ASL Veteran

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.

You mean for the AI to acquire things from vehicles? There is no AI command for that. If I recall correctly the AI now automatically acquires everything from a vehicle when it unloads.

Their ROF is pretty slow - they probably have separate charges for their ammunition.

Do'h, got myself confused.

I actually like Jason even though it looks like I'm ripping him. He does add a lot of flavor to the forums. Trying to discuss anything with him can be a complete waste of time though because it's not really a discussion. It's just an exercise of him repeating the same thing over and over again and him ignoring any points you make. You are right though - let's look at the issues. Jason apparently says that the German army was bigger in 1944 than in 1940. Okay sure. Because it's bigger that means it's better - well that's not necessarily the case. It's simply an indisputable biological fact that every single German male that was of military age between 1939 and 1945 was alive before the war even began. Therefore the maximum size of the army was already set in stone before the war even starts. So the fact that the 1944 army was bigger than the 1940 army is completely meaningless since every man who was in the 1944 army was alive in 1940. They just weren't all called to the colors yet. Not only that, but every man who was KIA or WIA between 1941 and 1943 weren't KIA or WIA in 1940 yet. So for someone to say that the army of 1944 is bigger than the army of 1940 and is therefore somehow more resiliant or better is ..... I'm sorry to say .... a completely ignorant representation that flies in the face of biological fact. An army isn't more resiliant because of how big it is but rather how big it is and what manpower reserves are available to it. The manpower reserves are what makes it resiliant. The army of 1940 was smaller .... so what. There were more manpower reserves available to the 1940 army than the entire size of the standing army of 1944 and overall those who were in the army of 1944 weren't the physical equal of the soldiers of 1940. It's simply biologically impossible. The soldiers of 1940 were the cream of the crop in terms of fitness, age, and training because the German army could pick and choose who to call to the colors. By 1944 the Germans were calling up pretty much everyone who could walk. So hopefully we can dispense with the size bit of Jason's position. If we dispense with that then we are left with the technological aspect. German technology was more advanced in 1944 than it was in 1940. Okay, well if that's all he's got then I'm not really sure what his point is or what he's trying to convince us of because nobody will dispute that the German military was more advanced in 1944 than it was in 1940. Of course everyone else was more advanced to so .....? So I guess what we are discussing then is whether the technologically more advanced Germans of 1944 were better against their Allied 1944 counterparts than the primitive Germans of 1940 were against their primitive 1940 Allied counterparts? Uh, well the record doesn't support that so now what? Oh yeah, that's why he keeps going back to the size of the 1944 army .... yeah .... but of course that's a biologically challenged representation as I indicated above. So we are then left with the Allies of 1940 were incompetent relative to the Germans of 1940. Well the French army before the war started was considered one of the best armies in the world. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find an army in 1940 that was more highly regarded than the French army - and that includes the German army. It is only through hindsight that we now see the German army as superior to the French, but at the time that was certainly not known. Certainly it's doubtful that the French army would have very many equals in 1940. So if the French army isn't considered 'good enough' then I'm not really sure what qualifies as 'good enough' to judge against the German army of 1940 relative to the army of 1944. So around and around we go where it stops nobody knows. Hopefully I can get off this ride now and stay off. I will certainly try. By the way Jason, I really do appreciate your contributions to the forum. Your presence reminds me of the CMx1 heydays. Hopefully more of the old guard CMx1 types will be coming around as the series progresses. (gets off the unicorn and steps off the merri go round.)

Whenever you get into a discussion with Jason C, you will never be 'correct' and your points will never be valid . His brain is so vast that there isn't a single angle he hasn't already considered and dismissed as irrelevant.

If you want regular lighting it looks like you are just going to have to stick to GaJ's thread.

They were frequently parked in the back on in the west in 1944 due to overwhelming Allied air superiority. This reason for leaving the vehicles behind is specified in numerous accounts that I've read regarding their use in the west. Also, the terrain that was most fought over in the west wasn't vehicle friendly. Normandy you have Bocage country and in Holland you have all the little waterways that jammed things up. Including them in an attack under those circumstances would just be inviting a Typhoon with rockets. It doesn't surprise me at all that in the west in 1944 they were mostly parked in the back. For set piece battles in the west in 1944 the SPW should probably be a rare bird. I would hesitate to make a sweeping conclusion about their usage in all situations during all years of the war based upon that though. There is no doubt in my mind that there were times when they were used in accordance with the doctrine that was specified above.