M Hofbauer

I agree. I don't really know. All I can say is that it seems very unlikely that there was a general policy to have soldiers salute every noncom around. It makes sense and seems plausible that during boot camp and recruit training they would have to salute their instructors and possibly all NCOs around as part of the whole boot camp thingie. It also seems a bit plausible to have soldiers salute the Spiess (Hauptfeldwebel, company sergeant). Outside of that I cannot imagine a ubiquitous custom to have soldiers salute NCOs, be it on-base or off-base. Above comments do not mean that I would have any definite knowledge, they are just my personal gut feeling.

I am very interested in this PzGr 38 - discussion as I had been musing over the different versions and their introduction dates recently. I want to contribute my findings so far and would be very happy for your comments and contributions that might help to clear up the matter. Mattias, it seems to me there were actually *four* models of the 7,5cm-Granate 38: PzGr 38, PzGr 38 HL/A, PzGr 38 HL/B and PzGr 38 HL/C this is what I concluded so far: The original PzGr 38 introduced the shaped charge and was available in June 1940. The shaped charge weighed 4.5kg, Vo of 452m/s, armor penetration of 40mm independent of range, effective range 1,200m In the latter part of 1941 the improved versions of the PzGr 38 were introduced, first the HL/A with a penetration of 70mm, then the HL/B with a penetration of 75mm. As late as spring 1943 the HL/B was still the standard HC ammunition, indicating that the HL/C had not been introduced then. The HL/C featured a further increased penetration capability which is cited between 90 and 100mm. To be honest, what found most surprising in all this was that I had always thought that the Pz.Gr. 38 HL/A had been introduced by the outbreak of WW II, yet it seems not even the original Pz.Gr. 38 had been issued then. WEhat do you think? Where do your findings so far contradict above data? curious, Markus

While what the others have already said is absolutely true, do not despair, there might be a workaround for you. Some helpful people have come up with unit databases in excel format. You can easily switch to the desktop from within CM by hitting, uhm, what was it again, shift-tab? Then you can view the unit database applet and find the information you are looking for, and click right back into CM where you left off.

the respective link http://www.dragonlair.net/combatmission/ doesn't work for me... Can somebody fill me in on what's going on?

The historic Feldjäger date back to the prussian Frederick II. ("the Great"). In 1740 when he was mobilizing his army he ordered the establishment of a group of Feldjäger which was to assist in pathfinding/traffic control and in liasion duty as messengers. Because their mission required special loyalty to the King the Feldjäger were recruited from the King's own forest rangers / hunters ("Jäger"), hence the term "Jäger". I think "Feldjäger" was simply a rank among the King's hunters/ forest rangers, the next higher rank was Oberjäger. And the original Feldjäger group created by Friedrich II. consisted of a dozen Feldjäger led by one Oberjäger and his assistant. They proved very useful and were continually expanded, so that the whole "service branch" was called "Preußisches berittenes Feldjägerkorps" (prussian mounted Feldjägerkorps) btw thanks for that other info on the formal address within WH and W-SS.

well, maybe these designated "blocking squads" were established later, and maybe there was no official SOP for the NKVD troops shooting deserters, but it is a fact that the NKVD acted as a de facto blocking force as early as 1941, when they even "blocked" civilians trying to flee. I saw a documentary once where both russian veterans and civilians told their stories, and there were several mentions of soviet civilians who told about the NKVD keeping them from fleeing Moscow, and one former NKVD sergeant confessed that they did indeed shoot civilians who aczed against the general order (the population had been told not to flee). He said they had to do that to prevent a general panic and rout among the civilian population. [ February 22, 2002, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Michael, of course you are correct, once more your astonishing knowledge on German WW II matters shows. Indeed these Feldjägerkorps existed, they were established December 1943. Besides their primary employment of controlling rear areas and apprehending AWOLs they also had a secondary function in "regular" MP duties such as traffic control and disaster control (~usually of the air raid - induced type). It is indeed interesting that the modern MPs are called Feldjäger, but the reason is that it is a historic term that predates the WW II / ThirdReich usage, it dates back I think to the prussian horse-mounted Feldjägerkorps. Another Ordnungsdienst of that kind was the Wehrmachtsstreifendienst, which was a combined rear area control effort of all three service branches, more or less the forerunner of the FJäger-Korps. The regular MilitaryPolice was the Feldgendarmerie, which were recruited mainly from the civilian Police.

Wittmmann's behavior at V-B does not fit your descritpion, however, and that is the one encounter he is most famous for.

the way I understood that quip, they didn't reconnoiter any facts at all. they drove up at high speed, their own guns shot at them, and they returned. or did I misunderstand the quote?

For anybody who says the AI is no challenge: Pick a low-points QB, something between 300 and 500 points. Give the AI 50 to 100% quantity bonus. Give yourself elite. Computer random force selection. AI attacks or assaults, you defend. 30 turns. Now tell me it is no challenge. It *is* a challenge unless you make it easy on yourself. To face the AI on equal ground and then go away boasting about how it is no challenge at all is not very honest IMO.

hmm, at first I was inclined to say he just picked a poor choice of words to say "you must speak german", assuming that for the german-speaking hosts of that forum english participants and the english language would be too much of a hassle. However, his follow-up post with his firm "YES!" to the objection someone voiced over the impression which his imperative condition might give, shows that the guy is either in very poor taste or, when looking at the URL he gives, he really does mean only german citizen can apply since the URL points to the even less tasteful company "cdv". Remember, cdv is the germany-based company which arose out of the gullies with the "most realistic wargame to date", SUDDEN STRIKE. I had seen the cdv logo on the shelf boxes of CM here in germany before, anmd IMO it is a major black eye for the reputation of BTS as a realism-dedicated, non-corporate enterprise to ally with such a fully commercial, realism-oblivious flash-and-bang marketing-based shenanigan such as cdv. Just in my humble personal opinion, of course.

you *are* wrong.

http://www.battlefield.ru/ gotta run, cheers, Markus

I happen to have before me the original Wehrmacht document D167/1 (25.9.1942), the german operating instructions for the MP-40 (I knew it would be of use some day). I am doing a translation-on-the-fly: To quote from page 12, C. "Handling of the weapon" I. (Nr. 17) "basics of handling", lit. c): "When firing the weapon, the right hand holds the trigger assembly grip with the index finger at the trigger. The left hand holds the weapon at the magazine housing, not at the magazine. When firing prone, the magazine may be used as a rest." The grip of the left hand on the housing and not the magazine itself is then emphasized again on p.13, C.IV. (Nr.20) (readying for firing). This completes your order

To elaborate/explain on what dalem said: in an assault you will notice that the setup zone for the defender is increased. Indeed, as he points out, this together with the increase in fortifications, this makes things much more difficult than if the defender would be restricted to a smaller confined setup zone around the VLs. IIRC I think the manual has a nice comment on the different battle types.

well, contrary to the russian MG thread now it was JasonC's turn to beat me to it with once again a more elaborate answer containing the same basic message.

It's an open secret that in the RealWorld both mud and snow as well as shallow water will considerably reduce the effect of artillery because the soft surface has the opposite effect that fuze extenders / VT fuses have: more of the round is below surface when the round goes off, meaning that more of the lethal fragmentation will be consumed by the soil. This effect affects smaller artillery (morars) more than it does affect the heavy stuff. Whether it is modeled in CM I cannot say. I have made very bad experiences so far with infantry caught by artillery in heavy snow, they tend to panic and break easily.

wow. I remember a time when even posters who actually contributed to the board or to the game in no small way would be reprimanded and banned for such insults.

nitpick: The BTR and BMP are IFVs (though the BTR is probably more the classical APC (armored transport) than the ideal IFV (substantially supporting the infantry during active combat)), while the Puma was an armored recon car. Russian equivalent would be the BRDM series, an even closer modern day equivalent would be the german Luchs. JasonC, interesting info on the Bradley. Are you sure you are referring to the current Bradley versions, and not the original ones? I remember the Bradley when the first vehicles were fielded in Schweinfurt in the eighties (still with amphibious capability even), and the later versions they are using today look a lot different, a lot bulkier and more substantial. It's just that I am wondering why a vehicle in the size of the Bradley, armored only between 40 and 20mm, would weigh in at 30 tons ?

Well, we have among others the MG 131, the MG 151/15 and the MG151/20. The Germans *did* have heavy machine guns and machine cannons of the kind you're inquiring about; thing is that they were never around anywhere near the numbers of the .50cal The MG 131 is a 13mm gun that is closest to the M2 .50cal in caliber, although it is a bit less powerful, it has about half the weight of the 50cal. Now, the 151/15 and 151/20 were 15 and 20mm respectively. The 151/15 comes close to the .50cal in performance, but it has a higher ROF. The machine guns above are originally aircraft MGs but later in the war saw considerable use in the ground role. Maybe a rough comparison could be made between the use of the .50cal as discussed here in the ad-hoc "light AT role" due to their ubiquity when occasion arose, to the german use of the popular 20mm light AA gun in such a role? Just pondering.

another thing to keep in mind is OPTICS... Ok, so this plays no role in CM , but in reality, what good is a 76mm gun when you can't hit anything with it? I was under the impression that the russian optics were not the best in WW2?

Btw, since several people now have expressed their satisfaction with how FTs work in CMBO, as well as some people being unsatisfied with it, I would be interested to have a poll on that, to see if maybe it really *is* a minority opinion that has being discussed now in dozens threads and hundreds of posts. please go here to cast your vote (I haven't voted yet) http://www.combatopinion.com/polls.php ?view=1&thepolls_comments=1&this_id=159&thepolls_id=159&active=thepolls&num_days=50&page_active=1]Poll on FTs in CMBO I'm curious. [ February 05, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

Hofbauer-come-late... In all respect, I disagree. Tirst of all, rifle grenades and regular grenades were standard regular equipment for infantry squads. Mines do *not* fit into that description. Rather, just like flamethrowers, they were used for special missions / emplyoments, and then they were issued to engineers who were trained to use them. When they were issued, they were issued to the engineer platoon tasked with mining/flaming etc., not to single individual two-man teams. The HMG and the Panzerschreck are different, individual teams. Panzerschrecks were used by tank hunter groups, IIRC usually three two-man teams under the command of one NCO. Similarly, the HMG was it's own squad with it's own leader with several soldiers manning the HMG and providing support and close-defense. Similarly, a PaK ATG was it's own battlefield asset, with it's own dedicated crew and leader. Panzerschreck, HMG and ATGun all have one thing in common: they were not part of a larger infantry squad. The flamethrower usually was. first, I thought this was a general discussion on FTs in WW II, CMBO and CMBB. second, Steve, you are actually arguing in my favor. because the large majority of axis troops on the eastern front were just that, German. In fact, the german practice of using FTs is the most intetresting one for this discussion because they are the only army present both in the current CMBO (which is what people have right now as the only thing to judge FT behavior in CM right now) and the CMBB theater. uh, I haven't posted an OOB so far. I am much too lazy right now to bother rummaging through my book crate for things like the Handbook on GMF etc. I am honest with you when I say now that in what literature I have on the subject, in most pictures the flamethrowers are shown within few meters of other soldiers. Sure there are pictures which zoom in on the FT and which consequently only show that guy, but in all the pictures that show a larger scene you can see them beside (working with or being part of) other "regular" soldiers. I think there's a typo here, you probably meant "incorrect". At least that is how I wanted my opinion to be understood. I cannot speak for US infantry. However, for german infantry, it is the only correct way to break out the Panzerschreck as it's own dedicated AT team, which was not part of the infantry squad. Think of the PzSchreck more like a poor man's AT Gun and you are quite close. again, my reasoning is based on the fact that the RPzB and the Flw were *not* comparable in terms of being part of a (larger) squad. The Panzerschreck has to be individualized out of the squad, because it is not regular infantry squad armament, but a dedicated AT team armament. The flamethrower never works alone or unde rit's own seperate guidance, but is part of the effort of the engineer squad which employs it. I do not think it is overly restrictive considering the abstracted nature of infantry in CMBO in the first place. If anything, the FT is comparable to the other engineer specialty shown in CMBO, the demolition charges. DCs are not carried by a two-man demolition team, but by the engineer squad. You cannot micromanage them. FTs are quite comparable to DCs in this manner. If DCs are handled by the squad TacAI, it would only be consistent to apply the smae policy on the FT. I disagree, I think we agree that what thje US OOB did or did not do is rather irrelevant to CMBB. Second, I think we also agree that the portrayal of FT teams on the axis side should be decided by the way the most important element of the axis forces did it, which was, I hope you agree, the regular german Wehrmacht. As much as I have a knack for all those romanian, finnish, hungarian, spanish and other colorful elements, we have to keep in mind it was a wehrmacht operation after all. It would be just as wrong to model the axis FT on the basis of how the romanians handled them as it would be to base the portrayal of american forces in CMBO on the OOB and tactics of the free french. sincerely, M.hofbauer

shouldn't it be "Kommerscheidt" ?

the former.