Heavy tanks next to Paris?

Heavy tanks next to Paris? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe

Message

solipsismMatrix -> Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/16/2016 2:45:52 PM)
Is that realistic in the opening phase of the war? I was under the general impression that France did not have heavies, and certainly Germany can't even develop them until a fixed time later on. It's killing my regular tanks.

EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/16/2016 2:58:24 PM)
Google Char B1 This can be considered a heavy tank for its time.

Hairog -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/16/2016 3:20:39 PM)
As modeled in the game World War Two Online, the Char B1 is very hard to kill. It takes hits from PZII and III and keeps on coming.The British Matilda was the same and pretty much unstoppable until Rommel pointed an 88 at them.

Ostwindflak -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/16/2016 3:24:26 PM)
Char B in WWII Online is a PITA in Tier 1 & 2.

AlbertN -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/16/2016 3:41:51 PM)
Technically French had better and more tanks than the Germans. Their main issue is that they scattered their tanks around perceiving them as support to the infantry (in fact both the above mentioned "heavy tanks" were extremely slow - studied to move along the infantry in a kind of trench war). The question would more be if the French would be entitled to have an armoured group - or not. Since the armoured group mirrors a large concentration of armoured forces. What some strategy games tend to "miss" is the tactical and operational superiority of the Germans. A small example is what was mentioned above about Rommel and the '88. An episode around Arras where the anti-air 88 guns were swiftly used in the role of anti tank. A first lesson which evolved later on (especially in the very fluid battles in N.Afrika) where the Germans lured the British mobile forces against screens of anti tank towed guns, avoiding the clash with their own armour at first; and once gained the local superiority they used their armour as finisher. In multiple occasions inferior German formations have bested larger, counting more tanks, British formations. Obviously at some point the Allies learnt, the Germans started to do the same mistake the Allies did (Kursk, Mortain are prime examples of armoured forces being head-severed by anti tank guns), and the production scales were simply so heavily tipped for the Allies that quantity simply overwhelmed any quality, til quality as well came short for the Germans even.

solipsismMatrix -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/16/2016 4:34:48 PM)
Thank you for all the feedback - very clear. I've been taking care of it with tac air, but as Cohen mentions it is unclear that there should be a separate armoured group due to the historical means of deployment. PS: I thought this thread was going into the Beta group, oops! If it should be there, mods please move it.

Jim D Burns -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/17/2016 4:17:09 AM)
France had quite a few armored divisions in 1940, the key difference was army doctrines used by the two warring powers and lack of individual unit experience. While all units saw action many were very green and so failed to preform as you'd expect a trained and competent armored force to preform. From wiki: quote: Light cavalry divisions (DLC, Division Légère de Cavalrie) Laffly truck used by motorized forces AMR 35 light tanks Part horse and part motorized; were part of the cavalry arm in 1940. The cavalry divisions (DC) were renamed light divisions (DL) in February 1940 and then light cavalry divisions (DLC) in March 1940.[1] They were supplied with Renault AMR 33s more so than 35s and Hotchkiss H35s. 1st Light Cavalry Division. Active as the 1st Cavalry Division at the start of the war and mobilized on 22 August 1939 in various towns in France with the first command post at Marle. Division became the 1st Light Division on 10 February 1940 and then the 1st Light Cavalry Division on 3 March. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse and Battle of the North. Division had large elements captured by 19 May. Survivors were reorganized as the 4th DLM from 10 June. Final command post at Rues-des-Vignes (Vinchy). Subordination: 9th Army.[2] 2nd Light Cavalry Division. Active as the 2nd Cavalry Division at the start of the war and mobilized on 22 August 1939 in Lunéville. Division became the 2nd Light Division on 10 February 1940 and then the 2nd Light Cavalry Division from 5 March. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse, Meuse Front, Somme Front and Battle of the Somme. Division captured on 12 June. Final command post at Saint-Valery-en-Caux. Subordination: XXI Corps, 10th Army, IX Corps of the 10th Army.[3] 3rd Light Cavalry Division. Active as the 3rd Cavalry Division at the start of the war and mobilized on 20 August 1939 in Paris and Sedan. Division became the 3rd Light Division on 10 February 1940 and then the 3rd Light Cavalry Division from 5 March. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse, Somme Front, Battle of the Somme and Retreat of the Left Wing. Division disbanded on 11 July 1940. Final command post at Le Fleix. Subordination: 3rd Army, 6th Army, 7th Army, 10th Army, IX Corps, III Corps.[4] 4th Light Cavalry Division. Formed as the 4th Light Division on 16 February 1940 at Saint Rémy de Bouzement. Division became the 4th Light Cavalry Division on 3 March. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse and Retreat of the Center. Division became the 7th DLM on 5 June. Final command post at Clairefontaine. Subordination: 9th Army and II and XI Corps of the 9th Army.[5] 5th Light Cavalry Division. Formed as the 5th Light Division on 15 February 1940 at La Neuville-au-Pont. Division became the 5th Light Cavalry Division from 3 March. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse, Aisne and Somme Front, Somme Front and Battle of the Somme. Bulk of division captured by 12 June. Final command post at Fontaine-le-Dun. Subordination: Various corps of the 2nd and 10th Armies.[6] 6th Light Cavalry Division. Formed 1 March 1940 in Tunisia.[7] Some elements later part of the FSEA in the Tunisian Campaign.[8] Light mechanized divisions (DLM, Divisions Légères Méchaniques) Division légère mécaniques were part of the cavalry arm in 1940. Entirely armoured and motorized. Supplied with Renault AMR 35s and Somua S35s. 1st Light Mechanized Division (former 4th Cavalry Division). Active division at the start of the war; alerted on 22 August 1939 in Reims. Campaigns: Combat at the mouths of the Escaut, Battle of the North and Retreat of the Left Wing. Division disbanded 11 July 1940. Final command post vicinity Saint-Aquilin (Château de Moncey). Subordination: 7th Army, 9th Army, Cavalry Corps of the 1st Army.[9] 2nd Light Mechanized Division (former 5th Cavalry Division). Active division at the start of the war; alerted 23 August 1939 in Melun. Campaigns: Battle of the Dyle, Battle of the North and Retreat of the Left Wing. Division disbanded on 16 July 1940. Final command post at Jumilhac-le-Grand. Subordination: Cavalry Corps, II British Corps and X Corps of the Army of Paris.[10] 3rd Light Mechanized Division. New division created on 1 February 1940 in Paris. Campaigns: Battle of the Dyle, Battle of the North and Retreat of the Left Wing. Division disbanded on 11 July 1940. Final command post at Ribérac. Subordination: Cavalry Corps and III Corps.[11] 4th Light Mechanized Division. Formed 10 June 1940 from remnants of the 1st DLC at Le Perray-en-Yvelines; division was of battle-group strength. Campaigns: Retreat of the Center. Division disbanded post-armistice. Final command post at La Souterraine. Subordination: 7th and 6th Armies.[12] 7th Light Mechanized Division. Formed 5 June 1940 in reduced strength from remnants of the 4th DLC vicinity Limours. Campaigns: Battle of the Aisne and Retreat of the Center. Division became the 7th Cavalry Brigade in the army of Vichy France. Final command post at Moriat. Subordination: Primarily 4th Army, although under 2nd Army and VIII Corps 17–18 June.[13] Cuirassier divisions (DCR, Divisions Cuirassées Rapide) Part of the infantry arm in 1940. Entirely armoured and motorized, equipped with 2 battalions of Char B bis and 2 battalions of Hotchkiss H39 tanks designed to support infantry operations. 1st Armoured Division. Formed 16 January 1940 at Châlons-sur-Marne. Missing half of its motorcycles and artillery caissons on 10 May 1940. Division took serious losses by 17 May and had to be reformed from 18 May until 1 June. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse, Battle of the North, Battle of the Somme and Retreat of the Center. Division disbanded in July and August 1940. Final command post at Le Dognon, northeast of Limoges. Subordination: XI Corps of the 9th Army until 17 May, 6th Army from 1–25 June.[14] 2nd Armoured Division. Formed 16 January 1940 at Haute Moivre. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse, Fronts of the Aisne and the Somme, Somme Front, Battle of the Somme and Retreat of the Center. Final command post at Saint-Pierre Cherignat, northeast of Limoges. Division subsequently disbanded. Subordination: I Corps of 7th Army until 29 May and then various, including 10th Army, VII Corps, IX Corps, X Corps, 51st British Infantry Division and the Groupement Cuirassée.[15] 3rd Armoured Division. Formed 20 March 1940 at Reims. Campaigns: Battle of the Meuse, Meuse Front, Battle of the Aisne and Retreat of the Center. Final command post at Montbard northwest of Dijon. Division captured 17–18 June. Subordination: XXI Corps of 2nd Army until 23 May, then various including 4th Army and XVIII Corps of 2nd Army.[16] 4th Armoured Division. Formed 15 May 1940 at Le Vésinet; tanks included B1 bis, D2 and R35's. Campaigns: Aisne Front, Somme Front, Battle of the Somme, Retreat of the Left Wing. Initial commander was Charles de Gaulle. Final command post at Cussac, southwest of Limoges. Division disbanded 19 July 1940.[17] Jim

YohanTM -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/17/2016 12:44:11 PM)
Interesting to read the "leak" from the beta group. Sure would love to hear more about what is happening!

solipsismMatrix -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/17/2016 4:07:40 PM)
Unicorns. Lots of them. But only with Finnish forces.

abulbulian -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/17/2016 6:33:45 PM)
Yes, the French had more tanks and several models with armor and main guns superior to the German tanks. However, it was not just the scattering of the French tanks in an infantry support role, but rather the lack of mobility and operation range of these French 'heavy' tanks. Even when Charles de Gaulle was given command of the 4e Division cuirassée which had around 200+ tanks (equivalent of of a German Pz Div) he was still not able to make an impression on the German invasion of France. I believe too much emphasis has been put on the 'scattering' French tanks as the main reason why the French tank arm didn't wasn't the factor it should have been in May-Jun 40. The true culprits were the inept French leadership on all levels, slow and inadequate communication, sub-par logistics (re-fueling tanks was slow and tedious with caused key battles to be lost), more and better organization of German tank crews for their vehicles. The French command misjudged and continued to misjudge the situation in front of them with the German invasion of France. I won't even get into the use of air power, which was one of the few material advantages the Germans had in the campaign. Don't forget the British had what would be considered a heavy tank of that period with the Matilda II. Rommel was able to dispatch a very threatening flank attack by a group of these tanks and some other lights with the employment of 88mm flak guns. An exceptional improvisation which he'd use time and again with great success in North Africa. Many good reads on these topics: here's one: 'Inside the Nazi War Machine: How Three Generals Unleashed Hitler's Blitzkrieg Upon the World' by Bevin Alexander

Rasputitsa -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/27/2016 9:33:59 AM)
Strongly agree with the above ; The problem modelling the French in 1940 is the same as representing the Soviets in 1941, if you give an historic OOB, you get a powerful force which becomes difficult to beat and does not represent the actual results at the time. The difficulty all games have is acknowledging and reproducing the severe command and control limitations of both nations. It's not the power, or number of the tanks, it's that the French command was issuing orders by dispatch rider, who could sometimes take 2 days to find the units concerned and the Germans are moving many miles a day. The Prioux Cavalry corps was a powerful armoured force, which could have caused problems for the Germans except that after 7 changes of orders from High command, the units of this corps were scattered all over the battlefield trying to get to ever changing objectives. The same thing happened to the Soviet 8th Mech. Corps in 1941, with the same number of changes in orders having the unit marching and counter-marching, dissipating its force until it finally ran into the enemy. The Soviets made little use of radio, partially due lack of equipment, but also because they feared interception of signals. Reliance on a fixed cable communications system meant that communications became non-existent, when units were forced to move at a pace that meant a new coms net could not be established. Another feature difficult to model is the humble jerry-can, as the French were refuelling their armoured vehicles from large and vulnerable fuel tankers, only able to refuel a few vehicles at a time and didn't survive for very long, leaving powerful Char Bs immobile for hours waiting for fuel. The German jerry-can turned any vehicle into a fuel tanker, each tank crew could take the cans and simultaneously refuel their vehicles, stash some spare cans and move on. On such mundane things, the success of a campaign can depend. The Char B was a powerful tank, but it had a large radiator set in the side of the vehicle, it did not take long to realise that a shot here would quickly disable the tank. The British even built a tank (Covenanter) with the radiator fixed on the front plate ??? At least they had the sense not to use it in action, but only training. The command and control issue is the key feature, players are unlikely to accept the almost non-existent C&C available to the French and Soviet forces, but without acknowledging these effects no game can be realistic in covering these events. Sources for these features would be : For France 1940 - 'The Blitzkrieg Legend - The 1940 Campaign in the West'.... Karl-Heinz Frieser For USSR 1941 - 'The Bloody Triangle - The defeat of the Soviet Armor in the Ukraine, June 1941'.... Victor J. Kamenir Both books graphically reveal the huge command and control crises suffered by the Allied nations in each campaign.

AlbertN -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/27/2016 11:12:54 AM)
That is one of the many factors. I bundle it in the operational superiority, which is not only that, but many other things (complete integration of land & air command, for instance; and how Luftwaffe operated from upfront bases to shorten travel time; having Stukas always in the air waiting for a call from the troops to dive on targets when needed; etcetera.). On the paper the French army alone was stronger than the German. That without adding the Brits. So if the game simply mirrors the OOB (as many games sadly tend to do or simply beef up minimally the Germans) against another player (and maybe even the AI) you end up in a WW1 slugfest in France.

EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/27/2016 12:47:49 PM)
In addition, if the initial deployment is taken with hindsight in a well done game, the initial attack has to be less successful than historical. Like blocking the ardennes in France or for the soviets deploy 50km behind the border to prevent encirclements. This also contributes to less movement and more slugfest.

Rasputitsa -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/27/2016 3:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cohen That is one of the many factors. I bundle it in the operational superiority, which is not only that, but many other things (complete integration of land & air command, for instance; and how Luftwaffe operated from upfront bases to shorten travel time; having Stukas always in the air waiting for a call from the troops to dive on targets when needed; etcetera.). On the paper the French army alone was stronger than the German. That without adding the Brits. So if the game simply mirrors the OOB (as many games sadly tend to do or simply beef up minimally the Germans) against another player (and maybe even the AI) you end up in a WW1 slugfest in France. I know that much is made of the capability of game AI, but in this case the AI is very capable of simulating Allied capabilities early in the war, or Axis limitations in the late war period. The AI can simulate historical command limitations, that most players would find totally unacceptable. [:)]

battlevonwar -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/27/2016 7:07:44 PM)
It's also true a lot of French tanks didn't have radios. Char was a big Tank! The Inspiration for the Panther and Tiger comes from the KV heavy tanks on the Eastern Front.

AlbertN -> RE: Heavy tanks next to Paris? (9/27/2016 9:08:29 PM)
Soviets too did not had radios except in the commanding officer tank in '41-'42. Only the Germans at the beginning had the full "understanding" of how cooperation and communication was important. Soviets relied still on hand signals from the tank commanders emerging from the turret for their first portion of the war.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.78125