Lots of tanks, no men

[Berkut]

Actually, IFVs are most certainly NOT the same as halftracks. The entire point of the modern IFV is that it is meant to give infantry an actual vehicle that they can take into combat, as opposed to a halftrack which simply was not survivable. And even at that modern IFVs are still pretty damn vulnerable.

And if you ever played SL or ASL, you would know that halftracks die very, very fast when taken into combat. Freaking everything can blow them away.

If you are playing any scenario that include vehicular VPs, you don't take your halftracks into combat.

[Berkut]

Anyone ever play Combat Missions? Man I miss that game...

Again, haltracks....just die in minutes in any kind of actually contested battle. Hell, if nothing else it gave you something useful to use your 800 Soviet AT rifles that were otherwise useless. "Halftracks! Sweet! Something this thing can actually penetrate!"

[Tarhunnas]

To get the discussion back on the original subject (yeah, boring, I know). This might be a stupid question, but the production side of the game is the one I feel least at home with. I seem to have a lot of men, but they don't arrive at the front in the form of rifle squads. What are these 877174 men in the pool doing? Sitting around somewhere in the supply chain playing cards (not unreasonable, given my experiences from military service, but still...).

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Lrfss

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Halftracks aren't AFVs. They are transport....armed, true, but transport nonetheless. Some of them got turned into fighting vehicles by mounting heavy weaponry on them. Those are modeled. I think that's the difference in reasoning.

I could be wrong, however every book I've ever read which there have been many on the subject considered Halftracks to be AFV's...

Additionally, IIRC all the games I've seen considered H-Tracks to be AFV's as well... IIRC take a look at the old war horse AH titles, SL & ASL I'm about 99% sure they considerd H-Tracks as AFV's. If they were around today in the same config more or less they would be called IFV's of course.

That is regardless whether or not the Forward Mtd 34/42 was in place or the optional Rear Pintle Mtd 34/42.

This reminds me, is the Flamm Thrower H-Track version in WitE, if not I cry foul and demand it's added in the next patch...please[8D]

IIRC, I believe you are correct on SL/ASL, though AFV was a class in that game that determined how combat against it was performed more than a designation of how it was used. And you could be right about the books as well.

I would still maintain that they are primarily transport in usage and thus modeled reasonably in the game.

Did you look in the Flamm Panzer support units for those flamm tracks? [:'(]

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

To get the discussion back on the original subject (yeah, boring, I know). This might be a stupid question, but the production side of the game is the one I feel least at home with. I seem to have a lot of men, but they don't arrive at the front in the form of rifle squads. What are these 877174 men in the pool doing? Sitting around somewhere in the supply chain playing cards (not unreasonable, given my experiences from military service, but still...).

I believe they would be sitting around waiting for guns? Your armaments is kinda low in comparison. Really just a semi-educated guess here, since BA has been talking about managing manpower and armaments in his 43 scenario.

[ComradeP]

Did they ever really though?

A halftrack is a ridiculously vulnerable vehicle in combat. I mean, obviously it is much better protection than a truck, but even at that pretty much *any* AT weapons of any kind is going to make mincemeat of it. Even an AT rifle. And the bloody things are rather expensive to produce compared to a truck.

I've always been of the understanding that both US and German doctrine was that halftracks were used to move the infantry into combat, keep up with the tanks across similar terrain, but not intended really to be used in direct combat itself.

A halftrack might be vulnerable, but it's still less vulnerable than infantry on foot that have to cover a few hundred meters under enemy fire. The difference between using the halftrack like a taxi, which is essentially the same use as a truck or in most cases for the cavalry, a horse and using it as a support vehicle is quite substantial. In the first scenario, it drops it load and the crew just waits until the fighting stops, with the primary advantage over a truck being that they can get closer to the fighting and have more off-road mobility. When it's acting as a support vehicle, it's supporting the people that rode to the battlefield in them, possibly by taking up overwatch positions at some distance from the front.

I'd also say WWII halftracks were relatively speaking not less protected against the AT weapons of their day than modern IFV's are against modern AT weapons, as a halftrack would be in trouble when it encountered an AT gun with a trained crew just like an IFV would be in trouble when it encountered an AT rocket used by trained troops. In fact, I'd say modern IFV's actually face a greater danger because even infantry held weapons can disable them at range, whilst in WWII the engagement ranges that were lethal to a halftrack when it faced infantry would be shorter.

Except the half tracks.

Correction: except the transport Sd.Kfz 250's and 251's.

Name me one other element in which this is also the case?

Every element that's a mix of devices, essentially, so the majority of the ground elements in the game.

What other AFVs could anyone else possibly want to include that arent already included?

I was talking about vehicles, so trucks, cars, transport halftracks.

[Q-Ball]

Tarhunnas, it looks like your problem is lack of Armament Production. That is a ton of guys in the pool, but hardly any Armaments; and I bet the German Armament pool is NADA, and that the only equipment in the pool is a few support squads, and AA guns and such.

That is a serious production gap there. Not sure the reason, but that needs to be looked at. DISBANDING units isn't going to solve that Manpower problem, it will only make it worse!

[TAIL_GUNNER]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Hmm, this is interesting. Now I know why there are so few 251/1 around. I always wondered, but never dared to ask...

I found it interesting also, and finally decided to poke around...

It would appear in WitE that ALL German Panzer Divisions start Barbarossa with a single armored company......which is true for the most part.
However 1. Panzer had its full complement of two armored battalions while 10. Panzer had one armored battalion on June 22nd, 1941.
The fourteen other Panzer Divisions had the one armored company.

Regarding the 251/1 MG carriers, it would appear they do indeed represent the HMG Trupp of an armored PanzerGrenadier Compay.
However, there are currently four assigned per Panzer Division....should only be two until November, 1941.

There are also some exceptions that really should be included. Someone mentioned the 251/16 (flamethrower version). It is not in the game!

What really gets my goat is that the SPW 251/1 mit Wurfrahmen was not included!
Should be six of these in every Panzer Pioneer Battalion if I remember right..armed with six 280mm HE or 320mm incendiary rockets.

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: TAIL_GUNNER

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Hmm, this is interesting. Now I know why there are so few 251/1 around. I always wondered, but never dared to ask...

I found it interesting also, and finally decided to poke around...

It would appear in WitE that ALL German Panzer Divisions start Barbarossa with a single armored company......which is true for the most part.
However 1. Panzer had its full complement of two armored battalions while 10. Panzer had one armored battalion on June 22nd, 1941.
The fourteen other Panzer Divisions had the one armored company.

Regarding the 251/1 MG carriers, it would appear they do indeed represent the HMG Trupp of an armored PanzerGrenadier Compay.
However, there are currently four assigned per Panzer Division....should only be two until November, 1941.

There are also some exceptions that really should be included. Someone mentioned the 251/16 (flamethrower version). It is not in the game!What really gets my goat is that the SPW 251/1 mit Wurfrahmen was not included!
Should be six of these in every Panzer Pioneer Battalion if I remember right..armed with six 280mm HE or 320mm incendiary rockets.

Exactly Herr TAIL_GUNNER and just my point!

Why is it that everyone else gets there toys and we don't? Thank you for enlightening us to the proper partial designation of the 251/16 H-Track which I'm floored is not in WitE!

Additionally, I agree that even worse which it has just been brought to our attention by you that the Code Name "Rocket Track" is not included in "WitE", this is crazy and unacceptable! In particular since we all know for a fact these AFV's BTW played a large role in all fronts as inf. suppt... IIRC they were designed and are some of the first "shoot & scoot/throw away" Hvy Mobile Inf. Suppt. Weapons ever made more or less!!!! The only better example of a throw away inf. weapon (though not Hvy indirect) at the time would be like the "Panzerfaust" of course.

I know in any game I ever played, I would buy a bunch to deploy as they struck terror beyond effect onto there enemies always...

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

Did they ever really though?

A halftrack is a ridiculously vulnerable vehicle in combat. I mean, obviously it is much better protection than a truck, but even at that pretty much *any* AT weapons of any kind is going to make mincemeat of it. Even an AT rifle. And the bloody things are rather expensive to produce compared to a truck.

I've always been of the understanding that both US and German doctrine was that halftracks were used to move the infantry into combat, keep up with the tanks across similar terrain, but not intended really to be used in direct combat itself.

A halftrack might be vulnerable, but it's still less vulnerable than infantry on foot that have to cover a few hundred meters under enemy fire. The difference between using the halftrack like a taxi, which is essentially the same use as a truck or in most cases for the cavalry, a horse and using it as a support vehicle is quite substantial. In the first scenario, it drops it load and the crew just waits until the fighting stops, with the primary advantage over a truck being that they can get closer to the fighting and have more off-road mobility. When it's acting as a support vehicle, it's supporting the people that rode to the battlefield in them, possibly by taking up overwatch positions at some distance from the front.

I'd also say WWII halftracks were relatively speaking not less protected against the AT weapons of their day than modern IFV's are against modern AT weapons, as a halftrack would be in trouble when it encountered an AT gun with a trained crew just like an IFV would be in trouble when it encountered an AT rocket used by trained troops. In fact, I'd say modern IFV's actually face a greater danger because even infantry held weapons can disable them at range, whilst in WWII the engagement ranges that were lethal to a halftrack when it faced infantry would be shorter.

Except the half tracks.

Correction: except the transport Sd.Kfz 250's and 251's.

Name me one other element in which this is also the case?

Every element that's a mix of devices, essentially, so the majority of the ground elements in the game.

What other AFVs could anyone else possibly want to include that arent already included?

I was talking about vehicles, so trucks, cars, transport halftracks.

Agreed no doubt, whats the confusion about in particular German H-Tracks in WWII anyway for some? It's an open top AFV = yes! Does it provide cover into combat = yes! Does it provide more protection than a truck or soft target vehicle of any type = yes! Is it likely that small arms fire will take it out including most dedicated ATR's of the time with maybe the exception of the early Finn version rifle, prob not including the Finn unless within likely 50 yards or so and even at that the crew & squad would likely all survive unless you happen to be directly behind the point of impact or there near abouts, etc... Now of course later in the war when SCW's like the Panzerfaust & such were more common, things got a bit ugly even for tanks let alone H-Tracks... Still I'd rather be in an H-Track than riding on top of another AFV or in any Soft Target type vehicle any day at the time.

The Allied H-Tracks were not as well protected for many known reasons at the time, so I would say your better off in a German H-Track by far with no other issues considered but the Track itself Vs others.

The Allies & Axis forces did drive H-Tracks directly into combat when they were lucky enough to even have them... Plenty of facts to support this all over the net and in books these days...

[Lrfss]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Lrfss

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Halftracks aren't AFVs. They are transport....armed, true, but transport nonetheless. Some of them got turned into fighting vehicles by mounting heavy weaponry on them. Those are modeled. I think that's the difference in reasoning.

I could be wrong, however every book I've ever read which there have been many on the subject considered Halftracks to be AFV's...

Additionally, IIRC all the games I've seen considered H-Tracks to be AFV's as well... IIRC take a look at the old war horse AH titles, SL & ASL I'm about 99% sure they considerd H-Tracks as AFV's. If they were around today in the same config more or less they would be called IFV's of course.

That is regardless whether or not the Forward Mtd 34/42 was in place or the optional Rear Pintle Mtd 34/42.

This reminds me, is the Flamm Thrower H-Track version in WitE, if not I cry foul and demand it's added in the next patch...please[8D]

IIRC, I believe you are correct on SL/ASL, though AFV was a class in that game that determined how combat against it was performed more than a designation of how it was used. And you could be right about the books as well.

I would still maintain that they are primarily transport in usage and thus modeled reasonably in the game.

Did you look in the Flamm Panzer support units for those flamm tracks? [:'(]

LOL, yeah no Flamm/Flame H-Tracks[8|] Transport directly into combat when nec was the intention and no doubt on a reasonable and likely sometimes limited basis as such... Common sense for some might decide that it would be unwise to take your H-Track in the view of many weapon systems of the time, however compared to running around in the clear open, give me the protection my my track please...[:D]

[Mynok]

I'm sure the panzergrendiers appreciated their mobile metal skins a lot. [:D]

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Lrfss
Agreed no doubt, whats the confusion about in particular German H-Tracks in WWII anyway for some? It's an open top AFV = yes! Does it provide cover into combat = yes! Does it provide more protection than a truck or soft target vehicle of any type = yes! Is it likely that small arms fire will take it out including most dedicated ATR's of the time with maybe the exception of the early Finn version rifle, prob not including the Finn unless within likely 50 yards or so and even at that the crew & squad would likely all survive unless you happen to be directly behind the point of impact or there near abouts, etc...

The crew might survive the hit from an ATR, but the track is still destroyed, and now they not only don't have any cover, they don't have any transport either. And the transport is a lot more valuable. Gotta keep up with the tanks, remember?

And yes, a halftrack provides better cover than a bunch of different unarmored choices. Well argued - I am sure there might have been someone who thought a truck gave better cover.

But it does not provide better cover under direct fire combat conditions than being on the ground, in most cases. A squad in a track is very vulnerable to a large variety of weapons. Light AT guns, artillery pieces, etc., etc. A Soviet 76mm gun is going to likely kill the track and the entire squad, for example.

Now of course later in the war when SCW's like the Panzerfaust & such were more common, things got a bit ugly even for tanks let alone H-Tracks... Still I'd rather be in an H-Track than riding on top of another AFV or in any Soft Target type vehicle any day at the time.

Sigh. Nobody is claiming that a halftrack is better than a soft vehicle. That isn't even up for debate. The question is whether or not they were typically ridden into combat - they were not. They were too vulnerable, and too important to be thrown away like that.

They were used to get the troops forward to contact, then the troops dismounted to fight.

The Allied H-Tracks were not as well protected for many known reasons at the time, so I would say your better off in a German H-Track by far with no other issues considered but the Track itself Vs others.

I don't think the Germans had a choice between German and Allied halftracks. Their choice is between being in a German halftrack, and fighting on foot. They almost always chose to fight on foot, when it was time to fight.

The Allies & Axis forces did drive H-Tracks directly into combat when they were lucky enough to even have them... Plenty of facts to support this all over the net and in books these days...

Then it won't be hard for you to cite some of those sources that state that in WW2 it was a common tactic to drive halftracks directly into contact.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Tarhunnas, it looks like your problem is lack of Armament Production. That is a ton of guys in the pool, but hardly any Armaments; and I bet the German Armament pool is NADA, and that the only equipment in the pool is a few support squads, and AA guns and such.

That is a serious production gap there. Not sure the reason, but that needs to be looked at. DISBANDING units isn't going to solve that Manpower problem, it will only make it worse!

Thanks for the answer. Any suggestions on what to do about it? I really don't know how this happened. Lots of wear and tear I guess.

Why would disbanding units make it worse, except in adding more men to the pool? Does the armaments of disbanded units go to the pool or disappear?

There is of course a Soviet solution to this. Line them up without rifles behind the front and wait for somebody to die...

[karonagames]

I seem to have a lot of men, but they don't arrive at the front in the form of rifle squads.

Everything with an "A" in the capacity column uses armaments points, and produces equipment on an "on demand" basis. Artillery tubes (Flak, AT etc.) use many more armaments points than lighter infantry weapons.

The only tools that the player has to influence demand are the max. TOE% function and the refit function. If a unit's current TOE% is X, you can set the max. TOE% to X-1. This will mean this unit no longer places a demand for replacement equipment that will cost armaments points.

The refit function prioritises the allocation of equipment, so using this on units that have rifle squads should increase the demand of these units and increase their production.

To this end, on the first turn of my 1943 campaign game against Oeg, I used the Commander's report to access every support unit that uses artillery tubes, and set their max. TOE% to 50% - the lowest setting the game allows.

I then went through every unit, and adjusted the max. TOE% to X-1 to every unit that had a TOE% above the average figure I wanted my infantry divisions to have (66% in this case).

After disbanding un-needed HQs on turn1, the number of Rifle squads increased by 3k over turns 2 and 3, so I know this strategy works.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

I seem to have a lot of men, but they don't arrive at the front in the form of rifle squads.

Everything with an "A" in the capacity column uses armaments points, and produces equipment on an "on demand" basis. Artillery tubes (Flak, AT etc.) use many more armaments points than lighter infantry weapons.

The only tools that the player has to influence demand are the max. TOE% function and the refit function. If a unit's current TOE% is X, you can set the max. TOE% to X-1. This will mean this unit no longer places a demand for replacement equipment that will cost armaments points.

The refit function prioritises the allocation of equipment, so using this on units that have rifle squads should increase the demand of these units and increase their production.

To this end, on the first turn of my 1943 campaign game against Oeg, I used the Commander's report to access every support unit that uses artillery tubes, and set their max. TOE% to 50% - the lowest setting the game allows.

I then went through every unit, and adjusted the max. TOE% to X-1 to every unit that had a TOE% above the average figure I wanted my infantry divisions to have (66% in this case).

After disbanding un-needed HQs on turn1, the number of Rifle squads increased by 3k over turns 2 and 3, so I know this strategy works.

Thanks! I'll try that. I am a bit baffled though by realism in this. Are the Germans really supposed to be the ones with more men than guns? And isn't artillery supposed to be the queen of the battlefield? Artillery killed more men than small arms in WW2, so starving the artillery of equipment to produce more small arms seems a bit odd.

[Tarhunnas]

ORIGINAL: Tarhunnas

Thanks! I'll try that. I am a bit baffled though by realism in this. Are the Germans really supposed to be the ones with more men than guns? And isn't artillery supposed to be the queen of the battlefield? Artillery killed more men than small arms in WW2, so starving the artillery of equipment to produce more small arms seems a bit odd.

And I think it would be desirable if the game handled this for me. I am not overjoyed that I have to micromanage the TOE of every support unit just to keep my infantry fighting.

[karonagames]

There is plenty of historical precedent for keeping units at lower than official TOEs. The Axis only put together the forces for Case Blau, by stripping AGN and most of AGC down to 50% TOE,so they could get AGS up to 80%.

Using the Commander's report makes it very easy to adjust max. TOE%s - probably took me less than 15 minutes to get the settings where I wanted them.

edit: Armaments points had never really been an issue prior to 1.03, but the developers felt they should be used as a a balancing tool - there have been several posts from Soviet players on the size of there manpower pools. I think it is too early to say if there has been an over-adjustment, that has caused more micro-management than is strictly necessary. It is close to being a PITA for me, but not quite.

[ComradeP]

OK, you guys do have a point about the Wurfrahmen, it seems both the regular Wurfrahmen (the launchers placed on the ground, basically) and vehicle mounted variants are missing. I've been mostly checking the editor for mistakes, not missing equipment. I'll post about it on the tester forum.

[Montbrun]

The reason far having armored halftrack carriers was to have infantry be able follow tanks cross-country. That was the purpose of the exercise.

Brad