Andreas

Check the second link in my sig.

The PIVs were probably skipping their rounds The 88 was a very versatile piece of kit, capable of delivering AA, AT, AP (DF and indirect), DF airbursts, indirect airbursts, and it could do all that while balancing fully mounted on wheels or not. It was the all-singing all-dancing true Wunderwaffe of the Germans from the Spanish Civil War onwards.

Panzer IIs were quite prominent in the Wolchow counteroffensive spring/summer 1942, because they were the only tanks that could negotiate the terrain.

Also, set up battles in which the KVs and T34s have no ammo at all, or no AP ammo. Make the crews conscript, to reflect the lack of zeroed in tank guns, and at the beginning of the scenario, exit half your KVs off the board, to simulate the ones that broke down on the way to the battle. But as Michael says, of the 20,000 or so tanks in the Soviet arsenal in 1941, only about 2000 were medium and heavy. Most of these had just been delivered to the troops in April/May, and lacked spare parts, trained crews, and ammunition.

Actually, it is not just hair-splitting, but quite important when discussing matters WW2 (and not 1995 ). The Soviets called pretty much everything artillery, and e.g. Erickson uses the Soviet terminology in his books. As do Soviet officer memoirs, and the translations of Soviet General Staff studies by Glantz and House. Artillery for them is both DF and indirect. It includes dedicated AT and anti-infantry. The same for the British in WW2, and evidently for the Germans.

Very interesting indeed.

I tell you those books are worth being taught by Heidi the Bloodhound.

Sorry Michael, a book I thought was a translation is in fact not from that series at all. You have to learn German I am afraid

Steve - it is my understanding that a lot of the US Army studies stuff suffers very seriously from an insufficient knowledge of Soviet intent/unit strengths and designations, insufficient access to German documents, survivor bias and sometimes plain failure to admit that you are talking out of your rear. Two best examples for this are Rauss' claim that the Soviet airforce never achieved satisfactory coordination with the ground forces, and the study on airborne operations that claimed there were only small-scale drops in the east. These studies are superb primary source material, but they have to be counterbalanced by later work that is better informed, or even better Soviet primary material covering the same fights. Having read a few of them, I think they have to be treated with a lot of caution. I am of the same opinion as Glantz on these ones. A much better series, despite suffering from some of the same problems, is 'Die Wehrmacht im Kampf'. The German documentation is normally better though, and it also draws on interviews with veterans to some degree, or is written by lower level officers. One book I have on the battles for the Baltic islands of Moon and Dago in 1917, 1941 and 1944 is superb in its research of the Soviet forces involved. Some of these books are now appearing in English, I believe.

Indeed, isn't it friction that gives her carpet burns? Seriously though, nice post Onoken

Anybody needing maps to understand Erickson's two superb books does not know enough about the East to be worthy of playing CMBB. There - I said it Seriously though - I have a very nice quote by Horst Scheibert, OC 6.PR 11 during 'Winterstorm' and the Manstein counteroffensive saying that by 1942 the Soviets had learned enough from the Germans to give back as good as they got. The swirling tank battles on the Akksai river are described as a draw by him, BTW.

You are monkeyboy indeed - I am sure the tanks fired across the Rhine, and not in their own rear area - even gunners are not that thick, that type of idiocy is reserved for the air farce . Mikielein (I decided to call you this, to me it means the same as 'Mike', I am sure you won't mind?) - maybe you should make clear whether you want to use artillery as an adjective or a noun, since you are just confusing the issue? Noun - all types of guns that are not handguns Adjective - (as in 'an a. barrage' or 'an a. tank', or whatever) that depends. I look forward to more language re-definition coming up

How about you respond to me pulling Erickson style total BS out?

Rhine Crossing

Come on Jon, you are just a monkey when it comes to artillery, admit it, I have photographic proof!

But, no one showed us how to do map design... which is why they are Child-Like, Poor Efforts and Crappy</font>

Interestingly, the German Stugs were a branch of the Wehrmacht Artillery service as John and Steve pointed out, manned by artillerymen, so any generalisations along the lines indirect/direct fire etc are not quite correct in the WW2 context.

Your understanding is wrong - Summer 1943, Summer 1944, and Spring 1945 should tell you differently. As for weight of numbers - which authors are you reading? Sounds to me like you need to broaden that a bit.

That depends

But... but... but... aren't MG34's equipped with bayonet mounts?</font>

ISTR Kip mentioning that Soviet orders were not to engage Stugs after they were uparmoured to 80mm frontal armour and upgunned to 75L43.

Good scenarios should not be: - Child-Like - Poor Effort - Crappy Good maps have to contain lots of factories and sewers, even in rural areas. If there are no factories and sewers, they are, well, see above. If you can't do that, don't bother. Voxman's polite suggestions for improvements can be found here. We are all waiting with baited breath for your Steppefactorysewer maps of superior quality. If you don't think you can deliver, please don't bother. Have a nice day.

</font>

Mark, you can edit the title by editing your starting post for the topic. Nobody else (apart from moderators) can do that.

Hiram, I think there is value in reviews, if you concentrate on the written bit (and if your intent is not to just insult the designer). The point value is pretty meaningless, and I don't really care very much for it anymore, since it seems a lot of people use different scales. I like what Atlas did, rating it overall in the written section.