quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Two more days of bombarding by the Japanese at Akyab inflict terrible casualties on the Allies:

1/7/43:  Japanese 1697 AV (with six artillery) vs. Allies 2505 AV (six artillery units, but much less powerful tubes):  1004 casualties (10 infantry squads destroyed/70 disrupted), (23 non-combat squads destroyed/72 disrupted), 5 guns destroyed, 6 vehicles destroyed.

1/8/43:  997 casualties (17/64 infantry), (18/16 non combat), 8 guns destroyed, 10 vehicles destroyed.

There's something wrong with this picture.  I don't think there is any way that Japanese bombardments in Burma would have caused this kind of damage in the war...nor, for that matter, Allied bombardments.

Either artillery is still far too strong against unintrenched troops or the Japanese are able to bring to bear far more firepower than actually happened in the war.

NOTE:  Please bear in mind that the effect of artillery against fortified positions was addressed by the Hot Fix.  That no longer seems to be a problem; now I'm focusing on the effect of artillery against unintrenched troops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am confused ? - all my units are dug in whether I own the base or not I wouldnt consider haviong infantry hang about in any terrain without at least level 1 forts.

Its just done on a unit by unit basisif you dont own the base same as it always was in stock for the last 4 year ???

Andy

quote:

ORIGINAL: ETF

So then the allies can replicate a 1000 casualties on the japanese when they are in the open?? Either way I agree this needs to be tonned way down to realistic levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Big difference between Europe and Asia. The Japanese didn't have nearly as many radios, nor were they of the same quality as American radios. Land lines that had to be laid -which took time was also still in widespread use. Observation in the jungle and terrain of many parts of the Pacific theater made observation difficult.

Without a good communications net, observed targets, artillery is not going ot be as effective. You're also going to need a pretty sizable "tail" in the form of trucks, prime movers and repair shops to keep the transport flett operational. Japan was very limited in all of the above.

WW1 was static trench warfare, by ww2 mobility had returned and that made the job of artillery more difficult-and good communications networks that could relay timely information to the gunners even more important.

In reality the IJA's ability to force march tens of dozen or hundreds of miles with a huge contingent of artillery and keep it supplied and rapidly connected to a communications net that could relay target information is questionable IMO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

ETF,

But artillery isn't ever fired with an even distribution and neither are troops spread evenly over that ground. No, troops cluster into groups ( squads, platoons, companies etc ) and so does artillery fire.

Think of it this way... An artillery bombardment by a single artillery unit may represent the firing of a one hour of fire in an entire day. Assume 2 rounds per minute ( quite reasonable ). That's 120 rounds per gun. A single Bn may therefore fire 18 x 12 = just over 200 rounds.

Multiply that by 10 ( because people here are talking about bombardments launched by multiple divisions, regiments, artillery Bns and artillery regimetns ) and you have 2,000 rounds being fired in that day.

When a single round hitting in the midst of a platoon scattered in the open can easily kill or disable half that platoon ( about 20 or so men ) you see that out of 2,000 rounds you'd only need 50 such hits to account for 1,000 casualties.


Really, to anyone who knows anything about land warfare these casualty rates vs unentrenched infantry really aren't out of kilter.

Hell when my granddad faced the Germans in Belgium in 1940 he told me of an entire platoon of Dutch soldiers being buried alive in a position to his left when they were holding near one of the canals. He was adamant that single large calibre shell collapsed their position ( I'm assuming at least 15cm, probably larger and even then only possibly because the position was hasty and the ground soggy and prone to collapse ). Anyways, a single shell there took out 20 or so people ( the platoon had been whittled down due to casualties previously ) even though there were in at least Level 1 or 2 fortifications.

My point is simple: Artillery is an awesome killer. Under the right circumstances it can kill anything on the battlefield including tanks and it most certainly can wipe out unentrenched infantry. If this wasn't so why did the US put so much effort into Point du Hoc and other German artillery positions covering the landing beaches? Answer, those few artillery pieces were recognised as being at least as lethal as the entire Bn defending said beach...

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Big difference between Europe and Asia. The Japanese didn't have nearly as many radios, nor were they of the same quality as American radios. Land lines that had to be laid -which took time was also still in widespread use. Observation in the jungle and terrain of many parts of the Pacific theater made observation difficult.

Without a good communications net, observed targets, artillery is not going ot be as effective. You're also going to need a pretty sizable "tail" in the form of trucks, prime movers and repair shops to keep the transport fleet operational. Japan was very limited in all of the above.

WW1 was static trench warfare, by ww2 mobility had returned and that made the job of artillery more difficult-and good communications networks that could relay timely information to the gunners even more important.

In reality the IJA's ability to force march tens of dozen or hundreds of miles with a huge contingent of artillery and keep it supplied and rapidly connected to a communications net that could relay target information is questionable IMO.

Most of the areas had no road net. You'd be lucky to have just a trail. There's was a good reason why mortars and light "mountain gun's" were very useful in the Pacific. Hauling large caliber guns around was a diffuclut and in many cases an impossible task in many parts of the Pacific theater-even for the Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

You're talking about the German army who had adequate radios, excellent observation optics and good coordination between the Luftwaffe and army-which allowed for spotters planes to relay info to the artillery.

Japan was a completely different story. Comparing the European theater to the Pacific theater is comparing apples and oranges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Sure if Rommel could do it, so could Japan. Using that logic Japan could have produced a Panzer corps too...