SeaWolf_48
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by SeaWolf_48
-
-
Very true Shaka, I remember reading this in Knights Cross about Rommel. This was a rare time in tank history. The germans had found that their AA gun was even a better AT gun. This made the AT gun stronger than the armor. It however was eventually overcome by air power and overwelming tank numbers.North Africa... Axis stopped the British Armored attacks couple of times. Believe it was done with the Italian infantry supported by German anti-tank units (88's). German armor units being reserved for the counter-attack.One of my weaknesses is speaking in generalities, but by and large tanks were rarely stopped by even good AT.
When tank divisions are up to strength, with addiquite armored infantry, and decient air power, and their tanks are atleast equal to the enemy (or their tactics are better, like the germans over the russians) tanks will always beat infantry. This is what the tacticians and military thinkers surmized before WW2. They didnot want too experience another WW1 stile warfare, and have the flower of their youth killed in the trenches. Well the tanks cured that and they killed the flower of their youth all over Europe instead of just in treches.
Reading reports of massed tank attacks against infantry is a fearfull thing too read, I'm glad I have never had to experience it, hell, I've only been shot at once and that was when I was Deer Hunting, and it's scary, oh ya and one other time Pheasant Hunting someone shot a shotgun at me, and that wasn't a tank. AT gunners, artillary observers, officers, and machine gunners were dead meat in WW2.
German and American tank tactics were based around the tank platoon of 5 tanks. These guys worked together to kill anything in their way. They were always looking out for eachother, you shoot one of them they kill you. Teamwork in death! At full strength American Tank Divisions had around 200 M4A1s and 100 M5A1s with 50 or so M10s all group together in three Regiments (CCA, CCB, CCR) in a small area. 350 tanks can break thru almost any division, and usually did. Same with the Germans and Russians. SC is not a good example of unit size, but most armies used the Armored Corps, three division, two armored and one motorized, to break thru on a very small front, then penetrate deep into enemy territory and destroy supplies, communications, and moral. My point is, no more WW1 fighting.
The greatest battles are when two tank armies face eachother. That is real destruction. To just say the word Kursk sends shivers down many historians and militia mens spines.
I know you know all this, I'm just thinking out loud. Funny how tankers interviewed during WW2 asked about living in tanks day after day, do you feel safe in there, they alway answer "yes". Then they said they feel sorry for the grunt on the ground. The foot slogger is asked about the tankers, "those poor bastards in those iron coffins". But today look at a modern army, mostly all armored, armored carriers of all kinds, with awesome tanks. Even Infantry Divisions today are really Panzergrenidier Divisions.
Well, got to go play golf, got to keep the handicap up, 10.6 now, was 9.1 but lost my drive for a while, it will come back hopefully. Maybe Davis Love III can win the Masters, Or Michelson, just not Tiger!
-
Arby
I appreciate your patience's with me and I agree with your deductions. SC needs some work in it's warfare aspects. My biggest gripe is that units don't retreat when attack, but just stand and die (they would make Hilter proud). Hopefully the Game God's will fix these discrepancies before SC2.
Two lawyers were on a desert island and every day look for help from the horrizon. One day one of the lawyers climbed a palm tree and saw a beautiful naked lady in the surf. They both ran down to the water to save her. When they pulled her out of the water one lawyer says to the other "should we screw her" the other lawyer says "out of what".
-
Your a good monkey SeaMan, I mean your a good man Seamonkey.
LOL
-
Arby
Okay, Italy is too strong, we both agree, I feel that it's not Historic, and you feel that it's not accurate or realistic? You stated earilier that the game is accurate except for Germany being to strong MPP wise, and now Italy is to strong militarily.
Realism is important in a Strategy game, atleast too me! Or else just make it a chess game, like Axis and Allies.
Got any good lawyer jokes?
-
Fellow Sea person
This is fun, I hope you are having fun with this too. I'm not trying to argue, but just joust.
Using Germany in Dec 1944 is not a good example. The old men and little boys defense. Why don't you try Hoth's attack to relieve Stalingrad in Jan '43.
[ April 10, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Arby
Just found your article on accurate vs. realism, it answered my question above.
My Italy question is still on the table. How can a Italian level five Tank be accurate?
I like the word HISTORIC. Could this have happened in history. Could Germany have developed the A-Bomb. The answer is no. They were using the wrong direction to find a solution, they didn't trust the jew Einstien and his Zionist Physics, maybe with 10 more years they would have stumbled across the answer, but Nazi Germany didn't have that much time. Could they have had an all jet Air Force, yes, they developed the right science and mechanics to produce several models of jet, fortunately HItler hindered the program.
You have very good articles on this forum, and I enjoy your influence it has with this band of brothers.
[ April 10, 2003, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Good point Arby.
Here comes the but, Italy, could they have ever become level 5 anything? The Romanians fought well at Sevestopol, but lousy at Stalingrad, but they can't progress or decrease. Italy is way to strong in SC, historical they stunk, heart not in it!
I'm confused, should infantry not progress in your opinion, or not! This atricle started of with the question of no soft level increasement. Or is it the trying to be realistic that you object too. It's just a question, I'm not trying to be argumentative.
Jersey John and myself are for the most realistic wargame that can be produced (excuse me John if I drop your name). What standard do you use then. Every country produces the same infantry, tanks, and ships. Like a chess game, every Rook or Knight the same, all pons equal. Or a national flavor to each billigerent.
-
VERY GOOD, Seamonkey.
Off the top of my head, the 12SS HJ Pz Div was stopped at Elsenborn by the 99th 12 miles from their starting point, out of gas, and with no air cover in poor tank country with tanks to heavy for most bridges, and in the dead of winter, again not good tank weather. Allied fighter/bomber air support started on 25th. Try again!
[ April 10, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
Shaka, totally agree with your review.
German armor did have roughly 5 upgrades,1) PZKW I,II; 2) PZKW III,IV; 3) PZKW III, IV upgrade of guns and armor; 4) PZKW V,VI; 5) fifth but very small upgrade in numbers PZKW VIB KING TIGER.
German infantry had about three upgrades, becoming more mobil and higher amout of automatic weapons, plua better anti-tank weapons.
Russian armor had about six upgrades, and three upgrades in infantry (same as german model).
British armor had about five upgrades, but ended up equal with the US in power which had four upgrades. Both British and American upgrades in tanks equaled only the third level of German Armor however. So in efect Western Allies had 3 armored upgrades. Does this make sense?
US infantry should start off at level 2, and upgrade to level 3 around 1944. British should go thru three phases.
Airpower seems okay except naval, ships however?
-
We all seem to agree about tanks and Air Power, the battlefield changed forever when the Nazi invaded Poland, Shock and Awe, Blitzkreig. We all seem to generalize a bit when we write these forum messages, I admit too it!
Dear Shaka give me some examples of infantry divisions stopping an Armored Division in history, not in a fortress.
Sorry to offend you about the dink comment, but I had two good friends killed by those little yellow bastards, and several were never the same after the war. This time in Iraq we did it right however, and let the Military run the show, awesome!
-
I respect both of you gentelmen but must disagree. Aircraft destroyed 10's of 1000's of tanks. Just one of Germany's Luftwaffe pilots Capt. Rudel destroyed 518 tanks, 800 trucks, 150 A/A and A/T guns and the cruiser Marat in Leningrad. I don't think he dropped 414,400 bombs to destroy 518 tanks.
During Normandy more of the german tanks where destroyed by planes than tanks. Capt. Michael Whittmann germany's highest tank ace was killed by a RAF Typhoon. No tank could kill him!
Planes set up to destroy tanks were many, British Typhoons, P-47 Thunderbolts, Russian Ilyushin IL-2M, Stuka Me-87g-1 tank buster. All carried cannons except the P-47 which carried 6-50cal mg's which are almost a cannon. A plane shooting from above hits the light armor on top of a tank and destroys it, mostly in the engine compartment.
I have never read of a A/T gunner killing 518 tanks, I don't think A/T gunners lasted to long on the battlefield. PanzerGrenidiers and tank MG killed them off before they could grow face hair. An A/T gun may get a tank, but the price it pays for it is deadly.
Infantry cannot and couldnot stand up to armor yesterday or today, even with the weapons that the common soldier can carry. I will give you this, city fighting can kill tanks, thus not to be used in cities unless in small numbers.
I have read that even in Viet Nam Commanders realizied that the tank was the best weapon he had to kill dinks.
-
Arby
I have found a kindred spirit in you. Aleast we think alike when it come to Panzers and their ability to fight. If you have good air support there is no force on earth that can stop a tank attack, except another tank division. SC does not treat the tank with justice, especially in defense. Tanks should break thru infantry and be able to stand alone in enemy territory for atleast two turns.
Gurderian had Sh_t fits trying to get the German Highcommand to understand that the tank is the answer to offense and defense. Even Hitler did not believe in tanks until after France (fairyland). Hitler always wanted the tanks to stop because he was afraid that the tanks would be cut off. In SC tanks can get cut off because you can put new units in any owned hex. New units should only be able to come on the borad in a city or Army Base, and not next to enemy units. Break thru's are stopped because you can put new units next to a break thru armored unit. In HISTORY tanks would penetrate deep into enemy territory and cut off supplies and commands to the front line troops, they became demoralized and fell apart, new troops would have to try to break thru to them, but usually didn't. The WW1 stile of fighting in SC would be stopped with this simple fix. NO NEWLY CREATED UNITS WITHIN 5 HEXES OF ENEMY UNITS!
-
I still believe that as good as anti-tank guns got, the german 75 and 88, and the british 6 pound and 12 pound, the US 57 and 75mm, no russian, german, british,or american infantry division could stand up to any Panzer/Armor division any time during the war(Italy, Romania excluded).
A level 5 panzer should destroy a level 5 infantry division every time, air power should be the only equalizer. From '42 on most panzer/armor divisions had armored infantry/panzer grenidiers to deal with anti-tank gunners, while the tanks would chew up the rest of the troops.
-
Bill
Your comments on anti-tank weapons is very intresting. As the war went on the Armored and Panzer divisions got stronger with less tanks against infantry. Infantry divisions could not stand up to Panzers ever during any part of the war. The real anti-tank weaponed for both the Brit's/US and the USSR from '42 and on was first fighter/bombers, and second the tank destroyer, and lastly infantry A/T weapons (6#er, 50 and 75mm AT gun, Piat and Bazooka). Example... Michael Whitmann killed by Typhoon FB, and the battle of the bulge attacking during snow and over cast skies.
Even as late as early '45 any up to strength Armed/Panzer division would cut thru any infantry division like a hot knife thru butter. Only back up support troops with Tanks and Planes or another Panzer division could stop an armor division and halt it.
But however I have found that Armor in SC does not defend very well against infantry. This is very perplexing, watching a Panzer Group with high experience being destroyed by an infantry corps or army. Has anyone else noticed this! There is not too many examples of pure infantry divisions attacking Armor Division, Arnhem maybe!
-
You bring up a good point Liam.
In the Med. the Luftwaffe used Sardinia, Sicily, Pantelleria, Crete, and Rhodes to hamper the british supply line thoughout the war. These islands were very important for fighting shipping, and for gathering information on the enemy. I would like to see MPP's for controlling these islands, and MPP's taken away from the Allies because of there occupation.
Of coarse Iceland, Greenland, The Azores, Bear Is. and The Faeroes would have the same importance in the Atlantic. But you would need garrison troops and not a whole corps. A garrison would be made up of, 1 to 3 Army battalions, AA Battalion, 4 squadrons of fighter and scout planes, and small naval vessels (torpedo boats, frigates, and supply ships).
-
argh...
[ April 04, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
That was a good one Rambo, how about Hitler, Goering, and J. E. Hoover meeting secretly in pink submarines in the North Atlantic, and having a Transvestite extravaganza.
Yes Liam Staffenberg was one of the most brave germans ever. I think that they have a day set aside for his effort in Modern Germany. Did you notice that the German Chanceller is now backing the US in Iraq, Germany don't owe us much, just defending there ass from the Berlin Airlift in 1948 thru the Berlin wall being torn down in 1989. Not to mention kicking the Nazi out!
I know that this is just an hypotheses, but it'd fun too have what if's!
-
I'm reading a book "The German Army 1933-1945" by Michael Cooper. He points out that Hilter did three things in 1934 that made the German Army, and the German Generals loyal to him. First that by putting the German Eagle clutching the swastiga on the uniform (the National Socialist party symbol) the Army and the party became one. Like putting the Democratic donkey on the US Army uniform.
Second, that only aryians could serve in the army, and last, that they were to sware a death oath to Corporal Shickelgrubben, their fuhrer.
This bound them to Hitler as their Master and Lord. The Corporal took over all command of the German Army after the Polish campaign, and began to muck up the whole strategy of German command after that.
What would have happen if the German Generals would have killed Hitler before he started Barbarrrosa? before Stalingrad? before Kursk? Would that have changed the war? They did have three major attemps to kill him, and one almost did in Sept of 44, way to late!
What if we had the option in SC to kill Hitler in 1941, and not attack Russia until England was beat. What if German spys had killed Churchill, or Stalin during the march on Moscow. What ifs.
What say ye....
-
Hi guys
There are three points here.
1) When the Nazi use Para's they almost always used them to take airports, so they could get supplies from Ju-52's landing on the airport soon after taking the objective (Norway, Crete, and probibly Malta if attemped).
2) Allied jumps were more objective orientated because of their trust in supply drops to their troopers, like Liam is talking about.
3) Maybe we could have supplies from bombers to units being the same distance as the bomber could fly. A pull down button that would ask for supplies for out of supply units.
4) I would like to have Heavey bombers, medium bombers, fighter bombers, fighters, troop transports, and Navy fighter/torpido bombers/dive bombers, and only in late 44, JETS; but no one but me and Jersey John like all of the units.
-
Your spinning back and forth more than PM Chretien, ever noticed how he speaks from the left side of his mouth. Your changing sides more times than Michael Moore or Peter Arnett. Stay or go, go or stay, it's just a forum, not a marriage. I like your comments about SC, but don't care for your fickleness. Like Kuniworth said just leave for a while then come back, and don't be such a drama queen.
Love ya....
-
Life isn't fair how about Montgomery, Bernard Law; he should be 4 points....
Hero of what? Africa, Rommel had shot his bolt, hero of Normandy, sat on his hands and said I don't have enough troops, I know, hero of Arnhem. Bernards greatest achievement was Dunkirk.
Clark maybe 6 points, Blood and Guts Patton 9 points however.
-
I'd like to see them. On Wargamer.com you can download scenario's and other files (there is a section for SC). The best forum is WW2.com but it's under contruction right now. Good Luck.....
[ April 01, 2003, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]
-
JJ
I like your idea about HQ's, well done and sounds like a great idea, but I think that suppy should be kept simple and only be a single link from a city and port to each corps, and not another unit. Surrounded units are to easily supplied now, and need to be more restricted when surrounded, seaports are the same way.
The main thrust of the game should be war and fighting, having to worry about supplies and distributions of materials should be relegated to clerks(the computer).
Out of supply troops could change color, or text from black to gray, or something? The General(you or I) must open a port or land route to get supplies moving again. Just thinking outloud!
-
Soft Factor Tech, should there be one?
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
But remember we arm two armchair warriors, armed with stacks of academic military braincell missiles, one trying to drive a preverbial PZKW VIB thru a American A/T Battalion, the other defending his cyber homeland with an 88mm ambush.
Alas, There are now winners in cyber war!