DavidFields
-
Posts
719 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DavidFields
-
-
Any back-of-the-envelope calculations on the average number of sorties a ground assault/AT pilot flew before being shot down or killed?
I would think that as much luck as skill would be involved in keeping oneself alive from random ground fire--particularly if one was aggressive about engaging targets.
It would give me further pespective on Rudel's claim.
-
I find this particularly clear, and useful.for example one could argue that in Operation Barbarossa Germans misidentified the Soviet armies in Western Russia as the Soviet COG. misidentified, because obviously USSR wasn't defeated by destroying their armies in Western Russia -- Soviets used a three layered system in which the high command mobilizes new armies in rear while the armies in front are being destroyed (just as planned to delay the enemy). German planners actually discovered in their wargames that it wasn't "all that likely" that they could destroy Soviet armies in Western Russia. they defined a line after which, if enemy still fielded coherent forces, they should stop and redefine their strategy -- in terms of Clausewitz to either recognize the changed enemy COG or simply correctly redefine it.
contemporary research has develop logical methods for helping commanders define the COG. these methods have also been used to analyze historical scenarios, to find out what the COG for various sides most likely actually was, and it is relatively easy to do it yourself. so far all such papers i have read have concluded that the Kiev turn was a mistake. [/QB]
Most simulations I see of Barbarossa require for a german victory the occupation of the Soviet territory to...usually something like the Urals. But, of course, that is a post-war, post-hoc, designation of convenience. I would imagine the german military would have hoped, prior to the invasion, that the COG was something less than that.
At this point, though we know that destruction of the initial Soviet armies were not the COG, we can't know what would have been--since the Soviets never collapsed. Perhaps taking Moscow in the initial lunge would have caused a....psychological, much like the Cold War, collapse. Maybe the early capture of Leningrad would have done it.
We will never know--but most simulations/games stack the deck to require the Germans to drive heedlessly east. (Something different, like: "Liberate" the Baltics and the Ukraine, then set up heavy defensive positions and negotiate for peace--not usually an option.)
-
If you can actually use the flammpanzers effectively, I will stand and applaud. :eek:
-
Enough.
With aggressive use of my T-34s, Minor Victory. They took out enough enemy armor that the counter-attack was weak.
I think I could do better: with careful management of my armor. But 7 tries at one scenario is probably enough. Time to move on.
-
Two more tries, both Draws.
But I think I can do better.
This is, I think, a good scenario to practice Human Wave. The platoons can cover about 100 meters into good cover (rubble), against little counterfire.
There was also one of my first successful attempts to use infantry riding on tanks, performing what, in the paper chit era, would have been called an overrun attack, on an enemy platoon in scattered woods.
The scenario involves about 1300 points attacking about 1800 points. I am not complaining--makes it very interesting. The enemy (AI) artillery can be taken out of play by setting up not in the open, and providing no open ground infantry targets. Taking the Factory is not hard, but I find keeping it difficult, given the enormous infantry/armor counter-attack. There are simply too many targets. And I am losing 10-13 AFVs.
One idea I have had is to just deal tremendous damage in the first 10 turns, and then continue with a fighting withdrawal, aiming for casualties to compensate for flags--a raid, in essence.
Perhaps I am just going toe-to-toe too much in the last 20 turns--I don't like to move armor much while in battle, and tend to mostly hit th button for the next turn in this scenario after turn 20. Perhaps I need more focused armor cover arcs.
Will try again.
-
Once the fighting starts, however, isn't the "philosophy" often affected by the perceived successes/failures on the ground?
If the germans had not been so "lucky" in their invasion of France (If French deployments had not been so....wrong. And had they understood armor tactics better), if the hole at Sedan had been closed for a few weeks and required a change in tactics, and/or the French counterattacks had been more successful, wouldn't different people had been promoted/discharged?
In other words, did the "lessons" in the fight against France, sometimes resulting from chance, in some cases hinder the german invasion of the Soviet Union?
Or, if the Crete paratroop invasion had been a success with low casualties, would the plans for the invasion of the Soviet Union been scattered with similar airdrops? (The Sevestopol peninsula, for example)
[i realize some people find "What if?" propositions interesting, while others find them silly. But I find them a useful antidote to some sort of deterministic view, that things had to necessarily happen as they did.]
-
Wow, your position is looking a lot better.
He probably lost less, and avoided disaster, by making such a half-hearted attack on A. But now any of his remaining SMG units on your left flank are essentially out of play--can't attack forward, and difficult to redeploy.
You have that strong position in the woods in front of C--sort of like having the center squares in chess. (I think I keep thinking about chess, because an ME has a lot of similarities, since the sides are, in some sense, equal at the begining of the struggle).
It is hard for me to discern the exact elevations, but it appears to me as though you will be able to spot across the whole center of the map from your positions there(?)--giving you a real intelligence advantage.
The problem that I see for both of you is that, though supposedly a close proximity fight, the areas around the key towns seem empty, and difficult for infantry to cross.
So, what is/are your choice of direction?
1. Destroy/route his remaining units in front of A? Perhaps with some HE shells, figuring that if no one makes progress on flags, casualties might be decisive.
2. Scout toward the front of those center woods, to determine if there is an attack coming there, or to watch his retreat?
3. Blast the buildings in C with AFV HE? That is the type of thing which is hard for an opponent to watch without resorting to rash countermeasures.
Again, unless he is moving immediatedly toward an attack on the woods in front of C, it would seem you have the initiative.
-
Or, as a similar take:
Seldom use them as front-line, early in a scenario, transport within a scenario units.
They, in essence, and as a reality, moved your infantry to this battle, minimizing sniper damage and maximizing speed of movement in a strategic sense. If they are essential in the scenario, that is probably ahistoric. In CM, using them as late-scenario, mop-up, mobile machine gun units are usually their most useful function.
-
I like your thinking on this turn.
Your opponent's pushing of the T-34 through the woods was not, in my opinion, a good gamble. That is the biggest clear mistake I think he has made.
Without, hopefully, seeming too obvious: Can you feel your forces being drawn over to A. With any luck, he has been just a step too slow developing the attack on that flank.
At this point, if he pounds A with the SU-152, and then takes it with his infantry, it is not clear to me he could withstand the counter-pounding back from your AFVs. And those SMGs burn their ammo fast.
Ideally (for you) he launches his attack on A, and...barely, but decisively, misses. Several burning T-34s, an ammo-expended SU-152, and a several fractured/empty SMG platoons later, you regain the initiative, and re-deploy toward C.
Sound nice?
But I am concerned about how you are getting dinged up. Those lost T/Cs, and damaged HQs are only annoying now, but they make you more fragile.
Great, great stuff.
-
I think this is a nice tactic.Originally posted by JasonC:(recon by fire with the coaxial MG etc).
Since very few people (or even the AI) like to be even tickled with MG fire, the result can be getting an unseen unit to either be supressed, or to move--in the latter case possibly getting spotted. Enemy attacks can thus be disrupted, or cause to be prematurely launched, making you look like a magician, just by peppering obvious gathering points.
Since running out of co-axial ammo is seldom an issue for an AFV, I think it is a low cost gamble, though it can be hard to get oneself to potentially "waste" fire on apparently empty terrain.
Tux, if you wander in here from your AAR, you might consider this.
Two questions:
Does such a tactic correspond to WW2 doctrine?
(CM simulation question) How much does using the coaxial MG slow the acquisition for the main gun, should a hard target come into view?
[ April 18, 2008, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Rankorian ]
-
Where as, in the US, on the coasts, we supervise our first teenagers ----faced drunken party.
Hire the boat, club....
Bring the champagne....
I guess there are some cultural differences.
Does that affect our inclination to pull the trigger?
-
Thanks. A very professionally done web site
-
I agree that he revealed the gun early, and he is very fortunate you don't have a little mortar somewhere.
I think it is now time for your opponent to make a mistake
. Both of you have fairly strong defensive positions, and it is unclear (to me--not being able to visualize the unit positions exactly) where either of you can move forward without encountering murderous fire.Unless you see an opening, or unless he is very strong on your left flank, it could be the person most patient will have the highest chance of victory.
[And, yes, I would have pulled the Tiger/Stug back also]
-
As a case of general doctrine, best to keep armor +150 away from infantry in any case, whatever the game modeling.
Yet there is that temptation to move the armor forward............
-
Bigduke6: I don't understand your last sentence. Young men will do some incredibly dangerous things with minimal incentive--often then called elite or special forces.
Probably genetically favored, in part, for thousands (10s of thousands, 100s, millions) of years?
-
Superb descriptions.
Win or lose, I hope you continue to post such excellent descriptions/graphics.
In all, I think you are fortunate/skilled.
More later, perhaps, if you are willing/interested.
goodnight/good luck.
-
I know this may seem morbid, but I like to keep the human element "real" as I play these simulations:
German troops who died in the invasion of the Soviet Union. Were they generally buried in place, or were they transported back to their country? (I would ask about the Soviet Union troops, but I would guess, perhaps incorrectly, their system was less orderly)
If I went to Germany today, what would be the largest WW-2 cemetery. I was quite affected by the Normandy Allied/German cemeteries (no romantisation here). But thinking about it, those are incredibly tiny compared to what must have been necessary in the East.
-
The reason we know Patton, and still quote him, though, is not necessarily because he was right--but because his superiors wanted someone who thought that way in command.
He told people what he believed--and was reasonably competent in acting with that belief. Other people thought differently. As Supreme Commander, one then picks the right attitude, hopefully, for the desired result.
It gets complex, I think, when high level decisions are made in order to keep the home front motivated--even if not tactically/strategically sound. Needs to be done....?
Could the Germans, for instance, have fought a grinding, slow-moving invasion of the Soviet Union? Keeping supply lines, therefore, shorter, and the weather better, and fighting in areas where the population would be more sympathetic. Inducing the Red Army to attack, and then destroying any unit that did so. Targeting then, the Army, rather than territory, and trying to induce a WW-1 type of collapse in their enemy.
Or would that strategy have been precluded by what the German people had come to expect after Poland and France?
-
Sppiler, Spoiler....
Next try: Minor Defeat.
Let me guess, the Russians had difficulty at the beginning of the war.
Heinrich505: Did you actually play the whole scenario to the end and win?
This time I took the plow factory, had plenty of infantry ammo, and held it. But I was amazed by the power of the german counterattack--which seems about as large as the initial Russian attack strength. The Panzer IIIs seems at least a match for the T-34s (indeed, almost everything did, and at range)
NEXT time, I am going to put more of my AFVs on my right flank (or strictly behind the factory), and wait patiently for the counter-attack. The AI is perhaps its "strongest" in pushing a mass of AFVs forward (as opposed to a mass of infantry, which is almost always suicidal for it)
I am getting too many of my AFVs picked off before turn 20, giving me an insufficient mass of counter fire.
More than ever, I think it is nuts for the Russians to work toward any flag but the factory flag. Then I need to keep my kill ratio in my favor.
-
As someone who has always played the AI, I can certainly see the thrill in playing a capable human: one can get the almost palpable sense of being stalked--and you striking out at your stalker.
Good luck.
-
Spoiler**** though I doubt it is necessary, given the age of this scenario
I appreciate all the replies--I am really not used to Tactical Losses x 2, and this has been an interesting nut to crack, as the Russians.
What seems to me clear is that that "usual" tactics for taking the tractor factory are not entirely satisfactory: using the AFVs as overwatch/prep fire, and then sending in the infantry. The german anti-tank gun can take out too many AFVs, then the artillery and MGs weaken the Russian infantry, and by the time I get into the factory with my squads (neutralizing the flame thrower, and catching the stronger german squads coming forward, the Russian infantry ammo is gone. Other german squads then seem to be available to provide a counterattack.
I doubt I could ever succeed at taking any flag except the factory one. If I could accomplish that, the goal would then be to inflict enough casualties, and avoid enough casualties, to provide a win.
And the Russians have no smoke. The command delays on the buttoned T-34s are atrocious.
I can only see the non-blind/against the standard AI set-up/puzzle path to winning this:
Hide all AFVs behind the factory.
Wait until the german anti-tank gun is revealed--then mortar it.
Carefully take a T-34 and blast the mg out of the steeple.
(perhaps send a squad/platoon around the right flank to kill the artillery spotters--I think that is where they are.)
Send a 1/2 squad toward the factory to draw the germans forward, particularly the FT.
Blast the factory with AFVs.
Then move the infantry forward, with the idea that they will get into the factory with ammo left.
Hope getting near the factory flag will induce the AI to run squads across open ground to retake it.
Incidently, I have found the initial german armored car (at least, that is what I think it is) suprisingly hard to ID. Hence, trying to run my light AVFs around my left flank (difficult, because of the poor terrain), unsuccessful.
Heinrich55: I never have had the guts to try the Human Wave. How severe were casualties in your experience? Did they use much ammo?
-
Gutsy.
Possible results:
A. SU-15 and T34 are knocked out. You successfully machine-gun the Soviet close-assaulters.
B. Disaster.
The wonderful thing about CM is that, though one can speculate on the relative probabilities, either result is, I think, possible.
Personally, I like better your move of the infantry into the forest, moving slightly left. He has to be worried about being caught between your center forces (spotting, hitting him from the flank) and your Tiger/Stug. If he has short-range SMGs, he would have to make a difficult decision, including whether to split his forces. He would also likely have to hold up his T-34s to meet this threat--indeed, he is probably doing so at this time.
But.....I can see your urge to do as you did, because his choice of a heavy-HE chucker has complicated the defense of your left flank. An alternative choice would be to pull the infantry back, let him level the buildings, then return into the rubble. (I don't think those SU-152s have much ammo?) Indeed, right now he is either heavily gambling you have units in those houses, or he already has a heavy infantry presence in the woods in front of them. (Which would mean he has committed to the attack!--and his SU-152 is prep fire.)
Unfortunately for you, he is gambling correctly--which is why I can understand your urge to shut that SU-152 up.--thus breaking the usual rules not to move AFVs up to unknown tree-lines.
(I presume also you are buttoning your T/C? Or are we taking a further gamble?)
Great, great story. Thanks for continuing it.
-
Interesting.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:There are some who argue that Darwin's laws apply equally well to Human populations. Meaning, you can't have a group of people unaffected by having the best and the brightest leave, killed, frightened, or become a part of the ruling elite without affecting the overall capabilities of that population. It's as much about genetics as it is learned behavior. When both are suppressed and purposefully tailored to subjugation... well... it's hard to imagine how strong independent, thoughtful leadership can emerge as spontaneously as another population which does exactly the opposite.
Put another way, the West's militaries spend a ton of money actively cultivating the best and the brightest to become better and brighter. They are lavished with expensive tools to further extend these capabilities. They are also given incentives and further opportunities to stay with the profession and to continue to improve. In theory those who do not show good aptitude are "washed out" sooner or later, and to a large extent this is what happens in reality. Compare this to a regime like Syria. Night and day different.
Steve
I certainly think cultural issues are important (just like in any business/organization), and it sounds as though CMSF has produced an accurate reflection of that issue (though one could also model for cultural outlyers)
But I would hesitate to claim (I know, you have not really done so) that Western values inherently produce uber troops, and the genetic argument is tricky. "Independent thought" can result in the fragging of officers, and the US soldier needed some de-culturization in WW-2 North Africa up to Kasserine pass.
In the West, this is the Athens/Sparta debate--with its cautionary tale of how it turned out (eventually poorly for both sides, for different reasons).
And the US can be seen as a partial refutation of the genetic/cultural superiority agruments. In general, it was not the successful who came to America. It was those who lost: the Irish, the Italians, the Jews.
The Pilgrims came because they could not find success either in continental Europe or England. The Huguonots who came to America were the Protestants who failed to convert France. The African Americans who were brought here were not the winners in that continents wars. The Vietnamese immigrants after the Vietnam war were not on the winning side, and now we can expect an Iraqi influx--more so from whoever loses the Sunni/Shiite fight. Even for the original English, it was usually not the landed gentry or successful businessmen who made the move--why would they? (I believe the early, quite substantial, german immigration was religion-losing basis--though my knowledge is not strong in that area)
So a lesson that could be embraced from the US experience....which might seem more humble, and more popular, in the world than some of the current rhetoric...is that we (I am American) have done fairly well for a nation of losers.
-
OK, think back awhile.
On the original disc.
I have had surprising trouble with this as the Russians.
Any opinions about how to deploy the infantry? All 3 platoons at the tractor factory? Or send one right (and/or left) to take out supporting elements?
Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Any back-of-the-envelope calculations on the average number of sorties a ground assault/AT pilot flew before being shot down or killed?
I would think that as much luck as skill would be involved in keeping oneself alive from random ground fire--particularly if one was aggressive about engaging targets.
It would give me further pespective on Rudel's claim.