George MC

Excellent stuff guys! Just started designing the map - and doing some back ground research. Further comments still very useful though. Cheers fur noo George Mc

Thanks for the comments so far. They're all very useful. keep them coming in!

I was looking to put together an Eastern Front operation for CMBB. I've a few ideas regarding setting/forces/date etc (verging on 43 - 44 possibly covering some German counterattacks against assaulting Soviet units). I was curious as to what players look for in a good op e.g. number of battles, length of turns, size of force etc. What is the general feel out there? Do many people playe operations (looking at the number in the Scenario Depot it does appear as if most people prefer to play battle type scenarios rather than OPs)? Cheers fur any feedback!

Interesting debate. There are several relevant referneces to the above in the Nafziger publication 'German Panzer Tactics in WWII' by Charles Sharp. I'll quote some of the comments which refer to combat between JS II and the German Tiger (does not mention whether Tiger I or II). The first from a German Combat Report. "In many cases the the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long ranges (over 2000m) and also only when they themselves are in favourable positions on the edge of woods, villages, or on a ridge line." It then goes on to add - The enemy crews tend to evacuate their tanks immediately the first shot is fired at them." Other comments -"In addition, a firefight with Josef Stalin tanks should not be undertaken in less than platoon strength. Employment of single Tigers means their loss." In response to this report Heinz Guderian, the Inspector general of the Panzer Truppen added some comments. When discussing the tactics employed by Tiger units he was concerned that the crews believing in the invincibility of the Tiger were tending to disregard the principles of tank tactics. Quote -"Statements like "thick fur", "impregnable", and the "security" of the crews inside the Tigers ....... must be wiped out and forgotten." And in regard to the comments about engaging in firefights with JS tanks at platoon strength he added -"...three Tigers should not flee from five Josef Stalin tanks only because they cannot start the firefight at full platoon strength.... Many times tank-versus-tank combat will be directly decided , not by the number of tanks, but more often by superior combat tactics." To compare these German comments there are also Soviet combat reports published in the same book. The relevant one being that the JS tanks and Tigers tended to try and ambush each other. As this Soviet report states -"If there was a German tank out there in the open, not camouflaged, the IS approached, fired, and withdrew...Gunnery took the form of just one round (between the IS and the Tiger. A second round was just about ruled out. The firing accuracy of the Tiger and our IS was about identical."

Ye might be great at designing a/t ditches but I'm afraid yer small furry animal recognition is a bit wee bit off - Waesels have the tails (some long some short) stoats are the small sausage like things with - no tails

Hey I like that idea. Sounds cunning - so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel! Thanks for that idea Hans, I'm away to try that out ps I was trying with large craters set in soft ground - adding the mines will possibly make a visually appealing (realistic?) ditch plus with the bonus of slowing/stopping armour.

Aye cheers for that - I'll give it a shot

I'm looking to recreate an anti-tank ditch for a scenario I'm working on. I've tried using the terrain levels in the Editor. However I ended up creating something that although steep enough to stop tanks more resembled the Grand Canyon rather than an a/t ditch I have also tried using large shell holes but they only slow down attacking armour rather than stop it Anyone come up with a soltution to this that creates an a/t ditch that is both effective, reasonably realistic looking and not to obtrusive visually? :confused:

In reply to your questions. Aye. Aye and No. Corn husk brooms, in the right hands, can be very dangerous to lightly armoured SPWs. Blocks the air intakes or some such thing...

Just found this reference in a book called Fighting Techniques of a Panzergrenadier by Dr Matthew Hughes and Dr Chris Mann. On page 27 they mention that –“It was only at the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 that large numbers of Sdkz 251s became widely available enough to equip full battalions of panzergrenadiers within panzer divisions. Now, the Germans could experiment fighting directly from their half tracks.” Before we all go off one the paragraph continues – “Due to the heavy losses suffered amongst the half tracks when accompanying the tanks into the heart of the battle, the Germans fairly quickly resorted to debussing at least 400m or so in front of the enemies positions, even when using the Sdkfz 251. Nonetheless, under certain tactical conditions, the halftrack could provide a useful firing position.

Just found this reference in a book called Fighting Techniques of a Panzergrenadier by Dr Matthew Hughes and Dr Chris Mann. On page 27 they mention that –“It was only at the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 that large numbers of Sdkz 251s became widely available enough to equip full battalions of panzergrenadiers within panzer divisions. Now, the Germans could experiment fighting directly from their half tracks.” Before we all go off one the paragraph continues – “Due to the heavy losses suffered amongst the half tracks when accompanying the tanks into the heart of the battle, the Germans fairly quickly resorted to debussing at least 400m or so in front of the enemies positions, even when using the Sdkfz 251. Nonetheless, under certain tactical conditions, the halftrack could provide a useful firing position.

Keith Many thanks for the reply. I'd like to echo Han's comments - its an excellent job you do managing the Scenario Depot - and its a fantastic facility. I'll pop the updated scenario in an email to you shortly. Cheers fur noo George Mc

I'm looking to update a scenario I've posted at the scenario depot. whats the best way to do this - update the text and email the new (modified)scenario or do I have to resubmit the whole scenario including text? Cheers!

I've just posted a scenario at the Scenario Depot - titled TBP No1 attack against PAK - its not an armour Vs armour action, but it does allow you to practice fire and movemnt principles with your armour (its Germans attacking a Soviet PAK front).

I'd take a look at the Pzgs and SPWs post at the CMBB forum.....

Excellant post mate and well laid out. Makes a very valid point. I've been reading through some Eastern Front stuff and have found a few refernces to where the SPWs were used in a more aggressive way. I don't have the time at the moment to collate this but it struck me that the refernces I have found were around the 42 - 43 period. Both involved heavy armoured and art support, against little A/T defence. My thoughts were that perhaps as the German army became less able to conduct massive well supported movement offensives (or as the enemy became more adept at countering such attacks) that using SPWs in a more aggressive role became a high risk tactic, such that it was unjustifiable and therefore the role of the SPW did indeed become more that of a cross country armoured taxi - gets you from A - B (B being the attack assemby area) therafter the attack went in making best use, as you described in the above post, stealth and the terrain.

The question you are really asking is "how often was the tactical situation favourable". What is the answer? </font>

The Soviets used this tactic a great deal - with correspondingly heavy casualties. But also very effective as you describe. In the film 'Stalingrad' theres a scene where the germans fight of a tank borne infantry assualt which gives you a very graphic view of what such an event may have looked like. I'm in the process of testing a new scenario which involves a soviet tank assault with tank-descent infantry. So far they overun the German defensive positions very effectively - although they take heavy casualties. Of all the jobs you could have in WWII a Soviet tank descent infantryman must have had the least career prospects. Brave men...

Interesting comments guys. It looks like the main points coming through are 1/ SPWs/armoured halftracks are not tanks. Given their weak armour (which is only protection against LMG and rifle fire) they are extremely vulnerable to every other a/t asset from ATRs/grenades etc through to a/t guns. 2/ They are expensive in victory points when killed, and they die easily! I must admit to liking these weakly armoured, easily killed vehicles. For me the main advantage is their cross-country ability. They allow the player an opportunity to very quickly move infantry into a favourable assault position (as Tigrii states in his post) plus allowing them to keep close contact with armoured assets and hence allow the player to use them for mutual support. Given their easily killed status they do need very careful overwatch, need to make good use of cover e.g. staying out of LOS as much as, making short dashes from one bit of cover to the next etc more so than relatively more armoured tanks. When using SPW borne troops for assaulting an enemy position then this attack needs careful prep and excellent overwatch pretty much so that when the attack goes in its pretty much a mopping up operation (a strange euphemism for a pretty murderous business). If not then yeah the halftracks are creamed and the troops cut down as soon as they disembark (I learned this one very early on ) This brings me to the historical side of this discussion. The above comments made by yourselves tend to echo contemporary German doctrine for the use of SPWs. A point I have seen made a lot is that historically SPWs tended to be just used as armoured taxis. If that is so why do the training manuals emphasis fighting from the SPW as much as possible in attacks (given favorable tactical conditions)? I have also read several accounts which tend to suggest that attacks went in with the troops mounted up (it is obvious from the account there was very little a/t danger which I suppose reinforces several of the points made earlier). This does suggest that historically, given favourable tactical conditions, attacks did go in with troops mounted up in the SPWs. Perhaps a reason why armoured Pzg units tend to pack a lot of mounted fire power? As the war went on and the Germans increasingly found themselves fighting defensive actions it appears that generally SPW units were used as part of a mobile battle group to counter attack (in cooperation with tanks) any enemy penetrations. Here it is their cross country ability and speed of deployment so they can rapidly move from one hot spot to another that makes them valuable. I’m interested if anyone has any historical examples of what did happen (sources would be great as well)?

I guess that behaviour, the forward and backward type stuff, is pretty indicative of how the AI 'armour' reacts when it comes under destructive fire. I would have though a human opponent would have stopped some SPWs in cover and put them on overwatch - the MGs on the SPWs can put down some pretty heavy covering fire - enough to have suppressed your HMGs I would ahve thought. On the other hand the armour on the SPWs is not that great. I read in otto carius's book 'Tigers in the Mud' that his unit had an SPW they were supposed to use for recce missions. Carius states' he did not like to use it as the armour was useless (I guess if you drove around in a Tiger all the time not much would have come close )and it had a tendency to throw tracks and immobilise itself. Back to your point at least your stopping the Hilerite Hordes in their tracks - literally

I was curious as to how players use SPW (armoured carrier) borne infantry - I suppose the most common example would be armoured German panzergrenadiers. My own preference is to use the mobilty of the SPW borne troops to get them as close to their fighting position as possible (assuming good overwatch/armoured support etc and limited or non existant a/t defence). If I know there is only infantry oppostion, with minimal or no a/t support I will keep them in the SPWs until the very last minute then assault from there (using the heavy weapons associated with these units e.g the SPWs Mgs, Mortars, armoured support etc to suppress/overwatch). From a historical perspective I've read a lot of accounts where the carriers are used simply as x-country transport where the troops are carried close to the combat zone then fight as infantry, to a situation where the attack was carried out mounted up in the SPWs (in one instance, a Das Reich unit, it went very wrong as they ran into hidden a/t guns). I realise there are no hard and fast rules I'm just curious as to what others do:)

I've been following this discussion with interest. I just received a copy of the new Nafziger publication "The German Tank Platoon in WWII: It's Training and Employment in Battle". It has some scenarios which were used in training tank crews/platoon leaders in combat tactics. Anyways the discussion thread and one of the scenarios seem to go hand in hand. So I've built a wee scenario for budding PzIVH company commanders to play with . I've just posted it on the scenario depot so give it a few days for Keith to set it up. Its on the CMBB Battle section, titled "TBP No1 Attack against PAK". Not the most original title in the world. I'd appreciate any feedback on it if you decide to play it.

Hi Spookster This post is not related to the topic, just saw yer name on the forum. Thanks for your comments re my scenario "Attack on village of Fedwar"" at the Scenario depot. I've been trying to post a reply but I seem to be having problems accessing my scenarios. If you care to email me I'll drop you a line with my comments as it may take a while to sort out the problem at the scenario Depot. Yer comments were very constructive so thanks for taking the time to post them . Cheers fur noo George Mc

Thanks for comments - great to hear. I was'nt aware that you could see how many times the scenario had been downloaded. So it was good to see they have had some downloads. I suppose I'm looking for feedback as to whether the scenarios are hitting the mark e.g. accuracy, playability etc. All useful stuff for keeping on improving the general setup and design of scenarios i produce. Looking at other posts the lack of feedback does appear to tune up other designers so guess I'll just have to accept it comes with the territory. Thanks for taking the time to post your positive comments

Aaah! Never make assumptions eh? I did'nt know that. Now I'm a happy wiser bunny! Thanks mate for the top tip.