Profile of coh2player

Avatar Area

Offline Unknown SteamID unknown
Posts: 1571

General Information


Thread: WW2 Documents, Myths and Facts19 May 2015, 23:38 PM Overall, I don't think I need to prove that the Heer suffered from shortages of officers/ncos- it's pretty much well covered from any operational history of a battle circa mid 43-45' (you see the order of battle, and there are significant shortages in the divisions) and reading of ooB de-evolution (continuous cuts), which actually tracks the strategic situation. The army took millions of casualties, and many of these were in its leadership ranks. Personnel casualties up to 50,000 per division for the war. There is data on this, and the german style of command lead to high losses. Also, there was a tendency to split leadership to form more and more units, with caused further dilution. Here is an example of GD's officer turnovers at the regimental level. (it was only a brigade-sized regiment before 1942) At lower levels it is much higher. : http://members.shaw.ca/grossdeutschland/commanders.htm In: The Library
Thread: MAD MAX Fury Road19 May 2015, 21:58 PM Saw it as well. Amazing movie that sets new standards. In: Scrap Yard
Thread: WW2 Documents, Myths and Facts19 May 2015, 21:43 PM Professionals refer to careerists that were in the military for many years. In: The Library
Thread: WW2 Documents, Myths and Facts19 May 2015, 16:44 PM Unfortunately no. The 'professionalism' of the German Army decreased a lot after the battle of France due to having to establish something like ~50+ new divisions for Barbarossa, and with the doubling of the number of panzer divisions. From experience reading in 1941-1942 the officer/nco cadre was still acceptable with Barbarossa seeing the peak standards, but from 43 onward the proportion of trained leadership/specialists to raw recruits in divisions declined dramatically, often by 50% or more. The majority of officers/ncos were only reservists. In: The Library
Thread: WW2 Documents, Myths and Facts18 May 2015, 04:56 AM According to 'Germany and WW2' series, the Ostheer's officers were ~50% professional in the armored, mountain, and (mot.) infantry. The rest were 35-10% professionals, with the remainder reserve. This was June 22, 1941- the apogee of (1941-1945). The professionals disappeared as the war went on due to very high leadership losses. In: The Library
Thread: is2 and tiger ace15 May 2015, 19:02 PM Citadel was a 'special case' (a weird battle) and not the 'general case' in the East. It was two big weeks, and overall a tremendous disaster for them. It was a huge waste of the potential of armored forces supported by massed airpower since they did not cut off the salient. There were Stug units integrated into the divisional structure of GD and the 3 x SS PzD. Kursk was not much of a mobile battle- it was an attrition type exchange, with less maneuver and depth of movement, and lots of brick wall fighting. It is better to cut off & capture equipment and men than to actually waste capability fighting them. Jump back to quoted post13 May 2015, 23:52 PMJHeartless Yet Kursk was a full on tank Slugfest and again the Stug did well there. Sure they werent even in the Panzer Divsions but Artillery yet they performed very very well. A surprising fact that I did not expect. Right along with the P47 getting the largest amount of Air to Air kills of the Army Air Corps..... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: WW2 Daily Pic15 May 2015, 13:04 PM Thanks for the sourcing...those two soldiers are from the Army. They were issued camouflage of a different pattern. In: The Library
Thread: WW2 Daily Pic15 May 2015, 00:59 AM can you source the Stalingrad maps? The drama of Stalingrad was one of those "you can't make this stuff up" sort of things. Epic. In: The Library
Thread: What good is the tiger tank?14 May 2015, 17:42 PM The chief weakness of the Wehr was the weak logistics and growing fuel shortages in 1943, which was even more critical than production. The tanks they already had could not be supplied anywhere near to their full effectiveness, let alone fielding more of them. In this respect production costs are not as critical as supply and service infrastructure. I think in this respect the Tiger was OK, but borderline fail. It served to boast combat morale and could clear out AT belts safely. The Panther tank in 43' was a clear fail, and should have been rolled out in 44'. Jump back to quoted post14 May 2015, 14:46 PM__deleted__ Again, the Tiger had a niche application. Whether the vehicle was a success in the grand scheme of things and amortised the cost of its development and production including the opportunity costs is debatable - I think it did, given how German wartime industry operated - but there are also good arguments to the contrary. In: Lobby
Thread: Tanks14 May 2015, 17:32 PM I've always preferred more LOS for both tanks and infantry (like vcoh). The bigger maps nowadays also make it more possible IMO In: COH2 Gameplay