Andreas

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Deadly Dave: Isnt that what bad dog means if your under impending mortar fire then "bug out ' is the same deal but why backwards<hr></blockquote> Because withdrawal is usually backwards? Just a thought. This is basically the 'every man for himself' command that Bad Dog talks about below. If you want anything more complicated (e.g. 'move NE 250 yards to that ridge, then turn towards enemy line again, dig in, 2nd section to cover, 1st section to provide scouting), you will have to deal with command delays - they simulate the time it takes for your order to filter down to your troops. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bad Dog: I think a general "PANIC and RUN" may be the solution. the The HQ can shout "Crap! it's going to start raining sh:t, get the hell out of here!!". (or: We can't hold this position any longer, get the hell out of here!!!)<hr></blockquote> That is the withdrawal command as it is in the game, as I understand it.

Hmm, I always thought the CMBO spotters are more like the mobile spotter teams, while the OPs would me more like this: That was my grandfather's OP outside Leningrad from 1941 to 1943/4. To be honest, in the conditions of the fighting in Northwest Europe I doubt that the OPs played a major role. I think FDC was done at the battery command post for the Commonwealth (unless it was a fireplan, which would come from regimental or divisional HQ I believe), but it is one of these things I always forget. Age creeping up on me at 33, who would have thought.

Good one Michael. Steve, I can't believe you let Dan work for you. The least you should do to punish his folly is cancel his paycheque for this month, that'll teach him to not again not to play to win. What a nob.

Bringing this back on topic - very interesting read Michael, good stuff digging it out. Ischlwalzer, eh?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: Willi Brandt (a Willi Brandt) was also the chancellor of Germany in the early 70's; I think he won a Nobel Peace Prize.<hr></blockquote> Here is a link to his bio in English. He was in the left resistance movement in Norway during the war, and became mayor of West Berlin in the 1960s. In 1968 he became the first Social Democratic chancellor (prime minister) of West Germany. His election marked (finally) a break with the Nazi past, amongst other things. His key achievement was the Neue Ostpolitik (new policy towards East Germany), de facto accepting East Germany as a state, while keeping the de jure formula that it was not. This enabled Germany to join the UN, IIRC. The single most important symbolic act he did commit was to fall on his knees at the memorial for the victims of the 1943 rising in the Warsaw Ghetto. Judging the man, it most likely was not for show. The German right wing was livid about it, and a good thing that was. In 1974, he had to resign because one of his closest aides turned out to be a spy for the East Germans. His successor, ironically, became Helmut Schmidt also a Social Democrat, a Wehrmacht officer during the war, who participated in operation Barbarossa as a Lieutenant in a Flak unit attached to a Panzerdivision in AG North, IIRC. Brandt stayed party chairman, and was influential until his death in various functions, amongst them work for the UN. He died in 1992.

I really do not see what your proposal would add. The only thing it would do is take choice away from the player, namely the choice to pay over the odds for a unit they want to use. Taking choice away is not good. If they don't want to have rare units, they won't buy them, and they just go for the available stuff, and that's it. Economists call that the elasticity of demand (the reaction of demand to price changes). Unlike many other things in micro-economics, I believe this one will work in CMBB. Anyway, in your list of examples you forgot a very important 4th one, which I believe will be quite common: 4) Would like to play historically correct, but is not up to speed on the correct TO&E of a mid-1942 Red Army mechanised battalion. This is where the rarity system will also help a lot. Also - what is the point of bringing this up now? As Steve has indicated elsewhere, work has been undertaken on the system. Yours is really not that great a proposal that it is worth delaying CMBB for it. Finally - the optional rarity system will give you the choice to exercise the option to either use it, or not. What's the problem?

Actually, in the Commonwealth at least, the FOO party had a universal carrier with (no surprises there) a 'bloody big radio' in it. From it they trailed a wire to their OP. Crew was three including the battery officer I believe, and one man was back at the carrier to operate the radio, while the other was with the FOO, to assist, and repair the wire. All volunteers, except the officer. Blackburn describes this in quite a bit of detail.

Jeff, good digging. The first of the two highlighted Canadian quotes could just mean that teh FOOs continued to operate, but had to go through the division net, instead of the artillery net, to get their targets plastered. I understand that they operated on different frequencies. The second one clearly indicates that a non-professional called the fire though.

If there is no problem with any sorts of toes, I am sure Der Kessel would consider hosting them. You can also send them to me for a try, email in the profile.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Mattias: Just like the Poles, French and, pretty much, the Canadians in CM:BO you mean? M <hr></blockquote> I never noticed all of these were portrayed by standard German troops.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andreas: I would be interested if anyone could tell me whether pre-battle procedures were that flexible or not. Maybe someone who has read Loza?<hr></blockquote> Anyone?

Good point Jon and one I should really have come up with myself. D'uh. I have to have a much closer look at the handbook.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon: Steve I hope you Charles has not forgotten the map generator bug that creates such funny roads <hr></blockquote> Isn't that the US suburbia mod, just without the houses with garage and the Rock Hudson face on the soldiers?

I am beginning to wonder whether this could not be handled a bit more mission specific? I am just speculating here, but say you are about to assault some part of the German line in Poland in early 1945 with your IS-2 tanks. Battlefield intel suggests that no German armour is present. How do you stock out your tank for the mission? Sure, take a few rounds AP along just in case a pesky Stug shows up, but apart from that your job is to get in there, and get the Germans out there, which is best done by blasting them to Berlin with HE. Since you are constrained, you choose a lot of that, and little AP. In CMBB terms - leave it to Beaver, the scenario designer (now for the well-known refrain: 'who cares about QBs ). I would be interested if anyone could tell me whether pre-battle procedures were that flexible or not. Maybe someone who has read Loza? Regarding the length of battle - I just read an account by a Stug driver (Sturmgeschuetzbrigade 276), where nine Stugs took on five T-70 and a few T-34, knocking all of them out in a battle that lasted 50 mins. Sounds to me like they spent most of the time stalking, not shooting.

Yes to both. You have to get quite close with the MG42, and be persistent. The M2 goes through a German HT like a hot knife through butter at a fair distance.

Excellent thread Jeff, as usual. Patrick Delaforce (known to us as purveyour of often sub-standard divisional histories ) also was an FOO in 11th Armoured 'The Black Bull'. IIRC one of the Cromwells he was issued was found to be a training tank with 'soft' armour. They cottoned on to that when a German 20mm AA gun started shooting it up, and had it exchanged. I think that one went with a dummy gun. In 'Tank tracks - the history of 9th RTR', the organisation chart for the Churchill regiment shows two OP tanks attached to Regimental HQ. In 'The South Albertas', the organisational diagram does not show any OP tanks attached to Regimental HQ of 4th Canadian Armoured's Armoured Reconnaissance Rgt. Maybe the difference is because of the very different tactical use of the formations, I honestly don't know.

BTW - is anybody else reminded of the Cadbury's Cream Eggs campaign by the thread title? How do you like your Axis armour? I like to wulf it down

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Pity about the driver breaking his nose on the periscope, and the gunner putting his eye out with the elevation lever....<hr></blockquote> Bah pillepalle. You have to sacrifice somefink for the ultimate HD position. Or even turret down if you are in Guderian's duckling.

Hey, nothing wrong with a cellar if you have trouble finding hull-down positions elsewhere.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Splash: I found this very funny and thought it was worth quoting again but with the proviso: Don't do this at home boys. Sounds like Mensch's bed is truly a warzone. What ever happened to Mensch anyways?<hr></blockquote> Sounds like he needs a lie-down now, never mind what happened to him then. Berli must have left the keys unattended again, and he snuck out. (muffled sounds from the rear) What? Yes, he won't bother you again, I don't think. You may continue your regularly scheduled discussion.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Warmaker: Well a little note on the 150mm guns: Blast value of the 150mm Inf. Gun = 164 Blast value of the Hummel (150mm) = 200! The pain! Oh the pain!<hr></blockquote> I think they fire a different round, but I do not know enough about the difference between shell types to comment any further.

Ericksson is not for the faint of heart - you are probably better off getting Glantz. 'In deadly combat' written by Gottlob Herbert Bidermann, is a specific account of a soldier in 162. ID and has nothing from the Soviet perspective. A very interesting Glantz book is 'Zhukov's greatest defeat - Operation Mars', and it is written in a very accessible style, with readable maps (something that 'From the Don to the Dnjepr' lacks). Also from the Glantz school: 'Hitler's greatest defeat' by Adair, on Operation Bagration. Excellent work.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: The Germans ? I find it ironic they were the most avid users of the term in a time when their country was divided into occupation zones, one of which formed an separate, hostile, state. They had a bone to pick with us for not being loyal to them. Their sour grapes were obvious and their friendship not really sincere.<hr></blockquote> I am sure this should really be in the general forum. Having said that... I think you are over-estimating the German interest in Finland by a wide margin. 'Finlandisation' was used (rarely) whenever the left suggested that it maybe a good idea to not deploy nuclear weapons that would go off on German ground, or that maybe we should accept that the re-establishment of the borders of 1937 was not really a realistic goal of foreign policy, or that we should just talk with East Germany and the Soviets. Convenient stick to get out for the right, and beat the left with. I never understood what was so bad about Finland anyway

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Cauldron... coupled with your rather checkered past, your latest comments have officially landed you on the Final Warning list. Using an acronym along with a completely out of the blue flame of someone does not make it any better. Cross the line again and we will bid you farewell. Anybody seeing Cauldron violating this BBS's rules (again) can email matt@battlefront.com<hr></blockquote> Thanks Steve.

Troop experience and troop quality are really two different, albeit related, issues. Most of the Red Army tankers on the heavies do not seem to have had experience with their machines. I believe that is what is being referred to. Unfortunately a dashing spirit won't make up for being unable to handle your weapon, period. Add to that command inability, weakness of supply systems/trains leading to lack of ammo and fuel at the sharp end, and hangovers from reorganisation, and you have the recipe for a desaster. Which, unsurprisingly, was what happened to the Red Army in the summer of 1941.