Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tero

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. while running CMBB in IBM A31p, 256Mb RAM ATI Mobility Fire GL 7800, Mobility Radeon 7500AGP (LX) chipset with 64Mb memory at 1600x1200 16bit high colour the lower tool bar black borders, "AI thinking" box, the "resolving action" ruler and clock counter white out occasionally. The problem occurs mainly when there is a unit selected but it also pumps out while scrolling the map and (apparently) when a unit is under the lower menu bar. Sometimes effects like rain screw the screen up and can not be resolved without a reboot. The craphics card settings are all in the default.
  2. Have you tried using MIME instead of 8-bit when you are sending your messages ? And you could always zip the game files.
  3. Originally posted by Andreas: finally got round to digging it up. It happened to the lead company of his Kampfgruppe at Paislinis, close to Rossienie. His KG was an armoured regiment plus a tank battalion plus bits & pieces. How close he was depends on how much he liked leading from the front. Judging by his writings, a lot I guess. P.33 Panzers on the eastern front, ed. Tsouras. Greenhill 2002. That is pretty conclusive. But the way I read it they snipers were not tied to the trees. They were IN the trees but at least this quote does not clearly indicate they were actu
  4. Originally posted by Munter: "auftauchen" is virtually the same expression as "dyka upp" in Swedish, i.e. "ilmestyä" in our beautifully concise mothertongue. IMO you should translate it as "sukeltaa esiin" instead of "ilmestyä". Translated like that the connotation is more evident. From L. Jäntti "Kannaksen suurtaisteluissa kesällä 1944" written in 1955 p 51: major Tirronen, the arty commander of 10D in the IVAK sector where the breakthrough happened June 10th, inspected the positions May 13th and discovered the Soviet troops had started digging assault trenches already in Ma
  5. Originally posted by Grisha: I think Jason makes a great assessment of the situation. By late 1944, the Soviet practice of intelligence/reconnaissance( razvedka ) and deception ( maskirovka ) was highly effective in producing surprise for their attacks. Soviet intelligence collection and processing probably enabled them to create precise plans of attack, while the deception planning guaranteed very favorable odds. What is more they anticipated the German reactions and used that to work in their favour.
  6. Originally posted by TSword: tero, You're arguing concerning the term "auftauchen" is most probably wrong. It just means that they came into sight. If i have an apointment with somebody for instance, i can refer to his appearance with the term "auftauchen", if i use "streetlanguange". I just wonder about that "come into sight by surprise" bit. My knowledge of the practises of the Red Army in situations like this predisposes me to think they might have burrowed down and dug trenches towards the Germans lines and used them to get the edge over the defenders who were under heavy
  7. Originally posted by Andreas: Konew, but Shukow got all the glory So did they "think about it a bit more" ? Or did they break the eggs as necessary ? Regarding the willingness to take casualties. According to Raus 'Panzers on the eastern front', the first encounter with snipers tied to trees was in June 1941. He professes disbelief that a soldier would do this, because there was no way to be taken POW. Interestingly, his feelings mirror those of British soldiers regarding snipers in Normandy. Even more interestingly this same theme was echoed in the Kukuska (Finnish sniper
  8. Originally posted by Mike: I don't know that the individual soldiers are better prepared to be casualties Well, a dug in Red Army unit with a deglared mission and some leadership was a bitch to uproot because they would not surrender. Seems this is dependant on the sector and time period though. The spearhead of the attacks really leaned on the barrage. Those that thought about it a bit more tended to do better - Suvarov, Brusilov....... Which of them was the one who actually took Berlin ?
  9. Originally posted by Grisha: Glantz has Soviet casualties for the Yassy-Kishinev Offensive as a whole in When Titans Clashed.... Hope it helps. The time period is 20-29 Aug. 44. Helps out some. Only WTC is unabridged Soviet data through and through so the figures are not as reliable as the ones in Glantz's later works.
  10. Originally posted by Andreas: tero, no data on the Soviet casualties unfortunately. Would be nice though to know how they fared in the breakthrough phase. I have been thinking about the positioning of the guns, and it may have been a conscious design decision, to ensure that should the front on the flanks of the strongpoint be ruptured, it would still have artillery to control the breakthrough sectors and to defend themselves. Concur. They clearly did not think about the eventuality the breakthrough attack would fall there. The kind of set up they chose was designed to deal with
  11. Originally posted by Andreas: Translating the following directly: Also in support of the fascists were one detachment (Abteilung = 3 batteries) 10,5cm and three mortar batteries (no calibre, expect 81mm or 120mm) which were situated one to two kilometres south of Leontina. Can you tell why they were situated so close to the front ? And bunched up like that ? Translating again: The Soviet attack was supported by three divisional artillery detachments, connected by radio. [...] Indicating they did have the ability to call in unprepared fire missions quickly on targets of opportunity
  12. Originally posted by Mike: We tend to think of Russians as using crude tactics and strategy, whereas they are as clever as anyone else. What made them so different was their willingness, or better preparedness to take the casualties.
  13. Originally posted by Michael emrys: Just hazarding a guess, maybe they started with the initial attack waves? In which case, they must have been much better protected by their accompanying inf than is the case in CMBO. This brings up also the question about their battlefield mobility (along with other "heavy" assets like HMG's). Are the heavy infantry assets too slow relative to the regular infantry movement speeds ?
  14. Originally posted by Andreas: The support elements would be the plethora of additional tank and artillery that I listed in the first post. OK. It was unclear if you meant the organic support elements or the general support elements. No idea what guns they were. I would suspect they were so close because this was a strongpoint in the frontline. Probably ATGs, IGs, captured Soviet 76.2mm guns etc.pp. What kind of terrain does the rounded terrain marker stand for ? Height gradient ? I would expect the heavy artillery to be further back. That would be reasonable. Still, "most"
  15. Originally posted by Andreas: This could indicate that they were hit by the breakthrough operation to such a degree that they needed a bit of R&R. That would be in line with other reports of similar operations. A spearhead unit would be expended and it would remain behind while other elements go past them to press the attack home. In that case, they would lose the attachments, and these would scuttle off doing what they do best elsewhere. Which attachements are these ? The support elements ? I'm not sure they would be transferred outside their assigned infantry battalions/regim
  • Create New...