Matrix Games Forums

What's so special with a "Shock Army"? Anyone who has any info regarding its meaning in the game and their historical composition and so on?

Regards, Rundstedt

Originally posted by Rundstedt:
What's so special with a "Shock Army"? Anyone who has any info regarding its meaning in the game and their historical composition and so on?

In the game the only difference between a normal army and a shock army is that you can put more divisions shock army without losing as much readiness, as it has a bigger threshold for stacking (don't remember the exact term, but take a look in the manual, the numbers are there)

Historically I seem to recall, that the shock armies were to be used to exploit openings in the enemy front and to penetrate deep in to the rear. (I really am not too sure about this any more, so somebody who has access to some good sources... feel free to correct me)

Originally posted by heiks:
...
Historically I seem to recall, that the shock armies were to be used to exploit openings in the enemy front and to penetrate deep in to the rear. (I really am not too sure about this any more, so somebody who has access to some good sources... feel free to correct me)

I believe that the tank armies were designed to carry out the deep penetrations, while shock armies were designed more for breaking through the lines and short penetrations. However, in practice I don't think there were too many differences. Tank armies definitely carried out both the breakthrough and exploitation roles anyway. I also could be wrong, but that is the impression I have always had of the two army types.

Originally posted by RickyB:

However, in practice I don't think there were too many differences. Tank armies definitely carried out both the breakthrough and exploitation roles anyway.

Just think of a Shock Army as a Tank Army low on fuel.

I asked something like this, and some kind people asnswered to me about half a year ago. So the shock army has the same stacking point of 10 in this version (it were 9) as the panzer korps and the tank army (panzer div:3, infantry:1 stacking point). It is extremely usefull for the soviet as they seriously lack tank armies ( they should have more in 43, 44...), so they can concentrate forces in shock armies as well. Good way to use them, to make support forces out of them for the tank armies. They should keep the supply lines behind the tank armies as they are much more capable at defeating german counterattacks as the normal armies. I use tank armies with 3 mechanized (or tank if I don't have mech) corps and one cavarly div. and subunits, the backup is shock army with 2 tank corps and 6 rifle division. If the german panzers are fearfully strong, you should make the opposite: attack with the shock army and counter-counter attack the victorius german panzers korps with your tank army. One shock army for one panzer korps *is* a good deal. If no counter comes just terrorize the german infantry with the shock army So I like the shock armies, just please make them plot 3!

Originally posted by RickyB:

I believe that the tank armies were designed to carry out the deep penetrations, while shock armies were designed more for breaking through the lines and short penetrations. However, in practice I don't think there were too many differences.

Basically you´re right. Shock armies were extremely well equipped with artillery, to soften up a well-entrenched defender. A typical situation for a shock army would be a battle like "Seelower Höhen" in spring ´45; here, mobility was not the key to victory, but brute firepower. And this is where shock armies excelled.

Is it then better to put tank corps in tank armies and just stuff the shock armies full with artillery and infantry corps? By the way, does the game take into account if a player has a massive advantage in artillery? I personally think artillery is a very important factor on the battlefield.

Regards, Rundstedt

Originally posted by Rundstedt:
By the way, does the game take into account if a player has a massive advantage in artillery? I personally think artillery is a very important factor on the battlefield.

Load manual.pdf into Acrobat Reader and search it for "artillery".

Will do, Eddie boy.

Happy regards, Rundstedt

OK, I've read the manual and discovered defending units don't get any support from artillery units. At least not when calculating the defender's value (DV). Why?

Regards, Rundstedt

Originally posted by Rundstedt:
OK, I've read the manual and discovered defending units don't get any support from artillery units. At least not when calculating the defender's value (DV). Why?

Please take a closer look at the manual. First, the bombardment phase is for *both* sides, the defender gets to fire his artillery along with the attacker. Second, the side that is on the strategic defensive, but has plenty of artillery, can use the bombard plot to take advantage of their artillery and wear down the attackers. As for the DV, some nations could use artillery so efficiently that it played a major role on the defensive (US), but for the Eastern front, and especially the Soviets, artillery was largely an offensive weapon.

I thought the Germans used artillery on the defensive too, since they had pre-plotted artillery plans when defending areas.

Regards, Rundstedt

Originally posted by Rundstedt:
I thought the Germans used artillery on the defensive too, since they had pre-plotted artillery plans when defending areas.

Regards, Rundstedt

Everyone used artillery on defense. The US was the best at it, and the Soviets were the worst. I guess Gary just decided that defensive artillery wasn't important enough to include in the final calculations; using them in the bombardment phase was good enough to represent defensive artillery.