kipanderson

Michael emrys Hi, Most of my books are still in storage as I have just moved house and am just about to move again. However, in most cases I can remember the sources fully. Soviet Causalities and Combat Losses by GF Krivosheev, both David Glantz and Prof. John Erickson seem to believe the above book is accurate, as good as we will ever get anyway. The various operational analysis books by Dupuy. They are not perfect, but again if you use his formulas with care they do the job. He was Prof. of Military History at Harvard and both the US DoD and British Operational Analysis Unit believed his methods were sound. When it comes to German losses the figures I used come from the data in the back of one of those pamphlets put together by the US military other the war, using German sources. You know the sort of thing, Greenhill tend to publish them now. However, importantly my copy is one of the originals and in the back has the most detailed information on German military casualties I have ever come across. They clearly come straight out of German war time records. The reason I use the date line end June 43 to end March 44, is that this is how the data is presented. American losses per combat day are worked out from the data in the back of Michael Doubler’s Closing With the Enemy.I was careful to assume that American battalions were twice the size of Soviet ones which is the likely historical reality. So as not to skew the figures in favour of the Soviets, but it is a bit of the long story so I will not bore you with it now. When using the Dupuy formulas the trick is to use the latest data on Soviet casualties and numbers and then assume both the Germans and Soviets were clones of one another. This gives you an anticipated causality ratio had the Soviets been of identical quality to the Germans, but present in the numbers they actually were historically. Then compare the above causality ratio with the actual/ historical causality ratio and you get an indication of their overall combat effectiveness. Not perfect, but simple and still a fairly good indication. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The Duffy book is a great book, but since it was first published in 1991 the Russian archives have opened somewhat more. It is now possible to be a little more certain, but of course not totally certain, with regard to questions of Soviet losses and combat effectiveness relative to the Germans. All of what follows relates to the period end June 43 to end March 45. Importantly, this period includes the heavy Soviet losses at Kursk but, correctly, excludes the round up of Germans during the last two months of the war. The figures are not skewed to the Soviet advantage. In June 43 the Red Army numbered 6.3 million, rising to 6.5 by the end of the war. 1943 was the first year of the war in which Soviet losses were less than the annual intake of recruits. Importantly the Red Army was no longer being bled to death. It was official policy to allow Soviet infantry divisions to reduce to an average of 4,500 men while more troops were channelled into the mobile and mechanised forces. The 450 odd Soviet infantry divisions became very heavily armed brigades, by western standards. By “very heavily armed” I mean that they had a generous supply of heavy weapons for the number of frontline riflemen in the divisions. The average force ratio over the period was 2.7:1, Soviets to Germans. Close to 2:1 in June 43 and then slowly increasing. When it comes to Soviet relative combat effectiveness the simplest way to calculate it is to assume the Germans were fighting an enemy whom, in terms of quality, were in every detail clones of the Germans themselves. After making the above assumption you then use the “actual, historical” figures for the number of Soviets. To cut a long story short, during the second half of the war if the Soviets had numbered what they actually did, but been of identical quality to the defending Germans in every detail, the loss ratio would have been expected to be 1.4:1, Soviet to German. The actual, historical loss ratio for the above period was 1.6:1. In turn this tells us that Soviet combat effectiveness relative to German, during the second half of the war, was 1.15:1. The lower the figure the better. To put this in perspective, both Commonwealth and US combat effectiveness relative to German in WW2 was 1.2:1. During the second half of the war all four of the main players had very similar combat effectiveness; the above figures are just as close as they look. To put the above in even greater perspective, the figures you reach for the first half of the war on the Eastern Front are 6:1, Soviet to German. Remember, the lower the figure the better. In summary, the Soviets were just as tactically unsound, during the first half of the war, as the Germans claimed. However, during the second half of the war the Soviets improved far more than post war German accounts claimed. During the second half of the war a 1,000 man Soviet combat team was often the equal of its German opposite number. I will stop boring everyone, but give just one last example. Soviet losses per 100 front line troops, per combat day, fell to levels equal to those of US troops by the autumn of 43. This still represented horror enough, but not the mass slaughter some German accounts would indicate was still the norm in late 43 and in 44. All the best, Kip. PS. Small correction, the combat effectiveness figure of 6:1, Soviet to German, is for the “first year” of the war, not the first half of the war/two years. The figures for the first half of the war would not be nearly so bad for the Soviets. [ March 20, 2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Andreas, hi, You have been hiding the site from us all. I did not even know about it. Look forward to giving it a good read. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I believe the answer to both questions is yes. But do not quote me! I read from Madmatt that the doodads will be modable, and I believe we will be able to have bunkers, of some sort, in the buildings. Madmatt will no doubt confirm one way or the other. All the best, Kip.

Dan, hi, Yup, I can see myself just sticking to the graphics that ship with the game. You have done a great job. I find it hard to believe that modders out there will “improve” on your work. Some may go for an alternative look for the odd item, but they will certainly have a real challenge on their hands to try and improve anything. All the best, Kip. PS. 300 vehicles! now that really is a lot of work. Good luck!

CDIC, hi, Seems like a reasonable idea to me, my vote is for BTS to go for it. BTW, in ten minutes am off to London for another “George event” with the rest of the sad, old London CM crowd. Hope to see you there again sometime. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Great to see the site is up and running again. This makes me feel nostalgic, it was one of the first sites, and yes, in my view has some unequalled scenario and maps. Will be making use of them all again. All the best, Kip. PS. With the new Bulge mod, they will be outstanding.

Madmatt, hi, I just want to add my congratulations. I am truly shocked by how much of an improvement CMBB is going to be. When the CMBO demo came out I posted under the heading “Hype Justified”, this will clearly be the case for CMBB too! Am also one of those hard core, military history nuts that plays CM because it is a historically accurate simulation; moving, shooting military history. However, seeing all the great graphics enhancements I must admit CMBB will also be even greater “fun” than CMBO. If such a thing is possible. All my knowledge of computer graphics comes from this forum, I do not claim to be a master of the subject. However, when you describe the way you got round the problem of the VRAM limit by “capping” damaged buildings it shows real cunning. Again, special thanks to Dan for his graphics. Stunning. All the best, Kip.

Tom, hi, You have pulled it off again! Thanks to you I already have two sets of bmps, Kip’s usual (mainly Magua’s Normandy), Tom’s Bulge and soon I will have to add Tom’s City bmp set to the list. All to be used for different scenario settings. Can not thank you enough for your efforts. Commonsense tells me you must enjoy it, even so I am very grateful for all the efforts. Now, what will Tom, Magua and the like get up to with CMBB? Given the great work done by Dan it will be a challenge to improve things, but you will think of something! All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, Yup, it is interesting that the Soviet APBC round does, indeed, appear to be quite affective overall. When discussing the Soviet APBC rounds it must always be remembered that they far out-perform western/German APCBC rounds against sloped or angled armour. Given how often strikes will have been at a compound angle greater then, say, 40 degrees on a real battlefield, the Soviet APBC design was not too bad. Given that it is likely have been a lot cheaper too, for obvious reasons. All the best, Kip. PS. Everyone always talks about the graphics in CMBB, and I too am greatly looking forward to them. However, one of the biggest challenges for Charles will be to get the modelling of Soviet APBC rounds correct. They are very different from German APCBC rounds. He will have to do a lot of tweaking of the penetration equation. However, I am 100% confident Charles will have done this. However, there is nothing easy about it. [ March 09, 2002, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

themaltese, you asked “However, from the infantry perspective, would you state that it would be correct to assume a one-to-one relationship between quantity of soldiers and the rifles and other firearms they had among themselves? Are the German accounts of massive human waves only half armed that inaccurate? I would really like to know the answers to these questions from Russian veterans, but still, what do you think” Wow, these are big questions and there is a risk of me ranting on, and on, and on,… However, I will keep it brief so as not to send you to sleep. The answer to your first question on the relationship between the quantity of small arms and number of men is, yes. There would be a one to one relationship, as a general rule. There was a period between late summer 41 and mid summer 42 when there will have been occasions when units were sent into battle with less small arms then men. There reason is that after most of the units that started the war were wiped out in the summer 41 fighting, militia type units had to the raised almost instantly, factories had to the moved out of the path of the onward advance of the Germans, and general chaos meant there were shortages, even of small arms. When it comes to the question of “human wave” attacks, the answer is yes, they did happen but mainly in the first year of the war. This is not so much a weapons question as a training question. Many of the units that started the war were not properly trained in infantry tactics. Many of the units raised during the first year of the war, and some later, were not properly trained in infantry tactics. Because they knew no better they tended to attack using what are often thought of as First World War tactics. And suffered accordingly. The tactic they should have been using, which the Germans used, were skirmishing or assault. The Russian military establishment was well aware of this. In Documents on War Experiences, “lessons learnt” documents put together by the Soviets in the second half of 41, they make clear the need to use, what in the UK we would call, skirmishing tactics. The Russian infantry manual for company and below dated November 42, is pure skirmishing. In CMBB you will find that it is only poor quality Soviet units that use “human wave”, higher quality units use assault. I would take late summer 41 to spring 42 as the low point. With a great majority of Soviet units using human wave. From the summer of 42 through to the autumn of 43 I would gradually reduce the number of units using human wave. By the autumn of 43 I would have close to no Soviet units using human wave. By the autumn of 43 Soviet losses, per 100 frontline rifle men, per combat day, were similar to those in American/ Commonwealth units. They generally fought using similar tactics to everyone else. Faced with the same problems, they had reached the same conclusions. A couple of general facts and figures that I hope will give you a clearer picture. 1) Soviet “irrecoverable” losses, that is killed, missing/POW and wounded so badly they would never be able to return to the front, amounted to around ten million. These are military losses. Of the ten million, six million were suffered in the first year of a four year war on the Eastern Front. 2) Relative combat effectiveness of German/Soviet forces were in the first year of the war on the Eastern Front, 1:6 that is German to Soviet with the lower figure being best. During the period July 43 to March 45, that is “excluding” the round up of the last two months of the war, overall German /Soviet combat effectiveness was 1:1.15, German to Soviet. They were as good as equals. Conclusion. From summer 41 to summer 42 the Soviets were just as tactically “unsound” as the Germans claimed after the war. From the summer of 42 to the autumn of 43 the Soviet were generally fully equipped and slowly improving tactically, operationally taking the lead. From the autumn of 43 to the end of the war the Soviets were, even tactically, as good as any one. All the major players had learnt all the major lessons. The western allies, the Soviets and the Germans all had a very similar combat effectiveness. All the best, Kip.

themaltese, hi, You want to take with a pinch of salt the stuff you hear about the Soviets not being fully equipped. Between September 41 and, say, June 42 this sort of thing did happen. However, as early as by the second half of 42 the Soviets were fully equipped, more often than not. By which I mean that after a unit was pulled out of the line to be re-equipped, when it returned, it will have been with a full load out of equipment. Let me give just one example. During 42 the Soviets produced 33,000 artillery pieces of 76mm or over, excluding mortars. The full divisional organisation for a Soviet Division was 36 pieces of artillery of 76mm are more. So, that is nearly 900 divisions worth. They had 450 divisions on the books by the end of 42. They could equip all their division twice over. Even in 42. Having said that, they probably needed to, as equipment losses will have been very heavy. However, it is reasonable to assume that from around mid 42 Soviet divisions did go into the line fully equipped. Side point. In the spring of 42 the Germans estimated Soviet output of artillery of the above type would amount to 7,500 during all of 42. Rather less than the 33,000 actual output. One very good example of why the Soviets won and the Germans lost. My source for all of the above is Germany and the Second World War, volume VI. In my view, the Germany and the Second World War series are the finest military history books written. However, the above series is only the best by the thickness of a cigarette paper, as there are many other very fine books out there. All the best, Kip.

Hi, We all have different views on what it meant by realism. However, I can indeed define very precisely what “I mean” by realism in CM, or any other wargame. By realism, I mean tactical realism. That is, given the overall tactical situation, and given the decisions taken by the two commanders, the outcomes is that which it is likely to have been in reality. The overall tactical situation would include the forces on both sides, the terrain, the starting deployments, the objectives and so on … For me, others will differ; the above definition of realism says it all. It is because CM scores so stunningly highly against the above measure of realism that I am such a huge fan of the game and all who created it. I believe it is a genuine tactical simulation. It is military history. One can model engagements. All the best, Kip. PS. Any changes must enhance the tactical realism, while still maintaining the magic of the immersion we all enjoy.

Hi, There are a number of very cunning and well thought out responses above. However, for me the only way to deal with “relative spotting and relative command” is through multi-play or team play. In CM you play the part of the squad leader, the platoon commander, the company commander and the battalion commander. Not just he company commander. We will all differ on this one, but I do not want to give up the job of being the squad commander. If in some future version of CM there was team play one would only be able to see/spot what the units one personally commanded could see/spot, both enemy and friendly. But no more. I would be very cautious about any other changes. I normally/often play CM as if a company commander, the Tactical Artificial Intelligence is so good micro-management is not always necessary. But I do not want to give up the option of being able to play as the platoon/squad leader. I would not like to see CM become a “command game”. I should add that I am very much after realism in CM. I play no other computer games. I only play CM because it is so realistic in terms of the tactical modelling. In my view CM is a true simulation, moving shooting military history. Changes that added more realism I would welcome, but not at the expense of being able to issue orders to all units under my command. The reason being, as given above, I want to go no being able to play CM at the level of the company commander, the platoon commander, but also the squad commander. Extreme care is needed on this one or CM could take a major backward step. All the best, Kip. PS. wadepm, yup, you and I would agree on this one. Multi-play is the way to go.

Tom, Looks great, will be off to download it. There are a lot of very talented people out there; happily CM seems to attract them. All the best, Kip.

Moon, Thanks, I am indeed fully reassured! Greatly looking forward to CMBB. All the best, Kip.

Toad, hi, Yup, Steve did say that there will be no multi-play in CMBB. Just one player V one player. However, my money is on multi-play coming along in some future game. It would help to make command and control more realistic, and spotting. You only see what your own few units can see, not what every unit on our side can see. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Yup, it is fun to see it will be on the shelves. It’s that cunning Moon fellow who is behind all this. He is earning his dosh by trebling BTS’s sales in just a month or two. I can feel what is coming next in my bones. We poor lads over here in the UK will end up having to buy our copy of CMBB off the shelf in a box. No problem. But Moon, if you do go for such a deal with CVD, or whatever they are called, do ensure that CMBB is available to us in the UK at the same time as it is released over the net in the US. My great fear is that CMBB will be released in the US and when I try to buy a copy from BTS I will be refused due to the fact that all sales in Europe are to be in boxed form. Problem is, there will then be a polite notice telling me it will not be out in Europe for weeks. This would course untold suffering amongst some of your most loyal fans! I can see it coming. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The graphics really are stunning. Cannot believe how good a job Dan has done. CMBB is going to look great from the start. There will be no need to wait for all those modders to produce their work. But, of course, the more mods to choose from the better. All the best, Kip.

Hi, The entire thing sounds outstanding. How are people like me expected to remain sane while we wait? The graphics looking stunning. Special praise needs to go to Dan for his work. Every time I see screenshots of CMBB I find myself thinking the same, how will the modders compete with Dan’s shipped graphics? Of course, some genius out there will improve them, but at present I cannot imagine how. With the doodads, or what ever they are called, the wheat fields really look great. Look forward to seeing brush too. Dan, give us a screenshot of brush when it is done. For a military history nut like me, CM really is a huge change for the better and I am eternally grateful to BTS. CM is a true simulation and that is why I am such a big fan. It’s moving, shooting military history. All the best, Kip.

Bjorn, I am very much on your side. Best of luck, and if you are able to find the time to finish your project, I will want to use it. All the best, Kip.

Tom, I too, know what you mean about being degraded. It happened to me during the “great crash of December 99” when my number changed from an honourable 400 or so, to 1500 or so. BTW, truly, outstanding work. Every bit as big a leap as the Normandy set was for summer use. All the best, Kip. PS. I am even older, 44.

Hi, Wow, some of you are very pessimistic. I have no inside knowledge, but my view is that it is likely CMBB is only a very few weeks away. The reason I believe this is that in late November/ beginning December Steve gave us quite a long, detailed post on the status of CMBB including a release date. Of course, it was only an estimate, but until we are told otherwise I see no reason to believe there has been a change. I forget the exact phrase used, but even without any wishful thinking, it translated to late March. All the best, Kip.

PawBroon, hi, Yes, I did give a bit much away in the above post. Should think about these things first. Happily no harm done as the Brit player is warned in the briefing what type of armour the Hun may have on this occasion. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Looks great, looking forward to downloading it. If I remember correctly I tested/played a small TCP/IP game that was designed by Andreas/Germanboy to make full use of your mod. I played the Brits, and did indeed win. Had a bit of luck, to tell the truth. All the best, Kip. [ February 20, 2002, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: kipanderson ]