ASL Veteran

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.

There is a lot more than just that one spectator giving it away. There is an entire wall of spectators standing at a right angle to the German line of defense on the far side of the field. You can also hear a loudspeaker announcer giving the blow by blow to the audience. Then there is the yellow caution tape strung between the trees along the river bank as the 'Soviet' tank comes rolling into view. There is also no recoil for the AT gun of course.

Don't take it too hard Green. The continuing commentary from the peanut gallery just comes with the territory. They are just a bunch of peanuts though so nothing to lose any sleep over. In fact, if I were a peanut I would be getting a little worried about now since the squirrels will be coming out in force pretty soon. Just putting an AAR together, let alone doing well in one, takes a lot of work so I'm sure everyone appreciates your efforts.

Well John, I have just the thing for you. It's called FM 21-75 Combat Skills of the Soldier. On page 3-5 it just happens to have information on just the thing you are discussing here. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS WHILE MOVING This section furnishes guidance for the immediate actions you should take when reacting to enemy indirect fire and flares. REACTING TO INDIRECT FIRE If you come under indirect fire while moving, quickly look to your leader for orders. He will either tell you to run out of the impact area in a certain direction or will tell you to follow him. If you cannot see your leader, but can see other team members, follow them. If alone, or if you cannot see your leader or the other team members, run out of the area in a direction away from the incoming fire.

I also think that there are too many variables as well. It would be different in 1941 than in 1944 and it would also be different depending upon if there is a unit full of 'liberated' Ukrainians or a group of SS fighting a Red Banner unit (At least the Germans referred to Red Banner units, but I'm a little shaky on what that means exactly from the Soviet perspective).

Why would you need to know the points? The entire 'point' of having points is so that opposing players can purchase their own troops before fighting a quick battle. If you are making a scenario the player can't purchase their own force, therefore the points aren't needed. The player has to use the force you give them and you can just 'buy' whatever you want to and plop it into the scenario. You might want to use the points to buy the opposing forces, but if the player isn't buying their own force then it seems rather pointless to me for you to use the points since allowing the player to buy their own personally tailored force is the entire point behind having points in the first place. Points are also not an indicator of 'balance'. If you buy a thousand points worth of trucks for one side and a thousand points worth of tanks for the other side the fact that both sides just spent a thousand points doesn't make the match up balanced. It's really 'pointless' to have points in the editor because they serve no purpose. They aren't an indicator of balance. They aren't being spent by the player who is commanding a specific force. I hope you get my point.

There are no purchase points in the editor.

Do you have any sound equipment? Maybe you can get some great sound files for Combat Mission.

John, have you seen the Peanut Gallery thread for this battle? You might try jumping in there for a while. Neither Bil nor Green is allowed in that thread so you can be as free with the intel as you like over there.