Andreas

It may have escaped your attention, but Wittmann died in June 1944. I would also be interested in some reading that outlines how German troops going to the front in 1944/5 were any better trained than Soviet troops of the same time - some sources would be nice, since all my reading indicates pretty much the opposite, with German troops being drafted in after summer 1944 receiving the most cursory of training, and performing correspondingly badly. It may also have escaped your attention that in 1944/5 most German troops went straight to the front. Volkssturm, cadet schools that were disbanded or overrun. The situation was a mirror-image of the Red Army in 1941.

Sorry, I am thinking slowly today. Basically what I think I am saying is: Based on the evidence from the DV, I would agree with BTS' reasoning to not allow the gun to fire while limbered. In a typical CM battle, it is probably also right that it is not allowed to move (after looking at the hassle of it). In operations, the gun can be moved between battles, provided a prime mover for it is on the map. All that seems to me to be a fair reflection of use conforming to the DV. In Africa, it would be a different question. I agree with Michael that soldiers often ignored DVs (hey, I was one myself and I ignored them even when my life did not depend on it). I would just like to see some evidence in the form of AARs, memoirs, and pictures that would support this assumption.

Thanks mate - you are right, it is a good indicator of some things that were different. And why it is difficult to draw conclusions based on observations in either the wrong theatre, or a different time period.

Yes - I have pictures in front of me that indicate a 45 degree angle from the axis of advance of the carriage. Also read below. Weight (including shield and carriage): Flak 18 - 7,400kg Flak 36 - 8,600kg Flak 41 - 9,600kg Note - that does not include ammunition. Another note on accuracy. In a prepared position, off the carriage, fairly massive steel rods were driven into the ground to stabilise the gun. Quote from the Dienstvorschrift on fighting the 88 in the desert: I think that is fairly clear. A slight problem with this Dienstvorschrift is that it was only ready for distribution after May 12th 1943. The Dienstvorschrift for the east published in September 1942 was different: This stuff is translated by me from the original DVs as reprinted in Piekalkiewicz - 'Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz' Comment: obviously there was a difference in Russia and Africa, if we believe that DVs from the war reflect reality on the ground to some degree. The fact that they differ so completely on this issue makes me believe that they were based on combat experience. Another big difference was offensive use of the 88 in Russia. From glancing through the DV (I am in the process of coming down with a cold, hence my teasyness today Michael, and also reluctance to study the DV closely), it appears offensive use as in Afrika was 'verboten'. [ September 16, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Was it really now? It must have been, since that I never made such a comment. How about this - if I don't say it outright, maybe I don't say it at all? Especially when I say that I will do a bit of research on the matter. I am still keen to find the link to gas straps.

Whiz-bang crapola IV - Wet Attack was the stated favourite by Steve.

It's called 'survivor bias'.

Taking this thread away from the original premise. I think maybe part of the reason for making the map this large was: a) because they could because it enables accurate rendition of a major battlefield Now will come in useful, because what you could do is take a stretch around, say, the approached to Minsk in summer 1944. Recreate it painstakingly to the nth degree. Then crop the map to have more limited operations on it. E.g. an operation showing the actions of a forward detachment (4 battles in one day), followed by an operation depticting the breakthrough in a battalion sector (3 battles) followed by an operation of a tank brigade breaking out through the gap (2 battles). That way you do the map once, and then have a campaign going along it. Lots of opportunities in that. I set up a 1.6x1.5km operations map yesterday, and it was no fun to just scroll it on my G4/400 w/16MB graphics when all the whizzbangs are 'on'. I probably have to shell out for a better card after all if I want to do bigger scenarios/operations.

Pun intended?</font>

My faulty logic in that it is a playability issue? I look forward to your comment. The other issue was raised as an after-thought. Sorry if you are not able to recognise that.

The Heer also had strict regulations against strapping the gasplane to the gas mask carrier, but thousands if not millions of troops did it anyway. They eventually changed the regulations, but you know soldiers and regs - especially if they are doing something that will increase their lifespan, in their eyes...</font>

Arrrggghhh... Well, I think any discussion on game features is greatly enhancedby having the statement from the horse's mouth. I certainly understand that some people are chomping at the bit on this particular one, you just have to be careful that the discussion does not end like the charge of the light brigade. Or somefink...

All this discussion maybe much improved if people look up the official BTS statements on the matter though, wouldn't you agree? Which is why I suggested a search. Maybe difficult to find though with all the archiving and forum splitting. There is also a lot of discussion on how the sun shines out of Paul Schmidt's (aka Carell) arse

tero - I agree to some point, and I think that the 4x6km operations map is seriously pushing the boat out in terms of conceptual scope of the game. Most OBA would be in it, cavalry would move on horse over large areas of the map, and supply stations etc. might have to be simulated. Having said that - I also think that there will be few instances where people will be able to produce a historically reasonably accurate rendition of this kind of stuff in the first instance, so what will be broken in most cases will be the scenario, and that is not because there are no horses on the map. CMBB, as CMBO is in my opinion still best at portraying actions below battalion level. It does handle bigger stuff, but it is not as good at it, and while it can do it, it was not designed to do it. On a 4x6km map, you would have a Soviet rifle corps attacking in 1944 in the breakthrough sector. With a tank army fed in through the breakthrough. CMBB is not really capable of doing justice to that either. So wheeling out the extreme range of what is 'technically' possible in CMBB as an argument to include stuff that is fairly irrelevant in the areas that CMBB is 'designed' to do well, is not much of an argument in my opinion. Quite apart from the fact that there are currently not many computers around that will handle this kind of map.

You really should do a search - alternatively, have a think about how much horses mattered on the tactical level of CM. Since it has been a while that I needed to worry about what my cyber soldiers eat, I fail to get all excited about the absence of salami made from Fury.

The rear and side armour aren't that important. I should think that any tank that is shot at from the flank or rear is in big trouble, and really cannot rely on its armour to live through another day.</font>

The Germans made lots of big tanks with good guns too, but as you say, a green crew in 45 is still a green crew. See the magnificent performance of the independent Panther Brigades in Lorraine...

Sorry, but there is no way on earth the gun is more accurate when fired while limbered. Unpossible. In the desert, it was still more effective, because there was little cover around, and it was a way to do 'shoot & scoot' with an AT gun (you see quite a few pictures with the gunner sitting on the gun, instead of in the prime mover, to be ready to go into action immediately. Effective in the sense that it had a better chance to survive. That should not be confused. Regarding fighting against FBs. I understand a tactic used by the Germans was to point the guns into the likely direction of approach of enemy planes, and open up putting a wall of steel in the air. That of course only works if: a) you have a few guns to do it with you have a good idea where they are coming from Neither of which is likely in CM. Regarding airburst in general - it is a well and proven fact that the 8,8cm Flak could (and did) do airbursts on ground targets very effectively, and I even have some info on it skipping HE rounds (no, that is not a joke). We have been over this ground before though. An action that maybe known to Jon where this happened was the destruction of some destroyers of Tobruk in 1942, where a battery of 88s fired airbursts over the deck of the destroyers. Regarding limbering - yes it is a nice to have, but the problem is that in the game it would turn out that all 88s fire while limbered all the time. In order to prevent that you would have to make them so inaccurate that it is pointless to do it. One thing that people in CM have not got to be concerned about is that the trailer also probably does not like the abuse a lot. I am quite sure the Wehrmacht had Dienstvorschriften dealing with it. I'll have a dig tonight and see if I can find something.

Blade II, eh? Not bad Basty, not bad. Tell, do you think we may manage to finish one of our PBEMs some point in the future?

I just played a few QBs, because the question interested me. Conclusion - if I get to choose between Soviet tanks (up to and including captured Panthers) and an equivalent value of AT guns and ATRs, I'd go with the latter.

No Only the 20mm and 75L24 armed ones are.

As John 'Tovarich Pickitsky' Salt pointed out to me over a beer tonight, the Mk.3 Fluffy Dice is a major factor in explaining the superior performance of Soviet tankers. Mainly because the German language has no word for 'fluffy', and they could not copy it, unlike the T34.

Anyone going to Bovington, make sure to listen to the tape at the King Tiger. That is the chap retelling the story himself. Quite amazing really.

3. yes

Yes, lots of places, almost all the time, as infantry. Although the Soviet general staff study on Kharkov 1942 claims that some 300 or so were flown into a German stronghold that was cut off by the offensive.