Joachim

They can shoot over obstacles. They can not target across obsatcles. Try a sIG 150mm and target the edge of a two story house or just behind the the crest of a hill.... some hit, but those who miss may land where you want them too @arbi: All guns are usually worth their money. IGs usually set up faster than howitzers. They travel faster. They are smaller for the same caliber. And the sIG15 cm is an awful weapon if employed correctly (keyholing to ensure it survives) or vs the AI. Gruß Joachim

If you insist. Soldiers ranked as Oberschütze, Gefreiter, Obergefreiter or Stabsgefreiter in the German Army were NOT, say again NOT considered non-commissioned officers in any sense of the word. They were considered privates receiving a higher rate of pay. They had no command powers or authority as one found in a British Corporal or an American Corporal. Most sources translate these German ranks as "lance corporal", "junior corporal" etc. without giving any thought to what the soldiers actually did. A British Corporal led a section of 10 men. In the German Army, that was the job of an Unteroffizier, not a lowly Obergefreiter. </font>

Oh yes... Bogart's Sherman. It was clearly a Lee/Grant in the movie. And in the picture found at the link Who said vets could not identify tanks long after the war? I really liked the simple idea of the movie. Dig in your immobile Grant and the Jerries will attack towards its front... facing the 75mm and all of the MGs. It does not work in CMAK! BCF fix it or sumfink! Gruß Joachim

Based on what? Is a country like Estonia seeking 100 % influence on all other nations of the world? During cold war the communist leader of Bulgaria (I forget his name, but there weren't many) told to the Soviets that his country would be ready to join the Soviet Union. He was told to forget about it, as it would have been too embarrassing for Soviets. If they wanted to gain total control in the country, why to refuse? I have to remind you, at no times did Soviet Union have 100 % influence on any of the Warsaw Pact countries, just like even within USSR itself different regions were not always just faithfully fulfilling the policies set by the centre. I may agree with a lot of what you say, but I do think you exaggerate a fair bit. </font>

Yes, expansionism is different from expanding influence. But the utmost goal of expanding influence is 100% influence. Once youacheive it and it is accepted by others, you can annex the country or convert it into a puppet - if you have the necessary force to keep that state as the loss of one "internationally accepted" puppet country will trigger more. It alwasy depends on how tight the grip is. Berlin June 17th, 1953. A serious risk arises and the Soviet tanks move in. Terror reigns. Backed by the tanks the "local" government does the dirty jobs. Hungary, spring 1956. Tanks of its "allies" move in, stabilizing the government. Berlin, 1989. No directives or intervention from Moscow. The government collapses. Before, several other governments had collapsed in very short order. In the WarPac up to 1988, the grip was so tight no country could quit Soviet or communist rule. Cuba or Vietnam had won their independence with minor or no Soviet aid. They joined the "Commie bloc" on their own governments will, but not the WarPac. There were never enough Soviet troops stationed there to really threaten the government. More an insurance for the local government vs coups etc. "Expanding" territory on Cuba and Vietnam would mean to really annoy the neutral states in the UN. Exerting power over the local governments in the WarPac would hardly be noticed but could be explained. The garrisons there were strong enough to hold themselves until reinforcements arrive. The risk to the local rulers - losing all their power, wealth and privileges is too high. What would have happened if Vietnam was threatened by Russia? Immediate and drastic improvement of relations to China or even the US. Help from outside before any strong Soviet forces arrive. A loss of face, but not tipping the balance of power enough to use nukes. Meddling in WarPac countries was defined and accepted as an immediate threat to the USSR. WW3 or use of nukes was linked to it. So the WarPac countries have no hope for foreign help. Gruß Joachim

From a game point of view: Reinforcements are a convenient way to decrease map size. From history: A meeting engagement is likely to have reinforcements, as a column will have advance guard, main body and rear-guard. The same goes for an attack from the march (eg in the Frühlingswind-scenario). Another likely scenario is an attack with probing forces first. Reserves are released after the enemy strength is known. As most scenarios are balanced, you can bet that the actual strength of the enemy allows for a breakthru. Thus you get your reinforcements (even without actually probing...but not obeying the plan is your problem.). Gruß Joachim

I always thought the basic US tactics were given in their 3 rules of combat Rule 1: Never close with the enemy Rule 2: Never close with the enemy Rule 3: Never close with the enemy Gruß Joachim

This is an interesting definition. But in dictatorships where you have the "I am the country"-attitude of Louis XIV., expansionism is not only the expansion of the state but the expansion of the "empire" of the ruler(s). States and countries matter little for them. They expand their territory. Gruß Joachim

I should point out that there was a great difference. Just ask any Pole how much they would have fancied becoming Soviet citizens. Only from Stalin's point of view the difference wasn't so great. </font>

If you can not hit the tank cause he is in a street, direct large caliber HE might not only bring down the bulidings for smoke but immo or shock the tank. A shell hitting the 2nd floor is like an airburst. Buildings coming down spread debris and may kill TCs. Works even better vs. ATGs or hammers with eggshells. Best bang for the buck is still the good ole sIG - if you manage to keep it alive. It can keyhole to 2nd floors... Gruß Joachim

Step up for you is that you can play the Americans. Step down is that they can't use arty in 1000pts QBs. The latter outweighs the former . Ever considered playing anything but MEs? Ever considered playing a 800 pts US Probe vs 30% bonus Axis on a pre-made map with set flags as in a ME? It won't get you a 105mm FO though... Playing a 1500pts ME with a gentleman's agreement to spend no more than 1000 pts (you can swap setups afterwards if the other side claims you bought more)? Asking a third party to create a random map in the editor, buy an US 105mm FO, edit the amount of ammo, give the US side an according negative bonus according to the value of the reduced ammo FO and then start a game? Other creative ways to get roughly 1000 pts as both players and enough arty pts for the US player? ...If there is a workaround, it is not a bug. Gruß Joachim

That statement can be disputed. With few exceptions (mainly East Prussia, which I suppose could be regarded as a spoil of war), Stalin only annexed lands that were part of pre-Revolution Russia. He did not annex the countries that eventually became the WarPac, although he certainly occupied them and set up puppet governments in them as well as adjusting their borders. But he wanted them to continue to exist as entities in order to provide a pro-Soviet buffer against invasion from the West. Only those that had broken away from the Russian Empire. I don't think that makes his actions morally defensible necessarily, but it's important to note that he wasn't just given to indiscriminant land grabs. </font>

Oh yes... if you are lucky, you can hit a ATG and kill a whole plt nearby. If you are unlucky, the plane is a StuKa and the ATG is A 5cmPak38. My experience with aircraft: The enemy's aircraft does always hit, regardless how many AA I have. My aircraft usually targets my own guys. If it does indeed target the enemy, it is immediately shoot down without causing any harm. AAMGs will do. If I have some nice trucks in the rear to attract my own flyboys, the flyboys will not attack them, but hurt something vital. Potential minor spoiler: A welcome exception was the GD - Romanian defence scenario. Not that the StuKas killed anything except a few TCs. But they did not hurt my guys. Gruß Joachim

I saw an interview recently with men who had served in both RAF bomber command and the US 8th AF in WW2. One guy who had been a bombardier on a B17 said that by the last year of the war any German town that had so much as a road running through it was regarded as a military target. So yes, at the time, Dresden was regarded by the allies as a military target. </font>

Now we know why - they have 66% more time to complete the tests! Gruß Joachim Der Tag hat 24 Stunden - und wenn das nicht reicht, kommt noch die Nacht hinzu!

I had a horde of Soviet tanks approaching my PzIIIj (50L60, 50mm armor). Glad the armor wasn't massed and wet ground slowed the onslaught. When my AP was below 10 and there were numerous T34 and BTs approaching, the PzIIIs used HE on the BTs, saving the remaining few AP rounds. Wish they had done this much earlier. Gruß Joachim

Nuts. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, any other German city. vs. Coventry, Rotterdam, numerous other cities. Read that other thread about "family ties to WW2". IIRC it was two Dutch on their way to greet the Canadians liberating them almost getting killed by the usual Canadian prep barrage. Recce by arty is not very friendly towards civilians. Guess there were some less fortunate ones. Rolling over refugee columns in tanks isn't friendly, too (and the Russians were Allies, not Axis). Numerous "when in doubt, empty the magazine" incidents - on either side. A commander deciding to risk some civilians or half his company is not in an enviable situation. Gruß Joachim

"The NKFD adopted the old pre-Weimar colours which indicated it was not prepared to accept total defeat or unconditional surrender." Very irritating. The Weimar Republic is from 1918-1933. So pre-Weimar means Kaiserreich. And indeed they use the black-white-red colours. The BDO seems like a bunch of turncoats. The system doesn't matter - as long as they are on top. I prefer the real commies to them. Gruß Joachim

That's why I don't believe in Finnish data. Gruß Joachim

Now that would have been an interesting what-if... Britain vs USSR while there is still a non-aggression-pact between USSR and GE... Guess that pact would not have lasted for very long... Either GE joins Britain in '40 and does not need a Western front Or it overruns France as was, keeps it as a pawn and attacks east ignoring Britain. Or it overruns France, gives it back and joins Britain. Or it signs an armisitce, keeping Poland and waits for Britain and the USSR to bleed... Now that would have been interesting! Gruß Joachim

Ahhh.... gamey bastard... Gruß Joachim

Give the AI a bonus and a map with decent cover and he will play much better on the offense. Gruß Joachim

A decent attacker won't send all of his men into the wire until he is sure nobody shoots back. Walking along the wire (but not in) will often trigger covered arcs. If no covered arcs are set, he will try to find small passages and prbably run thru. Even if you catch a half-squad in the wire, overwhelming numbers will pin or even rout you after the first volley. Sorry, but IMHO the whole concept is doomed as usually the attacker will have local odds. Wire in woods works for "rear" edges (add indirect fire, allow the scouts to pass) or to block small woods. It does not create reverse slope effects. woods........TRP....woods TRP xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wire in woods ..............................clear ............++++++............mines/clear .............bbbb.............some LOS blocking obstacle/clear ..........._squads_...........squads in trench/clear ........................clear woods bunker woods HQ woods... bunker or HQ woods..............mortars...... mortars in command. or you can use a defence on a small rear slope with support from a 2nd line. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx..clear ...........TRP .....................clear .......+++++++++++++................mines/clear .......bbbbbbbbbbbbb................LOS blocking/clearobstacle .......MG__squad__MG ...................................clerr ...................................clear ...MG.......woods.......MG.........woods and hide the MGs in the woods till lots of targets outside grenade range appear. If you make sure he can't rush you while you are pinned and he fires from distance, you may sit out the firestorm cause your pinned units might vanish (only) from sight. Mortars don't kill in the open, even in wire. You need something heavy to kill in the open... In both cases, the killing is done by the arty. The TRP is essential. The wire is to prevent overwhelming numbers rushing in (or out!) fast. Scouts entering will be killed by those in the trench - either when entering "bbbbb" or when bypassing. If more men are across the wire heading towards bbbb (and thus far from cover), you open up with the arty. Either on the fire base or on those inside the wire. In the latter case the 2nd line kills the intruders while the firebase is pinned. MGs in trenches are cheaper and better than bunkers. For short ranges, squads are better as they have grenades. Gruß Joachim [ January 22, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

They are open-topped. Treebursts do affect them. Thus I usually place them in brush, never in woods (not much of a bonus in woods or trees vs foxholes anyway).

Germany was a declared expansionist (cf. "Mein Kampf")- towards the east. The USSR was expansionist. Nations caught between had to decide on whom to join. Stalin killed political elites and did not allow national governments (except puppets who were always endangered). Hitler used them. Stalin killed regardless of race. Hitler only one "race". Hitler wanted a vast territory much bigger than the minor countries - if he got it, they might be left alive (German minorities in those countries). Stalin wanted even small countries. Hitler was not interested in fighting any western Allies. He wanted to avoid a war on two fronts. When he could not get that in '39 as France and Britain declared war on Germany (allies to Poland, which was attacked by Germany _and_ the USSR), he tried to get his back free by reaching some big natural obstacle aka the Atlantic. There's no such obstacle towards the USSR. To fight a war, Hitler needed raw materials. He could pay for them... but had nothing to pay with... or try to occupy them (thus attack Russia). A war between the western Allies and Germany with a neutral USSR? Nuts. Not even a what-if. The only what-if are neutral Western countries (cf. "Fatherland/Vaterland" book and movie). Gruß Joachim