DeletedUser44
Posts: 397
Joined: 5/27/2021
Status: offline
|
The issue of German Siege Artillery being at some risk due to proximity of enemy small arms fire seem, at the very onset, far-fetched.
https://www.cfspress.com/sharpshooters/pdfs/Operational-Requrements-For-An-Infantry-Hand-Weapon.pdf
(small arms effective range 300 yards - roughly 275 m)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Ger%C3%A4t
(4,320 m - heavy concrete-piercing shell)
Counter-battery? If Soviets have something with that kind of range, then yes. It should be vulnerable. (counter-battery fire was a serious threat)
However, as the following narration illustrates, counter-battery fire was not always possible.
quote:
The Russian batteries, however, were situated so far to the rear of the Russian main line of resistance that although they were able to hit the German battle position with long-range fire, they could not, in turn, be reached by the German artillery from normal firing positions. In some cases the German sound-ranging battery did not even manage to detect these distant Russian batteries. If, however, German artillery was displaced forward and employed close behind the German main line of resistance in order to shell a Russian battery which had been located, it was very soon identified by the Russians — whether by means of sound-ranging equipment could not be determined — and was shelled by 80-mm and 120-mm mortars (the latter had a range of six kilometers), against which it was helpless, and, in addition, was taken under fire by Russian artillery. This was a very unpleasant situation.
On the other hand, when the Germans were attacking, the Russian artillery was always in a position to support its infantry by shelling any assembling German forces which had been identified and by firing a barrage in front of the Russian main line of resistance and shelling any German penetrations into the Russian battle position. Thus, the Russian artillery was protected by Russian mortars, while the Russian artillery itself, in turn, protected the Russian mortars and the infantry. Later on, information supplied by Russian prisoners of war confirmed German conjectures.
Direct Fire wpns? I cannot see German Siege Artillery (or hardly any arty) being at risk from direct-fire weapons. That is one advantage of indirect fire weapon systems, being generally obstructed from direct-fire.
(note - short-ranged mortars may be an obvious exception)
I have no insider-detailed knowledge of how WiTE2 resolves the tactical combats - other than common knowledge. I can only hope that it isn't deploying all weapon systems on some imaginary pair of encroaching parallel lines.
Other than some kind of bizzaro WiTE2 combat mechanic, I cannot envision the siege artillery being under any serious threat from enemy small-arms or direct-fire wpns. If this is a real risk to be concerned over, then .... OMG.
|
Printable Version
Odessa Patch 2.11 what is the Axis strategy - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread