jgdpzr

I think you nailed it! You certainly described the shield and mount quite accurately. The shield definitely appeared to a be a load bearing part of the assembly, and yes there was a gimbal mount in the front. Outstanding work! We were all scratching our heads over this one, even the guys who worked there. </font>

I think you nailed it! You certainly described the shield and mount quite accurately. The shield definitely appeared to a be a load bearing part of the assembly, and yes there was a gimbal mount in the front. Outstanding work! We were all scratching our heads over this one, even the guys who worked there. Edited for spelling [ August 09, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

I have a question for all gun grogs out there. Check out Harv's photos and see if you can tell us what gun is in the very last picture. We couldn't figure it out. The bore looked no bigger than 88mm, although an engraving on the sheild(Randl is examining it in the photo) had the number 15 and some other writing that wasn't legible (at least we couldn't make it out). Anyone have any ideas? BTW, the muzzle break looked Russian (slotted), while the wheels definitely looked German.

I knew we'd be seeing you here Tankboy74. Go ahead and simply embrace the fact that CM will make you its beotch. We've all faced that reality, don't fight it. Or as the infamous CMBorg used to say: "You've been assimilated, resistance is futile." Seriously, thanks for showing us around. You did a fantastic job and we all appreciated it greatly. But hey, I bet you had more fun than you do on most workdays so I'd say it was a win/win kinda deal.

Thanks for the clarification, John. Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember something about some F hulls being found. I think there is even a picture of them in the jigs in Jentz's "Quest for Combat Supremacy," correct? Another question: What were the differences in the hulls of the F and G? I can't remember much about that, although I've always thought the major difference between the two vehicles was to be the turret. Also, can you shed any light on whether the Panther II was to mount the schmalturm, or if it was to sport a completely different model turret? That, too, I can't remember. I know this all probably in Jentz's book, but it's at home and I'm at work. Thanks again! Edited: Never mind John, I think I remember some of the differences in the hulls now. Seems I recall one of them being that they had different top plates on the hull in front of the turret. A different arrangement of hatches in that plate as well, IIRC. Not sure what else though. [ August 08, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

I agree on everything you said except this point. The Germans did complete at least two prototype hulls (one hull sits at the Patton Museum), completely fitted out, so I would consider that beyond the mock-up stage. IIRC, there is some debate about the extent of the turret development. Further, I can't remember if the turret to be used was the same as that known as the schmallturm (sic.), or if that design was just a legacy of the Panther F. Now, I do believe the Panther F (the earlier idea for the upgrading of the Panther) never got much further than the drawing-board/mock-up stage. However, I'm fairly certain this was a separate project that pre-dated the Panther II.

AHA! Looks like I am the first to make it to the board. Those of you who didn't make it, you didn't miss much. We started with a walkaround the musuem--nothing too exciting for those who've seen it. Then, the Major (Blackhorse), made us all caravan back to these dusty old warehouses where there was nothing but junk. I mean, who wants to spend a couple of hours crawling around, inside, and underneath (to recover a pair of fallen eyeglasses) old WWII vehicles anyway? I mean, there was nothing but stugs, a stuh, a hetzer, Churchill Crocodile, various and sundry Shermans, Pershings, Russian claptraps of all makes and eras, Hummel, Wespe, Marder, Comet, Centurion, Challenger I, Leopard I, various ACs and halftracks, ATGS, field howitzers, a staghound, hellcats, jackson, and Patton's donkey cart, presented to him at Sicily, blah, blah, blah... Then, the Major marched us off to some glorified "Playstation" (as noted by the staff sargent introducing the thing) tank sim thingee. Geez, you'd think they give you a little more leg room in a $9 million dollar simulator. I've got bruises on my knees from sliding that M1A2 down a hill at entirely too high a speed. Word of warning: You come down too hard off one of those bumps and BAM!, blown suspension housing. But my instructor absolutely forbid me to use the brakes--so what do you expect!?! Then, we had to sit through several hours of viewing some thing called Barbarossa and Beyond, or something of that ilk. Matt told us not to betray any secrets, so my lips are sealed. Suffice to say, (sarcasm mode off) IT DOESN'T SUCK! Nope, not a bit. In all seriousness, this was a fantastic day. Blackhorse really laid out the red carpet for us (on crutches for the first part of the day, no less). There was a good collection of 12-15 die hard CM'ers in attendance, and we were all blown away by the new game. Rune and Matt provided outstanding commentary on many of the new features. Folks, we are in for a treat. Thanks be to Blackhorse (a big hooha for you, my friend) Rune, Matt, and to the army personnel who helped escort us (we've won some converts, methinks), as well as all those in attendance! Hell, Harv came all the way from Saskatchewan(sorry if I butchered the spelling, Harv) for cripes sake. Now, what's your excuse for not being there? [ August 06, 2002, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

I will be there. We should designate a rendezvous point. The museum has an enclosed entry area that should work.

MH, Don't worry, I didn't take your words personally. In fact, I'm happy to get feedback from someone familiar with the area (you have to admit, you've got an advantage on me--I'm not aware of any WWII battles fought in Kentucky!). Your feedback has even prompted me to play around with my keyboard character map (at least on my NT machine at work) to find the umulat. In the end, if you enjoy the battle itself, I will have succeeded. Gemünden! I found it! Happy day! BTW, I just checked out your website. Outstanding! I've just added a new bookmark. [ July 18, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

MH, My apologies for not doing the umulat (I'm sure I probably just misspelled it as well), one of these days I need to get over my abject laziness and figure out how to do that. And since you speak with knowledge of the area, sounds like my saying the map is "loosely" based on the actual terrain is a gross overstatement. In truth, the only thing I had to go on was one photo of the town taken overlooking the bridge and a map, both from the After the Battle magazine. Sounds like my guesstimates weren't very accurate. Oh well, my intent was never to deceive, so I hope a sense of deception didn't fuel your disappointment. I wanted to make a scenario dominated by a potentially difficult bridge crossing, so that was the direction I went. I suppose I should call it a "fictional battle with a couple minor historical details thrown in for the hell of it" but of course that's not one of the options at the Depot. And yes, although the tweak was very minor, it should make the scenario play better from the intended perspective (US versus the AI Germans). I hope you are able to overcome your disappointment and enjoy the battle. And I do appreciate your feedback regarding the inaccuracy of the map, at least my misperception has been clarified.

Just a note to anyone who has recently downloaded Gemunden, I just sent in an updated version (version 4) with a minor tweak that should improve the play. It should correct a minor flaw in how the ai plays out as the Germans. You may want to hold off playing the battle until the new version is posted (even though the synopsis lists it as version 4, the zip file on the site is still v3, wait until it has been updated to v4). Or I can email you a zipped copy if you prefer. [ July 17, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

OK, here's more information on the After the Battle issue I have been referencing. The issue is #91, printed in 1996. "The Hammelburg Raid" is the title piece on the cover, with a photo of one of the EZ-8's knocked out on the firing range. (For those not overly familiar with the raid, one of the bitter ironies for the Task Force was that the place they chose for a bivouac the evening after freeing the prisoners happened to be a German firing range--think of it as one big freakin' TRP!) The author of the article is Karel Margry and it is a rather extensive piece, spanning forty or so pages. The following is the OoB of Task Force Baum, as described by the author(p.3): -C Coy of the 37th Tank Battalion with 10 EZ-8's; -A platoon of 6 Stuarts from D Coy of the 37th; -A platoon of 3 "105mm M7 self-propelled assualt guns", organic to the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion; -A Coy of the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion in 27 HTs, some of which carried supplies, another served as a tank maintenance vehicle, and one was used as the 10th's S-4 vehicle (radio); -Recon platoon of the 10th consisting of 9 men in 3 jeeps; -5 other jeeps carrying Baum and others. The points of discrepancy lie in the exact number of jeeps and men. Some say that there may have been only four jeeps. There is also some indication that the jeep supposedly used by the medical personnel may have been an M29 Weasel. Also, the exact number of men is in dispute. The number has been quoted as 293 in at least one source, 307 in at least one other. So, according to this author, not only were there no Ferdinands, or Jagdpanthers, or Tigers (that has been claimed as well, apparently), there were no Sherman 105's involved either. [ July 17, 2002, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]

*blush* Thanks for the kind words. Cranking the US up 200% will certainly create a target-rich environment for the Germans, that's for sure. Feel free to send me a scenario. If you have a couple, send me the shortest, as I am quite busy with a multitude of things pulling me in several directions. But I'd be happy to give one a whirl and send some feedback.

Consider yourself invited! And yes, it sounds like it will be great fun. I mean, a sneak peak at CMBB, and a special treat promised by Blackhorse should be reasons enough to make the trek. At the very least there is the very good chance we will get to tour the backlots, THAT is where most of the vehicles are. Regarding the plaque, I could be mistaken but I think it says the vehicle was meant to mount the redesigned Panther turret with the 88L/71. It is my understanding that the protype turret and hull were never mated, however. Further, I believe there is still some small controversy regarding who mounted the late G turret. I believe Jentz says there is some confusion as to whether it was mounted once in allied hands, or if it was discovered that way in Germany. This mystery may have been resolved and I just haven't seen it yet, however.

Hate to sound like the pedantic type, but that vehicle has a late G turret with the standard 75L/70. It's still a wonderful specimen, the hull is the only one in existence IIRC.

No problem. When I get home I will list what is described in the article. Keep in mind, the detailed OoB exists only for the US, as the Germans they encountered were largely a hodge-podge of forces. The only exception was the description of the Hetzers and the forces that gathered to expel the task force from the shooting range hill, that action included a fairly thorough description of the German forces IIRC.

Sarge, The author of the piece in After the Battle details a very specific OoB. He notes, however, that there are a couple of minor discrepancies in the allied order that he was never able to fully clarify-- basically, the exact number of vehicles (+/- a halftrack or two), and IIRC there were a couple of questions regarding the type of vehicle(s) used by the medical personnel attached to the TF. These are relatively minor, however. When I get home, I will post the specific volume number of this issue.

Yep, that's the way to do it. And yes, it is a long bridge. I'm sure it is not truly to scale, but I wanted to emphasize the challenge of the crossing. Even though I designed the battle and knew exactly what I was facing, I was never able to get a really strong victory. As you discovered, those US TDs are out of their element trying to slug it out toe-to-toe with the German TDs.

Rune, I keep forgetting to play your scenario, but I will give it a whirl as I've always enjoyed your work immensely. Is the problem you allude to the fact that getting a victory as the US is practically impossible? I found that to be the case when I was playing around with a couple of battles with TF Baum. One of the battles is played on the same map as my Gemunden battle, although the forces and objectives (exit for the US) are completely different. The other map is based on the action on the shooting range hill. I could never tweak them properly to give the allies much of any chance to gain a points victory. I am guessing your battle is the same. I look forward to meeting you August 6th. I just had my assistant tweak my training calendar to permit me to sneak away.

Oh yes!!! I have played Gemunden. My God, it is a real ballbuster. The German AI gave me tons of grief. The Axis TDs outshot my fast TDs at range. It was quite ugly. Smoke, fire and brute force got me across the bridge. I fought for every inch! Once across, my turreted shermans had a bit better time in town. But I eaked by a victory. I must have forgotten but I played that over a year ago.... Nice Job! -Sarge</font>

I highly recommend the After the Battle story on the subject. I don't have the volume number, but I will look when I get home. The author surveyed all the literature on TF Baum, conducted interviews with participants (both German and American) and travelled the route extensively. He didn't seem to have any bias on the historical details, so I believe his conclusions are supported by the best available evidence. I do know he claimed to be absolutely positive the German vehicles were Hetzers, not any Tiger or Panther derivatives. The story is accompanied by some very nice photographs and maps of the terrain along the route, as is customary for the magazine both during (or actually right after as no photos were taken during the actual raid) the battle and today (or at least when the article was written).

Very good. I figured the factual version would likely differ from Raid. Hetzers would be pretty tough for regular shermans. Question: Are only the Axis vehicles incorrectly identified? What about the Task Force vehicles? Did they even sport the Sherman 105? Dying to know. Thanks!</font>

There is an excellent piece in After the Battle magazine about this action. The author did exhaustive research on the subject, specifically he spent a great deal of time looking at German records and interviewing German veterans. His conclusion was that the only German vehicles in the area were Hetzers. This was corroborated by numerous sources, including the identification of the particular abteilung to which they belonged. IIRC, the author also discussed the discrepancies in the different books, specifically singling out "Raid." He was quite adamant that the vehicles were incorrectly identified in that book.

Belton Cooper is the author's name. He is one of the more common interviewees used in History Channel documentaries, particularly those on D-Day. If I'm not mistaken, he recently passed away.

All I can say is: