at their best speed and once set up, free up the TDs to go elsewhere. But repeated experience taught them that AT guns simply couldn't make it up and deploy in time, at least not effectively, and not consistently, and perhaps most importantly - not safely.

The same is true of the German experience - a gun small enough to be portable is not enough gun, and still isn't very portable. Hence the attempt to shift to self propelled units, and the big German losses in AT guns every time the Russians thumped them - remember also, most German guns, even AT ones, were horse drawn!

I'm not saying that AT guns never came off line of march and straight into action, but if they have to your plan has gone seriously wrong, and they should be hammered for it (unless your opponent has other things to occupy him until you get the barrel pointed in the right direction and loose off half a dozen ranging rounds and bodge the set up well enough to get somewhere close on target!).

Second, indirect fires -

Commonwealth and US artillery was theoretically capable (and often, in reality capable) of some astonishingly effective techniques, including very swift "on the fly" fires with excellent accuracy, and it's worth noting that most of the world moved over to similar doctrines & techniques post war Most other nations were simply not up to that standard, and couldn't be - they used an evolution of the WW1 arty systems, and required a three point reference so they needed the target position, the observer position AND their own position, all accurately set, and then worked through to generate the fire mission, which took ages (comparatively); even the best of them (German) from already set up guns with a ready observer took on average nearly fifteen mins to call fire to an unexpected point.

BKC did a good job of reflecting both of those, between the friction from the FO's/HQ CV, the simple mods for Commonwealth/US arty and the difficulty in using towed guns on the offence. Even with armoured tows they're vulnerable, and even if they don't attract ops fire unlimbering them somewhere useful is a sod. The variable time length on a turn and variable numbers of orders received within that space also works well to feed into that

BKC2 didn't need any tweaking there, for my money, but if 3 (and successor) is now using "lumbering" as a trait to describe the more awkward/bigger weapons (whilst light stuff like the PaK36 just has the "minimal" gun rules) then *as long as the trait is written to make sense, and is appropriately applied in the lists*, there shouldn't be an issue.