Bimmer

I know this is an old thread, but I just finished this operation and I figured I'd add my experience. I played as the Americans, and basically planned to stick to the road as much as possible due to the damp conditions. I set up my Jumbo in the lead, with a full 5-tank platoon behind it, followed by halftrack mounted infantry and the rest of the tanks bringing up the rear. Once I made contact (some infantry and a PzIV) I dismounted the infantry and moved it forward to make sure the tanks weren't going to get popped by an infantry ambush. This worked - I didn't lose a single tank to infantry. I supported this move with preemptive blasting of any area that looked like it might conceal an ambush. As I was finishing up the first battle German arty started landing on my halftracks, and disabled several in one turn. My Jumbo bought it early in the second battle, followed closely by my Stuart and Sherman 76, all to AT guns. However, I started to move more quickly and resistance seemed to be weakening. Pesky 88s continued to chew up my tanks. The third battle saw little resistance to my infantry advance, but tanks continued to die for flanking AT guns. Even those 20mm FlaK guns mobility-killed a Sherman. By the fourth battle I was heading up the big hill. The battle started out with me spotting the JgdPz IV on the slope ahead. I ran every exposed vehicle into cover and started moving infantry forward slowly. When it got to the point that I had to bring my armor up, I dropped a 155 barrage around the JgdPz, which got it moving. A Marder appeared next o it, both moving left to right across the hill 800m from my position. I ran two Shermans into hull-down positions and started plinking. Both German vehicles turned and started firing. The Marder was quickly dispatched, and there was a long duel between the two Shermans the JgdPz wherein at least 4 rounds bounced off the German vehicle and 2 off one of the Shermans(!) before two successive penetrations knocked out the JgdPz. I let loose with every bit of artillery I had on the buildings on the hill, and by the time I moved up to take them there wasn't much left. I was down to 6 servicable Shermans and 8 tracks by the end, but my casualties were only about 95 men total, whereas the Germans took over 250. Allied tactical victory after the fourth battle. Fantastic operation - my compliments to the author.

I hate to nit-pick, but my understanding is that orange recognition panels were only used briefly after D-Day, as they were considered too easy to confuse with the red Nazi flag sometimes draped over the rear deck or turret of German tanks. Later panels were bright green. (See Cooper, _Death Traps_)

I realize this sounds a bit backwards, but one of the best ways to understand the seemingly abstract elements of military history is to put yourself into the situation of those involved by wargaming. If you can find specific battle descriptions, or tactical discussions, or particular uses for certain types of equipment, and put them into practice in a wargame, so much the better. CM is an excellent platform for this on the tactical level. Look at OpArt if you want to try out bigger concepts.

I really don't use Jumbos at all in QBs, but I was playing an operation where I was given one at the head of my column of Shermans, and it really stood out against all those nice hi-res M4A3s, and not in an entirely good way. Has anyone done a Jumbo mod?

I really enjoyed Wiltz (from the CD) as the Americans, and the ASL scenario The Big Cat's Den (as the Germans) available somewhere (probably ASL4CM).

The terrain is quite open, albeit light snow-covered. I watched the AI move across open (non-road) terrain, but once it picked up the roads it seemed quite reluctant to leave them.

On the way.

**EXTREMELY MINOR SPOILER** With the .23 build beta patch, I started playing the TF Rose operation (I d/l'd from somewhere, cna't remember exactly where). I watched a column of enemy vehicles roll happily up a road toward some daisy-chain AT mines. The lead vehicle hit a mine and was abandoned. The second rolled right up behind it and it too was disabled. Same for the third and fourth in the column. Bear in mind these vehicles were travelling close together and unbuttoned at the time. Now, I'm no expert, but it seems to me (and I know someone will correct me if I've got this wrong) that continuing blindly forward into a known (or even suspected) minefield is not SOP and/or a Good Idea. I don't know if this has been discussed before, nor do I know what if anything can be done about it, but it does strike me as a little strange.

I tried to email you at the address on your website, but it bounced. Anyway: I like your idea of putting realistic-looking combat photos from CM up for all to see, and I'd like to contribute. A few quick questions: do you want the JPGs raw, i.e., unmodified, out of CM, or would you prefer they be cleaned up (sharpened, color-balanced, etc.)? Also, how do you feel about pics that have been altered to look like old B&W photos, perhaps blurred a little to add a realistic look?

The micro-armor would be great - I've been into 20mm miniatures for a while now, and have been looking into starting with micro-armor. Let me know how this shakes out. It goes without saying that I will cover all shipping costs.

This brings up another point which I didn't mention before. Air attacks, for whatever material damage they did or did not do, were feared and hated by those on the receiving end, even those troops that were not harmed by the attack. I have to wonder if some sort of increased global morale effect caused by continued air bombardment wouldn't be a bad thing if its not already there (anyone? BTS?) I suppose this might work out on its own if my suggestion of less accurate but more frequent Allied tac air support were to be implemented.

Tac air is commonly thought to have been very effective at CAS, which is the role it is performing in CM. However, statistical evidence suggests otherwise. Check _Spearhead for Blitzkrieg_, whose author's name escaps me at the moment (a Luftwaffe general officer). In his endnotes the is a reference to a US survey of damaged vehicles that points to the fact that VERY few were taken out by aircraft-launched ordnance, and further that tanks were particularly hard to kill. Rockets, so often touted as a great weapon, were quite inaccurate. My feeling is that the price of fighter-bomber support (paricularly for the Allies) could be toned down, and the accuracy decreased substantially. The likelihood of taking out a tank with air-launched ordnance should be quite low, IMHO, and most positive results should probably be mobility kills caused by near-miss iron bombs. All of this said, and in an effort to preemptively stop some anticipated flames, Allied tac air was much more effective at interdiction and performed an important role in keeping German troops and equipment from reaching the front, but it was not terribly good at killing them once they got there.

IIRC, Horch was a low-volume car manufacturer that produced large limousine-type cars frequently used by generals and high party officials. Hitler favored Mercedes, I think, but I've seen pictures of Horch cars in German military parades and such. By nice if someone could do graphics for it, although I'm not sure how useful it would be...

It is too bad that CM does not have a more open architecture that would allow this sort of thing to be accomplished by the end-users. I understand all the concerns over PBEM and TCP/IP cheating, and I respect BTS' position - its their baby, after all. That said, modern CM would be fantastic. As an additional bonus, it would likely appeal to the military as an easily accessible training tool for junior officers and NCOs. TacOps has been recently adopted by US 16th Cav - I can only imagine that Modern CM would be readily accepted in the same mold.

Before this thread disappears I thought I'd offer a few other reading recommendations, in no particular order: GENERAL WWII The Second World War, Keegan - An excellent overview text that provides a fine starting piont for those with little WWII background. A World at Arms, Weinberg - More detail, deeper analysis, and clearly a more modern book, moderity having both good and bad points. TECHNOLOGY/DOCTRINE Military Innovation in the Interwar Period, Murray and Millett, eds. - Brilliant essay collection covering a wide range of technical developments between the wars that had direct impact on the course of the Second World War. The Roots of Blitzkrieg, Corum - Perhaps the best book I've read about the development of Wehrmacht (and Reichswehr) doctrine and structure. Absolutely a must-read for any serious student of German military operations. Luftwaffe, Corum - An equally good book about the Luftwaffe's development. See also The Luftwaffe, 1933-45, Murray, for a good wartime account. CAMPAIGNS Hitler's Panzer's East, Stolfi - A controversial argument about Barbarossa and its failure. Compelling arguments that Hitler's meddling allowed the Russians to survive into the winter of 1941. Steel Inferno, Reynolds - Very good account of 1st SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. I used this as a guide during my trip to France this summer. NON-WWII SPECIFIC Blackhawk Down, Bowden - Somalia. A journalistic work but does a very good job of imparting understanding of war at its most visceral. This Kind of War, Fehrenbach - Korean War. A classic account of the war from someone who was there. A book that makes you think.

There has been a lot of controversy over this lately, so I will preface this with the fact that the opinions contained herein are mine and mine alone - if anyone reads them and disagrees, fine, but you don't need to start a(nother) flame war over it. I have a Voodoo 5 5500 in a P3 933 w/384 Mb RAM. I love it. I think FSAA is a wonderful thing and makes every game I've tried (both Glide and D3D based) look much better, ever at high resolutions. With the price drop, I can't see how you could go wrong with this card. Another 128Mb RAM would be an excellent addition as well, though you indicate this is not a fiscally viable combination at this point.

I was in Normandy this summer, and I looked carefully at the bocage. Despite being cut back as mentioned above, it is still fairly prominent in some of the lesser-travelled areas. Many of the fields were arranged geometrically, although there was some variation where terrain or buildings interfered. Often the field would have bocage on three sides and a stone wall or fence of some sort (with gate) on the fourth. The one issue I have with bocage modelling in CM is that in Normandy the roads between hedgerows tended to be sunken from 1-3m (and sometimes as much as 5-6m, although this was fairly uncommon) below the level of the field and the base of the hedgerow. This allowed concealed movement through the roads, and thus forces could be shifted between fields without observation. It would be nice to see this show up in the scenarios set in Normandy (I haven't noticed it in any I've played so far, but I've only had the game for a month or so).

A couple options would be to have the program cut off the extra units, or allow a flexible system where HQ units could be purchased and other units added (as appropriate). Personally, I think the initial suggestion of selective deletion is best, but I suppose there might be technical reasons why another approach would be preferable.

A few points that will probably do nothing to smooth the waters: 1. Ambrose, while he has done much in America for popularizing history in general and World War II history in particular, has a disturbingly (for other historians, at least) heavy bias toward overestimating American capabilities. Like him or not, you must recognize his point of view. Keegan has a similar problem with regard to British ability and accomplishment. Ironically, most of the historians with a pro-German (in terms of ability, not policy) bias are not Germans. It has been posited that the German historical community is loathe to suggest that any part of the Third Reich was good, a view I tend to accept. 2. There are plenty of examples of soldiers performing exceptionally well under combat conditions without the benefit (or hinderance) of leadship. The fundamental difference between the German Army and its opponents was that the former trained its company-grade officers and senior NCOs to lead above their rank and strongly encouraged (some would argue required) individual initiative. The Allied armies did not do this as a matter of doctrine - what individual commanders did is another matter entirely. James Corum has written an excellent book on the interwar German Army called _The Roots of Blitzkrieg_ that discusses this in depth.

I think this is heavily dependent on the tactical situation. Standoff is nice, and takes advantage of the long range capability of the tank's gun, but if you can't see important targets it doesn't do you much good. Moving in close allows you to support your infantry better in close terrain, but the danger level goes up by quite a bit unless you are very diligent about using your infantry to protect your tanks from enemy anti-armor teams. Its really a question of mutual support - you have to put your tanks in a position to do their job, and use your infantry and artillery to make sure they don't buy it in the process. In tank-to-tank battles, standing off the target is fine as long as you have the capability to inflict damage on your target. In North Africa, the Germans would frequently stand off British armor charges with 88s, which outranged any British tank gun. Additionally, few early British tank guns had any HE capability, so the Germans could operate with impunity until accurate artillery showed up. However, this is really not a factor in any but the largest battles in CM - terrain and map size make engagement ranges well below both sides maximums.

This has been discussed at some length on the TacOps mailing list. The problem with the choice of the LAV III for the IBCT is that it fails to meet the transportability requirements of a rapid deployment force. It does not fit within a C-130 (height is a problem for any turreted variant, and weight is over C-130 STOL limits) which creates serious strategic mobility concerns. I've heard there is to be a review by Congress of LAV III vs. M113 (updated) before anything moves forward.

I don't think its dead, but it certainly has been supplanted as the primary form of open-form wargaming by computer-based games. I still play (skirmish level, WWII 20/25mm, using Buck Surdu's BAPS or more recently rules that I wrote myself) and I enjoy the aspects you mentioned - social activity, painting and collecting miniatures, etc. Computer games just mean I can spend much more time wargaming. No more waiting months to get a group together - just load it up and go. But if I can actually get a tabletop game together, I'll play miniatures over a computer game any day.

I got three replies in short succession, so I'm all booked for the moment. Thanks for your interest.

I just got CM, and I'm looking to play a PBEM game or two. Though I don't have too much direct experience w/ CM, I've been a wargamer for some time (I've actually played Third Reich and Squad Leader, if that gives you an idea of how long) so I hope not to be too much of a pushover. I'd prefer to play using one of Fionn's rules derivates, and please - no gamey nonsense. Email me and we can sort out the details. aeg@computer.net