EA Heldenkaiser (Allies) vs. Telumar (Axis)

[Heldenkaiser]

Allied Turn 148 / 26th April 1

Stefans Rumanians find a weak stretch of my Dniepr line where three divisions hold as many hexes of the front and instantly a strong (not for THEIR standards to be sure) German mech corps pushes through and gains the open steppe. Can't I even leave a super river lightly defended? These Germans have far too many troops. Fortunately, fast reserves are near and I can seal off the penetration (counterattacking is pointeless, of course) with three fresh tank corps (corps! the Germans would likely call them battalions), two reconstituted infantry divisions, and for good measure I am railing up another reconstituted corps, three cavalry divisions plus one artillery corps from the Terek front. Fortunately the German penetration is close to a railway line and most bridges are up right now. The original German breakin east of Kiev doesn't gain a single hex. A corps of 4 Shock Army is trying to withdraw from between the two German penetrations, but ends up "engaged", in spite of godawful weather and 50% recon.
View attachment 35065View attachment 35066
In the Caucasus German attacks fail, but on the coastal road to Tuapse (southern end of the Kuban bridgehead) one hex is RBC'd and on the other, the coastal road hex, an NKVD division evaporates trying to withdraw.
View attachment 35067
Major German troop movements, especially in France, some not making sense, but most of the stuff is moving east. I am still blowing bridges. Most of my partisans across the board evaporate. The Murmansk attacking force is sunk at sea, expectedly. An amphibious assault on Baku (also lightly defended) fails.
German air power in the East is increasing, and most of the Soviet air force is now constantly in reorg. I am withdrawing most of the units that are not to air fields not quite so close to German fighters.

 

[medck]

Re: Allied Turn 148 / 26th April 1

How close are you to turning the northern flank of the Kuban bridgehead? By the looks of your last screenshot, he only has one 3-3 armoured unit between a mass of your troops and a rush to Noyorossik.

 

[Heldenkaiser]

Re: Allied Turn 148 / 26th April 1

How close are you to turning the northern flank of the Kuban bridgehead? By the looks of your last screenshot, he only has one 3-3 armoured unit between a mass of your troops and a rush to Noyorossik.

About as close as to launching a hydrogen bomb. That armoured unit stopped dead a mass attack two turns ago. See post #307, http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread.php?84068-EA-Heldenkaiser-(Allies)-vs.-Telumar-(Axis)&p=1459274&viewfull=1#post1459274.

 

[medck]

Re: Allied Turn 148 / 26th April 1

I wondered if that was the same one. C'est la vie. You've done really well considering the bad luck you've had on USA entry.

 

[Mark Stevens]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Not really. US 2nd and 3rd armoured divisions each had more tanks and more vehicles than any SS panzer corps. These US divisions each had two tank regiments of three battalions each. Compare that with an SS panzer division that had one regiment with two battalions and maybe a STuG battalion as well. One of these US divisions had 6 tank battalions compared with the 4 available to an SS panzer corps.

But the US forces, thank goodness, were not a bunch of highly indoctrinated, fanatical killers. They were normal men put in an extraordinary situation and performed very well under difficult circumstances. There's more to fighting prowess than the number of tanks in a battalion, especially if one battalion's Shermans and the other's Panthers or Tigers.

 

[ogar]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Quote Originally Posted by AdrianE
Not really. US 2nd and 3rd armoured divisions each had more tanks and more vehicles than any SS panzer corps. These US divisions each had two tank regiments of three battalions each. Compare that with an SS panzer division that had one regiment with two battalions and maybe a STuG battalion as well. One of these US divisions had 6 tank battalions compared with the 4 available to an SS panzer corps.

by Secadegas
Not really !???

I wounder why US Army didn't create more units with such "powerfull" organisation...? Why US Army choose a "lighter" version for all other Armd. divisions?

Historically (or rather, what I remember reading), the US formed the "heavy" armored divisions (1st, 2nd, 3rd) in 1939-40 based on what they extrapolated from the European battles as reported. Then the 1940-41 results kinda, sorta reinforced that tank-heavy model until 1942, and closer observation of the Desert battles in Egypt/Lybia and then the Algerian-Tunisian campaign shifted the thinking.
The result being that the US realized tanks by themselves had weak points, and so required mechanized infantry, and supporting artillery, and supporting air to make best use of their strengths -- hence the 'standard' US armored division of 3 tank bns (75% medium, 25% light); 3 mech. infantry bns, 3 SP artillery bns and supporting engineer, recon, AAA, etc. and oh yes, just a few truck companies and mechanics to keep things going. And the best mix for continued operation of an armored division - both tactically/operationally and logistically favored the 'lighter' structure.

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd remained as heavy divisions through 1945, but as I recall, their 'extra' tank bns were often delegated to support an infantry division. (And of course by 1944, most ETO US infantry divisions had a tank bn. operating with it, many had a SP TD bn. as well.)

Again, this is what I recall, so I'm ready for any corrections !

 

[Mark Stevens]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

"Fortunately, fast reserves are near and I can seal off the penetration (counterattacking is pointeless, of course) with three fresh tank corps (corps! the Germans would likely call them battalions)"

I think you may well be right: I know that we mustn't believe everything on Wikipedia, but - my emphases:

Tank Corps were reformed in March 1942 on a smaller scale than the pre-war Tank Corps. They at first usually consisted of two-three Tank Brigades and one motorised rifle brigade, with some Corps elements such as reconnaissance, anti-tank, or pioneers added. This made them essentially a division size formation with ca. 120 to 180 tanks, slightly weaker than a German Panzer division at this stage in the war.

Unlike army corps formed by Germany and the Western Allies, Soviet rifle corps were composed primarily of combat troops and had only a small logistical component. Because the rifle divisions themselves were also primarily made up of combat troops, the rifle corps were numerically smaller than corps of other nations.

 

[Heldenkaiser]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

I think you may well be right

I was wilfully exaggerating, of course. Still, compared to the recently discovered 33-21 SS-Panzerkorps or even a "normal" 20-15 or so German Panzer or mech corps, my so-called tank corps (5-4 or so for the most part, and that's the newer stuff) do look rather pathetic.

I have heard that Soviet "corps" were more like other nation's divisions and their "armies" accordingly were about corps-size. Hence they ended up with a lot more "fronts" (army groups) than the Western allies had armies. Naturally, all such comparisons are vague, but instructive. An average American mid-Civil War "regiment" would have looked like a weak battalion to a Brit and like a strong company to a Prussian. A Union "corps" at Gettysburg would have passed as a weak Prussian division or a strong Austrian brigade, etc. A Cold War NATO division was about twice the size of its WW1 predecessor or its Warsaw Pact counterpart. Terms are flexible. But I digress.

 

[AdrianE]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

i would prefer having a hand full of Panthers (Pz V) operated by those SStupid guys than a full battalion of about 48 x M5's manned by people trained to engaged the enemy only under complete (absolute) Air / Arty superiority...

Read up about the battle of Arracourt in 1944 where a US combat command from 4th armoured division destroyed two brigades of brand new panthers in a few days. There are a lot of myths about WWII that just are not true. US tactical incompetence is one of them.

 

[AdrianE]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

But the US forces, thank goodness, were not a bunch of highly indoctrinated, fanatical killers. They were normal men put in an extraordinary situation and performed very well under difficult circumstances. There's more to fighting prowess than the number of tanks in a battalion, especially if one battalion's Shermans and the other's Panthers or Tigers.

You really need to review the SS accomplishments with a more critical view. 1,2,5 were competent in 1943. They were incompetent prior to that. They got better because they took the entire summer and fall of 1942 off to train (with their new toys). 9 and 10 performed adequately but that's because they also trained for a year. Almost all of the others were quite bad. Overall when you compare the battlefield performance of SS divisions versus similarly equipped wehrmacht formations you will see that the wehrmacht did much better (ie 2nd panzer versus 1SS in the bulge). Usually the Waffen SS accomplished its mission because its units had full strength equipment but they took very heavy causalities. It is quite difficult to cut through the mythology and propaganda that surrounded these units. The best way to represent these units is a lavishly equipped but with low to medium proficiency.

 

[Heldenkaiser]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

At this point historically the Germans were on the road to Stalingrad.

Sorry for digging up an older post, but this still had me thinking. Yes, you're right. But then on the other hand we're already past the point of the first successful Soviet counteroffensive at Kharkov. Granted, they advanced into a bag and were destroyed, but first they DID break the German lines and penetrate deeply. I don't think I'd be able to do that. They found a weak spot to be sure, but the point is, Stefan's line just doesn't have any weak spots.

Are you saying the Soviet army will get better later in the game?

 

[Secadegas]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Read up about the battle of Arracourt in 1944 where a US combat command from 4th armoured division destroyed two brigades of brand new panthers in a few days.

That's right. The exception proves the rule...

These Pz Brigades had a lot of eastern front veterans and they clearly underestimate the enemy on their first combat on the west.

 

[Secadegas]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

There are a lot of myths about WWII that just are not true. US tactical incompetence is one of them.

I can't guess who created that "myth". History is usually written by the winners...

 

[Secadegas]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

It seems we're hijacking your thread, Dierk

:TRUCE:

 

[Heldenkaiser]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

It seems we're hijacking your thread, Dierk

:TRUCE:

Should I open a new one?

 

[L`zard]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Nah, your good as is, LOL!


:clown::nuts::clown:

 

[Mark Stevens]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Are you saying the Soviet army will get better later in the game?

Yes: Red Army numbers and the new units' proficiency will continue to increase as the game progresses, while the Axis won't get anything like so much. Whether he'll obligingly stick one-and-a-half armies in a Russian sack and lose the lot is another matter.

You've plenty more decent units in the reinforcement schedule (some of which you can't see as they're Event, rather than Turn, activated).

And the US must join soon: due to the game limitations that will increase base Russian supply at the same rate as for the Western Allies.

 

[Cfant]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Well, I find Heldenkaisers situation in Russia is quite fine. May be depressing to be the victim once again, as the initiative is with the germans still, but the lines hold. What more could Russia want? But I wonder, if anyone could hold back the germans from north africa? If both players have the same playing-level - won't germany always succeed in the conquest of north africa, as the Brits have only so few units?

 

[Secadegas]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

But I wonder, if anyone could hold back the germans from north africa? If both players have the same playing-level - won't germany always succeed in the conquest of north africa, as the Brits have only so few units?

If both players are the same playing level i think it will be difficult for the Axis to take Alexandria. The front is short at that point and the few British units are strong and will be reinforced at short term.
Now... if the Axis player choose to DoW Turkey... then that's another "ball game".

 

[Heldenkaiser]

Re: Allied Turn 147 / 19th April 1942

Well, I find Heldenkaisers situation in Russia is quite fine. May be depressing to be the victim once again, as the initiative is with the germans still, but the lines hold. What more could Russia want?

A successful counteroffensive and an eventual conquest of the Reich, for a start?