Redwolf
-
Posts
9,471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Redwolf
-
-
As the Allies, I always have M3A1 or M5A1 halftracks for their .50cal, ammo load and squad transport.
The Kangaroos are great for their speed and because they are as thick as a tank. The Stuart Kangaroo can bring a PIAT behind the opponent flank fast enough so that it doesn't get hit often and withstands anything that is not a real AT round.
The U.S. and German mortar carriers suffer from that they need LOS, they cannot use a HQ for spotting like the normal mortars can. Kind of sad, since the targets mortars are best used against bite back and knock out thin vehicles in LOS. The mortar vehicles come with lots of ammo, so I choose one from time to time.
The German halftracks are not overly useful given the all-present .50cal that can penetrate them at long range. The 20mm one is nice in non-tank games and many people like the 75mm, but still they are too fragile for my taste and the environment given.
The 234 is rather expensive and too thin and doesn't match with Greyhound and Daimler Armoured Car in recon situations due to the slow turret.
I don't like the MG-only scout cars (M3A1 and White), rather get the normal halftrack APC or when I need speed a Kangaroo. The M20 can be a halftrack killer, but lacks ammo and doesn't have armoured personal transport, I chose it once and it wasn't good.
The British carriers are nice due to their low silhouette. The normal one can transport mortars and such (not armour protected, though) and still has a MG with some ammo, the MG variant comes with lots of ammo. Question: is the MG modeled to have more firepower? No data given by CMBO, but as I understand, the normal carrier has a bren and the MG carrier has a vickers. Anyone knows if that assumption is correct?
Greyhound and Daimler Armoured Car are capable fighting vehicles, not much they lack from a tank.
I generally stay away from trucks and jeeps/kuebels since they are very slow when away from roads. The German gun tractor can be useful as personal transport or for gun towing in difficult terrain.
The use of Wasp and SdKfz 251/16 should be obvious, although the Wasp is better due to its low carrier silhouette which fits the thin skin.
I never bought an assault boat
Generally I am more happy with the Allied vehicles. The Germans lack a thick APC, all vehicles lack guns that can knock out similar opponent vehicles and they generally don't have as much ammo. On the other hand, they have the HE-heavy 75mm on several vehicles, while the Allied equivalent (M8 HMC) counts as tank and the Puma has the strongest gun of all vehicles.
[ 05-04-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]
-
I second the StuG/StuH remark.
The biggest problem with the 75mm Halftracks is that they are vulnerable to the allied .50cal MG, which you find standalone, on Halftracks and scout cars, secondary arnament on tanks, even on SP guns. Allies also have lots of mortars in infantry companies and mortar carriers. Insofar I think the german halftracks are overpriced, even if they have the same price as Allied halftracks, they are worth less because their battlefield movement is very resticted.
They make sense if you want blast-o-mania, already spent all you tank points and don't want to drive around towing guns.
One remark about buying the small one because the things don't last long enough anyway. If you calculate victory conditions through, you will find that throw-away units of any kind do a lot of damage for the resulting victory level. Flags are not all and the more losses the game has, the less important they become. Survivable units -what exactly that means depends on the player- are a requirement for continuous plays for points (for those who play for points, many do not).
-
I second the request for Panther G and Panther G late. I like Audace's Panther A, but for the others I didn't find anything I really liked. I just want much yellow with some bi or tricolor brown and olive, but not too much. I don't like battered or muddy much, since the environment doesn't match.
There is a new carrier/wasp at the last defense. http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/Mods/Alliedarmorpages/Alliedarmormods.html
-
The 88 can be towed, but you have to embark it during setup and once you disembark it it is immobile. Would fit the rule.
I don't want to be punished for using the 50mm AT gun as it was used historically, by choosing a battery of AT guns as a tank hunter detachment in lack of SP guns. I don't think that towed guns on the offensive are a problem. Anyone who tried the exact spotting rules of CMBO for a moving gun will be convinced that this is far from being exploitable for overly optimized tactics.
-
I'm sceptical about the 3 guns rules as well.
Being able to count opponent's units is one of the worst things that can happen for a supposed to be realistic ladder.
Also, there is a problem that a number of German infantry companies already come with more than 3 guns. These preset infantry forces are a good thing in the CAL sense, IMHO and it would be bad to exclude some of them.
-
The ongoing comments are not encouraging with regards to a fine-graded set of possible rules.
Next try to explain the same things:
- most rules are optional. You can play with whatever you agree on with your opponent, provided it is in the general sense of the CAL rules. The rules that are being discussed here are meant to be in the guidelines, so that people who like to limit tanks don't need to work out the details, but just say "Fioon <something>". People who would like to allow Volksgrenadier, but limit heavy tanks will not heave to exchange a list of tanks, but they point to the set in the guidelines and say "I want *that*". Nothing prevents you from playing with Airborne/Army mix if you agree with your opponents, even when the webpage ends up with the opposite solution of narrowing the omnipotent forces down.
- the German heer has more infantry choice, but in other arms the Allies have choice the Germans don't have.
- If you insist of having many infantry choices and there cannot play anything else than Germans, then TH:CAL is still good for you because the rules will cause many player to be happy with Allied forces.
I also don't see how we can limit forces so that German infantry is as inflexbile as Allied one. We could say, only Panzergrenadiere may be used with heavy tanks and the rest of German Infantry with Marders and the like, but what would you gain from that? It is certainly not a punishment to be forced to play with Panzergrenadiere.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Keith:
Germany should have concentrated on churning out the MKIV, StugIIG, Marder/Hetzer, and the MKV tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are so many counterpoints that I don't know where to start.
Overall, if you didn't include the Panther, that would sound like the Americans approaching a Sherman 75 only force. At what time can you decide "now that is enough, now we concentrate on *this* tank"?
The Marder wasn't a planned vehicle anyway, there was no production, just conversion.
A Panther cost about the same as the Pz IV. The reson for continuous IV production would be that the chassis was needed for other tasks as well (spare parts and other vehicles).
Further producing the StuG IIIG would require keeping the Pz III chassis in production. It would be more rationale to use the Pz IV chassis which would be in production for other reasons. Once you have the IV chassis in the StuG, there is no reason to keep the old StuG superstructure, so you arrive at the Jagdpanzer IV quickly, as outlined in this discussion.
As for heavy tanks, we still don't have sufficient detail about the combat effectivness of heavy tank formations and/or what would happen if the opponents has heavy tanks and you don't. On one hand, ignoring enemy heavies sounds like extremly risky business, but on the other hand, how many times did german heavies meet soviet heavies? I lack even minimal input to form an impression about this question.
[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]
-
Jeff,
Volkssturm doesn't get turret tank anyway, I assume you mean Volksgrenadier. As posted here, we are about to solve that problem by making Volksgrenadier its own virtual force with no high-end tanks. I have to suggest that you read the thread again carefully, it was explained.
There are plenty of allied toys that the German don't have, one thread currently runs on this forum, another one was a few weeks back. I think that under the rules that are being worked out, you will have no problems finding Allied players if you still prefer the German force mix.
And as I understand these rules are not obligatory, they are meant to be a help to come to quick agreements. Agree with your opponent on whatever else is in the meaning of the CAL and the game may count (it is, Abbott, right?), so if you like to play Allied with airborne/army mix, you will still be able to play for CAL.
-
I have just run my foxholes tests with Allied units and no, the British 95mm does not get the extra foxhole clear effect that the German infantry guns seem to have. Grumble...
It seems the effectivness for the allied guns in this test (105mm, 25pdr, 95mm) is quite what the HE blast value implies. The 40mm AA gun is very good in panicing early, but not in breaking. The towed form of a gun seems to be most precise, then the SP form (Priest, Sexton), then the tank (105mm Sherman). The Sherman was noticable less effective in this test. Supression from M8 HMC is noticable lower than for the others and may not be good enough to charge the target without losses.
Another interesting observation, although not surprising, is that the first shot is very important, while the squad in not taking cover. If the first shot is precise, the squad looses men and it is much earier to break it afterwards. If you near miss first, so that they take cover without losses, you can shoot all day without effect. Implications:
- Improved precision of towed gun may be worth it
- Don't give target orders, let the gun/tank choose its own target and
hope it switches to an unsupressed one often
You probably should not read too much out of this test, it is bombing a controlled squad out of its foxhole from one single gun. Under usual circumstances, that is not a cost-effective way of taking a line.
-
Jeff, the key here is probably not to think only in infantry. For the British, it is combining "interesting" units to form a powerful force, just let nobody near your rifle squads. For the U.S. it is lots of HE blast, just how to deliver it best, given the many choices of transport and then take the objective with 12-men squads.
It has been discussed to allow the Allied player mix Airborne and Army to fix the offset, however, I think it is preferrable to narrow down the attractivness of certain German forces, namely to strip Volksgrenadier from high-end tanks.
-
Wreck, I don't really disagree with you and you do exactly what I think is right: you tell your potential opponents which units or tactics you don't like him to take. If you can't agree, there are plenty of other players to play.
I think that the Fionn rules are different from these single-units exclusions because they make the battle as a whole different. Whereas single-unit exclusions are meant to form the same kind of battle, but prevent it from becoming bad. Also, the Fionn rules are too many to agree on for each individual battle, so it is good to have then as a whole in the rules, even when that part is optional.
[ 05-01-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]
-
Mattias, I think some of the details are debatable:
- the original StuG had the short 75mm, so I think it is inprecise to
say that it turned out to be a good tank destroyer. Rather, it was
found that it was easy to make it one.
- most sources I remember say that the 75mm L/70 was the original plan
for the Jagdpanzer IV and the L/48 was only built in when the L/70
did not become available in time. Also see http://www.panser.dk/artikler/id002/stugnadev.htm for StuG and JPz
IV.
-
Comments on various points:
I agree that mortars are very useful in CMBO. It might be that MGs are not powerful enough, but I find mortars to be much more effective for supression. The 2" mortars are quite useless, supression needs two turns of fire and all your ammo and the smoke cloud is barely sight-blocking. However, I just had one kill a PaK43, so YMMV. I generally play British and make sure I get 3" mortars and APCs for them. The 3" mortars knocks out Pz IV and StuG when hit directly and it has enough HE ammunition so that it is usually not a concern.
The slower Cromwells almost have the same acceleration, just the top speed is lower that that of the thinner variants. For mixed movement on non-road ground, the thicker one is usually not much slower.
The HE from the British 95mm tank gun should be more effective against infantry in foxholes than the U.S. 105mm and the 25 pdr in the Sexton. I didn't test this combination so far, but for the German infantry guns versus howitzers it applies, CMBO models either the different shrapnel distribution or the effect of the higher angle. The HC from the 95mm is also better than the one from the 105 (the 25pdr shoots AT).
The British for late months also get 5.5" VT arty, the cheapest VT in the game. Can be useful in defense or ME.
I just began to use the cheap British MG vehicles in an assault. Works great so far, I didn't want to be in my opponents situation having to decide whether to open fire on that "carrier?" marker that might be a Wasp, but that would require having the PaK43 spotted.
I am having problems with the underpowered British rifle squads, however. Even when I am attacking with sufficient superiority, I end up -for the same losses in men- with too many too weak squads compared to an U.S. assault.
-
Jason,
on a related note, I would like to consult you for some force rules regarding the new combained arms league on tournamenthouse, especially for historical equipment of Volksgrenadier and Gebirgsjaeger.
If you are interested, please send mail to redwolf@cons.org.
Other please excuse the off-topic post.
-
Had a late Tiger's Nahverteididungswaffe hit my British flamethrower team when they sneaked up to it on a narrow road in woods.
Quite a different kind of tank combat than long-rang Panther vs. Jumbo
-
People, I don't think that TH:CAL can be about banning specific single units for gamey tactics. That is a can of worms that 20 or more players cannot agree on.
It is up to a player pair to say whether they want to trade exclusion of specific units and/or whether they want to ban certain tactics.
It is an entirely different issue to limit all units like in the Fionn rules or to shape the forces so that all forces are more equal from start (like making VG their own force with tank limits or extent Gebirgsjaeger to have *some* vehicles).
For the SdKfz 7/2 see the thread I recently started, it answers all the questions. And yes, you can kill it, just don't approach it like you would approach a tank.
-
Similar problem ist that knocked out units are always fully identified, even if miles away after shell hit. That allows conclusions about the still alive forces in Quickbattles you shouldn't be able to make.
Not too bad, the issue, however.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:
Tom, are you talking about the Ostwind here or something else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
SdKfz 7/2. The problem is that the unarmoured vehicles is currently (much) harder to kill than the armoured one. See the thread I recently started on the topic.
It is not that bad, however, I just killed one yesterday.
As far as I am concerned, we shouldn't forbit any unit, but restrict excessive combinations like SMG squads with heavy tanks, like I proposed with the virtual Volksgrenadier force.
Or to put it the other way round, I can think of so many single units that will be overly effective when studied intensivly that we will have a hard time keeping up.
Let player pairs agree at the start of single games. Have a standard email blurb that you send to every new opponent with what you won't like to see in a games.
-
Regarding Wasp:
The problem with banning it is that it is the only non-tank Allied flamethrower. If you forbit it, the Axis player has an advantage due to the 251/16. The German player also has lots of other anti-foxhole toys like infantry guns.
If you say "one force only", the only other flamethrower vehicle for the British player is the Churchill Crocodile, which is so expensive that it annoys the British player and so powerful that it annoys the German player.
I think it will be up to a player pair. If the German player wants the Wasp to be banned or not used for buring in advance, just tell the opponent so. You could also agree on a price raise.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't speak for what the Germans did, but the Americans did often attach the independent tank or tank destroyer battalions to infantrty formations. These tank/tank destroyer battalions would often end up as almost semi-permanent units within an infantry divison as they would spend long periods of time fighting along side the infantry. Several authors argued that the American amry would have been better served by simply attaching these aromored units to the infantry formations to allow for better training and coordination in battle. I suppose you could extrapolate the same argument to the Germans as well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The problem the Americans had was that the AT capabilities of the U.S. infantry units was too badly underdeveloped. Remember that at D-day, the Americans still though they could get away with 75mm tank guns (dual-purpose with HE) and 57mm AT guns (defense only). As they quickly pushed the 76mm in tanks, something had to be done with the infantry AT capability as well and since the tanks were reasonably used in frontline tank units, the tank destroyers that were supposed to be concentrated in reserve were strickly demanded by the infantry in lack of any decent AT gun.
The Germany infantry had many sub-standard AT weapons as well, but the relationship to the enemy tanks was not as bad as for the Americans and the Americans probably had a harder time ignoring their infantry commanders.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
One other question, the JagdPanzer IV had sloped armor. Any particular reason this was never incorporated with the StuG III or IV? Too much time to redesign?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Jagdpanzer IV was supposed to be exactly that (with 75mm L/70). However, the StuG III could not be upgraded that way because the chassis was too small. StuG IV was the old StuG III superstructure, because the new superstructure wasn't ready (probably because of the gun chaos) when the chassis was ready.
-
Computer picking would be great, however, the mechanism currently in CMBO is just not good enough. It often gives forces that have barely anything to do with what you selected and often is outright unfair to one side. I also don't see that it is very historical, few homogenous tank platoons, many SP guns in frontline etc.
In a coorporate ladder -like TH:CAL seem to become- it would make more sense to have a trusted third person choose forces and send his selection to both players. Tournament save is not overly useful since you had to do much of the terrain, flag placement and assault/defence difference yourself. The QB mechanism is quite good here, IMHO. So just send an email with: "you will take x, y, z".
This can also be extended so that 80 or 90% of the points are given and you spend the rest yourself so that you can't later
groan "had I just one Marder", but without being able to optimize forces point-wise.
Of course, I offer this service to anyone interested.
[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Adam Lloyd:
Initiative is such a flimsy word I think, used to mean different things by different people.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly my problem with the word, hence I don't use it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Let's instead say the important aspect of tank warfare is choosing the fight. As you say, "the systematic exploration of lowest-risk/highest-prey situation." Now the only way you can do that, is if you have relative freedom and you aren't constantly reacting to enemy moves. Like chess, if the enemy can force you to react to his moves, he can also predict and force situations that are to his advantage.
Is it possible with the forces you describe to maintain the freedom to maintain relative systematic exploration of lowest-risk/highest-prey situations? Absolutely.
You have two Churchills and a Rifle Company, plus the 3 inch mortars. He has a Rifle Company and one PZIV.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You got that backwards, I had the Pz IV, he had the Churchills.
There is no way the Pz IVs can take on the Churchills, and the primary reason is not the 150-mm front armour, but the fast turret. You cannot relibably flank them without getting toasted, especially not with the IVJ. Additionally, showing your Pz IV in reach of the slower advancing force (I was on defense) would open them to 3" mortar fire, which is very dangerous for them.
But they are slow enough (both the Churchills and the mortars) that by avoiding them you still have enough breathing room. Especially if you get infantry AT teams in his back, so that he cannot move the tanks freely. Don't commit the teams, just show up from time to time and run like hell from his infantry.
The rest of your posting is what I would do as well on the attack. In ME and on the defense you will usually get the enemy tank positions with low recon effort. The reaction with usually depend on the kind of tanks and the deployment, but very often I will turn my tanks against some platoon on the flanks or even heavy weapons following in the rear before tangling with his tanks.
The opponents usage of tanks is of course very important here. When a competent opponents is moving his force like a cloud of infantry around a compact tank platoon, I will not go for single attacks, but need one overall plan. Many people, even when buying many tanks tend not to use them as platoons. Then I will go for the isolated tanks first.
In small Quickbattles, however, you meet lots of single or at most pairs of high-value tanks with SP arty in support (often small stuff like M8 hmc or 75mm halftracks). I still think it is not a good idea to go after the high-value tank first, even more so since the chance of a high-value tank falling to my infantry AT teams or other non-tank units is not much worse than for any other tank.
-
Let me express this in more positive words: what units can my opponent choose to annoy me because I don't have a good recipe?
Two M8 hmc instead of one sherman. Extra hours for my tank hunters. Also very nasty when they get sufficient HC charges, which they often don't, so its tempting to attack them head-on. I hate these decisions.
3" mortars: deadly for Pz IV and StuG.
StuG/StuH: cheap enough to come in sufficient number to make trouble. Either dangerous AT gun. Or high-blast howitzer, much better than 25 pdr and the vehicle is much cheaper than 105 Sherman and better protected than Priest.
Sturmkompanie: No more overruns with 12-men U.S. squads :-( IMHO more dangerous than SMG squads.
Infantry guns when I'm in foxholes. Much better effect than overall blast value indicates (CMBO's computation is more complex under the hull). Hummel when I'm in buildings. 150/155 arty when I drive around in thin-skinned SP guns and have lots of mortars around.
76mm U.S. tanks and tank destroyers when they come with enough tungsteen.
Thick Churchills.
Both Crocodiles because then still have a tank main gun to defend themself from my tanks while they mess with my defense.
Fighter-Bomber when I have no flak (ouch).
Allied halftracks with .50cal, especially in low visibility.
Masses of infantry in wooded terrain and/or low visibility, especially when it comes with Panzerfaust 100.
2 Canadian Badger + M3A1 + M8 hmc instead of one Churchill crodocile. Try to stop them before they do damage.
Of course, I would like to invite all my opponents to do exactly this, so that I learn to handle these
-
Abbot and me will discuss this in email. I would like people to wait with criticism until my suggestions are polished enough to pass him. Thanks.
[ 04-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]
Support Vehicles or Not Support Vehicles, That is the question
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
I wonder why people think the M3A1 or M5A1 is not very capable.
The best thing about it is its amount of ammunition, with two MGs and being able to fire 360 degrees. If possible, I make sure that the HT is engaging an isolated opponent infantry detachment, for example around minor flags (if the opponent does this). These halftracks can shoot all day long at 200 meters, where they are not vulnerable to infantry AT. This is very effective, his losses add up quickly and your risk is almost zero.
If he moves one tank to stop the nonsense, I have an isolated tank to go after with all my tanks. If he moves a group of tanks, my tanks start engaging the now stripped from tanks main group of his infantry, while my halftrack just flees, no problem against most German tanks except Panthers and Marders.
Of course, there are good reactions that make my tactic ineffective, but that's just what this game is about
[ 05-05-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]