Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: But I still ask myself if the - especially light - AT guns are not a bit to powerful? Maybe I'm wrong with this, cause I think the normal AT gun wasn't used for infight, more on distances of 1000m and above. On close distance like in CM they are much more lethal.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No problem about the books, glad to be of service. Light AT guns essentially depend on being able to get flankshots. Flank armour on Panthers was weak (Tigers were much better). The Germans did that with their light AT guns (37mm and 50mm) against the KV-1 and the T34 when these appeared. They also used Tungsten rounds, and special aim at the turret ring. A non-penetrating, but disabling kill, since it would make the turret jam, and the 'wuss-tankers' would then retire from the field. This bit of info I got from a 37mm AT gun operator who was trained on it later in the war. I specifically asked him how they thought they could kill a T34 with the 'Heeresanklopfgeraet' (Army door knocker), as the 37mm was fondly known, and turret ring was his immediate answer. They were apparently trained to fire at that spot specifically.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee: But that's just me...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and you are clueless and devoid of any respect for the people who died in the war. You also have no clue about what counts in a war. We have seen as much, and I am sure you learned all you know about war from playing with a GI-Joe action figure. I am constantly amazed at the ignorance that is possible in this world. Now anyone actually interested in getting a glimpse of what it was like to be in a tank: 'Tank tracks - 9th RTR at war' '64 days of a Normandy summer' 'Tank!' Recommended by others: 'Death Traps'

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: Andreas beat me to it, so I'll bite my tongue, and only flame thusly: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice smiley - there was a guy around here who had Aesop (I think) as his sig: 'It is easy to be brave from a distance.' Paraphrase: 'It is easy to be brave in front of your monitor.' Calling vets who bailed 'wusses' ranks right up there some of the most clueless drivel I have read on this forum. I wonder why they did not disable their tanks before going into battle, I can not even begin to imagine the horror these guys went through, and reading about it is bad enough. Tout (I think) says somewhere that a really big mistake he made was to go to a brewed Sherman and look inside. It still had the charred remains of some of the crew-members in it. Not good to be reminded of it, when it could have been you. The grandfather of an English friend of mine was in Normandy. He can't talk about it, because he starts crying when the memories come back. So I guess that makes him a wuss too? [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunnee: I don't know, you get issued a tank, and that's your vehicle. Say you get hit, your assistant driver or whatever is killed. Your tank is still operational and combat effective with damage to the front and one casualty. Now you can do one of two things: bail out like a wuss, or try to do some damage with what you've got left. You don't abandon your assignment because they are shooting at you, being shot at is a given. I would think bailing out after a non lethal hit is shirking your duty. Think about that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's an interesting opinion. I am sure that the average Normandy tanker vet would be delighted to discuss it with you. Or maybe just read the books I mentioned above. Sounds like you could learn something. 'Non-essential crewman' - now that one is a riot. If he was non-essential, why would he be on board? I can see the tank designers going over the drawings now "Yeah, and here we have a folding chair, so that they can take a tourist on a battlefield tour, that way we will make some money back on the tank." Or maybe they just had a stash of crewmen on the back deck, to ensure that there was always one available in case someone got hit. So I thought about it, and it is rubbish. Shirking your duty that is. Read some books written by the guys who were there. Or maybe really go to an American Legion or Royal British Legion club, find yourself a tanker who bailed, and tell him he was 'shirking his duty' then. Make sure you tape it for posterity.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: How much damage can a 57mm cause a Tiger?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Enough to disable it, brew it up, and/or make the crew leave. Depends on where you hit it of course, and whether you use Tungsten rounds or normal AP shot. Regarding tank hits and crews bailing, I very strongly recommend reading 'Tank!' by Ken Tout. Tout was a TC in 2nd Northants Yeo, the original Recce Rgt of 11th Uk Armoured. He participated in operation TOTALIZE, the prelude to breakthrough south of Caen. A first class look into the way a tank crew fights by someone who was there. All will be revealed in that book. Another good read is '64 Days of a Normandy Summer', forgotten the author, but he was a tanker too. Also, 'Tank Tracks - 9th RTR at war'. I have been told that 'Death Traps' is also a good read. Bottomline is: If AP penetrates, you bail. You were not killed this time, do you really want to wait whether the next round is going to brew your tank and cause a black-rimmed telegram to go out to your family? Unless you are really heroic of course, but that is what medals are for, and many of them would be dished out posthumously.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fishu: Why would turret penetration kill the crew?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Also, if you have already had a round go through the turret, then you know that someone who does not like you and has the means to cause you irreparable physical harm, has a bead on you. A good incentive to bugger off. Regarding the crews - this has been discussed ad nauseam. Crews left their tanks in <5secs flat, because they did not know whether it would not blow up, or whether there would not be another round coming through. No time to take the stamp collection, the machine-gun, or Fido the crew terrier. Regarding casualties in CMBO, this is a function of the fact that people tend not to surrender, or withdraw. In Real Life very often when you hit the resistance you see in CMBO, you would call it a day and try elsewhere. And if you don't, your casualties climb astronomically (e.g. early counterattacks on the Commonwealth beachheads. or Panzerbrigaden 106 and 110 (?) at Epinal, that lost almost all their armour in two days, 100+ tanks). So, it is hardly fair to make the engine responsible for the insensitiveness that most players show towards the lives of their little pixel soldiers. You would need an operational overlay (as in CMMC) to simulate the consequences of excessive losses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uedel: So if i would command one of my submissioned soldiers to move on with a Car over a red Ample the Soldier must obeye my Order (but I got to Take the Response for this).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting - I was a driver, and one day a Corporal (Unteroffizier) told me when I drove him to the train station after his shift at the nuclear weapon stash that if he ordered me to run over a red light, I would have to do it. I told him I would not have to. He then said exactly what you said, and I left it at that, until I got back to the barracks, where I reported to my platoon leader, telling him about this 'interesting' opinion with my well-worn 'innocent bunny look'. He advised me that it was bollocks, and when I left the platoon office, he called the platoon leader of the Corporal in, and gave him a first-class seeing-to. What fun. My platoon leader was a senior NCO (Hauptfeldwebel) and the other guy a young Lieutenant, BTW. The reason that in peacetime you can not order a driver over a red light is that it may cause an accident, in which case the driver would carry the can for any damage to things and persons. And that could well be manslaughter, and carry a criminal penalty. So it was explained to me. Did my time 1988-89, Sicherungsstaffel 'S', JaboG34, Memmingerberg. Interestingly, our shoulder badge contained two 'S', but they were overlayed, so that it did not look like you know what...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: Sure you can disobey an "illegal" order, but you'll have to pay the price especially if it's war time. Why does the Bundeswehr still have conscription? During the Cold War, I can understand but why not an all volunteer force? Too little potential recruits? I also heard they have a Erwin Rommel Panzer unit. Is this true??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Conscription is still there for two reasons, you can take your pick which one is the real one. 1. Conscription ensures that the army is an accepted institution and functions within civil society. The experience from the Weimar Republic should never be repeated. 2. Young men who object to serving in the army have to do 12 months of social service, for very little pay. A lot of the social system in Germany depends on this cheap labour, and many not-for-profit organisations and hospitals use them, as well as the emergency services. If you abolish conscription, you have to abolish this service as well, and that would raise the cost of the welfare state. AFAIK there is no Erwin Rommel unit in Germany, all units are numbered, none are named, other than functional (Gebirgsjaeger, Panzergrenadier etc.). There is an Erwin Rommel Kaserne (barracks) though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: Oh, I quite agree. Even as far back as the 1860s logistics was king. Railroads smashed the Confederacy in 1864-5, the Austrians in 1866 and the French in 1870-1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is why until a few years ago east-west rail connections in Germany were atrocious. I think there were conditions in the Versailles treaty laying down that Germany could not build east-west railway lines. Motorways are also much better north-south than east west. I totally agree that the person calling the shots (in the case of the Wehrmacht, Hitler) has the power to impose his prejudices on the institution.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by argie: I think the right to disobey a criminal order was in the German Military Code long time before WWII, but I haven't evidence to back up this... I read it somewhere a few years ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can well imagine that there was - unlike in postwar Germany it was not really an option to disobey though, because you would have found yourself in a penal unit quite soon I am sure.

Nice one David. There were three different versions produced in two batches of 100 each. All you ever wanted to know about the Challenger and then some is here: Challenger [ 07-15-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: I think this had mostly to do with the "warrior" mentality that the Germans had. Warriors are promoted on their ability to fight and inspire personal devotion. But native talent can only take you so far, and worst of all, is unreliable. Contrast this to the "manager" mentality that pervaded the Allies. While individual leaders were mediocre, in aggregate through consistently superior management of logistics, the pointy-hairs wore the warriors down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now that is a bit silly, don't you think? Replace Germans with Hitler and I agree. The German army did not have a warrior mentality. Rommel was a minor figure (despite his Pour Le Merite) until Hitler noticed him. Someone like Dietrich would never have gotten anywhere in the regular army. The German army invented the modern staff system, now in use everywhere, at a time when the Duke of Cambridge was still thinking that buying commissions was a good way to select Her Majesty's officers. In Germany, only specially trained officers who graduated from the staff academy could get into command positions. Barbara Tuchman in 'The Guns of August' (I think) has a nice bit about the importance of the training and the role of the Chief of Staff, when she discusses Tannenberg. So I totally disagree with this statement on the warrior admiration by 'the Germans', especially since 'the Allies' can be said to have had the same admiration for warriors, if one wants to be silly. Patton and Clarke made the headlines, Truscott did not, despite doing a better job than either of the other ones. German officers pre-Hitler were promoted on skill and ability. Many were drawn from a fairly small part of society still (Prussian landed gentry), but within that, they were selected on the basis of what they could do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Seems to me Patrick Delaforce did something on the 79th Armoured Division. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He did 43rd, 49th, 51st, 11th AD, 7th AD and a 4th/8th AB history (got all of those). Also one on 3rd RTR, and some broader books in which he probably takes the best stories from the other ones. He also did one called 'Churchill's secret weapons' which must be the one you talk about. He is writing one about the reduction of the Channel coast fortresses by the Americans in Brittany and the 1st Canadian Army in Pas de Calais. His books draw heavily on previously published material (e.g. memoirs, regimental histories), but use the division instead of the regiment as the basis for the story. They are a good read, and a good basis for scenario-making.

I am going to focus on the political aspects here. As LOS said, the post-war leadership of the army was made up of WW2 veterans. My father told me that when he was in the army in the 1960s, they once had a visit from a general who was wearing a WW2 uniform minus the insignia. Once these types started retiring, and with the general societal upheaval in the 1970s, the army's internal education was based around two concepts: 'Innere Fuehrung' (internal guidance or leadership) and 'Buerger in Uniform' (citizen soldier), both very different from what we know from the Wehrmacht. Innere Fuehrung is a concept that I seem to have forgotten most about but I believe it relates to the integration of the army in the democratic process, and the idea that no order given should be in contradiction to the laws governing society. So that if you as a grunt are ordered to do something illegal, you are within your rights to disobey the order. Have a look here: http://www.bundeswehr.de/news/english/6_1_the_concept_of_innere_fuhrung.html Buerger in Uniform means that wearing the uniform does not set you apart from being a citizen of the republic, with all the rights and duties that entails. The Reichswehr was a state within the state, and that had terrible consequences. So this system is really set up to ensure that the institution Bundeswehr does not cut off its links with the state again. It is also the only way in which you can make conscription work in an open society without external pressure. Finally, the Bundeswehr had selected famous German generals since about the Napoleonic wars to be the patrons of barracks and ships. Only in recent years have generals that had a very strong association with the Nazi party been taken off the list of acceptable names, and the barracks renamed. The most famous case I can think of is the General Dietl Kaserne in Sonthofen (Gebirgsjaeger, obviously), which was renamed a few years back, to Generaloberst Beck Kaserne http://www.skalman.nu/third-reich/heer-bios-beck.htm . A change I am very happy with. I think it would be fair to say that the Bundeswehr had huge problems with the 20. July tradition for many years, exactly because many of the officers were the ones who fought on after that. When the conservative defense secretary pushed through the name change of the Sonthofen Kaserne, there was a lot of grumbling in the higher officers corps, IIRC. Soldiers today have to swear an oath early in their service pledging to defend the state and democracy (with some democratic caveats, again a lesson learned from the 3rd Reich). Hope that helped.

Not really - I walk about 1.5hours along the Thames in central London each day on my way to work and back, judging from that, I recommend an impossible to achieve mix of dark grey, green, and brown. This one looks more like a very swollen river, but too brown even for that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Franko: Extremely well put. I mean, the only broader question would have been "did any armies use tanks, and if so, what kind and how good or bad were they?" F.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Franko, just get on with answering that one, and when you are finished, can you tell me how long a piece of string is?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SlowMotion: BTW: I wonder if that list of scenarios / operations in Excel-format is still being updated? I think that was very useful, especailly for those that don't have net access.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you mean the one done by Harv, I don't think so, he gave up b/c of lack of interest/support by scenario makers. Maybe somebody else took it on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: Sure JonS but then they lost it two weeks later at a little beach house called DUNKIRK!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And then they rebuilt it. But what matters is that they really took an awful long time to understand how to use it. It is not the size of your mechanised forces that matters, it is how you use them The Wehrmacht stood head and shoulders above the rest in the early war in that respect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: In an old S&T mag they compared the movement rates of the Germans from the Belgian border to teh Marne in WW1, to Paris in WW2, and the Israeli advance across the Siniai in 1967. The germans weer the fastest on a km per day basis.....in WW1!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Apples and oranges - what matters was how fast they got to the channel coast in WW2. Paris was irrelevant as a military objective (unlike in WW1).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GenSplatton: You can do the cute little rolly eyes all you want, but nothing in that thread had anything to do with the topic. Other than the first two posts, the thread has never been updated with anything useful. Yes, he mentioned it is replied to occassionally to move it to the top, but the fact is, that's the ONLY thing that's ever been added to it, drivel, as opposed to anything useful. Had he said "The FAQ has never been updated, only quips to move it to the top have been added since it's origination," then your comment would have been warranted. However, he didn't, so it's not. I expected that at least a FEW of the posts would have been additions to the FAQ itself. However, that's not the case. I'd have to say from the responses, or lack thereof, the Beginners Guide probably died a slow and quiet death.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We all look forward to the excellent FAQ and Newbie guide that you no doubt will soon be providing. With your exacting standards, that Russell's work obviously comprehensively fails to meet, I am expecting a rigorous treatment of all the topics that your average newcomer maybe interested in, dealt with in a succinct manner, elucidating every last ounce of CMBO's simulation, updated very frequently. Now why do the words 'arrogant', 'little', and 'dip****' come to mind when reading posts like the above by the most esteemed General, I wonder? [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: LOL what an lil instigator ..... Regards, John Waters<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Me? Would I ever? (innocent bunny look)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I tried to do this one and gave up. I am curious to see how you managed it. Treeburst and I playtested mine and it sucked. I used the steep elevation, and the mountain looked gorgeous on my map. Can you mail me your try?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Michael, Yankee did a version that I think is at Der Kessel. I started playtesting it, and it handled well as PBEM, but I could never finish the game. [ 07-13-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Ummm, probably everyone is in a mad dash to access the search function so they can show you the previous 150 threads on this subject. Or maybe it's because there have been NO previous threads on this topic and, as a result, a certain percentage of the board regulars are unsure as to what to do next.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Look forward to the fitness rating in CMBB? Just a thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Yes, the histories, memoirs, and documentaries I've seen and read on the ETO. Read about D-Day, the breakouut, the Ardennes, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err, yes I have read a lot of these, thank you very much, and according to my interpretation of the sources I have read, air support is at best correctly, but probably slightly overmodelled, it certainly is not undermodelled. Most of the effect was on supply lines, and support units, not on the battles that CMBO depicts. The breakout, Cobra, Totalize - massive bombardments, outside the scope of CMBO Falaise - shoot 'em up of supply columns in a traffic jam Ardennes - hitting the supply columns Epinal, Mortain, probably overstated in the context of battles, but huge impact in getting onto the battlefield in time, and freedom of movement; outside CMBO's scope Steve has written some lengthy posts on sir support on page three and four of the new SMG proposal thread. Maybe you want to read those. Anything else?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Peter Cairns: Is this something that peoplewould be interested in????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh yes! Korea would be great, and IMO much more interesting than doing a Pacific Theatre CM (which won't be done anyway, but I just threw that in for confusion).