kipanderson

Hi, Good extract. I think this type of extract highlights very well that at the tactical level, the level of CM, there were many local counter attacks, even quite sizeable ones, by the Germans in late 44. Not just the Battle of the Bulge. This gives the scenario builders the freedom to construct battles, and operations, that model German attacks and for the scenarios still to be historical, semi-historical. This will also prove to be the case when we all turn to the Eastern Front. Combine this fact with the stunningly full feature scenario editor that ships with CMBO and the potential for re-playability is almost endless, in fact it is endless. We are all very lucky to have such a great game to play with. All the best, Kip.

Terry, hi, How are things doing down there in China? And, yes, it is a very cunning and fine idea, I would vote for it. Anything that adds to the realism, and the possible variety of scenarios people could construct, has to be a winner. May be a bit late to get anything more into CMBB, I guess, but do not claim to “know”, they must have had a cut-of-date for features that went by weeks back. Hope it makes it to the next engine, sure it will because it sounds so good. Have put a few pints down in the George since last you were here; hope to see you again sometime. All the best, Kip.

Steve, Thanks for letting us know what is up. I know you have all been working very hard, but I still feel like a child that has been told he has to wait an extra three months till Christmas. At times like this I have to repeat to myself that “I am a mature, middle-aged man”; not when it comes to CM! I have no real idea what it is about CM that so absorbs me, all I can say is that it hits exactly the same spot as Squad Leader did twenty years ago, but, of course, is far better. Added to that, and this is very important to me, it sets new standards in historical and tactical realism. For me, CM is the ultimate tactical simulation. With today’s technology I cannot see how it could be done better. But I have reasons for knowing that you guys at BTS have thought of somehow doing it better. What I am referring to is the way you have described the workings of human wave attacks and assaults. Less experienced Soviet infantry will have the option of human wave attacks, in more experienced troops this becomes an option to use assault. This perfectly models the way the Soviets changed and is also an extremely elegant way of dealing with human wave and assault. Cannot wait to see what you have come up with for artillery! Still cannot believe how lucky I have been in a team of the quality of BTS deciding to develop my “dream game”. Greatly looking forward to all future versions of CM, All the best, Kip.

Rexford, hi, As always, very interesting stuff. Your book on the subject is “the” work on the subject, in my view. Of course, that does not mean that we will all always agree on every detail. However, that is part of the fun. One area I was wondering about, and I know you were looking into, is what is your view on face hardened armour and Russian APBC rounds? From the example of the Panther’s side armour and 76.2mm rounds in your book, plus the odd mention of the subject in a British 1947 report I have, I feel one must be careful in assuming Russian APBC rounds could not cope with German face hardened armour. What is your latest view on the subject? All the best, Kip.

Hi, I go with the fans of Glantz. In my view, clearly others differ; David Glantz is the number one guy in this field. His two best books, again, clearly others will differ, are the two written with Jonathan House. They are also his two biggest sellers. When Titans Clashed, and, The Battle of Kursk. By David Glantz and Jonathan House. It is worth remembering that for many years David Glantz headed up the US Army’s department that studied the Soviet Army. Jonathan House is also a direct product of the US Army training/education establishment. Some may not be keen on operational history, but I have never really found the accusation that David Glantz is “biased, pro-Soviet” credible. The fact is that David Glantz’s views have simply changed as the recently opened Soviet archives have shown evidence that was not known in the west before. Just to give one small example. In the mid 1980s it was David Glantz’s view that the Red Army, in 1944, outnumbered the Germans by 4-5:1. We now know, and this is recorded in David Glantz’s more recent books such as When Titans Clashed , that the actual figure was 2.7:1. Given that German losses on the Eastern Front in 1944 have been know since the detailed studies done by the US Army in the early fifties, this means that we now know the Red Army, in 1944, was twice as effective as had been believed from German accounts written in the fifties and sixties. The overall picture that emerges is that the Soviets were as “tactically unsound” in 1941/42 as the Germans claimed, but as “tactically sound” in 1944/45 as the Soviets always claimed. Anyway, it has never seemed credible to me that the top guys in the US Army studying the Soviets should be pro-Soviet. The US Army certainly approves of their work. We will never all agree, all good fun, All the best, Kip. PS. For the German view of the war on the Eastern Front, I would go for Panzer Battles by Von Mellenthin. A great book. Really good read too. [ 11-03-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]</p>

Hi, When it comes to CMBB I think BTS have a policy of keeping things “under their hat”. They are not saying too much about it. I feel they do not wish to be draw into long discussions about given features until it is out and we all know what we are talking about. Anyway, the time schedule was Fall 2001, so until we hear differently I am assuming it will not be long before we can all judge for ourselves. Will no doubt be as stunning as CMBO. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I agree that some sort of ability to have timed artillery barrages, some sort of Fireplan, would be great. Of course, CMBB will not be a new engine, just some new features added to the old engine. We will have to wait and see if Fireplans make it through the selection process. All the best, Kip.

Hi, what follows is something I posted as a result of a visit to the Bovington Tank Museum. "Yesterday I took the day off and went down to the Bovington Tank Museum in order to take a look around their archives. This is something I have done before, but not for some years, and what I was after was all the technical reports they have on Soviet WW2 tanks. The reports cover many types of Soviet WW2 AFVs but most are based on a T34/B and KV1 that were sent to the British in 1942 as a thank you for all the supplies we were sending them. The greater number of reports are on the T34/B. Some are very short, only a few pages having survived, some are very long and detailed. Chemical analysis of armour, diesel fuel, lubricants, test firings of HE shells against different targets, everything and anything you can thing of is covered. (Strangely, the one thing I was most keen to see was not there, test firing of AP shells, must have been done, only in separate report.) Anyway, I will cut the waffle and get to the main subject of this post. The longest and most detailed report, “A Report on the Investigation of a T34” School of Tank Technology, in turn had a long section on the sights. In the conclusion to the section on sights the final paragraph starts with this sentence, “Telescope and periscope are of very fine construction and appear far superior to most of the equipment and components on the tank.” Very different from that which is normally assumed about Soviet sights. There are two reasons why this was not a surprise to me, one trivial one not so trivial. The trivial reason is that this fits with my personal experience of T34 sights. I have looked through the site of a T34/85 model44 and found the sight to be of stunning quality. Those that have looked through a high quality telescopic sight at dusk/in poor light will understand what I mean when I say that the landscape through the sight was “sharper, brighter and lighter” than that with the naked eye. Not just enlarged. I call this a “trivial” reason because there is no certainty that the sight I was looking through was the same as those used in WW2. As the Soviets would have said, it may have been a “modernised” sight I was looking through. However, it may have been a sight of the same kind used in the war, it may even have been produced during the war. It cannot be totally disregarded. The second reason why the conclusion of the report on the T34/B was not a surprise to me is that in another very extensive, 1947 document I have covering all Soviet ground equipment of WW2, there is no comment on the low quality of Soviet sights. I agree that a “negative proves nothing”. However, if you could see this 1947 document, both its length and nature, you too would find it “strange” that the low quality of Soviet sights was not mentioned, assuming that they were in fact of low quality. The 1947 document is full of comments on the quality, or lack of quality, of each type of equipment it reviews. When all three of the above are taken together, the report on the T34/B, my experience of T34 sights and the lack of any adverse comment in the 1947 document a case begins to build for doubting if reports of low quality Soviet sights are correct or just myth. In all I must have seen about half a dozen reports with sections on Soviet sights and have never seen an adverse comment on their quality. It is also worth noting that the T34/B and KV1 in question will have been produced at the time when the Soviets were under greatest “production stress”, just after the great post 1941 shift in production. Yet still the sights and specifically picked out for praise. Before Steve and Charles launch themselves into coding for low quality Soviet sights I feel they should take another look at what evidence there is for this view. I know Steve is always very careful about trying to avoid falling for any of the standard Eastern Front myths, but in the case of Soviet sights he also needs to be careful. Certainly “some” Soviet AFVs, even of 1942 war production, had high quality sights. Maybe all of them, I still have seen on evidence of low quality sights, and as you can tell, I have looked in the places where one would expect to find such evidence if they were of low quality." I do feel, that on balance, Soviet optics and gun accuracy were very similar to that of the other major players. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I was wondering how things are going on TacOps 4? When do you think it will be released? All the best, Kip

Hi, The Churchill is may favourite tank, great mod, do not waste it. All the best, Kip.

Terry, hi, I agree completely, multi-play would be a great feature. I think you will find it will be in CM3. One big advantage of multi-play is that, in my view, it is the only way to deal with what I believe is called “relative spotting”. You only spot the units “your own units” can see, not those spotted by units commanded by others on your side. All the best, Kip.

Hi, Realistically it must be too late to lobby for features in CMBB. However, human nature as it is, I cannot resist an attempt to get minerollers and Fireplans included. I can only say again that minerollers were a common features of Soviet assault operations during the last year of the war. When it comes to Fireplans their inclusion in the Eastern Front version of CM would move the game up one click in terms of the realism of the modelling. Many do play with 2km by 2km maps, quite big enough to justify Fireplans. Greatly looking forward to CMBB, All the best, Kip.

Hi, I have always wanted some one to do a “Das Boot” or “Saving Private Ryan” out of Tank! One day some one will. BTW, if you are willing to throw serious money at the problem, and are looking for a WW2 German tank manual with lots of very high quality photos, then Panzertaktik by Wolfgang Schneider is the book to go for. But still get Tank! All the best, Kip.

Hi, Tank! By Ken Tout. In my view, others will differ; the above book is by far the finest account of tank combat ever written. A moving a powerful account of combat from inside a British Sherman tank. You will not be disappointed. All the best, Kip.

Band of Brothers, any good? Hi, The BBC will be broadcasting Band of Brothers over the coming weeks and I was wondering what those in the States that may have seen a few episodes think of it? The BBC have shown two trailers, both action sequences, and the standard set by the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan seems to have been maintained. Is this an accurate impression? All the best, Kip.

Hi, All looks great, thanks for the pictures. The detail on items such as the JSII tracks is superb. All the best, Kip.

Madmatt, Thanks. Hugely looking forward to whatever you throw us. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I understand why Steve and the crew do not wish to spend all their time on the forum. I too am keen to have the game as soon as possible and do not wish to distract anyone. However, I do feel the vow of silence that BTS have taken with regard to CMBB is a bit extreme. I followed the run up to CMBO in detail and can see why Steve and the others do not wish for a full replay in terms of time spent on the boards discussing the up and coming game. I monitor a number of wargames that are in development in the forlorn hope that another will also reach the stunningly high standards set by CMBO. Simply no realistic hope of that. However, my point is that BTS have gone from being the most welcoming and friendly, in terms of their willingness to leak information about their coming game, to being the most tight-lipped. Could BTS not leak some information on CMBB to cheer us all up? Allowing us to generate a few minutes of childish enthusiasm for CMBB. Greatly looking forward to CMBB, All the best, Kip.

Rexford, Soviet APBC against face-hardened armour? Rexford, hi, I just thought I would ask how your research into German face-hardened armour and Soviet APBC rounds is coming along? My own view is that one must be careful not to rush to assume that German face-hardened armour was especially effective against Soviet APBC rounds. There is a short passage in a 1947 British document I have that indicates that Soviet APBC rounds may have been designed to cope with face-hardened armour. Jeff Duquette has already scanned in and posted the passage. Data in your own stunning book also indicates that Soviet rounds performed well against such plate. The example of the 76.2mm rounds against the Panther side armour springs to mind. All the best, Kip.

Hi, It is interesting to read everyone else’s responses. Just to clarify a point that was raised by Jons. The impression I get, and the assumption I was working on, is that the authors of the study were referring to timings for FFE. I do not claim to “know” this to be the case, but if you read the entire chapter I believe nine out of ten readers would reach the same conclusion. If it had been the case that it took another ten minutes for the FFE to arrive, the authors are likely to have mentioned the fact. It’s a shame that I cannot scan in the chapter, or somewhat more of it, but I do not have a scanner. ScottB asked “would this be the response time for units with wire communications?” Yes, mostly. Other chapters of the study make it clear that at this stage of the war most communications, but not all, were wire. Radios were clearly something of a bottleneck for the Soviets. If you take a close look at the aid sent to the Soviets, mainly by the US, it includes vast quantities of radios. However, 90% of western aid arrived post Kursk, mostly during 1944. Clearly, the Soviets, as was the case with all armies, will have had systems in place using “line-men” to make sure lines were put down very quickly. However, I agree that in the attack, particularly pursuit, there must have been times when they could not match the pace of advance. One point that needs to be made is that the Soviets were as aware of the need to “manoeuvre” their artillery as any other army. That is to make sure the artillery moved forward with the advance. This too, is made clear in the study. If there was a problem, it will have been with getting the communications/surveying set-up. BTS’s idea of having fixed, telephone spotters in CMBB is a very realistic one, in my view. Jeff wrote, “With all the information Glantz, Gebhardt et al have been providing us with regarding the Red Army I have been wondering if the standard assessments of Red Artillery (ala TM 30-340 or Liddell Hart) are becoming dated. Were Soviet FO’s actually more capable of dealing with surprise targets in a reasonable amount of time (reasonable relative to US Army…Commonwealth Army or even the German Army for that matter). Any thoughts in this regard?” My view is yes, they were. But this is the case in all areas of the post-Kursk performance of the Red Army. It was always known that the Red Army in the second half of the war was very different from that in the first half. But now all the data is being released it is a bit of a shock to discover just how good they were. This has been discussed many times before on the forum, so I will not waste too much time on it. We will never all agree. Just one quick example says it all. In the mid-eighties, David Glantz, wrote something along these lines (referring to the “overall force ratio”) “ The force ratio, Soviet to German, during the second half of the war was not 7-8:1 as the Germans claimed, nor 2-3:1 as the Soviets claimed, but around 5:1.” David Glantz now admits, in his own books, that it was indeed, 2.7:1. The detail of the damage done to the Germans on the Eastern Front has been known since the end of the war. We now know that the Red Army that inflicted this damage was a lot smaller and more effective than the Germans liked to believe, for very understandable reasons. To address the point made by Andreas, Germanboy, that called fire artillery assets were often a higher echelon asset in the Red Army, I agree. However, in my view, this means called fire was not “always” available, or not available as uniformly as in other armies. But when it was I see no reason why the Soviets should have been especially incompetent in its use, during the second half of the war. Faced with the same problems, they will have developed similar solutions. Anyway. I believe, others will differ, that the quote I gave regarding the delay in called fire should be taken to mean what it appears to mean. They are not the figures for one small, unrepresentative battle but the overall average for a truly vast, strategic engagement. Until something better comes along, they are the figures I would use in CMBB. However, as always, it is what Steve and Charles think that matters. All the best, Kip.

Hi, One of many strengths in the approach of BTS, in modelling their games, is the energy they put into research. They get the details correct. Because of this there is a 90% chance they already know what follows. However, on the off chance that they have not come across the following source, here it is. “ 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. At this point it is worth mentioning that Soviet After Action Reports and studies where very honest and reliable. They do start with a brief sentence to the effect of “our great leader, Comrade Stalin” but after that the propaganda factor is nil. This is also the view of historians such as David Glantz. When you read them it is quite a shock just how honest they are. They really were written to be learnt from. I have always considered the reason for this to be the fact that the Soviets so very nearly lost. They realised fully, including Stalin, that the military should be free to use all their skills so as to insure victory. Anyway, whatever the reason, Soviet WW2 After Action Reports and “War Experiences”, written during the war, do give the impression of being “spin free”. Given the above, it can be taken that the delay for the Soviets in called fire, against TRPs, should be around two minutes. When called by a spotter against targets other than TRPs it should be around five minutes. This is for July 1943. Hugely looking forward to CMBB, All the best, Kip.

Hi, Steve and Charles clearly do wish to remain tight-lipped on the issue of a possible month for release. That is fair enough, it is their game. The conclusion I reach is that CMBB is roughly on schedule. If I recall things correctly, then this close to a scheduled release date Steve would normally have let us all know if was going to be a few months delay, if there was a major problem. My money is on November. Hugely looking forward to the game, BTS have produced the game of my dreams. I always knew someone would produce a Squad Leader type/scale game, but never expected anything as detailed in its realism as CM. All the best, Kip.

Hi, I fully understand and appreciate why the four at BTS do not wish to be drawn into long discussions regarding which features are in CMBB and why some are not. However, now that we are into the fall, a “current best guess” as to which month CMBB is most likely to be released would be great. I am sure all your fans understand our philosophy of “it is done when it is done”. None of us wish to rush you. Just an estimate of when you “may” be able to release the game, if things go well. November, December, January? Thanks for your time, All the best, Kip. Had to edit the post because I had mistakenly phrased the question rather sarcastically. Shows what can happen when one is in a rush. Anyway, I am on BTS side when it comes to them being careful about giving a date, but just a guess as to the month, with all due qualifications, would be great [ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ] [ 09-05-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

Hi, If I really come clean, my number one wish would be for the first game with the new CMII engine to be 1970s/ Arab Israeli Wars followed by the second game with the new engine, being a current OPFORs game. I believe they would, indeed, sell well. At this stage I would like to add that I have great sympathy with those that have very “niche” market wishes for the new engine. I would include the Early War in that definition. Strangely, it looks at though that one will happen, unless there is a change of plan. I too, have a very “niche” market wish, for a Napoleonic Wars game. It will not happen so I have excluded it. Having done NW Europe, soon the Eastern Front, the next logical step is post WW2. After that, back to NW Europe and the Eastern Front. All the best, Kip. PS. 1970s warfare, even current OPFORs warfare, is still very similar to WW2. In the case of current OPFOR warfare it is true that there are sensor packages that change things. However, a team of the competence of BTS could handle that standing on their heads. I am not talking about a game that attempts to predict 2015 warfare. Read the latest versions of US Army Field Manuals and the content could come straight out of WW2 Soviet Combat Regulations.

Hi, I am hugely looking forward to TacOps 4 and will be amongst the first in line. I did try the demo of TacOps 3 and thought it was a great game. However, I have a bit of an irrational aversion to playing tactical wargames by email, so I will wait for the new version before becoming a serious player. My question is, to what extent will there be a scenario and unit editor in version 4? The unit editor bit of my question is particularly important because TacOps is a current time-period game. If I could give just one example. I believe it is realistic to model AFVs of Russian origin with the Arena hard-kill system. This is a “missile defence” system for tanks and IFV that was demonstrated to the Germans in 1997 and does work as advertised. Although I am not claiming it is perfect. I believe it is realistic to model equipment that is fully mature and on the market to anyone with the inclination and money. Even if not yet deployed in any numbers. Anyway, you will have understood the point I am trying to make. In the case of current time-period games we do not all work to the same assumptions. I constantly read about new developments in Jane’s and other military journals. If there is not to be a unit editor there is a need for a very wide, and constantly changing, range of unit options. The assumptions the US military make, for example that there will never be a ban on DU ammunition, I do not necessarily agree with. I fully understand that we cannot all have everything we wish for, including me, All the best, Kip.