Gary T

BTS wrote:- "It is a fact that the bulk of the German Panzer force of 1944 fought and died in France, not the Soviet Union. Why do you think Bagration was such a success? Partly because Army Group Center had (IIRC) only *one* PzGren division as its armored componant. ONE. Where were all the armored divisions? In the West, getting chewed to pieces in Normandy" I think you'll find that there were over 20 Panzer division in the East in June 1944 compared to around 10 in the West. The fact that AGC only had 20Pz as reserve was due to the fact that Hitler totally misread where the Soviet offensive was going to happen. Granted that Operation Bagration would not have been anywhere nearly so successful if those Pz Divs had been in Russia but how long do you think it would have been before they would have been burnt out? Probably faster than in Normandy. Those few divisions would have had only a temporary effect on the Eastern Front. One only has to think of 48 Pz Korps counter offensive at Kiev in November 1943. Sure it halted the Soviets west of Kiev. They then promptly launched the Cherkassy offensive, nearly destroyed Army Group North in front of Leningrad and staged another devastating offensive from the Kiev region. By the summer of 1944 defeat was a forgone conclusion for Germany whether or not the Allies landed in Normandy, although it would certainly have lasted longer. One could argue that the Western Allies did not have to land a single man in Normandy to achieve the same effect as D-Day - i.e. the threat was enough to keep German reserves in Western Europe. Of course the flip side to this is that most of Europe would have been under Soviet control!

With regards the spotting of firing units I too find this the only real problem I have with CM. I find that small arms especially are far too easily spotted. An MG 42 only has to open up briefly and it instantly spotted by the entire Allied side. Contrast this with reality when where it extremely difficult to spot incoming fire (especially if its aimed AT you). A book I read recently (18 Platoon) states quite often that on attack his entire company (and battalion on occasion) was often pinned down by massed MG42 fire without a single firing position being located. In CM (Beta version) every single one would be spotted immediately.

Any scenario, any side. can reply 2-3 times a day. percy@clara.co.uk

Bastables, I know 12. SS had one battery of 4 K18 in its allocation. The K18 had a longer range than 1FH18 (hence its gun title not howitzer) and was designed for counterbattery work. I don't really see any need for it to be represented as such.

Fionn, But the Flak 18 was not designed with AT use in mind. It just turned out that it was need in this role and was (fortunately for the Germans) extremely good at it. If tank protection had styaed at early 1930's levels it would probably never have been used in the AT role as there would have been no need for it. In contrast, IG's were specifically designed to to both. Your comparison with 88's does not stand up. IG's IF capability was NOT a bonus - it was a design feature in complete contrast to the 88. The fact they were used (75's at any rate) primarily in a DF role is not the point. They were used in an IF far more often than you would seem to think. THere are plenty of photos of IG gun lines and high angle firing positions. It is not the same as you saying that PF's were also used as IF. They were not designed for that purpose; IG's were. If they weren't why give each platoon the comms staff and equipment to set up fire control links. As for SP IG's exactly what regular infnatry divisions received these? I don't know of any. The IG's seem to have been replaced firstly by 81mm and then 120mm mortars. If the primary role of the 13./ companies was DF why replace them with an IF weapon? I thought that CM was supposed to allow us to use weapons as they could be used in reality. If we should want to use an IG in IF then we should be able to (I personally wouldn't as it is a waste of DF firepower). Its like saying we can't use our Flak 38 against ground targets because it was primarily designed as an AA weapon and it ground role was only a nice bonus.

German IG's were not designed to be primarily to be used as either DF or IF. They were supposed to be equally capable of both. The fact is they were more effective in the DF role but this is more due to the way they were deployed (in individual platoons) rather than any lack of capability on behalf of the guns or crews. This lack of capability for bringing down heavy concentrations of IF fire is probably one of the reason they were replaced in many 13./ by 120mm mortars.

In Alex Buchner's'German Infantry Handbook' he gives the minimum engagement ranges for IG18 as 1000m and for sIG33 1500m. Obviously these are for indirect fire. He also gives the set up times which again are for indirect fire- 30 mins for IG18 and 45mins for sIG33. I have to disagree with Fionn that these weapons were primarily designed for DF fire. They were designed to fucnstion equally well in both modes and were used as such the sIG33 in particular. The latter could also used as part of a divisional fire plan. Whereas the company did not have the FO's of the divisional artillery batteries they did have the training and fire control equipment. To suggest they would be 'rusty' in the IF role is IMHO wrong. But I agree they are far more useful in the DF role. However, I believe that the IG company, if on map, should not be able to fire indirectly (unless using pre-registered points) on account of the set up times previously mentioned. However, they should be available as off map IF.

If a tank sufferes a damaged gun (in this case by indirect artillery fire) does it still have its capability to use its hull and co-ax MG's. I have a Sherman in this position and it will not use either of its MG's. If it was a penetrative hit I could understand it but the crew is intact. After all when your order an unscathed tank to engage its gives you the option of using the main armament.

Would it not be possible to designate an area? Say click where you would like the screen to begin and again where you would like it to end? After all in reality the commander would be ordered to just hit a single point. He would be ordered to block LOS across a road, field etc Obviously if a target that proves a danger to the tank hoves into view then it should stop laying down a smoke screen.

For a British platoon commanders view of North West Europe get 18 Platoon by Sydney Jary.

I know the above is the sequence that is SUPPOSED to happen but it hasn't in this case. We have got to the A sees playback, A issues orders. However, instead of B issues orders I see a playback of the orders he's just issued with NO input from me at all. It just opens up already in the movie. As I saw it I should have issued orders then sent the resulting file for him to view the movie etc. I can't believe I only get to issue orders every other turn. Have we done something wrong somewhere?

This has probably been answered before but after hours of ceaseless searching I couldn't find any previous posts. I've just started my first PBEM game. Setup files were exchanged, no problem. I received the first movie and returned - again no problem. However, when I received the next turn I expected for it to be to be for my Turn 2 orders which would then create a movie which I would send on. However, what I got was the Turn 2 MOVIE - i.e. I had no chance to issue any turn 2 orders. Neither did I get asked to issue any turn 3 orders. Oh BTW CM crashes everytime I end a PBEM phase and I have to reboot. I know this is a bug but does it happen ALL the time. I don't really relish the fact of having to rebbot my computer after every turn if I've got 5 PBEM games on the go.

gary@tanky.freeserve.co.uk Can reply at least once a day.

After all this talk of assaults, you may be interested in this veteran's officer's (British) view of German assault tactics in NW Europe. Basically he calls it 'assault by close range fire' i.e only closing to within 30 yards. Anyway, here's a very breif excerpt from the article: "To read one or two books about the fighting in the bocage you would be left with the idea that the German infantry thirsted to close with our infantry and, because they were braver and more skilful soldiers, overwhelm us. In my experience, which covered the whole campaign from the small Normandy beachhead to the end at Bremerhaven, this was just not so. Both in attack and defence and in the attack their tactic was to keep us at arm's length. It took me just a few weeks to realise what their little game was. When we attacked a German position the problem although a simple one, was very difficult to overcome. Vastly superior infatry firepower, both small arms and anti-tank, was their trump card(see previous article 'Infantry Firepower'). A german infantry platoon could produce about five times our own firepower. There was just no way through the curtain of fire from the MG42's. Sometimes, by stealth, we were able to bypass it; otherwise, artillery or armoured support was necessary - often both. But due to their excellent anti-tank guns, the 75mm and the 88, the use of armour could prove costly. Our doctrine for the attack was, by fire and movement, to close with the enemy with rifle and bayonet. Not so the Germans who, also by fire and movement, and heavily supported by SP guns (see previous article 'Sturmgeschutz') and mortars, closed to about thirty yards from our positions. At this point they deluged the defenders with fire, from MG42s, MP40s, sometimes Panzerfausts or Panzerschrecks, and grenades. This display of firepower, except against very determined soldirs, usually proved successful. This avoided what those who have very little or no experience of the battlefield refer to as 'hand to hand combat'. Few, if any, soldiers get involved in man against man conflict - not even the renowned German Fallschirmjager. On 12 February 1945 my 18 Platton overran a company of them at Bedburg. We killed thirteen, but once we were among them all weapons were dropped and hands raised in surrender. We took fifty seven prisoners; 18 Platoon at that time was only twenty-two strong."

I managed to get the Stugs with my Hellcats and registered (in the space of a couple of minutes)10+ hits on the Tiger from 750 metres+. Most of the rounds glanced off or shattered. The Tiger crew kept their cool and calmly destroyed my Hellcats one after the other. So in this game the old Tiger myth held true. However when I took command I managed to get it knocked out by a concealed Bazooka team. BTW anyone else find it difficult to hit those pesky HT's with bazooka's?

Superb demo, its what I've been waiting for for years. One question, though. In the Last Defence scenario I cunningly managed to trick the Yanks into knocking out my Tiger and Stugs in strategic positions along the main road. I then attempted to leapfrog my squads down the road using the wrecks as cover. However I found the wrecks did not stop LOS or incoming fire even when fire had to pass through the Tiger. Is this a bug or do wrecks not stop LOS - I think they should. Apart from that minor gripe there is nothing to say apart from BRILLIANT!!