Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Truck use alternatives

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> John Tiller’s Campaign Series Support >> RE: Truck use alternatives Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 8:29:22 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Tim: WOW!! Never thought of using trucks as cannon fodder!!!!
But I guess that is history now when the update comes out. Still, that was a pretty cool idea. I only play as a battalion commander of armored battalions. Trucks are more for infantry use. Unless there are enemy units in a location that is inaccessable to tanks, I don't use infantry much. In Rising Sun I do use infantry quite a bit. But in East and West Front, I usually just hide them somewhere or use them as VP items when I have secured a safe route to an exit hex. I drop the infantry at the hexes that I capture with armor from the enemy, and send the armor to the VP exit hex. For that type of use, trucks are worthwhile.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 31
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 8:32:30 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		I cannot imagine not 'listening to the battlefield', but I see your point.
In playing the computer, even 'Good enemy commaners' have fallen for this time and again. Even if it works for a few turns, I'll take any advantage. In histories I read, the tactic worked in real life often.
As a campaign player and on corps level- I can't afford to waste transport, but I was trying to find some use for Deputy's trucks.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 32
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 8:42:07 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Actually, I would like the option of not getting trucks at the beginning of each scenario. Infantry are usually fast enough to get to their objectives on foot, and when they are in trucks they get HEAVY casualties. Right now I just put all the trucks at the bottom of the map and remove them at the beginning of each scenario. And when they up the truck value to 3, I will DEFINITELY not use them unless I absolutely have to.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Tim41)
Post #: 33
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 8:47:06 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		You don't have as large a playing field at Battalion level-but I gotta keep MOVING in corps level to take ALL the VP positions. Long term, it's also important for me to keep those trucks in tact! Your tactic of securing taken postions with follow up infantry is also something I practice-DIG IN THOUGH! If you have an engineer unit with you-use him to lay a minefield while using other units to dig in.
I think you may have some success with the demonstration idea over any of the other suggestions. It is correct that it would not be common practice to use your valuable transport as cannon fodder. Jason and the other gentleman are correct that this really detracts from the realism if you practice it. Still, it can be useful in a bad situation and not at all out of order when playing Russian!
Always wondered why there were no Penal Battalions in the Russian formations?

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 34
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 9:01:07 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		Nothing hurts more than to have soft skin vehicles (loaded) hit by artillery! It is a huge point loss. When observed-you can disperse, disperse and unload or zig and zag and move on...and risk it. Time sometimes dictates the last option!

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 35
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 9:28:51 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding the 3 VP for trucks, if those trucks were being used to transport ammunition and gasoline, I would think a commander would be far less inclined to waste them.  That might be one way to conceptualize the higher value.  They might have little or no value as a fighting unit but a disproportionate value as a supply unit. 

I read somewhere the French had logistical headaches refueling their tanks in May-June 1940 once the campaign became one of rapid movement.  The Germans had planned for refueling while moving rapidly, but the French hadn't.

Gasoline also became a precious commodity to the Allies after D-Day.  In that context, supply trucks could assume a disproportionate value.

(in reply to Tim41)
Post #: 36
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/6/2008 9:43:16 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		I was about to agree with the suggestion of the higher value for the trucks-the logistical considerations for larger formations cannot be ignored. It's not just gas, but ammo, food, etc.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 37
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 9:42:34 AM   
Mraah

 

Posts: 1085
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I'm new to forum so my idea's or opinion's might not float as well of those Matrix veterans and grognards alike but I have an idea about trucks that I'd like to toss on the table and see if you guys think it would work.

I'm thinking in terms of how to make a truck worth something other than just VP's. I'm thinking long term usage as well as how they could be implemented into a Dynamic Campaign Game.

First of all, I think a transport truck should remain at 1 VP.
Next, a new unit should be created, we'll call it a Supply Truck for discussion purposes, worth 3 VP's and unable to carry troops.

Yes, I'm talking about creating a new Service Company with an OOB containing 36+ supply trucks. That would be ridiculous I know, BUT, it might be necessary to have them appear in your DCG as "Support Forces". Not core forces, just temporary support.

Now, I'm not talking about having these appear in massive quantity every single battle. Only 15% of these supply vehicles would be on the battlefield for every mission with the exception for the DEFENDER during "Pocket Breakout" and "Armored Breakthrough" missions. These two missions represent an exploit in the front line with the chance you can destroy your opponents rear forces and disrupt their supply, and visa versa.

Now, how can destroying transport and supply trucks disrupt supply? Two ways ...
1. Each transport or supply truck VP lost will immediately affect the current supply level for the mission in a one-to-one fashoin, hence a supply truck at 3 VP's will cause you to lose 3% of your current ammo level.
2. Loss VP's carry on into the DCG when determining your Combat Readiness. The combat readiness modifier would obviously have to be implemented into the DCG but it could be a threshold where not only your total combat unit strength in considered but also your supply level. This would determine the length of time between missions (as well as the type of missions) as you absorb new replacements and get back up to strength for Offensive purposes.

Ok, I hope everyone is still following me ...

Now, you might ask .. What if the player or AI decides to move his trucks and supply off the board at the begining of the mission? Well, he would definately save their destruction for future use, however, exiting these units off the map will immediately reduce your ammo supply in the same one-to-one fashion. The question is ... will the player risk his trucks and keep the supply flowing NOW or save them for later.

And one final note. What does 15% supply trucks equate to and how can they be included in the Support Forces?. Well, after v1.03 comes out we'll know how to adjust support forces and they (Matrix Team) needs to create another column or percentage group for the new supply truck designation and we can adjust this value as we see fit. Currently, if you look at a US Tank Battalion TO&E you're roughly looking at 40 vehicles divided into a section of about 3 vehicles each so roughly for each mission you would receive 3 sections of 3 trucks (9 total). At 3 VP's per truck that could be a potential of losing 27% ammo level if you got unlucky .... not to mention the transport trucks at 1 VP which you might have 18 trucks with infantry supporting you and that's another 18% loss .... so , yeah, 45% ammo/supply loss if you send the the motor pool in as your vanguard company!!!

Thanks for listening . Any thoughts?

Rob

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 38
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 4:59:49 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline 		Good grief. I bought this game to do combat...not move around trucks and supply vehicles. What's next? Supply officers that follow around each supply convoy to make sure the morale of the supply troops stays up? A supply point where all the vehicles have to gather to fill up with gas before going into combat? Supply hexes where a unit has to be X number of hexes from a supply truck or they can't go into combat? First aid stations where units go to get healed? If you are going to implement this type of micro-managing of the game, then you better offer the option of NOT having it for those who are still interested in combat and not in passing out ammunition and c-rations. I definitely WOULDN'T apply a patch that goes that deeply into the complexities of running an army. Make this game too complex, and the fun factor is going to evaporate. As it is right now, this new patch that raises the value of trucks is going to mean either I DON'T use the patch, or it's MANDATORY I take the trucks off the edge on each scenario. Some victory levels can be decided by the 15 points that 5 trucks represent.

< Message edited by Deputy -- 3/7/2008 5:01:19 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 39
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 5:22:37 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		I have to agree with Deputy.

There are supply vehicles available already, but are designed to act as high point grabs for certain scenario types for a particular campaign format that is played at The Blitz. You could not find them in LCG's, DCG's or typical scenarios.

If you send me your campaign file, Deputy, I can remove all the trucks from your oob. Doing that means you will have no trucks, ever.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 40
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 5:35:12 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

I have to agree with Deputy.

There are supply vehicles available already, but are designed to act as high point grabs for certain scenario types for a particular campaign format that is played at The Blitz. You could not find them in LCG's, DCG's or typical scenarios.

If you send me your campaign file, Deputy, I can remove all the trucks from your oob. Doing that means you will have no trucks, ever.

Jason Petho


Thanks for the offer Jason...much as I'm tempted, there are rare occasions when I use trucks. What I WOULD like is a button or option (perhaps in the section where we choose the weapon facing/fog of war/etc., options) to remove ALL transport prior to the start of the scenario. Either that, or locate ALL the truck transport at the bottom of the player side of the map at the beginning of each scenario so that they can be easily removed. I don't understand why truck transport is scattered all over the map at the beginning anyway. Truck drivers weren't stoopid back in WW2. They knew they were sitting ducks for air attacks as well as any artillery or armored that spotted them. They normally left the front lines immediately after dropping off any troops or cargo.


< Message edited by Deputy -- 3/7/2008 5:37:58 PM >

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 41
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 5:40:17 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy
Thanks for the offer Jason...much as I'm tempted, there are rare occasions when I use trucks. What I WOULD like is a button or option (perhaps in the section where we choose the weapon facing/fog of war/etc., options) to remove ALL transport prior to the start of the scenario. Either that, or locate ALL the truck transport at the bottom of the player side of the map at the beginning of each scenario so that they can be easily removed. I don't understand why truck transport is scattered all over the map at the beginning anyway. Truck drivers weren't stoopid back in WW2. They knew they were sitting ducks for air attacks as well as any artillery or armored that spotted them. They normally left the front lines immediately after dropping off any troops or cargo.



They are scattered because the program that lays them out is stupid. An inherent flaw with DCG's, of course.

One day that will hopefully be remedied, but until then, at least there is the DCG set up mode where you can move your units around prior to starting the scenario.

Jason Petho



_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 42
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 5:45:11 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Protecting the trucks better is the idea.  The change in the VP isn't motivated by supply concerns; it's motivated by the use of trucks in unrealistic ways.

Mraah's suggestions would motivate the player to keep the trucks on the map but well-protected.  I sympathize with Deputy's remarks.  Mraah's suggested changes would probably complicate the game without a corresponding increase in fun.  I don't consider CS an overly complicated games.  SPWAW has a lot more minutia.  I think one of CS's strenghts is its relative simplicity, and supply is one of the areas CS is at its simplest.

Are riderless horses, pack horses, and horse-drawn wagons still one VP?  They too could be used to draw off op fire or to scout for minefields.  On the other hand, horses and wagons don't represent nearly the investment or the greater capabilities and range of a truck.

I like the idea of low 1 VP per SP penal platoons for drawing off op fire and scouting for minefields, especially for the Soviets.  I believe I've seen penal platoons in the Soviet OOB, but I think they worked more like militia - low attack and assault values and 2 VP per SP.  That's probably more accurate than my 1 VP per SP suggestion, although I've read of the Soviets sending unarmed men forward for no other purpose than to draw fire so the Soviets could identify the German defensive positions.  I've also read of instances of unarmed villagers being marched through suspected mined areas, and I wouldn't be surprised to learn prisoners were used for the same purpose.  I think both the Germans and the Soviets found means to serve the same function that players have been using trucks for, but I don't think either the Germans or the Soviets used trucks in that way, so I'm not against raising the VP value of the trucks.  There might be a better argument whether the VP should be 2 instead of 3 VP per SP.

< Message edited by 1925frank -- 3/7/2008 7:11:11 PM >

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 43
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 5:53:34 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
There might be a better argument whether the VP should be 2 instead of 3 VP per SP.


Something else to keep in mind that there is the ability for a 3SP truck to carry a 6SP infantry type platoon. Crew served weapons remain the same; a 4SP MG platoon still requires a 4SP truck to carry it. This means that half the trucks are shown on the map:

TALONSOFT: (Generic Motorized Company)
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
MG Platoon
Trucks (6SP)
Trucks (6SP)
Trucks (6SP)
Trucks (6SP)

MCS: (Generic Motorized Company)
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
Rifle Platoon
MG Platoon
Trucks (3SP)
Trucks (3SP)
Trucks (3SP)
Trucks (4SP)

So instead of the 4 truck platoons of 6SP each at 1VP worth a total of 24 Victory Points that you would have found with the Talonsoft version, you now have 13 SP's of trucks worth 39 Vicitory Points in total.

While the trucks are worth more, there are fewer of them. Yes, the point value is worth more, but not as much it could be if the SP level was left at 6SP per truck.

Jason Petho



< Message edited by Jason Petho -- 3/7/2008 6:49:40 PM >

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 44
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 6:43:31 PM   
Deputy


Posts: 447
Joined: 9/24/2005
From: Silver City, NM USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho


They are scattered because the program that lays them out is stupid. An inherent flaw with DCG's, of course.

One day that will hopefully be remedied, but until then, at least there is the DCG set up mode where you can move your units around prior to starting the scenario.

Jason Petho




LOL...thanks for your honesty Jason!!!!
One of the reasons I never take commands higher than battalion commander is the hassle of removing all those transport vehicles and taking all the combat units out of direct line of sight on each intial setup.

_____________________________

Squad Battles
John Tiller's Campaign Series

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 45
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 6:54:33 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Deputy


LOL...thanks for your honesty Jason!!!!


No problem!

It is what it is.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Deputy)
Post #: 46
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 7:35:53 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding VP and trucks, under Talonsoft, 1 SP of a large tank could carry 2 SP of infantry, and my recollection was 1 SP of truck could carry only 1 SP of infantry under Talonsoft, which, in retrospect, seems odd. 

The 2 SP of infantry in 1 SP of truck is something new, isn't it?

Regardless, 3 VP per 1 SP of truck makes more sense as Jason sets it out.

When setting up a scenario, the default is always 6 SP of trucks per platoon unless you edit them down.  When playing scenarios, frequently the SP for truck platoons are not edited down for things like artillery, mortars, machine guns, or nonmotorized leaders, which frequently are  less than 6 SP, so you'll have excess trucks.  This excess further encourages the use of trucks as bait for op fire, because you could lose a few trucks and still manage to move the artillery or whatever else you were transporting.

I noticed in the Albanian OOB that a partisan company would have three platoons of infantry and one platoon of pack horses.  The pack horses have nothing to carry, so I wasn't sure why they were included.  I assumed they were there as a type of supply pack horse that contributed nothing to the actual fighting (or supply, for that matter) but whose loss would penalize your side.  I would imagine partisans would work in remote areas and would travel with pack horses. Losing a pack horse would be a serious setback. Meril's Marauders in Burma relied very heavily on pack horses or mules.  Anyone got any other ideas why a partisan infantry platoon would have a pack horse platoon?     

< Message edited by 1925frank -- 3/7/2008 7:46:33 PM >

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 47
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 7:43:44 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

Regarding VP and trucks, under Talonsoft, 1 SP of a large tank could carry 2 SP of infantry, and my recollection was 1 SP of truck could carry only 1 SP of infantry under Talonsoft, which, in retrospect, seems odd. 

The 2 SP of infantry in 1 SP of truck is something new, isn't it?




Yes, it was implemented with 1.02. I have gone through the new order of battles and the SP change is reflected in the trucks of most organizations.


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
Regardless, 3 VP per 1 SP of truck makes more sense as Jason sets it out.



Thanks for the support!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
When setting up a scenario, the default is always 6 SP of trucks per platoon unless you edit them down.  When playing scenarios, frequently the SP for truck platoons are not edited down for things like artillery, mortars, machine guns, or nonmotorized leaders, which frequently are  less than 6 SP, so you'll have excess trucks.  This excess further encourages the use of trucks as bait for op fire, because you could lose a few trucks and still manage to move the artillery or whatever else you were transporting.


That is the first thing I look for when assessing a scenario, if the designer has taken the time to match the transport with the units.

With the coming oob revisions, you shouldn't have to do this for the Germans (EF), Americans (WF) and Russian/Soviets(EF&WF) as the appropriate trucks strengths should be assigned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank
I noticed in the Albanian OOB that a partisan company would have three platoons of infantry and one platoon of pack horses.  The pack horses have nothing to carry, so I wasn't sure why they were included.  I assumed they were there as a type of supply pack horse that contributed nothing to the actual fighting but whose loss would penalize your side.  I would imagine partisans would work in remote areas and would travel with pack horses.  Anyone got any other ideas why a partisan infantry platoon would have a pack horse platoon?     


Whomever created the order of battle for the Albanians either forgot to include the machinegun platoon, or added the pack horses by accident.

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 48
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:01:44 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		Regarding the Albanian parisan companies, I also thought the pack horses would come in handy if there were motars or machine guns, as they would otherwise have trouble keeping up with the infantry.  I would think in mountainous terrain, where moving artillery pieces would be difficult, motars would be invaluable.  You're probably right though.  Whoever designed the OOB probably intended to add a machinegun platoon and forgot.  That's what I ended up doing -- adding a machingun or motar platoon.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 49
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:02:13 PM   
timshin42


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2007
From: Edgewater, Florida, USA
Status: offline 		Not trying to be confrontational, but if you are not doing logistics, you are not doing anything that even remotely resembles combat . From an artillery perspective, managing ASR and RSR of ammunition is as important as fire planning and fire support coordination.

The original proposal for sophisticated supply truck rules is very interesting, but also very tedious and complicated for the player who thrives on pure maneuver with maybe a bit of indirect and air fire support. And there is nothing wrong with that as a personal preference.

I would welcome any features that add OPTIONAL features to enhance fire support and logistic dimensions to the combat simulations that we all obviously love!

_____________________________

timshin42
"Freedom isn't free"

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 50
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:10:37 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		Most Soviet Rifle Divisions past 1941 have Penal Battalions (see Russia At War 1941-1945, A. Werth). It would be more realistic to use these troops for purposes aleady stated, but they do not appear in the old game oob as far as I know-awaiting 1.03 before playing the new again. As a substitute, I use a low value unit like a truck (sometimes imagination is a wargamer's only resource). Had I had Penal units-I would have used them instead. There never seemed to be any lack of troops available for these formations and they were used for a lot of nasty jobs, and this is certainly within the norms for Soviet tactics. Conservation of forces compared with pissing off higher command by not acheiving the objective? In order to stack their battle reports, the casualties from these units were not often reported to higher command (and thus rations to the division were not cut either-providing surplus). The result is that they were never included in the casualties officially acknowledged to this day by Russia. Life was cheap.
Using replacement points for transport is not the way to win campaigns in the long run.
Overcomplication of the supply system was not my suggestion at all. GOD-please no! Playability rules!
Deputy, I was trying to find some answers for your particular problem but removing all your trucks from the game? That was an 'interesting' yet accomodating suggestion from the game moderator. You're better off (for now), using them as cannon fodder. Sounds like we're screwed in future by the point value.

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 51
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:28:57 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline 		My understanding was that Penal Battalions were Front and/or Army level assets.

Jason Petho

_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Tim41)
Post #: 52
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:32:01 PM   
Jason Petho


Posts: 15009
Joined: 6/22/2004
From: Terrace, BC, Canada
Status: offline

Further, they came into play during the summer of 1942.

An interesting read on the order:

http://www.mishalov.com/Stalin_28July42.html

Jason Petho


_____________________________


CS Vietnam

More info: Facebook & CS Legion

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 53
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:37:08 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline 		I don't think Talonsoft had penal battalions either.  I'm fairly sure the Matrix version has them and a lot of other new units as well.  I don't think the Matrix penal units are as cheep as the 1 VP per SP trucks though.  Trucks are still better cannon fodder, at least until the 1.03 patch.  On the other hand, the new units may require the use of less imagination.  You may find other units that function better as cannon fodder and who were effectively designed to be used as cannon fodder.

A prior bug was engineers that took losses when clearing mine fields.  Penal units could function like those defective engineers units -- they could clear mine fields but at the price of taking some losses.  What was a bug for the engineers could be a deliberate design feature for penal units.


(in reply to Tim41)
Post #: 54
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 8:58:48 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho



Further, they came into play during the summer of 1942.

An interesting read on the order:

http://www.mishalov.com/Stalin_28July42.html

Jason Petho



Yes, that's an interesting read. Thank you for the link.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 55
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 9:15:54 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		Pravda editorial of the 28th is covered in depth-PAGES 417-42-, after the fall of Rostov.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 56
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 9:18:29 PM   
1925frank

 

Posts: 1039
Joined: 6/20/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1925frank

A prior bug was engineers that took losses when clearing mine fields.  Penal units could function like those defective engineers units -- they could clear mine fields but at the price of taking some losses.  What was a bug for the engineers could be a deliberate design feature for penal units.



On second thought, it'd probably be simpler just to use penal units to locate mine fields and leave the clearing to engineers.

< Message edited by 1925frank -- 3/7/2008 9:22:07 PM >

(in reply to 1925frank)
Post #: 57
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 9:18:35 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		Sorry-my typing is lacking today, but the article in Pravda is covered in depth in Werth's book.

(in reply to Tim41)
Post #: 58
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 9:19:23 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		I said 'past 1941'.

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 59
RE: Truck use alternatives - 3/7/2008 9:45:19 PM   
Tim41

 

Posts: 136
Joined: 2/5/2008
Status: offline 		Their use began before Stalingrad after the fall of Rostov-as you say: at the Army or Front level. I mistated, "most Rifle Divisions". Still, the use of Special Brigades and the NKVD is also discussed in Anthony Beevor's, Stalingrad-The Fateful Siege 1942-1943 and he points out that the Red Army itself killed some 13,500 men for various reasons during the battle of Stalingrad alone. At average divisional strengths during the battle-that's at almost three Soviet Divisions, or at best one.
So wasting a couple of trucks does not seem out of place to me...

(in reply to Jason Petho)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> John Tiller’s Campaign Series Support >> RE: Truck use alternatives Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719