@podcat possibly test moving MECH tech to 39 in addition/instead of making it cheaper? The UK and Germany both had operational half tracks/personnel carriers in decent numbers by the start of the war.
Shouldn't Mechanized be cheaper?
- Thread starter Pyramid_Head
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Since Soviets made mostly limited use of halftracks (as I have understood generally restricted to recon and Guards tank/mechanized corps') and instead relied heavily on motorized infantry and tank riders are we to presum... Oh screw rhetoric questions, you definitely don't need APCs for "real" combined arms warfare, though they do increase flexibility and possibly striking power. Motorized infantry dismounts behind slope or other concealing terrain and advances against enemy strong point previously identified by recon with support of tanks. Artillery lays fire on the enemy position while air attacks target enemy supply dumps in the rear. That is combined arms warfare, no APCs needed.
Last edited:
Guderian was still superior to anything the Soviets can muster but still far ahead of the Allies in mechanised and maneuver warfare.
If I could get a mech line up with about 5 factories in 37 or 38, I'd totally outfit some armored divisions and maybe some mech divisions. But it's a 1940 tech and frankly not worth rushing. By 1940 I usually have forgotten about mech. I pick it up for the motor infantry hardness as an after thought.
I've never had a game, a multiplayer game, where I felt like the incremental difference of mechs made or would've made a difference. I win with Germany when I destroy enough Soviets to turn around and throw the allies back. I lose when the allies block out the sky with planes. Etc
If you're running 15-5 divisions, mechs are simply useless for the 5s. You're better off creating a mech division to cover your rear. I run 10-10s with l-spart. The extra hardness might be useful. Maybe I'll test next game
I've never had a game, a multiplayer game, where I felt like the incremental difference of mechs made or would've made a difference. I win with Germany when I destroy enough Soviets to turn around and throw the allies back. I lose when the allies block out the sky with planes. Etc
If you're running 15-5 divisions, mechs are simply useless for the 5s. You're better off creating a mech division to cover your rear. I run 10-10s with l-spart. The extra hardness might be useful. Maybe I'll test next game
Maybe for the western Allies he was impressive, given that they had so little experience of mechanized warfare.
But he wasn't even close to the soviets in theory of war or even theory of mechanized battle. Isserson, Svechin, Triandafillov and even Tukhachevsky were well beyond Guderian in theory. Heck, his ideas would have seemed dated even to Neznamov who was writing in the 1890-1910 period. The massed breakthrough at a single decisive point was Clauswitzian theory taken to the extreme, and its limits were shown in full at Kursk and during the first world war.
That said he did pretty well in practice. A good enough idea executed well is often more effective than a great idea executed incredibly poorly. Once the soviets started properly applying the theories they had spent decades developing, the Germans collapsed exactly as predicted. It is very, very difficult to manage an opponent attacking throughout your depth, especially one that has planned out the logistics to keep their forces moving for hundreds of kilometers without needing an operational pause.
Dude, the Germans were defeated by sheer numbers.
Offensive or defensive, the vast majorities of battles the Germans inflicted ridiculous casualties.
If USSR had only Nazi Germany`s size and population they would would have been finished in a month.
Bewegungskrieg dates back to Frederick the Great and the Silesian Wars, it was implemented by the Prussians because they had well trained troops but didn`t have the population nor the economy to wage a long war, it made sense for them to develop that kind of war.
Russia and all of it`s iterations through the years had no incentive to develop maneuver warfare - bewegungskrieg - but they did adopt it`s principles during WW2 as did the entire world after the end of WW2.
No one did Schwerpunkt better than the Germans, the invasion through Belgium and Luxembourg is textbook material, it would be hard to pull even now and only a handful of countries could do that even now.
And soviets attacked with 1 rifle per 3 men, where two soldiers picked up rifle from dead comrade. Then they were shot in the back by NKVD, supported by bears. And soldiers were ordered to disarm tank mines by running on them. And during D-Day Rangers suffered greatly from hamburger shortages. And poles employed cavalry charges against tanks. And all germans wore monocles. And Stalin once said "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic". And Hitler Let the British Escape at Dunkirk. And Soviets ordered the creation of ape/human hybrid soldiers to fight the Nazis. And aliens built the pyramids.
I don't think this will have that much effect as long as they act as breaks on an armored division...
Sheer numbers and skilled leadership. The Red Army's Desant doctrine of the offensive may not be the ballet that Schwerpunkt was, but it worked for them every bit as well.
Another young mind lost - DAMN YOU HISTORY CHANNEL!
One of my favorite oddball and suspect bits of history.
But if I remember the Soviet archives correctly, the ape-human hybrids were tried in the 20s.
Yeah, that was a bizarre experiment but Stalin, ordering thousands of girls to mate with chimps under threat of being shot sounds more exciting and sinister)One of my favorite oddball and suspect bits of history.
But if I remember the Soviet archives correctly, the ape-human hybrids were tried in the 20s.
I think I underlined earlier that USSR was ahead of the Allies in doctrine, I don`t understand why I have to repeat in EVERY post, but the war won with numbers more than with leadership.
Had USSR been the size of Nazi Germany and had similar population they would have been finished in a month or so.
The Germans reached Moscow that speaks volumes.
Yes, the entire war was fought by the SU with 1 rifle for every 3 man.
I'm pretty sure he was being facetious and using hyperbole to indicate his disagreement with your claims.
I don't really think Pyramid_Head really thinks any of the things in his post.
Good points, to which I would like to add that the HOI series treatment of "leaders" makes most players think about them as individuals, but that is not how military organisation, or any organisation for that matter, works. Successful leadership is about staffing and teamwork, and command, control and communication processes. A leader in HOI IV must be seen to represent a general staff organisation for the army or army group he leads. Take Manstein or Rommel, they successfully built up and led organisations, and here the German general staff inheritance came to good use, which many military historians think is one of the main reasons the German army was so successful in the early war years.
I don`t do claims, not in this regard anyways, the losses of both USSR and the Axis forces speaks for itself.
I think Mech and Mot should be seperate tech lines, or at least branched off after the initial tech(s). No particular reason for one to be a direct 'upgrade' to another. Even in the 80's countries still possessed distinct motorized and mechanized combat groups. Even today there are distinct units. A Humvee is not equivalent to a Bradley IFV, nor are they expected to do the same work.
And the vehicles used for these Mot divisions were not trucks from 1938.
And the vehicles used for these Mot divisions were not trucks from 1938.
Shouldn't mechanized actually be faster then motorized?
The base speed of a division is way too low to actually just simulate troops in trucks moving from A to B. It would indicate that they are moving in at least somewhat hostile conditions, doing scouting, and lot of moving on foot. For mechanized infantry, this could be done way faster, since in a halftrack you could drive right up to the hostile positions, unlike trucks, where you would get out on a safe location, then start moving forward on foot.
This speed advantage is useful especially for armoured formations, which can't move forward unless they haev some form of infantry support. Again, in hostile situations, this would be on foot for mobile infantry and in vehicles for mechanized infantry. This would allow especially tanks to maintain a higher speed in hostile situations.
The base speed of a division is way too low to actually just simulate troops in trucks moving from A to B. It would indicate that they are moving in at least somewhat hostile conditions, doing scouting, and lot of moving on foot. For mechanized infantry, this could be done way faster, since in a halftrack you could drive right up to the hostile positions, unlike trucks, where you would get out on a safe location, then start moving forward on foot.
This speed advantage is useful especially for armoured formations, which can't move forward unless they haev some form of infantry support. Again, in hostile situations, this would be on foot for mobile infantry and in vehicles for mechanized infantry. This would allow especially tanks to maintain a higher speed in hostile situations.
No, it should not. You are right for tactical movement, very short distances, but try to make a forced march of 100 kilometers or more in AFV´s compared with trucks. AFV´s are complex machines, they break down and require frequent service.
To give you an example, I tried a forced march of about 300 kilometers with an armoured recon company in 1983, in cold winter conditions. The company had about 20 trucks built in the 1960s, 24 small all terrain wheeled vehicles, 12 armoured fighting vehicles (Swedish PBV 302) and six motorcycles. The motorcycles, trucks and wheeled all terrain vehicles arrived after 6-7 hours. The AFC´s, as expected, ran into problems along the way and arrived the following morning after repairs. The main "casualty" though was several severely frozen motorcycle riders who I had to send to doctor to check for frostbite.
No, it should not. You are right for tactical movement, very short distances, but try to make a forced march of 100 kilometers or more in AFV´s compared with trucks. AFV´s are complex machines, they break down and require frequent service.
To give you an example, I tried a forced march of about 300 kilometers with an armoured recon company in 1983, in cold winter conditions. The company had about 20 trucks built in the 1960s, 24 small all terrain wheeled vehicles, 12 armoured fighting vehicles (Swedish PBV 302) and six motorcycles. The motorcycles, trucks and wheeled all terrain vehicles arrived after 6-7 hours. The AFC´s, as expected, ran into problems along the way and arrived the following morning after repairs. The main "casualty" though was several severely frozen motorcycle riders who I had to send to doctor to check for frostbite.
Wouldn't a 300km "forced march" movement without regards to hostiles in HoI4 mostly be represented by strategic redeployment anyways, and normal HoI4 movement represent more tactical movements?
300km in 7 hours works out to be 43 km/h average speed, and arriving the following morning represents around 16 km/h average speed which is closer to HoI4 actual speed conditions.