Andreas

It can now be reviewed at the Depot, here.

An advice to those playing my scenarios: Don't peek. They are often consciously designed around the FOW, and therefore are not replayable, or at the very least will be extremely unbalanced if you try and do that. I never peek, at anything, map, forces, whatever.

BUMP me baby

Wow, someone values my ramblings. But not as much as $3, so that's a relief. I'll probably better stick to chatting up Italian women, seems more rewarding.

Hehe - spoken language is different. Just ask John or Kip about my English... As for Warpy, well better not ask him anything about the German language. He does nice pressing the shutter button on his camera though.

My point would be that they did pretty much exactly the same job when called upon. Hunting partisans, or plugging holes in the line. That one unit was SS, and the other Heer, was pretty immaterial, especially when it came to the attachment of Heerestruppen. The easiest way to convince me (and presumably BFC) on this matter would be to show the AARs of SS-Kavallerie being supported by Tigers, in comparison to those of Heer Security forces.

One thing that always looks funny, and to a stickler like me a bit, well 'shoddy', is when German gets mangled in scenarios. I know this is not entirely fair, but before English native speakers jump up and down, they should think for a moment what they would expect of a scenario in which the 49. Vest Siding Infantee Division rides to the front with the support of a batallion of Schermann tangs, were they to read this goobledygook in the briefing. A favourite is of course the old Liebstandarte AH (I can assure you, they were anything but Lieb). In CMBO there was a scenario called 'Zurüdzschlasen', or something, and while I can have a guess on what it is meant to say, I can assure you it has little to do with German, apart from the Umlaut. This post is brought on by this scenario called Swartzekätze, which is again a word that has nothing to do with German, apart from the Umlaut. Anyway, since there are a good number of native German speakers on this board, and there is even a German speaker's forum on it, why not avoid embarassing mishtakes by just posting and asking when one is not sure? I would always be happy to help. Or maybe I am just particularly anal. [ June 24, 2003, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

I would like to see some historical evidence that the SS-Kavalleriedivision had Tigers attached to them first I guess. While it seems to have had an attached Stug battery, the simple fact of an SS connection would not mean that it had easier access to Tigers (sPzAbt were Heerestruppen in attachment status, regardless of whether they were SS or Heer, with the exception of some Tiger companies in early SS Panzerdivisionen) than any Heer security unit.

Schwarze Katze, in German. If it is his family name, one word only.

Oak tree, although it sounds more like a family name, since the tree would normally just be referred to as die Eiche (but it is "der Baum" and "das Holz"). Still wondering what Swartzekätze means though. Edit: Never give anyone a German noun without indicating its gender. [ June 23, 2003, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

heh - nobody commented on the portentious launch date, eh wot?

But probably not past summer 1941, I would have thought.

Dunno what you mean with SP company, but with 'tanks' i followed Combat Mission's convention, of counting Panzerjäger (tank-destroyer) as tanks. The Panzer-Abwehr-Abteilungen had no tanks (but PAKs), while the Panzerjäger-Abteilungen consisted of tank-destroyers. </font>

Do your own?

You mean the CMAK patch?

Discussion at the Dupuy Institute Forums ( here ) indicates that these were not organic, but part of an attached company 316. PzKp (FKL). So while they were part of the OOB, they were not part of the TO&E of Lehr.

Thanks Justin - getting bored already in East Anglia?

Simovitch - we will simply have to agree to disagree (or not even that). I believe that your definition of historical is far too restrictive to enable one to present a battle with very few execeptions. It would e.g. make things completely impossible for the Soviet-German war. As you note, even good sources make errors (e.g. Erickson places Tigers at the Stalingrad relief attempt, while there were none). I think your initial definition (while it has its merits) is ultimately far too restrictive, although it seems that in the last post you are already weakening it. BTW - I consider 'A bridge too far' a very good movie, even though the "German" tanks are Leopard I. A minor quibble, which does not detract from the enjoyment of the movie. In the same way that "kelly's Heroes" to me is simply a good movie. The fact that they have period kit is an added bonus. It would still be good if it was not there. Never saw "Battle of the Bulge", so I can't comment.

Ubique, it is a 1.03 scenario.

In fast-moving mechanised combat, I don't think the ammo issue would be such a massive problem. Scheibert in 'Bis Stalingrad 48km' describes the Soviet tactic to bring up guns hitched to the tanks, drop them off on the battlefield, and then try to draw the German panzers onto them (10 points if you can tell me what that reminds me off). He says it came as a bad surprise to the Germans, and was quite effective. One supposes you don't need a lot of rounds to achieve that effect.

Does anyone else think the last sentence by John sounded like the beginning of the explanation on how to play 'One song to the tune of another' on 'I'm sorry I haven't a clue'?

1.PD went to France and Greece only in 1943, I think they spent almost a year rebuilding. Other info as per email. Good luck.

Well - how "serious" the damage during the approach march was I wonder. It certainly did not stop Panzerlehr to be a very effective fighting force. ISTR that they took 110 or so vehicle casualties, out of a total vehicle park of thousands. Annoying for sure, but "serious"? I doubt it. I was taking issue with the statement on two grounds but this one: " Its ground attack force was decimating the German armor faster and quicker than tanks could." is the main one. It is clearly nonsensical with no historical basis whatsoever. To dispute it does not mean that I say the air-force was ineffective. It simply means I dispute it. Regarding the other issue, I do sometimes seem to forget that the USA won WW2 all by themselves. Silly me. Rarara.

I did not think the Schnelle Abteilung was anything special. I always understood it was a fairly normal thing to do when you needed to economise on manpower in the German divisions. AIUI it is a mix of the recce and the AT battalion, both of which would normally be the only (at least partly) motorised formations in the standard Infanterie Division.

That would be September 1941, not 1942, I guess?