Jump to content


The Bigger Guns of Battle


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
76 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 25,030
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
A look at the history of artillery in warfare.

Full news text

Cobra6 #2 Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16314 battles
  • 15,291
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
Some big guns indeed, nice read! :smile:

Cobra 6

WarxOfx23th #3 Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10063 battles
  • 350
  • Member since:
    08-15-2012
Some good reading food, nice article.

Just don't curse when arty can't support you as good as it used to.   :hiding:

The_Challenger #4 Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4733 battles
  • 1,985
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
Nice one "Listy"  :smile: I take back all i said about the "drop shorts"
We could never ever understand why their boots had to be so shiny !

Edited by The_Challenger, 27 August 2013 - 03:54 PM.


Rammelkas #5 Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:49 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24470 battles
  • 210
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012
Nice read. RA are some of the oldest regiments in the world.

Srle_Vigilante #6 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19823 battles
  • 519
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
Love thise little history lessons, cant wait the next one :)

congo3333 #7 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:02 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 37462 battles
  • 54
  • Member since:
    03-06-2013
Finally i read that in real life arty is based on pure luck as ingame today. I really needed that.

sneper #8 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:04 PM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 11799 battles
  • 1
  • [PETO] PETO
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
You should have mention the Finnish artillery in the second world war.

jagdcommander #9 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:06 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39170 battles
  • 860
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011
Thanks for the interesting article. I hope at some stage WG thinks about how to make arty fun to play again. Right now it is so slow and boring that I have not bothered playing it for ages and am close to selling.

The arty 'rebalance' also destroyed the observers who actually had a reason to select light tanks to scout in.

nHenkpas #10 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:09 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 14305 battles
  • 70
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012
Unfortunately, we Dutch guys often neglect to look into the British (or more specific Commonwealth nations) and their role in defending our freedom. The example of the town of Asten was unknown to me, because I've been brainwashed by Band of Brothers, believing the south of the Netherlands to be freed by only Americans. To this I say, shame on me! Thanks British/commonwealth soldiers for your sacrifices, shame so many had to die for it.
The only negative thing about this article is that it does not describe motorized arty, shame Challenger! Can you tell us how many motorized arty pieces were involved in operations like Market Garden?

Conte_Vincero #11 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10402 battles
  • 1,893
  • [BAOR] BAOR
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011
I self Nerd sniped when you mentioned belt-fed artillery by trying to work out if a Vickers-type mechanism would work.

The_Challenger #12 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:15 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4733 battles
  • 1,985
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostnHenkpas, on 27 August 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Unfortunately, we Dutch guys often neglect to look into the British (or more specific Commonwealth nations) and their role in defending our freedom. The example of the town of Asten was unknown to me, because I've been brainwashed by Band of Brothers, believing the south of the Netherlands to be freed by only Americans. To this I say, shame on me! Thanks British/commonwealth soldiers for your sacrifices, shame so many had to die for it.
The only negative thing about this article is that it does not describe motorized arty, shame Challenger! Can you tell us how many motorized arty pieces were involved in operations like Market Garden?

Point taken mate, thank you.

22cm #13 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 26118 battles
  • 1,210
  • [YARLY] YARLY
  • Member since:
    05-01-2013
Nice to know in real life arty is really good. Not in WoT though.

Ankot #14 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:37 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10758 battles
  • 439
  • [-N-L-] -N-L-
  • Member since:
    08-14-2011
Great text!

CountOfTuscany #15 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:38 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 4562 battles
  • 1,032
  • [SMACK] SMACK
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011
Interesting read! Some thoughts running through my mind: Guderian (in: Achtung Panzer!) prefers direct artillery fire over indirect artillery fire. The indirect fire of the WW1 era artillery were not really effective in countering attacks in his opinion. How did this opinion/lessons learned from WW1 influence the role of artillery in the German army, but also in other nations' armies?

Arkay93 #16 Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:45 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 25817 battles
  • 95
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013
thats great i love this game for 2 reasons its enjoyable to play and have much fun out of it and for reading all this history and older technology at the same time by playing this although i would like to see a world of tanks History of the german tanks like you have for the other 4 nations they had great industry and technology despite their bad humanity and i would love to see their scientific programs history etc if possible

Hokum15 #17 Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 32688 battles
  • 1,941
  • [HO_PO] HO_PO
  • Member since:
    06-06-2012
Nice article. It is a shame that the 25lbr's in this game can't break up a tank formation... or even scratch the paint work half the time.

Squigley #18 Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:27 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 8612 battles
  • 81
  • Member since:
    06-12-2011

View Postsneper, on 27 August 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

You should have mention the Finnish artillery in the second world war.
Agreed. Even though Finland had only small amounts of arty, it was used with devastating efficiency because every shot had to count.

Tuccy #19 Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:29 PM

    Czech Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 14455 battles
  • 6,482
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    10-24-2010

View PostCountOfTuscany, on 27 August 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Interesting read! Some thoughts running through my mind: Guderian (in: Achtung Panzer!) prefers direct artillery fire over indirect artillery fire. The indirect fire of the WW1 era artillery were not really effective in countering attacks in his opinion. How did this opinion/lessons learned from WW1 influence the role of artillery in the German army, but also in other nations' armies?

This was probably based on German experience with Sturmgeschütze in WWI - light field guns that were supposed to accompany infantry in assault to provide direct fire on MG nests and by experience with early tanks, however while accurate, direct fire means that the enemy can hit you as well... German indirect doctrine was very accurate, but not that flexible and responsive as the American and British system.

One point was the extent of use of wireless communication - it allowed for a more decentralized and responsive comm network without need to drag cables everywhere. Another point were aids for quick artillery processing, generally the US had libraries of pre-calculated trajectories based on distance, temperature, wind etc. and the "end user" had to only be able of reading the map, there were cases of privates and lower NCOs being talked through the system by Fire Direction Center officers withiin minutes. British system relied on the observers, but again tit was much simpler than the German system so the observers had to do less calculations (or rather none) and rather focus on the tactical situation.

Extreme case of British system was calling in Yoke fire mission (AGRA plus some US units) on about battalion's worth target in Normandy... And in US case it was probably support of Rangers on Castle Hill in Hurtgenwald, which started with divisional artillery and ended with 26 battalions including 8" howitzers... Supporting two companies (Just for fun did the calculation and given how many combat-worthy Rangers there were at the end of the battle after all day and night fighting, it was something like 6 artillery pieces per Ranger).

The_Challenger #20 Posted 27 August 2013 - 05:32 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Military Specialist
  • 4733 battles
  • 1,985
  • [WG] WG
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012

View PostCountOfTuscany, on 27 August 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Interesting read! Some thoughts running through my mind: Guderian (in: Achtung Panzer!) prefers direct artillery fire over indirect artillery fire. The indirect fire of the WW1 era artillery were not really effective in countering attacks in his opinion. How did this opinion/lessons learned from WW1 influence the role of artillery in the German army, but also in other nations' armies?
A huge subject and more than worthy of another article, there is lots to read regarding the organization and deployment but considerably less on the use, "On Artillery" by Bruce Gudmundssons is perhaps one of the best (in my opinion).
As I said not really enough room for a thread but in essence (my personal views) German artillery had what you would call a "typical" approach utilizing the Forward Observers, always an issue as they believed there was something like a 20% error when estimating. This system though was considerably better than that employed in WW1 where in essence there was no impromptu fire unless the battery could see the target (lesson learnt). To the Russians this was an accurate system they were more likely to "roll in " fire by batteries. The British would also fire spotting rounds and correct like the Germans but tended to forget things like wind, drift etc but by utilizing much larger numbers of batteries (blanket fire)  could cover a greater area and hope for an effect but in doing so used a lot of ammo.
As I said big subject  :sad:

Edited by The_Challenger, 27 August 2013 - 06:04 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users