Mind that they DID eventually fix the WORST of the scatter diagram (you no longer have a risk of landing your shots BEHIND your facing anymore), but still. One gun with a mapsheet size scatter diagram and dinner plate blast radii only dissuades the USER, the other guy can play the odds and win most of the time.įour smaller guns? not so much, and the shots can be 'managed' to do jobs like screening an advance or covering a retreat, since you can more reliably cover SOMETHING in the targeted zone while managing your distances so that you're not risking total self annihilation. (this is because aside from homing rounds, you don't get to have pinprick accuracy with indirect fire.) It's called 'pattern' bombardment, and doesn't rely on pinprick accuracy, but instead on averaging 'close 'nuff'.Ĭlose enough to create, for example, a psychological barrier for terrain control, or degrade someone's flanking maneuver. This is because one big arty gun is more of a hazard to the user, than it is to the enemy. I was infamous for a while on these forums for positing that four smaller pieces is better than one big one. 61-2 for two artillery battalions attached to the DCMS invasion force).Ī major part of the problem, is that there's been a sustained lack-of-understanding of what artillery is actually used for, how it can be employed, and how it shouldn't be employed. Ironically, while The Galtor Campaign (FASA 1613) fails to include integral artillery assets for the depicted 'Mech regiments, it does toy with the notion of attachments (see pp. Still, the point to be taken away here is that artillery does exist organically with some relative frequency. Because it will likely be zero, as the artillery elements were typically in their own separate battalions. However, I would counter that if you took an average infantry brigade from say, the US Army during the Cold War, and inventory its artillery ( not indirect fire) assets you will find even less than what the data I have pointed out shows. So I am not surprised to see that the BTU's take on artillery is a bit anemic. And how infantry is/was treated was always naff. ![]() Quote from: Failure16 on 05 March 2023, 05:30:35 Oh, I can count on one hand the early fiction that came even close to describing how people at the sharp end think and act, let alone societies.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |