Major Tom

"And that's how I won the Iron Cross" Abraham Simpson If you don't watch the Simpson's you won't get the humour.

Are bunkers just a little concrete/wood/sandbag shack offering only protection to the crew of the weapon inside (HMG, 88AT, etc..)? Can these structures, even if penetreated offer a squad some sort of protection? Are they small blockhouses or just gun emplacements? I am thinking about creating a scenario concerning the Metz defences. These were hellishly tough nuts to crack. Bunkers, trenches, wire, mines, multiple machine guns, etc... It is a fairly modern structure too (Germans modernized it in 1871, French in 1918, and Germans again in 1940). I am pretty sure but Patton had to bypass these series of fortresses and starve them out. I would love to make a scenario having an American Battalion try and storm a section of one of these forts. Of course, it could turn out to be just as bloody, short, and pointless as setting up a beach assault.

When I was younger and in High School the only aspect of the war that I liked was the West. However, through University I learned that the East was a much different and very interesting conflict. I would advise you to start researching it. I used to play games like Steel Panthers just by the British/Canadian side. It got to be boring after a while. Then I tried the Germans and Russians. They have just so many interesting types of vehicles and units! Indeed, the Desert might be neat, but, not quite as interesting as the vast battlefields of the East. You have dense city fighting, the Prippet Marshes, large open fields, heavy forests, killer weather, plus, many more units. The best aspect of the East front is that nobody has pure air superiority throughout the entire campain as in Western Europe or during most of the Africa Campain. Sure, this might be rehashing a lot of old stuff, but, with 16000+ posts, even with the search device makes finding these things easier, it is pretty tough to find a certain topic as the title doesn't always give away what is contained inside. Plus the poor guy has probably just recovering from, or is in the midst of puberty, something which really screws up our judgment process.

I thought Lehr meant training? There were a bunch of Lehr divisions, of which only 1 I think were Panzer. I think that it was only an after thought to have them as actual fighting units. I have War in Russia, and one thing happened that bugged me. It was 1943 as the Germans (I have a little more cautious plan than Fionn's) and I dislike the sheer numbers of reserve vehicles that I got. Indeed, it was against the AI, but, I was getting a few hundred tanks per month of a new type that I wasn't even producing?!? I had the difficulty set to benefit the Allies, so, it was not because of that. One problem about throwing all your good units in one batch, if you lose them, or if they get severely bashed about you lose your offensive, and counteroffensive edge. It happened with the Allies in May 1940 and with the Germans in December 1942 with Stalingrad and the summer of 1943 with Kursk. If your enemy could somehow bust through your weaker units and cut off your 7 armies you are pretty much toast. However, that is probably just the pesimistic view. Maybe I am just too Montgomerish for my own good. Also, we have to remember that every army in WWII that bases itself on an elite core was defeated (Germany, Japan, and even Italy), and those who had large numbers of regular or sub-regular troops prevailed. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-05-2000).]

The Totenkoph SS was a fighting division. I think that it was the one cut up in the British attack on Arras in 1940. The funny thing was, the SS troops broke and fled before the British, and they were only stopped due to achieving most of their goals and running into the 7th Panzer Division.

EXACTLY! How often do you hear of SS troops other than in critical situations? The 21st Panzer was indeed a great unit, but, it was reduced to using obsolete or captured equipment which really knocked down it's efficiency. SS Panzer divisions were the equivalent to a typical Army Panzer division, except that they were usually always at full strength, and had a battalion of Tigers. If the Germans lost one SS Division a great bulk of their force's power would be defeated. Plus, one SS Division can be in only one place at a time. This results in a certain part of the line being virtually impregnable, but, the rest is relatively weak.

Yeah, Spook, the quality of the regular French wasn't that affected for most of the duration. But, by the end, especially Waterloo, the drain on NCO's was very apparent. Plus, when you have such an elite unit such as the SS or Guard, if they ever fail, there goes the morale of the rest of your army.

I am pretty sure that many people have independently come of with this idea. It is really logical. After noticing that troops dug in inside of forests fare much better against a combined enemy than hiding in a house, one tend's to set up as many of these positions as possible, even when you want certain units inside of houses. For Last Defense I even went as far as placing MMG and Command units in places to make reserve foxholes. Since you know that one line of defence is not going to stop the Germans, you have to have a reserve. I have learned to love foxholes and hate buildings.

Sure, I have had times where both forces are in a wooded area, not seeing eachother but you knew that they were there as the flag turned neutral. Possibly the victory flag gives away too much information to the enemy? I mean, the enemy forces know that some sort of formation is occupying a certain area or not just by the status of the victory flag. I know that this is hard to modify, as, there has to be some knowledge of what one actually controls. Possibly, one can only see their own victory flag or see a neutral flag for a space unoccupied or one that the enemy occupies? Possibly this is already done, as I would have no knowledge of where an enemy is if I cannot see them?

Hello, I have just been through a thorough study of the Napoleonic Wars and the topic of Napoleon's Imperial Guard came up. They were basically the same as the Waffen SS, except for their racist tone. The were the best equipped and came from the best ranks. However, the fact that the Guard got so large, like the Waffen SS, they actually handycapped the rest of the army. Indeed, there are many more better Waffen SS NCO's and battle officers than in the regular German Army, especially the one encountered in France in 1944. The fact was brought up that the Imperial Guard drew too many good soldiers away from their formations and concentrated them in one force. Sure, this created a virtually unbeatable entity, but, it severely weakened the rest of the army. Do you think that this is what happened to the German army? Too many of it's best and brightest were drawn over to the flashy uniforms and status that the Waffen SS offered resulting in regular forces experiencing a quality drop? Maybe the 10 million man German Army couldn't feel the same loss of a few hundred thousand quality officers to the SS more than the hundred thousand French Army felt the loss of 10,000 quality soldiers to the Imperial Guard? Any thoughts about the SS actually handycapping the German war effort?

Hi, I don't know if this has been addressed, since it hasn't been brought up in a single topic and there are just so many, but, what happens in an operation if your enemy surrenders at the end of the battle? Do you continue on in the operation? If so, at the beginning of the next phase are there surrendered enemy troops littering the battlefield? Do these soldiers disappear to your rear area and a new enemy force appear in front of you? Or is it the end?

A lot of German commanders were handycapped by having Hitler with only a Corporal's experience actually trying to run an army. The average soldier expects to win every battle and achieve every victory as they were trained to believe that in their generals. When the Great German Generals failed to achieve the impossible goals in Russia Hitler was baffled and assumed it was due to their incompetence, rather than the situation's impossibility. Countless German Generals were removed, shot or transferred early in 1941 out of important area's because they failed once, even though they succeeded brilliantly, so, they never got the chance to prove themselves during the later years. What about Kesselring? He managed to defend all of Italy from 1943-45 with meagre manpower! Indeed, he was helped by the terrain and the high quality of his troops, but, the East and West Front's always came first in German priority. Some of the Bloodiest Western Allied defeats were suffered in Italy. In regards to the Invasion of France in 1940, I am sure that the number of Divisions per side was 120 German, 96 French (Including Fortress Divisions, useless in mobile warfare) 22 Belgian, 9 Dutch, and up to 13 British (including 3 Territorial and 1 weak Armoured). Indeed, the sides were equal, but, the Allies were uncoordinated. So, in reality you have 3 separate Allied forces and one concentrated German force. About 1/3 of the French army was of high quality and mechanized, however, they were never in the place to engage the main German thrusts. Second rate formations were in all of the key area's of attack, which is the reason for their relatively weak defence. The French 1st Rate formations made a great showing of themselves. Qualitatively, they were the equal of the German forces, along with more and better equipment. You must remember too about the Matilda's. There were only 30 Matilda II's with the 2 pounder gun, and only 80 Matilda I's armed with just a HMG. The Char B1, and B1 bis's were only in the horribly organized Armoured Divisions, about 50 in each of the 4. The all engaged picemiel and were attritioned down to Brigade or Regimental size. The really usefull French formations were their three Mechanized Cavalry formations. They each had a well ballanced force of 80 Medium tanks (S1) and around 60 Light Tanks and 60 Recon AFV's, they also had an entire Brigade of Infantry. In the few encounters with these forces the Germans themselves were beaten. But, these like all of the French forces were trapped and forced to abandon all of their equimpent in escaping. There were many great French Generals. General Weygand managed to temporarily defend the entirety of France with less than 60 tired Divisions vs 120 fresh German divisions. He developed the Hedgehog tactic of creating fortresses of infantry bolstered by lots of AT in towns and forests leaving any penetration by German forces to be dealt with by tanks. If this strategy was used when the supply of tank's and AT guns were plentyful the German attack would have been repulsed. NATO has taken up this tactic as the one to use against a possible Russian attack during the Cold War. Not many commander's can lay claim to their innovative tactic being used for over 50 years, especially in today's modern world.

Well, each general has their own strengths and weaknesses. Indeed, Patton and Montgomery were very similar, which is probably why they hated eachother so much. Each of them had similar plans of a small thrust into Germany to end the war quickly, the only difference is who would make the thrust! However, Eisenhower decided on a broad front advance which may seem dull and non-victory oriented, but, the battle of the bulge nonwithstanding it didn't leave the line as vulnerable as one big pincer. Judging Montgomery soley on his actions 1942+ is neglecting much of his earlier actions. Indeed, he didn't have any spectacular victories, but, as the commander of the 3rd British Division in France he was able to retreat in good order to have the most complete formation evacuated from Dunkirk in 1940. I can't respect Patton for his fascist political idea's, and for causing tensions with the USSR (lucky for the world he died in his 'accident' before sparking WWIII!), however, he is a brilliant military commander. Being cautious and looking out for the wellbeing of your soldiers as Montgomery was known for can actually result in larger casualties, as you don't take risks which could end the war sooner. Market Garden was an uncharacteristic risk for Montgomery, it did fail to achieve all of it's goals, but, they did succeed in securing every bridge but for Arnheim and tied up and inflicted many casualties on 2 SS Panzer divisions who were trying to get their rest. Brilliant commanders have all lost battles. You don't measure a commander by their greatest victory, but, how they handled their worst defeat. Many good commander's failed to recover after some disaster. Rommel never regained his previous zeal after El Alemain. Possibly he realized that he was fighting a lost cause, which will only result in needless deaths? However, if it must come down to it, I would put my vote towards General Alexander as the best 'Allied' Commander. He has managed to triumph over a multitude of desperate situations. Commander of I Corps in France, had about the same success as Montgomery, helped rationalize the defence of England to practical measures, went to Burma in late 1942 to salvage the situation there, and then commanded the Allied Army Group in Italy until the end of the war. He was known as the man to send to critical situations who would sort them out. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-05-2000).]

Well, in the series "Combat Mission" I can recall them using Rifle Grenades to blow up 2 US, er, German tanks in order to rescue a few captured airborne troops. I guess that stating a lot was a little bit too exagerated, but, my entire post was about exageration, wasn't it? (Whoops! I meant to type "Combat" instead of "Combat Mission) [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-05-2000).]

Well, I have seen pictures of Schrecks and Bazookas, indeed they are more detailed than the game suggests. Indeed, the tripods on the MMG's and HMG's look pretty corny compared to the detailed work on the weapon itself. Just a question, for the Vickers MMG, and the Browning Water cooled is there going to be an actual 3D Cylindrical water cooler? Did the Water Cooled Browning actually see service after 1944? I am actually starting to think that it didn't.

Wait a minute! I have seen countless American war movies where every rifle grenade lands in the open hatch of American tanks painted with a black cross! Where are all of these tank's in CM?! What's with this LOW ammunition thing?! Nobody runs out of ammo in war! TV says so! I thought that this game was accurate! The most accurate means of learning thing's in this Generation is through the media, at least that is what TV says.

The Firepower of the Canadian/British/Polish infantry squad was one of my concerns. The Germans had many SMG squads with lots of firepower even though they only contain 8-10 men. The American squad has 12 men, plus the strong M1 Rifle. Sure, their support weapons (Tommy Gun, and BAR) are not up to par (indeed, they were both developed at the end of WWI!) this is all made up by the higher fire power of their regular soldier. The Commonwealth and Polish squads though appear to be handycapped. They have 10 men per squad, Bolt Action Rifles, a Cruddy SMG, and only a spectacular LMG to make up for the rest of the Squad's firepower deficiency. Indeed, they will be very powerful for long range engagements, but, close the range enough and the German SMG squads will chew them up. I am not aware of the mass use of British SMG squads also (even though 10 men with Sten's isn't much of a threat). Will there be something to make up for the typical British squad's weakness? What about 50mm mortors? Most nations went for bigger and better weapons, but, I am sure that the Commonwealth troops still had these as squad/platoon support weapons. I could be wrong, but, are they modeled, or are they just too much like grenades to be counted as a seperate weapon? How good is the Vickers HMG? It is a relic from the beginning of the Century, but, still a very powerful and threatening looking weapon. I would definitely assume that you cannot run with one of these bohemiths! The PIAT, well, I can say one thing about this, it is much better than it's predacessor, the Boys AT Rifle. That gun didn't have the penetration power to shoot through the open hatch of a Sherman! Has anyone (Anyone testing the 'full' version that is...) seen or used a 20mm AA gun in action? The Germans had the Flakverling of 4 20mm AA guns on one chasis, one big threat indeed! Not to rely on SPR too much, but, they look pretty nasty. Will troops treat these as they do to HMGs? How good are AA guns against marauding aircraft anyway? I am pretty sure that an 88mm will be pretty much useless against such a low and fast flying aircraft, especially when engaging enemy tanks at the same time! [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-02-100).]

Nobody is innocent of 'war crimes'. Charges of all sort have been posted throughout the war. Germans accused British officers in 1940 about having hollow point bullets, Canadians accused an SS commander for executing prisoners in 1944, and vice versa. Germans put Jewish people, Gypsies, Russian prisoners, and any other type of undesireable in concentration camps, Canadians and Americans put multitudes of loyal North American Japanese in concentration camps, the Australians put Italians in concentration camps, the only difference was slightly better treatment and no agenda for mass murder in the allied camps. Rumors of the enemy not taking prisoners can lead to your side doing the same, even though it was never officially ititiated by either side. The Germans inenvertently bombed London, the British retaliated, then the Germans retaliated, resulting in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths on both sides due to strategic bombing. The Confederacy during the American Civil war officially stated that any Black man, woman or child armed by the North would be shot on site, same with their officers. Officially, there is a difference between the German army and the Waffen SS. The actions of the German Army is no different to that of any other national army at that present time. They did not either enact less or more acts of war crimes than any other nationality. The SS however is a different story. This armed force was created soley to enact war crimes. The Army fought for Germany, the SS fought for Hitler. It is important to not that most of the outstanding autrocities by German armed forces was done by the SS. Indeed, there was an offical policy in the German Army to shoot any soldier who raped any female prisoner. However, the Russians assumed that raping was a German policy through hearing rumors of German military autrocities and actually had this as an unoffical policy in their advance on German soil. Most of these autrocities were actually caused by the occupation forces, usually SS. War crimes are rooted in hatred of your enemy. Hatred is based in fear. Fear comes from not knowing. Rumors of your enemy action, wether they be black soldiers crawling on roof tops with knives to slit the throats of any German found, or, that Germans are all Nazi's, true or not, give one individual's justification to retaliate.

Actually, the American military was very hesitant in un-segregating their army during WWII. By the end it was a little more equal. There was only one African-American Division that I know to serve in WWII. It was stationed in Italy. There wasn't the mix that you see in Vietnam in existence in WWII. So, it is not the fault of CM for the lack of multiculturalism, but, rather the US military of the 1940's. There were minorities serving with the other nationalities. The French and British had colonial formations (only the French were in Western Europe 1944). It seems as if all of the military strides made during the American Civil War were lost by the 20th Century. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-01-100).]

Also, are PIAT's harder to spot after they have fired? Since there is no smoke trail, or ignition sound wouldn't these things take longer to spot? The Canadians/British have to have something going for them on squad level, since they don't have Semi-automatic Rifles like the Americans, or SMG squads like the Germans. They are left with squads of Lee Enfield bolt actions, with Sten's and Bren's. What is the composition of a typical British squad? Did the British have SMG squads? Not much has been said about their composition.

Well, I can't really state that Madmatt or Fionn, or anyone blatantly diverted attention ala Edmund Morris. Where are you getting this from? The posts that they added to were called "Ok, Lets Clear this Up RIGHT FREAKING NOW!!!" or "MadMatt and Fionn are my heros(n/t)". They weren't changing the topic from "Monkies must be driving my Shermans" to a self centred topic. They were all responding to things said about them. Capt_Manieri said something that Madmatt and Fionn, and a lot of people had to respond to. They didn't change the topics, they weren't the bad biographers. It would be like blaming Regan for the horrible biography written about him. I have no problem with Capt_Manieri, he is young, and indeed is not trying to start anything, he is just overly curious. If you thought it was so off topic before, just take a look at this entire post!

German steel, on average was equal, or even slightly inferior (later war). It isn't the quality of material used, but, the quality of the design. The Germans had much First hand experience with heavy tanks seeing the many good Russian designs. The Panther, was a Germanized (and very much improved, at least in later versions) T-34. The Allies on the other hand only countered good German tanks in 1943-45, where the Germans had 1941-45 to develop their own heavy tanks. German tanks until 1943 were just about the equals to contemporary British tanks, even in gunpower. The Shermans weren't really developed because of wartime experience. They were a theoretical design which were easily produced. Indeed, they were much better than any tank seen earlier than 1941, it is too bad that they were not used in large numbers until 1943. The 75mm gun which armed most of the Sherman tanks had a good AP and HE shell. So, you didn't have to have specially designed CS tanks. I am pretty sure that the 17 Pounder was a more powerfully gun than the 76mm. I am not sure about it. Tank killers arent't exactly tanks. Tanks were designed as infantry support units, as well as vehicles to destroy other tanks. Tank killers are solely designed to kill tanks, and do not fair too well against infantry. TK's usually try to pick off their enemy from long range, before they can be targetted and killed themselves. The 88mm gun was indeed a great design. It can't kill anything with one shot all of the time, but, being that it is one of the largest commonly used guns it is a remarkable weapon. You must remember that there is no single thickness of armour that is impregnable. Having a thick belt of armour without slopes can be very pregable. The Sherman Jumbo appears to have just a big slab of armour placed on the front turret. The rest of the turret and hull are virtually unchanged. It may seem impressive, so might a King Tiger, but, anything can be killed.

I also know a Matt who is also very angry at the world. However, he has only been on the planet for 20 or so years. Has a lot of catching up to do I guess. Maybe it is just something in the name?

No, Steve and Charles did not think of this. They are creating a product which will irrevitably crash even before they release it... Think a little before you post.

You know what I think would be a cool scenario? 1 Panzer IV vs. 1 Sherman. Have them start off on a fairly large map and hidden from eachother's view. It will take hours just to find eachother!