Horse transport

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK guys, this is getting very silly. The point is that horses are, by their very nature of use, NOT relevant to CM sized engagements. The one in a thousand times they might have been are simply not enough for us to waste valuable development time and other resources time to create.

PERIOD

Tero had a question here, and it too underscores the point of how horses were used:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tommi stated 750 meters behind the FRONT LINE, which in CM terms in a large map (even in a small map) is quite close to the imaginary half map line. I you set up a custom battle where the attacking Allies get 1/3rd of the map area from the out set that 750 meters is well within the confines of the map.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but did these horses gallop 750m to the frount, pick up their guns, and then gallop 2000m to the rear to set up new positions WHILE UNDER FIRE from small arms and close in direct fire weapons? No. So since this did not happen, as a rule, then what does it matter if the horses are 750m or 75,000m from the frontline? They are irrelevant to the combat that CM simulates.

I am sure that if someone looked up the standard locations for things like kitchen units they would find them positioned at similar distances from the front, along with other units necessary for supporting the frontline units (medics, vets, etc.). And for the same reason as stated above, these units will not be included in CM either.

For you regulars, this is a clear case of "Bovine MG42 Sponge" syndrome For you non-regulars, this was a documented use of cows, by a US infantry platoon, to block a close by MG42's line of fire. Cows exist, they had a substantial impact on this particular battle, but we in no way shape or form intend on putting cows into the game

Steve

[ASL Veteran]

Oh come on now Steve, quit being such a party pooper. We are just having a friendly discussion about horses and bicycles that's all. No one is demonstrating in the streets lighting buildings on fire demanding the inclusion of horses to CMBO.

Sorry I left you out of my early flame blast Krautboy. I'll make sure I don't overlook you next time since you seem to want to attract my verbal abuse. You aren't into whips and chains are you? I've discovered a few things while reading Moby Dick the other night. It dealt with scope and scale. The scope of CM seems to be WW2 tactical combat. The targeted scale appears to be approximately battalion sized engagements and smaller. Operating under these constraints, what is relevant at this scope and scale? The items that are relevant within this scope are items that will effect combat at this scale.

What is relevant at this scale then? Field kitchens are obviously not relevant because they are not combat related portions of the TO&E of a battalion. Is transport relevant? Trucks seem to be modeled so transport must have some relevance at this scale. Looking at horses and bicycles as just another form of transport makes comparing horses to field kitchens completely illogical (sorry Steve, but its just not a good comparison). A better comparison would be horses and bicycles to trucks and jeeps. Compare the relevance of one type of transport to another form of transport. If we look at that critically, we can add a sub argument of ... why are trucks included?

Now for the benefit of Krautboy .... nah, he would love the abuse too much and I don't want to do anything that he would like.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah Steve, what's a matter wiff you anyhow, trying to inject reason and logic. Shame on ya's. Spoil all the fun of the rest of us.

I was waiting on the subject of scooters to come up. Maybe a little discourse about the Pago-Pago Scooter Battalion and how they turned the tide of war in Nord Afrika by using Finnish bicycle tactics. Ring-ring, ring-ring...

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

Well Mr I want change the ascendant argument but have no proof to back my thesis.

Taken from http://home.swipnet.se/normandy/index.html I personally don’t believe that Horse drawn artillery cruised the front lines limbered up looking for some action. Therefore I’ll confine my self to the Battalions integral mortar (GrW), IG and PaK support for the German Infantry Divisions during Normandy in this I ignore the Fus Batt and Pion batt/coy since they posse no IG at all:

77: 45 GrW, 8 IG, 12 PaK38 5cm half with Mot transport, 12 Pak40 7,5cm all with Mot.

85: 72 GrW, 12 IG, 4 sIG, 25 PaK40 all Mot.

91: ? Although on the 27 of June the report stated that it had PaK40 Mot, 21 StuG (from? 902 StuG abt) and 10 PaK40 sf (Marder III or maybe a French lash up).

243: 70 GrW, 12 7,62cm Russian guns, 12 Marder III, 10 StuG.

265: only a mobile Kampfgruppe saw action totalling around a regt, 16 GrW, 6 7,62cm Russian.

266: Kampfgruppe, heavy weapons unknown.

272: Of interest in that the total number of Guns/howitzers/IG’s is listed as well as the total number of towing veh, 91 and 71 respectively. 54 GrW, 32 sGrW, 19 IG, 9 sIG. The horse (4000) apparently did something eles

275: only a Kampgruppe saw action (It should be noted that the creation of Kampgruppes for the infantry division was based on the available number of motorised transport, in affect the remainder of the division whether in central France or the Netherlands became a static formation) 18 GrW, 2 IG, 2 sIG.

276:?

277: 58 GrW, 19 IG, 6 sIG.

326: 56 GrW, IG ? sIG? 14 Marder III, 10 StuG, 8 PaK40 mot.

331: 72 GrW, 12 IG, 4 sIG, 14 Marder III, 10 StuG, 12 FlaK 38 mot.

346: unknown number of GrW. 13 kp (aka the IG one) is listed as GrW armed.

352: 72 GrW, 14 IG, 8 sIG, 13 Marder III, 10 StuG.

353: 72 GrW, 14 IG, 6 sIG, 14 Marder III, 10 StuG

708: Static div aka its all horse drawn no 13 kp (IG’s included)

709: 71 GrW, no 13 Kp, all PaK mot

711: Static, no Kampagruppes detached, no 13 Kp listed or reported.

716: idiosyncratic in that it’s the only div which posses no motorised transport for the 14 Kp, no 13 Kp.

It should be realised that the 13 Kp was considered a Regt level resources, as opposed to the mortars (GrW), which were Battalion level and tended to be kept away from the front lines. This work by old Nick has also surprised me in that the majority of the PaK’s and IG’s were to have been mot and equipped as such.

What do you have to indicate roving batteries of horse drawn leFH 10,5cm looking to engage the enemy in direct fire actually occurred?

Lets compare the game to reality shall we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bastables, that was one of the most interesting posts regarding TO&E I have seen in a long time on this board. That's why I quote it in full. I did not know that there was motorisation for guns almost as a rule even in the IDs. Makes a lot of sense though.

Maybe the sort of research ASL should have done before including horses.

The pictures tero has put in another thread illustrate quite nicely why I for one do not believe that either bicycles or horses played a role. Lots of these pictures show them on the march, none of them I have seen in combat. BTW, the postwar Swiss bicycle unit (disbanded this year or last year, I think) certainly worked on the principle of driving towards combat, but not into it. Training did not provide for fighting from the saddle.

I look forward to 'Logistics Mission: Beyond Boredom' though.

Bruno - never mind scooters, what about Pogosticks? There was a famous German Brigade who used them to hop into combat. Very effective, because the Allies laughed themselves silly.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-24-2000).]

[Bruno Weiss]

I dunno. One could make an argument that Pogo-stick mounted troops would be harder to hit, (if on the hop). I'm sure there was a horse, a bicycle, and a pogo-stick in use somewhere in Lappland.

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

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Hans]

On the Italian Front in those Mountain divisions did they use pack artillery? I remember in the WWII issues of "Field Artillery Journal" they had a special section on "horses at war" does anyone have access to the FAJ-any red legs from Sill around?

For CM3 of course

Horses just another form of transport, yep hey and let include a standard

"Ash and Trash", "Clerks and Jerk" unit for those special scenarios - Battle for the Corp level maintenance depot or charge of the 21st Replacement battalion's staff!! Those bastards could do some mean work with a wad of carbon paper.

Actually at some later time some sort of standard "ad hoc" unit is probably needed to use for cooks etc that are brought up in desperation or for defense of the battalion TOC

[Sgt. Steiner]

Hmm, been away a few days, and the horse thread is still going.. So OK, as BTS has stated, there won't be any horse-drawn anything in CM2. No problem, I can live with with that. This may be a little OT for this thread, but is there any chance motorcycle recon troops will be included in CM2? They were used extensively on the Ostfront, at least during the first couple of years.

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

Ob's stürmt oder schneit, ob die Sonne uns lacht, der Tag glühend heiß oder eiskalt die Nacht, bestaubt sind die Gesichter, doch froh ist unser sinn, ja unser sinn, es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin

-- Panzerlied

[Guest Big Time Software]

hehe... sorry for taking you jokers seriously

ASL Vet asked:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>why are trucks included?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfectly valid question. Reason? Because if we had not included them we would have been raked over the coals by the bulk of gamers, that is why Heck, as it was we even had a couple of people complaining that we didn't simulate the dozens of different types of trucks.

While I was being serious above, there is a bit more to it than that. Trucks were sometimes used to withdraw and reposition towed assets during combat. Not very common, but it did happen. Large assets were hard to move within the timeframe of CM, but something like a 20mm Flak or 37mm AT gun were rather easy to limber up and move out. But unlike horses, trucks require no special treatment vs. other forms of transport (i.e. trucks can't be "spooked").

So trucks are in CM for a combo of atmosphere, historical relevance, and ease of inclusion. If trucks did not "score" decent marks on each of these three issues they most likely would have been left out of the game. Horses might add atmosphere, but historical relevance is minimal and ease of inclusion is not at all simple.

Steiner, we most likely will include German motorcycle recon formations for the time period they were used. That was, IIRC, roughly Summer of 41 until Summer of 42. Armored cars were replacing motorcycles during this period and eventually replaced them, only to in turn start to be replaced by halftracks. The reasons should be obvious. Motorcycles were of questionable combat value, armored cars were usefull but only for recon, and halftracks had slightly better mobility and (more importantly) simplified production (i.e. by dropping special use armored car production in favor of multi-purpose HTs).

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-27-2000).]

[Sgt. Steiner]

Thanks for answering my question, Steve. So, motorcycle troops will be in CM2. Cool! I have many photos of them in my reference books; I especially recommend Paul Carell's "Operation Barbarossa in Photographs". It has several particularly good shots of cycle troops literally driving straight into battle on the Don front in summer of 1942.

I really can't wait for CM2 now!

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

Ob's stürmt oder schneit, ob die Sonne uns lacht, der Tag glühend heiß oder eiskalt die Nacht, bestaubt sind die Gesichter, doch froh ist unser sinn, ja unser sinn, es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin

-- Panzerlied

[Bastables]

Bah horsies, Bah humbug!

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

Absolutely Shatter, you have been completely misunderstood. When Andreas, Chuppy and Peter posted pictures of themselves at the IWM I took the earliest opportunity to complement Chuppy on how hot he looked in that T-shirt. Of course the next time an appropriate thread about the front bogey wheel on the Matilda II came up I skillfully insinuated a subtle remark about what a spunk PeterNZ was and a redhead too!

But alas, shatter, everyone thought I was a dickhead as well.

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

Muddying the waters as usual.

by Simon Fox

Mr T says "I pity the foo!"

[patboivin]

Originally posted by Los:

Still, there was never any ability or resoruces available to code every last single facet of WW2 combat into the first release of CM. And I would remind ASL VETERAN that neither did ASL (historical or ahistorical as it is) include all umpteen million chapters that it has today in its first release. It grew overtime as CM does. Frankly I doubt you will ever see horses retrofitted into CM1, though I wouldn't doubt they'll probably make it into CM2.

Patience sweathoppers....

Los

I played the original SL, and unless my memory fails me (quite possible, this was over ten years ago), it included bicycles, sidecars, motorcycles and... cavalry.

Or maybe that was in Cross of Iron.

Nevertheless I totally agree with your statement, because CM does require more preparatory work than ASL did when creating units -- I can cut up a cardboard chit in five minutes to see if the new unit will "fit" with the game; in CM they must plan ahead carefully, make a decision, spend hours coding the thing in before they can really see what the effect will be.

[patboivin]

Originally posted by PeterNZer:

and moose have bigger spikey horny things, much more dangerous

I believe they are half blind, though. Plus they like to stand in water -- not good for gun towing.

Maybe they could be useful in marsh tiles.

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by patboivin:

I believe they are half blind, though. Plus they like to stand in water -- not good for gun towing.

Maybe they could be useful in marsh tiles.

Horsies...bah. Moose...double bah. Give me a good Llama any day of the week and I'll send your arse back to your mommy with a big ol' lama hoof print on it. Or somefink.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by patboivin:

I am amazed at the vitriolic response, horses WERE there during WWII, possibly in greater numbers than trucks for some forces. My guess is that they are really difficult to model, hence they are not in the game. If they were boxy like Volvo's they would probably be in the game.

Gawd... don't get me started on Volvo's. One thing the game can DEFINITELY do without is a bunch of bloody Volvo drivers tooling around the battlefield honking their horns & driving as if they own the battlefield in a bloody Sherman (make that a Jumbo) so everyone has to get out of their way... including the enemy. Please anything but that! I'd go mad.

Regards

Jim R.

[M Hofbauer]

Germanboy:

According to Wilmot 'The struggle for Europe' (his figures are either from the Strategic Bombing Survey or from German original documents), the monthly production of 81mm

mortars was 7-8 times that of IGs in 1944 (2,000-2,500 vs. 300-350 per month). This makes

sense, since they were easier to produce and to handle, AFAIK. It would be interesting to

know where the IGs went (east, west or Italy, ordinary IDs or motorised/Panzerdivisions).

This has nothing to do with the horses question, just saying that IMO the humble mortar

came to replace the IG at this stage in the war. I would be glad to receive some

confirmation on these production figures and on where they went.

total production of 8cm GrW34 in 1944: 26,341

total production of 7.5cm le.IG 18 in 1944: 2,309

note: 1944 saw the introduction of the new IG 37. Starting in March 1944, the total production for that year was 2,279

as you can see, the you give is ratio is roughly right, but the conclusion drawn from it is wrong. In fact, the ratio of IG : GrW had always been roughly around 1:10, so this does in no way support your conclusion that GrW production increased to replace the IG. In fact, the IG was still considered such a vital element of the Infantry units that 1944 saw the introduction of two NEW models of IG, the IG 37, a combined, low-velocity IG and hollow-charge AT gun, and the IG 42. Both soldiered on until the end of the war. The le.IG 18, too, was produced right until the end of the war.

Also, if you compare the ratio above with the ratio of ammunition production and expenditure (1944: 8cm GrW 34: 24.183 Mio rounds; leIG 18 and IG 37: 10.817 Mio rounds) then these figures suggest the exact opposite, that the actual use of the IG was higher as that of the GrW, since the ammo expenditure ratio of 1:2 to 1:3 is _much_ lower than the ratio above, right into 1945 (Jan./Feb. 1945: 8cmGrW 34: 4.847 Mio rounds; leIG 18 and IG 37: 1.749 Mio)

I have to concede though that the german army at that time suffered from a chronic shortage of mortar ammo, so the use might have been somewhat higher had more ammo been available; however, we are looking at the actual use, not the intended use, of the two weapon systems.

As to the horses:trucks ratio,

Truck losses were *roughly* 35,000 in 1941, 70,000 in 1942, 130,00 in 1943 and 100,000 in 1944, combining for a rough total of 365,000 (I'm too lazy to add up the actual numbers). The total loss of horses during the timespan was over 1.5 Million (1,558,508).

Personally, I don't think the inclusion of horses in CM2 warrants the enormous effort neccessary to do it. Horses need to be animated somewhat if they are to look *anything* but ****e, and I guess that is manpower-intensive. That time is beter spent doing other weapon systems, commands or refining the AI, IMHO.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[tss]

patboivin wrote:

I played the original SL, and unless my memory fails me (quite possible, this was over ten years ago), it included bicycles, sidecars, motorcycles and... cavalry.

Your memory fails you. I just dig up my copy of SL manual (4th ed) to check it.

In original SL, the Germans had the following units:

- MkIV F1 and F2

- Stug-III (apparently G)

- Stug-III (with 105mm gun)

- Brummbar

- SdKfz 251 (with MG)

- SdKfz 251 (without MG)

- Truck

- 4-6-7, 8-3-8, and 2-4-7 infantry units

- various leaders

- 6-16 HMG, 4-12 MMG, 2-8 LMG

- Demo charge, flamethrower, Panzerfaust

- 50mm ATG

- 75mm ATG

- 81mm mortar

The Russians had:

- T-34 (with 76mm gun)

- SU-122

- SU-152

- M-3 halftrack (with MG)

- M-3 halftrack (without MG)

- Truck

- Infantry + support weapons

- 57mm ATG

- 76mm ATG

- 82mm mortar

And Americans had:

- M4A4 Sherman

- M4M52 Sherman (105 mm gun)

- M-10 (75-mm gun)

- Priest

- M-16

- M-3 with and without MG

- Truck

- Jeep

- Infantry + support weapons

- Bazooka

- 57 mm ATG

- 76 mm ATG

- 105 mm howitzer

- 81 mm mortar

Or maybe that was in Cross of Iron.

They were in the Cross of Iron, at least some of them.

- Tommi

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

lots of good info about GrW vs. IG production

Martin,

thanks for the info and correction - I only had Wilmot as a source, and he is blandly stating the figures.

Regards,

Andreas

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.