Doodlebug

This is one of the few threads I've bothered to read all the way through because it was a topic I've mulled over and I agreed with the original poster. This thread shows the problem that all lengthy discussions have. It's bogged down in an argument over the merits of automatic/semiautomatic weapons over bolt action weapons and has drifted away from the starting point as raised all those pages ago. I have real problems with the way the rifle heavy squads of the British and Commonwealth troops are represented. It is a foregone conclusion that a British squad of ten men with a firepower of 161 will be mangled in a close combat situation against the 260 odd points of an equivalent German squad. Given that melee is represented by a symbolic close range shoot out then the above outcome is inevitable. Firepower is the determining factor in these situations. Why, then, does the ammo load out diminish at an equal rate for the bolt action armed squad as for the semi and automatic armed troops? I don't see how, at the moment, you can reproduce the exploits of the British Tommies and the like in going and staying toe to toe with Jerry. Arnhem and Monte Cassino are non starters. Finally my last observation. Given a close combat situation between a MP40 armed submachine gunner and a Lee Enfield and bayonet armed Tommy who would win? Firepower? Yes if he can riddle him at 20 yards with a dozen rounds. But change the equation slightly. Both have but a single round. Now who?. Miss and you're reduced to swinging your SMG against an opponent with a good yard reach advantage over you and a nasty pointy bayonet just waiting to perforate your belly. That is one hell of an incentive to give up. Where's the close combat adjustment for that or are you firepower fans going to decry that. If you do then bring on Stalingrad sharpened entrenching tools and all.

Oh Bugger. Lieut. General Percival. I don't care how strong that fortress is we're surrendering.

Surely us Brits can have "The Angel of Mons"? Opponents obliged to cower in religious awe! [ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: Doodlebug ]

The RPG-43 could penetrate 3.75 inches of armour and was apparently extensively and effectively used. You would need a steady nerve to wait for your chosen target to arrive in range but given the unquestionable close in style of the Russian infantry it has to be considered as a viable threat. The conical collar was released on throwing and dragged behind on the cloth strips to stabilise the trajectory and ensure it arrived head first at the target.

Thanks. I got it. I love it.

I draw primarily upon "Stalingrad to Berlin", Earl Ziemke, US Army Centre of Military History, for my information regards to partisan operations. Partisan operations florished in the Northern and Central sectors due to the advantages of terrain (Pripyat Marshes and so forth)and in these areas groups were able to form and make a contribution during the winter counter offensive of '41/'42. In the more exposed steppe areas in the South partisan operations were always more restricted. To quote from one security operation undertaken by the Germans in Feb '43 "Kugelblitz" in the Vitebsk region. The partisans numbering in the region of 5000 men organised into brigades had established fortified positions and operated their own airfields. In a operation using 2 security divisions the area was first cordoned off and the cleared. 3700 casualties were claimed by the Germans although how many were actually civilians cannot be known. If this type of operation does not represent CM games then I don't know what does. Before the outbreak of war the Soviet authorities placed great faith in the concept of partisan war and a spontaneous rising of the people in support of Communism. This did not occur and post war the exploits of the partisans was actively suppressed. The only reward many partisans received upon the advance of the Red army was forced conscrition.

I find myself in agreement with many of the comments made in the posts above. Indeed, as far as I'm aware, the partisans could be organised into "brigades" of upto 1000 men. However they always came off second best when faced by even the second and third rate German security units in straight stand up fights. As with all guerilla movements they are most effective when they melt away from opposition and only strike at the enemy at times of their choosing and at points of enemy weakness. I would vigorously oppose their inclusion if it necessitates the diminution of any other aspect of conventional warfare. I can forsee that the very nebulous nature of their activities would require a great deal of programming and I for one would rather see that effort concentrated elsewhere,for example, on multi turreted vehicles or amphibious vehicles or operations.

Hi Jasper. This looks like a great post but for one thing. What the heck are .pdf files and how do I read them? I'd rather show my complete ignorance now and read the information than keep quiet and not. Any help from anyone greatly appreciated.

I have scratched around some more and have re-examined the source I quoted above. It differentiates between armoured brigades which used a red background and tank brigades which used other one or two colour schemes. It makes more sense in that case if that is so. There were differences between tank and armoured brigades. Divisional units had a 2 digit unit code, independant brigades 3. The 8th Armoured Brigade, 1944, used 994,995 and 996. You should use white on red for your 33rd Armoured Brigade project the only thing I can't confirm is the white underlining.

I've re-examined my copy of the photo in question and yes the brigade is present under the sledgehammer. I've checked all my sources with regards to background colour and the best I can say is that if it had been a divisional rather than a brigade formation it would have been a red square background. Not a lot of use that! The only reference I have found is this and follows on from describing the red background detailed above. ".... but for the tank brigades various one or two colour schemes existed." I'm afraid that's about as far as I can go at the moment with the information I have to hand. Perhaps someone else will be able to help further. Wishing you success. ------------------ IN DEFEAT MALICE, IN VICTORY REVENGE!

Glad to be of assistance. I suspect my print copy is no better than yours. The 174 appears to be painted on a "box"(I have no idea what it is) attached to the rear of the vehicle. There appears to be no underlining in my photo. The peculiar thing to my eyes is that although the 7 continues to full length the 1 and 4 are truncated by a clear joint or line about 1/4 the way up. I can just about detect it in your scan. The 4 is clearly a 4 but has the appearance of an inverted lopsided V Perhaps your copy can throw more light on that area than mine.

Until yesterday I'd not downloaded any mods. I'd been happy with things as they were. Finally deciding to give it a go I decided to re-work the terrain and see how things went. WOW! A real eye opener. Why I never did this earlier I'll never know. I had to lie down with a cold compress! The game has gone to a new level of visual satisfaction. I think CMHQ has a good selection plus a guide of what to do which is important if you're just getting into the scene. My tip would be to download what takes your fancy but then to only install gradually. Take the time to check periodically what difference it has made, and more importantly, if you like it. Better to know which .bmp files you've just changed than go mad change the lot and then have a devilish job changing them back if they're not to your taste. Enjoy!

British Quad artillery tractor. German Horse drawn artillery limber. British Crusader AA tank. ------------------ IN DEFEAT MALICE, IN VICTORY REVENGE!

According to "British Tank Markings And Names", B.T.White,Arms And Armour Press,ISBN 0853682224. Having been re-equipped with Shermans for the D-Day campaign, individual vehicles were identified by the display of large serial numbers on both sides and the rear of the turret. The numbers were allocated thus: Recon Troop(Stuarts) 1 to 11 AA Troop(Crusaders) 12 to 17 Regt. HQ.(Shermans) 20 to 23 A Sqnd. (Shermans) 30 to 49 B Sqnd. ( Ditto. ) 50 to 69 C Sqnd. ( Ditto. ) 70 to 89 Allocated for spares 18 to 19 and 24 to 29. This book has one photo of tanks of B squadron advancing in column,63,62,65,64 and 66. The 174 unit code is visible on the rear most vehicle. The brigade marking is correct as far as I can tell. ------------------ IN DEFEAT MALICE, IN VICTORY REVENGE!

This is one of the best threads I've seen in a while. I've got to say I had to read much of it twice to make sure I'd got the gist of it correctly. I am a confirmed attritionist. Whether you achieve that by manoeuvring to engage key or isolated enemy elements, the utilisation of a technical superiority or the simple application of overwhelming and irresistible force or numbers the ultimate objective of combat is to maximise the enemy's losses and minimise your own. Manoeuvre as a concept does not and cannot stand alone. If my opponent is in a bunker bristling with weaponry then he's not overly mobile. I can swiftly outmanouvre him with my troop of girl guides but..... I'm still going to have a job beating him. Manoeuvre (and military intelligence) can magnify the application of force. What it cannot do is replace it. Manoeuvre war as a concept is more applicable at the operational level. In the reference frame of CM then attrition rules. In all it's guises it is the bedrock of all other decisions.

If the damage that could be caused by the backblast of a recoilless gun is not modelled then that's a major oversight. Equally if the dust and flame that resulted from one of these weapons doesn't give away their position then that too is an oversight. These side effects always imposed a severe restriction on their tactical usage

15,000 Pak36 were produced and they were progressively replaced in front line service by heavier equipment as it became available. Despite their obsolescence they remained in use until the end of the War. Their absence from the game has long baffled me particularily in light of the development of the Stielgranate 41 hollow charge bomb. This was a large finned hollow charge projectile slipped over the barrel and fired to an effective range of 300m. Capable of penetrating 180mm. They were used in Normandy with some effect where the terrain and consequent short engagement ranges favoured them.

I think this rather neatly brings us back to where we started this thread. Ardennes '41 - good plan. Ardennes '44 - bad plan. The same principles governed both. The intention? To sunder the opposition and isolate portions before serious resistance was met. The difference? First time round such a move was thought impossible. Second time around it was almost stereotypical. I think that if blame attaches anywhere then it is principally not to the German High Command but to Hitler as supreme commander. His was the guiding(dictating? to avoid the pun)hand throughout the War.I most certainly contend that throughout the War the field commanders fought to someone else's script ie. Hitler's and were not able to adopt more original or flexible tactics.

Bad choice of wording on my part but the fact is that the German Army was the first to put this style of warfare to practical use. The British well may have conducted such manoeuvres in the Thirties and been the first fully mechanised army in the World but they had not adopted them as doctrine nor recognised the implications stemming from the adoption by others of this style. Many may have imitated but the Germans innovated in this area.

Were German operations different later in the War than earlier? IMO - no! The German Army wrote the rule book with regards to Blitzkrieg. They adopted the teachings of the interwar theorists about the use of combined arms formations, tactical air support and as the name implied Lightning War and thoroughly thrashed all their early opponents who had expected a refight of the Great War. The increase in pace of operations that the Germans introduced totally overwhelmed their opposition who could not react fast enough to developments as they occurred. The principles that served the German Army so well in their early War triumphs held true to the end of the War and indeed to today. They lost effectiveness only when the Allies learned and adopted the same rules albeit with their own national interpretations thrown in.

I'll admit to having a far less comprehensive knowledge of the Pacific theatre( or should I say Far East so as to include Burma, Malaya New Guinea etc) compared to the European theatre of operations but I think that the differences in operational styles between the Japanese and Allies would not make for an enjoyable gaming experience long term. The beauty of the CM system is the high replayability quotient. I sincerely believe that the qualitative differences between Japanese and Allied forces would make for a repetitive pattern of play. Just how many bunkers can you torch or demolish before the interest goes? Equally how many Banzai charges into overwhelming firepower do you want to lead? Don't get me wrong this system could easily support action in any number of conflicts, from Spanish Civil War to Korea and beyond. I just happen to think that a national philosophy that proposes "blood over technology" is hard to incorporate and play. Guts alone can overcome many disadvantages but longterm? No.

AVRE stands for Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers.Strangly I've never played with one of these but I am rather surprised to hear no HE shells are supplied as standard.Given the explanation of AVRE it gives a clue as to the usage of this vehicle. It had a Petard mortar hurling a not insignificant 40lb HE charge to the detriment of any building, pillbox, person or vehicle in it's way. Given that a charge this large is fairly devastating on arrival I can only surmise they've categorised it as a Hollow Charge to recreate it's effect against heavy structures or armoured targets.

Unless I'm mistaken the MG was more for warding off marauding fighter bombers or partisans depending upon your circumstances. The Kubelwagen was more a runaround than recon vehicle. I don't think it was used in the same way that one pictues the MG Jeep being employed.

Appreciate the speedy response Tiger. Forward some details and I'll be back to you soonest. Regards.