SgtMuhammed

The Stugs fall into the category of assault guns. They were intended to give infantry units the muscle to take out enemy implacements. It was only later that they began to see action as tank killers, especially after Germany began searching for cheap chassis to mount effective at guns for the Eastern Front.

No, sometimes it is the only way to get an intellegent conversation. Good site, thanks.

The simple fact is that Britan and France were in a worst position to help Finland than they were to help Poland. At least in the case of Poland the could have attacked Germany along the Rhine. In order to help Finland they would have had to either try to force an expedition into the Baltic or around the Scandinavian peninsula to the north. Neither scenario held much chance of success given that they were already at war with Germany (The RAF was already bombing German military instaliations). A declaration of war on the USSR by France and England might have resulted in a temporary strengthening of German Soviet relations, at least until things settled down in the West, but Barbarossa would still have come. What would have been a very real possibility is that Stalin would never have become one of the Allies and would instead have continued to fight on his own. Remember, Stalingrad came BEFORE we began to send help on a massive scale. There would have been no post war agreements on how to divide the German Empire and the Russians would have just blitzed as far as they could and claimed whatever they took as their own. One of the driving forces behind the Normandy invasion was the need to get troops on the continent to enforce the postwar agreements. As for Krupp and the rest, Hitler courted the German industrialists to fund his rebuilding programs. His major incentive to them was that he wasn't going to take their property as the communists would have. In addition he quashed what opposition the German labor unions might have given both the regiem and the industrialists. Capitalism is about profits and Hitler was good for profits.

Welcome to something new and wonderful. Quick tip: the tank rush does not work here!

The main cause of German failure can be traced directly back to Hitler. Hitler felt that Germany lost WWI because of collapse back home (the famous "Stab in the back."). This caused him to seek a better way of fighting than those of the Great War. The "Blitzkrieg" seemed to offer that better way. Unfortunatly for Hitler (and fortunatly for the rest of us) the concept of lighting war became not only military but political doctrine as well. The German economy was not mobilized till about the middle of '42. Nearly all research into strategic programs was discontinued (heavy bombers being the most obvious) as unnecessary. Conquered nations were to by looted for usable supplies and then governed as Germany saw fit. This all translated into a Wehrmacht that was high powered but short ranged. It was the only one of the major powers to rely as heavily as it did on horses for transport. For all its percieved technological prowes it was in actuallity the most backwards of all the armies from an overall point of view. While it had some standout weapons, most of its systems were inferior to their allied counterparts. German troops prefered the superiour Russian submachineguns and came nowhere near matching the Russian cold weather equipment. German radar was so inferior to British and American sets that the Germans underestimated the capabilities of the Allied units for the entire war. The American M1 Garand was the best rifle of the war and the Germans were amazed by our field radios. Most important of all the Germans never designed an easily manufactured gp truck to compare with the American duce and a half. It was these trucks that carried the Allied armies and all their supplies to victory. Conversly it was the lack of them that not only hampered but destroyed any hope that the Germans had of supplying their invading armies. This lack of motor transport effected the German war effort at all levels by depriving troops of mobility (during the Battle of the Bulge, 2 Panzer was forced to mount one of its PzGren Bns on bikes because of lack of transport) and depriving its armies of supplies. This lack came directly from Hitler's unwillingness to mobilized the country behind the war effort. As to the Germans learning from the Russians you have to look at the track record. Up until Kursk the Russians had never stopped the Germans from achieving a breakthrough into the operational zone. In other words, while they had stopped them from siezing the strategic objectives (Leningrad, Moscow, etc...) the Germans had always broken through the initial Soviet lines. This gave the Germans little incentive to change their methodes. After Kursk they lacked the power to launch anymore massive offensives and so again there was no opportunity to change their methodes. In the end it was only the size of the Soviet Union that saved it from defeat. If the Soviet capital were Minsk or Kiev the Soviets would have been defeated. As it was they had kind of a natural defense in depth as it took so long for the Germans to get to their objectives that the Soviets could afford to make dissasterous mistakes without capitulating. The limits of the Soviet command structure and training prevented any true mirroring of German tactics but their ability to turn their entire manufacturing base to the production of weaponry (because we were making all their other supplies) insured that they could quickly build up massive numbers needed to be successful at what they did learn from the Germans. No one ever called Soviet tactics subtle but they were very effective. One last thing. In the discussions of the developement of armored tactics one should look up the contributions of General Percy Hobart. His work, while largely ignored by his own government in Britan, was very influencial in Germany. Gudarian claimed to be greatly influenced by Hobart's theories. You may know Hobart best as the commander of the British 79th Armored Division better known as "Hobart's Funnies." Also about the tactical use of Airborne troops, I think Salerno was about as close as you can get to a tactical drop.

Just a quick note about crews unbuttoning. It is doctrine for crews to unbutton unless they are actually being fired upon. Modern tanks such as the M1 have a half cocked position on the commanders hatch to allow them to look out while retaining some protection but it is still normal practice for them to ride with at least their head and shoulders sticking out of the turret. In the Israeli army the tank commander is considered to be the most dangerous job in the service. Those guys almost never button up. This doctrine was also followed by German crews in WWII as well as today. I spent 10 years fighting with and against American and Nato armor as both a line grunt and an OPFOR BMP commander and can tell you from experience that most crews will fight unbuttoned if given the choice.

Ok, sorry the first posting was a little general. I am running XP on a PIII 550mhz with 256 meg ram and nvidia RIVA TNT2 Mach64. I have the U.S. version which I ordered about mid November. Anyway I started playing with the program and the disk after reading the install problems. I was getting multiple CRC errors and unexpected end of archive errors. I have cleaned the disk multiple times as well as my cd-rom. I now have all the textures although I still get multiple CRC and end of archive errors when it reaches the last portion of the .wav files (above the 08000 range) and all of the scenarios. I have downloaded all the patch files as well as the 101 patch and can now play the game but I do notice some funky sounds while playing. The graphics all seem to be ok though. I tried copying the disk and then installing from my hard drive but I still get the CRC errors. Could there be some residue on the disk? I bought a copy for a friend and it also messes up at the same point although my disk was having trouble much earlier before I cleaned it. Both disks look ok but one does seem to have some slight ripples along the outer 1/4 inch of the disk. I haven't tried installing it on a different computer so it could be my machine that is at fault. I am going to try it on my friend's machine and will let you know the results. By the way yes it was a Christmas present. The wife made me order it myself and then she wrapped it and put it under the tree. I have both of the CM games now and love them. Looks like you are going to make me upgrade my processor though. [ December 26, 2002, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Sgtgoody ]

Just installed BB and ended up with no wavs or scenarios. In addition all the infantry are just white figures with faces. Guns and tanks show up fine as do buildings and most terrain. There are blank spots in the terrain and no sound. I have downloaded the patch as well as the files from the installation forum and so I now have all the scenarios but still no sound and funky graphics. The demo ran perfectly. Anyone have any ideas?