Joachim

... guess I'm getting a bit closer to those who understand.... So a "small" scale attack by inf/armor should not flush the defenders out of cover but lure them out. Either by taking decisive ground or by threatening to do so. Case a) You don't take that ground, just force the defender to a counterattack. The arty then fires at that counterattack and stalls it. Nice idea. Will they hit the right target? The arty does the killing, but the other branches are the live bait - and do risk friendly fire as they are out of cover, too. Needs a lot of trust. If you tell the attackers they are just bait - don't expect them doing a good job. If not... well don't expect them to do a good job once they find out themselves after a few of those attacks. Don't expect them to perform any good offensive op after that. Expect some to ask questions after massive blue on blue comes in. Case You take ground which is important. If the ground is so important, you might find yourself in a nice arty barrage once you try to take it. Yet probably the biggest obstacle is that if you want to apply small scale inf/armor ops to trigger big arty bombardments, the level of those commanding the arty is probably well above those actually seeing the small scale objectives. Read: Those important points may not exist on those maps used for the big picture considered by some HQ in the rear. Now this does not mean I think the theory is bad. It is the application of Blitzkrieg and encirclement (or threat of it) into an arty context. Force the defender to move and thus lose his advantage. In CM.... I'd use it anytime vs a defending AI trying to recapture a lost flag

Interesting approach.... but creating favourable targets for the arty IMHO means flsuhing the enemy out of his position. Which takes a great deal of preparation, fuel, rested men, small arms ammo, combat ready tanks - you know the whole thing. Even capturing a good observation point often means capturing one of the most well-protected parts of the enemies line. And after flushing the enemy out, you gotta know (observe) his line of retreat. Stealthy FOs are another matter, but given the available radios in WW2 this is quite a risky business. A moving enemy is vulnerable to all kinds of arms - and he will try to avoid being seen. So you need scouting parties for the arty. Which must be big enough to combat the moving enemy. Cause on a fluid battlefield they will most likely get detected. But if they are big enough to fight, they are just as good in killing (or forcing to surrender) as the arty is. As the arty is stationary and the other arms are closer to the enemy - who should lead (as in: command) the op? Will the arty fire at bad targets to prepare for the op? This quickly results in hen and egg - with a slight disadvantage for the arty regarding who should lead. Just throwing bricks towards the enemy is so much easier. Note that this holds for WW2 or WW1. There where times where the arty was _the_ tool on the battlefield. It's interesting to note in that context that ISTR most corps commanders in the Wehrmacht where from the arty branch (mid-war). Gruß Joachim

It was a campaign with GMs and a dozen+ players for each side. Intended map size 2x2km with prepared detailed maps. But on several occasions maps got bigger or shifted from the grid as the situation demanded it. Maps where then redone by GMs or players. Most of the rules etc are in the General forum, as is the note that the whole thing stopped due to lack of GMs and RL issues of the remaining ones. Forums are open, so you can read the whole thing by yourself. I learned quite a few things in that one... like spotting foxholes and trenches, use of HTs in thick fog, marking pre-planned firing positions for tanks in the defense and the poor Inf-AT capabilities of Soviet troops in '45. Gruß Joachim

Just saw this.... Yes, dug in tanks in concealing terrain might work. But the most important thing with these Tobruk postitions is that they were hard to see and offered good cover. As noted above, bunkers etc won't do - except in concealing terrain. But trenches or foxholes are spotted easily from far away: The better experience the spotter, the less concealmeant the terrain offers for the foxhole or trench, the worse. In the following battle http://the-battle-of-lauben-campaign.foren-city.de/topic,627,60,-phase-3-battle-d6.html a few survivors of a vet inf plt low on ammo but backed by 152mm and 85mm cleared a foxhole line in brush 80m ahead of them (crack spotted even better). You won't see the inhabitants till 40m or so - but that doesn't matter. Area fire will work. So you either need lots of craters and place the defenders in some - which gives good cover to the attacker, too, reducing the defenders advantage. Or you need lots of rear slopes to hide the foxholes/trenches/bunkers due to blocks in LOS instead of concealment from trees/brush/etc until they open up. Which will make it pretty boring and scripted for the defender, but might work as defending AI. Small ondulations with an uphill attack might work - and will not allow the attackers overwatch to profit from borg spotting. Some empty trenches without LOS to defenders further back to make area fire expensive while not giving the attacker good cover for firing positions. Besides that, MGs in trenches are tougher than bunkers. Rubble is great regarding cover and concealment. Bunkers in houses or rubble will not represent Tobruk positions but will create the same surprise (first time)

HTs are PzGren "owned", tanks are "borrowed" (or do lead). 251 is proof vs small arms, even vs SMK. Vs dedicated AT, both die. HT has two small projectors reacting quickly, creating a good "active" defence in all directions. Tank has one on a relative slow turret. But most important: The PzGren are on the outside of the tank... but inside the 251. So which one would you prefer?

Try Soviet '45 guards (crack!) vs German tanks. Sad joke in CM.... but real. Dedicated handheld AT works. Everything else does not. Compare AT-gun ammo size in '41 to that in '45. Compare handheld AT size to both. Compare Hummer armor to BT series. Compare IEDs exploding nearby (not on target) vs explosives thrown at tanks. Guestimate effect of a IED vs a PzII, PZIV, Panther or BT, T34, IS2. Grenades vs bunkers? It is a backdoor. As long as it is shut, the grenade won't do much. If you see whether it is open, you will be seen... and I wouldn't bet there ain't a small firing slit thru which you are seen (and hit) but won't be able to throw the grenade. Throw all of your hand grenades in a few seconds - or in intervals, hoping to persuade the crew to lose its nerves and try to get out or surrender.

During the war. SU had it before the war. No huge slave labor before 1940. Autobahnen were built immediately after Hitler took over (well... actually the Cologne-Bonn highway was built before that and was demoted so Hitler built the first Autobahn ). Work was done by a workforce ("Reichsarbeitsdienst") drafted similarly to the army - 6 month for every man, usually before service in the army. Start of draft is 1935. Young women were drafted after the war started. Slave laborers consisted of a) Jews POWs c) foreigners pressed into service re and c): obviously not before the start of war. re a) most Jews were from the occupied territories, first big anti-Jewish act was the Reichskristallnacht (9th/10th Nov '38) - looting of Jewish shops, burning synagogues. Concentration camps are there to intimidate political opponents before that. That is one part of what I said - the Soviets started earlier. Now spring '41 you can send lots of workers to create a static defense or continue to improve your economy. The former means losing your edge. Given the fate of the Maginot line and the size of the country it won't help much anyway. Trying to keep their advantage seems much better. You know the German tanks in '35 - and you know your new model. They have Blitzkrieg, but you have a tank that is years ahead of the Western allies. You can produce lots of them soon. Your army is bigger. Your country has strategic depth. Quantity has a quality of its own. That's defense enough. You know your army ain't the best. But you don't think it is as bad as it really is. Next thing is you better send armed workers to build these defenses - no need to have an unarmed force that might face an attack. So if it is necessary to dig there, then it is better to let the army do it or put the workers into the army. The defenses in front of Moscow are built when strategic depth has reached a critical point - you can't relocate Moscow and the workforce there during Winter. There is not enough housing east of it. The facts dramatically change upon which the decision is based to dig or to improve the industry. So both decisions make sense given the situation leading to them.

"Total war" in the 30s did not include women in the workforce. There was still much civilian production during the early war years. Whereas Stalin had consequently shifted towards industrialization (accepting famine due to lack of farm workers) Hitler hadn't. He wasted several years. He built highways with manual labor (following the plans of his predecessors) instead of using that workforce to build factories - and then build the highways with tracked vehicles. The number of Soviet tanks remains constant but the loss rates rise dramatically. From somewhere near zero in '35 to 10k+ in '41. So the production rises to make up for the losses. In '41 most tanks were light - in late '42 the T34 is the dominant type. So additional industrial capacity in "tons of steel" is needed - and those factories aren't there in '40. Lend-lease factories built during the war make up for the factory losses in the conquered parts of the Soviet Union. The main point regarding the economy was: Stalin wanted to increase production. If the Germans started to invest more, he had to match those investments. Lagging in the arms race (read: military industry race) means losing the war. Half a year to build a defensive line means losing half a year in that race - and (forced) industrialization is not a linear process, but rather exponential during that stage.

Von Thadden... that von Thadden that is the founder of the post-war NPD? a) Germany declared total war in '43 and the maximium in the war production is 1944 - with the allies at the doorsteps and massive air raids. The Soviet Union is very big. Creating defensive works at the whole border thru thinly populated country is a pretty huge task. Creating defensive works in front of Moscow would mean that on a 250km frontline (it's shorter) the 250.000 women and teenagers would each cover a front of 1m (or less) of defensive works. And we are talking of people accustomed to the climate. Now try to build the same defensive works along the whole front. And you need additional shelter for all these people working in the middle of nowhere first. Plus you have to motivate them doing overtime. While they are digging, your economy is lagging. Instead of building factories (for war!) you build trenches. But you want to gear up towards full production. Spirng '41 there are 2 possibilities: Short-term or long-term investment. In late '41 it was absolutely clear that the attack was in and you needed something short term - if it wasn't too late anyway. c) France built a superb defensive works. What happened to the Maginot line? So why build the same thing but bigger? At least 20 times longer but only 3 times the population, much less time - and again: no housing, no logistics, no motivation. Maybe Stalin just hoped he would get enough time to prepare for a war, replace his purged officer cadre and then strike. Gambling that Hitler was building defensive lines or just fearing an attack - cause that guy did not invest as much in his military-industrial complex as Stalin did. The Brits warn you about the upcoming threat - but your own spies tell you the German economy is business as usual. While you are convinced that to wage a big war "it's the economy, stupid". You can build more tanks per month than the Germans! And they are better! So why fear them? Just make sure the Western allies do not ally with the Germans and your production figures will win. Gruß Joachim

A tank consists of two points - hull and turret. Trajectories (even elevation) are considered - but only in regard to these 2 points... and the silhouette size. Proportions for all tanks are the same. links regarding formulae http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=50221 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=48277 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=40244

He should be able to set them up where he wants them - just like other units. I don't think they will be fixed like bunkers. Some of the missing men might return (depending on op settings). Certain chance they will vanish like immo'd vehicles. To make sure: create a test op.

Method 1: Hail fire from unspotted shooters. Hope for gun or track hits. 20mm AA are cheap, 3.7 ATG more realistic. Have both under command of bonus HQs (stealth and combat) to increase hit chance and reduce risk of getting spotted. The PzII has an autocannon that will fire several rounds per ammo count - that one will be great for hail fire. Method 2 Coordinate your attack so the KVs aim at one side, then withdraw the tanks there and attack from the other. Repeat. This way you will reduce exposure of your tanks to return fire as the KV turret is slow. Plan: a) Tank 1 shows up far away from the KVs which, ideally hull down, pings at them KVs turn. c) MGs ore arty button KVs d) Tank 1 reverses to turret down e) meanwhile a whole pack of tanks appears in the rear, guns blazing. Buttoned KVs won't spot them for some time f) Tank 2 behind the pack appears. g) KVs start to turn h) Pack of tanks reverses to cover i) Tanks 2 remains a little bit longer. You want the KVs to spot it and complete their turn. j) Another pack appears in what is now the rear of the KVs... As you can't order a withdrawal after the KVs start to turn, you must time the event. Let the pack appear at second 30-40. If the KV starts turning at the end of the turn, retreat them early (10secs delay), if not give them 30secs delay. Having 2 packs will increase suppression on the KVs as they don't get much rest. Packing all of your tanks on 1 side might work, but there usually are not enough good firing places from which you can quickly back out of LOS, so the 2 pack method might bring all of your tanks into the game. Mass counts. Using the TacAI "features" (ie borg-spotting) If there is a lone inf unit with the KVs, borg spotting will make sure the KVs target the bait - but they will react quicker to your packs. Often borg spotting does not work during the turn but only during the orders phase - which helps you. Gruß Joachim

Some guns had canister - which is very entertaining for attackers from the front. Crews do fire sidearms (even before abandoning the gun). Even FOs are armed. I had one give away its position with some small arms vs a HT251 50m away. German gun crews were armed like inf - often there was even one LMG per crew. This is modelled in the CM TOE: if you buy guns in some German escort company, you get 3 guns and 3 LMGs. As it was SOP not to deploy guns (aka arty magnets) close to inf, the gun crews had to care for their own security. Gruß Joachim

In CM the CO doesn't need to write letters home. That's why you loose excessive amounts of your force. Real engagements have to consider being able to fight tomorrow, too. Which might see a quick end to an assault - either the defender chooses to evacuate or the attacker chooses another point for an attack. So the question ain't "how long would have such an engagement lasted in reality" but "Do such engagements happen in RL ". And mostly they do not happen. CM scens are usually "balanced" - ie both sides have a chance to win and the players know that. They also know the approximate enemy strength. And they want to have fun - ie have some shooting. In RL Dorosh's sig line holds: "Strategy is the art of not playing fair" - ie you try to make sure the enemy's chances are low. And you do run away from battles. If you change the objectives in CM from "flags" to loss ratios and strategic ground, then add some uncertainty about the opposing force, you will see changes in player behaviour. In a multi-player campaign I witnessed a btn sized force abandoning an attack across bridges when encountering fortifications (wire) at those bridges. In 60 turns there were just a few rounds fired (except for some arty barrages). Losses amounted to nil vs a hidden AT hit by a lucky arty round. Boring PBEM - but solid decisions on both sides. An all-out attack would have led the attacker into a kill zone by a similar sized force. Gruß Joachim

Any shell flying thru treetops is subject to airbursts in CM. The trouble is finding an aim point. IGs work as they are inaccurate and often overshoot their target on a forest edge. A more common reason for DF airbursts in CM are houses - though you seldom see an effect as troops don't tend to be in the open outside a house. Gruß Joachim

Add a TRP and CM does model it. Though CM scens with approach routes are rare. Even in RL hitting something not in LOS needed preregistering - or resulted in inaccurate fire. Gruß Joachim

Uploads are still possible... "Go advanced" under the quick reply box Then click the "Manage Attachments" button... and figure out the rest by yourself Gruß Joachim

Yes. But you need a route where overwatch works everywhere, everytime, vs any possible threat. A few tiny spots might ruin the day for the attacker. especially if they are so tiny he does not see them. There are but a few battlefields where overwatch works everywhere, everytime versus any possible threat. If the amount of routes with maximum overwatch is rather limited, the attacker becomes predictable. Which makes it easier for the defender. The question is not whether attritionist beats maneuvrist or vice versa. The question is if you are one step further than your opponent. If you are limited by adhering to some theory, it is easier to outguess you. Amateurs are dangerous - professionals are predictable.

...and then the attacker has to apply the right key to each keyhole - in the correct sequence. Wespe or HTs are mobile. Once they did their job - move. Maybe have something waiting for the counter. The key in mobile defence is to outguess the attacker - and this starts when planning the defense. If you anticipate the counter to your first surprise, you will have the first shot in the second encounter.

Soviet tanks generally had a less spacious compartment. A cramped 4-men compartment ammo needs much less armor around it than the German 5-men variant with ample space for the crew to do its work. An example is the surface of a ball - if you put 50 tons of steel around a ball with 2m diameter there is a difference to 50 tons around a 3m ball.

Sorry, but RL is a bit overwhelming right now. One of the few relaxing moments last week was getting to the office in a backseat. There are some setups for small battles on my list which I haven't even looked at. The problem with the mobile defence is the necessity of space. My last one was done on a 3x2k with a RCT sized force. It takes some time to play those battles. @Jason: I see you know my attackers better than I do. Gruß Joachim

Well, I move forces to score kills. Is this maneuver cause I move or attrition cause I kill? Even an attritionist has to move forces to bring his weapons to bear - and even a maneuverist won't just sit there and say "hey, I'm in the better position - now surrender" (except for Renaissance Italy). And this is the reason why I don't give a **** about theory - the truth is somewhere in the middle. Note that this does not mean I am not interested in them - I'm ready to apply any good idea from either theory. [ June 09, 2008, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

At least 1 arty unit of the german army in '55 was issued Belgian carbines. Dunno about the cannons. NCOs of my Coy claimed our units telex machines were the same as in WW2 (in 1988...). Our unit was attached as signal btn to a Corps-Level HQ, so I guess these machines were standard issue.

As somebody who doesn't give a **** on theory, whether attritionist or maneuver, I still support BD6. In my last 3 defensive battles (BD6 knows them) the attackers were veteran above average players. The first allowed me time to move my reserves in after he had penetrated my only defensive line. It was his Schwerpunkt, but I could only muster a weak reserve plt to support the local half plt. 2.x plts vs 1.5 plts after arrival of reinforcements. Short slaughter resulting in 0:1.25 remaining plts. Pressing the attack, spreading out would have overrun my local half plt and then rolled up the line regardless of my reserve plt. Next attacker allowed a teammate to disengage from the enemy, then I took over and still had enough time to shift the bulk of the force before the attacker closed in again. 20:10 in tanks, 1.5:1 in inf, 30+ HTs on top. The counterattack with all 10 tanks hit a weak part of the enemy with lopsided results. The attacker had to split forces - or ignore valuable terrain. Superior intelligence that he actually did split his forces allowed me to pick the place. The last battle was decided by continuous ambushes. Carefully selected keyholed reverse slope positions allowed for flanking shots and 1:1 short range firefights with the defender firing first. Carefully selected inf ambush positions won the recce battle. The attacker run out of tank HE and HT MG ammo. But my big inf losses were not from direct HE at my prepared positions but from an inf firefight in woods and later in my counterattack - which was performed with less armor, but superior intel. The enemy did not rush in. It was a slow, deliberate attack that expected ambushes right from the start. No big mistakes of the attacker. So my case is that better intel wins. Intel allows for quick maneuvers. Intel allows for picking ambush sites. If the attacker is able to blind the defender - or hide parts of his force - he has some aces up his sleeve. If the defender knows the attacking force, the defender has the trumps as he can choose time and place (which is effectively Clausewitz' statement regarding the defender having the initiative). If the attackers pace allows the defender to capitalize on his intel advantage by maneuvering his forces to weak spots of the attacker, the defender can achieve local odds, local lopsided losses and thus stall the offensive. Chess is not comparable to CM. Chess has a perfect knowledge of the enemy's forces. Good players always know who has the initiative. It has limited room for maneuver - the "map" is rather small for the assembled forces. No secret concentration of forces. Playing with intel is really limited in QBs and/or on rather open or small maps. There we're much closer to chess.

Jason, nowhere did I state "regardless of restriction". If you state that a defender does not stand a chance to run the attacker low on ammo when the defender is outnumbered 3:1 - then yes, it has to be a very bad attacker to run low on ammo with odds like that. Defense should run out of ammo (or die) quickly with these odds, especially ranged weapons able to fire back - no matter how good the defender is if the attacker is somewhat competent. In general, player skills on both sides do influence the odds necessary whether somebody runs low on ammo - just like the odds necessary to win (Given an "average" single CMBB/AK battle).