kipanderson

Fytinghellfish, “I like WWII a lot but I'm getting a bit worn out with it, if that makes any sense.” Yup, you hit the nail on the head. I know exactly how you feel. After CMAK there will have been five years of nerdish study of WWII, without a break. Time for a change, then back to WWII again. Of course, if BFC went for North West Europe for their first game with the new engine I will still be wildly enthusiastic about it. But I would be even more enthusiastic for a North West Europe game after a while studying the Cold War. There are some who do not wish for the Cold War because it never went hot. I understand that view. But the history of war gaming is that most players are happy to play post WWII games, now and then. Overall WWII will always be the favourite because it did happen on such a huge scale. My favourite too, but not for “every” game, indefinitely into the future. I am very optimistic that a Cold War game will happen. But of course, the guys at BFC, if the read this, may be laughing as they may know differently. All the best, Kip.

Hi, “My two cents, This would not be a big deal to a cold war game set in the 1960's or 1970's but it is my understanding that the composition of the armor on many of the modern MBT's is a closly guarded secret. Hence it would be difficult to create a realistic game if one did'nt know exactly what protection, said armor afforded.” I understand the concern, but happily, certainly for 1980s and earlier equipment, there is no great secret about the performance of the armour. That does not mean that there will not be a few unhinged, nerdish disagreements, but not much more then for WWII equipment. The performance of Cold War equipment is normally known in huge detail. All the detail that is required. One of the reasons has always been the competition between companies, and countries, to sell their equipment. You really cannot sell equipment without telling, and demonstrating to the potential purchaser, the performance of the equipment. If you follow these things for a number of years, you will come across details of just about everything. Plus reports of how they did when tested by the “opposition”. Try this official US Army site, just as a start, Threat Support Directorate. http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/threats/products/Products.htm When it comes to CMX2 Steve has already indicated that they could do it, if they wished… but who knows if they wish to. I already use 3km by 3km maps. I would guess that range and such are really a function of computer power. But I am no programmer. I do know that a lot of long range antitank, and tank fire, in CM leads to quite long “computation time” for the one minute action movie. But causes no crashes or problems. I am very optimistic that a Cold War game will happen, but being human, I would like to see it as the first game with CMX2. A Cold War game after CMAK would refresh me for more WWII games in the future. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Jim, I understand what you say; the Cold War never went hot. However, if CM is ever to be set in post WWII, then whatever war you go for will be fictional. Assuming BFC stick to their wish to model mechanised warfare. Post WWII there have been lots of wars, but not two major industrialised nations fighting it out, hence not mass mechanised war. Of course, this is a very good thing from a real world perspective. Many of my generation, potential 1970s and 1980s cannon fodder, would not be live today if the Cold War had gone hot. But the wars that did happen where not first world mechanised warfare. Even the Arab Israelis wars were only a few short days of fighting, in terms of mechanised warfare. When BFC went for North West Europe, followed by Eastern Front, few sane potential wargames fans could complain. And the Med, as a last game with this engine, to feed the addictions of myself and many on this forum, is a great bonus. However, when it comes to their next game… there was always going to be a difference of opinion. I would go into decline if I thought that there was never to be a version set in North West Europe, and then later the Eastern Front, with the new engine. But I would like a more modern setting for just one game… as a change. When it comes to nukes, my guess has always been, was during the Cold War too, that neither side would ever have used them. Because neither side would have used them “first”. Anyway… many an exercise, on both sides, were run on the assumption that nukes had not been used yet, thus a similar assumption in a CM version would be no problem. Whatever would have happened in real life. When it comes to contemporary settings, post the Cold War, I agree with Jim. The leap of imagination is too great… the armies do not even exist any more. But during the Cold War they certainly did exist. Also… for me.. it would be hugely good fun to see if NATO tactics of defence in depth would have worked. Flexible defence, and defence in depth, are often used interchangeably. In fact they are very different things. A commander may combine them, but they are not the same. German use of defence in depth was often catastrophic in WWII, as opposed to flexible defence. This is not the thread for a detailed discussion of the differences, but it would be massive fun to model them in CM set in the 1970s or 1980s Germany. All will not agree on the choices BFC make for their games over the coming years. We must all harden ourselves to the fact that any one version of CM may not be our number one favourite setting. But most will be delighted to simply have new versions of CM continue to come through, whatever the setting. For me, once the Med is done, time for a change from WWII for one game, then back to North West Europe. The thought of having different military technology to get enthusiastic about is a major attraction of the Cold War. But we are all different. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Good to see there are some out there who are nearly as keen on a Cold War game as I am. I own favourite would be 1970-1989. The reason is that the technology is so far from WWII. May as well go for a reasonable leap in technology to make the change, the break from WWII, more complete. I appreciate that there is potential for politically sensitive matters to spring up, but this is also the case even with WWII. Steelbeasts, as used by the US military among others, plus the US army’s own WEG, an arms catalogue on the Threat Support site, are very open about the capabilities of Soviet equipment. If we end with 1989 the information is certainly out there on its capabilities. 3rd Shock Army driving through the Fulda Gap. Would defence in depth work? There is strong evidence from WWII that it would not. Let’s model the Cold War and find out! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Operation Flashpoint is a very fine game. No doubt about it… but it is not quite the same scale as CM. CM, and Squad Lead, both have the manoeuvre units as squads, individual AFVs and such. In Operation Flashpoint the scale is one click down… sections or individual soldiers. I am not familiar with the exact terminology… but I guess Operation Flashpoint is a shooter… or semi-shooter. In my view there is something near magical in the way CM draws one in… I think the jargon is immersion. In my view, a lot of the reason for this is the scale, the exact scale, of CM. As well as the stunningly high quality of the execution by the gang at BFC. Steelbeasts is the game which comes closest to CM, for me. However, in truth, the CM series has no competition. They are in a different stratosphere to anything else. Thus… it is CM or nothing. The CM games are the only computer games I play. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Congratulations… they do indeed look stunning. For scenarios set in the last nine months or so of the war they look just the job. I think I will keep a set of them.. and the original Soviet ones.. and just load them into the BMP folder depending on the time frame of the scenario. Very fine work. All the best, Kip.

Hi, OK, I admit it; I am the most unhinged fan of the idea of the Cold War as the first game with CMX2. But I am not entirely unhinged in that, overall, WWII remains my major “hobby” interest. Just to prove the point, the books I am currently reading are the David Glantz big item version on the Battle for Leningrad, Hell’s Gate by Douglas Nash, and Accounting for War by Mark Harrison, on the Soviet war time economy… all are stunning books. However… I do like a change. I am old enough to go back to the high water mark of war games as a mass hobby, if it ever was a mass hobby, the second half of the seventies. In those days it was all a matter of Squad Leader and the “one hex to one mile” operational games. Most were WWII games, but every now and then I, and my war game chums, would turn to Cold War games. The change was hugely good fun. Change is good. One of the most appealing aspects of a Cold War version of CM is the opportunity to become wildly nerdish, enthusiastic, about technology from a different era. I have to confess to sitting at home working out armour penetrations equations long before CM was even a flicker in the eye of Steve and Charles, so I am not quite sane. I greatly enjoy the detail of the technology of military matters as a hobby. Subscribe to Jane’s military journals in the same way some people subscribe to car magazines. But I suspect that many would join me in finding the study of T62s/T72s/T80s/M60s and M1s fun… for a while… as a change from WWII. Then back to WWII for the second game in the CMX series. What could a 1975 RPG7 penetrate… and what could it not penetrate… and so on. One objection some have to the idea is that the Cold War never became hot. However, at least the armies on each sides of the Iron Curtain were real. The problem with a contemporary setting for a version of CM is that even the armies do not exist. In the Cold War there were WWII scale armies lined up, now the latest versions of tanks, or AFVs in general, can often be counted in tens., couple of hundred at most. For a version of CM you need two, or more nations, lined up against each other in roughly the same ball park in military technology. At this point I should stress that Soviet technology certainly was the equal of that in the west up to the end of the Cold War.. 1989… overall. The mistake many make.. almost everyone in fact… is to compare a “1970s” model T72 to a late “1980s” western tank. If you compare the model of the T80 introduced in the same year as the 120mm gunned M1, 1985, you will find the T80 is immune all forms of ammunition used by the M1 until the end of the 1980s. And.. yes.. this was confirmed by US sources who tested one in the early 1990s. I could give many similar examples. Of course this is really addressed to BFC as I recon they will simply produce the game that most appeals to them, most takes their imagination. I have a feeling that the guys at BFC really have achieved the ultimate goal of many… they really do spend their time doing what would be their hobbies if they were not paid for what they do. Life does not get much better… in an imperfect world. My hope is that one or more of them may be a secret… or not so secret… Cold War fan. Was Steve not thinking of buying a T72 a while back.. or is that wishful thinking on my part. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, My views do not really answer the question directly. I believe the best way to play CMBB is to start with a turn or two in PBEM, then to move on to Live TCP play. The reason is that if playing a reasonably sized game, time is required for the setup, and the first run. Maybe as long as 30 minutes for set up, longer sometimes. But once a game is up and running, nothing can replace the fun of Live TCP play. Especially if both parties are on broadband. However, I do not play with any time limits. Both players just agree to take as short a time as possible. On most turns, it moves along very rapidly. Now and then a major reorganization is called for by one or both sides, but against this, on some turns both just hit Go. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have been posting on the CMMC2 thread, but thought I would just add some praise here too. A group of us, including Andreas, used MM in a weekend of Live CMBB Tournament play. I built a 6km by 10km map based on a topographical map of the Ukraine, and copied and pasted sections into the CMBB Map Editor as required. Outstanding. Once you are accustomed to building map sin MM there is no going back. Build up a library of MM maps, then copy sections into the CMBB editor as required. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Once again, thanks for all the hints. I knew this forum was the place to come for this sort of information. Quicker, and better, then reading tens of out of date reviews! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Guys, thanks for your answers. It was a genuine… “I do no know the answer so I will ask the blokes on the forum, some of them will know” Clearly the conclusion is that a quality TFT screen, with the correct graphics card, is as good, or better, than a traditional monitor. In these times, very useful to know. Thanks, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Question, how good can CMBB look on a TFT screen when compared to a conventional monitor? The reason I ask is that when I have seen CMBB on a TFT screen it looked nothing like as good as it does on my 17” monitor. It is not the size of the screen, but the quality of the picture that was the problem. Is this the general rule with TFT screens, or does CMBB look OK on the best? I have a standard Dell 17” monitor using a GForce3 200, 4x Antialiasing and 8x Anisotropic settings. Could a TFT screen equal the quality of the picture? All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, I second Bovington in Dorset; it will blow your socks off. Think of a type of WWII tank, and they have an example. I would recommend The Imperial War Museum site at Duxford, north of London, rather then the site in central London. More to see at Duxford. It is an old WWII airfield converted to a museum, but also lots of ground warfare stuff. All the best, Kip.

Hi, A truly outstanding site. Congratulations. It will very quickly become “the site of choice” for all who really wish to know how the war in the east was fought. It will not just be wargamers, whom you will be flooded by. But it will be “the” resource used by serious historians too. It is the publisher Frank Cass I feel sorry for. With this resource here, who needs Frank Cass? All the best, Kip. PS. Also an outstanding example of what the internet is all about and how best to use it.

Hi, I did a quick test. Used six SU85Ms v two Hetzers. Range 510m. The result was 12 hits on the Hetzers in one minute, both Knocked Out. 5 Ricochets, 5 Partial Penetration, 2 Full Penetrations. All but two of the hits were on the Upper Hull. If you assume both the lower hull hits penetrated, this means there is a 50% chance of a Partial Penetration with an Upper Hull hit at 500m. The Hetzer has the advantage over the T34/85, but it is not immune. Given that the Hetzer is of a generation of German AFVs that will have been designed with the Soviet 85mm gun in mind, it is not a surprise that it fairs well against it. All good fun, all the best, Kip.

Hi, Someone has no doubt already mentioned this, but here goes anyway. Do remember that the Hetzer has 85% armour quality. It makes a lot of difference. It means that the Soviet 85mm gun, firing APBC rounds, will more often than not achieve a Partial Penetration at around 500m. A Partial Penetration with an 85mm round is very bad news indeed. This is the case even if the round strikes the highly sloped portion of the front armour, not one of the less sloped “curved” portions which it will penetrate with ease. The Hetzer still has the advantage over the T34/85, but it is not immune. All the best, Kip.

Elvis, hi, You posted, “My biggest wish.....I had always dreamed of an incredible WW2 game that gave me all the feel that I had with SL/ASL and then CMBO came out and exceeded my woldest dreams.....My wish now is for a game that takes that to a level I haven't even thought of.” Would not be possible to agree more, CMBO was beyond my wildest dreams. I am constantly saying that I do not believe how luckily I have been, we have all been, that BFC produce the games they do instead of some multi-million selling Star Wars game. All the best, Kip.

redwolf, hi, the 76.2mmModel42 gun is used in the SU76 “as is”. That is why it has a muzzle brake when mounted on the SU76 chassis. The 76.2mmModel42 gun has a muzzle brake as standard. As I understand it the action of most muzzle brakes is not to brake the velocity of the projectile, but to brake/dampen the force of the recoil by virtue of the way the exhaust, blast from the shot is vented by the muzzle brake so as to produce a slight forward, as opposed to backward, force. If the length of barrel of both guns was the same, excluding muzzle brakes, then I would expect similar velocities. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Guys, I did not make my post clear enough. If you go back you will find that 76.2mmModel42 gun has a length of 3169mm “without the muzzle brake”. The F34 gun used in the T34 has a length of 3168mm. Note the F34 gun has no muzzle brake. i.e. the two guns have a near identical length, “excluding the muzzle brakes”. I had always assumed that the two guns were the same length, “including” the muzzle brake on the 76.2mmModel42 gun. But I was wrong. In the source I quoted the 350B round is the one used in both. What “may” have happened is this. The source BFC used may have quoted muzzle velocities for “different” rounds for the two guns by mistake. Hence BFC assumed the two guns had different velocities. I think the fact that the two guns were the same length, excluding muzzle brakes, is the clincher. All the best, Kip.

Offwhite, hi, You have really already hit the nail on the head. It goes something like this. Number of Panzers. The Germans had between 750 and 1,200 panzers operational on any given day on the Eastern Front. They had between 20-25 Panzer divisions, or the equivalent, on the Eastern Front. Around 20 Panzer divisions in the line. If we assume 1,000 operational Panzers, in 20 Panzer divisions and two Panzer battalions per division, we are talking around 50 operational Panzers per division in two 25 strong battalions. Dedicated, Soviet AT units above divisional level. By January 44 the Soviet had 50 Separate Anti-Tank Brigades. Each with around 74 AT guns in three regiments of 20-24 guns. They also have around 170 Separate Anti-Tank Regiments of around 20- 24 guns. The entire reason for being of these Separate Anti-Tank units was to seal off the Panzer divisions. This was Soviet doctrine. The above Soviet units were clearly not all at full strength at any one time. However, as you can see there was more than enough to go round. And it gets worse for the Germans. Due to the desperate shortage of German infantry units, the Panzer divisions had to be deployed in the line. Hence, the Soviets knew only to well where they were. Added to this, if a Panzer division was holding a section of 15km-20km of line, on any given day it will normally have been the case that both sides were only too well aware of which sectors were the crucial/crisis sectors within the 15km-20km section of front. Thus the Soviets could concentrate their AT assets there. The net result is that a German combat team including a Panzer battalion, at an average strength of 25 tanks, will often have come up against twelve or more Soviet AT guns on a 2km by 2km CMBB map. On a 2km by 2km CMBB map, a Panzer attack could realistically be modelled as coming across anything from 4 Soviet AT guns, to 24 Soviet AT guns. In fact to model it most realistically, you probably want to use a map 2km in width, but 3km in depth. All the above figures come from rock sold sources. Germany records and Soviet records. All the best, Kip. PS. 75% of AT guns in the above Soviet units were the 76.2mModel42 Gun. The other 25% being made up of 45mm AT guns in early 43, then replaced by 57mm AT guns. If you use the 76.2mm Model42 Gun, in the CMBB Editor be sure to increase its loadout of AP rounds from the default which is too low. Most Soviet AT units had the above 75/25 mix of AT guns.

Rexford, hi, You are quite correct. These are the figures. 76.2mmModel42 Gun. Length of Piece, w/muzzle brake 3455mm without/muzzle brake 3169 mm T34s’ gun 76.2mm gun Length of Piece 3168mm Also, they give the same velocity, not for the 350A, but the 350B as 680mps, or 746 mps. Clearly the second is the Super round you have mentioned before. Source is Record of Foreign weapons and Equipment, volume 1, USSR. 1947. I found it in the archives of the Tank Museum in Bovington some years back, copied all 500 pages. It is “by far” the most complete single source for Soviet WWII weapons I have every come across, or even heard of. 500 pages on Soviet WWII ground warfare weapons put together in 1947 by British intelligence. Rexford, why then does the 76.2mmModel42 have lower penetration and velocity, than the F34 gun, in the T34, in CMBB? The 76.2mmModel42 gun was “by far”, the most common gun on the Eastern Front. I think there were around 68,000 produced during the war, from memory. Having the wrong penetration/ velocity figures for it is a terrible shame. “If” BFC have dropped the ball on this one. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The reason for the difference in penetration figures is that they use the same ammunition, but different guns. The SU76 uses the 76.2mmModel42 gun which has a barrel length of around 37 calibres. The T34 uses a gun which fires the same ammunition, has an identical chamber, but a 42 calibre barrel length. BTW. The Soviets produced around 65,000 76.2mmModel42 guns during WWII. They also tended to be concentrated opposite Panzer and mobile German divisions. In a scenario with a German mobile/Panzer division in attack, if you are after historical accuracy, there should be a generous number of 76.2mmModel42 guns on the Soviet side, in an average/representative game. Anything from four guns, to a mind blowing twenty four guns would be historically credible. All the best, Kip.

Hi, yup, they look very good, All the best, kip.

Michael Dorosh, hi, Thought I would just quickly mention that I popped over to view the links to the sites as the bottom of your post. Very fine sites indeed. The Med one is very informative as I must admit to knowing very little about the Med, the later war in Italy. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I can see that this has turned into a discussion on the merits, or otherwise, of Glantz and Zetterling. Happily, this is now a debate that can be brought to a conclusion, to the limited extent that these matters are ever finally concluded. A recent book, just out this spring, deals head on with the claims of Zetterling with regard to his most famous work, on Kursk. The Book is called Kursk, The German View by Steven Newton. It is a “must have buy”, in my view, for those with an interest in Kursk. The final section of the book is made up of four 10-20 page essays on the most controversial topics to emerge over the last ten years with regard to Kursk. It carefully goes over the topics and tries to reach conclusions in a balanced way. In the case of the Zetterling claims Newton goes back to the same sources Zetterling has dug up, but digs even deeper, and reaches very different conclusions as a result. It turns out that Zetterling is a very fine researcher, but would make a poor intelligence officer in that his interpretation of the data he finds, is way off the mark. Before I explain how Zetterling dropped the ball, a brief word on Steven Newton. He comes out of the US military education and intelligence establishment, as does Glantz. He is now professor of history at Delaware State University and is the author, or editor, of many fine books on the war in the east. Go to Amazon.com and do a search under his name, and you will see what I mean. Now back to Zetterling’s claims. The figures that follow relate to the northern part of the Kursk front, but as Newton points out, the same form of analysis and the same conclusions would apply equally to the southern Kursk front. At the heart of Zetterling’s claims is the fact that the German Ninth Army only lost 6.6% of its ration strength over the first five days of Kursk, from 4th to 9th July. The problem is that in a WWII German army only 21%-25% of the army’s strength is made up of troops in combat formations. A rough rule of thumb is that, at full strength, half the troops in a German army were Corps or Army troops, half divisional. In the divisions themselves, roughly half were combat troops, the rest support troops. By combat troops Newton makes clear that he means all the battalions that stood any chance of ending up actually doing the fight. He does not take a narrow definition, but even includes engineers and Military Police. He lists infantry battalions, engineers, Panzer and so on. Anyway…. It turns out that Ninth Army’s losses amongst combat troops amounted to 26% over the five days, not 6.6%. Further, of the twenty three divisions in Ninth Army all those losses are spread between just fourteen divisions. The other nine divisions saw not combat at Kursk itself and over the period suffered losses such as 0.1%. Of the divisions that did any fighting over the period losses amongst combat troops were 45%. As all on this forum will know, if a battalion of 500 men lost 225 in combat, amongst the rifle platoons this will most likely mean 60%-75% losses. Newton describes the Ninth Army as “gutted” after just five days. If one takes all of July, and all combat troops in Ninth Army and Second Panzer Army, that is all German forces in the so called Orel salient, losses amongst combat troops amounted to 56%. Again, this would most likely translate into 75% plus in the rifle platoons. By the end of July both Ninth and Second panzer Armies were just hollowed out shells. The Soviets had effectively extracted all the German armies’ teeth. Zetterling makes similar mistakes in his analysis of replacements. Roughly speaking, for every 100,000 German replacements in 1943 only around 25,000 were combat troops. Yet for every 100,000 losses, around 75,000 were combat troops. All will have understood what is going on here. Anyway… enough said. Steve Newton’s book is not a hatchet job on Zetterling. Only a small part it directly related to Zetterling. But amongst many other matters he does deal with the controversy thrown up by Zetterling head on. Zetterling described German losses at Kursk as “only slight”, hence Kursk in many ways being a draw or may be a type of victory for the Germans. In fact German losses were devastating. Platoons that in three and half German armies started July with between 30-35 men, in CMBB terms maybe 25% veteran and 75% regular, ended July with 6-10 men often no doubt rating no more than conscript or green due to combat exhaustion. And this in three plus armies. All good fun, All the best, Kip.