Panzer Grenadier and Panzer Pionier squads

[Aditia]

They usually operate in in Pamzer Divisions alongside the motorised infantry. I notice that mechanized infantry suffers significantly more during combat than motorized infantry, in many cases a divisions mechanized infantry gets completely whiped out. Is this WAD? If so, why?

Just as an example, I did a test battle for a typical late 1943 combat; Panzer divisions attacking soviet mech/tank corps.

Results below for 3 divisions in the same battle.

[TAIL_GUNNER]

I think it's because them boys have an armored rating of '1' and are thusly getting shot to shiza from the masses of Soviet tanks and assault guns...

Very interesting..

[cmill_MatrixForum]

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

I think it's because them boys have an armored rating of '1' and are thusly getting shot to shiza from the masses of Soviet tanks and assault guns...

Very interesting..

Where do you see a unit's armor rating?

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

I think it's because them boys have an armored rating of '1' and are thusly getting shot to shiza from the masses of Soviet tanks and assault guns...

Very interesting..

I don't think the game designers understand armoured operations--we run into similar problems in WitP. Mech dismount in the presence of serious AT opposition. Having armoured transport allows them to stay mounted given infantry opposition, which motorised troops can't do.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

I think it's because them boys have an armored rating of '1' and are thusly getting shot to shiza from the masses of Soviet tanks and assault guns...

Very interesting..

I don't think the game designers understand armoured operations--we run into similar problems in WitP. Mech dismount in the presence of serious AT opposition. Having armoured transport allows them to stay mounted given infantry opposition, which motorised troops can't do.

I wouldn't criticize the design decision, it might be as suggested above by TAIL_GUNNER that it has to do with the armor combat mechanisms and might well be unintentional.

Mech inf staying mounted when fighting infantry is really only practicable in a pursuit/exploit situation. The real advantage of having armored transport is when storming enemy positions, and paradoxically, it has less to do with enemy fire than with your own artillery fire.

When you attack, you want the enemy suppressed by your own artillery so they don't shoot at your advancing troops. If you don't have artillery support, you might as well not attack if the opposition is anything like serious. The problem is that the artillery has to let up when your troops are to storm the objective, otherwise you risk hitting your own troops. The safety distance for direct hit + splinters is about 300 meters for unprotected troops. Troops in an an armored personnel carrier are protected from splinters, so you only have to allow for the safety distance of a direct hit, which is about 50 meters.

So if you time your advance and the artillery fire right, mechanized infantry will be at 50 meters from the enemy positions when the artillery lets up and they dismount and start their charge, while normal infantry will be at 300 meters. As can readily be understood, this makes a whole lot of difference when the enemy is hurrying out of his dugouts and manning the machine guns.

Note: I learnt this during the 80:s as a reserve officer commanding a tank platoon. I don't know if this was practised during WW2, but I have every reason to believe so. The Germans were masters at coordinating artillery fire and movement to attack.

Many people think of APCs as an assault vehicle with panzer grenadiers firing every which way from the top, but that is not its primary use at all. The greatest use of an APC in WW2 style large scale combat is as a mobile splinter-proof shelter. It should never be exposed to enemy fire, especially not anti tank fire. An Sdkfz 251 has thin armor and can be damaged by many WW2 infantry weapons, even HMGs.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

I think it's because them boys have an armored rating of '1' and are thusly getting shot to shiza from the masses of Soviet tanks and assault guns...

Very interesting..

I don't think the game designers understand armoured operations--we run into similar problems in WitP.

Herwin, I can understand you're bitter from loosing droves of Tommies to Japanese tin-tanks in the jungle of Burma, but you're certainly not gonna make you heard or seen any better with this kind of harsh - if not offensive - statements.

[Georgy Zhukov]

why not have the SS division the original names?
for example das reich SS panzer division is better that numeric designation.

[Fishbed]

Uh? Well, because SS Das Reich division is first and foremost 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich". That's like naming 101st Airborne "Screaming Eagles" or 1st US Infantry "Big Red One" counters after their (sometimes unofficial) nickname instead of using their ID number. How is that better, apart from making the thing sound cooler?

Few German units (on a big scale) had a name, but they nearly all had a number. The larger rule should be used instead of the exception: for some single non-numbered units like Infanterie-Regiment/Div Grossdeutschland or, on a more common basis, later war Kampfgruppen, there were thousands of units with number. Numeric ID is the common and regular ID, and when it exists, it should be used, for standardization's sake. [;)]

[PeeDeeAitch]

The only division that needs a name is Das Postal.

[barkman44]

The "4th SS Panzer division"?I did'nt think Polizei went beyond a Pz gren.division.

[Joel Billings]

Absolutely unintentional. Gary has put a fix in the combat code to rectify the situation and it should be in the next public beta version released. Thanks much for picking up on this and reporting the higher losses.

[Mehring]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

I think it's because them boys have an armored rating of '1' and are thusly getting shot to shiza from the masses of Soviet tanks and assault guns...

Very interesting..

I don't think the game designers understand armoured operations--we run into similar problems in WitP. Mech dismount in the presence of serious AT opposition. Having armoured transport allows them to stay mounted given infantry opposition, which motorised troops can't do.

I wouldn't criticize the design decision, it might be as suggested above by TAIL_GUNNER that it has to do with the armor combat mechanisms and might well be unintentional.

Mech inf staying mounted when fighting infantry is really only practicable in a pursuit/exploit situation. The real advantage of having armored transport is when storming enemy positions, and paradoxically, it has less to do with enemy fire than with your own artillery fire.

When you attack, you want the enemy suppressed by your own artillery so they don't shoot at your advancing troops. If you don't have artillery support, you might as well not attack if the opposition is anything like serious. The problem is that the artillery has to let up when your troops are to storm the objective, otherwise you risk hitting your own troops. The safety distance for direct hit + splinters is about 300 meters for unprotected troops. Troops in an an armored personnel carrier are protected from splinters, so you only have to allow for the safety distance of a direct hit, which is about 50 meters.

So if you time your advance and the artillery fire right, mechanized infantry will be at 50 meters from the enemy positions when the artillery lets up and they dismount and start their charge, while normal infantry will be at 300 meters. As can readily be understood, this makes a whole lot of difference when the enemy is hurrying out of his dugouts and manning the machine guns.

Note: I learnt this during the 80:s as a reserve officer commanding a tank platoon. I don't know if this was practised during WW2, but I have every reason to believe so. The Germans were masters at coordinating artillery fire and movement to attack.

Many people think of APCs as an assault vehicle with panzer grenadiers firing every which way from the top, but that is not its primary use at all. The greatest use of an APC in WW2 style large scale combat is as a mobile splinter-proof shelter. It should never be exposed to enemy fire, especially not anti tank fire. An Sdkfz 251 has thin armor and can be damaged by many WW2 infantry weapons, even HMGs.

There was a discussion which dealt with similar issues on the decision games PC 'war in europe' forum. It arose over the the different treatment of motorised units and 'panzer grenadier' units. The latter are given a slightly smaller printed movement allowance, but, unlike the motorised units, get to move in both the movement phase and mechanised movement phase which follows combat.

Not sure if it passes muster but the 'expert' opinion was that, by choice, mechanised units dismounted before combat, that only the support versions of the 250/251 series would volutarily enter combat, and then, mounting long range weapons, generally at a distance. The movement advantage aforded 'panzer grenadier' divisions was doctrinal, in that the PzGs would dismount relatively close to the fighting compared to their motorised equivalents and that their transport- whether truck or halftrack- was organic rather than temporarily attached from a pool, as was often the case in other armies.

It was noted that the Germans also had an equivalent of the motorised division, a unit that de-trucked far behind the lines and marched up to the front, not having been trained in the PzG role.

It does make sense. The half tracks of all armies were at most bullet resistant, even then, subject to spall. You wouldn't want to be in grenade range either.

Based on that, I think it wrong that truck or halftrack mounted infantry should normally be targetted together wit htheir vehicle. Any information on the range at which these losses occur?

[Aditia]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Absolutely unintentional. Gary has put a fix in the combat code to rectify the situation and it should be in the next public beta version released. Thanks much for picking up on this and reporting the higher losses.

Thank you for the swift action sir

[Scook_99]

ORIGINAL: Georgy Zhukov

why not have the SS division the original names?
for example das reich SS panzer division is better that numeric designation.

They do start as LAHSS, Das Reich, etc. They rename, eh, don't remember, in 1943-44 to the 1st, 2nd, etc SS Pz divisions, as was done historically.

Edit: Thank you Joel for another swift response to keep us grognards 'in the loop'.