I think the core problem is that DiD primarily acts against fatigue, morale and communication delays/lack of information. Games still haven't mastered the first two, and the last is a complete non factor in all but the most niche simulationist games.
-
Fires are certainly a big part, but strategic encirclements like Dunkirk in 40, Barbarossa cauldrons in 41, or the Stalingrad encirclement in 42/43 seem very maneuver-oriented. German maneuver warfare and Soviet deep battle also matter, Western doctrine seems more fires-focused.
John Nagl, pressed to come up with a name for US doctrine post WW2, pre-Airland Battle terms if "Overwhelming Firepower Doctrine" in Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, as I recall. Seemed apt.
-
-
To be fair, that's pretty much everyone's doctrine if they have the tubes and the shells for it. I ran the numbers using a fantastic WWII ammo dataset, and the Soviets were consuming infantry to arty munitions at a 1:12 ton ratio in 1944, the Germans at 1:18, and the US at 1:42.
-
Well it's a question also of what resources you have. For the USA, losses in men were politically expensive. Shells were cheap, men were expensive. For the USSR, already under near-total economic mobilization, the reverse might be true. You fit your doctrine to what you have.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.