Siege Artillery vs. 152mm artillery?
Hello, to all. Recently I have come across a strange, from the standpoint of logic, information: the damage inflicted by 152mm artillery is greater than the one by Siege Artillery. Shouldn't 152mm artillery do greater damage?
Without getting into too much of a technical discussion:
152 mm guns = best of the era. Men, field entrenchments such as barbed wire - it's all going to smithereens.
Siege guns = slower, heavier guns, usually aiming at bringing down fortified positions - i.e. concrete, wood, stone, steel. They *can* kill people, of course, but that's not what their ammunition is good at. The siege guns are too slow and cumbersome to be used effectively in the battlefield, and are generally useful in sieges.
If you're from Europe:
152 mm guns = Messi.
Siege Guns = Terry from Chelsea.
If you're American:
152 mm guns = a wide receiver.
Siege Guns = a defensive end.
152 mm guns = best of the era. Men, field entrenchments such as barbed wire - it's all going to smithereens.
Siege guns = slower, heavier guns, usually aiming at bringing down fortified positions - i.e. concrete, wood, stone, steel. They *can* kill people, of course, but that's not what their ammunition is good at. The siege guns are too slow and cumbersome to be used effectively in the battlefield, and are generally useful in sieges.
If you're from Europe:
152 mm guns = Messi.
Siege Guns = Terry from Chelsea.
If you're American:
152 mm guns = a wide receiver.
Siege Guns = a defensive end.
Return to “Revolution Under Siege”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests