I've never played a long campaign as the US Army, but thought I'd try it. I set up one starting in November 1942. The first mission is an amphib assault on the coast of North Africa against the French. My notional core would be a company of Shermans, three Rifle Companies (foot-sloggers) and four Ranger platoons (for deep recon & assault). For heavy weapons, I'd add two sections of 81mm mortars, two sections of 3-in ATGs, and two sections of M7 Priests. I play with C&C off. Whaddaya think?
Historical commentary: comparing the weaponry that the US Army had in comparison to the US Marines, who were already engaged in offensive operations in the Pacific, I am reminded of the restrictions the USMC had to face in its early war commitment. The ONLY difference in their respective opponents was in the quality of their armor. The Germans had a definite edge in armor, BUT the high-quality of Japanese infantry units and their skills at entrenchment made for a wholly-different atmosphere.
Putting that aside, I want to get the feel of the US Army's experience in North Africa and Europe.
Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
Personally, I wouldn't take so many infantry, but then I like the smaller battles better. Maybe one company each of infantry and tanks, with SPA support, and some TD's if I could get them, maybe some engineers as well, so I wouldn't have to spend support points on them from mission to mission.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
Terminus, in ALL of my long campaigns the basic ratio is one tank company to three infantry companies, plus attachments of recon, engineers, ATG and AA. I've taken this a rule of thumb. Yes, it makes for big battles, but that's my personal preference. I set up a Combat Team, Battalion Landing Team, kampfgruppe or whatever you want to call a self-contained entity capable of supporting itself in the field. This basic formula applies to some of the "big six", but not all of them. The Japanese, for example, may eschew having any tank units at all in favor of more attached ATGs. The Japanese Army's notions were conservative in the extreme. Personally, I can't identify with them.
More commentary: I lean towards the USMC for many reasons, including this one--they identified the problems within their combat organization, and took steps to correct it. They rapidly adapted to the changing conditions of the Pacific war, and adopted new weapons as they became available and were proven to be effective in field operations.
More commentary: I lean towards the USMC for many reasons, including this one--they identified the problems within their combat organization, and took steps to correct it. They rapidly adapted to the changing conditions of the Pacific war, and adopted new weapons as they became available and were proven to be effective in field operations.
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
More commentary: I lean towards the USMC for a particular reason--they identified the problems within their combat organization, and took steps to correct it. They rapidly adapted to the changing conditions of the Pacific war, and adopted new weapons as they became available and were proven to be effective in field operations.
That's certainly true. But then, I actually like fighting the Germans, so no Marines for me!
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
More commentary: I lean towards the USMC for a particular reason--they identified the problems within their combat organization, and took steps to correct it. They rapidly adapted to the changing conditions of the Pacific war, and adopted new weapons as they became available and were proven to be effective in field operations.
That's certainly true. But then, I actually like fighting the Germans, so no Marines for me!
All this is funny, Terminus, because I just talked myself out of playing as the US Army. If I want to do something completely different, what about the Russians?
That's for a different topic. [;)]
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
Tried playing the British against the Japanese?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
My standard German Organization ( start in 39) is 3 Panzer support Companies, 2 SS Motoried Companies, 3 Batteries of Howitzers, with an addition of 4 vehciles to each Motorized Company, 5 sections of SP flak, a Forward Observer, 2 vehicles for the movement of HQ and FO and 3 tanks to act as guard for the HQ ( also buy 6 ammo trucks) This is 201 units, max size.
By 1941 the Infantry are all mechanized, 50 mm mortors turned into 81mm ( converted to selfpropelled giving each company 10 mortors) and shortly after the invasion of the Soviet Union all PZ III E are converted to PZ III H. ( the PZ II are converted to PZ 38 or PZ III E depending on damage repair requirements. Takes a bit but By Barbarosa I have at least all III's or 38's)
Eventually the tank companies convert to PZ IV with one platoon to Tigers, then the PZ IV to Panthers. Have only made it to February 42 so not sure how well it works in the end.
By 1941 the Infantry are all mechanized, 50 mm mortors turned into 81mm ( converted to selfpropelled giving each company 10 mortors) and shortly after the invasion of the Soviet Union all PZ III E are converted to PZ III H. ( the PZ II are converted to PZ 38 or PZ III E depending on damage repair requirements. Takes a bit but By Barbarosa I have at least all III's or 38's)
Eventually the tank companies convert to PZ IV with one platoon to Tigers, then the PZ IV to Panthers. Have only made it to February 42 so not sure how well it works in the end.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
Twotribes, you mentioned purchasing motorized infantry, but I've elected to buy only foot infantry because of the changes presented by the 8.4 mech.exe. Now that passengers suffer losses when their vehicle gets hit, it makes it too risky to carry mounted infantry into the battle area. Of course, its better to dismount them before contact is made, so why bother with the trucks or halftracks at all? If you're exploiting a breakthrough, why not just have some infantry hop aboard tanks?
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
German tanks can only transport 8 men, infantry units are all 10 men. I dont assault into the enemy without heavy bombardment first, which disrupts the infantry and the at guns, I generally only lose one or 2 Halftrack before I pinpoint the enemy tanks and take them out with my tank force.
It is very dangerous to advance with tanks. I absolutely hate losing a tank to an assaulting infantry unit I moved next to unknowingly. I use the infanty to find them after my aux scouts are all dead. Cheaper to lose a halftrack and or infantry squad then a couple tanks. I dont buy scouts in the core force cause they all are gonna die anyway most likely, finding th enemy, a waste of core assets.
Also in the event the battle is an advance or meeting engagement the halftrack travels a lot further on turn one then the Tank can. Allowing me to usually sieze the front objectives and then hold till the tanks arrive to drive off the enemy.
The computer has a tendency to buy Infantry first and place it forward near the start line with armored forces back farther, with Infantry forward I can preserve my tank fire for opportunity fire on AFV's rather than infantry.
I am still in 42, the soviets still suck, we shall see how well my plan works when the soviets have a credible unit morale and skill level, 43 and on will get a lot bloodier for me I suspect. To date I have lost 50 tanks from September 39 to January 42, with enemy tank losses nearly at the thousand mark. Well actually it counts the SP Flak as afv also so I have lost about 45 tanks. Couple of those were auxialry PzIV or stug I bought for support I think. I have updated to 8.4 but didnt lose many HT to advances prior to that update so the bug helped the enemy more than it did me.
As the soviets I buy ( when available) Desante Units, Tank with attached Infantry rider. I dont buy seperate Infantry commands as Core forces.
Havent played the US in a while, they dont have a good unit mix till 43 or so anyway, the mech infantry company needs extensive modification prior to 43. And the Sherman simply isnt up to the task of a main battle tank except in mass. The Tank Destroyer units all have such pitiful ammo load outs it is nearly pointless to buy them.
Being a retired marine I wouldnt mind playing the Marines in the Pacific, but I absolutely HATE the terrain. When you have to spend half the battle moving one hex ata time to eventually find the enemy it simply is to frustrating. Same playing the Japanese.
The Italians are pointless playing, they have no ability to reform after being routed. The British are kinda bland, although the Canadian and Aussie troops have good leaders and Morale. But same crappy equipment. I prefer the Germans, early on they have garabage for tanks but they generally win anyway cause of training and Morale and have a reasonable upgrade that occurs in different types as the war progresses. In the end as I lose units I will suffer but if I can keep my experienced troops and tanks alive, I will do well till the end.
It is very dangerous to advance with tanks. I absolutely hate losing a tank to an assaulting infantry unit I moved next to unknowingly. I use the infanty to find them after my aux scouts are all dead. Cheaper to lose a halftrack and or infantry squad then a couple tanks. I dont buy scouts in the core force cause they all are gonna die anyway most likely, finding th enemy, a waste of core assets.
Also in the event the battle is an advance or meeting engagement the halftrack travels a lot further on turn one then the Tank can. Allowing me to usually sieze the front objectives and then hold till the tanks arrive to drive off the enemy.
The computer has a tendency to buy Infantry first and place it forward near the start line with armored forces back farther, with Infantry forward I can preserve my tank fire for opportunity fire on AFV's rather than infantry.
I am still in 42, the soviets still suck, we shall see how well my plan works when the soviets have a credible unit morale and skill level, 43 and on will get a lot bloodier for me I suspect. To date I have lost 50 tanks from September 39 to January 42, with enemy tank losses nearly at the thousand mark. Well actually it counts the SP Flak as afv also so I have lost about 45 tanks. Couple of those were auxialry PzIV or stug I bought for support I think. I have updated to 8.4 but didnt lose many HT to advances prior to that update so the bug helped the enemy more than it did me.
As the soviets I buy ( when available) Desante Units, Tank with attached Infantry rider. I dont buy seperate Infantry commands as Core forces.
Havent played the US in a while, they dont have a good unit mix till 43 or so anyway, the mech infantry company needs extensive modification prior to 43. And the Sherman simply isnt up to the task of a main battle tank except in mass. The Tank Destroyer units all have such pitiful ammo load outs it is nearly pointless to buy them.
Being a retired marine I wouldnt mind playing the Marines in the Pacific, but I absolutely HATE the terrain. When you have to spend half the battle moving one hex ata time to eventually find the enemy it simply is to frustrating. Same playing the Japanese.
The Italians are pointless playing, they have no ability to reform after being routed. The British are kinda bland, although the Canadian and Aussie troops have good leaders and Morale. But same crappy equipment. I prefer the Germans, early on they have garabage for tanks but they generally win anyway cause of training and Morale and have a reasonable upgrade that occurs in different types as the war progresses. In the end as I lose units I will suffer but if I can keep my experienced troops and tanks alive, I will do well till the end.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: Long Campaign US Army--Core Force Suggestions?
That sounds very much what I picked for my core force. I had three separate platoons of tanks of lowest possible quality. Only one of them was shermans, but I got them all upgraded later. Then I had three companies of infantry plus an Engineer Company. I had no rangers. I had also an Armoured Inf Platoon and two platoons of tracked artillery.
Engineers proved to be a good purchase, althought I bought them as supporting units too. I assaulted with a horde of infantry at the spearhead. Tanks came in the second wave. German 75mm and 88mm are better than any allied guns in the first battles, and therefore M2A1 is not a real match against StuG's.
Many of the battles were defensive or meeting engagements. I really expected more assault scenarios for Allies. I confess that the third battle against Italians was relatively bloody against me. I lost *too* many Shermans while duelling with Italian tanks.
Engineers proved to be a good purchase, althought I bought them as supporting units too. I assaulted with a horde of infantry at the spearhead. Tanks came in the second wave. German 75mm and 88mm are better than any allied guns in the first battles, and therefore M2A1 is not a real match against StuG's.
Many of the battles were defensive or meeting engagements. I really expected more assault scenarios for Allies. I confess that the third battle against Italians was relatively bloody against me. I lost *too* many Shermans while duelling with Italian tanks.
Don't be shocked, I AM funny.