How come the allies won?

[Itael]

Hi all

I'm a fresh "recruit" to the CMAK game and I enjoy it.

I'm not great in history and therefore I'm not good with all the unit types and how well (or not) they are represented in the game , however I find the game to be really hard when being played from the allied side.

I know that the germans almost always had the better equipment both in the air and on the ground , however in the game their armor is unbeatable and it's really frustrating ... :mad:

Which drives me to the big question , how come the allies won ?? (I'm happy they did) it's just amazing, in the game the Shermans and all the other allied armor is plastic tanks against the German armor ...

Can't kill nothing , only with lucky shots..

Any tips on how to beat the German armor ??

I played CMBO a couple years back and found it pretty much the same...

Thanks in advance

[ginger]

Hi, new here though Ive been reading this forum for a few years now.

My 2 penn'orth is that the allies would have lost were it not for logistics and numbers, in short for every Uber tank the allies had 5+ vanilla shermans/cromwells etc or overwhelming air power. While you may well lose 3:1 or 4:1, hats still enough for the allies to win through. Try searching further on this topic, particularly for posts by Michael Emrys, John S and JasonC. Hope that helps,

Cheers

[Other Means]

14104 answered by 14105? both first posts? small world init?

you've got a Tiger on a hill. can't be beaten. can't be hurt by allied armour. so go past the next hill.

that's the short version. the long version is a LOT longer.

[peter tilbury]

Agree. Allies win strategically and operationally - which is what counts. The game concentrates on the tactical aspect where the Germany excelled. These much vaunted Übertanks squander resources that could be used more effectively elsewhere, strategically in submarine production perhaps. Then again no tank is an Übertank. You have to play to your strengths no tank is an übertank if you play against it right.

[Sergei]

Germans had too long fronts to defend against too many enemies. Take North Africa for example. At some point Rommel became unable to push forth because the Brits had too many divisions facing him. Meanwhile he couldn't defend hundreds of km's of front line, thus he had to face the threat of British flanking attack. That and the Ami invasion cornered him in Tunisia and then forced out of NA.

In Italy the story was different due to terrain, the mountains and rivers there caused such bottlenecks for Allied advance that even the relatively low numbers of Germans could hold out against superior enemy forces until breached with heavy artillery and air support in very complex, time consuming and often high-on-casualties operations. But at that time the decisive battles were being fought in France, Poland and Germany... you see, you try to attack where the enemy is weak, not where he is strong.

[Slappy]

How do we do it? Volume!

Numbers is the key as well as a ton of artillery. Prior posts by those far more groggy that I have calculated that every US platoon should come with an organic 105mm spotter or so.

[Itael]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Some good info indeed , however if you focus on the sigle scenarios of the game, it seems unfair at first to play the allies...since you are in a tactic combat and not behind a grand strategy , and since the desert is pretty scarce when it comes to cover the allied armor is a pice of cake to crack.... the assault missions are really difficult to win.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Jazz27:

Thanks for the replies guys.

Some good info indeed , however if you focus on the sigle scenarios of the game, it seems unfair at first to play the allies...since you are in a tactic combat and not behind a grand strategy , and since the desert is pretty scarce when it comes to cover the allied armor is a pice of cake to crack.... the assault missions are really difficult to win.

It's not like Allies are always at disadvantage. Tigers don't come into play until Tunisia, and even then they're not great in number. Meanwhile Allies have some good stuff such as Matilda II, Churchill, Grant and Sherman. With Cruisers and Stuarts you'll need to be more careful, but German PzIII's and IV's aren't unkillable either.

Admittedly there are always situations which aren't fair and balanced. But don't worry, you won't be court-martialed if you lose a battle.

[Michael Dorosh]

Tanks were used in perhaps 10 percent of combat units in WW II, yet they see action in about 95% of Combat Mission games...CM doesn't give a very good historical portrait of weapons usage, but then again, that's not the intent of the game.

[MikeyD]

I thought everybody knew it was the Jeep that won the war for the allies!

(poking fun at an old old thread on this topic).

Germany had two fronts, hardly any oil, tungsten, or rubber. They were behind the curve on such basic stuff as blood transfusions (necessary when people are shooting bullets at eachother) because their top workers in that field happened to be the 'wrong' ethnic group and either fled the country (to the benefit of the Allies) or were murdered.

Most fascist despots are able to stay in power as long as they don't get greedy (aka Spain's Franko). Once they start stepping on their neighbor's toes their days are usually numbered.

[PseudoSimonds]

The way I see it is that the axis lost through inferior strategy (at the highest level) and the lack of resources to build their best weapons in the numbers needed to win the war.

The culmination of this is trying to fight on two fronts against the U.S. and Russia who both had relatively limitless resources.

[CRSutton]

The Allies won because the Germans managed to piss too many people off. That is, they bit off way more than they could chew. I would like to think that there was a bit of moral superiority too. Sometimes that will give an edge.

As for Allied equipment, don't knock it. Both sides in the war made some excellent equipment. (and some pitiful stuff) In game terms the sherman tank is highly underated, because you are using it in a tactical battle in a controlled situation against German tanks that do not show thier own faults so readily.

In reality the sherman was an excellent tank-veristal, reliable, cheap to produce, adaptable. It had excellent tracks, engine, fast turret, rapid rate of fire, good radio. It also had many early faults but many of them were corrected by war's end. The late war sherman "easy eight" with its revolutionary suspension was one of the best tanks to come out of the war, and proved itself superior to the T34-85 in Korea-where it was much preferred by American tankers over the buggy pershing.

Unfortunately a game such as CM can not place as much emphasis on such mundane but critical things as track and engine life. shermans and M3s were well liked by the Brits not just for their fighting capability but for their endurance-a critical factor in the desert (in any theater). In a fluid situation, a retreating army needs reliable equipment as broken tanks get left behind.

Yes, in a frontal attack against a German tiger or panther in open terrain, the sherman was at a disadvantage. But the sherman was not designed for that purpose and those sort of tank on tank encounters were rarer than you would think. As an all purpose tank in any other terrain, the sherman could hold its on. Probably the best qualtiy of the sherman was its fast turret and superior rate of fire. In any sort of unexpected meeting engagement, this adds a great tactical advantage-as usually in an armor engagement, the tank that lands the first hit holds most of the cards.

I think in North Afrcia, the Germans initially held most of the tactical advantage. There equipment was better and more versital and, most important, their use of combined arms and tactical doctrine was better. Superior numbers and an overall better supply kept the Brits in the game. Eventually, British equipment and tactics rose to higher levels and that is why they were able to suceed.

Set up as a test a blind meeting engagement between some PzIvs and shermans. Put the same crews in them. When they meet, watch the shermans closely. See just how fast those turrets spin. It is downright beautiful.

As with the Russians, there are ways to play the Amis and Brits that focus on their strengths. This holds true with all nationalities. Just give it some practice.

[Ron]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Tanks were used in perhaps 10 percent of combat units in WW II, yet they see action in about 95% of Combat Mission games...CM doesn't give a very good historical portrait of weapons usage, but then again, that's not the intent of the game.

I believe Africa to be the exception to that 'rule of thumb' however.

I disagree also with the Axis always having the superior armour, in many cases it is the British, ie Matildas and Grants. It all depends on the timeframe. For the Germans, FH armour and the long 50mm/75mm show up later.

Ron

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

The way I see it is that the axis lost through inferior strategy (at the highest level) and the lack of resources to build their best weapons in the numbers needed to win the war.

The culmination of this is trying to fight on two fronts against the U.S. and Russia who both had relatively limitless resources.

The resources the Germans did have were horribly mismanaged. A million German women in 1943 were employed as hairdressers instead of in industry. Hermann Goering asked if they wanted guns or butter, then gave the people both.

A war economy wasn't instituted until 1944 when it was too late. In 1940, some units actually disbanded after the victory in France. And the word Krieg ("war") was not used until 1944 either. Hitler et al never faced up to the economic realities until far too late. A lot of money and resources were squandered on private armies (the SS and Luftwaffe, whose Field Divisions were mainly a very poor exercise in flattering Hermann Goering's ego and a terrible waste of men and trucks that could have been used to reinforce the far more valuable panzer and motorized divisions of the Army) and technological projects of little value like the V rockets or the Maus.

Not that we should complain, I'm glad they lost, but they really were kind of clueless in many ways. They were awestruck that Chrysler and Ford would build interchangeable parts for the Sherman tank - look at how Porsche and Henschel both build Tiger tank turrets.

Much of what the Germans built was overdesigned - overlapping road wheels on tanks and armoured cars, even a look at wooden crates used to carry ammunition will show typical German over-designing.

Their war economy was a mess, and that was of their own doing - add in strategic bombing and you have an even greater nightmare (thought the bombing campaign itself is the subject of much controversy - for example the reluctance to keep hitting specific targets in favour of a broad based approach; Speer remarked after the war that if the Allies had concentrated on bombing specific key industries like ball bearings, there was nothing they could do about it).

Not to suggest the Allies didn't fight bravely in the field - they did - but after 1943, the end result was probably not in serious doubt.

[chris talpas]

Another critical factor was ULTRA. The British were able to sink much of Rommel's supplies as they crossed the Med leaving him chronically short of materiel.

Reading Rommel's mail allowed an adjustment in strategy. Not that different from peeking at your opponent's move prior to plotting your own.

Chris

[Sergei]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

The way I see it is that the axis lost through inferior strategy (at the highest level) and the lack of resources to build their best weapons in the numbers needed to win the war.

The culmination of this is trying to fight on two fronts against the U.S. and Russia who both had relatively limitless resources.

It's not so much the strategy but simply the political decisions to go to war against Britain, then the Soviets, then the USA, that forced them to develop strategies that couldn't work and need armies that couldn't be armed. In other words, Hitler miscalculated his enemies. He thought Britain was isolated and teethless. He thought he could kick in the door of Soviet Union which would cause the whole house to collapse. He thought USA would be too busy fighting against the Japanese, and anyway a nation of mulatto jazz singers and Jewish syndicalists led democratically just couldn't fight.

You could say it all was decided when he invaded Poland: then he was the neighbour of Soviet Union and the enemy of Britain and France. From then on all his efforts were to get out of this position, but he was unsuccessful.

[Hensworth]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And the word Krieg ("war") was not used until 1944 either.

Really ? Never knew this.

Or are you perhaps referring to the famous 'Totalen Krieg'-speech by Goebbels ?

[zukkov]

in this crowd a simple question requires a complicated answer. lol..

actually i came to the conclusion(the one about how the allies win operationally/strategically and the germans win tactically) back in the 70s and 80s when my friends and i played tabletop micro armor games. i always got stuck as the amis or russkies and always got my arse kicked. not that i'm a great tactician mind you, but let's just say it was a long learning curve that i still haven't climbed yet. after the battles we would have discussions as to what i could've/should've done with my tanks. the "advice" sounded good, but it never helped me in the next battle. the german stuff was always more accurate and penetrated better, plus i was usually the attacker, and firing on the move was an exercise in futility. and when i did manage a rare hit, it bounced off those panthers(my opponent always seemed to have panthers. i wonder why??) harmlessly while he fired lasers that never missed. add to that the small maps(2' x 4' styrofoam sheets) and manuevering was virtually nonexistant.

anyway, to make a short story long(as most of us do) i agree that playing the allies in a tactical game vs the germans is (usually) tough. that's why i hope the next engine contains some sort of operational level mode that allows players to take into account logistical considerations for their battles. i'm not holding my breath for that however...

[Sergei]

Originally posted by zukkov:

that's why i hope the next engine contains some sort of operational level mode that allows players to take into account logistical considerations for their battles. i'm not holding my breath for that however...

You can pick a scenario with IS-2's and T-34/85's supported with veteran infantry spreading death to unfit Volksgrenadiers. Of course you will also find scenarios with 10 Königstigers versus 30 T-34's at a range of 1,5 km...

[Ubique]

Personally I am lookimng forward to seeing if the 2 pdr gun is well represented in the early Desert War scenarios, and how well the designers have let the 6 pounder AT gun perform against German tanks from 42/43 onwards, and whether 44+ ones will have the APDS rounds.

Otherwise I fear a repitition of the tabletop desert games I played in the 70s and 80s where British Armour gets creamed time and again... and the whole thing becomes a little boring as German mechanical failure etc cannot be factored into a game at this level.

[JasonC]

The German equipment was not superior for long periods of the war. In Russia it was inferior in 1941 and 1942. CMBB masks that in the latter year by allowing cherry picked uber-StuGs (which are also overmodeled) at low rariety, when they were a few percent of the German AFV fleet. That was the period when the Germans were winning, incidentally.

In North Africa, the British I tanks were far more heavily armored than anything the Germans had until Tunisia, and the Germans didn't have decent AFV mounted guns to counter them in any numbers until mid 42. They were saved from overall inferiority only by the underarmed nature of most of the early war British tank fleet. They still had to lean on their towed guns rather than their AFVs.

By the time the Germans had a smattered of long 50 Pz IIIs and a handful of long IVs, the Brits had fleets of Grants and then Shermans. Then in Tunisia, the Germans had a moderate edge because the US and Brits were still using lights, and the Germans also managed to get a handful of Tigers to the field. They didn't last very long, however.

As for Sicily and Italy, the Germans managed to throw single battalions of Tigers at the allies on a couple of occasions, before Anzio. They overran infantry battalions each time, but were halted by massed fire support (largely artillery and TDs firing direct, but also naval). Most of the armor the Germans had for their initial counterattack in Italy after the landing was Pz IVs. Which the Allied Shermans, M10s, and Priests could fight on basically even terms. They had no operational success tracable to any superiority in their equipment at that time.

It was a little tougher later on, at Anzio and the two mountain lines the Germans held, successively. The Germans did not manage to reduce Anzio despite a lot of heavy armor outside, due to fire support again plus M10s. On defense the heavies were tough to take out. But it was largely a positional war, in which infantry taking particular peaks unlocked the next position. That the Allies could not ram up the valleys did owe something to German heavies, but also just to cross fire from guns on the hills.

In France, the CMBO period, the Germans were outscored by the Americans in absolute terms, despite the superiority of their tanks. Partially because only about 1/3 to 1/2 of their tanks were actually superior - the rest were IVs, StuGs, Marders, etc. The Allies fielded several upgunned AFVs - TDs or 76mm Sherman - for every AFV the Germans had in the west, let alone for every heavy.

But the Germans also lost their heavies in wholesale lots, in grandious and unsound counteroffensives. The Germans were either defending armor poor, or recklessly counterattacking when armor rich. In the latter case they lost half their armor in a day, in most cases. It the largest and most successful, it took a month (the Bulge). Examples include Lehr's counterattack in July in the US sector, Mortain, the Panzer brigades in September, and Nordwind.

What typically happened in these fights is the Germans initially broke in to the defensive zone easily enough, just by having plenty of armor at the point of attack. Even if it was StuGs or Jagds or IVs. But then they got bogged down. Arty stripped off infantry and buttoned them. TDs reacted. They ran onto gunlines or Priest battalions. And they rapidly lost tanks, without inflicting any higher losses on the defenders.

Engagement ranges were often short and it is hard to present only front facing when attacking. Basically, a Panther is a superior tank dueling weapon on defense, but when it tries to attack - particularly into heavy overall odds - it is just a tank like any other. Studies of tank losses in the west showed the defender had an edge, and large forces had an edge while small ones were often wiped out.

The best use of the heavies would have been to employ them defensively, but as flexible reserves, keeping them alive as long as possible while using them to bleed enemy AFV strength. German armor doctrine and operational fantasy-planning was too offense minded to do this consistently in the west.

In the east it was more common, and in the east the Germans heavily outscored the Russians. They still lost the decisive battles of the war, precisely in the period when they had the best tanks and the Russians still hadn't fielded their own late war improved types. From the summer of 1943 to the begining of 44, the Germans lost the Ukraine and set up the collapse of the following summer. While the Russians were still in T-34/76s, and the Germans had already fielded hundreds of Tigers and Panthers.

How did the Russians win those campaigns? Defensively by depth of reserves with some help from minefields, and offensively by hitting where the Germans weren't. When the Germans tried to attack e.g. at Kursk, they found narrow wedges driven in to the Russian positions left flanks vulnerable to 76s firing at range (from tanks or towed), and invited thick minefields directly ahead of the wedge. Broader fronts failed to achieve the concentration needed to overwhelm defenders.

The best combination, empirically, seemed to be multiple narrow wedges that twisted this way and that in reaction to the strength of the defense. But overall this dissipated effort. One after another the secondary drives failed, allowing the remaining Russian reserves to shift in front of the remaining effort. And the running AFV strength of every drive fell in a power curve decay, as battle damage accumulated.

On defense it was easier to avoid exposing flanks, to choose the range, to avoid mines, etc. Two prices were paid in return, however - damaged tanks were more frequently lost rather than recovered, and some areas were left without armor and broken in consequence. Russian armor losses in the second half of 1943 were very high. But German runner strength fell from its Kursk peak and never recovered, while the front moved hundreds of miles west.

If ever technical armor superiority were going to show a real operational effect, it should have happened in this period. It showed up in the exchange ratio, but not in the overall outcome.

For the rest of the war and on other fronts, it made even less of a difference. The Germans conquered most of Europe in Pz IIIs with short 50s, at best. They lost it again in Tigers and Panthers. Technical armor superiority just wasn't that important.

[Guest Mike]

The allies won because they cheated and did not play the game with balanced points!

[JonS]

Originally posted by Sergei:

In Italy the story was different due to terrain, the mountains and rivers there caused such bottlenecks for Allied advance that even the relatively low numbers of Germans could hold out against superior enemy forces ...

This is a bit of a mis-conception. By 1945 there were more Germans in Italy than there were Allies. Yet the Allies were still on the offensive in that theatre, and still defeated the Germans. How? Well, this ...

... until breached with heavy artillery and air support in very complex, ... operations.

It sounds like it's meant to be a put-down, but stop and think about the words. What Sergei is saying is that the Allies were using combined arms on a massive scale, in ways the Germans couldn't compete with. The Allied theory and practice of combined arms had eclipsed that of the Germans by late war.

Incidentally - I find it interesting that when the Germans were leveraging their advantages early in the war they are usually seen as being Gods' gift to warfare, while when the Allies did the exactly the same thing later in the war it was somehow seen to have been 'cheating'. Go figure. It seems the snappy uniforms and SS runes still have a few in their thrall.

Still, in CM, when a vanilla Sherman platoon chances across a Panther platoon there are going to be problems for the Shermans. Certainly, far more concern and hard thinking is going to be needed from the Allied commander.

Regards

JonS

[ December 17, 2003, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

In North Africa, the British I tanks were far more heavily armored than anything the Germans had until Tunisia, and the Germans didn't have decent AFV mounted guns to counter them in any numbers until mid 42. They were saved from overall inferiority only by the underarmed nature of most of the early war British tank fleet. They still had to lean on their towed guns rather than their AFVs.

Were the British machines not a lot slower in speed, also?

German softskin trucks were hampered early on in the desert by not being fitted with tires and suspension suited to the desert. Considering the importance of motorization in that theatre, not an inconsiderable factor, either. Capturing hundreds of British and CMP trucks helped.

[Steiner14]

Jazz27,

simply take a look at a world-map, at the resources of the USA, the (former) British Empire, France and it's colonies, the USSR and the tiny Germany and at production numbers.

Then you'll definately not ask that question again.

Even not the best army in the world could win against +90% of world's resources.