Bil Hardenberger

This info is taken from http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/KievPapa/germany.htm There is also an image of this vehicle on this site. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PzKpfw V Panther Ausf D1 (some sources state that it was Bergepanther) fitted with bolted PzKpfw IV Ausf H's turret which served as a command tank of schwere Heeres Panzerjager Abteilung 653 on the Eastern Front in early/mid of 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I'll start calling you Reverend Steve hallelujah Brother! You know what they say, the victor writes the history books.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great, now lets have 333435363839<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What, not interested in 37? I say, put the rest of them up, all at once, surely the game should be finished by now!

Thanks Steve. I look forward to putting it through it's paces myself..... someday [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-29-99).]

How will the Strategic AI work? Will the S-AI base it's overall plan on doctrine? Is this even possible? I would expect it wouldn't be too hard, excepting you would have a different S-AI for each country's army... Will it use real world tactics? The reason I ask, is that no other game I have played has done this sort of thing, and the AI is very predictable. [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-28-99).] [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-28-99).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BCs don't have organic interrogators, but there are some attached to Brigade. My point was, the value of prisoners to the tactical commander is intel, but that in all likelihood there won't be a way to give the player extra info especially when playing against a human opponent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understood your point. My point is that there would be no extra info to give to the player (in reality). WW2 Divisions were not on the Brigade system like modern armies. They had Regiments. Sure there was the occasional Brigade running around(i.e. Russian Tank Brigade), but the difference is that a Brigade is capable of independent action, a Regiment isn't. A Regiment will not have the type of inherent support that a Brigade will. That being said, I find it unlikely that there would be more than an Intel advisor at Regiment level. Even if there was an interrogator there (unlikely) by the time the prisoners are transported to Regimental TOC, pumped for information, the information analyzed and sent back down the chain, it would be too late for it to be of any value to the CM battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At this scale of game (to use a popular phrase) I see no value in prisoners because they can’t actually give you the immediate HUMINT that a real life commander would get from them. Why waste precious Polygons on maintaining prisoners marching around a map?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First of all a maneuver Battalion Commander does not have an organic MI section, so in reality he will not have the resources to do an interrogation that will be worth a damn. So he will not be able to get any HUMINT from them, if he did, I would think it would be very suspect. Second, prisoners can escape and rejoin their unit in CM, as has happened in the AAR, if they are not properly escorted. So they do have a purpose in CM in my opinion. Maintaining and managing prisoners is an aspect of war at this level. You have to assign guards, escort them to the rear, etc. [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-24-99).]

Here is some interesting information about German night sights. (Source: www.achtungpanzer.com ) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>German Infrared Night-Vision Devices - Infrarot-Scheinwerfer In 1936, AEG was ordered to start the development of infrared night-vision devices and in 1939, first successful prototype unit for use with 37mm Pak 35/36 L/45 anti-tank gun was constructed. In autumn of 1942, unit for use with 75mm PaK 40 L/46 anti-tank gun was constucted and was also mounted on Marder II (Sd.Kfz.131). In mid 1943, first tests with infrared night-vision (Nacht Jager) devices and telescopic rangefinders mounted on Panther started. Two different arrangements / solutions were created and used on Panther tanks. Solution A - Sperber (Sparrow Hawk) was made up of one 30cm infrared searchlight and image converter operated by the commander - FG 1250. From late 1944 to March of 1945, some Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf G (and other variants) mounted with FG 1250, were succesfully tested. From March to April of 1945, approximately 50 Panthers Ausf G (and other variants) mounted with FG 1250, saw combat service on the Eastern Front and Western Front. Panthers with IR operated with SdKfz.251/20 Uhu (Owl) half-track with 60cm infra-red searchlight and Sd.Kfz.251/21 Falke (Falcon). This solution could be easily mounted on any type of armored fighting vehicle. Solution B - Second more complicated arrangement / solution was "Biwa" (Bildwandler), which provided driver, gunner and commander with one 30cm infrared searchlight and image converter. Various variants of Panthers were converted and mounted with "Biwa". It was reported that tests were successful, but there is very few combat reports from the Eastern or Western Front. One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive. In addition, it is reported that single unit equipped with Jagdpanthers also received and used infrared night-vision devices. Crews of infrared night-vision devices mounted vehicles were also armed with MP44 assault rifles fitted with infrared night-vision device - Vampir (Vampire). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know if these devices were in common enough use to include in CM, but it's interesting anyway.

I just have this to say about Steve and Charles, fantastic. You two are very candid and you go out of your way to answer these questions, some of which must make your eyes roll... if you keep this level of support up then I predict CM is going to be huge. I, for one, appreciate the effort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>an assault could have been mounted in one concentrated push up the middle with all vehicles and the bulk of the infantry working the more protected flanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funny, when I saw the halftrack dash down the center and survive, my first thought was, "...now that would have been something if that had been done by all, or close to all of the halftracks..." would have scared the s*** out of Martin too I'll bet. Sure Fionn would have lost a couple of tracks, but the majority most likely would have made it. He would have then been in a commanding situation. The trick though, would have been not getting half of them cut off in the woods, like he did I take it that your playtest was against the computer AI? How would you rate it as compared to what Martin has done? [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-23-99).]

Steve, Here is a quote from FM 23-65 (Browning MG .50 HB, M2) Now I grant you that this is a current manual, but the basics of MG use haven't changed all that much since WW1: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Classes of Fire with Respect to the Ground. (1) Plunging fire. Fire in which the angle of fall of the rounds (with reference to the slope of the ground) is such that the danger space is confined to the beaten zone, and the length of the beaten zone is materially shortened. Plunging fire is obtained when firing from high ground to low ground, when firing from low ground to high ground, and when firing at long ranges. (2) Grazing fire. Grazing fire is fire in which the center of the cone of fire does not rise more than one meter above the ground. When firing over level or uniformly sloping terrain, the maximum extent of grazing fire obtainable is about 700 meters <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sefchick is exactly right. Although I have heard of it's use in WW2. I cannot remember from where right now though... of course, if it was used in WW1 why wouldn't it have been used in WW2? If nothing else, it was definately available.

I did a search on MG fire and was happy to discover that Grazing fire will be represented in CM. However, what about Plunging fire? (with respect to the ground) How about Fixed fire and Traversing fire? (with respect to the target) These are all very important aspects of the MG battle. If they are in, great. If not, why?

Hey Fionn I thought you were sick... Shouldn't you be working on some AAR's?

Being one of those "former" military guys you mention, I could care less if there were dead bodies in or not. I am interested in recreating WW2 tactics, thats all. The amount of blood spilled on the snow isn't really relevant. Like has been said before, the player will know exactly where he lost troops to an ambush, etc. He will not need a reminder such as a dead body. I don't think of CM as a tribute to veterans so much as I think of it as a... well, a game

Steve, So I take it from your response that "monster" battles are possible? Is the limit based on CPU limitations or the amount of clicking around? CM doesn't strike me as a CPU killer so it must be the latter.

What are the force size limitations for CM? In other words how big a battle can be fought realisticlly with the game? Just curious as I haven't seen this mentioned before(I probably missed it). [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-22-99).]

Must have messed up the URL... figures. Okay, go to the thread titled "Infantry sprites"

Check out this thread for info on that subject: www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000745.html [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-22-99).]

Steve, "On top of that, the MG isn't very effective at long distances. Keeps some guys' heads down, but it would have been a drop in the bucket." Fionn did not lay a base of fire really, before he assaulted. I agree when you say his real mistake lay in coordination of his forces. [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-21-99).]

Doug, As usual I agree with you 100%. However, if he had done it correctly from the start he wouldn't have lost so many troops and would not be in an inferior position now. I guess that is what I was trying to say before. At this point in the game, I think it is a big mistake to even try for the town. If it is indeed, as you say, his thinking that this is the first battle of a campaign, then he should hang on to what he has and wait for reinforcements to help take the town. Of course it's easy to be critical when you are on the outside looking in. Here's hoping he doesn't piss his mark IV away in a like manner. [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-21-99).]

Steve, This is in response to your comment on another thread about how Fionn loses a halftrack in the town: Actually the fact that Fionn loses another halftrack in this way is no surprise to me. How many (including the Puma)has he lost due to pure impatience? One is too many in my opinion. The halftracks should never get into even bazooka range, not to mention grenade, (they don't have to) and unsupported in a town? He does tend to push the issue doesn't he? What ever happened to synchronization, cooperation, and timing? A little recon would have saved countless lives for him. Not only that, but if he had only slowed down a little. He had 60 minutes to complete the scenario, he could have used some of that to properly clear the woods, and now the town, before committing his halftracks or armor. I understand that at the beginning he was in a rush to save the FJ troops in the town, but once they were taken out time was not such an over-riding factor. It is fun to watch though isn't it?

I moved this response to the Questions for Steve thread... Thought it was more appropriate [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-21-99).]

Bryan, If that's so, I stand corrected. Probably saw it in a movie somewhere

I don't think this would be total chrome at all. In fact, often the German's advance depended on capturing these stores (North Africa, Bulge). Rommel would have done much less in Africa if he hadn't captured so many British supply dumps. During his armored raid in Crusader he drove right by huge British supply dumps, which would have probably given him ultimate victory. In the Ardennes 1944, continuing the German advance was contingent on capturing American supply dumps. Seems to me that this could be one objective of a campaign. [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-20-99).]

Thanks Kingtiger that about answered my question... [This message has been edited by Bil Hardenberger (edited 09-17-99).]