Andreas

I think it is time we find ourselves a refinery engineer who is also a WW2 tank engine grog. Brings up the question - could the synfuel plants produce synthetic gasoline? Because current GTL and CTL technology, which ISTR is based on German WW2 technology acquired by the South Africans, is mostly about producing diesel, I think.

Nothing beats the Cromwell with the Meteor engine. BTW - Diesel or Gasoline for fuel, it does not really make a difference from what I understand. The T34 burned just fine when hit. Ammo stowage was the key to this problem. Hence, later Shermans with wet stowage, and strict discipline about where the rounds were stored (NOT rolling about on the floor) reduced the Ronson problem considerably.

I am not a refinery engineer, but AFAIK that is not necessarily correct, since the proportion of gasoline to mid-range distillates (diesel and kerosene for aero engines) produced from refineries is relatively fixed. You need to get into some major technical work to change it. So from an overall resource perspective, since you have to produce an output of distillates together with your gasoline, it may make sense to have your tanks run on gasoline, if you are capacity constrained. That way you service your airforce and your tankfleet from the same refinery run. Otherwise your tanks and planes are competing for the same output. Which means you need to increase the run (more oil into the refineries) and are left with a product that is not so useful anymore (surplus gasoline). At least that is how I understand refining to work. Maybe somebody can correct me if I am wrong. Not saying that this planning was actually behind how the Germans did things, BTW.

If its not in the east, it has trouble floating my boat.

While waiting, there is always time for a game of CMBB. Or CMAK, if I really have to.

Well, if nothing else, I got replayability right.

I designed the scenario.

I am sure I won't be. Kip is one of the harshest of judges.

I was not talking about you, but I assumed you had read where this discussion was coming from. Since I may have been wrong I recommend reading the post by Hortlund that features 'drama queens' and 'precious work'. I thought that was an insult, and that was what I responded to. Apart from that, while I have not been able to look at the mod, I have been told by Kip Anderson that it is great. So congrats on it, and it is good to see people putting so much hard work into modding the game. I look forward to installing it. All the best Andreas

We have been through those discussions, and I suggest you do a search if you are really interested in their result. I have no intention to rehash them, but I equally have no intention to let unwarranted insults by other posters go unchallenged.

If you ever decide to contribute something creative in an area of endeavour that is meaningful to you, feel free to take that stand. Til then... prolly best to shut yer hole. </font>

You may very well think that, but I could not possibly comment.

You have got my attention now, oh wearer of the orange knit-vest. Where on earth were flaming pigs used in warfare?

Yes, I agree that as a scenario designer I would like to designate all these things too, and then some I have not even thought of (the unthought desires, to put it into Rumsfeldian). Then there are the multitude of people who play QBs against the AI. Or people who just whack together a quick scenario to play against the AI without going into this sort of depth. My uneducated guess would be that they outnumber scenario designers (who care for this sort of detail) by 1 billion : 1, so BFC needs to think about how to make a game for them as well.

Just throwing some things out. Some things that 'deeper' gameplay may offer: - much more appropriate and micro terrain relevant to the area - wider range of vehicles relating to the specific forces modelled - much better research into the OOB (because there is more time to focus) - much more specific simulation of combat tactics and command based on the specific doctrine of the army modelled (i.e. at the squad level you would see a difference between e.g. German and Commonwealth squads) - additional features such as the pioneer battle (with funnies) - Modelling of special formations (Maori battalion, Rangers) Etc. pp.

IIRC, the Soviet air force was part of the Red Army during WW2.

Seaton, like Ziemke, would however suffer from a lack of Soviet sources, would he not? I have not gotten round to reading it, but anything published before the mid-90s will suffer from that to some degree I would have thought. Ziemke has to rely on the official Soviet histories to show the Red Army perspective, and they are decidedly dodgy in terms of reliability. Bit like Manstein's memoirs.

Sorta. There were still a lorra lorra T34/76 around, right until the end of the war. Most off them fobbed off on, err, graciously given to brothers in arms like the Polish Army, and second-line formations, I guess.

And you are apparently an offensive git. But I see that does not seem to bother you either. </font>

And you are apparently an offensive git. But I see that does not seem to bother you either.

Older works from the German PoV are Ziemke's books. Well worth reading, primarily based on German KTBs and work from the OCMH. Manstein maybe a classic, but it is not a history of the war in the east. It is flawed in that it is written by an actor who had no incentive to even attempt an unbiased analysis, and there are at least two pieces in it that have been criticised as faulty (and if I had actually read 'Verlorene Siege' I am sure I could think of more). These concern the advance to Leningrad and the discussion about whether Zitadelle ought to have been continued. Erickson has some serious problems because of his reliance on flawed Soviet archival material. 'When Titans Clashed' is probably your best bet.

You will no doubt be able to tell us about a multitude of cases in which German POW were collected after the firefight, marched for a distance (Le Paradis), and in the case of Abbaye des Ardennes interrogated, and then lined up against a building and shot by their allied captors. We are all ears.

And those were introduced when? ISTR that by the end of the cold war missiles were just turning to fire and forget, while in the 1970s you had wire-guided as standard ATGW. Milan has a range fo 2km - further than standard engagement range in WW2 but not radically outside CM's limits. HOT has 4,000m, but you still needed to guide it by LOS from the launcher in the 1980s. Not healthy, not outside what CM can do on the battlefield. There are lots of places where you can operate at long range with your helo anywhere in the world. I explicitly talked about tanks and infantry weapons though. Your point about countermeasures applies to CM already - counter-battery affected artillery support. AA and fighter screens affected air support, in WW2. It is up to the scenario designer to decide what made it through to the battlefield.

I like the point about ranges. So, modern tanks can kill each other at 4km and infantry weapons reach further. Can anyone show me some places with 4km LOS and cover for the ambush in northern and central Germany? I lived in both those areas, and I don't think there are many. I do not recall that the MG3 has much more range than the MG42. Or the G3 much more effective range than the K98. Or the M2 having a longer range than the M2.

If you don't want to hurtle down the Fulda Gap in your T72 into the teeth of an M1 Squadron, you are not a normal wargamer.