Patch 1.02.11 hasty attacks

[Jango32]

CPP is always halved when attacking.


To get back to the thread's subject, I understand, Erik. Will continue the server game and see how things develop.

[Dreamslayer]

Better to ask why are Germans have no losses in these attacks against NKVD unit.

[Gam3r]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

I have hard time imagining how non motorized infantry can disengage from motorized corps

It is easy - go offroad, they cant chase you there.

[Dreamslayer]

ORIGINAL: Stamb

I have hard time imagining how non motorized infantry can disengage from motorized corps that has almost 10x amount of units.

Aren't these attacks was into the swamp hex?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: Jango32

To me it would appear that hasty attacks are very much on the low end now in terms of losses and to an extent combat results.

In order to test this, I've gone back to a 4 vs 4 PBEM game's turn 2 and recreated a few battles fought there in the new patch with the same moves done and with the same units.

....


In both situations, this was 36th Motorized's very first combat of the game, with 66 CPP on hand, against an NKVD border guard unit.

its worth bearing in mind the losses shown on the immediate combat screen are slightly misleading. The battle screen (23.10.2 and related sections) shows losses purely as an artifact of destroyed elements and assumes all the components of the element are 'killed'.

for a big normal battle this is a reasonably approximation to the real losses but for a small one-sided engagement it can be misleading.

Once the battle is over, some bits of a destroyed element are rescued to wounded etc, some bits of a damaged element become dead or wounded and so on.

This is shown in the losses table under latest battle (forget the actual title)

there is then the churn around damaged/destroyed elements and losses in the logistics phase

[Jango32]

EDIT: I was mistaken, those attacks were indeed in the swamp hex.

Here's three separate sequences of attacks on the same unit in clear hexes, using only units that hadn't been attacked nor attacked at all in the game:

First sequence:






Second sequence:





Third sequence, I opened the attack with the Panzer division as usual and then brought all 3 divisions on the same hex to hasty attack again:




Uploaded these just to share some more preliminary, early campaign data I suppose. I am in agreement with Erik that more data over a longer period of time (into 1942/1943) is needed to assess the changes for hasty attacks and if they now behave as intended.

Perhaps some Stalingrad to Berlin AARs will be useful for this purpose.

[GibsonPete]

"No serious commander will divide his division into a bunch of small groups for a goal that is not worth the effort, 1,500 people are not equivalent to the capture of Pskov."

~You obviously are unaware of the 82nd Airborne's Anit Armor defense. The entire division was broken into a multilayered defense box consisting of elements as small as a squad. Serious enough for you.

"I have hard time imagining how nonmotorized infantry can disengage from motorized corps that has almost 10x the number of units."

~I learned how to do that at the Infantry school for boys almost fifty years ago. In the right terrain Light infantry has many advantages over those loud, blind beasts that are lumbering and thrashing around. Amazing what a bit of explosives, a couple of land mines or dropped trees can do.

~Erik +1 sometimes we need to be patient and not jump to conclusions.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete
~You obviously are unaware of the 82nd Airborne's Anit Armor defense. The entire division was broken into a multilayered defense box consisting of elements as small as a squad. Serious enough for you.

That is, using the example of defense, you want to show that in the offensive, division into small groups will lead to effective advancement?

[jubjub]

Air support is now more important than ever when you're doing hasty attacks. It can easily double the amount of disrupted and killed units in combat.

[GibsonPete]

Jubjub +1

[GibsonPete]

ShaggyHiK;
"That is, using the example of defense, you want to show that in the offensive, division into small groups will lead to effective advancement?"

~ Operation Deadstick, the capture of the Orne river bridge on D-Day by D company, 2nd Battalion Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry. The OX & Bucks had 2 KIA.

~ Operation Mercury, the seizure of Maleme Airfield by German paratroops. III Battalion of the 1st Assault Regiment (600 troops) were opposed by a NZ brigade and major elements of the 1st & 8th Greek regiments. The III battalion 400 KIA.

~ The outnumbered and unsupplied 20th Maine at little round top during the American civil war charging into 15th & 47th Alabama.

There are other examples. That is not to say that your basic premise is wrong. It has been my experience that the impossible is often accomplished in war and the logical often fails.

[ShaggyHiK]

ORIGINAL: GibsonPete

The given examples show that for local success this can take place, but after that, were the attackers able to develop their offensive right there? In addition, the conditions that you set worked in reality in rather specific conditions, a small number of both groupings / poor preparation of the enemy / unfilled front with troops. Agree, all this on the Eastern Front worked an order of magnitude worse, simply due to the number of people involved in the troops from the very beginning of the war.
On the other hand, all the examples that you brought show that I was right, after a large unit is divided into small groups for action in the offensive, they lose all offensive potential.
And they will not be able to get together for the offensive quickly, and the depth of the offensive drops sharply.

Perhaps I am using the wrong term, when I say offensive I mean a relatively deep operation, which is not carried out for the sake of taking a separate bridge, and in which you need to take the bridge and move further by the bridge on your own, after which to take some advantageous line and the goal of this offensive is some large settlement or, more likely, the encirclement of the enemy grouping.

[Jango32]

Not to divert too much from the purpose of this thread, but the Panzer divisions frequently broke down into different kampfgruppe formations throughout the war. Detailed accounts and analysis, primarily for 1941 in the Soviet Union, can be found in German Panzers on the Offensive by Stolfi. Excerpts are here: https://imgur.com/a/8OOGXXD


I'll experiment moving forward with ground support turned on as suggested by jubjub.