Jump to content

exp levels


Recommended Posts

MAD RUSSIAN posted this imo excellent article at the proving grounds some time ago

Experience Levels in CMBB

By

Steve “The Mad Russian” Overton

Due to the increasing emphasis and interest involving the experience levels and how they apply to the CMBB game system. I have put together a short summary of the experience levels that I apply to my own scenarios.

German Forces:

1941: Infantry and tankers mostly veteran with some regular and crack. These troops had just dismantled Western Europe in a matter of months. They were the most experienced and confident troops in the world at the time.

1942: The heavy losses to infantry reduced the number of troops available. For the most part, those that had survived in the winter battles of 1941, were a hard core of veteran and crack troops. Later in the year as some replacements started to show up there were some green and more regular experience levels seen. German tank crews, not having taken the losses that the infantry had, were still at their 1941 experience levels. Once again, later in the year more regular and green experience levels are seen.

1943: The infantry have about 25% veteran, 65% regular and 15% green experience levels. The fighting was beginning to take it’s toll on the German forces and some of the more experienced soldiers were being lost. The tank crews have not had the heavy losses of the infantry and a concerted effort was made to build up the Panzer Divisions. Tank crews are about 30% veteran, 50% regular and 15% green.

1944: The German Army was taking heavy losses with no possible way to replace them. Now the experience levels for the infantry are about 25% veteran, 50% regular and 25% green. The Panzer arm is now feeling the shortages of experienced soldiers as well. Tank crews are about 25% veteran, 50% regular, and 25% green.

1945: The German Army is in a state of collapse. The experience levels for the infantry now have fallen to 10% veteran, 40% regular, 25 % green and 25% conscript. Now the Panzer arm is also in severe trouble. The tank crew experience has fallen to 20% veteran, 60% regular and 20% green.

Soviet Forces:

1941: The worst major army in WWII to start hostilities. The Soviets were unprepared in every way imaginable. Soviet experience levels for both infantry and tank crew 5% regular, 30% green and 65& conscript.

1942: The Soviets were learning fast. The problem is that their losses kept their experience from going up much. Infantry and tank crew experience was 20% regular, 65% green and 15% conscript.

1943: The Soviets were finally keeping people alive long enough to learn some of the lessons of war. Infantry experience was now at 10% veteran, 50% regular, 30% green and 10% conscript. Russian tankers were still lagging. It was harder to train new crewmen at the rate that they were being lost. Tank crew experience levels were now at 5% veteran, 40% regular, 40% green and 15% conscript.

1944: This was the year that the Soviets started putting it all together. Infantry experience levels were 25% veteran, 40% regular, 20% green and 10% conscript. The tank crews were now gaining in experience and getting better. Tank crew experience levels were 25% veteran, 50% regular and 25% green. This puts them on a par with German tank crews.

1945: The end of the war found some interesting situations in the Soviet Armed Forces. They had come full circle, from the worst major armed force to one of the toughest. The shear size of the Red Army still provided problems for training for them. Infantry experience levels were 30% veteran, 50 % regular, 15% green and 5% conscript. Tank crews were at their peak in 1945. Tank crew experience was 30% veteran, 60% regular and 10% green.

Eastern Front Summary:

The Germans were the best trained army in the world in 1941 and the Soviets the worst. That gradually changed over the 47 months to become the exact opposite. At the end of the war the Red Army was one of the strongest in the world and the German Army was on the verge of collapse.

There are exceptions to every rule and these are just guidelines. The SS were above average in training for the first 3 years then fell off. The Sturmgeschutz units had handpicked volunteers and very good equipment. The Guards of the Red Army were often equal to their German counterparts. 1944-45 Red Army Reconnaissance troops were the best in the world in any army.

Always keep in mind from 1943 on that the Red Army won the war in the East. There is a tendency to want to make the Germans supermen but this just isn’t so. On the other hand without a very hard core of very experienced soldiers the German Army would have fallen apart much earlier than it did. Use common sense and your scenarios will turn out just fine.

So I was thinking, does anyone have this type of information for the current theatres in CMAK?

So then everyone who wants to make a sort of realistic feeling (exp level wise) to there scenarios in the current timeframe would be able to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any real data, but I'd say the Yanks at Kasserine Pass were heavily skewed towards the greens. Wild guess 5% vet 20% reg 75% green. And by August of 44 till the end, they were probably something like 25% vet, 50% reg, 25% green.

IMHO the Tommys in North Africa were equivalent fighters to Afrika Korp. They were just out generaled a few times by Rommel unitl they got overwhelming logistical support. I'd go with something like 25 vet, 60 reg, 15 green.

Overy's book "Why the Allies Won" has a chapter right along this theory, the allies got better every year and the German army went steadly down hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

I would disagree for Soviets - 1941 should be more veterans (civil war, finn war, asian war) and regulars, and actually go to more green in conscript in 1942. then shoot back up again.

Buddy those were just my own personal guidelines that I use when doing CMBB scenarios. If everybody had agreed with them I would have probably had a heart attack!! :D

To defend my Red Army 1941 recommendation though...what the Red Army learned in the wars that you mentioned did not prepare them for the fight that the German Army gave them. The Red Army fought very poorly in Finland and Civil War vets that were 20 in 1920 would be 41 in 1941. Not an impressive age for your basic infantryman.

The war in Asia was a mechanized force against an infantry one. While the Soviets beat the Japanese bloody it was technologically one sided. The same thing happened to the Red Army with a lack of radios hindering their having control of their forces to the same degree as the Germans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you just like having fun watching divisions of little conscripts scream and yell and run away from Panzer I's and II's in droves. smile.gif

I also don't think that the japanese conflicts, at least what i've read about khalhin gol was technologically one sided (hell theres a whole book just on the air war) but this isnt a obsucre 30's wars forum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

i think you just like having fun watching divisions of little conscripts scream and yell and run away from Panzer I's and II's in droves. smile.gif

I also don't think that the japanese conflicts, at least what i've read about khalhin gol was technologically one sided (hell theres a whole book just on the air war) but this isnt a obsucre 30's wars forum...

There are accounts of Zhukov taking the Japanese Army apart outnumbered, with armor and almost destroying their forces! Also, IRRC, the Japanese have few to no AT assets that would destroy the Soviet armor.

But the air war didn't turn the tide of battle, the tanks did.

To me, that is technologically one sided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quickly looked in my Frontline Illustration issue on Halhin Gol- according to a trophies chart the Sovs captured 55 Type 94 37MM AT guns. The Japs had freakin' stuff, not to mention large caliber guns as well as tanks of their own. Ha-go's, Ko's and the like. There is a record here of even a 20mm "Automatic cannon" which looked like an AT rifle juding from the picture. One was captured, I didn't see any figures on how many they had - sadly lots of Jap figures are non-existent.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Frontline Illustration series (its in Russian) but I guess according to them it was not technologically one sided.

[ June 08, 2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Talk'scheap ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you're familiar with the Frontline Illustration series (its in Russian) but I guess according to them it was not technologically one sided. [/QB]

ROFL!!! The Russians don't want it to look like a technology victory. They want it to look like a brilliantly fought operational battle. And it was.

Don't get me wrong, Zhukov and Zhukov alone took the Japanese apart but he had excellent tools to do it with.

Counting beans won't tell you the story...for a single example of that, in 1940 the French Army had more tanks than the Germans. You see how that worked for them...

K-G is a mini-France 1940 preview in a way. The Japanese didn't have, and never got, a doctrine for the use of armor enmass. The bigger guns were in stationary positions that Zhukov outflanked then overran.

IIRC, Zhukov pinned the main Japanese force then caved in the sided. He didn't attack them where they were the strongest but at their weakest.

And no, since I don't read Russian, I've never heard of the Frontline Illustration series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

so if it wasn't a technology victory how was it technologically one-sided?

Plus why are you rofling just cuz i sited a russian source? i bet you're all down with all the crappy german books on uber tigers and ****. and this book was publihsed in 2002 so dont give me the "it was communist" garbage

Please accept my apology. I never intended to insult your source, on the battle, in any way.

What I was ROFL'ing about is just what you point out. Books published by the Germans have a German bias. Books published by the Americans have an American bias, or if they are military intellince information after the war, also a German bias.

You quote a Soviet source saying the Soviets did great in a battle. I was simply suggesting that there may be a Soviet bias. All writers do it. Some are less bias in their presentations than others.

It is natural for the side presenting the story to tell it their way. Never having seen this book and with no way, at this time of being able to, I have to go on your opinion.

Just becasue it is in a book also doesn't make it true. Even if it is a Soviet book. They have been known, for over 60 years, for writing histories so bad as to classified as fiction. That doesn't mean that this book series you like is not historically correct. You may just have to take what they say with a grain of salt. And maybe they are dead on accurate.

Whether you like it or not "it was communist" is a valid point. The state controled everything published. IT WAS COMMUNIST. That is a fact.

I'm hoping it will be different now. It would be interesting to see some of the Soviet works being written now that their archives have been opened.

Until I start to see some of the books written by Soviet authors, that have been translated, I will continue to be just a bit skeptical of their work as a whole. But, one of the best books I have on the Russian Front is a book written V.I. Chuikov. His book on the end of the war while biased is with an admited bias. He also sites times when he felt the Germans did good. It is hard to find an honest opinion in most books where they give positive credit to the enemy for anything. His insightful point of view is very interesting and refreshing.

If you have the opportunity you may get some of his works. I don't know how you acquired your source material on the battle but maybe you can get other Soviet books as well.

And what would an uber Tiger book have to do with K-G? By the way you need to take all the crappy german books on uber tigers with some skepticism as well.

It has been a very long time since I have read up on the battle. I don't have the numbers at my fingertips nor the time to look them up at the moment. Again from what I remember the Japanese had only a Tank Division or two and Zhukov took them apart with his tanks.

The Japanese should have had lots of "stuff", IIRC, they outnumbered Zhukov's force considerably. In my earlier post I understated Zhukov's generalship in the victory. But he wasn't the only reason they won.

A comparison of Japanese tanks to Soviet ones in K-G should bring you to some interesting conclusions. The Soviet tanks were some of the most innovation in the world at the time. They were fast well armed/armoured. Their one major draw back was alot of them were without radios.

But the Japanese tanks didn't have radios either. They weren't fast, they didn't have good armour but the guns were adequate. What made it even worse was the way they were deployed.

It is interesting to look at this battle and see the results of world history. Zhukov goes on to eventually destroy the German war machine as the Soviets over the years improve on their use of massed armor attacks. Almost exclusively under his leadership.

While the Japanese practically did nothing with their armor for the entire rest of the war. Only when meeting American Sherman tanks did they decide there was a need for an upgraded version of their older models.

K-G would be an interesting situational matchup for CM. Maybe in the future BFC will have the Japanese tanks available to allow scenarios on the subject.

[ June 09, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

Plus why are you rofling just cuz i sited a russian source?

Where did you get this book? Here in the US or overseas? Maybe mailorder. Do they have offerings in English?

I would really like to have a source where I can get the newer Soviet information. However, I don't read Russian so that keeps me to english speaking authors or books that have been translated.

I own several of what you termed "it was communist" garbage and most of what I have written by them is just that. But as I said before not all of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as long as you acknowledge that the Sovs won fair and square and not becuase they rolled over the backwards Japanese swordsmen with their "magic tanks" then we're cool.

Here is a cool little English PDF of K-G

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/battles/khalkhin_gol/Khalkhin_cut1.pdf

Here are some stats on Sov losses:

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/battles/khalkhin_gol/losses.htm

All this data is post-USSR. Don't pay too much attention to the human losses since, literally EVERY source I saw lists differnet numbers, some varying drastically, but i think the armor losses could be in the neighborhood of being right.

Here are some more English pages on K-G:

http://www.orbit6.com/crisf/text/halh_gol.htm

http://battle-of-halhin-gol.wikiverse.org/

Sadly, no clear cut reports like this exist for the Japanese side.

My points remain - The Japs had plenty of AT firepower. They lost because they lost. End of story.

Plus, c'mon dude youre giving BT's all these mad props? You play CMBB - BT's and T26's are some of THE crappiest tanks. Anyone armed with corkscrews could put them out of comission. The armor is paper thin, the commander is also the gunner, weak little gun, mediocre optics...it was a ****-tin can. The T26, esp with extra armor might have been a shade better. But i agree with the notion that the whole idea of the "cruiser" (i.e. the BT series) tank was flawed.

Funny side note - I am actually reading one of those little Men At Arms books on the Spanish Civil War and it boasts how the T26 was schooling all other armor (esp Italian). Well I tried pitting some T26's agains crappy little Italian 20mm tanks and got beat BADLY, twice. But thats probably just cuz I am crappy player and CMBB is not reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh frontline illustartion? its not really a "book" but like a series of really fat magazines, each dedicated to one battle or op, the K-G one was published in 2002, with the help of some Japanese uy even I think. I don't think there are any English versions sadly.

http://www.front2000.ru/

But the pictures are worth it alone, honestly.

On a realted note : Throught the USSR reign, for some reason all info on K-G was extremely repressed and most publications on the subject are past 1992.

I got this book and some other ones like it here in the US from this guy - sergei@idcomm.com he knows someone in the publishing house over in RU and has a deal with them or something , I think I paid him $15 for each book.

[ June 09, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Talk'scheap ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

Well as long as you acknowledge that the Sovs won fair and square and not becuase they rolled over the backwards Japanese swordsmen with their "magic tanks" then we're cool.

Plus, c'mon dude youre giving BT's all these mad props? You play CMBB - BT's and T26's are some of THE crappiest tanks. Anyone armed with corkscrews could put them out of comission. The armor is paper thin, the commander is also the gunner, weak little gun, mediocre optics...it was a ****-tin can. The T26, esp with extra armor might have been a shade better. But i agree with the notion that the whole idea of the "cruiser" (i.e. the BT series) tank was flawed.

I don't have a book that gives me very good stats on the Japanese tanks but here is what I came up with.

Type 95:

Max Speed: 30 mph

Gun: 37mm

Armour:

Hull front - 14mm

Hull Side - 11mm

Turret Front - 11mm

I don't have the length of the 37mm and don't know for sure but it looks more a howitzer than an AT gun on the tank. All Japanese tanks have barrels that are short with large openings. That is a sign of a howitzer. AT guns are long with small holes. Velocity is the key.

While I expect the Soviets took heavy causualties in their tank force they had the one thing the Japanese never had. After each battle in the overall operation the Soviets controlled the battlefield. That allowed them to recover and put back in the field some of their damaged armor. It can't be stressed enough how important this can be.

Also, IIRC, and I may not the Japanese pretty early on in the battle decided that they were going to be beaten but were going to die on the chosen ground rather than retreat. This IIRC, is part of what allowed Zhukov to "bag" them.

I agree that BT's and T-26's, though I think the Eastern Armies were mostly cavalry formations and they would have had BT's, aren't the greatest tanks in the world. That is relative to time and place. They were pretty impressive at

K-G.

A PzII is pretty impressive against a BT-5 or T-26 but it can be killed too.

T-34's are pretty impressive against PzIII's with 50mm guns but they can be killed too.

It's all relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well theres a whole scan of Jap tank drawings in this book but it doesnt really give deep details. Maybe I'll scan that sucker and post it. The art is good.

Here are some scans from the site i mentioned earlier it has some cool art from the K-G book and other similar Russian military series books/magazines - this has Enlgish subtitles.

http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/uniform/uniform1.htm#Khalkhin_gol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

Well as long as you acknowledge that the Sovs won fair and square and not becuase they rolled over the backwards Japanese swordsmen with their "magic tanks" then we're cool.

Few times in human history have there been "magic" weapons. The imbalance is quickly changed.

I think the use of Italian AC's in Africa makes the short list and is a good example. The Italians are fighting a force that has never seen armored vehicles before and are blown off the field. Hannibal and his elephants is an example of such a weapon that didn't pan out like it was supposed to. Rome had nothing to match the elephants, so they stayed away from them.

Cannons against the Native American populations in the US also would qualify. This gave US troops absolute superiority over the battlefield when they had cannon.

The series of modern tanks used by the coalition and US forces in the 2 Iraqi wars vs the old Soviet stuff.

But rarely is there a "magic" answer. Usually it is the magician that is the answer. The man leading the army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a realted note : Throught the USSR reign, for some reason all info on K-G was extremely repressed and most publications on the subject are past 1992.

I got this book and some other ones like it here in the US from this guy - sergei@idcomm.com he knows someone in the publishing house over in RU and has a deal with them or something , I think I paid him $15 for each book. [/QB]

Good prices. Thanks for the info. When I was buying books published in the USSR before the prices were less than half for a comparitive book printed in the west. Government subsidizing of the printing (read control of all printed matter) helped that along.

The Soviets didn't want the west knowing how it fought. We had the German impression and they did nothing to change that. K-G was a VERY BIG VICTORY for the Soviets! It secured their Asian flank.

The US intelligence service after the war went German General officer crazy. Interviewing everyone they could get their hands on. To a large extent, that is where the mighty masses held back by the superior efforts of the poor German soldiers, has come from. It didn't help that there was nothing coming out of the USSR that contradicted that story, other than wild tales of fantasy on how the Soviet soldier was vastly superior. Same tale except from the other side. Of course there is some truth to both claims they are not the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

While it was recognized that the Soviet side of the story was mostly fanatsy, the German side wasn't so easily put forth as being suspect. After all, a good share of the US has European and German ancestry. Also, we were at odds with the USSR.

As a side note of interest, to me, is the use of the terms Russian and Soviet. Today they are interchangeable. In WWII they really aren't.

Russians are an ethnic group of the Soviet Union. You NEVER see the Soviets use the term Russians when talking about the USSR. Just like you wouldn't call them Ukrainians when referring to the USSR at that time.

The Germans NEVER call them Soviets. In WWII they were always just Russians. No need to differentiate. Why worry about levels of subhumans anyway?!

The Ukrainians called all the rest of them Russians as well and hated them possibly worse than the Germans did. There was an ongoing partisan movement in the Ukraine for years after the war.

For these reasons, when doing my briefings, I use the term Soviet in my Allied Briefing and the term Russians in my Axis briefings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Talk'scheap:

i think you just like having fun watching divisions of little conscripts scream and yell and run away from Panzer I's and II's in droves. smile.gif

I have 17 scenarios on the Scenario Depot that don't have a vehicle of any kind in them. Only 15 of my scenarios at the SD are for the 1941 time period. So actually what I like to see are battles around Kharkov 42 and 43 and the Destruction of Army Group Center.

The Kharkov battles are pretty much ebb and flow and cover a wide range of weapons systems.

Destruction of Army Group Center is 1944 combat at it's best. Red Army steamroller confronted by heavy German units in constricted battlefields. What most people consider the heart and soul of Eastern Front combat. The masses held back by the few. But as the Soviets were proud of saying, "quantity has a quality all it's own". The few don't always hold back the masses...go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm more of an early war fan, but I'm not a really good CMBB player i just waste time with it really, its fun. i'm also one of those weirdos that likes romanians and the huns. smile.gif

yeah it would be cool if there was a way to recreate a K-G type conflict in CMBB...as i briefly mentioned earlier i attempted to recreate somewhat of a Spanish Civil war battle, it almost works, as long as its a scenario where the Republicans are fighting Italians...you take Sov partisans and tanks as Republicans and the italians as , well italians. The Italian gear probably doesnt match 100% but close enough...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...