Did artillery during ww2 have limited numbers of firing daily? -1 reply

Please wait...

Puma2005

GF makes me horny

50 XP

11th January 2005

0 Uploads

82 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

My cousin has a friend, whose brother serves in an artillery unit in Iraq. He told us that his brother (and his comrades) only fired the guns 10 shots daily durning the war because of the concern of the health of gunners (heart I guess). Here is the question for weapon expertise. Was there such limitation on numbers of firing during WW2? Was there overheating problem for guns if firing continously? I think that artillery in FH is way too powerful. Bigger gun should be given less ammo and all guns shouldn't be deployed next to ammo boxes. What do you think?




MG42Maniac

A man of dubious moral fibre

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

3,932 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

The only limitations I know of were when ammo was running very low and they were limited to say 10 shots a day.




kiakona037

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

17th December 2004

0 Uploads

17 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

Artillery can have so much ammo because it's in the background of action...where supplies stayed,,,it doesnt make much since to have supply trcuks on the front,,,they are extreme PRIME targets...




Puma2005

GF makes me horny

50 XP

11th January 2005

0 Uploads

82 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

I am not saying that artillery shouldn't have a lot of ammo. I just don't feel right about it. As we know, once a map, which has artillery deployed, starts, people just man the guns and fire for the whole game (I myself included if I can get one :) ). I need some breaks. I hope that I can make my point clear. If we give a howitzer 10 ammo, for example, after 10 shots the gunner has to destroy it and wait for it respawn in order to fire the next 10. Does it simulate the move to avoid overheating? It also gives the bombed side a break. I might think too much.




[SYN] hydraSlav

SYNERGY Member

50 XP

2nd October 2003

0 Uploads

2,372 Posts

0 Threads

#5 13 years ago
Puma2005My cousin has a friend, whose brother serves in an artillery unit in Iraq. He told us that his brother (and his comrades) only fired the guns 10 shots daily durning the war because of the concern of the health of gunners (heart I guess).

In your friend's case, they are invading a country who can't even give a decent fight back. I am sure they can afford to waste time on "operator's safety", etc. In WWII, people were fighting for their lives, for their country, were loss was not an option, and at that time, noone could afford to worry about "operator's safety" when lifes of million were at stake




-|DKS|- deathBOB

The BOB of Death

50 XP

3rd June 2004

0 Uploads

456 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
'[SYN hydraSlav']In your friend's case, they are invading a country who can't even give a decent fight back. I am sure they can afford to waste time on "operator's safety", etc. In WWII, people were fighting for their lives, for their country, were loss was not an option, and at that time, noone could afford to worry about "operator's safety" when lifes of million were at stake

Good Post! :beer:




obliviousnation

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

28th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,424 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Dude, during the final assault at El Alamien the British gunners ears were bleeding because of the constant gun fire.

Most guns were fired non stop when needed.




Panzergrenadier

Waffen SS elan

50 XP

29th April 2003

0 Uploads

100 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago

The only limitations to artillary fire would be caution with counter-battery fire, ammunition issues (German artillary offten ran out of ammunition - especialy in France), or a big push was being planned and ammunition needed to be conserved for that. Artillary is fine as is, it takes a dedicated member to man it and hit targets consistantly.

[130.Pz]Lt. Von Luck Pz. CO




Puma2005

GF makes me horny

50 XP

11th January 2005

0 Uploads

82 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

All right artillery men in WW2 rocked but I think that artillery in FH rules the maps. We complain about airplanes, the flying artillery, ruining the good maps but it seems that I am the only one who thinks that the artillery is too accurate. Just think about the maps of battle of bulge, Charlie sector, Norwind, Stalingard. Do you think that those maps are fun while the spawn points are bombed accurately by dedicated gunners? I think that artillery serves the role of suppression. They have indirect fire and shouldn't be that accurate like what we have in game.




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago
Puma2005All right artillery men in WW2 rocked but I think that artillery in FH rules the maps. We complain about airplanes, the flying artillery, ruining the good maps but it seems that I am the only one who thinks that the artillery is too accurate. Just think about the maps of battle of bulge, Charlie sector, Norwind, Stalingard. Do you think that those maps are fun while the spawn points are bombed accurately by dedicated gunners? I think that artillery serves the role of suppression. They have indirect fire and shouldn't be that accurate like what we have in game.

You miss the point. Artillery in FH is good because it spawnkills. I only rarely see artillery being used otherwise, so I don't think they are too powerful, they are only "exploiting" one of the failures of BF42 : you spawn in the middle of nowere, always at the same place. Nerfing artillery to make them less accurate (and thus completely useless under any circumstances, even for direct fire) would make them completely useless. Besides, weren't 60% of casualties in WW2 caused by artillery?