dieseltaylor

"However, it seems to me a particularly poor way to approach the problem. You eat the elephant by taking it one bite at a time, not by ignoring it and starting on desert." Gobi anyone?

I am curious why the observations of the Germans on the receiving end have not been dissected by ME and JC. I can fully understand the cost free benefit for the Allied ground forces.I have no problem with the ineffectiveness of the TAC against tanks. Particularly in view of the tests carried out in a sister thread on the potency of flak in CMAK and CMBB which showed that if reasonable flak was present TAC was ineffective over the immediate battlefield. However we do know that the Germans loathed and suffered from the attentions of TAC but we apparently are prepared to take average figures for 5 years of warfare to establish how it felt to be under the cosh in Normandy. Is there much from the Germans in the way of saying it was ineffective and they did not mind it whilst engaged in a battle? I have not come across anything but then my grogginess is not hugely deep. As has been raised before averaging out can really distort but I am happy if we can reconcile to a degree the recorded feelings of the Germans to the average effectiveness as postulated. It is amusing to think that Wittman in Normandy, if gamed by the averaging crowd, would have been seen as showing a flaw in the rules. But it did happen in RL despite averages and everything else so perhaps we should accept that on the very small areas we fight on, and the extreme reluctance of anyone to retreat off-board, then bloody battles will occur far more than normal life and of course will be above average in losses also.

Nice one Jace : )

jtcm ! : ) you really strike lucky with your opponents

As there is every likelihood that most people will not find this gem of research by JPS buried in the very dense thread on Junkers87Gs I thought it would be sensible to put it on the shorter more CM related thread quote:Originally posted by JPS: Hmm, interesting thread. I decided to run CMBB experiment, July 43, midday, good weather, pretty open farmland. All troops regular. Large map (for attacking scenario, 3000 pts). 15 JU87G attacking 15 T-34M43 (also 10 BA-64B and some infantry, but those were never targeted by the planes). In first trial, defender had 5 25mm AA and 5 37mm AA (290 pts value). In second trial, only the 5 25mm AA. Results: Overall impression - the Stukas hit their targets often! However, ... In first trial, 11 aircraft destroyed (2 for 25mm, 9 for 37mm), 1 T-35 abandoned, one immobile, 2 men lost. In second trial, 1 aircraft destroyed, 1 T-35 abandoned, 2 immobile, no personel casualties. Conclusion gamewise - Ju87G is waste of points if opponent is expected to have any T-35s. However, what would be a historically reasonable level of AA guns? One per tank platoon? More? Less? How were these distributed/deployed, e.g., in the initial Soviet defensive stages of Kursk? " Bigduke6 then comments on the AA force.

Undead Curiosity of mine. No flak!!! In your game what type of tanks were "killed". How many of the tanks were burnt out?

OOps just forgot. Two friends of mine were playing late war and 6 JS2 crack had taken out 5 Tigers. All the Germans had left was a green Tiger - took out the lot of them! Statistics Hah!

I do not see it as gamey as in real life the commander - assuming he is not conscript would have a good idea as to potential. Or possibly he believes still what he was told in training : ) Who knows it, is only a game. I do not believe that I have done it but I do not have any problems with what you wish to do. The fact I am too lazy to do it is another matter. As Kingfish said there are so many variables in play that I would never bet on any test result happening for sure when translated to the game. You may however find that 9 out of 10 you die in which case I would tend to believe it. If you like you can share the information with the opponent - particularly if you play flipped engagements - thats very fair : ) Number One Rule: Bottom line its a game you and your opponent play for enjoyment and so you should do what you want. Number Two Rule: Never cheat your opponent by opening scenarios, loading maps etc as that only cheapens you and may make the game so unpleasant for your opponent that he never plays you again.

I'm not so sure thats right ......

Lord Peter "Pilot claims: 28 Tigers destroyed. [big Grin]" : )

Naval history net says October 1942 "In the build-up to the battle, Royal Navy submarines and RAF aircraft, especially those based in Malta, are sinking more than a third of Axis supplies setting out for North Africa. As the offensive gets underway, the Inshore Squadron continues to support and supply Eighth Army along its right, seaward flank." This really does not seem to jibe with the huge graph posted above. I am bemused.

Would losing in Crete have made the Germans keener to involve themselves in Africa? I suspect it was a totally political decision to save Italy "honour" but then if they had received a good kicking in Crete perhaps a lot of the war would have changed. Incidentally "German airborne doctrine was based on parachuting in a small number of forces directly on top of enemy airfields. This force would capture the perimeter and any local anti-aircraft guns, allowing a much larger force to land by glider. Freyberg was aware of this after studying German actions of the past year, and decided to render the airfields unusable for landing. However, he was countermanded by the Middle East Command in Alexandria. They felt the invasion was doomed to fail now that they knew about it, and possibly wanted to keep the airfields intact for the RAF's return once the island was secure. This may have been a fatal error." oops!

Anyone in the UK got a Paypal account so I can send money to CMMODS. I will of course send you/your account the money and whatever charge there is first!

And if you don't pay up soon the puppy gets it : )

I am enjoying it. It is intersting to see someones analysis of warfare/effectiveness subjected to scrutiny. Especially when I am unable to argue with the big boys as statistically I would call myself pig ignorant. However I have during my life seen people disappear off planet earth with theories that hang together provided you do not subject them to reality comparisons. Anyway it was still a great clip to watch : )

John I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. If it had failed the use of partroops may have been curtailed - the Germans as they had wiped theirs out and other folk 'cos it would look a higher risk option. Of course we would have lost more ships trying to keep the worlds largest voluntary POW camp in operation. Obvious really. : ) The cock-up theory of warfare strikes again. A man of youe calibre will no doubt provide a summation of the political repercussions of the defeat. An interesting what if.

JasonC My theory of war is not that disimilar to yours in that vast amounts of logistics occur to put numbers of men opposite each other, hopefully equally well armed, to sit there holding each other in check whilst someone somewhere works on a cunning plan to win the war. This normally involves getting a lot of men killed at a particular point. The average expectancy of survival for everything here diminishes drastically. I was mulling over Taranto as being 21 planes creating a major war effect for relatively little effort. Of course it should not have worked and they were probably flying one of the most obscelent planes around but at the time thay did it it created a major effect. Of course if they had sunk the ships 4 years later the war average for Swordfish strikes would have been the same but the strategic effect not nearly as important. Makes you ponder. The German paradrop on Crete if Maleme had not been taken and held. Alter the course of the war? Majorly I say.

Hey I am only member 4024 I could have missed a few things myself !

So there we have it then. Those who wish to average a weapons effectiveness over the length of a war against those who measure its effectiveness on what it did when it was in action. If we look at time and the Matilda Queen of the Desert we would say pretty useful. Let us assume that we built thousands but when we came to invade mainland Europe the basic German tank was the Panther..... The result is self-evident but I am curious what happens to all these ineffective and obsolescent tanks. Are they included in these large figures quoted or is there some mechanism where only tanks actively in the front line count towards the figures. And of course active in the front line but mean excluding the second rate armour in Yugoslavia, or in Norway and Denmark where it is relegated to airfield security. Technically a tank but its survival or destruction is irrelevant other than it provides " averages" for alll Axis tanks?

Sergei. Not every member of the forum can be expected to know about people who have been banned and re-surface every now and then under a different name. Your remark is less then helpful to Baneman.

John S said "Right, but given all that, CM planes never seem to then miss. Which is, of course, what these two threads have been all about. " As it was because of this remark I did the trials that I posted elsewhere I will copy the results here for those who may not read the "Does flak work" thread. I thought it interesting enough in its own right and thought many readers might give up before reaching it if posted solely here. "Italy, September 1944 midday, fine, cool, moderate trees, gentle slopes, medium map For the Germans: platoons of Stugs, Tigers and Hummels one gun, no flak. For the US two Mustangs with bombs 868 points Result: 1 gun damaged Tiger, three bailed Hummels – I neglected to make the distinction between abandoned and knocked until a later stage. I then added two 20mm flak ,which is a little light in my book for the points involved. Result: Three bailed Hummels, one killed flak, one killed gun [ – too near the flak!] Interesting as the flak was taken out first cutting the AA fire. Also the only Hummel under a hide order in the open was the last one attacked – three times and lost a crew man – they did not bail. Ran the test again. No near misses. 1 knocked out Hummel – ablaze. And one bailed Hummel. It was amusing to see the plane again attack the bailed Hummel presumably going for a kill. Third Test: Tiger bomb bracketed by both fighters so crew was shaken twice. Two Hummels crew bailed with 3 casualties each time. The one parked in the open was attacked last again three times and was abandoned by the crew on the second pass. New map, same parameters but now a quad 20mm and a 37mm flak. Quite gratifying as all the bombs missed and the strafing attacks were abortive. I was pleased to note that both planes had been shot down in the results. However I got no man casualties BF please fix or something!!!! From this I deduce that the game results approach real life provided you actually provide reasonable flak cover. All purchase for the Germans were about 2000 so a flak spend of 40pts is not overly generous whereas a hundred points was lethal. : ) Note that there might be mileage in RL for the crew to remount their Hummels and ride out of the battle area. Only one was destroyed on the battlefield so if one were to make an analysis of the battlefields it would reveal for sure one burnt out Hummel for 10 sorties, two dead aircraft. Of course the Germans would know about seven Hummels who never got to fight : ) These possibly might have taken engine and track damage but given the crew casualties and the shape of the vehicle shooting into the gun compartment has to be a big favourite. It was noticeable that the approach by the aircraft was mainly from the rear of the Hummels." I hope this bears out my view that adequate flak makes a hell of a difference to FB effectiveness in CM.

Pocketrocket Two wins for the offense then : ). I would believe that normally but you are playing on a small map and that is very dense point wise. My money stays with the attack!! I have played a dozen CMAK assaults over the last 9 months all to the same parameters [1500] though and I would be fairly confident the attack should win in 45 turns. However if you have unrestricted force choice it could be more amusing and closer. Incidentally I find the 75mm bunker little underpowered as the rate of fire seems quite slow and the shell effect is not huge. Oh and do tests on how many vehicles can drive through a mine hex without damage - thats fun. : )

When I see people talking about averages I get very nervous. I can assure everyone that the climate in a year in the Sahara is a pleasant 75F 23C? on average. Of course at midday it is over 100F and at night it drops to freezing but the average is true. Now of course you may say that most activity takes place in daylight and therefore my mathematical average is bogus in relation to human activity. If we average anything over a selected time we can reach a figure more or less favourable to a proposition. To the 10-20 German tanks nailed by air-power at Mortain the time period of a day gives an impressive average. Now the other interesting point is proximity. If you can only exert force at a particular point and your enemy has the ability to project power by artillery, fighter bombers speedily to where you attack these together with the ground forces defeat your local ground superiority. So for all the talk of life-time averages the ability to apply power to a point is actually rather important and seems to be excluded when talking of the value of a weapons system. As someone wisely posted the value of a platoon on the beachhead outweighed a division in Calais and that surely is the point. As Pamak1970 has pointed out the load-out on a tank was that number for a reason. So to re-phrase it to average speak the tank carried enough ammo for to be effective in an encounter. Getting sufficient advantage in a sector to make a costly attack is a function of mobility, resources, and time. The rest of the front can be ticking over with desultory artillery fire, recon raids etc. When the big attack goes in those resources doing little are going to provide a huge averaging effect to the big battle where lots of serious ground taking/killing is taking place. So there you are folks averages are fun but you choose your time frame and it makes everything look different. So on average in 1939-1940 Stuka's rule : ) BTW the other big point surely is taking systems in isolation to discuss their effectiveness vis-a-vis the enemy system is positively perverse as it is the mix of systems you deploy that provides an army's effectiveness. And that effectiveness is a function of terrain, climate, and what time span you are looking at. I despite the talk of the individual being subordinate to the macro picture I suppose rather romantically think that Hitler and Churchill had some importance in the war,the commander at Anzio, the code breakers, the putting of the Merlin in the Mustang. I am sure you grogs can think of many instances where big decisions, and little acts of thought or heroism, had quite a large impact on the wars progress.

Pzman I feel that as the war progresses the planes tougher and the pilots bolder so you need something chunkier than early war. The 37mm though the rate of fire is only 120 vs. the 220 p.m of the 20mm does have an explosive charge so is very good at putting pilots off. : )

On another thread it has become apparent that some players were unhappy with the potency of aircraft in CM. Suggesting that an armour kill was virtually guaranteed per aircraft. As my experience had always been to the contrary I thought a few tests would be in order: Italy, September 1944 midday, fine, cool, moderate trees, gentle slopes, medium map For the Germans: platoons of Stugs, Tigers and Hummels one gun, no flak. For the US two Mustangs with bombs 868 points Result: 1 gun damaged Tiger, three bailed Hummels – I neglected to make the distinction between abandoned and knocked until a later stage. I then added two 20mm flak ,which is a little light in my book for the points involved. Result: Three bailed Hummels, one killed flak, one killed gun [ – too near the flak!] Interesting as the flak was taken out first cutting the AA fire. Also the only Hummel under a hide order in the open was the last one attacked – three times and lost a crew man – they did not bail. Ran the test again. No near misses. 1 knocked out Hummel – ablaze. And one bailed Hummel. It was amusing to see the plane again attack the bailed Hummel presumably going for a kill. Third Test: Tiger bomb bracketed by both fighters so crew was shaken twice. Two Hummels crew bailed with 3 casualties each time. The one parked in the open was attacked last again three times and was abandoned by the crew on the second pass. New map, same parameters but now a quad 20mm and a 37mm flak. Quite gratifying as all the bombs missed and the strafing attacks were abortive. I was pleased to note that both planes had been shot down in the results. However I got no man casualties BF please fix or something!!!! From this I deduce that the game results approach real life provided you actually provide reasonable flak cover. All purchase for the Germans were about 2000 so a flak spend of 40pts is not overly generous whereas a hundred points was lethal. : ) Note that there might be mileage in RL for the crew to remount their Hummels and ride out of the battle area. Only one was destroyed on the battlefield so if one were to make an analysis of the battlefields it would reveal for sure one burnt out Hummel for 10 sorties, two dead aircraft. Of course the Germans would know about seven Hummels who never got to fight : ) These possibly might have taken engine and track damage but given the crew casualties and the shape of the vehicle shooting into the gun compartment has to be a big favourite. It was noticeable that the approach by the aircraft was mainly from the rear of the Hummels. I have to own up that I have never bothered to be in an AA position with aircraft about - I never play at that level. It was beautiful to watch as it fired to lead the Mustang. Just a great little bit to the game.