ropey

I'll take Gyrene up on his offer and send some of Cassino to start with. I'll have to do this from work so after the weekend.

Thanks for the help. I will playtest with wet conditions. It's currently a battle, but the same map can be used for an operation involving Poles and Paras. However the same conditions were a factor in that attack too, so I need to get it roughly right. The playability doesn't hinge on bogging - just the realism. There are other factors that I can tweak such as the available infantry support/ opposition.

Hi I'm designing an historical scenario where historically most (about 15/30) of the tank force was lost to bogging/thrown tracks over the course of about 3 (realtime) hrs of battle. Can anyone help me with a, the ground conditions (ie, damp,wet,mud) that would come close to simulating this attrition rate and b, the affect terrain type has on that figure? Much of the real landscape was either flat but soft going (leading to bogging) or raised and rocky (leading to thrown tracks). Thanks in advance

Hi Mike. No - took too long to finish a game. Now playing New Girlfriend Deluxe - just as time consuming but the gameplay is better. 8-)

tooz, I did get to Amalfi but it pissed with rain for 4 days. I don't really have much that will be of specific use for a scenario, but a couple showing Salerno town. I'll send them but as thumbnails first. [ July 19, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: ropey ]

Painted uniforms were...interesting (they take their modding seriously), but Britney? Do you have any shots from the Italian Campaign?

None of Santa Maria Infante. Since my interest was Kiwi I was a bit limited in what I took. For the record I have many of the Sangro/Orsogna area (100 odd), Cassino and surrounds (particularly Kiwi areas though)(200 odd), Florence and south of Florence (Paula Line but again mostly the Kiwi areas, though some SA)(100 odd), and the coast at Rimini (60 odd). I would think these might be of use to scenario designers or terrain modders but also for general interest. Incidentally they are mostly matches of wartime shots for upcoming articles in 'After the Battle Magazine'.

Hi guys. I have about 1000 so you are going to have to be quite specific.

What areas?

Hi I just spent 7 weeks in Italy taking photos of Kiwi battlegrounds. If anyone is interested in particular areas I can make them available. Many, many of Cassino and surrounds. Cheers

Hi I just spent 7 weeks in Italy taking photos of Kiwi battlegrounds. If anyone is interested in particular areas I can make them available. Many, many of Cassino and surrounds. Cheers

Hi I was wondering if anyone could help identify some Shermans that might be Polish (4th Armoured Regt - Skorpion) or Kiwi (20th Armoured Regt.) If you contact me I'll send the photos. (Or is there an easy way to embed them in a post?) rowep @ xtra.co.nz Thanks

Just to remind Italy fans - the Third battle petered out today... tomorrow the Ghurkas leave Hangman's Hill, and D coy leaves Pt 202.

An engagement I have just read about in the 27 (MG) Bn Official History (pp 474-477) describes a night action in Italy where L-Cpl John Tucker lobbed an HE grenade into the turret of one Panther, apparently killing all the crew (no further mention is made of them). He threw a phosphorous grenade onto the second, setting it on fire at which point its crew abandoned it. He then carried on up the road and hit a third Panther with another phospherous grenade, setting fire to its rubber road wheel rims. This last Panther was hit by a PIAT, drove into a ditch, and was abandoned by its crew. Tucker, who was shot dead later in this same engagement, was nominated for a posthumous VC(?) but in the end received nothing. Coincidentally, Tucker is the father of one of Mum's friends.

Perhaps the NZers were the wrong troops to have been assigned to this battle, as although we had a good reputation for our fighting abilities, we were always 'hamstrung' by our refusal to take large losses. Freyberg said he would call off the attack when casualties got to 6000 (?) and this factor was always at the back of his mind. A US force may have been more willing to take losses (eg, San Pietro and the first Rapido crossing) and may possibly have taken the last 25% of Cassino town. Incidentally, I think my Cassino map (only) is on Scenario Depot too.

'Goums' were Morrocan and/or Algerian troops who specialised in mountain warfare. They lead the breakthrough at the Gustav Line by climbing mountains both sides thought impassible. Prior to this they had helped clear the mountains north and east of Cassino. The 1st battle of Cassino, in late January, was the Americans' attack to the Northeast of Cassino, crossing the Rapido and capturing Cairo and many of the peaks above Cassino town. This attack got within a few hundred metres of the Abbey and to the outskirts of the town. The 2nd battle, in mid-February, was the Maori Bn attack on the railway, in conjunction with an Indian attack in the hills above. The 3rd battle, in mid-March, was the NZ Corp attack on Cassino town and the hills above. The 4th battle, in May, was a part of the breakthrough of the Gustav Line, in which the Poles finally took the Abbey. (Cassino was abandoned by the retreating Germans.) I made an accurate Cassino map for CMBO that Panzermeyer has a copy of. Can these be converted to CMAK? CMAK still doesn't simulate buildings very well IMO, but those who have tried some Stalingrad scenarios may be better judges. The 2nd battle would work OK in CMAK - perhaps you could try my attempt on the Scenario Depot site? I think 'representative' scenarios might work - that is, taking a small part of the town and limited forces. Otherwise a huge operation such as the Ortona one recently posted might work. Issues are: Size - 1 Para Bn (-) in extensive defenses, and up to 3 NZ Bns (+); an area of 1300m x 800m, with a height range of 50m-210m. Damage - how do you simulate the aerial bombardment? Have a map covered in rubble and give the Germans 20% strength? Have a massive bombardment begin the scenario and Germans at 80% strength? Timescale - how do you simulate a fortnight of fighting, including night infiltrations, and fluid lines? Arty spotting - how do you keep FOs safe on the map yet still able to see clearly? Arty was spotted from vantage points like Monte Cairo and Monte Trocchio, miles from the front. (Though of course it was adjusted and called by units closer in.) I will be in Cassino for the 60th. See you there? [ January 10, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: ropey ]

Yep. Mid-April to end May. I'll be at the ceremonies and the symposium. Granddad was in 24 Bn. I'll check your site. [ December 30, 2003, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: ropey ]

If anyone is working on scenarios for Kiwis I will be in Italy next year exploring battlefields, so could take photos etc. (There for 60th anniversary.)

Ugh - city battles aren't handled too well in my opinion. All the buildings would be flat within an hour or two... Cassino sucks as a battle for the same reason.

If it means anything my Granddad's mail was always addressed 2 NZEF with sometimes MEF or CMF appended. Never NZ Army.

During setup how can I actually tell if I have given troops the order to dig in? I can't see anything that indicates you have given them the order.

Does anyone have the actual figures for cover and blast damage from the game?

It would seem though that wooden buildings are not that common in countries where wood is relatively scarce as a building material. How many photos of Europe show wooden buildings? I would suggest very few indeed. (Could be wrong though. ) I would have to strongly disagree. The rubble in CM:BO seems to have very limited height so LOS is not blocked much. (Anyone have figures?) And the protective value of rubble is also less than that of a building. My point is that the buildings should offer full or close to full protection from DF for much longer in CM:BO (and CM:BB by extension.)

Except there had been no fire on these buildings prior to the assault! I know there is a certain amount of abstraction, but this is one they seem to have got badly wrong.

In recent games two things happened to make me think about buildings more. 1) A StuH42 flattened a large light building in 1 minute. 2) A close assault set fire to an entire church 'instantaneously', forcing all occupants to run out into enemy fire (some closer to known enemy units, but that's another story altogether.) So here is my thesis in a nutshell: CM:BO undervalues the resilience of buildings, especially to DF and fire. I don't know what the good folks at BTS have in store for CM:BB, but I would like them to think about this for CM:BO at least. Buildings have two very different surfaces - the horizontal and the verticle. Verticle surfaces are load bearing, while horizontal virtually 'hang' from the walls, sometimes holding the walls in a little. DF fire generally effects vertical surfaces (walls), while plunging fire (ie indirect fire) generally effects horizontal surfaces (roofs and floors). As load bearers, verticle surfaces are much stronger than horizontal, so (entrances aside) the fire of DF weapons or external near misses from IF is deflected and dispersed, lessening its effect. Horizontal surfaces on the other hand are generally flimsy - tile roofs, wooden floors - and once penetrated offer little cover to troops inside. Internal explosions will in fact be concentrated by the restraining verticle surfaces and be more effective. So what? I think this clearly shows that buildings need to be modelled differently in CM according to what type of fire is laid on them. Now let's look at the time it takes for DF to bring down a building. I believe that a heavy building should not be able to be brought down by DF in the timescale available to CM, and that a light building should take at least 15 times longer than is currently the case to be demolished. I have read a range of books on the Kiwis in Italy. I am assuming that the basic construction of buildings in that theatre is similar to that of Europe in 1944, but someone may correct me on this. It is clear that heavy buildings offered significant defensive advantages. Several entries relate how single buildings were defended for a day or so against mortar and tank/SP fire. One describes how a Sherman commander used 31 AT shells to demolish a wall at point blank range, by nibbling away at it yard by yard. This would hardly be necessary if half a dozen HE shells could do the job in a few minutes. Where buildings do suffer significant damage it is generally through IF fire - mortars and larger arty. Even so, troops have ample time to get out of buildings in these circumstances - between barrages being not unusual. Furthermore, the verticle surfaces stay largely intact, providing cover and blocking LOS. Take a look at any damaged building in photos (or even in TV coverage of Palestine). Horizontal surfaces - roofs and floors - have caved in, while most of the verticle surfaces remain to give cover to defenders. This is true even under the most intense bombardments as can be seen in photos of Cassino. Now to the question of fire. This may be much harder for CM to model as fire is always a tricky beast. My major gripe here is the speed at which fire destroys a building, even if started by FTs. In my situation above a church is close assaulted and a grenade (or whatever) sets the church on fire. All the defending troops were shocked and within one minute had been forced to evacuate this large structure. In NZ we see adverts that tell us a room can be fully ablaze in 30 seconds. Note that this is a room and that nowadays we have buildings full of plastic and other flamable goods. Even a small building in CM is assumed to be more than one room (I think?) and is likely to have far less in the way of flamable materials. For a large building to be considered instantaneously (or even near instantaneously) alight is therefore ridiculous. For a church - stone built, few flamable materials except perhaps pews - to do so is even less acceptable. I would suggest that only fires in small buildings have any shock value. I would further suggest that a fire set in a large building is not counted to have taken full hold (making the building untenable) for something like 4 minutes. Even that seems too quick. There ends my gripe session