Andreas

What I like about them is that they are very hygienic - this one was very keen to take a bath: Also, they make a great change from pebbles when you are trying to arrange your Zen garden, as this discerning Landser appears to be contemplating - now how to get the bugger home, one wonders. BTW - being the E version did not help much, it appears: T26 - there's one for every Landser to bag. Don't leave Russia without the trophy of choice! [ April 25, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Note the date on this order. Konev commanded the failed attempt to eliminate the Rzhev salient from the east during operation Mars. In the Vazuza battles, short-barreled Stugs attached to one of the defending infantry divisions were the single largest tank killer by a wide margin in the sector defended by the division.

Err, should be rather obvious in the case of the latter quote. Anyone claiming equal losses at Prokhorovka should stop smoking whatever it is they are smoking. Rotmistrov's 5th TA got absolutely hammered by the Germans. Even Koniev in his memoirs makes reference to that. Where did you dig up that non-sense? And the other side of the claims: All quotes cribbed from the review of Zetterling/Anders here

John, a lot of the Soviet tanker memoirs that I own refer to the soldiers being injured by splinters from the armour when it is struck by non-penetrating hits. Tanks that come to mind where this is referred to are T-34, T-26 and KV-1. Just some more evidence of that.

Give me a shout when you come over, I buy you a pint to toast the demise of General Krafft BTW - mefinks Mattias posted the other day (if his member number is 357). Doesn't answer his email though.

The US Army started doing this in Normandy. It was a field modification, not factory standard, AFAIK. ISTR that Dobler in 'Closing with the enemy' blathers on about it.

I fully agree - alternatively have someone design a scenario for it. Being on the receiving end of one at the moment, I can tell you it is no fun though.

BTW - the argument that I am making is not to say that the rarity factors are perfect, or anything like that. A better solution would be a dynamic rarity linked to the chosen game form (could be variable rarity with some modifier depending on whether you play an assault game or not; in that case the heavy Soviet stuff would always get -15% to -50%, or sumfink). That would be an added complication though, and I don't know whether BFC have looked into this at all. Still, I can not think of many who would choose to be the Germans in that form of game, so maybe the point is moot, and introducing it in the QB section of the game would have been a waste of time.

Mate, your inbox is full and does not accept the turns, or even emails without attachments. Do sumfink!

I leave the faithless with this: As for Mr. X claims that his four points are "not reflected in the game" - rubbish, tosh, nonsense, inane blatherings of a madman, call it what you will, sense it does not make. He has obviously never looked at the scenario editor.

(Italics by me) Yes, and all the Soviet armies were attacking, all the time. Thank you. I suggest reading what I wrote, otherwise you can engage in a straw-man building contest with Mr.X. [ April 23, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Funny, I would have thought it is your understanding of written English that is amateurish. Alternatively, you are busy building up a strawman, and we all know Andrew Hedges' sig-line about that. But far be it from me to keep you from cheerleading Jason. Since you obviously have no original thoughts to bring to the debate, how about you just stop wasting bandwidth? Your continued failure to understand my point is really embarassing to watch. With that said. Regarding densities in assault settings, quoting from one of the studies Jason so loves to refer to, but conspiciously fails to mention as sources whenever asked for them. During Bagration (figures from Niepold, op cit), 6,754 artillery pieces and mortars (including rocket launchers) were not employed in the breakthrough sector. These had to cover 591km of frontage, for an average density of 11.4 guns/mortars per km of frontage. In the breakthrough sector, the density was 178 tubes, ~16 times as many. The Germans have about 5 guns/mortars per km of frontage. So outside the breakthrough area, the superiority was just higher than 2:1. As I showed above, the Germans on the tactical level had higher numbers of heavy guns than the Soviets. While according to some I have no understanding of how the Soviets used their artillery, I guess it is a fair bet that the independent regiments and artillery divisions would be the ones concentrated in the breakthrough sectors, while the organic artillery would be with the divisions covering the rest of the front. The July 1943 TO&E according to Zaloga gives the full-strength Soviet infantry division 12 122mm guns, and 36 76mm (unsure whether this includes the infantry guns - presume it does not). As everybody knows, forces outside the breakthrough sector were not up to strength. Neither were the Germans, but had they been, they would have 12 150mm (vs. 0) and 24 105mm (vs.36 76mm). So let's assume they are equally strong. But of course, the Germans had to cover more ground for each division. But how much more, outside the breakthrough sector - well let's look in Niepold again. In Bagration, this works out at 41 divisions covering 588km, for a frontage of 14.3km. The Germans had 24km on average per infantry division. That is roughly 1.7 Soviet rifle divisions against one German infantry division. In terms of guns that means that 20.4 122mm and 61.2 76mm stood against the complement of a German division outlined above. Edit: just checked something else, and the number of organic mortars (not 50mm) and guns (not ATG) in a 1944 infantry division is 148 - quite close to 11.4/km if the frontage is 14km/division (giving 160). Still, no 150mm, unless Jason wants me to believe that the Soviets, so famous for concentrating their breakthrough assets, left their 150mm and 122mm RVGK and Guards Mortar regiments hanging about in secondary areas of the front. Frankly, I would find that hard to believe, but if he can show me a source saying so, I am all ears. Now, this is all I have been saying all along: There are situations in which CMBB's rarity numbers will make the Soviets look very good for artillery. It is not just a case of some pro-German slant. Blathering on about production numbers (even overlooking the fact that Jason got them badly wrong for the Germans, underestimating by a considerable margin) is not getting you anywhere. You need to look at how the guns were actually employed. Once you do that, I find it perfectly imaginable that there are quite a few times along the front where a German unit will have support from 150mm howitzers, while the Soviets don't even have 122mm howitzers, let alone anything more punchy, available. The data, instead of unsupported musings, is there for anyone to look at. You make of it what you will, but at least some data has been presented here. For the purpose of the argument, I will ignore that all those heavy guns in the breakthrough sectors will not actually be used until the beginning of the barrage, in order to not give the game away. Edit to insert the point about frontages and gun numbers, and to correct the typo - the Soviet TO&E dates 07/43, not 07/44. [ April 23, 2003, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

You are so deranged.

X - you don't understand what I am saying. Even after telling you again what I am saying, you still want me to say something else, so you just ignore my clarification. I leave you to it.

Tracer - no doubt about it. I also think that so far BFC are not showing any signs of wanting to cash in. Hiring Fernando on the back of CMBB's success seems to indicate to me a continued investment in the business. As I said - great for us crackpots. I happily help anyone to part with their bucks to buy the game if it means the next one gets even better.

Tracer. I am not advocating BFC should not listen to their existing customers. Far from it. This however appears to me to be about gaining new customers, so any survey on this board won't tell them anything about that. I just don't see where the conflict is or even could be. I also don't see very much that they can gain about their business plans from this forum, where almost everybody either will already have bought CMBO, or won't bother. AIUI the work on this project will not interfere in the least with CMX2. If BFC manage to generate more income from a game that is already 2.5 years or so old, it will be all the better to support the development of CMX2. This will realise a new income stream for them, it allows them to test the water in US retail with a low risk approach to them, and is therefore a thoroughly good thing as far as I am concerned. I am genuinely puzzled about what else a customer survey could bring out. More money for them means more game for us.

Why?

The above quote is a complete misunderstanding of what I was saying. The whole point I am making is that simple numbers don't tell you anything, you need to look at how the numbers were used. What I tried to point out by saying this was that the two nations had fundamentally different approaches, and that these are to some extent reflected in the rarity figures. To just count weapons systems and then say 'well the Soviets had more of X, so how come they are very rare?' is just beside the point. I am obviously not making myself very clear. Edit: if you actually bothered to read my posts completely, you would already have noticed that I agree that modelling a full-scale late-war Soviet assault in a QB is just not feasible. Why should it? We have discussed this before, but so far I have to see someone wanting to be the Germans in that scenario. If it is single-player anyway, you can use the scenario editor to knock yourself out. [ April 23, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Still no news from Mr.Blue. Time is running out for him, as it is for the regime he serves. My assured victory in our battle will be another step on the journey to regime change in Berlin.

Let's just take your example - a Soviet army with 9 field divisions and a RVGK howitzer regiment attached, sometime mid-war. Say it is opposed by a weak Korps with two divisions, and two independent Artillerieabteilungen (one heavy, one medium). Assume all are at 100% strength (not likely, but whatever). The Soviets field a total of 24 152mm guns, and 9x24 76mm guns, plus 9x12 122s. Most of the 76, if not all, are in DF positions. The Germans field a total of 24 150mm in the divisions, plus 12 10cm K18, and another 12 150mm in the two independent Abteilungen. They also field 48 105mm. In terms of indirect medium and heavy artillery, this makes for 132 Soviet against 96 German. Not a huge advantage on any given day, and in this setup the Germans actually have 50% more 150mm than the Soviets. If the Soviets are really unlucky, the RVGK regiment has been brought up to numbers with 122mm howitzers - in that case the Germans have a lot more 150s. Then they field their regimental guns - 12x150mm and 24x75mm for the Germans. The Soviets field 9x3x4 76mm guns, again in DF mainly (the Germans could do indirect quite easily with theirs). That is 36 to 108 tubes, with the Germans being able to throw heavier weight and further. Much better advantage in terms of guns available for the Soviets, assuming they have not lost most of them in battle already. So, even in a situation where the Soviets significantly outnumber the Germans in terms of units fielded, the artillery advantage is not that significant for them, and in the upper calibre range can be against them, unless they have been reinforced by central assets. Which would only happen if they were hanging around on an important axis. Edited because I can not count to three. [ April 23, 2003, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Jason, you are understating German gun numbers by considerable amounts (~20% for the 105; ~10% for the 15cm pieces). I'll ignore captured pieces, we just say they all served in the west (estimate about 3-5,000 captured 10-12.2cm pieces; probably 2-4,000 15cm types). Your statement that 'the Germans did not have numbers in this [15cm] calibre', compared to the Soviets, is puzzling, since the numbers are almost identical. You count 7,000 Soviet 152s, I count >6,000 150s produced, plus >900 152s captured and used from the Soviets, plus numerous other guns captured. Sorry, but your math does not stack up on this one, check it on the calculator if you don't trust me. When you are saying that Korps Arkos were just admin because there were so few >15cm pieces to go around, you are of course completely ignoring the not exactly insignificant number of independent Artillerieabteilungen with 10cm K18, 15cm sFH and other pieces. These were also attached to the Korps level. You are still completely ignoring the difference in use. The Soviets on a division by division comparison level are outgunned. Easy as that. You match 76 against 105, and if you are lucky you have some 122s (most likely not), which the Germans will match with their 150s. The real difference for the Soviets starts when Comrade Stalin starts dishing out RGVK regiments to a specific sector. That is when you get the horror-stories of hour long bombardments chopping everything to bits. If you are however not blessed by this largesse, you'll have to make do with what you got - 76mm guns and mortars. While the Germans shooting at you have heavy guns. If one does the simplistic math you do in your preceding post, one would think that something is broken. If one looks at concentration ratios in real use though, the story looks much different. The Soviets managed to achieve artillery superiority by concentrating on a tiny sector of the frontline. I suggest Niepold 'Mittlere Ostfront 1944' for an analysis of densities in Bagration. Your adding up guns and proclaiming that something is amiss based on total production numbers is just meaningless.

The Germans and the Soviets used special units for the heavy stuff. In the German case independent Artillerieabteilungen, in the Soviet case the RGVK regiments. The former were attached at Korps level as a matter of course. They may or may not have come with a special Arko (Artilleriekommandeur), a staff specifically tasked to centrally control artillery in a specific area. The latter were attached in critical sectors - they were High Command reserve. That is an important difference. Dispersion vs. concentration has huge effects. I do not think it is unlikely at all that in a minor skirmish along large sectors of the front the Germans would have the upper hand in artillery tubes and control systems available, although they may not have a lot of rounds to feed them with. Where it really mattered though, the Soviets would make absolutely sure that German artillery was not going to interfere with their best-laid plans later in the war. Realistically, the German heavies would not really work a lot on the tactical battle level, IMO. They were firing deep interdiction, counter-battery, and those sort of tasks where you really need to reach out and touch someone in the deep rear. The German guns in particular were very good at that, with their very long range. The Germans also quite simply had outgunned the Soviets on the tactical level (meaning division). The 105 equalled the 76 as mainstay, and the 150 was quite prevalent in German infantry and Panzer divisons, while the 122 on the Soviet side was not quite as well supplied to divisions as people seem to think, almost certainly not on the level of the 150 in German service, at the tactical level. For quite a while after the invasion there were really few to go round. The Germans used captured 76, 122 and 152mm guns in significant numbers, manufacturing ammunition for the 122 themselves. They were not that impressed with them as artillery pieces though, except for the good range of the 152. There is also the issue with the Soviet love affair with direct fire employment of their 76mm (and higher) guns. This would reduce the likelyhood to be bombarded by 76mm indirectly if you are German (and why bother if you are Soviet, the HE load of the round is pathetic). In general you will only see realistic levels of employment of these various pieces in scenarios, or if you happen to agree with your opponent to play realistically. The rarity system is a good help at thinking about what is realistic, but it is not perfect.

Very lifelike practice today, or in the 60s. The amount of radios for communication was slightly more limited in Byelorussia in 1944 though. You are comparing Apples and Oranges. We've been round this one before though.

Early war to 1941/2 3,7cm Pak36. 1941/2 to 1943/4 I guess 5cm Pak 38, thereafter 7,5cm Pak 40 (called 'Snake' by the Soviet tankers, AFAIK). Always a favourite, and an accessoir the discerning Panzerjaeger should not appear on the battlefield without was the 8,8cm AA gun.

I think the difference there is something that you can not do with a truck. Produce an almighty bang, flash, and quite a lot of sudden movement. Moving objects are much easier to spot - sudden movement in an otherwise tranquil area, such as a flash and dust being kicked up, or foliage being ripped, is yet much easier to spot. Also, tanks, and quite a few of the other units in the game, have magnifying binos or other instruments, yet again making the spotting job a lot easier.