Sgt Joch

The reason behind the switch from MG34 to MG42 was pure economics. The MG 42 was a cheaper, easier to produce copy. It was not an improvement and apparently was less accurate and less durable than the MG34.

One thing to remember is that LMG/HMG were generally not fired at their maximum ROF. Yes, a LMG 42 could fire at 1200 rpm, but at that rate, chances of a jam increase exponentially. In practice, they generally used a ROF of 300-400 RPM and fired in 2-3 second bursts. Same with the Vickers HMG, it could fire at up to 1,000 RPM and certain WW1 Allied pilots did go into missions with the ROF cranked that high. The U.S. air service even specified a permissible 800 rpm ROF on its Vickers in 1918. Again the issue was high ROF=increased jam rate. In actual practice, there was not a huge difference between the ROF of the various LMG/HMGs.

Actually the Germans did try to disrupt fuel flow by air attacks, discussed on pp. 208-209 of the book I linked previously and pp. 667-668 of Cole's book on the Ardennes, i.e.air attacks on the pipeline terminal at Coubert, Third Army fuel decanting point at Mancieulles, V-1 attack on the fuel reserve depot in Liège. 900,000 gallons were lost to fires started by German air attacks on two succesive nights, 400,000 gallons were lost as a result of the V-1 attacks on the Liège depot on Dec. 17 (note: not clear if that is separate or should be included in the 900,000?). Apparently, Peiper's supply officer had a map of all U.S. POL installations, although it is not mentioned if the Germans had this info before the offensive or if it was captured by Peiper during the offensive. There is a wealth of useful info in the U.S. official histories. I am still digging my way through them.

In the west front, fueling in the field was done with 5 gallon "Jerrycans". The Germans invented it, the British and American copied it. Trucks would deliver the cans to the combat units. The three armies used the same method in 44-45, although the Germans also used horse drawn wagons for delivery. In terms of the fuel delivery system, in France, tankers would ship the gas to ports. It would then be shipped by pipeline/train cars and/or tanker trucks to U.S. Army depots. In December 44, the main ones were at Liège for First Army and Verdun for Third Army. The gasoline would be stored in fuel storage tanks. The Jerrycans would be filled at the depots and delivered to the combat units. more info here at pp. 193-209: http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/007/7-3-1/index.html No idea on what the Russians were doing, but I presume it was the same.

As far as I can see units that were low of fuel just did not go into combat. SOP in German units, if they were low of fuel, seems to have been to make sure some sub-unit was fully fueled to continue the advance while the main body waited. The easiest way to simulate fuel shortages in CM is to limit the number of vehicles that actually show up. Re-reading on the Battle in Cole, despite an increasingly difficult situation, the Germans had more than enough fuel. On Dec. 16, OB West had reserves of 4,680,000 gallons, although most was in dumps close to the Rhine. Each armored division had enough fuel to power all its vehicles an estimated 90-100 miles, although the rough terrain/bad weather cut that to 45-50 miles in reality. Estimated fuel consumption for the Ardennes force was 260,000 gallons per day. although it reached a high of 500,000 gallons (2,000 cubic meters) on Dec. 18. The Germans also captured fuel on the way, Peiper alone captured 100,000 gallons. The problem was not an absolute lack of fuel, but getting it to the forward units over the poor road net in bad weather and after the weather cleared up, Allied Tac Air made daylight travel very hazardous. To compare, U.S. Army figures on Dec. 16 were: Third Army 14,351 tons (3,922,174 gallons), First Army 14,220 tons (3,896,280 gallons), Ninth Army 15,574 tons (4,239, 876 gallons). This includes amounts held by the units as well as in reserve. However, U.S. units used a lot more fuel and this amount was only enough for about 8-12 days of combat operations, i.e. Third Army: 8.8 days, First Army: 7 days, Ninth Army: 12.8 days. In the rear as Army reserves was also an additional amount of 46, 391 tons (12,711,134 gallons) and another amount of 68,771 tons (18,842,254 gallons) as Theater reserves for a grand total of 43,611,718 gallons.

"Fat Leonard" is a very juicy scandal, really looking forward to the movie.

The Russian Navy is not the only one with a corruption problem, up to 30 U.S.N. admirals are under investigation in the "Fat Leonard" bribery/corruption scandal. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2016/05/27/fat-leonard/

This is getting interesting. So what is the best current open source guess on the number of operational UKR tanks? WIKI says 600 T64 including 100 Bulats and 10 Oplots.

no, it gets thrown into the mix, much like a typical German army 1944 unit with a mix of veterans and green rookies is rated as "regular". CM is already flexible enough to accommodate these variables by playing with experience, morale and leadership.

Ikalugin, nice to see you back posting. I would not put much stock in what CSIS posts on its open website. That is for public consumption and generally reflects the Government's publicly stated policy. The real intelligence estimates are confidential.

Steve, did you look at the links I posted? https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/05/31/new-syrian-army-americas-tip-spear-isis-syrian-desert/ This is not your run of the mill rebel group. A cadre of SOFs with foreign, i.e. not Syrian troops? 1st class equipment including ATGM equipped Hummers, U.S. 120 mm mortars? U.S. Air and artillery support? The "New Syrian Army" is a CIA paramilitary unit allowing the US to have troops fighting ISIS while maintaining the fiction that it does not have "boots on the ground". No wonder the U.S. scrambled jets to intercept. https://sofrep.com/44371/cia-funded-sof-trained-new-syrian-army-hits-ground/ Attacking the NSA is as close as you can get to attacking a U.S. military unit while maintaining plausible deniability. So back to my original question, why would the Russians attack THAT unit and why NOW? Obviously the Russians are sending a message, but what has happened recently that would cause such a strong reaction?

fixed!

Hmm, interesting details can be found if you google. The "U.S. backed Rebels" at Al Tanf are the New Syrian Army, one of the last CIA/Pentagon trained and equipped Rebel group still active in Syria. Apparently, British, Jordanian and/or U.S. special forces are also embedded with the group. Not sure why the Russians would target them, the ostensible reason seems to be that some Islamic Rebel Groups affiliated with Al Qaeda are also with the NSA, but I cannot find independent verification of that. Bellingcat has a nice overview of NSA equipment. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2016/05/31/new-syrian-army-americas-tip-spear-isis-syrian-desert/ https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/brazen-russian-gambit-syria

according to The Aviationist, there are conflicting reports as to what happened, including whether there was an intercept at all.. https://theaviationist.com/2016/06/20/u-s-fa-18-hornets-almost-clashed-with-russian-fighter-bombers-over-syria/ "Indeed, as reported by the CNN, U.S. F/A-18s were somehow close to engage Russian Sukhois (still not clear whether Su-34s or Su-24s as there are conflicting reports on the type of aircraft involved) that bombed U.S.-backed Syrian rebels near the Jordan border. (...) So, it looks like the American Hornets were pretty close to intercepting the Sukhois (in other reports they were able to visually ID the Russians), tried to contact the Russian planes as these carried out an air strike, but these simply ignored the calls on a previously agreed radio frequency."

No, it is a perfectly legitimate topic and argument on a "war gaming" forum. Civilian deaths are always a tragedy, but they are not more tragic because they occurred 2 years ago, instead of 50 years ago. There have been 2,500 civilian deaths in the "Donbas war", tragic yes, but it still means that it is a very minor conflict even by the standards of the 21st century. At the risk of repeating myself: Iraq (2003-11) 100,000+ civilians killed, including 10-15,000 estimated killed by coalition forces; Afghanistan (2001-14) 90,000+ civilians killed including 5,000 estimated killed by coalition forces. U.S. Drones have also killed at least 1,000 civilians. Now if you are a civilian, is it worse to be killed by the Russians for what they perceive to be their national interest or by the Americans for what they perceive to be their national interest? I think a civilian would just say: "Hey, just don't kill me!". p.s. - since it seems I always have to repeat it, No, I do not condone what the Russians are doing in Ukraine just like I thought the invasion of Iraq was a dumb idea.

A noble sentiment to be sure. Unfortunately civilians die in wars all the time. I doubt the women and children incinerated at Dresden or Hiroshima or the passengers of Iran Air 655 suffered any less. What is happening in the Donbass is a tragedy, but on the canvas of the past century, it is a very minor conflict. 100,000+ civilians died in Iraq, 100,000+ have died in Syria, even the South Sudan civil war which no one ever talks about has resulted in at least 50,000+ civilian deaths.

Am playing through this one, great scenario, interesting tactical situation.

Not sure why you are so surprised. How is that any different from the last 5,000 years of human history? "international law" has always been a malleable concept and the States interpret it as it suits their national interest. Look at the U.S. decision to invade Iraq or what is happening right now in the South China Sea with the Chinese unilaterally taking over territory.

As others have noted, due to intermarriage, conversions, name changes and the large jewish population in eastern europe, many family names with Jewish origins spread in Germany. "Rosen", "Rosenbaum", "Rosenberg", "Rossman", "Roth", "Sachs", "Saar", "Salman", "Schafer" all have German-jewish origins, but you can also find WW2 U-Boat commanders with those names on U-Boat.net. "Model" as in Field Marshal Walter Model also has jewish origins.

The Germans captured a lot of vehicles during the offensive.

On victims, there are a lot of high numbers floating around, usually by people with a political agenda. Michael Ellman did a study of all available sources about 10 years ago and came up with a figure of 12 million direct victims of political repression 1921-1953, jailed or deported, of which 3-3.5 million were killed or died in custody.

The last WW2 veteran I knew was my wife's uncle who passed away last year. He served with the Canadian Army, landed in Normandy on "D+9" as he said and served until VE day. As far as I know, he never owned a computer or played a computer game. I tried to get him to discuss his experiences, but like a lot of veterans, he did not talk about the war. My grandfather's brother served in the RAF. He was a navigator in a bomber that got shot down over Burma. He spent weeks walking through the jungle back to Allied lines. Even though I knew him well, I only found out the story from his daughter after he died and even she only knew the basic story.

The U.S. campaign "Courage and Conquer" is about the advance by Patton's Third Army (CCR, 4th Armored Division) to breakthrough and link up with the forces in Bastogne. A map to cover Bastogne and the U.S. defensive lines would be huge, roughly 8x8 km.

Irzyk's account is a bit confusing since he starts on dec. 22nd when CCB started its drive north. There were three actions on the map on dec. 23rd. 1. before dawn, U.S. scout forces ran into German outposts, there was a brisk skirmish and they withdrew. It is not clear how far they reached, it seems either the last southern ridge before the village or the outskirts of the village itself; 2. At this point, CCB commander decided they needed to do a full scale conventional assault on the village, including preliminary air strikes and artillery barrage. That took most of the day since the attack itself only started rolling at 1:30 p.m.. This is the action shown in "Round One". 3. CCB captured Chaumont and were in the village at 4 p.m. Around that time, the German counterattack started, that is "Round Two". One interesting point about "Round Two" is why was Allied TacAir completely absent? Dec. 23rd was a clear day and Allied planes had been in action all day. As you can see on that day in the ardennes, the sun sets around 4:30 p.m. and Allied aircraft were already racing back to land before dark, so CCB was on its own.