Jump to content

JSj

Members
  • Content Count

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JSj

  1. However, your squad still shows "in command" status by voice/visual icons. This is because a unit that is out of contact with its own HQ can benefit from command by a superior HQ in its own chain of command, but only within voice/visual command range. Your squad is under temporary command from the adjacent Company HQ. Unfortunately, there is no visual indication of where this link comes from in the interface.

    I just found out that you can click on these "in command" status icons, and you will be moved to the commanding HQ. Very useful if you want to know who is commanding your squad/unit at the moment.

    Other than that, I'm still confused about a lot of the C2 things. Sometimes the reson for a break in the chain of command, or the reason why a mortar team is "out of contact" just seems impossible to figure out. Too bad the manual doesn't explain these very important things too clearly.

  2. Friendly AI. I order squads to a bocage line and mortars to the field behind the bocage line. I turn my attention away and all of a sudden i have 3 squads running into the next field into a hail of MG fire. I carried on and then noticed now my mortars are leading the charge. Baffling !!

    I haven't played very much yet, but I have not noticed any problems with the pathfinding. Most likely this was the only way for your units to get to the point you ordered them to go to. If you, for instance, order them to a point on the other side of impassable terrain like a bocage line, they might have to go around a long way across other fields to get to their target point. I suspect this is what happened to you.

  3. The demo is great, I look forward to getting the whole game when it's released. The graphics are impressive, and the demo runs pretty smoothly on my computer at the highest settings!

    But I was really disappointed that the PDF manual has "CM:BN Demo" stamped in the middle of every page, making it a pain to read.

    First the useless online reader, and now this? What are you afraid of, that someone is going to decide not to buy the game if they get a real, readable PDF manual with the demo? You should want to distribute the manual as much as possible, since it is a great way to advertise all the features and make people want to buy the game.

    I would certainly have enjoyed the demo and these past weeks of waiting for the release much more if I had been able to read the manual. Now it looks like I have to wait until the full game is released. :(

  4. Hmmm I think having a date would rise a big anticipation and you would be really disappointed (well I am speaking for myself, cause I would be ;) )..

    Well, they would of course have to explain that this date is only if nothing happens to delay the release, and that they are not in any way promising that the date will be kept.

    If someone takes time off from work or something based on that, then that's their problem, not BFCs. Sure, a delay would be disappointing to many if it were to happen, but there seems to be a lot of disappointment every day now. Because there is no date given people come here every day expecting a release.

  5. I wish they would give us a date, as they have stated that they already know when they will release if everything goes according to plan. If something were to happen, then they could just explain that there has been an unforeseen delay.

    Having a date is better than not knowing at all, and if there was a delay and this date would have to be pushed back, that would be no big deal, we all know that those things can happen.

  6. If it was Monday and i said it wont be available Monday i would assume it was the Monday in question not next Monday.

    I agree, but again, that's not what he said. It was Friday/Saturday, and he said "it will not be available "this COMING Friday".

    Meaning it will not be released tomorrow.

    umlaut, it would certainly be great if the demo was released this week.

  7. Wrong JSj. I have included the TD losses. And by the way, they were miniscule. The US lost only about 70 TDs up to the Cobra breakout - all of 6 M-18 Hellcats, the rest M-10s. Numbers do exist for Allied AFV losses and I gave them to you. The idea that the allies lost 4000 AFVs in Normandy is false - it stems from the usual error of taking German kill *claims* as actual kills.

    And where do they exist? I just read a study by someone that were using all available sources and records, and they claim only accurate data for lost medium tanks exist.

    BTW, the Germans had a tendency to underestimate rather than overestimate enemy losses. Their claims are usually very accurate, or even slightly lower than the numbers found in allied records.

    What did the allies do with their TD:s if what you claim is correct? They had more TD:s than medium tanks, but still lost thousands of mediums and only 70 TD:s?

  8. The Germans sent 2200 full AFVs to Normandy. Between 50 and 200 were left by the end of August at the westwall.

    The US lost 982 mediums in the same period, and the Brits (including Canadians and Poles etc) lost 1190

    Only 1 in 4 of the allied AFV:s were American medium tanks. No exact numbers exist for total allied AFV losses, but including tank destroyers, and using the American mediums as a basis, they most likely lost around 4,000. German losses (also including TD:s), were, as you noted, around 2,000. That's a 1:2 ratio. If you then consider that only 1 in 5 German losses were combat losses, most were from lack of fuel when they retreated, it's clear that the German AFV losses in actual combat were much lower.

  9. I hardly think you can blame the German staffs for the faliure of the German large scale attacks in the ETO. By this time, the Germans were so outmatched that any large scale attack had no chance of succeding. The allied airpower obliterated any attempt to maneuver with any substantial forces.

    Hitler insisted on the counterattack after Cobra, even though the German commanders told him it was impossible. The forces were too depleted after the Normandy fighting, and there was no chance of any success. They wanted to retreat beyond the Seine to avoind being trapped. Hitler forced them to attack anyway, the offensive naturally failed, and many German troops were as a result trapped in the Falaise pocket.

    Even when the Germans managed to gather enough forces to gain a temporary local superiority (like during the battle of the Bulge, where they had to attack under cover of bad weather to avoid the allied air) the allies could eventually throw in their massive resources to counter and defeat the attack. After the weather cleared the German offensive in the Ardennes was doomed. They also were running out of supplies.

    The Generals in charge of the forces and the staff officers of course knew all this, and they opposed pretty much every one of these failed attacks, but Hitler insisted on them, and replaced anyone who refused to carry out his orders.

  10. Anyway, I think I´ve said all I have to say of this subject. I can recommend this book to anyone interrested in the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Power-German-Performance-1939-1945/dp/0313233330

    “Martin van Crevald has produced yet another provocative book that ... is bound to stimulate discussion. ... With the aid of almost sixty tables and figures van Crevald conducts a sophisticated analysis of measurements and calculations, juxtaposing the Wehrmacht to the U.S. Army in order to establish where the secret of the former's superior efficiency lay in scoring more kills than the enemy. ...van Crevald proceeds in a more sober and systematic way to look into a wide range of categories: social status, structure and mobility, army organization and administration, rewards and punishments, and the role of noncommissioned officers and of the officer corps.”

  11. I don't have any sources for Kursk quickly available, but Wikipedia gives about a 2,5 times advantage in artillery for the Russians, at least in numbers of guns and mortars. I would say with total air superiority, the heavy bombers, the NGS and all the artillery that was landed the Allies had a greater firepower advantage than the Russians had at Kursk.

    Still, Kursk is not really that relevant to this discussion, the situations were quite different. Just the fact that both sides at Kursk knew about the battle for months before it started and had plenty of time to prepare for it means that the fighting and the casualties can not be compared directly. There were lots of different factors influencing the level of casualties in these two operations, not just firepower or tactics.

  12. Yes, but they didn't have total air supremacy, the Luftwaffe had almost as many aircraft over Kursk as the Russans had. Neither did they have the truly massive firepower advantage that the allies had in Normandy, where they had both thousands of heavy bombers and naval gunfire support. The Soviets won anyway because of greater numbers, but they suffered more casualties due to having less advantages over the Germans than the allies had in Normandy.

  13. If the Allied Armies were incompetent and out classed by a dug in enemy that had held the ground for 4 years and was in perfect defensive terrain and only won by way of their superior numbers and supply then you would expect for an horrific number of casualties on the allied side I would be expecting well of 3 to 1 against but instead we see parity.

    This would most likely have been the case, had the odds in numbers and firepower been even close to even. The better German tactics and training were more than compensated for by allied firepower and numbers. The advantages of the two sides balanced themselves out as far as casualties in men were concerned. The allied tank losses on the other hand were enormous, about 4,000 compared to 2,000 German. And only about 1/5 of those German losses were combat related. Most were vehicles left behind when they ran out of fuel during the final retreat out of the Falaise pocket.

    By the way, no one is claiming that the allies were incompetent, only that the Germans had found a system that generally produced more efficient fighting units than anyone else. The allies could produce some great units too, like the American 88th Infantry Division in Italy, with a reputation for being at least as good as the best German units. It's just that this high level was an exception among the allies, but very common in the German fighting forces.

  14. Until August, the allies landed about 2 million men. The Germans used a total of around 600,000 men during the fighting in Normandy. Of course, far from all of these were the infantrymen and tankers that were doing the most of the fighting, but it shows how great the numerical advantage was. With this, plus the total air superiority, much greater amounts of artillery, and massive naval gunfire support, and the allies still were not able to win quickly and easily, and they did not inflict more casualties on the Germans than they took themselves, something that would be expected from these many advantages.

  15. Nah, still can't see it myself.

    Despite all of the supposed advantages that the Germans had they still only inflicted parity casualties on the Allies,

    What "all supposed advantages" are that? The better German tactics and training was more than compensated for by the allies many advantages, like total air superiority, massive naval gunfire support, and great numerical advantage.

    Also, a lot of the German casualties were among the non-german Russian and other foreign troops, which naturally had quite a low fighting potential.

  16. Also lets say the Allies did not have Air Superiority, but maybe Par. The outcome in Normandy I think could have been different. Air Power was a HUGE factor in Normandy, that crippled German movement and logistics...not to mention alot of Armor that could have been used vs the Allies. In that case I would give the advantage to the Germans.

    Probably, all else being equal. But had the allies not had air superiority, they would have had to compensate for that by other means. They relied upon airpower, superiority in numbers and firepower because their resources meant they could do that. Without that superiority they would have had to spend a lot more effort improving their tactics and training.

  17. In open terrain, the German tanks and AT guns, especially the Panther, Tiger and the 88:s, had a great advantage because of longer range and (for the tanks) better armour. So the terrain were probably more advantageous to the allies than the Germans.

    And yes, the breakout had nothing to do with the terrain. By this time the Germans, who could provide only very few reinforcements to their troops in Normandy, had become so few that they simply could not hold on any more.

  18. It sounds like everybody here is argueing about different things.

    Are we talking about the entire german army on a:

    a) Economic level

    B) technological level

    c) strategic level

    d) operational level

    e) tactical level

    What exactly does German forces mean?

    The German superiority was on the tactical level. Without this advantage, there is no way they could have kept the allies confined in the Normandy area for two and a half months, despite being massively outnumbered, outgunned and with very limited resources.

  19. However, properly placed and registered mortars had a significant tactical impact during the actual battles. This was not reflected in CMBO, where mortars were so ineffective that most unit purchases by savvy players excluded mortars if possible.

    The situation improved somewhat in CMBB, because attacking became harder, partly due to the greater effectiveness of machine guns.

    Ok, thanks for the explanation, I never played CMBO or CMBB.

×
×
  • Create New...