JasonC Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 I hate to break it to him, but the Marder was the first German AFV to sport a long 75, and as such it is the upgunned German AFV, the "super shooter", in the example given. And the only one that can deal with heavies (even T-34s, let alone KVs) at range. A comparable case on the western front would be 2 Sherman 75s and 1 Jackson facing German heavies. Nobody would say there was anything remarkable about the Jackson getting the kills and the Shermans taking the beating. In 1942, there is nothing "paltry" about the Marder - it is the strongest anti-tank shooter in the German AFV arsenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: I hate to break it to him, but the Marder was the first German AFV to sport a long 75, and as such it is the upgunned German AFV, the "super shooter", in the example given. And the only one that can deal with heavies (even T-34s, let alone KVs) at range. A comparable case on the western front would be 2 Sherman 75s and 1 Jackson facing German heavies. Nobody would say there was anything remarkable about the Jackson getting the kills and the Shermans taking the beating. In 1942, there is nothing "paltry" about the Marder - it is the strongest anti-tank shooter in the German AFV arsenal.<hr></blockquote> Jason- I think the point being made is that the Marder has about the same defensive value as my Saturn. A mortar round or decent MG can take it out, and so in the view of the 'knockout points' guy (redwolf, I think? can't remember right now, sorry) the Marder should be worth fewer 'casualty points' if KOed. I think that was it. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by JasonC: I hate to break it to him, but the Marder was the first German AFV to sport a long 75, and as such it is the upgunned German AFV, the "super shooter", in the example given. And the only one that can deal with heavies (even T-34s, let alone KVs) at range. A comparable case on the western front would be 2 Sherman 75s and 1 Jackson facing German heavies. Nobody would say there was anything remarkable about the Jackson getting the kills and the Shermans taking the beating. In 1942, there is nothing "paltry" about the Marder - it is the strongest anti-tank shooter in the German AFV arsenal.<hr></blockquote>The Tiger had arrived by 1942, i would say that was the best german anti-tank shooter. The marder is nothing but an over-glorified panzerjaeger. They finaly got the concept right with the Nashorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 If you read the post I actually said that I purchased the early model Marder III with the 76mm gun, not the 75mm. If memory servers me correctly I believe that these vehicles were actually available *before* the 75mm models and helped deal with the heavy Russian armour until other vehicles became available, including the 75mm versions. Of course, none of this is relevant to Steve point, which was that these vehicles were rather vulnerable to even AT rifle fire and thus were rather delicate vehicles to have on a battlefield. Dan [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Jason, Dale hit the nail on the head, and by accident so did you The point of bringing up Dan's Marder incident was to show Redwolf the fatal flaw in his request for "fragile" stuff to get a break in terms of victory points. He made an assumption that fragile stuff always dies and dies without scoring significant kills. That is the only way to justify some sort of special treatment. But the experiences of many (with FTs, Marders, HTs, etc.) is that if they are used correctly and wisely they can be very effective. A victory point break for the Marder, in this example, would have been amounted to a penalty for the Soviet player if the Marder was even knocked out. And that is simply not fair, especially after it killed 3/5ths of a much more expensive armored force. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Sorry about this but I just read a fantastically poor editorial article and thought: God I hate sarcasm in a discussion. If your right there is no point in gloating about it, it just looks cheap. And Iron Chef.. In 1942 the Tigers were available in only token numbers whereas the different Marders, 7.62cm and 7.5cm guns on both Pz II and Pz 38 chassis were available by the hundreds (at least 500+). By the way, in what way is it "over-glorified" as a Panzerjäger? M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 [never mind] [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 FTs aren't Marders, let alone Marders in 1942. Any more than 90mm Jackson TDs are hand grenades. FTs do not survive and score multiple kills by hunting tactics (which they aren't fast enough for anyway), even if "well handled". I am not supporting Redwolf on fragile units in general, but the idea that FTs are like any high firepower low defense weapon is completely off base. What is specially bad about foot FT teams is they combine the highest vunerability with the need to close to point blank range and slow speed doing it. Sniping clear across the map with a TD by only briefly coming into LOS at all is not available as a tactic with only 45m range. Range and maneuverability, with proper use of cover, is a perfectly adequate substitute for thick defensive plates, for most dueling purposes. FTs have none of those things. Instead they must close to a range at which every SMG gets 36 fp and upwards, at slow speed, with just 2 guys in cloth. Then they need LOS (or using area fire, a minute mark), which they usually die when they get. There is nothing else quite like them. They are trumped in cost-benefit terms by SMGs, which cost essentially nothing and outperform them at the only ranges they can fight at all. Marders are not trumped in cost-benefit terms by Pz IIIs, or most other AFVs. The combine high AT lethality (especially early) with low cost compared to many other vehicles (even late in the war). The closest to a trump over their role is the Hetzer, which comes out years later and adds sloped front armor for only marginally more in cost terms. Not surprisingly, the Hetzer was designed as a replacement for the ad hoc Marders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 JasonC, if flame throwers are used correctly as part of a team they can wipe out multiple squads or take out pillboxes successfuly. I have done it and I am sure others have done. If you send in a flamthrower alone with no support and without first supressing the target, of course the flamthrower team will get waxed. The whole point is purchase points don't matter on the battlefield, skill and and luck do. [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Keith ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Mattias, Generally I only "stoop" to sarcasim when I have completely exhausted all straight forward, rational, and supported lines of argument and the discussion STILL continues as if I (and others) have said absolutely nothing. I have found that sometimes, and I stress SOMETIMES, sarcasim does what nothing else can do. I have obviously reached that point of frustration with the closed off circular logic that I see STILL going on here. Jason, if a FT and Marder were priced the same, you would have a point. But they are not, so your basic line of argument is off base. Plus, you only highlighted the differences/similarities that support your point of view. You didn't mention things like the Marder being a much bigger and harder to conceal target, yet pretty much any direct or indirect fire weapon over small arms can plink it at any range. But this is all just round and round nitpicking. You are still not getting the point of this whole discussion, and therefore your arguments are rather irrelevant. Keith, I admire your courage in stating the obvious for the upteenth time in this thread, since you are likely to just be ignored as I and others have been for several pages now As you say, used right it is devistating. Used wrong, you might as well have bought nothing. Any number of units could be looked at in that way, FTs and Marders among them. So why should we give a bonus for poor use/luck and at the same time rob points away fromm the other guy, who might have paid with pools of blood to kill that unit? Even if a system could be developed which would identify "fragile" units for such a double owner bonus, it would be wrong. OK folks... this thread has really gone round and round and round. Those who understand the issues understand them already. Those who don't most likely won't do so any time soon. And since there is a ZERO percent chance of us making pricing changes like those suggested here, perhaps we can just let this thread die off like the famous Gamey Recon Thread Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 But if we revisit the gamey recon issue Steve that leads to all kinds of crew pricing issues, like is the Tiger crew worth more points than a Stug crew and which one is more likely to have the rarity option hit them for points. And the most important question of all!!!!! Do the crews get flamethrowers???? If they do then automatically they are overpriced for a multitude of made up fantasy reasons! (please note the above was an attempt at sarcasm!) [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Priest ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 With regard to FT effectiveness, I propose the following "semi-empirical test": After a week or, when the RoW tournament AARs are public, please count in what situations and how successfully the FTs were used in the scenarios in which they were involved. No, it won't prove anything, but might be educative... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Keith, you and a half dozen others want to tell me it is all because I am such a tactical klutz, while you know how to do it. I have offered before and I offer again - prove it to me at my expense. Beat my German SMG infantry with your US (or Brit, either will serve) combat engineers with flamethrowers. Otherwise, your fantasies about the effects of tactical prowess against what I regard as the stronger close-in infantry arm - SMGs - are to me nothing but idle boasts. My thesis is that there is no "right use of FTs" against the superior close combat arm, as things are modeled and priced now. If you think you know otherwise, stop flapping your gums and send me a QB file. You get US combat engineers, I get German infantry with automatic weapons. If properly used FTs can beat them (in my hands, not the AI's), then you have *proved* your point. My email is jasoncawley@ameritech.net So far, no one has even taken up the gauntlet, let alone won with the FTs. JPS is welcome to send anyone else my way if he thinks they are more qualified to show me FT razzle dazzle than Keith (or JPS himself, who is also invited if he wants). As for Steve and the Marder distraction, I will promise to take 1 Marder II as part of my force if anyone with the Americans promises to add 2 additional FT teams to his. Same price. The Marder will pay for itself (on average), the FTs will not. People seem to think they can just have any opinion they like on the subject and it must be right because they like the conclusion. Or because they can recall 2-3 incidents they think support it. Well, if you really believe it then you are willing to act on it. And if you aren't willing to act on it, then you can bleat until blue, you still won't convince me you actually believe what you are saying. Talk is cheap. Prove I don't know diddly about tactics or FTs. It is, after all, not a theoretical but a practical and empirical question. Heck, on the usefulness of Hetzers on the attack, an issue that drew nothing like this level of controversy, I got three games by challengers to my stated opinion in the matter - one got a draw with a well played defense. They were fun, and showed the points various people were trying to make rather well. Why the reticence about testing this one? If you think the test isn't "fair", then explain why, saying just what white glove treatment the FTs require. One fellow said they will only work on custom urban maps - as though pricing matters for balance in custom scenarios, and as though 25 pts FTs would make any difference to those cases. If you are willing to weaken or narrow the claim about their effectiveness, fine. I will very likely be willing to meet all your conditions and meet you on the field. Will you be willing to admit that if you can't get anywhere against me with full-priced FTs "used right", as you understand "right", that I will have a point? [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Ahhahahahahahaaaa Jason what the hell is that???? Does anyone here think that Combat Engineers were ever meant to fight a stand up battle with German SMG troops????? Okay Jason but to make things fair lets allow the Combat engineers to dig in and mine the area! Also lets make it a fairly large map with minimal cover with the SMG troops 1500m away. Also do not forget that the Engineers probably have access to barbed wire! Oh I know next lets have a sniper with no ammo on a completely open map take on a company of Tigers just to show how useless sharpshooters are! PLEASE A LITTLE REALITY PLEASE! Oh and btw you are proving Steve's point rather nicely. If you use a unit poorly or what it was not designed to do then it will lose most of the time just like in reality. Thanks for justifying that what Steve and the guys are doing! Maybe it is not as easy to defend a thesis after all........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Priest: Ahhahahahahahaaaa Jason what the hell is that???? Does anyone here think that Combat Engineers were ever meant to fight a stand up battle with German SMG troops????? Okay Jason but to make things fair lets allow the Combat engineers to dig in and mine the area! Also lets make it a fairly large map with minimal cover with the SMG troops 1500m away. Also do not forget that the Engineers probably have access to barbed wire! Oh I know next lets have a sniper with no ammo on a completely open map take on a company of Tigers just to show how useless sharpshooters are! PLEASE A LITTLE REALITY PLEASE! Oh and btw you are proving Steve's point rather nicely. If you use a unit poorly or what it was not designed to do then it will lose most of the time just like in reality. Thanks for justifying that what Steve and the guys are doing! Maybe it is not as easy to defend a thesis after all........<hr></blockquote> Besides Priest, the reason no one will take Jason up on his "challenge" is not really because it is a silly test, but because no on wants to play Jason himself. I played Berli's Flamethrower scenario and was quite satisfied with it. Why wont Jason e-mail Berli and ask for that scenario? Since I played both AI and hot seat the game, I know what skills it took to work the throwers. So Jason, you take your SMG squads,and I will take 40mm, Shermans, and regular infantry on a 1k map, if I would play you. My Shermans will slaughter your SMG crews, must mean they are worthless ehh? Anyway, the proof Jason offers is a poor one. The only emprical method to check pricing would involve doing a series of games with varied configurations of troops. With a 100x100 matrix of units on each side you need tp play around 400,000 games, providing you with an empircal value for the average compared utility of the device in the matrix, If it sounds tough, it is because it is, but Jason, if you are not scared I challenge you to do a matrix test of comparative value looking at contribution to victory of different units rather than matching your superlative tactical genius against the world. If you are unwilling to do this, then obviously you do not believe in your point and know everyone else is right. (saracasm added) [ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 In a similar vein to Priests' post, how about half a dozen FTs and a 81mm FO vs half a dozen bunkers/pillboxes? (agreed, this does sidestep the FTs-are-useful-in-city-fighting issue, but then I never said that they were. Or that they weren't for that matter.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 JasonC, actually you misread my (not-so-explicit) opinion with regard to FT effectiveness. To be blunt: I think your argumentation is basically valid, and FTs are typically not useful (in price-effective sense) even in close assault situations. The problem, of course, is that this is hard to prove for individuals inclined to think otherwise (based, for example, experiences on specific scenarios). FT usage in double-blind custom-made RoW scenarios was closest to "real test" I was able to figure out. Nevertheless, I hope we can have a nice PBEM game after I have finished writing my own AARs for the above-mentioned tournament. JPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Okay, I really fail to see how this thread is even remotely interesting or insiteful any more and it's also getting near the 300 reply cut-off. I would suggest that you get your last words in and then I will close it down. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 er, Hi Mum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Jason, Dale hit the nail on the head, and by accident so did you The point of bringing up Dan's Marder incident was to show Redwolf the fatal flaw in his request for "fragile" stuff to get a break in terms of victory points. He made an assumption that fragile stuff always dies and dies without scoring significant kills. That is the only way to justify some sort of special treatment. But the experiences of many (with FTs, Marders, HTs, etc.) is that if they are used correctly and wisely they can be very effective. A victory point break for the Marder, in this example, would have been amounted to a penalty for the Soviet player if the Marder was even knocked out. And that is simply not fair, especially after it killed 3/5ths of a much more expensive armored force. Steve<hr></blockquote>I agree, for some reason i always score alot of kills with Marders. I fare better with Marders then i do with Tigers, i used to get careless with the heavier vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted January 22, 2002 Share Posted January 22, 2002 Ooooh! pick me pick me!! Oh wait I got nothing! Oh well when in doubt...... HI MOM!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Uber General Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 OK, let me have a go: FT's: ok by me KO points: ok by me Circular arguements: boring New thread: Yes please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I played Berli's Flamethrower scenario and was quite satisfied with it. Why wont Jason e-mail Berli and ask for that scenario?<hr></blockquote> Here it is for anyone interested... Engineers On Parade Urban attack by US Engineers against veteran Volksgrenadiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Slap, you can take Shermans and 40mms to support your combat engineers, the map can be 1500m wide if you like, and the cover can be limited if you think that helps you, or tight and urban if you think that helps you. But your infantry are combat engineers with 2 FTs per platoon. On my side, I will take what German infantry type I please, but I can assure you beforehand they will have lots of automatic weapons. I will also take other supporting arms, as in any ordinary fight. Another fellow wants engineers with FTs inside field works, with wire. He can have them. Just so long as he pays the ordinary CM price for such things, and accepts being the defender at the ordinary odds in turn for his access to wire. I do not care about the other conditions - I let you specify the conditions, if you think your FT heavy infantry needs this or that. Big fights, small fights, with tank support or without, open terrain or closed, attacking or defending - right your own ticket. Just use FT-equipped infantry as your infantry arm, and I will use infantry with automatics instead. You can't stack the other conditions in a manner that will make the FTs effective, compared to my ordinary infantry. You have full combined arms open to you, and so do I. You integrate your FTs into your whole plan, and I do likewise with my infantry's capabilities. You still can't make it work, because FTs just aren't worth the price. And if you have to pay for them, you will not be able to match me in all other important respects, and you will be weaker for taking them. In any QB situation you care to specify. The more the FTs are supposed to matter for your plan, the worse off you will be. Your best bet would be a fight that marginalizes them entirely, then taking as few as possible, and hoping the other arms, more or less even, decide the fight in your favor. But the FT requirement will be a ball around your left leg. Whatever conditions you pick. The only situation in which FTs might conceivably be worth their current price is used as risk assets against high priced concrete bunkers. (Not the log ones - they are too easy to kill with other things). There they might pay for themselves by managing a 1/3-1/2 chance of a knock out of one position. The "bang" of success is worth enough if their chances are that good, and the target generally hard enough for other weapons types to tackle (though even that is debatable - at least SMGs don't regularly torch the things). Which is not true of urban fighting, where they are risking themselves to break squads, and where men in buildings are vunerable to direct HE and close range small arms. This mostly reflects the overpricing of the bunkers too. But it is the best argument that can be made for the current FT pricing - that they are *meant* to be useless for everything else, and only cost-justified when tackling bunkers. Which is not what Steve has told us about the rationale, but is a more defensible rationale. Because the claim that they are cost effective if just "used right" has a slight drawback, however many people are attracted to how it sounds. It just isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted January 23, 2002 Share Posted January 23, 2002 Okay, and thats enough on this issue. If you *really* want to pursue this matter further in another thread then go right ahead but I believe our position on this matter is pretty well stated at this point and we have not the time to continue to reiterate our reasoning over and over again. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts