RE: 1.59 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> Scenario Design



Message

JMass -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 3:04:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
Can anyone cite any examples -- outside of Soviet propaganda -- of a German tank force suffering significant losses to their fire?


Schurzen were employed on german tanks to avoid side perforations by soviet AT rifles, I think that them could be considered Heavy AT Rifles.



Panama -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 3:10:58 PM)

PzKpfwIII and IV were vulnerable to flank and rear shot (V to rear shot) by the 14.5mm AT Rifle at close range (100 meters). Probably more of a harassment weapon but there were a lot of them. About 470k during the war. Other than a few bazookas from the U.S. it was all they had that was man portable.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 3:16:34 PM)

And there's all sorts of light armor out there other than tanks (halftracks, armored cars, etc.).



ColinWright -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 4:08:37 PM)

One gets into the value TOAW assigns to the things. An AT rifle has a value of one. What's a 50 mm AT gun? Six?

Would six AT rifles be worth one 50 mm AT gun? I think not. Your typical late 1942 Russian infantry division might have in practice fielded half a dozen 45 mm AT guns and perhaps a score of 76 mm artillery pieces -- and I dunno -- fifty AT rifles?

So represent the AT rifles, and each of these categories acquires about the same potency as tank killers. But what would actually being doing most of the killing? Not the AT rifles.

One just does not read sentences like this:

"...having suffered severe losses to the Russian AT rifles, Panzer Regiment 5 was forced to break off the attack..."

I don't see any historical or other evidence that justifies including them in the game. The Russians probably issued the things so that their infantry wouldn't feel utterly helpless -- but I don't think they worked.

AT rifles seem to have at times been regarded as utterly worthless. Even when they weren't utterly worthless, I doubt if they had a value that would justify representing them in the game.

It is, if nothing else a tidy solution to the problem of how to represent AT rifles, and which ones. Don't represent them at all. Probably more accurate than the alternative.



briantopp -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 4:08:56 PM)

-delete-



samba_liten -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 6:12:55 PM)

All right, the pz divisions all have individual diagrams. I'll start with 1.Pz Div. Please note that new K.st.N. were issued and a reorganization started in July, so these numbers are correct only until then.

Division HQ with:
2 Light Rifle Squads

1st Pz.Rgt with:
28 Pz. IV short
35 PZ. II
48 Pz. III 37mm
8 Rifle Squads

That's 2 medium and 4 light companies, plus the staff zug.

Before i go on, i should note that the Pz.Gren. Rifle Squads had 14 men each. Each company had 18 LMG and 2 HMG. In light of this i have chosen to portray them as Heavy Rifle Squads. As usual, i portray any riflemen associated with AT units etc as light.
1. Pz.Gren.Brigade with:
15 37mm AT
248 Heavy Rifle Squads
5 Light Rifle Squads
21 Engineer Squads
68 Motorcycle Squads (including 14 Heavy Motorcycle Squads, if such exist in the editor)
14 75mm Inf Guns
14 150mm Inf Guns
30 82mm Mortars

Please note: The diagram shows these units as a brigade, composed of the 1st and 113th regiments. Half of each regiment (1 Battalion) is armored, and the other half is motorized. In order to break the brigade into regiments, divide everything by 2, except the motorcycle units who come from a separate battalion. Also leave 3AT guns, 2 75mm Inf. Guns, 1 Light Rifle squad and 6 82mm Mortars for the bicycle battalion. Further subtract 6 150mm inf guns, which come from a separate company, numbered 702, and including tracked transport for the guns. I suppose that might make them self-propelled, if any SP arty of that caliber was around in '41?

Artillery Regiment 73 with:
18 Light Rifle Squads
12 s.F.H. 18
24 l.F.H. 18
All the guns come with motor transport.

4. Motorized Recon Battalion with:
3 Sd.Kfz. 231
3 Sd.Kfz. 232
16 Sd.Kfz. 221
4 leichter Pz.Sp.Wg. (2cm Kw.K.30)

37. Anti-tank Battalion with:
2 Quad 20mm AA Guns
8 20mm AA guns
All AA guns with the tracked symbol. Self-propelled?
9 50mm AT Guns
24 37mm AT Guns
18 Light Rifle Squads

More tomorrow[:)]

EDIT: Corrected sloppiness. Thanks for pointing it out!



Panama -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 6:26:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Would six AT rifles be worth one 50 mm AT gun? I think not. Your typical late 1942 Russian infantry division might have in practice fielded half a dozen 45 mm AT guns and perhaps a score of 76 mm artillery pieces -- and I dunno -- fifty AT rifles?



Impossible to add up six AT rifles to equal one AT gun of any size since they have completely different penetration values. Your typical Soviet Rifle division was supposed to have 212 AT rifles (18 March 1942). Like I said, it was the only man portable AT weapon available. At least with a range more than what can be thrown by a man. Because there were so many they actually did cause a problem for the Germans.

"Although not powerful enough to destroy a tank, they were such a painful nuisance that in 1943 the Germans began to place armour skirts around the sides of the turret and hull of their tanks and assault guns to protect against this menace." Companion to the Red Army, Steven J. Zaloga & Leland S. Ness, page196. BTW, the was formerly called The Red Army Hand Book. Exact same book, different name.

Now I had assumed the Germans put on the skirts to protect from shaped charges the Soviets copied from the Germans. They weren't available to the Soviets until late 42 even though the design was poor as was velocity and penetration wasn't so great either. So I'm a little confused here as to exactly why the Germans used the skirting.

I imagine if the battlefield were a billiard table they would be utterly worthless since you wouldn't get close enough to use them. However, there were huge tracts of forests in the Soviet Union. Not to mention buildings.

BTW, they also could do a fair job of killing a man whether or not he was behind a wall. And as Bob pointed out, there were a lot of non tank vehicles.




sPzAbt653 -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 7:31:55 PM)

For what its worth, I gave 212 Heavy AT Rifles to a Soviet division and it raised its Anti Armor Strength from 3 to 5, which would outclass the armor rating of all but the later models of German tanks. That might make sense, as the later versions had thicker armor or skirts. Does one AT Rifle in TOAW = one AT Rifle, or a section with multiple rifles?



Panama -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 9:17:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

For what its worth, I gave 212 Heavy AT Rifles to a Soviet division and it raised its Anti Armor Strength from 3 to 5, which would outclass the armor rating of all but the later models of German tanks. That might make sense, as the later versions had thicker armor or skirts. Does one AT Rifle in TOAW = one AT Rifle, or a section with multiple rifles?


Looking in the equipment editor and comparing it to small AT guns I'd have to say one AT rifle. It needs to have an AP strenght too. It's zero in the game.



r6kunz -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 9:25:14 PM)

Again, nice work. I would, however, like to revisit the number of rifle squads in the schützen regiment.
My sources put two MG34 in each rifle squad, so the 18 LMG per company in Niehorster gives nine rifle squads per company, or a total of 9 x 3 =27 per battalion, or 54 rifle squads per schützen regiment. See:
http://www.bayonetstrength.com/german_army/ger_png_bat_39_40 :
• Three Rifle Companies (5 Officers, 222 men), each comprised of;
o Company HQ (1 Officer, 9 men)
o Company Train and Maintenance (22 men)
o Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 41 men)
o Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Light Mortar Section (4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 14 men
Suggested Total Strength of 1008 all ranks (29 Officers and 979 men)


Let me know what you think.



BigDuke66 -> RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" (11/26/2010 9:30:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
1st Pz.Rgt with:
14 Pz. IV short
14 PZ. II
22 Pz. III 37mm
8 Rifle Squads

That's 2 medium and 5 light companies, including the staff company.

Is that correct?
"Panzer Divisions" from Battistelli lists this:
***
The basic organization of a 1941 Panzer Regiment thus included a
regimental Stab with one PzKpfw III, two PzBefh and five PzKpfw II; the
Abteilung Stab had the same allowance, eventually increasing to eight PzKpfw
II. Each one of the two leichte Panzer Kompanien had 17 PzKpfw III and five
PzKpfw II, while the mittlere Panzer Kompanie had 14 PzKpfw IV and five
PzKpfw II for a total of 45 PzKpfw II, 71 PzKpfw III and 28 PzKpfw IV, plus six
PzBefh in a basic Panzer Regiment (the Staffel, with spare tanks, excluded).
***
And by November 3 more Pz II to each Abteilung making it 51 Pz II.
Jentz tables look similar.



samba_liten -> RE: "Battle for Moscow 1941-1943" (11/26/2010 9:51:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
1st Pz.Rgt with:
14 Pz. IV short
14 PZ. II
22 Pz. III 37mm
8 Rifle Squads

That's 2 medium and 5 light companies, including the staff company.

Is that correct?
"Panzer Divisions" from Battistelli lists this:
***
The basic organization of a 1941 Panzer Regiment thus included a
regimental Stab with one PzKpfw III, two PzBefh and five PzKpfw II; the
Abteilung Stab had the same allowance, eventually increasing to eight PzKpfw
II. Each one of the two leichte Panzer Kompanien had 17 PzKpfw III and five
PzKpfw II, while the mittlere Panzer Kompanie had 14 PzKpfw IV and five
PzKpfw II for a total of 45 PzKpfw II, 71 PzKpfw III and 28 PzKpfw IV, plus six
PzBefh in a basic Panzer Regiment (the Staffel, with spare tanks, excluded).
***
And by November 3 more Pz II to each Abteilung making it 51 Pz II.
Jentz tables look similar.

Of course you are right. I wrote the total number of companies at the bottom, but i seem to have forgotten to do the math![sm=00000007.gif]

I will correct the post shortly.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 10:22:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

One gets into the value TOAW assigns to the things. An AT rifle has a value of one. What's a 50 mm AT gun? Six?

Would six AT rifles be worth one 50 mm AT gun? I think not.


AT strengths aren't summed. They are applied individually.



samba_liten -> RE: 1.59 (11/26/2010 10:26:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Again, nice work. I would, however, like to revisit the number of rifle squads in the schützen regiment.
My sources put two MG34 in each rifle squad, so the 18 LMG per company in Niehorster gives nine rifle squads per company, or a total of 9 x 3 =27 per battalion, or 54 rifle squads per schützen regiment. See:
http://www.bayonetstrength.com/german_army/ger_png_bat_39_40 :
• Three Rifle Companies (5 Officers, 222 men), each comprised of;
o Company HQ (1 Officer, 9 men)
o Company Train and Maintenance (22 men)
o Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 41 men)
o Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Light Mortar Section (4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 14 men
Suggested Total Strength of 1008 all ranks (29 Officers and 979 men)


Let me know what you think.



I need to redo that bit when i can think clearly again. I ignored the "B" option, which in retrospect makes no sense since the math for two MG's per squad works out a lot better.
So the squads will still be heavy, but there will be less of them. Still more than 54 though, as i put the HMG's in as one Heavy Rifle Squad per HMG on the diagram, for the MG companies that is. There will be a few more added to represent the company MG platoons as well.

Does the above sound reasonable?
Also, how do you like my light rifle squad solution?

I wont attempt that until i have a good nights sleep though. My math is bad enough even when i am fully awake.[:D]



Panama -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 12:17:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Again, nice work. I would, however, like to revisit the number of rifle squads in the schützen regiment.
My sources put two MG34 in each rifle squad, so the 18 LMG per company in Niehorster gives nine rifle squads per company, or a total of 9 x 3 =27 per battalion, or 54 rifle squads per schützen regiment. See:
http://www.bayonetstrength.com/german_army/ger_png_bat_39_40 :
• Three Rifle Companies (5 Officers, 222 men), each comprised of;
o Company HQ (1 Officer, 9 men)
o Company Train and Maintenance (22 men)
o Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 41 men)
o Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Light Mortar Section (4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 14 men
Suggested Total Strength of 1008 all ranks (29 Officers and 979 men)


Let me know what you think.



I need to redo that bit when i can think clearly again. I ignored the "B" option, which in retrospect makes no sense since the math for two MG's per squad works out a lot better.
So the squads will still be heavy, but there will be less of them. Still more than 54 though, as i put the HMG's in as one Heavy Rifle Squad per HMG on the diagram, for the MG companies that is. There will be a few more added to represent the company MG platoons as well.

Does the above sound reasonable?
Also, how do you like my light rifle squad solution?

I wont attempt that until i have a good nights sleep though. My math is bad enough even when i am fully awake.[:D]



I have a question regarding German HMG. It is the exact same gun as a light machine gun except it's on a tripod and is belt fed instead of drum fed right? Except in practice the troops mainly used the drum fed light machine gun version with bipod with the belts meant for the tripod version. Wouldn't that make the light machine gun more of a medium machine gun? Or better, the HMG more of a medium MG?

One of the reasons I ask is because of the AT strength given to HMG. While I can see a .50cal or a 12.7mm having some armor penetration, I don't see how a 7.92mm machine gun can be equal to those two.

How's this?:

MG34 HMG penetrates 15@0 at 20m.
MG42 HMG penetrates 15@0 at 25m.

Soviet Maxim MMG penetrates 8@35 at 30m
Soviet 12.7mm DShK HMG penetrates 8@35 at 800m and 30@0 at 25m.




ColinWright -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 8:08:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

One gets into the value TOAW assigns to the things. An AT rifle has a value of one. What's a 50 mm AT gun? Six?

Would six AT rifles be worth one 50 mm AT gun? I think not.


AT strengths aren't summed. They are applied individually.


That sounds like it would make matters worse, not better. If I were in a tank, I'd far rather give someone six chances to shoot at me with an AT rifle than one chance with a mid-range AT gun.

Now, if you can show me that an AT rifle has no significant chance of knocking out a Pz III, that's some help -- but I still see the things as over-rated simply by being included. They're heavy, usually single-shot weapons of minimal utility against anything. They were literally abandoned by troops in the field.

I suppose there's a small mid-range of equipment that they can actually penetrate but a machine gun can't bother -- but it's small.

Anyway, if anyone else wants to put the things in their scenarios, have at it -- I don't mind. However, as I say, the conclusion I've reached with respect to mine is that accuracy is somewhat improved if the things are omitted.



ColinWright -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 8:11:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Again, nice work. I would, however, like to revisit the number of rifle squads in the schützen regiment.
My sources put two MG34 in each rifle squad, so the 18 LMG per company in Niehorster gives nine rifle squads per company, or a total of 9 x 3 =27 per battalion, or 54 rifle squads per schützen regiment. See:
http://www.bayonetstrength.com/german_army/ger_png_bat_39_40 :
• Three Rifle Companies (5 Officers, 222 men), each comprised of;
o Company HQ (1 Officer, 9 men)
o Company Train and Maintenance (22 men)
o Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 41 men)
o Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Light Mortar Section (4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 14 men
Suggested Total Strength of 1008 all ranks (29 Officers and 979 men)


Let me know what you think.



I need to redo that bit when i can think clearly again. I ignored the "B" option, which in retrospect makes no sense since the math for two MG's per squad works out a lot better.
So the squads will still be heavy, but there will be less of them. Still more than 54 though, as i put the HMG's in as one Heavy Rifle Squad per HMG on the diagram, for the MG companies that is. There will be a few more added to represent the company MG platoons as well.

Does the above sound reasonable?
Also, how do you like my light rifle squad solution?

I wont attempt that until i have a good nights sleep though. My math is bad enough even when i am fully awake.[:D]



I have a question regarding German HMG. It is the exact same gun as a light machine gun except it's on a tripod and is belt fed instead of drum fed right? Except in practice the troops mainly used the drum fed light machine gun version with bipod with the belts meant for the tripod version. Wouldn't that make the light machine gun more of a medium machine gun? Or better, the HMG more of a medium MG?

One of the reasons I ask is because of the AT strength given to HMG. While I can see a .50cal or a 12.7mm having some armor penetration, I don't see how a 7.92mm machine gun can be equal to those two.

How's this?:

MG34 HMG penetrates 15@0 at 20m.
MG42 HMG penetrates 15@0 at 25m.

Soviet Maxim MMG penetrates 8@35 at 30m
Soviet 12.7mm DShK HMG penetrates 8@35 at 800m and 30@0 at 25m.




I classify all rifle-calibre MG's as medium MG's if they are in separate platoons or companies. Otherwise, they are reasons to make squads rifle rather than light rifle, or heavy rifle rather than rifle.

Perhaps needless to say, this means my scenarios contain very few heavy MG's -- but that's okay.



ColinWright -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 8:33:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

For what its worth, I gave 212 Heavy AT Rifles to a Soviet division and it raised its Anti Armor Strength from 3 to 5, which would outclass the armor rating of all but the later models of German tanks. That might make sense, as the later versions had thicker armor or skirts. Does one AT Rifle in TOAW = one AT Rifle, or a section with multiple rifles?


Looking in the equipment editor and comparing it to small AT guns I'd have to say one AT rifle. It needs to have an AP strenght too. It's zero in the game.


The question isn't really whether it has some value, but whether a value of even 'one' overvalues it -- particularly against soft targets.

There are all kinds of things that are of some military value -- from the commander's pistol to whether there are plenty of empty bottles, rags, and gasoline around. However, to attempt to represent them may skew things more than if one simply omits them.

Who was it who said 'he who attempts to defend everything defends nothing'? Maybe in the end, if you attempt to represent everything, you represent nothing.

I'd tend to see other factors -- the discipline and training of the troops, the terrain they were in, the discipline and training of the tanks attacking them -- as far more important than precisely which ineffectual infantry AT weapons they had. I'd be very reluctant to plonk 212 AT rifles into a Soviet Division and assume that I was thereby more accurately representing its AT ability.

After all, the Finns simply invented Molotov Cocktails -- and presumably they worked reasonably well against ineptly handled Soviet Armor. An Ethiopian once got the turret of an Italian tankette open and beheaded the gunner. His compatriots then trapped the rest of the platoon by rolling rocks down on them. When the crews panicked and attempted to flee on foot, the Ethiopians chased them down.

Below a certain threshold, it's who is using the weapon, not precisely what the weapon is. If I thought -- for whatever reason -- that the infantry in the scenario I was designing had some AT ability above the average for the period, I'd up them to 'AT-,' not frig around with counting AT rifles. I just don't see the assigned value as having any validity. It'd be like counting stationary stocks to determine formation proficiency.

Twelve 76 mm AT guns imply a certain concrete AT capacity. I don't see 212 AT rifles as conferring anything like the equivalent.



BigDuke66 -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 10:08:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
1st Pz.Rgt with:
28 Pz. IV short
35 PZ. II
48 Pz. III 37mm
8 Rifle Squads

That's 2 medium and 4 light companies, plus the staff zug.


Close but still not correct at least if it's right what I have on my list.

45 PzKpfw II(51 Pz II)
71 PzKpfw III
28 PzKpfw IV
6 PzBefh
(without the Staffel with spare tanks)
What K.St.N. are you using?
I use 1103, 1150, 1178, 1171 & 1175 most of them are from 1st November 41 and don't differ much from 1st February 41 releases, big difference aside from the structure is the addition of a Pionier Zug consisting of 3 PzKpfw II what raised the amount of PzKpfw II to 51.

Look at these:
http://www.w7l1p4dc2.homepage.t-online.de/Panzer%20Divisions%20-%20The%20Eastern%20Front%201941-43%2017.pdf
http://www.w7l1p4dc2.homepage.t-online.de/Panzertruppen%201933-1942%20216-218.pdf

Besides that what should be used for the PzBefh?



sPzAbt653 -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 11:21:36 AM)

quote:

... reluctant to plonk 212 AT rifles into a Soviet Division ...


I was thinking that '1' might represent more than one, which might explain why the divisional Anti Tank capability increased from 3 to 5 by adding them (if representing more than 1, then 212 might be 1,000, or something). I guess if you lined up 212 of them and fired at a PzIII, it would be disabled, even if from just knocking the crew silly. In dealing with smaller scale scenarios it might be good to have them in, but in the larger scenarios where every equipment slot counts, I would think they need not be included. Bazookas, Piats and Panzerfausts can cover the grunts AT capability.



samba_liten -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 12:29:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
1st Pz.Rgt with:
28 Pz. IV short
35 PZ. II
48 Pz. III 37mm
8 Rifle Squads

That's 2 medium and 4 light companies, plus the staff zug.


Close but still not correct at least if it's right what I have on my list.

45 PzKpfw II(51 Pz II)
71 PzKpfw III
28 PzKpfw IV
6 PzBefh
(without the Staffel with spare tanks)
What K.St.N. are you using?
I use 1103, 1150, 1178, 1171 & 1175 most of them are from 1st November 41 and don't differ much from 1st February 41 releases, big difference aside from the structure is the addition of a Pionier Zug consisting of 3 PzKpfw II what raised the amount of PzKpfw II to 51.

Look at these:
http://www.w7l1p4dc2.homepage.t-online.de/Panzer%20Divisions%20-%20The%20Eastern%20Front%201941-43%2017.pdf
http://www.w7l1p4dc2.homepage.t-online.de/Panzertruppen%201933-1942%20216-218.pdf

Besides that what should be used for the PzBefh?


All right let me try again. Very carefully this time![:D] [;)]
Little by little:

Nachrichten Zug(K.St.N. 1194):
2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III

leichter Pz zug (K.St.N. 1168):
5 Pz II

1st Battalion:

Staff Company (K.St.N. 1150):

2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III
5 Pz II

Medium Company (K.St.N. 1175)

14 Pz IV
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Infantry platoon:
4 Rifle Squads

2nd Battalion:

Staff Company (K.St.N. 1150):

2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III
5 Pz II

Medium Company (K.St.N. 1175)

14 Pz IV
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Infantry platoon:
4 Rifle Squads


This all adds up to (drum-roll):

8 Rifle Squads
40 Pz II (including the spares - 35 without)
71 Pz III
28 Pz IV
6 PzBefWg

So, having finally eliminated all my sloppiness and math problems, we still differ 5 or 10 Pz II. Are they accounted for in the difference between the K.St.N. we are using?

The PzBefWg?
For the scenario I'm attempting to build myself i am sorely tempted to start editing the equipment database to add this kind of thing, just to make sure that it will turn into the never ending project.
On a more realistic note, i think they were fairly similar to the Pz I, so they could be represented by those?







BigDuke66 -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 12:56:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
Nachrichten Zug(K.St.N. 1194):
2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III

leichter Pz zug (K.St.N. 1168):
5 Pz II

1st Battalion:

Staff Company (K.St.N. 1150):

2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III
5 Pz II
3 Pz II(Pionier Zug)

Medium Company (K.St.N. 1175)

14 Pz IV
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Infantry platoon:
4 Rifle Squads

2nd Battalion:

Staff Company (K.St.N. 1150):

2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III
5 Pz II
3 Pz II(Pionier Zug)

Medium Company (K.St.N. 1175)

14 Pz IV
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Infantry platoon:
4 Rifle Squads


This all adds up to (drum-roll):

8 Rifle Squads
40 Pz II [:-] 45(February 1941)[sm=Cool-049.gif] or 51(November 1941) (including the spares - 35 without)
71 Pz III
28 Pz IV
6 PzBefWg


Either you need a lot more sleep or a new calculator [:D], you listed correctly 45 PzII(without the Staffel) but added it wrong.
As stated what you posted is from February 41 and the only change to November regarding the numbers is an additional Pionier Zug with 3 Pz II in each "Staff Company", I added it in the quote above so you end up with 51 in November.



samba_liten -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 1:07:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper
Nachrichten Zug(K.St.N. 1194):
2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III

leichter Pz zug (K.St.N. 1168):
5 Pz II

1st Battalion:

Staff Company (K.St.N. 1150):

2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III
5 Pz II
3 Pz II(Pionier Zug)

Medium Company (K.St.N. 1175)

14 Pz IV
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Infantry platoon:
4 Rifle Squads

2nd Battalion:

Staff Company (K.St.N. 1150):

2 PzBefWg
1 Pz III
5 Pz II
3 Pz II(Pionier Zug)

Medium Company (K.St.N. 1175)

14 Pz IV
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Light Company (K.St.N. 1171):

17 Pz III
5 Pz II

Infantry platoon:
4 Rifle Squads


This all adds up to (drum-roll):

8 Rifle Squads
40 Pz II [:-] 45(February 1941)[sm=Cool-049.gif] or 51(November 1941) (including the spares - 35 without)
71 Pz III
28 Pz IV
6 PzBefWg


Either you need a lot more sleep or a new calculator [:D], you listed correctly 45 PzII(without the Staffel) but added it wrong.
As stated what you posted is from February 41 and the only change to November regarding the numbers is an additional Pionier Zug with 3 Pz II in each "Staff Company", I added it in the quote above so you end up with 51 in November.

math...
[sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]

Thanks for the corrections.



Panama -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 3:46:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Twelve 76 mm AT guns imply a certain concrete AT capacity. I don't see 212 AT rifles as conferring anything like the equivalent.


I'm glad you brought this up. [:D]

Virtually every Soviet artillery piece should have an AT capability.



samba_liten -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 4:16:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama


quote:

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Twelve 76 mm AT guns imply a certain concrete AT capacity. I don't see 212 AT rifles as conferring anything like the equivalent.


I'm glad you brought this up. [:D]

Virtually every Soviet artillery piece should have an AT capability.


Are the Soviet artillery pieces alone in not having AT?
I would have guessed that all of them had some AT capability!



Curtis Lemay -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 4:36:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panama

Virtually every Soviet artillery piece should have an AT capability.


Artillery in TOAW applies 1/4 of its AP strength as AT when attacked.



Panama -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 6:15:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Artillery in TOAW applies 1/4 of its AP strength as AT when attacked.



So to make things right I guess I have to make new equipment. [:D]



samba_liten -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 7:03:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: polarenper


quote:

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Again, nice work. I would, however, like to revisit the number of rifle squads in the schützen regiment.
My sources put two MG34 in each rifle squad, so the 18 LMG per company in Niehorster gives nine rifle squads per company, or a total of 9 x 3 =27 per battalion, or 54 rifle squads per schützen regiment. See:
http://www.bayonetstrength.com/german_army/ger_png_bat_39_40 :
• Three Rifle Companies (5 Officers, 222 men), each comprised of;
o Company HQ (1 Officer, 9 men)
o Company Train and Maintenance (22 men)
o Machine Gun Platoon (1 Officer, 41 men)
o Three Rifle Platoons, each comprised of;
Platoon HQ (1 Officer, 4 men)
Light Mortar Section (4 men)
Three Rifle Squads, each comprised of 14 men
Suggested Total Strength of 1008 all ranks (29 Officers and 979 men)


Let me know what you think.



I need to redo that bit when i can think clearly again. I ignored the "B" option, which in retrospect makes no sense since the math for two MG's per squad works out a lot better.
So the squads will still be heavy, but there will be less of them. Still more than 54 though, as i put the HMG's in as one Heavy Rifle Squad per HMG on the diagram, for the MG companies that is. There will be a few more added to represent the company MG platoons as well.

Does the above sound reasonable?
Also, how do you like my light rifle squad solution?

I wont attempt that until i have a good nights sleep though. My math is bad enough even when i am fully awake.[:D]




Back for more on this.

18 LMG's and 2 HMG's per company with two LMG's per squad makes 9 Heavy Squads to cover the LMG's. Plus 2 Heavy Squads to cover the MG platoon. That makes 11 per company. Add 8 for the heavy company and we have 11 * 3 =33 + 8 = 41 per battalion. That makes 82 for a regiment, and 164 for the brigade.

Does that seem more reasonable?






r6kunz -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 8:54:12 PM)

Yes, polarenper, that is pretty close to what I use. Unfortunately TOAW does not have LMG, only MMG and HMG, so we have to fudge a bit on LMG/MMG in the case of German squads with two MG34 per squad. I use a Heavy Rifle Squad, plus 1/2 an MMG per squad (I think Colin, et al, discussed this in a Forum ages ago). Obviously this is a designer's call, and as long it is consistent, it does not make a bit difference in overall unit strength.

I feel pretty strongly the HMG refers to .50/12.7 MG, based on the HMG AT strength in TOAW.



r6kunz -> RE: 1.59 (11/27/2010 9:04:27 PM)

Colin, I fully agree with you the HMG represents the .50/12.7 mm MG. It does make a significant difference in divisional AT strength. i.e. a German division in Roads to Moscow is 7/22 AT/AP with MMG vs 8/23 with HMG, over 10% increase in AT; a Soviet rifle division 4/11 vs 5/12, about a 20% increase in AT.
Like you, I have very few HMG in these scenarios.



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8916016