Get ready to UNLEARN

[Guest Big Time Software]

Pixman made a good point at the bottom of the thread on the Technical Terms thread. To sum it up: those that rely on math to win games will likely lose when going up against someone who has an intuitive sense about what the game and tactics are all about. We couldn't agree more! In CM's case this is going to be pushed to the extreme.

I made up a scenario where a decent sized German Kampfgruppe was assaulting a spread out, greatly out numbered US force. I have already learned that German tanks are NOT invincible the way some games make them, but this wasn't enough to save me. In about 8 turns I lost all 4 of my Panther Gs, both my PzIVGs, and both my PzIVJs. What was the US shooting at me with? 2 Sherman 76s, one Sherman Jumbo, two Stuarts, and one 57mm AT gun. I managed to knock out one Sherman, one Stuart, two Priests, and a HT. So again, the Germans lost 8 AFVs and the US only 2 (not including the HT and Priests). And you know what, it was totally realistic...

What was also realistic was an infantry assault I did on a stone house. It was a key spot for me to take and I decided to assault it from 2 directions. Unfortunately, I didn't really think too much about my flanks and the ground I had to cover. 2 Squads and a Panzerschreck team broke cover from the woods and ran straight at the stone house while 2 other squads and a 20mm AAA gun kept their heads down from the other direction. My assaulting squads made it 80% of the way there, then broke and ran away with about 50% casualties. BUT I HAD THE GUYS IN THE HOUSE PINNED!! Yeah, but there were several MGs and tank MGs that I hadn't counted on 600m away, and they ALL opened up on my guys as they ran towards the house. I think the final straw was that the pinned guys in the house suddenly sensed the danger from the rear and, because they were in good cover, decided it was time to fight back and risk taking a casualty or two. So I had 11 Garands and a Thompson, plus a grenade or two, open up on my guys at about 20m!! Ugh! I don't know for sure (thanks to limited intelligence modeling), but I don't think I caused even one US casualty.

Just so you don't think I am a total fool, my other flank went like a near perfect textbook example of combined arms and close assault tactics. Dense woods, windy road, 1 Puma in the lead and 2 Jagdpanthers trailing at a safe distance. Two full SS Panzergrenadier platoons, one Panzerschreck team, and an HMG 42 team moved down both sides of the road. I encountered two farm houses with little clearings around them. I found an outpost unit in the first and wiped out half of it and caused the other half to surrender. I didn't lose a single man and was hardly even slowed by this. The second farmhouse I found a reinforced infantry platoon with a halftrack and MMG support. I enveloped it from three sides, moved my Puma in to cause trouble (uh, didn't see the Bazooka... shame!) and then assaulted. I cleared the entire area and only a few stragglers managed to escape. My HMG cut down the better part of a squad as it tried to retreat, while the others were nailed as they ran from their foxholes. I took about 10 prisoners too. Loss for me was one man in a anti-personnel mine field and about 2-3 others from small arms fire, plus the Puma and 2 of its crew. The enemy lost 1 MMG team, one bazooka team, the bulk of 3 squads and their HQ unit, as well as the HT and its 3 man crew.

On the left flank I made the cardinal mistake of boldly advancing without knowing where the enemy was. I got caught in the open, against decent tanks (the Jumbo is like a Tiger defensively!) and MGs, which had a nice cross fire going on. No matter how I turned my tanks, they US ones got a flank shot. Meanwhile they were not moving (better accuracy for them!), in good cover, and always having their frontal armor facing me. I deserved the pounding, but I think many Grogs out there would feel that the game is unrealistic, blaming the game instead of their mistakes. I know better

On the right flank I used proper recon and caution, along with two really well coordinated assaults. The result on the left was a disaster, the right was better than one could hope for. I'll try and do better on the left next time

Steve

P.S. All this was played solo against the Tactical AI only! All the AI's units could do is react to my actions. God help me when the AI can actually pro actively move units around

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Hopefully wargamers used to ugo/igo turns realise that they are in for a new gaming experience. Something more like the tense frantic decision making of RTS games. Yes I said RTS. Prepare thyself, grognards, for RTS players who play by instinct. Don't be too worried, us RTS players will give you a chance to breath every 60 seconds.

[Guest Big Time Software]

John makes a great point. The kinds of things that I described would not happen in something like Steel panthers. On my left flank I would have moved one tank out, lost it, known where the enemy was (and of course WHAT the enemy was), and not moved anything else. But I just went for it and got clobbered. I made my plan, my units carried it out, and there was nothing I could do to cheat my way out of the situation I put them in.

BTW, Uuntil you see a squad of yours with tracers zinging by it from a dozen sources at once, you haven't really experienced the dangers of war in a wargame.

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Tracers from a dozen sources is bad news for the squad but also good news for the player, for the enemy has been located. That was half the battle. Might not be a good idea to use overwhelming fire power if it gives away the position of the main body.

[Lt_Stahler]

...I deserved the pounding, but I think many Grogs out there would feel that the game is unrealistic, blaming the game instead of their mistakes. I know better...

Good point Steve, and I agree completely with John. We can use all the comparative charts we want but that will to happen at perfect and optimum conditions when your opponent's forces aren't moving simultaneously and having all the time in the world to plot movement. Real Time is the way to go, it more or less defines battlefield conditions in regards to quick decision making.

The pseudo-"Real Time" vs "Turn Based" can be compared to playing Chess, the traditional way or....the exciting way.......with a clock.........

regards,

Juno "Lt_Stahler" Urgel

CCOC member

[Fionn]

John,

Good point but ONLY correct if you can truly see exactly where the enemy tracers are coming from.. Also, knowing that there's some guns firing from the house to your left doesn't even begin to compare to the reality of finding 3 SS squads in there. God that would be a shock wouldn't it ?.

I think CM will rock...

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Fionn, as long as those SS squads stay put, I'm not worried. Once they are spotted, I'll avoid them if they are not the mission objectives. If they are in my way, I'll retreat, keep sight of the house and bring in something that will out range the SS squads.

I just read the paperback 'Sword Point' by Harold Coyle. Was about Soviet and US forces duking it out in Iran. Gives you a good feel for mobile combat.

Once anything is spotted, the right resource will be brought to take it out,..from a distance. That's why a stationary defense is so dangerous.

I think I prefer the American logic. I want many fast weaker tanks. Focus the strength then move, move, move.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

In fact, using Soviet logic with American tanks seems appropriate for WW2.

Many weak tanks can find the enemy faster. It's easier to keep the enemy guessing with many weaker units as to where the focus of the attack will hit.

So I would trade a few mighty tigers to many weaker shermans easily.

[Doug Beman]

You guys at BTS keep on talking about playing the game. You're killin' me here! Every time I read one of your after-action reports, I wanna find out where you live and camp out in your lawn, just hoping for a peek through a window at CombatMission.

DjB

[Rhet]

The tough part is trying to stay away from generalizations but here goes...

Give me quality over quantity any day! I have to go along with Heinz Guderian when it comes to the employment of armor. Give me the best equipment and men and let me decide when and where to fight and I will show you how a smaller force can completly overwhelm a numerically superior force. Both Rommel (who started out as an Infantry Officer interestingly enough) and Patton were great students of Guderian and look at their exploits. The military buzzword nowadays is "force multipliers". This basically boils down to how can I do more with less? I'll tell you a little secret... a Commander that knows how to effectivly employ his forces is the greatest force multiplier there is.

------------------

Rhet

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Well the Russians proved Heinz Guderian wrong. Numbers count. Yes, I know he was a good General, but how much of his success can be attributed to attacking countries that weren't ready for war? The early years of WW2 was won by the Germans because the countries were not in a war frame of mind. Germany caught them off gaurd. France, for instance could not recover fast enough from the surprise attack before it was over for them.

Even today, initiative counts big time. Look at the gulf war. Iraq smashed through Kuwait easily. Yugoslavia smashed through Kosovo like a knife through butter, why? Surprise, initiative. Not even Nato could stop them in time. However in the long run , they (Yugos) will lose.

Don't expect the weaker tanks to come charging through your front. they will search your flanks incesantly. This will slow you down.

In the long run, it will depend on the scenario/terrain. We will see.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Rhet, problem is that this strategy lost the war for the Germans. The Panther was superior in many ways, but with only 5000 produced I would rather have had Shermans even with a 75 if I were Ike. The reason is that the US forces could show up with tanks any where at pretty much any time they wanted. The Germans had no such luxury. And when they lost a load of them in a battle, it took months to rebuild their units. And RARELY did they recover fully. Instead the OKW/OKH kept reducing the number of tanks per unit, which even that wasn't filled most of the time.

Although I think it was nearly criminal to give the US forces such terrible equipment to deal with the German tanks and AT guns, the fact is that the Germans could never match the US and Soviet strategy of "more is better". Of course, the Soviet tanks weren't all that bad

The case now, as you point out, is that the US wishes to project more force with less. But when they need more force with MORE, they also have it available. The Gulf War was a perfect example of this. The number of tanks for both sides was about equal from what I recall, but the quality of the Allied stuff was vastly superior. Then there was something called airpower, which also goes under the more with less employed with more doctrin

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

I predict that the more is better strategy will be highlighted by CM's turn system. Unlike games like Starcraft, **(what? , Heinz Guderian , and Starcraft mentioned in the same breath? Blasphemy! ** ), where the zerg have greater numbers, CM's turn system will allow you to give detailed orders to a large number of units. That means everybody will be used to thier full potential and not just clumped together for a giant rush. All depends on how the commander handles them.

[Rhet]

I knew generalization would get me in trouble!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well the Russians proved Heinz Guderian wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

John, you have to be careful here. Guderian wanted to press on to Moscow and this, considering the political situation in Russia at the time, would have probably won the war on the Eastern front. It was poor leadership in Germany that held back vital supplies and eventually diverted troops and armor away from taking Moscow that allowed the Russians to recover.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know he was a good General, but how much of his success can be attributed to attacking countries that weren't ready for war?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well not much. France at the time of invasion had much better tanks than the Germans and much, much more of them (not to mention many more troops as well). Also to say that they were not prepared for war is incorrect. Both the French troops and Brits were in place and ready for the German attack. The success the Germans had in France is attributable to the following factors: Better tactics, leadership and training. France fell mainly due to the poor employment (WWI tactics) of its numerically superior army.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>problem is that this strategy lost the war for the Germans<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, do you think this was a failing of their strategy or more of a failing of their ability to wage a war against the economic and natural resources of the U.S., U.S.S.R. & the UK? I think it was more of the latter.

I like the more with less with more doctrine. - clever

------------------

Rhet

[Rhet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All depends on how the commander handles them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, John

That is the real point of my earlier post.

And yes, that is blasphemy! your pennence shall be to read "Janes Encyclopedia on the Worlds Fighting Vehicles" cover to cover.

------------------

Rhet

[This message has been edited by Rhet (edited 06-08-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oh, the Germans lost the war before they even started it, don't get me wrong. This was, after all, my area of study in college If you wanted a list of why Germany lost the war it would probably crash this message board! Unlike some folks, I do not think that this or that battle was important to Germany's ultimate downfall, unless of course you call invading the Soviet Union a battle

The point is that the Germans always tried to make the BEST stuff. Tanks, ships, small arms, artillery, rockets, jets, etc. you name it. Trying to build the high tech stuff comes at a price, though. Reliability, spare parts, numbers, etc. This was the problem with all of Germany's tanks, especially the later war ones.

Any hoo, if I was the Big Cheese and had the choice between 5000 great, but fussy, tanks (Panther) and 50,000 decent and very reliable tanks (Sherman), I would take quantity every time. If I were a tanker and had the choice, I would take a King Tiger

Oh, and I just watched 3 Shermans take out 4 PzIVs and 4 Panthers. Granted they were the best Shermans made, but this should tell you something about what I am getting at...

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-08-99).]

[Fionn]

Yeah the key with the Panthers and Tigers is that they were used in defence ad generally faced Sherman 75s.

You can't just say a tank is great full stop. You must say the Panther was a great tank given the role it usually performed and the enemies it faced... Given those caveats this is true.

However, versus Sherman 76s and Jumbo Sherman 76s the Panthers are in major trouble.

[Pixman]

_____________________________________________

The point is that the Germans always tried to

make the BEST stuff. Tanks, ships, small arms, artillery, rockets, jets, etc. you name it. Trying to build the high tech stuff comes at a price, though. Reliability, spare parts, numbers, etc. This was the problem with all of Germany's tanks,especially the later war ones.

_____________________________________________

I'm with you Steve, just look at the Bismarck. The Brits just sent a pack of inferior dogs after that thoroughbred and dragged her to the bottom of the ocean.

This whole discussion gets more interesting when you throw in the superiority complex of the Nazis vs. the Everyman ideology of the Soviets (I am no communist/socialist!). These contrasting philosophies carried into the realm of their equipment, command leadership and tactics as the war went on. The Germans were just downright arrogant about their superiority in every regard -- a requirement when deciding to take on the whole world. That's why it came as such a shock to their egos when the T-34 turned out to be a head to head match for the PzIV -- and the Soviets were just getting warmed up. How could this happen? And look how many there are!

We can talk about King Tigers and Panthers until we are blue in the face and it's fun because they are sexy tanks. But the mass produced blue collar tanks on each side were what really had to get the job done. In this regard, the Germans were outclassed on both fronts later in the war. As much as the individual tanker hated it, the Yanks had it right. Cobra could not have been executed with American equivalents of Tigers and Panthers. In fact, the Germans' opening blitzkrieg could not have happened with Tigers and Panthers either. Look at what they used -- PzIIIs and a few PzIVs with 50mm and 75mm guns. Real killers huh? No, just bread and butter tanks that were sturdy, efficient, reliable, plentiful and mobile as hell. Very effective against infantry with machine guns, which was their original purpose anyway. Just imagine how much more effective the Ardennes campaign might have been had the Germans had 2 to 3 times as many inferior tanks (fuel notwithstanding).

By moving to the big, slow, heavy, albeit devastatingly powerful tank, the Germans essentially gave up a mobile warfare doctrine for a more fixed defense approach. They had to move the Tigers by rail for goodness sake! This violated the very principles upon which their early successes were built. They became fixated on killing enemy tanks with their own tanks at predictable and relatively fixed locations. They'd get the tanks there and park them (oh they could move about a little in a small radius)and wait for the enemy to show up so they could start blasting. What a waste of armor! Nothing wrong with the defensive approach, but why not use 20 towed 88s instead of one Tiger? Ask Montgomery if this approach worked when Rommel used it against him in the desert. He'd create a wall of towed 88s and then lure or drive Monty into it with his mobile units. Creates quite a headache.

My final comment, at least for now, is the following:

When talking about tanks, we tend to focus on the armor, gun size, muzzle velocity, optics, etc. That's all great and again very sexy. But for me, the most impressive (though somewhat mundane) feature of a tank is its track and the consequent all-terrain mobility it provides. A tank was made to move. Once it stops moving, it is a wasted resource. Marshall, Ike and especially Patton all understood this. Guderian and Rommel understood this as well. The 15th Panzer Army was meant to be a "mobile" reserve behind a wall of fixed defenses. When it did not "move" we got ashore and the rest is history.

[Simon Fox]

Pixman-I am sorry but I cannot agree with much that you say on this topic. The mobility doctrine to which you adhere matches uncannily with the misconceptions of General McNair who believed that armoured divisions would be employed for exploitation and pursuit and seldom fight other tanks. Thereby discovering that pace in battle is of no value unless matched by survivabilityI can't believe that people are seriously supporting this notion of quantity vs quality. We are not talking about massive technological differences here: just more armour and a bigger gun! It is an absolute disgrace that for all their technological superiority in aircraft production, radar equipment etc US and Brit industries provided their armies with tanks utterly inferior in armour and killing power. The germans made a deliberate decision to go for quality because they knew they could not match the quantity of the allies. I don't agree that this was a flawed concept just a bit futile under the circumstances. There are numerous examples of single german tanks taking out 4-5 allied tanks before being destroyed. Your quantity vs quality concept only works if your tanks are crewed by automatons who don't know their tanks are crap. Otherwise they start to suffer the creeping paralysis and Panther/Tiger phobia suffered by allied tanks crews. The point here is that Shermans were extremely vulnerable to just about every anti-tank weapon employed by the germans: 75L42, 88s, panzerfausts, panthers, tigers etc. This vulnerability translated into an unwillingness to take risks or press home an attack, and as the onus was on the allies to do the attacking...

Your assessment of Cobra, D-day, the Ardennes, seems a little simplistic to say the least. I may be wrong but I think you will find that the panther had a considerably higher road speed than the sherman.

Steve-If three shermans took out 4 Panthers and 4 MkIV in the scenarion you describe then I have got to say that they must have been very poorly employed (even if attacking).

Fionn-I would of thought the Sherman 76 was more on a par with the MkIV and still outmatched by the panther and was there such a thing as a jumbo76.

Steve-what were the relative costs of manufacturing a sherman and a panther after all in purely economic terms the germans may have only been capable of manufacturing 15,000 shermans and for his 50,000 shermans Ike might have got a lot more than 5000 panthers and I reckon that Bradley and Patton would have gone for that deal!

[Guest Big Time Software]

Simon, while I agree that it was criminal that the Allied tanks were so poorly prepared to do battle with the German tanks (I'm pretty sure I said that somewhere), the fact is that the quantity strategy DID work for the Allies. Time and time again I have read about US tank formations overwhelming German positions. Yes, when they were met with determined AT fire they were generally in trouble. But because the Allies had more tanks they could attack more places than the Germans could defend, and make good on losses when things didn't go well. And when they DID run into trouble, they more often than not were able to call upon additional forces (tank, air, artillery, infantry, etc.) to help overcome the problem. On the defense, it was even easier because then the Allies could strike back with their own AT guns, bazookas, and emplaced tanks. And wherever the Germans attacked there were Allied tanks right there or very nearby. Yes, the Allied tanks could have, and should have, been improved more/faster than they were, but the strategy worked.

You must also remember that the Allied tanks were generally much more reliable than German ones. Easier to maintain too. One of the reason was that the Allies didn't overload their vehicles with armor like the Germans did. The King Tiger, and IIRC early Panthers, had a LOT of engine problems do to too much weight. Hell, the Maus had U-Boat engines in them Point here is that there are trade offs in any design, and the Allied tanks had their good points.

I have read many stories of so called "superior" German tanks getting whacked in large numbers by smaller US forces of "inferrior" quality. German AFVs were better in many regards but they had plenty of weak spots.

As far as my horrible losses in the game, yes... it was because the Germans were poorly deployed and the US were in FANTASTIC positions. Bad combination. What people seem to forget is this stuff happens in war very frequently. German tank folks also forget that a Panther's side armor is not very good. So as soon as it presents a flank shot, there is a decent chance of it being knocked out. When on the attack it is very hard to not present the flank. This is why the Panthers, Tigers, etc. were better on the defense than offense. Better armor in the front and a great long range gun. These benefits are largely lost while on the attack in mixed terrain, and are further hindered when you look at things like speed of turret traverse. Now, when I replayed that same scearnio with the foces switched, the Allied tanks got pasted, even though they kept hitting the sole Panther blocking their way. Just couldn't kill the darned thing!

Steve

P.S. As far as I recall, Patton was the main force behind "more vs. better". He wanted as many tanks as possible, and that meant weaker ones. So I don't think he would have gone for the better deal you offer

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-16-99).]

[Simon Fox]

Gee you are dedicated, what is the time over there, I only just came back to check that my post went through OK and there was a reply!

In principle I agree with you that overall quantity won out. But as you would probably agree you can't just look at tanks alone. There is a good argument that the masses of allied tanks had a limited impact in relation to their numerical preponderance. I would suggest that the two arms in which the allies had both a qualitative and quantitative advantage, airpower and artillery, were manifestly more significant overall though probably not at the level of CM. Jabos, jabos everywhere!

As for Patton I don't know in what context his request was made but if it was in the light that all he was going to get was shermans then it was understandable. Also I thought he was a strong advocate of the stopgap jumbo upgrade which I understand was more to combat the 88 (enhanced survivability) than Panthers and Tigers since it retained the original 75mm gun which could not even penetrate the Tigers frontal armour (theoretically). At least the British had the Firefly though considering the 17pdr was designed in June 1941 it was a mistake more weren't available.

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

One element to keep in mind is the turn system we have here. Simultaneous turns that is. All forces will have an extraordinary amount of coordination because of a great player control interface.

What this means is that assaults will be easier, more coordinated, compared to RTS games like Close Combat. Defensive positions will be less advantaged since thier static nature allows good control even in RTS games. Therefore defensive positions although tough to crack will always be approached from thier weak avenues in the most efficient manner. This efficiency on the attack in the game , I think, will be even greater than in real life.

So since slow moving panthers are less suited for the attack. I conclude that the fast shermans will turn the panthers into a dart board. We'll see.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Patton simply wanted MORE tanks. He knew that, as I said, if you could be anywhere and everywhere with tanks, and the enemy couldn't, the enemy was in big trouble. A standard US Infantry division usually had more armor attached to it than a German Panzer division. A US Armored division had, when both were at full strength, twice as much armor as a German one. Sure, who wouldn't want bigger guns and more armor, but when given the choice of less tanks vs. more, Patton was, so far as I know, all for more.

You must also keep in mind that the most common German AFVs to find on the battlefield in NW Europe was NOT the Tiger, King Tiger, or even the Panther. It was the PzIV, Stug, Marder, and other types of less than top quality vehicles. This was the BULK of the German tank force. And nearly every Sherman could tackle these at effective ranges. In the extreme case of a King Tiger (less than 500 built, for all fronts) the Sherman was in deep trouble if it attacked from the front. But nothing was in a vacuum, so the Allies had other assets to call upon to tackle these beasts. And a side/rear shot was always more possible for the Allies thanks to more tanks.

Air and artillery were certainly decisive in cases, but it was the Allied armor that won the war. They did the bulk of the fighting and dying, but also the bulk of the tank and infantry destruction. As Combat Mission clearly shows, Shermans can take on Panthers, which were the most common of the "heavy" German tanks. Everything below that, which was the bulk of the German tank force, is an even match and perhaps less so in many cases.

Also note that the Germans had 5000 Panthers produced, but they had 2 major fronts to cover. So those few tanks had to go up against not only all the Shermans, but also the masses of Soviet armor.

Getting back to an earlier statement you made about the Germans going for quality vs. quantity, you should keep in mind that they always felt short of vehicles. To make up for the difference they used whatever they could get their hands on. Look at all the 35-T and 38-T tanks they uses against France and the Soviet Union. Hell, nearly every tank in the 6th Panzer Division going into Barbarossa was either a 35-T or 38-T. In Normandy there was a plethora of nearly useless captured vehicles being used, most notably with the 21st Panzer Division. No, I am sure that if you gave the Germans the option of having 50000 Shermans instead of 5000 Panthers they would probably have gone with the 50000 Their industrial capacity, however, precluded them from making these numbers no matter what the quality was.

Steve

[Simon Fox]

I certainly agree with John that the simultaneous turn system should even things up a little for the Sherman if properly handled but I will be a little concerned if they start turning "panthers into dartboards" as that would be contrary to everything I have read. Personally I have always preferred to play the allies against the AI because the extra challenge, maybe CM will change that . Should make a swarming attack with T-34 a bit more palatable when the East Front version comes along too.

Steve- I think you misunderstood my point about the 5000 panthers vs 50000 shermans economics. I guess that there was not a tenfold difference in production cost so my implication was that if the US could have produced a tank which was on a par armour and gun wise with the panther for say 1.5 times the cost of the sherman then I am guessing that Ike, Bradley and Patton would have gone with 33,000 of those in preference, sorry for being a bit obscure.

[A Arabian]

Simply because the allies were capable of producing 33000 (theoretically), recall that one of the benefits of the sherman were that the small size (due to the limited armor and smaller bore guns allowing for lighter engines) allowed the US to transport huge numbers of them at once - recall that the germans had to ship halfway across europe at most - the allies frequently had to ship across the U-Boat infested (well, less so by '44) north atlantic.