Charles2222 -> (3/24/2001 2:15:00 AM)
|
AmmoSgt: I haven't read all of your additions to this thread, but let me just say that you generalize too much and as such largely defeat your points. You mentioned something along the lines of the 36th losing 28,000 while inflicting 275,000, allegedly.
The situation in this game, I venture to guess, is not the situation that the 36th faced. In other words, maybe the 36th inflicted 50-100,000 real fighting casualties, but how many surrendered without the 36th "fighting" them? I know you want to compare such stats to it taking 5 Shermans to destroy every 1 Tiger/Panther, but it's not the same thing. The Sherman deal is about "fighting" a fighting opponent, while what the 36th captured/destroyed may in very large part deal with an opponent who was not fighting. The thing you should be looking at, is if the enemy is fighting, then just what was he capable of?
The game attempts to address the problem of how likely a poor enemy is able to actually fire their weapons via lower morale at various times, but if that weapon actually fired, it was none the worst for however the strategic situation developed, unless of course we're talking about limiting ammo more seriously for those largely in retreat.
Part of the problem with your angle, is that the Sherman ordeal was a tactical one, the level of this game, while you're talking strategic. Sure, there's plenty of times where the strategic is reflected in the tactical, such as a 3/4 strength US division meeting a 1/4 strength German division, or worse, but that still doesn't make the individual rifle HE effect, nor the armor of any Tiger any the less a tactical problem.
BTW, Ammo, there was more than one lousy US division that the Germans surrendered to. If it has been just the 36th, the Gerries would have laughed their heads off. If the 36th accounted for 275,000 Germans, then surely we could plaster all 700,000+ losses at Kiev to a single German division and make them look like super-super men.
|
|
|
|