Janster said:
Hehe, its not realistic dude, one set of 155 mm would probably be supporting an entire brigade, not 16 men.
Quoting loss statistics, doesn't change this. I've played enough hardcore ww2 games to know the setup of companies and brigades.
80 mm would be just fine, and it would be more fun than having 155 pouring down like rain on positions.
If you want to argue historical realism, don't argue about your experience in games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vistula-Oder_Offensive
One tube of field artillery per 160 men
One mortar per 150 men
One barrage rocket launcher per 1,000 men
Now, I don't know the context of these numbers. If the 2.2 million soldiers are strictly frontline, these per-soldier numbers are fine. But what if they include the support network (transportation, communications, food, administration, maintenance, medical care) mixed in? The tooth-to-tail ratio is normally about 3:1.
Second, realize that artillery pieces tend to be pretty durable. They can get hit by counter-battery fire or bombed by planes, yes, but they're generally well behind the front line and, well, get destroyed slower than infantry. So as the assault continues, the ratio of artillery per soldier may increase.
Third, field artillery is a pooled asset. It's not that every 160 men have one tube. It's that every unitwill share access to a battery, such as six tubes. Not all of the units will be committed at the same time, meaning an engaged unit will typically get priority and a thus disproportionate share of artillery. Shells are relatively cheap.
Fourth, well, you're right about mortars being issued to companies en masse to reduce problems of fire control and asset allocation. That's an argument that, to be more realistic, there should be more "death from above" rather than less.
So, again, in short, if anything, Konigsplatz could be "World War II lite." Again, half the deaths were caused by artillery.