Rocket artillery?
- Thread starter Denkt
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, ironically, Katushas were, to great effect, used mostly to strengthen the rifle divisions defending the frontline, in 1941, which, according to Soviet command, was very, very effective.
Only after Soviets got enough launchers, they started to get used for other purposes like supporting offensives and armored divisions.
You mean only after they became capable of conducting any serious offensives at all, and learnt from the Germans the value of combined arms in armor divisions the hard way, did they begun using them in an effective manner in offensives?
I mean the Soviet army and it's command isn't exactly praised for it's effectiveness or skill of knowing how to best use the weapons available during 1941...
Last edited:
1. no I am not
2. in almost every terrain, there is plenty of cover (especially during the war, where there is plenty of sell craters) and attacking troops usually go from cover to cover and 10-15 second warning is often enough, to to warn troops to stay in/return to cover. IRL attacked sections of frontlines we much longer, than a single barage from RArt battery can cover. In addition, that single volley is only support, they can provide for a decent ammount of time, because they have to move ASAP to avoid CB fire, while tube artilery was mostly far enough from front, to be relatively safe (tracking artilery projectiles and calculating point of origin wasnt viable during WW2) from CB fire - so tube artilery was able to provide continuous fire support.
3. Problem with that, is due to short range, you need many more launchers, to cover same frontline, compared to tube artilery, which inevitably result in launchers not being in range to support some units, or only few being available. And you still have a problem with not being able to fire more than 1 salvo without needing to change positions.
4. I disagree - rocket artilery delivers a lot of explosives in target area, but cannot continue firing after that, because it needs to move + much longer reload time.
5. Thats just nonses - shockwaves can overlap, but that doesnt result in bigger shockwave.
You also overlooked, that RArt is not a viable option, when enemy gets close to your own troops.
.png){kind=avatar}
I've read that artillery was quite easy to destroy by aircrafts. I assume not. Even if located thanks to intel, still the units are hidden, and very small comparing in the speed airplane have, and eventually machine-gunning/straffing job was so difficult to handle well (even more for straffing), as when you're close enough to efficiently aim for the target, you open fire at almost the exact time you have to break down to not crash in it or the trees, buildings, etc around.
Same idea for bombing : If you bomb from too high, not enough accurate. If you bomb from too low, your plane explodes with the target, even only due to your bombs. And if you have a delayed bomb preset, it becomes way more difficult to make them explode with precision, as they continue their route during this delay.
That's why dive-bombimg exists, but dive-bombing doesn't mean miracle, and this way has its own problems apart from the bombing itself.
Same idea for bombing : If you bomb from too high, not enough accurate. If you bomb from too low, your plane explodes with the target, even only due to your bombs. And if you have a delayed bomb preset, it becomes way more difficult to make them explode with precision, as they continue their route during this delay.
That's why dive-bombimg exists, but dive-bombing doesn't mean miracle, and this way has its own problems apart from the bombing itself.
Last edited:
Wait, wait, wait....
Better on attack and worse on defense. Does this mean that units will have different firepower ratings depending on their attacking/defending stance? Or will there just be special modifiers to combat put into play that modify stats?
- 1
The way I read it, they were using them to great extent before November 1941. I will even post a link to document, dated with 1 November, that describes how to use them better. http://www.rkka.ru/docs/d-st-2490.htmYou mean only after they became capable of conducting any serious offensives at all, and learnt from the Germans the value of combined arms in armor divisions the hard way, did they begun using them in an effective manner in offensives?
I mean the Soviet army and it's command isn't exactly praised for it's effectiveness or skill of knowing how to best use the weapons available during 1941...
So tell me, which serious offensives are we talking about pre November 1 1941?
As for soviets not valuing combined arms, you should read at least some Russian sources on tactics published pre-war. Each, emphased combined arms. Russian tanks fighting along side infantry were there on Khalking-gol, and combined arms with infantry was emphased pre-war.
It is easy to just throw stereotypes that Soviets couldn`t use their weapons right, but that, is not true.
Last edited:
Another reason why Rocket artillery was really popular with Soviet commanders was that it was, in combat, pretty easy to manage (to an extent even logistically, tube artillery ammunition is cheaper, but tube artillery itself is a lot more high maintenance), and responded well to centralized planning. Rocket artillery was often used as the personal "shotgun" of the commander on corps or higher level, and, because it was pretty mobile (was on a truck, and you cant really put tube artillery on trucks because them tubes are heavy), could potentially murder anything it hit (including tanks that were breaking through), and if you had "enough" (which the Soviets pretty soon did), then just hitting a grid square was completely sufficient as far as accuracy went, because with enough rocket artillery you just "remove" the grid.
Bonus points because their speed in unloading their payload, combined with the above average mobility, allowed them to shoot and scoot to an extent.
The Soviets (and also the Germans) did use Rocket artillery in close quarters btw. Aim 500 or so meters away from your own guys in the direction of the enemy, and chances are very good that you will mess up them much much more then your own soldiers. Even if you dont hit the direct frontline, well, that barrage is going to mess up communications, reserves, somewhat behind deployed anti tank, infantry mortars, you name it.
Bonus points because their speed in unloading their payload, combined with the above average mobility, allowed them to shoot and scoot to an extent.
The Soviets (and also the Germans) did use Rocket artillery in close quarters btw. Aim 500 or so meters away from your own guys in the direction of the enemy, and chances are very good that you will mess up them much much more then your own soldiers. Even if you dont hit the direct frontline, well, that barrage is going to mess up communications, reserves, somewhat behind deployed anti tank, infantry mortars, you name it.
It doesn't matter how much your doctrine, Generals or HQ value fighting with combined arms if you still issue conscripts waving flags to drive the tanks... They won't be able to execute those tactics without even a basic radio. You need several things in place for it to work, and equipment in the right places in one of them. Using very mobile self propelled artillery to assist stationary defending infantry does not sound like an optimal use of combined arms equipment.
I remember reading in book on the defense of Moscow focused from the Russian side how Zhukov basically promoted the only division out of 200+ at the time that showed some effective use of combined arms to guard status, because they needed some positive examples. Everyone in the division got a medal simply for reaching their minimum level of knowledge requested from the Headquarters in terms of how to practice combined arms warfare.
But if Soviet did indeed know how to best use their equipment during 1941 as you claim, then perhaps you can enlighten us as to what happened to their 23 295 tanks, 20 474 combat aircraft, 48 247 artillery pieces, 8 600 AA guns, 56 100 mortars they had on 22:nd June and how a majority of these ended up getting captured or destroyed by equipment wise far numerically inferior ( and sometimes like with the T34 also technically inferior) German forces?
Last edited:
- 2
The main reason for the huge losses of material in the RKKA in 1941 was:
* Material was mostly obsolete and in need of repair even before it entered battle (especially the tanks that often broke down even before the battles began).
* The combat aircraft where destroyed while still on the ground by the surprise attack with Stukas.
* Artillery, AA guns, Mortars and so on where captured in huge numbers when the Soviet formations where encircled during the confusion of the first 2-3 months.
Most of which were utterly obsolete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-26, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-37A_tank, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-38_tank
Flying such advanced machines as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polikarpov_I-153
There were 4 trained MiG pilots. That strikes me as a more significant number then those 20474 planes.
The Soviets had a huge stockpile of borderline obsolete equipment in the areas that the Germans invaded. They let this inventory of semi worthless machines get destroyed. German generals bragged about the amount of equipment they destroyed and neglected to mention that they were just turning figurative scrap metal into literal scrap metal.
The real equipment situation on the ground was that the Germans had an advantage in terms of useful tanks, planes and artillery on hand. They had more soldiers under arms in combat ready status. Like in most wars, victory goes to the side with the overwhelming equipment advantage.
It is true that the Soviets had a lot of problems in 1941. But the total numbers of lost machines for the Soviets dont reflect that. They reflect that a larger and better equipped military force was overrunning a force with a lot of old equipment on it's table of equipment.
Defensiveness and toughness were things in HOI3, and what Podcat was describing could be achieved through these mechanics.
Yes, I know those were things in HOI3.
No, what I'm talking about is different. Toughness and defensiveness prevented incoming damage based on whether you were attacking or defending. They had nothing at all to do with outgoing damage.
What I'm asking is whether or not there are two different kinds of outgoing damage (beyond HA and SA).
Adjusting toughness and defensiveness for rocket art and normal art can be done to make rocket art stronger on attack and worse on defense.
They might have done something different, they might have kept it the same.
They might have done something different, they might have kept it the same.
I think rocket artillery should be stronger than usual in any case, but it also should be much more supplies demanding.
I have heard that most part of allies forces that were lost in Normandy suffered from German rocket artillery.
I have heard that most part of allies forces that were lost in Normandy suffered from German rocket artillery.
Since my original post was asking podcat specifically about firepower, I'm not sure why you bring this up.
Because it could be the answer to your question.
But really, I was trying to be helpful. Clearly I made some significant error in judgement. I will refrain from trying to be helpful in the future. I must be a terrible person.
Soviets had more tanks with radios than Germans. German "advantage" in the department is nothing but a myth, based on comparing obsolete 1920s and early 30s tanks, to German ones, ignoring the tanks produced after 1937.
It actually sounds like a good tactic, maneuvering with your artillery to suppress breakthrughs is similar to to ding same with tanks.
You look at equipment, not the amount of troops, mobilization, or preparedness, spare parts availability, ex.
It is no secret, Germans, if you factor in their allies, had more troops in uniforms than soviets in 1941. Equipment advantage is meaningless if you don`t have the troops to use it. And traing people for the obsolete equipment like T-26, or I-15 was just a waste.
It's funny how the thing with the most advanced sounding name (rockets!) looks like something thrown together in a recycling center.