Realism vs "Winning"

[Shan]

PatG said:
I think he meant that there were only 68 SdKfz 251 APCs in service - not 68,251 of all models of APC.

LOL - sorry 'bout that, I know I shouldn't enter a discussion if I'm too tired to read properly... oh man!! Now, 68 sounds good, goes together with the production start in '39. Besides, the Germans also used a type of wheeled/tracked APC in small numbers called AGDZ, taken over from Austria. It was a tracked vehicle with similar in shape to SdKfz 250/251 but it hat 4 road wheels outside the tracks that could be lowered for on-road use - a rather strange vehicle, it served with artillery observers mostly.

[blitzkreig]

Shan,

I did only mean "68" Sdkfz 251s. Should have made it a bit more clear! The 250 series didn't enter production until June 1941. One of my favourite referance books for German armoured vehilces is:

Standard Catalog of German Military Vehicles by David Doyle published by KP Books in 2005 isbn 0-87349-783-x.

Its says there were aprox 6000 of the Sdkfz 250 series were made. I'm not sure about the Sdkfz 251 series.

On another realism point though it's really great being able to hammer the other side with loads of artillery fire! Trouble is depending on how big your game is artillery was in realitivly short supply.

If you think that a typical Pz Division had 2-3 artillery Btls of 3-4 batteries, each with 4 guns depending on formation and losses. A btl sized kampfgruppe is therefore unlikley to have it all on call at once! With the exception of pherhaps an assult mission. Larger pieces over 150mm would be Corps assets and would be even rarer.

It reality (at least for German Mechanised forces) you should take 1 forward observer/observation vehicle for each battery taken. This eats up support points but also means the number of batteries you take will probaberly be reduced as well as being realistic. It would be a real headache for one observer to co-ordinate the lot! Todays British Army certinally uses the one observer per battery ratio with the battery commnader taking the role in the "armoured artillery" formations using AS90.

The Germans made up for the "lack of atillery" by the introduction of inf gun units attached to indivudual btls and regiments. The 75mm and to a lesser extent the 150mm sig would be a common sight in a reinforced btl sized kamfgruppe.

Not sure on other nations though, any one any thoughts?

[serg3d]

I'm playing Soviet long cmapin, an my core force more or less historically correct understrength tank brigade. However I just couldn't resist few cool toys - some KV-2 and T-34-57. Both had seen actual combat, but were exceptionaly few - all(?) KV-2 were lost in first months, and T-34-57 were few and had problems with ammo and cannon barrels.

historical soviet tank brigade 1941:
7 KV-1
22 T-34
10-50 T-60
Mech infantry batallion (introduced later)
ATG battery
AA battery
mortar battery
trucks, armored cars etc.

For now my core is (3/1942)
4 KV-1
3 KV-2 (not historical, should be KV-1)
4 T-34
3 T-34-57 (semi-historical, should be plain T-34)
5 T-60
5 Zis-30 TD (semi-historical, weren't in the the tank brigades)
2 rifle companies
1 eng company
AA battery
SPAA trucks battery
ATG battery
10 120mm mortars (too much for tank brigade)
4 off-board 152mm (attached to brigade from the reserve of the High Command
halftrucks for two infantry companies (not historical)

[chuckfourth]

Hi Blitzkreig
As far as I know the German and British armies are very specific in the allocation of divisional artillery. You rank(ie formation size) determines how much of the divisional artillery you will have at your disposal. The limit is one artillery battalion for one infantry/armoured battalion if you want more you will have to resort to your formations organic artillery. The one army I believe that doesnt abide by these limits is the US army. For the organic artillery within a formation a coy will have the coy mortars and the regiment will have the regimental "infantry gun" company. Because of command and control constraints one regiment is very unlikely to use another regiments IGs, one coy is very unlikely to use another coys mortars etc.
So assuming a 3 coy/bat 3 bat per regiment formation, in a regimental attack you will have all the divisions guns available plus your regiments IGs plus 9 sets of coy mortars.
For a coy attack you will have your coys mortars and possibly the regimental guns
For a battalion attack 3 mortar coys, regimemtal guns and 1 divisional artillery battalion.
Corps level artillery is usually busy with counterbattery, long range sniping or interdiction. though as you mention it can appear in assaults on either side.
I agree that it would be nice if some of these constraints could be worked into the game
Best Regards Chuck.

[blitzkreig]

Chuck,

I've been doing some reading on the North West Europe front and what you've said ties in with that. The US Army seemed to have a more artilery avaiable per BG sized formation than you could shake a stick at.

I was interested to note several books making the point that the US and British armies relied on artillery and airpower to suppress German formations as a way of making up for a lack of "aggressive" spirit in their combat units. Not surprising really when you had guys in the British Army who had been fighting for five or more years.

Some authors claim this contributed to the prolonging of the war as allied artillery ammo consumption was crazily high in late 1944 adding to supply problems before the opening of Antwerp port.

Ian

[blitzkreig]

A quick realism question aimed at the designers/DRG/Mobhack really.

Some folks seem to be more concerned about accuracy of the oobs than others. It's a great game and is meant to be fun after all. Is this strive for oob accuracy of interest to you or just a pain in the ***? There is modhack after all.

I'd imagine most of your time is taken with the nuts and bolts of how the game actually works! Is it worthwhile for people to be constantly noting errors in the oobs? If it is how much evidence/sources do you want/need to jusdtify a change?

What do fellas think?

Thanks for your ongoing hard work

[DRG]

I have no problem with discussions on OOB accuracy. If people can come up with new information that works with the game system and improves the game I will always consider making changes. The same applies to info on individual weapons or units. If, for example, we have a weapon with a penetration number too high or too low then by all means let us know but supply supporting documentation. *IF* we agree we will make the change. Some suggestions however, ignore the reality of game system itself either though ignorance of how the game is put together or simply because they don't like how the game currently models "reality" and want it done a different way usually ignoring the number of man hours required to make a fundamental change in the game and the possible spin off affects in different areas. THOSE are a PITA mainly because the end result on game play does not even come close to justifying the work involved.

As you say, there is MOBHack and a copy of that comes with every game because we know that no matter what we do SOMEBODY will find something they don't like and think should be different.

Both Andy and I are currently on "sabbatical". Occasionally we may answer questions but we both need a change of scenery that does not involve a computer monitor.


Don

[chuckfourth]

Hi Ian

Here are some relevant pasages form
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...er/doubler.asp
"
Despite successes in Tunisia and Sicily, the U.S. Army that assaulted the Normandy beaches was still far from being a well-oiled, coordinated fighting machine. Shortcomings in prebattle training and battlefield coordination during 1942 and 1943 prevented the U.S. Army from developing its full potential as an effective fighting force. One of the major problems discovered was the surprising lack of aggressiveness displayed by infantry units. Instead of employing techniques of fire and maneuver to close with and destroy the enemy, infantry attacks often merely located and pinned down the enemy. Artillery fire was then called on to finish the infantry's job of destroying the defenders. Instead of relying on their organic weapons, infantrymen trusted in the big guns of the field artillery to deliver the coups de grace.16
Another problem compounded the infantry's reliance on artillery support. The purpose of the infantry division's mortars and assault guns was to support the attacks of the riflemen. Consequently, these weapons were usually employed close to the fighting front and became favorite targets for German artillery, tanks, and other heavy weapons. American mortar, antitank, and assault-gun crews often suffered heavy casualties. A tendency developed in which these weapons remained hidden and silent until the salvos of the supporting artillery landed on the defenders' positions. Artillery fires suppressed and neutralized the Germans, and only then would the infantry's organic heavy weapons join in the battle.17
Even more disturbing was the poor coordination that existed during tank-infantry attacks. Experience in combat painfully showed that stateside training lacked emphasis on the planning and execution of combined arms attacks. Infantry commanders habitually failed to exploit the mobility and firepower of the tanks attached to their units. Conversely, tankers operating with infantry were often reluctant to aggressively advance, taking the burden of the attack away from the riflemen.18
"
Training presented a problem because of these numbers.
In sept 1939 Hitler has 108 fully trained fully equipped divisions.
In june 1941 Stalin has 178 on the western front alone.
In Sept 1939 the American Army has 5 divisions thats 188500 men and 14400 officers.
So recruiting training and equipping all started too late. Lend lease added to the problem because equipment that should have been used for training was flowing overseas.
from
http://stonebooks.com/archives/000716.shtml
"Even with two BARs, however, the U.S. infantry squad could not match the German firepower, since the MG42 had a greater effective range and twice the BAR's rate of fire. In fact, the MG42 alone could almost match the rate of fire of every weapon in a U.S. infantry squad shooting at once."
Ive been asking for the BAR to be downgraded to reflect this but to no avail so far.

So in short the americans infantry had every reason to rely on divisional artillery, they didnt have smokeless powder (and so were easily spotted) the germans did. The MG34 and 42 were murder the BAR wasnt. The germans infantry was bristling with hand held AT and the shermans burnt easily. The germans had better training.
Considering this I find the American experience 65 morale 75 a bit high compared to the German experience 70 morale 65

AFAIK the British did OK in the field, they had a high level of training throughout. But as the war ended there was a lot of political pressure to minimise casualties. The hideous attrition policy of WWI was public knowledge by now and the current party wanted to be voted back in.

This site is also interesting
http://www.army.mil/cmh/collections/USAWW2.htm

Best Regards Chuck.

[pdoktar]

I don´t strive for "realistic" forces. It´s a game after all. The best part is to spend an hour (or two) thinking what to buy, what kind of companies with what possible support weapons to make, create battlegroups of tanks and infantry, is this machinegun better at its job than that one, do I wish to use mortars in direct fire suppot etc etc.

We have to remember that the cost calculator compensates for supertanks and weapons. One tank can´t be in more than one place at a time. I prefer heavy armor, because when I need their firepower, they have to be the best available to be able to nullify serious head-on threats. Tanks for me are meant to take the enemy head-on. Infantry and artillery can deal with lesser threats with some PAK or something. If I can´t match the enemy´s tank power, I´ll have to use tactics and ambushes. This sometimes feels like cheating against the AI, as it walks straight into one.

I just love buying my own force structure from the ground up. Then it is MY force, not somebody elses.

[PanzerBob]

pdoktar said:
I don´t strive for "realistic" forces. It´s a game after all. The best part is to spend an hour (or two) thinking what to buy, what kind of companies with what possible support weapons to make, create battlegroups of tanks and infantry, is this machinegun better at its job than that one, do I wish to use mortars in direct fire suppot etc etc.

We have to remember that the cost calculator compensates for supertanks and weapons. One tank can´t be in more than one place at a time. I prefer heavy armor, because when I need their firepower, they have to be the best available to be able to nullify serious head-on threats. Tanks for me are meant to take the enemy head-on. Infantry and artillery can deal with lesser threats with some PAK or something. If I can´t match the enemy´s tank power, I´ll have to use tactics and ambushes. This sometimes feels like cheating against the AI, as it walks straight into one.

I just love buying my own force structure from the ground up. Then it is MY force, not somebody elses.

Amen to all that, Pdoktar.

That's why I play campaigns, and have been since learning the game many years ago. I recruit my KG's/BG's/TF's and treat them like I'm an old and trusted CO.

Cheers, PanzerBob out.