• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Random Artillery

Just consider this a semi-realistic expression of the vast superiority the Russians enjoyed in artillery during the war.
"Artillery is the real God of War"- J. Stalin
80% of casualties in WWII were caused by artillery.

So if Russians lost over twenty million people in the war, and 80% of all casualities during the war were caused by artillery, then that is one hell of a vast superiority the Russians had, huh? :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
 
Upvote 0
Random arty is realistic, and it adds another element to the gameplay, that sense that you are not always in control of your destiny. War is not certain, and ROO does a very good job of making that more apparent with random arty. You cant just expect to run around a map, carefree and innocent, looking only for that elusive silouette of the enemy. If war was that easy there would be many more of them. Being out in the open in ROO should make you terrified. You have no cover and you may very well be on the recieving end of some bad luck. Guess what, thats war, not a walk in the park.
 
Upvote 0
So if Russians lost over twenty million people in the war, and 80% of all casualities during the war were caused by artillery, then that is one hell of a vast superiority the Russians had, huh? :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't think you know what you're talking about.


I'll clarify that for you if you're really that obtuse. (it's hard to tell if you're delibetately obtuse, or just simply obtuse.)
Artillery caused 80% of battlefield casualties during WWII. The Soviets didn't lose 20 million soldiers. The huge majority of Soviets (not Russians, since we're talking millions of Ukrainians, etc. as well) that died were civilians, and they died of starvation, cold, etc. as well as by direct military action.
Since I haven't seen any civilians in RO, I don't think we need to include them.
Starvation and cold don't seem to be big issues either.
So as applies to RO, the 80% figure is accurate. I'd give you some sources but I think you need the education so, as I said before, go look it up.
Especially go look it up before you tell me i don't know what I'm talking about.
Then apologize.
 
Upvote 0
I said people, you said casualties. People = civilians, no? Casualties can refer to either civilian deaths or soldier deaths, or both. When people are fighting for their homes, I'd say it doesn't much matter.

The Soviet Union lost more than 10 million soldiers in the war. Germany lost five million, on both fronts.

The Soviet Union lost about 23 million people.

Let's do some basic math.

10,000,000 multiplied by .8 = 8,000,000, no?

5,000,000 multiplied by .8 = 4,000,000.

So, by your logic, artillery killed twice as many Soviet soldiers as it did German ones.

Thanks for the clarification!
 
Upvote 0
He didn't specify that the Russians lost more than the Germans. He said that 80% in TOTAL of the war was artillery shells. Presumably including all of the fronts, so every casualty in the war x 0.8 = artillery deaths. I doubt that it was actually 80%, or that accurate enough records were kept to definitively say that 80% of all the military casualties in WWII were artillery.
 
Upvote 0
I said people, you said casualties. People = civilians, no? Casualties can refer to either civilian deaths or soldier deaths, or both. When people are fighting for their homes, I'd say it doesn't much matter.
The Soviet Union lost more than 10 million soldiers in the war. Germany lost five million, on both fronts.
The Soviet Union lost about 23 million people.
Let's do some basic math.
10,000,000 multiplied by .8 = 8,000,000, no?
5,000,000 multiplied by .8 = 4,000,000.
So, by your logic, artillery killed twice as many Soviet soldiers as it did German ones.
Thanks for the clarification!


You didn't look it up, did you?
1. Estimates of Soviet military casualties vary, but average about 7 million. Several million of these were POW's who died of starvation or mistreatment at the hands of the Germans. These were obviously not battlefield casualties.
2. Lots and lots of Soviets were killed by their own side, either executed or by friendly fire. (Many FF casualties were arty victims, especially at Berlin where the Soviets shelled the hell out of each other out of indifference to casualties and eagerness to be the first to take the center.)
3. In any case, superiority in warfare is not measured by how many enemies you kill. The Americans learned that in Vietnam. The Soviets had a huge superiority in artillery over the Germans. That's a simple fact, whether you agree with the 80% figure or not.
 
Upvote 0
You didn't look it up, did you?
1. Estimates of Soviet military casualties vary, but average about 7 million. Several million of these were POW's who died of starvation or mistreatment at the hands of the Germans. These were obviously not battlefield casualties.
2. Lots and lots of Soviets were killed by their own side, either executed or by friendly fire. (Many FF casualties were arty victims, especially at Berlin where the Soviets shelled the hell out of each other out of indifference to casualties and eagerness to be the first to take the center.)
3. In any case, superiority in warfare is not measured by how many enemies you kill. The Americans learned that in Vietnam. The Soviets had a huge superiority in artillery over the Germans. That's a simple fact, whether you agree with the 80% figure or not.

Where did you get this information from? Sources please!
The 80% statistic does not hold up. When in 1941, the Russians lost close to a millions soldiers just due to surrender (encicrlements). That already 10% of the 'casualtie' figure. That is just the first 6 months of the war. In Stalingrad, the Russians lost over a million men, the battle was something like 5 months long. Artillery was used, but after the city was turned to rubble, the artillery didn't have as much of an effect.

For the battle of Berlin, the Russians lost some 400,000 men, and by that time the Germans had virtually no artillery. According to your figures 80% should of been killed by artillery, even though by this time, the Germans had none at this battle.

Not to mention other huge battles which the Russians or Germans lost a lot of men where atillery can be discounted. 80% is ridicilously high, show us some sources, quote some sources. Because right now, it seems you are making it all up.

The Soviets did not have superiority in artillery until mid 1943. The Russians lost most of their artillery pieces in the early stages of the war. Most of it being captured by the Germans. They didn't make up for it UNTIL summer of 1943 where it was equal to or exceded its 1941 numbers. However by this time, a lot has changed in the terms of artillery placement and spotting, so it was more effective. What the Russians also did was mass their artillery at the point of the attack.
That is why when an opening operation took place the Russians poured down so much fire. But the simple fact is the Russians did not have superiority in artillery untill mid 1943.

There were FF incidents due to artillery but not as big as you make it out to be. Berlin is the best example, but the FF casulties were not bad compared to casulties caused by the enemy.

I still would like to see some sources, where did you read this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Panzer Meyer why did you have to ruin my fun by stating so bluntly what I was hinting at the entire time? :(

It's no fun if you just tell him the truth. He has to realize it himself, or he'll never learn.

I've been trying to just get him to look up stuff to refute me, because that would make it plain as day that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But no, you just have to go in there with all your facts and figures and prove him wrong right off the bat. :mad:
 
Upvote 0
Panzer Meyer why did you have to ruin my fun by stating so bluntly what I was hinting at the entire time? :(

It's no fun if you just tell him the truth. He has to realize it himself, or he'll never learn.

I've been trying to just get him to look up stuff to refute me, because that would make it plain as day that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But no, you just have to go in there with all your facts and figures and prove him wrong right off the bat. :mad:

LOL, sorry? :confused: :D
 
Upvote 0