Utter madness... if you didn't believe something was wrong before

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

ORIGINAL: Zort

I'm impressed with the thoughts most people have put forth here.  How many times in a boardgame have you thrown the die and the result was not what you wanted? Was the game then broken?  It happened here, doesn't mean it is broken, just a result.  If I take the original posters take, a panzer division should never lose against an inf div in open terrain.  If that was so then the soviets should be toast throughout the war.

It seems the more info we have the more people want.  For me it seems the soviets defended better then the germans attacked.  Heck maybe the officer leading the attack was a rookie and screwed up the attack.  The final result was the loss of more men then normal. 

Well to be fair to the decent board games. This battle on a board game would have been on a column which would have only resulted in minor loses to the attacker even with the worst roll, but still many more loses to the defender.

If anybody has a an old board game around. Give it a try. I found an old SPI game and put a full strength 1942 Panzer Div vs a Sov Rifle div in the open and not fortified. The worst result I could get was 1/2R which was one step lose to the Panzer Div (it has 3 Regt each with 3 steps) and 2 steps to the Rifle Div (3 steps total) with a mandatory retreat. BTW the next worst result was a 0/2R. If the unit was in better defensible terrain or fortified the loses get more even.

[;)]

So looks like even the board games with dice have a more realistic variance of loses, IMO.

Does this unnaamed game use the same combat system as this one? If not, the comparison really doesn't fly. Back in the old days, much time was spent trying for the guaranteed result, a 3 to 1 or better. But the real fact is that no battle is a sure thing.

Hare vs Tortoise.

[TulliusDetritus]

Actually to prove their point is not that hard... All you [kirkgregerson] need is

1) analyse ALL the combats involving German tanks vs Soviet riflemen during 1942
2) simply conclude (possibility: 3%, 11%, etc.)

And that's only the real world (half of the job). As for the game, do the same:

1) recreate all these real world combats and see what are the results.
2) finally compare...

Easy, eh?

But I suspect that unless you're living close to the Library of Congress it's going to be rather hard (quite many many combats if you ask me) [:D] So let me make this wild assumption: it's not going to happen. Or surprise me...

But it's YOU and ONLY YOU who must prove this point [;)]

EDITED: actually, knowing Russian and German should be a must as well... to read the first hand sources that is...

[kirkgregerson]

But the real fact is that no battle is a sure thing.

Really have to disagree with that statement. Many battles were a sure thing. Do you think the axis pocket in Stalingrad by mid Jan 43 was not a sure thing? Was the invasion of Sicily not a sure thing? Western allied landings at Dieppe? I could go through endless battles and name sure things.

So we should allow any type of results to happen in battles? Maybe modeling after something like the battle of Thermopylae? Where 300 Sov or Germans in the correct terrain could hold out against 100k? Yeah, that would be a great game. Wait until a player actually strings together enough of these improbable results that will be a crazy fun game.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

But the real fact is that no battle is a sure thing.

Really have to disagree with that statement. Many battles were a sure thing. Do you think the axis pocket in Stalingrad by mid Jan 43 was not a sure thing? Was the invasion of Sicily not a sure thing? Western allied landings at Dieppe? I could go through endless battles and name sure things.

So we should allow any type of results to happen in battles? Maybe modeling after something like the battle of Thermopylae? Where 300 Sov or Germans in the correct terrain could hold out against 100k? Yeah, that would be a great game. Wait until a player actually strings together enough of these improbable results that will be a crazy fun game.

I know I am going to regret dipping into this ... stuff, but ...

Kirkgregerson, have you ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers?

Now I'm out of here before some of this stuff sticks to me [:D]

[LiquidSky]

The Germans losing in Russia is a sure thing

Which is why the Germans can win a Minor Victory without owning a single hex in Russia.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

But the real fact is that no battle is a sure thing.

Really have to disagree with that statement. Many battles were a sure thing. Do you think the axis pocket in Stalingrad by mid Jan 43 was not a sure thing? Was the invasion of Sicily not a sure thing? Western allied landings at Dieppe? I could go through endless battles and name sure things.

So we should allow any type of results to happen in battles? Maybe modeling after something like the battle of Thermopylae? Where 300 Sov or Germans in the correct terrain could hold out against 100k? Yeah, that would be a great game. Wait until a player actually strings together enough of these improbable results that will be a crazy fun game.

I'm not surprised you disagree. I can nane a number of battles where the side that should of won didn't.

No matter what you may think, the OP's result is a non issue.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

But the real fact is that no battle is a sure thing.

Really have to disagree with that statement. Many battles were a sure thing. Do you think the axis pocket in Stalingrad by mid Jan 43 was not a sure thing? Was the invasion of Sicily not a sure thing? Western allied landings at Dieppe? I could go through endless battles and name sure things.

So we should allow any type of results to happen in battles? Maybe modeling after something like the battle of Thermopylae? Where 300 Sov or Germans in the correct terrain could hold out against 100k? Yeah, that would be a great game. Wait until a player actually strings together enough of these improbable results that will be a crazy fun game.

I know I am going to regret dipping into this ... stuff, but ...

Kirkgregerson, have you ever heard of the Law of Large Numbers?

Now I'm out of here before some of this stuff sticks to me [:D]

Too late

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Hare vs Tortoise

I hate boxing but I remember this one:

Tyson vs Douglas (1990) [8D]

[mmarquo]

Utter madness...is to futilely cling to the notion that the Wehrmacht was invincible and that any game that does not allow the Axis an easy victory is terminally flawed.   [:-]

[gradenko2k]

Really have to disagree with that statement. Many battles were a sure thing. Do you think the axis pocket in Stalingrad by mid Jan 43 was not a sure thing? Was the invasion of Sicily not a sure thing? Western allied landings at Dieppe? I could go through endless battles and name sure things.

Nobody's saying that any arbitrary situation should result in an equal chance for either side to come out as the winner. There are situations where you can expect to win all the time, provided that you're willing to spend the effort and force necessary. Indeed, having to balance between having enough forces to perform all the attacks you want, and allocating enough forces to make sure all your attacks succeed, or force allocation, is a defining concept of these types of games.

What we are saying is that this is not one of these situations - the battle was not so much in the German's favor that the results are improbable.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: notenome

I don't believe simply criticizing the op for his frustration is warranted. As the axis there is very little room for error, so frustration for what may otherwise seem like a small issue is warranted.

The first thing that needs to be stated is that a lot of losses are disruption, which is to say the attacker didn't actually loose that many men. A lot of frustration could be abated if the combat report diferentiated losses (just for the attacker). So instead of ATCK lost 800 men DEF lost 800 men it would be

ATTCK losses           DEF losses
200 killed                  800 men
200 disabled
400 disrupted

The second thing is that almost certaintly what killed most of the units was the artillery and the Il-2s. Now the game seems to treat artillery as all or nothing. Either it participates or it doesn't. If it participates then it will be firing on the attackers troops at long range and they will take casualties. I can understand this in some cases but not in others. not so much. There is a window within which artillery can fire, which goes from its maximum range up to when the attacker gets too close to the frontlines that it risks shooting up its own units (the hug the Germans tactic the soviets employed in Stalingrad). In a Kursk like scenario it makes sense that the artillery would fire during the entire window, but that is more the exception then the rule, a great part of the art of the offensive is precisely reducing to the minimum the amount of response time that the defender has before the attack comences, so for example, one could make it so that the attacking general gets a series of checks to see when the combat will actually begin taking place. If he fails the first check it starts at 4k meters, makes the first fails the second starts at 3.5k meters etc. That way a greater variability of scenarios gets contemplated. The second issue has to do with motorized units, which seem a little too vulnerable to arty fire at the momment to be honest and whose speed in combat doesn't seem to be properly modeled. A motorized unit's greatest strength is precisely its speed, and methinks that some combat tweaking is necessary to account for the fact that the defender can fire many more rounds into an infantry squad moving forwards then a halftrack.

The last issue has to do with aircap, too many fighters are getting shot down by flak, which really makes no sense. The fighters are intercepting the Il-2s, which are flying over the german units. So how are the fighters getting hit by soviet flak? Also, the efficiency of ground support could use a tweak. Even if an Il-2 doesn't get shot down, it is simultaneously trying to evade a fighter whilst it also attempts to attack german units. That greatly reduces the Il-2s effectivness. What I would suggest is that if an air group is engaged by the CAP of the opposing player, its accuracy should be reduced by half to simulate how hard it is to line up an attack approach whilst doing evasive maneuvers.

Ya i would like to see whats been damaged too it would make things a lot easier.

[randallw]

Just a few semi random ideas to ponder about this debate:

The values of the leaders are not simply compared to each other and the higher rated one is declared the winner; each one has a dice roll test, then each roll test modifies the respective sides.  It is possible for the lower rated leader to win his while the higher rated leader loses his.

In another thread, sometime last week or so, Joel stated that in a hasty attack the attacker doesn't fire preparatory artillery like in a deliberate attack, but the defender still gets to fire it.  We should consider that when comparing casualties from artillery.

A panzer division is not magic;  consider a comparison between a panzer division ( or tank corps ) vs an infantry/rifle division:
 
The personnel advantage for the armor unit is maybe 1k or 2k men, though measuring firepower advantage may be hard.  You have tanks ( maybe 150-200 ) vs none, but the panzer/tank units have less infantry than the pure infantry units, by perhaps 2 regiments.  It's a tradeoff in types of firepower, not completely one sided in favor of the armor unit in all types of equipment.

The infantry have halftracks and all, or at least some, of the heavy cannons are mobile.  The amount of heavy cannons ( howitzers n' such ) should be roughly the same as an infantry/rifle unit; it's not like an armor division gets two or three more battalions of it.

The biggest advantage of the armored unit is not necessarily firepower, but mobility.

Now if we're talking a 1940 panzer division, it's fairly massive, with around 240+ tanks; by Barbarossa they are down a bit, to something regularish like 160.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

he first thing that needs to be stated is that a lot of losses are disruption, which is to say the attacker didn't actually loose that many men. A lot of frustration could be abated if the combat report diferentiated losses (just for the attacker). So instead of ATCK lost 800 men DEF lost 800 men it would be

ATTCK losses           DEF losses
200 killed                  800 men
200 disabled
400 disrupted

I expended a lot of effort in the development forums asking for precisely this. I wish disruption was more visible, as this explains a lot of variance in the CVs. In the end it was felt that the Combat report had to be concise and not take up pages and pages. The quality and quantity of information improved tremendously during the development process (look at the early AARs). I hope they can find space for disruption effects at some time in the future.

Disruption and disabled would be great to have as well as damaged. Glad you fought the good fight for it.
3 new lines wouldn't be much more in the report. It could even be less then message level 3 you don't see that stuff but 3 and over you see damaged, disrupted and disabled.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson


And there's many more. Calling these people retards would only be offensive to actual retards, so I won't bother.

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'll give you 'little trouble makers' a chance to actually defend yourselves. You want to jump down abulbulian throat for posting a situation that WOULD have never occurred. So here's where I'm going to make you look the fools you are.

Let me just get this down again so maybe those that had trouble reading the initial post can make another attempt. Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

It's spring 1942 and a sov rifle div has ventured out into the open terrain on a clear sunny afternoon to participant in an offensive against some Romanian units. It has a minor victory, but suffers a little fatigue and some slight loses. After hearing about this Soviet push a German general from a nearby PZ Corps HQ dispatches the well rested, elite, fully supplied/fuel and TOE stocked 11th Panzer Div to counter attack. The 11th Pz with it's brillant commander is within 20 miles and thus is able to go into action with little fatigue. It finds the 465th Rile Div and battle commences. The 90 battle hardened tanks drive forward and dust flies up all over the plains.
<inject fiction here now>
The Sov forces although with half the moral and exp of the Pz units are able to put a fantasy defense even though they have not entrench to any degree. They finally do make a retreat but are able to incur more loses on the PZ unit even though their leadership was sub-par.

LOL, yes some good fiction.

For those that posed silly, worthless, and non-objective comments like "I see nothing wrong", "that's how the games works.. live with it", "stop whining" here's your chance to post something meaningful.. if you can find it. ONE THING I'VE YET TO SEE IS ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT IS WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. Our we suppose the model the game on improbabilities or the probabilities and realism of the time?

So yeah, I'm calling out all you bandwagon peeps to put your money where your mouth is and give some evidence that the following ever occurred in 1942. If not, do us all a favor and keep your WitEKA mouths shut until you do.

So from the game we have basically:

German PZ Div
- high 90's for exp on all components (ELITE)
- moral of 89
- TOE almost 80%
- fatigue <= 10%
- top notch leadership values (from what was posted)
- 12k men
- 20 exp fighters BF 109


v.s.

Sov 42 Rifle Div
- moral med-low(s.b. in 50s?)
- exp med-low (30s 40s? - if these sov rifle div have high exp in 42.. that's a another issue)
- fatigue low-med?
- leadership low-avg?
- 8.6k men
- 10 fighter Hurican II, 20 IL-2 bombers (exp low? in 1942?)

battlefield: open terrain, clear spring skies, defending sov unit has 0 fort lvl


So this outcome of axis loses 646 men, 18arty, 8 afvs to the sov loses of 521 men and 7 arty seems ok? Oh and BTW the sov had a very skilled rereat too as they didn't suffer more than 500 lose?
At least the air ware seemed to be model correct... 0 axis loses and 5 fighter and 5 sov bomber loses.

Ok, I've been reading a few of the following books lately that have been describing how the German Pz Div were almost 'super-human' in dealing with some of the most incredible tasks of defending an attacking.

To the Gates of Stalingrad: Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942: David Glantz
The 6th Panzer Division 1937-1945: Helmut Ritgen

These mobile units were called upon by the Germany army over and over again to be the 'fireman' and/or spearheads when needed.
In all the readings I've yet to see an example of a sov Rifle div accomplishing what happen in this fictional WitE battle given the circumstances. Here's a little blurb which I found about the Kharkov 2nd battle:

"Destruction of the Barvenkovo Salient

Both sides spent the 20th of May reorganizing their forces in and around the Barvenkovo salient. During the 20th, the 14th Panzer Division captured Protopopovka, which narrowed the neck of the pocket to only twelve miles.
On the 22nd, German forces began their attempt to seal the neck of the pocket. In the south the 14th and 16th Panzer Divisions attacked northwards from Protopopovka and Zagorodnoe toward Chepel and the 14th Panzer Division reached Bayrak, to the south of Balakleia. In the north, the redeployed elements of the 3rd and 23rd Panzer Divisions attacked southwards from Balakleia and Andreevka smashing through the 337th and 47th Rifle Divisions, forcing crossings of the Northern Donets River at Chervonyi Donets and Krasnaia Gusarovka."


In in almost all cases of the 42 battles, a sov rifle div caught in the open was cannon-fodder for a German Pz Div.

Oh, and most of these Pz Div later in the war that were still performing incredible feats were doing so very under strength in men and tanks.

We also have to keep in mind the tactics that these PZ leaders possessed that allowed them to win battles with minimal loses even against forces much larger than theirs. In this WitE battle example the 11th PZ has the larger force which makes the results even more disturbing.

Most of what I've seen is that Sov Rifle div out in the open/un-entrenched could never have pulled this feat off as described by abulbulian.

So let's see some meaningful comments about what is and is NOT possible.

Also, if one lone sov rilfe div out in the open is able to do this to an elite Pz unit.. wow. The sov player has these rifle div to burn. I think the results of this battle reflect some serious issues that only an expert player vs a moron sov player could ever hope to overcome.

That's my opinion. I don't plan to play the axis anytime soon. But I'll be happy to play the soviets in a PBEM with any of you haters.[:-]

The soviet rifle division was low fatigue (it had been resting for more then a month.)
It's leader is one of my best 7 Infantry rating.
It's morale was in the 60's and it's cv upon attack the previous turn was 3.
I don't see much problems with the losses. As joel has said in the past gary is all about randomness. So sometimes you get things you don't expect.

The only way to really see how many units were destroyed and how much was damaged ara will need to look at the turn and let us know. Until they provide more details on whats disrupted/damaged/disabled we won't know for sure.

While the tank crews performed very great feats you're diluting yourself to think they never suffered casualties. Reading absolute war along barbarossa derailed you will see that by the first winter many tank crews has become very low on tanks. So while russian units were not as skilled as the germans the panzers were not invulnerable. And i'd also bet those tanks were all cheap obsolete moduels. If he's getting top of the link p iv's destroyed that's a whole different ball of wax.

And yes i've played as the axis before. But i won't be playing it as axis anymore until the winter stuff is fixed for players who fortify to lose less winter attrition.

edit: Edited to fix quote highlighting.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson



And there's many more. Calling these people retards would only be offensive to actual retards, so I won't bother.

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'll give you 'little trouble makers' a chance to actually defend yourselves. You want to jump down abulbulian throat for posting a situation that WOULD have never occurred. So here's where I'm going to make you look the fools you are.

Let me just get this down again so maybe those that had trouble reading the initial post can make another attempt. Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

It's spring 1942 and a sov rifle div has ventured out into the open terrain on a clear sunny afternoon to participant in an offensive against some Romanian units. It has a minor victory, but suffers a little fatigue and some slight loses. After hearing about this Soviet push a German general from a nearby PZ Corps HQ dispatches the well rested, elite, fully supplied/fuel and TOE stocked 11th Panzer Div to counter attack. The 11th Pz with it's brillant commander is within 20 miles and thus is able to go into action with little fatigue. It finds the 465th Rile Div and battle commences. The 90 battle hardened tanks drive forward and dust flies up all over the plains.
<inject fiction here now>
The Sov forces although with half the moral and exp of the Pz units are able to put a fantasy defense even though they have not entrench to any degree. They finally do make a retreat but are able to incur more loses on the PZ unit even though their leadership was sub-par.

LOL, yes some good fiction.

For those that posed silly, worthless, and non-objective comments like "I see nothing wrong", "that's how the games works.. live with it", "stop whining" here's your chance to post something meaningful.. if you can find it. ONE THING I'VE YET TO SEE IS ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT IS WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE. Our we suppose the model the game on improbabilities or the probabilities and realism of the time?

So yeah, I'm calling out all you bandwagon peeps to put your money where your mouth is and give some evidence that the following ever occurred in 1942. If not, do us all a favor and keep your WitEKA mouths shut until you do.

So from the game we have basically:

German PZ Div
- high 90's for exp on all components (ELITE)
- moral of 89
- TOE almost 80%
- fatigue <= 10%
- top notch leadership values (from what was posted)
- 12k men
- 20 exp fighters BF 109


v.s.

Sov 42 Rifle Div
- moral med-low(s.b. in 50s?)
- exp med-low (30s 40s? - if these sov rifle div have high exp in 42.. that's a another issue)
- fatigue low-med?
- leadership low-avg?
- 8.6k men
- 10 fighter Hurican II, 20 IL-2 bombers (exp low? in 1942?)

battlefield: open terrain, clear spring skies, defending sov unit has 0 fort lvl


So this outcome of axis loses 646 men, 18arty, 8 afvs to the sov loses of 521 men and 7 arty seems ok? Oh and BTW the sov had a very skilled rereat too as they didn't suffer more than 500 lose?
At least the air ware seemed to be model correct... 0 axis loses and 5 fighter and 5 sov bomber loses.

Ok, I've been reading a few of the following books lately that have been describing how the German Pz Div were almost 'super-human' in dealing with some of the most incredible tasks of defending an attacking.

To the Gates of Stalingrad: Soviet-German Combat Operations, April-August 1942: David Glantz
The 6th Panzer Division 1937-1945: Helmut Ritgen

These mobile units were called upon by the Germany army over and over again to be the 'fireman' and/or spearheads when needed.
In all the readings I've yet to see an example of a sov Rifle div accomplishing what happen in this fictional WitE battle given the circumstances. Here's a little blurb which I found about the Kharkov 2nd battle:

"Destruction of the Barvenkovo Salient

Both sides spent the 20th of May reorganizing their forces in and around the Barvenkovo salient. During the 20th, the 14th Panzer Division captured Protopopovka, which narrowed the neck of the pocket to only twelve miles.
On the 22nd, German forces began their attempt to seal the neck of the pocket. In the south the 14th and 16th Panzer Divisions attacked northwards from Protopopovka and Zagorodnoe toward Chepel and the 14th Panzer Division reached Bayrak, to the south of Balakleia. In the north, the redeployed elements of the 3rd and 23rd Panzer Divisions attacked southwards from Balakleia and Andreevka smashing through the 337th and 47th Rifle Divisions, forcing crossings of the Northern Donets River at Chervonyi Donets and Krasnaia Gusarovka."


In in almost all cases of the 42 battles, a sov rifle div caught in the open was cannon-fodder for a German Pz Div.

Oh, and most of these Pz Div later in the war that were still performing incredible feats were doing so very under strength in men and tanks.

We also have to keep in mind the tactics that these PZ leaders possessed that allowed them to win battles with minimal loses even against forces much larger than theirs. In this WitE battle example the 11th PZ has the larger force which makes the results even more disturbing.

Most of what I've seen is that Sov Rifle div out in the open/un-entrenched could never have pulled this feat off as described by abulbulian.

So let's see some meaningful comments about what is and is NOT possible.

Also, if one lone sov rilfe div out in the open is able to do this to an elite Pz unit.. wow. The sov player has these rifle div to burn. I think the results of this battle reflect some serious issues that only an expert player vs a moron sov player could ever hope to overcome.

That's my opinion. I don't plan to play the axis anytime soon. But I'll be happy to play the soviets in a PBEM with any of you haters.[:-]

And just so you know i agree with you on some of the less stellar people who comment.

Ok since you wanted citations and quotes.. here are some quotes from absolute war which is cited from "barbarossa derailed"

"Guderian and Hoth elbowed off the Soviet counterstrokes, but at great cost to themselves. By 16 July, 18th Panzer Division had just twelve operational tanks left. The casualties had to be reduced, its commander noted, ‘if we do not intend to win ourselves to death’
"
Cited in Glantz, Barbarossa, p. 82, emphasis added

That is just one of the numerous things i've read that note that the germans lost many tanks.

[Joel Billings]

I wish I could see that attack done as a deliberate attack as opposed to a hasty attack. I'm sure the results would be different.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

What actually inflamed me the most was all the people that quickly attacked abulbulians well document improbable outcome as far as realism is concerned. Maybe this outcome is more probably IN the game,... but that's maybe the heart of the issue. These attack on the post were with out any merit as they had no evidence or documentation to refute abulbulian's claim that the outcome was totally improbably. I agree with his assessment. Not that I've read hundreds of books on the subject, but I've read more than a few in the last few months. I couldn't find any account of a sov rifle div in 42 accomplishing anything close to this posted battle outcome in all my readings given the battle settings. BUT, I did read about many accounts of the German mobile units, like the 11th Panzer, performing amazing feats against incredible odds. Yes, also in a sort of 'Hasty' attack fashion, as they usually had to be in two places at once.

So if people want to post what they see is wrong with abulbulian's assessment why not post something to back up your claim? [&:]

I agree people attacking others is lame. But really while it was improbable (not impossible) in our game there have not been a majority of attacks that have ravaged tankers like that. The fact that you have no sure thing is what adds flavor to the game. If it was just a matter of saying i see i have more CV i will win. What fun is that?

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

What actually inflamed me the most was all the people that quickly attacked abulbulians well document improbable outcome as far as realism is concerned. Maybe this outcome is more probably IN the game,... but that's maybe the heart of the issue. These attack on the post were with out any merit as they had no evidence or documentation to refute abulbulian's claim that the outcome was totally improbably. I agree with his assessment. Not that I've read hundreds of books on the subject, but I've read more than a few in the last few months. I couldn't find any account of a sov rifle div in 42 accomplishing anything close to this posted battle outcome in all my readings given the battle settings. BUT, I did read about many accounts of the German mobile units, like the 11th Panzer, performing amazing feats against incredible odds. Yes, also in a sort of 'Hasty' attack fashion, as they usually had to be in two places at once.

So if people want to post what they see is wrong with abulbulian's assessment why not post something to back up your claim? [&:]

I agree people attacking others is lame.

Well, that explains the following then:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: Offworlder

Panzer units usually attracted the cream of the troops available to the army especially up to late '42, before the setting up of multiple airborne and later the deviation of the best men into SS units. It should be noted that even in a battle like Kursk, where the Russians enjoyed every advantage one could concieve (in intelligence, materiel etc), Panzer forces nearly got through in the south, with STAVKA having to release reserves that were originally intended for the counter attack. Panzer forces were extremely good with a high esprit de corps, training and were also the best equipped forces of the Wehrmacht. Truth is, that until '43/'44 there were few formations of comparible size in the world that could go head to head with a Panzer or even a PG division.

By this I'm not saying that they were invincible or invulnerable, but they were pretty tough clients. (One might add that even the infantry arm was very good especially those divisions raised in the first 3 waves and had been through a lot together). And although there could be a few freak accidents, I'm not really sure that a Soviet division (normally pretty weak in AT weaponry if I remember well) could have stood up to a Panzer Division in the open. I wouldn't really mind it if it was a one off result (a lot of vodka going around maybe??? [:)]) it would be weird if such a result was repeated all that often.

About your question of the AT weaponry. The division is using the march 42 TOE.

Let me pull from the manual.

Code: Select all

This latest TOE barely survived the winter when it was modified again in March of 1942. Divisional
 strength rose again to nearly 13,000 men; divisional artillery increased by over 30% while antitank
 rifles more than tripled to 279 but anti-aircraft was again trimmed slightly. The March,
 1942 TOE was the strongest rifle division fielded since the demise of the pre-war division
 and the strongest that would be fielded for the remainder of the War

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Well, that explains the following then:

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

I guess I should not be surprise at the low-IQ type responses on this thread, people like Oleg Mastruko have never had anything useful to say from day 1.

I'm going to make you look the fools you are.
Oleg, you can skip this part as you've already establish that your mental challenges prevent you from any sort of reasonable thought process.

Hypocrit much?

Those weren't bwheatley's words. They were kirkgregerson's from post #44. Unfortunately, bwheatley's editing of the nested quotes left the impression that he was the original author of the slur. He wasn't and you owe him an apology.

I return you to your scheduled entertainment...