James Bailey

Good question Chris, Anyone know of an offical British History of WWII? My guess would be "yes" but I have never seen it or heard of it. Curious to find an answer.

Commissar, "Infantry Attacks" or just "Attacks" is the name of Rommel's book that you are looking for and is often quoted here.

Elijah, Aren't you set up on the GM list? I thought I saw your name on the list. The answer lies there to all your CMMC Questions and more... Just post the question there and you will know! Thanks, James.

>>>"Apparently the maps which are included in these books are also available separately, in portfolios." The maps from the series, while of excellent quality, are operational in nature and therefore of little use for CM battles. Its the aerial photos of the battlefield that are of real value in CM map making. They give you an unparelleled understanding of the terrain, second only to walking the ground in person. You can only get these photos if you have the entire book. I wish I had a scanner, I could scan the photos and give them away to ambitious map makers!

One place that you go to get highly detailed topography of the Hurtgen forest is the Official US Army History of the Second World War. The Series is called "US Army in World War II." The series has about 10 books in it; I am not sure which one covers the Hurtgen. The series is great because it is loaded with fold-out photos of the ground taken from the air. Although evaluation change is hard to evaluate, you can see every tree and house on the battlefield. Since it covers the entire war in the ETO, owners of all the whole series have literally thousands of very historical maps to build for hundreds of small unit engagements. Your local library (if its good) may have this series.

...you will love "In Deadly Combat: A German Soldier's Memoir of the Eastern Front" by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, publish 2000 by KansasU Press. I just finished this new book and heartly recommend it to anyone interested in tactical WWII combat. The author was an officer in the PzJg.Abt. of the 123.ID and fought in Russia between '41 - '44. It has all the action of Sajer's "Forgotten Soldier" with a lot more emphasis on historical dates, times, units etc. Really got to the heart of German small unit doctrine. Would have enjoyed seeing more tactical maps, but is worth the $30 it will cost you at Amazon.

David, My source confirms John Waters' sources. 506.s.Pz.Abt is not a factor directly around Arnheim; all those Tiger II were deployed elsewhere in sector. "Hummel" s.Pz.Kp. did operate against Arnheim bridge with Tiger I. The number that I have is two operating directly against the bridge at one time. So any scenario you make should have maximum of 2 Tiger I's in it - any more I's or II's would not be historical. Both Tiger's would be Heer (not Waffen SS) - and probably Vets Experience level. Source of this is the Unit Histories of the 9.SS-Pz and 10.SS-Pz Divn. at the National Archives. -James.

USA, 1988 to 1997. Intelligence Officer. Operation Restore Hope, HHC, 2d Brigade, 10 ID (Mtn), Somalia.

Zaffod, As Fionn said, correct application is key. The Halftrack is NOT a beginner's vehicle. One of the basic things to keep in mind is that the H/T really shines in a combind arms role. It allows the grunts to ride along behind the tanks in a blitz/breakout. The Germans used H/T early in the war in this fashion very effectively. But in the role that we are playing in CM -- close tactical combat -- they are much less important. The best use is against an infantry heavy opponet lacking combind arms weapons. They allow infantry to close with enemy without having to travel unexposed through MG fields of fire. Don't use them in the roles you are suggesting. Once the grunts are gone, use MG as supression at safe distance behind some Cover and Concealment. -James.

Schrullenhaft, Thanks, I will check that tonight and will post reply. For a extra $150 (guess that is what a video card costs), I will get a new video card for fog if I have too. James.

I have the same problem. I don't have a clue what kind of video card I have or the drivers, but my computer is brand new (2 months old). I see those great looking screen shots with folks that have fog and it looks like it adds a lot to the CM experience. Can some suggest an answer? Thanks, James.

markgame, I haven't played the tutorial so I can't give you any specific advice on it. But one mistake new tankers often make is using a tank as a recon vehicle. It only takes one shot to kill a tank, so if you think AT assets are in the area (a good assumption for any mission), its better to try to locate those weapons with something other than than the tank. In the eyes of tankers everywhere, that is the job of the infantry. Once you have located the threats, you should devise a manuver plan that hits the enemy where he is weakest. I think you are facing StuG's in the tutorial - don't try taking those on frontal - their weakest is from the flanks (due to the lack of a turret). happy tanking, James.

Los, Your 100m to enemy seems like a pretty good distance to try an supported retreat. Under that range and you start hitting a steep inflection point for SMG fire-power pretty quickly. CM models these effects quite convincingly. Any other thoughts on shortest distances to try a fairly exposed retreat? Thanks, James.

Henri, I agree with Scott. I think CM does a great job at modelling retreats - it rewards those who do it right and BURNS you if you do not. As Scott pointed out, make sure you cover you retreat with fire. An enemy unopposed quickly knocks down men that have turned their backs to retreat... even the riflemen can kill you here - in some of these cases he is more effective than high ROF weapons because he is trained at aiming his weapon! I would also add two other major consideration: 1. Get out of LOS ASAP. There is nothing like putting a mound of earth between you and enemy bullets. I second Scott on not replying on scattered trees to cover your retreat. Woods, buildings, earth all offer more valuable Cover and/or Concealment (CC). Lines of Retreat that offer CC should be a major factor in placing every single soldier. If no terrain factors available, try using smoke to create Concealment. 2. Distance from enemy. You mentioned 20m in your post... that is too close if the enemy is not suppressed. I would think double that is the minimum distance to try to retreat if you don't have supression fire or quick CC. Anything closer maybe better to stand and die fighting rather than getting a bullet in the back. Try applying those three principles - suppression fire, CC, and proper distance - and your flexible defence should gain more credibility. Let us know how it goes, -James.

Sorry to both Scott and Fionn, I didn't mean to stir up problems here. I am a historian now that I am done with active service (an armchair historian ). I enjoy working with primary sources (as opposed to secondary sources) and have observed a lot of "inconsistencies" between how secondary sources and primary sources have recorded history. One important German doctrine that marked defensive (and even offensive) ground tactics in the '44-'45 ETO that my primary sources detail was the important role flak guns played. My explanation for this is that flak guns offered a lot of firepower to German ground commanders that needed to stop Allied Infantry and armor from taking more ground. Maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it was done. And Scott correctly points out, these guns have low survivability and play key role against Allied air power. But, even with these limitations, German ground commanders used them in "non-traditional" roles quite often. As far as CM goes, I don't think the 20mmFlak should be an "Uberweapon" because they are cheap in points. (Believe me, the last thing I want to see is some ahistorical "wall" of 20mm Flak guns). I was merely raising the issue that the weapons were used, and as such, it is interesting to see the weapon included SELECTIVELY when folks are designing scenarios. Learning how to use and support that gun position should be important skills for any German CM ground commander. I have sent Andreas the defensive map Fionn referred to and will happily send it along to anyone else that wants to see it. Its straight from the hands of the German Battalion commander that made it Sept 24, '44. Just drop me an email. James.

Scott, You must be another subscriber to the Allied Airpower won the war in the ETO thesis. I have always believed it was the excellent Allied infantrymen and tankers, with the SUPPORT of the Allied Airforce and Artillery that did the job. As a former infantry officer, I can tell you my major threat was a combined arms ground attack (or maybe an large '55 artillery mission with Bullethead FO'ing ), everything else is too easy to hide my men from. Anyway, you apparently are not interested in providing any sources that counter the countless number of primary source AAR's that detail 20mm Flak use in German infantry doctrine. Thanks for the help and insight anyway, James.

Scott, Let me explain why I am interested in this topic. As you mentioned CMMC, I am involved with CMMC - in fact, very involved. I researched and built the German OoB for the battle we are doing. I didn't just look at OoB and carbon copy them, I tried to analysize the unit by reading its AAR's and other secondary research. If you have some good sources regarding doctrinal application of the 20mm Flak, I would really love to see them. As we both agree, it will have a important impact on the battle. Thanks, James Bailey.

Scott, Let me explain why I am interested in this topic. As you mentioned CMMC, I am involved with CMMC - in fact, very involved. I researched and built the German OoB for the battle we are doing. I didn't just look at OoB and carbon copy them, I tried to analysize the unit by reading its AAR's and other secondary research. If you have some good sources regarding doctrinal application of the 20mm Flak, I would really love to see them. As we both agree, it will have a important impact on the battle. Thanks, James Bailey.

Well, in defensive military operations, threats tend to be engaged in orders of degree - you don't have the initiative and therefore the opportunity to choose your targets. During the German retreats of '44 - '45 this was the order of threat: (1). Infantry - only threat capable of holding ground. Best LOS. (2). Armor - supports infantry in ground taking role. (3). Air - not capable of taking ground, only supporting advance. Moreover, if TAC can't see you, they can't hurt you (that's why flak didn't always fire at TAC). (4). Artillery - tough to kill off FEBA, can't take ground, very limited LOS without infantry. Therefore, firepower must be deployed against high priority threats. Since both Allied Infantry and Armor were most important threats and the 20mm Flak respresented a significant amount of Wehrmacht firepower (just look at the production numbers), the gun served (or, was forced to serve) in a variety of roles - and did it well. I am not agruing that it is a 'cool' weapon - having served in a hostile envirnoment, I don't ever want to consider any weapon as 'cool' - no weapon is. What I am interested in is historical doctrine and its application on the battlefield. The primary source AAR's that I have read don't support the thesis that the gun didn't serve in a wide number of roles. By '44, the Germans were forced to find firepower to deal with (1) and (2) and they found it in the 20mm Flak (and the 88mm Flak).

One interesting resource to actually see German doctrine and weapons in use at the front is film footage from "Deutsche Wochenschau" - film from German news crews. The US National Archives has hours and hours of captured footage - some of its better than Saving Private Ryan. Anyway, I remember seeing some footage of German street fighting in a Russian village. The grunts were wheeling a 20mm Flak around on its carriage, emptying entire cartidges of rounds into Russian strongpoints at near point blank range. Now you could only do this if you had the enemy pretty well suppressed, but it was absolutely brutal to see those large shell emptied at such a rapid ROF into those Russian houses.

Scott, I respectfully disagree. The 20mm Flak was certainly orginally produced as an AA weapon. But, as with the 88mm Flak, it served in a variety of roles as the war turned defensive for the Germans. Certainly not the first or second choice against a Sherman, but the 1st or 2nd choice or even the 3rd choice wasn't always available. It was its multiple purposes that was so valuable and explains why it was the most widely produced German "cannon" of the war. I base this conclusion on "non-scientific" research I have done at the Captured German Documents section of the US National Archives in Washington DC. I have literally read hundreds of AAR's from German company and battalion level engagements in the ETO '44 - '45 and thousands of TO&E's from the same level. I live in Wash, DC and its a good way to keep my German fresh (: And I have read reports that indicate the oppose of your point - many times, German Flak near the MLR did not fire on Allied airplanes because they didn't want to give away their position. Let the Allied Infantry and armor die finding them was the thinking. That's just my understanding, James.

The 20mm Flak gun had become a key weapon in the German defensive arsenal by '44 for a lot of the reasons Aaronb mentioned - high ROF and decent penetration/killing power against a wide array of threats. It could take on enemy infantry, planes, apc's, and light armor - and best of all was cheap to produce in large numbers. As far as guns go, it is also fairly mobile. I have studied lots of German TO&E's from formations in the field and nearly all of they had LOTS of 20mm flak guns. I think a lot of the scenarios that we are seeing in CM are historically light on the 20mm. And, as far as tank busting goes, clearly it is not the weapon of choice against the heavy stuff, but its accuracy at high ROF meant it could put a lot of hits on a target, rising the probability that one finds a periscope, vent, bend, etc. I once saw a photo of a 20mm gun that had 5 tank kill marks on its shield. The photo was '43, in the steppe of the Ukraine, near Kharkov. 5 tanks (probably T-34's) in open tank country, that's not bad! -James.

Can't stand and pound. Panthers will kill you at L/R. On a double blind, its crazy to send in the Shermans without scouting the town first. With the benefit of knowing the Germans are light on infantry, its easier to rush in the Shermans, but this approach only offer a small chance of victory. Tough scenario, would like to see a bigger map that offers more flanking, driving room on higher, and drier ground.

John, Thanks for that detailed post on proper IG placement. This same theory applies to any type of weapon that can't move - Limit the LOS, so the enemy can't destroy you immediately after your first volley... and then put protection in likely Enemy Avenues of Approach against this stationary position.

It is a great scenario if you are driving those Panthers. Not so good for Ami's... has anybody won it as the American?