Sample "Infantry and Support Troops" ratings

[rhinobones]

Any chance that you can post this data in a spreadsheet format? Would make side-by-side comparison much easier.

Regards, RhinoBones

[wmorris]

Golden Delicious said:

This is one of the problems with these things. Yes, an artillery peice can knock out a tank- but the guns just aren't designed to be fired at a target as small as a single vehicle- nor are the crews trained to do it in most cases. It can be done, but it's not like using a proper AT gun.

Normal German battery/battalion practice was to consider the placement of one piece of a light howitzer battery or battalion with particular attention to direct antitank protection, with this piece presumably receiving any of the sparse AP hollow charge or sabot rounds. Also, early in the war, one of the preferred and most successful methods of dealing with KV tanks was solid shot from a 10cm medium gun (and later its APCBC round). Raus (extremely underrated), Guderian and others mention this in their books. Direct fire was of course not the desired doctrinal usage of field guns, but they had to plan and utilize everything at hand in antimechanized defense.

JaMiAM said:

AP fire, in sufficient quantities, will destroy armored targets, and this is irrespective of the armor ratings of the targets. That's because 10% of the AP firepower is used in a side calculation, as per regular AP fire, but instead is targetted at armored equipment.

Indirect fire effectiveness against tank masses was attested to repeatedly by WWII authors. This seldon scored direct hits and destroyed armored vehicles, but inflicted lesser damage to running gear, exhaust, vision blocks- making the tank "mission incapable" or uninhabitable. Even 8cm mortars, 2cm flak guns and MG43's, though basically incapable of knocking out a T34, could thwart a tank attack by working together: the tanks advance through choking smoke, blinded and stripped of escorting infantry while the turret is played like a hell-gong with 20mm - the dazed and deafened crew unable to monitor for close assault by individual infantrymen. In real combat, this often resulted in a "unit x breaks off attack" with few irrevocable losses to the attacker [:D]

My impression from the game so far is that direct defensive fire from artillery vs tanks lacks sufficent effectiveness, while indirect fire has about the right effect on the overall combat outcome without disabling as many vehicles as history would indicate; my experience with TOAW III is limited. In the first case, I am wondering whether this is due to the defenders not getting as many shots as the attackers because of equipment type, whereas in reality they would probably get MORE shots than the attackers during their approach. Is this what is happening?


Impatiently awaiting the translation of Heinrici's monograph

[ColinWright]

There's also the point that a battery can be deployed for AT work -- but it is then not going to be a battery that is deployed particularly well for its conventional role. You gotcher regiment of twenty four British 25 pounders: you can have them in the rear and grouped together by battery and all registered and responding to the commands of the forward observer, or you can have them scattered along the front in positions offering good visibility and concealment, ready to stop a tank attack with AP fire.

You can't have both at once. Of course, in OPART you can -- or could, if the full AT ability of these pieces was allowed for. Your regiment of 25 pounders can utilize all of what was in fact the considerable AT ability of the piece when the panzers attack from the hex to the southwest -- and then, in the same turn, support an infantry attack occurring two hexes away to the northeast.

I'm not talking about the effect of conventional indirect artillery fire on armor. These pieces -- particularly such multi-role pieces as the 25 pounder -- had AT shells, and could be used literally as AT guns. Thing is, they couldn't fish and cut bait at the same time. While it would be neat if such pieces could be deployed so as to make use of their AT ability -- the French and Germans were also driven to press their field artillery into this role -- if so deployed they shouldn't simultaneously be able to deliver indirect artillery fire.

The same thought, by the way, would also apply to AA guns. Even in armies that actually used their AA guns in ground combat, it would be to some extent question of one or the other. The AA couldn't simultaneously support infantry in combat and protect that road junction a kilometer to the rear from air attack.

[Central Blue]

I don't know about artillery...

I have read this about Salerno:

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/cl41.txt

When one of her scouting planes spotted 35 German tanks concealed in a thicket adjacent to Red Beach, PHILADELPHIA's guns took them under fire and destroyed seven of them before they escaped
to the rear.

IIRC, naval gunfire was pretty darn hard on tanks in Operation Husky as well.

[wmorris]

While it would be neat if such pieces could be deployed so as to make use of their AT ability -- the French and Germans were also driven to press their field artillery into this role -- if so deployed they shouldn't simultaneously be able to deliver indirect artillery fire.

Tasty. Call this Deploy:Direct/Ground Fire ["G" on the right of the counter].

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

I don't know about artillery...

I have read this about Salerno:

http://www.hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/cl41.txt

When one of her scouting planes spotted 35 German tanks concealed in a thicket adjacent to Red Beach, PHILADELPHIA's guns took them under fire and destroyed seven of them before they escaped
to the rear.

IIRC, naval gunfire was pretty darn hard on tanks in Operation Husky as well.

The problem I've had with ships' guns is that they work just as well 30 km inland as they do on stuff right on the coast. That is [/i]not[/i] what happened. It'd be great if the effect of naval gunfire inland could be attenuated in the scenario editor. In most of the cases I'm aware of, naval gunfire was dramatically effective within a kilometer or five kilometers of the coast -- but rarely used to much effect further inland. Obviously, post WW2 US usage would furnish exceptions -- but that's not usually what people are trying to simulate.

[sstevens06]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

There's also the point that a battery can be deployed for AT work -- but it is then not going to be a battery that is deployed particularly well for its conventional role. You gotcher regiment of twenty four British 25 pounders: you can have them in the rear and grouped together by battery and all registered and responding to the commands of the forward observer, or you can have them scattered along the front in positions offering good visibility and concealment, ready to stop a tank attack with AP fire.

You can't have both at once. Of course, in OPART you can -- or could, if the full AT ability of these pieces was allowed for. Your regiment of 25 pounders can utilize all of what was in fact the considerable AT ability of the piece when the panzers attack from the hex to the southwest -- and then, in the same turn, support an infantry attack occurring two hexes away to the northeast.

I'm not talking about the effect of conventional indirect artillery fire on armor. These pieces -- particularly such multi-role pieces as the 25 pounder -- had AT shells, and could be used literally as AT guns. Thing is, they couldn't fish and cut bait at the same time. While it would be neat if such pieces could be deployed so as to make use of their AT ability -- the French and Germans were also driven to press their field artillery into this role -- if so deployed they shouldn't simultaneously be able to deliver indirect artillery fire.

The same thought, by the way, would also apply to AA guns. Even in armies that actually used their AA guns in ground combat, it would be to some extent question of one or the other. The AA couldn't simultaneously support infantry in combat and protect that road junction a kilometer to the rear from air attack.

This is a problem I've wrestled with in several of my post-WW2 scenarios. A number of Cold War-era Soviet towed artillery pieces were specifically designed to be effective anti-tank guns. The widely deployed M-46 130mm gun, D-30 and D-74 122mm howitzers, as well as others were equipped with optics for direct fire and several types of AT ammunition, mostly HEAT. In fact, the M-46 and D-74 were such formidable AT weapons they were mounted on self-propelled chasses based on the T-62 (IT-130) and T-55 (IT-122) tanks respectively, making them the only post-WW2 manufactured Soviet "tank destroyers."

I kludged a solution to this dilemma in my Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario by creating AT versions of these artillery pieces in BioEd and then equipping Soviet artillery regiments and brigades with these AT guns at a ratio of 1:3 to their complement of artillery versions of these guns and howitzers (e.g., a Soviet artillery regiment equipped with 36 x M-46 130mm guns would also have 12 x M-46 130mm AT guns). Not very elegant but it was the only way to simulate the very real AT capabilities/doctrinal usage of Soviet towed artillery of the period.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: sstevens06

This is a problem I've wrestled with in several of my post-WW2 scenarios. A number of Cold War-era Soviet towed artillery pieces were specifically designed to be effective anti-tank guns. The widely deployed M-46 130mm gun, D-30 and D-74 122mm howitzers, as well as others were equipped with optics for direct fire and several types of AT ammunition, mostly HEAT. In fact, the M-46 and D-74 were such formidable AT weapons they were mounted on self-propelled chasses based on the T-62 (IT-130) and T-55 (IT-122) tanks respectively, making them the only post-WW2 manufactured Soviet "tank destroyers."

I kludged a solution to this dilemma in my Berlin Crisis 1961 scenario by creating AT versions of these artillery pieces in BioEd and then equipping Soviet artillery regiments and brigades with these AT guns at a ratio of 1:3 to their complement of artillery versions of these guns and howitzers (e.g., a Soviet artillery regiment equipped with 36 x M-46 130mm guns would also have 12 x M-46 130mm AT guns). Not very elegant but it was the only way to simulate the very real AT capabilities/doctrinal usage of Soviet towed artillery of the period.

In Seelowe I've simply given AT abilities to the British 25 pdr, 18/25 pdr, 18 pdr, and French 75's (there were some). 5, 2, 2, 2, and 2, as I recall. The thing is, the Briton is going to regret it if he makes a habit of sticking his artillery in the front line -- and the AP values aren't really all that great anyway. Plus, it's not a tank-dominated scenario. As a rule, the Briton is better off using his artillery conventionally -- but the ability is there for emergencies.

[rhinobones]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
In Seelowe I've simply . . .

Yes, you have done a "simply".

Once again the mysterious Seelowe scenario is quoted . . . maybe someday it will be available in a market near you so that everyone can enjoy the Colinisque version of history and warfare.

My copy of Seelow is from January 2008 . . . if there is a newer copy please send it my way, or, better yet, make it available to the general public. After all, if you’re going to use it as an example, then everyone should be able to have access to the reference.

Also, I wonder how you would react if someone else was quoting a scenario for which you did not have access. “wi______” comes to mind.

Regards, RhinoBones

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: ColinWright
In Seelowe I've simply . . .

Yes, you have done a "simply".

Once again the mysterious Seelowe scenario is quoted . . . maybe someday it will be available in a market near you so that everyone can enjoy the Colinisque version of history and warfare.

My copy of Seelow is from January 2008 . . . if there is a newer copy please send it my way, or, better yet, make it available to the general public. After all, if you’re going to use it as an example, then everyone should be able to have access to the reference.

Also, I wonder how you would react if someone else was quoting a scenario for which you did not have access. “wi______” comes to mind.

Regards, RhinoBones

Sergeant Sunshine rides again. You shouldn't have a copy of my scenario. If you do, please delete it.

Otherwise, my post wasn't directed at you, so that you feel the need to make a pointlessly hostile comment is revealing. You really are an odious little animal dropping.

Happily, not a very bright one, though. How would I react if someone referenced a scenario I did not have access to? I wouldn't react at all. I suppose if the conversation got really involved, and I was really interested, I might ask politely if I could see a copy.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

the Colinisque version of history

What is it about Colin that leads to his named being turned into adjectives? I believe it's actually Colinite.

Anyway, Colin does need to sit up and publish Seelowe. It'll shut you up once and for all.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

the Colinisque version of history

What is it about Colin that leads to his named being turned into adjectives? I believe it's actually Colinite.

Anyway, Colin does need to sit up and publish Seelowe. It'll shut you up once and for all.

At this point, I'll need to work out a Rhinobones-inaccessible format before releasing it.

Perhaps a computer program. 'Are you Rhinobones?' followed by series of questions designed to satisfactorily verify that the prospective user is not Rhinobones.

[Panzer War]

Balancing out the vast amount of types of equipment for a WWII database will be quite difficult as I speak from first hand experience.

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: Panzer War

Balancing out the vast amount of types of equipment for a WWII database will be quite difficult as I speak from first hand experience.

Actually, it's proven to be impossible for me. I've basically given up trying to do an "historical" WW2 equipment database. I do have a new idea, though, that involves "approximating" a WW2 equipment database.