"Artillery -- how much is too much?" Topic

In wargames most players are reluctant to use artillery to the extent it was available in WW1 or WW2. But historically, it was a major part of every engagement. I think the suggestion of a battery per battalion is about right in most situations. Certainly for the Allies, it was not only more available, but had more ammunition allocated, than the Germans could achieve.

1 battery per battalion is pretty standard WW2 divisional organization, but it's not necessarily how it was used. Although it makes a good rule-of-thumb for designing scenarios.

The Germans, yes, one dedicated battery per battalion. Their idea was that everyone got some dedicated indirect fire assets that they knew they could count on. The unfortunate side effect of this was that they couldn't mass their fires without some elaborate preparation work.

For the western Allies I think it's better to say that there's a battalion of artillery per infantry regiment. Mathematically this works out to one battery per battalion, but they Brits and Americans were more flexible, and calling in the entire battalion on a target was no more difficult that calling in a single battery.

US artillery response is one of the most difficult things to model in a game. The divisional Fire Direction Center, not the FO or infantry commander, determines how much artillery to throw at a target. So a call for fire might be met with a few rounds, or a proper stonk by the full weight of the divisional artillery.

In addition, I've read where non-divisional artillery with nothing else to do would sometimes monitor the radio frequencies used to call for fire and throw in some shells of their own. One 155mm gun battery fired a lot of rounds in support of an infantry unit because they had just been ordered to move and didn't want to pack up all the ammo they had stacked on the position. So they fired it off instead. Must have been quite gratifying for the FO who called the mission.

"Artillery was, as mentioned way up at the top, the single biggest killer of the war, and quite likely the Great War also."

I'm not entirely sure about WWI..I remember being very suprised reading in Ellis' "The Sharp end" that in the first 2 years of WWI approximately 80% (!!!!) of all wounds were gunshot (mainly machine gun). Then the artillery took over, but not sure what the figures were for the last 2 years, or the war overall.

I saw this quote somewhere recently, but can't remember where:

"Amateurs discuss tactics; professionals discuss logistics."

Wow! Don, where did you find that universal military platitude?…Never heard that before!

For the western Allies I think it's better to say that there's a battalion of artillery per infantry regiment.

If you were to replace "western Allies" with "Americans" in that statement and you might be talking sense.

But not for the British, Canadians or other Allies with similar organisations.

"If you were to replace "western Allies" with "Americans" in that statement and you might be talking sense.

But not for the British, Canadians or other Allies with similar organisations."

Could you be a bit more specific here?

British and Canadian divisions had three infantry brigades and three regiments of 25#. So at least the math works out.

As to how it was deployed, I agree that it's even muddier than the Americans. Sure each battalion has a battery in support, but the FO can call for as much extra stuff as he feels appropriate, up to the call for an 'uncle' target, where everything in range that can fire, does.

Or are you getting stuck on terminology, since the British were organized into Brigades, not Regiments? Then I'm sorry if I offended you by using the term 'regiments' to describe the British Army's regiment-sized brigades.

We do like our terminology over here!

But if you count barrels, a British 25-pr Battery had eight guns from 1941 onwards, with three per Regiment to allow support for a Brigade of three Battalions. A Medium Regiment might be alloted to support a Division of three Brigades, but otherwise that was it for organic artillery at 72 x 25-prs.

Towed US artillery was generally based on a Battery of four guns, with three per Light or Medium Battalion. An Infantry Division would have one Light Battalion per Infantry Regiment, allowing four 105-mm guns per Battalion, half as many as the British just counting muzzles. But, the US then have an integral 155-mm Medium Battalion that can weigh in, and those pesky Regimental Gun Companies with another six 105-mm guns (shorter barrel version I think?).

So a British/Commonwealth Division would normally have 72 x 25-prs, and a US Infantry Division 54 x 105-mm and 12 x 155-mm guns. On a purely Battery/Battalion scenario the eight British guns you'd think would wreak a bit more havoc than four 105-mms, but I'll await correction! I get the impression that while both artilleries were highly effective, especially by 1943/44, they went about things very differently.

Gary

"I get the impression that while both artilleries were highly effective, especially by 1943/44, they went about things very differently."

Not so differently, really. Look at Daryl Poe's web site where they discuss national doctrine:

link

Basically the British were faster on the draw than US arty, but the US was more accurate. This is somewhat compensated for by the number of tubes in a British battery, so that the beaten zone is bigger and will probably include the actual target point, even if the concentration isn't perfectly adjusted when the gusn begin firing. One doubts that the Germans on the receiving end could tell the difference.

The amount of arty depends on the scope of your game & the tactical situation, ie. is the fight your doing an independent action of itself or is it part of a larger battle. The Skirmish Campaigns scenarios are small and it would be rare to get anything higher than company, maybe battallion support, sometimes, depending. If your doing a spearhead game level fight the amounts are in the to&e.

Then I'm sorry if I offended you by using the term 'regiments' to describe the British Army's regiment-sized brigades.

Not offended in the slightest.

The point about artillery is the effect.
Many wargamers want to 'destroy' the enemy with artillery. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, that is rarely possible. What the BCE artillery doctrine addresses is 'suppresssion" ! If the enemy is deep down in their foxholes, while all hell is breaking loose up top, then they cannot fire at the advancing infantry that are following up behind the barrage.
With good troops 'leaning into' a barrage, the attackers can cover the open ground while the rounds land and then attack the enemy almost at the foxhole edge when the barrage lifts.
Suppression does not have to be intense or use too many shells. It just has to be often enough and loud enough that the enemybelieve it better to take cover than to brave it and fire at the attackers.
Of course, if the enemy are attacking you, in the open, then you want both counter-battery fire to suppress the enemy artilelry that is trying to suppress you and eneough spare artillery to tear holes in the attackers.
Fortunately for the BCE forces, they nearly always had enough guns , after 1940, to do both.

There are some great sites about describing various national doctrines.
My impression is that Brits and USA were pretty much equivalent in effect, though differed in detail of implementation.

Briefly Brits fielded a greater number of lighter tubes – having settled on suppression as their main approach.
USA had fewer heavier tubes, in 105 and 155mm.

Brits posted experienced officers as forward observers, so the man with the view could demand a large response.
USA filtered requests through a command centre.

Others.
Germans were (as has been recorded) slower to respond and less capable of arranging concentrations on the fly.

Russians substituted volume for control.
We've probably read about their concentrations, and I believe these were mainly expended in prelinary bombardments, with the lighter 76mm pieces also firing over open sights.

Italians – I don't know much, though their artillery was regarded well, in contrast to the poor reputation of some of their other arms.

Japanese – Appeared to have fewer tubes than western forces, little doctrine for concentrating fire.

Now I'll return to the old saw. It depends what size of force you're fielding.
If you have a platoon or company, you'll have light mortars of your own, and maybe some battalion mortars in support.

A battalion will have its own mortars, and maybe some artillery from division.

A regiment/brigade will usually get a battery of artillery, and maybe some more if it leads an attack.

Division gets all its own artillery, and maybe some from Corps – etc.

Don't forget, quite importantly, British FOOs ORDERED in fire, US FOOs REQUESTED fire,

From a gaming point of view, I think the very simple CROSSFIRE rules have it very well, in that artillery, even quite heavy guns, usually suppress rather than kill.

John

Since you guys seem to be averse to mention of a popular set of rules, I won't, but I do think that the *effects* side of the artillery equation has been modeled pretty well.

1. No matter the killing/wounding effect of the barrage, it automatically Pins the target platoon.

2. If firing at dug-in targets, the artillery must roll a firepower test after hitting and rolling saves. If the FP test fails (for 60mm or 8cm mortars, that's usually a 6+), then no casualties.

I'm not totally sold on the availability, though. My 1st Infantry Division units at Normandy have an organic 60mm per 'boat section', and can have a battery of 81mm and 4.2" mortars, plus the 6-gun Regimental 105 battery and a 4-gun Divisional 105 battery. That's for supporting a reinforced company, and it seems a bit high.

I think the very simple CROSSFIRE rules have it very well, in that artillery

Hi John – I'm a rabid CF player, but I have to disagree with you – CF's artillery rules are too simplistic in my opinion. Yes, they usually suppress and kills are rare, but the idea of targeting a single squad at a time rather than an area just seems really lame to me. Again, my opinion, YMMV.
--
Tim

Wow! Don, where did you find that universal military platitude?…Never heard that before!

It's in a book called An Edible History of Humanity by Tom Standage -- about how food has effected the course of history. It's at the beginning of a chapter entitled "The Fuel of War." The actual quote is: "Amateurs talk tactics, but professionals talk logistics," and it's attributed to our old friend Anonymous.

The other quote at the head of that chapter is "The fate of Europe and all further calculations depend upon the question of food. If only I have bread, it will be child's play to beat the Russians." Napoleon Bonaparte

Sorry ditto, should of said, that with a few mods, like targetting a feature, not a section, for larger arty pieces, and specifying a length of barrage, (in intiatives), and FOO dice rolls to activate, depending on nationality, but keeping the mortar effect dice roll numbers, it works really well!
I leave 2",50,and 81mm mortars as is, but have these all on the board, and able to be spotted by differing levels of command, ie PCs or CCs, again, nation dependent. Sorry, should have mentioned my 'bolt-ons'!

John

Gary wrote. "On a purely Battery/Battalion scenario the eight British guns you'd think would wreak a bit more havoc than four 105-mms, but I'll await correction! I get the impression that while both artilleries were highly effective, especially by 1943/44, they went about things very differently."

A well known British Artillary site gives the US 105 shell about 1.8 times the hitting power of the 25pdr, so the artillary is very evenly matched call for call. Its effect and versatillity would be subtley different. the Data was initially developed during the war

The same site gives the russian 76 a very poor effect and the US 105 was worth 1.3 times the german 105.

Knew someone out there would know different as soon as I typed it and pressed submit…and I imagine you're talking about Nigel Evans' site as well, which I also know ;>

Gaz, I almost thought it was a request!

The russian factors really explain why they fired over open sights. The rounds were not even as effective as medium mortars when fired indirect.

Nigels site makes me wonder if the idea the russians fired over open sights was mainly due to 'ammo shortage' is the chicken or the egg.

His information and your site and a host of other sources make good reading,

eg. upgrading the US armoured infantry cannon company from he earkier 4 towed 105's to 6 priests would mean a US armoured infantry battalian would have more direct battalian controlled medium artillary hitting power than the average german 2 battalian regiment!

A well known British Artillary site

link, please!

Could it be here — nigelef.tripod.com ?

That's the one.

Although geared specifically toward Battlefront: WW2 (by Fire & Fury Games – not to be confused with other Battlefronts!), this is also a very useful resource when discussing different nations' artillery doctrine:

link

Hmmm. And where on Nigel's vast site are the ratings of shell power?

table 4 in weight of fire.

I think that a lot has be said on damage rates. I may add that the moderm US manuals note that 12" of earth cover will protect against a 80mm mortar direct hit. As to dammage If you look at the recent US mauals on mortar platoons it notes that the dammage is the same the number of rounds required to do the damage changes. In a direct hit 1 large calibre shell will do more damage but the likelyhood is less as they will not have as many shells to fire.

The real use of artillery is to suppress and fix in place. Or to destroy troops and logistic supports not protected. The British used box barrages. These were to prvent enemy re-inforcements and to prevent the enemy escaping. These need only be relatively light as they are nonlt to stop moving infantry and soft vehicals. These effect would be minimal on armoured vehicles. These would be key in lage ganes but not at say company level which just modeled the "sharp" end .

Back to the original question. You can give a players more artillery than he can use. Remember in the text books the danger range is 200m min for local artillery and about 500m for longer ranged guns as they are less accurate. Therfore as the artillery in the real world won't do much practically to a dug in enemy position the game is about the last 200m with the enemy getting "unsuppressed" and the friendlies trying to kill or suppress enough enemy to allow them to take the position. All on board at company level.

At larger than that you need to be scouting for supply points etc. but I have yet to see credible "big" games which do this quickly and are plausible. Spearhead is just not even close!

Which one of these is "weight of fire"?

Title Contents
Shelling On-board Shelling by section, basic IDF procedures and resolution
Call-for-fire Some of the reasoning behind the call-for-fire rules
Call-for-fire Example Use of an observer, Call-for-Fire roll
Danger Close Resolving Danger Close Attacks
Battery Fire An introduction to artillery batteries.
Battery Fire Missions The options and modifiers available for battery fire, with an emphasis on the German Heavy Mortar Platoon FS-01.
Battalion Fire Missions Basic Battalion Fire Missions
General Support General Support
Scenario Artillery Scenario Artillery
German Artillery German Artillery Doctrine
It's mine-you can't use it.
Russian Artillery Russian Artillery Doctrine
Sorry, we can't do that…
British Artillery British Artillery Doctrine
To them that have much will be given.
United States Artillery American Artillery Doctrine
Anything you want, you've got it…
Blitzkrieg/Early War Emphasis on French Artillery Doctrine
Artillery conquers, Infantry Occupies!
Japanese Artillery Not much, not often
Fire Plans Some Suggestions for pre-planned fire
Optional Rules Some Suggestions for enhancing the game system.

My opponent always has unrealistically large amounts of artillery.

I always have unrealistically small amounts.

National Doctrines. I'm writing mainly from rumour and speculation, so will invite comment and rebuttals.

It's my belief that the artillery procurement doctrines of the big players in the European theatre reflect their interwar planning.

I'll deal with each in turn:

British: From WW1 experience, Seniority of the Royal Artillery, and Infantry Tank.

WW1 suggested artillery could suppress, rather than kill.
A greater number of smaller tubes provided a lot of bangs and was good for this.
I've also read of proposals for infantry tanks to be driven through a barrage – 25pdr being considered safe, which a mixture of 4 and 6 inch might not be.
Seniority of the RA affects the picture since gunners (not PBIs and fly boys) also looked after anti-tank and anti-air guns.
I believe this persuaded the brits to persist with the field gun in order to maintain similar levels of mobility for all their standard pieces.
Again I suspect RA seniority is a big player in the adoption of the Forward observer ordering fire.

Americans:

Very similar calibres and per battalion rations to the Germans – I assume a theoretician decided this was the right amount.
The heavy guns in each division supply a bit of "Killing power" even against fortified targets.
No problems in supplying prime movers, and superb logistics.
Very streamlined command centre call filtering probably driven by 2 factors.
1. Best issue of radios in any army, so a need to separate noise and signal.
2. USA taking a lead in production and communiation techniques.

Germans

Deployed the "Right proportion" of tubes line the americans.
Hampered by the fact that many were horse drawn.
Recently re-militarised, (and a nation of superm mathematicians) so didn't streamline older geometric methods for caling fire.
Doctrine saw artillery as a secondary arm, and one whose effect was supplmented by divebombers (for longer range bombardment) and assault guns – for closer work on point targets.

Germans made a heavy use of infantry mortars (and toyed with infantry guns) – perhaps to compensate the weaknesses of their artillery.

Russians

Retained a mixed organisation of field guns and howitzers.
Doctrine called for a large artillery, and I've read suggestions that there simply weren't the number of maths wizards entering the ranks to develop sophisticated ranging techniques. (This might also be cold war BS, and shortage of radios was the real cause).

The russians understood tanks, and seemed to take a lead in requiring anti-tank capability from their field guns.
Direct fire solves the problem of complex ranging and puts the guns where they will find tank targets.

Like germans, the russians deployed a lot of infantry mortars for direct support of tehir battalions.

I re-iterate, I'm no expert, and would welcome critique of what I've written here.

I re-iterate, I'm o expert

I googled on "nigel weight of fire" and this turns up:

link

Well done Aoneill, Mark's link to battlefront ww2 was slipped in and was acting as a red herring for Don

Aha! (In my defense, it was the only link I saw.) Thanks!

I'm no expert either, but I suspect that Steve Holmes 11 is substantially correct.

EEk, I've been having some funny things happen to the finds when I scroll my screen.
Thats the excuse for the stuff at the end of my previous posting.

As for the other rambling stuff – that was quite deliberate..