Andreas

I am sorry, but this seems to differ from the reality I have read about. I can not remember hearing that the British made up for lack of firepower through bayonet charges, and would be interested in some sources. I have also never noticed that troops on the defensive have more ammo. I think you maybe confusing that with casualties and moving HMGs/Mortars/AT teams.

Jason, I would still be interested as to how you arrive at the number of 400 medium tanks for the British in Epsom. To my knowledge all the units I listed where fully committed, and apart from LOB they would be full-strength.

But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking? And how do you account for defending troops leaving extra ammo behind if forced to vacate their prepared positions? And don't say they would have shot it all off by then, because that may not be the case. Michael</font>

11th Armoured - ~250 mediums 4th Armoured Brigade - ~180 mediums 31st Tank Brigade - ~120 mediums* Total ~550 medium tanks *edit necessary because I overlooked the fact that the third regiment in the Brigade, 141 RAC (The Buffs) was given up to 79th Armoured to convert to Crocodiles. Therfore only 7 RTR and 9 RTR with their Churchills would be present at Epsom. [ March 25, 2002, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

MacDonald Fraser in 'Quartered Safe Out Here' and Jary in '18 Platoon' comment on ammo expenditure. Fraser mentions he was drilled to be very economical with expending ammunition during training, e.g. the drill instructors emphasised the cost of the single round. He also threw his Tommy gun into a river as soon as he could to get back to his Lee Enfield. Jary quotes one of his section leaders, who believed that the profligate use of machine gun ammunition was a direct contribution to Germany losing the war, and Jary believes he may have had a point. Both basically disapprove of just blasting away, and I have read other comments from British vets who were astonished about the amount of ammunition 'wasted' by Americans. So it appears that while the soldiers were certainly trained to get off the rounds quickly, they were also drilled to make them count, i.e. only use them if you can have an effect.

Well, his entry point was that British Infantry is undermodelled compared to history. I know that Jary talks about the firepower of the MG42, but the point still stands. A British platoon in Real Life™ could not go toe-to-toe with a German platoon because they would be chopped to pieces. They needed something else to win. Surprisingly, the same holds true in CMBO. That to me indicates that the modelling is correct in principle, although one can argue about nuances. Regarding ammo levels, another thing that Jary commented on were the inordinate amounts of ammo thrown about by the Germans. So as a scenario designer who cares about an historical approach, I would rather take that as a guidance than some sort of mathematical correction to make the game 'fair'. Since I don't really care about QBs, and since my scenarios are usually designed around a tactical problem and balanced afterwards through double-blind testing, I feel no need to tweak any ammo levels in them.

Probably best left to the BTS team, instead of hundreds of people emailing the poor chap.

Too bad Brit Mac users are getting the shaft. Again, as usual. Will a Mac version ever hit the shelves or are we not "Economically Viable"? Gyrene[/QB]

Lucas in 'War on the Eastern Front' puts the date of commissioning the 15cm Nebelwerfer 41 in May 1941. The weapon was ready in 1937, but only older models were used in Poland and France to create smoke-screens. Achtung Panzer says that four regiments (battalions) participated in the opening barrage, as you say. First use of Katyushas I have seen mentioned is in one of the encirclement battles west of Smolensk (probably Orzha as previously mentioned). The Katyushas stopped a German advance. They were used a few more times and then destroyed to prevent them from falling into German hands.

And that is different from reality how?

It is my bad (i.e. non-existent) Russian and that will not be included in CMBB. Consider yourself lucky. I meant Kolkhoz. Well, I am still recovering from food poisoning, so that's my excuse for messing it up and I am going to stick to it. Matthias - misunderstood what you were trying to say. see above for excuse...

I think I would disagree with this statement. A lot of these elements appear to me to be in the game, or will be. The fact that we don't see them does not mean they are not there. E.g. yesterday I tested a new scenario, and for the first time ever I saw a PIAT team get through all six rounds in 60 secs. They were veteran, unsuppressed and unspotted, firing at 120m. I have seen PIAT teams firing just one round when under fire. Also yesterday, I returned a PBEM turn in which a squad of my crack FJs did not use their two PF-60s against a Sherman that was less than 30m away. They were under fire from three directions. Steve has mentioned that there will be a fitness rating in CMBB, which will further increase variability. So you could have the extreme cases of the unsuppressed, superfit, crack Siberian Übertrooper, who eats Panzer IIIs for breakfast because he likes to crap steel, executing a throw of the RPG-41 from ambush that would make Nomo blush, or the suppressed, Broken!, tired, unfit conscript former accounts clerk in the 'I.S.Stalin' Komsomol who drops the grenade on his foot. If after that it comes down to to-hit %ages and penetration numbers, I think that would be fairly realistic.

I think that figure is for mortars (or even all artillery). I own most of his books, and to be honest the best parts of them are where he quotes verbatim from somebody else's memoir. Worth having for that, if you can pick them up at Bargain Books for a fiver. Never ever pay full price for them.

Hmm, sounds to me like two of the three bonus scenarios mentioned are from Der Kessel - 'Bure' and one of Berli's Toulon series. The reviewer obviously knows quality scenarios when he sees them [ March 24, 2002, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Oh boy. To contradict Jason's repeat soap-box monologue, here is a statement from Sydney Jary (from memory, my copy of '18 Platoon' is with Moon at the moment) 'In a contest of firepower, the Germans win hands-down'. Now you can take the word of him, who commanded a platoon in 4th SLI from July 1944 to May 1945, or Jason's calculations. *shrug* MikeyD is right BTW - the Lee-Enfield is bolt action, and comparing it to the Garand is apples and oranges. [edited for false attribution of quote] [ March 22, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Interestingly, Jary states in '18 Platoon' that the most successful actions he fought with 4th Somersets were without artillery or tank support, and just pure light infantry stuff (e.g. Vernonnette). Another interesting tidbit in that respect is Harrison-Place 'Military training in the British Army 1940-44' in which he lays the blame for many of the initial failures at the overdependence on the fire plan, and the inflexibility of battle school drilling. So I guess Jary's answer to the question would be 'Use brain, not man'. I.e. overcome the German firepower by innovative and quick maneuver, something that is difficult to do when you are constrained by a fire-plan. He maybe a bit biased, but he was also the longest-serving infantry platoon commander in 21st Army Group, so I guess that would lend some credence to his argument. I guess the same solution would work in CMBO. Having said all that, more flexible artillery will be welcome in the engine rewrite, but Allied players should not kid themselves into believing that the guns will sort all their problems. They did not on the tactical level in the war, and they never will in CMXX.

Mostro, AFAIK Small Unit Actions is currently not in print, and can not be DL'd from CMH. Which is a shame. I maybe wrong though. Don't know what you mean with the engineers - if you supply an URL I may understand. I am currently waiting for the postman to deliver three books, the histories of 1. and 7. PD and a book about German engineers that maybe the one you are referring to. But they are all in German. Some good publishrs of this stuff: www.helion.co.uk (expensive though) Schiffer Military Publishing (their translations of original German works sometimes appear to be a bit of a hatchet job to me though) Greenhill Books Angelray books They all have websites you can find with Google. Good stuff from the Soviet perspective with these sorts of accounts: Russian Battlefield Loza, D 'Commanding the Red Armies Sherman Tanks' (or somefink) - you can get that at Helion I believe) Not as much extant from that perspective in English I am afraid. If you get Duffy 'Red Storm on the Reich', he has a huge literature list in the back, some of that maybe useful. He also goes down to company level, although his focus is operational.

Bidermann 'In deadly combat', personal memoir of At gunner who was promoted to battalion commander in a German ID. CMH Publication: 'Small Unit Actions in the Russo-German War' postwar study done by German officers for the US army. Metelmann 'Through Hell for Hitler', personal memoir of AT gunner serving in a Panzerdivision. Fleischer (ed.) 'Combat History of Sturmgeschuetzbrigade 276', what it says on the tin

Maybe too late now Gridnote. Michael, let me know if you are happy with this. If you have any other info on these kind of topics, I would be happy to publish that there as well.

It should, however, be noted that this judgement was made in 1941. In 1943-44, the Russian commanders proved that they had learned to conduct mobile operations.</font>

I'm not a grog but I think you mean 1,100lbs (500kg); not 1000kg. I'm trying to come up with some sort of witty remark about the metric and imperial systems, but I could'nt think of anything remotely amusing. I'm doing this one from memory but I think the the JU-87D could carry 1,800lbs of external ordnance. And just wondering(again, and yeah it's off topic, but hey... ), weren't mines designed to attack the tracks and not the belly?</font>

If that is a ruler in your pocket, are you out to conquer? Very interesting stuff Michael. Mind if I put it up somewhere on the site? Any copyright issues?

Sorry mate. Okay, I am a bit worried that Die Welt is an example (maybe a typo, seeing what a quality newspaper that is), but still.

Michael - interesting stuff. I put this picture into the pre-war section simply on the basis of the placement in the initial pile. I will correct that tonight. As you can see, I don't know the first thing about German uniforms. Kip, Cory - thanks a lot.

I think that is more a result of the inability to sweep an area with a continuous-fire weapon in CMBO. You get single shots somewhere, but no bursts sweeping an area. A similar issue like the MGs have.</font>