jtcm

Any suggestions for the attacking force ? The article's figures should probably be given a haircut

Could we have a scenario ?

Has it been colorized post-war, or is this original colour footage ? Good images of FIBUA-- Soviet troops hosing down buildings with HMGs, jeep mounted coupled .50s, and even field arty

What kind of armour is the Battn facing ?

How does a mixed Tiger / Pz III Co. fight ? To help me visualize: how would I use such a Co. in a CMBB fight, say on the attack ? Should I hang back with the Tigers (say in 3 plts), and push forward with the PzIIIs, moving with overwatch ? Should I do it the other way round, with Tiger front armour leading the way and (short) 75s in overwatch ? Should I mix (say a group of Tigers in overwatch, and two mixed fighting groups, with Tigers to deal with armour, PzIIIs to support my infantry ?)

Um, what do you think of the Beevor book ?

What's the newness about it ? I mean-- new archival research ? New angle ?

Walpurgis Nacht knew those pat, in all the conditions-- the values are, indeed, fixed, and you should know them when setting out for the fight. You can do all kinds of redoubtable things, e.g. move to within 1 m of LOS and throw a satchel or fire a FT...

I see. Used tactically, or with strikes on the URSS proper ?

Is the response to that not the M1, then ? (with apologies to JasonC, who sees its emergence as organically growing out of technological changes and specific developments)

I don't think I have the military history culture to appreciate exactly what's going on here-- but is the following correct ? There is a conventional view that US failures at Kasserine and general performance in Europe during WWII is due to faulty doctrine (TDs fight and contain tanks, whereas tanks support infantry ? break through ??)-- due to this McNair chap-- and concomitant choices, namely insufficient armour and armament on AFVs. JasonC disputes this, on two grounds: the armour specs were actually fine for Africa and fine in Normandy too, and the doctrine was good. -Is this right ? -who's correct ?

yep, yep, yep

Was the M1 not the result of a conscious take on what was considered, if I understand JasonC correctly, tendentiously, as the results of US performance in WWII ?

At a slight tangent-- does the development of the M1 (with invulnerable front plates and heavy-hitting gun) fit into this debate, as seen from the post-war perspective ? I.e. the M1 as the "King Tiger" redux, and designed to prove that specs are the things that matter ? Just a thought

I take this means that in Real Life -they were supposed to fight with plts, to give them a bit more oomph; in fact, just dragged them down -they were not grouped in "50 mm batteries", like us CMBB players like to do !