*split from:* "More Bulge Info! (and a few screenshots...)"

[Big Boss]

Rinaldi

 

Some comments on your  earlier post

 

The 79. Volks-Grenadier-Division wasn't in the initial attack echelon on the Dec 16. It was held in reserve by  7. Armee so it's true what you write that the division never got off their start line (if you mean on the first day of the offensive), but it was never meant to.  The division went in to action on Dec 22 near Heiderscheid against the US 80th Infantry. It is true that they didn't make much progress  but they successfully repulsed several American counterattacks. 

 

The division suffered heavy casualties during Wacht am Rhein but wasn't "destroyed" . It fought on till late spring 1945.

 

The same must be said about the 2. Panzer-Division. True, it lost a majority of its combat strenght when fighting the US 2nd Armored Division but still managed to pull back enough units to take active part during the remainder of the war.

 

Words like "destroyed" related to larger units should IMO be used sparingly as they seldom match the historic facts. Heavy casualties and material destruction could surely lower combat efficiency but that's quite different from being fully destroyed.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

I guess if the Sixth Army was not destroyed at Stalingrad and was reestablished to fight in the Ukraine no large formation can really be "destroyed". What the heck, not even the loss of the Army HQ and all but 6% manpower didn't stop the fighting Sixth.

 

There's a grain of truth in this statement. Destroyed in the military sense does not mean "no survivors has ceased to exist" it means broadly "unable to function until reconstituted."  Plenty of destroyed units would go on to fight another day, but many German units slogging back on foot after burning their remaining vehicles could truly be called destroyed.

 

Excited for the Bulge to VE day.  It's an interesting mix of forces, men, and locations, and Normandy is a bit overdone sometimes. Also promise of future Pershings

[Parker Schnabel]

I guess if the Sixth Army was not destroyed at Stalingrad and was reestablished to fight in the Ukraine no large formation can really be "destroyed". What the heck, not even the loss of the Army HQ and all but 6% manpower didn't stop the fighting Sixth.

It was written that the 79. Volks-Gren.-Div. was not destroyed. Did I miss something in the discussion? Who wrote the 6. Armee was not destroyed? Edited April 1, 2015 by Parker Schnabel

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Dunno.  The fact it reappears as a Kampfsgruppe and is referred to as "remnants" seems to indicate it was pretty destroyed.

[Parker Schnabel]

Dunno.  The fact it reappears as a Kampfsgruppe and is referred to as "remnants" seems to indicate it was pretty destroyed.

 

But the 79. VGD was not rebuilt after Bulge. Therefore what was fighting afterwards was the same 79. VGD.

 

This can be hardly called "reappear as a Kampfgruppe":

What I know that during Wacht am Rhein the attack on Heiderscheid did not succeed and both sides suffered heavy losses.

After the attack on Heiderscheid had failed, the division was defending at the Braunschweig bridgehead for four more weeks (January).

 

Then in February it planfully begun to retreat (you know, destroyed units and retreating...).

It was during these weeks of retreat in the Mosel valley, where the highest losses reportedly have occured.

 

After the encirclement of Heidelberg and Darmstadt the majority of the division fell into captivity in March, while outside the divisional HQ with remnants formed Kampfgruppe Hummel and continued to fight until mid of April.

 

This does hardly match to the claim it was destroyed during Wacht am Rhein. Which author is claiming that?

[sburke]

Dunno, but I think they were pretty much all destroyed by May.  As in eliminated, kaput, no remnants.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I didn't care enough for in depth research for the post. Honestly more tired of the stalwart deutchmen never really being defeated when in reality they got their teeth kicked in pretty often.

[kevinkin]

The term destroyed for large formations is often semantic. Of course the 6th was militarily destroyed in relation to what it was in June 41 and 42. But for political and ceremonial/moral reasons nations re-build formations around remnants. This is

especially true for regiments and battalions. But was also the case for the 6th Army - probably for political reasons and home front propaganda.

Kevin

[Parker Schnabel]

The term destroyed for large formations is often semantic. Of course the 6th was militarily destroyed in relation to what it was in June 41 and 42. But for political and ceremonial/moral reasons nations re-build formations around remnants. This is

especially true for regiments and battalions. But was also the case for the 6th Army - probably for political reasons and home front propaganda.

Kevin

It's not semantic. A rebuilt is nothing that is secret. You do not admit your logical failure that you brought up a newly set up unit like the 6th army as an absurd argument why 79. VGD was destroyed during Wacht am Rhein.

 

 

What really counts for the soldiers on the tactical level is (and CM is only about that, you know), if the unit is capable to continue fighting.

The 79. VGD division's history shows it kept fighting. So the claim it was destroyed is not only wrong from the operational view, it is even more false from the tactical view. Did the Alliied soldiers that kept fighting it, only do that in their imagination? I hope not.

 

CM is about the level where the bullets fly. That's where the fighting takes place.

 

It shows a very high degree of incompetence if someone uses operational, strategic, political and historical judgements to judge the tactical level. Why? Because high level judgements can be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the reality of tactical combat:

 

Bulge ------dead----missed---wounded----total

Germans  17.236--16.000----14.439-----67.675

Alliies       19.276--21.144-----47.139----87.559

 

And that's numbers for a failed German operation...

Where did the Alliied losses occur? By imagination? By the Luftwaffe?

 

Bagration---------dead----missed---wounded----total

German Army---26.397--262.929--109.776----399.102 (Frieser)

Soviet Army----178.507--------------587.308----765.815 (Kriwoschejew)

 

 

To speak in the language of the BFC forum: who on the tactical level might have gotten his teeth's kicked?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Parker Schnabel

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

The 79. VGD division's history shows it kept fighting. So the claim it was destroyed is not only wrong from the operational view, it is even more false from the tactical view. Did the Alliied soldiers that kept fighting it, only do that in their imagination? I hope not.

 

Elements of the US Army in the Philippines were still fighting and ultimately relieved by the rest of the US Army in 1944.  Thus the US forces in the Philippines were not destroyed.  

 

Or more realistically that if a unit is no longer capable of functioning as a combat unit of its designated scale, then it is effectively destroyed.  The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission.

 

Which is to say, if your car is wrapped around a telephone pole, but the blinker still works, your car is destroyed, and you do no have a functional car until someone puts it back together again.

 

 

Bulge ------dead----missed---wounded----total

Germans  17.236--16.000----14.439-----67.675

Alliies       19.276--21.144-----47.139----87.559

 

This is one of the worst estimates I have seen.  Even the German high command admits at least 84,000 KIA/WIA/MIA for the campaign.  Also worth noting how many of the allied loses were the result of rear echelon troops being overrun (and treated to German respect for human rights), and more emblematic of the performance of the German combat soldier is the stacks of good Germans in front of St Vith, the Twin Villages, and the circle die tot deutchbags at Bastogne.

[Parker Schnabel]

Elements of the US Army in the Philippines were still fighting and ultimately relieved by the rest of the US Army in 1944.  Thus the US forces in the Philippines were not destroyed.

You could have presented a few arguments to support the claim, the 79. VGD was destroyed during Wacht am Rhein.

  

The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission.

Aha, the racist hatred of a chauvinist?

 

This is one of the worst estimates I have seen.  Even the German high command admits at least 84,000 KIA/WIA/MIA for the campaign.

But, but your numbers show still lower losses than Alliied losses...

Not bad on the tactical level for a failed operation, isn't it?

As a tactically interested person I can only admire this effectiveness and combat power.

Also worth noting how many of the allied loses were the result of rear echelon troops being overrun (and treated to German respect for human rights), and more emblematic of the performance of the German combat soldier is the stacks of good Germans in front of St Vith, the Twin Villages, and the circle die tot deutchbags at Bastogne.

I understand that you try to bring the discussion down by bringing up even German warcrimes to deny their combat power then, because it fits your emotional way to judge things. But I must disappoint you: what deems you fitting as emotionally driven chauvinist is of no significance to me.

[LukeFF]

But, but your numbers show still lower losses than Allied losses...

Not bad on the tactical level for a failed operation, isn't it?

As a tactically interested person I can only admire this effectiveness and combat power.

 

Old-banned-Steiner, meet the new-not-yet-banned-Steiner. 

 

(Sigh) It seems some things never change. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by LukeFF

[jspec]

Old-banned-Steiner, meet the new-not-yet-banned-Steiner. 

 

(Sigh) It seems some things never change. 

 

This I genuinely don't get - Steve already posted that this is a guy who was already banned, so what's the benefit of letting him post under a different name?

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118902-we-need-another-the-road-ahead-from-bf/

[Rinaldi]

Old-banned-Steiner, meet the new-not-yet-banned-Steiner. 

 

(Sigh) It seems some things never change. 

 

Oh this explains so very much.

 

An aside though...at the risk of derailing this thread even more; Luke are you the same LukeFF from subsim? If so, thank you for all your work on the RFB mod. Just recently got into SHIV on the suggestion of a friend and have been loving every moment of RFB+RSRD. 

Edited April 2, 2015 by Rinaldi

[Parker Schnabel]

LukeFF,

I don't believe that you can improve CM's success with your permanent attacks on customers. The building entering bug, the water fording bug, the QB setup bug and many more. If you would invest more energy in your job as beta tester and less into playing Ghostbusters, maybe you could prevent customers from facing nasty surprises?

[Mord]

I was wondering how long it would take for his inner-Adolf to pull out the poms-poms. This guy just can't help giving himself away. It's like retarded clock work, the same exact MO every...single...time. You'd think after being banned in triplicate he'd figure out a way to suppress it all...but in record time we are graced with yet another one man circle jerk...which I predict will once again end in tears...and blisters. It's downright pathological.

 

 

 

Mord.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Mord

[Big Boss]

A further comment on “destroyed” units.

 

 

Or more realistically that if a unit is no longer capable of functioning as a combat unit of its designated scale, then it is effectively destroyed.  The continued resistance of the noble men of Deutchbag Latrine Maintenance Regiment 102 is an interesting footnote if the division they belong to is no longer capable of completing a mission.

 

 

Who defines what units is functional or not seems to be a matter of opinion both from the enemy side but also from higher levels in the chain of command. As Stalingrad has been mentioned a couple of times I understand that several of the German divisions fighting in the city itself before the encirclement were utterly spent as a fighting force. Platoon with a couple of combat ready men and companies with 10-20 and so on.  IMO Jason Mark in Island Of Fire: The Battle For the Barrikady Gun Factory In Stalingrad describes this very well. Per your definition these units should be considered destroyed and pulled away and reconstructed. But neither 6. Armee HQ or OKH made that conclusion neither did the soviet opponents. And these units continued to fight on until they were, no matter of definition, Destroyed when the army surrendered.

 

It seems that German units continued to fight for longer periods with heavier casualties (destroyed?) than western allied counterparts. This is probably not because a German love for war or some other bs but dictated by the dire manpower and material supply situation. The Allies had the resources to rotate units in and out om the combat area, something the Axis could only dream of.

[agusto]

It is probably meaningful to connect the attribute "destroyed" with the level at which the units is supposed to be operating. If all men but one company of a division are physically destroyed, the division will not be be functioning within reasonable parameters on an operational scale, even if the last company is still capeable to operate on a tactical level. The rule is that units are getting destroyed top-down: strategic, operational, tactical, in that order. An army coprs might be destroyed on a strategic scale by physically destroying all of its comm equipment and killing the corps-level staff personnel, but its subordinate subunits may still be funtioning on the operational and tactical levels. But, on the other hand, if all of the army corps subordinate divisions are destroyed and only the corps-level staff survives, the corps may still be considered destroyed, hence the top-down rule. Thiose are, however, extreme examples. In reality units usually experience a mixed form of destruction, so determining at which level they are still able to operate is a more complex matter.

Edited April 2, 2015 by agusto

[Combatintman]

Different Army on the Philippines... but destroyed or not destroyed?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroo_Onoda

[Parker Schnabel]

I was wondering how long it would take for his inner-Adolf to pull out the poms-poms. This guy just can't help giving himself away. It's like retarded clock work, the same exact MO every...single...time. You'd think after being banned in triplicate he'd figure out a way to suppress it all...but in record time we are graced with yet another one man circle jerk...which I predict will once again end in tears...and blisters. It's downright pathological.

 

 

 

Mord.

I this behaviour according to the forum rules?

Are you a moderator?

[Big Boss]

 In reality units usually experience a mixed form of destruction, so determining at which level they are still able to operate is a more complex matter.

 

Quite right I Think. We should all probably agree that its a very difficult subject with lots of different opinions and subjective answers.

[Wodin]

Haven't experienced any building entering bug and don't play QB..and from my gaming experience I haven't come across any bugs in CMBN, CMRT or CMBS. You make it sound as if the game is riddled and unplayable..well it's far from it.

 

 

LukeFF,
I don't believe that you can improve CM's success with your permanent attacks on customers. The building entering bug, the water fording bug, the QB setup bug and many more. If you would invest more energy in your job as beta tester and less into playing Ghostbusters, maybe you could prevent customers from facing nasty surprises?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Destroyed

 

See my car example.  If you still need a blinky orange light, and the cupholder isn't too mangled to accept a cup, then those elements may function on just fine, but the car is still destroyed.  So if in a less sarcastic example, if the 1st Infantry Division of Panzersaurkrautwerfertopia loses five of its six infantry regiments, the division HQ, 60% of the artillery regiment, and the last band member died playing a defiant tune on his tuba in the face of the enemy, the one remaining infantry regiment will still be in the fight, and Panzersaurkrautwerfertopia's high command will still employ it as needed, and might even still call it the 1st Infantry Division in official documents, but in reality we're giving orders to the 3rd infantry regiment+1st ID PzKwfr Divisional Laundry Platoon and it is incapable of carrying out division type missions (just as the car can still do blinky orange light and cup retention missions, but is incapable of carrying out car level missions like driving down the highway).

 

Re: Bees

 

Those are serious posts.  Combat Mission's Bee behavior is going to be second to none, and the bee tank rider script is pretty much the Sistine chapel of coding for AI.  

 

Re: Reading books instead of burning them

 

 

 

You could have presented a few arguments to support the claim, the 79. VGD was destroyed during Wacht am Rhein.

 

I said I did not care.  I'm more interested in this mythology of germans being somehow better than they were, and this whole "german divisions were never destroyed!" mentality that goes with it.  Plenty of Nazi soldiers became good Nazi soldiers face down in the snow, many units participating in the Bulge simply stopped existing outside of desperate bands of men fleeing after burning their vehicles.  

 

I really do not care to look into what happened to one particular band of scum.  I'm just sad any of them escaped to fight another day, because surely both the world and Germany would have been better off had they not.

 

 

 

Aha, the racist hatred of a chauvinist?

 

I'm of largely German ancestry.  My beloved fatherland was turned into a perverse mockery of what it had been before.  All the cultural achievements, all the art, all the beauty, and the good, honorable reputation of the German people was cast down by morons marching with stiff legs and singing "horst wessel lied."  Even today being "proud" of what Germany once was, and has become today requires a denunciation of the 1936-1945 criminal regime and its puppets.  I hate Nazis and their puppets and it makes me sad to think I'll never get to see them pop beneath tank tracks and become best Nazis.

 

 

 

 

But, but your numbers show still lower losses than Alliied losses...
Not bad on the tactical level for a failed operation, isn't it?
As a tactically interested person I can only admire this effectiveness and combat power.

 

This is why, frankly why I think you're an idiot;

 

a. The majority of US and British losses happened when:

   1. Vastly outnumbered and outgunned US units were destroyed in the center of the Bulge.  The US units on hand to receive the original attack were at the lowest level of readiness, either entirely new or virtually depleted, and even then they took a heavy toll of their attackers.  As the Germans forced much larger numbers of armor and artillery into the breach, these units crumbled, being already understrength and overextended.  This is where many of the losses come from, not successful deutchbag combat abilities 1:1 on the battlefield, but after the lines crumbled, US losses spiked as units were overrun, cut off etc.  In places on the shoulders, like St Vith or the approaches to Bastogne where the resistance was better organized it remained fairly lopsided in favor of the defender.

   2. US and British calculations usually include the cost of digging the Deutchbags out of what they had occupied.  To that end an offensive unit will generally take heavier losses.

 

So in "tactical" terms the German performance was at best, nothing special.  They were held up by nearly any resistance for time they did not have, and despite a successful initial attack, were totally unable (to almost incompetent levels!) to exploit this attack in a meaningful way, which allowed the allies to mass on the Nazis, and make them into best Nazis.  

 

 

 

I understand that you try to bring the discussion down by bringing up even German warcrimes to deny their combat power then, because it fits your emotional way to judge things. But I must disappoint you: what deems you fitting as emotionally driven chauvinist is of no significance to me. 

 

Again, look at the places were the Germans and the Americans went force on force, Americans who are not on the run after their unit fell apart under superior numbers/was cut off because of how overextended the US Army was in the opening stages.  It tells a far different tactical story, and shows the myth of German combat performance (just like Mortain, and the autumn fighting in Lorraine showed quite effectively).

 

Re: "Not a module"

 

I'd actually be sort of upset if it was a module vs a separate game.  Winter 1944-Spring 1945 was very much its own set of battles, markedly different from the Summer-Fall fighting in equipment, men and locations.  Bulge was more than just Normandy in white.  

Edited April 2, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[Wiggum15]

I really do not care to look into what happened to one particular band of scum.

Sorry but this comment is just offensive and stupid !

 

The majority of US and British losses happened when

   1. Vastly outnumbered and outgunned US units [...]

The majority of German/Russian/US/British/Japanese losses happened when they were "Vastly outnumbered and outgunned"...

Thats how it works and has nothing to do with being American or German.

 

deutchbag

Is that some kind of insult ?

Whats you problem ?

Sadly i can not downvote your post but you would deserve it.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Wiggum15

[kevinkin]

I never addressed the fate of the 79th VG. I was speaking in much more general terms on why operationally destroyed formations can be re-formed under the same name and with remaining veteran survivors.

"It's not semantic. A rebuilt is nothing that is secret. You do not admit your logical failure that you brought up a newly set up unit like the 6th army as an absurd argument why 79. VGD was destroyed during Wacht am Rhein."

Therefore, please clarify. Thanks.

The new formation could be named anything once re-formed since it existed as the original unit only on paper after destruction and the fortunate few fleeing into the hinterland in a disorganized manner. A division reduced to scattered platoons is not a functioning division any longer.

Kevin

PS: For what it's worth ..

On October 27, 1944, the division was raised again outside the Welle system, this time in West Prussia and now as the 79th Volksgrenadier Division (79. Volks-Grenadier-Division). It had only ten percent combat veterans and was largely made up by absorbing the 586th Volksgrenadier Division (Katzbach). On December 11, 1944, the 79th Volksgrenadier Division was assigned to 7. Armee a reserve force near Bitburg, Germany. Although at half strength, the 79th was to take part in Operation Herbstnebel.

On December 21, 1944, the 79th VG moved towards its assembly area near Diekirch, Luxembourg. On December 24, 1944, the Volksgrenadiers in conjunction with the Führer Grenadier Brigade, launched a series of attacks against the Blue Ridge Division, the 80th Infantry Division (United States). The objective was to seize the town of Heiderscheid, which included a strategic bridge across the Sure River. Both units suffered very heavy losses, particularly when on December 26 most of the 79th VG artillery and FGB armor was destroyed by American fighter bombers. The 79th VG began falling back towards the town of Baunscheid, to hold another strategic bridgehead there; it was unable to hold against the US 80th Infantry Division.