sturmtiger101

The GI tankers didn't use metal skirts but they did (at least in some units) field modify thier Shermans and Stuarts, etc, with metal racks that held layers/rows of sandbags along the hull sides and sometimes hull front and turret sides. this was a reaction to the hollow carge weapons like the panzerfaust, that took an increasing toll of allied armour as the fighting moved into the built up areas of Germany in '45. This was not officially sanctioned and in fact was contraindicated by the USA Ordinance Dept due to the extra strain it placed on the chassis. But from photos of the period it was not uncommon. This practice also resurfaced in Vietnam when the crews of the M-48 Pattons used sandbagging to protect against rpgs. This might be a pretty cool mod for someone so inclined? Also the Soviet tankers began using liberated box springs in a similar manner, welding them to the hull and turret sides of thier afvs as protection against panzerfuasts. This was around the time of the final assault across the Oder river and the street fighting in Berlin, spring 1945. Cheers, Eric

Hello all. I understand that some fellows on this forum consider the use of these vehicles as " gamey ", however, I do choose them at times in QB and if a scenario includes one, I'm glad to have it. They do die quickly if the right weapon is employed against them, but if I keep them well back from the " line " and keep'em moving then they seem quite effective . I don't think I'd choose one when playing a human opponent due to the current controversy, but against the AI... well, sometimes I just want to have fun and to heck with the historical accuracy! Cheers, Eric

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-: For the sake of getting the game out so you guys could play it, BTS took a few shortcuts. I don't know about the Comet, but the Marder III was supposed to carry the Russian 76.2 Gun, but in CM it is a 75mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with Mr Emrys' statement, that CM models and equips the Marder II & III correctly as both of these were only armed w/ the german produced 75mm weapon. It was the earlier Marder I model which sported the captured USSR 76.2mm crash-booms. The first of which was mounted on the Ausf D & E versions of the PzKw MkII chassis, and the later version Marder I on the venerable PzKw 38t chassis. The Marder I was an extremly expedient " fill in the gap " type weapon to quickly deliver better anti-tank killing platform to help counter the T-34 threat until more specialized designs could reach active service. A few Marder I saw service in North Africa, but most production of Is & IIs went to the eastern front. Marder III, both the Ausf H and Ausf M models, served in the west too. Cheers, Eric [ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: sturmtiger101 ] [ 04-29-2001: Message edited by: sturmtiger101 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RenoFlame 36: I think another discussion almost as interesting would be; Without air power used as "mobile artillery", would the original Blitzkrieg tactics have been such a resounding success ?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that it is hard to discuss the concept of "bltzkrieg " as it applies to WWII german military doctrine without including airpower. Blitzkrieg was one of the earliest practical applications, at the operational level, of the theory of combined arms. The Luftwaffe was designed and organized to be one of the elements necessary for the conduct of lightning war. Its' tactical employment was to facilitate the breakthrough effort by establishing air superiority above the battlefield, interdict enemy reinforcements and supply, disrupt communication routes and attack specific ground targets in coordination with the "schwerepunkt" of the attack. The german army combined the tactical / operational use of blitzkrieg with their longstanding strategic theory of conducting war which they called ' the battle of annilhation ', which focuses on defeating the opponent by destroying his field army in mass through a continuos cycle of double encirclement battles. The blitz style suited the German armed forces general staff doctrine of quickly defeating and forcing the capitulation of an opponent, thus avioding a protracted war of attrition. The Luftwaffe was an integral instrument of this concept and when it is removed from the mix, the blitz won't work to achieve decisive success. Uh, that's my humble opinion, anyway... Sheesh... Eric :eek: Oh yea, you guys are posing and responding with some excellent questions and replies... BRAVO! [ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: sturmtiger101 ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lcm1947: This is just a game. No comparison. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ditto, that's what the man said, just a game. Albeit a very cool game, that is. Eric

Pardon me if I'm stealin' your thunder... USSR afv in 1939-42: T-26, T-28, T-35 ( supposedly, none saw action ), T-34 of course, KV-1 & 2, BT-5 & 7, SU-57, SU-76, SU 122, BA-10 ( armoured car ) and various & sundry tankettes, recon cars and one-off spg. Maybe others? Cheers, Eric Think this was covered in previous threads too... [ 04-27-2001: Message edited by: sturmtiger101 ]

Hey, altough there were a few MkIII specimens encountered in the first month of the Normandy campaign, mainly as part of some ersatz training battalions, these tanks were not part of the regular panzer div TO&E. There is an up-armoured and up-gunned (L/60 50mm) MkIII Ausf H in the Patton Museum in Ft Knox, Ky, that was captured in the Contentine penninsula. Besides the aformentioned Ferdinand and the L/24 75mm armed MkIVs and StuGs I can also name the early versions of the Marder, particularly those armed w/ the captured 76.2mm "crash - booms", the Brummbar, and the sIG 33, a self propelled arty piece on the Mk III chassis mounting the 150mm IG. *Disclaimer* Don't trust my spelling! Where did that spell check fxn go? Cheers, Eric :eek:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Majo Tom " Another thing as well, I really took to the fact that AT guns were seen by him to be a greater threat than Tanks. In CM I have had yet to set up a sufficiently good AT gun trap for tanks. Possibly due to a personal inability?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Major Tom, From the literature I've read on the subject, most tankers of Wittman's era considered the destruction of an enemy ATG as far more important than that of an AFV, the ATG being more dangerous. Perhaps this was due to the higher difficulty in spotting a well sited gun from the confines of a tank in the confusion of combat? Cheers, Tuggle

The M-18 Hellcat, is my best bang for the buck TD choice when playing the US, don't have one for the UK / Commonwealth forces, 17pdr Achilles ? Perhaps. For the Heer, the Hetzer seems to be quite effective in both cost and usefulness, I also like the JgPzIV with the L/70 75mm gun as in the Panther afv. Though quite rare its' armour and main armament are very formidable, provided I choose my positioning carefully. Funnily enough, though the Hetzer is popular in CMBO, the soldiers that crewed the real vehicle considered it cramped, and the 75mm was difficult to load because of its reversed and inverted breech positioning relative to the loader, leading to a slower rate of fire than say, a Stug III or JgPz IV. It was nicknamed Guderian's Duck, after the famous panzer general. Cheers. Eric Tuggle

Mornin' all. IMHO the Tiger I is my fav all round afv for playing the German side. A bit more expensive, yes, but I like the combination of good to very good armor protection front and sides, as well as the L/56 88mm main gun that has excellent ap and he performance. Slow turret? Well, if I can afford it I buy two so that they can cover each other' tail. Or buy one and a couple MkIV or StuGIII to give flank protection. The Tigers usually have around a 50/50 mix of ap/he and 190+ mg ammo, I cover their flanks as above, provide an infantry escort and perhaps some mortar equipped FO and let those cats rock on...Ah, well. Cheers, E Tuggle

No, Babra, they were not. Only s/501, 502, 503, 504, 505 Heer tank battalions and the three heavy tank companies of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd SS Panzer Grenadier Divisions ever had Mk III ( L/60 50mm or L/24 75mm ) as part of their organic establishment. By fall of 1943, all surviving Mk IIIs with the Tiger units listed above were turned over to standard ( medium ) tank battalions in Panzer and PzGrndr units. All Tiger battalions that fought in NWE were equipped solely with MkVI ausf E ( Tiger I ) or MkVI ausf B ( Tiger II ). Hope this helps you guy. Cheers, E. Tuggle ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

Oh yea, don't know if you've beento the web site listed above yet, but the M3/M5 family of light tanks had 4 man crews. Commander, gunner, driver, co-driver/bow mg gunner. the commander doubled as a loader for the 37mm main gun. Cheers, E. Tuggle ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

Last fall, Sept '00, I took a trip to Ft Knox, Ky.. to tour the Patton Museum. While there I had the opportunity to clamber upon and crawl inside an M3A3 Stuart in storage at one of the museums workshops. I'm 5'6" and 130lbs and it was a squeeze for me. I could move all through the fighting compartment but had to do so slowly and carefully to avoid banging my 'noggin. This vehicle was about 95% complete in terms of instruments and fittings but had no crew gear, ammo, etc. as a fully fitted out afv ready for action would have been. My main thoughts at the time, besides the thrill of actually touching a piece of history, was " Man, would I hate to have to bail out of this can in a hurry! " Gave me a bit more appreciation for the guys who actually had to take this tank into combat. Very humbling. Best regards, E. Tuggle

Snake Eyes, Thanks for the reply, that was something of the Sturmtigers history that I didn't know. Very interesting indeed! My question still stands however, on the inclusion of a sturmorser in CM2. Just doesn't seem practical, though I agree it would be very very cool. My main argument against is the numbers involved, 1? during the whole of the eastern front conflict? At least a whole battalion of Sturmpanzer IV 'Brummbar' were employed on the western front in 1944, the 217th Sturmpanzer, and yet they were not represented in CM. This may be an old topic though and I apologize if this comes off as a gripe - it isn't. Regards, Sturmtiger ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

Hey now! You've got another fan of the MkIII here guys. This tank is most impressive to me, I like all its variants and constant upgrades. For its era it was actually a well rounded and reliable weapons system. British, French and Soviet tank models may have had better guns or thicker armor, but it was this vehicles combination of 3 man turret, radio, excellent optics and the tactics of combined arms operations that (usually) persevered. IMHO it was this vehicle that provided the most bang for the buck for the Panzerwaffe. Supported by the MkIV, II and 35t & 38t, it was with this tank that most of Germany's strategic successes were won - France 1940, Balkans 1941, Barbarrossa, 1942 campaigns in southern Ukraine and Russia, North Africa 1941 - 42. the MkV and VI as well as the long barreled MkIV are certainly powerful and achieved some enduring tactical success but it was the MkIII that had more impact earlier in the war when the victories were won. Anyway, can you tell I'm looking forward to CM2? Cheers, Sturmtiger

Always liked the Tiger I series as my fav panzers. All other ...tiger handles were taken when I signed up 2 mos ago. Cheers, Sturmtiger 101 ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

Ferdinand / Elefant schwere JgPz! Hasn't recieved a good reputation post war due to poor reliability and fragile chassis, lack of mg in the Ferdi, etc. - But the crews of the s/PzJg battalions all gave high praise of the vehicles armour and L/70 8.8cm gun, and in general were well liked. Its' an interesting vehicle for me. Warmaker mentioned Sturmtigers but according to all my reading on the subject, Sturmorser Tiger, aka Sturmtiger, were only employed by Sturmorser Ko. 1001 and 1002, and then only on the western front. 8 or so per Kompanie. If these vehicles are not in CM1, then how can they justifiably be included in CM2? Believe I read a thread on this subject a few months ago... As for Soviet vehicles, I always thought the T-34/85 was the best combination of firepower, mobility and protection. Far more practical and reliable ( and numerous ) than those exotic German cats. Sorry for the ramblin'. E Tuggle ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

I would tend to agree with Mr Hough, that finding the right force balance is the key ingredient to selection. Myself, I lean towards quality over quantity in most situations. I usually buy veteran troops more than any other group and if its a mix of different skill levels then the veterans are the highest ratio represented. I also decide what quality to buy based on the type of scenario ( attacking vs defending ) being played as well as the terrain features likely to be encountered. Its' my impression that a few good troops are much more effective, incur fewer casualties and inflict more damage upon an opponent than a larger group of lower quality troops. Thus it is possible that in the scheme of things, a more expensive experience ed unit is much more cost effective overall. Just my humble opinion. Cheers, E Tuggle

Yep, supposed ta be awesome. I was still distraught over my crushing defeat. It's still a very cool game system ! . Major embarrassment E.

My humble opinion is that the Nashorn is not very desirable due to its open top, large silhouette, low speed/maneuverability, weak armour, its' only redeeming feature, the very excellent L71/88mm gun, isn't fully realized due to the typical 500 meter and less engagement ranges in CMBO. I've not yet been able to successfully use this vehicle in either defense or attack scenarios. Same goes for all the thinly armored SPGs, i.e. Wespe, Marder, Hummel, etc. Might have a nice main armament but by this period in the war are way to vulnerable to justify cost in the CM environment. ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

During a short 25 turn QB against the AI, I had a M4A376W and a M36 Knocked out by a conscript MkIV ausfH. The hell of it was, the USA afv were veterans, in what I thought were good hull down positions,the AI controlled MkIV was moving ( hunting? ), while the M36 was stationary and had spotted the German afv well before the buttoned MkIV picked up on its' threat and then knocked out the M36 with its' first shot! The redoubtable German panzer had earlier dispatched the M4, also with a single shot! I was dumbfounded after the Jackson was knocked out, that was a turning point for my AI opponent as that darn bugger then proceeded to eliminate a 'zook team which I was ( I thought ) craftily sneaking up behind the German afv for a flank shot. And this was a conscript crew! He held the upper hand for the rest of the game I'm humbled to say... Anyway, I'm just bitchin' as I realize it was just one of those fortune of war type of scenarios. Still, seems like too many times I've had veteran or even crack afv crews take 2 to 4 shots before finally hitting on target. My Jackson did score a hit but it glanced off the right front side, I believe due to the strike angle. Again, in this particular event that crew acted more like veterans than conscripts. BTW, BTS, ASSUME GAME!!! Cheers, E. Tuggle ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

Hey all, Similar scenario for me, around age 13 started w/ Tactics II~Panzer Blitz series~Third Riech~Fortress Europa ( Normandy Campaign and beyond at the divisional/corps level )~Stalingrad~Squad Leader~Panzer General on the Playstation, then PGII on the pc~Steel Panthers~Ostfront~PG3D Assault~now? Exclusively CMBO!!! Cheers, Eric ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

Evening all, I served 5 years US Army National Guard as a 91Bravo / Charlie in a M-48A5 equipped armoured battalion, the 1/163 of the S.C. National Guard. It was alot of fun most of the time and helped pay my way through school. After college I enlisted in the regular USAF for 4 yrs as a med tech. Made E-5 SSgt. Still in nursing/medical field today, but my first love has always been for AFVs. Cheers, Eric Tuggle ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: Correct, but they probably didn't fight well. To simulate this in CM, make them fanatics instead. That way they won't panic or run, but they will still act inexperienced, ie not take cover or shoot as well as elite units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the young grenadiers of the 12th SS Panzer Div. fought extremely well and inflicted more material damage, personnel casualties, and frustration of allied offensives, comparatively, than any other whermacht formation in the Normandy campaign. To say this unit was reckless or fanatical in its' combat actions in Normandy seriously underrates its' fighting capabilities, leadership, and morale that were displayed time and again in actions with Canadian, British, Scottish, and Polish units from 7 June - 25 August 1944. It Also ignores the historical facts. Per authors like: M. Reynolds " Steel Inferno, I SS Panzer Corps In Normandy " and M. Hastings " Overlord, D-Day, June 6, 1944 " and H. Meyer " History of the 12th SS Panzer Division " and A. McKee " Caen, Anvil of Victory " documented fact shows these kids were well trained in the art of cover, concealment, fire discipline, close assault, combined arms,etc..., and were well led. All but one of the battalion level and higher unit leaders were holders of the Knight's Cross and most company level and above officers and 70% of the NCOs' had extensive combat experience from '39 up to and including months / years service on the Eastern Front. Now, I don't know what all this should mean in terms of CM scenarios incorporating elements of this division, but my point is that, though the soldiers of this unit were young and this was their first combat, from beginning to end they fought like old pro's and most often gave better than they got. IMHO, they rate as veteran and crack troops, perhaps with a few elite individuals thrown in. Max Wunsche, anyone? Just my two cents, gents. ------------------ " They're acting as if they have already won the war! " B. Woll " We will prove them wrong. " M. Whitman [This message has been edited by sturmtiger101 (edited 01-18-2001).]