Jump to content


Artillery Wins The Match

CGC

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

Andy_101 #21 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 19:37

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9814 battles
  • 111
  • Member since:
    04-25-2013
remove etc read it every day. how about yes remove but give us something worthwhile in return.  something no one can get later, some reward OP tank like the foch 155 was in its day, or a consumable food/fuel that has unlimited uses for every tier 6 arty or above we own? to take the s 51 to the s 14-2 is like 200k exp for essentially the same tank only now you can have vents. grind that bastard without free xp ! try to play s51 without rations and a 100% crew, for 127k xp, under current rng and constant himmelsdorf/ensk/sacred valley... if you remove them, think about what we get for our time/ ~ it should be [edited]worth it. and i dont have anything higher than tier 6.

ThePigSheFlies #22 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 19:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 80272 battles
  • 18,032
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostHurk, on Jan 03 2017 - 12:29, said:

i disagree. nearly every game i have ever played had different classes playing by different rules. thats not the issue. 

 

 

 

and in most of those games there are actual skills/items that can be used that mitigate some of those things.

 

e.g.  using the ancient diablo2 game you can stack cold resistance vs orb/blizzard casters. 

 

there is nothing in this game consistent with trying to win a match, that can be done to mitigate



Hurk #23 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 19:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 56023 battles
  • 17,381
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Jan 03 2017 - 11:34, said:

not all tanks have active suspension.  I have yet to learn of a tank that is entirely incapable of firing indirectly at targets in real world examples

every tank that had HE capability was used as ad-hoc arty during ww2, in fact more were used as arty than for specific anti-tank work.  the issue was mostly elevation. even M4 105mm tanks would use a bulldozer to create a dirt pile to get the gun up to at least 40 degrees elevation. 

 

on the flip side, more arty were used for anti-tank work than tanks. 

also there was a handful of arty that were incapable of direct fire. it was usually the late war models above 155mm.  all the 105/155 were capable of direct fire. i dont know of any SPG ww2 vehicle that did not have direct fire sights. 

 



Blackhorse_Three_ #24 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 19:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6629 battles
  • 1,391
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

View PostHurk, on Jan 03 2017 - 13:42, said:

even M4 105mm tanks would use a bulldozer to create a dirt pile to get the gun up to at least 40 degrees elevation.

 

It was more than just the dirt pile ...

 

Every US production medium, M4 through M60A3, was issued a Gunner's Quadrant, by which Elevation & Range were set for the weight of the round being fired.

 

Deflection was dialed-in via the Azimuth Indicator, usually mounted somewhere near the Gunner's right-front.

 

Crewman were given classroom training, but only a handful ever fired any in practice.

 

IIRC, the last actual combat application happened in Korea, on M46s.

 

At any one time, in any war, the number of tanks playing arty was a tiny fraction of the armor deployed.

 

+1



galspanic #25 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 19:55

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24502 battles
  • 3,938
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Jan 03 2017 - 10:34, said:

 

not all tanks have active suspension.  I have yet to learn of a tank that is entirely incapable of firing indirectly at targets in real world examples

 

And I have yet to see a tank in the real world.  I let a lot of things slide in my games.

Hurk #26 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 20:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 56023 battles
  • 17,381
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Jan 03 2017 - 11:37, said:

and in most of those games there are actual skills/items that can be used that mitigate some of those things.

e.g.  using the ancient diablo2 game you can stack cold resistance vs orb/blizzard casters. 

there is nothing in this game consistent with trying to win a match, that can be done to mitigate

thats a narrow example, and not really the same. builds to me arent roles.  also in the case of diablo... you "could" build as anti cold, but the likelyhood was that you would have a more general build with resist all instead. 

 

lets look at something closer to WoT. the Battlefield series. 

there is nothing at all that allows anyone but the scout to spot for indirect fire weapons.. that is literally their special ability. without a scout on your team, you have no spotting and all indirect fire weapons have to guess.

that same scout also had the sniper rifle. meaning he was one of the best long range fire characters you could pick.

there is also nothing that allows anyone but the engineer to repair/reload things.  there is nothing that allowed anyone but the medic to bandage wounded people. 

 

now, those things changed up in later iterations of the franchise. but not because of "balance" but rather, because the mod community made many different packages and balance and showed that yes, allowing a belt fed/medic was a very bad idea, but at the same time that a "scout" that gave up his spotting to gain sapper ability was. 

 

the game worked and was popular precisely because not everyone was running around with an m16 and 3 grenades. 

 

the original ghost recon worked much the same. grenade launchers are awesome in a game without much friendly fire, but in a slower paced "real world" scenario, the ability for indirect fire was balanced properly against the chances of killing yourself when it comes time to enter a cave and go after a kidnapper with just a pistol. 

 

arty in wot is balanced. its numbers show that. people may not like the mechanic, but really i think that its the lack of respawn that makes it such a point of contention... when an f14 bombs your infantry in battlefield, you just respawn and try again, when a derp round takes out your tank, your ability to use skill was simply removed. 

 

thats why i say its an alpha issue, and not an arty issue. 

 

especially as i killed plenty of people behind cover in my ikv 103 this past week. 



Hurk #27 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 20:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 56023 battles
  • 17,381
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostBlackhorse_Three_, on Jan 03 2017 - 11:49, said:

 

It was more than just the dirt pile ...

 

Every US production medium, M4 through M60A3, was issued a Gunner's Quadrant, by which Elevation & Range were set for the weight of the round being fired.

 

Deflection was dialed-in via the Azimuth Indicator, usually mounted somewhere near the Gunner's right-front.

 

Crewman were given classroom training, but only a handful ever fired any at the range.

 

IIRC, the last actual combat application happened in Korea, on M46s.

 

+1

http://www.spslandfo...tory.asp?id=354

modern tanks are still used for indirect fire. 



ThePigSheFlies #28 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 20:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 80272 battles
  • 18,032
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostHurk, on Jan 03 2017 - 13:42, said:

every tank that had HE capability was used as ad-hoc arty during ww2, in fact more were used as arty than for specific anti-tank work.  the issue was mostly elevation. even M4 105mm tanks would use a bulldozer to create a dirt pile to get the gun up to at least 40 degrees elevation. 

 

 

 

 

that's my point.  give indirect fire to howitzer class tanks, and let's see arty complain for once about over the hill shots..  I'd love to lob HE back at them from the M4 Derp...

 

View Postgalspanic, on Jan 03 2017 - 13:55, said:

 

And I have yet to see a tank in the real world.  I let a lot of things slide in my games.

 

have you ever seen a human brain? 

 

do you doubt their existence (player base of this game notwithstanding)  ?



Blackhorse_Three_ #29 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 23:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6629 battles
  • 1,391
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Jan 03 2017 - 14:21, said:

that's my point.  give indirect fire to howitzer class tanks, and let's see arty complain for once about over the hill shots..  I'd love to lob HE back at them from the M4 Derp...

 

No.

 

Just at this moment, I cannot think of a single howitzer-armed tank for which it's intended role was indirect-fire. Typically, howitzer-armed tanks not otherwise specifically designed as combat engineer vehicles were, by and large, classed as direct-fire Assault Guns. Those vehicles were intended to directly-engage positional defenses, ie, infantry strongpoints.

 

No tank can ever function as ad-hoc arty and do it as as well as the redlegs themselves on their own guns. The training is just different, and the two "MOS" are very different technical paths, not to mention that the two have very different primary missions. Conversely, the redlegs get training on direct-fire with their guns, but that training is infrequent compared to the higher priority placed on training & practice in their primary role: indirect-fire.

 

Many of the nations represented in WOT crewed those vehicles with Infantrymen or combat engineers per the dictates of their unit organizations. While the lowest permissible intellect could march as infantry, combat engineers were fewer in number by far, and they themselves were not trained for tank vs tank combat, and more importantly, neither was the vehicle - definitely not an asset to commit without some serious forethought.

 

Each man to the purpose of his training, and woe to the commander who squanders that talent by ignoring or abusing that purpose when he doesn't have to.

 

I recommend that when there's more than one tube of arty on the map, that one of them ought to be looking for any opportunity to shoot counter-battery.

 

It isn't that difficult.



TLWiz #30 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 23:49

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22921 battles
  • 9,841
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View PostHardcoreOne, on Jan 03 2017 - 18:58, said:

 

Saw something like that yesterday too.  I was dead, but the team was winning and there was one AFKer on their cap..... The guy could have simply fired one more time, but instead chose to go for the ram

 

Of course, being spotted and being the only red dot on the map, Arty went after it. with predictable result. 

 

Can't blame Arty for trying to get a kill

 

Lesson learned, take the easy shot

 

I had just shot and hit and I was in a Bert going downhill at the almost dead Scorpion's side.  I had no desire to allow him to turn and have his gun face me.  Your assumptions don't fly.

TLWiz #31 Posted Jan 03 2017 - 23:57

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 22921 battles
  • 9,841
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View PostBlackhorse_Three_, on Jan 03 2017 - 23:07, said:

 

No.

 

Just at this moment, I cannot think of a single howitzer-armed tank for which it's intended role was indirect-fire. Typically, howitzer-armed tanks not otherwise specifically designed as combat engineer vehicles were, by and large, classed as direct-fire Assault Guns. Those vehicles were designed to directly-engage positional defenses, ie, infantry strongpoints.

 

M4s with 75mm guns and 105mm howitzers were frequently emplaced and used as artillery.  They all had gun laying equipment for indirect fire, the M9 elevation quadrant and M19 azimuth indicator. Many M4 and TD battalions were trained for this, taking fire orders through the platoon's designated battery commander. The USA put indirect fire gear in tanks up to and including the M60. M48s saw a lot of indirect fire use in Viet Nam.

 


Edited by TLWiz, Jan 04 2017 - 00:06.


Blackhorse_Three_ #32 Posted Jan 04 2017 - 00:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6629 battles
  • 1,391
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

View PostTLWiz, on Jan 03 2017 - 17:57, said:

M4s with 75mm guns and 105mm howitzers were frequently emplaced and used as artillery.  They had gun laying equipment for indirect fire, the M9 elevation quadrant and M19 azimuth indicator. Many M4 and TD battalions were trained for this.

 

Yes, I wrote something similar somewhere else today ...

 

"Trained" doesn't necessarily mean "practiced" ... I didn't dispute that it happened - but it wasn't a common event.

 

The number of units that actually did the arty-thing was just a handful compared to the total of those in deployed in their primary roles.

 

Everyone conveniently ignores that the mission was performed by companies at the lowest level, not an individual TC with an errant whim.



Hurk #33 Posted Jan 04 2017 - 00:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 56023 battles
  • 17,381
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

to be clear... in ww2. it was common and acceptable practice by the US and britain to have tanks use indirect fire on a regular basis. 

based upin my own historical reading, this was the most likely use for an M4 in ww2. with direct infantry support missions being a close second.  im talking ~45% or so of their missions. 



Blackhorse_Three_ #34 Posted Jan 04 2017 - 00:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6629 battles
  • 1,391
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011

View PostHurk, on Jan 03 2017 - 18:16, said:

to be clear... in ww2. it was common and acceptable practice by the US and britain to have tanks use indirect fire on a regular basis. 

based upin my own historical reading, this was the most likely use for an M4 in ww2. with direct infantry support missions being a close second.  im talking ~45% or so of their missions. 

 

Hurk, I'm having some trouble with that figure.

 

I never said it wasn't done, but I have some real doubts about the frequency.

 

There were more than enough FA battalions of all types deployed in the ETO.

 

I think Armor companies in Reserve (R&R, etc) would have been most tasked with this role - TLWiz's photo shows a position with a day or two of constant shooting, the dunnage pile probably between two or more Shermans. (IIRC, that photo was taken in Italy)

 

View PostTLWiz, on Jan 03 2017 - 17:57, said:

M48s saw a lot of indirect fire use in Viet Nam.

 

Having alot of trouble with this one ...

 

There was plenty of artillery, including unit mortars, and abundant airpower in Vietnam.

 

Every FSB had at least a section of some kind of arty within, and FSBs were positioned on the map so that the arty in each one could cover other FSBs.

 

11th ACR had it's own howitzer battery - I cannot recall that their M48s ever did anything but direct-fire. I took the TCGST more than once with E6 & E7 TCEs with time in Vietnam who wondered aloud "why they even bother with the Gunner's Quadrant", indicating that they had never used them during their tours - and complained the quadrant's were just extra crap to look-after. Indeed, I cannot recall at this moment that the Gunner's Quadrant was even a task on the TCGST - Reckon I'll have to look that up.

 

Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't believe it was a frequent event.



Hurk #35 Posted Jan 04 2017 - 00:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 56023 battles
  • 17,381
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Jan 03 2017 - 12:21, said:

 

that's my point.  give indirect fire to howitzer class tanks, and let's see arty complain for once about over the hill shots..  I'd love to lob HE back at them from the M4 Derp...

aside from the lack of shell travel distance, try the IKV 103. the round is extremely slow, and i killed several people behind cover or behind slopes with it. 



MemeFlerp #36 Posted Jan 04 2017 - 04:27

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 9764 battles
  • 1,611
  • Member since:
    01-31-2014

View PostTLWiz, on Jan 03 2017 - 11:28, said:

I was about to win a game yesterday by ramming an almost dead Scorpion I was up close fighting.  Just as I am within inches a Leafblower on my team one-shots me.  The only greens left after the "friendly" SPG took me out were three arties and they all died.   Yes, arty can ruin battles.  Of course I am not trying to stir the pot.  Arty really needs to turn blue when they team kill, don't shoot into close melees.  Too many special people play arty and I guess they can't see the screen to clearly through all the saliva.

 

I don't blame the arty though, I blame the player for being a sack of poo.

Just as many "special" players play every class of tank.  But lets ignore that for a minute.  

So you go to ram a vehicle that arty fired on 3-4 seconds earlier and drive into the round.  I guess your complete lack of situational awareness (there are 3 arty left on your team and one enemy tank, what do you think they might be firing at?).  I guess you died because you tunnel visioned in you rush to get a kill.

 







Also tagged with CGC

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users