Andreas

This does look like a good site covering the topic. If someone who knows more about the US paras than I could maybe confirm whether it is as good as it looks, that would be helpful.

Delaying turns is a Finnish disease then?

Well, if you can find any proof for Stukas being present before then, I'd love to see it. IIRC the MGFA's 'Germany and the second World War', which is the official history, claims there were none before the transfer of VIII. FK. Since one of the authors is Boog, who is apparently the expert on the Luftwaffe, I would tend to believe it.

A lot of the pictures where you see this seem to be Razchedviki (scout) troops. I am beginning to think that this is not because the Soviet soldiers thought that the MP40 was better than the PPSh, but rather because it would help to confuse the Germans in a firefight. Whitaker mentions this reasoning in 'Tug of war' for the use of German weapons by his battalion recce platoon in the Antwerp area 1944.

I also hope for more variety of damage to tanks, and the ability to specify target areas to e.g. inflict such damage with inferior guns. If one of my tanks has gun damage I usually run it off the map, or at least into a protected position at the rear, to avoid losing it. Up to the individual player, I think.

Someone with a very active imagination? Raus was an Austrian, and was promoted rapidly during the war. Contrary to what it says in the first post, he did not rise to command an Army Group - his career ended when Hitler relieved him after a presentation early in 1945 (this incident is in Ryan's 'The last battle', without naming Raus). He commanded 4th Panzer Army, and then 3rd Panzer Army during 1944 and 1945. He was involved in the spring 1943 battle for Charkov, commanded 6th Panzer division during the Stalingrad relief attempt and the Don/Donets battles. His failure to appreciate the situation correctly contributed to the desaster of Fester Platz Tarnopol in March/April 44. In August/September 44 he was in charge of the counter-attacks to re-establish a connection between army groups centre and north. After the war he contributed a lot to Marshall's project, and the book 'Panzers on the Eastern Front' is a collection of these papers. He also wrote articles for e.g. the Swiss 'Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau'. One of these articles is dealing with a Soviet attack by 25th Tank Corps on New Year's Eve 1942/3. The content of the article is disputed by a company commander who was present during that night battle (Raus was not), and is also not in line with a post-war account by the commander of the German unit who directed the battle. During his time in the pre-war Austrian army, he was an infantry tactics instructor for a while. I would suspect it is possible that his style of writing was driven by making battle accounts more interesting, thereby being able to impart the important lessons on the young officers. If that means embellishing some facts, I guess that is not a problem.

I don't think there were any Stukas in Army Group North's air support in June and early July 1941. The Luftwaffe was far from ubiquitous during Barbarossa. On the contrary, it seems that in this sector air superiority belonged to the Soviets.

Curse of the tiple post. BLAM BLAM. There, I put it out of its misery.

Actually, there were nine rifle battalions, and a recce battalion that could have been engaged, plus a pioneer battalion and an AT battalion, and additional regimental companies. So the average is even lower. The division was fighting on the old imperial border near Pleskau/Pskov (?) where it was trying to cross a river, while holding off Red Army counterattacks. One of the crossing attempts went wrong, and the bridgehead had to be given up. No mention of peasants by the way.

Arrrrgggghhhhhh [ January 17, 2004, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Crikey, second of three. [ January 17, 2004, 04:38 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

You are mixing up scenarios and reality. IRL tankers would not know that the battle has only 5 turns variable to run, and that the point values already destroyed mean that it is unlikely that there are anymore ATGs in the enemy line-up. A turret ring hit is a disabling hit. Smart tankers would go back to their Coy HQ and get the fitters to work on it. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to post it here. Please make sure you indicate whether you talk about reality, your personal belief of what tankers would do, or your experiences in a computer game.

I have never read this, and I have read quite a bit. Do you have a source for that?

Here is a bit of data for four days of very heavy combat of 21. Infanteriedivision, 23-27/7/41. Losses: Officers (KIA/WIA/MIA) 5/19/1 NCO & OR (KIA/WIA/MIA) 90/399/21 Total 95/418/22 Ammunition expenditure (by type) 7.92mm 667,000 sMK 48,820 (steel core AT MG ammo) 9mm 64,178 Grenade (long) 1,830 Egg grenade 810 Verey 930 3,7cm AT 604 3,7cm HE 2,540 (!) 5cm AT 60 5cm HE 42 5cm mortar 1,880 8cm mortar 1,851 8cm mortar smoke 30 2cm HE 600 (AA gun) 7,5cm IG18 2,320 15cm sIG33 514 10,5cm lFH18 5,467 15cm sFH18 2,691 Total weight of ammo fired 86to infantry and 294to artillery.

There were ~1,550 built, and used on all fronts. It was probably quite common, because it was used to equip a company in the AT battalions of infantry and Panzergrenadier divisions. I guess at full TO&E they would have ten per division. It was a very successful weapon, with Hitler allegedly saying it was a triumph of weapon's technology. The Swiss bought 170 of them, and used them until the 1970s.

Well at least in the book it is the original story, and not the 755 versions of it that are around on the internet. The story still sounds like an exaggeration though. I have a similar story by a Soviet tank officer, who claims it happened to him, but it is very different in key aspects, e.g. security at night, when they disembarked the tank, and the location of the tank being in no-mans land, not miles behind the German lines.

And where is the review? Are you too busy trading in Mahathir Dinars to honour it with a review? I'll have to set the Komodowarans onto you. POTENTIAL SPOILER The two existing reviews say that it is quite easy for the British player. That is probably correct, if you do things the proper way, as it seems you have done. The idea was really to have a generic, anyday-194x battle, that should work out well if you handle your company correctly (see, I am not always an evil, attacker-hating bastich).

Not being an expert, but I don't think there is any (for US Airborne). They were either withdrawn for Normandy, or DRAGOON.

Sven If you could email that to me, I would appreciate it. All the best, and TIA Andreas

This incident may or may not be true, but there is at least one incident where Raus published an article in a Swiss military journal in 1953 that is, *cough* rather embellishing the facts (see the analysis of this incident in Scheibert 'Bis Stalingrad 48km'). He is not a reliable source. Good story though.

Keke I can not comment on that, I am going from criticism of his analysis relating to Kursk, and to the advance on Leningrad (the former by an officer in the operations department in OKH at the time, the latter by the Chief of staff of Panzergruppe 4), and am interpolating between the two. I.e. if there are doubts about Manstein's analysis for an operation before, and after the Crimea, then I would read the analysis about the Crimea with a very critical eye and look for independent confirmation.

Kozure, Mike is right and I was being an ass. My apologies. I was not assuming anything about your knowledge of WW2 BTW, just saying that the particular example you gave was not realistic. Anyways. I think what we are getting at (correct me if I think wrong), is that Cory is quite right to say that 25 turns are just unrealistic for a battalion attack. Since this was really the basic maneuver unit, and is a unit level well suited for CM, it begs the question of how to simulate this type of attack. There are various ways of course in which we can attempt that. One fairly obvious one is to make battles longer. 120n turns variable is probably still short, but gives you a lot of opportunity to simulate the approach march, dealing with the outpost line, counter-attacks, etc.pp. But this runs into the problem that you may run out of ammo. It may also not be too interesting for one player. Another one is to simulate the battle through various battles. E.g. a company peeling off to deal with the pesky flank threat. The main force assaulting into the town. A company clearing the town. All these could be, say, 30-60 turns in length, and would just simulate the culmination. In totality, they are the battle. The problem here is that they are disjointed. There is no link between them, that e.g. the failure to clear the flank threat would change the plan of attack. Another one is an operation. Here we have some problems, because the system gives both sides the ability to re-org after a battle. But I think it is still the most realistic way of dealing with it. Anyway, I agree with Cory that a battalion attack needs to be longer, if it is a single battle, then we are usually comfortable with. If you have a smaller scenario, just featuring a company, or two platoons, it is not as pressing an issue. I do not agree that CM is just showing the culmination of the fight, and the rest leading up to it is just boring.

Divisions were single (most) or two-echelon (one). Regiments were two- or three-echelon. One battalion was division reserve. If you have a single echelon division, with twin-echelon regiments, that means you will have 4-6 battalions up (that was a mistake I made earlier, I forgot to check the organisation of the regiments), with 2-4 battalions as immediate follow-up, and another one as later follow-up. It is a bit difficult to tease this information out of the text I have. Combat started at about 0700 after a one hour artillery preparation. CIVth Rifle Corps, 27th Army: 'In combat lasting two hours, the first line of the enemy MLR was taken completely by the Corps, and on its right flank, one regiment had broken into the second line. [...] After another artillery preparation, the Corps used the break-in and by 1040 had broken through the enemy MLR (given as 5-6km in depth, with a tactical zone of 8-9km). [...] The troops of the Corps crossed the Bahluiu [river] under the protection of an artillery screen at 1200 and occupied the second line by 1300. [...] At the close of the day, the Corps had advanced a further 10-11km into the depth and opened the breach to be 4-6km wide.' The divisions of this wave were not in echelon, so all regiments were up. LXVIth Rifle Corps, 37th Army (operating in echelon formation) 'The troops [...] took the first line after three hours of combat. The 333rd Rifle Division broke, after enemy resistance was broken at about 1200 into the second line. [...] The commander of the 61st Guards Rifle Division used the success and at 13.30 the second echelon (187th Guards Rifle Regiment) was committed. At the close of the day this regiment broke through the MLR and advanced to the second line.' Second day at LXVIth RC: 'At 0600 the attack was continued. At 1200 the Corps secured the introduction of the 7th Mech Corps into the penetration.' 30th Guards Airborne Regiment at Leontina (two battalion strongpoint): 'At 1400 the fascists were encircled in the strongpoint. After that, the regiment started an assault from all sides. [...] By 1800, the strongpoint was cleared of the enemy.' 80% to full strength, meaning 7-9,000 men in a division. In terms of frontline strength that would not compare too badly to a western division, because of the shallower nature of Soviet divisions.

Well you see, I don't necessarily think this is what he is asking for at all, but maybe I completely misunderstand him and we should let him clarify. In reality, there was not the long ramp-up and then a 25 minute firefight in which it all would be resolved. Instead the battle for e.g. a village would consist of taking out a strongpoint at the approach to the village. Then assault into the village. Then clear the remains of the village. Inbetween, you may have an enemy artillery strike, and maybe a counter-attack. Inbetween all that, you reorg and resupply, and get some rest. There was not always this linearity that you seem to assume in your 'long ramp up, climactic firefight' idea. You can also do a search for the post by John Salt, in which he brings the PRO quote on the 800 yards in 1.5 hours. Those may well have been long approach/climactic battle type assaults. They are also not very interesting. I can't really see why you get your knickers in a twist, BTW. The theatrical sighing is so much more appropriate on the general forum. Edit: now that Cory has clarified it, and keeping in mind that he wants it to be more, not less realistic, what do people think of the idea of operations with special briefing instructions?

FK - at the end of the war the Red Army would routinely put a division on a 2km frontage, or less. In many cases that division would not attack in echelon, but with all three regiments 'up'. The example I posted was from the Iassy-Kishinev operation in August 1944. There one division had a breakthrough sector of 1.5km assigned to it, in which it assembled seven battalions, plus about a brigade worth of tanks, supported by probably ten battalions of artillery, for the breakthrough.