coe

wow, would it have been possible to stop the attack with no big gun support (only HMGs or less)?

I was following along with this discussion and it led me to reading a bit about the September 1944 in Nancy, France (that area)...it seems like the Americans romped on the Germans even defeating some decent formations (15th PzGr) and out maneuvering them. Whereas the German attacks seemed rather clumsy - either way it seems the loss ratio favored the Americans...any explanations for this? Any thoughts about the outcome if it were the russians or british in place of the Americans instead? It seems the Americans were well organized where the Germans just didn't know where things were. Was it the initial disorganization of the Germans that might have allowed the penetrations of their lines and rather large losses (I was reading some stuff from the Combined Arms research library).

I wonder how the germans held out against massed russian attacks when artillery was scarce - what were the actual ranges they opened up and did they inflict massive casualties opening up at longer ranges? The problem is on these maps that you sometimes have to halt an attack from prepared positions, when you are outnumbered...that is you can't just fire one turn then bug out to another position after a minute and repeat (you'd run out space or lose your objective). in this problem you face having to fall back after holding a position for a bit of time and having the enemy attack develop after the initial contact (this is akin to the - you must hold for 15 minutes so that the HQ can escape type of deal) Conan Conan

perhaps I guess when engaging a large enemy, one can't let them get too close (i.e. 40-50m) and one has to start firing from a longer range? It is tough because even if you do have a covered route it sometimes seems the moment you get up and move the squad gets pinned and then shortly thereafter over-run Conan

well even in 1944 August and October the germans had several counterattacks (I think somewhere in the south (Romania?) and even spring awakening had more than a 10 mile advance too given it was that late in the war.

anyone have good tips for retreating when you are the platoon or company expected to hold out against a major attack (e.g. soviet battalion or more). So early on the going is good (like the first minute) but then there is massive firepower and that pins everyone. It seems the only way to retreat is if the enemy is repulsed, and then falls back momentarily... then you bug out (so in the case of a big attack the best time seems to be right at the end of the first minute). If I try fighting withdrawals, usually my trooops get pinned, panic and then die 50% losses on a fall back to a position 100 yards back is about minimum for me....any tips? (ok this assumes you don't have artillery to smoke things over) Conan

The question I have on attacking like a german - late in the war, it feels at least by what I have read that the Germans were still able to do significant penetrations against the russians whereas against the allies, the german attacks seemed to peter out (exception Ardennes) after a few miles or so. Is this a somewhat valid conclusion and if so, why. The second thing is I've read several accounts of the Germans successfully infilitrating Allied lines in company to battlion levels but then the Allies seem to stomp them out (western allies), Were the germans equally unsuccessful in infiltration of russian lines and likewise when Russians inflitrated German lines, how did the germans stomp those out? Conan

A few things - in real life were ATRs hard to spot...I have tanks with infantry accompanying them and no-one can spot the ATR... (did the Germans actually use captured 14.5 mm Soviet ATRs - and is that modelled in CMBB?) Conan

ok so I'm a little slow sorry for stating the obvious (most tanks are weaker on their flanks)...I wonder though if that means later in the war (1944-1945) when Germans run up against IS-2 and IS-3 if one is supposed to fight those tanks like the russians are supposed to fight king tigers etc. Interesting thing about the 57mm ATG - I assume that the 57mm round is smaller than the 75 or 85 mm rounds. I wonder how this affects penetration power over a distance and if 57mm ATG was better why not put it in place of the less effective 75 or 76.2 guns - even more so if the 57mm ATG is smaller....anyone konw how the 57mm ATG stacks up against the 50 PAK/38 or 75mm PAK/40? Conan

I think you'll find that most tanks have trouble with receiving shots on the flank. the funny thing I remember though is that a 37mm PAK sometimes has a harder time penetrating the rear of a T-34 than the front or side... fancy that. Anyone know why the 57mm ATG (russian) seems to be more effective than their 76mm or their 85mm guns? Conan

Can someone point me to a thread which discusses how the two infantry arms matched up against eachother (and perhaps contrast this with Germans vs. Americans or Germans vs. Russians) I'd also be interested to know of Italians vs. whoever when the Italians were in a situation where they weren't outgunned, out tanked, out airforced, etc. (i.e. pure head on fight or something like that) Coe

can anyone refer me to "Germans" in the worst of 1941 or perhaps in 1944-45? (i.e. how to fight soviets then) Conan

Hi Erik, Go to the tips and tricks forum area and look at Soviets in the Worst of 1943. That should give some help...there's some other tips too. Remember you usually have numbers on your side. On an open field it is very tough. If there is any cover try racing from point to point and close in that way... you'll take losses. Other options: smoke, make the enemy do the attacking (hide and open fire at closer range) take advantage that if you can get to the flanks StuG's take a long time to react. PzIVs are weak in the turrent front (tough to hit at a distance). Try to get the enemy tanks to button up. Use 57mm ATGs and 152mm KV or SUs...the key is to close the distance where your usually superior mobility and speed (especially off road) will help alot.

I have read the tactics vs. the "Uber tanks" - hit them in the flanks or rear where the armor is weakest. So I'd like to ask was this a weakness especially for German tanks or were the allied tanks (both West and Russians) much more susceptible to hits from the side and rear (IS-III ?) also. I mean if you were a German AFV with an 88mm gun given the frontal armour of most allied AFVs, you'd probably find it less necessary to need to hit from the side or rear but lets say you have a 50mm PAK. Or is the tactic of getting to the flanks of the Uber tanks a specific against the germans move due to a combination of things (slow turret, slower movement, weak side/rear armour). Would all those flaws be present in a heavy allied tank also? conan

one member has just commented that this thread is in the wrong forum. He may be correct as I was unsure as to which forum to put a topic that covered both East and West at the same time. Please move this to the proper forum if this isn't the proper one. Thanks. Conan

Hey all I went away for little bit and wow, I never thought my thread would go to 250 messages...(I wonder if it is due to my low membership number).... Interesting that the ratio was 1.6:1 in terms losses on the eastern front in the last years of the war - in the German's favor. From the accounts I have read of western front operations it seems that even when primarily on the defensive, the German losses were not favorable (e.g. Lorraine, first few days of Anzio (even when the Ranger unit was destroyed))...that I am puzzled about. Conan P.S. Did the Luftwaffe flak battery commander at Cagny (the one who von Luck held a pistol to him and said something like "your a dead man or you can earn yourself a medal") ever get a medal or was the commander a casualty or what? C.

Been doing a bit of research on accounts of western and eastern front combat. In actual battle situations, both defense and offense, it appears the Germans on average gave a better account of themselves (assuming they weren't pinned down by stand and hold type orders etc.). For example you hear of German counterattacks smashing various Soviet divisions, or surprising various soviet columns but on the West you hear of the allies hitting german columns hard, attacking and taking positions with less losses, and defending successfully (I wonder what the combat loss ratios were for German vs. West and Germans vs. East). Thus I wonder if you took the Germans out and made it West vs. Russians it might appear that the West might wipe the Russians out at the time. Even take Bagration for example, it seems the Russians lost more ratio wise on the attack there than the Allies did in Normandy. Well I welcome comments, and perphaps my perceptions are not correct (but I'm going what I've seen so far - take for example the Lorraine campaign where the Germans couldn't do much at all). Conan

hmmm well granted that it might not have changed the course of the war, just accounts of the Stg44 as used in ground combat that's all. As for Cagny - the battery was overrun as in the troops captured/killed or battery abandoned - did the battery ever get some supporting infantry?

1. Any accounts about the effectiveness of the MP44 in combat (ok ok ignoring that Artillery caused most casualties)? e.g. personal combat reports etc. 2. the 88 was originally an AA gun so I can imagine that its available shells were originally all HE...if that is the case how was it discovered to be an effective AT gun without AP shells to initially try out? Was it that the HE shells were effective too? or were there experimental AP shells lying around for its first encounter with tanks? 3. whatever happend to the Luftwaffe 88mm gun battery at Cagny during Goodwood - as accounted by von Luck? did those troops ever get a medal? C.

should this forum move into the peng challenge?

So if the British liked to close into close combat, the Americans liked to stay off at a bit of a distance... what did the Germans like to do? Conan

I can't remember what account it was but it was from a German view, that I guess there was an opinion that British infantry seemed to be better at combat (whereas German armour use was better) I'm not sure what was meant by good therefore hence why I am asking. I'm not sure if that meant that a German soldier all things being equal would rather fight a British soldier than a russian or American. Btw, nice talking with you again Mike, it's been a while since I've been on the forum. Conan

Ok here's my questions. Historically there were claims that German infantry wasn't quite as good as British infantry. What kind of factors was this opinion based on. Also historically how did German infantry match up against American infantry of similar training and battle experience? (I figure watchin all the war movies doesn't explain much - indeed if they were true, then the Germans would have lost on Dec. 8, 1941. Conan

My favorite panzer is the Tiger II with a fast turret and no flaws in the armor. Ha ha. Conan

ahh I am misunderstood, I merged the two teams of the same squad but upon doing so, two teams of a different squad also merged at the same time. Conan