Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Andreas

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,888

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Andreas

    Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hetzer38:

    And after reading some pages of quotes from Roman Töppel's "Legendenbildung in der Geschichtsschreibung – Die Schlacht bei Kursk", I think that's just what happened...

    Again, as I already pointed out you are conflating unit records (which were not falsified for Kursk), and higher level attempts to airbrush history. It does not help to read 'some pages' of Töppel's work, you really need to spend some time on it. In particular I recommend looking at the Soviet sources and the short discussion of them in the Appendix.

    If, as Chris indicates, the Soviet loss figures are from unit records, it is reasonable to assume they are accurate. If they are from the "History of the Great Patriotic War", that would be another story.

    So, assuming Chris is using actual unit loss reports, as opposed to collated Front data, at the moment there is no indication on the Soviet side that Meyer's story is correct, and your assumption that the Soviets doctored the loss reports is most likely incorrect.

    The idea that because the Soviets falsified Front level records, they would also falsify unit level records is not consistent with what is being presented in Töppel, and I would dismiss it.

    Also, what you claim is a quote of Töppel by Pandur, is in fact not in the text. The whole post by Pandur is mixing numerous things giving wrong numbers (the tank park of the Red Army in July 1943 was almost certainly higher than 3,200-2,000 tanks), and is quite close to useless, IMO.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hetzer38:

    And after reading some pages of quotes from Roman Töppel's "Legendenbildung in der Geschichtsschreibung – Die Schlacht bei Kursk", I think that's just what happened...

    Again, as I already pointed out you are conflating unit records (which were not falsified for Kursk), and higher level attempts to airbrush history. It does not help to read 'some pages' of Töppel's work, you really need to spend some time on it. In particular I recommend looking at the Soviet sources and the short discussion of them in the Appendix.

    If, as Chris indicates, the Soviet loss figures are from unit records, it is reasonable to assume they are accurate. If they are from the "History of the Great Patriotic War", that would be another story.

    So, assuming Chris is using actual unit loss reports, as opposed to collated Front data, at the moment there is no indication on the Soviet side that Meyer's story is correct, and your assumption that the Soviets doctored the loss reports is most likely incorrect.

    The idea that because the Soviets falsified Front level records, they would also falsify unit level records is not consistent with what is being presented in Töppel, and I would dismiss it.

    Also, what you claim is a quote of Töppel by Pandur, is in fact not in the text. The whole post by Pandur is mixing numerous things giving wrong numbers (the tank park of the Red Army in July 1943 was almost certainly higher than 3,200-2,000 tanks), and is quite close to useless, IMO.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

    Northern France was against a panic stricken and thoroughly beaten German Army, though, so trucks and recce vehicles were not really at risk. And of the few German garrisons that were able to stay put, some stayed in place on the northern coast until May 1945 - I speak of the fortified channel ports which were deemed too costly to assault. First Canadian Army (with British and Polish troops under command) did mount operations at some of them - Dunkirk, Cap Griz Nes, Calais, Dieppe - with mixed successes.

    That's not quite correct, since there was a, to me at least, surprising amount of fighting, if you start to look into it, mostly against what Jason would probably call "dead-enders". Most of it is simply glossed over in larger histories, since it was of course much lighter than the fighting west of the Seine. You need to dig quite deep into the unit histories to find it. I would however think that it was probably less on the Canadian flank.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by AdamL:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If the VA stops to defend a piece of key terrain, they will be difficult to dislodge, considering that your C&C has broken down, and you can most likely not mass the force required to dislodge them. But whether they are armoured or not, whether they bring tanks, armoured trucks, unarmoured trucks, or two-wheeled wooden carts towed by swine does not matter one bit in this instance. What makes it impossible for you to get them is that they are an infantry force defending, backed up by heavy artillery and ATGs, in defensible terrain, and that you are uncoordinated and under time pressure, since you know that this relatively small force is followed by a larger one in a time you are uncertain about. So you can not afford to tangle with them, and you continue to retreat.

    Meatier. I'm just going to write my thoughts, correct or dispute wherever you see any problems.

    Yes if the enemy is in fact intending to deny battle to your main body. That is an assumption, it must be a *stated* assumption - that the enemy will not fight. I don't think it is established truth yet, if it is true.</font>

    0

    PBEM Helper in Trusted Mode Problem

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Hi

    PBEM helper, after working fine for a long time, has suddenly decided to no longer want to produce the view file to skip. After waiting for 30 secs following the orders turn, it quits CMBB and states it can not find the file.

    Any ideas on how to solve this? This occurred after a longer break in sending files, but otherwise nothing has changed.

    Thanks in advance for any help.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by AdamL:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AdamL:

    Is that the process? Or what is it?

    No. Try again. This time, don't focus on the Stugs - as I said, there were "some", i.e. not all VAs would have them. Imagine infantry, infantry guns, supported by 15cm howitzers. Then explain to me why these guys, without sensors, and without guaranteed air superiority, could do what you think Strykers can not.

    All the best

    Andreas </font>

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by JasonC:

    Andreas - the enemy isn't light infantry with a few ATGs anymore. If it were (or when it is i.e. after the real fight has been won, and it is a matter of the diehards), light armor would be fine. But the Syrians instead of thousands of MBTs and dismounted ATGM systems. It is more like Kursk on a counterattack day than typical fighting against a rifle division position.

    Except that there is no centralised control, and no ability to shift forces to crises points, or indeed to even carry out tactical maneuver while in contact with the enemy, and without any artillery support to speak of due to US Army CB.

    But apart from that, I am sure it is just like Kursk. The problem for the defending side is that, once all the items above are removed, they would not have won at Kursk.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hetzer38:

    It seems to me that the loss-numbers found by C. Lawrence mustn't be the ultimate proof that Hptm Bruno Meyer's "Tank formation 'destroyed' by air" - story is complete rubbish. ;)

    Cheers, Hetzer.

    I think you are conflating things. Unit level records were not cleaned up, as far as I can tell from having looked at some of the more recent Prokhorovka stuff. They can be presumed to be accurate. The cleaning started later, and only affected higher level reports. See e.g. Töppel's thesis on the mythology of Kursk. Also, Prokhorovka is a special case, due to the mythical proportions this battle assumed. Meyer's story has nothing to do with Prokhorovka.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)

    in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin

    Posted

    Originally posted by Hetzer38:

    It seems to me that the loss-numbers found by C. Lawrence mustn't be the ultimate proof that Hptm Bruno Meyer's "Tank formation 'destroyed' by air" - story is complete rubbish. ;)

    Cheers, Hetzer.

    I think you are conflating things. Unit level records were not cleaned up, as far as I can tell from having looked at some of the more recent Prokhorovka stuff. They can be presumed to be accurate. The cleaning started later, and only affected higher level reports. See e.g. Töppel's thesis on the mythology of Kursk. Also, Prokhorovka is a special case, due to the mythical proportions this battle assumed. Meyer's story has nothing to do with Prokhorovka.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    even more Photos of the Day

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by LT Mike:

    Hahaha.

    Well folks, first off thats not a 'tank'. Its a bradley fighting vehicle -or- Cavalry fighting vehicle / Infantry fighting vehicle (CFV / IFV)

    Yeah that dude is REAL sneaky. I'm sure if there was actually a crew IN it he would've been hole punched with 762 and 25 mike mike.

    Also. Nice try, but no cigar.

    The CFV is fine, he used gas to try to make it look much worse than it was....granted, it looked like he used a 155mm shell (which probably did some damage) but I dont think the vehicle was a total loss...You'd be amazed at what our mechanics can do :)

    Are you the former Iraqui information minister?

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by AdamL:

    Good for COIN and nothing else? Who are you talking to? (I never said that.)

    I guess you're seriously taking the piss, sorry to hear that Andreas. Maybe we all need a break from this thread and to reread it calmy in a few days.

    Ah, so you don't like having your argument misrepresented to create a strawman?

    Funny that...

    Which apparently, is always avoiding the enemy, never getting ambushed or having to deal with basic combat attrition on the drive, and dealing with an enemy who is not really an army at all, but a mob of disorganized partisans without even basic access to anti-aircraft calibre guns. Very useful indeed...
    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by AdamL:

    Is that the process? Or what is it?

    No. Try again. This time, don't focus on the Stugs - as I said, there were "some", i.e. not all VAs would have them. Imagine infantry, infantry guns, supported by 15cm howitzers. Then explain to me why these guys, without sensors, and without guaranteed air superiority, could do what you think Strykers can not.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0

    Too Many Strykers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    They can't stand up to anything being thrown at them. A heavy force would have 50x times (why not?) less casualties in the same situation. Therefore best not to use them in open warfare at all. Good for COIN and nothing else.

    You are still ignoring historical examples provided where light forces did exactly what you claim they can not do without extreme casualties, and when you are not doing that, you simply make up stuff to suit your argument, including lots of strawmen. Disappointing, I thought you of all people would be a bit more serious about the discussion.

    All the best

    Andreas

    0
×
×
  • Create New...