Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Joachim

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,548

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Joachim

    Question for our German posters

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by Andreas:

    As well as military barracks, e.g. the barracks in Sigmaringen which were named after him in 1961. He is viewed as a hero today.

    All the best

    Andreas

    At least to those who know his name...

    I can't remember coming across a school or street with his name.

    Quick check - there are 50 "Stauffenbergstrasse" on map24.de for Germany. Some of them near "Goerdelerstraße" or "(Geschwister-)Schollstrasse" - so definitely named after him.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Reichsfuhrer's Escort Battalion

    in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk

    Posted

    Try this thread. Note that there are several units with that name.

    http://www.feldgrau.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=16019

    Relevant part:

    "Hello

    Begleit-Btl. Reichsführer SS when with the 19. Armee had aaprox the following OOB according to a report it filed:

    Stab

    -1. Schützenkompanie

    -2. Schützenkompanie

    -3. Schützenkompanie

    - 4. schwere Kompanie (IG-Zug, Gw-Zug)

    - Pz. Jg. Kompanie (Hetzer)

    After Operation Habicht (12.-14.12.44) it had lost 50% of the Schützen-Kpn. 1 Hetzer written off, 1 Hetzer in long term repair, 3 Hetzers in short term repair, 3 Hetzers ready.

    (Source: F.Bruns Unser Ende im Elsass, A, reprint of original report by Begleit Btl Reichsführer SS).

    According to Zuführungsliste Gen.Insp.d.Pz.Truppen, a delivery of 10 Hetzers left HZA on the 2.2.45."

    Googling for "Begleitbataillon" brings up other links, too. Some deal with the different btns with the same name. Seems those existed at different times.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    [ February 04, 2007, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

    0

    German 88mm - what's the point...

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    It has a historical TOE. But if you can't use the 88s as they actually were used and thus can not use the historical tactics, the correct TOE alone does not make it historical - which might be more a limitation of CM than the scen authors fault.

    My exact point is:

    As scenario author I would have chosen a different gun to model fighting with historical 88s. Maybe added a mod pak so that gun looks like an 88.

    Which of course would have provoked outrageous cries of grogs all over the world.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Interesting Site

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    I second Kingfish. Seems like target practice to me.

    If the gun was low velocity, the track guard might have been hit slightly from above. If the hit to the left of the right elbow cut thru the track guard first it should be rather easy (for a projectile) to bend the track guard down. Hit sequence of the three hits on the track guard would be from center to rear. Center cuts it, next one bends it down and the leftmost bends it the most.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    German 88mm - what's the point...

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Which scale are you using when deciding where the gun is shown? It clearly does not work in +4. In a realistic scale, 5m behind the center of the vehicle is about where the gun is shown.

    It still doesn't work in any case. When trying to deploy into scattered trees - drive into the trees to make sure the gun is in them. When trying to deploy into woods make sure the reverse command goes all the way to the edge of the woods.

    When trying to deploy behind a rise - that's the tricky part. 1m can decide whether you have LOS or not and whether you are protected by the rise or sit on top of it. Lots of luck involved. But as you are trying to get a somewhat gamey effect you have to take the risks that come with it.

    Apart from that I would have used some PaK 40 or 7.6® to model 88s as reinforcements as suggested above. Vs Honeys the 88s are overkill and their long distance targetting abilites are not modelled into CM anyway.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Getting German Tanker results

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    On the Carius story - reminds me of Villers Bocage. One of those lucky moments were you catch the enemy with his pants down. If it works, you are the hero, it it doesn't work you were an uninformed over-confident i%$, but most likely dead anyway (Graebner's ride comes to mind)

    If you want an encounter like that in CM, spend a massive prep barrage to get some buttoned and shocked tank crews, then head into the village. CM does not model the outliers and it does not model surprise attacks.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Getting German Tanker results

    in Combat Mission - Tips and Tricks

    Posted

    Or it just ran alone into multiple shooters, e.g. a PaK front, was the last tank moving in a lost battle.

    Nevertheless - that tank doesn't matter. Whether it is 64% or 67% for the one hit wonders is likely less than the sample bias.

    What does matter is the underlying question if the other tanks hit more than once were already ko'ed with the first shot and the following rounds were just trying to ensure TWOs. This could significantly raise the percentage for one hit kills.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Guns vs Armour II

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    On economics:

    Gearing up for total war economy means mass mobilization of workforce. Women were not included into the workforce early on. In 1944 they were.

    If you can use women as workforce when producing "consumer" goods (here: tanks) why weren't they used when building "investments" (tank factories)?

    So I still don't believe the economy was fully mobilized starting 1941 (or earlier)

    On the attrition/maneuver debate:

    You can achieve attrition by maneuver. Attrition wins a war. Maneuverism might win - if you achieve political attrition, i.e. take away the power base. Maneuverism won against Saddam, but it did not win the war in Iraq.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Basis for Victory Points

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    John,

    the formulae need one small correction for a special case.

    In the AAR the added scores are always about 100%. If some flags are neutral, the formulas do not hold.

    Is is not the total amount of victory points ("Total flags") but the total amount of victory points for non-neutral flags. Neutral flags are ignored in the score.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Maneuver and Annihilation Battle

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Cuirassier:

    Thanks for the replies.

    Joachim,

    When using your half-squads 'feint,' did you actually have to engage the enemy with them to fix them in place, or just hold their portion of the front static in cover?

    Also, where did you get that scenario. I can't find it at TSD II or TPG.

    Normally, as you did in your example scenario, I plan how my attack will be launched in the Setup phase. I've played a couple of scenarios though trying the broad front scouting idea followed up by shoving the main body through a weak point. In my tries, I never had much success, because I seem short on time, and the speed my column has to move at means a single holdout shooter that scouts missed can severely slow down my forces.

    Also, if the defense has any depth, I find its difficult to keep momentum with the attack.

    With the broad front approach, I also found there might be a little too much of division of effort. For example, in one scenario, I was given two infantry companies (one would arrive later as a reserve). I decided to spread my initial company out so it could search for a weak point to exploit. However, my half squad scouts, backed by a platoon each for support, all ran into platoon sized positions: there was no weak point in his front. Also, the terrain was tight, and my overwatch weapons were quite light (50mm mortars and HMGs only). So basically, my first company was exchanging off platoon for platoon with the enemy. With an attritionist approach this wouldn't have happened.

    So I'm thinking after Joachim's and MikeyD's comments, in addition to my recent experience, this concept is unworkable in CM, unless conditions are very favorable (lots of time, big reserve, low force to space so there are actually weak points)

    Again, thanks for the input.

    Scenario source: Andreas' "I wish it was der Kessel" page. "http://homepage.mac.com/a.biermann/Scenarios/Menu13.html" You can also find it in sig link.

    One of Cory Runyan's CMBB scen.

    The halfsquads did not engage - they moved towards an enemy half a mile away. I think they never got closer than 400m. Most of them then rejoined in cover as I had already turned the right flank. I'd need Andreas memory to help tell us whether the feint was successful.

    Your conclusions about force to space are correct. But given Jason's post above, I'd rather put it as "force to range ratio". If there is low LOS or you have SMG squads only, a small map might do. With Tigers or Panthers and 2k viz, you need a massive map. E.g. try my CMAK "A big one" scen where I put RCT sized forces on each side on a huge desert map in late '42. A massive strain with 20min calcs for some turns. You need all the space for the tanks while the inf concentrates on the center. Source: IIRC only in some salvaged scen packs from the old TSD. The opposite is any night battle or Andreas foggy "Prime real estate" (if yet available).

    What Jason says about achieving surprise and then exchanging it for dead enemies - well... to me attritionism is achieving favorable kill ratios while maneuverism is avoiding fighting a prepared enemy. So surprise is a key element in maneuverism. But if you trade surprise for dead enemies (aka something lasting) then surprise is attritionist to me.

    But maybe I just don't care about the maneuverism vs attritionism debate, take the best of both and fail to correctly identify the borders between both theories :D

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Guns vs Armour II

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Some people might think they drew an optimistic scenario, a pessimistic scenario and the expected scenario, but found themselves with only two scens in the end...

    But whatever they did, their expected scen was too far towards the optimistic scen. If you put all at stake, you better pay your insurance fee (aka pay the cost for full mobilization of the industry).

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Maneuver and Annihilation Battle

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    There are no rear areas, no supplies or comms lines in CM and the enemy HQ is out of reach for the Pixeltruppen. So what should a maneuverist aim for?

    My background regarding M&A:

    Vs the AI I am deeply maneuverist - cause it is the best thing to annihilate the stupid AI troops running for the lone lost flag. (Yes, gamey... but not vs +100% bonus)

    Vs humans I am an attritionist. The AARs usually rank losses over flags and an attrited opponent has no units to hold flags. Maneuver is to reduce the slaughter on my side.

    I don't think maneuverist and attritionist exclude each other.

    IMHO CM is not well suited for maneuver at all. Most battles are too small regarding space and time. If you have to advance 1k in 25 turns there is no time for maneuver.

    Annihilation was achieved when troops were forced out into the open - either to prevent an encirclement, trying to break an encirclement or surrendering. Next best thing in CM is when a forward plt tries to make it back to avoid getting overrun by superior firepower or tanks. But that does not happen with a static defender in CM - or a small map.

    In a btn sized inf only attack ("South of Kharkov", several square km, a big wood as Soviet centerposition with open ground elsewehre.) I set up with a Schwerpunkt on the right flank and a "pinning" force on the left that tried to look bigger than it was (halfsquads). I did not want to face Andreas whole btn where I would enter the forest... across 100+m of open ground.

    I broke thru as I had more firepower on my Schwerpunkt. The StuKas killed one of his FOs while he overlooked the 2nd :D plus they killed one plt on each side. I replaced it, he preferred not to reinforce his flank as I had MGs set up to deny some areas. Despite lots of open ground I easily broke thru on the weakened flank, moved my reserves in - including a lateral shift of forces and then turned his flank.

    I don't think this was very maneuverist but it gave me quantitative odds in almost every firefight while I had only qualitative odds overall (vet btn vs conscripts). Fighting conscripts helped a lot.

    In smaller battles it depends on the terrain. Given the usual attacker odds in CM, you can't expect to have odds everywhere plus some reserves.

    If parallel movement is possible and does not take much time, it is possible to have a broad front and concentrate once a weak spot is found.

    In some terrain you need reinforcements up very quickly or all of your heavy weapons concentrated to deny movement of the defender around your Schwerpunkt - just to prevent an ambush killing your men and getting away. Then you can't use broad front if you can't support your whole front.

    The scouting force depends on the force size. A company can't scout with a plt. In the above example I had halfsquads scouting for plts, plts scouting for their sector and heavy weapons covering the scouts when moving across open ground. Once in the woods, I used 2-3 up and 1-2 back and tried to achieve a broad front. Not much cover differential in the woods so scouting ain't that important (except for minefields). It's find-fix-destroy. If you can't fix, finding is expensive. It is not important how brittle the scouts are - it is important that their backup can spot and fix what is shooting at them. IMHO the morale bonus for squads vs halfsqauds is not worth the cost. I prefer having the 2nd hald being able to take the heat off the scouts. Either by support fire or by going forward and drawing fire.

    The plan was made before I started, including Schwerpunkt and the "feint", but I could have shifted the attack (I had 120 turns) if I had encountered massive resistance.

    Inf only forces can advance, even across the open - depending on how packed the map is. In dense terrain inf rules anyway.

    Advancing vs an MG? See JasonC's posts on the topic. But you need firepower and/or odds if you want to do it quickly. If you don't have the firepower to silence the MG quickly, go around it.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0

    Guns vs Armour II

    in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps

    Posted

    Originally posted by pamak1970:

    I will not look at Korean war which was certainly not a total war .

    Regarding the kill ratios of Germans and their ability to win an attrition strategy i will disagree.

    First of all the kill ratios that they acheived was a result of their "bold agressive" attitude going for the "cheap win" as you put it.

    Can't see why they should use a strategy which produces worse ratios when they have more assets. After all the early elements of Blitzkrieg - going for HQs first to disrupt the enemy and then take out the leaderless troops - were successfully tested in late WW I. The bold aggressive attitude was not an attitude but the knowledge that only bold aggressive plans break the stalemate of trench warfare.

    Second their quality superiority that permitted them to be more efficient could not be retained to such levels if they were going to employ a bigger army going for attrition.

    The German army cause of the restrictive treates after wwi had trained a much smaller group of proffessional officers and it was a part of this group that permited them to employ a doctrine and gain advantage in battlefield.

    The Germans ignored that treaty after '33. In '35 they moved troops into a demilitarized zone openly ignoring that treaty. That is at least 4 years to train a bigger army. I doubt those 100,000 troops allowed in the Versailles treaty do matter much in the overall quality of an army of 5 or 10 millions.

    If they were going for the attrition strategy then they had to trade quality with quantity and it is wrong to assume that under these conditions they would acheive similar kill ratios .

    If they were not risking carelessly as you say for the "cheap victory" which you do not accept as a realistic expectation and instead they were following your advice, they would be much less efficient.

    If they were not building superior equipment and focused on less sophisticated ones in larger quantitites ,they would not have the kill ratios they had historically.

    "Your men don't belong to you but to the Führer." (Some German Army handbook) This does not sound like an order allowing to carelessly risk soldier's lifes.

    Contrary to your opinion, having more soldiers would have resulted in less need for urgent replacements and more time to train replacements. The heavy losses of the late war were due to badly trained personnel. And it mostly was not the vets dying - it was the inexperienced noobs.

    "Badly trained" means less than 6 months. 6 months for all German males under age 45 can easily be achieved in 4 years - if you are ready to pay the economic cost.

    Germany ws oupowered by Russians more than 2 to one .The Soviets had about 165 millions compared to 65 millions of Germans ,so their potentials were much greater and it is pure speculation to beleive that germans could start a massive program of expanding their army before invading Soviets ,while the latter would sit idle watching them.

    a) I thought it was 80 vs 135 millions.

    B) The Soviets were not idle - they already had a low output for consumer goods and could not decrease production of consumer goods in favor of military goods like the Germans could (but didn't until too late)

    As to the industrial production , the potential ability of each country is limited by the weakest link.

    No. Economic theory says (almost) all goods can be substituted - at a cost. Just like the Germans did. Not enough rubber available? Use something else to make tires. No crude oil? Use coal.

    The Germans had always to be carefull in oil consumsion and that is for feeding an army and equipment much smaller than the one you propose.

    I wonder what would have been the situation if they were producing an armor or truck fleet double the size of the one they had historically,going for the attrition strategy you propose.

    The moves of an army are not proportional to its size. No need to wildly shift armored divisions as fire brigades when you have twice the number.

    Much better rear area security means less loss during transport.

    Attritionist and Maneuvrist do not exclude each other. Maneuvrist operations can result in strategic attrition - see the early successes of Germany.

    Gruß

    Joachim

    0
×
×
  • Create New...