A few questions

[chuckfourth]

Im not so sure American training (greenness) had improved between Kasserine and D-Day heres an excerpt from 'world war II' by orbis.
"The 90th division, in its first engagement, got into such trouble in crossing the Dourve that at one time the Allied command thought seriously of breaking it up, and distributing it amongst the other divisions. Finally, General Bradley merely replaced its commander with Major-General Landrum, who however, was quite incapable of infusing any life into it, so badly had its morale been affected by its baptism of fire."
The 90th is a line American infantry division, this episode occoured shortly after D-Day. Breaking in battle like this is due to poor training especially it would seem of the officers. German Volksgrenadier divisions performed better than that.
Along the same lines, in the TV documentary "Soldiers A history of men in battle" a marine recalls an episode on Io Jima. Two officers arrive and ask "Where can we get a good look at the action" The sergent says just go round that corner, they go round the corner and are promptly shot to bits. The Marine adds, 'the Sergent meant them to get shot up'. Whether deserved or not the episode to me suggests a lack of respect between the American ranks/NCOs and officers possibly due to poor training of the officers.
Best Regards Chuck.

[PanzerBob]

While these incidents happened, in general, US Army training before D-Day made for better troops overall. Elite troops can break even, given the right situation. For general gaming purposes this "training" is and should be reflected in the game.

No matter the training and or leadership, it can all breakdown. We are after all dealing with human nature not machines. NCO's being fed up with officers especially incompetent ones is nothing new. Just as the problem with the 90th Inf Div may have started with just one platoon or section breaking and without effective leadership to stem the tide it became a Division wide problem. Also you should also consider that river crossing even under prime conditions can be especially troublesome. I could likely simulate, this crossing and get similar results.

Prosit!

[runequester]

Thank you very much guys. A few other questions:

What is a "non penetrating hit" ? Those seem to crop up from all sorts of fire, even small arms.

If a unit is damaged, and I know I want to change it to another type, is there any point to repairing it first ?

Leaders have both a Rally and a Command stat (infantry command, arty command etc). What exactly does the command stat benefit ?

[DRG]

runequester said:
Thank you very much guys. A few other questions:

What is a "non penetrating hit" ? Those seem to crop up from all sorts of fire, even small arms.

It's means exactly what it says. It's hit that is made but doesn't penetrate therefore does no damage

runequester said:
If a unit is damaged, and I know I want to change it to another type, is there any point to repairing it first ?

No

runequester said:
Leaders have both a Rally and a Command stat (infantry command, arty command etc). What exactly does the command stat benefit ?

It tells you what class of unit that particular commander would have a greater or lesser effect on.

Don

[chuckfourth]

Hi PanzerBob
Yes thats right every unit has a breaking point unless of course its a japanese unit
But I think 90th division is a different case without being able to find any other information on their "debacle" I suspect that the problem was that the divisions staff work was so poor they were basicly unable to coordinate (lead) the division in battle, ie due to "poorly" trained or incompetent staff officers.
After all they were attacking so one assumes there were more of them than the enemy. They were also fresh, well supplied and had complete control of the air. Not the normal conditions for a division to break, unless something is seriously amiss.
Best Regards Chuck.