Why has the artillery barrage effect been halved compared to previous editions?
The number of attacks is now half the average attacks (P. 48) when it used to be the average number of attacks... This might make sense if the effect of the barrage was extended to both player turns but it's not so I'm struggling to understand this change.
Surely it's just a typo?
Hadn't notice this, but it does seem that way from the rules v4 and the example!
The example is 2 German 105s at 3D6 each on a 40 x 20 template and it states add together and divide by number of assets = 3 which is the same as v2, but then says to halve at 1.5 and round up to 2 (if necessary), so less effective than v2 overall. Were barrages so powerful to need to change it ? Not in my experience, but will be interesting to understand why from some of the play testers.
Quote from: Dr Dave on 11 May 2019, 12:19:12 PM
Surely it's just a typo?
Definitely no typo. A whole new sentence doesn't qualify as a typo. ;)
But it might be an error then that's left over from V3.
It can't be real, surely.
It's not quite the same, in v2, for a barrage, you totaled up all of the attacks, then divided them across all of the targets in the zone.
So in v2 that example would have been 6 dice spread as evenly as possible between all of the targets. which was good if there was only a couple of targets in the zone, but quickly diluted down to 1 dice per target if there was a whole load under there.
Now it's a guaranteed 2 dice against each target.
(if i'm remembering right, i'd need to dig out v2 to check, and I can't even find it in v3)
Nope. In V2, you totalled up the number of attacks and divided them by the number of firing units not targets.
Quote from: Risaldar Singh on 11 May 2019, 10:37:18 PM
Nope. In V2, you totalled up the number of attacks and divided them by the number of firing units not targets.
Correct, so v4, barrages are less effective. When I have played most players prefer concentrations anyway, except when calling in smoke!
It could well be a reaction to the 66 dice Mark was rolling in one of our large CWC games, all of NorthAg artillery it looked like to me !!
Quote from: ianrs54 on 12 May 2019, 07:26:33 AM
It could well be a reaction to the 66 dice Mark was rolling in one of our large CWC games, all of NorthAg artillery it looked like to me !!
66 dice has to be a concentration, it's not possible with a barrage. ;)
Another change (p. 47): each artillery unit may only be called once (scheduled or requested). The previous wording was "used" which Pete Jones clarified several times to mean "fired". I.e., a second FO could attempt to request an artillery unit which another FO had failed to do. No longer.
Quote from: Risaldar Singh on 12 May 2019, 07:47:36 AM
66 dice has to be a concentration, it's not possible with a barrage. ;)
How many artillery assets did he have? Did you not roll deviation for each concentration? I consider each asset as a battery, so for example 3rd Infantry Division landing on SWORD Beach had 3 regts - so 9 batteries of Self Propelled, which had to be disembarked and would not be all available at the same time on the push in land. Concentration hasn't changed and saw the barrage as a fair representation. Unfortunately pulling together of the FAQs and Errata into one place would, for me have been the ideal in v4.
I am back
It is not a typo
It is a deliberate attempt to remove the massing of guns in a single barrage in a way that means almost certain destruction for anything under the template.
Yes ... it is also correct that if 1 FAC fails to order a battery/unit it can no longer be ordered by another FAC ... in that game turn.
This was a reaction to criticism that the game had slowed down dramatically due to too much off-table play.
Give it a try - it certainly makes you want to play to the next move speedily
(& Ian was correct - 66 dice per unit - with fire being brought down on a target as a pre-registered strike was excessive - it was a multi-player game with both Battalion and Divisional assets on-call. However, I was only the player throwing the dice, not the player making the save throws!)
Perhaps it is due to games I have played, that off table assets are usually kept to about 3 or 4, that we don't seem to have as much of an impact with barrages. In fact most choose to bring down concentrations, as these seem more effective albeit that each needs to deviate individually. And concentrations ave not changed in v4. Perhaps the answer was to limit the number of off table assets and limit numbers of FAOs.
I must admit, I'm puzzling to see how anyone could get a 66 dice barrage, unless multiple barrages were stacked in the same turn, with a lot of artillery. Please could someone explain?
I would expect the maximum attack dice to be 16, in a barrage of all naval rocket artillery (now 8 with the halved dice).
My general experience with arty since BKC1 is much the same as Cross698's.
Quote from: Big Insect on 13 May 2019, 08:22:43 PM
I am back
It is not a typo
It is a deliberate attempt to remove the massing of guns in a single barrage in a way that means almost certain destruction for anything under the template.
I'm sorry but this answer makes no sense and the change doesn't address the problem it aims to address.
It is concentrations where each target units gets hit by the sum of all attacks with no upper limit that are the killers. For barrages, there is one template per firing unit and the units in each template gets hit by the average number of attacks rounded up (now divided by 2). Adding artillery units to a barrage only makes it wider not more powerful.
Ignoring list maximums etc for the sake of argument, 10 units of Soviet 160mm mortars firing a concentration would hit each target unit in one template with 50 attacks. Meanwhile, 10 units of Soviet 160mm mortars firing a barrage would spread their fire over ten templates positioned next to each over and each target unit in these templates would be hit by 5 attacks in V2, now 3 in V4.
QuoteYes ... it is also correct that if 1 FAC fails to order a battery/unit it can no longer be ordered by another FAC ... in that game turn.
This was a reaction to criticism that the game had slowed down dramatically due to too much off-table play.
Not a criticism we ever heard around our tables. And incidentally, you forgot to make the same adjustment for air strike requests, just for consistency...
QuoteGive it a try - it certainly makes you want to play to the next move speedily
No thanks. The old rule was just fine as it allowed for a very simple portrayal of various levels of support (organic, dedicated, general). I think we'll be hanging on to it. ;-)
Concentrations are concentrations - short delivery of a lot of munitions on a limited area.
Barrages are less concentrated delivery of munitions, generally on a wider area.
The two need to be handled differently. A barrage is not as effective as a concentration.
This is primarily why there has been a change, as under the previous rules the Barrage was felt to be far too effective and cost effective.
Thanks
Mark
Barrages being too effective is not something I've ever heard or read. As has been pointed out, barrages tend to be little used unless firing smoke or looking for suppressions.
Again the maximum number of attacks against any target under a barrage is that of one artillery unit. Adding more firing artillery units doesn't make the barrage any more lethal, it just covers more area.
I'm beginning to think I'm being dense here and would appreciate an example of a "lethal" barrage with some numbers. ;)
Interesting - in all the games I have played at my club, we have tried to base games historically and therefore not large numbers of batteries. In most cases therefore players preferred "concentrations" and multiple ones against the same target (each with its own deviation) rather than barrages of more than one battery, as they were deemed less effective, except with smoke. As the game penalises you at -1 for 4-6 assets and -1 per rocket or naval guns, so unless you had an FAO with a high CV which i think is 8, most would only risk 3, so a 150mm at 4 dice would have been 12 divided by 3 = 4 across a 20 x 60cm frontage? Against AFV (enclosed) needing 6, same with units in cover, yes units in the open, such as infantry, ATGs and the like would get hammered.
I'd be interested in how many batteries each side would be fielding and it is probable that excessive use of artillery, plus many FAOs may be the problem, rather than the echanics in my opinion.
I've tended to use artillery historically, at least that's been the intention and I've not really encountered any issues. As mentioned in my last AAR, you have to be careful with game balance as seen in the effectiveness of bomber units. The same can be said for artillery, entrenched units etc. After all we all want to have a fun and challenging game that both sides can enjoy.
So from my perspective the rules work very well as written but, as I did with BKCII, I will tweak them to suit my personal gaming situation and interpretation of history.
Agreed, it's about balance. I've not played CWC, but do have the PDF - and most armies are limited to numbers of Artillery - some 3, some 9, but the odd one that did not seem to have any limit. Ultimately I suppose it is at what level you are playing - if it's a Division then yes, you might have x amount of batteries to call upon, but I suspect individual battalion commanders would be screaming for it. Having read up around SWORD BEACH and the ORNE BRIDGES for DDay, certainly on a few occasions when the Paras were able to "communicate" for atillery and naval fire, these assets were unavailable as there were other fire priorities.
Quote from: Risaldar Singh on 14 May 2019, 02:15:37 PM
Barrages being too effective is not something I've ever heard or read. As has been pointed out, barrages tend to be little used unless firing smoke or looking for suppressions.
Yes ... I think I am not making myself clear - we appear to be in agreement that in WW2 Barrages were (generally) less effective than concentrations. That is what the changes to the Barrage rules in BKCIV does - it makes Barrages less effective, deliberately.
(NB: Ignore Ian and the 66 dice incident - it was not a barrage but a scheduled artillery strike calling down all the guns from a number of formations - and it was a CWC game - Battle of Hanover - you can see a write up on the very good Cold War Commanders blog). My Dutch CO caught an entire East German Tank Battalion on a Autobahn bridge over a river using it as a choke point as anything that survived (none) would have been suppressed and under the guns of 9 Leopard IVs at half-range ... anyway I digress).
NB: for the big Cold War Commander games - we play full ORBATS and have Divisional Reserves off-table and on limited call. Hence what seems like a large number of guns.
But my Dutch force alone was 12,000 pts on-table and another 5,000 in reserve + air and Battalion HQ assets. These are huge 2 day games, often played over multiple venues.
This year we have 3 - maybe 4 sites - 2 in the UK (Grimsby & Slimbridge) and 1 in France and another in Australia - and we are fighting 2 days of combat on the Central Front just north of Minden (Hackett WW3 country) so lots of armour - although very depleted becuase it is now the 2nd set of 2 days combat - we rotate the sections of front - last year was 2nd time around for Arctic Front in North Norway.
Quote from: Big Insect on 14 May 2019, 03:45:26 PM
...in WW2 Barrages were (generally) less effective than concentrations. That is what the changes to the Barrage rules in BKCIV does - it makes Barrages less effective, deliberately.
In WW2 there was no distinction between a barrage and a concentration. Those are terms used in the rules but did not exist in WW2 arty doctrine. The order "fire for a bit but not tooooo much" did not exist. Arty had rates of fire that they'd try to maintain. Hence a slow rate with all a bttns guns firing at one point could be construed as a weak concentration. The idea that someone found 3 dice from arty too much to bear (but 2 is fine) is a bit worrying. The poor dears (joke) :o
The German "time on target" is a concentration in bkc terminology, but it could be fleeting - sometimes just a few shots per gun - due to the threat of counter battery - either from allied arty or air assets.
Mark, I'm trying to follow your reasoning over the barrage vs concentration and it's not working for me. Three guns firing a barrage hit an area three times the area of a concentration, so it used to be 3 guns with, say 3 attacks hitting with 3x3 or 9 attacks on an area three times the size of a concentration, so would hit with just 3 attacks on any unit in the barrage - now it's down to 2 - not a massive difference, but why the change? No excessive hits there, just nuisance stuff, even at 3 attacks.
Thinking about the big games, for 66 attacks, you must have been calling in up to 22 batteries (assuming 3 attacks), so surely the FAO would have been calling in with at least -7 (calling in 21 batteries) so pretty near impossible to call in within the rules. That was always the limiting factor to massed artillery was the -1 per 3 batteries to the FAO command roll.
Cheers, Andy
The 66 attacks concentration was preplanned hence no calling in roll or penalty.
I played in that game, still not really sure how it worked as it wasn't a scheduled strike using artillery assets, so should still have needed to be called in. Doesn't really change the comment that barrages are already diluted by their area without halving the value of the asset firing. Now, a player would be better off scheduling a row of concentrations on fixed targets adjacent to each other and benefit from the full attack value.
3x batteries firing a barrage. Say 3 attacks each. Area is 20x60 (3 zones, 1 per battery). Average per battery is 3, then half and round up = 2 attacks per target
If this was a creeping barrage the attacks are not halved and the template and the effect stays on - so creeping is better than standing
3x batteries firing a concentration, area is 20cm diameter, but the attacks are stacked = 9 attacks per target
Quote from: Dr Dave on 14 May 2019, 07:33:34 PM
3x batteries firing a barrage. Say 3 attacks each. Area is 20x60 (3 zones, 1 per battery). Average per battery is 3, then half and round up = 2 attacks per target
If this was a creeping barrage the attacks are not halved and the template and the effect stays on - so creeping is better than standing
3x batteries firing a concentration, area is 20cm diameter, but the attacks are stacked = 9 attacks per target
Although not stated in v4, but eventually clarified in v2 was that each concentration should still each roll for deviation seperately. Anyway, I wanted the rational reasoning for the change and I think in relation to off table I'll stick to v2 regarding barrages.
Quote from: Cross698 on 14 May 2019, 07:52:03 PM
I think in relation to off table I'll stick to v2 regarding barrages.
;)
Quote from: Cross698 on 14 May 2019, 07:52:03 PM
but eventually clarified in v2 was that each concentration should still each roll for deviation seperately.
I didn't know that.
It sounds really fiddly, as if you have 3 guns firing you are likely to end up with some units under 3 templates, some under 2 and plenty under 1.
I can see the reason to cap the number of dice for a concentration. After a certain point more shells don't really help. You are either dead from the early stuff, or hidden in good cover. WWI was a very good example of this, where barrages went from very long, to much shorter.
I'm not really sure what the new rules for barrages do, as noted above the typical result is to go from 3 dice to 2 dice, which is fairly minor. All at the cost of some awkward maths if you are firing a mix of guns.
We've never played it that way. But we do arty differently. The SP guns being easier to call in since bkc1 is a fantasy that Pete acknowledged was only there to make SP different to towed arty. So we ignore that modifier completely.
It's worth noting that arty doesn't get more accurate for consecutive turns of requested firing at the same stationary target / point. I've always thought that a real oddity. The FAO can't correct fire. All it takes is -1 deviation dice per consecutive turn down to a minimum of 1.
Never played it that way either. It's always been one fire mission, one request roll, one deviation roll (if applicable).
Yes, I've never seen any logic in the SP argument at all. Even Pete conceded it was nonsense.
Particularly since the Grimsby group apply it to MRL's
Quote from: ianrs54 on 15 May 2019, 08:45:14 AM
Particularly since the Grimsby group apply it to MRL's
;D really? They need to watch the survey team and met teams required for a set up.
It seems so odd that the rules have
always assumed that all arty is in a state of perpetual motion and never ready to fire. Even if they do fire the rules then assume that they up sticks and start moving again!
Quote from: Dr Dave on 15 May 2019, 09:34:24 AM
It seems so odd that the rules have always assumed that all arty is in a state of perpetual motion and never ready to fire. Even if they do fire the rules then assume that they up sticks and start moving again!
Ultrmodern shoot-and-scoot on steroids! ;D
I guess the only real difference is that SP arty is invariably armoured, but open topped.
In How's book "Hill 112" one of the Infantry chaps describes walking back to the rear and passing fields full of 25 pdrs deployed and ready.
I can see the SP modifier being of some merit in a pursuit type game where your forces are strung out or moving up, but only until the FAO's request is successful, after that the guns are in position and ready.
Personally SP should only count against counter artillery in my opinion - more difficult to hit.
Deviation
http://www.blitzkrieg-commander.com/Content/Forum/Topic.aspx?CategoryID=2&ForumID=5&TopicID=9921&ForumPage=1
and
http://www.blitzkrieg-commander.com/Content/Forum/Topic.aspx?CategoryID=2&ForumID=58&TopicID=14155&ForumPage=1
If you have plenty of transparent 20cm templates it isn't really a problem - we put a marker where the deviation points are and then if the unit is 50% under the template and put that number of dice next to the unit, then check out the next template and if the same units fall under this then place additional dice next to the unit and so on. So some units may well have 3 dice against it, some 6 or even 9, depending on calibre. We find it works and in most cases apart from smoke, players use concentrations rather than barrages, as the effect is reduced, hence my surprise that barrages have been made less effective and concentrations remain the same!
If you don't deviate multiple concentrations, then what is the point of barrages?
Also rockets always deviate in v2 even for scheduled 3D6.
Deviation in V4 does not clarify that each concentration is deviated seperately and only states that rockets are inaccurate, so rolls double the deviation dice.
:-
Quote from: Cross698 on 15 May 2019, 11:36:24 AM
If you don't deviate multiple concentrations, then what is the point of barrages?
Not sure what you're getting at.
A concentration of three batteries: we play as 3 templates on top of each other so triple the number of single battery attacks, but they all deviate together.
A barrage is three templates side by side. So only the single battery attacks in each template.
That's how we've always done it.
Not according to Pete - each concentration deviates seperately, so roll deviation from the FAO to the target for each battery, unless you roll a double 1 of course.
All good stuff chaps
I'll take a look at the Barrage rules - my initial thinking was that a Barrage was far too cost effective.
In BKCII - page 27 (top) it states:
Artillery Barrage
An Artillery barrage covers a much larger area than a concentration. the fire-zone measures 20cm wide per artillery unit by 20cm deep. This fire-zone should be centred on the hit point with the longest side place parallel to your own table base line. Total the attacks of all units firing, then divide by the number of units, rounding up.
As the FAO ordering the Barrage can bring down any number of artillery units in a barrage (subject to the -1 per 3 guns command penalty), the barrage can become devastating if enough off-guns are added to the barrage. They in-effect almost become large concentrations.
Personally, I don't have a mental picture of WW2 as a massed artillery game - unlike WW1 (1916-18).
Also - creeping barrages are treated like other barrages - so are no better or worse.
Anyway, I've taken on the feedback and will look at this in the errata.
NB: the SP gun thing is interesting - I can see a minus associated with counter battery, but the +1 for an order has also mystified me ... but it's a longstanding mechanism &(believe it or not) I have tried not to tinker with too many of those ;)
Cheers
Mark
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!
Quote from: Big Insect on 15 May 2019, 01:56:40 PM
All good stuff chaps
I'll take a look at the Barrage rules - my initial thinking was that a Barrage was far too cost effective.
In BKCII - page 27 (top) it states:
Artillery Barrage
An Artillery barrage covers a much larger area than a concentration. the fire-zone measures 20cm wide per artillery unit by 20cm deep. This fire-zone should be centred on the hit point with the longest side place parallel to your own table base line. Total the attacks of all units firing, then divide by the number of units, rounding up.
As the FAO ordering the Barrage can bring down any number of artillery units in a barrage (subject to the -1 per 3 guns command penalty), the barrage can become devastating if enough off-guns are added to the barrage. They in-effect almost become large concentrations.
Personally, I don't have a mental picture of WW2 as a massed artillery game - unlike WW1 (1916-18).
Also - creeping barrages are treated like other barrages - so are no better or worse.
Anyway, I've taken on the feedback and will look at this in the errata.
NB: the SP gun thing is interesting - I can see a minus associated with counter battery, but the +1 for an order has also mystified me ... but it's a longstanding mechanism &(believe it or not) I have tried not to tinker with too many of those ;)
Cheers
Mark
No, a barrage can never be as lethal as a concentration, no matter how many batteries join in. You are missing the key part of the rules: divide the aum of attacks by the number of firing units. Again, adding more batteries only increases the area covered.
Two batteries with 3 attacks each would inflict 3 attacks on each target within two-template zone, 12 batteries would inflict the same 3 attacks in a 12-template wide zone.
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.
We have always deviated by request.
Quote from: Dr Dave on 15 May 2019, 02:51:28 PM
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.
Quote from: fsn on 15 May 2019, 07:29:11 PM
My favourite artillery support is HMS Warspite.
That's because you have style and Goode taste!
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
(http://www.kerynne.com/games/images/BritArty/100_8768.jpg)
Quote from: Dr Dave on 15 May 2019, 03:24:52 PM
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. ;)
Quote from: ianrs54 on 16 May 2019, 06:37:43 AM
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.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 16 May 2019, 06:37:43 AM
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.
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
Quote from: ianrs54 on 16 May 2019, 08:18:27 AM
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! ;D
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.
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
Quote from: ianrs54 on 16 May 2019, 08:18:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Big Insect on 16 May 2019, 10:04:02 AM
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.
Quote from: ianrs54 on 16 May 2019, 08:18:27 AM
. . . 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.
Quote from: Raider4 on 17 May 2019, 08:31:21 AM
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.
A veteran I knew said he and his pals (in 1st Worcestershire) hated working with tanks. In the morning when the tanks started their engines they'd always get a quick stink of Jerry. The feeling he had was that Jerry arty was small in number but fast to respond. It's also worth remembering that a German inf div had much less arty support than a British division.
Perhaps German RECCE was better distributed to call it in?!
The Germans used mortars as their rapid response artillery which, IIRC, could bring down the same weight of fire as their 75mm guns.
Quote from: Steve J on 17 May 2019, 10:06:10 AM
The Germans used mortars as their rapid response artillery which, IIRC, could bring down the same weight of fire as their 75mm guns.
As I typed my previous post I did wonder if Eric could tell mortars from 105s? Not many 75mm IGs around in October '44 onwards, but you're right. IGs and mortars would be faster than arty - as they are in bkc.