Most overused units in CM?

[Olle Petersson]

I'm primarily thinking in QBs with manual troop purchase.

And with "overused" I'm not referring to the average use of assorted historically rarely available "überwaffen" in several QBs, but to the use of more generally common units in ahistorical concentrations within a single (archetype) QB.

My vote would go to the medium (3"/81mm) mortar FOs.

Reading the posts (tactical suggestions) on this message board gives the impression that there's usually at least two mortar FOs in each and every moderately sized QB force.

These should historically be available as one per (on map) battalion.

- If the force on map is a single company (or less) with some reinforcements they may have access to the battalion mortars, but not necessarily.

- Two companies from a battalion will most likely have the mortars as well.

- A large combined arms force of a full infantry battalion reinforced with a tank company will still only have one mortar battery available.

(One reason for "allowing" an overuse of these mortars anyway is the shortcoming in CMs way of handling smoke. So adding an extra mortar FO to produce smoke screens may be necessary.)

Medium artillery (25pdr/105mm) should otherwise be more abundant than mortars in larger QBs.

Another possibly overused unit is Sherman(76)/Firefly when used in quantities of more than two per full (on map) Sherman platoon.

Cheers

Olle

[JasonC]

Light mortars were incredibly common, far and away the most common form of fire support. Yes, it would generally by just one module, but that one module was all over. And one is mainly buying the shells - 150, 180, 200 of them expended per module. The battalion mortars could easily fire off that many in support of every company-level firefight, in physical terms.

In a typical CM QB, the men present on each side will run from 150 to 250 or so. The light mortar rounds fired will typically be 1 per man to 2 per man on the opposing side. Well, in WW II the Germans threw on the order of 100 million mortar rounds at the Allies, who did not number 50-100 million infantrymen, of course.

I do agree that medium artillery was also quite common, perhaps more common than in CM. People buy the mortars for the faster response time. Medium and heavy artillery shells are often more effective in CM for the cost, but they do not respond so quickly. If "gamey" sweet spot is not the light mortars - which are historical in my opinion - but the heavier mortars, 4.2 inch and 120mm. These were relatively rare weapons for all but the Russians, compared to light mortars and medium artillery.

I think the realistic way to address all that is to take only 1 module of light mortars in a QB. And to take medium mortars only ~1/6th of the time or so (roll a die - LOL). Gonzo artillery should also be rare (above 155mm). Most of the time, people should take 25 lber, 105mm, 150mm, 155mm for everything beyond the first light mortar module. (One module of 75mm is also OK for German infantry or US airborne, cav, or TD forces - regimental guns etc).

The most overused is probably automatic weapon "uber" infantry, as opposed to "vanilla" infantry. Also veterans generally, rather than a fair portion of greens and a majority of regulars.

As for AFVs, Churchills, jumbos, Tigers and Panthers are also overused, as people grab for invunerable front armors. Historically, "eggshells with hammers" - upgunned but not particularly uparmored AFVs - were much more common.

There were as many 76mm Shermans as Panthers, Tigers, and other German heavies combined - on both fronts - and the same number again of Allied TDs. But Jumbos and Pershings and late-model Churchills were as rare as German uber-tanks, and rarer by far than Panthers. Upgunned things were a dime a dozen, uparmored things were quite rare. The Panther was the only common uparmored AFV, and on the -western- front was much more rare than Sherman 76s and Allied TDs. Like, by a factor of ten (since most Panthers made overall, were used on the larger eastern front).

[Marlow]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Another possibly overused unit is Sherman(76)/Firefly when used in quantities of more than two per full (on map) Sherman platoon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the unit. Some had all 75s, some a few 76s, and some almost exclusively 76s.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I'm primarily thinking in QBs with manual troop purchase.

My vote would go to the medium (3"/81mm) mortar FOs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, probably only one battery of medium mortars per battalion as a ceiling is correct the majority of the time (the HW company of each battalion generally having one battery (6 tubes)). But it is also perfectly fine to have that battery in full support of a single company, assuming that company is the only one in action right at that time. And after some hard fighting a battalion could easily be reduced to the size of a company of riflemen anyway, so you can always justify it that way as well, if you're looking for such justification.

It's important to remember that in QBs we all benefit from "paper" TO&E strengths.

-dale

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Dan Robertson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Another possibly overused unit is Sherman(76)/Firefly when used in quantities of more than two per full (on map) Sherman platoon.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually some Regiments would create an all Firefly troop. To concentrate their heavy hitters into one group.

[-Havermeyer-]

Elite jeeps.

[Skipper]

7/2s. In the last four 1250 pts QBs I've seen six.

[Pvt.Tom]

Has to be armor in general, almost all quick battles have tanks of some kind but I will bet most infantry in WWII fought the majority of their battles without tank support.

[MrSpkr]

Hetzers, hetzers, hetzers.

If I had to give an estimate as to how common Hetzers were based solely on the games I have been involved in, I would probably conclude that every infantry company had at least one Hetzer attached to it.

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: MrSpkr ]

[Kingfish]

Those damn KV-1s. Everyone of the scenarios in the demo has at least...Ooops, nevermind

[mensch]

those silly PUMAs.. considering a handfull were made in the 100's?? (calling all GROGS come in GROGS!!)

if I recolect there were a few hundreds made not quite 1000 but seeing the PUMAs used in quick battle you think they be main recce units.

cuz everyone knows the germans used the Bratwurstfeldkocherwagen Mk IV for all those recce missions.

[Redwolf]

I have to second the "tanks" comment.

Not only was the overall rate of tanks/platoons less than in typical CMBO, but tanks are also in repair for lengthy periods or masses of them were away on tank concentrations for "breakthough" missions (really: avoid contact and strike weak defense targets missions).

[dalem]

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

those silly PUMAs.. considering a handfull were made in the 100's?? (calling all GROGS come in GROGS!!)

if I recolect there were a few hundreds made not quite 1000 but seeing the PUMAs used in quick battle you think they be main recce units.

cuz everyone knows the germans used the Bratwurstfeldkocherwagen Mk IV for all those recce missions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the number I've seen quoted most often for 234/2 Puma production is "around 100 or so".

-dale

[Skipper]

> I have to second the "tanks" comment.

I have to disagree. CM engine, as was discussed at some artillery-related threads, represents only small, mobile engagements. In that case, it would be quite common to have 1 tank platoon per 1 infantry platoon.

[Pvt. Ryan]

On the flip side of the question, what is the most underused unit? I don't see too many German SP anti-tank guns. My understanding is that Marders were pretty common, but in CM you either see Panthers or Hetzers. I guess we shy away from Marders because of their vulnerability to artillery and expecially mortar fire.

[Marlow]

Heer 44 patern rifle squads. A dime a dozen during the war, but very scarce in the QB world.

[Iron Duke]

Most overused units:

American: VT

British: Churchill(s) Late

Polish: lol...yeah right

French: Wine and Cheese

Canadian: Beer

German: Any grunts other than regular Infantry.

My $.02

[Pvt.Tom]

Skipper,

I never heard that before, is that something that BTS said? I thought the CM Engine was designed around infantry only battles first with armor added later? :confused:

[ASL Veteran]

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

As for AFVs, Churchills, jumbos, Tigers and Panthers are also overused, as people grab for invunerable front armors. Historically, "eggshells with hammers" - upgunned but not particularly uparmored AFVs - were much more common.

The Panther was the only common uparmored AFV, and on the -western- front was much more rare than Sherman 76s and Allied TDs. Like, by a factor of ten (since most Panthers made overall, were used on the larger eastern front).[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I understand your eggshell theory as regards the Panther. At first you say the Panther is rare:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Historically, "eggshells with hammers" - upgunned but not particularly uparmored AFVs - were much more common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you then say it is common:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Panther was the only common uparmored AFV, and on the -western- front was much more rare than Sherman 76s and Allied TDs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The relationship between allied vehicles and axis vehicles seems irrelevant to me since a player buying German stuff should be weighing how common it is in the German army, not how common it is in relation to the allied army. The only place an argument comparing vehicles of the axis and allies can be made is whether the axis player can buy armor at all (and that's a whole different ball of wax). As far as how common the Panther is for the German army, "Panzertruppen Vol 2" gives the following totals for all Panzer units on the Western Front on 10 June 1944: Pz III 39, Pz IV 758, Pz V 655, Pz VI 102, StuG 158, French tanks 179. Looking at the OB for the Ardennes, there actually seem to be more Pz V than Pz IV (I would have to add them up by unit - and I'm just not that motivated). I'm just not seeing the Panther as being all that rare. While the 'eggshells with hammers' theory does have a catchy name - it just doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny (unless there is some part of this theory that I don't understand).

Attempting to apply that theory to allied vehicles is also kinda silly since most western allied vehicles could be described as eggshells with peashooters. Sure, the 76s and Firefly's could be eggshells with hammers - but in the case of the allies are you really saying that there were more 76 armed Shermans than 75 armed Shermans since that is what your eggshell with hammer theory states? The Churchill would be, what, a ... ostrich egg with a peashooter?

Applying the eggshell with hammer theory to the western allies makes no sense, and applying it to the Germans is incorrect since the Panther was just as common as the Pz IV. If you are facing a German player who is going to buy armor, then historically you have just as great a chance of meeting a Panther as you would a Pz IV. Of course, maybe I am just completely misunderstanding the 'eggshell' theory.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

On the flip side of the question, what is the most underused unit? I don't see too many German SP anti-tank guns. My understanding is that Marders were pretty common, but in CM you either see Panthers or Hetzers. I guess we shy away from Marders because of their vulnerability to artillery and expecially mortar fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In reality, Marders were to be replaced by Hetzers because they were so vulnerable. It is no wonder that people who can choose buy the better one. In principle, they are the same weapon, just from a different time period.

Marder are useful mainly at long range. At a range where they can penetrate a Sherman frontal the Allied 75mm has a very bad chance of hitting anything, much less a small silhuette vehicle like a Marder. You rarely see such distances in CMBO.

As with all vulnerable direct-fire units, they rely on great numbers even more. Few battles have the points where a company of Marders can show up, because they need a lot of support (no turret, no MG, few ammo). Such a detachment is probably not the best striking force you can buy.

Anyone has a detailed stat about a Marder detachment that went into battle, down to infantry support and their numbers?

Question: is the low ammo load of the Marder correct, especially compared to the Hetzer?

[ 05-30-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

SdKfz 234/1: 200

SdKfz 234/2: 101

SdKfz 234/3: 88

SdKfz 234/4: 89

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

As far as how common the Panther is for the German army, "Panzertruppen Vol 2" gives the following totals for all Panzer units on the Western Front on 10 June 1944: Pz III 39, Pz IV 758, Pz V 655, Pz VI 102, StuG 158, French tanks 179. Looking at the OB for the Ardennes, there actually seem to be more Pz V than Pz IV (I would have to add them up by unit - and I'm just not that motivated). I'm just not seeing the Panther as being all that rare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you take production numbers by month or year and apply the 80%/year loss rate that frontline AFV are said to be subject to, you quickly arrive at the same numbers. Since the Panther production started much later than Pz IV, in the CMBO timeframe there as almost as many 0.7-0.8 times as many. Since the West saw a better ratio of good tanks than the Eastern front, the numbers shown here look very realistic.

I posted more complete lists in a Tiger I thread, or email me when you like to see them.

[Stalin's Organ]

I can't agree that medium mortars are overused.

You do not buy a battery when you get an FO - yuo get some fire missions by some mortarts ammounting to 150 or 180 or 200 rounds. These might be fired from any combination of 2 or more mortars.

So your FO has a line to the mortar platoon, but any given target might be engaged by just 1 sectino, or 2, or all 3 - that part is NOT modelled in CM unless yuo bring the mortars on-table and target them separately.

And there would certainly be more than 2 FO's (MFC's) per battalion - company commanders hould probably be able to call in mortar support too.

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

I'm primarily thinking in QBs with manual troop purchase.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

An interesting quandary.

Axis forces: AA Guns, Hetzers, and Volksgrenediers

Allied forces: Churchills, Waspes, and British airborne.

Irrespectively of attack/defense/ME those are the units I have seen the far most of.

[JasonC]

"I'm not sure I understand your eggshell theory"

Oh, I expect you understand it well enough. You just probably don't like it. But it is possible I've simply been unclear. A few hundred times. And you along with a few hundred others still haven't gotten it. Or don't want to.

The basic thesis I advanced is that thick armor plates are over-represented in QBs, because players scarf up ungodly amounts of the stuff, because it is useful. Some of that usefulness being historical, some not, and some real historical usefulness is obscured.

Which part is "not", in the sense of game usefulness in CM, far beyond historical usefulness? Flanks anchored by the bottomless pit of tartarus, and small numbers engaged vs. small numbers. Which real historical usefulness, is obscured in CM? Very long range dueling.

Because of those features and the way CM prices things, thick front armor is powerful and a relative bargain, and people buy way more of it than the historical participants actually had.

Now some silly persons on this board pretend (endlessly) that uparmored AFVs were common, or the rule, in the late war, or for the Germans in the late war. This is simply not the case. The common practice by the late war was to upgun vehicle types indeed, but uparmoring remained rare by comparison.

The Germans produced about as many Pz II and Pz38 chassis vehicles in the late war, as Tiger and Panther chassis vehicles. They produced more Pz III and Pz IV chassis vehicles than either, by a large factor in each case. The production of types was normally distributed, with the mean right between the Pz III and the Pz IV chassis. This is regularly obfuscated by leaving out large production runs and whole vehicle types when making comparisons, restricting comparisons to particular vehicle classes, portions of the army, formation types, dates, etc.

Late war Pz II chassis were wespes and marder IIs (with a small number of Lynx near the end). Notice - 75mm PAK or 105mm howitzer - upgunned. The original chassis had carried a 20mm cannon. Late war Pz38 chassis were marder IIIs and hezters. Notice - 75mm PAK - upgunned. The original chassis had carried at 37mm cannon. Late war Pz III chassis were StuG and StuH. Notice - 75mm PAK or 105mm howitzer - upgunned. The original had carried a 37mm cannon, with 50mm the later most common type. Pz IV chassis were Pz IVs, Jadgpanzers, StuG-IV, Nashhorns, and Hummels. Notice - 75mm PAK, some even L70, some 88mm, or 150mm howitzer - upgunned. The original had carried a 75L24 short gun. (Not to mention some Brummbars, left out).

Of the above, the Hezters and Jadgpanzers had 60mm angled front plates, and the Pz IVs and StuG/H had 80mm flat front plates. All the rest are thin, and those are relatively thin by late war standards. Nothing like Panther or Tiger armor, or Churchill or Jumbo armor, certainly.

Around 2k Tigers and heavier were made, and around 6k Panthers. The late war production of the IV chassis (all the types) ran around 12k, the III chassis about the same again, the lighter two chassis types 6k and 2k. A nearly perfect bell curve. Everything that could be upgunned to carry a long 75mm PAK or heavier, was upgunned, and remained in production. The heavy types, Panther and up, were heavily outnumbered by the combined lighter types. Not just Pz IVs proper, all the AFV types.

Thus my statement that upgunning was common (more on that, on the Allied side, later) and uparmoring was not (on the scale CM players reach for). I then also said, as you quoted me, "the Panther was the only common uparmored AFV". Which in the sense meant, the list of Tigers and Panthers, Churchills and Jumbos, is true. It is the only one of the late war, heavily front-armored AFV types, that was produced in sufficient numbers to be more than a special role item.

Which does not suffice to make uparmored AFVs common or the rule. It does mean that only the Panther, of the heavy types, was common enough to be an operational reality, rather than an occasional episode. It was not the "average" late war German tank. It was the upper portion of the produced fleet, numerous enough to be palpably present, far enough out on the range of weight and capability to be well above the average German late-war AFV.

I then immediately pointed out how rare the Panther was compared to Sherman 76s and Allied TDs. This draws the comment that "the relationship between allied vehicles and axis vehicles seems irrelevant". Which is an eye-watering, hold your sides screamer. As though how many powerful AT guns there were for each thick armor plate weren't the single most important question about the respective historical usefulness of each.

Of the 6k Panthers produced, only around 2k probably saw action in the west. Not 3k, since they were used in Russia longer and on a longer front. The good tanks faced the Allies mostly in the two waves, Normandy and the winter counteroffensive, Ardennes and Alsace - around 700-800 Panthers on each of those occasions. If they are allowed to stand in for the rarer heavier types, one might round them out to 3k all told, and that would be generous.

They faced 9k US-built TDs and 8k 76mm Shermans (not counting LL to Russia) plus ~5k Fireflies, etc. Upgunned anti-armor Allied AFVs in the west were more common than StuGs and Pz IVs combined, in the whole German fleet on all fronts, over the whole period from 1943 onward. There were at least 7 of the things for every uparmored German tank in the west.

One might also consider 5k each of Sherman 105s and Priests/Sextons and 2k other SPA, as further examples of the "eggshells with hammers" trend toward using the heaviest useful gun a vehicle could carry, without much attention to armor. About 1/3rd of Allied AFVs were in those categories, AT and artillery. There were about as many again of the vanilla 75mm types (Sherman and Cromwell), and the same again of light armor with 37mm or 2-lb (Stuart, M-8, Daimler, etc). As for true uparmoring, late Churchills plus Jumbos were as rare as Tigers and their ilk, with only ~2k all told, most of them Churchills of course.

If one wants a realistic sense of the commonness of uparmored and upgunned AFVs in the west in late war, then, one might approximate it with the following ratios. For the Germans, 1 Panther, 1 Pz IV, 1 StuG or Jadgpanzer (realistically the StuG - in CM the Jadgpanzer), and 1 "other" = Hetzer, Marder, Wespe, Hummel, etc. Facing on the Allied side 3 TDs, 3 Sherman 76 plus 1 Firefly, 1 Sherman 105, 1 Priest and 1 Sexton, 8 Sherman 75, 2 Cromwell, 7 Stuarts, 4 M-8s, and 1 Daimler. Plus one Firefly, Sherman 105, and Cromwell additional, perhaps - in that range.

Ignoring the real match up to focus on each force, this magically becomes 1 Panther, 1 Pz IV, and 1 Jadgpanzer against 1 TD -or- Sherman 76, 1 Sherman 75, and 1 Stuart. Why? Because it sounds better for the Germans, I suppose. Then the Stuart gambles with its life, and the Sherman 75 maybe gets the Pz IV before vice versa but dies to either of the others, and the TD or Sherman 76 might get lucky against the Jadgpanzer, but Panthers rule. Right? Isn't that exactly how it is supposed to be?

Obviously there is all the difference in the world between having 1/3rd of your AFVs carry powerful AT guns while you have only even numbers of them as the enemy has, and having 1/3rd of your AFVs carry powerful AT guns when you outnumber the whole enemy armor force by a large factor, and proportionally, more of your AFVs have powerful AT guns, than of his AFVs have thick armor.

What does it mean for taking forces in CM? Should people stick to abstract ratios? No, of course not. It means #1 the Allies should generally be attacking and #2 they should often have "armor" as the force type, and almost always "combined arms", while #3 the Germans should mostly have the "infantry" force type, only rarely even "combined arms", and only in about 3 battle periods (Normandy, Bulge, Alsace) have "armor" occasionally. And #4 when the Germans do have "combined arms" the armor should generally be of the "other" types (SPA, etc), or StuG/H. And when they have the "armor" type the tanks should be Panzer IVs about half the time, and Panthers the other half of the time. And #5 when the Allies pick their armor types, they should not take Churchills or Jumbos, but anything else they want should be considered fair game.

Only about 1/5 to 1/4 of the late war German AFV fleet was heavily armored, but virtually all of it was upgunned. Between those amounts and 1/3rd of the Allied AFV fleet, depending on how you slice 'em, were upgunned. The reason only 1/3rd of the Allies still proved perfectly adequate, is because that still outnumbered the German thick armor by large amounts. In fact, the Allies probably fielded more upgunned heavy AT AFVs in the west, than the Germans fielded armored anythings in the west, including half-tracks. The other 2/3rds of the Allied AFV fleet were half vanilla 75mm to deal with guns and dug-in infantry, and light armor for exploitation and dealing with isolated infantry on the other.

As for 655 Panthers in the west on a given day, yeah, the Germans sent around 750 Panthers to Normandy. Out of around 2500 AFVs of all types. Notice your totals are "Panzer units". Did it ever occur to you that there were other units in the German army? And incidentally, there were around 500 StuG that fought in Normandy, many of them in the SS mobile divisions, others in several independent StuG brigades, and others parcelled out in divisional AT battalions (along with Marders). Jadgpanzers also filled out the AT battalions of the mobile divisions, when StuGs weren't used to fill in for them instead. But by the first week in August, they had less than 300 operational AFVs in the entire force sent, 10 mobile divisions. Then they didn't have fleets of Panthers anymore, until the Ardennes practically.

"I'm just not seeing the Panther as being all that rare". All what rare? Rare enough to appear in platoon strength in every company meeting engagement from the channel to Berlin? (Like in CM?) You don't see anything rare about tank totals in the mid hundreds at peak force levels, before major battles and after major re-equipage, on a frontage of all of France, facing enemy AFV totals in the mid thousands? Have you worked out how many Panthers it is per mile, at the other times when all the divisions aren't still on the trains, not having seen any action yet? Per Allied division faced at those times? How about, how many could be lost per km of front per -month- without the total disappearing altogether? (Hint - it is not an integer).

The Panther is the only uparmored AFV that is common enough it ought to appear in CM QBs. But nothing like as often as it is actually used. Again, buying upgunned vehicles is realistic, because there were tons of the things, both sides. Buying uparmored things all the time is not, because they were scarce. Panthers occasionally, when the Germans have "armor" at all, which should be "rarely". That is all. They are overused regularly today.