Los

That is after all one of the key primary (and often overlooked) missions of a sniper: observation. Los

"Adding to the above, many Grogs get their info about war and weapons from the games they play. This is a very bad thing to do as most games (ASL included) have so many factual mistakes and gameplay modifications that they don't hold water." BTW Flight sim fanatics are EXACTLY the same way. Los

Yes Tommi is correct Finalnd was not allied. A poor choice of words on my point. The correct term would be friendly neutral OR ELSE. Which is basically what the political term "Finlandization" means. Or more accurately "The concept of "Finlandization" in foreign policy was that a nation could make a deal with the USSR and not lose its sovereignty." The Finns walked a very creative line with the Russians RE: The Treaty of Moscow" and maintained their independence which was quite a tribute to them. Though I'm sure had the Russians tried to screw with Finland in a Warsaw pact/Nato war, they would have run into the exact same problem as in 1939. Los

Hey for a good readable and detailed account about the Russo-Finnish war I would suggest Willaim R. Trotter's Winter War. It's been a while since I read it so bear with me. One of the main reason the Russians attacked Finland was their concern about obtaining as much defensive terrain as possible, they demanded some islands and naval bases in the Gulf of Finland as well as the Karelian (sp?) Isthmus in the fall of 1939. After an intense series of negotiations, which eventually proved fruitless, the Russians attacked with overwhelming force. One side effect which almost occured was Britain and France going to war with Russia. There was a huge outcry around the world about small poor Finland being invaded by the nasty Russians (Remember the Russians had also just invaded Poland in conjunction with Germany.) There was very much pressure in the governments of the western allies to do something to help Finland and the French and English drew up plans to send a relief force through Finland. The Germans (BTW as pissed at the Russians as anyone else), took action against Norway, in some small part to cut off this northern threat by the Allies hence the invasion of Norway. As for the conduct of the war, generally, the initial Russain invasion was a combination of criminal bungling by high command, ineptly trained troops and staunch Finn resistance. Remember the Russians had just finished the great Red Army Purge where thousands of officers of all ranks were executed on being suspected of treason, so the Army was loaded with incompetents at this point (and would remain that way for years). The factors above combined with the coldest Finn winter in decades led to a major debacle that almost did Molotov (Russia's foreign minister) in. Particualrly in the central and northern fronts Russian divisions litteraly came to a standstill on the roads they travelled on, freezing and dying by the thousands while lone Finn ski battalions isolated them, and cut the columns into pieces, destroying each pocket in detail. Fighting in the south at Karelia was characterized by mass armor assualts, Human wave attacks and huge artillery barrages against a fixed defenisive line. These assault when on for weeks and incurred horrendous casulties . These are the kinds of actions which you see in the movie Winter War. The Finns had to hold here because this was the gateway to their nearby capital of Helsinki. The world held their breath and drew inspiration from the Tiny Finland's successful fight against the Goliath Russia's onslaught. The Russians hitched up their trousers and drew more forces together. (Some say as many as a million troops were committed all together) There then commenced a second phase of the war where the russians committed even larger number of troops some of which were better trained for cold weather operations and this overwhelming force eventually led to the Finn capitulation. Of course the Finns licked their wounds and sided with Germany in the invasion of Russai, all too eager to get their terrain back. This is known as the continuation war. The finns launched a determined offensive which tossed the Russains out in short order, however after that they severly limited their further operation and didn't drive in to Russia. When the tables turned and the Russain steamroller started roliing west, they ran again into staunch Finn resistance. What with all the other commitments of the war with Germany, heh russains would eventually settle with not occupying Finland and the Finns maintained an independence of sort though they were sort of required to be allied with Russia during the cold war to some extent (hence the term "finlandization".) Still no Russians divisions occupied Finalnd as did the rest of eastern europe. (Except for a little piece of Karelia they sliced off for themselves.) There's are tons of great small unit actions to study re: The Winter War. Get the book and the movie! Los p.s. my apologies in advance for anything I might have left out or gotten wrong. [This message has been edited by Los (edited 08-19-99).] [This message has been edited by Los (edited 08-19-99).]

I liked SPR because it captures combat better than any other movie ever made. (exception being Winter War) As for the story or whether this platoon of that ranger company actually landed 50 meters further west or not, well that misses the whole point. Heck I'm as technically adept at spotting stuff like that as anyone around, so what? You wnat the perfect war movie? Do what I did and spend 21 years slogging around all over the world like a pack mule. The two major battle scenes are as well done or better than any ever have been (Remel and the Beach). I'll put up with this or that bit of imperfection (or outright BS)to get more movies that depict combat in such a manner. RE: Those documentaries I mentioned The Panzer's Marsch can be obtained here: www.jjfpub.mb.ca and the FrontSchau (and some other good documentaries, should be available here: http://www.scholarsbookshelf.com/ Re: The Odd Angry shot. I enjoyed the flick. I've also seen Attack Force Z, The Light Horsemen, Gallipoli. What other good Aussie based war-flicks are out there? Cheers... Los

My favorites: (I assume we're talking ground based WW2?) 1. SPR. 'Nuff said. 2. Winter War, (just as good as SPR) Russia vs Finland. YOU MUST OWN THIS MOVIE. 3. Come and See. Like Steve says... 4. Cross of Iron. Needs little introduction if you call yourself a ww2 move buff. Some great one liners, my favorite: (kruger) "Idiots. If you've been in the field as long as I have, you'd know. Natural body oils...combined with dirt...can help make you waterproof." 5. Bridge Too Far. The best airborne sequences ever. 6. Battleground. Van Johnson. 101st at Bastonge. A classic and a great story. 7. Objective Burma (people!!!!) Erroll Flynn. Sure it's got propaganda (those stinking nips...) but it's the one of the best examples of a real special op gone bad that you'll find anywhere. Good battle sequences (has the rare .30 cal single man operated LMG in it) A good flick considering it was made in 1945. I show it to Special Forces Assessment and Selection candidates when we evaluate them. (part to keep them awake during sleep deprivation cycles, part because it shows how everything goes wrong.) 8. The Lost Command. OK OK it's really the French in Algeria, 1950s but this para battalion has damn cool uniforms and lizard caps (steve?) Good battle sequences. Anthony Quinn. BTW Sand of Iwo Jima is on DVD now and it has some footage that was edited out. Mostly live footage from Tarawa and Iwo Jima, which is woven into the acted out stuff quite well. Worth a watch. Biggest dissappointments ever made. 1. Thin Red Line. How someone could take one of the greatest war books ever written and vomit all over it so thoroughly I'll never know. (Oh yeah didn't Verhoeven do that with StarShip Troopers too?) 2. Stalingrad. Jeez. A good story. Plenty of money behind it. Some good battle sequences, (well the tank attack) but they could have spent the money on a technical advisor that would have made the battle scenes more realistic particularly the very disappointing city fighting scenes. I waited so long for this flick and was there at the studio in Germany when they were filming it. It's nota terrible flick like TRL, it just could have been a lot better. BTW as an aside I do own that Italian Russian Front Movie Attack and Retreat. (W/ Peter Falk) It's worth a rent if you can get it. And I still haven't seen "The Bridge!" Now if we spread to other areas then I toss in: 1. Das Boot. 2. Twelve O'Clock high. One of the best Command movies ever. 3. Battle of Britain. If you are at all into WW2 aviation this is it. And if you can get these documentaries: 1. Die Frontshau (International Historic Films) Three movies (each 20-20 minutes) designed for company commanders/bn commanders on how to attack a village, and two seperate defensive situations made by the Germans in WW2 all with live combat footage. Subtitled. 2. Panzers Marsch. (Chronos Films) A number of short films two of which (training films) include defense of panzer against attacking infantry when you've lost your own infantry support. (A ton of great in-tank footage showing these drills) and how to employ a bn reserve in a counterattack against a Russian brakthrough. Again great footage and a great teaching fil even for today. Anyone who doubts we didn't lift our operational doctrine largely from the Germans needs only to watch this film. 3. World At War: Island Hopping. This is one of the best one hour WW2 documentaries on film. Pacific action. 4. Defense of Normandy (International historic Films) Covers German preparations at Normandy from their side (This was made during the war) and then has great german combat footage in Normandy, esp. SS and paras. 5. Lest we Forget. (Scholar's bookshelf?) Eisenhower had this made right after WW2 to commemorate the allied campaign in Europe, but then ordered all copies destroyed because he thought it was too negative. Excellent combat footage and funny narration. 6. Battle of San Pietro: (Frank Capra) A classic that needs little introduction. See the Americans get their asses handed to them in the San Pietro valley by a combination of the Germans the elements and Mark Clark. 7. Battleground: Remember this series in the fifties? Take an allied and an axis participant of battle xyz and have them narrate the film. There's a tape that has Holland, Crete, Cassino and Normandy on it. Crete and Cassino are two battles I am always studying. Great footage of each. Sorry for the ramble...I'm sure I'm leaving out more. Cheers... Los

Keep in mind that Special Operations Forces are strategic assets. If you are going to piss them away in meaningless tactical engagements where conventionals can do the job then you miss the point of having SOF in the first place. But then again Rangers in WW2 were often used more along the line of elite light infantry (which is what they are anyway) at the discretion of the local commander than unconventioanl warfare troops. Your OSS was conducting most of the Unconventioal Warfare stuff. BTW did you guys know 2 bns of Rangers were captured en mass at Anzio and paraded through the streets of Rome? Quite a waste of valuable assetts. That's what happens when you misuse them. Los

I thought one of the most incredible and tragic passages in the book is when that Greek farmer hears a shot and sees his son goes down. He hears another shot and then his wife goes down. He grabs a sickle runs out side and here's the German coming down in his parachute, pistol in hand. The German aims at him but a gust of wind tugs him backwards (still in his harness) so the guy runs up and gives him a sickle enema. He turns around and there's a whole stick of paras landing on and around his house. He runs around and kills like 8 of them. Amazing stuff. I believe he later turned himself in for execution rather than allow a bunch of innocents to be killed. Los

I too just got done reading "Ten Days to Destiny, Battle of Crete" which I enjoyed. (Thanks John for turning me on to that book!) For one thing it's just about the only book on the subject that covers the Greek point of view in any depth since as is typical for much English (meaning British or Commonwealth) based officail history: if it wasn't done by a commonwealth unit then why acknowledge the wogs at all? It was interesting that the Greek units were the ones that basically allowed the Commonwealth to get away but received no consideration in the evacuation. The minor annoyance in the book is the author's treatment of the Germans. He goes on for pages on end about various minor allied firefights and the germans attacks are aleways being "annihlated" or sent back with heavy losses at the point of the bayonet. We get these heroics in detail but when the Germans do something it's just a "They eventually secured village x". I would have liked to see the same kind of detailed occasionally put into the German POV as it was on the allied side. But then again lots of historical books are like that. STill, it's a good informative read with lots of detail on little know facts such as how the Allies gathered their intel on the invasion etc etc. NOTE: This is not to say that there isn't some good detail about the German operations in the book, but you sort of have to read between the lines to realize that despite being totally outnumbered for the whole operation, being low on food water, and everything else, small bands of germans fought on and eventually took that island. I would have liked to havve seen explained what kind of decisions and action went into taking this or that house of position for ther German side as it covers he allied side. Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 08-10-99).]

BTW I dl'd the PE demo and really like it (only played it for about 3 hours). Has a great feel, interface graphics and sounds. The terrain is nice even if it is 2d sprites for trees and stuff. It reminds me somewhat fo a fun game that came out years ago, available only by internet. (I was even a beta tester on it but for the life of me can't remember the name now) In that game after you set your strategy you could jump into ANY vehicle or individual soldier on the map and fight it out. Basically Panzer Elite in 2d. Was fun creeping around through the woods. Anyway I digress. I like the terrain in this game, lots of folds and other terrain totake to take advanatge of. Yes you can micro manage the crewstations of use a simple interface from the commanders hatch or even outside the tank to order your vehicle and the rest of the platoon to do stuff. (Note outside views are option-limited by the server in MP which is cool). Personally I haven't experienced any crashes yet. (PII 450 w/ Pure 3dII and stb V4400). I find it easier to use than M1TPII and it gives me a better sense of being in a real battle. (Or at least the kind we watched in those ww2 movies) This combined with CM will both make fine additions to my harddrive. Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 08-04-99).]

Doug, I've played that game, it's been on my hard drive for the past 21 years Problem is that's not too much fun when you are actually playing it. It's only fun to talk about after the scenario is over and you're back at hoome with a beer in your hand. And the problem is my knees aren't what they're used to be so I'm looking for something a litle more virtual. ALso the leaving home (w/a 2 year old kid) also detracts from the experience. So this version could be played in your own house of all places! And yes I've seen plenty bitten in the ass by that fatal restart bug you've mentioned. Even in training mode! RE: That 82d airborne game is that legit? I didn't tryout the 101 game (something about top down view) What's the scale? sqauds? ala CC? Los

I wish somebody would make a game called Infanty Platoon Simulator. It would look like this: You would control one infnatry platoon (a company would be better as an expansion!). The game has two phases. Planning and preparation and then execution. In the P&P phase you sit through a mission briefing then plan out everything to the gnat's ass. Of course you are managing the platoon roster, leader development etc. Planning would follow the standard Troop Leading porcedures. You could conduct recon or request recon info to help your plan along, set contingency plans etc etc. This would be somewhat similar to what happens in Rainbow Six but on a much more detailed level. You can have your sqauds rehearse actions at the objectives of immdeiate action drills (which would allow them to "LEARN" the SOPs youw nat them to.) Then you go to the execution phase. The view now shifts from a standard wargamers view to a FPS view. You Are the platoon leader. You move out give orders on the radio of via hand and arm signals if you have LOS to your subordinate leasers or by running up to them and telling them. You want a map view? Pull our your crumpled map and look at it, matching it with what you see around you (unless you ahve the modern/post modern version with GPS). **** hits the fan. WTF? The squads have to report in direction and nature of fire. You can give general orders to squads but eth squads do everything themselves unless you choose to accompany them and personally direct them. (Like in command mode near an MG team you point at the team, that's in position, click to select (from your won eyes mind you) and click where you want them to fire, etc). Other fun tasks include calling in indirect ifre, conslidating and reorganizing after various events etc. In other words you perform a PL's actions through his eyes. Fatigue and confusion is modelled. Graphics:top notch. No God more or anything like that though the game has a replay function where you could view everything (AFTER the escenario is over) ala CM. If you wanted to get fancy you could have a option where you could jump to the various leaders or even differnt guys in the platoon and partake in the simple firing action (platoon leaders don't suually have enough time to do this when they're running the platoon. As the platoon leader, the more you expose yourself, or run to your leaders for face to face orders (which translates to the squad having a higher chance of doing exactly what you say) then your mission has a higher chance of being successful. But of course you have a higher chance of getting killed! A campaign could go like this. Your platoon/company gets orders to attack an enemy strongpoint. The first scenario might ne a simple recon platoon with a squad to gather information which would then be available in the next scenarios planning phase, thus increasing the likelyhood of success. For the next scenario, the assault. You may be given attachments to help out (an engineer squad to breach obstacles), some mortars, company level MGs or even tanks. Indirect fire, etc. After that maybe a mission to hold the objectives (losses carried over from previous mission. (and did you plan for follow up resupply?) ANyway you get the gist. This could actually make a useful training tool. Oh well I can dream... Los

While they were around, the mechanism where Joe Blow the platoon or company commander could get on the horn and call in an airstrike wasn't there. Airstrikes were usually laid on for specific missions, particularly in the ETO and not available on a GS basis. The air force did a lot of ground attack, but that was mostly either interdiction or ground support being directed from their own FACs in Piper Cubs. Basically they were busy fighting their own war or working for ground commanders way up the food chain. While this could be built into a specific scenario, air to ground coordination in the Army in ETO, generally wasn't quite up to the Marine a2G coordination displayed earlier in the PAC. Of course their were exceptions. By the way we're kind of back to that same situation today. :-( Los

Howdy guys, Just returned from a few weeks away. Re: LMG pickup. The squad would attempt to retain the gun as long as there was anyone left standing. It was and remains SOP in just about every major army in the world since the damn things came into service. The first thing you do during consolidate and reorganize (a drill one does a often at the completion or a pause in firefights or even while there's one going on) is re-man your crew served or greatest casaulty producing weapons. Of course none of this runs against anything Steve is saying since the chance that it is retained can be a function of training and experience. Though even experienced squads could lose a turn of more of usage as they get someonme one to the weapon as it is likely that if the gunner is hit, so is the AG. BTW when I got back I had a nice package in eth mail with among other things, this incredible video of german panzer and PG operations (called Panzer Marsch!)made during WW2 for training. It shows in Panther A/Ds vsions blocks being smashed from MG fire during combat, and the drill they go through to rapidly replace them. (takes a few seconds). It even shows the proper way to grind any fighting popsitions into pulp. This is in answer to another post somewhere. ANother film takes a regimental defense and it's reserve company (a plt of PGs, a plt of JgdpzIVs, and a flammenwerfer section) through the entire planning and execution phase. Awesome footage, dialogue and graphics. If anyone has any doubt that our current doctrine is lifted nearly verbatim from theGermans they need only watch this. (there's even some humourous banter too) I ordered it through JJ. Fedorowitz which I believe is at: Los

"Also column reduces effective forward firepower; only the troops in the first few ranks can fire without whacking friendlies." However a platoon or company column is the more effective way to move quickly. Maybe I'm worng but this column vs line thing sounds more napoleanic than WW2. I don't think the game has to take into account column vs line formatins. this is after all squad units. You can align your guys in column of sqauds or company of squads on line. The advantages or disadvantages of either don't really need to be coded into the system since you'll find out the hard way which one is more or less effective.

A few more interesting points, in the MMG vs MMG comparison, a broken down m1919 (that's the US 30cal) can not be fired, (unless you are Audie Murphy). While the MG42, with it's bipod, can. Re: the LMG v LMG comparison. Have any of you guys ever seen "Objective Burma"? It's one of my favorite war movies ever despite the fact it was actually made in 1945. IIRC you can see the LMG version of the M1919 in operation. (I believe). Steve says: "Morale is shaken up by incoming firepower. The more heavy and sustained it is, the greater the chance that morale and stance will change. The MG42 is devistating because it delivers massive firepower in small, and frequent, doses." A great point. I don't mean to denigrate accurately aimed and placed small arms fire, but firefights, like battles and wars, are won more on defeating the enemies morale and will to stick wihth it, thean by annihlating his forces. To this end, establishing overwhelming fire superiority normally means havinga greater volume of fire. It sounds scary and it's in teh right location to keep your head down, your side starts firing back less and less, a few guys get killed, then people start pulling back or hauling ass. When all is said and done, you may have lost just a few guys, but Damn, at the time, it sounded like the whole world was coming to an end! That's fire superiority. Los

I'm sure Steve will fill in all the details (and I'm too lazy to run to my reference library) but... Re: ROF. First you have to distinguish between cyclic Rate of Fire, (How fast can the MG spit out bullets in the perfect world with endless ammo and coolant), and sustained ROF, (how many rounds can the MG put down range without melting the barrel.) When you are on the receiving end of fire, it doesn't matter if the MG is spitting out 15 rounds a second or thirty (cyclic). Either way you are supressed. It does matter if the MG can keep up these bursts uninterrupted for minutes at a time or if here are significant interruptions in fire. (to swap out magazines) However, there are big significant differences between the german and allied machineguns. On the LMG level, the MG34/42 has it all over the BAR, BREN, imo. Weight wise, the MG42 is a little heavier though still man portable, than the BREN or BAR. But both allied weapons are box. A MG42 can squeeze off up to 15 6-9 round bursts before he has to change a belt (and even then you can simply link the belts together and keep it going), where as after 20 rounds the BAR gunner has to swap mags, and ammo portage in that fashion can be an issue. And 100 rounds of linked MG42 ammo weighs less than 100 rounds of BAR ammo in boxed magazines. More imoprtantly every German squad has an MG42, where the closest equivallent on the US side the M1919 (A3?) is a platoon weapon. Now on the HMG side of things the equation gets worse. The German HMG is still an MG42 but mounted on a triopod which makes it more accurate at greater ranges. The US equivallent, the M2 can not even really be considered a decent infantry weapon (though a great vehicle mounted weapon). I'm stretching through memory here, but the M2 complete with receiver, barrel and tripod, weighs like a 132 pounds not including ammo! It's next to impossible to lug the thing assembled. Once you set the thing up IT STAYS THERE. Not really a useful weapon in a manuevering advance or attack type of thing. The MG42 broken down still functions as a one man carried LMG with another guy carrying the tripod. However the M2 has decent light armor stopping power and a greater effective range than the MG42. Oh one other important advantage to the German weapons. It has a quick change barrel system. It litteraly takes a few seconds to swap out a barrel on an MG42 (this has since been adopted by most other MGs) It's very difficult and time consuming to do on a 30 cal, (never done it on one of those) and also on a 50 cal. After SCREWING the barrel off and screwing in a new one (The MG42 has a lever you flick then you give it a half turn and it comes off), on the fifty you also then have to pull out this little tool to set Headspace and Timing to ensure you have screwed the barrel in just enough that the firing pin will hit the primer on a fully seated round. Too much or too little and the thing won't fire right or not at all. All this stuff translates on the battlefield to heavy rapid sustainable fire being there when you need it through out the length of the firefight without interruption. Cheers... Los

Why a faster 2d card? Isn't CM a 3d game? BTW I have the STBV4400 (16mb)and it's rendered me great service in both 2d/and 3d mode. (Delata Force runs smooth if that's any indication) Los

ANother good point, just becasue teh guy fired into the vision blocks doesn't mean he killed anybody. It's a good tactic to blind the tank, that's as good away to do it as any. I remember an old WW2 movie where they caked mud on the thing. The fact of the matter is once you have infantry crawling all over your tank, you are screwed unless someone comes to the rescue. Los

In SPR they are supposed to be throwing mortar rounds not bazooka rounds. I've never done this but have heard that it's feasible. A quick explanation of how mortar rounds work: Each round has a small percussion cap at the back end. There is NO propellant inside a mortar round. Just the cap (though it might produce enough umpff to propell the round a tad in some mortar types). Outside the tail of the mortar round are a number of wide o-ring shaped pads (or wafers) of propellant. Sometimes they are little bags. These are known in mortarman parlance as "cheeses" since that's what they look like. When you fire mortar rounds the number of cheeses on the round, combined with the angle of the tube, determines the range. So if a mortar round has 4 cheeses, part of prepping the round includes removing cheeses if necessary. BTW the cheeses do not explode but burn, so part of the aftermath of any good mortar shoot is when you pile up all the cheeses and burn them. It's cool, but don't get too close! Now up near the nose of the mortar round there is a metal ring with a pin in it. This is the fuze. Having prepped the round by removing the appropriate cheeses, you would pull the pin. You hand the round to the guy dropping it, who hangs it in the tube and then lets it go. Usually after the round leaves the tube it spins a few times tossing off the safety ring (this depends on the type of round, sometimes you just remove it completely), thus ensuring it won't blow up in your face. However it comes off, once the safety ring is gone, the round WILL blow up if you drop it on it's nose, so don't. So anyway, I am only familiar with modern 60mm, 81mm, 82mm, and 4.2" mortar rounds. I have never seen a WW2 vintage 60mm round so take what I say witha grain of salt. I am not a mortar man by trade but once a year just for porfficiency's sake we have a mortar day. I also spent one month in a mortar platoon in Alaska as part of an exchange once. It was a great time. There's nothing like firing off a bunch of rounds and then waiting a minute and hear the explosions in the distance far away. (they sound like someone slamming a bunch of huge doors) RE: The vision slits, many tanks it WW2 did not have glass blocks or would have them remove after they were shattered. I do not know if the Tiger falls into this category. I doubt it does because if it had bullet proof vision glass they would not have included armored doors over the small vision blocks. But I could be wrong. They have a few Tigers at the proving Grounds in Maryland that I have crawled over plus at Fort Knox) but I do not recall looking into the blocks. As far as realism in SPR, I have seen inane discussions about how this Ranger bn or that landed a mile this way or that, thus invalidated the movie, blah blah blah. The fact is, SPR is the most realistic portrayal of combat hands down, that's the point of the movie, IMO, small blemishes in technical accuracy aside. The only thing wrong about it is that it's not about the 82d. ;-p However running a close second I would HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend Winter War, a finnish movie which came out a few years ago about the Russian invasion of Finland in 1939. Oh my God! Don't ask me where they got all tose T26s and all that other obscure 1939 russian armor! Get your hands on it at all costs. There is a subtitled version available through Belle and Blade. cheers... Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 07-09-99).]

(Time for Los' dreary real-life post again) It seems to me perfectly normal that AI would be developed from lowest to highest level (tactical to strategic) If we were going to train, say an infantry battalion, we would start out with individual traiining, (weapons zeroing and handling, then individual movement techniques and buddy team fire and movement). Then you do some specialist training, (Machine gunners, mortar men, demo, radios, leader stuff etc) Then you progress to squad tactics (from here on out the leaders are pulled out occasionally for specialist leader training) Then it progresses to platoon, then compant etc. In the squad, platoon, company phases of training, the general gist is movement and movement formations, react to contact, attack, defense, and immediate action drills. Finally when all the component pieces are in some semblance of working order, and each sub unit can perfrom its assigned task, then you begin bn level training and exercizes. Keep in mind the officers would have been doing staff exercizes and wargaming for some time concurrent with eth lower unit training so there is some concurrent AI development, but the loweer peices have to be done first OR you have a goatrope. Hopefully this won't cause anyone to put their fist through the screen.

And if you really want to get in depth, the success of the shift fire/lift fire command in the orders phase is modified by th same factors as the chance lift fire, plus: If unit coming into LoF has smoke or flares, then modify base percentage by x%. Los

I guess hopefully we'll see one of two things. (perferably both) 1. When a friendly unit gets in the line of fire, the shooting unit makes a percentage roll modified by range, visibility, experience, leadership present, and training to lift fire. 2. In the orders phase, there is a command called "shift fire To" (And you designate anotehr tgt area) or "Lift Fire" that occurs either: a. When situation 1 occurs, or... b. At a certain time during the impulse phase. (though at one minute turns it could be a moot point). Los

Yeah Arnold can play Max Schmelling who was a wold heavyweight boxing champion (I believe) who lost to Joe Lewis. He was a Fallschirmjaeger and they of course made a big deal about it (sort of like when Elvis joined the Army). Re: Stuff to read about Crete: The best sources is the Official History of New Zealand forces in WWII published in 1953. There is a volume dedicated solely to Crete as well as seperate volumes for 21,22,and 23 bn. Of course it focuses pretty much on them. The best German source is Der Kampf um Kreta by Franz Kurowski. I've only seen it in German though other stuff of his is finding it's way into English. I would highly recommend History of the 3rd FJ Regt volume II. As I said somewhere else this has thousands of pictures just on this regt and hundreds of never before seen shots of Crete getting ready, jumping in and fighting as well as a narative of their ops there. BTW I have not read "Ten Days to Destiny, the battle for Crete 1941" so look forward to a review when you are done. ANyway just an interesting side note is casualties suffered by both sides. The NZ histories peg their own casualties at 15,747 out of 42,000 enaged. (this does not include those drowned on sunk ships). They originally estimated about 11k German losses out of 23k erngaged but more detailed research cut this down to about 6600 of which 4000 were killed. German casualty returns right after the fighting had them at 1353 killed, 2611 missing, and 1928 wounded. For a total of 5892 so you can see the figures are not too far off (most of the MIA would have been found after the battle or did indeed wash up on shore (remember 324 were droned when the seaborn flotilla was scattered, 1953 NZ estimates had erroneously placed this at 5000!) On Crete there are in fact about 4000 German war graves though some (maybe up to several hundred) would have been soldiers killed during the occupation which followed. ANyway while it was pretty expensive for the Germans we paid, what, 4000 casualties including a 1000 dead for Tarawa, an island not too much bigger than Maleme airfield! Anyway it's always interesting to see the whole research side of things and how much SWAG (scientific Wild-Ass Guessing) goes into it. BTW The ALLIES definately sat up and took very close notice to Crete after the battle. I have a box of old secret documents including a 200+ page report that when right to the Secretary of War about every lawt detail which could be put together on how the Germans took Crete. The attitude at least here in the US was, "Hey we gotta have that capability!" The US (and UK which were sharing this info back in forth), had the luxury of learning from the mistakes which the Germans themsleves made. (Just as we learned from Tarawa also.) BTW there is a misconception that Germans dropped without weapons. This is not totally true. Lessons had already been learned from Holland/Norway. Any German that had a Schmeiiser as his issue weapon most likely would have dropped with the SMG. All Germans dropped with Grenades and pistols. SOme said screw it and did drop with their rifles. I have seen footage on Crete where even some hardy machine gunners went out the door with MG32s in one hand and a case of ammo in the other! Quite amazing. Though what they woudl do is just before hitting the ground drop the weapons/ammo. This seems to have been left up to individual unit discretion (though I don't know down to what level, but my guess is units dropping close to their objectives would have been lugging their weapons out the door. AFter Crete the Germans conducted a number of regt and bn level drops into combat (Tunisia, Sicily, Leros, Ardennes for example) and you can be damn sure that every unit was jumping all their weapons. Cheers... Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 07-07-99).]

BTW, I migt have mentioned that I did a lot of research on Crete for a Gamer's boardgame (Hunters from the Sky). A real good buddy who works at the National archives provided me with boxes of research materials on Crete which I still have. I alos went to germany and attended the Airborne school there (part of an exchange porgram), and piucked up more valuable research. This includes lots for reprints of German, and Allied AARs. TOEs maps, etc etc both in english and in german. I have read anything that comes down the pike about Crete and can tell you that there are very few balanced accounts of the operation. Most are written from allied sources and contain much more about their operations and not so much details about the German side except how many they shot or basic outlines of their plans. WHile there were many problems with the German side of the operations, the fact of the matter is that these guys that survived hung on and took the island with little reinforcment. (I'm including the excellent 100 GB regt which air landed in under fire), thus upholding the finest traditions (well not so much upholding but establishing) of airborne forces. This in the face of high quality (ANZAC) opposition, though the allies suffered many command and control problems of their own. The operations in Normandy were slightly less disastorous, but again we see whole battalions suffering heavy casualties, being dumped in the ocean, scattered to hell or whatever, yet the few survivors that rally together go forward and get the job done. IMO Crete as well as the entire Balkans campaign was nothing short of a complete disaster for the Allies and the Royal Navy in particular. Despite heavy casaulties, this vital island was secured for German use throughout the war and the allies sent packing to Africa. But what an excellent battle it is to study! You have the ANZAC forces, arguably the toughest of the british empire troops, albeit handicapped by confusion, lack of equipment, and the standard incompetence showed by their sides' higher authority at that point in the war, as well as a collection of greek forces, unceremoniously dumped on Crete with little support and resources, saved for their own wits. The seas are surrounded by a Royal Navy who still has not quite learned the lesson that ships unsupported by air power in littoral regions are at high risk. Against them are the Fallschirmjaeger, with many experienced vets of their own from their campaigns in Europe, but rapidly expanded with many highly fit, trained, and motivated (but GREEN) volunteers, now asked to conduct an operation never before done. Handicapped by a major breach of intelligence. Supported by a GB divison which will go on to fight excellently in battle. And a seaborne reinforcement force destined for disaster, basically run over in variuous scows and tramp steamers, protected by one little Italian torpedo boat (Which goes on to render excellent and brave service in the futile defense of this rag tag fleet). Finally we see the Luftwaffe, arguably approaching peak efficiency, handing the Royal Navy a series of fatal blows in its attempt to defend Crete and pull off the survivors. The actual operations on Crete are small unit action heaven for anyone looking for good gaming scenarios, outnumbered and isolated FJ, with little or no time to recover from the shock of a calamitous landing, gathering themselves to go forward against the tough ANZACs and Greeks (themsleves hunting down isolated bands of paras with a vengence). The Defenders have their own problems, as the Luftwaffe interdicts their operations, sinks much of the Navy that will evacuate them and adds to the confusuion its commanders labor under, thus casuing for many missed opportunities. WHile neither sides upper commanders are seen at their best in this operation, it is the platoon leaders and NCOs/men on each side that step up to the plate and get the job done. If only some rich guy like Schwarzenegger would fund a movie on this battle Los P.S> Every year the german parachute school, at Altenstadt sends a contingent of about 50 paras to Crete to perform maintenace on the german cemeteries and monuments as well as do a terrain walk. They find new stuff every year, and when I was there brought back a helmet and a schmeisser back to the museum. (as well as soome newly uncovered remains) P.P.S BTW another interesting battle was the German Capture of Leros in 1943...