db_zero
-
Posts
1,554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by db_zero
-
-
I've had both good and bad results with the Mark IV. When I used it like a Stug in the ambush role its done well. Other times not so well.
In a Red Thunder h2h game against my opponent playing the Russians I got shot up in a long range gunnery duel. It was open terrain at 700+ meters. My T34's lost that one. I chalk it up to 2 things:
1. Superior German optics
2. My T-34s were moving, then halting to shoot.
Once I settled down and used my T-34's in a ambush mode my kill success against the Mark IV went up. That being said-so far I think the optics on Russian tanks is inferior-just how inferior I don't know, but I'm guessing 600 meters is about the limit.
Played the same battle using what I learned in the first battle and my T-34s have butchered the Mark IVs.
I've so far learned the Mark IV is vulnerable to the Russian 45mm AT gun.
Think of the Mark IV as the German version of the Sherman and use it as such and perhaps you'll grow to appreciate it.
-
A lot - well, no, not really.
There were all of 7 SS divisions al war that were elite panzer formations, and lots of second rate formations, and then lots more third rate to useless propaganda exercises and rear area security formations that fell apart or deserted as soon as they actually faced an enemy army. Most of the non-German SS fell into the third category, with some in the second.
The western and northern countries that figured most heavily in German propaganda only provided 100,000 men over the whole war - half of them Dutch. Another 20% of the were Belgian; the Scandinavian countries contributed next to nothing. In theory the 5th SS was to be two thirds foreign volunteers, half from the west and half from the north, but that didn't actually happen. A few thousand fit the plan, Germans filled in the rest.
Of the 7 panzer formations, 3 only formed in 1944. Second rates formed from green foreigners mixed with young German conscripts in a few mire divisions that year, drawn from French Vichy and collapsing Romanian fascists who both retreated with the Germans they had collaborated with, rather than face hostile nationals when their countries were liberated. Those fought but they didn't perform particularly well.
The bulk of the remaining non German SS were recruited in the east and southeast on the basis of anti communism or nationalist sentiment directed against the Soviets, rather than in favor of Germany. Some of those fought OK for their homelands - in the Baltic states - but most were barely capable of facing partisans, and evaporated on contact when facing an actual army of actual Russians. The aggregate combat power of those formations was probably less than a single infantry corps of late war German VG, for example.
FWIW...
I would tend to agree with most of this, however I would like to throw out this for consideration.
The ARVN when it was in existence had a reputation for being combat ineffective, with a few exceptions. However so long as the American military was in country and provided the backbone, morale, air and logistical support the ARVN remained in existence and if nothing else could police areas, use local terrain, customs and language knowledge to help enable some sort of stability to exist. No doubt when push came to shove against the NVA, without American backing-in the form of boots on the ground or air power a smart betting man wouldn't put chips on the ARVN.
The same sort of thing appears to be happening in Iraq. I suspect of we had boots on the ground and/or air power in play we probably wouldn't be seeing what we're now seeing. I'm not advocating any return to the past or arguing for or against intervention. Truth be told I always believed the Iraq invasion and the premises behind it was a fools errand-but that is my opinion and nothing more. Sometimes all options suck equally. As one once said-behind the tip of the spear there's always a shaft...
The point I'm trying to make is like Viet-Nam so long as the American military was in country the "infective" ARVN and Iraqi military didn't dissolve and provided much useful service-if nothing else helping police large areas. I suspect the German army in Russia, like the US military in the Middle East has discovered, that conquering a large country in a military campaign is one thing, but administering it once you've conquered it is another and local knowledge and linguistic skills are vital. You wouldn't count on the locals forces to stand up to a determined military force who possess that critical moral and motivation belief, but in less than a all out fight they could prove very useful in day to day policing and administrative duties, so vital when you've occupied a foreign area-just don't expect much when you leave them to do it on their own without backing.
So yes I could agree that most of the million men who served under the Nazi flag were not capable of doing well in a stand up fight against the Russian Army. On the other hand they probably served a very useful enabling purpose that suited the Germans needs. In essence they were a force multiplier. Every non Germanic soldier doing a menial task freed up a German soldier for the front.
-
Bigger is better syndrome? In all the h2h battles I've played so far I got IS2's, T-34/85, SU-122s and SU-76s.
Quite happy with the SU-122's as they are good Panther killers. So far my SU-76s have been murdered, but I do like their smoke capability.
I suppose the SU-85s have a faster reloading time as the shell is one piece, but I have noticed the 85mm is not always effective against a Panther.
Whats has been a pleasant surprise is the Soviet 45mm AT gun. In 2 h2h games its proven to be a nasty Mark IV killer and its taken out a Panther with a side shot. I also hit and penetrated 2 other Panthers with side shots, but it didn't kill the tank. It appears they are not easy to spot.
I haven't been able to use the SU-152 or any Tigers yet.
-
Pretty ironic. You hear the Nazi propaganda calling the Russians subhuman mongoloids then employ mongols into fighting units.
I always thought the non Germanic Panzer units were integrated, but sounds like that really wasn't the case.
I always knew non Germanics were in the SS and regular army. I didn't realize it was a million men. I figured it was in the low hundred thousands at most.
-
I don't think 'scrubbed' is quite the right word. The information has been widely and publicly available for many many years now - in some ways, if you have an interest, it's long been at the stage where you'd have to be actively avoiding the information to remain ignorant.
Invariably when speaking to some 'teh SS wuz kewl' nobbit it is abundantly clear that they think the SS consisted of, in it's entirety, of 1SS, 2SS, 3SS, 9SS, 10SS, and 12SS Pz Divs. Oh, and Otto. "Florian Geyer? Who's he?" It seems like a case of people simply not looking beneath the admired veneer to the cheap ply underneath. Sometimes it's because they only ever read Leo Kessler and Kurt Meyer. Sometimes they've progressed from Kessler/Meyer on to Max Hastings and Mike Reynolds. Very rarely have they gone any further than that.
So, now, whenever I come across someone of that ilk I take it as a mark of their ignorance, probably wilful, rather than evidence of some vast conspiracy of scrubbing.
When I said scrubbed I was referring to the image presented to the German homefront during the war. I was not referring to after the war.
My impression right or wrong is the German people were fed a scrubbed image of what was going on-just like every other nation tended to do during that time period, so I was under the assumption they really didn't know the real extent or maybe they did. If they did know it would be interesting to see how it was presented to them.
I casually knew some of the SS Divisions were non Germanic, I just didn't realize it was potentially this extensive. I'm not a huge Eastern Front expert to begin with. I've read some books, but not a whole lot. Pretty amazing when you think about it considering how much time, effort and money America has recently devoted to training the Iraqi and Afghanistan army and there apparent lack of effectiveness. I guess you really can't compare the 2 situations as there are differences.
-
As I was perusing the net I came across this:
1 Million non Germanic troops fighting for the SS. That's a lot of men, especially considering the manpower shortage the Germans face. Percentage wise that's a large number.
You can argue about the actual combat effectiveness, but even so it allowed other units to fight without having to be tied down to protecting the rear areas, flanks and other duties that would inhibit "regular" combat units.
If I'm not mistaken much of the final fighting in Berlin in 45 was done by non-germanic troops who had nowhere to go and nothing to lose by fighting to the bitter end.
Oftentimes so much of what gets documented is "scrubbed" to be palatable to the home front and present a nice, clean sterile image.
-
Lt. Smash,
Thanks. I downloaded and played. Short, sweet and to the point. A nice small battle you can finish in an evening. Took me 2 tries.
I suffered friendly fire casualties. Never seen this before, but I lost a soldier when a friendly smoke round landed directly on him!
-
I recall from reading about the Battle of the Bulge it got so desperate cooks, clerks, musicians and other rear echelon troops not trained or accustomed to fighting were pressed into action and got butchered, but served their purpose. One passage described how these troops walked into an area that got hit by a German artillery barrage that caught some of their troops early on. They could see the body pieces in the trees. Not exactly a good initiation to what they were about to embark on.
I think if these sort of troops were placed in a defensive position and defending they could do ok, but you really couldn't expect a whole lot. Ask them to assault a position or do something really difficult like assaulting a build up area and you're asking for a real disaster.
Everyone knows every Marine is a rifleman first. Be interesting to hear from those who really know, just how much you could reasonably expect to get in a desperate situation from non direct combat units and personnel who got pressed into action. Being trained as a good shooter helps, but I'm would assume you need to get advanced infantry training and constantly maintain proficiency. I'm not sure if non direct combat units do this as there are work and budget issues involved.
-
I saw a blurb in the back of PC Gamer mag. Saw the pic of the infantry that reminds me of Angry Birds. Eventually ended up buying it.
-
And someone though it was a good idea to sell Iraq M1A2s. Assuming the sale went through and Iraq goes the way of South Vietnam that means extremist Islamists, quite possibly bent on regional domination could have one of the best MBTs in their arsenal. This could be a problem....
I wouldn't worry too much about this. The same was said when the Shah of Iran was overthrown and the analysts were saying "what about the F-14s and other advanced weapons we sold him"
Its one thing to have a weapon system. Another to maintain and deploy them and I suspect Iraq, like Iran is heavily dependent on western expertise to keep the M1A2 running.
Most of the F-14s and F4s we sold Iran sat and did nothing once the Western expertise left. I suspect the homely F-5, known for simplicity and ease of maintenance and operation flew far more sorties than the sexy F-14 and F4's in Iran
I wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of thing occurs in Iraq. There is a reason why the simple Soviet stuff is so popular in the Second and Third World.
Should Iraq go south the biggest danger to the west will be the export of radical ideas, a home base for radical groups and the car bomb and IED, not M1A2's.
The military would be relieved if the M1A2's became the biggest threat as they would be far easier to combat than radicals using IEDs and car bombs.
-
We need medics in the game. Battlefield priests would also be a nice feature. Not holding my breath though.
-
When things get desperate I don't hesitate to use them. If the situation is under control I keep them out of harms way. I was told that tank crews are expensive to lose. Don't know about mortarmen, gun crews and MG crews cost if they get killed.
Tank crews are quite effective with their sidearms. Even in RT. If they happen to have an SMG or 2 they can be very deadly.
I rarely surrender or call for a truce. Not historically accurate.
-
I could see a NCO or officer pulling out a sidearm and telling the driver to give it up or else. but looks like that's not the case so I'll just have to make due with the situation at hand.
Looks like the driver will get his wish to be Rambo. He may end up regretting it and soon wish he'd just remained a taxi driver.
-
Somehow the driver of my M3 HT has the PIAT and ammo and won't give it up. How can I get it back into the HT inventory so others can use it, or give it to another unit?
-
I don't have a dog in this fight. I can live with what we currently have.
If BF didn't implement hit decals this thread probably wouldn't exist.
Maybe the solution is if a tank gets hit from the front then no exit hit decal. Then there wouldn't be the issue of whether the tanks should continue to run or not.
-
I think I solved the mystery. A 82mm mortar round should not destroy a Panther. However looking at my trusty World Tank Museum book it mentions that the hatch for the driver and radio operator was very heavy and difficult to open and close and many crews just rode into combat with the hatch in the open position.
Thus the 82mm rounds just happened to land in the open hatch thus knocking out the otherwise invulnerable Panther. The hatch may not be shown in the open position, but thats what happened. Sometime in the distant future BF will have some tanks that rumble into battle with open hatches to reflect this fact
-
I've had a number of tanks destroyed by arty in h2h games. Its a rare event and for some reason I feel it always happens to me.
Had a couple of Panthers destroyed in Counter Attack at Son when my opponent dropped a 105mm barrage on my tanks. I also think he immobolized one later on with a barrage.
In another game Borderland one of his airburst 75mm barrages killed a MarkIII.
I chalk it up to luck or lack of it.
I'm at the ending turns of a RT game and I managed to drop a 152mm and 122mm barrage on my opponents Panthers and MarkIVs but didn't see any evidence of kills.
I recall reading that overall arty was considered ineffective in killing tanks, but it could immobilize or cause damage. Naval gunfire may be a different story.
82mm sounds pretty light against a Panther, but you never know. Maybe it was a Panther made on a Monday after a 3 day weekend or one made in a factory that used slave labor.
-
WW1 doesn't interest me.
In the 90's you have companies like Microprose and SSI put out some great WW2 naval games. Sine their demise nobody has really taken up the bat tan. I would love to see a modern remake of Task Force 1942 or 1942 as well as SSI's GNB series.
I took a look at Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations but took a pass. When you're going to charge that much money I expect something more than 1990 style graphics. If Combat Mission can put a decent face on a serious simulation there is no excuse why CMNO can't especially given the fact they charge $30-40 more.
I'm willing to pay premium prices-I forked out $125 for Steel Beasts, but when you charge a premium price, I expect a premium product.
-
As the old saying goes CoH is like the good time, good looking babe you huck and chuck, while Combat Mission is the one you take home to mom and get serious with.
Speaking of a good time without getting serious this one looks like fun. I like naval games and there are not to many of them out there:
http://www.battlefleetgame.com/bf2.html
I have Men of War Assault Squad on Steam, but its not installed. I may have to take another look. I also have Order of War, but haven't touched that in years.
Is Men of War 2 the Viet-Nam one? I heard that was insanely hard.
-
Siege warfare definitely wasn't Patton's forte. In a perfect world Montgomery would have been in charge at Metz and Patton would have been better suited to leading Market Garden than Montgomery.
Sometimes Patton like Montomery bit off more than they could chew. The Hammelburg raid wasn't one of his shining moments.
I would venture to guess if a US commander tried that sort of operation today the media throw a huge fit and Washington would come down hard.
-
I've played both extensively. Agree with all that's been said. CoH is better if you're into that sort of game. CM is not going to appeal to many due to the complexity and time needed to master the interface.
I tried CoH online games years ago and it pretty much boiled down to who could pump out the most units and rush the other side. That and the juvenile nature of the players turned me off.
In the end we're really taking about apples and oranges here.
I played the Original CoH and both expansions alot-mostly offline. I have the Eastern Front CoH, but hardly touched it.
Wargame and red Dragon is sorta the same thing. Looks good and is fun, but not a serious combat simulator and from what I've seen online not really a place I want to be.
The Combat Mission h2h crowd on the other hand is much more refined if you ask me.
-
Agreed. But was that Germans attacking US positions, or just raining 81 and 7.92 hell on them as the poor doggies struggle to ford yet another narrow river defile?
More than likely on the defense, but then again if I'm not mistaken the German doctrine was to be aggressive/offensive, even while on the defense. They would counter attack whenever possible.
Even when technically on the offense, the Germans like to feign retreat and lure the opponent to attack and entice the attacking opponent into kill zone covered by 88mms and other defensive weapons.
-
I liked it when it first came out in the 90s and as well as when CMBN came out as I got the nice special edition.
I didn't really get seriously hooked until I started playing h2h. That put it into a different league.
I also have all of the Shock Force games, but I'm not as into it as the WW2 stuff. I suspect once Black Sea or whatever they call it comes out I'll get hooked on h2h. I just wished they would be more adventurous and do the Arab-Israeli wars and modern Asia.
-
I'm struggling with the CW forces in my h2h games. I'm coming to the conclusion that I should not break them down so they will have enough firepower to be effective against the Hun, but I also worry that they become very vulnerable if not broken down.
I've always heard the Lee Enfield has the smoothest bolt action when it comes to bolt action rifles, but without more automatic firepower I find them a bit anemic.
It would be nice if they could acquire the Brens on the carriers.
What's being underutilized?
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Sounds like a RT version of Cats Chasing Dogs is in order.