John Kettler

Was highly puzzled earlier today to receive a Priority Mail from BFC, mail wholly unexpected. Turns out it was the physical copy of CMCW on a DVD, when I thought there wasn't going to be one at all. Am unsure whether Pre-Orders were to get one or not, but I do recall there would be, unlike CMBS Pre-Orders, no physical manual.  INnany event, what a wonderful treat!

Regards,

John Kettler  

BFCElvis,
Much appreciate BFC's diligence on maximizing customer value received and your explanation ref how people got/get the physical game. I think the cover art is cool, bears a foreshadowing message and is atmospheric as all get out!

Regards,

John. Kettler

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

From an almost brand new YouTuber named Rus, listed as living in the US, comes this extremely well done video which gets into the meat of the screens, if you will, including the harsh  lessons of two wars.
 
Regards,

John Kettler

Was highly puzzled earlier today to receive a Priority Mail from BFC, mail wholly unexpected. Turns out it was the physical copy of CMCW on a DVD, when I thought there wasn't going to be one at all. Am unsure whether Pre-Orders were to get one or not, but I do recall there would be, unlike CMBS Pre-Orders, no physical manual.  INnany event, what a wonderful treat!

Regards,

John Kettler  

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

What a fascinating thread, to which would like to contribute a couple of points. The first is that after the Berlin Wall fell, and we were able to get some of our armor combat leaders, presumably in mufti, into the formerly denied areas by the border opposite the Fulda Gap, our people made a shocking discovery, which was reported in Jame's Defence Review: There was simply not enough room to bring in the Red Army forces our planners had long anticipated bursting across the border from there. The available space simply wouldn't have allowed it! How decades of across the border imaging and overhead imagery had failed to reveal this most salient of points, I know not, but it was a shock to the readers, including me. Second, the use of the equilateral triangle with vertices of Firepower, Mobility and Protection was, I believe, the creation of BG Richard Simpkin, MC, OBE, in his groundbreaking Race to the Swift. If he didn't invent this extremely clever technique, certainly he was the first to use it that I know of. BG Simpkin wasn't some armchair type, either, for he cut short his studies at Cambridge to fight with the RTR in the Western Desert in 1941. Wanted Red Armour desperately, but it was a lot of money I didn't have, every bit as out of reach as Chris Bellamy's marvelous Red God of War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Simpkin

Regards,

John Kettler
 

This business of protection level being tied to building size is a real gripe regarding CMx2 I have over CMx1. There, you could have even the smallest buildings made of stone.
This one is little different from a pillbox.

Pinterest lists over 1000 photos of stone cottages and farmhouses in Normandy.
1000+ images about Normandy stone cottages & farmhouses on ...
https://www.pinterest.com/lanormandy/normandy-stone-cottages-farmhouses/   Page 136 of Normandy: The Real Story, by Shelagh Whitaker and Dennis Whitaker is explicit as to the commonness of such things, calling them typical in a Norman farming village.   Here's another one, with a Panther tank in it for visual scale. Wish I could find the photo, but there's a great one of SS infantry moving past a small single story Norman outbuilding (about as big as a one car garage) made of stone.     As far as I'm concerned, size shouldn't limit what a building is constructed from, especially in a situation where small stone buildings are the norm. I believe BFC needs to address this.     Regards,   John Kettler  

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Believe this is directly related to CMBS and provides a wealth of detailed information on the reorganization and reconfiguration of US Armored Cavalry, including the end of the M3 CFV and its replacement by the more capacious M2A3 BFV.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Let me start by saying that those of you who find Blinkov's military analyses with its frog puppet jarring are going to really have an issue with Lazer PIg. That said, if you can get past the bizarre front end and a super abundance of NSFW language throughout, there is a wealth of material here on the realities of the T-34, not the propaganda, self-serving analyses, rigged tests, erroneous assumptions and writings of lazy historians. This makes that long online piece called The Myth of T-34 Superiority seem like a passing thought by comparison, slaughtering sacred cows, "known facts", "reliable data" and other structures built not just on sand, but weak sand at that, with wild abandon, even using statements by Stalin about major T-34 reliability problems. Some long time CM hands talk about depicting Tiger and Panther reliability by reducing the percentage actually available for battle, but that seems highly unfair when you learn that in a 500 km road march, HALF of all the T-34s broke down en route. The Russian crew survival rates were shocking if a. tank was hit and penetrated. Russian figures in Dunn's Hitler's Nemesis showed that when a tank was destroyed, so generally were all the crew members killed or incapacitated by wounds.  This became a huge problem for the Red Army which, unlike the British at GOOD WOOD, who had plenty of replacement tanks and crews with a pretty high overall survival rate (typically 1-2 casualties per tank knocked out), the Russians were being forced to replace the tanks and the crews. This is but one of many topics discussed in this wide-ranging, take no prisoners hour-long video. Frankly, I wish it had been longer, for as deep as it went, there simply wasn't time to really get deeply into various maters. If you've ever heard of the expression "drinking from the fire hydrant", you can experience that by watching this most impressive video. There is a wealth of material, too, in the comments and Lazer Pig's replies. Net net, I believe you will never again look at the T-34 quite the same way again.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

This is first rate OSINT combat analysis, and I feel it is highly relevant to CMSF2. It breaks down events year by year, discussing missiles used, total quantities involved (by type where known) and results, as well as where those ATGMs came from. There are some important tactical matters discussed as well.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/05/04/seven-years-war-documenting-syrian-rebel-use-anti-tank-guided-missiles/

Regards,

John Kettler

Nothing like a spirited discussion (made more so by imbibing  spirits?!) full of lots of grog goodness and going off on all sorts of fascinating tangents! Shall need to do a much closer reading on Binh Ba, a Vietnam War battle of which I knew nothing. Also, found the point made regarding how manpower devouring (clear up to overall US forces, a strategic matter), one Iraqi city could be. Daresay highly restrictive US ROEs make a already severe problem orders of magnitude worse. Am going back now, though to the OP. Delighted to present a far better quality version of that official British Army training film, Soviet Encounter, so much better it even looks good at full screen setting.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

This is the link to the above, which was dated February 8, 1979, placing it directly into the CMCW timeframe. This is what US soldiers were being officially taught back then. Subjects are the T-62, T-54 and T-72. In the footer are no fewer than three other TRADOC bulletins plus other goodies, such as the LAW employment guide.

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA392790

Regards,

John Kettler

Though this excellent report was primarily of interest to the CMSF2 people, am posting it here as well, because it explains some anti-ATGM tactics and delivers a real bombshell: no fewer than 3 T-90s have survived direct hits from TOW 2A and remained operational. Overall ATGM hit rates will also be of interest. The range advantage of Kornet over TOW 2A is tactically significant and has been exploited, to considerable effect against the rebels.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/05/04/seven-years-war-documenting-syrian-rebel-use-anti-tank-guided-missiles/

Regards,

John Kettler

Wasn't allowed to keep it, of course, just visit the wee beastie. Okay, it's huge, which is why you can only see about half of it. This is the export version of the what we called then the Mi-24D/HIND D, the nightmare of the muj until CIA-supplied 14.5 mm HMGs, other AAA and MANPADS. (especially the Stinger) arrived. Have my hand on the gun camera housing and am standing next to one of four launch rails for the AT-2 radio guided MCLOS ATGM. All told, it also has 4 x UB-32 32-shot  57 mm rocket pods (two visible, but with business ends in shadow behind me and to my left). That black thing almost touching the door is the nasty quad 12.7 mm light auto cannon in its turret. Am allowed to say this helo is in Lancaster, Texas, but I am not allowed to say where I got to see another iconic threat, the mighty Su-25/FROGFOOT, still less post a pic.

Will say, though, that it's a beast up close, sits very high on its wheels (greatly reducing the chances of sucking debris into its engines) and fairly screams its roots in the Northrop Grumman A-9, which lost the AX competition to the A-10. The tough old bird was in bad shape, as in having no wings or tail assembly on it (were near it on the floor), the canopy off, the entire instrument panel removed. The cockpit was a sea of switches, and one instrument still present was the landing gear status indicator display. The ejection seat frame was still in, as were the stick and rudder pedals. The exterior paint was extremely bleached out and chalky looking, so the bird had spent years exposed to the weather. Thrilling as it was to see this aircraft, was greatly disappointed the heart of it, the left underside of nose mounted GSh-2-30 cannon wasn't present at all and had apparently not been in the plane when received. Did see the forward barrel support bracket was still in place. This is in stark contrast with China, which decades back shipped a pair of MiG-15s to Planes of Fame Air Museum in Chino, California. Those fighters arrived with fully functioning armament (1 x NR-37 (yes, 37 mm cannon that ate B-29s alive over NK) and 2 x NR-23 23 mm cannon each)--plus ammo. This caused a fair degree of excitement in a number of quarters!

Regards,

John Kettler

First of all, after working with the TOW MISSLE SYSTEM for 8 years in the USMC ,it don't make me a TOW MISSLE EXPERT, BUT we had issues with the Regular TOW, Then the ITOW , then finally the TOW 2 came out and we had big issues with the TOW2. Shooting just the regular TOW Missile 10 times, we would have a failure rate of approximately 3-4 missile failures. most of those issues being a Broken Wire from the gun platform to the missile itself. We also had 2 missiles that blew up only 20-30 yards, which was an issue by itself because the TOW missile wasn't supposed to arm its warhead until it went over 50 yards. Here is my last issue about the TOW, they are way to accurate at short ranges. When you fired your TOW MISSILE after the missile leaves the launch tube  the gunner is trying to reacquire its target, then while that's going on , the flight motors kick in and you can't see ****!!!!! around after 10-15 seconds now you can finally make sense out of everything, you can now see the target, see the IR light on the missile and now your heart is pumping hard now because in another 6-10 seconds, your target is getting ready to be obliterated, and they don't even know it!!!!  So if the BF Community can start making the Tows Less Accurate at shorter ranges would be a start, Say from 50 yards to 1,000 yards the hit rate should only be around 60 to 65 percent, From 1,000-2,000 yards the hit accuracy will now be getting better so I would say 70-90 percent, then from  2,000-just over 3,000 yards my percentage would go from 80-95 percent. During Desert Storm during the battle the M2-M3 Bradley had a Huge problems

The real thing would probably be a bit awkward to park, but this might interest you JK:
https://ipmsdeutschland.de/archiv/FirstLook/Zvezda/Mil_Mi-24V/Zve_Mi-24W.html
Or, if you want bigger:
https://ipmsdeutschland.de/archiv/FirstLook/Zvezda/Mil_Mi-24V_VP_48/Zve_Mi-24W_WP.html
 

Wasn't allowed to keep it, of course, just visit the wee beastie. Okay, it's huge, which is why you can only see about half of it. This is the export version of the what we called then the Mi-24D/HIND D, the nightmare of the muj until CIA-supplied 14.5 mm HMGs, other AAA and MANPADS. (especially the Stinger) arrived. Have my hand on the gun camera housing and am standing next to one of four launch rails for the AT-2 radio guided MCLOS ATGM. All told, it also has 4 x UB-32 32-shot  57 mm rocket pods (two visible, but with business ends in shadow behind me and to my left). That black thing almost touching the door is the nasty quad 12.7 mm light auto cannon in its turret. Am allowed to say this helo is in Lancaster, Texas, but I am not allowed to say where I got to see another iconic threat, the mighty Su-25/FROGFOOT, still less post a pic.

Will say, though, that it's a beast up close, sits very high on its wheels (greatly reducing the chances of sucking debris into its engines) and fairly screams its roots in the Northrop Grumman A-9, which lost the AX competition to the A-10. The tough old bird was in bad shape, as in having no wings or tail assembly on it (were near it on the floor), the canopy off, the entire instrument panel removed. The cockpit was a sea of switches, and one instrument still present was the landing gear status indicator display. The ejection seat frame was still in, as were the stick and rudder pedals. The exterior paint was extremely bleached out and chalky looking, so the bird had spent years exposed to the weather. Thrilling as it was to see this aircraft, was greatly disappointed the heart of it, the left underside of nose mounted GSh-2-30 cannon wasn't present at all and had apparently not been in the plane when received. Did see the forward barrel support bracket was still in place. This is in stark contrast with China, which decades back shipped a pair of MiG-15s to Planes of Fame Air Museum in Chino, California. Those fighters arrived with fully functioning armament (1 x NR-37 (yes, 37 mm cannon that ate B-29s alive over NK) and 2 x NR-23 23 mm cannon each)--plus ammo. This caused a fair degree of excitement in a number of quarters!

Regards,

John Kettler

Wasn't allowed to keep it, of course, just visit the wee beastie. Okay, it's huge, which is why you can only see about half of it. This is the export version of the what we called then the Mi-24D/HIND D, the nightmare of the muj until CIA-supplied 14.5 mm HMGs, other AAA and MANPADS. (especially the Stinger) arrived. Have my hand on the gun camera housing and am standing next to one of four launch rails for the AT-2 radio guided MCLOS ATGM. All told, it also has 4 x UB-32 32-shot  57 mm rocket pods (two visible, but with business ends in shadow behind me and to my left). That black thing almost touching the door is the nasty quad 12.7 mm light auto cannon in its turret. Am allowed to say this helo is in Lancaster, Texas, but I am not allowed to say where I got to see another iconic threat, the mighty Su-25/FROGFOOT, still less post a pic.

Will say, though, that it's a beast up close, sits very high on its wheels (greatly reducing the chances of sucking debris into its engines) and fairly screams its roots in the Northrop Grumman A-9, which lost the AX competition to the A-10. The tough old bird was in bad shape, as in having no wings or tail assembly on it (were near it on the floor), the canopy off, the entire instrument panel removed. The cockpit was a sea of switches, and one instrument still present was the landing gear status indicator display. The ejection seat frame was still in, as were the stick and rudder pedals. The exterior paint was extremely bleached out and chalky looking, so the bird had spent years exposed to the weather. Thrilling as it was to see this aircraft, was greatly disappointed the heart of it, the left underside of nose mounted GSh-2-30 cannon wasn't present at all and had apparently not been in the plane when received. Did see the forward barrel support bracket was still in place. This is in stark contrast with China, which decades back shipped a pair of MiG-15s to Planes of Fame Air Museum in Chino, California. Those fighters arrived with fully functioning armament (1 x NR-37 (yes, 37 mm cannon that ate B-29s alive over NK) and 2 x NR-23 23 mm cannon each)--plus ammo. This caused a fair degree of excitement in a number of quarters!

Regards,

John Kettler

Was trying to find a good writeup on the Soviet conclusion that Direct Fire was 10 x as effective as Indirect Fire (called by them "Fire from covered positions"). As I result I found this, the translated notes. of the Voroshilov Academy introductory course on Soviet Artillery. It is replete with detailed info, explanations of Soviet artillery related acronyms, types of fire and more, including a bunch of norms in the form of tables. When it comes to counterfire from US and NATO, can tell you the planning figure from, I believe, Sidorenko's The Offensive they were using in assessing time before counterfire landed was 4 minutes, and that was from the generation of counter mortar and counter battery radars before the far more capable TPQ-36 and TPQ-37 Firefinder radars. Thus, the figures in here are conservative to say the least and presumably reflect much older data.

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/archivevoro2/lesson1.htm

Regards,

John Kettler 

Was trying to find a good writeup on the Soviet conclusion that Direct Fire was 10 x as effective as Indirect Fire (called by them "Fire from covered positions"). As I result I found this, the translated notes. of the Voroshilov Academy introductory course on Soviet Artillery. It is replete with detailed info, explanations of Soviet artillery related acronyms, types of fire and more, including a bunch of norms in the form of tables. When it comes to counterfire from US and NATO, can tell you the planning figure from, I believe, Sidorenko's The Offensive they were using in assessing time before counterfire landed was 4 minutes, and that was from the generation of counter mortar and counter battery radars before the far more capable TPQ-36 and TPQ-37 Firefinder radars. Thus, the figures in here are conservative to say the least and presumably reflect much older data.

http://www.xenophon-mil.org/archivevoro2/lesson1.htm

Regards,

John Kettler 

This isn't just a bunch of old soldiers telling their stories. It is also a docudrama, history, the accounts of those they freed, an opportunity to see the places where they fought, right down to the time worn buildings. Selection and training are described, and I found it astounding how little there was, with the situation even worse with replacements, some of whom didn't know how to shoot at all. Am dumbfounded that infantry, even if in support formations originally, could be sent to the field not knowing how to shoot rifles! Fieldcraft training appears to have been extremely limited. It would take special scenarios to do this, but various types of missions could me created in several relevant CMx2 games, missions that mirrored the real ones. Overall, I found this to be both grog gold and so deeply moving I nearly cried. It's incredible that so many men from a tiny unit in a single battalion all survived the war, though most were hit, some quite badly.
 

Regards,

John Kettler