kipanderson

Steve, hi, I will try not to be too longwinded as we will go round in circles; it has all been said above. On some things we simply may not agree, but not many things. Just to remind everyone, what one may call Steve’s summing up, or conclusions were, “Basically, this amounts to a rather simple artillery system: 1. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be seen on the battlefield to begin with. 2. The larger the artillery piece, the less likely it will be useful during the course of the battle, due to delays, unless it is fired either on Turn 1 (prepatory bombardment) or at a TRP (preplanned fire mission). In other words, the more the player deviates from standard Soviet artillery practices... the more he will have to pay for it in terms of C&C delays. 3. Since FOs are generally connected by wire and not radio (even as late as 1945), further restrictions are natural in terms of flexible utilization of FOs. The same works in reverse, of course, for smaller and more organic artillery. This means that 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same. And of course, SP and artillery capable of Line of Sight direct fire are both common (in general) and not restricted by much of anything” The first point I agree with. In the second point Steve is starting to mix and match, in my view. What is happening is what this thread was all about. In order to model Soviet rigidity of artillery command and control, increased delays are being used, instead of fireplans. You appear to be giving Soviet artillery excessive delays in order to encourage them to use TRP. When historically, it appears, delays were not so excessive, and the rigidity came from fireplans. They are very different things. Fireplans first. I realize it is very late in the day, no doubt too late, but is there no chance of some move towards fireplans? CM is, for me, a simulation, not a game, and using fixes seems wrong compared to the quality of everything else in the game. Charles will not be using fixes to model the difference between Soviet APC rounds and German APCBC rounds. I would put money on it that he has got it all right. There is a consensus, above, that fireplans be used, not excessive delays used to “force” people to use TRPs. All that is needed is this. For there to be a type of spotter who can set a barrage to start at a time other than turn one. Zero delay. That is it. No timed stop to the barrage, all rounds are fired at the one target. In a scenario, say a fairly average 43/44 assault, the scenario designer may give the player, for example, three 122mm spotters, with a given number of rounds each. All set their barrages in set up or turn one, and then disappear. Go on Steve, Charles really could do that standing on his head drinking a bottle of beer. It would be a huge step towards fireplans and realistic modeling of Soviet artillery. When it comes to the direct question of the delays to be given to Soviet artillery, let’s concentrate on Divisional artillery. From above Steve wrote, “The same works in reverse, of course, for smaller and more organic artillery. This means that 50mm, 82mm, and 120mm mortars will not only be fairly common, but they will be able to fire at positions on the map other than TRPs without much additional delays. Smaller artillery pieces, in particular 76mm Guns, are also treated the same. And of course, SP and artillery capable of Line of Sight direct fire are both common (in general) and not restricted by much of anything.” A straight question follows from this. Will the delays for Soviet Divisional artillery be in line with the lower end of the Kursk range of figures? (Kursk figures, against TRPs 1.5-3 minutes, against other 4-7 minutes.) Final point, I would add the 122mm howitzers to the list of divisional guns. Used just as much as a divisional gun as it was as an Army gun. Huge numbers of them out there. Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip. .

Steve, hi, Thanks for taking the time to reply. And I will spare you the long disclaimers in future, but still feel guilty when I criticise you lot! You have brainwashed me! But, of course, as you have seen it does not hold me back for long. Will get back to you very soon on one or two points, do not worry nothing too long, but today I have a new computer arriving and will be transferring files and such. If you could give me until Friday morning,New England time, to get a response in to your comments that would be great. Will have more waffle for you to read tomorrow; now back getting the new machine to run! All the best, Kip.

Andreas, hi, I had a hunch that a George session was likely to be on the cards. I expect to be able to make it, will email you to confirm when I know. All the best, Kip.

Grisha, hi, You wrote, “I really doubt that anything above Divisional level artillery was available for on-call fire with the Soviets. And even for divisional level, delay times would've probably been a little longer than German times, because it seems that the Soviets, even in 1945, were averse to using radio due to fears of counterbattery fire. Thus, most contact was still made by land lines. Now, the Soviets were pretty flexible with land lines, laying them right behind a front echelon's advance via artillery FOs, but more often than not those FOs had no maps, and were in reality more intelligence scouts than anything else. However, in a pinch they could call in artillery, and did, though it took a while to get it all triangulated.” I agree with much of what you say, but, as always, not all. When it comes to the delay times it is worth remembering that the Kursk times I have given “happened”. Now the times in the Kursk report are longer than German times of the period, assuming the times in CMBO are even nearly accurate, which I am happy to assume they are. The times Moon gives for the delay in CMBB are not “a little longer” as you would like. They are double. They are so long, that in defence at moving targets, they are unusable. 4-7 minutes against TRPs and 8-10 for normal CM type called fire. All this would be fine; I would be more than happy to go with it, “if” it were historically accurate. BTS may have sources that give data for the delay times the Soviet had. If they have, it would be the friendly thing to share their sources. I have shared mine. However, the assumption that Soviet, called artillery fire, SOPs “peaked” at Kursk, took a backward step post-Kursk, is an assumption I do not share. The Soviets got better at everything else, they were on a learning curve at Kursk, and are quite open about it in the report. The Kursk data is clear, 1.5-3 minutes against TRPs, 4-7 for normal CM spotter type fire. Sometimes against TRPs, 40-90 seconds. Very much less than the times in CMBB, on the info given us so far. Soviet CAS would be great, but is not a replacement for inaccurate artillery delay times. I know for a fact BTS have contacts in Russia, as they do everywhere with the internet. They may have better sources than the Kursk report. What are their sources for delay times? My only wish is that “everything”, not just the slope affects of Soviet APC rounds, should be as realistic as possible. I am puzzled that the Kursk data is not accepted until something better comes along. All the best, Kip. PS. Understand your point about maps, but that will have applied to all sides on the Eastern Front. The Germans could not provide enough of anything to their troops, and the idea that they always had the correct maps, during all those long, hurried retreats is something I doubt. I guess on both sides adopted methods to try and deal with this. [ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

Hi, There clearly is a consensus that a move towards artillery barrages, fixed in both location and timing, zero delay, would be the most realistic way to model Soviet artillery. By giving the Prep Barrage spotter the ability to set a barrage to start at a time other than turn one would be a big move towards that. Scott feels the use of TRP would help, and cunning scenario designers such as Andreas are working on this principle. However, to my mind this is a “fix”, and not really very appealing because it is not historically accurate. Realism, realism and realism are the priority, for me. When it comes to the question of Soviet, called fire delays we part company. Lets start by just getting Kursk its self out of the way. As things stand, given the figures from Moon, if one plays a Kursk scenario in CMBB the Soviet delays will be historically inaccurate. That’s a shame. Post-Kursk Scott has made a good case of arguing that Soviet Army and Front level artillery would have longer delays than German because they would not have been accustomed to firing such missions, it was a rare event for them. When it comes to post-Kursk divisional level artillery, including the 122mm howitzers, I still find it hard to believe that the Soviets took a backward step after Kursk, whatever the operational environment. The same, or improved SOPs, will have been used post-Kursk, in my view. I agree with much that Grisha wrote, but to “ban all” 152mm CM type called fire would be but tough. All the best, Kip.

Spotting in CMBO. Hi, On this one I am firmly on BTS’s side. I think the spotting and LOS stuff is handled very realistically. “1) Simplistic spotting. A concealed ATG 500m away is exposed for all units to see the moment it fires. Soldiers wearing camo in woods are spotted at 200m. Etc.” When it comes to ATGs I feel it is realistic for them to be easily spotted. As is the case with many people on the forum I have seen a lot of footage from WW2 of 75mm/76mm guns firing. Even in black and white they make a huge flash and blast. If one were dealing with the famous “empty battlefield”, i.e. the ATG was amongst the first defending units to fire, it would be spotted by just about everyone instantly. Camouflage is for concealing the gun until it fires. Using WW2 ammo, flash/blast, it would be unrealistic for an ATG not be spotted at 500m, in my view. As I say, a huge flash and blast. However, I am not saying that CMBO is perfect. I would like to see multi-play, team play. This would be far more realistic and would go a very long way to solving the “relative spotting/ relative command” problem. If a reinforced company was “manned” by, say, a team of four in a live game each player would only see what the units he actually commands see, what his platoon sees. Not what the units commanded by someone else see. Anyway, we are all different, but I have no problem defending in CMBO. Nothing is perfect, but CMBO comes close, given the machines it is designed to run on. Using “real world tactics” I find defending works very well. All the best, Kip.

Scott, Moon, hi, From Scott’s last post “My question is this-- under what conditions do you think an army artillery commander would relinquish control over his firing units during an offensive?” I agree with what you imply. However, to entirely ban the CMBB scenario designer from having on call CM spotters for any Soviet unit over 122mm would be a bit harsh. In defence it certainly did happen now and then, and in attack I am sure it happened now and then, but not often. When it comes to Scott’s opinion, as I understand it, that Soviet artillery men would not have been as well trained as German, and not as well equipped, I am not at all convinced. Not for the last half of the war. Commonwealth and American artillery units in North West Europe managed to operate OK although 90% of them were green. Huge amounts of communications equipment were sent to the Soviet Union, most of it arriving post-Kursk. And for Kursk we have the figures, they did OK even without all that equipment from the west. Of course, when I mention Kursk we get to the heart of the difference between Scott and I. Firstly, I have seen many a record of all the Soviet units involved at Kursk. Sadly, I do not have my sources to hand due to the fact that I have just moved house and “stupidly” put all my books into storage. With CMBB developments reaching their peak this was not smart, but even I sometimes have other things on my mind. However, quite a few people reading this post, if they have some the same books I do, which I guess they will, would have a list. May well be one in the David Glantz Kursk book, cannot remember. Anyway, yes, there were many higher level/independent artillery units at Kursk. Off the top of my head I would go for 30% of the total. By the time of Kursk higher level artillery units were starting to turn up big time. Certainly, enough to make a representative portion of the Kursk General Staff study. Scott wrote, “Kursk was a static defensive operation in the Summer of 1943. The more variables you change from the Kursk standard, the less valid that 4-7 minute figure is going to be. I consider it marginally useful for the second period of the war, and really only valid for static defenses from Summer-Fall 1943. I can't possibly see how it is in any way useful for the first or third periods of the war - there are so many things different that it's no longer an applicable standard at all.” I, of course, do feel that the Kursk figures are a good guide to Soviet delay times in 43 and later. All I can say is that the quote from the General Staff Study is not taken out of context; they do mean what they appear to mean. Also, importantly, it is made unambiguously clear that the Soviets considered themselves on a learning curve at Kursk and therefor the SOPs developed at Kursk may well have been tweaked post-Kursk. This in turn means that the delay times are likely to have reduced post-Kursk, if they changed at all, in my view. It seems unlikely to me that Kursk represented the “peak” of Soviet wartime artillery command and control. Scott and I just are not going to agree on this one. I believe the Soviets will have gone on using the same or improved SOPs post-Kursk. I do acknowledge that all battles differ to some extent, but the entire point of SOP is that they are a good base to work from. I do not think it likely that the “actual method and SOP used to call down fire”, “when” CM type spotters were being used, would have taken a backward step post-Kursk. Although at the operational level the Soviets may have been attacking rather than defending. We will just all have to make up our own minds on this one. I agree that the use of TRP may go some way to addressing the problem, but not far. The reason is that is still gives the Soviets far too much flexibility. For me the point of the Fireplans is that they are totally inflexible within the time scale of a CM battle. Both the location, and the timing of a barrage, needs to be fixed. Moon, hi, (Yup, sorry you missed us in Ardennes, Panzers and beer go perfectly together!) I have just spotted your latest post, “after” typing up the above reply to Scott. So I hope you will forgive me if above it sounds as though I am only addressing Scott. Anyway, thanks a lot for coming back to me. A few points regarding your latest post. Fireplans need not be huge in scale, either in reality nor in CM. As Scott pointed out. Also I like to play operations or longer games, 40-50 turns. I believe it is more realistic to allow battles to die down in their own time. For me, CM really is a simulation, not a game. That does not mean I do not enjoy the latest Mods, I do. I always watch the first showing of the “one minute movie” with all settings on their most realistic, truly great stuff. However, CM is the only computer game I play. My priorities are tactical realism, tactical realism and tactical realism. Thus a lack of Fireplans is a bit of a shame. However, I say again that Prep Barrages area big step in the right direction. Just go the extra mile; allow the barrage to be set to start in a turn other than turn one! And you have Fireplans. You “hint” this may make it in, believe me, it makes a big difference. You than go on to give “hints” of other great news. “Who says CMBB has 4 tube batteries only?” If what is implied by this is true, it is great news. Prep Barrages, may be Fireplans, even spotters controlling more than four tubes, all sounds great. Better than I could have hoped for. However, this leaves what has become the thorniest issue, both between Scott and I, and I fear with CMBB as it currently is. The timing of called Soviet fire, the delay. Quick restatement of the figures from Kursk, “As a result of these checks and subsequent work on correcting problems, the opening of fire,….was brought down to 40-90 seconds in a number of units. As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.” The above means exactly what it appears to mean. Fire against, what in CM is called TRP, took 1.5-3 minutes, normal CM spotter type fire, against targets other than TRPs, took 4-7 minutes. From what you tell me the delay in called Soviet fire, in CMBB, has effectively been doubled from its real world timing. All I can ask is that all in the BFC/BTS have a think about where you got your figures from? Why have you assumed that Soviet called fire took twice as long as German called fire? What is our primary source for the delay of Soviet called fire? I have no way of knowing where you all got your figures from for the delay of Soviet called fire. I will just add a few points in my defence. When it comes to my request for what may be called “full feature Fireplans” I am in fact asking for more rigidity, in the modelling of Soviet artillery, than is currently in CMBB, given your kind reports and Madmatt’s interview. I will be using Prep Barrages, and hopefully Fireplans (if they make it) a lot. It is, in my view, by far the most realistic way to model Soviet artillery support in an assault. However, regarding the delay time for Soviet called fire, normal CM spotters, the only high quality source I have found is the one I give above. It answers the question, “what were Soviet delays?” perfectly, but for Kursk. So the next question is, post-Kursk, will the delays have increased or decreased? I agree that often the Soviets will not have been using called fire, normal CM spotters, but “when they did” where they using the same SOP “to actually call in the fire” or an improved SOP “to actually call in the fire” or less inefficient SOP to “actually call in the fire”, than used at Kursk? My view is that it is highly unlikely that they took a backward step. Not to make use of a primary source of the quality of the Kursk General Staff Study I feel is a mistake. If there were a better one, that actually gives timings, not just comments such as “the Soviets hoped to deduce these delays” I would be very keen to know of it. I am not saying there isn’t one, I just have not found it. As I always say, the fact that we do not all agree is a plus, not a minus. Adds to the fun. All the best, Kip. PS. Moon, yes, I do keep the faith. CM has no great fan! [ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

Hi, Yup, happily we all seem to be pretty much in agreement on the fundamentals, except Moon( see below). Different spin, but agreed on the fundamentals. It’s good to have comments from as many people as possible. It increases the chances of BTS bothering to implement a full Fireplan feature from zero to a fraction above zero! All that is really needed is for the Prep Barrage spotter to be able to set barrages to start at sometime other than turn one. And then disappear. Then one would have a full feature Fireplan, given the scale of CM; it is a tactical and not an operational game. Grisha wrote, “To be frank, I'm actually going to be looking to the SU-76/122/152(or even towed guns) for most artillery needs in the majority of Soviet non-assault scenarios played. And, regimental 120mm mortar fire. 82mm mortars at battalion level are fine, but 120mm's have just the right 'punch'.” I would second that. But just add that, happily, there were a lot of independent 120mm mortar regiment/brigades kicking around so at times one could be generous with the 120 mortars! Grisha also wrote, “However, it should also be noted that this sort of thing didn't come to fruition until mid-1943, and that after Kursk, the majority of Soviet operations were offensive in nature, resulting in diminished artillery effectiveness after the breakthrough phase.” As the Russians themselves always put it, there were three distinct phases to the war. 41-42, 43 and finally, 44-45. However, when it comes to the “diminished artillery effectiveness after the breakthrough phase” I have a slightly different spin on things to others. In my view, the reason for this diminished effectiveness, regarding artillery, was that the post-breakthrough phases on the Eastern Front tended to involve advances of 20km, 30km or even 50km in just a few days. Advances only seen on in NEW during the last week of August and first weeks of September 44. With such rapid advances moving forward the artillery and all the FO related command and control will have been challenging. In such situations, more often than not, there will not have been Army level FO/CM spotter type artillery support. However, “if” there were such support, as sometimes will have been the case, then the same SOP will have been used. The Soviets will have either had a regiment of, say, 122mm howitzers, in place with ammo and communications set up to support a FO or not. If they did, then the usual Standard Operating Procedures will have been used. It follows from this that the delay times will have been the same as usual. In my view, very similar to those of the Germans. Moon, hi, Thanks for taking the time to give such a full response, great to hear from someone with inside knowledge of CMBB and how it really is. However, I do not quite agree with all you say, no surprise there. Moon wrote, “It seems to me that Fireplans are something much bigger in scale than involving firing 4 tubes of heavy artillery at a street crossing near a nameless village for 5 minutes. More likely are 50 tubes at four villages for an hour or two, then switching to another five villages on the flanks for another hour and so on.” I knew something like this would come up as an objection to Fireplans. I have seen a number of Soviet WW2 Fireplans, well three or four any way. BTS may not wish to include them, but battalion + V battalion + engagements, on a 2km by 2km map, are well within the scale of Fireplans, on all fronts. As they would be today. I agree that a four-tube battery is too small a scale, but that is why above I gave as an example the fact that I would always use Prep Barrage/Fireplan spotters in threes anyway. Have them target locations within 100m of each other at the same time. This is a limitation of an engine designed to be able to run on a P200 machine, I guess. CM gamers already, routinely, play games where, to be strictly realistic, one should be using an eight or twelve tube artillery engine. In my view, this is no reason to exclude Fireplans. All that needs to be done it for the Prep Barrage Spotter to be able to set a mission to start at sometime other than turn one. When it comes to delays for Soviet artillery, what you say confirms my fears, or “may confirm my fears”. You give an example of a big $$$ Soviet spotter, assume you mean, say, 152mm, having a delay of 8-10 minutes. I cannot know for sure, I have not seen the game, but I would put money on the fact that German 150mm spotters gets a delay around half this. In my view, this is historically inaccurate. The figures from Kursk include Army level artillery, lots of it, and for CM type spotting they give 4-7 minutes as the delay time. The guys at BTS may have evidence for Soviet delays being double German delays for similar guns in similar situations. My fear is that they do not have such evidence but have simply “assumed” the Soviets where a lot slower. i.e. they have fallen for a classic “Eastern Front myth”. None could be a bigger fan of BTS than I am, and I know they have tried, and succeeded, in avoiding all sorts of myths. But this time they seem to have tripped up. I have hard, solid evidence of what Soviet delay time actually were at Kursk. Which is a very big sample to go on. Unless BTS have better evidence, which they may have, I have no way of knowing, they should think again regarding Soviet delays from mid-43 onwards. All good fun, All the best, Kip.

Jeff, hi, Thanks for the kind words on my post. I do hope that Charles and co. will give it go with the Fireplans. We are already going to have Prep Barrages, which is a big move in the right direction. But to model Soviet WW2 artillery correctly I feel an extra push to “full Fireplans” is needed. All that is required is for the Prep Barrage spotter to be able to set a time for the barrage to start and end other than turn one. I can but hope. Jeff you wrote, “The biggest distinguishing feature is perhaps the ability of varying armies to engage surprise targets or targets of opportunity. I would be curious if you could elaborate somewhat on how to best integrate an artillery fire plan approach in wargames with surprise target engagements.” Jeff, in my view, all one can do is have Fireplans/General Support missions and CM type spotters/Direct Support missions run in parallel within a game. What I mean by this is that the same battery cannot do both in a given game of CM. Nor in WW2 could a real life battery, as I understand things. In WW2 if a given battery was tasked to fire a General Support mission according to a given Fireplan between, say, 0900 and 1100 on a given day, then that is all it did between 0900 and 1100. However, at 1101 it may have been tasked to fire a Direct Support mission in support of a given FO, CM spotter. What WW2 artillery could not do, as I understand it, is be engaged in firing a General Support mission according to a given Fireplan, and then half way through, suddenly fire in support of a given FO/CM spotter because some better target had come up. In a given CM game I would have to have “two different spotters”. One would be the Fireplan/Prep Barrage spotter that would then disappear at the end of turn one, the other would a normal CM type spotter. The Fireplan/Prep Barrage spotter would set his targets, and their timing, and then be gone at the end of turn one. The normal CM type spotter would fire at opportunity targets as they currently do. Two different spotters in the same game, doing two different things. This is an abstract, but is much as it happened in reality in WW2. This is also something that I believe the current CM engine could handle. But, of course, I do not “know” for certain that this could be done with the current engine, only BTS could tell you that. My main point is that modelling Soviet WW2 artillery command and control rigidity through delays far greater than German delays, is not historically accurate. The greater use of Fireplans by the Soviets is historically accurate. Scott wrote “I guess part of the discrepancy here is that I'm looking at Army level firing units as being used primarily in General Support, while Kip is looking at them while being used in the Direct Support role. I don't think these units were commonly used in Direct Support, although it is clear that they probably were from time to time.” Agreed. I would tend to regard the Kursk figures as more representative of the norm than you, but other than that we seem to be pretty much in agreement. One reason I would give the Kursk figures weight is that the document is very clear about the Soviets being on a learning curve at Kursk. Thus post-Kursk, if there were any changes delays may have reduced. However, I do agree with you that after the initial break-through there will often have been relatively few Soviet FOs connected and up and running. Thus the reliance on organic artillery and assault guns. All the best, Kip.

Scott, Interesting points, and once again I agree with 90% of what you say, but not 100%. I should start by saying that I am not an artillery men, as you will have noticed, but have read a lot of original Soviet sources on how the Soviets did things in WW2. In fact all I can get hold of. What this means is that I may be using the wrong jargon and terminology, certainly by modern definitions. I will try again, for what it is worth to explain myself. As far as I can see we are agreed on the number one, major point. Soviet Army level artillery was normally used in general support, Fireplan type missions. At the CM level this means it would hit a given village, with a given number of rounds, at say, turn 15, then a given ridge line at turn 23 and so on… All of it pre-planned and to a fixed time table. Much the same way Prep Barrages are to work, but importantly not just at the start of the game but at given turns throughout the game. I am now assuming that Prep Barrages are as close to Fireplans as we are going to get in CMBB, and I agree this is a big step in the correct direction. However, the next question is, given the artillery engine we are going to have for CMBB, what is the best way to model Soviet Army/ Front level artillery? By Army/Front level artillery I agree we are talking about independent artillery regiments/brigades and divisions. Given that we have to live with the artillery engine as it is in CMBB, it is necessary to make a couple more assumptions. Firstly, I am assuming that a given Soviet Army level regiment of, say, 122mm howitzers, “has been tasked” with supporting a given battalion combat team with what I would term a “called fire mission”, CM type spotters. I agree that this was not the most common use of Soviet Army/ Front level artillery assets but it did happen at times. You only have to read the Soviet reports on Kursk to see that. Secondly, we all have to accept that one CM spotter only controls four tubes, not 24, that is just how the engine is. If you wish to model the fire of more tubes you have to use more spotters and have them all target the same spot at the same time, if they fire at all. Agreeing such rules between human opponents before a game is perfectly possible, amongst reasonable people. Given the above assumptions, what should the delay be for such artillery assets in a CMBB game? My view remains that the delays should be similar to those for German guns. My reasons are these. Firstly, it remains my view that once a Soviet Army level artillery asset had been tasked with the support of a given FO/ battalion combat team the FO was in direct communications with the regimental fire control officer, not an Army level staff officer. The FO would be in communication with the regimental fire control officer for a pre-planned period and with the use of a pre-planned number of rounds, as in other Armies. From all my reading of Soviet original sources, this appears to be how they did things. Having the FO talk directly to an Army level staff officer who then parcelled out artillery assets on the fly assumes a flexibility that I do not believe the Soviets, nor the Germans had, no matter how long the delay, by the time scale of a CM battle. My second reason for believing that the delay should be the same for German and Soviet Army level guns, is that at Kursk they clearly were similar. The Soviets knew the importance of speed and at Kursk set out to measure their own performance at the very thing we are discussing. I can only say again that my reading of Soviet “documents on war experience” is that they are spin free. They really are “lessons learnt” documents and not propaganda. As is the case in all matters in life we probably do not all agree on this. But I do ask people to read some of these documents, they can be purchased from the publisher Frank Cass, before “assuming” the statistics in such material is biased or doctored. Given the statistics in the Kursk report I feel it is difficult to support a view that Soviet Army level artillery, when firing “called” FO type missions, which a I agree was not the most normal use of such assets, had delays greater than those at Kursk. However, what makes life interesting is that we do not all agree. All the best, Kip. PS. Another very fine source is the original, November 45, US DoD, Handbook on Soviet Military Forces. It is part of the same series as the more famous Handbook on German Military Forces, spring 45. However, the Soviet one is even better and quite a bit longer and more detailed. I offered my copy to the publisher Greenhill, they publish the German and Japanese books in the series, however they said the Soviet one was just too long and complex to reproduce commercially. This surprised me, as I would have thought the market for a Soviet version was huge, by the standard of these things. However, they are the experts. [ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

Tom, hi, Having just got back from the Ardennes, the weather was identical to that of the battle nearly 60 years ago, I can confirm that your mods really do have the look of the real thing. Great job. I would suggest you realise them as is with a list of the other mods you use so we can all reproduce your look. Your mod really is by far, the most realistic European winter look. Looks just the same round me, south west of London, in the winter. But importantly, looks the same in the Ardennes. All the best, Kip. PS. One can still see the foxholes occupied by Easy Company. Or if not Easy Company, then another compnay in the same regiment overlooking Foy. Looks very similar to the way it did in Band of Brothers.

Mace, hi, I understand the point you make, but at Kursk the Soviets were very much still on the learning curve. They General Staff report is clear about this. Post-Kursk, say in 44, they will have got better at everything, including artillery control. All the best, Kip.

Scott, hi, Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail. When I read your response the thing that struck me was how much we agree on, the spin is very different to mine, but the substance very similar on most points. However, there are some differences between us, it would be boring if there were not. First a few general points. There is no point in going over all the ground again, but lets just take another brief look at what Madmatt actually wrote, as this is the heart of the matter. “Artillery now has more realistic fire delays based on the formation the artillery is attached to. A Battalion asset will have a much smaller delay than an Army or Corps asset. For Soviets, that means they get access to some very heavy artillery support but it comes at the penalty of very long delays. This is offset by the addition of Prep Barrages for both sides. Prep Barrages allow a Zero Time Delay barrage if the FO plots the barrage on the first turn of the battle. This represents co-ordination between the battery and FO prior the battle. This zero delay barrage MUST be plotted on turn one. If a player waits to turn 2 he loses that bonus and will get the normal delay associated with the battery type (in some cases those delays could be longer than the battle itself!)” I take this to mean that Soviet Corps and Army FOs may have a delay of as much as 15, 20 even 30 turns. My concern is that this is unrealistic. Soviet rigidity of command and control is going to be modelled in very much longer delays then for German guns. When in reality, the difference between them was that Soviet Corps; Army and Front artillery units used “general support Fireplans” more often than the Germans. All sides in WW2 used general support Fireplans and also called fire, CM spotters. I do not know the exact frequency of use between them for each nation. But I do know that Soviet Corps; Army and Front artillery was very often used in general support/ Fireplan missions. Currently this is not modelled in CM. Lets assume that BTS are not going to budge on this one, so the question becomes one of the relative delays for German and Soviet higher level artillery when firing called, CM spotter type missions. (I agree 100% that the introduction of Prep Barrages is a big step towards Fireplans, but I would have liked to see them go a lot further due to the importance of Fireplans on the Eastern Front. But life is not perfect; I like everyone else can not have everything I want.) So what should the delays be? The quote I gave above from the Soviet General Staff report gives a timing of 1.5-3 minutes for fire on TRPs and 4-7 minutes for fire controlled by CM type spotters against targets other than TRPs. I can confirm that these are the figures for fire from all types of Soviet artillery at Kursk. If you read the document this point is clear. I do not claim to know anything about German artillery methods in WW2, however, there seems to be a general view from those on the forum with RL artillery experience that the current CMBO delay time may be bit short. If this is the case, then it is likely that German and Soviet delay times were, in fact, very similar in reality. However, I also fully accept Scott’s point that Soviet Corps, Army and Front artillery was more centrally controlled than German. Given that Soviet higher level artillery was more centrally controlled, how is it that they had the same delay times as decentralised German artillery? There is an explanation to this; the confusion lies in what is meant by “centrally controlled”. Lets start with the decentralised German system. What this means is that a Corps artillery battalion would be attached to a given infantry division. The staff officers within that infantry division would then decide which battalion combat team received support from the given attached Corps artillery battalion. In the Soviet centralised model the decision as to which battalion combat team would be supported by the a given Army level artillery regiment would be taken, not within the infantry division as in the German system, but by the Army level staff officers. This is the key difference between the Soviet centralised system and the German decentralised system. However, there is an important point to be understood. In both systems, once it had been decide which infantry battalion combat team was to be supported, a FO, CM spotter, would be sent forward and communications would be established between the FO and the supporting artillery battalion or regiment/ battery fire control officer. When you look at the line and radio nets the Soviets had you will find that there were communications between the FOs and their supporting artillery. Soviet FOs did not talk to a higher HQs, say Army level HQs, which then in turn decided if they got fire and if so from which regiment. Neither the German nor the Soviet system was that flexible. In both systems it had to be “pre-determined”, some hours before, which infantry battalion combat team was to get which artillery regiment in support. The British, and I am happy to accept Scott’s view that this applied also to the Americans, had systems that could decide this kind of stuff “on the fly”, but not the Germans nor the Soviets. The important point is that the Soviet FO, CM spotter, supported by an Army level artillery regiment, did not have to ask for support through a higher level HQ during the contact battle, the CM battle. He would have been talking to a regimental fire control officer, as would his German counter part. Hence one would expect the delay times during called fire missions, current CM spotter type missions, to similar. As they clearly were at Kursk. Anyway, enough of my ranting. BTS, no doubt, are not interested in taking Fireplans further for CMBB. However, I hope they will have another think about the delay times for Army and Front artillery assets. In the real world Army and Front artillery asset were normally used within rigid, general support Fireplans. However, when used for called fire, CM spotter type missions, their delay times will have been as indicated by the Kursk report. All good fun. All the best, Kip.

Hi, First a couple of disclaimers. I always feel guilty expressing adverse opinions on anything related to CM. BTS have produced the game of my dreams, I knew someone would produce a Squad Leader type computer game but never expected it to be of even half the quality CMBO has turned out to be. I feel hugely fortunate that a team of the quality of BTS has taken it upon themselves to produce the CM series of games. I should also add that, clearly, I have not seen CMBB but am only going on what I have read from official sources, in this case the words of Madmatt in the recent FAQ article. Now that’s out of the way, what am I ranting on about here in already having a dig at CMBB before it is even out? On order for BST to maintain their stunningly high standards there are certain “must have” features required in any Eastern Front version of CMBO, in my view, others will differ. In the case of infantry I would include Human Wave assaults as such a feature. This is to be included in CMBB and is handled very cunningly by being replaced by “assault” for more experienced troops. When it comes to armour, in CMBB the very different characteristics of Soviet APBC rounds and German APCBC rounds will have to be modelled. Soviet APBC rounds had 10%-15% less penetration against vertical plate and 20%-25% greater penetration against plate at high angles of attack then German rounds of the same energy and calibre. At higher velocities, say, over 750mpsecond, these differences reduced but still existed. Finally, when it comes to Soviet artillery there is a need to model the greater rigidity of Soviet artillery command and control. The question is, how to do this accurately within the limits BTS have set themselves for CMBB, given that it is a tweaked version of CMBO and not a new engine. In the recent Panzer Leader FAQ article Madmatt wrote, with regard to artillery in CMBB, “Artillery now has more realistic fire delays based on the formation the artillery is attached to. A Battalion asset will have a much smaller delay than an Army or Corps asset. For Soviets, that means they get access to some very heavy artillery support but it comes at the penalty of very long delays. This is offset by the addition of Prep Barrages for both sides. Prep Barrages allow a Zero Time Delay barrage if the FO plots the barrage on the first turn of the battle. This represents co-ordination between the battery and FO prior the battle. This zero delay barrage MUST be plotted on turn one. If a player waits to turn 2 he loses that bonus and will get the normal delay associated with the battery type (in some cases those delays could be longer than the battle itself!) A Prep Barrage Target is plotted as normal, it does not need to be within LOS of the FO but it will be a more accurate pattern if it is. The barrage itself will begin to fall almost immediately at the beginning of turn one and will continue until the FO re-targets the barrage, stops the barrage or the battery runs out of ammo. And YES the enemy TacAI can and will call in Prep Barrages and they can really really hurt!” This all sounds great, and as a said above I feel guilty having a dig at it. I know all at BTS have worked hard at it and done a great job. However, if I am honest there are two problems with it. Firstly, Soviet time delays. “ As a result of these checks and subsequent work on correcting problems, the opening of fire,….was brought down to 40-90 seconds in a number of units. As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.” The Battle of Kursk, The Soviet General Staff Study, 1944. Just to set things in context, by “prepared fire” they mean what CMBO calls called fire on Target Reference Points, TRP. By “ unplanned fire” they mean the usual fire called by a spotter in CMBO against targets other than a TRPs. It is also important to understand that Soviet General Staff Studies and their “documents and war experience” in general, are remarkably spin free. They include brief comments at their start such as “Our great leader Stalin”, but after that is out of the way, they are as honest and unbiased as any document could be. One of the differences between Hitler and Stalin was that Stalin allowed his Generals to use their professional skills, while Hitler often did not. Plus the Soviets came so close to defeat in the first year of the war that a culture of dealing with matters on their merits grew up, there was no room for spin, things where too serious. After the war all that may have changed, but not during the war. Anyway, the above figures for artillery delay can be taken as correct, for mid-43, in my view. Importantly, the above figures will include large amounts of fire missions by Corps and Army units, yet the delays were still as above. Given that I have read some real life artillery men consider the delays in CMBO to be a bit short, the Soviet figures above will not have been very different from the German figures for the battle. In mid-43 the way most fire was called by the Soviets was from carefully camouflaged sites using landlines. As the war went on there was a change over to radios, but the command and control procedures were the same. If Corps or Army artillery was being used the FO would be from the Corps or Army artillery unit in question. In the Kursk study they explicitly make clear that general Corps HQs were not included in the artillery command and control structure so as to speed things up. There is no practical reason why called fire from Army units should take any longer than above. If a unit already had a FO, from an Army artillery unit, it meant that the decision to provide fire support to the unit at that time had already been made. Some seem to believe that every request for fire from a Soviet FO controlling Army artillery had to go through layers of commanders to be approved. This is not how it was. The decision as to which frontline units got Army fire support had already been made by the time the FO was up and running. The Soviets could not swing around Corps and Army artillery fire the way the British could, but nor could the Germans and the Americans. If you are given Army artillery assets in a CMBB battle the delay should be no greater than the above times, in my view. The time delay of Soviet Corps/Army level called fire was the first problem with what Madmatt wrote, the second is the lack of any modelling of “Fireplans” other than the Prep Barrages fire, which sounds great. This is at the heart of the matter. From what I have read the “rigidity” of Soviet artillery command and control, such that it was, is to be modelled largely by greatly increased time delays over the Germans. In the real world the rigidity of Soviet artillery command and control did not take the form of vast increases in delay, hence the Kursk figures. The real difference was the greater use of Fireplans, in the form of pre-planned “general support” missions, as opposed to “called fire” missions. What is called for is that the principles included in Prep Barrage fire be extended beyond the first turn. This is what I am lobbying for. For either side, although the Soviets would use it more often, to have the ability to construct Fireplans assuming they were included in the scenario design. The way this may work is for there to be a type of spotter that is only available in set-up and turn one. The spotter indicates targets as in Prep Barrages, but importantly, also the timing of the barrages which “need not start” in turn one. A spotter of this type could indicate a target to be fired on from, say, turn 16 to turn 22, then another target from turn 28 to turn 34 and so on… until the battery had no more ammo. Once set, the Fireplan could not be changed. The spotter disappears. I hope people understand what I am getting at. Of course, I realise that to lobby for knew features still late is likely to be a waste of time. I did suggest it earlier but I clearly made no impact. Fair enough, it is not my game. I will be rushing to buy it regardless. It will also set new standards regardless. The problem is that the modelling of Soviet artillery command and control through vastly increased delays, as opposed to the greater use of Fireplans, is not in accordance with reality. For me, large quantities of Soviet artillery, but within a rigid Fireplan, is as important a feature as Human Wave assaults and the differences between Soviet APBC and German APCBC rounds. It is so important because this was “how is happened in reality”. All the best, Kip. PS. No doubt Charles does not think it worth the effort, although a programmer of his obvious talent could program it standing on his head whilst drink a beer. PPS. BTS sometimes say features are not relevant at this scale. This is not the case here, 2km by 2km maps and battalion + V battalion + is well within the scale of Fireplans.

Grisha, hi, I agree 100% with what you say. My greatest wish was always for a “quality” computer version of SL, with CM this has now happened beyond my wildest dreams. However, I would also like to see a quality WEGO operational/battalion game. My greatest wish now, would be for BTS to do a quality “operational layer” for the new engine in CM3. So one could "zoom in", change the scale from operational scale and resolve a given operational battle at the CM scale. One can but hope! All the best, Kip.

Gentlemen, hi, Thanks for all the help. This is exactly the sort of information I was after. Clearly, Shared Video Memory will not quite do the trick. If I want all the features CM has to offer, I will have go for a branded graphics card. In my reading on the subject I had already reached the view that in laptop graphics cards the GeForce2Go and the ATI Radeon Mobility were the two leaders. Will keep a look out for them. In fact all the best, most famous brands of laptop, Dell, Toshiba, Sony… seem to use them already. No doubt because they are all there is at the moment for serious graphics use in laptops. ATI even produce a 64mb laptop graphics card used by Dell. There seems to be a real rush on to produce quality cards for laptops. All to the good. Thanks again, All the best, Kip.

Shared Video Memory plus CM, does it work? Hi, May I first apologies for posting this enquiry here, but there I two reason why I hope Madmatt will tolerate this question post in this forum. Firstly, other than word processing, I use my computer almost solely for CM. Secondly the guys here often know what they are talking about so I would value their help. Question is, how well does “shared video memory” work in laptops? If there is, say, 32mb or 64mb of shared video memory in a laptop will CMBO and, of course, CMBB run OK on the system? I have read a lot about the different graphic cards but know nothing about shared video memory. Thanks for your help, All the best, Kip. [ 12-26-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

Schrullenhaft, hi, Thanks for taking the time to reply. Very reassuring to get the opinion of you guys who understand these matters. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Apologies for bothering people with this. I am about to launch myself into getting a new PC and have heard a rumour that CMBO and Windows XP did not mix too well. I understand the nVidia issue, I think, use the correct driver and hit Esc after reading text and all should be OK. I think I can live with this. However, that issue apart, are there any other problems with running CMBO on a XP operating system? If CMBO and Windows XP do not mix, I will wait to get a new computer until CMBB is out, and then play that on my new system. Life without any form of CM to play is unthinkable! I am addicted. Thanks for your help. All the best, Kip.

Jeff, hi, I agree with Andreas, it is the best regimental history out there. Also a very well presented book, looks good, great photos, maps and such. Stuffed with scenario ideas and information on how things were done in reality. All the best, Kip.

Hi, It all looks tremendous. For me the fencing is probably the best part, and rubble will be great. That was one terrain feature that was missing from CMBO. It will add a lot to the look of things. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Given the stunning quality of CMBO it was always clear that CMBB would be something special. However, once again, Steve and the team have done even more than I could have hoped for in my wildest dreams. I was so stunned by the high quality of CMBO that I would have called it close to perfect, given current computers. However, if pushed I would have said, indeed did say, that the lack of an assault command, I would call it “skirmishing”, was a minus. Also, brush and wheat field modelling/graphics needed improving. All this has now been done. Truly can not wait for the release. I feel unbelievably lucky that a team of the quality of Steve and co. set about producing what are my “dream” games. All the best, Kip. PS. One disagreement I have is about the future. Of course, it is not my game, so it is really none of my business. However, I do feel it is a shame that BTS still plan to model the early war in CM4. Given that we are to be so “rationed” in the number of games released, Charles alone to code all of them, is seems a shame to use an entire game on the early war. Just does not interest me at all.For CM4, I would vote for a return to NWE 44-45, then Eatern Front again and so on... However, that may be a fault with me. When CM4 is released I will just go on playing the older versions. [ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ] [ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

JasonC, hi, “I hope this is interesting.” It is yes, very interesting. This was an offensive on a scale well above that of CM. The Second World War was fought on such a massive scale that even during the last nine months of the war there were counter attacks by the Germans. This in turn means that it is realistic to model the Germans as the attackers in CMBO in any period up the end of the war. Huge potential for scenario builders. In my view this adds greatly to the fun. For me the most interesting battle, on the western front, was The Bulge, just four months before the end of the war. Illustrates the point very well. All the best, Kip. PS. Tomorrow, I and a few others, including Germanboy and PeterNZ, are off to the Ardennes for our very own battlefield tour/ private beer festival. Should be fun. I have been before at this time of year, “the” time to go if one can manage to escape for a few days.

Terry, hi, I had a similar problem just the other day. I was playing Andreas, Germanboy, in only my second TCP game, when I discovered Andreas had mines blocking a road. Conditions were wet, and heavy armour could not leave the road without the near certainly of bogging. Not having any experience in the use of/clearing mines, I concluded wrongly that they could not be cleared from the road. I considered my armours’ path blocked. However, out of coincidence I did leave a pioneer unit near the mines. Late in the game I noticed the mine symbol had gone and when I moved my armour through mines attacked none. The pioneers, simply by being near the mines, daisy chain mines, had cleared them during some turn without me noticing. I realised this far too late, suffered 79 causalities to Andreas 28, not a good show. Next time I will know better how to deal with mines. PS. Another thing I discovered, ludicrously late, given that I was in on CM from its start, is that live TCP CM is the most fun of all, in my view. If CM against the AI scores 100 for fun, played PBEM I would give it 125, but live TCP I would give 200 for fun. All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, As always, great information. Your book is “the” book on the subject. I may have asked you this before, and you may have answered, but I have lost track. However, I will take the opportunity to ask you again. What are your current conclusions on the affects of German face-hardened armour with regard to Soviet APC rounds? From the example you give of the 76.2mm gunV the Panther in your book, and comments I have come across in a report about the design of Soviet APC rounds, I feel one should be careful in assuming the were poor performers against such plate. What’s your current view? All the best, Kip.