ASL Veteran

Just keep on believing what you want to.

Not a myth “At lunchtime a tank with infantry seated on top raced past us at an incredible speed on the street leading into town. No one could have stopped it. Even our sergeant was struck speechless. It was not long before other tanks, again with infantry on board raced past in the same direction. The same thing occurred twice more. That they were not concerned about us came as something of a shock. When there was a break our sergeant shouted: “There are more coming. I am going to take a Panzerfaust and see if I can knock one out.” With my comrades I had gone behind an almost collapsed wall to find firing positions for our rifles. This was necessary as our whole bodies were shaking with excitement. It was not long before another tank with infantry sitting on it followed and stopped near us. The Russians jumped off and went to the foxholes of our neighboring section on the far side of the street. Their sergeant opened fire and shot one of the attackers. We were petrified when we saw the sergeant fall to a burst of machine gun fire and our ten comrades fall to shots in the neck. When the tank was about to move off, there was an explosion and a track came off. Our sergeant had made good what he had said. However, he was unlucky, as he had been standing in a doorway between two doorposts and the blast from the Panzerfaust had rebounded off the doorposts behind him and burnt his back. The Russians jumped off and fled towards the town, but a brave machine gunner cut them down. An ambulance took away our wounded sergeant. We laid him down on a stretcher on his stomach. The medical orderly thought that it was a wound that would get him discharged from the service. Our section was then taken over by the staff corporal.” another account for you "I shouted at my men: ‘Let them overrun us and knock them out with Panzerfausts from the rear!’ Some of the grain sheaves were on fire. Approximately twenty enemy tanks and armored personnel carriers were rolling towards us, their engines roaring and their tracks squealing. They crossed the Vieux-Villez road and penetrated into our positions. Our own artillery tried to stop the enemy. Next to me in the foxhole, after firing the Panzerfaust, there was a heart rending moan. The gunner had not lifted the tube high enough and he died soon after from massive burns." How about the US Military? FM 7-7 gives us some guidelines for using AT weapons from inside buildings “When firing the LAW or Dragon from within a room, backblast must be taken into account. In urban combat, the backblast area for these weapons is more dangerous because of rubble and the channeling effect caused by buildings, narrow streets, and alleys. Antitank weapons should not be fired from unvented or closed rooms. By wetting down the floor of the room or building, the signature produced by the backblast may be significantly reduced. The accompanying chart (figure R8) shows the backblast area of the various weapons and the minimum room dimensions for safe firing TOW Room size 17’ by 24’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet (open door), muzzle clearance 9 inches Dragon, Room size 15’by 12’, Ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet, muzzle clearance 6 inches LAW, Room size 4’ to the back wall, ceiling height 7’, vent size 20 square feet.” Doesn’t it seem odd after all those exhaustive studies indicating you can’t be injured by backblast that it's right in their field manuals that these types of weapons are dangerous to fire from an enclosed space?

Actually, for lower morale troops I think that even a yellow wound soldier should probably be evacuated since he's likely to take any reason to leave the battle.

The only reason why I'm bothering to respond at all is because you seem to be implying that some of us are uninformed and swayed by propaganda or mythmaking. That's what I put in my second paragraph above.

I don't know what you consider remarkable about that quote above sburke. If you boil it down to it's basics and subtract the live ammunition, most of that was pretty standard training for officers and NCOs throughout the entire German Army. Do a quick web search about German officer training and you should find plenty of information about that. Don't pound the table shouting 'propaganda' without being informed or you are committing the same sin that you are accusing others of. Counter it with sources of your own. I found a decent link on the web for you to check if you are interested http://theses.gla.ac.uk/2002/1/2010KjoerstadMPhil.pdf It's easy enough to find that information though so no need to rely on your gut reaction.

Why anyone would want to revive this thread is beyond my understanding. The only reason why I'm bothering to respond at all is because you seem to be implying that some of us are uninformed and swayed by propaganda or mythmaking. I think that most of us who are contributing to this thread are fully aware of the state of motorization or lack thereof in the German army throughout the war. While you might think you are making a clever revelation you are actually contributing almost nothing with that information. Let me put a little more flesh on those bones that are being tossed around out there as revelatory 'facts'. Wave 1 - formed 1934 - 1938 39 divisions Wave 2 - formed August 1939 15 divisions Wave 3 - formed September 1939 20 divisions Wave 4 - formed August 1939 14 divisions Wave 5 - formed September 1939 5 divisions Wave 6 - formed November 1939 4 divisions Wave 7 - formed January 1940 14 divisions Wave 8 - formed February 1940 10 divisions Wave 9 - formed March 1940 10 divisions Okay, so when was France invaded .... I believe it was May of 1940. What does your esteemed author think these divisions were doing before May of 1940? Apparently nothing but sitting around campfires drinking beer. Do you seriously think that several months isn't enough time to train a soldier? I think it's disingenuous for the author to imply that the German army was fielding untrained divisions in the invasion of France. I'm sorry but you are mistaken. It's not even close. Don't take one author's mythbusting viewpoint as gospel. Check multiple sources before reaching a conclusion. Perhaps, but the French army was considered to be one of the most powerful in the world in 1940 so that opinion seems irrelevant to me. All it does is discount the opposition rather than give credit where credit is due. In other words, "The Germans only did good because their opposition was incompetent." as opposed to "The Germans did good because they were better trained and led." It's a moving goal post that can never be 'proven' one way or another because both opinions have some basis in fact. I don't disagree with that Personnel - 1940 beats 1944 Policy - tie tactics - tie equipment - 1944 beats 1940 logistics - 1940 beats 1944 (this is a joke right?) host of other factors - too undefined to be relevant I was actually hoping the thread would be closed since it's up past 300 now.

I think there was a third party scenario done that's by that title. I believe that Michael Dorosh made it IIRC.

In the account I read it mentions that 'Train' personnel - as in supply and support personnel - were involved in the fighting. There is mention that the cook, a 'Hiwi' with a butcher knife, captured several cowering British soldiers. Supply orderlies and cooks aren't infantry though so it depends on what is being asked.

I just read the account of that day's activity in "Michael Wittman and the Waffen SS Tiger Commanders of the Leibstandarte in WW2: Volume 2" and it seems pretty clear to me that there were no German infantry involved. Time and time again the personal account will read as "to continue without infantry support was madness" or "In spite of not having any infantry support we did x anyway." and stuff like that. So it's very clear that no German infantry were present. The 12th SS was heavily engaged elsewhere and the Panzer Lehr only sent some Pz IV tanks. The 901st Panzergrenadier Regiment (Panzer Lehr) was probably the closest infantry but they were engaged elsewhere. I think that's the whole point of why the action is considered so 'heroic'. There was nothing else in the vicinity that could counter the British force and if Wittman had failed apparently the front would have been compromised.

More than likely the German attack on the beach head was the obvious choice to build the German campaign around. The Hermann Goring Division was split into a left and right group. The campaign was built around the right group. There are standalone scenarios that cover the left group - which quite honestly probably saw less combat in terms of number of distinct battles. It probably would have been difficult to come up with more than - maybe three scenarios out of the left group.

Ahhh, so the USA of 2001 = Nazi Germany of 1939. Everything makes sense to me now.

Hmmm, I don't think the QB AI uses more than .... I'm thinking two groups (although I'm not sure). It's certainly less than the sixteen groups that can be used for scenario making. So without some sort of an adjustment it's probable that the QB force wouldn't fit in the areas allotted for the AI if you were to just do a straight conversion from a scenario map to a QB map. Plus not all the AI groups would be used anyway - well and the victory locations probably wouldn't work right either. I think you have to do a lot of clean up to make a scenario map good for QBs.

What are you talking about? At the beginning of every major Soviet offensive all the way to the end was send a battalion sized recon in force to hit the German fortified line and determine the exact location of the strongpoints. After that, maybe the next day or two, several regiments of artillery would be fired in preparation to the main attack. The Stalin's Organs were always the last thing to be fired - such that the Germans actually knew that when the Stalin's Organs finished the Soviet infantry were on their way. After that - yeah - Urrah! I'm not sure you've actually read any Eastern Front combat if you think that was a rare combat situation.

I think the East Front is going to be pretty boring too. Thousands of Soviet artillery and rocket rounds pounding entrenched Germans in pillboxes. Wave upon wave of Soviet troops yelling 'Urrah' as they charge the entrenched German lines in the snow. I can't think of a more boring theater of operations than the Eastern Front.

By implication one could probably say that the German Army was less politicized than the air force. I seem to recall that the reason the Luftwaffe Field Divisions were formed rather than having the personnel given over to the army was because Hermann Goring didn't want his 'good Nazis' polluted by mixing with the regular army. Assuming that's the case, then if it was the other way around Hermann Goring wouldn't have voiced any objections to giving those men over to the army.

Intermission time

I'll go on record as saying I would definitely take that shot if it's stopped there. If he is still moving forward and you think you can line up a better one then I might wait, but otherwise it's too much of a game difference maker to pass it up. If you can take out the Elefant that's just too big of a piece on the table to not have an impact on his side. On your side it's one ATG so the value of what you are risking is much less than the value of what you could be destroying ..... that's my take.

Yes that's true (Panzerfaust anyway - not sure about Shrek), but that's not why I posted it. If the basis of Jason's debating point is that US Medal of Honor award winners is the primary means of determining how often close assaults on tanks took place, then surely a listing of German winners of an award specifically for tank destruction by an individual with hand weapons that aren't bazookas would be the logical counter for that. If Jason decides to delegitimize the German award winners as representative of close assaults on tanks taking place, then he undermines his own position since using Medal of Honor award winners to prove they didn't would be an equally worthless measure. You see, I didn't post it because I wanted to prove something. I posted it because I wanted to put Jason in a debating headlock. If he ignores it and tries to delegitimize the German award winners without acknowledging the resulting weakness of his own position he just looks like a fool. Over to you Jason ....

After a rigorous five minute search, I managed to find a few individuals who took out tanks singlehandedly without using a Bazooka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Destruction_Badge

So the SPW is an armored bus and nothing more. Until someone shows actual combat reports it’s just a bus and no MG was ever fired from a Hanomag in anger. It seems like you are the one who is taking a ridiculous extreme position here. Whoa, what’s this? You actually know that SPWs are used in actual combat, but you just don’t think they were ever used ‘when it mattered’? So what’s the definition of when it matters because that seems to be the point where you disagree with your opposite numbers. I suppose you are the one who defines ‘when it matters’ for this discussion though, and since you are the one who is defining ‘when it matters’ then you can never be wrong can you? The only person claiming this is you from what I can tell, and you only claim that this is what you are arguing against because it’s the perfect foil for your own ridiculous initial position. I don’t think anyone in this thread claimed that every SPW on the force was being used routinely at all times as an IFV so this seems like it is a classic straw man to me. The problem here is that you put out a ridiculous position whereby no Hanomag ever fired a shot in anger. This was countered by showing German doctrine in their usage. You claim the doctrine is wrong and that you are right because of loss statistics. However, we are now further along in the thread and you actually now admit that Hanomags fired shots in anger, but just not when it mattered. Now we can have pages and pages of discussion about ‘when it matters’, thus the merri go round continues because you have taken upon yourself the mantle of deciding what the definition of ‘when it matters’ is. Since you are the only one who decides what ‘when it matters’ means, then you are the only one who can decide that the discussion has reached a resolution. The only acceptable resolution that can be reached though is one in which you are proven to be correct and until everyone bows to the inevitable the discussion will never end. I suppose that this then ties to Combat Mission in the sense that you feel that everytime a Hanomag is used in a Combat Mission game it’s being used ‘when it matters’. Since Hanomags were never used during times ‘when it matters’ (by your own definition of course) then Hanomags should never be seen on a Combat Mission battlefield. Of course this ignores the fact that Combat Mission is a game and if Hanomags fired a single MG burst in anger then it’s perfectly valid for the game to simulate it. How the players choose to play the game is up to them.

I got an American scout team in the editor in CMFI and it came with two Tommy guns (they may have changed it or there might be a random factor) .... but either way.

I'll jab at you then - in an attempt to move the thread away from fantasy game mechanics. So, reverse slope defenses typically are close range affairs with longer range assets in strong supporting locations. I don't know if you can purchase scout teams in QB - I'll assume you can. Had you considered maybe taking a few scout teams in foxholes armed with Tommy guns and placing them within close range to the crests of one, the other, or both of the tits with the wire on your side but just behind the crest line? If they are close enough to the crest you could defend yourself from tanks with a bazooka team or grenades and the Tommy guns would mow down any infantry who tried to take the crest. It wouldn't take a very sizeable force to become a royal PITA for Bil. Maybe ten or fifteen men at most if ten of them are armed with Thompsons. You could then support that position with AT and MG assets from areas near where you are deployed now. So I guess the question would be - do you think that maybe scout teams would have been a better purchase than sniper teams in this situation? Obviously the sniper teams fit into your pre battle plan, but now seeing how it's playing out do you think a couple of Tommy gun toting scout teams would have been more useful? I can't see any covered avenues of retreat for the sniper teams if Bil sets up a fire base on the tits so at this point it seems like they are just going to get mowed down without having much of an impact.

You guys are acting as though every map was generated from scratch for every engagement for everyone who plays. A player could play the same map in a QB multiple times and many players will play a scenario multiple times and from both sides. Having a bunch of nonsensical restrictions on how a player can view the game map is asking a bit much of the game, especially considering how many times a map may have been played on by the same player. In this case, Bil made the map himself so how would a restriction on what he can view make any difference whatsoever? :confused:

I found an interesting series of videos about halftracks and armored cars. Part 3 has the Hanomag in it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H62jVzEKIdU

The only way you can have an ATG remain concealed for any length of time when in the LOS of enemy units is to place them directly in a light or heavy forest tile and even then it's risky not to fire depending on the circumstances. Putting them out in the grass will never keep them hidden. I've had a 57mm in a light forest tile remain concealed even after several shots were fired.