US models: Historic or Hollywood?

[GUTB]

You can probably guess by the title of this article that I'm going into it biased. But I can back it up.

First of all, let's skip all the nationalistic nonsense and wish-fullfilment and start with pure, hard, researched and accepted historic data:

In 1944, the Western Allies suffered 2 losses for 1 Axis loss, with an Allied numeric superiority of 2:1.

In 1944, the Soviets suffered 1.7 losses for 1 Axis loss with a Soviet numeric superiority of 1.5:1.

So, just by these statistics, we can break can determine a rough "effectiveness" ranking. In order of most effective to least:

1. Axis
2. Soviets
3. Western Allies

However, the performance of American units in the game do not reflect that.

Shermans have a mythical quality in the game that allows them kill Tigers, Panthers, KVs, T-34s and JSs with frontal turret kills. At the same time, I watch in amazment as 85, 88, 100 and even 122mm shells bounce off.

Try setting up a mock battle between M4A3s and T-34-85s and you will watch in wonder as the 85mm round bounce off M4s again and again.

The Bazooka, in particular, seems to have taken on it's Hollywood high-HE capability in favor for it's real-life anti-tank warhead. I set up a Soviet Assault vs. US Defend. I put up a Ranger company in defense in good terrian. I armed with Soviets with an equivelent number of Gaurds infantry, but backed up with two ISU-155s, two batteries of rocket artillery, a battery of heavy howitzers, a few 160mm mortars and a bunch of 81mm and 50mm mortars. With pre-knoweledge of the Ranger positions, I set up a pre-planned prep. I let the computer take control of both sides. To my amazment, when the massive artillery strike was over, the US force had maybe lost two or three men total -- despite having turned their hillside into a lunar landscape with the most potent rocket artillery unit in the game, the heaviest mortars in the game, and a bunch of mortars targeting with my God-like knowdge of their exact position. When the Gaurds charged up the hill, they were decimated by Bazookas and stupednously effective fire. The computer flung them again and again into the Hollywood Bazookas until only a ragged remnent remained. Again and again, the Reds charged and were beaten back, rarely even getting a chance to even fire. It was only after the ISU-155s were obliterated, each with ONE Bazooka attack, did the AI figure it was time to send in more artillery (my A0 should have been sent to Siberia for Incompetence). Again, I wantched in MUTE WONDER as the massively cratered hex the Rangers were stacked three-deep in recived TWO DIRECT 160mm hits -- and took NO casultuies. But that's not all. Howitzers, mortars, NOTHING touched those Rangers stacked three ontop each other. Yes they were in a fortified hex in rough terrian, but when does it start getting ridiculous?

Another fun test is to set up a US armor attack against German defend using Jagdtigers. Watch as US armor turns aside the massively superior firepower, and repeadtedly score hits on yoru stationary, fortified units while on the move cross-country. A 122mm round, which in real life was enough to kill a Tiger through the front turret at very long ranges only seems to be able to kill Shermans 1/3rd of the time.

It's possible to go on and on with sort of thing. It's unfortunate that even serious wargames are subject to the same tired BS.

[sven]

Really?

Ask Ammo how many men America lost versus Germany after the breakout in France.

She'll clean your clock "Supra Genius".

regards,
sven-who agrees the Germans were "best" at everything....but winning.

[Bernie]

Whoa...easy there Sven, the man does make a reasoned presentation. Let's hear him out at least.

What I'd like to know is, what version he's using and what patches, OOB's, etc.

So much "tinkering" has been done on this game over time I think it's surely possible he might have an old file someplace. I'd also like to know what his pref settings were for the above scenarios.

[mogami]

Those loss ratios are not bad concidering the Allies/Soviets were on the offesive. In SPWaW terms they would be winning the battles if the VH points were high enough to cover the loss.
When making assaults on prepared positions you must be willing to accept a negative loss ratio but balance it by securing the objectives. Check and see what the loss ratio was in battles where Germany attempted the offensive.
At Kursk in 43 with a 7-1 advantage Germany was unable to win the battle. After Mainstein's Kharkov victory in 43, Army Group South was unable to repeat the performance later on the same ground. Something had to have changed.
Using a pure loss ratio without considering the circumstance is misleading. The Western Allies/Soviets during 44 were on the offensive and not stopped by any German effort. Weather/supply held them up more then the Germans.
The 44-45 winter offensive on the Western Front gives some interesting results. After the intial breakthrough the ratio shifts to one that favours the allies.
The bazooka is probly too effective although I still have no problems defeating the US in 44/45 with the Germans versus the AI even when giving it up to 5x my point value.
While against humans I still manage at least draws most of the time.
Using arty to kill the enemy is not effective in SPWaW anymore. It works well when used to suppress the enemy before closing to engage but if there is no follow up the enemy recovers. In online battles my opponents use this method to good effect.

[Fallschirmjager]

Arty doctrine after WW1 wasnt to kill the enemy anymore.
It was used for supression.

Armies stopped marching across fields in rows and columns and began to use cover and the small company/platoon begane to operate on its own rather than brigades/regiments.

So artty became less of a killing weapons and more of a supression weapon.

I play 7.1 and super heavy artty does get kills.

anything smaller than 155mm rarley gets kills.
155-210mm gets kills 5-15 % of the time
210mm and those rare guns that go up in size gets a large amount of kills.

Large naval guns (in reality 14 inch and up) in the game are probally the most effective artty in terms of getting kills.

[GUTB]

In fact, artillery was by far the biggest killer in WW2.

80% of casulties came from artillery fire, including assault guns and AFV cannons. Next comes machineguns and then with a tiny percent going to small arms fire.

Ground-attack aviation had a very small impact.

[sven]

Originally posted by GUTB
In fact, artillery was by far the biggest killer in WW2.

80% of casulties came from artillery fire, including assault guns and AFV cannons. Next comes machineguns and then with a tiny percent going to small arms fire.

Ground-attack aviation had a very small impact.

Agreed....

Arty was a pitiless killer...

We used a lot and far baetter than anyone else in volume.

regards,
sven-who knows German Arty never matched US Arty....

[GUTB]

US artillery was mighty and vast.

Soviet artillery was that and even more. Major Soviet artillery strikes were nothing less than tactical nukes. We're talking about about hundreds of thousands rounds falling in the space of a few hours. Tens of thousands of guns firing on a defensive line shattered everything underneath.

[sven]

Originally posted by GUTB
US artillery was mighty and vast.

Soviet artillery was that and even more. Major Soviet artillery strikes were nothing less than tactical nukes. We're talking about about hundreds of thousands rounds falling in the space of a few hours. Tens of thousands of guns firing on a defensive line shattered everything underneath.

US Arty was infinitely more flexible and had a much quicker call-in time.

Ivan believed in total volume of fire, but the US could call all guns on any point.

regards,
sven

[WhiteRook]

Sven is correct ! No body - but no body had the flexibility and TOT that the US Artillery forces had!
And I will not contend the point that Russian "massed" artillery was a horror to behold.
But I have read many - many accounts from German officers that they were constantly amazed at how fast US arty. was brought down on a target!

[Warrior]

This type of "But, it's not historic!" thread periodically pops up, and I will remind everyone again that this game was never meant to be, nor could be, totally historically accurate. Compromises had to be made to make it playable.

[sven]

Originally posted by REMF
This type of "But, it's not historic!" thread periodically pops up, and I will remind everyone again that this game was never meant to be, nor could be, totally historically accurate. Compromises had to be made to make it playable.

translated: The US gets hosed as hard late war as Germany gets bonuses early war....

regards,
sven-who understands why but wishes German Fan would stop snivelling...

[Belisarius]

I agree. This is a game, and as much as the Shermans are a bit tough to meet, they still toast if treated properly

Only difference is that I/you/we have to be a bit more cautios when driving our cats around the battlefield. So what? It's fun! If I want easy kills, I can always aim at T-26's and such.

<rant>
As for the arty, it is the king of any field, and the U.S. were certainly the Masters of this domain in WWII for reasons already mentioned. ...but don't forget that the German arty doctrine was highly developed as well. U.S. had flexibility and superfast response, the Russians had massed attacks, and the Germans had a very tight co-operation between the arty and ground troops in offensives. Time between the end of a barrage and the first troops reaching the front line was sometimes less than a minute - there was practically no "safe zone" before an offensive.
Just had to say it, eh :rolleyes:
</rant>

[JJKettunen]

Originally posted by Belisarius


<rant>
As for the arty, it is the king of any field, and the U.S. were certainly the Masters of this domain in WWII for reasons already mentioned. ...but don't forget that the German arty doctrine was highly developed as well. U.S. had flexibility and superfast response, the Russians had massed attacks, and the Germans had a very tight co-operation between the arty and ground troops in offensives. Time between the end of a barrage and the first troops reaching the front line was sometimes less than a minute - there was practically no "safe zone" before an offensive.
Just had to say it, eh :rolleyes:
</rant>

Am I wrong, but it seems to me that few people know (Sven has heard about it) that Finnish arty used same kind, but separately developed, fast-response targeting system as Americans (Finnish version by General Vilho Nenonen).

German artillery was way behind on this field of arty usage. Fe when German 144th Infantry Division was sent to Viipurinlahti to help Finland repulsing the Soviet´s summer -44 offensive ("The Fourth Strategic Offensive", Operation Bagration was the 5th one, btw) it´s artillery was in fact given only preplanned barrage missions, because German artillery officers hadn´t got a clue (ok, maybe a clue but nothing much more) about fast-responsing, concentrated on-call defensive artillery fire.

Americans called it TOT, Finns called it just effective artillery fire, but the basic principles were the same: computing the time of flight from each battery, with weather factors and temperature figured in, and deducting this time from the time the first salvo was to hit so that all batteries' guns would fire at different times but the projectiles would hit the target at the same instant.

I know, Americans and especially Russians (no need for TOT!) surely had more guns, but Russians surely appreciated Finnish artillery when hit by concentrated firepower of 16-21 arty btns (various calibres) Finland amassed during the battle of Tali-Ihantala (22.6-4.7. 1944, the largest battle of Scandinavian war history).

Germans however learned something:

"From Finnish troops, the Germans learned a succesful method of using mortars in woods" - Handbook On German Military Forces (Mar´45), U.S. War Department

[JJKettunen]

In 1944, the Western Allies suffered 2 losses for 1 Axis loss, with an Allied numeric superiority of 2:1.

In 1944, the Soviets suffered 1.7 losses for 1 Axis loss with a Soviet numeric superiority of 1.5:1.

Here are more accurate numbers from Niklas Zetterling´s book "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness":

"It seems that the Allied numerical superiority in Normandy has not been clear to all authors. Indeed some have not even observed it at all. Stephen E. Ambrose has even written:
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin relied on overwhelming numbers, and to some extent American-supplied equipment, to fight the Wehrmacht. The British and Americans were going to have to rely on their soldiers outfighting Nazi soldiers, because the numbers of troops on the opposing sides were roughly equal.

This is entirely wrong. When Operation Cobra was launched, the Germans had brought to Normandy about 410,000 men in divisions and non-divisional combat units. If this is multiplied by 1.19 [service and support manpower outside German divisions and non-div units] we arrive at approximately 490,000 soldiers. However, until 23 July, casualties amounted to 116,863, while only 10,078 replacements had arrived. This means that no more than 380,000 soldiers remained in Normandy or supported the fighting in Normandy.

On 25 July there were 812,000 US soldiers and 640,000 British in Normandy. This means that the Allies had a 3.8:1 superiority in manpower. This was better than the superiority enjoyed by the Red Army on the Eastern Front. On 1 June 1944 the Soviets pitted 7.25 million men against 2.62 million Germans."

[Arralen]

My dear GUTB !

If you want to test the OOB values, never, I repeat never set up forces and let the AI do the work than - and expect historical results.

Than better check if you're using the units properly - e.g. what "visibility" setting did you use?
'cause it depends mostly on vis setting at which range tank battles will take place .. remember, 1 hex are 50m, so if you're fighting Shermans with your Jagdtigers and have them both on the screen at once, most likely you're witin 500..700m ... and at that range a Jadgtiger isn't invulnerable to 76mm APCR ammo .

Start the shooting at >24 hexes (1200m) .. and you'll see the superior German optics and guns take effect emidiatly.

From your description of bouncing 120mm shells I would guess you have tested at point-black range (1hex) .. but there's an (unsolvable) issue with the game engine that sometimes (even in a row) creates unbelievably high hitting angles in that case, which causes practically every round to bounce off ..

Furthermore, all those which worked on the OOBs (me too, yeap), tried everything possible to make those values most accurate, so better ask first before starting a rant ... being new to this board is NOT an excuse here...

Only thing which may be debatable is the "country training" which influences the command ratings and thereby to-hit, rally and survival chances - so better turn it off for testing.

A.

[Mikimoto]

Originally posted by Arralen
My dear GUTB !

If you want to test the OOB values, never, I repeat never set up forces and let the AI do the work than - and expect historical results.

Than better check if you're using the units properly - e.g. what "visibility" setting did you use?
'cause it depends mostly on vis setting at which range tank battles will take place .. remember, 1 hex are 50m, so if you're fighting Shermans with your Jagdtigers and have them both on the screen at once, most likely you're witin 500..700m ... and at that range a Jadgtiger isn't invulnerable to 76mm APCR ammo .

Start the shooting at >24 hexes (1200m) .. and you'll see the superior German optics and guns take effect emidiatly.

From your description of bouncing 120mm shells I would guess you have tested at point-black range (1hex) .. but there's an (unsolvable) issue with the game engine that sometimes (even in a row) creates unbelievably high hitting angles in that case, which causes practically every round to bounce off ..

Furthermore, all those which worked on the OOBs (me too, yeap), tried everything possible to make those values most accurate, so better ask first before starting a rant ... being new to this board is NOT an excuse here...

Only thing which may be debatable is the "country training" which influences the command ratings and thereby to-hit, rally and survival chances - so better turn it off for testing.

A.

Hi.

Frontally? I have never readed about a Jagdtiger vulnerable at 500/700 mts to 76mm APCR ammo... it is only in your imagination and in Spwaw... perhaps if the tank commander is busy looking for jabos, with open hatches, can you explode his head...

The US are over-modeled in Spwaw, in my opinion. Take a Sherman and win over all the Gerries can throw against you...

[Arralen]

Oh *** .. got the range wrong myself.

Fact is, the Jagdtigers front armor in OOB v7.1 is correct (hull 150@50 and turret 250@15).

The Jagdpanthers is as well ...

Fact is, the M1A1 76mm was able to penetrate 158mm (500m/ 30°) with HVAP (using the APCR slot in SPWAW).


SPWAW shows 170mm for the M1A1 gun.( + 7.6%)

The Jagdpanthers 8.8KwK41 /L71 is rated as AP221/APCR227, while it had (from the same tables) 185 (+19.4%) and 217(+4.6%)

The Jagdtigers 128 Pak44 /L55 is rated with 175/215 (500m/30°) .. SPWAW says PenAP 230mm what in fact gives the penetration of the APC ammo.

What you can see from this:

If anything is overrated, than it's the AP ammo of either Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger.

If you fight at ranges of 500m and more, the Sherman cannot hurt the Jagdtiger by direct frontal penetration .. but it can penetrate the front hull of the Jagdpanther at this range.

If you fight at ranges of less than 10 hexes, frontal penetrations are possible.

Also keep in mind that armor quality on the Jagdtigers was somewhat limited.


You should accept that these tanks where quite good, but shurely not "Superwaffen" (there's no word as "Ueberwaffen in german..).

Used correctly -long range ambush- they are (where) absolutly devastating, but pitted into a close-in fight against multiple foes (which the Allies could easily supply) has them killed rather quick.

hope this is helpful,

A.

[11Bravo]

GUTB,

Whenever I feel that my enemies units are too strong, I simply change sides for my next battle. That usually cures the problem.

[gnoccop]

Originally posted by 11Bravo
GUTB,

Whenever I feel that my enemies units are too strong, I simply change sides for my next battle. That usually cures the problem.

Yeah! Me too! and I never forget this is a game that tray to simulate reality, but it's still completely different from realty; and indeed give me a lot of amusement!

Ciao.