Los

It's definately something we beta-types have been asking to get for some time. I don't know how many times I've made a great map that ends up lending itself nicely to a scenario or to an operation but can't comnvert it. Los

While I haven't played that Polish scenario I have messed around a bit with Assault boats and have never had any problems. I always set the ending waypoints for well inland and while still at sea I give a ground waypoint for the passengers. As soon as the boat hits the shore even though it's still moving, the crew will hop out and haul ass inland. Los

Actually Jeff, the loadout I'm talking about is the combat loadout minus the ruck. Anyone who's been a grunt particularly on real operations can vouch for lugging around web gear that is anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds, then add a 35-50 pound or greater ruck on top of that. While CM models the crews personal defense as some sort of stat that falls short of normal small arms, bazooka guys would normally carry a rifle or a carbine just like anyone else, to do anything less would be not very smart. The bazooka I played around with was a 2.36" (I said 2.75 was mistaken) M18 which weighed 10 pounds (aluminum) and broke down into a nice two piece package similar to the stell and heavier 15 pound M9 bazooka. As you know the M9 was standardized as our main bazooka in 1943 and weighed in at 15 lbs. There are a few subvariants of the Panzerschreck that weigh in between 20.5 lbs and 24lbs. Gustav: No I did not get to fire it unfortunatley but I have fired a number of times the 90mm (the Pzsch is an 88mm) which was still in US in the US Army (in Rangers and available for SF) up until late eighties. Carrying that thing was like carrying your own personal cross but you should see the explosion it makes when you let one off! Anyway with regard to bazookas and running. I'm trying to remember a discussion we had on the beta team IIRC I think the PZschrk guys could not even run at first and they upped it a certain amount. For all the stats being thrown around up here I do not remember off the top of my head what Steve and Charles are using for weights. I'll dig it up. I know for CM2 we've requested talked about relooking at the whole fatigue modelling routines. Sorry I don't have a better answer yet. Los

Keep in mind that the T34 didn't become five man until mid-war it originally had a two man turret crew much to the detriment of crew efficiency. They fixed this in later models. Los

LOL! I'd like to shove a 24 pound akward weight plus two or three 7.5 lb plus AT rounds in Baseball's hands after he's already been loaded down with 50-60 lbs of other kit, personal weapon and other BS and see how winded he is after walking all day with the thing and then having to sprint 60 or 100 meters. I'm not at home right now with the stats but I have held a 2.75" bazooka and it's lighter than an M1 (plus it can be broken down into two pieces.) And the rounds are half the weight plus easier to shove in a container or pocket if necessary as opposed to those Big fat PZch rounds. As to the Piat, I can't say but will look up. Los (not that some of the fatigue rules can't be tweaked.)

BTW that's a GREAT film. Los

I agree with everything mentioned here but would add the Great battles Series: 1. Alexander 2. Hannibal 3. Ceaser Los

I'd like to echo Kieth's point number Five, anyone who reads Ardennes account with a careful eye will see that despite having this or that vaunted SS divison here or there, they just didn't have the talent and articulation at the small unit level, both in leadership or grunt/crew level that they had in the past. Two many prior losses, two much scraping the bottom of the barrel, toomuch cutting corners in training. That, to me, is the crux of the thing. Los

Exactly. Los

Why? can't the guy stay unbuttoned to spot then poke back in to shoot? That's what I would be doing? Los

US 60mm do fire smoke if they have it. If you design a scenario you should be able to select the 60mm and get smoke rounds, though perhaps there may not always be smoke available in a QB. Los

Loza's other book "Fighting for the Soviet Motherland" is also a great book. It has anecdotal chapters on all kinds of issues such as how they did Graves registration, communications, R&R ande all kinds of operations. David Glantz "Zhukov's Greatest Defeat", covers operation MARS, which was the Soviet Main offensive effort in late 1942 launched at the same time as URANUS (which cut off the Germans at Stalingrad). This cost eth Russians over 400,000 men and something like 4-5000 tanks andvehicles. (the Germans lost 40K) the whole thing was swept under the rug like it never happened. A great book, told mainly from the Russain point of view. Two good books to read are; David Glantz' "From the Don to the Dneper" and George Nipes' "Last Victory in Russia" which (told from the Russian and german POV respectively) tell of the harrowing days of early 1943 post Stalingrad as the Russians strive to cut off Army Group South and the Germans sought to stabilize the front. A great Soviet Memoir is Viktor Leoniv's "Blood on the Shores" about a Soviet Nabval reconnaisance trooper fighting in the far North and then against japan. He's a great writer and twice Hero of the Soviet Union. This memoir is matched by Gottlob Biddermann's "In Deadly Combat". Bidermann was a 37mm pak gunner and then Infantry officer on eth Russain front, 1941-45, in a regular infantry division. And of course I can't say enough good about "BLACK CROSS/RED STAR Vol 1" which covers the little documented airwar on the Eastern Front in great detail from both sides POV. Hope that helps. Cheers.. Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 01-02-2001).]

Not that I want to rehash a rather extensive T34 discussion that we just had not to long ago, but despite popular myth, the T34 was not the end all of WW2 tanks. It seems that the Germans were make necessary adjustments and regularly defeating the T34s when first encountered and continuing doing so throughout the period leading up to and beyond introduction of the Panther and the Tiger. Not that the initial encounters with the tanks didn't cause concern, but the tanks and how they were handled by the Russians ensured that they had no significant impact on the outcome of fighting in 1941. By early 1942 the German upgrade porgramme in weapons ensures that tanks from the two sides were in an equal footing (T34 vs Mk IV). Also, you seem to discount the Pzkfw Mk IV which in fact remained the main german tank (numerically) nearly throughout the war. All German vehicles (and weapons for that matter) were in a constant state of upgrading. If anything your statement about german designers being "on break" is exactly the opposite of reality. They were constantly fiddling with designs to the point that it drew resources away from production! Back to the T34, you should see what the Russians thought of how their own original design stacked up to it's German counterparts. The Russains bought a pair of Pzkfw III before the war and put them in head to head trials against the T34-76 and found that the T34 was inferior in every category to the German tank save gun strength and armor. (And yes their are many other factors which make a good tank besides those two things.) It was enough of a shock that they suspended prodction of the T34 until a new design could be made but this in fact did not occur before the war started and they had to put the old design back into production. Design flaws in the T34 negated much of the tanks supposed superiority while many design aspects of German armor (Crew ergonomics, optics, communications, reliability and mobility, not to mention better tactics and organization) allowed german tanks to compete with and master the T34. (By the way check out the details of Russian tests here: http://history.vif2.ru/t34_76_2.html ) The upgraded version T34-85 did not see widescale operational use until 1943, which, of course, was when the Panther and the Tiger both came into operational use. In fact it was soviet tank design which stagnated until nearly 1943 as freezes in designs were put in place because the russians needed numbers. (Red Army Handbook 39-45 S.J. Zaloga) German tank design and upgrades continued in a more or less steady and constant stream with the Pzkfw Mk IV alone being upgraded TEN times (8 of those upgrades before or in early 1943) and the Pzkfw III being upgraded ELEVEN times. With regards to german aircraft designers again a rudimentary knowledge of the Airwar and you would be well aware that in particular in 1942 and 1943 the bf109f and Fw190 early marks were superior in most aspects to anything put up against them performance wise including the spitfire. (much to the discomforture of RAF pilots duringthat period) And the me262 was well along in developmentby that time too. I'm not trying to take anything away from any of the good Russian or anyone's tank designs but your laughable observation that german designers were "on break" do not hold up to anything past a cursory knowledge of the subject. Hence my remark to go read some more. War, particularly as it drags on, is all about development/counter development of weapons systems and design upgrades. Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 01-02-2001).]

Just a quick observation... The JU87 Stuka was superceeded by both the Henschel HS129 ground attack aircraft (which did much execution on the Eastern Front), and the FW190A8 and F8 ground attack close support aircraft. There were very few Stukas left in service by 1944. (Most of those being R-model Ju87s serving in specialist Night attack groups or G model tank busters serving quite efficiently in specialist tankbuster groups on the Eastern Front.) Virtually all the Sturzkampfgeshwader were either amalgamated, disbanded and reformed as Schlactgeschwader transitioned to these two and other aircraft. Second, the training issue was not a matter of rotating aces back to training schools, it was a matter of the training cirriculum being cut drastically short as the years went on. German pilots at this time were showing up at their geschwaders with under 40 hours total time while Brit and US pilots were showing up to their groups with 250-350 hours. As to the rest of your points, you need to go do some more reading.... Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 01-01-2001).]

Yes Jarmo and others are correct, a round of fire does not mean one bullet it's a distillation of an occurance of aimed fire against a target, and thus two casualties does not necessarily mean both guys hit with the same shot. Also FOW will ensure that the kill statistics are not necessarily acurate. Finally the wav being used which happens to be the sound of one shot being fired does not eman just one shot is fired. This kind of stuff is explained in the manual, similar to the fact that a graphical representation fo a tree does not mean that the tree is actaully in that EXACT spot on the map. Los

Not that this will necessiarily contribute anything to the specifics of TRP mechanics but... Kingfish says... "CM doesn't differentiate between TRPs given to the attacker or defender. They both function the same way. That means an attacker who has just now arrived on the battlefield, has only a few tac maps to work with, and maybe a few sketchy reports from recon units...: This is absolutely incorrect. Just because the game doesn't force you to go through a laborious hours, days, or weeks-long planning process does not mean that the attacker's fire plan was not well thought out by the notional staff prior to the game you are actually playing. (By their very presence in a scenario TRPs connote a higher degree of offensive or defensive preparation) TRPs, whether they are in the attack or in the defense, represent a distillation of the prewritten fire support annex of the detailed operations order which would have been prepared before the battle commenced. Whether or not the player himself applies any organization to what he is doing on the field is irrelevant to the fact that the presence of TRPs connotes an implied prior planning and preparation process. If anything, attacks are as a rule generally as well planned out and prepared for as defense. The CM TRPs represent pre-plotted TRPs your manuever units would have created or at least received as part of the detailed plannning process that leads up to doing anything. Game players usually set off with their forces with little or no plan or sketch it out as it goes along in a "let's see what happens mentality". However, even a movement to contact against an unknown enemy would have a detailed plan of preparation prior to the lead elements crossing the LD. And before anyone leads off with the no plan survives first contact with the enemy crap, one of the many critical purposes of a plan is that it provides a common base for change to react to emergent situations on the battle field. The player, who in almost all games is isolalted of all the real frictions of combat, is generally immune to these forces, regardless of what effects games designers place in their way to provide a little friction, and thus don't need to go through the detailed planning that occurs (in an implied fashion) behind the scenes of the program. Cheers (and HNY!)... Los

Nice work David, particularly your point about smoothing elevation changes and how that effects map design with roads and what not is well taken. Los

I was wondering when someone was going to point out their obvious best use, as scouts or OPs. They should never fire a shot at all. Just have them observe, as if they ran wire out to their OP. Los

Yes Charles and Steve had it written by John Williams and performed by the Haitian Philharmonic. Los

Here stand still I'll pull the dagger out. As I said it was all in jest. Just couldn't let the irony pass unnoticed. Los

There may have been a French knight, this was years ago and it's hard for me to remember all the details. If there was he wasn't singled out for any special feelings one way or another that stuck in my memory.. Los

I'll relate an interesting observation. Back around 92-93 I was in germany attending their parachute school on a military exchange. One a Sunday off we went up to Kaltenburg (IIRC) to this mideival festival which goes on for like a week straight. The inetresting thing for me was the knights jousting and contest. Obviously this was all reenacting and was as choreographed as any World Wrestling federation event. (and the crowd acted about the same too) There were fiive or six knights: Black German Knight White German Knight Polish Knight English knight Jewish Knight Italian Knight Russian Knight Anyways they all went through a series of Knighly evolutions from horsemanship, mounted sword, lance and arrow target drills etc and the ultimate being a joust/fight off until one guy was left to claim the title. I noticed all the Knights were treated with deference and respect except the Italian knight which was sort of portrayed as a bumbling idiot, and was the butt of the crowds derision and laughter. The Russian knight was the elast liked and was quicly dispatched in early fighting. Even more interesting was the Black German knight. This guys was clearly the crowd's favorite. As the events progressed he became more unruly and violent during the competition, cheating, getting in cheap shots on other knights and basically got so out of control that it took a combined effort of all the other Knights to defeat him. Finally it was the White German Knight that killed him off in single combat, taking the prize and restoring the honor to the event. No I know I was porbbaly reading to much into this spectacle but damn if that Black Knight was the good old fashioned german, clad in SS black, clearly the best fighter of all the European Knights, kicking ass and taking names and could only be defeated by the rest of Europe banding together to bring him down. And what about that Italian, the crowd also had heartfelt and deep seated feelings about his martial prowess too? Same with the Russian Knight. The English and the Polish knights were protrayed as honorable and were well received, but I guess the Jewish Knight was in their for political correctness or what? And the white German knight obviously the hero and good guy. It just seemed to me that that was exactly the message which was being protrayed and for damn sure that's how the crowd was feeding into it. Anyways... that day always stuck with me. Los

"As long as the battle scenes are somewhat realistic, and they dont dress up M1 Abrahms tanks as Tigers or T-32s, I will be fine with it." Ha that's pretty funny! There were no "T32s" or Tigers at Stalingrad anyway. Sounds like you wouldn't be able to detect historical accuracy even if there was some. Los (all in jest)

Not that I want to have this same discussion again for the second time this week, BUT, the on map mortar thing and how it pertains to indirect fire is not so much a limitation of trained FOs as it is in individual mortars crews scattered around the map not being able to set up their own FDC and have comms through the entire process requried to put that IF target. A search can lay this all out in repeated and excrutiating detail. Los

A couple caveats when trying to apply modern manuals (even potential 1950s manuals) to WW2 in particular the cited example above. (It is only as an absolute last resort that we ever defaulted to any modern source and the examples can be counted on one hand such as burn time for smoke arty and mortar rounds) A modern company mortar section has normally a crew of 4 to 5 (varies with service and time/OB currently in use), section leader, gunner, assitant gunner, and ammo bearer(s). The two critical components are: 1. In current doctrine the section has the equipment, capability and training to form it's own mini FDC. and more importantly... 2. Each tube has it's own radio! So if for some reason the comnpany commander was intending to leapfrog his tubes forward, he could have one tube fire IF while the other displaces (albeit in a less efficient mannder since one guys is doing all the FDC, however it's somthing current mortar maggotts do. This is not a WW2 capability in US mortars. Each tube does not lug around it's own radio. Not that there couldn't have been either occasioanl jury-rigged solutions or special units which did make amends for this type of operations (i.e. 1st SSF) which could lead to the occasional example cited in WW2. But we're not in the business coding up every possible jurry rigged solution for every tactical porblem in ww2 land combat. (Or else I'd have sharks with frikken laser beams sticking out of their foreheads) Keep in mind also that Brit 2" and German 50mm company mortars are primarily direct fire weapons firing from a LOS site not IF weapons. Now if you want to make mortar ops on map realistic. 1. Add a mortar HQ which serves two purposes, talks to the CO or whoever is spotting and serves as FDC. All tubes would have to remain in command radius of this HQ to do IF. If they detach then they can only do direct lay or direct alignment. (An ASIDE: Direct lay equals what we know to be direct fire. The tube uses a LOS site to fire on the target. In direct alignment the tube is under cover but can see a spotter and either through voice commands or if they're really good hand an arm signals fire IF while this guy spots. There is not FDC in this case it's just as if the gunners eyeballs were extended another 10-50m.) 2.Enact more sophisticated communications routines between the company/platoon HQs and this mortar HQ modified by experience and OB (i.e. does the OB allow for radios or just wire) Wire more reliable, radio more mobile. 3. Ensure that if the mortar platoon relocated that it requires X amount of turns to pack up and when it stops it requires X amount of turns to setup. Also this X amount of turns to set up is further modified by requiring reestablishment of communications since someone would have had to run wire to the new location from the spotter or hope that there's radio contact. Of course the other infinately simpler option is to just abstract this in allowing the purchase of a 60mm spotter for the compnay and leave the 60mm's off the map. Before CM went out we went back and forth over the whole mortar thing very carefully and generated MUCH discussion on this issue. We also consulted some non-CM beta team mortar experts also. The decision to arrive at the current mortar scheme of things was not taken lightly but we also had to work within the current structure of the engine... Maybe we'll see some changes with on map tubes in CM2 but remember that the Russian's 50mm company mortars and German company mortars (50mm) were used soley as Direct lay high angle fire weapons without IF sighting mechanisms. Los