Grisha

The only other thing I'll say is, I wouldn't want to be the rear gunner in an Il-2. No way.

Actually, they did use a fuel aerosol dispenser system, called a VAP - something or rather. Il-2s had two special attachments on each wing to dispense the stuff, and it was quite nasty. A large, long stream of fire. . . . . . . oh, wait, that's what you meant (I have Oleg's game, Shturmovik, too). Yeah, that would be cool along with PTABs. As for quad 20mm's, they can't be everywhere. Besides, that's why you fly in groups, some go after the AAA while the rest lay waste. [ October 23, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

You're right, Bastables, my apologies for bringing up this episode when it has absolutely nothing to do with the T-34 discrepency. I'd best stay out of these tactical/technical discussions, and stick to the more familiar grounds of the operational level.

Well, Bastables, I will say that CMBB comes as close as you're going to get with a simulation that can be handled, CPU-wise, by a PC. Regarding German veteran gunners, you've doubtlessly heard about the Bix encounter with a KV-1, right? He had the wherewithal to finally put a cap in the barrel as the turret started coming their way, but even a vet gunner like Bix was unable to penetrate the KV's side armor from a distance of, what, 30m? That thing must've looked like the broadside of a barn at that range. Wasn't he in a PzIIIH? And, this doesn't necessarily mean that CMBB's penetration properties are in error. It could also be the cannon round is simulated as tougher than it actually was at that time, which is rexford's argument.

Absolutely agree on that. Given that these crews were normally tasked with determining the range for high flying aircraft ahead of their flight path, rangefinding something as slow as a tank at a 'mere' kilometer must have seemed easy for them.

Renaud, I totally endorse you buying that book. Glantz takes both German and Soviet sources to give quite probably the definitive book on that operation.

rexford, Sorry to bother you again, but do you have anything on BT-7(45mm) vs. PzII(20mm) engagements? CMBB appears to show a tendency to favor the PzII in such encounters under testing. Some very interesting data on the whole. Many thanks.

rexford, Would something like the Panzerbeschusstafel be compiled from fragmentary evidence? And, if so little good data exists, then why adopt a position that flies contrary to existing anecdotal, if not empirical, evidence?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Jeff especially after reading early period quotes about T-34-PzIII/IV encounters from Jentz' Panzertruppen as well as looking at the Panzerbeschusstafel firing instruction sheet for the 5cm tank gun KWK 40. In CMBB, while the T-34s are capable vehicles they are reasonably likely of being destroyed by the 50mm L/42 via turret front penetrations up to nearly 700m from my tests.

To be honest, I find this strange as well. Reducing wire obstacles required nothing more than a good set of wire cutters, and/or wooden mats to lie down on the wire and run over. Engineers who were equipped to reduce minefields would most likely be equipped for wire obstacles, too.

The review is fine, considering the average computer gaming audience. CMBB is a wargame that's been imaginatively and creatively transformed into a computer format. Nonetheless, all the concerns a wargamer would have with a map and counter wargame are addressed here as well. If the review sounds harsh, just imagine the same guy reviewing something like AH's 'Squad Leader' or SPI's 'Sniper.'

If anyone is interested, I have a good mono Red Army Choir rendition of Sacred War on MP3 format (very powerful by being slightly overdriven, and has an 'aged' sound to it). I switched it to WAV format for the demo, which worked fine, but in the full CMBB version it sounds like Chip and Dale (accelerated). If anyone can produce a good WAV file for this great song, I'll email it to you, then host it myself when done.

Solomo, how ya doing, ol' squaddie?

Renaud, as for sweeping rhetoric and wide generalizations I've made more than my share (and dread the ones to comes as well ). Regarding Kursk, actually not all the reserves had been used before Kursk was called off. 27th, 53rd and 47th Armies along with 4th Gds Tank Corps and 1st Mech Corps were never committed in the defensive phase, and they were all second echelon armies/corps there. In fact, German intelligence failed to spot them altogether.

Okay, this I can generally agree with. I thought you were making the point of the Germans superceding all nations in the correct theory to defeat positional warfare. But, as far as practical applications go, yes, the France campaign shocked the Soviets who had just finished up eliminating the very people who were developing this very thing for the Red Army. And, so without naming names or familiar old theoretical terms they got cracking on renewing this primarily theoretical work. Though the tactical aspect (deep battle) was more or less understood in theory, the operational aspect (deep operations) was still in need of theoretical refinement before it could even be tested. I should also point out that the Germans showed the Soviets not only what to do, but what not to do as well. In latter offensive operations, the Soviets made sure to not overstretch their logistical tether, and to never conduct large encirclement operations which were much harder to reduce than numerous smaller ones.

I'm curious to hear what some people think an operation is at the operational and strategic level, because some of the comments are more than a little confusing. Maybe there should a separate discussion on this so that we're all in agreement here. Otherwise, what one may call an 'operation,' I may call extended tactical actions.

Okay, chapter 5 was late, but it's up now.

Renaud, This comment of yours: It is totally unsupported, and in fact it would be more believable if you placed it the other way around - whereby the Germans learn from the Soviet military theoretical works from the 1920s when they were cooperating a bit. What the Germans did was to be the first army to practically apply combined arms in an effective manner that would end positional warfare - but it wasn't the most effective method at either the tactical or operational level. Aren't you aware of Soviet development of deep battle and deep operations? These theories were outgrowths of the Russian Civil War experience in trying to find the solution for positional warfare. [ October 10, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

I should have chapter 5 up tomorrow - meaning about twelves hours from now. Btw, people, if you see any grammatical or spelling errors, please point them out if so inclined. The OCR program tends to see the odd 'h' as a 'b', so on and so forth. I should spend more time going over it, rather than the cursory rush through. [ October 10, 2002, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

What it does is determine how quick your troops will tire after doing a bit of running around. Then once tired, how long it'll take them to catch their breath enough to have another go of it.

Great info, Andreas! Thanks!

Chapter Four is now up.

Thanks, Michael. Forgot to add SU's as part of forward detachment copmpositions. Glad you caught that.

Soviet artillery is pretty worthless when you try to make it work within a western methodology. Try the Soviet methodology, and it's different. On the offensive, Soviet reconnaissance became so extensive that by 1944 fully 60-80% of enemy defenses were marked on their tactical maps as immediate objectives, and within fire plans. How would you depict this in CMBB? Label 60-80% of enemy pillboxes, trenches, minefields, barb-wire, guns, and tanks on the map (make sure those ID'ed units are padlocked, too). TRP these enemy positions as you see fit. This capability of the Soviets really became effective by mid-1943. It does sound a bit unfair from a gaming perspective, but reality often is. addendum: I should add that this capability was limited to the penetration phase of an offensive operation, the initial assault on German defensive positions. During the exploitation phase, forward detachments relied primarily on organic mortars and rockets for support, usually as direct or semidirect fire. [ October 07, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

Have it as well. The Cyberboard gameset for BtB is great, too.