To the Allied players: Help this poor, German-playing shmoo

[The Commissar]

The story behind my name actually goes as far as one of my early childhood hobies with the Warhammer 40K miniature game. They had a unit for the Imperial Guard (an army type) called the Commissar, which acted sort of like a platoon leader, but also had a "nasty habit" of shooting deserters. The miniature itself looked extremely cool, so I adopted the name

Tanaka,

What do you mean by "Ground use" of airborne soldiers? I was under the general impression that "Airborne" were meant to be dropped to the ground, exploit openings and weak points, and generally help out the infantry by weakening enemy positions ahead of time.

Now, again, I said I assumed that it would often happen that the grunts reached the airborne and fought together. Before a big ol' truck came and picked up the Airborne to drop into some other hostile region, that is. Overlord and Market Garden saw this sort of thing occuring. Paras exploited, grunts caught up, and they fought together for a time before being once again seperated.

I dont think it was as uncommon as having a platoon of KT's, for example

I am also not sure how much men were dropped on a usual Airborne mission. I was under the impression that it was usually in large groups. However, as I mentioned, Im not well read in the subject so I may be wrong.

If so, do provide examples. Im interested in being more "historic" but never at the cost of personal enjoyment (ie: picking the same boring units all the time simply because they were "the most often used").

Anyhow, enlighten me.

Cheers!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[russellmz]

Originally posted by Commissar:

I wouldn't dream of using Allied armor like I would German armor. Getting into a 1-to-1 slug match with German armor usually seem to end badly for the allies unless you can put two or three tanks agaist one.

yep, i remember my first tcp/ip game:

my two shermans came out of hiding when suddenly a TIGER? popped up. not having much experience, knowing only that sherms bite when tigers appear i hid my guys in a little valley so the tiger couldn't approach without being hit by two tanks as it exposing its lower hull or flank going over or around the hill.

well later my troops identified it as a mere panzer IV. i was like, i'm hiding from a f**king pansy IV? it can kiss my olive green colored metal *ss. so i send them both up and one of the sherms gets hit with an inf gun. it shakes it off and was all NUH-UH BYATCH**. then my sherms killed both the gun and panzer IV.

**stolen from a letter to ign by some funny crazy guy...

http://dvd.ign.com/letters/2000-03-21.html

read it fer a good laugh

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

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

...

Now, again, I said I assumed that it would often happen that the grunts reached the airborne and fought together. Before a big ol' truck came and picked up the Airborne to drop into some other hostile region, that is. Overlord and Market Garden saw this sort of thing occurring. Paras exploited, grunts caught up, and they fought together for a time before being once again separated.

I don't think it was as uncommon as having a platoon of KT's, for example

...

The 2 operation you mentioned, are good examples of a "Normal" airborne troops use...

The airborne troops were used to secure key strategic places behind enemy lines, taking by surprise the enemy, like Bridges road junctions and so on... When the Army linked up with the airborne troops, they were put to rest (Some of them were fighting for more then 48H). Now you can say, " but when they link up they were fighting together", but a more closer look will reveille that there was no combined strategy at Company level (Ok they had the same enemy, they didn't kill each other), once the situation was under control the airborne unit was put to rest.

To see a "non-normal",(what I called "ground use"),but common airborne troops use, you can look to the German FJ. After Norway, Belgium and Crete this troops were mostly used as elite Infantry units... As for the Allies you can look to the Bulge, as Firefly stated " During the Bulge US airborne units were used as infantry because they were all that was available until Patton arrived"

In CM,if you chose, for instances UK airborne you are confined to a certain type of units... Why did BTS make the things like this ?

For example the 82nd did put it's effort to push the Germans to Berlin like any allied Infantry Division, but it never "rented" their platoons to other Divisions to use, Armored or Infantry ones...

The KT is an entirely different meter, CM covers the Western Front after Overlord, this includes the biggest KT concentration of the war, it was in an operation on a style of 40 done in the winter of 44... I think it's called "Bulge"

Why am I here wasting my "Latin", who knows, maybe I have a little hope that you could become a fine pbem/tcpip human opponent...

[The Commissar]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

... once the situation was under control the airborne unit was put to rest.

Now, I understand that there was no "combined strategy". However, you do agree they often had to fight together, before the situation was "under control". Now, I will argue that in CM, you are not one type of leader. You can be anything from a company commander, to a battalion commander. You are a combination of many leaders, not one all-powerful entity. Now, if this is indeed true, then I dont see why it would be considered wrong for me to "assume" command of those Airborne. In real life, they might as well have been under another leader, with myself in support. However, because this is CM and not real life, it is not possible to have the Airborne as a seperate force controlled by anyone but myself. There's that "a combination of leaders" concept again. So, if I include Airborne in battles, I could say the situation is indeed NOT "in control" and I am coordinating efforts with the Airborne force to place the situation "under control". That, or I'm a stubborn bastard

Pick either choice, I feel my thoughts on the matter are at least somewhat justified, but then again, you feel the same towards your statements. Aren't discussions fun?

Originally posted by Tanaka:

In CM,if you chose, for instances UK airborne you are confined to a certain type of units... Why did BTS make the things like this ?

BTS made things the way they are so if you had a wish of representing an all out Airborne, or an all out Infantry battle. If they did not recognize that the two had instances where they coordinated their action before parting again to fulfill their seperate roles, they would simply not have allowed us to combine service branches.

Originally posted by Tanaka:

The KT is an entirely different meter, CM covers the Western Front after Overlord, this includes the biggest KT concentration of the war, it was in an operation on a style of 40 done in the winter of 44... I think it's called "Bulge"

Yes, I know. I was more referring to the "Uber-tank" players who insist on including a museum-worth of steel behomoths and whine when one mentions "gaminess".

Originally posted by Tanaka:

Why am I here wasting my "Latin", who knows, maybe I have a little hope that you could become a fine pbem/tcpip human opponent...

I dont feel it a waste - more of a disagreement. If your definition of a "fine" live oponent lies in having history-book accurate units, I am somewhat lacking.

If the definition involves winning at any cost, I am also lacking, since I do abide by some restrictions.

I try to keep it balanced, and if you ask any of my opponents, usually a fun game results. BTW - Are you not in the Grognards club? I'd ask for a game, but my computer is busted

Would be interersting fighting a fully historically-realistic battle.

Cheers!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 02-03-2001).]

[Vanir]

For anyone out there who still thinks there are not people on this board who buy into the German superiority myth, I present Daniel.

Originally posted by danielh:

Of course, the allieds are favoured in many subtle ways.

1. The superior german tankguns are countered by the ability of weaker tanks to throw smoke forever

Throw smoke forever? Most tanks get 1-6 rounds of smoke if any. And in my experience they rarely fire it at other tanks, even if you order them to.

Moreover in a stationary gunfight once you have the range you would normally hit with subsequent shots at also stationary targets nearby, not so in CM of course.

True, but I don't see how this favors the Allies more than the Germans.

2. Allied inf-formations normally are equipped with many mortars. Still the mortars have such a silly stupid precision which makes every attempt to debate the germantanks superiority a in long range engagements a bad joke. Mortars regularly catch my tanks guns with their 3rd shot at distances beyond 1000 m (F**K).

Mortar accuracy vs. vehicles was toned down in a recent patch. You haven't been paying attention.

3. The stupid gundamage mainly hinders the heavy german tanks, if they withstand direct hits, their guns get damaged (and all the MG's too of course...

Why is gun damage stupid? I've done a test with CM that showed that gun hits only occur in about 3-5% of non-fatal turret hits. Sounds to me you want your KTs to be invincible like they were in real life

4. The "mythical" power of the M2 machine gun, killing easily more infantry with 25 ammunition than a german MG42 (You can shoot a man only once, not so with the mythical M2)

Moreover the ballistical properties of the M2's armor piercing round was poor against angled and face hardened armor, both very present with the SPW251 for instance.

Nothing mythical about it. First of all, your contention that the M2 kills more infantry than the MG42 is wrong. Look at their stats in the game. The MG42 has a higher FP rating than the M2 up to at least 500 meters. The M2 does not overtake the MG42 until somewhere between 500 and 1000 meters.

Secondly, the M2 cannot penetrate the 251 frontally except perhaps at very short range, but the 251's side armor is only 10mm thick on the turret and 8mm thick on the hull. If you have any actual evidence that the M2 could not penetrate the 251, present it.

5. The german relied heavily on the 20 mm cannon as a comparable to the M2, but since it has some explosive power it is handled like a arty gun and not as a rifle, and multiple shots are calculated as a single, so almost no threat for infantry. In real a Quad 20mm gun had devastating firepower against infantry.

You may have a small point here, however, the same argument could be made about the MG42 vs the Bofors 40mm. Also, keep in mind that AA guns like the quad 20mm fire much more often than MGs in the game, making them more effective than their FP rating would suggest.

Although the allieds had learned from their errors in 1942/43 and had i think very good communications in 1944 in France, it undermines the more expensive and thus fewer german tanks potential.

As someone else has pointed out CM takes place only in '44-'45, so what is your point? Yet again you seem to be arguing in favor of a German advantage that they did not have in real life.

The game enforces you to use inappropriate tactics, and take the "war of attrtion" approach with heavy shelling and bloody close quarter fighting.

Inappropriate tactics? Enforces? Explain. As far as heavy shelling and close quarter fighting, both were common occurrence in the ETO. So what is your problem?

Btw: Up to the outbreak at St.Lo the allieds had suffered about the same casualties as the axis. The allieds could "easily" replace those casualties whereas the axis could not.

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Also, the Allies could not "easily" replace casualties. The US had such a manpower shortage it was putting cooks and clerks in the front line and drafting infantry men as tankers with no training.

Your latest attempt to trash CM has failed just like your previous ones in the 88 thread. No one is forcing you to play it. You can go back to your beloved 2D hexbased HPS games and no one will miss you.

With disgust

My feelings exactly.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[Firefly]

The US manpower shortage was due to inaccurate predictions for casualties resulting in insufficient replacements being trained. The British shortage was due to the pool of available manpower becoming exhausted by 5 years of fighting (although the British casualty predictions were no better than the American). See D'Este Decision in Normandy. But, you're right that Daniel obviously doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Originally posted by Firefly:

The US manpower shortage was due to inaccurate predictions for casualties resulting in insufficient replacements being trained. The British shortage was due to the pool of available manpower becoming exhausted by 5 years of fighting (although the British casualty predictions were no better than the American). See D'Este Decision in Normandy. But, you're right that Daniel obviously doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

The US manpower shortage was what caused paratroopers to fight -- sometimes -- alongside regular infantry. The reason that the airborne troops ended up being the ones to hold Bastogne is becuase the US didn't really have enough infantry to have a real theater reserve. So they used airborne as an infantry reserve. Which was actually a very smart idea.

I don't know of any instances where airborne platoons were parcelled out to regular army units, but there are several instances in the bulge where an airborne *company* would be parcelled out to bolster regular units.

Typically, this would tend to happen where small regular army units were trying to hold particular crossroads on a road that led to Bastogne. Since a lot of roads led to Bastogne, this was not all that unusual for the time periods.

A lot of other mixing would occur where airborne units held a position and were then joined by retreating/straggling regular units, or where airborne units were sent to hold a position believed to be undefended, only to discover that a scratch platoon or company of regulars was actually holding the position.

[The Commissar]

Thanks for that information, Andrew.

My conscience is feeling better already

Cheers!

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

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[danielh]

Thank you vanir,

Although i know it's useless i like to clarify some points.

1. Of course a tank can throw smoke forever, not rounds, but from it's turret. I myself had a stupid silly fight with a SuGIII against 2 Churchills and 1 Challenger, on which the SuG was able to kill 2 of them (vs. AI of course) only because it could throw smoke forever.

2. It favors the allies normally weaker guns and armor, in that you would destroy that stationary target after 3 - 4 rounds, even with the small movements it may do. If you have a potent gun on the allied side you would do the same to your opponent of course, thus the fight would be shortend, now you can play the smoke, move, fire game forever until you're out of ammo.

3. I play Version 1.1, and had a PzIV been hit with the 3rd shot of a 60 mm mortar at 856 m, which resulted guess what, a gun damage.

4. In a PBEM within 2 rounds my tank was hit 4 times at the gun from 800 m by AT-guns maybe out of 15 shots they fired, the damage was always light, because they were light AT-guns of still unknown type. The PzIV, VI, VIB had heavy gun mantelings to minimize this kind of damage. In every game i play i have atleast 1 or 2 of them.

5. Nothing mythical about it ?

At 350 m my SPW251's get chewed by the M2 front on, but on the other hand the 20mm 871 m/s gun of the 234/1 will penetrate a 7 mm plated M3A1 and do no damage at around 50% of times, but never other side around. The M2 used a normal AP round without caping, so it's penetration power was poor against highly angled face hardened armor, as used with the SPW 251. Yes the M2 is calculated like a rifle and the 20 mm like a cannon, but it could be easily changed.

6. So change the Bofors too, if it's deadly it should be !!!!

7. Tank to Tank communication is not simulated in the sim for either side, which leads to distortions in possible tactics and lower the fewer heavier german tanks abilities more relatively.

8. See point 7

9. See the following poster, this throws some light on the matter maybe.(And the always prevalent thinking..). Fact is the allieds strength raised continously, while the german strength decreased sharply already in June/July 44, because of lack of reserves (I'm not talking about the catastrophical losses in the Falaise gap). With this trend the allieds must have breaken out sooner or later (Which the german Command in France knew exactly). But the units morale and fighting capabilities were very good until the outbreak. CM makes one believe that the quality of their weaponry made the difference, which is wrong in most parts. The numbers and aerial superiority made the difference (10:1 for tanks for instance).

And yes i will quit gaming CM, and can already imagine the quality of CM2 at the eastern front.

Greets

Daniel

[Vanir]

Originally posted by danielh:

1. Of course a tank can throw smoke forever, not rounds, but from it's turret. I myself had a stupid silly fight with a SuGIII against 2 Churchills and 1 Challenger, on which the SuG was able to kill 2 of them (vs. AI of course) only because it could throw smoke forever.

Do you know how much smoke a real tank can "throw"? Do some research and come back to tell us how CM has is all wrong. You are the only person I've ever heard complain about this.

2. It favors the allies normally weaker guns and armor, in that you would destroy that stationary target after 3 - 4 rounds, even with the small movements it may do. If you have a potent gun on the allied side you would do the same to your opponent of course, thus the fight would be shortend, now you can play the smoke, move, fire game forever until you're out of ammo.

I'm not real sure what the problem is here. You seem to be making a big deal out of a very small thing. Once again I've never heard anyone else voice this complaint, and I've been around for a while. Real tanks used the smoke move fire game all the time. What's the problem?

3. I play Version 1.1, and had a PzIV been hit with the 3rd shot of a 60 mm mortar at 856 m, which resulted guess what, a gun damage.

You offer up a single event. Are you saying it should be impossible for a 60mm mortar to damage the gun of a Pz IV? If you are saying it happens too frequently you need to run some tests and do a statistical analysis. A single event means nothing except that it is possible.

4. In a PBEM within 2 rounds my tank was hit 4 times at the gun from 800 m by AT-guns maybe out of 15 shots they fired, the damage was always light, because they were light AT-guns of still unknown type. The PzIV, VI, VIB had heavy gun mantelings to minimize this kind of damage. In every game i play i have atleast 1 or 2 of them.

Again you offer up a single example as if the events you describe were impossible in real life. I see nothing in your example that is wrong.

5. Nothing mythical about it ?

At 350 m my SPW251's get chewed by the M2 front on, but on the other hand the 20mm 871 m/s gun of the 234/1 will penetrate a 7 mm plated M3A1 and do no damage at around 50% of times, but never other side around. The M2 used a normal AP round without caping, so it's penetration power was poor against highly angled face hardened armor, as used with the SPW 251. Yes the M2 is calculated like a rifle and the 20 mm like a cannon, but it could be easily changed.

Just to prove how little you know what you're talking about I set up a test. I placed 3 20mm quad guns lined up abreast 700m from 3 M3A1 halftracks lined up similarly. I ran the test 4 times to get a decent sample size. The HTs were penetrated 13 times resulting in 12 knockouts and 1 immobilization. 50% no damage you say? Not even close. Judging from your above points I'm guessing you saw a single penetration do no damage in a game and based upon that came up with your 50% figure.

7. Tank to Tank communication is not simulated in the sim for either side, which leads to distortions in possible tactics and lower the fewer heavier german tanks abilities more relatively.

Why does the fact that the German tanks are fewer and heavier make their abilities lowered by no tank communication? For all practical purposes tanks have perfect communication in CM because they are all controlled by the player who knows everything that each of his tanks knows.

9. See the following poster, this throws some light on the matter maybe.(And the always prevalent thinking..). Fact is the allieds strength raised continously, while the german strength decreased sharply already in June/July 44, because of lack of reserves (I'm not talking about the catastrophical losses in the Falaise gap). With this trend the allieds must have breaken out sooner or later (Which the german Command in France knew exactly). But the units morale and fighting capabilities were very good until the outbreak. CM makes one believe that the quality of their weaponry made the difference, which is wrong in most parts. The numbers and aerial superiority made the difference (10:1 for tanks for instance).

This all has little to do with CM. CM simulates small unit action only. It doesn't fight the whole damn war. At the CM level of warfare almost anything could happen and did happen.

And yes i will quit gaming CM, and can already imagine the quality of CM2 at the eastern front.

You can please most of the people most of the time, but...

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-03-2001).]

[Gen. Sosaboski]

Buy glider platoons (US), and try some Polish Paras, trust me . Also useful, I have found, are UK/Canadian/Polish Pioneer Platoons in a defensive stance vs. infantry. If you place both Eng. Squads up front, the Platoon HQ in the middle, and the flamthrower in the rear, they are quite effective (esp in a small wooded patch). The AI gets real Po'ed at them and launches a huge attack on the pioneers, usually costing them many casualties. Make sure you have a rifle platoon to back up the engineers though.

Also-M8 Greyhounds, M8 HMCs, M5s, and M18s make nasty surprises for the Germans. If you buy a 76mm AT gun, your opponent will wonder what hit him. Also effective: Zooks and PIATs (ridiculed by almost every other game). These things are deadly! Use them in pairs or with a sharpshooter or MG if possible.

In addition, buy a few 60mm mortars or some 2in. mortars if you know halftracks are around. Top penetrations are quite easy when the halftrack stops.

Have fun...

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by The Commissar:

I always thought that Airborne units would be used with regular grunts. You know, after they were parachooted to some poor, bombed out part of Europe, they do their thing and the regular infantry catch up with them.

Then again, Ill freely admit that Im no expert on American troop uses/placements (hell, not much with Germans either ).

Either way, 'I' think its not too absurd, and if my opponent thinks otherwise, I tell him to eat a Rifle Grenade

Seriously, if someone knows more then me on the subject, I expect the, to give me lectures on correct unit use if they expect me not to be 'somewhat' gamey.

Cheers!

\Lecture mode on\

The example Firefly talks about is the divisional level. It is correct that US 101st, 82nd and UK 6th Airborne were used in an infantry role. Apart from Market Garden, you would be hard pressed to find examples of them working together with ordinary infantry (as opposed to tanks) very often. On a company and even batallion level it would not make much sense to mix and it really did not happen except for in very few cases.

/Lecture mode off/

In CM you may have the problem that some players will always use these few cases as an excuse to mix and match according to their feeling of effectiveness (see the infamous crew use threads). That is ahistorical, since these players will regularly do this, based on very few examples. Whether you like it or not is a different matter. If you intend to do it, it may be nice to ask your opponent whether he likes to play historically. If he answers negatively, go right ahead. If not, it would be nice of you to desist. Just my £0.02 on PBEM etiquette.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Vanir]

Originally posted by danielh:

5. The german relied heavily on the 20 mm cannon as a comparable to the M2, but since it has some explosive power it is handled like a arty gun and not as a rifle, and multiple shots are calculated as a single, so almost no threat for infantry. In real a Quad 20mm gun had devastating firepower against infantry.

At first I thought you may have a point here, so I tested it to see if it was true. Turns out the 20mm Quad is very devastating vs infantry in CM. Much more than the M2.

I set up 3 elite German squads 500m from 3 regular M2 machine guns. The squads were in woods but I had fog of war turned off so there would be no interruptions of firing when the squads took cover.

I let them fire for 5 turns. I repeated the test 3 times.

First run: 2 total casualties.

Second run: 1 total casualty.

Third run: 3 total casualties.

6 casualties in 15 turns of firing.

I then ran the same test with quad 20mm AA guns (regular) against elite British squads. The difference was so dramatic I stopped the test after only 3 turns of firing. After only 3 turns of firing the 20mm Quads had inflicted a total of 23 casualties. That's nearly 4 times the casualties of the M2 in 1/5 of the time.

Would you like to reconsider your statement?

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-03-2001).]

[Slapdragon]

I too think it is gamey when I see a US paratrooper on a group of half tracks.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Vanir:

I then ran the same test with quad 20mm AA guns (regular) against elite British squads. The difference was so dramatic I stopped the test after only 3 turns of firing. After only 3 turns of firing the 20mm Quads had inflicted a total of 23 casualties. That's nearly 4 times the casualties of the M2 in 1/5 of the time.

Would you like to reconsider your statement?

In fairness to Daniel- Vanir, I believe he is referring to the fact that infantry ON THE MOVE and especially across the line of fire of the 20 mm cannon (both single & quad configuration) rarely suffer casualties from the weapon as it's treated as a cannon by the game & the shells almost invariably land behind the moving unit doing little to no damage. This is in contrast to an M2 MG of course which gets the benefit of spraying its shots thereby inflicting greater casualties on infantry moving ACROSS its firing line and the game not having to calculate where each shell lands.

In my humble opinion it certainly detracts from the general usefulness of the 20 mm cannon, especially against infantry, but it's hardly a game breaker.

Regards

Jim R.

[Bruno Weiss]

Yeah, and you don't know what Babushka means either Commissar, you Uber playing Rusky you. I was in the Doctor's office yesterday, and there was a kids book there, "The Babushka Dolls", and I mentioned to the Nurse about our Babushka conversation. She said it's Polish, not Russian. And said it means "Old Woman's Scarf", not Grandmother, you incredible Russian dolt.

Boski, why didn't you jump into this. You love all things Polish. The woman said there is a dance that goes with Babushka, or the Babushka Dolls.

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

"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)

[This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 02-04-2001).]

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

In fairness to Daniel- Vanir, I believe he is referring to the fact that infantry ON THE MOVE and especially across the line of fire of the 20 mm cannon (both single & quad configuration) rarely suffer casualties from the weapon as it's treated as a cannon by the game & the shells almost invariably land behind the moving unit doing little to no damage. .

Where did you get this idea?

I just reran my test. I removed the woods (can't run through them very fast) and had the 3 elite British squads run 90 degrees across the line of fire at 700m from the Quads. They took 18 casualties in a single turn. That's a faster casualty rate than when they were sitting still in the woods.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-04-2001).]

[Gremlin]

Actually, I've seen the same thing that Herr Kanonier Reichmann talks about: an Ostwind overshooting a slow-moving MG team coming towards it. Admittedly just one example, but that doesn't inherently disqualify it's implications.

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

New to Combat Mission?

Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Vanir:

Where did you get this idea?

I just reran my test. I removed the woods (can't run through them very fast) and had the 3 elite British squads run 90 degrees across the line of fire at 700m from the Quads. They took 18 casualties in a single turn. That's a faster casualty rate than when they were sitting still in the woods.

For a fair comparison Vanir you should either chose the single barell 20 mm weapon or place 4 x M2 MG's at the same range & see how much they chew up that infantry. I'm betting the 50 cal's will be much more effective but as I said, I'm not spewing over it or anything by any means.

Regards

Jim R.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Use of Allied (I'll talk a bit about Germans at the end) airborne in WW II is a finite set and the actual cases can be explained. So that people can get a sense of when they could indeed be combined with other types, and when not.

First to understand doctrine, then how practice diverged from it. After that, specific cases.

The doctrine was to drop large airborne formations en masse behind enemy lines shortly before other forces were expected to reach those lines. The most usual case in which they were called for, was when in addition to the enemy lines there were important water obstacles to be crossed, big or small. The basic idea is the "bridgehead" or "beachhead". They are meant to help establish one by arriving from at the same time the obstacles are being approached by regular forces.

After that "surgical" role, they were to be withdrawn from the front and refitted for the next such mission. The original idea was they they could be called upon to do this with some regularity, as operationally needs dictated.

The practice diverged from the doctrine almost instantly. First, fighting in beachheads or bridgeheads is a force-intensive affair and the last thing a local commander wants to do is reduce his combat power by sending units out. He thinks in terms of the rate of the build-up past the obstacle, trying to get it high enough that the enemy cannot counterattack and the manuever space increases. So, instead of being sent back to the rear for the next jump after a mission within days or a week at most, as originally planned, they wound up staying for about a month in typical cases.

The second major change followed from the nature of the operations themselves, in practice, and from the previous, and from the TOE of the airborne forces. This was that they took far higher losses in combat than anyone had planned, or even expected them to remain at all effective, after taking. Part of this stems from being left "in the line" without the artillery and armor and other heavy weapons of regular infantry divisions. They had pack howitzers, jeeps, and mortars, but everything had to fit in a glider or it wasn't in the TOE. In practice it was found that being picked men in the best shape and extremely well-led, they could fight about as well as a regular infantry division (similar frontages, gains per day, yadda yadda) but took 50-100% higher casualties doing it.

So they were not used for every little operational goal. They had to be rebuilt after every major op, except for the comparatively light losses they took in Sicily. In Normandy, the airborne divisions lost between 1/3 and 1/2 of their men before being taken out of the battle. In the infantry roles, the losses were higher still. The next time they jumped, the NCOs were veterans of the previous but the majority of the infantry privates were new (as airborne that is).

Ok, all of the above is background, so that you understand how rare the actual jumps were, compared to rivers the whole army was fighting its way across or what-not. The airborne jumped into sicily at the same time as that invasion, to relatively light losses. Some of them tangled with elements of the Goering Panzer division, however. Some were also used in Italy soon after getting ashore.

They were used in Normandy and left in the line for nearly a month. They linked up with the regular forces from the beach on D-Day, and outlying scattered forces had linked up within 2-3 days at most. The U.S. ones proceeded to help take the Caretan penisula and also fought off a few local German counterattacks. They did have support of some weapons from the regulars in all this, but not much. Commandeered tanks, fire missions called in, supplies - not mixed infantry forces.

Then they were sent to England and rebuilt. They did not jump again until Market-Garden in the fall. In that case they rapidly linked up with British regulars from XXX Corps, except the British force which was destroyed before the link up, at Arnhem. (Losses in the Brit 1st Airborne at Arnhem were north of 3/4ths - only a cadre left). The U.S. forces fought alongside of the British regulars, both infantry and armor, but with more cooperation with the armor, after the failure of the operation proper. That again was because they lacked their own tanks, and because the local commanders were trying to retain the ground taken. Compared to the Normandy fighting, the losses in MG were lighter, but still quite high for the length of time engaged.

After that, they were sent into theater reserve while they took replacements. The remained there until December and the Bulge fighting. In the Bulge, they were committed by truck to the crumbling front, as the first reserves available outside the sectors under attack. The 82nd was sent toward St. Vith and the 101st to Bastogne.

The 82nd ran into Peiper's kampgruppe and helped stop him. In that fighting, the 82 was facing east mostly while the regular infantry was facing south, and the L formed by the two was the northern edge of the Bulge where Peiper was still trying to push. The 82nd cooperated with occasional regular roadblocks, and rear area troops like engineers, supply people, and artillerymen, but basically regular troops in their sector of the front had been blown clean away or bypassed or pushed away to the north, by the time they got there.

The 82 stayed in the line for a long time, though. They helped in the counterattacks (though mostly delivered by regulars along his long northern flank) that cut off Peiper and reduced him. It would not be completely silly to have scenarios in which *seperated* forces, some airborne and some regular, cooperated *toward* the same objective or against the same enemy, from this time.

In the case of the 101st it is much more than that. They formed the bulk of the garrison of Bastogne (they had 4 infantry regiments, 3 para and 1 glider), but they were assisted in that by an entire combat-command (aka brigade) of a U.S. armored division. For those in Palm Beach, that means ~100 AFVs, a regiment of armored infantry, a force in fact similar in vehicle load-out to a late war German panzer division.

There were remnants fighting for Bastogne or to delay approaches to it as well. Everybody was mixed together once the place was cut off, and engineers and artillery troops from corps and army level were in the place too. The combat command lent out its tanks and tank destroyers in teams, kept concentrated at the company level whenever possible, and supported the airborne. The armored infantry was with reserve teams used as a sort of fire brigade to seal off threats or counterattack infiltrators. Cooperation between regulars and airborne inside the Bastogne pocket was extensive.

After the pocket was relieved, the men expected to be sent to the rear after their fine stand and to let the regulars take over. But that didn't happen. The U.S. counterattacks were underway and the brass did not want to give the Germans any time to breath by pulling out men, so the 101st was left in the line and even participated in some of the counterattacks. In doing so, they were working alongside teams from 3rd Army, both infantry and armor. Start to finish, the U.S. airborne divisions lost 1/3rd of their strength again in the Bulge. The Brits hadn't rebuilt yet from MG and were not involved.

The last drop was to support the British army's crossing of the Rhine in March of 1945, up on the German plain. There was massive prep fire, a huge airborne drop using fresh new divisions, and a river crossing in boats under a smole barrage. The airborne took serious losses from heavy German FLAK across the river. Once on the ground, they had some fights in places they dropped too close to the enemy. But the crossing went easily, they linked up almost immediately, after after the FLAK nightmare they rest was a cakewalk compared to the other occasions. They worked with British regulars there for a short time, then were taken out of the line.

As for the German parachutists, it is easier to state. They simply were not used as parachutists, most of the time. The German parachute forces had participated in a number of raids in the lowlands and French campaign in 1940, including the famous successful raid on Eben Ebel in Belgium. They were dropped on Crete and took the place, but suffered tremendous losses doing so, and as an actual attack force were never used again from the air, essentially. There were some minor raid exceptions, and deception missions - e.g. dropped during the Ardennes attack. But those were so badly scattered (night drop) over dense woods and in enemy territory, that they had essentially no combat effect at all.

But this does not mean the German parachute troops saw little action. On the contrary, they saw lots, used as infantry right in the line but without enough heavy weapons. Just like the Americans, it was found that elite men with high motivation and many automatic weapons, could hold their own with regular infantry, but only at the cost of higher casualties. They could not do more because again, they did not have the weight of artillery and tank destroyers etc that other standard units had. But they fought at Cassino in Italy (mountains) and in the hedgerows at Normandy and in the forests and snow during the Bulge, and saw heavy action and fought well on every occasion. In all these cases, they were fighting beside other regular units, often with renmants present of destroyed formations they had supported or relieved as reserves, and they tried to commandeer guns and AFVs just like the Americans did, but with noticably less success, especially in the case of supporting vehicles.

I hope this is useful.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

The last drop was to support the British army's crossing of the Rhine in March of 1945, up on the German plain. There was massive prep fire, a huge airborne drop using fresh new divisions, and a river crossing in boats under a smole barrage. The airborne took serious losses from heavy German FLAK across the river. Once on the ground, they had some fights in places they dropped too close to the enemy. But the crossing went easily, they linked up almost immediately, after after the FLAK nightmare they rest was a cakewalk compared to the other occasions. They worked with British regulars there for a short time, then were taken out of the line.

Great post Jason. One comment - UK 6th Airborne (who AFAIK actually took Hamminkeln, contrary to the impression one might glean from the scenario on the CD ) stayed in the line after VARSITY and ended the war on the shores of the Baltic, after having a race with 11th Armoured as to who gets east fastest, which I think the paras won. But again, they were used as a unit, and not split up to make up for lack of short-range firepower in the ordinary infantry. Which is how some players of CM may think paras ought to be used.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[Polar]

My personal favorite combo? Depends on the map.

In a town or hilly setting, I take the obligatory US rifle squads... those guys eat Germans for lunch.

But that is standard...

The REAL fun cheapo Town buster combo is as follows (for 1200+ battles):

2 British Wasps (Light Flamethrower ACs) they kick ass once you know how to use them!

1 Churchill AVRE... low on rounds, but nothing evicts the HUn from their homes like a healthy dose of 290mm dirrect fire!)

1 Sherman 105

You can clear a large town using just this combo. Keep the troops pinned with the 105, race the Wasp up and set the building on fire, level the block with the AVRE... rinse, repeat.

If you set your Rifle squads covering all the open streets, its lights out for the Germans.

Anti Tank? Heck, all of the Allied tanks need to be micromanaged to some extent, so I choose Greyhounds. There abilities are well documented on the board.

Haven't fiddled much with on map arty like the Priest... but I haven't gotten tired of the Wasp/AVRE/105 combo yet. (and yes, it's gamey as all hell! )

Joe

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

"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 02-05-2001).]

[Major Tom]

I rarely ever break the nationality/weapon arm rule. When I choose to fight as one unit (ie. British Army) I just pick troops and weapons from that selection. Sure, I might have been better selecting US Infantry, British Fireflys, Canadain 3" Mortor spotters, etc., but, it just doesn't fit right.

I don't think that anything posted about CM is gamestopping. Sherman tanks have around 5-6 smoke shells, which isn't a lot. They also don't last very long (1-2 turns). Same thing with just about any other tank with high levels of smoke.

Both the Allies and Axis suffer from the AA gun 'innacuracy' as it might be. Never really had my infantry up against a AA gun (other than 88mm) so I wouldn't know.

The Shermans do have a much faster firing rate, so they will get more hits on their german foes, but, this is historically documented, and not a problem isolated with CM.

Yes, each allied platoon gets about 1 mortor, either 2" or 60mm, both of which are only usefull against light forces on the move, not against entrenched guys. However, their squads lack the firepower of average German squads.

The only reason that gundamage is more prevailent on German tanks is, that usually an Allied tank would be killed before its gun gets damaged. I have had allied vehicles wrecked, immobilized and lost their guns through hits by enemy mortors, light AA weaponry and full fledged artillery. No difference than what the Germans suffer from.

Actually, I have many battles of manuver. Where I lose very little and my enemy loses a lot. Not through artillery, but through hand to hand combat. Also, casualties were usually gained through either long (arty) or short range combat, not medium stand off range.

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

For a fair comparison Vanir you should either chose the single barell 20 mm weapon or place 4 x M2 MG's at the same range & see how much they chew up that infantry. I'm betting the 50 cal's will be much more effective but as I said, I'm not spewing over it or anything by any means.

Regards

Jim R.

Firstly, the original point made by Daniel and seconded by you was that the Quad 20mm was less effective in CM than the .50 so that's what I tested.

Secondly, you are wrong again. I reran the tests with single barrel 20mm vs .50s. Each test consisted of 3 elite squads running perpendicular to the the line of fire for 1 turn at 700m while being shot at by 3 regular 20mm/.50s.

Casualties for M2 .50:

1st run: 4

2nd run: 1

3rd run: 3

4th run: 1

5th run: 1

Total: 10 casualties.

Casualties for 20mm (single barrel).:

1st run: 3

2nd run: 1

3rd run: 3

4th run: 4

5th run: 5

Total: 16 casualties.

The 20mm produced 60% higher casualties.

Note that in one test the 20mm only produced 1 casualty and in 1 other test the .50 produced 4. If you were to view these 2 results in isolation you may believe the M2 is 4 times more effective than the 20mm (this is probably how the myth of the weak 20mm in CM got started). It is only when you run multiple tests to obtain a decent sample size that the true picture becomes clear.

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

You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 02-05-2001).]

[Major Tom]

Actually, would a 20mm Flak produce more casualties than a 0.5inch HMG when firing at an open field? The reason that the 20mm did so well on SPR was that it tended to hit the Tiger and explode their shells causing the shredding of the troops on board. However, if you just fired a 20mm Flak accross a field it will only cut through the troops, not explode, resulting in far fewer casualties than you would think. Most shells would land at the other end of the field, relatively harmless since they didn't hit anything worthy of causing them to explode. The 0.5inch has a much higher rate of fire (based on ammunition storage, etc...) so it would probably hit more than a 20mm Flak would. A 50 calibur or 20mm shell will probably knock a troop out of the battle, and with the 0.5inch having a higher rate of fire they could throw more shells out than a 20mm. Remember, these 20mm's aren't time delayed.

So, I would figure that in certain situations a 20mm would be way more effective than a 50 calibur (if they were in a urban area, or around a tank causing more shrapnel), but, the 20mm would not be vastly superior to the 50 calibur in every instance. I see that BTS managed these weapons pretty well.