US models: Historic or Hollywood?

US models: Historic or Hollywood? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

GUTB -> US models: Historic or Hollywood? (4/14/2002 1:11:28 AM)
You can probably guess by the title of this article that I'm going into it biased. But I can back it up. First of all, let's skip all the nationalistic nonsense and wish-fullfilment and start with pure, hard, researched and accepted historic data: In 1944, the Western Allies suffered 2 losses for 1 Axis loss, with an Allied numeric superiority of 2:1. In 1944, the Soviets suffered 1.7 losses for 1 Axis loss with a Soviet numeric superiority of 1.5:1. So, just by these statistics, we can break can determine a rough "effectiveness" ranking. In order of most effective to least: 1. Axis 2. Soviets 3. Western Allies However, the performance of American units in the game do not reflect that. Shermans have a mythical quality in the game that allows them kill Tigers, Panthers, KVs, T-34s and JSs with frontal turret kills. At the same time, I watch in amazment as 85, 88, 100 and even 122mm shells bounce off. Try setting up a mock battle between M4A3s and T-34-85s and you will watch in wonder as the 85mm round bounce off M4s again and again. The Bazooka, in particular, seems to have taken on it's Hollywood high-HE capability in favor for it's real-life anti-tank warhead. I set up a Soviet Assault vs. US Defend. I put up a Ranger company in defense in good terrian. I armed with Soviets with an equivelent number of Gaurds infantry, but backed up with two ISU-155s, two batteries of rocket artillery, a battery of heavy howitzers, a few 160mm mortars and a bunch of 81mm and 50mm mortars. With pre-knoweledge of the Ranger positions, I set up a pre-planned prep. I let the computer take control of both sides. To my amazment, when the massive artillery strike was over, the US force had maybe lost two or three men total -- despite having turned their hillside into a lunar landscape with the most potent rocket artillery unit in the game, the heaviest mortars in the game, and a bunch of mortars targeting with my God-like knowdge of their exact position. When the Gaurds charged up the hill, they were decimated by Bazookas and stupednously effective fire. The computer flung them again and again into the Hollywood Bazookas until only a ragged remnent remained. Again and again, the Reds charged and were beaten back, rarely even getting a chance to even fire. It was only after the ISU-155s were obliterated, each with ONE Bazooka attack, did the AI figure it was time to send in more artillery (my A0 should have been sent to Siberia for Incompetence). Again, I wantched in MUTE WONDER as the massively cratered hex the Rangers were stacked three-deep in recived TWO DIRECT 160mm hits -- and took NO casultuies. But that's not all. Howitzers, mortars, NOTHING touched those Rangers stacked three ontop each other. Yes they were in a fortified hex in rough terrian, but when does it start getting ridiculous? Another fun test is to set up a US armor attack against German defend using Jagdtigers. Watch as US armor turns aside the massively superior firepower, and repeadtedly score hits on yoru stationary, fortified units while on the move cross-country. A 122mm round, which in real life was enough to kill a Tiger through the front turret at very long ranges only seems to be able to kill Shermans 1/3rd of the time. It's possible to go on and on with sort of thing. It's unfortunate that even serious wargames are subject to the same tired BS.

sven -> (4/14/2002 1:36:19 AM)
Really? Ask Ammo how many men America lost versus Germany after the breakout in France. She'll clean your clock "Supra Genius". regards, sven-who agrees the Germans were "best" at everything....but winning.

Bernie -> (4/14/2002 3:36:40 AM)
Whoa...easy there Sven, the man does make a reasoned presentation. Let's hear him out at least. What I'd like to know is, what version he's using and what patches, OOB's, etc. So much "tinkering" has been done on this game over time I think it's surely possible he might have an old file someplace. I'd also like to know what his pref settings were for the above scenarios.

mogami -> Loss Ratio (4/14/2002 3:52:33 AM)
Those loss ratios are not bad concidering the Allies/Soviets were on the offesive. In SPWaW terms they would be winning the battles if the VH points were high enough to cover the loss. When making assaults on prepared positions you must be willing to accept a negative loss ratio but balance it by securing the objectives. Check and see what the loss ratio was in battles where Germany attempted the offensive. At Kursk in 43 with a 7-1 advantage Germany was unable to win the battle. After Mainstein's Kharkov victory in 43, Army Group South was unable to repeat the performance later on the same ground. Something had to have changed. Using a pure loss ratio without considering the circumstance is misleading. The Western Allies/Soviets during 44 were on the offensive and not stopped by any German effort. Weather/supply held them up more then the Germans. The 44-45 winter offensive on the Western Front gives some interesting results. After the intial breakthrough the ratio shifts to one that favours the allies. The bazooka is probly too effective although I still have no problems defeating the US in 44/45 with the Germans versus the AI even when giving it up to 5x my point value. While against humans I still manage at least draws most of the time. Using arty to kill the enemy is not effective in SPWaW anymore. It works well when used to suppress the enemy before closing to engage but if there is no follow up the enemy recovers. In online battles my opponents use this method to good effect.

Fallschirmjager -> (4/14/2002 4:08:06 AM)
Arty doctrine after WW1 wasnt to kill the enemy anymore. It was used for supression. Armies stopped marching across fields in rows and columns and began to use cover and the small company/platoon begane to operate on its own rather than brigades/regiments. So artty became less of a killing weapons and more of a supression weapon. I play 7.1 and super heavy artty does get kills. anything smaller than 155mm rarley gets kills. 155-210mm gets kills 5-15 % of the time 210mm and those rare guns that go up in size gets a large amount of kills. Large naval guns (in reality 14 inch and up) in the game are probally the most effective artty in terms of getting kills.

GUTB -> (4/14/2002 7:30:33 AM)
In fact, artillery was by far the biggest killer in WW2. 80% of casulties came from artillery fire, including assault guns and AFV cannons. Next comes machineguns and then with a tiny percent going to small arms fire. Ground-attack aviation had a very small impact.

sven -> (4/14/2002 7:31:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GUTB [B]In fact, artillery was by far the biggest killer in WW2. 80% of casulties came from artillery fire, including assault guns and AFV cannons. Next comes machineguns and then with a tiny percent going to small arms fire. Ground-attack aviation had a very small impact. [/B][/QUOTE] Agreed.... Arty was a pitiless killer... We used a lot and far baetter than anyone else in volume. regards, sven-who knows German Arty never matched US Arty....

GUTB -> (4/14/2002 8:12:24 AM)
US artillery was mighty and vast. Soviet artillery was that and even more. Major Soviet artillery strikes were nothing less than tactical nukes. We're talking about about hundreds of thousands rounds falling in the space of a few hours. Tens of thousands of guns firing on a defensive line shattered everything underneath.

sven -> (4/14/2002 8:18:26 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GUTB [B]US artillery was mighty and vast. Soviet artillery was that and even more. Major Soviet artillery strikes were nothing less than tactical nukes. We're talking about about hundreds of thousands rounds falling in the space of a few hours. Tens of thousands of guns firing on a defensive line shattered everything underneath. [/B][/QUOTE] US Arty was infinitely more flexible and had a much quicker call-in time. Ivan believed in total volume of fire, but the US could call all guns on any point. regards, sven

WhiteRook -> (4/14/2002 12:05:51 PM)
Sven is correct ! No body - but no body had the flexibility and TOT that the US Artillery forces had! And I will not contend the point that Russian "massed" artillery was a horror to behold. But I have read many - many accounts from German officers that they were constantly amazed at how fast US arty. was brought down on a target! :)

Warrior -> (4/14/2002 5:16:41 PM)
This type of "But, it's not historic!" thread periodically pops up, and I will remind everyone again that this game was never meant to be, nor could be, totally historically accurate. Compromises had to be made to make it playable.

sven -> (4/14/2002 6:47:16 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by REMF [B]This type of "But, it's not historic!" thread periodically pops up, and I will remind everyone again that this game was never meant to be, nor could be, totally historically accurate. Compromises had to be made to make it playable. [/B][/QUOTE] [I]translated:[/I] The US gets hosed as hard late war as Germany gets bonuses early war.... regards, sven-who understands why but wishes German Fan would stop snivelling...

Belisarius -> (4/15/2002 12:58:58 AM)
I agree. This is a game, and as much as the Shermans are a bit tough to meet, they still toast if treated properly :D :D Only difference is that I/you/we have to be a bit more cautios when driving our cats around the battlefield. So what? It's fun! If I want easy kills, I can always aim at T-26's and such. As for the arty, it is the king of any field, and the U.S. were certainly the Masters of this domain in WWII for reasons already mentioned. ...but don't forget that the German arty doctrine was highly developed as well. U.S. had flexibility and superfast response, the Russians had massed attacks, and the Germans had a very tight co-operation between the arty and ground troops in offensives. Time between the end of a barrage and the first troops reaching the front line was sometimes less than a minute - there was practically no "safe zone" before an offensive. Just had to say it, eh :rolleyes:

JJKettunen -> (4/15/2002 6:16:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius [B] As for the arty, it is the king of any field, and the U.S. were certainly the Masters of this domain in WWII for reasons already mentioned. ...but don't forget that the German arty doctrine was highly developed as well. U.S. had flexibility and superfast response, the Russians had massed attacks, and the Germans had a very tight co-operation between the arty and ground troops in offensives. Time between the end of a barrage and the first troops reaching the front line was sometimes less than a minute - there was practically no "safe zone" before an offensive. Just had to say it, eh :rolleyes: [/B][/QUOTE] Am I wrong, but it seems to me that few people know (Sven has heard about it) that Finnish arty used same kind, but separately developed, fast-response targeting system as Americans (Finnish version by General Vilho Nenonen). German artillery was way behind on this field of arty usage. Fe when German 144th Infantry Division was sent to Viipurinlahti to help Finland repulsing the Soviet�s summer -44 offensive ("The Fourth Strategic Offensive", Operation Bagration was the 5th one, btw) it�s artillery was in fact given only preplanned barrage missions, because German artillery officers hadn�t got a clue (ok, maybe a clue but nothing much more) about fast-responsing, concentrated on-call defensive artillery fire. Americans called it TOT, Finns called it just effective artillery fire, but the basic principles were the same: computing the time of flight from each battery, with weather factors and temperature figured in, and deducting this time from the time the first salvo was to hit so that all batteries' guns would fire at different times but the projectiles would hit the target at the same instant. I know, Americans and especially Russians (no need for TOT!) surely had more guns, but Russians surely appreciated Finnish artillery when hit by concentrated firepower of 16-21 arty btns (various calibres) Finland amassed during the battle of Tali-Ihantala (22.6-4.7. 1944, the largest battle of Scandinavian war history). Germans however learned something: "From Finnish troops, the Germans learned a succesful method of using mortars in woods" - Handbook On German Military Forces (Mar�45), U.S. War Department

JJKettunen -> Re: US models: Historic or Hollywood? (4/15/2002 6:27:19 AM)
[QUOTE]In 1944, the Western Allies suffered 2 losses for 1 Axis loss, with an Allied numeric superiority of 2:1. In 1944, the Soviets suffered 1.7 losses for 1 Axis loss with a Soviet numeric superiority of 1.5:1.[/QUOTE] Here are more accurate numbers from Niklas Zetterling�s book "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness": "It seems that the Allied numerical superiority in Normandy has not been clear to all authors. Indeed some have not even observed it at all. Stephen E. Ambrose has even written: Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin relied on overwhelming numbers, and to some extent American-supplied equipment, to fight the Wehrmacht. The British and Americans were going to have to rely on their soldiers outfighting Nazi soldiers, because the numbers of troops on the opposing sides were roughly equal. This is entirely wrong. When Operation Cobra was launched, the Germans had brought to Normandy about 410,000 men in divisions and non-divisional combat units. If this is multiplied by 1.19 [service and support manpower outside German divisions and non-div units] we arrive at approximately 490,000 soldiers. However, until 23 July, casualties amounted to 116,863, while only 10,078 replacements had arrived. This means that no more than 380,000 soldiers remained in Normandy or supported the fighting in Normandy. On 25 July there were 812,000 US soldiers and 640,000 British in Normandy. This means that the Allies had a 3.8:1 superiority in manpower. This was better than the superiority enjoyed by the Red Army on the Eastern Front. On 1 June 1944 the Soviets pitted 7.25 million men against 2.62 million Germans."

Arralen -> (4/15/2002 6:37:42 AM)
My dear GUTB ! If you want to test the OOB values, never, I repeat never set up forces and let the AI do the work than - and expect historical results. Than better check if you're using the units properly - e.g. what "visibility" setting did you use? 'cause it depends mostly on vis setting at which range tank battles will take place .. remember, 1 hex are 50m, so if you're fighting Shermans with your Jagdtigers and have them both on the screen at once, most likely you're witin 500..700m ... and at that range a Jadgtiger isn't invulnerable to 76mm APCR ammo . Start the shooting at >24 hexes (1200m) .. and you'll see the superior German optics and guns take effect emidiatly. From your description of bouncing 120mm shells I would guess you have tested at point-black range (1hex) .. but there's an (unsolvable) issue with the game engine that sometimes (even in a row) creates unbelievably high hitting angles in that case, which causes practically every round to bounce off .. Furthermore, all those which worked on the OOBs (me too, yeap), tried everything possible to make those values most accurate, so better ask first before starting a rant ... being new to this board is NOT an excuse here... Only thing which may be debatable is the "country training" which influences the command ratings and thereby to-hit, rally and survival chances - so better turn it off for testing. A.

Mikimoto -> More things debatable... (4/15/2002 2:27:09 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arralen [B]My dear GUTB ! If you want to test the OOB values, never, I repeat never set up forces and let the AI do the work than - and expect historical results. Than better check if you're using the units properly - e.g. what "visibility" setting did you use? 'cause it depends mostly on vis setting at which range tank battles will take place .. remember, 1 hex are 50m, so if you're fighting Shermans with your Jagdtigers and have them both on the screen at once, most likely you're witin 500..700m ... and at that range a Jadgtiger isn't invulnerable to 76mm APCR ammo . Start the shooting at >24 hexes (1200m) .. and you'll see the superior German optics and guns take effect emidiatly. From your description of bouncing 120mm shells I would guess you have tested at point-black range (1hex) .. but there's an (unsolvable) issue with the game engine that sometimes (even in a row) creates unbelievably high hitting angles in that case, which causes practically every round to bounce off .. Furthermore, all those which worked on the OOBs (me too, yeap), tried everything possible to make those values most accurate, so better ask first before starting a rant ... being new to this board is NOT an excuse here... Only thing which may be debatable is the "country training" which influences the command ratings and thereby to-hit, rally and survival chances - so better turn it off for testing. A. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi. Frontally? I have never readed about a Jagdtiger vulnerable at 500/700 mts to 76mm APCR ammo... it is only in your imagination and in Spwaw... perhaps if the tank commander is busy looking for jabos, with open hatches, can you explode his head... The US are over-modeled in Spwaw, in my opinion. Take a Sherman and win over all the Gerries can throw against you...

Arralen -> (4/15/2002 6:01:18 PM)
Oh *** .. got the range wrong myself. Fact is, the Jagdtigers front armor in OOB v7.1 is correct (hull 150@50 and turret 250@15). The Jagdpanthers is as well ... Fact is, the M1A1 76mm was able to penetrate 158mm (500m/ 30�) with HVAP (using the APCR slot in SPWAW). SPWAW shows 170mm for the M1A1 gun.( + 7.6%) The Jagdpanthers 8.8KwK41 /L71 is rated as AP221/APCR227, while it had (from the same tables) 185 (+19.4%) and 217(+4.6%) The Jagdtigers 128 Pak44 /L55 is rated with 175/215 (500m/30�) .. SPWAW says PenAP 230mm what in fact gives the penetration of the APC ammo. What you can see from this: If anything is overrated, than it's the AP ammo of either Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger. If you fight at ranges of 500m and more, the Sherman cannot hurt the Jagdtiger by direct frontal penetration .. but it can penetrate the front hull of the Jagdpanther at this range. If you fight at ranges of less than 10 hexes, frontal penetrations are possible. Also keep in mind that armor quality on the Jagdtigers was somewhat limited. You should accept that these tanks where quite good, but shurely not "Superwaffen" (there's no word as "Ueberwaffen in german..). Used correctly -long range ambush- they are (where) absolutly devastating, but pitted into a close-in fight against multiple foes (which the Allies could easily supply) has them killed rather quick. hope this is helpful, A.

11Bravo -> (4/15/2002 9:07:56 PM)
GUTB, Whenever I feel that my enemies units are too strong, I simply change sides for my next battle. That usually cures the problem. :)

gnoccop -> (4/15/2002 11:44:07 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 11Bravo [B]GUTB, Whenever I feel that my enemies units are too strong, I simply change sides for my next battle. That usually cures the problem. :) [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah! Me too! and I never forget this is a game that tray to simulate reality, but it's still completely different from realty; and indeed give me a lot of amusement! :) Ciao.

panda124c -> Re: Re: US models: Historic or Hollywood? (4/16/2002 12:56:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Keke [B] Here are more accurate numbers from Niklas Zetterling�s book "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness": "It seems that the Allied numerical superiority in Normandy has not been clear to all authors. Indeed some have not even observed it at all. Stephen E. Ambrose has even written: Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin relied on overwhelming numbers, and to some extent American-supplied equipment, to fight the Wehrmacht. The British and Americans were going to have to rely on their soldiers outfighting Nazi soldiers, because the numbers of troops on the opposing sides were roughly equal. This is entirely wrong. When Operation Cobra was launched, the Germans had brought to Normandy about 410,000 men in divisions and non-divisional combat units. If this is multiplied by 1.19 [service and support manpower outside German divisions and non-div units] we arrive at approximately 490,000 soldiers. However, until 23 July, casualties amounted to 116,863, while only 10,078 replacements had arrived. This means that no more than 380,000 soldiers remained in Normandy or supported the fighting in Normandy. On 25 July there were 812,000 US soldiers and 640,000 British in Normandy. This means that the Allies had a 3.8:1 superiority in manpower. This was better than the superiority enjoyed by the Red Army on the Eastern Front. On 1 June 1944 the Soviets pitted 7.25 million men against 2.62 million Germans." [/B][/QUOTE] Just out of curiosity how many of the Allied armies were 'service and support manpower outside of divisional and non-div units'? The number I seem to remember (my memory is not the best) was 3:1 (3 support for each combat soldier) which make the Allied armies 484,000 to the German 380,000 or 1.2 to 1. And this does not include losses or replacements. The US Army is known for it large support troops to combat troops ratio. The Germans are known for their fairly low support troops to combat troops ratio.

Charles2222 -> (4/16/2002 1:20:15 AM)
pbear: I wouldn't be too sure about that. I'm not sure where I heard it, but you know the Germans always had at least what they called 2,000,000 on the Eastern Front, but I recall a general saying that they at no time had more then 250,000 fighting at the front in the latter years. Of course what he meant by that I'm not totally certain. It seemed it was in context of the vast bureaucracy that had built up in the east.

JVRyk5 -> (4/16/2002 5:33:05 AM)
Side note. In infantry formations artillery causes most casaulties in first 30 sec of barrage. After that, most soldiers have deasent cover. (Don't remember what source said that, but it is in my library, I'm sure of it.) Wrong thread ? I think I go to bed.

JJKettunen -> Re: Re: Re: US models: Historic or Hollywood? (4/16/2002 6:10:42 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pbear [B] Just out of curiosity how many of the Allied armies were 'service and support manpower outside of divisional and non-div units'? The number I seem to remember (my memory is not the best) was 3:1 (3 support for each combat soldier) which make the Allied armies 484,000 to the German 380,000 or 1.2 to 1. And this does not include losses or replacements. The US Army is known for it large support troops to combat troops ratio. The Germans are known for their fairly low support troops to combat troops ratio. [/B][/QUOTE] I�m maybe mathematically retarted, but with that information, taken as granted, wouldn�t it make Allied troops 363,000 to the German 319,000 (no support units included)? Considering the quality of bocage country, it would be disaster to to attack with that ratio, even in a situation were defender has no arty support and poorer equipment. I�m sure that US Army had the largest support troops in the world, but when considering "service and support manpower OUTSIDE of divisional and non-div units", wasn�t major part of those still on the other side of the English channel on July 25 1944. And does it matter? After all, one well-supplied soldier is worth of bunch poorly supplied ones, if they are otherwise on the same skill level. Or something...

AmmoSgt -> (4/17/2002 12:26:13 PM)
GUTB I have to question your casulity figures . In WW2 the US suffered about 300,000 killed on all fronts, while the Germans suffered about 4,500,000 combatants killed. In the ETO The US suffered about 180,000 killed in combat with about 60,000 of those being from aircrews. The US had a much higher wounded to killed ratio due to the US having penicilin , hence a higher proportion of US wounded survived. The numbers I have, indicate , despite the fact that US Forces were on the offensive , the US had about 120,000 dead and 500,000 wounded in the ETO from ground combat, while inflicting over 500,000 dead and about the same number wounded . US Arty was the primary casuality producer . The US had more Arty Bn's in the ETO than Tank Bn's . US Arty was much better supplied despite having to supply transatlantic. As stated above most casulities from arty occur very early in a barrage , The US was the master at co-ordinated fires . TOT was developed in the 1930's . In addition to TOT , VT fuzing ( also called proximity fuzing )increased the lethality of US Arty by a factor of about 4 . The Only other country to have VT Fuzing was Britian. Physics do not lie. Pen and armor are based on physics. IF the US player uses more than 1 in 4 76mm armed Shermans in the game buy , that is historically questionable, much like Tigers being in every battle in the game ( heck just having any Tanks in EVERY battle is not Historically proper, most battles were Infantry and Arty affairs), However the US had as many AT Bn's armed with M10's M18's and M-36's as it did Tank Bn's in the ETO. So a 50/50 mix of TD's and Tanks is appropiate, Primarly M-10's. The Bazooka did have HE capability and even more devestating it had a White Phosphorus for both smoke and anti- personnel use which is not even modeled in SPWAW. The doctrine of using Bazookas against dug-in Infantry was prefected in the PTO well before Normandy. The Bazooka was one of the few weapons so respected by the Germans they actually copied it. The TO&E issue on Bazookas is actually under represented in the Game insofar as Mech Infantry had 68 Bazookas in a Bn and most non tank combat vehicles had one issued as part of the Vehicle equipment. German casulities where so high , even on defense , primarily due to the massive intial bombardments by US Arty and Air. I defy anybody to find a Russian Bombardment that matched the tonnage of HE that was delivered on the Panzer Lehr Div in France . US Heavy and Medium Bombers in addition to US Arty literally destroyed over 50% of the Division at the outset of the battle. In fact, if you factor in Naval Bombardment, prepatory US fires preceeding Amphibious Assults , tonnage wise, were compareable to Soviet massed Arty fires . The closest to equal casualities the the Germans achieved against the US ( unless you count Normandy and ignore German casulities caused by Air and Naval fires ) was at the Battle of the Bulge. US 80,000 including wounded , Germans about 110,000. Most US casulities occured in the initial week while the Germans had intially a 6 to 1 advantage down to about 2 to 1 by the end of the first week. The Tooth to Tail ratio for the US was about 1 to 7 total ( counting the whole "back to stateside" logistical train, about 1 to 4 in the ETO proper. Most of this info is easily available doing a simple websearch.

tohoku -> (4/17/2002 1:13:25 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt US Arty was the primary casuality producer . The US had more Arty Bn's in the ETO than Tank Bn's . US Arty was much better supplied despite having to supply transatlantic. As stated above most casulities from arty occur very early in a barrage , The US was the master at co-ordinated fires . [/QUOTE] Artillery was the primary casualty producer for all the major armies excepting the Japanese. [QUOTE] I defy anybody to find a Russian Bombardment that matched the tonnage of HE that was delivered on the Panzer Lehr Div in France . US Heavy and Medium Bombers in addition to US Arty literally destroyed over 50% of the Division at the outset of the battle. [/QUOTE] Panzer Lehr was destroyed by the British wasn't it? By the time it was transferred to the US sector, it had lost almost 75% of its strength. Hastings has a very good account of this sort of info - many of the Panzer Divisions had already been heavily gouged by the British before they were moved to face the US forces. I'm not entirely sure that US forces ever faced a full-strength Panzer division. Anyone? The Ardennes would be the best bet, but I think even there most German units were well under establishment weren't they? Anyway, what was the establishment of a US infantry division and how does that relate to the numbers, given that several units suffered over 100% casualty rates (IIRC, US 90th suffered over 150%!) over the first four to six weeks of Normandy? Wouldn't that make those units an improbably large percentage of the outright totals you quoted? tohoku YMMV

wargamer -> Light arty. (4/18/2002 2:27:39 AM)
In the game light arty and mortars are almost completley useles. In all the games I ahve played I have only scored a few kills with medium mortars. This is not very accurate, the medium mortar was a very effective veapon. In fact the german 81mm mortars were one of the most effective killer of WW2. And a bombardment isn't really effective for more than 15 seconds, the same goes for armbushes.

JJKettunen -> Re: Light arty. (4/18/2002 2:39:50 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by wargamer [B]In the game light arty and mortars are almost completley useles. In all the games I ahve played I have only scored a few kills with medium mortars. This is not very accurate, the medium mortar was a very effective veapon. In fact the german 81mm mortars were one of the most effective killer of WW2. And a bombardment isn't really effective for more than 15 seconds, the same goes for armbushes. [/B][/QUOTE] That�s right. While playing SPWAW one could think that light and medium mortars are only waste of valuable resources (points that is in game terms). In reality mortars were very effective when used properly, especially in forests.

Paul Vebber -> (4/18/2002 10:53:59 AM)
Ah, the Q-1R "WHy don't operational level metrics apply to tactical battles" questions. Its inappropriate to use theater level operational metrics to apply to tactical level situations. One of the first lessons of Ops Reasearch 101... The Germans are overrated, the US are overrated, The Finns are overrated, The Japanese are overrated. I haven't heard the SOviets or British being being rated lately... Penetration physics are based on statisitcs. IF your pen vlaue in teh game is higher than the enemy effective armor, you don't automatically kill it. Same with the case of your pen not being equal to the enemy effective armor. SP:WaW isn't perfect, but it is one of the best representations of the relative vulnerabilities out there. Shermans for example (in 7.1) run the gamut from the early "ronson's" to the Easy 8s that with a 76mm gun are not a big notch below the vaunted Panther. THen there is the information problem. THe game is really "what if the Borg fought each other with WW2 equipment" THat warps casualties significantly out of proportion. IT allows the player to exploit opportunies real commanders would drool over. Artillery was the biggest casue of casualties, but that was becasue the sort of battle the game protrays was actually rare, compared to the harrassment bombardments that went on day after day. Like WWI, the massive bombardments of thousands of tubes managed to render whole battalions combat ineffective, but killed realtively few people. Examples of all countries units being subjective to 100's of pounds of ordnance per sq yard, survivng to mount staunch defenses if the bombardment wasn't immediately followed up with the assualt. MOrtars casued the most devestating casualties when fired with "direct observation" against troops advancing in the open. The vulnerability of a trooper advancing upright is 11 times greater than one lying prone and most evaluations or artillery credit it as ineefective at producing casualties if the targets are able to find any cover below ground level. Artillery was (and still is) used to suppress, shock and awe the enemy - not to kill them. If it was then , like aerial bombardment, there would be no need for ground forces - somebody ends up defending after bombardments! The sort of "if I use enough artillery I can make it across no-man's land and take the trenches" was disproved in WW1. Thats not to say the arty model in SP:WaW is perfect - far form it! We are making significant changes in CL.

Capt. Pixel -> The Days of Beer and Pretzels (4/19/2002 2:08:08 AM)
I know many of you remember these days - Rolling dice (under the table sometimes - across the room occasionally:rolleyes: ) Cross referencing soda-stained result tables. Moving stacks of cardboard chits and counters across a wrinkled paper map (and keeping a CLOSE eye on that darned cat) "Well, I've only got 4 counters for this type of unit. So that's all you get" "Get the LOSometer, I don't think you can see me" "I've got 4-5 hours free next Saturday, How about you?" "Can't, gotta go to the wifes Office party - how's about Sunday" etc. etc. etc. Although I occasionally miss the across the board face-to-face interaction, I don't miss anything else about those 'good ole days' :D As far as I'm concerned - THESE are the good ole days! Sometimes I think some here would take an exquisite model of the USS Constitution (a famous sailing warship) and pick it apart for being 'unrealistic' because the belaying pins were made from the wrong type of wood for the period! It's not perfect? That depends on what you're looking for. I was looking for an entertaining pastime that I could engage in whenever, and with whatever free time I had available. Low cost was not particularly an issue, but who would complain about that? (around here there's a few, it seems) It may not be perfect for all but it suits me just fine. When I consider the thousands and thousands of hours and hundreds of people who've contributed to this final incarnation of SPW@W, it just boggles my mind. I just want to say Thank You, once again. :D Oh, by the way. I was not directing any of my above comments to anyone in this thread or anyone in particular. Thank you. Peace.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.765625