Most overused units in CM?

[SMERSH]

Infantry

[ASL Veteran]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are presuming too much. The reason I don't understand it is that it doesn't make any sense to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting thesis. I don't play any QB so I can't comment on what you see in QBs. The thesis itself can be addressed without having played in QBs though since, as is your usual style, it contains many broad generalizations that are not specific to QBs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, but I don't see how this relates to the general rarity of Panthers on the battlefield as compared to other vehicles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess the only way they could have uparmored would have been to weld more steel plates onto the vehicles - and that was actually done fairly frequently. The Pz IV was itself uparmored. If by 'uparmoring' you mean something brand new that was built with more armor to begin with, then you really seem to be mixing apples with eggshells. At any rate, I understand your basic point, and yes, the Germans did 'upgun' many vehicles during the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would say that the Panther was an average German late war 'tank', but I see that you count all manner of SP guns in your definition of 'tank'. Perhaps the term 'AFV' would be better here, because I believe the common WW2 usage of the term 'tank' is something fully armored that has a turret. If you include all manner of SP guns in your statement, then sure, the Panther was comparatively rare in the context of the grand total - but so is the Pz IV proper - or any other vehicle looked at in isolation. The Pz IV 'tank' the thing with the turret not some SP gun, would be just as rare as the Panther. Why single out the Panther and not the Pz IV? Using the logic you have put forth, the Pz IV should also not be showing up on the battlefield very often either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure I see your amusement at my statement. Where did the AT guns come from? Are you going to start throwing them into the mix too? We might as well start counting Axis AT guns too then. Fortunately we don't have to since you say that it is the Panther that should not be showing up as often. Well, the Pz IV shouldn't be showing up as often either since there were only 100 more on 10 June than of the Panther. How many StuGs were there? You say around 500 not in Panzer divisions? Okay, combine that with the 150 in the Panzer divisions and you have around 2000 AFVs split approximately evenly among three vehicle types. Why is any one more likely to be on the battlefield than any other? Besides, I thought we were discussing how likely something is going to show up on the 'German' side?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

None of which matters as far as how likely a specific type of German vehicle is going to be on the battlefield at any particular time. Whether or not a German vehicle is going to be on the battlefield has nothing to do with how many Allied vehicles were in the field. The only relevance that has is how often an Allied vehicle will be found on the battlefield. I would also point out that along with the 700 Panthers there were probably around 700 Pz IVs - once again, why are you singling out the Panther? Shouldn't the Pz IV 'tank' be just as ... uncommon?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't really argue with that logic in the broad sense, but if the Panzer Lehr Division is attacking the Big Red One, then of course, the Germans will have an advantage in armor wouldn't they? The ratio is going to be dependent upon the situation on the ground in the specific locale of the fighting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> 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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to admit that you lost me there. Very vivid though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't really argue with that logic and it is interesting in theory, but if a QB player picks a German armored force, then you have to assume that he has the 'armor' available to purchase. After all, we are simply playing a game about WW2, and if I want to always play as the Panzer Lehr division, then I can do that if I want. Therefore, in every battle I participate in, I should only have to worry about the ratios of AFVs in the Panzer Lehr division. If I am playing in June 44, I would be choosing from 9 StuG, 101 Pz IV, 89 Pz V, 3 Pz VI, and 12 Flakpz38. The ratios of allied tanks to these numbers is irrelevant since I am playing as the Panzer Lehr today. The number of StuGs in the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier division is also irrelevant for the same reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, yeah, and there were only around 750 Pz IVs out of 2500 AFVs of all types so why should a PzIV 'tank' be more common than a Pz V?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Notice your totals are "Panzer units". Did it ever occur to you that there were other units in the German army? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhh, yeah, but I guess that would only apply if I was selecting an 'Infantry' force in a QB wouldn't it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to state the obvious, but the German tanks were not spread across the entire front, they were mostly concentrated in units commonly known as Panzer Divisions - and if I want to play as a member of a Panzer Division today, then, by golly, you're gonna see some tanks! And no, I don't see anything rare about tank totals in the hundreds when it is put in the proper context. In other words, if I select a German armored force in a Quick Battle, a Panther is just as common as a Pz IV or as common as a StuG. Any one of the three are equally as likely to be on the battlefield as any other one of the three. The number of Allied vehicles is irrelevent to this whole argument too, since I am composing a German force not an allied one. I can certainly understand the Americans surprise in the opening hours of the Ardennes now. They must have said to each other "Hey Joe, those Germans are just not playin' fair. Don't they know that we have 10 times as many tanks as they do those gamey kraut bastards? Don't they know that in every battle we should have ten tanks for every one they have?"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you should just stipulate that your opponent pick a German infantry force all the time, and you pick an Allied armored force all the time. I think that would solve your dilemma. You might not find many opponents with that stipulation though. Besides, the same logic you use for the Panther can be applied just as vigorously for the Pz IV or the StuG since there were just as few of each of those available.

[Redwolf]

Jason, ASL vet,

is it possible that we all agree that the Panther/Pz IV ratio in the typical western front battle is about 0.7-0.8? It seems to be you don't really disagree that much over this issue.

Of course, both Pz IV and Panthers were very uncommon over the whole period of nearly one year and the typical German formation would be happy to have some StuGs or thin armour.

IMHO, you are both right that the panzer division engagement was not as common as it is made in CMBO quickbattles and that the player has the right to choose a Panzer division type force if he wants a fair game, because a fair game is more fun.

Personally, I would very much like to use thin armour, especially Marders, in games, but with current CMBO it is quite impossible to be competive then, for the reasons state, especially range.

The StuG on the other hand feels quite right, considering the price, and you see a lot of them in Quickbattles. It is probably the common armour type is has the best usage rate compared to reality.

[Olle Petersson]

Phew! 27 replies within 24 hours... I'll comment the ones I find worthy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly my point. They were spread all over the frontline instead of concentrated in the small portion of a CM battle. German companies also have this type of mortars (on map) in each infantry company. So they are common enough even with the "limitations" I advocate. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And one is mainly buying the shells ... The battalion mortars could easily fire off that many in support of every company-level firefight, in physical terms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You get not only ammo, but availability (FFE where you need it when you need it) and ROF as well. With more FOs you'd get way to much availability and potential ROF. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They fired 100,000,000 mortar rounds within 30 minutes?

Or was it spread over five years, averaging 1140 rounds per half hour distributed over some 3,000km (my quick estimate) frontline? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, but would be even more tolerable to 75mm. US had them in the form of M8HMC in the cannon company, until replaced by Sherman(105), and British Airborne used them too. Some Volksgrenadier units had them for divisional artillery as well (in the form of FK40, a modified PaK40). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The most overused is probably automatic weapon "uber" infantry, as opposed to "vanilla" infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When used mixed with rifle infantry, I agree, but if you build the force around a VG division I see no problem.

They were used en masse, and not evenly spread. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for AFVs, Churchills, jumbos, Tigers and Panthers are also overused, as people grab for invunerable front armors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jumbos, maybe, since they (AFAIK) were usually deployed as only one or two per platoon (when available). Is it common to use an all Jumbo platoon in CM?

Tigers were at least supposed to be used concentrated, although it wasn't very common in reality...

Churchills and Panthers weren't mixed with other tank types in their battalions, so fielding 20 of these in a battle isn't an overuse. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Historically, ... were much more common.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note that I'm not looking for overall average, but given that one of some unit type (Panther, Churchill, 81mm FO) was used in a specific battle, how many more of the same type could you expect to find, historically compared to a QB? And what other units could you expect not to find in that same battle?

For example; if in a medium battle you encounter a Panther, then you can expect to find more Panthers from the same platoon/company/battalion. At the same time you can expect to not find any PzKw IV, since that battalion is obviously engaged elsewhere. (Nor are you likely to encounter any TDs nor StuGs for the same reason, if the battle is small enough.)

(Same goes for Churchill/Cromwell/Sherman.)

I'll continue with more replies later on..

Cheers

Olle

[Sajer]

Jason, ASL

You are both right, but in different senses.

ASL, you are correct. If you play a quick battle, and you decide to play as a section of the Panzer Lehr Division, any other armored force, you should be concerned with maintaining the ratios historically alloted by that force - and as you said, it doesn't matter what the Allied force consisted of.

Jason, however, is looking at the broader scope. He is saying that the QB's fought by the players of CMBO should reflect the type of scenarios fought during the war - yes, there were instances of the Germans defending with Panthers, even Tigers, but not always.

Lets look at the trend. Taking any 100 QB's, I am sure you will find a disproportionately large number of instances where the Germans are fighting with armor rather than infantry forces. Giving a precise ratio is impossible - I won't even try, however, let us assume 50% - again, only an assumption, it could be higher, but I don't think it is lower.

Now, what I think Jason is trying to say is that if you consider those 50 QB's to be the engagments of a Panzer Division (which has 2 Companies of Stug III's, 1 Battalion of Pzk IV's, and 1 Battalion of Pzk V's), then the Panthers cannot be everywhere at once. Each player could easily say, "hey, I've got 1500 pts, lets but 3 Pzk VG (late), at 199 pts apiece (Regular), that still leaves me w/ 900 pts to spend on other stuff!" If you multiply that out over the 50 QB's, thats 150 Pzk V's (about 4 Battalions worth)

Now, if 150 Panthers were purchased, then somewhere, someone, should have purchased 150 Pzk IV's, and 75 Stug III's. The problem is that no one is forced to. In fact, if one is trying to "win at all costs", the game almost dares you to. The Panther is such a superior tank, that even given the point differential, its hard to justify not buying one. Given 1,000 QB's, and the ratio's outlined above, 500 could be armored forces, yielding 1500 Panther's purchased.

Now the problem with the argument is that how do you apply historical accuracy to a game that allows you to pick and choose your forces? As ASL Vet says, "If I want to play as the Panzer Lehr Division every time, I should be allowed to do so." And he's right. And technically, if every player who plays the Axis wants to play as the Panzer Lehr Division every time, they can do so.

Jason's frustration comes from being someone who is interested in historical accuracy, who plays many QB's (I am assuming here, I do not know Jason, personally) and has that feeling of, oh, I've run into a platoon of Panthers again.

The solution, I think, comes in several parts:

1) I agree with Jason that the Allies should be mostly Armored, Mechanized or Combined Forces, and attacking while the Germans should be infantry mostly (and occasionally mechanized or combined arms) and defending.

2) If you are interested in historical accuracy, you should play people who are also interested in historical accuracy rather than "how do I pick the best army list to win" - it just takes a little bit of communication to find this out.

ASL Vet, I think you need to play more QB's as the Allies to understand Jason's point of view.

[JasonC]

Since people are being intentionally dim, I will explain the real problem. People take Panthers all the freaking time. Not 1/3rd of the time they take armor, more like 3/4 of the games.

And no to ASL vet, stipulating others take German infantry will not do, since then they and I would each be commanding German infantry. Granted, sometimes that seems like a more sensible fight to engage in. I command German infantry a lot, and I do take the "infantry" force type, not gobs-o-Panther.

Then there is ASL Vet's blithe comment that if Panzer Lehr fights the Big Red One, it will have more tanks. No. Guess again.

But first a grog quibble. He left out the 31 Jadgpanzers in Pz Lehr's AT battalion in June. On the 20th, the SPA also arrived - 12 Wespe and 6 Hummel - a more reasonable omission. The division also have ~70 gun-armed halftracks (split between 75mm inf and 37mm AT, the latter a type not in CMBO) and a number of armored cars.

But he also is over fixated on one date, and that the date of arrival in Normandy, before any action. By 18 June, the operational tank totals of Lehr were down to 26 Panther, 29 Pz IV, and most of the Jgdpanzers, plus another 26 and 19 in short-term repair. By July 1 it was 32 Panther, 36 Pz IV, and 28 Jadgpanzer or StuG operational. After the mid-July fighting (when it staged a counterattack), it was down to ~50 operational AFV. By August 1, a few days into the breakout and around the time of the Mortain attempt, it was 33 AFV operational, 17 in short-term repair. A week later right after Mortain those totals were cut in half again, with only 5 running Panthers left.

Meanwhile, what would the 1st Infantry have? Depends on the date. Because of his citation of the early strength figures, I assume he is interested in the early fighting. Lehr didn't actually face the Americans until 11 July, and then farther west against the US 9th and 30th divisions, not the 1st. But it was deployed along the Allied army boundary around June 10, where the US 1st Infantry brushed alongside the British 7th Armored. In addition, the US 1st was in the breakout fighting, and was sent to Mortain to deal with the counterattack there.

So there are essentially 3 times for such a conflict in Normandy. Hypothetically around 10-13 June in the Caumont area, around the time of the 11 July counterattack near Le Desert with the US defenders hypothetically switched to the 1st Infantry, or around the time of the Mortain counterattack at the begining of August (7th).

At the time of the possible Caumont fighting, the 1st Infantry was not just another US infantry division. It was the left hand of a US corps drive, and heavily reinforced. Each of its 3 regimental combat teams had a full battalion of tanks attached, in addition to the TD battalion. It also had a recon squadron/battalion attached, beyond the ordinary troop/company. It was directly supported by 6 battalions of artillery rather than the usual 4. It had around 250 AFV. Behind it in echelon but not yet engaged was the 2nd armored division, with 350 more.

All the 1st Infantry actually ran into at that time was the recon battalion of 2nd Panzer division, screening the front, and then the Panzergrenadiers of 2nd Panzer arrived (wheeled) and established an actual held front south of Caumont. Because of the affair at Villars-Bocage, the left flank of the Allied advanced was checked, and the 1st Infantry stopped attacking. FJs and 17th SS Pz Gdr also arrived on the right flank and stopped the push toward St Lo. 2nd Panzer completed its deployment in the Caumont area, but did not face heavy fighting. 1st Infantry went over to the defensive for the next month.

In reality, Lehr spent the next week fighting the British, not the US. Its tanks operational or in short term repair dropped by 90 in that week, with around half the remainder in short term repair. If it had never fought the Brits, it would have matched the 1st Infantry in AFV numbers and exceeded it in weight and capabilility. After that week, if had no more running armor than a typical US infantry division, with attachments. What really happened is it took losses defeating 7 AD (UK), following up the Villars-Bocage affair, as well as damage from artillery and air attack. It was then pulled out, repaired tanks and took about 20 replacement tanks, and then sent back into action on the American sector, counterattacking on 11 July.

In early July it had around 100 AFV again, but at the time of the counterattack only managed to throw in 51 AFVs, spread into three prongs. The first had 20 tanks and both battalions of the 902nd Pz Gdr, the middle one had 20 Jadgpanzer and one battalion of the 901st Pz Gdr, and third had 11 tanks and the other battalion of the 901st Pz Gdr. They had support from 1 battalion of 150mm and 3 of 105mm. The infantry battalions were understrength. The division had already lost 5000 men by then, and more than 2000 were still in the British sector pulling out.

What did these 51 AFVs and 4 "battalions" run into in their counterattack? The two forward RCTs of the 9th Infantry division, and soon 2 battalions from its reserve. With some tank and artillery support from CCA 3rd Armored for the 9th. And one RCT of the 30th division, supported by a battalion task-force from CCB 3rd armored.

The whole force in the area attacked was around 11 infantry battalions (vs. 4, depleted), 2 TD battalions which did most of the heavy lifting to stop the attack - the 899th with 9th Infantry and tghe 823rd with 30th infantry - and several tank battalions, only about 1 of which was actually needed. Plus massive artillery fire, 15000 rounds expended on the day.

The actual US armor engaged only came to about 1 battalion of tanks and 1 TD battalion, simply because more was not needed. Company A of the 899 TD KO'ed 1 Pz IV and 6 Panthers for a loss of 2 TDs in 2 seperate engagements. Company C of the 899 TD KO'ed 6 Panther for a loss of 1 TD in 3 seperate engagements It was assisted in one of these - in which it lost 1 and KO'ed 2 - by one company of Shermans from CCA, but the TDs scored the actual kills. In the 30th Division sector, one company of the 823rd TD battalion KO'ed several Pz IVs and a couple of Jadgpanzers with a loss of 1 TD, while the abundant infantry in that area accounted for 5 Pz IVs with bazookas. 2 companies of Shermans from CCB 3rd armored counterattacked the counterattack, but lost 6 Shermans to remaining German Jadgpanzers from the center prong, which hit them from a flank at range. All told the Germans lost 20-25 AFVs and the Americans lost 10, in at least 8 seperate engagements, usually at short range in the hedgerows.

That is the predictable result from ~50 AFVs charging into full strength divisions, with superior infantry, artillery, and air support. And armor. The actual armor engaged on the US side did not outnumber the Germans by very much - perhaps 80 or 90 vs. 50 - just enough to outnumber them in every engagement. The armor available in the area was more like 3 or 3.5 to 1, but not all of it engaged, since the attacks were broken up rapidly enough.

The effect of air (3 groups of jabos flew strike over the counterattack) was that the German infantry had to get out of the halftracks or get clobbered on the roads, and once out of them the effect of the heavy artillery fire (more than 15000 rounds) and large edge in infantry manpower (11 battalions vs. 4) was to strip the tanks of support and spotting. They were then hunted by equal to superior numbers of TDs, occasionally supplimented by Shermans and bazooka teams, and wiped out. Those that pulled back - especially the Jadgpanzers in the center - managed to knock out some of the Allied armor in turn and to maintain the front along the jump-off line. Overall, the attack cut Lehr's armor strength in half and in return bought a delay of one day in US attacks in the area.

This is not the sense of things you'd get from imagining, with ASL Vet, that Lehr vs. 1st Infantry would of course mean Lehr had more armor. And one cannot get any real appreciation of what the men in that counterattack attempt actually did, what they were up against, the realistic potential of counterattacks to destroy the beachhead, the nature of the fighting, etc, from that naive picture of the match-up.

The 3rd chance for a clash between the 2 formations would have been the Mortain counterattack, and US moves to meet it. At that time, the 1st infantry had been pulled out of the line (13 July) to take replacements and prepare for the breakout fight. It went into the breakout fight at the end of July. At that time, it had 1 tank (745th) and 1 TD (635th) battalion attached. When it was sent to deal with Mortain, a 2nd TD battalion (634th) was also attached, giving the division ~100-150 AFV, around half of them M-10s.

Around that time, 1 August, Lehr had 12 Panthers, 15 Pz IVs, and 6 Jadgpanzers operational. The division had only 9 howitzers - 1 battalion had been overrun by the 3rd armored division back in late July. It did, however, have plenty of halftracks, hundreds of them. But it certainly did not outnumber the 1st Infantry division in AFVs.

In the early Normandy fighting the Germans had something close to parity in armor, especially on the British sector of the front and in June, rather than July. In the Ardennes, the Germans had an initial armor numbers edge of 4 to 1, which fell to 2 to 1 in the first week and reached parity by the second week. They still had significant amounts of armor into the first two weeks in January; afterwards they did not (it pulled out to stop the Russians, such as hadn't been KO'ed in the fighting). In the Alsace attacks, they had local armor superiority for a couple of days in each of several successive attacks from different points. The armor around Arnhem, being in the German rear, was obviously not matched. And some limited, local counterattacks were launched in both the Hurtgen fighting (e.g. Schmidt), in the Lorraine campaign (e.g. Arracourt), against the Brits in early 45, and at Remagen.

What is the point of all of this historical minutae? I mean, besides the fact that it is fun? Simply that it is not the case that a German panzer division on the map means TOE and the advantage in armor tactically that seemed to ASL Vet to imply. The occasions on which the Germans actually had local armor advantages in the west are more transient than he thinks. They certainly did not have them whenever a Panzer division, on the map, was opposite an Allied infantry division, on the map.

As for the "today, I am the Panzer Lehr and also, I'm at full strength" notion, this is known as the fantasy role-playing version of CM. It has precious little to do with history. You might make one scenario out of it, about fighting the Brit 7th AD along the Seulles in mid June.

But that is not what people actually pretend in talk on this board, or do in QBs. What they pretend in the talk, is that actually the Germans had gobs o' Panther everywhere, facing the poor pathetic zippos. Some have practically maintained that every Allied tanker died in battle - LOL. And in QBs, they take Panthers (w/ FJs et al), not once in a while for spice, but regularly and thinking it is just plain historical.

Then there isthe argument that because other individual vehicle types are scattered, and thus as numerous as Panthers taken one by one - or less - that therefore taking Panthers all the time is perfectly ordinary and reasonable. Which is poppycock. The top of the line in weight and rariety are the Tigers and other specials. Next are the Panthers. Taking one or the other is pretending that only the top 1/5 to 1/4 of the late war German AFV mix existed. It hardly matters how scattered the types are. The unrealistic thing it continually picking from the top portion of the weight and quality distribution.

Which was, after all, my entire original point, which I am quite sure is well understood, but simply resisted because not liked. It is like the similar argument, that because SMGs were used en-masse, that therefore there is nothing wrong with always taking all SMG infantry - or all 2 LMG infantry for those who prefer better range. (Incidentally, taking VG is fine, but VG is not equal to all SMG - they have rifle squads etc). In both cases, the same thing is being done. The bulk of the German force is simply being ignored, pretending it does not exist, while taking all purchases from the top 1/4 or so of the quality distribution. All veterans is an abuse of exactly the same kind.

Were there vets in the German army? Yes. And automatic weapon infantry? Yes. And Panther tanks? Yes, of course. Is it remotely related to the real war to take nothing but those three categories in every fight one is in, and pretend one is doing just because they are more "fun"? No. That is cherry picking, fantasy role-playing, and done because players prefer winning ugly to a challenge.

It starts getting ridiculous, though, when people on this board grog-preach their "averaging up" notions of history, the Lake Woebegone version, where all German equipment is above the German average. Then they wonder, in their technological-dominance fantasies, why the Germans lost. Not able to see why, they move on to pretending they didn't. I've heard it - e.g. the claim that PWs should be excluded from casualty totals LOL - or the claim that even StuGs and Pz IVs -averaged- ~5 kills per vehicle on the eastern front, etc, ad naseum.

The challenge is to take outnumbered defending German infantry force-type and do a -tenth- of what they actually did with it. That is also history. For varieties sake, of course sometimes one will do other things too, sure.

But the cherry picker fantasy players aren't getting variety, nor do they have any idea what the real German commanders had to work with, faced, and did with what they had. Then they pretend they have all sorts of things to teach modern military pros about German tactics, which under the conditions they magically grant themselves they couldn't discover in a thousand years.

"But what if a city full of German super-heavies dropped out of the sky directly on top of a Canadian infantryman?" You'd get a flat Canadian infantryman. What has it to do with WW II or tactics? Not a darn thing.

[Pak40]

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

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.

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This probably depends on the nationality of the force but in general I'd say that the availability of 81mm mortars should not be dependent of the size of the force.

In the U.S. Army just about any platoon leader could act as an FO. All platoon leaders had radios, which communicated with their company commanders who in turn communicated with battalion by radio or phone. So, in theory and in practice platoon and company commanders requested artillery on their own, without the use of the official FOs.

CM doesn't model the use of radios so they have to use FOs as a subsitute. This is unfortunate because if a FO is killed then the 81mm firepower is useless, which isn't very realistic. Also, this negates the real effectiveness of multiple spotters: Company commander A calls down fire missions on turn 4 and 5 then Company Commander B calls down fire missions on turns 8 and 9.

The ideal situation for CM would be to have multiple FOs that use the SAME ammo supply. This would simulate Company and platoon commanders calling the battalion 81mm fire control. Only one FO could fire at any one time but you could have each FO in a different part of the map so that they can spot different areas. Or you could use one FO as the backup in case the first one died.

[JasonC]

I think Sajer has understood me very well, and I thank him for his comments.

[Redwolf]

I really wonder where the Quickbattles with all these Panthers are. In all the games I played on tournamenthouse -often viewed as a ladder more filled with powergamers- I have up to now seen one Panther, as the only AFV of an assault defender.

About half of the people take extreme choices like Wespe, Hummel, 251/9, Jagdpanther or an occasional Tiger. They are not historical and don't have a problem with it. A few take Pz IV because they like historically imaginable forces.

The other half runs around in StuG and StuH. Because it is a nice cost-effective AFV, especially if you have to use it very carefully and rarely stick its nose out. They don't do it for historical accuracy, but the effect is quite the same.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Dirtweasle]

1. German AA Guns / vehicles.

Seems odd that a CO sized force on the front line is quite often backed up by a couple sometimes more of these things.

2. German AT Guns.

I just hate 'em

[killmore]

Pupchen for AT defense.

Best AT gun under 300 meters. Kills everything. Reasonably accurate, high ROF. CHEAP.

Useless against infantry - so what! It cost only 26 points!

[Dirtweasle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

CM doesn't model the use of radios so they have to use FOs as a subsitute...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps they could treat the radio as a weapon type. Maybe "105mm arty radio", and so on... Would also be great for the Fighter-bombers. Maybe it "jams" and you can't get through for a few turns. Hmm.

[Stalin's Organ]

Olle Wrote in response to my comment that you're only getting ammo when you buy a mortar FO:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You get not only ammo, but availability (FFE where you need it when you need it) and ROF as well. With more FOs you'd get way to much availability and potential ROF. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To take your last point first - the ROF for a German 81mm mortar FO is about 40 rounds per minute (sampled over a 3 turn barrage in a game last night!! ) - that's about the same as 2 mortars.

This is NOT an excessive ROF IMO - it's just 1 section of mortars firing under the FO's guidance! Typically a mortar platoon has 3 such sections.

Just wait to CM 2 comes out and russian Rifle Bn's can have 3 platoons of 3 mortars each in most cases!! Unfortunately I don't think this will be modeled all that well - it was their main, virtually only on-call arty.

as for availability, well that's a little more complicated. The concepts of direct and genral support come to mind - the mortars of an infantry battalion would be in direct support of all teh companies ofthat Bn, and would fire for them if not being used elsewhere.

It would be quiet reasonable for a Bn to have 2 companies "in line" and hte otehrs in reserve, so 3 sections might cover only 2 companies, and having 2 mortar FO's is surely by far and away the simplest means of simulating this.

Sure they can gang-up on a target - but if the player thinks it worthwhile to fire 2 FO's at 1 target then I'd suggest that a "real life" commander would do the same - he'd probably throw in the 3rd section as well!

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I think Sajer has understood me very well, and I thank him for his comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! Pure Creepy Crawley. Thank you to those who agree with me, and screw those who do not.

I think I understand ASL Vet's shyness of QBs - I loathe them with a passion, personally, and having seen some of ASL Vet's conversions of Squad Leader scenarios, as well as some of the really great work on the net from dozens of scenario designers, it is beyond me why anybody even bothers with QBs (much less debate their merits).

And Jason, I feel obliged to comment on your "intentionally dim" remark - by now you should know that there is a big difference between wading through your convoluted posts filled with abstractions, extrapolations and pure fantasy in equal helpings, and not understanding them, as opposed to intentionally playing stupid. I know its hard for you to grasp that there are one or two unenlightened souls not yet convinced of your brilliance, but you don't do yourself any help by insulting them. I suggest you play less the schoolmaster, and more the schoolboy - which of course is all you are.

Horrido!

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Whoops, sorry, Jason, I apologize:

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

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..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said one or two unenlightened souls aren't convinced of your brilliance. I stand corrected.

[KiwiJoe]

GERMAN:

Volks SMG

JagDPanzer IV/70

Panther G Late

Puma

75mm IFG

BRITS:

Wasp

Churchill VIII

Diamler

AMERICANS:

M8 HMC

4.2inch artillery

Jackson

Most under-used

Panzer IV, standrad German rifle squads (44,45), American 60mm mortars, Sherman 75mm,

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

LOL! Pure Creepy Crawley. Thank you to those who agree with me, and screw those who do not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A simple acknowledgement that someone seemed to have understood clearly might help someone not quite grasping the message help with a bit more context. Or it could just be a simple thank-you for not being of the automatic-antipathetic crowd. I didn't see "screw those who don't" in there anywhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think I understand ASL Vet's shyness of QBs - I loathe them with a passion, personally, and having seen some of ASL Vet's conversions of Squad Leader scenarios, as well as some of the really great work on the net from dozens of scenario designers, it is beyond me why anybody even bothers with QBs (much less debate their merits).

And Jason, I feel obliged to comment on your "intentionally dim" remark - by now you should know that there is a big difference between wading through your convoluted posts filled with abstractions, extrapolations and pure fantasy in equal helpings, and not understanding them, as opposed to intentionally playing stupid. I know its hard for you to grasp that there are one or two unenlightened souls not yet convinced of your brilliance, but you don't do yourself any help by insulting them. I suggest you play less the schoolmaster, and more the schoolboy - which of course is all you are.

Horrido!

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, why are you accusing him of having posts full of fantasy and abstractions? I find them clear, generally correct, if not as concise as possible. They're very rarely confusing, and they flesh out the topic in detail.

Secondly, its hard to have an open and welcoming view of someone of an antagonist persuasion throwing out vague insults at you every time you try to make a helpful post on anything. I've never found Jason to be condescending in any manner before the antagonist crowd seemed to have formed, and even thereafter, he seems to be pretty civil. Yet after he posts a helpful and intelligent post on a subject, immeadiately people are posting with vague accusations of 'fantasy' and 'abstraction', with no real substance to the accusations.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ]

[Skipper]

> Just wait to CM 2 comes out and russian

> Rifle Bn's can have 3 platoons of 3

> mortars each in most cases!!

During liquidation of the encircled 6th army in Stalingrad, it was calculated that KA had one artillery tube per two infantrymen.

> it was their main, virtually only on-call

> arty.

Just the same as for the Germans. Especially if you include soviet guards mortars and german 6-tube mortars in that statement.

Regimental guns were mainly used for direct fire, and larger calibers - in preparatory fires and counterbattery work.

[Grunto IV]

units i've overused:

american

m8 hmc

m8 hmc

m8 hmc (underpriced)

chaffee

m3a1

german:

sdkfz 7/x

75mm recoilless

20mm flak

37mm flak

pupchen

spw 250/9

psw 234/3

commonwealth:

3" 'antitank' mortars

units i'll probably never purchase for a qb:

german:

spw 251/1 (overpriced)

panther (good but boring)

tiger (doesn't perform as well as in squad leader)

american:

jumbo

m36 td

anything sherman 76

i like those sherman 75s... even if the ammo load is 'out of whack' with 'too much ap.'

andy

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I've never found Jason to be condescending in any manner before the antagonist crowd seemed to have formed, and even thereafter, he seems to be pretty civil. Yet after he posts a helpful and intelligent post on a subject, immeadiately people are posting with vague accusations of 'fantasy' and 'abstraction', with no real substance to the accusations.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: SenorBeef ][/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not the posts so much themselves as the "why is everyone so stupid but me" approach to the inevitable debate afterwords that is wearisome. I tend not to participate in his discussions since I have learned there is no profit in doing so. If others want to suck at the teats of his knowledge, they are welcome to - it affects me not in the least and I usually hold my tongue. For example, when Griffin's website, which had an entire section devoted to "Jason's Wisdom" went belly-up, no one uttered a word. But God help those who disagree.

All I am saying is that anyone who wants to set themselves up as an authority on a subject really needs to stick to the topics at hand, learn to be brief, be able to back things up with solid sources, admit that they are providing conjecture when sources are not available or near to hand, and demonstrate a little civility (including the admission that a possibility exists of being wrong themselves once in a while (just a mere possibility is all I am talking about), as well as understanding that others may occassionaly have a good point or perspective.)

[Olle Petersson]

This thread has now, contrary to my wish and intention, become yet another thread on overall availability of different units...

Jason, forgive me if I once again jump at one of your postings, it's not aimed against you personally, but the view you and many other posters in this thread share, and your postings are the best examples.

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

If one wants a realistic sense of the commonness of ... 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 ..., and 1 "other" ... Facing on the Allied side 3 TDs, 3 Sherman 76 plus 1 Firefly, 1 Sherman 105, 1 Priest and ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... and the result of this will be the entire WTO bathtubbed into a single battle. Not what I'm interested in with my question.

In this thread I don't give a squat if a unit was produced in ten thousand or only ten. What I'm interested in is typical deployment size, reality vs QB.

Example 1:

I'm the commander of a Panzergrenadier company (motorised) in a "vanilla" panzerdivision.

I've been appointed to lead a small KG in battle, and my company will get some armour and artillery support from other units in the division.

A platoon worth of armour (4 or so AFVs) is deemed suitable, and within the division we have the following:

- One battalion each of PzKw IV and V.

- One company each of StuG IIIG and Marder II.

I can have either a) one full platoon of one type AFV, or one AFV of each type.

Option a) is the better choice because those guys know each other well and work efficiently as a team, as opposed to the option.

IRL I'd most probably get a platoon, but in QBs the mixed option seems much more common. (Hopefully this will be altered with the new vehicle C&C system developed for CM2.)

With the mixed option I'd rate one of the AFVs as "underused" (because it's only one and not the full platoon), while the others are "overused" (since there shouldn't be any at all of them). Which vehicle I'd rate as underused could be totally random.

Example 2: (more hypothetical)

Suppose that amongst the others, there were two unit types in CM, Å and Ö, whereof Å was historically produced by the several thousands and deployed as one per company (only) to all companies in the theatre. There was a total of only ten produced of Ö, and they were only engaged in battle a few times, but they always fought together and was never separated from each other (slight resemblance of the JT).

Now, any use of Å in quantities other than one per on map company would be ahistorical. More Ås than companies would be an overuse, while fewer would mean an underuse.

To use Ö historically in a QB would mean to either have none or ten on the map, never any other number. (To use it historically in a large number of QBs the option of none should be most common, but that's another issue...)

End examples

Back to the mortar issue; I realise I might have jumped some conclusions. The point where I'm unsure is the number of actual mortars typically available in the battalion mortar platoon (excluding any mortars organic to the companies). I've been under the impression that there were only 4-6 mortars at the battalion, but now I see hints that there were really more like 12-16, depending on nationality...

Is this correct? If so I withdraw my former comment on overuse, and change it to one FO per company as the historically "correct" deployment density.

Cheers

Olle

[Splinty]

I believe the number of 81mm tubes assigned to a typical American infantry battalion was 8 as part of the Bn's HQ company. Probably the most common On Call arty would be 75mm for Airborne and straight leg infantry units and 105mm for Mech and Armor units. Although I don't have fact and figures like I've seen quoted here on other aspects of numerical balance. I'm basing my info on the typical TO&E's of American units of the time.

[Pak40]

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

[QB]Since people are being intentionally dim, I will explain the real problem. People take Panthers all the freaking time. Not 1/3rd of the time they take armor, more like 3/4 of the games.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, I've played quite a few PBEM and a few TCP/IP games and I've never played against a Panther. I myself have only used a Panther once. What I do see a lot of are Hetzers. They're all over the friggin place. Hell, I use them quite frequently. But, if I'm not mistaken, they were quite common on the battlefield historically.

BTW, nice rant. You must be related to Dennis Miller

[JasonC]

To Olle:

Well, I tried to explain that overall availability should change how often one takes a type, rather than the amount taken. For some reason, whenever overall rariety comes up some assume one is talking about mix in each QB, even if one explicitly says otherwise, as I did in my first post.

But I understand you to object to the change of subject first of all, which is fair enough. Most things are not overpurchased for the number that would be present at one battle, simply because of price - and also because of CM limits on points spent on a particular area.

Generally speaking, vehicles should be bought in pairs at least, and with AFVs one should have one main type, or two that did historically work together sometimes. (E.g. Stuarts and M-8s in the cavalry, say, or different flavors of the same base-model Sherman). Lone vehicles should generally be restricted to "specials", like a flame halftrack or perhaps a scout car. Sometimes one is all the budget and CM purchase limits will allow.

Cheap light guns can be overbought. 2 of a type would be common, and a full battery of 4, or rarely even 6 could happen - e.g. a regimental gun company. Buying 5+ 20mm FLAK is silly. One could still overload the map with light guns, up to the limits of the "support" spending category, by adding several types. But that is still less objectionable, more believeable, then whole flak battalions in company engagements.

Generally, I'd agree with the 1 light mortar FO idea. But 2 of them to represent a greater ammo load, or greater ROF used, is not completely unbelievable.

In answer to your question about mortar numbers, the standard for the Allies was 6 3" or 81mm mortars at the battalion level, in addition to the 3 60mm or 2" at the company level (or assigned to platoons). The Russians used 9 82mm at the battalion level.

The Germans had a TOE of 2 81mm per company plus 6 more at the battalion level in the standard infantry. But in practice they often had more like 8 pieces per battalion, with the "up" companies having their section of 2, and 4 more for a battalion section. (E.g. if you look at the unit returns in Normandy, most divisions had 8 mortars per battalion). The mobile forces, Panzer and Panzergrenadier both Heer and SS, had only 6 per battalion, and those sometimes half-track mounted. There were supposed to be 120mm above those in the SS, but in practice by late war those were rare enough that they stood in for regimental 150mm SiG when available, rather than being pushed down to the battalion level.

The total supporting fire by echelon/level for the standard US infantry was as follows -

3x60mm at company

6x81mm at battalion

6x105mm at regiment

plus 12x105mm per regiment, from division

12x155mm at division.

36x155mm -or- 8" at corps (typical)

The corps level could have 12 4.5" guns paired with 24 155mm howitzers, or 155mm guns and howitzers, or 12 155mm guns and 24 8" howitzers. The guns were more likely to be doing counterbattery or interdiction work farther into the rear; the howitzers were used on front line and nearer targets.

The only things that might get over-represented in that list, are 60mm mortars and 81mm mortars. With some companies deployed "back", up to 3 extra 60mm besides the ordinary 3 per company are believeable, and I doubt many people overpurchase them beyond that, or even that much. With the 81mms, taking more than 2 FOs is probably unrealistic, as would be using numerous on-map 81s plus an FO. Everything higher will break the CM point bank before you get unrealistic amounts. The Brit 3" would be similar in numbers to the US 81mm, or perhaps a bit more, because they might be easier to mass with their carriers. The US armored infantry used SP 81mm halftracks, 2 per company, and relied on the SP 105mm (Priests) more.

With the Germans, 1 81mm FO, plus 2 on map 81mm per company, would be believeable, or 2 81mm FOs without on maps. For the 75mm, you'd expect either 1 FO, or 2 on-map 75mm infantry guns per company, up to 6 maximum. That is for infantry types.

For the German mobile troops, there would be somewhat less - either an 81mm FO, or 2 81mm per company, halftracked or foot teams. Not both or all three, and a 2nd 81mm FO is stretching it. The mobile troops had fewer infantry guns, often using 2x75mm halftracks per company instead, and using them for direct fire rather than indirect.

Zooks, schrecks, MMGs, and HMGs are generally not overpurchased. There were lots of them and more were easily "drafted". The "support" price area will run out, or the motivation, before one has unbelievably many of them.

The really cheap German LMG teams might be overpurchased, especially when 2 LMG squad infantry types are already being used, or for lower quality "static" infantry divisions that tended to have fewer MGs. The typical numbers you see in the unit returns are 45-60 MGs per battalion, counting squad weapons and HMGs in the weapons platoons.

The most extra MGs you'd see would be around 9-12 in a battalion, more like 3-4 per company - on top of the 2-4 standard HMGs in the heavy weapons company, I mean. So buying 20 of the things would be silly, but say 6 of them is fine, 12 in a large enough battle (battalion scale) not unbelievable.

I hope those comments are more on the subject you wanted...

[JasonC]

A note to those who haven't seen too many Panthers. Good for you (and your opponents)! Then you won't mind my comments about them - LOL.