ASL Veteran

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.

The halftracks were used pretty extensively on the Eastern Front from what I can tell after reading first hand and operational accounts. The distances travelled are pretty vast and the unit density is much lower (at least on the German side). So the mobile units were used as fire brigades many times. Often times mounted panzergrenadier units would just bump into Soviet units since the front lines were often very fluid and the precise location of advancing or retreating Soviet units was often unknown.

You are supposed to be noticing that the Rangers now have the Ranger shoulder patch.

Alright Jason, if it makes you happy then I'll be the first one to admit that Germans driving around in Panther tanks are much more capable at killing the enemy than Germans driving around in Pz I tanks. There I said it. Now I would just like to thank you for enlightening me on this opaque subject. I never would have realized that the Panther tank was more deadly on the battlefield than the Pz I if you hadn't come onto this forum and proposed that very thing. I now bow to your superior wisdom and thank you profusely for bringing your vast intellect to bear on this controversial and complicated subject.

I'll give you that - in most cases that's probably true, although probably not in every case. Due to the officer shortages the various staffs were being trimmed pretty ruthlessly though so the amount of support that the top guy got was diminished by 1944 relative to 1940. Many of the battalion commanders and up of 1940 would have had combat experience in WW1 though too (along with Poland of course), so I'm not certain how much of a difference that would have made. Certainly there was no evidence pre 1942 of any general lack of intelligence or tactical acumen in the German officer corp. I would put the command differences as close to even or maybe a slight edge to the 1944 officer corp. After all, many of these guys were the same guys throughout and I'm not sure how different their command styles got as the war progressed. That would be an interesting area to look into though - I wonder if any books are out there that explores that topic?

This is for your benefit Apocal because I'm under the impression that you don't have a good handle on what the German army of of 1944 consisted of "The shortage of German officers remained chronic throughout the war, despite efforts to speed up the commissioning process. Other battalion and staff functions, such as supply, signal, medical, intelligence, maintenance, and administrative were staffed by noncommissioned officers who had attended special schools to qualify them for these assignments. A surgeon was also authorized, but was not technically considered part of the battalions leadership staff, although he held officer’s rank. There are numerous examples that depict how rapidly these battalions lost their combat effectiveness when key leaders were killed or wounded at the initial stages of an attack. Although each battalion still had several officers distributed throughout the line companies who could technically fill the shoes of their fallen commanders, these men often lacked tactical acumen or the necessary experience required to handle large units. Unless the division concerned could quickly assign a Hauptmann or Major from its Fuhrerreserve (leader’s reserve) to take over such a leaderless battalion, the record shows that these units tended to disintigrate rapidly, often resulting in mass surrenders even when only lightly attacked by Allied units. This tendency only worsened as the war drew toward its end." Even in the first half of 1944 the majority of your German infantry divisions on the Eastern Front were, on average, at somewhere between 30% and 60% strength. The German divisions in France were mostly the best of the best because Hitler felt that if he could defeat the invasion he would have time to then deal with the Soviets afterwards since he thought it would be unlikely for the Allies to attempt a second invasion very quickly after the first one failed. So yeah, you would have some very experienced soldiers in the mix and those individuals were very effective. Once that one individual went down though, those Luftwaffe Flak NCOs with their little infantryman's leadership handbook just weren't up to the challenge. So German units in 1944 tended to be very fragile. In contrast, the 1940 edition German army would continue to function effectively if a key leader went down. So, if you are under the illusion that every German unit in 1944 was fully staffed with steely eyed veterans who had been in combat since 1939 then you are fooling yourself and you need to do a little research. The Germans of 1944 didn't forget how to fight. The Germans of 1944 had units that had a few men who were highly experienced and effective who were trying to keep a much more numerous group of barely trained draftees who may or may not be very motivated from getting themselves killed before the war ended.

Because the Germans of 1944 weren't all steely eyed veterans who had fought for 5 years and were confident of victory. Sure, there were a few sprinkled about in various formations, but for the most part German formations were staffed with troops drafted into the ranks in 1943 or 1944. The level of motivation and training wasn't even close in 1944 than it was in 1940. What makes you think that a bunch of Kriegsmarine transfers looking to desert at the first opportunity would perform better in combat than troops who had been in the peacetime military for five years, had a little combat experience, and were highly trained and motivated?

Quite obviously true True Sure, if they are driving around in Sherman tanks. The British soldiers of 1944 probably would have performed better than the British soldiers of 1940 if given the same equipment as the soldiers of 1940. As far as infantry equipment goes it largely is unchanged. Whether that experience TO&E and training component would have been dramatically different enough to 'cream' the Germans of 1940 is debateable though. I'm of the opinion that if you simply took the soldiers of 1944 and placed them in 1944 TO&E units with 1940 equipment the result would have largely been the same. It probably would have been a tough fight, but yeah, the 1944 edition of the Allies probably would have come out on top if given 1940 equipment. Especially since I think the American military probably reached it's peak of effectiveness in 1944. Although I'm not sure how well 1940 American tanks would have performed against 1940 French tanks. Quite possibly the result wouldn't go the American's way. I'm not so sure about that. If both sides had 1940 equipment I'm pretty confident that the 1940 edition would have come out on top. Only if technology is the cornerstone of your analysis. Of course, a simple technological analysis doesn't require much brain power to figure out does it? So you are right back at Panthers are better than Pz IIs again which is hardly enlightening.

I think we all need to face the facts here. I think this video sums up the German army in 1940 This here sums up the German army in 1944

Here is a sneak 'insider' video of some Operation Bagration gameplay

It was double tracked. Incidentally, today I think it's a major highway. I don't think the tracks exist anymore.

Jason, Jason .... you are getting yourself confused. From what I can tell there are three issues here that you are lumping into one 1. TO&E of various formations 2. The soldiers who 'fill out' those formations 3. The ability to maintain those formations in the field I think most of those who are reading this thread would agree that ... 1944 was a pretty busy year for Germany. I hope that you can agree to that as well ....? So is it your position that throughout the year 1944 every German division was fully staffed and equipped? Every German division had full access to all the fuel and ammunition they need for conducting operations? If not, then I would suggest that your use of 'mythical' in the bit I quoted above is a bit over the top wouldn't you agree? 1. Is the organization of the 1944 Panzer Division better than the organization of the 1940 Panzer Division .... sure I'll give you that. Is the organization of the 1944 infantry division better than the 1940 infantry division? That's a little unclear. 2. Is the average Landser in the German army of 1944 a superior warrior to the average Landser of 1940 or 1941? You have got to be kidding me. I think it's safe to say that most German soldiers in 1944 knew that the war wasn't going to go their way. The soldier of 1941 had known nothing but victory and was riding high in the saddle. The soldier of 1944 on average was not as well trained or led than the soldier of 1940. It's not even close. Even your pet SS Panzer divisions were drafting soldiers into their ranks from questionable sources. Most of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine transfers didn't want to be there. They usually deserted at the first opportunity. They actually viewed it as a serious 'demotion' to go from Luftwaffe ground crew to common mud eating infantryman - and who can blame them? The Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine transfers are actually the pick of the litter too! German soldiers were actually conducting human wave attacks by the last months of 1944. 3. You really think that the divisions of 1944 were as well supplied or equipped as the armies of 1941? Perhaps if the US Airforce wasn't bombing every moving train into oblivion, but even then after the Rumanian oil fields were lost ..... ? Laquered ammunition was starting to get issued because of a shortage of brass by the end of 1944. Even during Normandy the German artillery was no match for the Allied artillery. Many accounts state something to the effect that the Allies were firing 20 rounds of artillery for every one the Germans fired. Even then, German preparatory barrages for attacks had to be cut short because of .... wait for it .... insufficient artillery ammunition. Please try to stay grounded Jason.

I wasn't following this thread very closely and debating something with Jason C is the equivalent of discussing something with a shifty brick wall. If the debate is that Panther tanks are better than Pz II tanks then thanks for stating the obvious. Generally speaking the human material that makes up a national army declines in quality the longer the war goes on. In order to make up the gaps in the ranks the pool of men that you have to choose from has to keep expanding because the 'class of x' is all dead or injured after a year of battle or you have to call up both the class of x and then the class of y a year early to make up a shortfall. The motivation level of the new troops is also generally going to be a lot lower than those who were in the military before the war began. Sure, there is an increase in combat efficiency for a while after the beginning of the war but by 1944 many German units had been rebuilt many times over. Trying to pin down when any unit is at 'the peak of it's experience' is a bit of a joke. I can say with 100% certainty that there wasn't a single German division of any type in 1944 that didn't have a large proportion of green troops in it. Very few of them were ever at full TO&E strength. In fact, many didn't even resemble the TO&E. Officers were constantly in short supply and the training period for new officers and NCOs was being reduced to meet the demand for replacements. Ammunition shortages were prevalent as well. Perhaps if the issue being discussed could be defined a little better it would be helpful.

Of course, you must know that an early war panzer division had two panzer regiments in it instead of just one.

Your healthcare isn't free unless all your doctors and nurses are working pro bono and the facilities pay nothing for power and maintenance.

There is a shot of the Fallschirmjager 75mm recoilless rifle in there - that might be what you are seeing.

:confused: You can buy CM games digital download only. You just can't pre order a digital download only copy. If you want to do the digital download only you just have to wait until the day it's released to buy it (unless I'm misunderstanding your comment).

I think that MP over on the right has had one too many Brats

No, it makes it version 2.0 the way 2.0 was meant to be when it was originally released.