Andreas

If you are interested in price, you have to look at the manufacturing process and not just at components. If you have ever seen a Panther, you will e.g. notice that the armour is slotting in like Lego. Makes it a hell of a lot easier to produce I am sure.

If Pallud's book is anything like his Ardennes volume it is a must read (not that I own either).

There was a separate Polish Army (recruited in POW camps IIRC and Soviet equipped) fighting in the Red Army. i have no idea about their size. The logic for including them would be same as for including the French (just Americans with silly voice-overs) or the Polish now (Tommies that growl). The reasoning against it could be that you: a) need to research their actual TO&E (i.e. were they equipped with IS-2s, if so, when) end up with another set of units in a game that already has six or seven to choose from c) you need their campaign history to slot them in the rarity system. So, some arguments either way, let's see what BTS has come up with. As long as they don't include the Blue Division or German rifle grenades, I am happy

That is my understanding as well - the gun was not kept on as an AT gun by the Red Army, but the role was changed to be an infantry gun (like the German IG75) for DF support. tero - since you fired one, could the gun do indirect fire? If so, at what ranges?

The Fall of France - Act with daring from Osprey should fit the bill nicely. A very well done volume on the campaign itself. Lots of pictures, maps. Appears well researched, but I don't know much about that campaign. I got it cheap somewhere and am quite chuffed with it.

Heretic! Burn him!</font>

Err, the current CDs are no longer in need of patching, AFAIK. Final version 1.2 (or whatever) on them I think. What is ASL?

Lexikon der Wehrmacht states that the last year of production of Panzer II derivatives was 1944, with 7 Luchs and 144 Wespe produced. [ February 27, 2002, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Glantz in 'The early period of war' is confirming this shortage of ammunition (and trained drivers, and fuel, and the tendency of the KV-1 to breakdown-a-lot, and whatnot).

Oh yeah, nice mod too. Instead of cash donations, I could send Marco and Bruno over, to 'encourage' you. They are on a call contract, so it would be cheaper...

The red and white sticks on the backs of the Wespe and Hummel are measurement helps, to be used when surveying gun positions. The same ones land surveyors use.

Very interesting post Claus. I think a fact supporting your argument is that the Bundeswehr used the Jagdpanzer Kanone for a long time in the 60s and 70s. There was a clear doctrinal role for this vehicle by the looks of it, and this may well have been a continuation of the role that the Panzerjaeger had towards the end of WW II - tank hunting in support of the infantry. Incidentally, the German 'National Guard' (Territorialheer) had it in use until 1991. Jagdpanzer Kanone info The beast in all its beauty

I think it was a monster - my grandfather certainly was not in a Bantam BN. He is about 1.75m (5'9") tall, which would probably qualify as average in his time. Just check the proportion compared to the motorbike leaning against the tree. Good thing for the Germans that these tanks had weak transmissions.

Don't know Spaeter's stuff, but yes, that's what it is, and you are right,about it not being helpful. But you know what they say about beggars and choice No scanner at present, since my beloved Canon did shuffle off this mortal coil.

Michael, do you own Dörfleräs pictorial history of GD? It is almost devoid of text, so that the bit that there is is German should not matter much to you ISBN 3-89555-311-5 It contains pictorial TO&E for IR GD, ID (mot) GD, PzGrenD GD, PzGrenD 'Brandenburg' and 'Kurmark', and FBB (or whatever that weird one was)

Men against tanks (warning - 160k picture) Picture taken by my grandfather, early during Barbarossa, judging from its position in the original pile. He was in Army Group North. I second Jeff's recommendation of Glantz' 'The initial period of war'. There is a lot of primary source material in there, because it is essentially the proceedings of a seminar, at which numerous German officers who were with the Wehrmacht during Barbarossa gave presentations. Crap maps though. I would take anything in that book over evidence from a secondary source anytime. I unfortunately do not have the time to trawl it at the moment for exact dates. Regarding 'Ace in the hole' status. Yes, to a point. The fact that the heavies and mediums were frittled away in pointless counter-attacks, and that their crews had little training on them, little fuel, and sometimes no ammo at all, made them much less scary to the Germans than they otherwise would have been. Also, 100mm cannon and 105mm howitzers could defeat them and did, as did the 8,8. They did cause a crisis when they appeared, but the German commanders overcame those again and again. Other factors were more important.

Alternatively, the mathematician could just look at how the stuff was used, since there is empirical data, and would notice that two mikes were never used. Which may save you the trouble of calculating it, unless you want to know why. What I am saying is not that mathematics is useless (read my post again time for you, maybe), but that if you look at the historical context, you get some ideas of which bits of math you need to do. Hint - no need to start with a two-mike solution. Also, if you know that a system of 4-6 posts covered 7-10km, it gives you an idea of the distances between posts, further eliminating the need for some of the math. Simultaneous sound and flash ranging. I am not sure about simultaneously. According to my grandfather, they used flash at night, and sound during the day, and shared the post. Other units may have done it differently, but with a finite number of men, and the need to get some sleep for what is very stressful work, with a need for high levels of concentration, I don't think it would have been possible all the time.

The Italics are a nice touch. As for the number of mikes - three are really the minimum, based on empirical data (although I still have to have a look at the link Brian kindly provided). The whole system consisted of four-six for a battery, spaced well apart. All this calculating stuff is really not very meaningful in this context unless you look at how the real life system looked like...

The conclusion maybe a bit too restrictive, since the FDC (whatever the Germans called it - Feuerleitstelle?) was the place where the time-delays for German artillery partly originated. It was here that competing demands were prioritised, and the math was done. Understanding fully how things worked there will help in simulating the system more accurately. The FO is really just the front-end of a fairly complex organisation. Unfortunately, a lot of web-based info on the Germans busies itself with repeating ad nauseam how great umpteenth SS Panzerdivision was, instead of looking at the really interesting stuff And the books on the matter are just too expensive. According to granddad, his CB FDC also organised the artillery support for the front-line troops. This may have been a particular outcome of the static situation at the Leningrad front, but nevertheless, it indicates some fairly rigid control of the artillery. I would expect early war to be different, in particular for the mobile divisions, where it seems howitzer batteries were quite regularly attached to point KGs. Michael - the same for the dual use. Since it was a static frontline, it would have made sense to find the best spots, and utilise them fully. I am not sure if it was always the case, but he never said something else. Regarding the math problem, that I am just too thick to even contemplate looking at. As I said above a minimum of three reports, preferably four were required to fix a solution for the spotting round. As the OOB on my website indicates, the sound ranging battery had a signals squadron with advanced warning teams. These would be closer to the frontline, and alert the rear LP to switch on the equipment and to point it in a general direction, as I understand it. Arriving at a solution could still be a lengthy business. Up to 15 mins after all the reports were in, according to granddad.

Michael is correct on both counts. Here is a bit of info I typed up on how the Germans did stuff. The Germans used a minimum of three OP/LPs, preferably four, to avoid the problems resulting from only having two. Sound was used during the day, light/flash at night. The posts were usually shared. The posts were also well away from the frontline (out of small-arms range at the very least), and four or so would cover a frontage of about 10km. Since sound characteristics are such that the boom of a howitzer travels further than the sound of a rifle, this will have an impact on the quality of the ranging. I have some maps from Engelmann 'German artillery 1939-45' on how the posts were set up in a Corps area, but my scanner packed it in. It is a bit of significant info to me that my grandfather told me that only once was his post really close to the frontline (situated in a house where infantrymen were fusing handgrenades). One of his posts was in the church of Peterhof, the Tsars' residence outside Leningrad, IIRC. Rooftops, and all sorts of high places were prefered for OP duties. Some pictures if you follow the Beobachtungsabteilung link below.

You better - calling me a stat grog is likely to land you in a salmon net with a gutting knife sticking from where it was never supposed to be faster than you can haul a load of hairy crabs, you Mac using fishmonger.

Well, it is not the shades of uniform that are important, but the realisation that the system is a bit more than the technicalities of the equipment - location has a rather large effect on what you hear? I can happily dig out some info about the Heer, and post it on the site in my sig. Won't even be grandfather's stories, but it will take a while.

Some marks out of 10 for the principles. Now, how did it actually look like? Do you know anything about the layout of the OP/LP system? The frontage covered? By what number of OP/LPs? The distances to the lines? Prefered locations for OP/LPs? The number and attachment level of the units performing the service in various armies? Are those questions precise enough to be answered by you? I for one am waiting with baited breath.

I tested this one, and it is a treat for the German attacker. I would recommend it for play against the AI, or PBEM, if the American player does not mind waiting for a bit. Really nice work, and a gorgeous map.

Well, contrary to you, I actually provided information from a piece of peer-reviewed research, but I guess that escaped your attention. Between that, and my grandfather's stories, I am reasonably certain I understand a whole lot more of the topic than you do, little as I do. I have also spoken into a microphone once, which according to your standards must actually make me an expert. Question: do you actually read other people's posts, or do you just write up whatever comes into your brain at any one time? Inquiring minds want to know. If lighten up in your book means tolerating attacks like the one you posted before, it is not going to happen. Now why don't you answer Brian's question? I am sure we all can learn a lot from you. You are so very smart.