Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Ultimately, just about everyone discovered that a more balanced approach to their tank forces (i.e. filling the gaps with mobile/motorized/mechanized infantry) was the way to go. The more tanks & less infantry - particularly in the attack, the higher losses the tanks would take (look at the fighting the British & Americans did in Normandy) - in the vast majority of cases, unless you were in full pursuit mode, tank-led attacks without proper infantry support were decimated by dug-in anti-tank defenses.

Over the course of the war, the Germans also revamped their armored forces to include more infantry until they reached a much more balanced OOB of about equal battalions of infantry to armor.

quote:

I have some serious question marks with these statements. Not the makeup of the Mech/Tank/Inf. Corps but certainly with the combat efficiency of the Russian infantry. And the unefficientcy of the tanks. Let's say the game is right, that poses the question why all WW2 particpants produced the amount of tanks they did? If they're just for exploitation, you don't need that many. Secondly, often in Russain offensives, the tank armies (which normally had the role of exploitation as you mention) were committed to effect the breakthrough when the infantry corps failed to do so. Take for example Operation Kutozov (12 july 1943) to liberate Orel. I'm writing from memory so I probably get some details wrong, but the Soviet threw something like 4 infantry and 2 tank armies against a couple of infantry corps backed up with 5th and 8th Panzer divs and some more armour redeployed from 9th Army. Only in 11th Guards Armies sector did they achieve a clean penetration that was then halted by the reinforcing panzers. On the East side of the Orel Bulge, they got nowhere and a tank army was committed to achieve the breakthrough and failed in this instance.

quote:

Frankly, while the Russians certainly envisaged infantry making the breach which then would be widened by tank corps attached to the infantry armies and exploited in depth by the tank armies, more often than not, the tank armies where needed to MAKE the breakthrough, and paid a tremendous price for doing so. In Operation Kutuzov, the Russains lost about a 1000 tanks more than in Operation Citadelle, something in the order of 2500. Simply put, the infantry just didn't get through without the tanks!

quote:

In Citadelle, against such though defenses (fortifications) heavy German tanks were key to make any progress at all. The infantry just could not follow the tanks as they were subjected to tremendous fire from machine gun, arty, etc.. This in turn made the tanks vulnerable to close in attacks.

Without tanks, the Russian infantry just didn't get anywhere against the German panzer divisions untill well into 1944, perhaps until the end of the war. And until the end the German Panzer divisions inflicted terrible punishment on the Russian infantry.

quote:

Certainly, the approach of the game in the way it _SEEMS_ to handle tanks (seems because there is not really transparency) is a clean break away from most if not all other hardcore wargames I've played over the past 20 years. To name the W@W series again, upto +10 shifts for armour. Boardgame FitE/SE +3 attack -2 defense in clear, OCS, CV value doubled against soft infantry.

quote:

Finally, when going down to the tactical level, like for example the Close combat series also from Atomic and now through Matrixgames. Have you ever tried attacking a Tank with infantry in clear terrain? It's bloody difficult and bloody costly if it works at all!

quote:

The Normandy example is actually not quite right. It wasn't that more tanks wasn't better. It wasn't that the infantry wasn't supporting the tanks, it was that the Germans had less but vastly superior tanks and used them to great effect and with great determination. The Allies chose to have a lot of inferior tanks versus fewer but better tanks. And they paid a serious price for this. Only 1/3rd of the British tanks were Fireflies and had the upgraded 76mm gun which could penetrate the Panthers and Tigers at a reasonable distance. Most where either still the 75mm or the normal 76mm. I don't think the US had any Fireflies. Those tanks could only penetrate Tigers and Panthers at rediculous close ranges if at all. In addition, the Germans had the superb 88mm gun which just tore the haert out of any tank attack. Come to think of it, why can't we attach a 88m LW regiment directly to a German division in the game? Surely, it was done quite often historically. Or would that upset the balance of the game?

quote:

1. massive importance of arty. I'm not about to dispute the effect of arty, but the germans did devellop tactics to reduce it's effects. For instance withdrawing to a second line before the barrage (read the Raus book for more info). Secondly, quantity is good, but that doesn't mean the fire is accurate.

quote:

2. Germans can't attach arty directly to a division but can to a fortified region!?? Which to boot is rediculously weak?

quote:

3. Soviet Corps and the stacking advantage it brings. I mean, seriously, you have a stacking limit of three units regarless of size, but that is actually trippled when the Soviet get their corps (each corps being 3 divisions). I mean, why can you suddenly get 3 times as many men and weapons in a 15km hex as before? What's the rational? It certainly smells like a serious game balancing trick in favor of the Sovs.

quote:

4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.

quote:

5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.

quote:

6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

quote:

7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
4. Tanks which have minimal effect and are just for CV dressing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Tanks were produced because they were at the time the primary mobile unit type that could be employed for breakthroughs, this being the time before large scale use of APC's/IFV's by all participants and with cavalry being obsolete. Tanks and AFV's in general are great for support or chasing an enemy that is withdrawing, they are far less good at head on fights. The average WWII tank is going to lose a fight against the average by the time modern WWII dug in AT gun. You can't really compare the firepower and protection those tanks had to the firepower and protection tanks have today.

That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I can´t really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Compared to the Western Allies, the Germans had few tanks in Normandy, the terrain and infantry held/manned AT weapons were much more of a problem than enemy tanks.

I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons. In game terms this should be reflected by exp, morale and leaders.

I´m going a bit oftopic here though!
I do agree with glvaca wholeheartly on most points!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

5. Effects of German superior command and control, doctrine are below underwhelming.

Better leader ratings and corps HQ's are a significant benefit, it's mostly the retreat losses (which don't seem to be influenced by leader ratings entirely the same way that regular losses are) where the Germans could use a bit of an advantage.

quote:

6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

We're trying to find a way to reduce the long term problems the post-release morale changes can cause for the Axis, but it's difficult to make it all work without the Germans or Soviets being able to become supermen, like in the release version.

quote:

7. Closely related, every skirmish is counted as a defeat or victory? Easy fix, hasty attack only counts as a victory but not as a defeat.
8. No option to probe, all-out attack, defend, defend at all costs. Look at the W@W games, it works, very well.

Well, an attack can turn into a scouting operation, but I agree there's less flexibility with orders than in, say, TOAW.

The other points are already being discussed in other threads or have recently been discussed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

When talking about the advantages of the tank, we are actually in luck. World War I is the best example what a battlefield dominated by arty, infantry and machine guns looked like. Trench warfare. WWI was decided by the employement of tanks as a breakthrough weapon. Granted, there weren't many AT weapons available at the time but clearly, the tank was a game changing weapon and it came to age during WWII, obviously.

I am with you on the tank issue, but I am not sure WW1 is a good example. Stosstruppen, mission tactics (or whatever Auftragstaktik would be in English) and improved artillery tactics gave the Germans the ability to make much larger breakthroughs than the Entente did with tanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca
6. The morale/experience mechanism is currently very much in favor for the side which has low morale units. The Germans are depending on morale/expereince to get anywhere. Currently, a failed hasty attack 99% of the time costs you -2 morale. Gaining morale is _waaaaaayyyyy_ more difficult as in the first version of the game. Then it was actually right on the money. Then changed when everybody was complaining about the first winter. So as the German you end up foregoing many attacks you're not really certain of because if you fail you'll lose morale. Seriously guys.
For the Sovs this is different as you can easily gain up to the national morale level through doing nothing.

Not entirely true. It's easy to get up to National Morale for bothsides (just put them behind the lines on Refit). What is actually hard is to get significantly above National Morale.

quote:

Comrade, RE: Morale, have you guys thought of a quicker "bounce-back" of Morale levels to National Morale, if Morale of a unit goes below National Morale?

At the moment, there isn't a great "bounceback", it takes a long time. This rule would really only help the Germans. Couple it with the Morale changes, and the Wehrmacht morale would more closely follow the actual National Morale levels.

This wouldn't unleash a high "ceiling" which was what the problem was before with 99 morale Romanians, etc., but it would create a harder "floor"

quote:

That is exactly what the US army thought. They later learned that they were wrong. Their whole armoured force was build on that doctrine on the start of WW2. That a stationary, conceled AT gun would destroy a tank everytime. I can´t really remeber the exct details from memory but I think its from "The tank killers" by Harry Yeide.

quote:

I think that its somewhat established that the reason for the failures in Normandie was to blame almost exlusivly on poor leadership by the allied forces? Not terrain and AT weapons.

quote:

But to claim that the Soviet infantry didn't need the tanks and could make the breakthrough alone is quite simply wrong.

quote:

Soviet infantry corps are too powerfull versus what a tank corps or panzer division could achieve.

quote:

Fourthly, tanks could get through without the infantry. Terrain would be the most important factor. And also, what kind of tank obviously.

quote:

Fifthly, tanks on the defense are not stationary waiting to be attacked.

quote:

To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong.

quote:

The Germans had really a LOT of tanks in Normandy. They started with:

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DorianGray

quote:

ORIGINAL: glvaca

In short, tanks ruled WW2. WW2 without tanks would have been WWI part 2. To claim tanks were just exploitation weapons is _really_ questionable and disputed by the whole history of WW2. To go even one step further and claim that infantry could actually do the job better and didn't really need tanks, ie. the Soviet inf. corps can be used to push out panzer divisions by applying AT weapons is really plain wrong. Everywhere and always panzer divisions were thrown into the line they stopped the Soviet attacks and often counter attack with great effect and large losses for the Soviets. AT guns or not. Do you think it was the infantry in the Panzer divs that did that? Common mate, you can't be serious.

I don't know if I can agree with your conclusion of "tanks ruled WW2". I would argue it was the concept of "combined arms doctrine" which was the foundation of blitzkrieg. The close coordination and support of each of the major combat types (armor, infantry, artillery, air) is really what ruled WW2. And, to Germany's credit, they seemed to have mastered this to a much greater proficiency than their counterparts. So much so that the German armored formations were more efficiently used and required much less armor in their TOE.

As far as tanks advancing on their own with little or no support from the other combat arms, I'm not aware of this being widely done to much success.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jakerson

No matter what historical fact is that 80% of casulties came from Artillery fire rest 20% from tanks and small arms.

Artillery is that tells how much damage you can make other stuff is there just to provide the hit points. :D

quote:

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the infantry in a decisive way? Could the infantry just as well do their thing without tanks?

&

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

quote:

The core of the issue is whether tanks actually contributed more than just exploitation? Did they aid the advance of the infantry in a decisive way? Could the infantry just as well do their thing without tanks?

&

Here it _seems_ we disagree. If I understand your position correctly, you argue that the effect of tanks in an infantry supportive role is negligable.
Secondly, tanks (as in panzer divisions, as in the whole division not just the tanks of the panzer division) in panzer divs and TC, cannot by themselves establish breakthroughs and cause a lot of casualties.

My argument comes down to that a tank in an infantry support role isn't really making use of the tanks primary asset: mobility. If you use a tank as an armoured 57mm/75mm/76mm/85mm gun (to use the most common mid/late war calibres), you're wasting the mobility. You get a slow advance. Sure, the infantry probably appreciates it, but you might as well be using an assault gun for the same job, also because within no time some tanks will be brewing up because their frontal armour normally can't withstand prolonged fights.

In that case, to continue the link in the discussion to fighting in the west, you end up fighting like the Western Allies: you move the tanks in with the infantry, either the infantry or the tanks start taking losses and refuse to go further, reinforcements are called in. The result is a situation where a potentially very small enemy force, a few squads well equipped with MG's and Panzerfausts and an (self-propelled)AT gun, for example, can slow the advance down significantly, because the tanks are forced to stick to the infantry.

What the Germans understood well was that tanks were not made for that kind of thing. If the tanks encounter stiff dug-in resistance, you let them go somewhere else and let the infantry fight the enemy. You don't start banging your head against entrenched positions, a situation where tanks are just big targets.

In game terms, this means that when mobile units attack well entrenched units, they can suffer, but generally speaking when they attack some, say, Rifle division that has already been displaced by the infantry, the Soviets are going to take a beating, although losses can still be somewhat unimpressive (no argument there, I've made a couple of suggestions on the tester forum for improving casualties caused by mobile units).

If tanks attack well entrenched positions, they're probably at their most vulnerable.

Think of it like this: you have infantry and tanks at your disposal, in separate units, and you encounter an enemy position, knowing that both forces could dislodge the enemy. You could attack the position with your infantry, removing the enemy from their positions and then send your still fresh tanks after them, or you could send your tanks in to fight the enemy and then...order your infantry to walk after the enemy? The latter option isn't going to do you much good. The enemy will have plenty of time to reorganize as the infantry you send after them is easily slowed down by a couple of delaying actions.

quote:

I certainly won't dispute that tanks/SPG are most vulnerable when attacking highly entrenched positions, but then again, so is infantry, and they don't have 100cm of hardened steel to hide behind.

quote:

I'm also confused with the Normandy example. IF I understand correctly, your point there is that you're better of sending in the infantry without the tanks because when the infantry bogs down, your tanks stop too. Right? Doesn't that actually contradict the statement that infantry doesn't need tanks/SPG to help them overcome strong defenses?

quote:

1. Do Soviet rifle corps need tanks to overcome highly fortified enemy positions or can they do equally well with lavish arty support? The current consensus is that in the game, tanks are reduntant and my understanding is that you support that design decision.

quote:

2. Are panzer divs or TC/MC capable of effecting the breach themselves if the situation calls for it? Currently, the consensus seems to be that in the game the panzer divs are too weak and cannot overcome strong defenses better or even on par with _good_ strong infantry divs. Hence, the statement that armour is underwhelming.