SC Unit Representation

[Shaka of Carthage]

I took the liberty of pulling this subject from a different thread. I think its important enough to warrant its own seperate discussion. First, here are the orginal comments:

===============================

"From Liam"

One Important aspect of the game not covered. Though Eastern and Western Armies may not be porportioned the same combatant/Military Engineers/Medical/Vehicle support, and SO FORTH!!! There were supposedly a Million Yugoslavs in the Army at the time Hitler invaded. So when I see 3 corps at what military strength? I'm just Blahhhh, even Yugoslavia a small military power would deserve what Switzerland gets 2 full blown fully entrenched armies...

It's a gross misrepresentation. What would be more accurate is giving the Yugoslavians at least 5 armies... Though Poorly Equiped and then perhaps divide the nation along the pro-Allied Coup and Pro-Axis Coup...Hurting supply...also well, they're equipment is a low rating, so we really should have different rating than Anti-Tank. How about Equiped Soldier's level. Like the American GI was the best equiped soldier of the War towards Normandy... Far better than their adversaries, which gave them a huge advantage

===========================================

"From Shaka of Carthage"

Liam

You are correct that SC does not represent the different nationalities and the differences in equipment, training, etc. It is an extremely difficult subject, made even worse by the fact that identical units; same men, same equipment, same experience, can have an effectivness difference of almost 2:1. Even the experts cannot agree on how to accuratly reflect this.

So in SC you have a system that has decided to keep it simple by making a "generic" unit. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that manpower equals the combat power of this unit. If a man with a rifle has a combat power of one (1), a machine gun is around seven (7), but an artillery piece is around eight hundred (800) to twelve hundred (1200).

Number of men is not a good way of trying to determine how many units a nation should have. Better way is the number of artillery pieces and armored fighting vehicles. Posting those numbers would give a more meaningful comparison of the potential military units (divisions, corps, armies) a nation can raise.

===========================

"From Liam"

thanxs for the Comments on my posting Shaka...

armies in the field are a big difference, communication<modern>, transportation, proffessional Western Leadership... At least Even Modern 20th century equipment...Though did every Yugoslav have a Rifle? It's grossly respresented, a million men if determined would be a very healthy force for the 3rd Reich to Crush in weeks... Without a "grunt" of manpower and equipment. This game is about taking real history into consideration. You can replace Tanks, with Sappers, you can replace Artillery with Guerrilia tactics and suicide squads. Depends on the flexability of the countries armed forces and mountain Warefare is a Pain in the butt which is bigtime in Yugoslavia. So you waltz in in what is roughly equivelant to 150k of Western Troops and stamp em out. The poles were fairly organized. They were a Fair military, only beaten due to lack of understand BlitzKrieg and likely leadership. Nomatter how ill a weapon is, it is still effective if used, and practiced again and again. If the Russians didn't have so much space to make mistakes, their weapondry would've succumbed to the much more modern Western German Power. Also if they weren't fighting during a Winter/with a long front from the Baltic in Leningrad to the Black Sea Rostov in the South '41... They learned from their mistakes and with far inferior equipment and it was not equal IMHO until around midish '43

That made the huge change between the Soviet fighting man, but still they used the tactic of #s vs Quality. They could've gone quality but the very nature of a Communist state is #s and loss of life being of little consideration...

All these minors are misrepresented in that sometimes you wipe them out in 2 seconds. Other times you get a lucky Corp here or there. There needs to be a smaller organization of disorganized Fighting men in this War. That is Truely the backbone of most Eastern European Armies. The Romanians/Bulgarians/Hungarians I bet carried WW1 equipment at best. No mechanized ability, without their Axis friends. So they are no good really either. They had little or 0 Morale to fight against a determined Ally they were more worried about Obtaining more lands in the baltics as represented. Although the baltics were a poor area, aside from Ploesti...semi-strategic<not very> It was just a problem to be overlooked... So should the Russians with a lot of their beginning inf modeled after weak and badly equiped lead troops be somehow modeled say a Base Infantry Unit...

With a strength of 3 that cannot be improved place all over the map for these countries. For true representation of their fighting capabilties. The Russians were torn a new rear end in WW2 until 1942 at Stalingrad. They had no idea what Modern warefare was, in this game they can play hit and run tactics that historically Russia was incapable of doing. She was in shambles for losing all that she did, and most of her backbone would come from LATER reorganization not early...After her troops escaped and her leadership woke up and properly equiped and fought an effective style warefare with inferior equipment.

To sum it up, the BEF and the French were better military units than the Germans. I think that their air was significantly weaker and their tactics were old style... There should be a better bonus than just HQs for Germans in that situation and their should be proper penalties as the Allies later improved their technology by Worldwide Cooperation and a HUGE ULTRA wealthy Modern<comparable to Chinese military of today> USA

===================================

"From Jersey John"

Liam

A lot of interesting views but I can't agree that the French in 1940 and B. E. F. were better fighting units than their German counterparts.

The British were more motorized than the Germans, but didn't have the tactical doctrine; their tanks were not comparable those the Germans were using and they had no tactical doctrine to utilize them with.

French Tanks tended to be either heavier and slower or lighter and faster than those the Germans were using. In the campaign the Pz IIIs and IVs were unduly handicapped by the incorrect use of the IIIs having the high velocity gun with armor piercing shells and the IVs having the short, low velocity gun with high explosive shells. It was one of the few mistakes Hitler admitted to. After France both models were fitted with long high velocity weapons. Even with that handicap they fared well against the equally numerous French armor which was almost never employed effectively.

Aside from these things, German soldiers of 1940 were very well trained and well led. There's no doubt the British and French fought bravely, but the Germans always seemed to have an edge even beyond the Luftwaffe's 'flying artillery' advantage.

Definitely true that the Luftwaffe ruled the skies till the Battle of Britain.

British firstline fighters and German firstline fighters were closely matched, but the RAF operated primarily out of Britain and in that early campaign rarely met the Germans in sufficient numbers to attain parity.

Months after the Battle of Britain, it was the UKs turn to attempt escorted bombing runs over enemy territory and the Brits suffered just as badly on the German side of the Channel as the Germans had on the English side.

Even if Poland's equipment, training and airforce had been the equal of Germany's, I think they'd have still been doomed by sheer geography and the fact Germany is simply a much more powerful nation with more of everything.

The Poles had to defend too long a line made all the more impossible by it's 'C' shape. How do you successfully defend something when you start off not only outnembered but doubly out flanked? To have pulled everything back and only defended the central part of the country with it's capital, Warsaw, would have been unthinkable and equally doomed, though it might have taken a little longer though at the expense of abandoning much of their nation.

====================

"From Liam"

Yes, you are right about the short ranged P.4 and the Lack of firepower in the P.3 the German's had to outthink their oponent, get around their flanks and hit them in their weaker points. The British a13 was comparable armor to most frontline German tanks, and that was the weakest British Tank. Although never around in great #s... Also the Matilda series<the right ones> were unstoppable armor, though very heavy. Also not enough in #s... You're absolutely right about German Air superiority, i guess the allies didn't realize the importance early enough. As it would have been a great factor in delaying German advancing.

The Char1bis and the Somua, had the same turret. That was more or less like a Panther vs a slightly stronger Sherman. You could fire endless rounds of AP from a P3 into a Char1s turret and it would just bounce off.. In fact the Germans pioneered faster, more maneuverable and more numerous tanks... Much like their American counterparts a few years later :)The only comparable Armor to the Axis was the Renault that was a lt piece of chunk. Though the Somua in 1940 was the finest Medium tank in the entire world. I have heard that the Allies had more tanks and more aircraft and of course deployed wrong. In support of infantry rather than as line pounchers and fast routers. The Blensheim Hawk75, is roughly equal to many of the Luftwaffe fighters... The JU87, 109 and HE-111<corrected formely shnell bomber> were already obsolete by 1940ish...

A lot of these I base of a Simulator I have played and books I've read about their equipment. Although even on a defensive role, the Allies should've bought a tad bit more time than they did. The Poles I hear weren't as bold as the Czech's or as brave. They were ready to fight in '38 with their awesome T38 which I find almost as nice as the P3...far superior to any other German tank available. Besides a worthy Airforce a combined Pole-Czeck front whilst the allies built a true # of Supply and equipment to match their German counterparts may have caused the War to be a lot shorter. Plus would've pushed other Balkan nations in perhaps and made the Russians very very Stressed!

==================

"From Jersey John"

Interesting about the evolution of armored warfare. Guderian's 1930's book, Achtung Panzer! envisions tanks as evolved cavalry; originally Guderian began his study as an examination of German cavalry tactics in the opening phases of WW I, then drew the connection to tanks. As the war progressed tactics moved away from that concept of disruption and speed toward the original idea of impregnable behemeths moving ponderously through any object they came across.

The French had a lot of tanks in 1940. Like the Russians in '41 they despersed them throughout the corps often using them in groups of two or three and sometimes having lone tanks assigned to defending specific positions. The Germans found such tactics easy to deal with. Whatever the anti-tank gunners couldn't take care of was allotted to the dive bombers. Strangely, in the late twenties and through the 30s there was considerable talk within the French army of emphasizing the cavalry!

The British Matildas were very good for directly supporting infantry attacks, but not for the cut and slash tactics of Blitzkrieg. Though comparably heavy to later tanks, they were much slower and not as heavily armed.

===================================

Thats it. Since this is long enough as it is, let me make a new post.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The above is important because it touches on quite a few subjects that lead to alot of misunderstanding about combat. I'll paraphrase some of the above to address those items.

number of units is not accurate for minor nations, bad reflection of how they fought, Yugo's should have 5 armies, different rating than A/T

What this comes down to is what a unit represents in combat. Forget the number or quality of the troops for the moment. We're talking firepower. Lets call this Combat Power. What makes up Combat Power? Artillery, as in the 75mm, 105mm and 155mm pieces the horses and trucks are towing. Anti-Tank weapons, like those 37mm, 50mm guns the infantry are pushing around, bigger pieces like the 88mm wpn, later hand held weapons like the bazooka / panzerfust (?) and of course the tanks. Thats it. Those two categories are what counts towards Combat Power. So where does the man with the rifle (aka infantry) come in? He catches the bullets, protects the two main weapons (artillery and tanks) and acts as the eyes and ears of the unit. Not to mention catching all the crappy jobs no one else wants to do. Then we have the combat support troops... like engineers, supply, medical, signal, etc. They act as multipliers for the Combat Power.

So here we have our SC Corp or Army, bristling with Artillery, Armor and Infantry (feeling good cause the officers have told them thier anti-tank weapons can defeat the enemy).

Lots of nations would like to form units like the above, and most tried to. But artillery and tanks are not cheap, nor can anyone make them. And the combat support units in large numbers, are beyond the capability of the minors. So you make do with what you got, get some cheap from the open market, or take hand me downs from your friends. Here is where it gets interesting for the designer... what does he use to determine who gets what?

SC's decision was to use a generic unit. Everyone starts with the same equipment and same training. No differences among the nationalities (more about that later).

So what about all those men with rifles, machine guns, mortars, etc? Do we organize them as units? Ok... have SC make units to reflect this manpower. But you know the problem? As soon as these units engage in combat with a conventional Corp or Army, they will no longer exist. So why bother with the unit? SC does not. Suicide tactics, maltov cocktails, improvised weapons, all of that has some use at a tactical level. But at any higher level, when you are faced with a battalion or higher conventional level force, you run or you die in place. Btw, "running", is also known as guerrilla warfare.

Using the manpower of a nation to say how many units they should have is wrong. Number of Artillery pieces and tanks is more important.

So even if we have this scenario with a million men with small arms, they would not be able to stop, not to mention defeat any conventional military force. While they may resist (and that is predicated on popular support, favorable terrain, etc), their national government will fall. The units SC puts in the minors give us some idea of the difficulty in taking over the nation. But they cannot stop a determined attempt, doesn't matter how many men with light arms you have.

Long post, time for a new one.

[ February 04, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Perhaps you had a point about these items straying a bit from the Dismembering of Yugoslavia Forum.

I support your original point about Yugoslavia couping in both directions and having five low quality armies, which is very reasonable. Within the SC 2 framework and in consideration of the diplomatic ideas Kurt has been discussing I'd like to see the coup not be automaitic and, if certain conditions are met I think Yugoslavia and Greece ought to be inclined to line up with the Axis.

Regarding Units. There are many ways to go on this one. The long defunct SPI once put out a game that had two sets of armies for the USSR; the one was lackluster and primitive and went from 1939 till either Germany launched Barbarossa or 1942 if Germany didn't, at which time the new type, much more effective units were produced. I think something like that would help in this game, i.e. if Russia launches preventive war she does so with the low quality units and shifts gears after a few bloody noses or the passage of time.

On the whole I think neutral units are too strong. Poland fought hard and had a very large army for it's population, but the truth is it didn't survive the first month! Denmark, Belgium and Holland were literally walk throughs. Norway was a bit harder primarily because, as one Norwegian put it, We're longer than the ohers. The purpose of those armies should only be to make sure an invader has to come in with an honest invasion force, not to hold out for three months against tank groups and full armies with air support!

Admittedly it isn't an easy problem as, if they're made too weak they become freebies.

Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Greece and Turkey should have good armies. Yugoslavia, while large, should be too riddled with internal dissention to beat off a determined invasion.

Regarding air units, I still believe (as originally expressed in a forum I started last month on the subject) that there ought to be a distinction between props and jet/rocket aircraft.

Only three countries were researching that second category in 1939: Germany, England and Italy. The Germans had a considerable edge but Goering, thinking it would be a short war, put all his research into propeller craft. They got back to jets in '41 and found some of their best theorists had actually been drafted and were in front line units carrying rifles! England dropped the research as well and didn't pick it up again till they began seeing German jets attacking B-17s. Italy specialized in jet engines and developed a good one by 1943, but they had no plane to put it in and no country to build one. Their designs were eagerly accepted by the Japanese who began working on them too late in the war.

By War's end the Brits had jet fighters flying but they never engaged German jets in combat. The United States and Soviet Union had no knowledge at all in this field. The U. S. began with British and captured German technology while the Russians came into the lion's share of German jet aircraft specialists and working aircraft.

[Shaka of Carthage]

The next item of importance. How the units are equipped. First, my conclusion.

It does not matter.

Thats right. It doesn't matter what type of equipment you have. What is more important, is the training and leadership you have. If the Iraqi's and the Coalition (1991) swapped weapons, it would not have made a bit of difference. Training is important because without it, you have no clue how to use what you've got. Leadership allows you to effectively utilize what you have. What about morale? Thats simply a matter of how many of your friends die before you say thats enough for me.

Ok... back to SC. Equipment? Its all the same for us, so the differences are purely tech levels. Training? Again, its the same for us... with one slight difference. We can make the assumption that certain units and or nations have better training, by tweaking the experience level of the unit. This only works for the starting units, as all units after that are created equal. Leadership? Once again... within our units, we are all the same. Unless you feel its appropriate to tweak the starting units. All new units are created the same.

"lavishly equipped US forces"... all of our SC units are equipped and supplied the same.

But now we have come to the reason that SC fails as a WWII wargame simulation. We don't really have a German, Russian, UK, US or Italian military. Might as well call them Greys, Reds, Browns, Greens and (what color are the Italians?).

The German military was so successful because of its leadership. The NCO's got six (6) months of training and the Officers got twelve (12) months. Alot of the early German officers were former NCO's, but even so, they still had to get thier year long officer training (btw, the Israelis, who until recently, had the best tactical army in the world, modelled themselves after the Germans in this respect).

British had great NCO's, but because of that "gentleman" thing, the officers were not so good. No problem, since all they really had to do was lead from the front and set a good example when they died.

US, what can you say about the US? Because they had a massive military expansion, copied there officer tradition from the British (except the lead from the front and dying well part), and thought the military was a "big green machine" with interchangeable parts... what you got where so-so units, no esprit de corp and men who wanted to be somewhere else. Only thing that saved them was the massive amounts of combat power they put into thier units. And the fact they were able to keep that combat power supplied.

Russia military... at the time the Germans invaded, had better weapons than the Germans. And more of them. But no leadership. So even though the Russian unit had more Combat Power than the Germans, in combat what counts is the effective combat power you have. That is why most wargames, that try to represent nationality differences, use an "effectivness" or "efficency" rating. And unlike the Germans, they never understood or were able to create competent leadership by training. They got thiers by seeing who survived in combat. This works, but its wasteful of lives and it takes some time. So to compensate, they had no other choice than to use quantity. Otherwise, they would not have survived.

BEF and French? Better equipment than Germans, yes. French training and leadership where worse (trained for the wrong war) than the Germans. British training and leadership were good, but they suffered from having to rely on Infantry type units due to the needs and requirements of the British Empire.

Back to SC again... Do we have the ability to turn our Greys, Reds and Greens into Germans, Russians and US? In a way that stills keeps our playability? I hope to answer that question in a future post.

Thanks,

Barry

[ February 04, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

You caught me in the middle of making a post. You know me! Why say it in ten (10) words, when one hundred (100) will do!

Yugo coup and 5 Yugo armies, that was someone else. Coup part I leave to the experts. Changing the Yugo's to five (5) armies I wouldn't change unless someome can dig up some numbers of artillery and tanks they had.

Nationality differences between units. Over the years of the different board and computer games, I've seen many different ways people have tried to represent this. And that assumes that you agreed on what the differences are! I'm going to try and offer my version, but so far, there is no easy way to do this in SC.

I think the neutral strength is ok as it is. Poland can fall in one or two turns. Week or two isn't fast enough for you? Other fall pretty easily assuming the Allies don't oppose you. I think SC has the balance correct.

Turkey I think got shorted some units. The rest are fine, except for Spain, which I think should get one (1) more Corp.

Jets and Propeller aircraft. You wouldn't allow the US the tech option? "Purists" would agree with you, the "gamers" would want to string you up! Maybe a compromise where the US was allowed to invest in them around '42 or '43. Agree the Soviets should not be allowed to research them.

Thanks,

Barry

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Great post. Agreed with the opening point to a limit, the equipment has to have some parity: I'd take second rate musketeers over first rate swordsmen. Sorry for the stretched comparison, but you get the point. Within that context I most certainly agree; the Germans went a long way early in the war to prove that point.

Of course the purge is the main reason for the USSR's 1939-41 army having to be weak. Without it, and with a decent nco/officer training program they'd be a terror. Several Soviet marshals of the period started out as NCOs in either the Czarist or the original Bolscheivik armies. As Stalin valued perveived personal loyalty above military skill, the majority of those men were not effective general officers.

Regarding tweaking experience levels to reflect greater fighting efficiency, I've tried the following in two developing 1939 scenarios and have had good results: starting German corps receive 1 ex pt; armies 2 ex pts; panzers 3 pts; luftflottes 3 pts and HQs 2.5 2.0 1.5 depending upon the commander (Runstedt, Bock & Leeb in this case). I've found this works very well. The Polish airforce, which historically was destroyed the first day, does not score atainst the luftwaffe. And Poland, which fell in three weeks, is conquered in either one or two turns.

Purists may think these changes excessive but the results are remarkably similar to those that occurred in the opening campaigns. The better trained and battle tested Germans defeat the Low Countries and conquer France by mid-June of '40 and afterwards, as the war expands, the handful of crack units become more and more a local shock force with the various armies and airforces generally levelling out by 1943.

The elite luftwaffe suffers losses and if the British have a matching airforce covering Southern England the two soon equalize. Again, exactly as happened in the actual war.

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Sorry to have gotten the postings crossed. There's a lot of material now and it's getting hard to keep track of.

The U. S. and everyone else always has the tech option to research jet planes. It's just that historically they didn't and were shocked to see them appear over the European skys.

In one of the other forums we were talking about adding research areas and perhaps closing one area off to each major, sonar to Germans, Italians and Soviets, rockets to Brits and Americans, etc. with the added fields being distributed according to historical precedent. I think that's an idea with much merit.

I have nothing against Poland holding out a turn or two, which is more like two months as it's turning into winter. What I don't care for is the rare instances when they're still holding Warsaw in November. To me that's just flat out absurd. Anyway, my above entry contains my answer to that.

Don't give a thought to posting legnth, I doubt either of us should be able to cover the topics we chose with any sort of brevity.

[ February 04, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

Thanks for the post... especially what you said about the experience. That has clarifed something I have been trying to figure out for weeks. I plan to post on a new topic re: Nationlism. I'll give you credit as well (need another body to take the arrows of critism )

Again, thanks for helping me figure it out.

[Liam]

Shaka, I can see your point in making things more simple, but it's still inaccurate vs strength. You tend to forget what the difference an Opel makes or a Halftrack when it comes down to War.

When Hitler went to take out Russia, lets take an average combat situation...

The Russians have 1920s equipment and it's workable and could hold a fair defensive line for a few months. Although I pull out a couple dozen opels loaded with platoons and hit your HQs and wipe out your Supply with a Ju-87 and all you have to fly is a biplane I quickly shootdown. Then my men get those huge Anti-Tank guns, an 88 in place to dismember not only Russian Tanks comming up to meet my assualt but also destroy gun implacements, QUICKLY. Lightning fast, though I'm outnumbered, I got those 88s up on that hill in a matter of minutes rather than hours or days. Before the Russians knew what hit them, and I blew their defensive capabitlies out of the water. Melted down their tanks to scrap metal and the opels cut the supply centers, sabotaged the communications roads. Noone knows now that with say a few thousand men I've taken an Army 6 times it size. Perhaps with triple the equipment. Readiness is a factor...Tactics are a factor...So are guerallia style warefare that was close to Partisans. Moltavcoctails. A country that hates you and even the 12 year old boys will pick up an enfield hide up in a building and snipe out a half dozen hardened 6th Army Wermacht troops cause he's the only Person alive with his last name now, does he care if he dies? Nahhhh! Just how many Krauts he takes with him!

The Yugoslavians didn't have the time and Hitler was setup to hit them like Lightning. If they expected the Wermacht they may have moved their troops from minor border skirmishes and faced them head on. Though to say their 150k of fighting force is not correct. If they were worse off than the Russians, I can't see how only that their capitol and infrastructure and pool of resources was destroyed. France could've fought on past fall of Paris. Not to accomplish much maybe buy Britian some time!

You speak of possibilities. If I had #s and not all the neat things I spoke of that the German's had vs the Russians. I would have done as the Russians did, Suicide tactics<employed fairly well by Japenese>, walls of flesh, and a war of attrition. That the French<in SC> employ with the long drawn out Dutch Gambit and forcing Germans to rush to their capitol or lose...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Shaka, I can see your point in making things more simple, but it's still inaccurate vs strength. You tend to forget what the difference an Opel makes or a Halftrack when it comes down to War.

What part about the strength do you feel is unclear? I want to understand before I respond.

Regarding your next paragraph, Russian 1920's equipment, etc. I'm kinda confused what you are trying to say. Russian equipment at the beginning of the war, was not inferior to the Germans. It was better. Once the Germans blew threw the front line, Russians armed every tom, dick and harry with whatever weapon they could grap. Thats the point in time that the weapons become haphazard.

Even so, and to also respond to JersyJohn, if we are talking an order of magnitude (ie swords vs firearms), then we do have a problem. But M1 tank vs a T-72, it boils down to the training and leadership. Look at the Israeli vs Arab wars. Swtich weapons, the Israelis still would have won. Once the training and leadership reach close to parity, then the better weapons will tell.

One example from the Germans... even until the end of the war, the Germans squad was tactically superior to the Allies. Why? Because the German squad was organized around a machine gun. So as long as the squad had enough men to carry the machine gun and ammo, the squad still had 80 to 90% of the combat power it had when it was at full strenth. So the German squad, even with four (4) men (down from a full strength squad of 10), still was effective. The Allies never quite understood that. Were under the belief that the soldier and the rifle were critical. US did not realize this until AFTER Korea. The other powers, especially the Russians... learned during the war. Hence, along comes the AK-47, a copy of a German weapon, in an attempt to take the machine gun down to the individual soldier.

Guerilla warfare... against a conventional opponent, they are no more than a nuisance. They will cause losses, but they cannot effect the outcome thru military means.

OK... I'll agree with you that if the Germans had of given the Yugo's more time, than they would have had more troops to face the Germans. But one of the most important rules of war, is hitting the other guy when he can't hit you back. aka Mass. And they would have just brought more troops anyway.

Fall of France... thats another debate all by itself. But one of the things that the German attack on France did, was break the will to resist. Once thats gone, its over.

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

Great post. Agreed with the opening point to a limit, the equipment has to have some parity: I'd take second rate musketeers over first rate swordsmen. Sorry for the stretched comparison, but you get the point. Within that context I most certainly agree; the Germans went a long way early in the war to prove that point.

Forum look out! My dumb butt has finally figured out how to do quotes!

I understand the point you are trying to make. That once equipement reaches a certain level, that it is the determing factor, if it is faced with the lower tech level stuff. But be careful, things are not as obvious as it would seem... longbow is superior as a weapons system to the brown bess musket, but all the "modern" militaries used the musket. Why? Training time. Japanese Ashiguara (peasants armed with arquebeses/muskets) vs Samurai. The Samurai was the superior "weapons" system, but took alot longer to train versus the peasant and his musket.

Within SC, there are no "order of magnitude" differences like the above. Btw, I would take the "first rate" swordsmen against your "second rate" musketeers... I would just make sure you didn't find us until it was raining or it was dark.

[Liam]

Yes! I am wrong about Russian tanks, but as far as their other weapons available at the onset of War I'm not sure too much on their capability.

They weren't setup to face a BlitzKrieg or any type of War, they had more equipment but you're right none of it was where was supposed to be. They were poorly equiped, poorly lead...and in general probably frightened as hell... I would be facing an oponent that had only 1 real actual Loss, the Battle of Britian.. Until that point..

All weapons have their place. A rifle has better range, an SMG is good for close up, a machine gun is good for taking out a large quantity of men. If I commanded an Army I'd prefer Rifles to SMGs. You can hit them or even hit most Machine Gun Nests from a proper vantage point out of their sights and range...

The Germans used great tactics with their skilled troops and leadership. Amassed in secret an army of 3 million men for barbarossa. I would have gone back in History being Hitler and put another million from the Atlantic Wall on the job and from other places to ensure a 1941 defeat...

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

You got me there, as soon as I entered that I started visualizing my hapless musketeers wandering through a forest about to be ambushed by elite swordmen. Then I thought about the Zulus defeating British Regulars at Isandwana, though I think both forces had first rate units the Brits were outnumbered and penalized by a number of idiocy factors like having to defend too wide a perimeter with several gaps and receiving ammunition from quartermasters who didn't want to waste either cartridges nor needlessly damage the expensive packaging which they were personally responsible for!

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Btw, I would take the "first rate" swordsmen against your "second rate" musketeers... I would just make sure you didn't find us until it was raining or it was dark.

One of the finest philosophical sentiments I have read on the forum thus far.

So much contained in this, so much eternally relevant... it always comes down to this, there is no pretending otherwise... each individual soldier and what they are able to summon in the way of a personal courage.

The real Romance! Never mind! the ones are... fearing, and equally un-needed, equally un-heeded, the ones supposed... fearless... at the outset of the Knight's Journey... The Prophetess, with an ancient secret -- gifted, or, denied... that candle-flame burns-burns O notice if you dare... the drip drip drip of annealing wax on the freely offered soul... the kneeling Knight allows it, stoic at the first, and at the last, or... not, there is no compromise... here is the counter-hex! IF... IF, you know how, and when, and where... to properly use it...

And at the finish of the long winding road... that other enclosing, Self disclosing form, the answer to a careful and serious prayer... the Damsel, no longer distressed -- reaching, smiling, eyes like wildfires at night... and ever beckoning, sure it's so, since Time began... manna-drenched flowers falling to the ground all around, and melody from lyres & lutes exuberant but bittersweet too and... nearly everyone... fair satisfied...

A terrible task -- dispatched with reluctant aplomb... an Honor dutifully done, a Dignity maintained, the beautiful Truth of... honest contest, and... honest success... 'tis decently restrained, but a'times O so sorely required... know this, here is your plainest of songs... this Tribe survives... and the Heroes... suddenly retiring and shy, quieting... quiet...

And so the Tale is otherwise told, gathered from the whirl of seasonal winds... behold! there is... Peace... a fresh promise alive like abounding Lions... lull, tho' full of treacherous grace... in this our sun-slowed Savannah Land...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Liam

Ahhhh... I think I see what the problem is.

All weapons have their place. A rifle has better range, an SMG is good for close up, a machine gun is good for taking out a large quantity of men. If I commanded an Army I'd prefer Rifles to SMGs. You can hit them or even hit most Machine Gun Nests from a proper vantage point out of their sights and range...

You've never been in combat. In real life combat, only a few weapons count. Machine guns have an effective range greater than a rifle. Unless you happen to be a sniper. And very few have the skills of a sniper. Within a typical squad, you may have one man who, if given enough time, can hit a target at 500 meters. Infantrymen don't "aim and fire". They point and saturate an area... mainly because they are not sure where the enemy is (you rarely see them). Well trained or experienced troops will saturate the area with short bursts. Green weanies will "rock and roll" (hold the trigger down until no more ammo). I'm sure any WWII veteran will tell you that if it wasn't the artillery trying to get him, it was all them darn machine guns. Man with a rifle is not a threat (relative to the others). Most combat veterans, if given a choice, would take the SMG's over the rifles. You don't take out machine guns by sighting down on them from a vantage point. After they have scared the mess out of you, you sneak up as close on them as you can, throw a few grenades, then saturate the area they are in. No grenades? Then you get the DANG (dumb a** new guy) to go take a look. And if God is REALLY on your side, you have a REMF who can go look!

Sorry... got carried away. My point was that for the infantry, the weapons of choice are whatever shoots the most.

[Liam]

I have never been in combat correct. Though I disagree with you. I'll give you a WW2 SMG... and I'll take a rifle... I'll just stay out of your range and pick you off and you can waste 2 or 3 clips to give me tracers and a better ping on your position... Now if I was going to rush your bunker, throw me the SMG and grenades!

Get behind that machine gun turret, and I'd call out that 1 sniper to hit every man that dared stick his head out that high. Anyone that approaches a nest frontally is on something

Though as you can see the Maginot was a formidable Nest, though not much good, just go around it...cut it's supply and accomplish your goals...

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ok... so here we go. LT wants a patrol of the lightly wooded area, 1000 meters to you front. There will be friendly patrols operating on your flanks, so you are not to wander outside of a 500 meter frontage. Your squad, has 8 men. The 9th is down with dysentry and the 10th is pushing up weeds. You're the Sqd Leader.

Patrol to the front as ordered... You've advanced 600 meters deep into the woods. Enemy opens up on you 400 meters to your rear, somewhere to your left. You see muzzle flashes, estimate no more than an enemy squad. What now? How do you stay out of range? So what you gonna do now?

Maginot Line did exactly what it was built for. Too bad they ran out of money, if they had only built the thing all the way to the ocean!

[Liam]

Now that is an interesting question! First of all, I wouldn't be a Squad Leader; I immediately make rank in whatever I join. So I would be a Majour and I wouldn't order my men into a ambush like that! If I didn't have artillery or if the woods were to large too level, I'd order my men to encircle the forest and wait...If we had to have the position, then I'd send in a suicide squad or two to die rather than risk a all out massacre. The men in that forest would be in a Fortress, and would starve before I would take heavy casaulties...They have to eat, sleep and resupply as well. Easier for me to block them from outside then to walk into the Lions Den and get clawed. Wait and stick him in the back with my Sword on his way out the door

[Shaka of Carthage]

Youth! Only the young are so innocent. You know good and well, that even if you were a officer, you would be starting off as a LT... butter bar, the lowest form of life on earth. Btw, whats wrong with being a squad leader!? All officers should be mustangs (enlisted before becoming officer).

Anyway, Mr. LT... First thing you learn as an officer is that you don't think. You do as you are told. Captain told you to recon those woods, you get your half butt platoon out there and recon those woods mister! Whata mean you want to "encircle them" or call in artillery? Do you think you're smarter than me LIEUTANANT? Did you forget my rank? ... This reminds me... did you ever see that movie... forget the name, the one with Nick Nolte, American unit, Pacific Theater, he orders his subordinate to advance over this hill, with tall elephant type grass, which just happens to have Japanese in it that keep shooting down his men. So the officer decides, no way, its suicide. Ever seen it? The dressing down Nick Nolte gives him is what you would be getting.

Also, the first time you send in a squad, without supporting it with your other squads... can you say "frag me?"

Thats the thing about the military... everyone above you is stupider (is that a word?) than a donkey, and everyone below you is lower than whale boo boo. Its amazing how anything gets done.

[pzgndr]

butter bar, the lowest form of life on earth

Insert sound of gavel lightly tapping.

Hear! Hear! As one who actually wore a butter bar and crossed rifles once upon a time, I'll remind ya'll that some Hollywood stereotypes are misplaced. I could tell some stories about some of my enlisted squad leaders to put everything into perspective; they aren't all the super-heros you may think they are.

Anyway, this thread is drifting WAY off course. Arguing about rifles and machineguns in a grand strategy game is a bit off the mark, no?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Who said anything about Hollywood sterotypes? They actually made you guys out to be better than you actually where! Don't get me wrong... I've worn the bars also, but I had chevrons before that. heheheheh (thats suppossed to be the sound a horse makes!).

Tell me you have a CIB and I'll get all pitter patter for you.

[pzgndr]

Nope, no CIB for me. I PCS'd from 1st Arm Div back in 90 a few months before Iraq invaded Kuwait. The mech company I commanded did deploy and fight however. If timing was different, I would have been there. Ah well. We can swap stories offline one of these days.

Sorry for the distraction. I prefer to focus on SC here.

[Liam]

Oh, I know how smart the military is I was a military brat for 21 years and I served Lt Col to a Staff Sargeant in various jobs. They conduct things the same way. I am pretty much admire their discipline in comparison with the civilians. Although your wellbeing, health is often secondary to them Every mistake sits in their head...They're taught to be perfectionists. Though human life can be expendable depending, just don't make an international incident...In WW2 We lost few men, I think the the Germans/Russians and Japs were a lot more suicidal with their officers. See people often appoint officers that do not have actual combat experience, and on merit of education rather than practicality...He's been there, he know's what he's doing and he can get the job done...

Remeber Band of Brothers, I loved the way they pushed Dave Swimmer out off the frontline, he would have gotten them toasted, roasted and mixed with Sour Kraut for Dinner

I would have to lead a group of men into a Forest? Man, I would go in there quiet!!! I would have my spotters out and I would take cover at the first sight of danger! Heroes are not brave, they're usually stupid

[JerseyJohn]

In the Air Force thirty years ago we also had it pretty hard. There were nights where we had only one flavor of ice cream to choose from with our dinner. But, we persevered for our country.

Shaka - Liam

One of the most amazing threads I've ever seen. It's even got Immer writing epic verse and Bill sticking up for junior officers, plus Hollywood vs reality -- so much action!

Anyway, if you really want to put it to the test you can call the History Channel and allow them to film it. They'll probably equip one of you with an arquebus and the other with a crossbow; using a deserted island as an arena. No doubt they'll have that deranged Marine sergeant and the equally deranged Brit Nigel behind the scenes somewhere doing color commentary.

It would go well with some of the current TV shows of the survivor genre and make the History Channel a major player in the ratings market.

[ February 06, 2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

JJ:

I've got to give you props their mate!

Welcome to Nigel's Wild Wild World!!!

"You sissy Nigel, you think you can hit me with that piece of 16th century fire arm VS a tried and true Crossbow!"

A Longbow is a better weapon but a crossbow takes less training...

Take the Iraqi Army of today and put them up against the German Army of 1943<even #s>... Who would win??? My cash would gone on the Germans though with heavy losses