ASL Veteran

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

Like I mentioned, the performance for Nordwind could be described as uneven and the descriptions I mentioned were for the initial attacks on New Year's Day with specific Volksgrenadier units.  You also can't draw much of a conclusion from total casualty figures since those would include a lot of non combat related casualties and there were phases of the operation where both sides were attacking and defending at different times.  Hatten, for example, was an intense city fight for more than a week before the Americans elected to voluntarily withdraw several miles behind a river to shorten their lines.  The Germans were so battered and bruised from that battle that they didn't even follow up the American withdrawal for something like twelve hours if I remember right (scenario Hot Time in Hatten and Breaking the Line).  The US twelfth armored division also launched a division level counterattack on the German bridgehead over the Rhine and was annihilated (scenario: A War Without Mercy and Last Man Out).  On the approach march to Wingen sur Moder the Nord battalions almost wiped out an entire American company in prepared defensive positions and followed that up by capturing or killing several HQ and supply units in the town itself without suffering very many casualties in the process (scenario Wax Museum and Drive them Out).  Troops out in winter conditions with WW2 era equipment for extended lengths of time would also suffer a lot of frostbite and sickness related losses.  So basically quoting Operation level casualty figures tells you nothing of value with regard to how the units fought tactically.  In order to know what happened tactically at the squad and platoon level you have to read first hand accounts.

Not sure what happened there but I triple posted

Not sure what happened there but I triple posted

Triple post

I think my favorite scenario of the seven for Nordwind would have to be Custer's Stand.  That one is a direct result of the extended city fight in Hatten because when the main German attack stalled in Hatten (on the road to the Hagenau Forest) the Germans attempted a Rhine crossing a bit to the south in the area where Custer's Stand is set.  The entire area was apparently socked in with fog for all of the battles near the Rhine and there is but a single American company defending an entire town on a very large map.  The Germans come from three different directions and the American company has to stretch a little thinly in order to hold the town.  Due to the conditions you have German paratroops and Volksgrenadiers infiltrating in through the dawn fog since its nearly impossible for the Americans to guard every approach with sufficient strength.  These American forces were some of the regiments that were broken up from their parent divisions, attached to various veteran divisions, and dispersed along the Rhine in isolated towns and other strongpoints.

Like I mentioned, the performance for Nordwind could be described as uneven and the descriptions I mentioned were for the initial attacks on New Year's Day with specific Volksgrenadier units.  You also can't draw much of a conclusion from total casualty figures since those would include a lot of non combat related casualties and there were phases of the operation where both sides were attacking and defending at different times.  Hatten, for example, was an intense city fight for more than a week before the Americans elected to voluntarily withdraw several miles behind a river to shorten their lines.  The Germans were so battered and bruised from that battle that they didn't even follow up the American withdrawal for something like twelve hours if I remember right (scenario Hot Time in Hatten and Breaking the Line).  The US twelfth armored division also launched a division level counterattack on the German bridgehead over the Rhine and was annihilated (scenario: A War Without Mercy and Last Man Out).  On the approach march to Wingen sur Moder the Nord battalions almost wiped out an entire American company in prepared defensive positions and followed that up by capturing or killing several HQ and supply units in the town itself without suffering very many casualties in the process (scenario Wax Museum and Drive them Out).  Troops out in winter conditions with WW2 era equipment for extended lengths of time would also suffer a lot of frostbite and sickness related losses.  So basically quoting Operation level casualty figures tells you nothing of value with regard to how the units fought tactically.  In order to know what happened tactically at the squad and platoon level you have to read first hand accounts.

Like I mentioned, the performance for Nordwind could be described as uneven and the descriptions I mentioned were for the initial attacks on New Year's Day with specific Volksgrenadier units.  You also can't draw much of a conclusion from total casualty figures since those would include a lot of non combat related casualties and there were phases of the operation where both sides were attacking and defending at different times.  Hatten, for example, was an intense city fight for more than a week before the Americans elected to voluntarily withdraw several miles behind a river to shorten their lines.  The Germans were so battered and bruised from that battle that they didn't even follow up the American withdrawal for something like twelve hours if I remember right (scenario Hot Time in Hatten and Breaking the Line).  The US twelfth armored division also launched a division level counterattack on the German bridgehead over the Rhine and was annihilated (scenario: A War Without Mercy and Last Man Out).  On the approach march to Wingen sur Moder the Nord battalions almost wiped out an entire American company in prepared defensive positions and followed that up by capturing or killing several HQ and supply units in the town itself without suffering very many casualties in the process (scenario Wax Museum and Drive them Out).  Troops out in winter conditions with WW2 era equipment for extended lengths of time would also suffer a lot of frostbite and sickness related losses.  So basically quoting Operation level casualty figures tells you nothing of value with regard to how the units fought tactically.  In order to know what happened tactically at the squad and platoon level you have to read first hand accounts.

Like I mentioned, the performance for Nordwind could be described as uneven and the descriptions I mentioned were for the initial attacks on New Year's Day with specific Volksgrenadier units.  You also can't draw much of a conclusion from total casualty figures since those would include a lot of non combat related casualties and there were phases of the operation where both sides were attacking and defending at different times.  Hatten, for example, was an intense city fight for more than a week before the Americans elected to voluntarily withdraw several miles behind a river to shorten their lines.  The Germans were so battered and bruised from that battle that they didn't even follow up the American withdrawal for something like twelve hours if I remember right (scenario Hot Time in Hatten and Breaking the Line).  The US twelfth armored division also launched a division level counterattack on the German bridgehead over the Rhine and was annihilated (scenario: A War Without Mercy and Last Man Out).  On the approach march to Wingen sur Moder the Nord battalions almost wiped out an entire American company in prepared defensive positions and followed that up by capturing or killing several HQ and supply units in the town itself without suffering very many casualties in the process (scenario Wax Museum and Drive them Out).  Troops out in winter conditions with WW2 era equipment for extended lengths of time would also suffer a lot of frostbite and sickness related losses.  So basically quoting Operation level casualty figures tells you nothing of value with regard to how the units fought tactically.  In order to know what happened tactically at the squad and platoon level you have to read first hand accounts.

The Germans in Hot Time in Hatten get about 20 mortars and 6 150 Infantry Guns.  They just become available as part of the reinforcements that are listed so the two tubes is just what you get at start.  Hot Time In Hatten is in the Alsace region and was part of Nordwind not the Bulge and the German units involved in that operation were mostly scratch units that didn't have much in the way of standard TO&Es or heavy artillery.  Nebelwerfers, from a scenario perspective, are also a bit limiting since they are primarily an area saturation weapon and so their usefulness or applicability are fairly limited.  They just aren't a weapon that is typically going to be used for on call strikes on precision targets which is what a player is primarily going to be using when playing.  Artillery in general terms is probably much more accurate in game than it would have been at the time for a variety of reasons that have been discussed and so the Nebelwerfer in game would benefit greatly from that extra accuracy.  The main thing about rocket artillery in the game is that they don't sound any different than normal artillery which is disappointing to me since I remember with some fondness the weird space rocket sounds in CM1 when Nebelwerfers were used. 

You can make a claim that whatever scenario you are referencing is historically inaccurate from a weapon and equipment perspective, but that's only because the scenario designer chose to create a scenario with the unit in question.  If the unit in question was not portrayed within the context of a specific scenario then the historical inaccuracy debate about the equipment used by any specific unit likewise disappears.  Therefore in order to achieve the level of 'historical accuracy' that you want any scenarios depicting units that used non standard German weaponry would have to remain unmade thus preserving the 'historical accuracy' of the equipment being used.  All you achieve through that is to limit the scenario possibilities that players can enjoy because all of that non standard equipment was not going to be included and was never planned for inclusion.  If you want to point the finger of 'historical inaccuracy' at anyone then the finger would be pointed at whomever designed and created a particular scenario and not the game itself.  By your definition of historical accuracy the game is perfectly fine so long as the units being portrayed in scenarios were issued standard weapons and equipment.
My reference to the 461st Infantry Division was not a specific one, but rather to be read as 'random German infantry division picked out of a hat'.  Many, perhaps most, German Panzer Division TO&Es have quite a bit of variation between them, but most of those differences can't be portrayed within the game.  Scenario designers just do the best they can with what's available in the game.  The alternative is that you would get less varied content because in order to meet your standards many scenarios would remain unmade.  It is also a tall ask for every scenario designer to be so familiar with any particular unit being portrayed that they would know how many French machine guns that specific unit employed.  It's one thing if you pick up a book about a specific division and that book has every weapon listed, but if you are designing scenarios you have to design scenarios across many different units, locations, and situations and in most cases just knowing what battalion was involved in a particular battle or even where everyone was actually located on a map is nearly impossible.  Try creating a scenario about a Soviet attack in Poland and then tell us all how easy it is to identify even a specific division that may possibly have been involved in a particular battalion sized battle let alone what model machine guns any particular squad might be carrying.  Scenario research is hit and miss at times.  Sometimes you get lucky and have first hand accounts and good maps and sometimes you have to wing it and make a few assumptions.  You have picked up a book with detailed information about a specific unit and you are extrapolating inaccuracies from that.  A scenario designer might read about an engagement that sounds interesting and then try to locate the battle on a map and try to figure out exactly who was there.  Your method might work if you only want to make scenarios about that specific unit in the book you have, but if you want to broaden your horizons you have to go into territory where the information isn't quite so precise or even available under any context.

The second line infantry divisions in question would have had either MG34s or more likely captured Czech, French, Polish, Belgian, older German models from WW1 and other machine guns of various types that were used by various German forces throughout the war.  I don't think he means that the entire division had only two machine guns of any type.  Possibly even more commonly used would be various captured French and other types of rifles.  Of course, CMBN does not include any of that for a variety of reasons.  Sure, it would be nice to have the full catalog of various German small arms but in the grand scheme of things BFC has to weigh whether or not the art for a new weapon model and coding for various sized magazines for each of the hundreds of various smalls arms is really worth the time and effort because the 461st reserve infantry division had Maxim machine guns instead of MG42s.  That isn't a question of 'historical accuracy' but rather a question of inclusion or exclusion.  The game isn't historically inaccurate because the German sledge mounted MG08 isn't included in the game.  It's just not included in the game that's all.  Not even counting the captured weapons, the German MGs used by various units would include the MG13, MG38, MG30, MG15, MG08, MG08/15, MG34, MG42, and the MG151/15.  The Czech built ZB vz/26, ZB vz/30, ZB vz/53, and ZB vz/60 were also used by second line units and SS foreign volunteers.  The list could go on and on, but really what difference does it make in the game overall and how impactful would it be?  There isn't even a way to specify certain weapon mixes in squads in the editor so even if all these weapons were in the game there is no way to specifically set a squad to have a certain desired weapon mix so whatever weapon mix you would get would effectively be random.  The game doesn't know whether the unit you are portraying is a first line infantry division or a second line infantry division.  The game only knows you are selecting a German infantry unit.  How historically accurate would that be to have ZB vz/26s showing up in first line infantry squads?   

In game the tracks should just slow movement down with a small chance of bog as I recall.  Whether the vehicle crosses the tracks or not I suppose would depend upon the layout of the tracks.  If the tracks went all the way from one end of the map to the other with no break then I can't see why the vehicle would choose a different path since it would be impossible to avoid crossing the tracks.  If the tracks ended or turned near where you were trying to cross them I suppose the AI might choose to go around the tracks instead of over them.  Without a screen shot or at a minimum the name of the map if a QB or scenario title there really is no way to know one way or another what was going on with the situation being described.  It does sound odd or out of the ordinary though.  Perhaps there is some odd or prohibited terrain along the path chosen that is in the vicinity of the proposed crossing point that is affecting the movement path rather than the exact point where the path crosses the tracks and so the tracks might not be causing the path alteration but rather something else nearby might be instead.

If you are in a recon vehicle and you find that you are using your weapon then you are probably either performing a task that your unit wasn't designed to perform or you were caught by surprise.  I would think that in the case of the Stuart Recon if you are using your .50 cal then you probably screwed up.  I'm talking in the real life use of the vehicle not the in game use.  There were situations, especially with German recon units, where recon units were pressed into front line service, but in those cases the vehicles were typically left out of harms way as much as possible while the recon troops themselves would be used as basic foot infantry.  A recon vehicle would more typically be positioned somewhere that a vehicle commander could use his binoculars to scan the terrain for information and in many cases that scanning would probably be done on foot with the vehicle in a concealed spot nearby.  I have run across several personal accounts of WW2 type recon although it would probably take a lot of digging for me to find the relevant passages since I don't remember exactly where I read them in many cases.

If you are in a recon vehicle and you find that you are using your weapon then you are probably either performing a task that your unit wasn't designed to perform or you were caught by surprise.  I would think that in the case of the Stuart Recon if you are using your .50 cal then you probably screwed up.  I'm talking in the real life use of the vehicle not the in game use.  There were situations, especially with German recon units, where recon units were pressed into front line service, but in those cases the vehicles were typically left out of harms way as much as possible while the recon troops themselves would be used as basic foot infantry.  A recon vehicle would more typically be positioned somewhere that a vehicle commander could use his binoculars to scan the terrain for information and in many cases that scanning would probably be done on foot with the vehicle in a concealed spot nearby.  I have run across several personal accounts of WW2 type recon although it would probably take a lot of digging for me to find the relevant passages since I don't remember exactly where I read them in many cases.

Either 'The Blitz' or 'A Few Good Men' would be good sites for finding opponents.  I think they both have ladder games, but you can have casual games at both sites as well.  If someone wants a ladder game they will usually specify that they want a ladder game when looking for an opponent.

Either 'The Blitz' or 'A Few Good Men' would be good sites for finding opponents.  I think they both have ladder games, but you can have casual games at both sites as well.  If someone wants a ladder game they will usually specify that they want a ladder game when looking for an opponent.

The problem for me with the AT gun scene is not necessarily that prisoners were shot and killed by individual soldiers.  I'm sure that happened.  I'm sure American soldiers did it on occasion in the heat of the moment.  Perhaps even fully controlled German prisoners may have been executed by American soldiers in instances where they weren't certain of being able to move them off to POW camps.  Certainly in the Pacific so many Japanese soldiers were hiding grenades and other things that it was probably difficult to trust any Japanese soldier who was attempting to surrender since it was a rarity and when it did happen there was a high probability of being tricked.  SS soldiers who surrendered or were captured would frequently act like arrogant jerks from what I have read and so I'm sure if someone was giving you attitude that it would be a lot easier to pull the trigger.  The problem for me with that scene is this - prisoners have intelligence value.  Units send patrols out to capture prisoners as their main objective so commanders know the value of prisoners.  Brad Pitt is not the only officer present during this attack or the aftermath.  Where was the infantry company commander?  Was the infantry a battalion sized group?  I don't remember.  If so where was the infantry battalion commander?  Where were all the other company commanders and platoon commanders?  That's the problem for me.  The scene appears to portray Brad Pitt executing a German soldier with the full cooperation of every single American soldier who happens to be standing around after the attack.  That changes the execution portrayal from one of 'well that's just war and people do things that are unsavory' to one of 'well that's war and American soldiers institutionally executed enemy soldiers attempting to surrender."  If Brad Pitt's character simply shot the guy and everyone else sort of looked around and thought - what just happened?  Well that's one thing.  That's not how the scene went as I remember it.  The entire American task force was basically standing around watching with approval as Brad Pitt executes a German soldier.  If the German soldier was in the SS then perhaps it would be a little more believable / understandable but because it is just a random dude who isn't a fanatic it makes no sense (at least I don't remember him as being in the SS - if he was then my opinion might change although I still probably wouldn't like it).  Commanders understand the intelligence value that prisoners have and for Brad Pitt to go through that whole scene without a single officer from the other units present at least making an effort to talk him out of his execution during his long diatribe with the prisoner seems more like an attack on the US Army as an institution than the portrayal of a soldier who had been desensitized by war.  After the scene with the women and the scene with the AT gun I basically couldn't watch it any more and had to turn it off.  They had some stuff with shooting Germans attempting to surrender in Band of Brothers and there was some of that in Saving Private Ryan too and they manage to pull that off okay.  This movie takes it to an extreme though. 

The problem for me with the AT gun scene is not necessarily that prisoners were shot and killed by individual soldiers.  I'm sure that happened.  I'm sure American soldiers did it on occasion in the heat of the moment.  Perhaps even fully controlled German prisoners may have been executed by American soldiers in instances where they weren't certain of being able to move them off to POW camps.  Certainly in the Pacific so many Japanese soldiers were hiding grenades and other things that it was probably difficult to trust any Japanese soldier who was attempting to surrender since it was a rarity and when it did happen there was a high probability of being tricked.  SS soldiers who surrendered or were captured would frequently act like arrogant jerks from what I have read and so I'm sure if someone was giving you attitude that it would be a lot easier to pull the trigger.  The problem for me with that scene is this - prisoners have intelligence value.  Units send patrols out to capture prisoners as their main objective so commanders know the value of prisoners.  Brad Pitt is not the only officer present during this attack or the aftermath.  Where was the infantry company commander?  Was the infantry a battalion sized group?  I don't remember.  If so where was the infantry battalion commander?  Where were all the other company commanders and platoon commanders?  That's the problem for me.  The scene appears to portray Brad Pitt executing a German soldier with the full cooperation of every single American soldier who happens to be standing around after the attack.  That changes the execution portrayal from one of 'well that's just war and people do things that are unsavory' to one of 'well that's war and American soldiers institutionally executed enemy soldiers attempting to surrender."  If Brad Pitt's character simply shot the guy and everyone else sort of looked around and thought - what just happened?  Well that's one thing.  That's not how the scene went as I remember it.  The entire American task force was basically standing around watching with approval as Brad Pitt executes a German soldier.  If the German soldier was in the SS then perhaps it would be a little more believable / understandable but because it is just a random dude who isn't a fanatic it makes no sense (at least I don't remember him as being in the SS - if he was then my opinion might change although I still probably wouldn't like it).  Commanders understand the intelligence value that prisoners have and for Brad Pitt to go through that whole scene without a single officer from the other units present at least making an effort to talk him out of his execution during his long diatribe with the prisoner seems more like an attack on the US Army as an institution than the portrayal of a soldier who had been desensitized by war.  After the scene with the women and the scene with the AT gun I basically couldn't watch it any more and had to turn it off.  They had some stuff with shooting Germans attempting to surrender in Band of Brothers and there was some of that in Saving Private Ryan too and they manage to pull that off okay.  This movie takes it to an extreme though.