Add a new unit for more strategy (Paratrooper)

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Add a new unit for more strategy (Paratrooper)

    I think add this unit, the paratrooper it will be complex and new strategy especially in Landing to UK by France or vice versa, etc....

    historylearningsite.co.uk/paratroopers_and_world_war_two.htm

    A photo for people who don't know what I are saying..paraca.jpg
    Independentisme vol dir que la gent s'adona de la humiliació que suposa que un país amb capacitat per autogovernar-se hagi de dimitir d'aquesta capacitat davant el poder d'una nació que se li declara superior.
    Joan Rendé i Masdéu
    _________________________________________________________________
  • Butter Ball Bill wrote:

    We have talked about this twice before. They would be greatly ineffective. Don't argue, I don't want to go searching through a bunch of old posts to copy and paste something to prove someone that this is a bad idea.
    Ah sorry. I'm new in CoW, i didn't know that was talked before..

    Sorry again :(
    Independentisme vol dir que la gent s'adona de la humiliació que suposa que un país amb capacitat per autogovernar-se hagi de dimitir d'aquesta capacitat davant el poder d'una nació que se li declara superior.
    Joan Rendé i Masdéu
    _________________________________________________________________
  • i think this is a good idea, they could be transported quickly around the players nation and would have good stats like the commando unit, it would also increase the speed of invasion by avoiding transport over the sea and would not need a good fleet, there stats while landing could be bad but this could be only for 1 hr and they could also be shot down by AAA, but if used on empty provinces it would work well for getting a landing point secured, i think they should at least be implemented into the game to see..
  • I've said it twice before, so I will copy it and say it again.

    I have been reading up on the history of paratroopers from 1914-1945 for some reason, I do not know why, and the success of an airborne invasion depended not on the weather, as you would expect, but on who you were fighting against. I have only finished the part on German paratroopers in WWII, Italian and British joint-ops in WWI and some Russian operations in WWII. I will go into detail about these below.

    In WWI, paratroopers were mainly Italian spies dropped by the British behind enemy lines. They would drop up to five men in one go, I think, and then drop bombs on the way back for an alibi in case they were shot down. The spies would then gather info and wreak havoc.

    Then we go into German airborne operations during WWII. They were initially used to try and bring down part of the Maginot line or some heavy duty forts in Maastricht in Belgium, I am not sure, and secure some bridges and make sure that the bridges were not destroyed as someone had placed explosives on them. The Germans were dropped in by parachute and gliders from a JU-52. This did not go well. Some JU-52's were shot down(I think), some gliders were shot down or crashed on landing but the normal paratroopers who had 'chutes were okay. I think some planes had to turn back and I know that the tow ropes on some of the JU-52's snapped, causing the glider to fall short. Despite these setbacks as well as some troopers getting blown off course, the invasion went okay. Some troops had to disable a fort by landing on top of it and clearing it from top to bottom. This went wrong as wind caused the troopers to land in the wrong place. The had to climb up to the top of the fortress, under enemy fire, and blow a hole in the roof, which they were meant to do anyway. This worked well enough. When they had done this, they were after disabling the AA's on the roof and securing the forts top floor. They had lost the element of surprise while climbing up and could not secure the rest of the fort and took heavy casualties. They had to wait for reinforcements to arrive. When they finally did, most of the men were dead, injured or exhausted, including the CO who had been killed/wounded, not too sure. They successfully took the bridges with minimal casualties, but did not have time to remove the bombs, only to defuse them. When the enemy counter-attacked, they accidentally blew up one/two/all of the three bridges during the firefight from stray bullets hitting the bombs. This slowed the invasion down. Some other stuff happened too but I am not searching through the book to look for it. The invasion went well but there were a lot of casualties. They fought the French, British and Belgians here I think.

    During the German invasion of Norway, the paratroopers did a great job capturing airfields, especially when paired up with some Bf 110's. The Bf 110's would land sometimes land at an airfield(that was already in enemy hands) and use their waist gunner to shoot at ground forces on the field, wreaking havoc. Then the paratroopers would come in. When the paratroopers tried to capture a bridge leading to the capital, which was on an island, they failed. When they were sent to capture the town, they failed again. On those two occasions they had been fighting Brits while at the airfields they were fighting Norwegians.

    Then we have the final time that German paratroopers were used against the Brits. This was the invasion of Crete. This really is a funny story, you should read about it in full detail. I will run through it quickly to get on to the Russians. Basically, the battle lasted a week or so, I believe. After bombardment from some Stuka's and strafe runs from Bf 110's and 109's, I think. Then the funniest invasion I have ever read about was launched. Their was a few divisions, 4-5 I think, involved. The first wave was all either shot down, shot while parachuting down, blown of course or crashed on landing. Their first objectives were to disable enemy AA's and capture an airfield. They did not succeed and took heavy casualties. Whenever reinforcements arrived, the same thing would happen. They spent most of the time running from the Greek, Aussie and British forces. Eventually after heavy casualties and a failed seaborne invasion which had been sunk by the British, they took they island. The results of this was the destruction of any ground unit which had been involved in the invasion, any survivors being transferred to another unit and German never again mounting an airborne invasion against the allies.

    For the Russians, basically the suffered heavily enough casualties but Russia always has more men so more men were trained and sent to the unit that needed them. They were a lot more successful than the Germans because instead of being used against the frontline troops, they were deployed behind German lines to kill retreating men and capture airfields. The main reason this was successful was because they always had armies pushing ahead to meet up with them.

    Now that we have learnt a little about airborne units, let me point out some things. Paratroopers cannot be deployed in cities, mountains or forests, so you could only use them one terrain ingame. They are easy to defend against by digging ditches and putting up poles where they could actually land. When they are on their way to the dropzone, while landing and for a few minutes afterwards when they are finding their weapons, they would be vulnerable to attack unless you have them a fighter escort on their way and bomber protection while landing and getting their guns, which in turn would need another escort. When all is said and done, it would most likely be quicker and cheaper to build a BB with some tanks and infantry.

    More reasons(unedited)

    I read your thread after posting my last comment. I will address some of your ideas.

    You said landing in a city. This is not possible as landing is too dangerous as you might get caught in or hit something during the jump. Landing in an ocean is just stupid, they would drown.

    Research should be available on day 1, since they were used pretty early into the war.

    It was possible and they did drop heavy equipment during WWII, but usually after the initial attack as reinforcements. Usually it was some light armour and mid-sized anti-tank guns.

    For the actual drops, you would have to make multiple trips to bring, say, 1k troops in to the DZ. This would take ages since drops are usually only at night/early morning and it can take 4-5 nights to drop in just 500 men.

    Weather is and always will be a problem. Troops tended to get scattered over a few miles of land.

    Paratroopers can land anywhere, but if you deploy them in most area's they tend to die.

    Paratroopers are not elites, not in WWII anyway. They were basically used to carpet bomb areas, but instead of bombs it was a few hundred men, most of whom would likely die.

    Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

    Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

  • If they want to make the game more interesting, there is stuff a hell of a lot better than paratroopers: tank destroyers, Hobart's Funnies, attackers, landing craft, patrol boars, torpedo boats and kamikaze planes. All this would be much better than paratroopers. If you want to get in an argument about how "useful" paratroopers would be, come at me.

    Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

    Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

  • at first i thought it would be a good addition but now after reading the posts i think it would be kind of a waste. not really much use for them when you think about the units we already have and how they are deployed. would just be another research that kills time and has little benefit in the long scheme of battle.

    I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
    J. Robert Oppenheimer
  • rastermannMB wrote:

    would make the game to easy for somebody like me. It has reasons why such fast movement of ground units is not implemented.
    not exactly a reason not to implement, it would have to use air bases, have high manpower cost for low attack values, and would use up oil to keep... the planes also wouldnt be too fast, just faster than using land based movement..


    and there are many people who agree with me, so i will continue posting as this is a good idea and can be successfully implemented..
  • Fine, if you will be ignorant, I will post very long replies. Also, if "so many" people agree, why aren't they speaking up?

    I have been reading up on the history of paratroopers from 1914-1945 for some reason, I do not know why, and the success of an airborne invasion depended not on the weather, as you would expect, but on who you were fighting against. I have only finished the part on German paratroopers in WWII, Italian and British joint-ops in WWI and some Russian operations in WWII. I will go into detail about these below.

    In WWI, paratroopers were mainly Italian spies dropped by the British behind enemy lines. They would drop up to five men in one go, I think, and then drop bombs on the way back for an alibi in case they were shot down. The spies would then gather info and wreak havoc.

    Then we go into German airborne operations during WWII. They were initially used to try and bring down part of the Maginot line or some heavy duty forts in Maastricht in Belgium, I am not sure, and secure some bridges and make sure that the bridges were not destroyed as someone had placed explosives on them. The Germans were dropped in by parachute and gliders from a JU-52. This did not go well. Some JU-52's were shot down(I think), some gliders were shot down or crashed on landing but the normal paratroopers who had 'chutes were okay. I think some planes had to turn back and I know that the tow ropes on some of the JU-52's snapped, causing the glider to fall short. Despite these setbacks as well as some troopers getting blown off course, the invasion went okay. Some troops had to disable a fort by landing on top of it and clearing it from top to bottom. This went wrong as wind caused the troopers to land in the wrong place. The had to climb up to the top of the fortress, under enemy fire, and blow a hole in the roof, which they were meant to do anyway. This worked well enough. When they had done this, they were after disabling the AA's on the roof and securing the forts top floor. They had lost the element of surprise while climbing up and could not secure the rest of the fort and took heavy casualties. They had to wait for reinforcements to arrive. When they finally did, most of the men were dead, injured or exhausted, including the CO who had been killed/wounded, not too sure. They successfully took the bridges with minimal casualties, but did not have time to remove the bombs, only to defuse them. When the enemy counter-attacked, they accidentally blew up one/two/all of the three bridges during the firefight from stray bullets hitting the bombs. This slowed the invasion down. Some other stuff happened too but I am not searching through the book to look for it. The invasion went well but there were a lot of casualties. They fought the French, British and Belgians here I think.

    During the German invasion of Norway, the paratroopers did a great job capturing airfields, especially when paired up with some Bf 110's. The Bf 110's would land sometimes land at an airfield(that was already in enemy hands) and use their waist gunner to shoot at ground forces on the field, wreaking havoc. Then the paratroopers would come in. When the paratroopers tried to capture a bridge leading to the capital, which was on an island, they failed. When they were sent to capture the town, they failed again. On those two occasions they had been fighting Brits while at the airfields they were fighting Norwegians.

    Then we have the final time that German paratroopers were used against the Brits. This was the invasion of Crete. This really is a funny story, you should read about it in full detail. I will run through it quickly to get on to the Russians. Basically, the battle lasted a week or so, I believe. After bombardment from some Stuka's and strafe runs from Bf 110's and 109's, I think. Then the funniest invasion I have ever read about was launched. Their was a few divisions, 4-5 I think, involved. The first wave was all either shot down, shot while parachuting down, blown of course or crashed on landing. Their first objectives were to disable enemy AA's and capture an airfield. They did not succeed and took heavy casualties. Whenever reinforcements arrived, the same thing would happen. They spent most of the time running from the Greek, Aussie and British forces. Eventually after heavy casualties and a failed seaborne invasion which had been sunk by the British, they took they island. The results of this was the destruction of any ground unit which had been involved in the invasion, any survivors being transferred to another unit and German never again mounting an airborne invasion against the allies.

    For the Russians, basically the suffered heavily enough casualties but Russia always has more men so more men were trained and sent to the unit that needed them. They were a lot more successful than the Germans because instead of being used against the frontline troops, they were deployed behind German lines to kill retreating men and capture airfields. The main reason this was successful was because they always had armies pushing ahead to meet up with them.

    Now that we have learnt a little about airborne units, let me point out some things. Paratroopers cannot be deployed in cities, mountains or forests, so you could only use them one terrain ingame. They are easy to defend against by digging ditches and putting up poles where they could actually land. When they are on their way to the dropzone, while landing and for a few minutes afterwards when they are finding their weapons, they would be vulnerable to attack unless you have them a fighter escort on their way and bomber protection while landing and getting their guns, which in turn would need another escort. When all is said and done, it would most likely be quicker and cheaper to build a BB with some tanks and infantry.

    More reasons(unedited)

    I read your thread after posting my last comment. I will address some of your ideas.

    You said landing in a city. This is not possible as landing is too dangerous as you might get caught in or hit something during the jump. Landing in an ocean is just stupid, they would drown.

    Research should be available on day 1, since they were used pretty early into the war.

    It was possible and they did drop heavy equipment during WWII, but usually after the initial attack as reinforcements. Usually it was some light armour and mid-sized anti-tank guns.

    For the actual drops, you would have to make multiple trips to bring, say, 1k troops in to the DZ. This would take ages since drops are usually only at night/early morning and it can take 4-5 nights to drop in just 500 men.

    Weather is and always will be a problem. Troops tended to get scattered over a few miles of land.

    Paratroopers can land anywhere, but if you deploy them in most area's they tend to die.

    Paratroopers are not elites, not in WWII anyway. They were basically used to carpet bomb areas, but instead of bombs it was a few hundred men, most of whom would likely die.

    Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

    Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

  • Just want top point out that paratroopers never used airplane to move from a location to another (that was a concept introduced only during the Vietnam War i suppose, but can be wrong). Airplanes where used only for drops, otherwise paratroopers would act like a regular infantry and move on their legs (there are realy many reasons for this, first of all the logistic problems that would have been involved is the airborne transfer of a single division)
    Italian "Folgore" division fought in africa without getting on planes a single time. American 82th and 51th used planes only for D-Day and operation Market-Garden, while fighting like normal infantry otherwise (remember Bastogne), same for british 1st airborne division. German Paradropers divisions where used as normal infantry after the Crete's disaster... can't say about Russian ones, but quite sure it would have been the same.
  • Mr. Copy & Paste,

    U don't have many reasons except repeat again this reply?
    Independentisme vol dir que la gent s'adona de la humiliació que suposa que un país amb capacitat per autogovernar-se hagi de dimitir d'aquesta capacitat davant el poder d'una nació que se li declara superior.
    Joan Rendé i Masdéu
    _________________________________________________________________