Jasper

While certainly not the "BEST: sites - I frequency use these sites. German armor http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer.htm Russian armor http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/introduction.htm Russian stuff http://history.vif2.ru/ People love the German toys, so it's hard to swing a dead cat about WWII without hitting German hardware information. You can get US information from the 'horses mouth' at places like: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bookshelves/books3.htm Or http://carlisle-www.army.mil/ Another noteworthy site is http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/weapons/introduction.html Those should get you started. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Oh yea forgot to mention. The article - should someone want to read it for themselves - is written by Lt. Col. Denisov can be found at the sites listed below. I keep forgetting to click that 'Show Signature' box. An article on another 'unorthodox' aerial combat method - ramming - is available too. I think the article is called 'Ramming'. I've heard of ramming from other sources so am inclinded to buy into that practice. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

One person can't do something that screwed up - it takes a committee.

Reading an article titled "German Spring Air Tactics" about the change in German tactics in the spring of 1942, the author states: "Secondly, many instances were observed when German bombers defended themselves against attack of our fighters by releaseing small-size bombs suspended from a tiny parachute. This bomb is carried behind the plane by air current created by the propeller. Thus is defended the rear part of the plane from our fighter attacks, while the upper portion of the plane is protected by machine-gun fire." This is the first I've heard of it. Is it bogus, or did the Germans really try this? Did they release one at a time, or a whole cloud? I'm guessing one at a time - with a crewman arming the things and then throwing them out a window.

One thing generally over looked, and I apologize for not answering the question sooner: The 'Ammo' number is an abstract number isn't it? Not the actual number of rounds. So having an 'Ammo' value of 1 might translate into say 4 shells.

If you think so. I'd suggest a single dose of 155mm rockets for a company massing to attack. Seems to do the trick pretty well. Even gave the human player shell-shock! I wouldn't point them at anything smaller than a company though. It's kinda fun to watch the random explosions happening all over the battlefield. When the nebelwerfer's are fired - EVERYONE takes cover I personnally don't view the act as "aiming" nebelwerfer's. I think "pointing" is more accurate.

If you mean to say: Technique and attrition are two sides of the same coin. Then I agree. Apparently some people think there is no other technique than maneuver.

I'm not familiar with this 'decisive battle' stuff. Was Waterloo considered a decisive battle? I mean it was the last battle, but suppose the French had won - then what? They win the war - hardly. Some other battle seals their fate later. Like Gettysburgh, in the American Civil War. What if the south had won? The war over? Hardly. The south either declares their raid a success and go back home to prepare for siege, or press until and get stomped in some other battle in the north. When a commander fields his entire army for a single battle - as often happened earlier in history - I'll buy the decisive battle bit. But when somebody can't muster his entire military for one battle - like there's too much of it (Roman for example) then I'm afraid the 'decisive battle' idea falls rather flat for me. Perhaps someone can provide me with some example where (a) the entire military wasn't involved in the battle and ( the outcome ended the war. I'm prepared to take negotiated settlements as ending wars - if it did, in fact, end the war and simply not pause it.

Michael emrys: You're right - I tend to use the terms 'Soviet' and 'Russian' as interchangable, and they're not. In future I'll be more carful to avoid confusion. And use 'Soviet' 99% of the time

Thanks. I now understand things a little better. I mean that in all sincerity. The Germans said the same thing about the Russian's. And of course about the American's too, but that's not as politically popular to repeat. Implicit in this argument is: (a) Man for man I'm better than him, and if I could only get out from under this wall of fire I'd prove it ( If I had as much artillery as him, that I wouldn't use it as much as he does. (Kinda sounds a little like the common stereo type of the Soviet military during WWII doesn't it?) Falling through that we arrive at - "Well OK I'd use it, but I'd do it better". Or "more efficiently". Both 'better' and 'efficient' are sufficiently ambiguous to be meaningless. Until we start to try and apply some measure - and then we're off to the debate zone.

Without hitting a thing! I'm playing the defender in a PBEM QuickBattle - not a sign of any prep fire. Now that I think about it some of the windows were broken . . .

I was just reading that the Russians would expect to shell prepared German positions for 10 - 15 minutes to knock out AT guns etc, before attacking. Now I guess much of that must be mortars. I'd expect the Americans to use at least as much artillery as the Russians, and if anything the Americans would use more. So what would that be in CM? 3 - 81mm mortars FO's just in prep fire, with a couple more for support?

Since a trench can be considered nothing more than a field fortification I'd suggest "German Field Fortifications" for a more detailed description of how the Germans would use trenches in their strong points. CM really needs trenches. It's kinda goofy to have mines, wire, bunkers and all that, and end up trapped in foxholes. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Since a trench can be considered nothing more than a field fortification I'd suggest "German Field Fortifications" for a more detailed description of how the Germans would use trenches in their strong points. CM really needs trenches. It's kinda goofy to have mines, wire, bunkers and all that, and end up trapped in foxholes. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

No

Let me see if I understand this right. Grazing fire is (was) often implemented with a MG firing at a fixed point in space. Hold the trigger down and let'er rip until out of ammo. Reload. Repeat until ammunition exhausted, or told to stop. I though some MG's couldn't sustain long bursts of fire. Like the MG42? Their barrel would melt down or something. So you couldn't use those for grazing fire could you? So I guess you do this when you weren't expecting to be able to see the enemy cross into the zone of fire - like at night or tall grass that sort of thing. Of course that being the case - then the enemy couldn't see the MG either.

Just about everything that I've read about night tactics hammers away at: Don't fire unless you're desperate - it gives away your firing positions. Use grenades. Use grenades. Use (well you get the idea). But I guess with CM - there's one AI routine? Expected but not desired. It seems like the soldiers fight like it was day, happily blazing away. Smoke shells but no flare shells? Etc Etc. I'm as prejudice against the night as the next guy, but I was hoping for a little more detail. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

If 'target' ends up with a [square] box-like shell distrubution - does 'target wide' simply result in a bigger square?

Thanks. I was reading away about combat in mountains - and the mention was made that aimed direct fire, in contrast to grazing fire, was the way to go. The reason(s) are now obvious.

I keep waiting to see if - following the use of this term - there would be something to describe what it is. But I can no longer hide my ignorance. Help! <HR> Check out military documents written during WWII at: http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-15-2001).]

Terrance: Because you posted And if the Russians did train for it, is there some evidence you could point to that displays that they were in fact, good at it. So I pointed to some evidence. Didn't mean to overwhelm you or anything. Sorry about that - just my way of trying to gather more material. Because, very selfishly, I'd like to know when did the Germans place an emphasis on night fighting? Sure everyone is going to have some night training, but are they serious or just fooling around? I was hoping you'd go search out other sources to counter the argument (and then bring them back to me) saying "blah blah in thisandthat says that whatever". Oh well - gotta do my own leg work. Trouble is I don't want to know bad enough to actually do something about it - this 'Human Wave' stuff is interesting. I'll bet I can find some stuff about that regarding the USMC expirences fighting the Japanese. They were supposed to using infantry charges, let's see I'd have to . . . . PS - I wonder how many people think that I've actually read all that stuff? Skimmed until I find something that makes the thing worth posting - yes. Read and digested - ha!. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-15-2001).]

I know little about German vechicles, but if this is the 'basic' Sd Kfz 7 - and all the other Sd Kfd 7 / ??? weapons system are mounted on this - then we could take a look at the armor values of this beast and compare them to this beast which is supposed to be a Sd Kfz 250. Counting boogie wheels, the Sd Kfz 250 appears much smaller.

Supposed to be a picture of the beast. Seems like a lot less armor than a real half track. I'd call this a gun on a truck myself.

Is editing the hasty words on an original post enough of a obsolution of the sin - I wonder? I considered editing them away, but then the following record wouldn't make much sense.

<HR> BTS: So tell me... what non-country centric term should we can use in place of the Eastern Front? <HR> Hey I thought you did great with "Combat Mission Beyond Overlord". I'm still trying looking for information about the Civil War General Cromwell. And the bit about the colored roses has me utterly baffled. Red = North White=South, or was it the other way round?