VC writing

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I'm writing VC for a scenario that has CVP caps. The intention, however, is that only the "soldiers" should count--equipment, including tanks, should be excluded. Is there a better way of saying that than:

"Both sides earn CVP normally [EXC: only Personnel and Inherent Crews count for CVP]"
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
Worth 0 VP; that's already agreed upon.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
As an aside, I think any scenario set in 1945 that includes wallies's equipment in a CVP calculation should be examined closely as to why they should be, with replacement shermans stacked up from Cherbourg to the Rhine.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
I like the idea; seems that ASL overrates the value of equipment for CVP sometimes.
You posted as I was writing something to that point--the US/GB had tremendous amounts of equipment by the end of the war. Why worry about a sherman that can be replaced in half a day from reserves? It's the crews that were the loss.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Actually from what I read the US Army in Europe, at least, was running out of M4s late '44, very early '45. That became acute during the Bulge. There was even some talk of transferring British LL stock to the USA, not sure what became of that. There were a number of reasons. 75mm M4 production was being dropped and that might have led to some short term loss of production. With the end of the war in sight anyway there was overall easing of tank production as well. There were tanks coming but many were still in the US or in transit on the Atlantic or in England.

Losses in the breakout through France and the initial border clashes were higher than expected. That was a combination of combat losses and simple mechanical wear and tear. You had battles like Hurtgen combined with the limitations of supply partly due to the success of the Allied anti-transport air campaign which led to the rail system being quite wrecked. The sheer speed of the advance meant there was a lot of supply and maintenance to be caught up with that had not been resolved by the end of '44. The Winter of '44 was intended as a rest, rebuild and replenish prior to any Rhine crossing but Wacht am Rhein fouled that up and caused further losses.

By the Rhine crossings everything had been brought back to desired levels and often above but not to the extent that it could be frittered away. No "Buy two M4A3E8 (76mm) and get one completely free if you order now, just call on the toll free number below!"
 

von Marwitz

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
14,358
Reaction score
10,209
Location
Kraut Corner
Country
llUkraine
I'm writing VC for a scenario that has CVP caps. The intention, however, is that only the "soldiers" should count--equipment, including tanks, should be excluded. Is there a better way of saying that than:

"Both sides earn CVP normally [EXC: only Personnel and Inherent Crews count for CVP]"
Both sides earn CVP for Infantry, PRC, and Prisoners only?

von Marwitz
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,778
Reaction score
7,203
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
This is how I would write it - some text "borrowed" from scenario FB19.
Both sides earn CVP normally [EXC: only Personnel/inherent-crews/prisoners count; prisoners do not count double].

Also, I assume that prisoners still count as normal (i.e., not doubled) CVP - otherwise, just drop the "/prisoners count; prisoners do not count double" part.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
While my earlier post might have been interpreted as suggesting to adopt other than Brian's intention with regard to CVP, that was not the purpose, solely to correct a possible misunderstanding of the historical situation. Limiting CVP to personnel only, seems sensible especially with regards to a CVP cap, while possibly including all for victory purposes. Indeed if you wished you could mix the two, personnel for the cap, all for the victory conditions or visa versa.

Some may ask that given the all encompassing scope and mind numbingly detailed planning that went into the whole European invasion, how come there was a shortage of armour by the end of '44. The Normandy campaign ended up of the order of a month behind schedule but the breakout through France reached the German border something like two months ahead of the original schedule. The Allies expected a more methodical grind through France with a more orderly series of delaying actions by the Germans as opposed to the bitter defence of Normandy followed by an almost complete collapse.

The net result is that the advance was far ahead of the logistics that were put in place according to the original plan. In addition the fast pace of the advance meant that machines were under more than expected stress. Even without that extra stress if, based upon previous experience, you allow for X% to need replacing/repair per 100 km and expect that to take, say, 4 weeks to advance that 100 km, if that 100 km only takes 1 week then you need 4 times the repair/replacement ability to keep up. A faster advance also often means less time available for routine maintenance and low level repairs. Historically fuel and ammunition had great difficulty keeping up, so you can imagine things like spare parts would be scarce.

While I did question the "tanks stacked to the heavens" rationale, there would have been an increasing sense of "The war's coming to an end, why die now?" that would prompt a more cautious approach to personnel casualties. So such a SSR would still be in accord with the historical situation, albeit for a different reason.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
As an aside, I think any scenario set in 1945 that includes wallies's equipment in a CVP calculation should be examined closely as to why they should be, with replacement shermans stacked up from Cherbourg to the Rhine.
Casualty Victory Points don't necessarily represent the value of the equipment to the overall inventory, but rather to the combat power of its owning formation, at that point in time.

A Sherman tank with a trained and experienced crew is worth exponentially more than a tank sitting in depot, two day's train ride to the rear, if German forces are breaking through your divisional front right now.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
By chance, reading the autobiography of a Canadian staff officer who talks about how those Shermans were moved from depot to the combat units.

I soon found that most of my time was taken in problems related to tanks and armoured cars and in finding and obtaining the release of scarce or unconventional equipment. Replacement tanks were handled by an organization unique to the British and German armies, the Armoured Delivery Regiment, which in the case of the Canadian Army was the Elgin Regiment. New tanks arriving in France needed a lot of servicing by it before they were fit for action, such as the removal of waterproofing gear, installation of radios, machine guns and arming with ammunition. The principle on which the Elgins operated was that when a tank was lost, it would be replaced by another which was immediately fit for action, complete with another essential, a trained crew. Sounds simple, but the armoured regiments in First Canadian Army were Canadian, British, Polish and Czech, equipped with different makes of tank, Shermans, Churchills, Cromwells and Comets, and within each regiment were variations of the same tank designed for particular functions. The trick was to get the right type of tank to the units that needed them, which involved positioning them physically close to the units before a battle began. This is where I came in.

Every day I received a list of deficiencies for every tank and armoured car regiment in the (1st Canadian) Army along with a report from the Elgins on the number of each type of vehicle available for issue. Based on forecasts of the course of fighting, I then told them where to send them. This often meant moving them by tank transporters, which were usually heavily committed in shifting armoured brigades. Furthermore, every few days I had to bid for our tank needs against those of Second British Army at Headquarters of 21st Army Group. Without going into detail, it kept me busy all day, every day.
 
Top