Keith

The "dress" Col. Baade had was a Scottish kilt, which he wore in battle. Baade was an Anlgophile and also carried a claymore around in battle.

Good idea! And you should only be able to vote once per review. Maybe have a rating of good reviewers based on the number of votes they get. Anyways, I'm a different Keith than Admiral Keith, the owner of the website.

If you disagree with a review, simply provide author feedback and provide data that you just talked about (ex. played 14 times in tournament with x/y win loss ratio). That is what the scenario author comments capability is for. I just read the reviews of the above mentioned battle and my overall impression, having not played the scenario, is that it is a fun, small scale recon battle designed for PBEM. Most people found it balanced but a couple people thought it favored the Russians too much. So as a consumer of this info I would perhaps see if my potential opponent finds the map objectionable and suggest the more experienced player play the Romanians. People are intelligent and know how to interpret the data. Yes each review is a single vote, but we all have brains and can read ALL of the reviews to make informed decisions. You WILL get the occasional bad review, but I would take it with a grain of salt and use it to examine how you could perhaps improve your battle. The biggest problem I see with the rating system is the fanboy phenomena where buddies of the author pile on superlative reviews. I have learned the hard way to only trust the opinions of certain reviewers. [ November 17, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

I strongly disagree. I find the balance rating the most important rating that I use to decide if a scenario is suitable for PBEM. I sure as heck want to know what other players experienced before investing a month of time swapping emails only to discover a scenario is way out of balance. People are intelligent and look at the cummulative ratings, and each review is a but a single data point. Give consumers some credit for knowing how to discern the data.

I would say one reason Rommel is so highly rated is because the British generals who fought against him were so terrible. The concept of combined arms completely escaped the British generals until late in the Normandy campaign. The British in Afrika were constantly hurling their armor in a piecemeal, unsupported fashion at the combined arms of the Afrika Korps. The British command and control was lethargic and completely out of touch with the pace of the battle, issuing outdated orders decided by long drawn out committee discussions. This is in comparison to Rommel, who was always up front and made relevant, snap decisions on the spot. This is why Rommel was able to consistently out-fox his numerically superior opponents time and again in Afrika. But eventually the mathematics of logistics and sheer Allied material superiority (from America factories) made the outcome inevitable. If Rommel had a weakness, it was because we was too impetuous. Examples include his first bloody attempts at trying to take Tobruk in 41. Also, following the Gazala battles Rommel's superior, Kesserling, pleaded with Rommel to halt temporarily in order to allow the Luftwaffe to concentrate its resources on the suppression and capture of Malta rather than supporting Rommel's drive to Egypt. Characteristically, Rommel ignored his superior, dashed to El Alamein, and his logistics system utterly collapsed due in no small measure to the resurgence of Malta. [ October 28, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

David Glantz has a self-published document on the Smolensk battles in 1941, which covers the Yelna salient in detail. I got a copy (signed by Glantz :cool: ) and could look up some details if you wish. Just drop me an email at kschur@erols.com.

David Glantz has a self-published document on the Smolensk battles in 1941, which covers the Yelna salient in detail. I got a copy (signed by Glantz :cool: ) and could look up some details if you wish. Just drop me an email at kschur@erols.com.

For the Germans, from 1942 onward, the infantry divisions became based around a two-battalion regiment due to heavy infantry casualties in Russia. What resulted was an inflexible formation, but to please Hitler divisions were not merged. The tactical ramification of have a two-battalion regiment is that all your troops are "up" with no reserve to reinforce a successful attack or rest a tired battalion. [ July 28, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

Strategically, the high water mark occured during the fight for the Yelna salient near Smolensk in August/September 1941. Russian fierce resistance and counter attacks frusterated the German time table for the advance to Moscow and caused Hitler to shift the bulk of AG Center armor to AG South (for the Kiev encirclement) and AG North (to try to reinvigorate the stalled drive to Leningrad). Hitlers decision to disperse AG Center armor ultimately led to the failure to capture Moscow in 1941. By the winter of 1941 the Germans had lost thousands of tanks and vehicles due to wear and tear and the unavailablity of spare parts. These loses, particularly in vehicles, were never made good. Most importantly, the infantry ranks were decimated during the fall/winter of 1941, which resulted in the loss of countless veterans due to frostbite and combat. Everything went downhill from there because the best the Germans could hope for was a stalemate on the Eastern Front.

I would just like to second the comment that it was precisely because the Soviets executed constant counter attacks on the flanks that Kursk failed. Most importantly, Army deteachment Kempf was unable to keep abreast of the SS panzer corps, thereby forcing the SS panzer corps to allocate one of its three divisions for flank protection rather than driving forward. This of course led to the check at Prokhorovka due to inadequate force strength. Regarding the Stalingrad comment in the original posting, based on my readings I strongly believe that after the 64 hours of encirclement the Germans had no chance of breaking out as an intact force. Most of the German infantry were not motorized, the supply dumps were outside of the pocket, the Germans had really no force to facilitate the breakout from outside the pocket, and the Russians had plenty of reserves. The infantry would have been slaughterd on the open steppes in the snow. Regarding Manstein's relief attempt, by that point it was doomed from the start. The encircled 6th Army was in no shape physically or supply-wise to break out, Manstiens force was inadequate, and the Russians had plenty of reserves on hand. The only thing it succeeded in doing is drawing away Russian forces that were slated to drive on Rostov to seal off the whole German Southern wing. I would argue that after the initial week or so, 6th Army's continued resistance did more to help the Germans by tying down vast Russian forces that could have cut off the whole German Southern wing.

I suggest that you also padlock your infantry and trucks, therefore making sure when the battle begins everything is set up as you intend. You can right-click on a unit and select the padlock menu option. Another way to make sure the Canadians stick to their trucks is to have a tight time limit with a map exit objective, which is selectable from the parameters screen in the scenario editor.

Seems like someone sleeps with a copy of "Mein Kampf" under their pillow. Respectible historians such as Glantz have soundly shattered the revisionist "theory" that the Germans were merely doing a preemptive strike when they attacked the U.S.S.R. Just read "When Titans Clashed". Next you will be saying that the racially superior Germans had to do their ethnic cleansing in Russia for preemptive purposes. [ February 18, 2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

Quite often in CM scenarios authors provide a handful of armored cars that are typically used to draw fire. In my readings on WWII, however, I find that typically recon batallions were commited as complete units and were used in screening duties or to probe enemy defenses. In extreme situations the recon battalions were ordered to hold the line or conduct assaults. I find it difficult to believe a commander would want to have the "eyes" of the Divison parcelled out to be used as flaming data points in assaults, as is typically done in many CM scenarios. What I am asking, is the use of small groups of armored cars to draw fire for assaults non-historical? I am sure armored car crews themselves would object to being used in this suicidal fashion.

Entertaining story I particularly liked the parts about avoiding folding the laundry and your 3 year old's tactical insights.

Like Andreas said, Brandenburgers were commandos who were trained to operate behind enemy lines. Most of these men spoke Russian and Eastern European languages and many lived in these countries prior to the war. If I recall, the Brandenburgers tried a Coup de Main of the bridge of the Divna, with 8th Panzer's spearheads charging hard behind them. The Brandenburgers posed as Russian troops fleeing the Germans. [ December 02, 2002, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Keith ]

One of the primary reasons the Russian infantry was more successful than their German counterparts was that the Russians used specialized street fighting tactics. Chuikov ordered that the Russian troops should "hug" the Germans closely so as to negate the artillery, air superiority, and tank advantages of the Germans. Secondly, Chuikov did not commit troops in battalion or company sized units, but instead deployed small groups of 12 men with AT guns and automatic weapons to control important lanes of fire and critical buildings. "Mouse holing" techniques were used to blow holes in walls for inter-building movement. Of course we all know how the Russians routinely used the sewer system to infiltrate behind the German lines to attack supply troops bringing up food and ammo. By comparision, in all of my books I have read on Stalingrad there is no mention of any special tactics the Germans used. In essence, the Russians out foxed the Germans through the use of innovative tactics. [ November 30, 2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

If you want to take a break from the Eastern Front, try out my new scenario at the Scenario Depot titled "Bitche Bulge". Below is the scenario briefing: Title: Bitche Bulge Assault: German vs. American Infantry Date: January 20, 1945 Location: Bitche Salient, southern Germany Weather: Snow, falling snow Length: 40 turns Recommended Side to Play: PBEM or Americans vs the AI Author: Keith Schur kschur@erols.com Version 1.0 The following is a tale of tragedy where a proud and veteran U.S. outfit was destroyed in January 1945 in a flare up in the Bitche Salient. By January 14th the German operation Nordwind drove deeply into the lower Vosges Mountains, leaving the point of the German salient resting just north of the Alsacian town of Reipertswiller. The U.S. 157th Infantry Regiment, a veteran unit that had seen combat in Sicily, Italy, France, and now Germany, was selected to push back the nose of the salient. The 3rd battalion of the 157th Regiment managed to penetrate the German Main Defense Line on a series of hills, and in response, the German Corps Commander ordered the uncommitted 1lth Regiment (Reinhard Heydrich), 6th SS Mountain Division (Nord) to retake the critical terrain. The 3rd battalion was subjected to violent German counterattacks, and the crack Gebirgsjäger managed to envelop the flanks of the battalion. By midnight, 16 January, the Germans had succeeded in surrounding the hills, which were well forward of the general US line. From this point on, there would be no reinforcement or withdrawal of the surrounded 3d Battalion. However, desperate to save the surrounded troops, Regiment ordered all battalions to renew their attacks with all available men. Every attempt by the remaining battalions of the Regiment to reach the trapped 3rd Battalion was repulsed in the snow and ice causing heavy casualties. On January 20th the Germans gave an ultimatum: further resistance is futile; surrender by five o'clock or suffer the consequences. When Regiment was notified of the ultimatum, the 3rd Battalion was ordered to break out. An artillery preparation was plotted to blast clear a path along the ridge and then to defend the men as they escaped off the hill. Non-ambulatory wounded were told they would have to remain in their holes and place their fate in the hands of their German captors -- if they survived the American artillery barrage. The American artillery barrage came in -- right on top of the 3rd Battalion. The Germans swarmed in on the confused and shocked GIs. The last words Regiment heard from the group came over the K Company radio: "Stop the artillery. We're surrendering." Late that night the US corps withdrew, leaving the survivors to their fate. Only three soldiers returned to the US lines. Four hundred and six American soldiers were captured -- according to German records, most of them were wounded. In the five-day fight for these hills, losses to the US forces totaled over one thousand men. This scenario is a semi-historical "what if". What if the artillery barrage created a corridor for the trapped GIs? What if there was a successful coordinated assault to reach the GIs? Can you lead your weary men to safety?

You have got to use Scoot and Shoot tactics with the Soviet armor. If you try to go toe-to-toe with the Stugs you will consistantly get spanked. Once you KO or disable one of the Stugs try fast moving a portion of your armor down into the valley out of line of sight of the remaining German Stugs. Meanwile try to sneak your infantry forward and try to uncover any German infantry along the road.

I have designed and self-tested vs. the AI a medium scale scenario depicting the early fighting for the Mamayev Kurgan (Hill 102) in Stalingrad. If there is anyone interested in giving me a hand as a beta tester, I would greatly appreciate it. My email address is kschur@erols.com. Thanks!

If you want to be successful in CM you need to learn the essential tactic of overwatch. Overwatch is the technique where you always have a large firebase of troops/tanks providing covering fire while you advance groups of troops/tanks towards the enemy. You can use bounding overwatch where you leapfrog your units taking turns in overwatch and moving. If you think the enemy some antitank assets around a corner or over a ridge then use the scoot and shoot command to pop over the ridge/around the corner and quickly back out of site. Also always try to have your armor in overwatch in hull down positions. Move your infantry in short rushes from cover to cover. Finally use Area fire to supress suspected enemy postions. Machine guns and support weapons are very good at area fire.

Harv is absolutely correct. If you want to do an orderly withdraw without sustaining massive casualties, then you must pull out while other units provide covering fire to supress the enemy. Use the Sneak or Advance command to move your troops out of line of site and then Run to deploy the withdrawing troops to new positions. Withdrawing under fire is one of the hardest things to do successfully in real life, as it is in CM. The bug out command is Withdraw. The existing command structure works perfectly. Modify your tactics.

As a rule of thumb you should always play the attacking side unless the breifing explicity says otherwise. The AI is much stronger on the defense anyways and is therefore more challenging.

I usually find the small to medium sized battles are better designed and more thoroughly tested. How many times do we see a newbie scenario designer post a huge scenario with the request to have someone else test it for them? Huge scenarios often become nothing more than unbalanced battles of attrition and I find I am overwhelmed by the sheer number of units.

I am working on a single battle. The battle will simulate the fighting that occured on the 17th of September, 1942, for the Mamjev Kurgan. The 13th Guards Division just crossed the Volga under fire and put up a solid defense around the Mamjev Kurgan and Stalingrad train station 1. The Division saved Stalingrad but was basically whiped out in three days of fighting. Email me at kschur@erols.com so I can send you my beta version for test when I get things cleaned up.

Yes, I am. Would you be interested in testing it when I polished it off?