Your -2 moments...

[Michael Emrys]

the Stug developed into something it was never intended to be. IIRC, in 1935 it was just supposed to be a direct fire assault gun to support infantry divisions. By 1944 it had become a direct fire anti-tank gun, and I am note sure the Germans really knew how to use it to best effect. The average smart and experienced CMBN player probably know more about the Stugs limitations that a German Battalion or even Regimental Commander.

I would hesitate to make that claim myself. But anyway, the Germans did have a doctrine that probably worked well whenever circumstances allowed its use. For AT work, they were supposed to fire from ambush with the battery commander assigning targets. The idea was that the entire battery would concentrate its fire on a single target until it was dead and then transfer fire to the next target. This would, I expect, insure that each target was quickly reduced to smoking wreckage. It would have been the most effective when a platoon or larger formation leader could be identified and quickly neutralized.

Michael

[RT North Dakota]

I would hesitate to make that claim myself. But anyway, the Germans did have a doctrine that probably worked well whenever circumstances allowed its use. For AT work, they were supposed to fire from ambush with the battery commander assigning targets. The idea was that the entire battery would concentrate its fire on a single target until it was dead and then transfer fire to the next target. This would, I expect, insure that each target was quickly reduced to smoking wreckage. It would have been the most effective when a platoon or larger formation leader could be identified and quickly neutralized.

I'd make the claim with some confidence. Simply put, CMBN allows you to experiment in ways WW2 commanders could not have dreamt of.

Using the entire battery was something they learned during the war from using towed AT guns. It comes out in more than one post war debrief, as does the fact that unless the guns where used in concert with an armoured counter attack, the guns were almost always lost.

[Battlefront.com]

The StuG, as with the Marders and Jpz types, were nothing more than mobile AT guns with armor. This is reflected by the German's choice of organization for these units. When an organic part of a division they were treated nearly identically to towed AT weapons.

AT Guns are designed for defense, only occasionally being useful on the attack. The problem the Germans ran into, especially by 1944, was a distinct shortage of tanks. And so the StuGs et all found themselves used for roles which they were neither intended for nor good at. They would have been a major failure if it were not for the fact that the Germans were, largely, on the defensive from this point on. But it seriously cut into their tactical and operational counter attack capabilities.

Oddly, the Germans fully embraced "cheap" turretless vehicles like the StuG. But when it came to tanks, they went in the opposite direction. And many have argued that played no small role in their reversal of fortunes. Personally, I think other issues were vastly more important to the point that even if they had the best mass produced tank of the war (and they did not) they would have still lost. But maybe at the end of 1945 instead of early 1945.

Steve

[Steiner14]

I'd suggest to look at the German and Alliied production figures and compare them before making conclusions about efficiency of weapons...

[easytarget]

The Germans got zerg'd, so?

[John Kettler]

I strongly recommend someone with access to an AFV-G2 magazine collection take a look at the combat achievements of the StuG Brigades, especially in the East. They tore the Russians up whether attacking or defending (great exchange ratio), fought down to 20% strength, were rebuilt in Germany, retrained and sent into battle. Rinse and repeat, sometimes twice. Couldn't tell you how they fared in the West, where I doubt a whole brigade ever saw action as a unit.

Steve, please give the related German tracked AFV pivoting issue some much needed love. Wholly unnecessary losses are being sustained because of the modeling. As you know, some of us have been fighting the good fight on this since CMBO! Isn't it time?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lanzfeld]

Whoa...

Heavy.

[RT North Dakota]

The original Stug was designed to provide direct fire support and a de-facto self propelled infantry gun, with very simple tactical doctrine borrowed from the horse or hand-pulled guns of the 1920's. Not much training required. Simple idea.

Come 1942, it gets an L43 75mm, as an improvised method to get effective AT guns onto armoured chassis. It is now a de-facto armoured AT gun, and the Germans are learning via experience. Post war German debriefs make it quite clear that the Germans were still debating how best to employ "assault guns" in the AT role. The overriding concern that remains is how to get a big gun on a light chassis, in large numbers at low cost.

Yes it is simple, cheap and quick to build, but it is now being asked to do things that requires a good deal more skill and training, and the weapon is a good deal less flexible than a tank with a turret. - something CMBN can amply demonstrate.

The Soviets copied the Stug, based on the same very sound engineering trade-offs as the Germans to get effective guns on to chassis that were too light to carry the same weapon mounted in a turret. However come the maturing of WW2 experience in the 1950's, Stugs and SUs cease to exist. Even the German attempt to revive them in the 1960's falls flat - and even the Swedish S-tank comes and goes.

[agusto]

Yes it is simple, cheap and quick to build, but it is now being asked to do things that requires a good deal more skill and training, and the weapon is a good deal less flexible than a tank with a turret. - something CMBN can amply demonstrate.

The Soviets copied the Stug, based on the same very sound engineering trade-offs as the Germans to get effective guns on to chassis that were too light to carry the same weapon mounted in a turret. However come the maturing of WW2 experience in the 1950's, Stugs and SUs cease to exist. Even the German attempt to revive them in the 1960's falls flat - and even the Swedish S-tank comes and goes.

The Russians mounted huge guns on their SPGs. The ISU 152s HE shell could rip the turret of a german tank just by blast effect.

Oh, and look at that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer

That german turretless JPIV revival was in service till 1990, when the gun was removed and the platform used for arty spotting and as a TOW missile platform.

[Sgt Schultz]

Gimme back my thread guys!

[RT North Dakota]

Gimme back my thread guys!

Yep. Sorry about that.

The Russians mounted huge guns on their SPGs. The ISU 152s HE shell could rip the turret of a german tank just by blast effect.

Oh, and look at that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanonenjagdpanzer

That german turretless JPIV revival was in service till 1990, when the gun was removed and the platform used for arty spotting and as a TOW missile platform.

Yes the Russians did, (as I said) so as they could get very big guns onto chassis that would be impossible or unnecessary for large guns.

The JPIV was a quick and cheap way to get 90mm gun on relatively light chassis. It wasn't up to much. Not a success story.

[Seedorf81]

Gimme back my thread guys!

Impatience kills.

Victory seems certain and I only have to mop up some seemingly insignificant pockets of resistance. Really annoyed by the slow going of this process I begin sending men and armour forward without any wisdom.

And they get butchered. Even more irritated I start to act even more hastily and get a draw (at most) where I would have won a huge victory if only I could have been more patient.

Have A Merry Christmas, boys.

[Sublime]

I'd suggest to look at the German and Alliied production figures and compare them before making conclusions about efficiency of weapons...

An exchange ratio doesnt necessarily mean a weapon's more efficient. I'd honestly say Shermans were more efficient, or a T34 than it's German counterpart. Easier to build and field a bunch of, and do the job just as well usually. After all, look who won the war. Have a Merry Christmas in Deustchland while you ponder that

[agusto]

Gimme back my thread guys!

Ok, here s a- 2 moment:

I was playing a small night recon mission, i only had ~ 10 infantry, 2 armored cars and 4 APCs. I carefully moved the inf out, kept my recon cars in the back to avoid ambushes. Ten minutes into game the 5 men who were on the left flank becam victims of horrible 10 minutes of drama:

Everything seemed to be quiet and they moved up to the next hedgrerow, when one of them was shot out of nowhere (it was a dark night) and fell to the gound, wounded. The rest of the group made it to the relative cover of the next hedgerow. They started to surpress in the general direction the shot came from and called in an armored car for gaining fire superitority and an APC for extraction out of the hotzone. However the enemy did not continue to fire the men at the hedgrows and after a minute, they ceased their fire. As it arrived, the armored recon placed itself in a way to provide physical cover, so the wounded men in the open could be treated. Everything was going well until at somepoint the armored recon car started taking small arms fire from an enemy it couldnt see and retreated (what a coward!), exposing the 2 soldiers giving buddy aid. They were able to finish their job, but then becam WIA themselves. Now i was popping smoke, moving in the recon car and the APC for physical cover, gave them and orrder to surpress the hedgrow the enemy must be fring from and had my last to guys on the left flank treat their wounded buddys. But again, those cowards of vehicle crews retreated, one even panicked although the small arms fire they were taking wasnt a serious threat for them, and my last 2 medics were again wounded in action after fnshing treating their comrades. I had to leave them there, hoping the enemy would treat them well.

[Paul T]

I tried a few quick battles might as well beat all the campaigns and most of the battles. But I see quick battles are still a waste of time. AI is brain dead with no script.

All you have to do is go off the beaten path and catch them off guard.

Maybe, in the future CM will have more of a dynamic AI.

[Steiner14]

An exchange ratio doesnt necessarily mean a weapon's more efficient. I'd honestly say Shermans were more efficient, or a T34 than it's German counterpart.

So Ali, Foreman, Tyson and Klitschko were not the best since two or three or four or ten against each one of them would have won... Incredible.

[Sublime]

Bad analogy. Sports are completely different than warfare, especially a sport designed for 1 person to fight another in a closed arena.

It's debateable if they were or were not the best tanks of the war. You could point to reasons they were such as armor or main gun, but you can also point to flaws - inordinate production time and complexity, or the famous tendency of Panthers to break down after somewhat limited use. Also just because a lot of something was made doesn't mean it wasn't a good or effective machine, a prime example being P-51 fighters.

Also kill ratios are deceptive figures to begin with. For example the kill ratios tossed around constantly about German troops with tank kills, etc - I'd highly doubt that most of the ratios were so stacked in the German's favor from Ost Front fighting post Stalingrad or say on the Western Front 44 or 45. When you.re wiping out divisions of conscripts thrown into the teeth of massed weapons of course you'll get 10:1 kill ratios.

Finally whether or not the Germans had the best heavy tank, or LMG, the fact is that every weapons system the Germans came up with was bested by the Allied armies not in one world war but two, whether its U-Boats and wolfpacks, to the Luftwaffe, or blitzkrieg tactics and Tiger tanks. The Germans were simply outfought. Fighting the whole world was madness that no nation could accomplish, let alone a smaller nation such as Germany with only 80 million people in it's population. All too often the entire focus is on the pointy tip of a spear but a war is the sum of thousands of parts, the homefront, air power, naval power, ground troops, it's endless. So even if Germany had been able to produce thousands more Tigers or Panthers it still would have lost the war, despite any kill ratio - because the Luftwaffe was crushed, the Kriegsmarine destroyed, a madman was in charge, production was being bombed twice daily, the list is endless. And still, all that being said, it wasn't over production that destroyed the Third Reich either, it was soundly beaten both on the homefront and in the battlefield. No two ways about it. And honestly, being beaten was probably the best thing that happened to Germany recently as it reoriented it's populace and set it on a path to becoming a wealthy, safe country.

[agusto]

So Ali, Foreman, Tyson and Klitschko were not the best since two or three or four or ten against each one of them would have won... Incredible.

Well, from some of view, they were not the best! Efficiency = cost /gain. Training a guy like Vladimir Klitschko and having him gain years of experience costs millions and millions of dollars, probably. Still he would lose a 20 vs 1 fist fight against bums you could recruit for 30 bucks each on the streets of Ukraine, although they wouldd have -2 expierience and -2 morale. Thus Effciency wise, Vladimir Klitschko would be a bad investment if the rules of boxing wouldnt dictate 1 vs 1.

[Michael Emrys]

Efficiency = cost /gain.

Shouldn't that be efficiency=gain/cost? The way you've written it, the more it costs, or the less the gain, the more efficient.

Michael

[agusto]

Shouldn't that be efficiency=gain/cost? The way you've written it, the more it costs, or the less the gain, the more efficient.

Michael

That is correct.

[Sgt Schultz]

That is correct.

Junior member trying to get on the sig line?

He will have to correct you on a much larger error my friend.

[Michael Emrys]

Junior member trying to get on the sig line?

He will have to correct you on a much larger error my friend.

And said junior member will have to be much more grovelingly obsequious.

Michael

[tsword_new]

Doing a scenario Test I witnessed first hand what usually happens in the dark on the AI side:

As a Company passed/traversed another unit one chap used it's Bazooka to hit a fellow sitting there in peace on the head !!! Another one jerked his elbow into another one and yet another one used his rifles butt to hit another into the stomach. After thinking about these shocking incidents I came to the conclusion that these men must be frustrated by the knowing carelessness for humans of the tyrant AI-Intelligence ruling them, poor sods ! Moral is low in the AI - Army maybe one reason for it's dismal performance ?

[womble]

Doing a scenario Test I witnessed first hand what usually happens in the dark on the AI side:

As a Company passed/traversed another unit one chap used it's Bazooka to hit a fellow sitting there in peace on the head !!! Another one jerked his elbow into another one and yet another one used his rifles butt to hit another into the stomach. After thinking about these shocking incidents I came to the conclusion that these men must be frustrated by the knowing carelessness for humans of the tyrant AI-Intelligence ruling them, poor sods ! Moral is low in the AI - Army maybe one reason for it's dismal performance ?

No, no no! You've seen evidence that...

Larry, Moe and Curly are still there!