JPS

Thanks JasonC. I tried to accomodate for AA regiments, as per Zaloga&Ness they were mostly re-organized into AA divisions after November 1942. Nevertheless, your numbers from Kursk are very useful in outlining their relative contribution.

I didn't notice this thread earlier; some organizational numbers (Soviet) are now summarized in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=004196;p=9 Similar German/American/British numbers would be interesting...

Thanks BigDuke. I informed myself a bit more based on Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 (Zaloga and Ness, 1998). Below my summary for those interested: For integrated Soviet (light) AA assets, in early war one would see quad-maxims (in trucks or fixed positions) and 37mm. Later on, quad-maxims are replaced by 12.7mm heavy MMGs. The 25mm AA is not typically used by front line troops, but rather by PVO air defence force regiments. In CM setting its rarity should be high. This is unlike the German equivalent. Some production numbers: 25mm AA 2k from 1941 to 1943 37mm AA 12.1k from 1941 to 1943 12.7mm heavy MG 23.2k from 1941 to 1943 Organizational deployment: - Motorized rifle brigade (from April 1942) would have 12 37mm AA and 3 12.7mm HMG - Tank corps (end of 1942) would have only the above AA assets for the whole corps (63 light tanks, 99 medium tanks) - Tank brigade (December 1941) would have 4 37mm AA and 3 HMG (for 16 light, 20 medium, and 10 heavy tanks) - Tank brigade (August 1941) would have 8 37mm AA and 6 12.7mm HMG (for 22 medium tanks and 32 light tanks) - Tank brigade (from November 1943) would have 9 12.7mm HMG (for 65 medium tanks) - Mechanized brigade (from September 1942) would have 8 37mm AA and 12 12.7mm HMG (for 23 medium and 16 light tanks) - Mechanized brigade (from Feb/Sep 1943) would have 9 12.7mm HMG (for 32 medium and 7 light tanks) - At mechanized corps level, the 37mm AA varied from 40 (Sep 42) to 26 (Jan 43) to 18 (Jan 44) to 16 (May 45); these are for tank strenghts varying from 175 (Sep 42) to 246 (May 45). Heavy AA MMGs were not reported. - A dedicated AA division would have equipment as follows 1942: 48 quad-maxim, 32 12.7mm HMG, 48 37mm AA 1943: 52 12.7mm HMG, 48 37mm AA, 16 85mm AA 1944: 52 12.7mm HMG, 72 37mm AA, 16 85mm AA As a rough baseline rule-of-thumb, I'd expect to see around one 37mm AA per 8 tanks, and somewhat more 12.7mm HMGs. So 2 37mm AA and 3-4 12.7mm HMGs could be seen "typical" for my test scenario (althought it was underrepresenting infantry). I do not have sources that would be useful in describing how the integrated light AA assets were deployed tactically (i.e. at level CM is addressing, both in defence and in attack). If someone could provide insights on this at least I would be interested.

Hmm, interesting thread. I decided to run CMBB experiment, July 43, midday, good weather, pretty open farmland. All troops regular. Large map (for attacking scenario, 3000 pts). 15 JU87G attacking 15 T-34M43 (also 10 BA-64B and some infantry, but those were never targeted by the planes). In first trial, defender had 5 25mm AA and 5 37mm AA (290 pts value). In second trial, only the 5 25mm AA. Results: Overall impression - the Stukas hit their targets often! However, ... In first trial, 11 aircraft destroyed (2 for 25mm, 9 for 37mm), 1 T-35 abandoned, one immobile, 2 men lost. In second trial, 1 aircraft destroyed, 1 T-35 abandoned, 2 immobile, no personel casualties. Conclusion gamewise - Ju87G is waste of points if opponent is expected to have any T-35s. However, what would be a historically reasonable level of AA guns? One per tank platoon? More? Less? How were these distributed/deployed, e.g., in the initial Soviet defensive stages of Kursk?

AARs just submitted. I will not have email access for next week.

I got the file via the other email account, but was able to return it only now. Sorry for the delay, that was the very last one!

Stikkypixie: no, I am not. I hope you received the last turn (re-sent already), I'll send it once more with alternative email address to reply to

I have not heard from Yacinator (in Moltke) in a while either. How about the others?

Yes, KR, I was referring to comments like that. Th FOW should be absolute, also including not giving plausible hints on e.g. possible reinforcement placement (or not) and the like. Easier to be extra careful.

Please refrain from commenting scenarios. It can be much too easy to get hints on what surprises are and are not part of a scenario that way.

Steve - I have received turns from Yacinator, but less than from others in the group.

I am back in action in group one; all waiting turns returned. No turn from Yacinator, though.

For those in group 1: I should be back in action tomorrow, sorry about the delay.

I presume there is overly aggressive spam filter or something for incoming mail. I'll setup another email account for this purpose soon, until then lets use the kind relay service provided by Kingfish.

Nefarious, I received and (just) returned your turn via Kingfish. I have not received a single email direct from you in quite a few days. Steve McClaire, I am still waiting for your turn... hope it is not yet another case of missing email

Kingfish, thanks for acting as relay; I received and replied to both the comm check and the zipped attachment. However, if Nefarious tried to email those to me dierctly, they did not come through.

Nefarious: the emails have not arrived in my inbox, at least not yet Kingfish, could you forward Nefarious' emails to me please, lets see if they come through that way.

Kingfish, your offer is greatly appreciated. At first stage, though, I hope it will be enough that your receive the cc:s (first in your inbox already) until we figure out where the emails are disappearing. We should be able to find a cure once we know the (rough) cause!

Stikkypixie: I have reasonable flow of turns with yacinator. However, contact to Nefarious just seems not to work. Is someone reaching Nefarious without problems in group 1?

All games in progress in section 1. However, the speed of exchanging turns is somewhat irregular.

All games nicely progressing in section 1. I'll be on short holiday from Saturday till next Wednesday.

Re: Total War series - the individual level modeling is simple, but yet complex enough to produce reasonable behavior at higher levels. The tiny men obey formation orders too well (or at least too quickly), though...

Total War series has 1-to-1 representation but unit level control (around 6 to 100 men per unit). Having CM engine implement some medieval or ancient battles in the Total War style is intriguing idea...

My opponent reported not having received allied briefing for Wet triangle. Also, axis setup for that is the only file I have received so far. Edit: I have the briefing for Push to Maleme. JPS

Thanks Steve. The dynamic campaigns, at the level you described, are my personal wish number one to keep up the longevity of CM series. Indeed, in CMBO times I deviced short & simple rules to do them solo based on quick battles. I am quite sure you have thought of this but still: current operations can be quite effective in describing e.g. "annihilation" type situations in fixed map. I hope your mention of "operations ... out completely" does not mean that a dynamic campaign can't continue in the same map, with roughly the same starting positions/areas. Sidenote: for those familiar with the RoW IV scenario in which allies try to capture the bridge in Italy, think about the possibilities having this as a starting point for dynamic campaign! Oh, the suspense & consequences of ones actions would be most exciting! Br, Jukka-Pekka