lassner.1

Won it as the German with a major victory. Spoilers * * * * * * * * * * * * * That said, it was tough, right until a few turns from the end. At that point, I finally broke the back of the remaining Russian defenders. My most anxious moment: after I *finally* turned the Russians left flank (German right) and began to lay down a deadly enfilade fire on the center of the Russian position I launched my main attack to take the trenches. I had to assault across a good piece of open ground and up hill. That was a nail-biter

Yes it is supposed to work this way. It does hurt in some instances, as you note. Overall, however, I am fairly pleased with it, and usually, if there is a lot of lead flying around the TC with remain BU.

I would be curious to know the answer to this myself.

I too would very much like to see smaller op. maps. For that matter, I would like to see smaller ops in general!

To add to what wbb_99 just wrote: When I played CMBO with those friends of mine who were officers in the U.S. army, and who were on the ground in the Gulf War, they always remarked that CMBO was ludicrously off-base when it came to portraying infantry assaults. I too feel that CMBB is a far better simulation of infantry behavior under fire than CMBO. And for what it is worth, I am an Assistant Professor of Military History at the Air Command and Staff College, Air University. That said, all the views I have expressed above are my own and do not represent those of the U.S. Air Force, the DOD, or the U.S. Government. (Ya, ya, I know, its a bit much, but those are the rules).

I could not disagree more strongly with PeterX. The infantry game feels quite good now - and far more correct with respect to WWII tactics.

Well, all Panzer crews - especially during the early war years - all wore the Totenkopf symbol on their collars. So this is not surprising V. Fernando, I am not really sure what you mean by your comment. Unlike the majority of all-German early war SS divisions like LAH and Das Reich (which wore the traditional SS runes on their collars) the Totenkopf division wore the Totenkopf. So it would seem that BTS decided to make their SS from the 3rd Division. Right?

Welcome aboard! You are going to LOVE this game ...

Still waiting in Alabama.

Obst-schnaps aus Eggenburg.

"At Zitadelle, the germans are gods rumbling across the steppes at Kursk. Meanwhile, in the other, they're a small company against a russian juggernaut." All I can say is that you must be playing a rather pathetic opponent.

Glad to see this effort Gordon and Co. I am a huge fan of the "pigish" look. Always hated clean tanks. And the above T-34 looks outstanding!

bump

"Really? Why wouldn't a gunner know which side of a vehicle he had hit? Michael [ September 04, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]" Actually I am not talking about the gunner knowing information from where the shots are falling, but the *receiving* tank being able to know where it is being hit. Would a crew necessarily know the exact facing from which it was taking fire 1) on the first shot and 2) if it (the tank receiving fire) was buttoned up? I admit that I do not know the answer to this question and I am happy to defer to those with more knowledge on the subject than myself. What *is* the case is that I have been able to deduce where enemy AT guns are – even though they remain invisible due to the FOW – from knowing where my tank is taking fire. Just reposting the response and my question so it does not get lost.

"Really? Why wouldn't a gunner know which side of a vehicle he had hit? Michael [ September 04, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]" Actually I am not talking about the gunner knowing information from where the shots are falling, but the *receiving* tank being able to know where it is being hit. Would a crew necessarily know the exact facing from which it was taking fire 1) on the first shot and 2) if it (the tank receiving fire) was buttoned up? I admit that I do not know the answer to this question and I am happy to defer to those with more knowledge on the subject than myself. What *is* the case is that I have been able to deduce where enemy AT guns are – even though they remain invisible due to the FOW – from knowing where my tank is taking fire.

I am not one to post regularly, but on this point I have to speak-up: extreme FOW should disable the shot/hit descriptions. I find myself deriving WAY too much useful information from knowing if shots are side/front/rear hits.

I agree on the red brick building: this must be a factory! I am frantic with anticipation ....

The answer to JasonC's question is complex to say the least. If you are truly interested in the answer to “why” the Germans had such success in the invasion of France, you should to begin with the following works (some of which you may have read, but some of which may well be new to you – I have confined myself, primarily, to English language works here): 1). Robert A. Doughty, The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France 1940 (Connecticut: 1990). 2). Eugenia C. Kiesling, Arming Against Hitler: France and the limits of Military Planning (Kansas, 1996). 3). Karl Heinz Frieser, Blitzkrieg-Legende: Der Westfeldzug 1940 (Munich, 1995). 4). Williamson Murray, “Armored Warfare,” in Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett eds. (Cambridge, 1996). 5). Williamson Murray, “May 1940: Contingency and Fragility of the German RMA,” in The Dynamics of Military Revolution 1300-2050 (Cambridge, 2001). 6). Alexander N. Lassner, “The Invasion of Austria in March 1938: Blitzkrieg or Pfuch?” in Contemporary Austrian Studies, Günter Bischof, Anton Pelinka and Dieter Stiefel eds., vol. 8, (New Jersey, 2000).

Is it really necessary to continue this "debate"? I, for one, would just like to get my dirty hands on CM:BB.

Gentlemen: It is far from clear that U.S. troops became ineffective at 40-50% casualties. See the excellent work on this matter (including a thorough discussion of the different types of unit cohesion) by Robert Sterling Rush, "Hell in Hürtgen Forest: The Ordeal and Triumph of an American Infantry Regiment." (Kansas Univ Press, 2001).

Actually, the most current, up-to-date and thorough scholarship on the comparative performance of American, British, Canadian, and German forces in Normandy is: Russell Hart, Clash of Arms: How the Allies Won in Normandy (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001). Dr. Hart (asst. prof. of military history at Hawaii Pacific Univ.) has really done outstanding research and made a cohesive and well structured argument. Do yourselves a favor and give it a read.

CombinedArms wrote: "In general frontal assaults on any of these MGs, if unsupressed, is not a terrific idea--even if their anti-infantry rush fire is somewhat undermodelled." Undermodelled they may be, but they are still quite deadly. I recently lost an entire platoon to a .50 cal while moving in the open (he surprised me!). And, while playing the Germans I have knocked out AT cannons with MG42s.

With all due respect redwolf, I have to disagree slightly. I do think that there is one very noticable difference, namely, if units break early in the game (w high global morale) they tend to rally very quickly, and often without necessitating being in command. Once global morale lowers, rallying broken troops becomes increasingly difficult, and, eventually, almost impossible.

I have to agree with Silvio Manuel. I have been playing CM for quite a while, and intensively, and I have most def. noticed that if one takes high casualties units are more likely to break and more difficult to rally.

Bumping this on the hope of a response from BTS.