warrenpeace

Chek I agree that logistical understanding is important for Generals, although two of the best, Rommel and Patton, were not known as great logisticians. My point is that there are two types of logistics, strategic and operational. Strategic logistics are determined at the national level, e.g. things like: How many tanks do we need to make?, How many landing craft?, should we engage in the Manhatten project? etc. Operational logistics are how do we take the stuff that we have and distribute it too the troops such that they have what we need. I would argue that strategic logistical questions are not strictly military but are a combination of military and political. Furthermore, I would state that WW2 was won by the Allies primarily on the basis of these decisions and their superior execution. I believe, overall, the German Military was quite competent with regards to operational logistics given the strategic decisions that were made. There are a few exceptions (winter gear for 1941 comes to mind). Much of their poor strategic logistic decision making stems directly from their political process in which Hitler made many decisions.

I don't dispute that Allied production was critical in getting the huge advantages in material that won the war. I guess in my mind this does not go to the question of Military Effectiveness, but political effectiveness and economic effectiveness. If one looks at say, percentage of woman in the workforce, the USA was more mobilized for war than was Germany. Not sure where things like arms production and logistical decisions belong. These are part military and part civilian. If you include these in Military Effectiveness, then I certainly agree with what has been said. I read Dupuy a while ago, but if I remember correctly, he takes into account a variety of factors including terrain, defender vs. attacker, etc. He also applies his model not just to ww2 but to battles in a variety of wars both older and newer. However, as has been pointed out this is a tactical evaluation, i.e. the model starts at the time the battle begins and does not take into account the strategic and operational perspective. That being said, I really don't think the Germans were operationally inferior. In my mind the Allies in ww2 were a little like Grant and Sherman in the Civil War. Grant recognized his strategic advantage and pressed them to victory. Not elegant or flashy, but effective.

Tarquelne wrote: Hmm... and the Soviets were supposed to be hot-**** operationally late in the war, which wouldn't contradict the 2:1 German to Russian CEV at all, assuming CEV is focused just on engagements. I'm not sure I buy that the Soviets were all that great. For Bagration, they outnumbered the Germans 12:1 in guns, 10:1 in tanks/assault guns, 9:1 in aircraft and 5:1 in manpower. Give me those ratios in a quick battle .

JonS I think Dupuy's work is highly relevant to this thread. Based on his analysis German forces, man for man on average, were more effective in combat than Allied forces both at the beginning and at the end of the war (In his Hitler's last Gamble book about the Bulge he uses his model to analyze a subset of battles during the Bulge campaign. The average combat effectiveness value (CEV) is about 0.8 for allied forces. However, it should be pointed out that there is variablity in that number, for example the 101st Airborne, an "elite" allied formation has a CEV that is much higher.) I believe Dupuy would argue that the reason the Allies won was overwhelming quantity. Stated another way, if the Nazi's had equal manpower and industrial capability as the Allies they would have won the war. The invasion of Russia and declaration of war on the USA certainly were the two events that shifted the strategic equilibrium. One thing about Dupuy is that by stating that the CEV values are relatively constant, does that mean that the USA did not improve as the war went on? No, it just means the Germans got better too (At least through the end of 1944. I don't think Dupuy looked at many 1945 battles).

He did not "lump" British and American troops together. The data suggested that they were about equally effective. You should look at his methodology before you make a judgement.

I am not familiar with JonS suggestion (although it looks interesting). However Trevor Dupuy's work on tactical combat effectiveness is quite interesting. Dupoy's analysis suggests that German forces were about 20% more effective than British or USA forces, and 100% more effective than soviet forces (i.e. 100 german soldiers is worth 120 american or 200 Soviet). He derives these numbers using his Quantified Judgement Method of Analysis (QJMA), as presented in his two books, Numbers, Predictions and War (1979) and Understanding War: History and Theory of Combat (1987). Note these effectiveness measures take into account weapons differences, so this is more due to "soft" factors such as leadership, organization, training, and motivation. It is interesting to note that Dupuy testified before congress in 1990 about the then approaching gulf war and he was the only "expert" who was even close to estimating the actual numbers of casualties the USA sustained. see http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-09/news/mn-11145_1_military-history

I believe early model Shermans did blow up more frequently because of the way the ammo was stored. That is why they changed to the "wet stowage" system in the later models. As has been discussed frequently on this board, US armor doctrine clearly stated that tanks were breakthrough weapons and were not supposed to engage enemy armor. However, once the war actually started to get going, people realized that tank vs. tank combat was actually quite frequent. Once the first Tigers were encounter in Tunisia, it became clear that the Sherman would need a bigger gun to have any chance at all, so they authorized the 76 mM addition. The British, much to their credit, realized that this gun was not sufficient, so they put their 17lbers on some of their Shermans. Still the Sherman armor protection was not very good relative to the Panther or Tiger. From my reading, General McNair was the one responsible for the delays in M26 production. This was partly due to logistical factors, but also due to him being unwilling to give up US armor doctrine, which said it was up to tank destroyers to take on tanks.

In my experience, direct fire mortars are not a great idea unless they are outside of small arms range (which is not possible on this map). Also mortars are not great against troops in buildings. My strategy is to sneak my machine guns into the close woods such that they have LOS to the church to suppress elements there. However you should keep them hidden until you are ready to use them. I'd also hide a spotter that can communicate with the on-map mortars, just in case a good target emerges for indirect support. The tanks and infantry can get into the defilade area and set up for attack. Wait for the first batch of reinforcements before you commit. Once you are ready, unhide your MGs,suppress the church, and send out some scouts. They probably will die, but they most likely will reveal some enemy positions. The tanks can pop up enough to suppress these positions, and then two platoons of infantry can advance, one into the "valley area" and one to the hidden area. Once in the Valley area, those troops usually can fight there way into the lowest house. The hidden area troops usually go next to the wall where they can provide supporting fire for the advance. Then you can send them to the church. The biggest difficulty with this (and many other battles in CMFI) is dealing with artillery. The MGs will most likely get clobbered after a few minutes of firing, but hopefully by then they will have accomplished something. The AI has the same artillery delay as the human player, so if you keep the infantry moving, don't stay in the same place for more than a couple of minutes. Your tanks will be key in this battle. Keep them back until you know where his infantry are hiding. Then you can move them up. Finally, don't assume it gets easier once you get a foothold in the town. Go slow and assume the enemy is everywhere. Your infantry is safe from artillery in buildings, so there is no need to rush. Use your tanks to destroy his infantry. This is not a easy battle, but it is definitely winnable.

Interestingly, I once had dinner inside that fort. I was in Nijmegen for a scientific meeting and the gala dinner was held inside the fort. Had an nice time with a female doctor from Sweden, but that would not be an appropriate story for this group .

CM trenchfoot.

Although I won't be buying MG (at least for a while), any engine upgrade would be an immediate sale for me.

Ok, I think I have found a info source that is a perfect example of the question that I started the thread with. http://www.coulthart.com/134/ The site contains information about the 134th regiment of the 35th infantry division. This regiment first saw action in the St Lo campaign in Normandy. Of particular relevance for this discussion are the morning reports which are broken down by company (only A, B, C are available). I'm still looking at these, but the data seems quite interesting.

Sburke writes The fact is that both CMBN and CMFI use essentially identical game engines. The difference in the games lies exclusively in the data that the engines act on (at least when they are all patched to the current level). In fact I just have never understood exactly why they don't just have one engine and then sell modules. The "family" concept has never really made sense to me. Perhaps it would just get too unwieldy as the number of modules gets bigger. So I kind of view CM as the engine and a series of modules. The modules are CMBN, CW, CMFI, GL, and now MG. I'm simply arguing that the marginal utility of each module decreases as you own more. At some point, the cost will not be worth the shrinking amount of marginal utility. For me MG, may be that point. I don't have an opinion on the upcoming EF game. The more different it is the higher its marginal utility will be for me, and the more likely I will buy it.

Perhaps not, but most economists would.

waclaw-I do not disagree with your analysis. My view has evolved a little bit from the previous thread. I now think that for those that own CMBN+CW mod, MG mod is a good value. However, for those of us that have CMBN+CW and CMFI+GL, it is not as clear cut, because there is a lot of equipment overlap between GL and MG (mostly the AA stuff). It will depend very much on your interest in the MG maps and scenarios.

Totally New Stuff, Not found in either CW, CMFI, or GL. I do not guarantee this list is perfect. Equipment - Challenger Mk VIII tank* - Crusader III AA Mk II tank* - Jeep w/ mounted Vickers MG* - M18 Hellcat* New LeGrW 36 50mm mortar* Mobelwagon AA vehicle* Pz IIIG tank* - Pz IVJ (late) tank* - SPW 250/1 (neu) halftrack* (Not sure how these half-tracks differ from non neu versions) ,- SPW 250/3 (neu) halftrack* - SPW 250/7 (neu) halftrack* - SPW 250/9 (neu) halftrack* - SPW 250/10 (neu) halftrack* - SPW 251/17 Ausf D halftrack* - SPW 251/21 Ausf D halftrack* - Sdkfz 233 75mm armored car* - Sdkfz 10/5 AA halftrack* - StuH 42 (late) assault gun* New (mid is in GL ) - PSW 234/3 75mm armored car* - Wirbelwind AA vehicle* - M1A1 75mm pack howitzer* In GL for USA only not British USA Bofors 40mm AA gun* in GL, British only King Tiger tank w/ Henschel turret* (only porche version in CW) Formations British Glider Pilot Company Airborne Recce Squadron Poland: - Parachute Battalion - Parachute Engineer Squadron - Air Landing Antitank Battery USA - Airborne Recon Platoon - Glider Pack Howitzer Battery Germany (Heer): - Panzer Brigade Panzer Battalion - Panzer Brigade Panzergrenadier Battalion - Panzer Aufklärungs Battalion (Type 43) Aufklarungs are available in both GL and base. However, not clear what differences are between those and the two listed here. - Panzer Aufklärungs Battalion (Type 44) - Tiger Battalion (Henschel)-In CW but with Porsche instead - Reserve Panzer Platoon (Panzer III G based) - Sicherungs Battalion - Ersatz Battalion New Germany (Waffen SS): - Panzer Company (ad hoc) - Panzerjäger Company (ad hoc) - Panzergrenadier Kampfgruppe - Panzergrenadier Flak Platoon (Regimental) - Panzer Aufklärungs Battalion (Type 43) - Panzer Aufklärungs Battalion (Type 44) - Panzer Pioneer Battalion new? (different from PG Pioneer in CW?) - Tiger Battalion (Henschel) New, althought Porche exists in CW - - Grenadier Ersatz Battalion - Schule Battalion Germany (Luftwaffe): - Fallschirmjäger Aufklärungs Battalion - Fallschirmjäger Aufklärungs Company (Regimental) - Fliegerhorst Battalion Germany (Kriegsmarine): - Schiffstamm Battalion - Marine Schützen Battalion Germany (available for various branches): - Armored Flak Platoon (37mm and Quad 20mm)

As one who expressed some concern about the value of the MG module, I was impressed by the number of new units in MG (at least for the CMBN theater, many are already in GL). I really like the new large theater maps. However, that being said, I will still be on the sidelines for a while.

OK finally won it. (total victory, 44% casualties, Elite difficulty) Spoiler I used all my big guns plus one of the off board mortars for a massive pre-bombardment. I did not use any smoke. At D+1 minute I then Ran all three platoons up the left isde to the defilade position about half way up. From there it was just a slog. (Engineers came in handy breaching wall of the Fortress). The key was I did not have severe losses during my Rush during the barrage. The only reason I won was that I knew where to place the initial barrage from all my previous failures. I think the scenario would be better if the Author allowed some % of initial intelligence to enable a better placement of the initial barrage. Because the start up area is under enemy observation, the initial barrage has to be highly effective to have a chance in this scenario.

Hi Phil, Tried your strategy and a couple of others as well. I really think the Machine gun patch has made this scenario unwinnable. I've been able to get guys to the edge of the fortress, but they are too beat up push the Gerries out. If anyone can win it using v1.1 , please post. Warren

The point about clumping may have merit. In the last battle I played (Troina v2 battle 3), I lost 31 guys to a single 50 mM AT gun firing HE!

Broadsword-I think your suggestion is very reasonable. Womble-Is it really true that most casualties in CM are caused by HE? I don't think this is true in most of my games unless there is a lot of off map artillery. Also, did they increase the accuracy of MGs or their ability to suppress? I thought it was the later, and this led indirectly to the former, i.e. guys get pinned down and therefore are targets longer. Finally, I wonder how weapons accuracy in CM2 is actually modeled and its relationship to suppression effects? Can accuracy be decreased without affecting levels of suppression or are they intrinsically linked? Also, do units that are "rattled" have less accuracy than ok units, or is it that they simply shoot less and run away more?

OK, I have some real data. This comes from the US 5th armored division and I found it at this website: http://www.5ad.org Using this data I was able to reconstruct the daily death figures for each of the three armored infantry battalions. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_KJOCFn8XLUWlN3akhrMDVaR3c/edit?usp=sharing . Note these are only deaths per day, not total casualties. Also, not all deaths have dates associated with them (seems that if the body was buried back in the states they do not have the exact date of death). For, the 47th 21% of the names have no dates, while for the 46th and 15th it is just under 40%. Based on this data, the worst day for any battalion was Dec 11 in which the 15th Infantry had 17 killed. If we assume that the missing 40% was randomly distributed this means that about 28 were killed. If we make the additional assumption of a killed to wounded ratio of 1:3 this means that there were about 112 casualties that day. A armored infantry battalion at full strength had about 1000 men, so that would equate to 11.2% casualties. Of course there is no way to know how these casualties were distributed in the battalion. If they were all concentrated in the two of the companies (the third one being held in reserve), the company casualty rates could be considerably higher. Even so, these rates still seem higher than a typical CM attack. I am becoming more convinced that the accuracy of fire should be decreased.

Here is the initial starting position.

I wish people were less defensive on the board. The point of the discussion is to have a discussion. There are no winners and losers.

One more thing. Only one TRP.