Olle Petersson

In 1943 all SS Panzergrenadier divisions had a Tiger company (2 Tiger platoons and 2 PzKw IIIN platoons). In 1944 these divisions became Panzer divisions. Cheers Olle

Here's touched on one thing I lack in CMBB; Frozen ground condition. - Hard as pavement (or thereabout), so Open, Steppe, Soft, Grain and Dirt road will provide easy going for vehicles. - No risk of actual bogging, but you can still get a puncture or throw a track. Still better movement than Dry though. - Negligable snow. - The ground is saturated with ice, so there's almost no risk of spreading fires. This was the ground condition in the Moscow area early December '41, before the snow got deep. Cheers Olle

I've had the same experience. In a scenario I played one T26 took at least 20 penetrating hits from ATRs (no other AT weapons present) before the battle ended. The crew was broken or routed, but the tank had just been sitting there for several turns. IMO the crew should have hit reverse and driven off once scared enough. Cheers Olle

Interesting thread... I haven't yet played many battles where the AI had a chance to use combined arms tactics, so I'll have to trust your word on the behaviour. What strikes me is that the AI does not strive to use historical tactics, but more modern and effective (like most players). I'm currently half way through the book Tank versus Tank, by Kenneth Macksey. It comments the use of tanks, by themselves and in combination with infantry, ATGs and artillery. According to this book... ... the Soviet army mostly used WW1 tactics up to mid '42. This means most tanks were spread in penny packets among the infantry, and coordination with the infantry was almost non-existant. Tanks moving in front of the infantry was not uncommon. When tanks were used in company strength or more they often fought on their own, without any other support. ... from mid '42 tanks were (beginning to be) used massed and in coordination with the other arms. ... German '41 tactic was combined arms, with tanks leading (shortly) in front of the infantry. This wasn't as bad as it sounds, since most ATGs (37mm and 45mm) needed clean flank shots to score kills and thus had to let the German infantry get fairly close before they could start shooting. Once the battle begun it wasn't uncommon that the infantry was held up in combat while the tanks moved on, possibly into an ambush. ... later on all participants used the tactics that still rule; Lead with infantry to find ambushers. Use artillery and other heavy weapons to soften the defense. Then move in with tanks. Would it be nice to have an option where the AI use "historical" tactics? I think so. Cheers Olle

I assume they brought some, but lagging a bit behind. It's highly unlikely they lead with the barn doors, so I expect those to arrive on map no earlier than turn #2 and probably later. If the Soviet counter attack is done swiftly you're likely to catch the 88's while setting up. Cheers Olle

My variant to this is Hide-AND-Sneak; 1) Cancel any targeting for the unit to retreat. 2) Set it on Hide. 3) Order it to Sneak away to a point out of sight. This will have all the benefits of YD's suggestion, but get your troops out faster. Cheers Olle

Speeding forward with the heavies would be perfectly in line with their historical use. At 500m hit chances are much better, and the German tank guns and 37mm ATGs still can't hurt the front of a KV-1. If it's summer the Germans furthermore are not likely to be well prepared, and a swift attack will then win the battle before the Germans have deployed their heavy guns. In this case closing to 300m seem like a good option, since the Soviet tank crews are low on skill and experience... Cheers Olle

It was a recon vehicle when they started building it... Design purpose: PzKw I - Training tank, not meant for combat. PzKw II - Recon vehicle for the tank battalions. PzKw III - Breakthrough tank, mainly for AT use. PzKw IV - Support tank with good HE capability. PzKw VI - Heavy tank to aid assaults. PzKw V - Medium tank to replace PzKw III and PzKw IV. The only reason PzKw I and PzKw II saw combat was shortage of tanks. PzKw IIF was used for recon from '41 to mid '43. '41 to '42 it was also used to fill gaps in the tank companies. Cheers Olle

1) I don't know, but nowadays it's definitely one of the tasks for sharpshooters. 2a) In 1941 I'd say "fairly". Soviet heavies sitting idle looking for some "turkey shooting" as the weaker German tanks try to pass... 2b) Combat with unsupported tanks did occur every now and then... Tactically the Germans ruled WRT combined arms mobile warfare, and it was really that which helped them overcome the Soviet heavies. This didn't prevent their tanks from outpacing the supporting infantry, especially during breakthroughs, when the Panzers could end up miles in front of their infantry. The Soviets had their heavy tanks spread in penny packets, and cooperation between armour, infantry and artillery was almost non-existant. Therefore tanks would often lead attacks or even attack on their own. So the more common would be Soviet armour vs German combined arms. 3) I don't think so... ________________________________________ What guns did the Germans normally use to knock out the KV tanks? Here's a list: 88mm FlAK gun 105mm Howitzer, divisional artillery deployed for direct fire. 105mm (aka "10cm") Cannon, corps/army artillery deployed for direct fire. PaK 38, when available. The 10cm cannon had the best punch, but the 88 was more common and had faster traverse and higher ROF. Regular infantry assaults and heavy indirect artillery seem to have been common as well. Cheers Olle

The other option is to use it Soviet style; put one or more batteries of 76mm field artillery in an overwatch position at your rear area, thus able to respond with direct fire to any call... Cheers Olle

That "bug" is fixed! Cheers Olle

Regarding the original question I guess there's a spelling error in the ID'd German AFV; It shouldn't read PzKw IV but Tiger IV. The Tiger IV isn't too well known, but did make a few appearances on the east front, as can be seen on the pictures below... Now if I were the commander of that Soviet assault gun and came across one of these , I'd surely retreat! Cheers Olle [ November 28, 2002, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: Olle Petersson ]

Hi all! I've been away from this forum for a while and is now catching up. Did a search on the subject of difference between CDV and BFC version and no post-CDV-release postings came up, so here goes... Bought Combat Mission 2[sic] some time after the release here in Sweden 18th october. All but the very worst fear came true; Fear: The game won't install/run or it will crash the computer. Actuality: It runs fine, as long as I use the original disk. Fear: I won't be able to make a wear-and-tear copy of the disk, on separate CD or virtual CD. Actuality: True in both cases. When my (non CD-standard) disk is worn out, within a decade or two, it will probably be difficult to get a new copy. Fear: No printed manual. Actuality: 1/3 of a printed manual, the rest on file. The choice of printed chapters seem a bit strange too; - It's essential to have the tutorial game walk-throughs on paper, which they're not by default. - The editor manual is also on file. - The chapter called The Ostfront, last chapter of the manual, starts Obviously this chapter should have a more prominent place, since nobody not interested in reading the whole manual will intuitively start with this chapter. Anyway, I now have CDV's tiny excuse for manual together with 140+ pages of A4 printout from the PDF. They don't go well together if I wan't the chapters in order according to the table of contents... Found the possibility to order the real thing instead (Thank you BFC ) and will do so promptly! Fear: No intro movie. Actuality: I get to see CDV's logotype each time the game starts, but no movie. (Is there any in the BFC version?) Fear: Waffen Grenadiers instead of Waffen SS. Actuality: Waffen Grenadiers instead of Waffen SS. (Not very annoying.) Fear: Patches for CDV version will be available later than BFC patches. Actuality: Version 1.01 took just over a week to make it from BFC to CDV, and got some 43MB added enroute. Someone made a comment the extra data is "vehicles" (textures?) that are supplied with the original BFC version but removed from the CDV version. Is this true? Which vehicles are concerened, apart from the ones mentioned in the BFC 1.01 readme file? Fear: Other differences I don't know about... Cheers Olle

I agree that it's rude to just stop sending return files. The only acceptable reason for doing so is a computer crash or similar force majeure. However, I do accept longer return times now and then. I'm one of those with little time due to family issues, and previously a PBEM game usually took at least half a year from start to finish. (About one turn/week.) The last few months my time for CM has dropped though, and now I'm returning files much less frequent. Cheers Olle

Spot on! And it holds true into the '70ies, with Cheftain and M60 tanks using even more advanced stabilisers. (As proven by the Brits, in 1973 IIRC, when they found out that the S-tank with it's fixed gun was just as good as the Cheftain in the "firing while moving" test.) Only from Challenger, M1, Leopard 2 and on are the stabilisers good enough to allow accurate firing on the move. Cheers Olle

Just to make it clear: Train tracks in CMBO are bad for all vehicles in all ground conditions. At best the vehicles just move a bit slower than in scattered trees, at worst they get stuck. Cheers Olle

It was nothing fancy. IIRC I used one British infantry platoon vs one German rifle platoon. (To have about equal squads.) Terrain was flat woods, I think. One platoon had the squads spread out, out of C&C, stationary. The opposition went hunting for them; as single squad, as two squads and as split squad. Immediately close to within 40m when spotted. Most of the results were expected; - One on one full squads were an even match. - Two on one gave superior advantage to the two. - Split on full gave advantage to the split, provided the teams attacked from different directions. Cheers Olle

A simple test I did some time ago showed that in melee one on one squad, then splitting the squad and set up crossfire is better. Then the full squad (opponent) will be supressed most of the time. Cheers Olle

Correct. But SOP included the use of a sustained barrage to "block" a route or two. A typical British defence would include a "Stonk" firing a sustained barrage throughout the battle. This is impossible in QBs. Cheers Olle

Don't forget the effect of shadow! With sunshine just about anything in shadow become nearly invisible from anyone outside that shadow, LOS or not. This became very clear to me when a friend dressed in a bright yellow sweater was standing inside a patch of trees. He stood about five metres in, and I sat some 15 metres outside. There were no interviening bushes or low branches, but I still couldn't see him. My eyes adapted to the bright light in front of the trees, so everything in shadow was black. Cheers Olle

What's really disproportionate is the probability to spot a hull down tank. The absolute probability to hit the turret should increas with hull down, but the probability to see the turret in the first place is much lower. Hence; - Full view: high probability of being shot at, with little probability per shot to hit turret. - Hull down: low probability of being shot at, with higher probability of turret hits if the enemy shoots back. So it's sort of a gamble. The "best" should be to stay hull down until the enemy starts shooting back. Cheers Olle

You can always compare muzzle velocity. That's the most important relative factor for accuracy in the CM model. You do have engineers, lider troops and paratroopers... Of course there were other "squad types" as well, but they fall within at least one of the following categories; - rarely (if ever) used in battles of CM scale. - too few to bother about. - too close to the regular rifle squad to bother about giving it a different name. (The ones I'd like to see, but won't, in CMBO are US armored infantry (from platoon to battalion) and British carrier recon teams (dismounted, by platoon). These typically had a higher portion of automatic weapons than the regular foot sluggers AND were common on the battlefield. Correct. This isn't very well modelled in CM, but you can always imagine that the tank does a short halt to fire even if it looks as if it's moving... Cheers Olle

Then I'm inhumanly good! I would have no problem doing it with a kpist m/45B, which do have some recoil and only automatic setting. The trick is to release the trigger between each shot, so that the effect is the same as if using semi automatic. It's no problem to do so, the grouping will be tight, and it will (by some definition) be "automatic" fire because that's the weapons setting. Furthermore it will fit within the description of the firing test mentioned above. (Using burst fire from said weapon I'd have a >30cm spread on a three round burst, shooting standing without support at 25m range.) Cheers Olle

Nobody's mentioned the ultimate giggle; Space Marines in WW2! I've been toying around with this idea for Command Decision (a miniatures wargame for WW2). Mixing WH40k Epic figures with WW2 microarmor in the same game and battle. Stats for the WH40k units would be straight translations from their rulebooks, which isn't that difficult since all three games (CD, WH40k, Epic) have 50yds as a basic distance measure. The "giggle" comes when you realise that in 40k long range weapons have a maximum range of some 150yds, and most of the arsenal is used within 50yds. WW2 units typically have effective ranges from 200yds and up, and anything within 50yds is "close assault". (The "Griffin" Imperial heavy mortar have maximum 100yds range, which would barely be enough to get the vehicle clear from the area effect of it's own fire. ) Cheers Olle