Andreas

Bah - historically incorrect, that is neither a Finn nor a Hungarian in that picture.

On 7th August sSS-PzAbt. 102 was fighting attached to 9th SS near Chenedolle, trying to stop 11th Armoured Division on its march south during BLUECOAT. I am not sure what happened after that, but maybe able to look it up tonight.

I don't quite agree with a few things that Jason has written. You should really get yourself Zaloga's book, and also have a look here: www.redarmystudies.net Somewhere on the net you can find a copy of TM30-430 'The Handbook of Red Army Forces', which is very informative for what you are looking at.

The grenade throwing is just a simulation of 10-12 guys working on the tank trying to disable it (using any means available). In the case of Hungarians, using tin-openers to wrench apart the armour plates, in the case of Finns, brute force and fingernails.

Probably your best bet would be to get Steven Zaloga's 'Red Army Handbook'. It is not that expensive, and from your questions it is clear that it would be very helpful to you.

Well, but it doesn't, and it is also unlikely to change at this stage in the development of CMBB, even if you could dig out proof that Soviet squads habitually went into battle with 15-20 bottles of flammable sticky liquid that is almost entirely, but not quite unlike Napalm.

The number of Molotov cocktails (and grenade bundles) in a squad is the number of Molotov cocktails (and grenade bundles) seen in the window in the user interface. The number of grenades is five times the number seen in the window. I have no doubt that both Hungarians and Finns (being at least linguistically related) are very adept at using Molotov cocktails. It is also possible that the game undermodels them. Who knows. I just wanted to clear up the misconception about 10 guys throwing them simultaneously, and them containing Napalm ('them' being the bottles, not the 10 guys). A sticky flammable liquid in a 1940 Molotov cocktail shares the 'sticky' and the 'liquid' attributes with Napalm, but is not necessarily as potent. A Ferrari and a Fiat are both Italian cars.

They are not ten guys throwing it, and it is not Napalm. It is one bottle of flammable liquid thrown. You need to hit the right spot to create any damage. A grenade bundle is not thrown, but placed (the graphics are not WYSIWYG) at the right location to disable the tank. Col. Triplet in his memoirs mentions trying Molotov Cocktails as weapons (he was at the weapons development centre of the US Army then), and found them to be ineffective, every time.

I had a look at my original copy of Greiner & Degener's 'Taktik im Rahmen des verstaerkten Infanteriebatallions' (6/7th Edition, Spring 1941), a training book for German officers. Here is the result of checking the symbols on the map against the symbol table in the book. I did that in MS Paint, so it sucks. I hope it is clear anyway. JonS is on the money with his suspicion that some of the points are not correct and should be lines.

I had a look at my original copy of Greiner & Degener's 'Taktik im Rahmen des verstaerkten Infanteriebatallions' (6/7th Edition, Spring 1941), a training book for German officers. Here is the result of checking the symbols on the map against the symbol table in the book. I did that in MS Paint, so it sucks. I hope it is clear anyway. JonS is on the money with his suspicion that some of the points are not correct and should be lines.

It probably depends on which part of the unit. I could imagine one company (but not the whole battalion) of pioneers to be armoured. Normally one company to one battalion (but not more) of the infantry in a Schuetzenregiment would be armoured. In 1940, it is possible (though unlikely) that none are. Hanomag simply could not keep up with producing the buggers. The otherwise excellent source I have does not make it clear how many and in which units the HTs were. But sources with statements about trucks, and others with statements about HTs, are not necessarily in conflict with each other.

Yes Yourewelcome

no you wouldn't

Statistics are never flawed. There are just many people who read only half of them.... </font>

Like all statistics, this one is deeply flawed.

http://www.tiger-tank.com/ Running? I believe it when I breathe the exhaust fumes.

Afraid not.

It is possible that many of the batteries only arrived in the four days between 11th and 15th. But those batteries present could have concentrated on the crossing attempts at Horodyszce and further south. There were no other attempts they could easily have gotten involved in.

Yes, from the map I am looking at it looks like a big village. The ground would be mud, or deep mud. The Soviets should have a lot of artillery, both direct and indirect. They had expected the attack, and were prepared for it. On the 15th, the German Feindlagekarte shows the 135th RD in place, with 8 identified heavy, and a 3 medium, and one light battery supporting the defence. The river is the Wosuszka indeed.

Horodyscze is quite far south of Rollbahn 4. It is on the Tarnopol TO Kozowa road. The bridge was blown at this time. The armoured elements of 9th SS led this attack (30 Panzer IV, 30 Stugs). They managed to take the bridge site against a very heavy defense, and two pioneer platoons managed to establish a small bridgehead that had to be relinquished in the face of growing pressure later in the day. This was not reported up to divisional command, and led to false planning for the next day's attack. The verdict that came out of this on the middle ranking leadership of 9th SS was 'a shocking lack of tactical understanding', leading to 'failure to execute attack orders', and lack of training in artillery and air co-operation. It is quite likely that the defending Soviet formation was 135th Rifle Division.

9th SS attempt to relieve the Fester Platz Tarnopol (today Ternopol, I believe), was stopped by elements of the following divisions: 135th Rifle Division 148th Rifle Division 1st Guards Artillery Division 68th Guards Rifle Division 52nd Guards Tank Brigade Probably elms 302nd Rifle Division. Fighting under 60th Army at this stage, I believe. It is likely that 52nd Guards Tank Brigade came from 1st Tank Army. Assuming you are talking about the relief attempt from 15-17th April 44. 9th SS was split into Group Bittrich (GOC 9th SS), with the infantry elements, attacking north into 135th Rifle Division, to secure the northern flank. This attack kicked off late, warning the Soviet defenders of what was up. The armoured elements were commanded by Heer Colonel Friebe, commander of the Panzerregiment of 8. Panzerdivision. This was done because in the view of Balck (GOC XXXXVIII. Panzerkorps) and Rauss (GOC 4. Panzerarmee), Bittrich was not performing as divisional commander, and could not be trusted to carry out the important armoured attack. The armoured thrust along the Horodyscze TO Chodaczkow Wk. TO Poczapince road failed against the ATG wall erected by 1st Guards Artillery Division. A later attempt along the railway line to the south from Chodaczkow Wk. TO Ostrow failed at Seredyniki. The whole shambles cost 9th SS 1,200 men and 18 tanks. Bittrich only survived the affair because Balck and Raus thought it would be too difficult to get him removed, due to his special status as SS divisional commander.

I believe that you are looking at a problem with the competitive nature of QBs, and probably with scenarios you may have been playing. When German and Soviet tank forces met head on, and brought comparable numbers to the fight, that was bad news for the Soviets. Ideally, the aim for the Soviet tanks was to not fight German tanks at all (leave these to AT guns), but instead attack German infantry, achieve a breakthrough, and then defeat the German formations operationally. All of which will not help you with your games, I am afraid. One way of applying this is to use AT guns in your force mix, to create a secure base of fire onto which you can fall back. Against anything but Tigers, Soviet ATGs are very good weapons, if used from a flanking position. Even the venerable 45mm ATG in its 1942 incarnation, with tungsten rounds, is quite a problem for the Germans. Thanks for posting this - very interesting, and I am very jealous.

I know - I was exaggerating to make a point.

They may all have been with the Luftwaffe, but they were tactically assigned to Heer divisions in a lot of cases. There were also 88 on SP (FAMO 18t HT), which were really only intended for ground use (bunkers, AT), assigned to Panzerdivisions. Divisional AA 1. PD - leFla Abt. 83 7. PD - leFla Abt. 59 Assigned AA 7.PD - assigned Fla Abt. 86 and 1 battery Fla Abt. 23 Assigned AT 1. PD - one battery sPzJgd Abt. 8 (8,8cm) The last one of these should settle the discussion on whether 88 were intended as AT before the campaign began.

Actually they did have that ability at the time we are considering. French tanks had HE in 1940. As did Soviet tanks. The Germans still used the 88, and even more vulnerable guns, such as the divisional artillery guns sFH 18, lFH18 and K18, in an AT role. Needs must, or sumfink. DAK just got lucky because of the fecklessness of the recently unhorsed upper-class twits from the Cavalry who would not be able to recognise combined arms if it came and bit them in the a*se, and the utter cluelessness of the Whitehall bureaucrats, who did not send HE to the desert.