using AA as anti personel

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

AAA against infantry? That's against the Geneva convention.......

[TSword]

A german Tankdivision in 1944 had an alloted strength of 8 armoured Antiaircraft guns, either on 38(t)- or PzIV-chassis. In reality however they often might have much less.

Beside that there were numerous towed antiaircraft guns.

For a CM game (Up to Bataillon size) atmost 2 armored AA-guns and maybe some towed.

In the Normandy they were deployed to protect supply lines as intended against the overwhelming allied airsuperiority rather than in groundfighting, so i would use them very scarcely.

Beside that they have only supressing quality against nme inf, since the high firing rate is not simulated, the gunners ALWAYS fire after moving Infs and miss. They are great against nme soft skinned vehicles. (The 3.7 can also be used against tanks from the flank).

[Marlow]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tanaka:

The intention behind the airborne assaults on both those operations, D-Day and Market Garden was for the airborne troops to secure strategic positions behind enemy lines that would make the enemy defeat faster and easier. The original idea was for them to be relived once the regular army catches up with them. The truce is that into a certain extent no plan survives contact (Rommel) and airborne troops often find them selves fighting beyond what was “programmed”. <hr></blockquote>

The use of Airborne forces as regular infantry was certainly against doctrine; however, it was quite common. U.S. Airborne units saw more action as regular infantry than as parachute assault troops.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Now, this is a meter of opinion, but I still don’t see evidence of common practice in airborne and armor AFV conjunct attacks (yes, in front of the army by land attacking and assaulting). At least on the link you provide, there are more examples of them fighting without AFVs (I see AFV attachments, but the large majority of them for defensive roles)

<hr></blockquote>

If you want proof through specific instances of Airborne forces being used with tanks in both the defense and offense, I can provide them (e.g. Carentan after link up crossing the Merderet, the Douve River line, and this is just actions at Normandy).

In almost every major action involving U.S. Airborne troops, much of the fighting occurred either independent of an Airborne operation (Ardennes), or after link-up with ground forces (Market-Garden and Normandy). Operation Varsity may be an exception to this, but I don’t know that much about it. Where the paratroopers were fighting as regular infantry, they were almost always supported by armor to some degree. In a number of these instances, the Airborne troops also worked in coordination with regular infantry.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

On the Ardennes another well known operation, the airborne units were couth in the middle of the fight and in defensive positions on zones were heavy enemy activity wasn’t expected. <hr></blockquote>

The 82d and 101st were not caught in the middle of a fight. They were in the rear for rest and reorganization when the German offensive caught the Allies off guard. The paratroopers (one of the few available reserves in the area) were then trucked to the front to fill in gaps in the Allied lines. Also, while they were in the defensive role overall, in a number of instances, they were involved in offensive missions (patrols, local counterattacks, etc…). Further, once the German offensive stalled, Airborne units were used in the offensive role during the elimination of the “bulge.” Overall, during the Ardennes campaign, coordination with armored units was significant

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The fact is that it does not meter if it was a less common practice or an uncommon one…The truce behind it is simple, players o "sherry peak" the best of each army branch are for sure trying to get that special advantage that would make them win the game “at all costs no meter what”. Taking, in my view, a little bit too far, the already “unreal” troop “buying” method… (we want CMBB…we have mature )

Notice I’m not losing sleep over this, for me this is a lesser offense, distant go the days where I was playing a QB, and “stupid” has I am I bought only inside the Heer… (as I still do, only one army branch)

<hr></blockquote>

If you wish to restrict “Cherry picking” by limiting selection to only one force type, that is between you and your opponent, but it really isn’t fair to say that their force selection is unrealistic when it comes to mixing U.S. Airborne and armor , since there is a significant history of the combination (please note that I am limiting my argument to U.S. only, as I do not know enough about the other nationalities to make an informed judgment).

A couple of further thoughts:

Under the school of thought that any rare combination of forces is gamey, isn’t any use of Allied Airborne troops “gamey” since they really were rare in comparison to regular infantry formations. Wasn’t the average German far more likely to be fighting regular infantry units?

For those who say that combining U.S. and British Airborne with armor is “cherry picking,” couldn’t it be argued that it is only redressing an imbalance that is built into the QB system (which is pretty much inherently unrealistic anyway)? The German player has far more options on infantry types and armor combinations without resorting to combining different force types (e.g. the Heer alone has rifle infantry, panzergrenadiers, sturmtroops, volksgrenadiers, etc…). If you really want to avoid cherry picking, play one of the almost 1000 scenarios available.

[Andreas]

From this site:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The next day, British armor came across and we climbed atop the tanks and moved forward towards Munster.<hr></blockquote>

The next day being day two of Varsity. And

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>We had acquired the 57mm recoilless shoulder weapons, replacing the Bazookas. This new weapon had much more firepower and accuracy. Roadblocks and opposition were no match for these new weapons combined with the British Tanks. <hr></blockquote>

The guy is a US vet of 17th Airborne, who dropped at Wesel during Varsity.

Following Varsity, UK 6th Airborne had 6th Guards Tank Brigade (Churchills) as a permanent attachment for its march through Germany to the Baltic.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Marlow:

...Under the school of thought that any rare combination of forces is gamey, isn't any use of Allied Airborne troops "gamey" since they really were rare in comparison to regular infantry formations. Wasn't the average German far more likely to be fighting regular infantry units?

...

Now you are thinking with me... That’s why, in my view, when you chose those "rare" army branches, you pay the price of less buy options.

...For those who say that combining U.S. and British Airborne with armor is “cherry picking,” couldn’t it be argued that it is only redressing an imbalance that is built into the QB system (which is pretty much inherently unrealistic anyway)? The German player has far more options on infantry types and armor combinations without resorting to combining different force types (e.g. the Heer alone has rifle infantry, panzergrenadiers, sturmtroops, volksgrenadiers, etc…)...

Generally players, who complain about this, are trying to get rid of the “historical” element of the game… and trying to transform the game in collection of data with an equal average for every side… notice that I'm not saying that is your case...

Don’t try to transform the US army into the German Army by giving SMGs (airborn units) to its infantry and making it go into battle with AFVs… A regular US infantry squad has its advantages over the German SMG squads, and it is expected to fight in a different way, don’t try to apply SMG tactics to a rifle squad, it has an high probability that it wont work… To explain here the different tactics that should be followed regarding US infantry and German Infantry, goes beyond my time and English .

What do players want ?

UK Tanks + US Glider Infantry + US Art ?

GJ + Heer Tanks +Rockets ?

US side as it’s advantages...(read Artillery)...the German side has theirs (Read a more easy application of the infantry)...ignore this, and I don’t know...

Scenarios are an all-different business; they model the authors’ vision of the history and are not QBs... So, on them mix what ever you want, it is a simulation of a particular situation.

Just to finish, I have not given much time into reading news about the new unit purchase method for CMBB... but I just hope they give the Airborne army branch the tanks the players so much want (i.e. IS-2 with USSR Airborne) but with the rarity factor multiplied for that army branch

PS- I know UK rifle infantry squad brings infantry tactics to a surrealist level... but that its an entire different topic on its own.

[ January 31, 2002, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Tanaka:PS- I know UK rifle infantry squad brings infantry tactics to a surrealist level... but that its an entire different topic on its own.

Tanaka, would you agree that this is also true of Heer Rifle 44 squads, who have almost identical firepower numbers?

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

Tanaka, would you agree that this is also true of Heer Rifle 44 squads, who have almost identical firepower numbers?

German regular Rifle 44 platoon... 105pts

British Regular Rifle platoon... 127pts

If we take out the cost of the 2” mortar and PIAT (9+13), the British platoon will cost 105pts wish is the exactly same price of the German one…

The advantage of the German platoon is a better medium range (95 to 69 from British)…

The advantage of the British platoon is a slight better capacity of enduring damage (1 more man per squad as its German counterpart)

The big difference in all this, is that the British player his forced to take Rifle Platoons (Engr have the same fire power) if he wants to fight with the regular army. As for the German player, he has more from where to chose... (read Motorized platoon)