Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/12/2006 9:14:51 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
As much as I admire the Germans and their cool toys, I just can't get wrapped up in playing a six-year campaign, KNOWING that I'll still lose the war.

Now, the Russians are another story. With Enhanced, they could be fun to play as. With the default points they are given, you can create a HUGE core force easily. The problem, at least for me, is what to put in a Combined Arms Group. With the Russkies, even in June 1939 there's a lot to choose from. I've fooled around a bit with some ideas, but haven't come up with a magic formula for them -- yet.

BTW, here's a cool site that has a lot of Russian TOE info : http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/index.htm
Post #: 1
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/12/2006 11:11:18 PM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline
Why worry about a "magic formula" at all? Try something and see if it works. 

_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 2
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/13/2006 12:03:11 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Why worry about a "magic formula" at all? Try something and see if it works. 


Well, what I'm finding out is that I'm constantly in "experimentation" mode. I haven't settled down and played through a campaign in years. You know what that feels like.

I got my Marines down to a science. Same for those damn Germans. I'm looking for some other country to delve into and establish an "evolution path" for them.


_____________________________


(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 3
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/13/2006 12:47:07 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline
quote:

I just can't get wrapped up in playing a six-year campaign, KNOWING that I'll still lose the war.


By the same reasoning, why play the Marines for the whole war KNOWING you have already won? I would forget the winning/losing of the war and enjoy the ride to the end of it, whichever country you chose.


Goblin

_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 4
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/13/2006 2:08:35 AM   
Mark Ezra

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 12/29/2000
From: Jasmin Ranch, Acton CA
Status: offline
I LOVED SP1's Long Campaign. With such a small core force I could name them all and give them a pixal personality...  I play about the same with SPWAW.  My core force (US Army) consist of an infantry Company and a couple of scout teams.  For armor: a mixed Company of tanks, light tanks  and TD's. For support I a get a battery of 81mm mortars and an AT (t) sect.  I buy a bunch of light trucks for transport and AA or SP's or what have you.  The size is very manageable for the Long Campaign and I can get into a pretty nice pixal relationship with my guys....What can I say...I'm just a sucker for a guy in uniform.... 

_____________________________

All Hail Marx and Lennon

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 5
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/13/2006 7:09:29 AM   
DROregon


Posts: 129
Joined: 1/19/2002
From: Oregon
Status: offline
Playing the Germans is fine.  Even if they lose the war, it better not be because of my leadership.  Same for Marines.  If I can't contribute to the cause, it's a hollow victory.

(in reply to Mark Ezra)
Post #: 6
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/13/2006 7:53:02 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
I'm not wanting this to come across as a bash Gunny reply, but I think and feel that I've chatted with you long enough on many other topics to call your trump so to speak on this "down to a sience" comment, now u just admitted that the time you've taken to {ironout} your task forces OOB's and loadouts to historically accurate but pleasurable to GUNNY, requirements of tactic and gameplay....... you haven't had time to play this hypathetical "ERWIN FORCE" to anything more than a few generated battles to run a few sucessful tests of playablity.
You've seen some of my canadians screen shots of campaign scores and final maps on these very forums buddy, SO's nows the time to play them all the way threw and show me beyond statistically what YOUR SCIENCE and tactics, and setup, and upgrade sceme, and most of ALL,,,,,, CAMPAIGN TOTAL SCORE with list of battles fought and resulting DV's MV's and DRAWS.
I'm most interested to see if U as a non-realmilitary critic or proponant,have worked on any better strategy than the line abrest infantry infront of tanks{ broadfield } line of advance dispersion i've seen in some of those posts you e-mailed me or with the TBT japanese debackle ?? PLAY THEM THREW, FOREST gump and get back to all us yoakles JUST got to add in the other poke I have on u GUNNY,, they'le never get anywhere with the mines button off RT

< Message edited by Riun T -- 8/13/2006 7:59:20 PM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 7
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 3:08:03 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
OK, Riun, I see your point.  I have NOT tested my so-called "perfect" battalion landing team thru an entire campaign.   

I'm still reading thru campaign studies, and I just got a great book describing the use of tanks by the Marines.  

I won't bore you with a dissertation, but it seemed that the development of proper  tank-infantry coordination for these unique missions was designed by nothing more than trial and error.  Little to no training was conducted in tank -infantry coordination prior to the landing on Guadalcanal. Hell, the tankers were more concerned about being landed safely on the beach. 

As for my "broad -front advances", man, that's the way the USMC did it back then.   The limited fields of observation in a jungle environment meant that gaps had to be covered, to prevent Japanese infiltration.    There wasn't much chance for clever maneuvering.  

Now, some attempts were made to outflank the enemy, but communications were not good, so companies or battalions ended up getting misdirected, and proper coordination of a multi-battalion attack was a  nightmare.

As for in-depth minefields, the Japanese never used them.    They scattered them here and there, but nothing like what we encountered in Europe.   However, they WERE masters at using terrain to construct interlocking fields of fire  -- the object was not to obstruct the advancing enemy, but to lure him into a killing field.   Sneaky bastards, indeed. 

Finally, an amphibious assault was thought to be a suicidal venture prior to WWII. The example of Gallipoli was ever-present.  

In the second phase of the Pacific War, there is no room for subtlety, except maybe  on a limited tactical level.   Every landing was nothing more than a direct frontal assault, with victory being achieved by massive application of firepower delivered by direct fire and close assault.    

Now, my friend, if you've come up with a better way to use finesse in these situations, please let me know. 

_____________________________


(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 8
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 8:15:44 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Just tryin to remember how to get this UO screenshot thingy to work right with conflicting GIMP2 and microsoft paint but I think I got it! my last battle March of 45 and will add core




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Riun T -- 8/15/2006 8:18:18 PM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 9
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 8:22:02 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
This is whom and what got me threw a marine LONG Gunny and you should get a laugh outta how many regular Army grunts fought just as well. Because of positioning and versitility of support , and probably some raw firepower in there TOO




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 10
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 8:25:14 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Try and guess my order of transport and combat {taskforce breakdown } with these??





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 11
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 9:19:49 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Notice all my units are mobile and I didn't stick to any more of a compositional structure than capitalizing on this mobility giving me first grab of the better tactical ground. What general said "before guatalcanal they attacked at their leisure and after they retreated at ours" ?? Based my whole upgrade system on the Marvelous .50 cal. and keeped it moving,then the bigger units to the indespenceable flamethrower,and keeped it moving




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Riun T -- 8/16/2006 5:34:40 PM >

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 12
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:19:18 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
not going with the notion of the 3 infantry companies to 1 tank combat group  and knowing how the japs love to use tanks with recce ontop, thought high mobility with good FO coverage to each platoon was an effort to undercut this concept. I only ran a squad in the real infantry, but the principle and doctrine fore any force size is the same.
Ya got your sniffers/lookers, ya got your smashers and slammers, and ya got your holders and keepers.
Then don't bother to try and compare hypathetical meassures of weapons or statistical preformance,just look at the WAY !!!! your given assets don't have to fullfill the method your enemy WOULD prefer you deploy or utilize them.
WHOM besides an overly nervious commander says the tanks always follow the infantry, and the artillary is always in the rear??? In deathtraps by belton cooper he describes what the allies came up with as the bocage country assault solution, of a US army or engineer A&P squad flanked by .30cal.MMGs and a sherman with the rhino attachment, and the M-12 I think 155mmSP taking up the rear.
The assault squad ran up to the hedge behind the sherman,which breached the bocage and retreated to 50yrds or so to let the assault team recci threw the first portion of the other side while the MMG's tookup the corners of the hole and edge of the hedge to give quartering angle coverfire, the M112 would advance into the mouth of the hedge and give maximum forepower to closerange threats . Great example of improvised doctrine outside of normal application.

< Message edited by Riun T -- 8/15/2006 11:31:37 PM >

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 13
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:20:53 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
more core and support





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 14
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:21:45 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Sorry on repost having shaw problems stinking intreenet connections

< Message edited by Riun T -- 8/15/2006 11:39:14 PM >

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 15
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:22:26 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
again




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 16
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:23:34 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
one more after this




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 17
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:24:46 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
so wadda ya think Gunny??




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 18
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/15/2006 10:51:23 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

OK, Riun, I see your point.  I have NOT tested my so-called "perfect" battalion landing team thru an entire campaign.   

I'm still reading thru campaign studies, and I just got a great book describing the use of tanks by the Marines.  

I won't bore you with a dissertation, but it seemed that the development of proper  tank-infantry coordination for these unique missions was designed by nothing more than trial and error.  Little to no training was conducted in tank -infantry coordination prior to the landing on Guadalcanal. Hell, the tankers were more concerned about being landed safely on the beach. 

As for my "broad -front advances", man, that's the way the USMC did it back then.   The limited fields of observation in a jungle environment meant that gaps had to be covered, to prevent Japanese infiltration.    There wasn't much chance for clever maneuvering.  
{Gaps don't have to be covered if you force them to have to look for you,given that the whole reason they infiltrate is cause their looking for u, having a broad front in the limited vis. means that your enemy can assume that if he masses a force in one general ball infront of any particuler point of your wall he'll bounce back against the felt firepower of that section but eventually breach the sector with mass of men.}
Now, some attempts were made to outflank the enemy, but communications were not good, so companies or battalions ended up getting misdirected, and proper coordination of a multi-battalion attack was a  nightmare.

As for in-depth minefields, the Japanese never used them.{ I'll argue this some in the scence that yes your right they never really sewd whole mine fields but as you said earlier they where masters of layered bunker/tunnel/cave interlocking fields of fire and my uncle tony fought in burma and said they always mined beaches but would boobytrap and pungi stick pit in inland travelways, and a stake pit is way worse than mines IMHO}    They scattered them here and there, but nothing like what we encountered in Europe.   However, they WERE masters at using terrain to construct interlocking fields of fire  -- the object was not to obstruct the advancing enemy, but to lure him into a killing field.   Sneaky bastards, indeed. 

Finally, an amphibious assault was thought to be a suicidal venture prior to WWII. The example of Gallipoli was ever-present.  

In the second phase of the Pacific War, there is no room for subtlety, except maybe  on a limited tactical level.   Every landing was nothing more than a direct frontal assault, with victory being achieved by massive application of firepower delivered by direct fire and close assault.    

Now, my friend, if you've come up with a better way to use finesse in these situations, please let me know. WE DEFINATELY GOTTA TALK MORERT


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 19
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 4:46:54 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
If one sends tanks or armored vehicles forward against undetected, unsupressed enemy Infantry, one is going to lose a good part of his tank or armored force.

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 20
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 5:36:51 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
[Hey tribes,I can agree only to how vauge your statment just was; what kind of ground are these said tanks tryin to cover #1 and what type of tanks are they?? my point with Gunny was to get him to be a little more diverse with his assets utilization and not the marvelous lists of tecnical weapon abilities and hypothetical theories of capacities of the land, your forces, what u think u know about your enemies tactics, there weapons and what u really can get away with during the battle. quote]undetected, unsupressed enemy Infantry, one is going to lose a good part of his tank or armored force. [/quote]

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 21
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 4:32:48 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
It really doesnt matter if the terrain is open , wooded, rough or anything else. Undetected , unsuppressed Infantry will assault your tanks or vehicles as soon as they move next to them. The terrain has nothing to do with the potential success of that assault. Not to mention antitank guns will get several shots before being detected as well.

I agree there are times when you need to bite the bullet and surge your Armor forward. But if you practice that as a tactic in every battle from the get go, you will be replacing a lot of tanks after every battle.

As to your "marine" force.... dont see a lot of actual Marine units or equipment there. Part of the idea is to play "semi historically" with the actual units and equipment present in the Army you are playing as.

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 22
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 5:26:35 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Well tribes I 'll say the same to you as I did to Gunny, put your money where your mouth is and start screenshot and posts to show all of us otherwise.
I'll repeat again for those of u whom may only be pulling very generalized statememnts out of my post to glen, what my point is!!!!
Glenn initialy claimed to have his marine force OOB's down to a science. I mentioned to him on our own personal level of communication that I figured he hadn't played that force enough to spout that, where in the previous posting can u find anything that says I drive anything upto unsupressed,undetected anything ? twotribes...., and I love getting interupted by fellow forumers when they have additional merritt to the discussion,but what are u tryin to say??? My point as you mentioned with "as to your marine force" is that MY tactics,dispersement,and utilization of the forces at hand,a litteral garage sale collection,,, fought the way I wanted them to with alot less casualties than I think Glenns forces with the broad front advance would have.
AND tribes what where your past REAL military affiliations???? YOU A REAL SERVICEMAN???? and did'nt u read the bocage assaulting example???? 

< Message edited by Riun T -- 8/16/2006 5:31:55 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 23
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 6:18:34 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Ahh yes question me on my military background. Exactly what does that have to do with this discussion?

As to what you claimed.... you state that driving tanks forward of infantry is a tactic one should consider rather than always putting them behind the infantry. Your Bocage example ignores the fact that INFANTRY is used to locate and pin the enemy and then the tank moves forward to breach the bocage.

You further ask what terrain is involved regarding driving tanks forward of supporting arms, and I pointed out that in this game, it doesnt matter what terrain your in as it plays no part in whether an infantry assault is successful or not on a tank that has moved adjacent to said Infantry.

Further you talk about a hodge podge force while belittleingGunny. He has chosen to use a "historical" force. Your force is built simply on what is best avaialble across all Allied armies, such a force never actually exsisted. You are comparing Apples and Oranges.

To answer your question. I am a retired Marine GySgt.

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 24
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 7:13:30 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
I don't see anything "wrong" with Riun's choice of forces, as the game allows one to pick and choose as they please.

As for me, I strictly pick from the USMC, and my force is much less mobile.  I have a few jeeps to tow a couple of 37mm ATGs and a couple of  50 cal AAMGs, and use two LVTs to haul my four 81mm mortars.  No halftracks, but a couple of SPMs.  Three tank platoons (Company A, 1st Tank Bn, with 15 M2A4s).  With my three reinforced rifle companies, I have a reasonable facsimile of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, AKA Landing Team 15 circa 1942. That's as far as the "science" goes.

The thing I see you doing, Riun, and it may be subconscious, is giving your core a force structure that's noticeably "modern".  Not that there's anything wrong with that, as you're relying on your own military experience.

  

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 8/16/2006 7:14:24 PM >

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 25
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 7:28:48 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Great to talk to a real fellow grunt buddy, its just very odd for me to get a wack of questions out of the blue,in the middle of my belittleing GUNNY, hahah ahahahaha,if you knew how often glen PM's and e-mails me on my oppinions you'd understand why I'm sortta ribbin him publicly.
I'm mearly a canadian corpral in the north saskatchewan regiment from80-94 retiring from injuries incured in active service in somalia 93. living in saskatoon now.
ANd no MY tanks in the marine campaign played the japs game of having a recce or asslt team riding them up to a contact point determined by the sniffers{ refer to earlier post}and disgourging some smashers or slammers,,
A better gruntlike description of terms:
Sniffers/Lookers= recon units who don't nessassarily see the enemy but threw knowledge of the terrain/cover requirments of their following force and lack of heavy fire power DON"T run directly up the enemies predicted boundries and approach path in plain view and and anounce their presents. they are the pathfinders so to speak because they pay attention to the PATHS you and the enemy have to cross to fight.They are who tells your local platoon where to entrench, and which direction your platoon should fall back to.
These are two seperate catigory of units for function perposes only because their all fighting units {gunny has trouble timing the differant branches} Lookers = the recon resources that you have directly outfront looking for the physical enemy.
When a looker SEES an enemy unit his job is to assess the unit type,threat to the following forces and most of all determine their direction and composition of travel, lookers also try not to be seen themselves and only usually fight defensivly,they will usually also be the ones in touch with the HQ and FO and sometimes radioing to the sniffers to tell them which direction to prepare the platoon and other arriving units for firing,setting ranges and fields of fire,precoordinating Arrty grids.
Smashers/slammers,again not to be confused or combined in the dortrinal preformance
Smashing units are any that may be a little slower in their arrival to the opperating area but make up for it by having enough firepower to stand alone on any part of the battlefield that the sniffers and lookers deem suitable for them to set up to support their platoon.smashing units are the midsize squads or vehicles that can provide heavy,but short term volume fire of middle to heavy calibres to allow the slammers holders and keepers the fluidness of stopping up any holes that develop in the platoons boundries.
Slammers are the liquid assets that dig a foxhole where the sniffers and lookers told them the rear boundry for their section is,but them are mobile inside this boundry to Slam any infiltrators or breaches back infront of the smashers.
And finally the Holders and the keepers again two differant tasks but still a cohesive fighting part of the story that every battle big or small always evolves into.
Holders= the units that may not be your best front line preformers, but having them around compliments the capabilities of that platoons preformance in the boundries set for them near the back.
Keepers = the units inside a particular platoons perimeter that keep their eyes on the condition of the boundry,what units have passes threw that perimeter and whether any area of the boundry can be expanded/advance,or resinded/withdrawn.keepers also assist the slammers in perimeter containment.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 26
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 9:20:14 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
In the fights Gunny has shown me he uses everyone like smashers {the Marines really were YA know} and I was just poking fun on him for this. TWOTRIBES i'm really suprized that I came across badly and hope you feel free to slap me somemore but please include some of your formation building exploits and devulge some playing expertice with the smattering you give me!!
And do u provide towels?? RT

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 27
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 11:06:29 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
I dont play the Marines much, absolutely hate the intial terrain.

I prefer the germans, but sice Enhanced has comeout I have only gotten to 3 battles ona long campaign. Been doing something else. I prefer the germans, starting in 39.

I buy 3 companies of Panzers, 2 companies of motorized SS Infantry and support. The support is different depending on what is avaialble in the version I am playing. I have never finished a long campaign but I did get to early 44 once.

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 28
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/16/2006 11:30:45 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline
Hey twotribes what was your favorite german unit? any particular year don't matter.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 29
RE: Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns - 8/17/2006 12:07:33 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Guys, here's the response to a few questions I posed to an Iwo Jima veteran (for Riun, I use CAPS in a couple of instances -- you'll know why):

(Quote)

I landed as a replacement, so I was armed with the M-1. We were in a shore party run by the Pioneers. They were armed with all the usual personal weapons, except there were no BARs on the beach. (At least not in the shore party)

Yes, the hand held flame thrower was a company weapon and available during the initial assault. I am not sure, but I don't believe the flame thrower was used much in those first 90 minutes, but it was put to use in the mop-up.

The tanks landed on Red Beach at 1145 on D-Day and made their way down to Green Beach. Incidentally, I was working on Red Beach and saw them flounder ashore. Five of the tanks making their way to Green Beach hit LAND MINES  and were put out of action. During those first few days the tanks had difficulty in finding a safe place to refuel and do maintenance work. I haven't seen the statistics, but I understand very few tank crews were lost on Iwo.

The tank was the favorite close support weapon of the assault troops, even though the presence of a tank usually meant a concentration of mortar fire. Our biggest problem with the tank was that they were unable to keep pace with us, and often were not there when we needed them. Because of the rugged terrain and LAND MINES, their forward movement was slow. When we encountered a stuborn pillbox, blockhouse or large cave, a Marine would make his way to the external phone of a tank and a second Marine would position himself in the vicinity of the target. Usually standing above the target, the second Marine would direct the Marine on the phone while he talked the tank into firing position. We made extensive use of both the flame and 75mm tanks.

My personal experiences with the tanks weren't too good. Once after directing a tank into firing position, I found myself dodging a rain of burning napalm blobs. On another occasion I found myself the target of a tank and his 75.
_________________
Bob Allen
B128
Author of "First Battallion of the 28th Marines on Iwo Jima"
(end quote)

Well, I learned some things with this.  Mines DO have a place in the Pacific, but, as I mentioned elsewhere, they weren't used en masse.  From what Mr. Allen has stated, I think they were placed sporadically,  with the specific intention of disabling US AFVs.  Obviously, the Japanese  had some success at this. SO, I suppose I have no choice but to turn mines "on" when playing a Marine campaign.  



< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 8/17/2006 12:12:53 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Here's the Thing About Long Campaigns Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734