Jump to content

Cuirassier

Members
  • Content Count

    555
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Cuirassier

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 02/12/1989

Converted

  • Location
    Alberta, Canada
  • Interests
    Military history, science, hockey
  • Occupation
    Student
  1. By Falaise most of the German armor in theatre was already knocked out. It was the destruction of this armor by allied ground forces that made the breakout possible in the first place. Allied air helped indirectly by by interdicting roads and rail, hindering any daytime movement. But none of that German armor was going to make it out anyway, since it was already dead.
  2. Pilots are notoriously bad at verifying kills (or rather, failing to kill things). Being charitable, they overclaimed ground kills by a minimum of a factor of 10; more realistically, they probably overclaimed by a factor of 50 or so. An example: During the Mortain offensive in August, the Germans assembled a force of approximately 75 Pz IV, 70 Pz V and 32 Stugs for the attempt to cut of the American breakout. During the first three days the British and American pilots claimed 252 German tanks knocked out. The Germans had only deployed 177 full AFV's for the offensive. Furthermore, later OR analysis showed that allied aircraft only accounted for 9 German vechicles destroyed, the rest instead going to the usual causes (TD's, artillery, zooks, etc). Later analysis by the Brits of lost Panthers in Normandy and the Ardennes showed that only approximately 6% of Panthers were lost to air weapons. Losses of Soviet armor during Kursk to German air is even lower than this figure, the Luftwaffe accounting for 2% to 5% of armored losses. Quite simply, WWII aircraft did not have the weapons or accuracy to successfully attack armor. It was one of the worst targets to direct them against, as FLAK took a very heavy toll for practically no purpose. Air superiority was useful, but not in attacking armor.
  3. Yes, Rudel is full of crap and the Ju-87 was never an effective tank killer; no aircraft in WWII was. JasonC has written extensively on this in the past here on this forum. I recommend looking up some old threads if you want details. Here is one useful thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=45658&highlight=rudel Another good source is Zetterling in his Normandy book. While he does not talk about the Luftwaffe or Rudel, he debunks the myth that USAAF and RAF aircraft were capable tank killers in Normandy by looking at actual Operations Research data after the fight. Naturally, if the much more powerful Allied air forces under vastly better conditions were unable to be effective tank killers, then there is no way that the Luftwaffe achieved more with a handful of Stukas. The best way to debunk the stuka claims is to look at the actual loss reports of Soviet tanks. Essentially, if the air force claims are correct, then there would be hardly any losses remaining to be accounted for by all of the German tanks, PAK, panzerfaust, etc. This argument comes up in a number of Jason's posts, if I recall, and is sound. Can't argue with the math.
  4. The Pacific is at least ahead in priority of one game possibility: Arab-Israeli wars.
  5. Is this the second scenario in the campaign? I just started the terrain analysis for this one myself. Spoilers................. (maybe) The terrain at first glance definitely looks difficult, as there are a number of peaks/ridges that can hit your lead elements while staying outside of los. So far I've ruled out an advance up the right most bowl area, as it can be hit by enfilading fire from both peaks, which cannot be readily seen by overwatch. The gulley on the centre left looks like a promising approach, but also screams trap for anyone exiting its protective defilade. The far left is mostly open terrain, which permits some good overwatch los, but also allows you to get hit by the whole enemy defense, with little cover to set up overwatch or a base of fire for the infantry. In order to deal with F/O problem, I have considered using turn 1 fireplans, but this of course limits flexibility. At least the scenario has quite a bit of time on the clock to probe and shoot. And those 155mm guns pretty well kill anything they hit that isn't in great cover. My initial supposition is that success will largely be dependent on anticipating where the major enemy concentrations and firelanes will be, and hitting the with arty before advancing.
  6. If it helps, I have no modules but just finished a complete install from the base to 3.11 today. My process was: 1. Base game 2. version 2.0 upgrade 3. 2.12 patch 4. 3.0 upgrade 5. 3.11 patch Game seems to load fine. Again, I have no modules.
  7. Nevermind, figured it out. I never extracted the files before attempting to install.
  8. Lol, thank you. So I at least have version 3.0 running then. However, I am still having trouble with the patch. I have tried to install using the .exe file in the zip folder, but I get an error message saying "The file CMBN_Setup-1a.bin could not be located in...Please insert the correct disk or select another folder." I get this trying to install in the CMBN folder on my C-drive. Is there some other folder I need to select? I can't find it. Thank you.
  9. Hi all, I just decided to finally fully upgrade CMBN (I only have the base game). So I downloaded the 2.0 upgrade, installed it, and then patched it with 2.12. Then I downloaded the 3.0 upgrade and installed it. However, when I load the game, it is labeled V2.20 at the bottom of the screen. Is this correct? Also, I am trying to install the 3.11 patch, but it says I need to insert a disk, which I do not have (I download all of my games only). How do I get this installed and working, assuming the 3.0 upgrade is working (not sure it is)? Any knowledge on these matters would be greatly appreciated.
  10. It is an interesting plan. But I do always cringe a little when so much artillery is used and it is not followed up with an assault.
  11. If people were able to manage it as Syria vs NATO in CMSF, I'm assuming they will be able to manage it here, since the comparative tech gap is much smaller. I'm guessing in many of the scenarios the Ukrainians will be on the tactical defensive, which gives significant advantages with modern technology. Hills, woods, buildings etc can provide important los blockages, which allow defenders to hit the attackers piecemeal, get flank shots on armour, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...