Questions for Spook regarding GD - Romanian Defence (Admiral Keth too)

[Michael Dorosh]

Spook -first of all, thanks very much for trying out the GD series and reviewing some of them at the Depot. Extra thanks for your suggestions.

My knowledge of Soviet practices are limited. I like the idea of the SMG company replacing the "leg" company - you mention this was the standard TO & E?

I was also wondering - was it common for the T-34 76s to be upgraded piecemeal into T-34 85s within a tank platoon? I have no idea, but have read that tank companies were homogenous in the Red Army. Was this only with regards to suspension and chassis, and not main armament as well? The only problem I see with replacing a T-34 76 in a platoon with an 85 is that the 85 is now independent and has no platoon commander.

At some point I will review the other suggestions and release a 1.1 version. I have gotten some great feedback on the other ones as well; much appreciated.

I made the Stuka support 100 percent because they were a large part of the actual battle this scenario is based on; wouldn't seem right to me not to include them. However, the points on trenches are well taken. I think I padlocked them because in real life, these trenches had been dug long previously - possibly by the Soviets, I don't recall - and were not optimally placed for the defenders who routed out of Giurgesti. I'd have to revisit the sources.

THIS PART IS FOR ADMIRAL KETH, TOO

Oh, and the window at the Depot that says German infantry is "full" - I often just breeze through these. This explains why some of the German squads in the game are actually depleted. I didn't think anybody actually read them at the Depot, and frankly, it's a bit of a spoiler to have all that data there before hand. If we had an option to not include that data, it would be preferable than simply defaulting to "Full", "Regular", etc. etc. Some scenario players want to know, I tend not to, though I admit there are some scenarios where foreknowledge of this may be necessary. But certainly not in all is it necessary and/or desirable.

[Admiral Keth]

Michael (and All),

Nearly every drop-down box on the Battle and Operation submission forms have a FOW entry at the bottom of the list. If you do not want players to know what these values are prior to playing the scenario, then select FOW in the appropriate fields.

In addition, once I have the bugs worked out of the Authors Only pages, you'll be able to change the scenario details as needed, including adding the FOW. In the meantime, if you like, I can make those changes for you.

[ January 25, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Admiral Keth ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Heh...I just stumbled on that FOW option the other day, but didn't realize all the drop down boxes had it. Excellent idea, I should have investigated further!

Looking forward to the author pages - I have some 1.1 versions I would like to set up one of these days.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Spook -first of all, thanks very much for trying out the GD series and reviewing some of them at the Depot. Extra thanks for your suggestions.

You're welcome, for whatever they're worth.

My knowledge of Soviet practices are limited. I like the idea of the SMG company replacing the "leg" company - you mention this was the standard TO & E?

Unimpeaceable references fail me now, but my initial recollection of the practice was while inspecting TO&E's of brigade-level formations in the earlier TalonSoft "East Front" game, varying by year of course. It was also read by me from occasional articles much earlier that the Soviet tank riders (among the first to apply this concept) were primarily armed with SMG's.

My follow-up web search availed the following as the closest I could find to Soviet tank brigade TO&E:

Nov '42 Soviet Tank Brigade TO&E

And, as noted at that site, the TO&E is drawn from "German intelligence documents," let alone being a TO&E not of 1944. Regardless, this, and a more sketchy reference at another site, infer that at within the tank brigade's attached infantry battalion, a SMG company was organic to this.

I was also wondering - was it common for the T-34 76s to be upgraded piecemeal into T-34 85s within a tank platoon? I have no idea, but have read that tank companies were homogenous in the Red Army. Was this only with regards to suspension and chassis, and not main armament as well? The only problem I see with replacing a T-34 76 in a platoon with an 85 is that the 85 is now independent and has no platoon commander.

I agree -- I'm not altogether firm on the notion of changing out some T-34/43's for T-34/85's, as the latter started entering service in Feb. 1944. So it is quite possible that the GD's Soviet opposition in May '44 hadn't gotten some of these yet. But if some "swapping" was done, it would indeed be best on a platoon basis. And I couldn't recommend changing out to provide an entire company of T-34/85's, given that the scenario's German defenders don't include "killer tanks."

(Some net references suggested that Soviet tank companies had drifted down to seven tanks typical by 1944, with three platoons of two each, but I couldn't confirm this for now.)

I made the Stuka support 100 percent because they were a large part of the actual battle this scenario is based on; wouldn't seem right to me not to include them.

Definitely, the German defense's chances are GREATLY enhanced by the air support. (Your having both kinds of Stukas buzzing around also keeps the battle stirred up!) So those cetainly

need to show SOME time within the scenario, and not in the later turns. Instead of "100% arrival at turn 6" as an example, I was thinking of something like "45% at turn 5" as a counter-example. After five turns, each turn checking at 45%, it's only a 5.03% chance of the aircraft STILL not having shown up after the fifth turn. Just makes the specific entry turn less predictable.

However, the points on trenches are well taken. I think I padlocked them because in real life, these trenches had been dug long previously - possibly by the Soviets, I don't recall - and were not optimally placed for the defenders who routed out of Giurgesti. I'd have to revisit the sources.

Most of the trenches can remain padlocked, but I thought that perhaps the pair of trench markers close to the woods, as a minor example, could be reset freely.

I'll say one thing --- some on the CMBB forum have complained that the "Shoot & Scoot" command doesn't "work well enough." I used it for the German Marder's which came in as reinforcements, which I kept back behind a crest near the exit edge. That S&S command proved a lifesaver to those TD's, who certainly would've been killed otherwise by the T-34's.

I suppose the T-34/85 suggestion could just be punted then. The present Soviet tanks in the game are capable enough for the job on hand. SPG's might be another matter though.