Jasper

Interesting parochial views coming from a company that pays lip service to international customers. [* The above opinion is without basis in fact. I think that the 5% of the world that comes up as idiot's is shared part time by all of us. The above would be an example of my 5% contribution. It was unworthy of my, and BTS and this board in general. *] PS - If you spend much time debating military issues in anything close an international forum - you'll learn to call it the American Civil War when referring to that conflict. The Swiss called it "The War in Russia". Of course in the 1940's there was no need to say which war in Russia they were referring to. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-15-2001).]

Terrance: On my 'FunFacts' sites listed below try: "Tank Action at Night", "Night Combat", "Night Attack in the Mountains" all translated from Russian articles. Other articles that may or may not be related to night operations: "Night Combat" - Swiss, "Defense Against Night Air Raids" - Chile. The 'Combat Lessons' published by the US Army make frequent mention of successful night attack against German forces, and how to do it. And also how to defend against night attacks made by the German forces. While the lack of German literature describing night attacks will never be conclusive (and who knows? I might stumble across some as I plow through more stuff), I think is safe to say that the Russian placed a great deal of emphasis on night actions *early*. Given the general lack of preparedness of the German's for the Russian winter, their preparedness for night combat can now be suspect. I think the 'burden of proof' is now on you to provide evidence that the Germans considered night fighting as a priority - say before 1943. PS - Not preparing for night fighting is an easy thing to do. The Navy didn't do it until the Japanese "explained" it to them. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

I guess you read what you want to, but I thought Pillar was saying that it's a good way to kill AT weapons (guns and the like).

The bigger guns are too expensive (and too slow) to take chances with. And certainly too expensive to make smoke with. Because they're so slow - you can't use them to respond to the unexpected (unless the unexpected happens r e a l - s l o w). You're almost forced to use them according to plan. So I always *start* by buying off-map 81mm (or similar smallish size). I might work up to the bigger stuff, but only after I've got my 'little' mortars. Personally I'd rather have many smaller fire missions than one big one. Faster responding, can make life miserable in more than one place, more flexible (mix smoke and HE if need be). So I'm allowed to make mistakes / take chances with it, and still have artillery left afterwards. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-13-2001).]

"PIGEONS" As I was preparing to post more stuff I stumbled across a reference. Clearly written by someone with a clear point of view: THE ARMY PIGEON [From an article by Frank W. Lane in The Royal Air Force Quarterly December 1942] "But in a war that bird may be carrying a message upon whose prompt delivery may hang the lived of thousands of men. Within recent years (written 1942) it has therefore become an aim of utmost importance among pigeoneers to develop a strain of night flyers - and they have succeeded!" "Today Fort Monmouth claims to have a flock of nearly a hundred of the only two-way homing pigeons in the world - birds able to carry messages on round trips across battlefields. Just how these bird were trained is a closely guarded military secret. Some indications of the methods, however, may be gained from some French experiments . . ." "The military need for such a pigeon is obvious to anyone who has studied the tactics of blitzkrieg. . . . messages sent back by hard-pressed forward troops could never be entrusted to an army pigeon trained to World War I standards." "And when, in one bird, can be combined night-flying, two-way messages, carrying to moveable bases, a weapon will have been forged which has been the dreams of army commanders since the dawn of organized warfare." More important than my opinion of the effectiveness of the widespread use of carrier pigeons, if the enemy using them, then I want falcons trained to WWII standards to intercept them!

If you search for 'relative spotting' you'll be able to read more that you care to know about this issue. As it stands now either (a) the units don't have anything to report to each other or ( they report what they see to each other with 100% accuracy in zero time. Depends on your point of view which is which.

1. T / F. No poison gas was used during WWII. 2. T / F. Britain used bomber aircraft to target civilians first. Year: 1940 3. T / F. Germany had more tanks than the allies. 4. T / F. German tanks were better than allied tanks. 5. T / F. The German army was larger than the combined allied armies. 6. T / F. The German airforce was larger than the combined allied airforce. 7. T / F. Belgium would not let English or French military units inside it's borders. Year: 1941 8. T / F. The Russians were producing T-34 tanks. 9. T / F. The Germans were producing Panther tanks. 10. T / F. Zuhkov was still in a Russian prison camp. Year: 1942 11. T / F. The German Luffwaffe was reaching it's peak effectiveness. 12. T / F. American sent the first Lend Lease convoy to Russia. 13. T / F. Germany had no labor shortages this year. 14. T / F. The first German mass execution took place in Russia. 15. T / F. The first US invasion of the war took place in North Africa. Year: 1943 16. T / F. The battle of Midway marked the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the Pacific. 17. T / F. Lend Lease convoys were suspended because the Liberty ships would sometimes break in two in calm seas. 18. T / F. US Bombers based in England began daylight bombing of Germany production centers. 19. T / F. Radar was first used in an aircraft. 20. T / F. The first US bombing of Japanese soil took place. 21. T / F. The first incendiary devices were used in the war. Year 1944 22. T / F. Toyko was the first Axis city fire-bombed. 23. T /F. Italy surrenders and officially exits the war. 24. T / F. FDR makes "unconditional surrender" official allied policy for the European Theater of Operations. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

"What? Really? Hang on I'll tell him. Sir, many reports coming from the front. It's still getting colder. Apparently the enemy have fired their 'winter' weapon. Intelligence reports that they can only use it once a year and that it will last a couple of months. Clever bastards."

Just thought I'd get a jump on griping. Since BTS will shamelessly ignore horses in the next game - something about equestrian morale being difficult to model. I suppose veterinary units will also be banished. (sigh). I really wanted veterinary units in my combat sim. With horses and veterinary units gone then I can only assume the next CM will continue to ignore the "HISTORICALLY ACCURATE" practice of driving sheep across a minefield to clear it (happened at least once). "You'll have to sign for your 300 sheep, sir." Because if they won't have horses they probably won't have sheep either. Can bicycle troops be far behind on the chopping block? ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-12-2001).]

Ya know I find that the "the weather did it" mantra one of the stupidest arguments made about a history event, I always wrote it off to Cold War rhetoric. But it just never dies. I guess people think it wasn't as cold on the Russian side of the front as it was the German! I've found reading period literature very enlightening. I've never liked the idea of having to pay some third party middleman, or author, for his opinions. All I want facts - I'll draw my own conclusions thank you. I'll not debate the myths or gross generalizations of the German invasion of Russia. I've found reading period Russian documents very enlightening. As straight from the 'horses mouth' as possible I think. I'd suggest you read them and make up your own mind. Personally I found the article on "Ramming" one of the most moving things I've read in a long time. Kinda hard to say "Yea well Lt. Col. Andropov writing in 1943 says his experience this, but XXXXXX writing in 1995 says 'All Russians did that' and so that's my opinion to." ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

I just finished posting just about all I got right now. I'm going to start looking for more stuff in the 1941-1942 era for the Eastern Front (Eastern front! Gimme a break. It's only east to the Germans) Anyway there is a German Article with that title, I think on the fourth Geocities page. If anyone is really keeping track - since the "Lessons Learned" #1 - #9 were already posted by someone else - I posted a link to where they're at. I deleted the files and I'm filling up their space with other stuff. If you want to be up to your eyeballs in infantry tactics try the "Lessons Learned" by the 34th Inf. Div. on the Spaceports site. If you can read it in one sitting you're a better man/woman than I am. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Why don't you see if some of the stuff posted on the sites listed below might help. They're free! ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

I'll send them to you first, but my intent is to post stand alone statements / observations and not responses to other ideas. Exceptions being made for responses being more or less stand alone.

Many (or most) most of your posts I print out and save. They are (usually ) full of interesting ideas and good information. I'm considering a cheap 'CM How To' section for my FunFacts stuff. It's cheap, not in the quality of the material, but the ease by which I can add good materials. I'm considering cut-and-pasting entire posts and posting them as html pages - attributing them to this board and your authorship. Without editing, comment or review by myself (or anyone else). Well perhaps that's a little over the top. I would like to make techical corrections, spelling grammer and the like, should you ever make one While I'm not committing myself to it, I wouldn't even attempt it without your permission. But I think the information that you present deserves better than to scroll off into the aging post pile, and future readers of this board may never benefit from them. There may be great stuff posted before I regularly check this board, but it's buried I'll probably never see it. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

I'd suggest "Chemical Warfare in the European Theater of Operations" on the 'Spaceports' site for people interested in this sort of thing. Very interesting mention of flamethrowers as well. Like - squirt the fuel first. Then fire a few flame brusts to ignite it. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-06-2001).]

"As it is, smoke is more powerful and prevalent in CM than in real life." Patently 100% untrue. Smoke is not near effective enough in CM as it should be if it's to model Real Life. Far too many sources to refer to. Check out the articles on my 'Period Document' sites that have the word smoke in them. Many sources mention smoke that don't have the word in the title. From memory: references to smoke screens being maintained for days to cover a bridging operation. references to wanting (and achieving) a haze over an entire battlefield. references to having a knocked-out Stug being hidden by smoke until it could be towed to safety. CM lacks the smoke pots (or candles as the Germans seemed to call them) - so giving the impression that the only source of smoke is an artillery shell. Yea - now get me started about white phosphorus why don't you? (pant, pant, pant)

I've got an article on my 'Spaceports' site called "The Reconnaissane Squadron" from 1943 that some people may find interesting. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

"The bottom line is you have to destroy the enemy's will to fight." Amen brother. Personally I'm slightly entertained that people put labels on wars. I suspect that the reason the USMC calls it a "Maneuver War" is because that's the kind of thing they want Congress to pay for. And the kind of war they want to fight. Implicit it that is the message "Don't send us on any (more) peace keeping missions." And I guess if you keep reading into "Maneuver War" there are other messages : "No urban combat please. We paid our dues in Lebanon." "We're not too crazy about dense terrain like that found in Kosovo - no room for those fancy maneuver's." If only the enemy will oblige us in that.

"Let's club this one to death. He's not worth a bullet." ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

The players will be older than they are now. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

If you ask me attrition wars are a thing of the past. Because, back in the days when you could, could you really wage war without knowing the output of your factories? If not - how would you know if you were winning or losing? Or to restate it another way - when to stop developing (improving) the design and start producing it. Or how many you're going to need, and how to get there from here. All that stuff. Today of course, the pace is so fast that by the time you crank up the 'stealth fighter' production lines - it's already over. So it's similar to a CM battle in that it's a zero sum game. The only stuff you have is what you bring to the table - you've either built it or you havn't. Losses are not going to be replaced (in time enough to make a difference anyway!)

Personally I'm being ripped to shreds by 75mm cannons in bunkers in that 'Huge' scenario that comes with CM. Whoever made the thing should've put the German AT guns out in the open where it's easy to kill them. Defensively the Germans used tanks as rolling pillboxes (or bunkers for this conversation) not sure about the point efficiency between a bunker and a tank. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

Someone who can't tell the difference between a strategy and a tactic. ------------------ Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

<HR> I will stress again however, that the true master will have "fingerspitzengefeul"(sp?) or "sixth sense for battle" and instinctivly know when to employ one or the other. And more importantly be able to train his officers and men to be able to switch from one mindset to the next without dropping a beat. <HR> I think Picket's Charge is an effective enough response. Following one's instincts is sometimes right. [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-05-2001).]

I love deception. In real life they used it constantly in a huge variety of ways. But it's always missing from wargames. (Probably wimpy authors wishing to keep their flame-mail down ) However CM does allow some limited techniques. Here's a 'freebie'. Use crews to run around. From a distance they look like 'Infantry?'. No I've never (yet) intentionally got a vehicle knocked-out just to get the crew out of the vehicle and on the ground where they can do some good. <HR> For military documents written during WWII check out http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ [This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 02-05-2001).]