Is CM Artillery too destructive? - Page 5

Suhiir · #41 March 1st, 2013, 03:45 AM

As a former US Marine even we found US Army logistic system almost unbelievable in both efficiency and size (mostly size *chuckles*). That's a part of the reason they expend ammo at prodigious rates, they can afford to.

Suhiir · #42 March 1st, 2013, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir

I seem to recall a study of wounds made during WW II by the US Army that concluded that 70% of combat wounds/kills were made by fragmentation type weapons (artillery, bombs, mortars, etc.).

So if anything I'd say the game under-rates indirect fire weapons.

*ducks for cover*

That's what I thought as well until I've played Vietnam War scenarios and WinSPWW2. Plus in most Cold war scenarios tank rounds are the most common killing weapon (which is also explosive).

For armor it's always been use another tank or some sort of anti-tank weapon, they're fairly invulnerable to fragmentation type weapons. That is rather the point of them after all.

Also till about the 1960's almost all armies had far more infantry in them then most "modern" armies do. Less infantry obviously means less infantry casualties.

A good example to look at is the Arab-Israeli Wars of the 60's and 70's. Much smaller highly mechanized forces vs considerably larger less mechanized ones, both armed with fairly similar technology.

Dion · #43 March 8th, 2013, 07:20 PM

Man, I thought going up against Abram tanks was a *****, but CM artillery is a mega ***** squared! All thoughs that want tactical nukes on the battlefield: in effect, CM artillery isn't much different.