ARTILLERY VS SOFT TARGET

[ULYSSE]

I have recently played the Utah Beach Scenario.

There are a lot of artillery units.

Unfortunately, they seem to have effectiveness against hard targets only.

But against soft targets they always have "no effect".

I don't really understand why. If they have effect against hard targets why would have not effect against soft ones too ?

In real life and historically (during battles in Normandy) artillery was used against infantry too.

There is something weird as you have plenty of artillery units in the scenario but there is simply no interest of using them.

[RickyB]

Which side were you playing as? And are you playing default optional rules? Not that I see anything there that would seem to impact artillery results. I just fired up a few Utah beach scenarios and was getting kils as the US player. I didn't bother with the German side?

Losses are low and a lot of shots do no damage, but I definitely was getting kills, but that was firing 2 or 3 tube mortars mostly in one test. In the landing itself, I got some man kills/disruptions and destroyed an artillery unit in the open, from fire from ships.

[ULYSSE]

I was playing US side. Mortars is pretty effective against soft targets. But artillery is not while it should be. It is very surprising as US soldiers used massively artillery against all types of targets during Normandy battles.

To be honest I can't understand why artillery should not be effective against soft targets.

[zovs]

I have recently played the Utah Beach Scenario.

There are a lot of artillery units.

Unfortunately, they seem to have effectiveness against hard targets only.

But against soft targets they always have "no effect".

I don't really understand why. If they have effect against hard targets why would have not effect against soft ones too ?

In real life and historically (during battles in Normandy) artillery was used against infantry too.

There is something weird as you have plenty of artillery units in the scenario but there is simply no interest of using them.

Not sure what issue your having, I just started up the #0606_07: The Shifting Sands of Utah (HTH version) 16 turns. and on turn 1 with just my mortars I knocked out 12 men and disrupted 2 units. Not bad if you ask me. The three warships also knocked out 3 men and got a disrupted.

So they do have effectiveness against soft targets.

[ULYSSE]

Mortars is ok.

The problem is :

- Ord QF 6 pdr : 4 / 6 against soft targets
- 57 mm AT M1 : 2 / 4 against soft targets

Maybe they should be considered as anti tank weapons only.

But there is no enemy armoured vehicles in the scenario.

What the point ?

[Dion]

I guess their mainly used for bunker busting.

[Erzhog Karl]

The 2 guns you specifically mentioned were dedicated AT guns and whilst they had some Anti Personal capability, their effect was minimal against such targets, whatever about armoured targets. I don't have the PC Normandy title, but if you look at the German 105 Lt. Fld. How. or the British 25 pdr Fld. Gun./US 105mm How. , in the Parameter Dialogue, you will see the difference in their effects against soft targets/personal as opposed to those guns you mentioned. They were certainly used in an anti personal role but the effects of a 6 pdr/57mm HE shell against that of a 105mm/25 pdr HE shell are notable.

[RickyB]

Note also, that in addition to the differences in the HE shells themselves as point out, the AT guns firing HE rounds are impacted by their higher velocity/flat trajectory. AT guns, at least larger ones but I think it was in these cases, use a one piece cartridge/shell with a fixed amount of powder. With a fixed velocity and flattish trajectory, any slight errors in aiming will result in a hit short or long so getting a hit would be difficult ( along with a timed fuze where a small amount off would trigger an explosion short or long).

Whereas artillery almost invariably used a shell and separate powder charges that would be adjusted based on the range to the target, and they fired at a higher angle so the shells descended more closely to vertical and thus a slight error in range/elevation would result in still being close to the target, or in the area of a formation being targeted. I am not sure where mortars of the time fit with powder charges but I think they also could be adjusted, and of course they did fire near vertically.

Anyway, net result would be an easier time getting shells on a target formation with mortars on artillery, along with a more effective shell - even at the similar sizes a mortar shell would have more HE in it due to the lower velocity - the AT guns used thick walled shells and less HE so they weren't damaged on firing at high velocity.

[Erzhog Karl]

Mortars had the ability to have additional charges added or not to increase range as necessary or required, having regard to it's high trajectory. Unlike incoming artillery, you don't hear them coming !