Jump to content

ropey

Members
  • Posts

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Converted

  • Location
    Christchurch, NZ
  • Interests
    history, mainly strategic boardgames

ropey's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Paving everywhere. Well, most alleys, etc. The old town had been there for quite some time so the roads were well established. Perhaps the outskirts less so, and even the main roads cut up quite quickly under tank tracks, etc.
  2. Any screenshots? I'm writing an article on this battle so would be interested in how it plays out virtually.
  3. Very nice map and appears true to the town itself. It'll be interesting to see how FJs cope with the defence within the CM world.
  4. I would agree with ComradeP. In Greece when the Germans had complete air superiority there were occasional losses to men but the main effect was on vehicles. The men could see and hear in sufficient time to scatter. I don't think there should be German aircraft in CMFI at all. What few appearances they made were generally on operational targets like bridges, or on areas behind the front lines - LoC, arty areas. Certainly the close tactical support that we are seeing here is not something that shows in any of the reading I've done, even in the early part of the campaign. By July the Allied AA units were being converted to infantry since there was nothing for them to do in their assigned role.
  5. Note that there were two types of turret - the modified turrets with extra armour as mentioned above, but also recycled turrets without any mods. The Liri Valley turrets were of the latter type, though of two sub-types. These had the complex commanders hatch (as on the Ausf G?) or the simpler cylindrical one (as on the Ausf D?). [someone might correct me on the version names.] The Allies knew something was being built from aerial shots, but it was by experience only that these constructions were discovered to be Pantherturms. The low silhouette occasionally worked against the defenders, as growing brush/crops also decreased their visibility of the ground around them, but they did cause severe casualties to attacking forces. "Quickly deployable" is of course relative. It's not like you rushed a truck up and dropped them in front of an advancing enemy! It took some time to survey, dig, install and prepare for battle. Long enough that many were captured in the Gothic Line before they could be readied for action, and that with plenty of fore-knowledge of the Allied advance.
  6. With infantry known to be about surely the port should be opening!
  7. Thanks for the plug Wodin - that's my book! Perhaps expensive, but as you say worth it. (But then I would say that.) Look out for the occasional special on Amazon. ;^) I would have to plug John Ellis' Cassino: The Hollow Victory which was my bible while researching. Cheers Perry
  8. One German source said that immediately after the bombing there were only 80 effectives left in Cassino from the battalion defending it. FJ numbers were probably around 40% overall, but they were dug in and had plenty of ammo. My reading supports the "reckless disregard for danger" angle - refusing to dig in or take cover.
  9. Some of you may be interested in this email I received: Hello Perry, As you previously expressed interest in this project, I am writing to you to let you know that the first volume of Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation, has finally been published. It is now available for purchase at the following link: Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation Volume I by Nigel Askey (Paperback) — Lulu AU The information in Volume I is everything shown (and updated) in Part I and Part II at the website OBTCMS Header It essentially contains the details of the methodology ‘building blocks’ that are being used in all the other Volumes (except Volume 5 (see below), which has a separate methodology for calculating ROCP, and is treated separately in this volume). Volume I especially suits those wanting a practical and scientific method of calculating a weapon system’s (e.g. tank , aircraft, artillery piece, etc) inherent combat power and effectiveness. It also includes details on how to calculate specific attributes such as armour defence values, etc, and quite a few ‘case history’ examples. Note, Volume I does not include details on TOEs, OOBs, etc. Volume IIA (on the German forces) will be produced within the next 1-2 months. This will be about 3 times larger than Volume I (over 680 pages) and will contain all the German weapon descriptions and values (worked out using the methodology shown in Volume I) and all the detail TOEs for every German division fielded in 1941 (as well as the smaller army and corps units). Operation Barbarossa: the Complete Organisational and Statistical Analysis, and Military Simulation will now be published in 8 separate books, with 6 volume titles, as follows: 1. Volume I - The Concepts and General Structure of the Integrated Land and Air Resource Model (Part I), and The Methodology Used for Analysing Weapon System Effectiveness, and the Structure of the 1941 Soviet and Axis Resource Database (Part II). 2. Volume IIA and IIB - The German Armed Forces (Wehrmacht), Mobilisation and War Economy from June to December 1941. The size of the Volume II dictates it is published in two parts (for example Volume IIA will be over 680 pages, mostly tables of TOEs, etc) 3. Volume IIIA and IIIB - The Soviet Armed Forces, Mobilisation and War Economy from June to December 1941. The size of the Volume III dictates it is published in two parts. 4. Volume IV - The Finnish, Rumanian, Hungarian, Slovakian and Italian Armed Forces Involved on the East Front in 1941. 5. Volume V - Relative Overall Combat Proficiency (ROCP): the ROCP of Soviet and Axis Forces on the East Front during WWII. 6. Volume VI – The Science of War Gaming, and Operation Barbarossa, an Operational - Strategic Level Simulation from 22nd June to 31st December 1941. FYI. Having reviewed all the options available to publish the series, I have selected Lulu Print on Demand for several key reasons. Lulu were the only one which could POD a suitable which was also large enough to take the many large tables that will be shown in Volumes II to IV (i.e. A4 was largest page available). They were also able to produce a Volume of over 700 pages using this large page format (otherwise I would have to split the work even moreJ), and at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, none of the POD companies could produce a large POD volume with large page format in hardback: apparently their machinery is not designed for this, and even if they could it would apparently be prohibitively expensive. Also, such a book would apparently not meet the distribution requirements for distribution via Amazon and book stores? After Volume IIA comes out, I will endeavor to update the website at http://operationbarbarossa.net/ with a completely new look. It will have more details on the new publishing structure, updated examples, and perhaps a BLOG where you can start providing feedback and discussion. This will hopefully occur later this year, after Volume IIA is produced, but probably before Volume IIB. Anyway, thank you for your interest in this project, and please reply via Email if you would not like to be advised when the new Volumes are published. Thanks and best regards, Nigel Askey Sorry ut the links haven't survived my cut and paste.
  10. Funny that. Model a tank down to the direction a TC sits but refuse to move on one of the features of the fighting that defined the campaign!
  11. I should clarify that the quote is from the account of the battle. I don't think I would be giving much away to say that that GaJ found that the cost of semi-fixed defences (mines, wire, emplacements) meant he couldn't buy many. Given that these were prevalent on any battlefield in Italy should the QB costs be lowered? A scenario will have as many as required, but their absence in these QBs (other than meeting engagements which were rare in Italy) leaves an aspect of the fighting under-represented.
  12. On vegetation in the REAL terrain: The ridges in the hill triangle are extensively cultivated by use of terraces. At the time of the attack, vegetation was sparse and what there was stood less than ankle-high. Some of the hills, notably the forward slope of The Spur, are almost bare. Even where there are scattered trees, by 11 May most of them had been sheared off at half length by artillery fire. Sunken roads that are little more than farm trails wind their way across the ridges; the most important was the sunken road which branches off from the Santa Maria highway, then winds across the forward slope of The Spur and northeast to Pulcherini. Perry
  13. Bil, have you seen the small unit engagement analysis on SMI that can be found here?: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/smallunit/smallunit-smi.htm I have a few pics of the area if you are interested as I covered it for The Battles for Monte Cassino: Then and Now On the vegetation: The ridges in the hill triangle are extensively cultivated by use of terraces. At the time of the attack, vegetation was sparse and what there was stood less than ankle-high. Some of the hills, notably the forward slope of The Spur, are almost bare. Even where there are scattered trees, by 11 May most of them had been sheared off at half length by artillery fire. Sunken roads that are little more than farm trails wind their way across the ridges; the most important was the sunken road which branches off from the Santa Maria highway, then winds across the forward slope of The Spur and northeast to Pulcherini. Perry
  14. Duh. It's not the reality of the battle I am commenting on sburke - that much is obvious! However, the map IS one of a real place where a real battle was fought. It currently isn't reflecting the factors that shaped that real battle, and if it comes to be used in a scenario that scenario will be flawed. However Bil has already said that there is still work to be done, including swamp at the bottom of the valley(s?), terraces, and so on. Perhaps he will also work on the grass that seems to be concealing his forces more than would be expected.
  15. Having walked the battlefield a couple times I can confirm that the scenario is not reflecting the reality. Topography is nicely done, but the amount of cover (long grass) modelled is far too generous, and the vehicle access is completely wrong. One reason SMI was such a tough nut to crack was that there was no access for vehicles except along the ridge road that was heavily mined. A company of American Shermans tried to follow a farm track down into the valley on GaJ's left flank (north) but got hopelessly bogged. The tanks on the road suffered heavy casualties from both mines and AT. It became an infantry battle, though the Germans had a few Semovente's in support. Whether it would remain an interesting scenario or even map with these issues corrected is questionable. On the question of the survivability of AT, I was amazed at the number of German ATG (excluding the Hitler Line Pantherturms) destroyed/damaged/captured in the Liri offensives that had clearly caused little damage to the Allied armoured forces. If each one had taken out one tank the attack would have been a different story. Tank losses to infantry weapons were quite high though - panzerfaust/panzerschreck were ubiquitous it seems.
×
×
  • Create New...