coe

I just got CMAK. So I played a small scenario with M13/40 tanks aginst Cruisers (Mk. I). It was kind of funny... with the M13/40s you could hit but it often wouldn't kill. With the Cruisers, the 2-pounders would hit the M13s and KO them in one shot. Though I had an italian tankette with it's machine gun cause a Cruiser to explode. I tried to put the italian tanks in an unexposed position so that all they had to do was to hunt up a slope 5 meters to expose their gun and start firing and I waited until the British were 2-3 hundred yards away and were exposing their flank. Yet when I did this, my veteran tankers (against the regular british) were often unable to get the shots off first and in all times got the worst of the exchange. (the idea was this, I didn't want my tanks on the slope to already be exposed to the open field because there was a slope on the other side where the british would come over, and that would have led to hull down vs. hull down as they ambled over their own ridge so I waited out of sight till the british went over the hill). Any ideas, will the hull down tactic work with regular German tanks instead of the mobile coffins? Conan

I am curious, some groups like SMG squads only have 20-30 for ammunition levels whereas some units have upwards 79-80 (e.g. rifle squads). I know in terms of out put the SMG's probably throw up more bullets into the air and the more rounded units (e.g. mix of rifle, SMG, MG etc.) throw up less but for longer and then the rifle squads do the longest. The thing is I wonder if this somehow models the physical number of bullets a person could carry - e.g. do the number of bullets in the SMG clips rival the number in the rifleman's load (both at full load). Conan

Hi all, I remember the squad leader hill 621 (adapted to CMBB) - my question is that did it really happen as described in SL? I remember the regimental sized Kampfgroupe of several panzer divisions was described but were those divisions really all there?

can you define "high doctrine"? is that mean - if the troops were well trained it would have worked? Hmmm, I wonder about the infiltration thing...I've heard accounts about the Germans being good at that but for some reason they would get discovered then wiped out. when you say Armor doesn't infiltrate but punches at the stuff the infantry left behind...I assume that means armor with some infantry? To the people about British good at defense...better than the italians? germans? russians? was it tactics?

In response to an earlier post: British best on defense? really? why is that? In addition I have heard some statements that maybe the British had the best infantry what would make that so given the weapons were reasonably similar and other things? C.

I wonder about the accounts of Michael Wittmann's tank at Villers-Bocage - going down the line of British vehicles raking them with machine gun fire - if true and if so how effective. So in reality the MG42/MG34 was good against half-tracks? I also remember reading some accounts about some heavier aircraft machine guns were eventually mounted on land vehicles. I am a bit surprised that something closer to a 50 cal wasn't put in on the German tanks to provide a reasonably quick alternative to using shells against softer vehicles since it seems not quite guaranteed that the '42 would kill immediately - then again if the purpose is to get at infantry which are trying to get at your tank...the 42 seems adequate (maybe not as good as a 50 in getting the infantry who is trying to hide behind a tree)

First of all thanks for someone posting the link. I was out a few days. That is puzzling that the Germans who did deep penetrations and the like didn't seem to know what to do when they broke through - or perhaps the breakthroughs were not on a large enough scale. On the other hand, I'd like to know of accounts where allies broke through but there was a large german force being called up with artillery to strip away the accompanying infantry? or did that not happen due to German shortages? But it is interesting because you might expect the German formations to have fought a bit better, or with more tactical skill based on total war experience of their generals and colonels etc. This is not to say that the Americans or British were dummies. I also remember some accounts of the 12th SS doing some rather costly un-coordinated attacks against the british and canadians early on...that was puzzling too. Conan

hmmm interesting...the thing I wonder is that in the Le Desert analysis, it seems the tank destroyers would get the quicker draw on the Panthers and hit them before they were even spotted even though both were approaching eachother...(I guess the supporting infantry might not have been able to easily communicate what they saw?).

Does anybody have any information on German attacks in the Bocage in Normandy and why they often failed. I read a carl.mil report on the St. Lo operation and it seemed that the U.S. was rather successful in the drive to St. Lo. For example, Panzer Lehr's attack at Le Desert was a disaster, as well as some attacks against the British by the best Panzer divisions. Were the Germans just as clumsy attacking through the bocage as the Allies. If so, why? Second of all, I read about Allied (U.S.) tactics about breaking through the bocage pre-hedgrow cutters and from what I understand it seemed rather successful (blow a hole into bocage wall, tank comes through silences machine guns on corners, mortar fire behind enemy prevents enemy from retreating, then tank pins infantry down, and U.S. infantry moves in)...were there many casualties in this manner of attack and what did the germans do to negate the tank that burst through the bocage at the opposite end of the field?

Just a quick question on that battle...what happened to the knocked out German tanks, were they recovered when the Germans retook the village (otherwise losing 4 tigers plus some other tanks doesn't seem like that good exchange - of course halting the British advance was more important) And why did the Germans advance their tigers into the village?

well y'know there might have been flaws in the actual steel that was used to make German tanks at the time. it also depends as to what type of tiger you are using (Tiger II? Tiger I)...there's a bit of non-sloped surfaces on the Tiger I. Also a single tiger I doubt would hang out in front of 16 shermans at 500m in real life...under the hail of fire there's something bound to go wrong (gun damage, other damage, getting shaken inside etc.)...It might be alot different at 1000m or something like that. I assume ideally as the Tiger you'd want to take out the shermans in small groups - I can't imagine being the Tiger crew trying to get off well aimed shots while 16 or so Sherman AP rounds are hitting you several times a minute.

interesting though in the third phase that despite massive German resistance the Americans still succeeded in taking and holding most of the forest. I am hard pressed to find an example where the Germans were able to to that against the western allies. by the way, any actual major benefits to when the Germans managed to infiltrate the lines - I remember reading some accounts of the Lorraine campaign (written by Cole) where he mentions that whole German units managed to infiltrate - but usually it seems those units were destroyed shortly afterward (even if the Germans were on the ttack to support the infiltration).

well i was using american style defense abstractly but the type used in the Agincourt area for example typically the massed artillery strike which strips away the infantry, then there's many many tank destroyers/tanks roaming around to get flank shots at the attacking force, then maybe add a few squadrons of fighterbombers (if weather permits) and have massed mobile reserve ready

Well we know pretty much how German attacks faired when facing American defense (liberal artillery, massing/mobility of reserves, etc.). Many accounts of attacking the Germans tell of murderous defensive fire but often these attacks were successful (i.e. significant penetrations made, pockets of resistance reduced and in the end defender losses much more.) My question is two fold - did the American accounts have a different perception as to what constituted heavy fire/resistance? How did American attacks fare when faced with a truely American style defense?

two questions: both the Pz IV and Panther seem more vulnerable when hull down...isn't however the point of going hull down so that is harder to hit and should the fact that it is harder to hit offset the fact that only the weaker portion of tank is exposed...i.e. if I know I'm going against a panther, but the panther is NOT hull down, wouldn't i target the turret anyways (or wouldn't I do the same thing against a Pz IV? Second question: ok so now you are a panther against an IS-III...same solution against an IS-III as the lighter soviet tanks vs. the panther (i.e flanking shot)? Or are side shots less effect if you are German? Conan

question...so all the german tank losses during kursk - were most of these repairable or written off? or abandoned during the retreat? Conan P.S. any decent accounts of what happened during the Orel and Mius River counteroffensives? C.

Andreas that is kind of funny but admittedly I'm benefitting from both questions... I wonder if it is easier to advance than it is to retreat - lets say removing the hold fast orders from the Wolf's lair, technically the defender is supposed to be more familiar with the ground, and should have less supply and communication problems, whereas the attack is moving over less familiar terrain and must set up supply as he goes but then again the attacker probably has the benefit of concentration, and picking the point...perhaps the way for the Germans to have approached defense was to set up as if they were going to be going on the offensive (i.e. sechond echelon, or ready with the supply convoys etc.) Granted that the Germans had less forces and had to generally retreat but supposed you had two equal forces both with mobility and one breaks through the front line of the other and bypasses the other - suddenly both sides have mobile pockets in eachother's rear (and theoretically if you could supply the units by passed they might be as large a threat as attacking side which has penetrated.

Interesting, hmmm an adequate number of tanks? I am curious then as to the general retreat of Army Group South in the late 1943-spring 1944: an infantry issue then? From what I've read is that Manstein did handle (as much as he was permitted to) the forces there decently well but still they were pushed back. What I do sense is that the German forces seemed to be less and less mobile compared to the Russians, or either that the ol' Stand and Fight orders from Rastenburg were probably in full effect. The funny thing about operational attacks and deep penetrations into the opponents rear is that the forces you cut off and by-pass are also in your rear. I suppose those in the deep penetrations should face some of the same problems as those cut-off or bypassed but for some reason the cut-off or bypassed troops are at a disadvantage or more vulnerable (even supply wise?) Conan

Interesting stuff I just read on those other operations too. I wonder though even if the Germans concentrated in AGC it seems like they probably would not have been abel to have stopped it (for instance as in the Spring of 1944 in the South even though there the Soviets had alot of casualties)...I just think there was enough german forces to go around it seems - even if they concentrated at the proper points.

I have to say fighting against flame thrower tanks in low visibility conditions - quite scary since your AT assets can only see as far as the Flamethrower tanks can shoot.... (well that is the russian flamethrower tanks, I mean)

few questions: I was just reading on the Summer Offensive of 1944 (Bagration) that the Germans concentrated most of their armor in AG North Ukraine. So what happened to that armor as the Russian offensive developed - did it ever get employed northward (or did the travel time make it too late to have an effect?). Second of all I'm just curious on this: anyone have a thought about where a submachine gun would be better than an assault rifle (I was just thinking about how submachine guns have disappeared from modern field forces). Conan

I'd be interested to know what type of strategic or even tactical level doctrines the Germans would have used/considered if lets say Hitler decided to be hands off (i.e. saying, ok ok my stand and hold strategy or whatever hasn't worked, General staff: do what you need to do to make the best of things - just no surrender). For instance I guess the relevant jump off point would be somewhere around Spring 1944. Conan

Calgary Highlander? On a technical note is this an inherited name or are there Highlanders (in the Scottish, Jacobite sense) in Canada? Conan

So how were the Americans so successful on the attack if the german armour was a terror on defense? Was it just numbers (on attacks in general I think American casualties were less than the German's (but is that only for successful attacks)).... Any info on casualty ratios for successful German attacks on the Americans ?

Interesting JasonC, do you think in your opinion that the Germans had better success against the russians in their counter attacks at the time? And if so, what was the difference? And I presume at some point, the Germans would have to attack, how do you think that would have best been accomplished, likewise, do you think the Americans were more successful in their attacks against the Germans and aside from artillery and air support why? I'm curious on this stuff as you can see.