primary groups

primary groups (Full Version)

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

Message

mogami -> primary groups (1/10/2003 4:29:17 AM)
Hi, Off Topic but maybe of interest. Primary groups, impact and maintenance on the Eastern Front. Primary Groups can be defined as the leadership soldiers have and knowing the other members of their unit. Having the same company commander, platoon leader, and squad leader can over time build up trust and knowledge of how to react under combat situations. On the Eastern Front German units suffered from not maintaining primary groups as a result of high losses among officers and NCO's. Many people view the Germans on the Eastern Front as actions between outnumbered but well trained and more mobile formations. The reality was that for the vast majority of German soldiers the war in the East resembled WW1 trench warfare only without the secure supply and unit rotation. The German army in the East lost most of it's primary groups during the first 90-120 days of the campaign. Losses there after were always higher then would be expected simply as a result of the need for unit commanders to keep committing untrained replacements to maintain combat strength. This is one of the reason's you find the same units involved in major actions. The few "Elite" units were maintained while the majority actually degraded. The brutal nature of the fighting kept the opposing units together more then any other factor (by December 41 neither side was inclined to surrender because they knew what that would mean to chances for survival.) This more then discipline kept units on both sides fighting, where in similar conditions in other theaters German (or other nationality) troops would cease fighting One quick example. The Gross Deuchland Division. Raised in 42 lost over 50,000 troops during it's existence (and over 1700 officers) This from a unit that's full strength complement was 18,000 men and 300 officers. As soon as this unit was brought up to size it was commited with the result that within a few weeks it was under strength. Brought up, depleted, the cycle went on to the end. As a result the primary group never existed within the divisions lower formations. Company commanders and Battalion commanders changed as often as every few weeks. Comapanies and platoons were led by NCO's (platoons and squads were often led by privates) I often wonder just what might have been achived except for this process of constantly denying the German units a chance to rebuild the primary groups they had maintained through Poland and the West 1940 battles. In other Armies it required time to produce these primary groups but once established they were more able to maintain them and as a result combat preformance improved over time. The German example of the Eastern Front is more one of watching a modern army decline almost to a primitive state (excepting of course the Elite units)

Grenadier -> (1/10/2003 6:56:13 AM)
Someone's been reading Omer Bartov. :) GD, as the division I am most fond of and have the most material on, is an example of very high losses in NCO's yet it retained it's elite status by the constant rotation of men and officers in and out of the other GD units like the Fuhrer Beigleit and Berlin Wacht batallions along with its own replacement regiment in Cottbus BTW, I prefer C&C off but as I design most of my own battles they are usually with the Germans greatly outnumbered by masses of soviet hordes anyway:D Raider testing has come to the conclusion that 7.1 can be set to get very similar results as H2H. This is what Marauder has determined What one can do is to set preferences like Inf Toughness, armor, etc, to 130 to 150 ranges, reduce Hitting setting to 80 percent - save the scenario with these hard coded in so that the game in version 7.1 will have close to the same effects as H2H when one plays it using normal default settings. It is tricks like these that do the trick. Also, in Freds waw editor, you can add 5 points to the experience/Morale/Rally rates using the Roll feature as well as increase the command rates too of all units. Next, several of the weapons can be modified - for example - the USA 30 cal MMG -increase FC and Range finder to same as a 50 cal HMG and it will perform better. Doing things like this will cause a scenario to play close enough to H2H style. AI Artillery was tweaked and it will fall on your units more than 7.1 and is slower to access. This could be the old AI cheat artillery bug modified creeping back into game. To hit and fire effects are modified in H2H but are close to 7.1 effects. A slight difference between the two versions in these areas. Most can be acheived in 7.1 by increasing the Experience/Morale/Rally/Inf, arty, or armor command rates to the H2H levels.

Tomanbeg -> (1/10/2003 7:29:00 AM)
Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]Thanks for the explanation Tomanbeg. So the Germans were better because the men loved their squad leaders and would do what they were told because the squad leader was "one of them." Whereas, the US "imposed" leaders on the men who hadn't earned the respect needed to get the men to agree to run off to certain death "taking that MG bunker." Is that it in a nutshell (at least in the early part of the US involvement in the war)? I wish the US had more (any) movies that portrayed the German soldiers better/realistically. The problem with SPR and BoB was that they made the Germans look like a bunch of chickens running around without guidance (but that's another thread topic). If I didn't play this [U]game[/U], then I wouldn't get to learn all the fascinating things I do by reading/posting on the Forum. I understand that C&C was a critical factor in what made a country successful or not, but that doesn't mean I should have to play it, because, quite frankly, I like being able to run my troops all over hell and back without losing control of them. I get enough of a sense of the C&C function by not having the x0 unit near enough to help rally my wayward units. Would you C&C On players begrudge me the education I am getting by playing with C&C off? Any learning is good. I am not after a PhD in military history here, just a basic understanding. And, you go! Orzel & M4! Tell 'em! I think this discussion has been of great help even though a few people got their feathers ruffled. [/B] I'm not begrudging anyone anything, and I am not trying to start or finish anything. Since I am doing such a poor job of communicating, I will try once more and then stop. This thread started because of a perception that SP:WaW is unbalanced for PBEM play. So H2H was produced, in an attempt to restore that non-missing balance. Now H2H is being picked apart. So I pointed out that SP:WaW was put together to be in balance with C&C ON. And that when you turn C&C off, it was going to be out of balance. To make it easier for some to understand I went into the hammer and nail vs screwdriver and screw mode. It still didn't work. But I'm used to being hammered on the AoW when I put up irrefutable arguements, and all the other poster can do is attack the messenger. But I'm still right. And you are the one losing out by not playing with C&C on. If you would take the time and spend the effort to learn how to play with C&C, you would thank yourself a year from now. And if I sound like a born again baptist doing his first witness, then sorry. But I was once as you are, and now want to share the rapture.:confused: :D ;) T.

Orzel Bialy -> Well, if your bottom icon (1/10/2003 7:49:55 AM)
portrays your style of baptism...it's no wonder nobody wants to be converted to your way. :p Besides...when you talk "down" to people it will never have the desired effect. Your "hammer and screwdriver" reference came across as if you believed you were dealing with children...instead of adults. As did your "to make it easier to understand" quip in your latest post. So it's rather naive to blame the people on the receiving end for taking exception when talked to in such a manner.

john g -> (1/11/2003 2:15:22 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]What's a "repple-depple mess?" [/B][/QUOTE] The US replacement system was based on a replacement depot (reppledepple),which consolidated all personnel requests. As each division requested replacement troops they were batched up and sent to the outfit they were assigned to. Without bothering to train the men with the unit, or even bothering to train the men on the equipment. I recall reading one case where an armored division requested troops, and the men where taken to where the replacement light tanks for the division were sitting. After a several hour session on how to drive and fire the tanks, the men were sent forward,driving the tanks to join their division, most were dead within a few days. This is quite different from the UK and German replacement battalion orginization, where each division (or brigade for early UK) maintained a unit back home that recruited and trained replacements just for that division. thanks, John.

rbrunsman -> (1/11/2003 5:18:01 AM)
What "brilliant" mind came up with this method of sending our soldiers to the slaughter!??!:eek: That sounds like WWI thinking.

VikingNo2 -> (1/11/2003 5:50:25 AM)
I you ever wonder where I came up with, " I let the enlisted live but the Officers will be shot " phrase thats it.:D

Irinami -> (1/11/2003 8:24:12 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]One of the first things people ask for in PBEMs is to have rarity turned off, so why did Panzer Leo go to all the trouble to mimic "production and availability" when setting point values? It doesn't seem like something that many players are interested in. [/B][/QUOTE] Why do so many wargamers go to the trouble of mimicking the actual maps used? Historical accuracy--in this case, on a strategic scale. I admit, it's probably not the most popular idea for something named specifically for player-vs.-player... but there is a good reason for it (the aforementioned accuracy). I personally like it. If my Nationalist Chinese troops are going to be "penalized" for their nation's weak training, they should also be "penalized" for their nation's weak industry... and they are. I think the crux of the issue is something like this: "HISTORICAL wargaming," or "historical WARGAMING"? The former is what the current H2H is made for; the latter is what you're asking for--5000 German points being equal to 5000 Phillipino points. Uh... saw something on Bazookas causing too much suppression to a tank at 500m. How the heck is your tank going to know just who shot that bazooka at it? How does your tank know all the time that the bazooka fired at it wasn't fired from right next door and just happened to miss? All they see--or all you can count on them seeing, at least--is the primary explosion of a missed shot. It'd be less common for them to see the original shot fired. Eh?

Irinami -> (1/11/2003 10:41:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]Thanks for the explanation Tomanbeg. So the Germans were better because the men loved their squad leaders and would do what they were told because the squad leader was "one of them." Whereas, the US "imposed" leaders on the men who hadn't earned the respect needed to get the men to agree to run off to certain death "taking that MG bunker." Is that it in a nutshell (at least in the early part of the US involvement in the war)?[/B][/QUOTE] Sort of... but not quite. To quote [URL=http://www.pmulcahy.com]Paul Mulcahy[/URL]: "The opinion of my fellow soldiers about officers was that they could be ranked on a scale. From worst to best, they were 1) Academy graduates, 2) 90-day wonders, 3) ROTC grads who had never done any other military service, 4) ROTC grads who had been SMPs, 5) OCS and ROTC grads who had been enlisted before their commissioning, and 6) OCS and ROTC grads who had been NCOs before their commissioning. "I never met any officers who had been field commissioned and were still on active duty at the same time I was, but I would guess they would rank somewhere between 4 and 6 on that scale, depending on the person." The Germans, it seems, took pains to do #5 and #6, the two best. NCO's have years of experience. Most officers, especially 1&2LT's, have much, much less; they make worse officers than the NCO's would, in general terms. The Americans tended to, it seems, use #1 and #2 most frequently. Americans: Just think of the Civil War. The Confederacy tended to have officers who'd flunked out of West Point (etc.). the Union tended to have those who passed, even with high honours. However, the Confederacy tended to have the more effective officers--including, IIRC, the General Robert E. Lee. That's the problem with Academy Officers. They'll insist you keep your boots spit-shined in the trenches... and I forget the exact wording, but the axiom is something like, "No combat-ready unit ever passed inspection; no inspection-ready unit ever passed combat."

john g -> (1/11/2003 12:42:52 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami [B]"Americans: Just think of the Civil War. The Confederacy tended to have officers who'd flunked out of West Point (etc.). the Union tended to have those who passed, even with high honours. However, the Confederacy tended to have the more effective officers--including, IIRC, the General Robert E. Lee. [/B][/QUOTE] My recollection is the opposite of this, I recall RE Lee being first in his class, and US Grant barely scraping by near the bottom. Of course I went to, and live by Texas A&M which had more graduates make US general during WWII than any school except for the federal military acadamies (West Point and Annapolis). Not to mention what Patton said about the school. thanks, John.

chief -> Along the same line (1/11/2003 1:42:02 PM)
A wise old Master Chief once said... A young Ensign approaches the crusty old Master Chief and asked about the origin of the commissioned officer insignias. "Well," replied the Master Chief, "the insignias for the Navy are steeped in history and tradition. First, we give you a gold bar representing that you are very valuable but also malleable. The silver bar also represents significant value, but is less malleable. Now, when you make Lieutenant, your value doubles, hence the two silver bars. As a Captain, you soar over the military masses, hence the eagle. As an Admiral, you are, obviously, a star. Does that answer your question?" "Yes Master Chief" replied the young Ensign. "But what about Lieutenant Commander and Commander?" "That, sir, goes waaaay back in history - back to the Garden of Eden. You see we've always covered our pr** with leaves." ********************************************************** just thought I'd throw this in for giggles

Irinami -> (1/11/2003 9:22:24 PM)
Proably right, John. My brother's the Civil War buff, not me. Maybe it was Lee who was the exception. Anyway, the point was that there was a famous flunkie in the Civil War. He flunked because he fought unconventionally (think the Art of War--you use the regular and the unconventional, but the unconventional is what wins battles). NCO's tend to learn the unconventional, one reason they make great officers. And I need to move this to a new topic, don't I? ;)

rbrunsman -> (1/13/2003 8:26:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami [B]Uh... saw something on Bazookas causing too much suppression to a tank at 500m. How the heck is your tank going to know just who shot that bazooka at it? How does your tank know all the time that the bazooka fired at it wasn't fired from right next door and just happened to miss? All they see--or all you can count on them seeing, at least--is the primary explosion of a missed shot. It'd be less common for them to see the original shot fired. Eh? [/B][/QUOTE] My impression is that a bazooka would have a hard time actually hitting "in the hex" that a tank is in at 500 yards. Think of it like you were golfing. How many shots land on the green (i.e. are "hits").

mogami -> West Point (1/13/2003 12:53:42 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by john g [B]My recollection is the opposite of this, I recall RE Lee being first in his class, and US Grant barely scraping by near the bottom. Of course I went to, and live by Texas A&M which had more graduates make US general during WWII than any school except for the federal military acadamies (West Point and Annapolis). Not to mention what Patton said about the school. thanks, John. [/B][/QUOTE] Hi, RE Lee was second in his class. Grant was in the middle of his (number one in horsemanship) Sherman was 6th in his class. Thomas Jackson was 73rd in his class and almost dismissed but the War with Mexico saved him.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.890625