Super Americans in SPWAW 4.5

Hauptmann6 · Post by **Hauptmann6** » Thu Mar 01, 2001 5:47 pm

Later in the war I belive during the bulge, a single FO called in something like 25(IIRC) BATTALLIONS of artillery on a single point. Any US FO or anyone with a radio could call in artillery in as much quantity that was in range and not being used at the moment.

Haupt

Panzers are for wimps

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 8:16 am

Originally posted by Pack Rat:
Anyone who has been around Steel Panthers for a while and played the campaigns, for example as the Germans. Starting out with say the cheaper Stugs and getting to upgrade to a turreted track with a gun as good or better, knows the good feeling. But it didn't happen at all if the quility of the Stug was bad to begin with and it just wasn't so. Somehow I feel it's been lost, at least in human vs human play. Tactics now shows itself and while I'm no Rommel, even I come up with something good once in a while.

I'd guess that the main spoiler is area artillery fire, no more the armor loss to artillery destruction but loss to artillery surpression. I don't think I've lost more than a tank or two with all the pbem league games I've played to artillery. I can remember when the Soviet 122mm's were terrors if you sat still and not because of surpression. Now my armor fear is getting artillery surpressed and having the infantry take me out.

I'd like my Stugs and PZIV's back and to see the area surpression of artillery toned down. But this is just me.

Stugs and PzIV used to be My weapon of choice for me in sp3 days, I agree! last time i used stugs they got not one hit the entire game!!! I think they were somewhat more lethal than portrayed in spwaw!
Alby

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 9:45 am

Staying true to facts
During WW2, after '43 the Germans were generally outnumbered in any engagement by a fair margin. In Russia, 11-1 was a common ratio, In Italy and Europe, 5-1 or more, with the odds getting longer for the Krauts as you got closer to wars end. The Russians in particular had just a load of anti-tank guns from 20mm and up, sometimes 12 guns to every German armored vehicle. Also the Allied forces had more artillery than tanks, in most cases. As to air, the Germans were lucky to have spotter aircraft in operational area after August of '44. They had no control of air at all in most cases. A German tank moving in daylight( or any German vehicle or formation) would have been strafed and bombed to hell. I read somewhere that the Germans laughed at our US tanks, Disrespected our troops as amateurs, but ran for the bunker when they saw a butterbar(2nd Lt.)with a radio, 'cause they knew that the mighty US ARTY was on the way. US ARTY was superior to ALL the others because they could consolidate fire from several batteries from different areas onto one target faster than anyone else. also, we had a early version of a computer that had worked out all the variables for assigning a fire mission. all the battery commander had to do was look up some tables, consult a little wheel like gizmo, and BOOM!

BA Evans · Post by **BA Evans** » Fri Mar 02, 2001 11:57 pm

Originally posted by Alby:
Staying true to facts
During WW2, after '43 the Germans were generally outnumbered in any engagement by a fair margin. In Russia, 11-1 was a common ratio, In Italy and Europe, 5-1 or more...<snip>

I understand that you want to simulate the overwhelming numbers of the Allies. Do you have any suggestions that might help us model this in the game and still be able to create fair battles?

My goal in gaming is to have the same chances of winning as my opponent. If I use my troops better than my opponent, I should get a victory. If my opponent is the better general, he should get the victory.

I don't want a game where one side has an overwhelming advantage over the other. Both players need to feel that they have an even chance of winning before the battle begins.

May the best general win,
BA Evans

Warhorse · Post by **Warhorse** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 12:17 am

[/b][/QUOTE]
Stugs and PzIV used to be My weapon of choice for me in sp3 days, I agree! last time i used stugs they got not one hit the entire game!!! I think they were somewhat more lethal than portrayed in spwaw!
Alby
[/B][/QUOTE]

Think I said this before somewhere, but the StuG definitely need tweaking, they were mostly volunteer crewed, and somewhat better than the average Panzer crews.In my personal oob's, I upped the FC some, to reflect this, and they are still not ubermann!!

------------------
Mike Amos
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 2:21 am

The reason we set the limit at 155 was that these were the largest caliber guns that a battlion commnader would normally have dedicated TO HIS CONTROL. Larger guns were normally controlled at division and not coprs level, they were not "on call" to teh whim of teh battalion and company commander except in extreis when an Uncle conentration might be called in , something that would for all intents and purposes end teh SP:WaW scale battel while the artillery pummeled teh country-side ofr an hour or two. That maybe realistic but not very fun.

If you want to simulate the effect of concentrations of large caliber guns, use 250lb bomb armed level bombers to represent these sort of concentrations and plot them at the start of the game. The effect is about the same.

Warhorse, tell stuart to maybe give them +10 exerience designation if you want them higher stature than the "regular tanks"...

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 02, 2001).]

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 5:09 am

Originally posted by BA Evans:
I understand that you want to simulate the overwhelming numbers of the Allies. Do you have any suggestions that might help us model this in the game and still be able to create fair battles?

My goal in gaming is to have the same chances of winning as my opponent. If I use my troops better than my opponent, I should get a victory. If my opponent is the better general, he should get the victory.

I don't want a game where one side has an overwhelming advantage over the other. Both players need to feel that they have an even chance of winning before the battle begins.

May the best general win,
BA Evans

You misunderstand...I do not want or desire superior allied numbers or one sided games.
Post was basically To give some support to ammo sgt on the US arty issue...Actually just liked reading it!! LOL

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 8:39 am

Paul i think that what you say about a Bn CO controling Arty is only Partialy True ..maybe for most Armies But for the American Army The Bn FO is just as likely to be given 8" as 155mm or 105mm as anything else ..also please understand that this means (unless you decide to allow the US to Use 155mm Long Toms) that The US can't counterbattery fire as effectively since you have to have equal or greater range and you just made a german 150mm equal to the best available US Arty ...
US MRL are under 155mm , 115 mm to be exact and should therefore be on board and available German MRL "wulfraums" are 280mm 300mm and should by the 155mm rule not be onboard not be available to Bn and lower ...Is this what you are saying ..that ALL weapons over 155mm will be disallowed or just the ones that give the Allies an advantage ..please clarify ?

RUsco · Post by **RUsco** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 9:55 am

Artillary available to a US Infantry Div.
(US 30th Inf Div.)

US Inf. Div. consited of
3 Infantry Regiments
1 Infantry Regiment consisted of
3 Inf. Battalions

1 Battalion consisted of 3 Rifle CO. and 1Heavy Weapons Co.

Approxamatly 16,000 men

9,000 men divided in the Inf Regiments.
Artillary in the Division consited of:

3 60mm Mortars per Company: 81 Total
6 81mm Mortars per Battalion: 54 Total
6 105mm Howitzers per Regiment: 18 Total
3 Battlions of 105mm Howitzers (12 per
Battalion) Assigned to Div.: 36 Total
1 Battalion 155mm Howitzers(12 guns) Assigned to Div.: 12 Total

1 Field Artillary Group 2 155mm Howitzer Battalions and 1 155mm Long Tom Battalion (12 guns per Battalion) Assigned to Div.:
24 Howitzers and 12 Long Toms Total.

Plus Anti-tank guns where used in the Artillary role as were Tanks.

Source: Workhorse of the Western Front: The Story of the 30th Infantry Division: Robert L Hewitt 1946

chaos45 · Post by **chaos45** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 2:42 pm

Okay I just read this huge post here, noting that a good number of them were from ammo serg. I agree US should have better arty, and at least in many games in the 43 league allied arty has pasted my forces pretty good, but then again I usually dont use alot of arty. I do think that allied troops are overrated on quality and morale though. Look at how many attacks it took the allies to take casino against the 1st para Division, most of the attacks at a massive numerical advantage. I believe if anything americans and other allies should run and rally slower than the German units. Even late in the war most german units put up dogged resistance because they realized that if they failed their homes were next, a very motivating factor in how well a man will fight. I for instance could give a shit less about Bosnia, but if someone was driving towards my home town I'd fight to the utmost of my ability to stop them. Most allied units were on the attack meaning that to them to fall back was just to face yelling from higher HQ, which was probably much more acceptable than being killed. While the germans were forced ever closer to their homes with each defeat, making them more and more desperate to stop the allies. On Russian units, most of them should be just plain inept compared to their german counterparts if history would be correct on the loss ratios. I've shot several allied infantry units in crossfires and with hvy infantry guns before, and usually they just sit there and then return fire on their turn and a good chunk of the time win the firefight through better equipment. I dont begrudge the allies better equipment, but the fact was they werent as good of soldiers as the germans, which is why it took the overwhelming odds in artillery and air power for them to win.

This is the opinions of an American so you know, but Ive studied WW2 history extensively and those are my basic conclusions on this issue.

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 6:59 pm

Chaos well if the russians are lower quality because they suffered higher casualties ...then why wouldn't that be true for the germans ??? The Germans surrendered in north africa and sicily after losing many time more casualities than the allies ..The FJ at Cassino were fighting Indian Army Troops that have very low experience and morale and leadership ratings (in the game )... which i think is kinda odd since i think that one of the few units in the war that truely deserve Elite Status would be Gurkas (Indian Army, but they get the same 10 point bonus all elite do on top of a very low base )... I don't think you can have to both ways .. If the Russians should have low scores fighting for their homeland on their home soil because they take higher casualities then it only follows that the Germans taking high casualties close to home on the soil of a country that betrayed their AXIS Pact partners after two overwhelming defeats while thier loved ones are bombed into rubble might have lower scores too....
the Germans are no better human beings than russians , or americans .... all things that effect humans effect germans ... they were not in fact some special case super race and they got their butts kicked once they started playing with real armies instead of 3rd rate low tech small countries ...
I think that there is something terribly wrong when folks start thinking that somehow germans as humans were exceptional in anyway ..they are not .. and by 43 they had taken massive casulaities and were scraping the bottom of the barrel for the age groups most civilized countries use for war... there is only so many comabt competent men in any population pool.. the germans had for their own sick rdemented racist reasons artifically restricted the pool that they could draw on it wasn't just allies killing germans of the right ages to serve ..germans were killing age eligible men faster than the allies were for racist reasons ....no after the diasters on the eastern front north africa ect the germans simply didn't have any claim to elite anything ...even the vaunted FJ's didn't jump they were just infantry

JTGEN · Post by **JTGEN** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 9:08 pm

OK people. You all have some wery good points but Ammo Srgt, you have huge loads of shit coming here too and it overwhelmingly discredits the good points you give.

It is true that US artillery was better than German one. And it was pretty much the only area where this advantage was in use. Now your use of statistics is horrifying. The casualty numbers do not give any hint of the fighting capability of the soldier. German was a lot better than average US grunt. The Soviet soldiers were not that bad especially at the end of war, the problem being bad leadership at the beginning of the war thanks to Stalins purge on the officers in the end of the 30's. The germans and soviets were at real ground war a bit longer than the US and at much bigger scale. It is nothing new that the US think they did all the job in Europe and Asia but it was the Soviets who had to bare with the German ground forces for three years before the US really stepped in to the game. So the casualty numbers reflect that.

In Finnish experience from 1944, which is closer to my hart, most casualties were inflicted by artillery and not by the actual Soviet ground troops and there the US advantage resulted in the casualty figures. But this does not mean that the US ability to take the best out of their weapons would be true. Like all the other major countries they used the artillery en masse and not consentrating it where it was needed most. Using large amounts of artillery pouring all over the battlefield is just as effective as smaller amounts used exactly where it is needed. As an reserve soldier in coastal artillery of the finnish army I have some idea of how these things work. One of the officers said once that the US ability to use its artillery nowadays is the same as ours in the ww2. That may not be all true but it has a lot of truth in it.

Also ammosgt seems to think that the long toms were used in huge numbers and with their longer range could destroy all German artillery, yes and I am a mickey mouse. The germans also had artillery with even longer ranges than the long toms (175mm) butI do not know how much they had them. Also it seems that the US had 100 battleships to deliver those 14in naval shells. I have lived 6 months of my life sleeping in a building that had 305mm naval guns on land mountings 100 meters away on the other and 200m on the other side of the building. They could fire 150 to 200 shots and then the barrell had to be changed, so how would those US 14in keep on fireing for days during the combat in the pace ammo sgt seems to expect them to do. And the barrel change was not done on sea I expect. And what would the appropriete price be for the 14in. Not even close within the 255 limit even for a single barrel in use. I bet that with the price of battleship with 9 14in guns you could equip at least one whole panzer division.

When playing the UtoR I thougt the US artillery behaved wery well and I thing that the wery good result in it was due to using the Art available wery well. And this is not the way it was used in real life by US. I think the responce times were good and Ammo sgt, could you tell where are you basing your idea of US needing to have shorter responce time. Not in the facts from real life I assume. I might consider that for some other country than US.

Someone said a good point about stugIII's and panzer IV's being not good enough at the game. It is true somewhat as with good gun and with stugs good frontal armour they should be effective especially against the shermans and especially the ones with 75mm gun. But at least when playing the Finns and having the Stug being the best you have and encountering the soviets it handels well if you know how to use them as they did in the real life. Ofcourse in finnish hands they were handled by elite tankmen so there is a small difference. But the Germans not having their best men in stugs does not mean that they were worse than the often green US tankers against them.

There could be so much time but I don't like writing that much and atleast for now this is enough.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 9:30 pm

Paul i think that what you say about a Bn CO controling Arty is only Partialy True ..maybe for most Armies But for the American Army The Bn FO is just as likely to be given 8" as 155mm or 105mm as anything else ..also please understand that this means (unless you decide to allow the US to Use 155mm Long Toms) that The US can't counterbattery fire as effectively since you have to have equal or greater range and you just made a german 150mm equal to the best available US Arty ...

You are talking about operational level fires when you get to this stage and this is handled well above teh Battalion level. THat is why we don;t let the play control CB, it was handled at the higher level. THat doesn't mean they were not effective at CB, just that Corps arty vs corps arty CB was not directed at the tactical level. CB represents some of "your" guns being retasked by higher authority. Concentrations of "big guns" were used operationally against assembly areas, for interdiction and countermobility, not routinely assigned as dedicated close support to company and battalion commanders.

THe effect of these fires can be amply simulated using pregame bombarbment.

US MRL are under 155mm , 115 mm to be exact and should therefore be on board and available German MRL "wulfraums" are 280mm 300mm and should by the 155mm rule not be onboard not be available to Bn and lower ...Is this what you are saying ..that ALL weapons over 155mm will be disallowed or just the ones that give the Allies an advantage ..please clarify ?

THere are obvious exceptions to about every rule and if you want to split haris about "whats a 155" or not, you miss the point.

In WW2 there were two distinct uses of artillery, dedicated support of troops and the conduct of operatioanl fires en mass. Different countries had different doctrines, but we are forced in the game to generalize. With some exception but predominantly, ARTILLERY PIECES larger than 155, due to their range, where massed at the corps and larger echelon for operation use.

That is not to say they never fired a round in direct support, just that certainly didn't do it often (and even them often with as much damage to their own troops from short rounds - read Steel Inferno for many examples).

The Wolfram Rocket may be greater tehn 155, but it was cobbled together to allow those weapons (which where fairly short ranged) to be used in direct fire against bunkers and fortified buidings. That is why they are in teh game for that purpose. They were designed to do it! 8in guns were not designed to be used in direct fire against buildings and bunkers, but to be massed against operational targets. So the use intended use, not just an mm number is teh deciding factor. For most artillery pieces, that >155 distinction works.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 9:41 pm

I think that there is something terribly wrong when folks start thinking that somehow germans as humans were exceptional in anyway ..they are not .. and by 43 they had taken massive casulaities and were scraping the bottom of the barrel for the age groups most civilized countries use for war... there is only so many comabt competent men in any population pool.. the germans had for their own sick rdemented racist reasons artifically restricted the pool that they could draw on it wasn't just allies killing germans of the right ages to serve ..germans were killing age eligible men faster than the allies were for racist reasons ....no after the diasters on the eastern front north africa ect the germans simply didn't have any claim to elite anything ...even the vaunted FJ's didn't jump they were just infantry

I don't think anyone is saying the Geramn SuperRace crap is what is operative here, but the fact that the German army was better at conductiong warfighting than any other army, man for man, in WW2.

Just because I say the Baltimore Ravens are a better football team than the San Diego Chargers, is not saying the Ravens are supermen, just that for whatever reasons of training, planning, coaching and skill, they performed on the football field in a far superior fashion to the Chargers.

Every quatitiataive analysis for unit performance (see Dupuy Understanding War or Combat effectiveness ...the author escapes me) rates teh average units higher. Not becasue they are superior racially, but because of performance.

You make good points about the problems the Germans had in 43, yet they still held out tremendously outnumbered on both fronts for two more years. How did they accomplish that if "all things were equal" as you state? The answer is they weren't, and the average German comabt outfit performed better than the average enemy. Not becasue they were supermen, but becasue of better operational concepts, tactics, organization, training, and leadership.

Bottom line was they still lost, which should be an interesting lesson to current military theorists who think they had the tactical and operational warfighting stuff down pat...all that is mute if you have lousy strategy

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 03, 2001).]

AmmoSgt · Post by **AmmoSgt** » Sat Mar 03, 2001 11:45 pm

If ya'll say so ..it must be so ... I just don't understand how officers by birthright and class can ever be as profesional as West Point Trained or Sandhurst Trained Professionals I don't see how an Army that has lost every war this century that they started that practiced the troop selection methods the the Nazi's enforced could ever come close to getting even a fraction of the Best and the Brightest the the Allies could draw upon just from the manpool size ..but i think this is an arguement more on subjective points than objective ..
As to tube life US 155mm had a tube life rated about 1000 rounds 200 rounds at high zone charges and due to a tempoary shortage of spare tubes in the Italian Campaign barrels were admited ly over used resulting in an absoulte shortage in the spring of 44 when a fair portion of 155mm were refitted with 8" naval rifles until production could catch up ..in about july both barrels and ammo were in good supply

..I think we had a bunch of LongToms post above say 12 per Div probably more at corp probably far more Long Toms than King Tigers in Europe certainly far more Long Toms that Tigers in Italy

... still i am not clear on the US and Soviet MLR i didn't figure that the 280mm wulfraums were included in the 155mm rule thats why I mentioned it ... I don't want anybody to lose any effective equipment neither do i wish anybody to be denied any ..

krull · Post by **krull** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 10:20 am

i havent said too much on this. But could I please have some of these American super men? Im tired of indestructable tigers and panthers.
As for American soldiers not ebing equal maybe yes maybe no . Alot came down to Command experince. One on One Americans generally where better I think. Able to act on there own far more than german troops. But the Germans excelled at group operations. That was there strong point.
but I would liek game to be a little more playable Like How about After i take 30 plus shots in 5 to 6 games from side and rear of tiger and panthers tanks I could at least kill one before its turret ratates around and kills 2 to 3 shermans or TD's is that to much to ask. or after My bazoookas hit and Bounce of or dont penatrate. From all angles. Can the above mentioned tanks Not machine gun them down and never miss. just this once please

Lars Remmen · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Sun Mar 04, 2001 9:58 pm

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
If ya'll say so ..it must be so ... I just don't understand how officers by birthright and class can ever be as profesional as West Point Trained or Sandhurst Trained Professionals I don't see how an Army that has lost every war this century that they started that practiced the troop selection methods the the Nazi's enforced could ever come close to getting even a fraction of the Best and the Brightest the the Allies could draw upon just from the manpool size ..but i think this is an arguement more on subjective points than objective

Do you seriously think that just because some German was Graf v.d. Somethingortheother they'd get a comission regardless of their abilities? No way! A lot of hard training gave the Germans some very capable commanders and NCO's.

And troop selection? Any fit man in Germany could join the army except Jews, Homosexuals etc. The SS had a different criterias. But a lot of very good men and (quote)'officers by birthright and class'(endquote) did not serve in the SS. Rather they served in the regiments their fathers had served in. Tradition you know.

And sure the Allies could get many bright men. But so could the Germans. In very rough terms you could say that the Germans out-engineered the Allies but were themselves out-produced.

------------------
Lars
Nec Temere - Nec Timide

JTGEN · Post by **JTGEN** » Mon Mar 05, 2001 8:53 pm

Well said Lars

"Germans out-engineered the Allies but were themselves out-produced"

I wonder what the lesson was as the US now has taken the German path of lower production but high tech weapons. The Soviets kept the mass production method.

Larry Holt · Post by **Larry Holt** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 12:40 am

Originally posted by JTGEN:
Well said Lars

"Germans out-engineered the Allies but were themselves out-produced"

I wonder what the lesson was as the US now has taken the German path of lower production but high tech weapons. The Soviets kept the mass production method.

The lesson was taken from the Israelis, not the Germans. In the late 70's the US Army looked around for a model of how to fight and win outnumbered. By then technology had made much of the German lessons of questionable value. The Israelis had a good track record so they were looked at. Given the Desert Storm performance, it seems we learned the right lessons.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

CaptainBrian · Post by **CaptainBrian** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 2:13 am

Originally posted by Larry Holt:

Originally posted by JTGEN:
Well said Lars

"Germans out-engineered the Allies but were themselves out-produced"

I wonder what the lesson was as the US now has taken the German path of lower production but high tech weapons. The Soviets kept the mass production method.

The lesson was taken from the Israelis, not the Germans. In the late 70's the US Army looked around for a model of how to fight and win outnumbered. By then technology had made much of the German lessons of questionable value. The Israelis had a good track record so they were looked at. Given the Desert Storm performance, it seems we learned the right lessons.

Also, unlike the WWII Germans, we are proficient at the Operational and Strategic Levels of war, not just the Tactical Level.