| Author
|
Thread |
 
|
|
DurochD
Colonel
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 564
|
|
|
 |
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Chadwick:
quote:
Originally posted by Alexei McDonald:
Oh, I know. Frank has explained it many times. I'm still not convinced, however. It encourages leadership from behind for one thing, as players try to protect the vulnerable and weak pure command stand.
For another, it's not an unalloyed advantage even in C3I terms. The Germans and the British both noted that when communications were very good, there was a tendency for higher level commanders to try and micro-manage the battle, robbing the junior officers of initiative. I don't believe that the Americans were immune to this either. So, unless Frank comes up with a much stronger argument, I won't be painting up those extra command stands. I believe he's big enough to live with that.
Once you buy the game, it's your game. There are no Command Decision Police who will check up to see that you're playing it "right," as I've observed on a number of ocsasions.
What I owe you is my best judgement of the capabilities of these units, as well as an explanation of the how and why I came to that judgement, and that's what I've given you. After that, it's up to you what you do with it.
-Frank
"Yeah, but when I show up at the first officially sanctioned TOB nationals torunament with my uber-SS all-mechanized TOB army set to "frag", I'll expect all of you to be on the same page with the rules and unit capabilitites. I don't want any excuses when I take names and sort things out....."
Sorry. Been playing too much 40K lately.....lol
Actually, ti IS somewhat comforting to use an "official" version of a rule set.
|
Mon Nov 06, 2006 5:58 pm |
 
|
|
Frank Chadwick
Chief of Staff
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 738
|
|
|
|
Perhaps some nice moderator who is better at the techie stuff than I will move this and a few other selected posts to a new thread ? something like Troop Quality Ratings.
Thankyou.
quote:
Originally posted by Cpt. Slack Bladder:
I can't imagine why over-rated US units is any surprise; the official Army lists for CD previously published started with the statement that "The US Army never lost a major battle" (or words to that effect). Well how about Kasserine pass pretty much their first major battle; that didn't go too well?
I think the author knows this because he becomes almost apologetic further on in the text!.....................moving on and reading into the army lists............
In North Africa apparently the US were all 'regular' until first combat and then 'Experienced'. Well I would challenge that any of the Divisions commited in late '42 fit that description particualrly when you compare them to the awfully badly rated 8th Army vets who if memory serves are generally 'regular' and despite finally winning the campaign suicidally depressed! Apparently 1st Armored Division is 'Vet' by 1943! in your dreams pal !!!!!
What I owe everyone as the designer is my best judgment as to the capabilities if these units, and that?s what I?ve done, trying always to be objective and fair, to the limit of my ability. But at the end of it all, what you have is my opinion, nothing more. I would be astonished if anyone who studied World War II intensively didn?t come away with many judgments which differed from my own. I?m not sure that sneering sarcasm is necessarily the most constructive way to express those differences, but then that?s just my opinion as well.
As to the specific case of the early US forces and the Kasserine battles, I stand by everything I?ve written, and I don?t recall ever being apologetic about any of it.
Whenever you look at ?Kasserine,? you have to first decide if you want to look at specifically the battle in the pass on February 20th, 1943, or if you?re going to look at the entire eight-day Kasserine offensive, from February 14-21.
If you just look at the battle of Kasserine Pass itself, the fighting on the 20th, then of course the U.S. forces lost the battle. But the troops involved were mostly non-divisional engineers thrown forward to establish a hasty blocking position, and nearly crippled by a bizarre, dysfunctional command arrangement ? made all the more complicated and dysfunctional by the direct intervention of the (British) 1st Army command. In any event, the result of that specific battle tells little about the performance of U.S. divisions, since it was largely fought (and lost) by non-divisional corps and army troops not covered by the divisional list.
If you?re talking about the Kasserine offensiveas a whole, people apparently need to be periodically reminded that we (the allies)
won
that. And it was, in large measure, American divisions who won the battle. The 1st Infantry Division provided the largest part of the multi-national force which stopped 21st Panzer Division cold at Sbiba, 1st Armored Division stopped Kamfgruppe DAK at Djebel el Hamra, and the 9th Division Artillery shot 10th Panzer to a standstill after it had broken through 26th Armoured Brigade Group at Thala.
Not bad for beginners. 
quote:
Originally posted by Cpt. Slack Bladder:
Part of the problem here is that folk writting these rules equate the result of a battle with the quality of the troops without adjusting for kit, supplies and poor decisions from on high.
Interesting. Do you really think that we ?folks writing these rules? are that much of an intellectual breed apart? I wonder what it is in our unique makeup which accounts for the shocking inferiority of our reasoning ability? 
quote:
Originally posted by Cpt. Slack Bladder:
The US Army did not have to fight with obsolete Cruiser tanks, 2pdr AT guns, insufficient arty/air support, poor coms and low SA firepower against a well equiped exceptionally well trained German Army; had they have done so would they have survived bruised and battered as the 8th Army did?
Doubtful I would suggest.
Well, you?re right. American boys never had to go up against Panzer IIIs with a Cruiser tank or a 2-pounder AT gun. They did have to go up against Panthers with a Sherman 75 and a 57mm AT gun, but I guess that was a cake walk by comparison.
Or maybe not.
I?m also not sure what the whole ?low SA firepower? thing is about. The standard British rifle (the SMLE) didn?t have the firepower of the US Garand, but the British Bren light machine gun was far superior to the BAR, so I?d say the firepower at the platoon level was about a wash ? and that? how it?s portrayed in the game. The British 3-inch mortar is comparable in numbers issued and performance to the U.S. 81, the Vickers gun is a great medium machine gun, and if there is a machine gun battalion attached to the division, there are nearly as many Vickers round as the US Browning water cooled. The British really could have used an actual weapons platoon at the rifle company level, with a decent light mortar, but I don?t make the U.S. higher quality because of that ? I give them a weapons stand.
As to whether the U.S. Amy could have done as well against the Africa Corps in 1941, either in reality or in game terms, we?ll never know. I?ve never ventured a rating for what the U.S. Army might have looked like if fielded eighteen months earlier in the desert, nor do I have any plans to. I've actually never even given the question any serious thought. If you want to imagine what I would have rated them under those circumstance? well, it?s a free universe.
quote:
Originally posted by Cpt. Slack Bladder:
It is very noticable how much more effective the UK divisions were when 6pdr AT guns and US Armour turned up and the Africa Korps were on the recieving end of several bloody noses reminiscent of those they were dishing out previously.
To some extent. But even during 2nd Alamein, when all of these equipment problems were rectified, the reality on the ground remained that most British/Commonwealth units still couldn?t manage to improvise an infantry battalion attack in response to changing tactical situations. Well-planned operations sometimes (not always) went well, but if you needed to put in a battalion attack on less than about 24 hours notice, it just wasn?t going to work ? not for lack of trying, or lack of heart, but for lack of effective tactical procedures.
I suspect that what you may be doing is mistaking a heroic triumph against stiff odds as being equivalent to combat professionalism. It isn?t. There are few stories as heroic in World War II as the struggle of 8th Army, hampered as it was by inferior equipment, poor training, spotty leadership, and downright dreadful tactical doctrine. That they managed to triumph anyway is genuinely inspiring. But their training and doctrine still sucked.
quote:
Originally posted by Cpt. Slack Bladder:
The point here (sorry if I am waffling) is that when you fight 1941/42 UK tanks, AT guns and infantry against Panzer III's & IV's, Pak 38's and high firepower German infantry even in a CD game it is blindingly obvious who has the advantage without the need to down grade the UK troops; neither should failings of senior commanders be modelled in this manner since the players ARE the senior commanders. Furthermore US divisions particulalry Armored ones are so fantastically well equiped that they are very effective even when rated as merely 'regular' especially as the Germans are on the decline when US ground forces arrive.
Probably you should wait to criticize my ratings of the 8th Army in the Desert until they actually appear.
Just an idea. 
quote:
Originally posted by Cpt. Slack Bladder:
Re-examining History to correct prejudice and propogander is a good thing; trying to re-write History on the other hand is not.
Sure. But your point here, presumably, is that you do the former, and those with whom you disagree do the latter. That?s more than I?m willing to claim.
-Frank
|
|
Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:10 pm |
|
|
Gunner
General
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 2216
Location: Baton Rouge, LA USA |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DurochD:
"Yeah, but when I show up at the first officially sanctioned TOB nationals torunament with my uber-SS all-mechanized TOB army set to "frag", I'll expect all of you to be on the same page with the rules and unit capabilitites. I don't want any excuses when I take names and sort things out....."
Sorry. Been playing too much 40K lately.....lol
Actually, it IS somewhat comforting to use an "official" version of a rule set.
I agree--at least you know you have some common ground to allow playing with strangers. For whatever reason, I've never had a problem playing from any rules set if I know the creator/designer was half-way reasonable about the rules and/or could explain how/why he came to the decision he made. After all, it's not possible to make every game totally realistic and still retain some semblance of playability. You have to be reasonable in your expectations.
In all the years I've been gaming, Frank Chadwick has proven to be the most reasonable of all the game designers with whom I've had contact. If you think I'm kidding, just try to get Phil Barker to give you a reasonable answer about DBM/DBA/DBR...I should live long enough to see that.
The worse thing you can do is to allow yourself to be hung-up on one or two things to the detriment of the rest of the rules. I've seen it too often in my time. No set of rules is perfect [no, not even CDTOB], but the real test is whether it's reasonable accurate and "feels" right. In my opinion, CDTOB meets those two requirements better than any other set of WWII rules on the market today.
Dudley
_________________
Dudley J. Garidel, Jr.
Chief Warrant Officer 4 of Marines (ret)
Semper Fidelis
Non sibi Sed patriae
Si vis pacem parabellum
"If you wish peace, prepare for war"
|
|
Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:22 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edward Sturges
Sergeant
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 63
Location: Farnham UK |
|
|
|
Greetings
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Chadwick:
But even during 2nd Alamein, when all of these equipment problems were rectified, the reality on the ground remained that most British/Commonwealth units still couldn?t manage to improvise an infantry battalion attack in response to changing tactical situations. Well-planned operations sometimes (not always) went well, but if you needed to put in a battalion attack on less than about 24 hours notice, it just wasn?t going to work ? not for lack of trying, or lack of heart, but for lack of effective tactical procedures.
I suspect that what you may be doing is mistaking a heroic triumph against stiff odds as being equivalent to combat professionalism. It isn?t. There are few stories as heroic in World War II as the struggle of 8th Army, hampered as it was by inferior equipment, poor training, spotty leadership, and downright dreadful tactical doctrine. That they managed to triumph anyway is genuinely inspiring. But their training and doctrine still sucked.
Interesting. I concur that the nature of the story can distract from the underlying reasons why the struggle was as difficult as it was. I am less convinced by the tactical doctrine argument within the infantry battalion as opposed to the brigade (although the integration of artillery or armour support was indeed a continued problem) but I'm willing to be convinced. Any good sources?
Regards
_________________
Edward
|
|
Tue Nov 07, 2006 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Chadwick
Chief of Staff
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 738
|
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by arturolorioli:
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Chadwick:
... There are few stories as heroic in World War II as the struggle of 8th Army, hampered as it was by inferior equipment, poor training, spotty leadership, and downright dreadful tactical doctrine. ...
Let me see ... the Italians?      
At the height of the Punic Wars, the Roman consul Claudius, in command of a large Roman fleet, rounded a point on the coast of Sicily and found a Carthaginian fleet grounded on the beach, it crews ashore. He had them, dead to rights. All that remained was to determine that the portends were auspicious.
The Romans, being masterful soldiers, had a fairly reliable way of determining the portends - they brought out the sacred chickens and put corn before them, and if they ate, it was a good day to fight. The chickens always ate.
Unfortunately, chickens don't travel well by sea, and on this particular day they were so sea-sick that, far from eating, they could hardly stand up. After casting grain before them (unsuccessfully) three times, Claudius picked them up and said, "If they won't eat, maybe they'll drink," and threw them over the rail into the Med.
He then ordered the attack.
Unfortunately, he was defeated, and lost nearly his entire fleet. Had he won, "...maybe they'll drink," would have gone down in history as one of the great lines of all time, on a par with "Nuts!" But, Arturo my friend, the sad fact is that the world tends only to celebrate the heroic acts of the winners.
I remember Claudius, though.
-Frank
|
|
Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
phpBB Template by Vereor
|
|
