Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
Ok, I didn't see he was talking just Normandy.
But, really, why just Normandy? If you're trying to gauge overall combat effectiveness why only talk about a small part of the war in the ETO? The terrain in Normandy was a defender's wet dream.
If I took stats from just the Ardenes Offensive I bet the Germans would come out looking rather poor. That doesn't tell you much about the bigger picture, which is what I thought this thread was about, not any one battle or campaign.
In short, his conclusions are way too simplistic to be taken seriously. Not that what he says is totally wrong, just that he doesn't seem to take all factors into account, and it is of questionable relevance to this thread due to the limited scope, and the fact that he obviously isn't using the Dupuy formula.
[ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Conclusion 4: The number of deployed troops of the Germans was around 600.000 and the Allied numbered 2.052.299. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What a bunch of nonsense. The Germans deployed a grand total of 600,000 troops in the ETO?! IIRC it was several times that many.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
Well we’re all sharing numbers here, what German numbers are you referring to that so grossly exaggerate what has already come to light on this thread<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My comment was in reference to a post Kip made in a different thread. I'll cut and paste here:
I see you mention the Dupuy formulas.
I am a huge fan of his analysis...
...However, when it comes to the Eastern Front, although his formulas still hold in every detail, it must be remembered that the “data” he entered into his formulas was almost completely wrong, with regard to the Soviets.
By this I mean that in order to use his formulas one has to “know” the force ratio, the size of the Soviet forces relative to the Germans, and, the causalities suffered by the Soviets. In the 1970s and 1980s the only people who knew the true size of Soviet forces, and even more so, their true causalities were the Russians, and they were not telling. Now we know both.
As it turns out Soviet forces were far smaller than was believed in the 1980s; also their causalities were far less. The Germans were simply not killing as many Soviets, post Kursk, as had been believed.
The average force ratio during the period July 43 to March 45, Soviet to German, was only 2.7:1. Not the 4-5:1 as had been believed. Also the causalities ratio over that period, Soviet to German, was only 1.64:1, not 2-3:1 as had been believed. (Remember these figures exclude the round-up of April-May 45.)
To cut a very long story short if you run the Dupuy formulas, using the new data, you get a combat effectiveness figure for the Germans against the Soviets, during the period given above, of 1.15, not the 1.8-2 or 3 given in Dupuy’s books.
This is no criticism of Dupuy; the figures were just not available in his day.
The conclusion is that the Soviets were very nearly as good as a Germans, battalion combat team V battalion combat team, post Kursk. Note that is “post Kursk” not at Kursk. At Kursk the Soviets really fought in the “old” style for the last time.
All the best,
Kip.
I wish I could give you the exact numbers, but Kip did not state where he got the numbers he used for his above figures. If he comes back to this thread hopefully he can shed some more light.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Again that’s exactly the point, the numbers don’t make the Red Army’s performance look any better or any worse than it looked 50 years ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously, there does not seem to be universal agreement on this. I'm not in a position to judge who is right or wrong, as I don't know what raw numbers Kip used.
-
Holy cow, we've had a Slapdragon sighting!
I seem to recall Maximus saying a while back that his 1.3 Ghz Athlon chugs a bit on the biggest CMBO maps, so it's possible to tax even the fastest comps with CM1 if you add enough hi-res stuff.
I have a 500 Mhz PIII with 256 RAM and a 32 mb GeForce and I'm not worried about CM2 running on it "stock".
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:
I thought it quite interesting regarding Kips earlier comment on the Depuy Institute, and the implication that only post 1995 data is of value. Berlin wall and all…no need to delve into opening of Soviet Archives please. I just thought it an odd comment. Disregard all history pre-1995. Even post 1995 Russian Historians can't seem to agree on actual casualty statistics for the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I very seriously doubt that Kip meant to imply that anything written before 1995 or written by Germans is no longer valid. I think he simply meant that before then we were mostly relying on German estimates of Soviet strengths and losses and now we have the numbers from the sourse. Unless you think the Germans knew how many men the Soviets had and lost better than the Soviets.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They'll loose themselves for 10 years in Russian Military Archives and then come to the conclusion that German statistics on the war were not so far off after all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not sure who these historians are, but it would appear from what I have seen that the Soviet numbers really do not match up with the German. I don't see any justification for dismissing the new numbers. If they make the Soviets look better than we had believed them to be for the past 50 years, so what?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barticus:
Well, I am sure to get corrected if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Germans EVER made tungsten rounds for any '88, they didn't NEED to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
According to a book I have (The Tiger Tank by Roger Ford) they did indeed make some tungsten cored Pzgr.40 for the 88L56.
"The tungsten-cored Pzgr.40 rounds were always in very short supply, and when they were issued - at the rate of between four and six to a tank - they were supposed to be held in reserve for particularly difficult targets."
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maastrictian:
I would argue that my points are relevant to the whole war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not suggesting they are irrelevant in the West, just not as relevant. I agree with your reasoning on the causes of the difference, but I'm not sure I see why that matters. It seems to me the fact of the difference is all that the Dupuy formula is capable of considering anyway, as it was never designed to model stuff at the strategic level (if I understand Kip correctly).
Which brings me to the thought that the original point has been lost here somehow. I was rather under the impression that Tero and I were only discussing POWs taken at the tactical or perhaps operational level. That's why we were talking about the relative value of cooks and typists
When you start talking about whole divisions and armies surrendering, those sorts of distinctions become irrelevant. If I did not make that clear, I apologize. Obviously, if an army of 300,000 surrenders for lack of supply, you would be nuts to include those numbers in the formula as it was never intended to model anything on that scale. Kip seemed to be aware of this and I trust he took that into consideration.
I'm not sure how I ended up defending Dupuy in the first place as Kip seems to be the only guy around here who really understands the formula. It should be his job
All I wanted to do was dispute the notion that POWs taken at the tactical level were somehow less important than KIA when determining tactical level combat efficiency. If I implied anything beyond that, it was not my intention.
-
Chris, those are some good points and I agree with them mostly. I do suspect they would be more relevant to the East front than the West as that Theater seemed to see far more mass surrenderings than the West, at least up until the last few months of the war.
Triumvir:
If you were to talk about WWI or WW2 minus the SS then that may well be, but I have a hard time believing anyone could make such a claim with any degree of certainty as there are no reliable numbers on such things AFAIK. My comments were on the SS only. It isn't very important as I could have had the US shoot the prisoners in my example instead of the Germans and it would not change the underlying dynamics.
-
I can't believe you actually said that about the SS. "Tough, opinionated bastards"? You make then sound like the Dirty Dozen or the A-Team. I think I begin to see how your opinion of the German army is so... positive. Not really relevant to this discussion but enlightening nonetheless.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is totally dependant on the timeframe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. And we are using 2001 numbers here, not 1944.
As I stated, all current MIA can be considered KIA for our purposes here, regardless of their official legal status. Or do you think Germany is still holding some POWs? I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In your example these laws do have everything to do with it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whether someone is killed in accordance with the Geneva Convention or not has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. He is just as dead either way. It's not like he gets to be resurrected and rejoin his unit if the other side "broke the rules". Your hang-ups on strict legal definitions baffle me.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not really. In combat an experienced typist is as valuable as an experienced gunner ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Typists can be KIA just as easily as POW. When rear areas were threatened typists and cooks tended to grab a gun and become soldiers.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By bypassing the strong points. They left the defenders alone and force them to widraw by making their strategic situation unbearable. How does that diminish their short term (tactical) combat effectiness ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If they bypassed the strong points that is a tactical failing on the defender's part. There is more to tactical combat effectiveness than shooting straight. Proper recon and manouever are just as important.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not as good as the history book lead on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which book? There are so many...
Bias is not something unique to Anglo-Saxons. If you think non Anglo-Saxon historians are any less prone to bias, that shows a degree of bias in yourself. Unless you can prove it.
And BTW, most of the people I have come across who buy into the Uber German myth have been Americans. Sad, but true.
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
You are propagandizing the story to provoke emotional responses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Who's propagandizing here? Of course stuff like this was done by all sides to some extent or another, but if you actually think the SS were no more likely to shoot prisoners than the Americans, I'm afraid there is little more I can say to you.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, as you well know that 50km gap between the two places does not fit inside the CM scope.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have no idea what this has to do with anything. It could be any number. The distance is irrelavent.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They performed better in combat if they inflicted more combat casualties. which they did not in your example, unless they inflicted more KIA and WIA on the American troops they were fighting in addition to those 10 MIA.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
? If bodies are found, they are counted as KIA, not MIA. I think there are not many US servicemen still listed as MIA from the ETO. Those who are can be reasonably assumed to be KIA. So the whole MIA thing is a red herring.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> your example what they did not do was act according to the laws of war. Lets keep that one a separate subject.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "laws of war" have nothing to do with it. At the end of the day, who is still on the front lines ready to fight and who is not is all that matters for our purposes.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please give some reasoning for your figure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Everything I have said is reasoning for my figure.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Deep penetration attack to capture a vital bridge for example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And just how did they get so deep in the first place? Think about it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Nor were the Western Allies as good as you'd like to believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How good do you think I think they were? For the record, I think they were about as good as Kip's Dupuy numbers suggest. Last I looked, Kip was not a Western historian. Dupuy might qualify as such, but you seem to accept him.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
When it comes to tactical effectiveness they are irrelevant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wrong.
An American company surrounds a German 10 man platoon and the Germans surrender. The Americans lose 5 men in the action. 50 km away, a German SS company surrounds an American 10 man platoon. The Americans surrender, and are executed soon after. The Germans also lose 5 men in the action. The American loses are counted as KIA, the German as POW. This sort of thing did happen quite a lot, Geneva Convention be damned. If your Eastern Historians say otherwise, they are not as accurate as you think.
Both companies won their respective tactical engagements, but under your logic, the German company performed better in combat than the American. Hmm...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How many KIA would you say equals ,lets say, 1 000 POW's ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1000
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The POW's captured might be rear echelon troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The KIAs might be rear echelon troops as well. If the front line troops are still alive and kicking how is it the rear echelon guys are getting captured anyway?
Sorry, Tero. Any way you slice it, the Germans just weren't as good as you'ld like to believe.
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I know the answer to your #3 is "yes". I think #2 is yes also, but don't quote me. I have no idea on the rest.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
>Vanir, where did you read this?
Sounds like the standard FLAK they (the more devout groupies) throw out when someone dares to question BTS designs desicions. Perhaps he is also running out of valid arguments.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hope you like the taste of crow, Tero. You're about to eat a big helping.
A few select quotes:
As for the Med. Theater being boring, I would counter that the PTO is far more boring Just saw another show last night that only reinforced my opinion of the warfare in the PTO from about 1942 on. The bulk was static, suicidal combat with the Japanese being totally overmatched. One of the battles they mentioned the US killed 107,000 Japanese for a total of 7,000 friendly losses. And the US were on the offensive!!! The battle included flamethrowing galore, 100ft deep bunkers (which weren't entered, just blown up), bonsai charges, starving out the enemy, etc. Oh boy, sounds really interesting I can hardly keep my eyes open...
...Bullethead, every time I have tried to get into PTO land warfare I just have to put the book down and never pick it up again. So much so that I can't even remember the last time I tried to read anything about the PTO...
...PTO is not currently on our list. If it were, it would be about 4 years out. It absolutely will not come before any of the other three games currently planned.
Steve
I'd rather be a groupie than a fool
[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero:
I still wonder how they are going to model the Japanese.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's easy. They aren't. BTS has made it clear they have little personal interest in the Pacific Theater and have no plans to make a Pacific Theater game.
-
Freak, go easy on yourself there. You did nothing wrong.
I really don't care if BTS wants to include the IS-3 as long as it's modeled properly. Lots of WW2 wargames have it. Hell, they can throw in a T-54 for all I care
I was mostly just trying to use it as leverage to get the Panther F in as well, as I suspect John was also (he's been lobbying for it for a long while now 
)Tero:
I think you can forget convincing BTS to include any sort of nationality traits or modifiers. There was quite a bit of debate on this a while back and they seemed pretty adament against the whole concept.
I'm still wondering about the shapes of QB maps. I'm thinking it would just be best to allow the game creator more custom contol over size and shape. If someone wants to play a 1000 pt game on a 3000m x 3000m square map, why not let them? Maybe allow them to pick the number and type of VLs as well.
I'm also wondering if they'll change the QB creation process so that the 2nd computer generates the map, so as to eliminate the map peek cheat.
Yeah I play lots of QBs.
[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
A few quick notes I just thought of:
The above advice on tanks assumes no restrictions on purchases. If you are playing under Fionn's Short 75 Rule Shermans are your best bet and all you really need.
2-3 tanks per company is a bit armor heavy for my taste. The exact number of tanks will vary depending upon how expensive the models you buy, but I almost never spend more than 25% of my total points on armor. 20-25% is the norm for me which usually works out to about 1.5 tanks per company. This doesn't mean tank heavy is bad, it's just not my cup of tea.
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
My 2 cents:
Always buy Airborne unless using armor with them goes against your (or your opponent's) sense of historical accuracy. They are considerably more effective than rifle troops and cost the same. If you use vanilla rifle troops, don't expect them to be able to go toe to toe with any German troops other than Rifle '44 (which no one uses).
Always buy your infantry in full companies or battalions, as they don't come with any more "junk" units than you would get buying them by the platoon (unlike American).
Group your 2 in. mortars under one or 2 spare company or battalion commanders. If possible make sure these commanders have a combat (lightning) bonus; a double bonus is even better. It's surprising how effective 2 in. can be with a double combat bonus spotter. The main problem with 2 in. is getting them into range.
76mm on-board mortars can be used as effective anti-tank weapons when commanded by a double combat bonus FO. They are very good against AT guns as well.
I generally group my PIATs. I don't hold up the advance waiting for them. They catch up in time usually.
The Cromwell Mk VI is a very good buy. A very fast tank with lots of HE and MG ammo. The small number of 95mm HEAT rounds they always carry can penetrate all but the heaviest German tanks frontally and it's fairly accurate out to 500m or so. Mk VIs also do not carry any pain-in-the-ass smoke rounds. It costs about the same as a Sherman, but is more effective IMO.
Early war I will usually pair Mk VIs with Wolverines 50/50. Later on when HE for the 17 lber shows up Fireflys and Comets become good choices as they are all-in-one tanks (good against both infantry and armor). They are a bit pricey, but knowing you have an answer for any German uber tank is nice.
For arty, 76mm mortar or 25 lber are fine for smaller games, but in 2000 pt or higher battles bring some 5.5 inch. These are my favorite British arty. These are the only "slow" arty I will buy as any side. When on the attack they are guaranteed to make any enemy strong point into a weak point. And they are surprisingly cheap.
I've never played as Canadians.
-
Don't confuse local superiority at the tactical and operational level with strategic superiority. They are not the same thing.
Everyone tries to achieve local superiority as a matter of course (and to prevent their opponent from achieving it). That's Basic Warfare 101. If the Russians were frequently able to achieve local superiority of 10:1 or greater while only having 3:2 or even 3:1 superiority over all (strategic), then this is evidence that they did indeed out-maneuver and out-plan the Germans,which is the whole point of what Kip was saying.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog:
Hehe, what a lot of fuss over one vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No problem KD
For me at least it's not so much opposition to the IS-3 being in as it is wondering why not the Panther F (NOT the Panther II!) -
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:
Just think of the IS-3 as Russkies version of the KT: an unreliable pain-in-the-backside<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As John has pointed out the IS-3 had more extensive problems than just breaking down on the way to the front. It's front hull welds tended to crack open when hit. This is a problem during battle, not before.
Taken from the Russian Military Zone:
"The IS-3 was in mass production until mid-1946. Overall, there were 2,311 tanks produced. Unfortunately, at the beginning of its career, the IS-3 suffered from many serious problems related to design flaws. The most serious were: an unreliable engine, an extremely unreliable gear-box, and defective hull elements. Thus, in 1946, a special commission was formed which analyzed the deficiencies of the IS-3, and offered a Program of Modernisation and Improvement, also known as UKN (this abbreviation means "Ustranenie Konstruktivnykh Nedostatkov" - Fixing Construction Faults).
During 1948 to 1952, all of the tanks were modernised. The engine and gear-box were strengthened, and the construction of the main friction clutch and side gears was improved. The roadwheels were replaced with new ones. The 10-RK radio was replaced with the more modern 10-RT.
After all modifications, the weight of the IS-3 had increased to 48.8 tones. Despite all the changes and expenses of modernisation, the tank still had many deficiencies and remained unreliable."
I have nothing against including a few "what-if" vehicles as long as their combat performance is properly modeled.
I also don't see any reason why the Panther F would not be included as a what-if. Note what John said about confusing the Panther F with the Panther II. They are 2 totally different vehicles. Panther Fs were being assembled as the war ended and it is possible a few saw combat. The Panther II never made it past the concept stage IIRC.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC:
The moral of it all is merely that the technological dominance thesis is quite completely wrong. It simply was not true that the side with the better tanks won and the side with the worse tanks lost. Almost the direct contrary, in fact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with the basic point you make. It's true that Germany enjoyed it's greatest success while facing tanks with generally better armor and armament, but there is more to a tank than armor and a gun. A three man turret and a radio go a long way towards evening the odds. So I guess it comes down to how you define a tank as "better".
-
One of my pet peeves is how easy it is to spot tanks in trees that haven't moved yet. I have read accounts of how difficult it was for US troops to spot camoed German tanks in trees, even when firing. I wish tanks that setup in trees would be much harder to spot before they moved.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
The IS-3 was produced in the thousands, but of course only after the war concluded. That means we really do know that the vehicle worked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to chime in on the side of John Waters here. Everything I have read indicates the early IS-3s had serious problems that made them fit for little more than parade duty. If they are in I think the Panther F ought to be as well.
-
Steve has stated that CM2 maps will be bigger, but what I am more curious about is their shape, not their size. Specificaly, will large pt. QB maps be deeper and more square for attack/defend type games than the curret long and skinny shape we get (long and skinny is fine for MEs)? Deeper and more square with VLs staggered front to back as well as side to side would be ideal for attack/defend or assault.
Also, will the PBEM format be slightly altered so that the second player's computer generates the map (and units in computer pick games) so the first player can't "peek" and make a new game if he doesn't like what he sees?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
)
Will CMBO Become Obsolete Upon The Arrival Of CM2?
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:
I work with black helicopters and oppression of the weak now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool. Where do I apply