Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is the delaying action realistic...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> The War Room >> Is the delaying action realistic... Page: [1]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/7/2010 3:04:24 PM   


Posts: 903
Joined: 7/3/2002
From: Southeastern USA
Status: offline
In the Elsenborn Ridge scenario I have seen a single american infantry company hold up an entire RGT for hours on end. I believe it was the 989th that was held up. Actually it wasn't until Pieper came through and even then I had to dispatch a BN of Panthers to dislodge that one company. It was not on a highway but was on the path just shot of Buckholtz Station. Is this the way it really was?
The Allies seem to be able to bring the gugernaut to a halt with single units of under 100 men.
The Germany grinaders , being on foot tire quickly and never seem to regain stamina no matter how much they rest.
BfTB seems to depict the Americans as some tough sumbitches.
Did the German leadership really feel that the American were so helpless?
If so, the whole operation was one of the bigest mistakes in Military history and the German military Heirarchy were absolute idiots.

The big question...How does one win this scenario as Axis??
Post #: 1
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/7/2010 3:11:43 PM   
Franklin Nimitz


Posts: 561
Joined: 6/23/2007
From: The House of the Mouse
Status: offline
Historically, the Germans did get stuffed at Elsenborn Ridge. I was able to get a draw as the Germans, but it's a tough scenario.

By this stage of the war, the German infantry wasn't all that good outside of the mobile and FJ units, so don't expect them to do a lot of direct attacking; bypass and bombard is the way to go to get around the US front line in the forest.

I wonder if the fatigue settings aren't a little too severe...but OTOH it is winter.

(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 2
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/7/2010 4:14:13 PM   

Posts: 4311
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
GBS, you pretty much nailed it here, with a "yes" to every question. Without giving away any spoilers, here are some tips:

The Germans have to keep a reserve physically resting a few kilometers back to expolit any breakthroughs that appear on the following morning. If you rest too close to known enemy, they will not shed their fatigue as much as if you keep them out of contact. Don't over-commit the 12th SS until it has time to assemble in the Krinkelterwald.

Getting KG Peiper to exit is an art form the involves the same principals. Move forward with the "spitze" group but keep the rest of the KG back and resting for deployment late on the 17th or early on the 18th. The 12th VG and 3rd FJ should beat a path open to Honsfeld to clear the way for Peiper and then they too can rest.

Hünningen and Mürringen are tough nuts to crack so you may just want to keep the Americans interested there while you envelope them by securing Büllingen and Krinkelt. After Peiper is exited you can mop up with the rest of the 12th VG.



(in reply to GBS)
Post #: 3
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/13/2010 11:35:43 PM   


Posts: 153
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline
I've been playing Losheim Gap and having terrible, terrible trouble with the little armoured car platoons. Just 3 M8s can occasionally hold up entire battalions, even battalions supported by StuGs (I know StuGs aren't designed as tank-killers, but they should still be able to waste an armoured car) for hours, and hours.

And then the American artillery wastes up some point in the afternoon of the first day, and boy does it wake up. Annihilates my infantry battalions at will - Got to Auf, just securing it, and all 3 line companies of the battalion are smashed with 30% casualties, rout out, and so much morale damage they are effectively useless for the rest of the scenario. American troops wander into the vacated village and I don't have a force left capable of retaking it. Not that I dare move in the daytime, as arty fire has crushed two more of my battalions by then, one in transit, another assaulting a roadblock.

Horrible scenario to fight as the Germans. No wonder they lost.

(in reply to simovitch)
Post #: 4
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/14/2010 7:28:30 AM   

Posts: 9386
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I've only played one scenario and that was with CotA and the delaying action seemed realsitic in that particular situation and worked like a dream.

Trouble at the moment is that in one game people are saying they don't stay in attack formation with enough determination or stay in defence without retreating out of dug in postions and then we have a problem with small platoons holding of Stug's for hours...this to me says A CODERS NIGHTMARE...going to be hard to get it right...


(in reply to Agema)
Post #: 5
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/18/2010 8:10:18 AM   


Posts: 153
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline
Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with the coding. I just think I had one of those freak moments (like in real life) where a tiny force somehow completely stalls a much greater one against all the odds. It was just particularly grating at a moment where everything else was going wrong.

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 6
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/18/2010 11:27:53 AM   

Posts: 6051
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Wasn't it single company dug in on a hill that thwarted the Mortain offensive?

It can and did happen.

(in reply to Agema)
Post #: 7
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/18/2010 7:11:17 PM   


Posts: 1502
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline


.....Just 3 M8s can occasionally hold up entire battalions, even battalions supported by StuGs (I know StuGs aren't designed as tank-killers, but they should still be able to waste an armoured car) for hours, and hours.

Even though the chassis wasn't designed for a tank-hunting role, the decision to equip the StuGs with the 75mm Sturmkanone 40 L/43 (the first long barrel) in early 1942 was triggered by the plan to use the StuG primarily as a tank hunter, already. This gun's muzzle velocity reached ~740 meters/second, it could pierce through 85mm of armor at 1000 meters - when using the regular AP round, the Panzergranate 39, and through 91mm at 500 meters. The tungsten round, the Panzergranate 40 could penetrate 87 mm of armor at 1000 meters.
The second long barrel, installed in all StuG III from June 1942 until the end of the war, was the 75mm Sturmkanone 40 L/48, which had a slightly higher performance, v0=790 meters/sec, 85mm @ 1000 meters and 96mm at 500 meters.
The production costs were 20% below the costs of a Panzer III, the "missing" turret allowed for a higher production output, plus the gun's performance was satisfactory, so the long-barreled StuG proved to be a good value for money.
In turn, the StuG IV (first version:Jadgpanzer IV/48) was based on the chassis of the Panzer IV, and it was equipped with the very capable PaK (AT gun) 39 L/48, a gun which was also installed on the Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer. There is a report of a Hetzer having killed a Russian JS-122 (JS-2 122mm) at 800 meters.

Whatsoever, the shift to the 75mm guns in the StuG III required the development of a new dedicated assault gun: The Sturmhaubitze 42 (production start in early 1943) was basically a modified StuG III that was equipped with a 10.5mm field howitzer (Feldhaubitze 18), filling the gap the StuG III had left, when its role was changed from infantry support to tank-hunting.

While the StuG IV had a weaker armor (as it proved to be top-heavy with the thin rear armor <- 20mm only, so the front armor had to be reduced to 60mm) and while it was basically a modified/turret-less Panzer IV with a downgrade to the front and rear armors, the Jadgpanzer 38 was a dedicated tank-hunter (per design), equipped with the same AT gun.
For comparison (to the StuG III), the stats of a Jadgpanzer 38:
Muzzle velocity: 750 meters/second with a regular AP round (PzGr. 39), 930 meters/second with the Panzergranate 40 (produced with and without tungsten core), because the lighter PzGr.40 round and the barrel proved to be a perfect combination.
That said, even in late 1944, the StuG III was still able to fight Allied tanks, say Shermans, despite the then average (if compared to say Germany's MBT or the latest anti-tank guns of late 1944) performance.

M8 greyhounds could be easily ripped apart by the auto-cannons of German recon vehicles, like the 20mm gun of the Puma, so a StuG shouldn't have a problem in the game, no matter what StuG version is involved. Maybe some parameters in the estabs are borked.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/18/2010 7:41:57 PM >


"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944

"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Agema)
Post #: 8
RE: Is the delaying action realistic... - 6/18/2010 7:59:36 PM   

Posts: 4311
Joined: 2/14/2006
Status: offline
Sometimes it is best to detach the single unit, in this case the StuG Coy, and assault the stubborn defender mano-y-mano. Use the (direct) fire command as well.

Also, are you using the "attacks" toggle? This sometimes works well to put your tactical AI in a temporary agressive stance.



(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 9
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> The War Room >> Is the delaying action realistic... Page: [1]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI