Michael Dorosh

Perhaps in the American example - not for the Germans, British or Americans. You are right to call me on using that kind of language and I do apologize - but I think your example really only pertains to Americans. If so, well stated. But it doesn't work for the others. I do know that Canadian infantry brigades (and by extension, I presume British as well) were quite often supported by armour, either from an armoured division or an independent armoured brigade (there were several of these) - but they were not part of the divisional assets. Edit for spelling - I will also add that a quick double check of German Infantry Handbook does not reveal any tanks in a German infantry division - of which some 294 were created during World War Two (many of which were not front line divisions). On the other hand, Panzer Colors and the Men at Arms book Panzer Divisions reveal three dozen or so panzer and panzergrenadier divisions, including GD, HG and the SS ones. Armour is a particularly sexy topic (especially with regards to CM!) and of course they are in many ways more fun to play than the infantry. Most major battles were also fought with armour - I just think it pays to bear in mind that many battles were in fact fought without armour support, and that if anyone is surprised or disappointed when asked to try a scenario out without tanks - they shouldn't be. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-23-2001).]

What about the Stuart? Or would that properly be on the armour list? I'm glad someone else caught the PzKpfw III variant SU 76i. What about Italian armour?

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the "problem" (if you see it that way) is the Quick Battles, even entire operations, are taken and played out of context. Many of the current issues we have discussed in the various threads - surrendering units, foreknowledge, 'purchase' of units - exist because we play CM in a very rigid timeline. We only have to maneuver a force in CM for 30 or 60 minute of "game time" and after that, start over with all new forces somewhere else. The short battles we play are a dichotomy - we demand equal play balance, and then determine that having equal forces is unrealistic! And of course, it is. Unfortunately, in the absence of a campaign - in which one needs to husband their resources for more than one or a handful of battles - there will always be "gamey" tactics (last turn rushes on enemy positions, for example), and in the end, unrealistic force compositions. Using a real life examples to illustrate another point - maps used by Allied troops in Italy were abominable. Dancocks discusses this in "D-Day Dodgers" - actually, incorrect maps were in some ways worse than having no maps at all. I do not agree totally with you, Steve, that the "majority" of battles were fought over completely unfamiliar terrain - but I am satisfied with the (multiple) answers you have given on this point over the past couple of days, and I do in the end agree with your decision to not let players see the terrain before selecting forces. The way I see it - it comes down to this - no matter how thorough a unit recce'd an enemy position, I think you are correct in assuming that the commander would still not have much leeway in assigning or obtaining assets appropriate to the terrain. In other words A commander's knowledge of the terrain he is to operate on is irrelevant to what forces he would have. So it is in Combat Mission. Let me reiterate - in real life, a commander might be given a detailed map, plus information gathered from local civilians, or Resistance forces, or perhaps he has even fought over the ground before - none of that matters to his force composition since a battalion commander was not in a position to make special requests, by and large - he went with what he was given. Now that I have had this explained to me, I don't see how the game in any way unrealistically portrays any of this. In fact, I would now be prepared to argue that in many cases the map shouldn't be seen until after Set Up has been complete, especially for meeting engagments. Meeting Engagements were NEVER planned! LOL! Am I wrong? So why would anybody recce the territory where a meeting engagement is about to take place? I am sort of serious here, but I hope it is recognized by all that the quick battles - especially the meeting engagements - are for FUN, and I hope we can leave it at that.

Has anyone actually bought Hasbro's Squad Leader? That gets my vote. More importantly, anyone want to buy a mint copy of Hasbro's Squad Leader? It's a ...um...classic that will be talked about for years and years to come. It has already generated much conversation. Yeah. That's it. Someone send me fifty dollars. And shipping.

I might have a near mint copy of Patton's Best I should get rid of. If you're interested, email me off forum. madorosh@home.com. As opposed to emailing me ON forum...doh....

Thanks very much.

How CAN we have a decent Army if people whine and cry about it, and then quit after a couple of years because it is not run to their satisfaction? I am reminded of Hawkeye's comments to Colonel Flagg - "If we had more men like you, we'd have less men like you." To answer the question, I'm a 14 year reservist - Calgary Highlanders. No great shakes - was a musician for a few years, then transferred to the orderly room - guess I have something in common with a couple of others here. I've experienced first hand what military drummers are like in Canada - would love to hear about the Swiss side of things. The Canadian Army today enjoys a wealth of new equipment - the stuff you don't hear about in the news - terrific new uniforms and personal equipment, the LAV III, and incidentally I was under the impression that Canadian frigates were the envy of other NATO naval services and seen as cutting edge when they were commissioned not too long ago. I note we just got our first British sub up and running too. I don't see the point in having a 100,000 man standing army just to attract the people who will likely gripe about anything they are given to train with anyway. I think everyone has noted from the tone of my posts that I feel a real soldier will soldier with what he is given to work with. The Canadian Army has never been blessed with wealths of great equipment - but they have always done the jobs asked of them, and done it well. That applies to military life now, it applies to Army life then, and it applies to the way we all handle our Combat Mission forces. End of sermon.

And would this infantry battalion commander simply pull a tank company out of his ass? No offence, man, but it sounds like you're the one with the problem understanding things. The question has been asked and answered. Let's please move on. Incidentally, I would like to know how many German battalions in World War Two actually fought (gasp) WITHOUT armour support. Panzer units made up what - 10% of the Army as a whole? Seems to me that entire divisions did their jobs with only small assault gun units, or no armour at all. Again, speaking from the Canadian perspective, there were many major engagements fought without armour at all. Second Canadian Division fought for a month in the area Hoogerheide-Kortevan-South Beveland-Walcheren Causeway and I do believe most of the actions were purely infantry.

I thought Fireflies deleted the BMG in order to increase ammo storage. Is this a true Firefly, or a Firefly turret mated to a Sherman body?

I played Up Front in high school; even conned some friends into playing. I had BANZAI as well. I knocked up a half-assed version of the game in Basic (no graphics, all text) - I think on a CoCo 2. I remember seeing Ace of Aces in game stores but never had the money to shell out on it. One of my faves was B-17 Queen of the Skies (now that you mention Dauntless). The solitaire game that consisted of you sitting there and rolling dice endlessly for hours and hours? I hear that Microprose's B-17 II is actually making Avalon Hill's board game treatment look GOOD! LOL! ------------------ <A HREF="http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm http://members.home.net/canuckmain/ http://highlanders.freehosting.net/" TARGET=_blank>http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm http://members.home.net/canuckmain/ http://highlanders.freehosting.net/</A>

That would entail pointing the muzzle of the weapon to the ground, so that the backblast didn't set his clothing on fire or scorch his back and legs. Since he's prone, pointing the weapon down would give the weapon an effective range of about 10 feet before the round struck the dirt.

IIRC, General Wainwright fully expected to be court martialled for his surrender of US troops at Corregidor, and was overwhelmed when he was not only exonerated, but invited to accept the Japanese surrender in 1945. One of the few classy things MacArthur did in his career, if you ask me.

Steve, will CM2 be a standalone, or will the improvements that the engine receives also be applicable to CM1? Will the 1941 vehicles in CM2 be able to be used in CM1? Has this been asked three million times?

OT here, but - I read with interest Herbert's book SOLDIER. I liked it; everyone else I know dismisses it as self serving garbage. Do you have an opinion. BTS did answer my comments about why we can't see the map before hand in another thread. I think this is what jshandorf is trying to say in his inimitable style. Patience, dude, these threads get bured pretty fast.

In theory, the PIAT recocked itself after firing, so you could reload it while prone. And yes, to fire the initial shot, the PIAT had to be manually cocked. There were instances where it failed to recock, in which case the firer had to take the measures described here. See Weapons and Warfare Volume 19

They are supposed to be good for removing minefields; seems like a waste of time to me in the span of an average scenario. Where are the flail tanks?

I thought commisars were banned from the front line in November 1942 and for the rest of the war. Their inclusion in early war scenarios would be an interesting bit of chrome - including executions of "cowards" in the front line (assuming these reports have not been greatly exaggerated and such shootings did take place commonly). Partisans may have had a "profound effect" on the outcome of the war (something I find highly debatable) but it was at a strategic and operational level - not a tactical one. If its a choice of releasing CM2 earlier without them, my vote is for an earlier release date. If BTS has learned anything, it's that people who want stuff bad enough can make their own mods. Green Russian conscripts can be put into civilian clothes pretty easily by all the mod artists out there.

Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Interesting points Mike, Im afraid I have't got any figures about POWs or anything but Im sure their proportion of captured to killed or injured was quite high esp. for Germany and USSR. The German's began surrendering in droves to the US Brits etc,especially after the breakout from Normandy and push into Germany. The war was lost and most did not see the point of wasting their lives needlessly. Troops also knew generally the enemy would give them clemency, particularly on the Wesetern Front. You are correct on all counts - however, I think the majority of prisoners were taken in mass surrenders, not in tactical situations we see in CM. Look at the numbers I gave for Canadians - of the 7000 men that actually became prisoners, 1600 of them were at Hong Kong and 1900 at Dieppe - over fifty percent, in other words, were not taken in tactical situations but rather in mass surrender. In other words, situations you would not encounter in Combat Mission. Western Allied troops surrendered relatively little after DDay because they were generally not the ones being attack, overrun etc. Most prisoners are usually captured whilst defending. Troops that are attacking can usually just slip back to friendly lines. Agreed. BTW Im not asking for a surrender option solely from a point of command much like a commander wouldn't neccessarily know what his units could tarket. It is an abstraction. I think to code in realistic AI for realistic surrender would be extremely difficult. When would the AI it know when a situation is hopeless, or whether breaking and running back behind lines has the best chance of staying alive. The average soldier (ignoring those gone berserk or mad etc) at all times is most concerned about surviving, they don't want to die. I just feel sorry for those poor CM soldiers that don't have the initiative to work out they're are going to certain death if they don't give up now. I want to help them live. I feel your pain! LOL! Part of being a commander is toughening yourself to the fact that your men will get killed in horrible ways and there is nothing you can do about it - except lead them as best you can. P.S. thanks for keeping this an interesting debate, and not becoming confrontational etc. I rather enjoyed it. I am inspired to do some more research into this - a fascinating topic. Thanks for indulging me.

Total Canadian Army casualties in World War Two were 74,374 (according to CP Stacey) which included 22,964 killed. Added to this are 6432 prisoners. Take away 1600 prisoners from this total for Hong Kong (take away 300 killed as well) and take away 900 killed from Dieppe (and 1900 prisoners) and you get: 73,174 total casualties, including 21,764 killed. On top of this, you have 3,632 prisoners. In other words, 4 percent of all casualties inflicted were prisoners of war. From a purely statistical standpoint, you may have a case. Interesting....unless there is something I'm missing? I've never been a big fan of statistics - the Highland Light Infantry of Canada never lost a single man missing or captured during WW II, yet saw a lot of action - at Buron alone, they suffered 262 casualties in a single day (out of a full strength of 800, including the support troops of the battalion). Were there other large surrenders of Canadian troops that would skew these numbers, I wonder?

We're starting to dance on the head of a pin here, so I will try to be brief. Good discussion, though. Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Thanks for posting back Mike! OK how often do your inf squads surrender in relation to the frequency they get mown down trying to break or rout? Is it a plausible ratio? Im just asking questions so you see where Im coming from. I could be very wrong maybe front line troops didn't surrender very regularly. Really not sure - just finished a self designed operation - I think there were about a dozen prisoners on each side out of about 500 troops per side employed, played over 8 battles. I can only speak from a Canadian perspective - and that seems accurate. I believe some Canadian battalions (such as the HLI) did not suffer a single man captured between D-Day and VE Day. I will try and track down more accurate figures for some other units; it would be interesting to see. Exactly! they only have one life, Im sure I would take the chance of surrendering rather than getting blown away by that mg or tank or whatever. In many cases the best chance of saying alive is surrendering. Look at the figures for POW's in WW2 and the Germans captured literally millions of Russians despite the abysmal way they were treated. British and US troops were generally treated superbly as far as POW treatment goes. Things like Malmedy were rare, that's why that event is infamous. The SS took British and US soldiers prisoner for the vast majority. A lot of SS doctrine said that the Brits were essentially misguided brothers anyway and blamed Churchill. You're speaking from hindsight again. Allied troops had no way of knowing how well they would be treated - not for sure - and in the wake of the massacre of Canadian troops in Normandy by 12th SS, for example, many probably would not willingly bet their life on it. I am sure both of us can find examples to defend our positions, though. Yes, both sides took prisoners - the issue is how willingly the combatants submitted themselves to capture. I submit that it was not all that common. As trite as it sounds to us today, there were men willing to die for what they believed in, rather than surrender. Especially on the German side of the fence. There were mass surrenders from Normandy on - but CM models firefights between willing combatants for the most part, and in the heat of such a battle, putting your rifle down and hands up is a very risky venture indeed. Most of the Japanese prisoners taken in WW II were physically disabled in some way, or knocked unconscious. Would be interesting to read a survey of circumstances surrounding Allied prisoners - I don't doubt that many surrendered consciously and willingly - I just don't think that overall it was any more common than we see in CM. Mike, if you were that MG guy about to be overrun by enemy troops, I very much doubt you would radio your CO saying 'do you think I should surrender'. But this is exactly what you advocate by asking for a "surrender button." As the game stands, your troops will not ask permission to surrender, nor are you allowed to tell them to surrender. Hitting such a button means that you, their commander, are giving permission for them to give up! If the situation was bad he'd probably say yes. Not even CO's want to see their men die needlessly. Regardless youd be panicking anyway, your priorities would be '**** the chain of command, if I don't surrender I'm dead'. Most soldiers value thier lives highly and would not waste them for the sake of radioing back or recieving an irrelevent command. I agree that few would ask for permission - but this is modelled in the game. Surrender is completely out of the hands of the player (ie commander). Battalion commanders who give permission for their troops to surrender would know that they are opening themselves to severe disciplinary action. Many would not care - one battalion CO in Normandy told the British generalship that his battalion needed to be disbanded because it was no good anymore. A pretty big admission for a soldier to make - he was a regular officer who made the Army a career. He did care more for his troops than himself, and so he had his battalion broken up for reinforcements. Max Hastings cites him, and I believe the suggestion is that he is the exception rather than the rule of high-minded officers. A good CO would rather lose a platoon of men rather than see defeatism affect a whole battalion. Cowardice was an offence punishable by death, and in those days, no one wanted to either a) be a coward be seen as encouraging cowardice Far easier to explain to your brigadier why you lost thirty men than to explain to him why you ordered them to surrender. You'd have to be a pretty hardened, callous <> to mow down surrendered troops just because someone has to guard them. Troops often took prisoners firstly because they had consciences and secondly (reverse psychology) they hoped that should they surrender themselves the enemy would show the same respect. Troops surrendered all the time. Agreed - I wasn't talking about murder, however, but you have to realize that offering a surrender in the heat of battle is always dicey at best. Check out The Face of Battle (the best book ever written) for an example of Aussie troops in WW II who refused to accept surrenders by troops who held out too long "Too late, chum" was the traditional comment for these men, who were gunned down even once they put their hands up). The example was not atypical. As for troops surrendering "all the time", I challenge you to provide proof of this - or to define "all the time." I will try and find some statistics myself, but I don't know of any sources off the top of my head. Perhaps someone else can jump in? I am sure eveyrone reading this now wants to poke out their eyes with picnic forks, so I will stop! [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 01-23-2001).]

Originally posted by Lordfluffers: BTS Secondly, troops surrounded, this is in reference to Mike's comment, would surrender. For example, a platoon is cut off, Instead of sitting their, until sometimes clears the area with grenades or charging out the building right past enemy tanks, troops, mg's etc. I'm sure they would think, '**** the game's up, We surrender'. CM models the surrender of immobile MGers well but currently other than this the only time soldiers surrender generally is when all the troops surrender and the game ends. I've had infantry squads surrender when they are reduced suffieciently, as well as platoon command groups. I've had plenty examples of when mg posts have been overrun, AT teams have run out of ammo and are defenceless to enemy units, teams have got stuck behind enemy lines or a tank has driven right up three metres in front of my troops and they've squirmed on the floor dieing one by one or tried to run off and got mown down. In such horrible odds I know I would raise my hands and hope my captor was in a good mood. Not if you were fighting the SS in Normandy you wouldn't. Or after Malmedy in the Bulge? There are plenty of other instances of No Quarter. We can look back 60 years later and pretend that the troops really weren't scared or fighting for their lives - hindsight is great and games like this tend to gloss over the true human emotions of the time - but those guys only had one life to live and they had no idea if their surrender would be accepted or not. There was simply no guarantee, and I suspect - though if any one has done serious research on this I would love to hear about it - that most troops were rather reluctant to give up. I've read enough first person accounts and interviews to know that the moment of decision - put your hands up or not - was always a painful one for just that reason. Check out John Ellis' The Sharp End or Whiting's Poor Bloody Infantry, I believe they talk about this a little bit. If troops are surrounded, the chances of them surrendering should be much higher. Are you sure the game isn't modelled so that this is true? How many times have you truly surrounded an enemy unit - that knew it was surrounded? Not trying to win the "suck up to BTS" award, just playing Devil's Advocate here. I personally would like a surrender command so that the MG post that held the hoardes at bay doesnt have to die horribly after being surrounded or bypassed or overrun. After such a heroic performance they deserve to be able to surrender. There are few instances where a commander has "permitted" his troops to surrender, except in mass surrenders that are out of the scope of CM. This serves no discernible purpose - surrenders are already built into the game and I repeat that it is not something a commander had any control over. Even if an isolated MG position could radio his commander and ask permission to surrender, it is doubtful that such permission would ever be granted. You may have a point about just how brave CM troops are, with regards to fighting to the last round, but my impression is that the game is pretty much realistically modelled from that point of view. I never thought I'd say this but CMBO doesn't take enough prisoners. P.S. BTS a captured crew is just as good as a dead one and a whole lot easier on the conscience! Actually, a dead enemy crew doesn't have to be guarded - providing guards represents a burden at the tactical level. In real life, walking wounded (which simply disappear from the map) were used to guard prisoners. Is this represented in the game? I just played a game where I ordered a prisoner unit to make its way to my rear. The info screen said they still had their pistols. Will my wounded "invisible" men escort these prisoners back?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: The 1st Canadian Radar Battery and the 100th British Radar Battery were fielded specifically for the purpose of silencing German mortars and Nebelwerfers. These units were equipped with anti-aircraft gun-laying GL MkIII radar systems which proved remarkably successful at suppressing German mortar fire in the Rhineland. Mobile Radar control posts were also fielded to assist medium bombers in suppressing German batteries and supporting ground troops, and these also proved remarkably successful. 18 percent of 1st Army Group were cannon-cockers, and a goodly number of them had the sole job of hitting German batteries, so I'd like to see counterbattery work implemented in some form at least. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not to mention the concepts of flash spotting, sound ranging, and as mentioned in another post, the collation of SHELREPS and MORREPS (shell and mortar reports which every unit did every single day). But Counter Battery fire has nothing to do with an infantry or armoured battalion in action and is way out of the scope of the game. What possible relevance could it have to an hour long battle as simulated by Combat Mission? The inclusion of a FOO in an order of battle assumes that his battery has not been incapacitated by counter-battery fire. To allow CB in the course of a single scenario would be rather damaging to play balance, and unrealistic. Infantry units could not count on counter-battery fire to provide them any help at the drop of a hat.

As I've said elsewhere TANKS DRAW FIRE. If you are an American GI and you spot enemy armour coming you are NOT going to go running to jump on the back of a Sherman because you know in your heart of hearts the damn thing is going to in all likelihood brew up - and even if not, it is going to draw a lot of nasty attention to it! So in all likelihood you are going to RUN the hell away from it!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crepitis: Just saw a programme on British TV on Sunday night about a group of ukrainians who fought for the SS under the name of the Galician Division (or something like that).At the end of the war 1200 of these men were allowed to enter the U.K.,where,apparently,many of them still live.This was despite the fact that their unit actively assisted the EinsatzGruppen in what was described in the programme as "pacifying" two Polish villages in retaliation for the killing by partisans of an SS officer.They were responsible for the murder of over 300 men,women and children (some as young as 3 years old)during this one incident alone.However the release of previously secret British Govt documents showed that the British were prepared to turn a blind eye to this in return for assistance from the units members in setting up covert groups to infiltrate Russian territory during the cold war!It seems political expediency beats morality hands-down any day of the week.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Check out the forum at www.feldgrau.com - apparently that show was very seriously flawed. My militia unit here in Canada had a long serving NCO who started in the fallschirmjaeger, fought at Crete, Monte Cassino, Gran Sasso Raid (so he said anyway), won the German Cross in Gold - and after the war joined the Legion, to fight at Dien Bien Phu. He came to Canada and served here for over a dozen years. Germany didn't want him back, so he sent his medals back and told (the government?) to stuff them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Måkjager: Anybody notice the div roundal/sign on the side of the Kettenkraftrad on the bridge in the town. Looks to me like the sign of the Hermann Göering Div ....as far as i know that unit did not fight in France...unless of course it belonged to the Div Training/Replacement unit ??? Any idea's ??? Regards Måkjager <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I imagine the private collector who owned it would not permit the movie makers to repaint it for the movie. I do know the HG Division had elements (from the training unit, I believe, as you mention) that fought in Holland in October part of KG Chill I think - but don't know if they were in France in June.