Author Topic: Artillery questions  (Read 13945 times)

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #30 on: 31 March 2020, 11:26:53 »
The numbers given in that, IMO, are b/c the original writers did not know military structure or the reasoning behind it . . . they merely offered to double the numbers b/c the Snipers were weaker guns.  I think 4-6 Long Toms are fine if you are going with a 2x2, 2x3 or 3x2 battery structure.  But you would keep the same structure at the battery level for reasons of personnel organization- the difference is where you call a artillery battalion a 'artillery battalion, heavy' which indicates Long Toms.  'Artillery Battalion, Medium' would be Snipers, light would be Thumpers and Missile or Rocket would be Arrow IV depending on how you view it.  Those names would also be what applies for towed systems since something like Thumper Artillery Vehicles which were produced by the FWL would be assigned to a unit called 'Artillery Battalion, Self-Propelled, Light' while the original Marksmen vehicles would be 'Artillery Battalion, Self-Propelled, Medium.'

Its been a LONG time since I played darts & charts and I did not pay much attention to the tube stuff nor did I really have to spend much time putting on the map heavy/light rocket artillery so I do not recall if there is a symbology difference between the two but here is the US Army/NATO map/organization signs.



And here are the other ways to modify the symbols



IIRC some of the BTU maps they do follow NATO map symbols in the book- for obvious reasons.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Minemech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #31 on: 31 March 2020, 11:37:40 »
The numbers given in that, IMO, are b/c the original writers did not know military structure or the reasoning behind it . . . they merely offered to double the numbers b/c the Snipers were weaker guns.  I think 4-6 Long Toms are fine if you are going with a 2x2, 2x3 or 3x2 battery structure.  But you would keep the same structure at the battery level for reasons of personnel organization- the difference is where you call a artillery battalion a 'artillery battalion, heavy' which indicates Long Toms.  'Artillery Battalion, Medium' would be Snipers, light would be Thumpers and Missile or Rocket would be Arrow IV depending on how you view it.  Those names would also be what applies for towed systems since something like Thumper Artillery Vehicles which were produced by the FWL would be assigned to a unit called 'Artillery Battalion, Self-Propelled, Light' while the original Marksmen vehicles would be 'Artillery Battalion, Self-Propelled, Medium.'

Its been a LONG time since I played darts & charts and I did not pay much attention to the tube stuff nor did I really have to spend much time putting on the map heavy/light rocket artillery so I do not recall if there is a symbology difference between the two but here is the US Army/NATO map/organization signs.



And here are the other ways to modify the symbols



IIRC some of the BTU maps they do follow NATO map symbols in the book- for obvious reasons.
In a previous iteration of these forums, there was a debate, and discussion with Davion players, do to the fact that I countered an assertion that they fielded the most artillery. If I recall correctly, one of the Davion side's flock noted that the FWLM structure actually made much sense, as the FWLM relied more on infantry than other houses, and that artillery was often used to suppliment the abilities of infantry. Since FWLM infantry was required to perform an outsized job, and could not (Infantry is awesome when correctly employed, but has limitations), it attached large artillery formations. FWLM armor regiments tended to be in 2 tiers, recon armor, and heavy armor, with some independent artillery formations. They were not used the same way as the infantry, and did not support mech formations the same way. As the truism went, the worse the infantry, the more artillery you need. They would also force mech units to better integrate with infantry forces on the battlefield.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #32 on: 31 March 2020, 12:33:48 »
Artillery formations and doctrine do not usually increase the size of batteries- instead you increase the number of batteries.  Basically a battery is enough firepower to suppress X size enemy formation, I THINK its designed to suppress the next size up of other arms- so a artillery battery would be designed to deal with infantry or armor battalions, mechs IMO are a bit different b/c of their nature in the game.  So instead of outsized batteries, what you are likely to end up with is artillery under control of different tiers.

Structure would be . . . FWLM Infantry Brigade comprised of 3 infantry regiments and a reinforced artillery regiment along with what would basically be a regiment of support- HQ, recon, medical, admin, supply, & maintenance.  Each regiment has a battalion (med or light) from the artillery regiment assigned to them but they are not organic.  The brigade as a whole has ANOTHER battalion- probably the heavy or rocket artillery- that is on call to support the brigade in general (whole list of criteria checks) or can be handed over to regimental control if they are the ones coordinating a regimental strength attack.  You would see the same thing in mechanized/armored formations, though IIRC the latest has the TAV being the mainstay of FWL armored formations and the Sniper armed Marksmen/Ballista/Pollux being rarer birds with Long Tom vehicles being the rarest of all.

But note, I said the # of guns in the Long Tom example was on, depending on the battery structure you wanted which would depend on deployment.  It was the doubling of the guns for Snipers, and I assume Thumper would be the same numbers, that I was suggesting would have the guns organizationally spread around.  They might effectively have that many guns on a per battalion or regiment basis but control of the guns would rest in other hands unless assigned.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Minemech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #33 on: 31 March 2020, 14:05:16 »
Artillery formations and doctrine do not usually increase the size of batteries- instead you increase the number of batteries.  Basically a battery is enough firepower to suppress X size enemy formation, I THINK its designed to suppress the next size up of other arms- so a artillery battery would be designed to deal with infantry or armor battalions, mechs IMO are a bit different b/c of their nature in the game.  So instead of outsized batteries, what you are likely to end up with is artillery under control of different tiers.

Structure would be . . . FWLM Infantry Brigade comprised of 3 infantry regiments and a reinforced artillery regiment along with what would basically be a regiment of support- HQ, recon, medical, admin, supply, & maintenance.  Each regiment has a battalion (med or light) from the artillery regiment assigned to them but they are not organic.  The brigade as a whole has ANOTHER battalion- probably the heavy or rocket artillery- that is on call to support the brigade in general (whole list of criteria checks) or can be handed over to regimental control if they are the ones coordinating a regimental strength attack.  You would see the same thing in mechanized/armored formations, though IIRC the latest has the TAV being the mainstay of FWL armored formations and the Sniper armed Marksmen/Ballista/Pollux being rarer birds with Long Tom vehicles being the rarest of all.

But note, I said the # of guns in the Long Tom example was on, depending on the battery structure you wanted which would depend on deployment.  It was the doubling of the guns for Snipers, and I assume Thumper would be the same numbers, that I was suggesting would have the guns organizationally spread around.  They might effectively have that many guns on a per battalion or regiment basis but control of the guns would rest in other hands unless assigned.
If you use 3SW logic, there was a higher demand for Long Tom support, than supply. Rather than focus Long Tom batteries to retain their power, the FWLM rationed them into smaller batteries, despite any issues that came with that. Long Toms were greatly desired among the states at that time. This meshes with the fact that if you deploy too many Long Toms in one location, that location becomes a highlighted target for raids

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #34 on: 31 March 2020, 14:17:01 »
Sure, everyone usually wants heavier guns . . . but you fight with what you have, not what you want.  I was merely pointing out a organizational structure without really assigning equipment to the slots just suggesting where it would be assigned- like the brigade level (if I call it divarty, its b/c it was the doctrine I am familiar with/replicating) having the heaviest available guns and the ones assigned to specific regiments being lighter.  On the simple theory the lighter guns are going to be more common and its more important to make sure the heavier guns go to the right targets.

With that being the case about Long Toms, that sounds like great bait for a ambush- cross the beaten zone taking Long Tom strikes and then you have mobile forces to encircle- trap them in a Alesia situation.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Minemech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #35 on: 31 March 2020, 14:37:26 »
 
Sure, everyone usually wants heavier guns . . . but you fight with what you have, not what you want.  I was merely pointing out a organizational structure without really assigning equipment to the slots just suggesting where it would be assigned- like the brigade level (if I call it divarty, its b/c it was the doctrine I am familiar with/replicating) having the heaviest available guns and the ones assigned to specific regiments being lighter.  On the simple theory the lighter guns are going to be more common and its more important to make sure the heavier guns go to the right targets.

With that being the case about Long Toms, that sounds like great bait for a ambush- cross the beaten zone taking Long Tom strikes and then you have mobile forces to encircle- trap them in a Alesia situation.
I wonder if Snipers and Long Toms were viewed as the artillery, while lighter pieces were simply deployed as platoons in armor, and possibly infantry formations. This may have been a common scheme among the Successor States.

Minemech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #36 on: 31 March 2020, 14:45:48 »
With that being the case about Long Toms, that sounds like great bait for a ambush- cross the beaten zone taking Long Tom strikes and then you have mobile forces to encircle- trap them in a Alesia situation.
It was less risky to just claim to have found a large cache of lostech, when speaking through official channels. Regardless of the Successor State, someone else would hear.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #37 on: 31 March 2020, 15:06:49 »
No, check the TAV fluff . . . makes it sound like it was the majority of self-propelled systems when the technology started sliding.  Plenty of reasons why you have light and medium artillery.  Tech level depends on the size/caliber of the weapon, the tech determines the size of the system and thus the mobility which is critical.  The heavy weapons of WWI were medium sized for WWII with the trend continuing until you reached a point where the lethality of shells and propellent allowed medium sized guns to match what heavier guns could do but offered more mobility.  The lighter mobile guns of the time were 75mm & 90mm with 155mm seeming to be the upper end for mobility . . . though they did apparently have some monster cannons, they were more likely semi-mobile.

FREX, US inventory no longer has the 203mm due to being able to match the range and lethality, or close enough, with modern propellants and shells used by smaller guns.  If the effects could be matched, why not keep the 203 which it would be presumed to have a higher performance.  Two reasons- diminishing returns and transportation . . . mobility is a key component of modern military doctrine and so 155mm being lighter (at the time, they are more now) allows it to redeploy tactically and strategically faster than the heavier 203mm system.  Moving from firing position to firing position is critcal to avoiding counterbattery fire.  But when the change was made, IIRC, it was easier (or perhaps merely possible) to sling-load 155mms under helicopters or into the back of airlift transports while the 203mm were too massive or their build prohibited them being placed on aircraft.

For BTU this makes Snipers and Thumpers more important to militia or non-mech assigned national forces because they are less likely to have dropships available to shuffle around in response to attacks.  The Karnov or something like the FB-335- or even railcars- are easier to load the lighter artillery pieces on.  They also make lesser targets compared to Long Toms as you mentioned.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Calimehter

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #38 on: 31 March 2020, 15:22:51 »
Yeah, but the recon companies would not be co-located with the artillery . . . they would be broken up into squads to a company of infantry/armor/mechs that the artillery battalion is tasked to support.  They are not organic to those battalions/regiments they are supporting but more of a task force level asset.

The recon elements do appear to be organic to the artillery battalion, and not assigned 'as needed' by high command.  I agree that they would be deployed well ahead of the artillery in the field, but they are not "loaners" from high command, at least as spelled out in the Galtor campaign book, which is the only one I can think of that actually published TOE for artillery units at this scale.  I don't own the FWLM book referenced a few posts earlier, but even there I think they just talk about battery sizes.

Throwing out that Davion Auxiliary Guards (re-reading the unit description, they seem to be more focused on an elite infantry heavy weapons assault battalion that happens to have a lot of artillery and recon support) there are three other artillery formations spelled out on the Kurita side.

The 'Galedon Defense League' is described as a collection of base support pooled from multiple regiment resources, and alongside its collection of supply/recovery/admin formations, it describes an "artillery defence" unit of battalion size.  That has one company of lighter artillery pieces, 1 company of transports, and one company of spotters/guards consisting of a mix of infantry and light vehicle.

The 82nd Galedon Artillery is a two-battalion unit that consists of 2 companies of heavy artillery, one company of heavy vehicles labeled as 'defence' (probably heavy with the Partisan and other AA models) and a whopping 3 companies of recon (one of them being light Mechs, the other two light vehicles)

The 512th Imperial Artillery Battalion is even a bit bigger than that.  It contains 2 companies of heavy artillery, 1 company of ligher artillery/vehicles labeled as "defense", 1 company of supply trucks, 1 company of infantry (also labeled as "supply" for some reason?), and 2 companies of light recon vehicles.  They top it off with a "Battalion HQ" unit of 2 lances of light Mechs!

-------------------

That is a lot of organically assigned support per barrel.  Almost as much as many full regiments from the same sourcebooks, and far more than some of the other specialty units (like fighter wings).

My personal take on that is that in the Battletech universe they want artillery units to be able to function nearly independently . . . or at least, be able to assign it to a particular fight without worrying about whether any other regiments in the same battle would need to devote any of their own resources to spotting/supplying/guarding the guns.  The historically low amounts of artillery deployed by the Succession Wars IS militaries meant that the units that *did* exist had to handle all their own integration into the battle and take care of all of their chores 'in house' rather than assume the line regiments or even the base support would be able to take care of it for them.  Again, just my take on things.




Minemech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #39 on: 31 March 2020, 15:44:40 »
The recon elements do appear to be organic to the artillery battalion, and not assigned 'as needed' by high command.  I agree that they would be deployed well ahead of the artillery in the field, but they are not "loaners" from high command, at least as spelled out in the Galtor campaign book, which is the only one I can think of that actually published TOE for artillery units at this scale.  I don't own the FWLM book referenced a few posts earlier, but even there I think they just talk about battery sizes.

There are two books being referenced, one of which used to be free for download on this website. The other just gives sizes, and attaches them to a different part of the military command. If you have the old PDF, hit CTRL+F, then type batteries, or tubes.
 I should note that the Free Worlds League book was unusual in that it gave hard mech production numbers, among other things.
« Last Edit: 31 March 2020, 15:49:10 by Minemech »

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #40 on: 31 March 2020, 16:04:41 »
Your mistaking a few terms . . . This gets complicated because the best demonstration is organizational charts, lol.  I may have to grab the one in the back of . . . CM Mercs?  Or was it 1SW SB that I was looking at, to fill out with the structures.

I said the dedicated FOs would not be organic to the line infantry battalions or companies.  For the purposes of training artillery and FOs, they might be in the same battalion (though to be honest, I knew of the 13Cs but never had them around my MLRS unit & I was in during 2 organizational shuffles) it depends on force doctrine.  We had observers for safety purposes during live fires, but during training all our FO reports were script generated.

Anyway, here is an example-


To go through left to right . . .
You have 3 HQ & HQ Support Companies for the brigade you can sea all the details of what that entails but the HQ Support is a company of military police & signal company

Recon BN is a dedicated brigade level asset, but in practice it might be broken up to have a troop assigned to each battalion or they could be tasked by BDE.  Recon may also have most of the intel staff and sensors like that Target Acquisition plt- chart is less clear.

3 Maneuver BNs- each has 3 Stryker companies w/1 MGS plt, a scout platoon, and a mortar section the last 3 would fall under the BN HQ

Anti-Tank Company-  BDE can either keep them together or assign platoons to Maneuver BNs

Fires (current Artillery catch phrase)- looks like 5 FO-type parties which could be with the intention of Recon, 3 Manuever & Anti-Tank each getting one but they are part of the arty BN.  Not sure why they picture Towed as the icon is for Self-Propelled which matches their movement.  This is a BDE level asset.

Engineer Company-  4 platoons, again a brigade level asset

Support BN-  Medical company which assigns out a medic to each company along with running BN & BDE aide stations, the Distribution company looks like the current catchphrase for BDE supply/ordnance, and a maintenance company

For BTU purposes, substitute regiment where I say brigade above and realize BTU has a brigade composed of regiments which would be the equivalent of divisions in US Army afaik.  The 3 Maneuver BNs are the 'line' units, everything else falls under the Rgt/BDE's authority and get broken up to support the combat tasks assigned to BN.  If you are assigned to support a BN you are called an attachment/detachment depending on verbiage.

Though I will be honest, I was part of a artillery brigade which was assigned to a division, so mirror this and go up 1 level . . . and the doctrinal shift to Brigade Combat Teams happened when my unit was changing equipment and alternating deployments to Iraq so it was never as clear as the Division model that was used post-WWII so someone might offer better insight since we were never tasked to a maneuver BDE.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #41 on: 31 March 2020, 16:14:20 »
*snip*
My personal take on that is that in the Battletech universe they want artillery units to be able to function nearly independently . . . or at least, be able to assign it to a particular fight without worrying about whether any other regiments in the same battle would need to devote any of their own resources to spotting/supplying/guarding the guns.  The historically low amounts of artillery deployed by the Succession Wars IS militaries meant that the units that *did* exist had to handle all their own integration into the battle and take care of all of their chores 'in house' rather than assume the line regiments or even the base support would be able to take care of it for them.  Again, just my take on things.
That's pretty much how I built my Planetary Militia too...

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #42 on: 31 March 2020, 16:57:58 »
In both examples- a artillery battalion as part of a brigade or a artillery brigade as part of a division- the artillery can operate independently, its why I said the FOs were not organic to the line units they might find themselves in at any time.  They belong to someone else, just like the medics, engineers, ordnance techs and specialized maintenance troops but when a combat unit is going into action they get troops assigned to fill those roles as the mission requires.  Take the above theoretical Stryker Brigade . . . say the folks in the pointy building think they need more than a single artillery battalion to accomplish their mission . . . they can either pluck one from another Styker Brigade- say its undergoing a equipment switch on the maneuver BNs- or they can re-assign one from the division's artillery brigade pool to give them that 2nd artillery BN.  By assigning a 2nd artillery BN they get a unit able to handle most of its own needs because it has all those components organically.  I say most b/c the transport of ammo & fuel will need to be supplemented depending on the distance from a supply depot.  In fact, throwing extra support BNs at a combat formation is more likely.

Basically it comes down to your line troops are not going to need specialists all the time, when they do they get them and when they do not the specialists are not present.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2190
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #43 on: 01 April 2020, 07:24:45 »
Thanks for the detailed breakdown Colt Ward. I've seen a few visual breakdowns of a Stryker Brigade before, but not that one. And your descriptions were very helpful. Definitely saving that.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #44 on: 01 April 2020, 10:07:17 »
No problem . . . I spent a lot of bored hours staring at posters in the school house during training.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Calimehter

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 205
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #45 on: 01 April 2020, 10:55:58 »
Your mistaking a few terms . . .

Yep, I misread one of your earlier quotes to be saying that the FO/recon team would not be organically assigned to the artillery.  Sorry if my reply caused any confusion. :)

The more I look at it, the better question seems to be not "Why do the batteries have organic recon" - since it makes sense that they should if they are considered independent from the line units - but instead "Why do they have SO MUCH organic recon in the Battletech universe"?  Entire BTU line regiments (Mech or conventional) often only have 1 company of light/hover vehicles listed as "Recon" according to my browsing of the TOE's listed in Galtor and the 4th Succession Wars books.  The artillery battalions seem to have about one company of recon per one company of guns.  Company organization varies from faction to faction, of course, but that is more FOs than barrels in many cases! 

By comparison, your Stryker TOE (very cool BTW) indicates a full recon battalion per "regiment" of 3 line battalions, which is a bit richer than a 'typical' BTU line regiment . . . but only 5x FOs per artillery battalion.  Or are some of the "Fires" vehicles listed in the recon battalion also considered spotters for the "Fires" (i.e. artillery) battalion?

[Edit for clarity]

« Last Edit: 01 April 2020, 10:58:09 by Calimehter »

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #46 on: 01 April 2020, 11:22:55 »
BTU puts a mere fraction of artillery to combat power that IRL does . . . so in that Strkyer graphic you see a battalion per BTU regiment-equivalent.  But in the BTU you have a single battery if not less per regiment . . . so you get the same coverage of FOs, just less artillery for them to call.  Recon & FOs are different, putting it in current BTU terms Recon units would have SPAs like Eagle's Eyes (spots hidden units & mines), Forest Ranger, Foot Cavalry or could have a Special Command Ability like Combat Drop Specialists or Tac Experts (Hidden Units) while FOs would have Forward Observer (lol) or maybe the SCA Tac Experts (Hidden Units) too.

Now recon and line units are trained to call in artillery but they are not specialists, its why the FOs get special abilities.

Honestly, FOs should have the SPA Forward Observer to reflect their individual equipment and training- its what they worked for and their assignment after all.

In regards to the Stryker BDE questions its a bit harder for me to be specific on what their organization is like IRL.  I knew FOs in training but like I said I never really dealt with them . . . usually a section (part of a squad) would be assigned down to the company in a special vehicle, so you might end up with a squad of FOs (or team) assigned to a battalion but I would expect at most 2-4 people.  The FOs might also be able to call down air strikes, but outside my experience . . . I know as Fire Control the computer system we used had the ability to orchestrate artillery & naval gun support and accommodated air actions.

The Recon BN is broken down as 3 recon troops (or companies, they are just signifying cavalry- Cav Scout is a mentality), a drone using Surveillance troop, BN HQ troop w/NBC & mortar platoon.  Not sure they get the counterbattery radar assigned to them as part of the Surveillance troop or HQ troop.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Minemech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #47 on: 01 April 2020, 11:35:34 »
 I never purchased the 4th SW Atlas, so I have never used its data to affect my Successor State playstyle. I have read the house books from the 80s.

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2190
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #48 on: 01 April 2020, 13:25:37 »
Overlooked this until now, FM: Mercs Supplemental update details Thor's Hammers. Arty-centric merc unit. Three batteries consist of 6 guns each. One is mobile Long Toms, one is a mix of self-propelled Snipers and Thumper. The third battery is jury rigged mechs that carry Arrow 4 and or sniper field pieces.

In that unit each battery has is the unit's center piece, even mechs are assigned supporting roles like scouting or anti-aircraft. Along with spotter planes, infantry, recon vehicles etc.

It's the first arty centric merc unit I can ever recall seeing. Interesting stuff.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #49 on: 01 April 2020, 13:52:54 »
I want to say we got a few more though probably not as detailed- I think one gets killed off in 1SW or 2SW sourcebooks.  Do they describe each battery as 2 firing platoons of 3 guns & a support slot with the 3rd platoon being HQ/support?

Btw, what is their factional background-  I have FM Mercs(R) pdf but the book is at home.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2190
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #50 on: 01 April 2020, 14:56:42 »
Thor's Hammers are fluffed as the core unit and especially CO being a survivor of the 12th Star Guards Third Regiment. Which were destroyed during the Clan Invasion on Icar. Napolean Hobart commanded an artillery battery. One dropship loaded with support personnel and that arty flew off when the rest of the regiment was forced to surrender.

After that happened they went to Outreach. Rather than perpetuate the 12th Star Guards, Hobart started a new command, recruiting gun crews and others from among the survivors of other merc units crushed in the Clan Invasion.

So I'd argue no factional bent. Since we don't know anything CO's history prior to being a merc and the 12th Star Guards worked for a lot of different employers and had a long interstellar history as mercs.

As for composition it's centered around those three batteries of six guns each, Able, Baker and Charlie. Charlie being 'mechs.

Everything else is attached to those batteries, most notably an infantry company and 'mech lance (2 scouts and 2anti-aircraft 'mechs). Add ammunition vehicles, scouts, recon vehicles and spotter planes to that. It doesn't really answer what you are asking in terms of platoons, or which unit is HQ/support. That's not clear.

It feels like each battery is designed to be a self-contained unit with its own support. So the Hammers can split up into three separate forces if they really want to.

« Last Edit: 01 April 2020, 15:06:25 by Alan Grant »

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #51 on: 01 April 2020, 15:09:18 »
Nah, projecting each battery being . . .

Lance 1
3 artillery units, 1 heavy APC as 'support' or the ammo carrier

Lance 2
3 artillery units, 1 heavy tracked APC for ammo carrier

Lance 3
4 mechs

If you have CM Mercs you might check out the Star Guard entry, I recall something about them having artillery or maybe I got that from War of 3039.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2190
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #52 on: 01 April 2020, 16:59:27 »
You said CM mercs, I assume you meant FM: Mercs and they aren't in there. That book is written from the in universe perspective of post-Clan Invasion.


Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #53 on: 01 April 2020, 17:01:52 »
CM Mercs has the 12th Star Guard, to include the 3rd Regiment.  My notes had them with artillery though I cannot say if I got that from War of 3039 or remember additional details from CM Mercs.  The CM adjusted some of the things I had set up for the 3/12, like giving the CO a Wolverine rather than a heavy.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Terrace

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1092
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #54 on: 01 April 2020, 17:43:15 »
I honestly want to see an artillery battery where every support role was filled by a Generic Expandable Services Vehicle variant. It has enough configurations to make that work. Figure the Battery HQ role filled by the GESV tractor in Mobile Command Post configuration, with a trailer in Bunker configuration to carry the assorted support personnel. The GESV's assigned to the individual Firing Platoons would have their trailers in Cargo/Workspace configuration, while their tractors are sporting a modification of the Mobile Command Post configuration (lower the communications equipment tonnage and drop the Remote Sensor Dispensers to increase the cargo), allowing them to serve as ammo trucks that also allow tight coordination between the various sections of the Battery.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #55 on: 01 April 2020, 18:26:09 »
My planetary militia thread had each battery relatively self-sufficient.  Each gun section (3 per battery, 2 tubes per section) was supported by a security platoon of infantry, and a tech team for reloading.  The tech teams had two industrial exoskeletons attached that could carry a ton of ammo each.  Goblins were the base chassis, and for each two chassis carrying a Thumper, there was one ammo (and infantry) carrier, and an LRM Goblin for security (the ammo carrier was a modified MG Goblin, which covered short range).  The Battery HQ had a modified MG Goblin (with Communications Gear) and three Ferrets for logistics, spotting and security, as well as an infantry platoon for security (and spotting, of course).

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #56 on: 07 April 2020, 00:15:47 »
The Inner Sphere at War force lists give every BattleMech regiment in the Inner Sphere and Periphery 1 artillery battalion in support.  Except for House Liao, who gets two battalions per 'mech regiment.

Conversely, House Kurita has the largest Aerospace support element (Outworlds doesn't really count), Infantry and Armor support numbers go to Houses Marik and Steiner.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #57 on: 07 April 2020, 01:03:47 »
The Inner Sphere at War force lists give every BattleMech regiment in the Inner Sphere and Periphery 1 artillery battalion in support.  Except for House Liao, who gets two battalions per 'mech regiment..

Yeah but there is a difference between a battery 2x3 Thumpers (light art bat) and 2x3 Long Toms & 1x3 dual A4 launchers (heavy art bat).
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Alan Grant

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2190
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #58 on: 07 April 2020, 08:30:04 »
It's still a valid factor to consider.

It means more logistics (e.g. ammo supply train) is devoted to artillery, more personnel are trained to be artillery crews, and you are allocating more dropship space for artillery. So it does speak to priorities.

Is it the only variable to consider? No. But this is like crowdsourcing puzzle pieces to build a more complete picture of artillery in the universe.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28958
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Artillery questions
« Reply #59 on: 07 April 2020, 10:20:52 »
Lol, now let's complicate the logistical picture . . . supporting a artillery battery is going to be different between a set of towed Thumpers behind wheeled and Sniper equipped tracked Marksmen.  So, specialized spare parts for the heavy tracked vehicles vs more common spare parts for wheeled chassis towing . . . and rations for a crew of 3-5 vs for 20+ gun bunnies humping ammo.

My personal 'ideal' logisitical planning is for offensive forces to be supported by fusion powered vehicles due to cutting the strings on most POL (never bet on local supplies) for offensive freedom- IE, seizing a refinery or tank farm can be #7 or #8 on the list for a planetary invasion rather than #2 or #3.  I would also suggest that offensive formations are more likely to draw SP artillery than towed artillery, it cuts down the amount of food you need to haul between worlds (never bet on local supplies) and bunks on dropships.  Dropship collars being the single most limiting factor for any offensive in the post-1SW BT universe.  Also as a sort of no brainer, you are going to assign the heaviest artillery to offensive formations but still IMO have some of the lighter tubes for flexibility- though if the choice is between towed Sniper or self propelled Thumper Artillery Vehicles (TAV) fusion or ICE powered, you take the SP artillery.

If Charlie 6 chimes in, our experiences are going to be a bit different even if the training comes from a lot of the same place (Marines trained in Artillery the same place I did) especially since he was on ship with a expeditionary force vs I was slated to move with a division tasked with a offensive.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

 

Register