Heavy (now renamed Anti-Tank) Artillery against Mechanized artillery and Tanks

  • '17 '16

    Hello people,
    I Wonder if you could find this concept of heavy artillery interesting in play?

    Heavy Artillery
    Attack 2
    Defense 3
    Move 1
    Cost 5
    Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Gives +1D to 1 Artillery unit.

    Artillery becomes:
    Attack 2
    Defense 2-3
    Move 1
    Cost 4
    Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Gets +1D when paired 1:1 with Heavy Artillery unit.

    The combined arms with Artillery could figure a kind of fortified defensive position with layers of trenchs and many hardpoints with campaign guns. (I’m thinking here about WWI and Battle of Kursk  for the russian defensive warfare.)

    So, for 9 IPCs you get a higher number for offense and defense  A4 (+2A bonus) 2D@3= D6 and 2 hits.
    It is a bit weaker on defense than 3 Infantries which gives A3  D6 and 3 hits.
    But still less costlier than 2 Tanks A6 D6 for 12 IPCs.

    That way you get a slow offensive units (better than Infantry) with a good defense factor, just slightly below Infs.

    Do you think this could work as a kind of counter-weapon to this fast moving Mechanized Artillery unit?

    Mechanized Artillery:
    Attack 2-3
    Defense 2-3
    Move 2
    Cost 5
    Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Gets +1A/D when paired 1:1 with Tank unit.

  • Sponsor

    Hey BM, I admit that I didn’t comprehend everything in your post, like when you say Attack 2-3 Defense 2-3 do you mean @3 or less, or are you asking us what we think between a choice of 2 or 3?

    Also, as much as I understand your desire to give defense bonuses as part of combined arms, I can’t imagine in my mind heavy artillery having a definitive advantage when defending (I understand they were primarily used to hammer defensive positions before attacking). I also don’t see how a big gun gives a little gun a better defense, I’m not a historian by any means, so if there are examples in the war that support your house rule idea than I apologize.

  • '17 '16

    Hi YG,
    When it is written D2-3, it means the base value is 2 and can get a bonus to reach 3.
    I know that at first glance a gun is a gun and there is no reason for combined arms.

    My starting point is that heavy artillery should get a specific ability.
    So is it possible to imagine how light artillery and heavy can works in the field?
    Artillery can be more direct fire and mobile while heavy can be indirect fire mainly and need bigger fixed position. That’s why I asked.
    Is there any kind of historical reinforced defensive position which could be abstractly given to this combination?

    Giving the +1A bonus to two infantries has too many side effect, such as create an optimal with 2 Inf, 1 tank and 1 Heavy for all amphibious assault. And it doesn’t seems right that amphibious would be done with Heavy Artillery most of the time.
    That is why I came with this unusual combined arms.
    Hope you can provides suggestions and historical background to improve the Heavy Art.

    I have in mind the first day of Operation Zitadelle.
    Russia bombard with heavy guns  Germans units when they were about to launch the assault.

  • Sponsor

    I like the idea of Heavy Artillery for G40 2ndE because I would just use the AAA units each nation has as HA and I would go back to using the universal gray AA Guns or those dreadful cardboard counters. I suppose off the top of my head, this is what my unit profiles might look like…

    Heavy Artillery:
    Attack 2
    Defense 2
    Move 1
    Cost 5
    Gives a +1 Attack to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Delivers a critical hit (no casualty roll) @2 or less during first combat round, regular attack roll afterwards

    Regular Artillery:
    Attack 2
    Defense 2
    Move 1
    Cost 4
    May be towed up to 2 spaced by a mechanized infantry


  • In case you ask me, I don’t love it when you change the values of the OOB units. That just makes confusion.
    If you add a new HR unit, that new unit has to adapt.

    If we want a strong defensive unit our game, the Blockhouse from HBG is the best choice.

    Blockhouse, cost 8, no movement, zero attack, defend at 4 or less and take two hits to kill (it absorb one hit)

    P1010163.JPG


  • How about instead of taking to hits, we have them absorb one hit like the tanks in ww1.

  • '14

    @Baron:

    Hello people,
    I Wonder if you could find this concept of heavy artillery interesting in play?

    Heavy Artillery
    Attack 2
    Defense 3
    Move 1
    Cost 5
    Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Gives +1D to 1 Artillery unit.

    Artillery becomes:
    Attack 2
    Defense 2-3
    Move 1
    Cost 4
    Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Gets +1D when paired 1:1 with Heavy Artillery unit.

    The combined arms with Artillery could figure a kind of fortified defensive position with layers of trenchs and many hardpoints with campaign guns. (I’m thinking here about WWI and Battle of Kursk  for the russian defensive warfare.)

    So, for 9 IPCs you get a higher number for offense and defense  A4 (+2A bonus) 2D@3= D6 and 2 hits.
    It is a bit weaker on defense than 3 Infantries which gives A3  D6 and 3 hits.
    But still less costlier than 2 Tanks A6 D6 for 12 IPCs.

    That way you get a slow offensive units (better than Infantry) with a good defense factor, just slightly below Infs.

    Do you think this could work as a kind of counter-weapon to this fast moving Mechanized Artillery unit?

    Mechanized Artillery:
    Attack 2-3
    Defense 2-3
    Move 2
    Cost 5
    Gives +1A to 1 Infantry or 1 Mechanized Infantry
    Gets +1A/D when paired 1:1 with Tank unit.

    are talking about introducing a brand new piece to the game? (heavy artillery) or are we talking about renaming the AAA to heavy artillery and giving it different values?

  • Customizer

    Didn’t the war show that “blockhouses” were in fact pretty much redundant by WWII?

    In what example did they prove effective; certainly not defending France or Fortress Europe.

    Armies of this war were mobile enough to bypass static defences.

    In contrast artillery fire accounted for over 50% of total military casualties.


  • @DessertFox599:

    How about instead of taking to hits, we have them absorb one hit like the tanks in ww1.

    Yes, agree, they absorb one hit


  • @Flashman:

    Didn’t the war show that “blockhouses” were in fact pretty much redundant by WWII?

    In what example did they prove effective; certainly not defending France or Fortress Europe.

    Of course the Blockhouse was potent when used correct. The Germans used 6 months to break down the Blockhouses at Crimea, and the Russians used 6 months to break through the Blockhouses in the Mannerheim line in Finland. The Germans never dared a frontal attack against the Maginot line, so they went trough Belgium. That’s another territory. In that case the Maginot line was a rational investment, it made sure that an isolated attack on France only was impossible. During D-day in Normandy, heavy bombing from planes and shore bombardment from ships did not destroy the German blockhouses. It was poor German leadership that allowed the Allies to come ashore.


  • @Young:

    I can’t imagine in my mind heavy artillery having a definitive advantage when defending

    Both infantry and artillery is stronger when defending. Attacking infantry is walking or running on the ground and very vulnerable to fire from the defender. Defending infantry is dug in and protected from enemy fire. That is why the attacker need to be 3 times as many as the defender to win, and 10 times as many to do a run over.

  • '17 '16

    Is that true ? Artillery was more useful on defense than offense?

  • '17 '16

    I’m looking for a substantial unit at 5 IPCs which can be a counter measure for Russia against Germans Tanks.

  • '17 '16 '15

    Hi Baron

    Maybe some sort of anti tank gun? A1 D3? Maybe pair it with a mech?
    IDK much about Russian AT guns. The Germans put theirs’ to good use.

  • Customizer

    Baron, I am considering using HBG units SPA and TD Like this:

    SPA C5 M2 A2 D2 gives +1 to infantry or mechs.

    TD C5 M2 A2 D2 +1 when paired 1:1 with tank.

    I use AAA guns as Heavy Artillery C6 M1 A2 D2 supports 2 infantry or mechs.


  • I say we should  have an artillery for defense. Like a unit that can pair with an infantry or artillery that give them a +1 on defense.


  • @Baron:

    Is that true ? Artillery was more useful on defense than offense?

    The use to which a particular piece of artillery is put is a function of several factors, notably what kind of trajectory the shell travels, what kind of aiming mechanism the gun has, and whether the target is static or moving (and if so at what speed).  Broadly speaking, tube artillery can be classed as either direct-fire weapons (“guns” in the strict sense of the term) or indirect-fire weapons (howitzers) or as hybrids (gun-howitzers).  In very general terms, direct-fire weapons shoot a projectile straight (meaning at an elevation of below 45 degres) at a specific target such as a tank, while indirect-fire weapons fire a projectile on a high-arc trajectory (meaning at an elevation of over 45 degrees) at area-sized enemy positions rather than at specific targets.

    The classic role of howitzers is to support offensive actions (an example being the massive Russian artillery bombardment which opened the Battle of the Oder-Neisse in 1945), and they’re also handy when conducting sieges (an example being the 1941-1942 German siege of Sevastopol, which was heavily bombarded).  This is because howitzers are designed to hit general target areas, and thus are best used against static positions that don’t require precise aiming.  They’re not really designed to repel fast-moving forces that are heading towards them (in other words, not designed for use as defensive weapons which protect their own position) because they’re not accurate enough.  I assume that a howitzer battery could, in a pinch, try to defend against advancing tanks by laying down a barrage on the intervening ground area being crossed by the tanks, in the hope of hitting some of them by chance, but most of the shots would be wasted unless the tank formation was huge and dense.  Furthermore, the howitzers in this situation would have to constantly readjust their aim, something for which they’re not suited.  (Modern practice for howitzer use is basically to “shoot and scoot” – set up the weapon at a  particular location, aim for the general target area, fire several shells in quick succession, then stand down and move the weapon to a new location before it attracts counter-battery fire).

    Generally speaking (since there are always exceptions), direct-fire guns are better suited to defending a fixed position.  Fixed anti-tank guns (which are direct-fire weapons) are a good example of this type of application.  Their high muzzle velocity is a great advantage in this role: their shells have a very flat trajectory (which makes it easier to hit a moving target like an approaching tank) and their speed gives them excellent penetrating power against armour.  WWII tank destroyers (like the Jagdpanther) and heavy tanks (like the Tiger) were also good at this type of defensive work, in which their slow speed wasn’t too much of a problem and their powerful guns and heavy armour were a definite advantage.

    Anti-aircraft guns are in a bit of a special category.  They’re direct-fire weapons (they fire high-velocity shells on a flat trajectory against specific targets), but they way they’re used nevertheless has some resemblances to an artillery barrage.  This is because the targets at which they’re aimed (aircraft) are so small, so fast-moving and so far away that, at the time of WWII, it was virtually impossible to get the kind of “one shot, one hit” results that were achievable against tanks (and that are achievable today with surface-to-air missiles).  To hit the target, you had to combine the high-accuracy shooting capabilities of direct-fire guns with the large volumes of shellfire usually associated with howitzer barrages.

  • '17 '16

    Thanks everybody,
    very helpful things to think about and compare units on their combat values, historical depiction and balance.
    I’ll meditate on this and come back later.
    Have fun playing A&A!

  • '17 '16

    A question for you Marc,
    do you think that Katyusha Rocket should be considered in the howitzer category, since it is indirect fire?


  • @Baron:

    A question for you Marc,
    do you think that Katyusha Rocket should be considered in the howitzer category, since it is indirect fire?

    It was certainly an indirect-fire weapon (used to shoot at targets you can’t see directly, with the projectile travelling on a long curve rather than a straight line), and it was certainly only suitable for use against area targets because it had poor accuracy.  (Case in point: defective Russian artillery shells which got rejected at the factory for their intended use were recycled as Katyusha rocket warheads, because their faulty shape would be less of an issue there than in an artillery piece.)  So in terms of its role, it was very similar to a howitzer…but from a strictly technical point of view the Katyusha wasn’t an actual howitzer because it was a mutiple-launch rocket system rather than a tube artillery piece.  (It’s kind of like the argument made by purists who say that, strictly speaking, a vodka martini isn’t a real martini because it contains no gin.)  Katyushas were, I think, less accurate than howitzers, but they had a much more rapid rate of fire – though this would be followed by the necessary time it took to reload the launcher tubes.  They also made a loud shrieking sound when they were fired, which added to the unpleasantness of being on the receiving end of a Katyusha barrage – in the same way that the scream of the Stuka’s famous siren added to the impact of its bombs.

Suggested Topics

  • 5
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
  • 12
  • 7
  • 9
  • 3
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

38

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts