Sgt Joch

you really have no clue what I am talking about, do you? I can suggest some very basic material on RL defensive positions, if you wish.

There may need to be some tweaking, but first we have to establish a baseline of what is the average spotting distance of fighting positions. If you look at field manuals, you see that infantrymen go to great length to hide their positions, including making them nearly invisible from the enemy's line of advance, relying instead on 'keyholing" and interlocking fields of fire from other positions to cover their front, i.e.: If you setup foxholes in game using the same principles, they are much harder to spot.

man, is there a full moon out again...

It don't see why it has to be an either/or proposition. CMx1 and CMx2 are both good systems. Each has its own strengths/weaknesses. You can like/play either or both. There is more than enough room in the CM tent for both CMx1 and CMx2 players.

yes, very near future, Ukraine, US v. Russia. It will be more of a conventional conflict.

I would not let him near you guys until it is finished and shipped.

Normal Dude did a ton (literally) of work on CMFI.

57 first "official" wargame was AH's "Bismarck" back in 1971-72, although I had marathon RISK games with friends and family for years before.

The 15% was only at a particular point in time. As I recall, at one point in mid-42, the War Department determined that only 15% of global U.S. resources were allocated to the PTO, but that was quickly ramped up to a more reasonable level.

I have a postwar Parker-Hale 30-06 built in the 50s. A British Hunting Rifle which follows the Kar 98 design and uses the Mauser Bolt. Its my favorite, utterly reliable, even when a bit dirty, very accurate, but yes, because of the heavy Mauser bolt, it is difficult to fire rapidly since the Bolt has to be inserted with some authority. However, from what I had read, the Mauser Bolt was designed for long term reliability out in the field rather than rapid ROF.

Firearms always involve trade-offs. The advantage of a semi-auto over a bolt-action is higher ROF. However, a bolt-action is more accurate at long range because of the closer tolerances. A semi-auto needs a looser fit between bullet and chamber to work properly. A bolt-action is also more reliable and less prone to jamming since it has a simple mechanism and the soldier pushes the round into the chamber. The semi-auto has a more complex loading mechanism, with more parts that can fail and is inherently more likely to jam, especially if it is dusty, has been dropped in the mud or its owner is not able to clean it as often as he should, all RL issues out in the field. Armies being a conservative bunch, I presume they all decided to stick with the tried and true bolt-action rifles which had proven themselves in the trench warfare of WW1 and let the Yanks be the Guinea Pigs.

JasonC summarizes the problem well (for the Germans that is ). I also saw a report in Panzertruppen, vol 2. about a unit of 14 Tiger I's which drove from Rome to Anzio and back in may 1944 (about 120 km total) and lost 12 tanks to complete mechanical breakdown. That is basically one breakdown every 10 km on dry roads.

No German officer was prosecuted for the conduct of the war per se, unless they deliberately killed prisoners or civilians. Field Marshal Milch (Luftwaffe), in charge of aircraft production for a big chunk of the war, was sent to jail for his role in the slave labor program. General Lohr (Luftwaffe), was executed for his role in the mass murder of civilians during anti-partisan operations in Yugoslavia. Lt. Eck, commander of U-852, was executed for ordering the killing of survivors of the Peleus. Donitz was not prosecuted for his role in the Battle of the Atlantic, mostly because all the American and British admirals who fought against him were of the opinion that he fought a tough but clean war. Some were even willing to testify on his behalf. In fact, in the immediate postwar period, no one saw unrestricted submarine warfare or strategic bombing of cities as a war crime, unless someone stepped over the line like Eck. ps - BTW, what is happening at Wikipedia? Every entry dealing with German WW2 war crimes is slanted to minimise German actions and maximise potential Allied crimes, almost like right wing fanatics are using Wikipedia for political purposes... ps2 - "Real" history books show that: Lohr was not convicted for the Bombing of Belgrade; Eck's order to "shoot survivors" was clear; Mush Morton's actions caused a malaise throughout the U.S. submarine service, but fortunately he died thereby solving the problem; etc.

The Few Good men and Band of Brothers are also good sites and always looking for new members: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/ http://webandofbrothers.de/index.htm

I stand corrected.

Another issue that comes up is the fact that the primary object in any war is to win and any country, particularly a Democracy, always has to decide how far they are willing to compromise their ideals to win a particular war. The bomber offensive against Germany was driven in large part by geopolitical considerations. From June 1941 to June 1944, the Soviets were doing the bulk of the fighting (and the dying) against the Germans. Few German forces were tied up fighting US/UK troops even after the invasion of Italy. Even after D-Day, 2/3rds of German forces were on the Russian Front. Keeping the Russians in the war and fighting the Germans was the only way to win the war. From June 1941 forward, Stalin was screaming for a second front in the West to relieve pressure on his forces. The only way the US/UK could strike directly at Germany and draw off the Luftwaffe and/or damage the German War effort was through the Bomber offensive. The choice of targets however was driven largely by technological limitations. RAF night bombing had trouble hitting anything more precise than a city center. US daylight bombing had trouble hitting anything more precise than a factory complex, most of which were located in cities. Under both scenarios, it was clear that civilians, mostly Germans but also from occupied countries were going to die. Distasteful yes, but what was the alternative? What were Roosevelt and Churchill supposed to say to Stalin? : "Sorry Joseph, a) we know millions of your soldiers have been dying fighting the Nazis, but we don't want to risk thousands of our fight crews on high risk missions over Germany and even though the Nazis have killed millions of your innocent civilians and torched your country, we don't want to get our own hands dirty and risk killing innocent German civilians, even though it may shorten the War!" What would Stalin have said? : "You guys are idots, maybe I will cut a separate deal with Adolph!" perhaps? In the words of that wise sage: http://youtu.be/g6GuEswXOXo

The SU-152 was supposedly able to rip the turrets off Tiger tanks with its 152 mm gun using HE shells.

which ones? very early in the war, the Allies decided they would fight a production/material attrition war since that was the kind of war they were garanteed to win. By 1944, the Allies had achieved overwhelming material superiority in all areas and had more ships, aircraft, tanks, artillery, ammo, etc. than they needed and more than enough to build up a substantial cushion of replacement weapons. Assuming the Allies had decided to forgo building a strategic Bomber force, it would not strengthen their land forces which were already at 100% TOE in terms of equipment for most of 44-45. However, it would strengthen the Germans who would have had more fighter planes, more and better experienced pilots, more oil/gas, more men, weapons and ammo at the front; All valuable resources which the Germans had lost or were tied down in the air defense of the Reich.

A common misconception. With the targeting systems, flight profile and ordnance used by the heavies in 1945, it was very hard to hit specific targets even during the day. The theory was that if you dropped enough bombs, at least some would hit the target. The charts JonS posted earlier show this clearly. At night, it was even worse, it would have been impossible for the RAF to target a bridge at night. So the fact that the bridge was not targeted means exactly nothing.

good grief, that old canard again? Goebbels must be happy. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/death-toll-debate-how-many-died-in-the-bombing-of-dresden-a-581992.html

I am reminded of an anecdote told by a U.S. fighter pilot who flew ground attack missions in Normandy. One day, he came upon a German truck convoy in broad daylight and as he attacked, he could see his MG rounds hitting soldiers as they exited a truck and flinging them into the ditch like rag dolls. When he got back to his base, he was physically sick over what he had done. The next day, he flew on to his next mission, not because he liked it, but because he knew it was a job that had to be done. Am I proud about Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima? Of course not, but I don't feel guilty either. In WW2, they were all valid military targets. War is a dirty business and WW2 was dirtier than most. As Robert E. Lee said: "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it."

Only the most die hard air power advocates thought you could win the war from the Air alone and by mid-war, pretty much every one realised it was not going to happen. Applying your standard of only judging success based on initial goals is interesting, but by that standard, pretty much every WW2 land, sea, air - battle, operation, campaign was a failure. Does that mean the Allies did not win the war?

Jons, Great charts and it does show pretty convincingly the impact of the bombing on the German economy. I think part of the problem in determining the role it played is the fact that the CBO only really started rolling and achieving results in 44-45 when it was already pretty obvious that Germany had lost the war.

Ah yes, Dresden. Everyone always thinks that "Dresden" somehow answers everything. Dresden was one raid in an air war which lasted over 5 years. What about Peenemunde, Schweinfurth, Ploesti? The strategic bombing of Germany was one of the more successful campaign of the war. It disrupted German weapon production and oil production and tied down significant German resources. By 44-45, over a million personnel were manning Flak guns in Germany. By 43, the Germans were pulling their best fighter squadrons from France and the Russian front to defend Germany. In the air campaign over the winter of 43-44, German fighter squadrons were decimated and many veterans were lost, thereby finishing the Luftwaffe as an effective force for the rest of the war. It shortened the war and saved the lives of Allied soldiers,( i.e. my grandfathers and great-uncles). More importantly, every participant in the war including Germany, Italy and Japan used the same tactics, which is why I find the ex post facto attempts to somehow create a moral equivalancy between Allied Strategic Bombing and the Nazi murder of 6 million jews so funny. HuH? Mussolini was overthrown after the Allies bombed Rome. Japan surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. Postwar studies show that German morale was affected, absenteeism and defeatism was high which affected production. If Germany had a normal government, they would have surrendered, but the Fuhrer had other ideas...

In the NATO module, BFC was trying to go for a more lived in look. The skins are supposed to represent dusty/sandy vehicles, which is why they look more washed out that the previous models. I have 2 PBEM games on the go now with Dutch NATO forces and the YPR looks much better in action than in screenshots. BFC had actual Dutch and Canadian service members review and comment on the 3d models.