Andreas

T'is a good post, but not as good as to read twice... [ December 09, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Paul, no disagreement from me there. I think that Glantz' books could hugely benefit from the use of better German sources (he sometimes uses Carrell/Schmidt, for Christ's sake! ) His use of sources like Piekalkiewicz etc, is very suspect. I think what one has to do is get e.g. Mellenthin, and Scheibert (Panzer zw. Don und Donez), and 'From the Don to the Dnejpr' (and a nice Atlas), and read them in conjunction, forming one's own judgement while going ahead with that little project. That would be very illuminating, and I speak as someone who read all three books at different times. The major beef I have with many German authors and the generals in Marshall's study is that they had no clue about what went on on the other side of the hill, yet they still pronounced on it, and are still believed for it (classics like 'no major soviet airlanding operations' or 'the Red Army never achieved good ground-air cooperation'). The major beef I have with Glantz is that he is using fairly suspect sources for the german side quite often - then again, that can be corrected for, and he does not appear to make the same sweeping statements about the Germans as the German authors do about the Soviets.

Paul, you are hopefully not trying to compare Glantz and Carrell/Schmidt here? I agree that everybody has their bias - it is a different thing altogether when you actively try to hide it though, by pretending to have been something you never were, as Carrell/Schmidt did and not tell the truth about what you did. To Galka - this is not just a philosophical discussion, much as that may pain the Carrell/Schmidt admirers. It is quite important to understand that a large part of the accepted historiography of the war in the east (at least in the English language community) has been defined by people who to large degree were not qualified to pass many of the judgments they made (the German officers in the Marshall's study, Mellenthin), or those who just plain made up things, dropped other things and had a hidden propagandist agenda (Carrell/Schmidt and his Signal excerpts).

I am not quite sure I do understand what you are getting at, so my response may not address your suggestion. With that said. Ideally every target that is fired on would become a TRP, because it would be noted down by the gunners and next time they could quickly switch back to it. I do not think that was possible with the engine though.

No it is not. A censor carries out censorship. Hence looking up what a censor is will tell you what censorship is too. [ December 06, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

You may think so, I would however point you to the dictionary: It is quite clear that one happens before, and one after. While you are welcome to assign meaning to words as you like, communication is usually enhanced by sticking to the accepted meaning.

They actually have a book on Bagration, who would've thunk it: East Front Drama 1944 (Rolf Hinze). Hard cover, 9"x6", 360 pages, 100 photographs, 50 maps. In June 1944, the Russian Army launched "Operation Bagration", the largest offensive in military history—eclipsing even D-Day in its enormity. In a matter of days, a hole hundreds of miles wide was torn in the German front and Army Group Center was destroyed, with more than 300,000 casualties— the most costly German defeat of WW2. East Front Drama is a meticulous examination of how the German forces on the Eastern Front, under the direction of Hitler’s favorite Field Marshall—Walter Model—recovered from this shattering defeat. Rolf Hinze is one of Germany’s leading military historians and has covered this little known topic in meticulous fashion with detailed unit movements, analysis of command decisions and superb maps.</font>

It is not a criminal offense to publish anything pro-Nazi. It is a criminal offense to deny that the Holocaust happened, and it is a criminal offense to incite to racial/religious hatred. It is also a breach of the constitution to infringe on a human being's honour (Wuerde). If you want to say that the Nazis built great Autogbahnen, go right ahead, it is not against the law. If you publish a historical study on the Waffen-SS concluding they were the most efficient fighting force of the Reich, you are at leave to do so. If you however want to say that they built great Autobahnen, and the Holocaust is a post-war invention, the matter is slightly different. Finally, this lawyer's statement they got sounds like cheap publicity to me. I do not believe that a historical study of whether Barbarossa was a preventive attack would be in breach of German law, even if it concluded that it was. Anyway, getting a lawyer's statement is a slight difference from censorship, would you not think?

BFC of course realised that, and hence they are in the game. Just not on-map.

Good point well made - I don't know, but my immediate thought is 'none'. I think horses would have a better chance to register with me so I am less certain on trucks. I'll have a look at it again when I get around to it. They mention the Radfahrschwadron a lot though

Scipio, my grandfather only got trained on the IG, he never got to use it, because he ended up in a counter-battery unit. I'll ask him anyway over Christmas. Your point about the horses in the Jaeger platoon, that should be easy enough. I would expect them to stay behind the frontline far enough to not get hurt (probably BN CP). Basically the same place where the trucks in motorised units would be. Out of harm's way I have a very detailed study of the attack of 101. Jaeger into the Soviet bridgehead near Barvenkovo May 1942 - no mention of horses there IIRC.

According to my grandfather (who is one of the guys in the first picture), you could do this for at most 100m (when you are fit, healthy, and on decent ground), and then you would break down exhausted. The second picture was an official postcard, I leave it up to the viewer to judge how 'real' it was. The slow movement in the game is due to the abstraction of carrying the ammunition back and forth. It is heavily abstracted in game, and I hope it will be looked at for the engine rewrite.

There is no dispute from me that charges happened (the most strange one must have been a camel charge that Rauss relates). But what is the likely outcome? Let's see: 1) Charge suprises Germans, Germans die. 2) Charge does not surprise Germans, charging cavalry dies. 3) There is no 3. That makes for such riveting battles that I am amazed that BFC decided to not include horses just to model these two options. Yep, big blunder, I see it now. Some examples - charge on the Vazuza during Mars (Soviets died). Charges on retreating/fleeing columns (Germans died). Camel cavalry during 'Winterstorm' (Soviets died). Belov's corp breaking out across Olenino road - I think (no tactical combat). Movement on map - use trucks.

Fine, we are in total agreement then. They were there in their thousands, 6,033 in a German infantry division of the 3rd Wave for example. Better make that millions then. They were also unimportant enough on the tactical combat level to not warrant their inclusion in CMBB. Too much hassle for little gain. And yes, staged pictures. The ones where propaganda correspondents come along and ask soldiers to pretend to do things after the combat is over, or before it begins. But as I said, do a search, and you will get BFC's official explanation, and the same arguments you are reading here, on both sides.

I am always interested in tactical movement of artillery by horse. If that was done so regularly, I look forward to you finding all the examples. I also look forward to your explanation why the Wehrmacht had special harnesses for the gun crews of the IG18 and other light guns to move the gun in a tactical combat situation. This is how tactical movement of guns in a combat situation was supposed to look like: and Where are the horses? Yes, movement could be enhanced - it could also be enhanced by anti-gravitational fields, and that would be about as realistic. Regarding your other arguments, you obviously have not thought about this very much. What if the horse panicks while it is in harness? Will the gun be gone too if the horses run off? What if one horse dies, but the others are still alive? Slow down movement? Disallow movement?

A bit more specific maybe? Which books are you talking about, and which pictures that are not staged? How does that impact on the 'it is less important than remodelling (insert important area here)' argument BTW?

Is there something on Paul Carrell's career in the FAQ?

1) They could not have done it well enough 2) It would have required a new morale model for animals 3) On the tactical combat scale it was not relevant enough to warrant the time needed to achieve 1 & 2 seeing that other things were more important. You can also do a search in the archives on this one.

From that list these would be my choices: When Titans Clashed, Glantz and House Barbarossa - Hitler's Invasion of Russia, David M. Glantz Stalingrad, Erickson Road to Berlin, Erickson Depends really on what you have already read. Clark's Barbarossa is quite a few years old now. I heard it is well written, but I guess his sources would not have been as good as those of Glantz.

Discrediting Paul Schmidt is a full-time job for many people Thanks for the translation - very helpful.

Tanks towing ATGs are a tactic described by Horst Scheibert in 'Bis Stalingrad 48km' - Scheibert was OC 6./PR11 of 6.PD in the attack to open a corridor to Stalingrad. He thought it was a great and very useful tactic. Tank comes up, drops off gun, then advances further. If it has to retreat, it retreats under cover of gun. The German tankers had a number of problematic encounters with that.

And a liar about his military background... My favourite quote on this one from the forum: 'Was Franz Kurowski in the same outfit as Paul Carrell?' Err, not quite

Was a double post, so I just decided to post the make-up of KG Raus, June/July 41, same sector as 8. and 1.PD </font> HQ 6th Schuetzenbrig.(mot) </font>4th S.R. (mot) (two BNs including one infantry how Coy w/12 IGs) </font>2nd BN 11th PR (HQ and 3 coys - 60 tanks) </font>2nd and 3rd BN 76th AR (mot) 12x10,5cm 8x15cm 4x 10cm Kanone </font>3rd Coy 57th Pioneer BN (mot) </font>1 AT Coy (9 50mm ATG) </font>1 AA Abt. (12x8,8cm 36x2cm) </font>trains </font>In both cases, these were very heavy hitting units, fully mobile, at least partly armoured, with substantial artillery support. Both columns received aerial reconnaissance support from the organic recon squadrons (Hs 126 planes). The whole corps advanced four such columns along the main axis of advance, with flank protection undertaken by the armoured reconnaissance battalions. Stupid UBB code, effing piece of... [ December 04, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]