|
|
I wanted to be polite and reply but was unsure which part to to reply to so I
left it
vague......
> Merle Hendricks <meh777@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure that I understand exactly to what part of the preceding
> message
> you are saying 'yes' but if it is the 6-5 strength for a Guards corps
> then
> I'm not sure I agree.
>
> My limited understanding of the Guards units is that earlier in the war
> they
> were units which had performed well and then after receiving Guards
> designation were subsequently maintained at equipment and manpower
> levels
> closer to TOE and sometimes with additional mortars and other weapons
> above
> the TOE of normal units. Also I understand that later in the war the
> actual
> difference between Guards units vs other units diminished, in part
> because
> all units received increasing levels of equipment and manpower problems
>
> existed across the board.
>
> In game terms, I do not see a big difference between changing existing
> 4-4
> units to 5-5 while continuing to build 4-4s as opposed to beginning to
> build
> mostly 5-5 units as the net effect is the same. If my late war
> understanding is correct, then eventually building all 5-5s is not off
> the
> mark. Also I believe that actual personnel for most infantry divisions
> even
> very late in the war ran about 1/2 strength and both Soviet and German
> forces improved from an equipment standpoint so I'm not sure how an
> increase
> to 6-5 strength is justified.
>
> Just wondering?
>
> Merle
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel and Joy Jagelman" <danandjoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <SGMINFO@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <warineur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 7:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [WarInEur] Effective rebuilds...
>
>
> > Yes
> >
> >
> >
> >> SGMINFO@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >
> > In a message dated 06/10/2004 03:44:19 GMT Daylight Time,
> > danandjoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >
> > Perhaps the Guards designation should allow or qualify a corp to
> move to
> > a
> > higher
> > combat strength. Where you have a up to strength and veteran Guard
> Corp we
> > are
> > looking at something more like a 6-5 than a 5-5, if a current 5-5 is
> > really
> > only an
> > above strength 4-4.
> >
> >
> > Related to this is another facet that really applies to many
> formations
> > across the board...
> >
> > How much of a numercal loss reflects an actual step reduction in a
> > unit....and how much of a numerical addition restores such a loss
> fully?
> >
> >
> > For example...a standardised 10,000 man division.
> >
> > How much of a loss is needed to erode its fighting strength?
> > The learning curve is steep, thus by the time it has lost 1000 men in
> > combat,
> > arguably "experience" has increased the fighting efficiency of the
> > remainder
> > to mask that los effectively and retain that divisions "on the
> ground"
> > effectiveness. in terms of WIE combat power expressed numerically.
> >
> > At what point does it become essential to withdraw that unit to allow
> it
> > to
> > absorb replacements and retain its fighting strength.
> >
> > How much new blood can you effectively add to the unit without
> diluting
> > its
> > pool of experience to the point at which you damage its performance
> in
> > immediate combat.
> >
> > I.E. Panzer Lehr at the End of August 1944, would a new draft of
> tanks and
> > men filling out the division to its TOE restore it to its June 5th
> > Fighting
> > effectiveness, ie a 10-8 (or perhaps a 13-8), or would such a
> fleshing out
> > leave
> > you with a 6-8? despite the fact that it is at full Toe.
> >
> > I rather suspect the latter...
> >
> > I also rather suspect that the ability to restore the formation to
> its
> > full
> > fighting efficieny also very much depends on the degree of "fleshing
> out"
> > it
> > gets. That is to say, the ratio between surviving veterans and
> newbies.
> > Too
> > poor a ratio and the division ends up as a sort of super volksturn
> unit,
> > too
> > big a proportion of inexperienced cannon fodder with too few "old
> lags"
> > to pass
> > on their knowledge effectively. Thus resulting in a low calibre
> division
> > that either still needs extensive time retraining, or suffers high
> > causalties on
> > its return to the frontline, and thus largely wasting your investment
> of
> > time and men and equipment.
> >
> > Thus appropriate rotation of less "eroded" units is a better
> investment
> > in
> > time and resources than totally rebuilding a completely burnt out
> unit.
> >
> > Perhaps rebuilding a 6-5 at the time it wore down to a 4-5
> (theoretically)
> > is a better model of replacement than allowing it to erode to a 1-5
> and
> > rebuilding it completely. And a rebuild at that stage would result in
> the
> > rebuilt
> >
> > units actually performing as a 7-5 and hence the "Guards" concept?
> >
> > Consider this in the light of the head-on defensive battle on the
> eastern
> > front where the replacement point is used extensively to maintain
> fighting
> > power
> > in a single defended hex against heavy odds... The German defenders
> can
> > turn
> > over the equivalent of many divisions when they do this...
> >
> > It gives me the Germ of an idea...for an alternative OB...
> >
> >
> > -|steve|-
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WarInEur mailing list
> > WarInEur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > believed to be clean.
> > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
> >
> >
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
_______________________________________________
WarInEur mailing list
WarInEur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.halisp.net/mailman/listinfo/warineur
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.
|
|