Skipper

On the german uberplanes, according to Oleg Maddox, the boss of IL-2 project, every uberplane project was finished to the stage of a flyable prototype in USSR, and although some ideas were found useful, none of them was put into production. OTOH, the first ballistic missile in soviet service was indeed a heavily modified FAU-2 (saw that thing myself in RVSN museum).

Stefan: That particular duel with Der Ubersniper from Berlin cannot be found in Sgt Zaitsev's combat log (hey, how would he know one from another?). However, there are several duels with snipers recorded in there. The worst enemy of a frontline sniper was another frontline sniper. As for the movie, well, I've read the book "War of Rats", which is the basis fr scenario. It had all the same crap that was already mentioned here - such as three or four bed scenes, femme fatale from America and so on. And above all else, Commander of 62nd's Sniper School Sgt Zaitsev calling his partner in the middle of combat mission "Vasilyushka". Oh soooo sweeet... From what I hear, the movie takes all this crap staight from the book and adds some more (such as hordes of desperate russian peasants storming a german machine gun nest, while their commissars are watching them in periscope from behind the lines). Can anyone say "Saving Private Ryan-2"?

So, the idea of AK could be inspired by the -44 then. It still is a totally different machine.

As the legend goes, Kalashnikov designed the original AK in 1943, when he was a young sergeant passing his time in a hospital after receiving a wound on the front. MP44, as suggested by the index, was issued to the troops in 1944. Apart from somewhat similar looks (from some 300 meters distance, anyway), and similar idea (a real rifle that can shoot bursts) the two designs have almost nothing else in common. And isn't AK-47 a chinese version of same? At least, there never was AK-47 in soviet army - there was AK, AKM, AKSU etc.

Not 100% sure if it's what you are talking about, but Luftwaffe did form several light infantry divisions from excess airfield personnel some time in 1942 or 43, iirc. They were used as normal infantry divisions, although techically remained luftwaffe.

> However they always came off second best > when faced by even the second and third > rate German security units in straight > stand up fights. Sorry, pal, but this is nonsense. Whenever a partisan has to do "straight stand up fight", this means a fight against vastly superior enemy. In pure combat capability, some of the smaller partisan teams were above your average special force, if you see what I mean. Others were just a bunch of peasants, and there was a full range in between. Speaking of larger formations, Usachi Republic was already mentioned. Partisan controlled region that existed for months on end. I've mentioned Kovpak's brigade, too.In CM terms, both can be classified as Veteran, with healthy dose of Crack (pun unintended).

in armor the tactics depend heavily on who can kill whom from what distance/aspect. Which means that you should always look at penetration tables and armor thickness tables. Panther G is not much different from Panther G (late), but say various Shermans are VERY different. There are even some Shermans, that can kill Pz-V with frontal hit.

> Would it be difficult to decide what to > arm a Partisan squad with and how to > create a TO&E for a Partisan battalion? Why bother? Give me a basic infantry squad armed with 5 rifles and 5 MP40s, plus selection of MGs and mortars, plus a generic "HQ" (can be a platoon HQ, too); dress them all in civilian clothes - and I am all set. Doesn't reflect the rich historical variety, but hey, this is a game. > Do they have platoons? Who knows. Yes, they do. > Do they have battalions? Who knows. No, they don't. Batallion is about the size of biggets partisan formations, and they basically were not devised under any sort of TO&E - whoever comes with whatever comes was the only rule. However, squads and platoons were normally used as a basic organisation (after all, many partisan commanders or XOs were regular military). > At what point do these "partisan" units > become "partisans"? Not that many partisan units in fact started as cut-off military units. Most were established by locals. Cut-off military units would normally try to reach friendly positions if at all possible, at least that is what they were ordered to do.

Major Tom: Contrary to what you say, partisan units of batallion and even regimental strength were not rare at all, rather a norm, due to several huge cauldrons of 1941, and to extermination campaign nazies carried out on captured territories, particularly in Eastern Ukraine, Russia and Belorussia. There was a lot of behind the lines activity by regular troops, the most famous example being the raid of Kovpak's brigade (about the only effective cavalry formation of WWII, by the way). And hey, you are even wrong on the issue of tanks. Some of the larger units had their own armor and artillery. Not much, of course. Although, the most effective partisan units were small ones, they did an awful lot of damage, mostly by sabotaging railroads and supply centers. As for the CM, this engine is in fact quite appropriate for partisan warfare.

> Off topic, Chuikov was a pretty heroic guy > right? And, didn't he end up getting > wasted by the KGB? ROFLMAO Surely enough! After all, they all were. These russians breed like rabbids, that's the only reason they can afford 30 million wasted by KGB, plus another 50 million in WWII, and still survive as a nation. PS These Cold War propaganda stereotypes never cease to amuse me, really.

In operations - maybe. But still not a big thing. You need to travel some 20km to stand a considerable chance of a breakdown in a platoon of Tigers.

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II, > continuous trench lines were very much the > exception. Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit. The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II, > continuous trench lines were very much the > exception. Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit. The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly.

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II, > continuous trench lines were very much the > exception. Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit. The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly. [This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

> Well, this isn't WW I after all. In WW II, > continuous trench lines were very much the > exception. Thing is, those mutually supportive squad positions were all connected together in a company position. Besides, each heavy weapon had AT LEAST two firing positions, plus a safe rear exit. The point here is the ability to move troops around safely and secretly. [This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

hehe, you please make up your mind, dog or pig - cant have it both ways > There was no need to discuss Soviet armor. I believe, the fact that CM2 is about Eastern Front just gives me a good excuse. That's all I need My 2 cents on your question. Reliability of tanks doesn't have much to do with the battlefield. If you follow any of your tanks through a firefight, it doesn't drive all that much around. By far the most mechanical failures occurred during marches.

> The armies of WW II were big. My whole point in one phrase. As they say, brevity is a sister of talent I would also say that the assault phase of your typical frontline operation (breakthrough) would probably see tactical reserves (at least on company level, and probably battalion's reserves, too) already committed. After all, it wasn't the breaking battalion's job to exploit the holes - they were only supposed to take the first two or three trenchlines. Besides, CM engine doesn't give proper credit to artillery. There is even no "heavily shelled forrest" type of terrain. In RL, any open terrain in front of enemy trenches would include a plenty of craters for cover. Oh, but there are no trenches - just foxholes. In other words, CM makes very good job representing spearhead's forward element engagements against hastily prepared defences. It is not the right tool to model major strategic breakthroughs or any part of it, however.

> The armies of WW II were big. My whole point in one phrase. As they say, brevity is a sister of talent I would also say that the assault phase of your typical frontline operation (breakthrough) would probably see tactical reserves (at least on company level, and probably battalion's reserves, too) already committed. After all, it wasn't the breaking battalion's job to exploit the holes - they were only supposed to take the first two or three trenchlines. Besides, CM engine doesn't give proper credit to artillery. There is even no "heavily shelled forrest" type of terrain. In RL, any open terrain in front of enemy trenches would include a plenty of craters for cover. Oh, but there are no trenches - just foxholes. In other words, CM makes very good job representing spearhead's forward element engagements against hastily prepared defences. It is not the right tool to model major strategic breakthroughs or any part of it, however.

> I think you miss by at least one dimension. Maybe. At best by one dimension, too. So make it simply one dimension This is what I am curious about - is it true that in the thick of it there would be considerably more than a reinforced batallion engaged in the same 2x2 km areasimultaneously? Looks like it must be the case on the attacking side (?) > CM is a squad level game. Exactly! Regiment-sized formations are too much mouse-clicking. Which draws me to a tentative conclusion that certain major firefights (penetrtions of prepared defences) cannot be portrayed with this engine with all the people that were historically present. Thus, the West Wall scenario in the game (involving just a company and a tank platoon) must be then a far cry from what it was really like (?)

> I think you miss by at least one dimension. Maybe. At best by one dimension, too. So make it simply one dimension This is what I am curious about - is it true that in the thick of it there would be considerably more than a reinforced batallion engaged in the same 2x2 km areasimultaneously? Looks like it must be the case on the attacking side (?) > CM is a squad level game. Exactly! Regiment-sized formations are too much mouse-clicking. Which draws me to a tentative conclusion that certain major firefights (penetrtions of prepared defences) cannot be portrayed with this engine with all the people that were historically present. Thus, the West Wall scenario in the game (involving just a company and a tank platoon) must be then a far cry from what it was really like (?)

Medium CM map covers about 2x2 km. In large battles, where troops density reached a division for every 5 km (division for 2.4 km in Kursk), whole regiments would be engaged in firefights on such a front. In CM, commanding such a force would be a major pain in the stern. Making smaller maps, OTOH, is not a good idea either, for obviou reasons. Conclusion: really hot actions cannot be fairly represented by CM. Comments? PS Still one heck of a wargame! [This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

Medium CM map covers about 2x2 km. In large battles, where troops density reached a division for every 5 km (division for 2.4 km in Kursk), whole regiments would be engaged in firefights on such a front. In CM, commanding such a force would be a major pain in the stern. Making smaller maps, OTOH, is not a good idea either, for obviou reasons. Conclusion: really hot actions cannot be fairly represented by CM. Comments? PS Still one heck of a wargame! [This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-20-2001).]

PS unless you want to be referred as a nazy lover (hey, you do advocate their horrible killing machines!), please drop the "commie lovers" crap. There are none around, as far as I can say.

By the same token, the best german aircraft is a Stuka - it was certainly the most hated one. Wherever a Tiger could make it to the front in time, it was basically a place to call for an airstrike or a platoon of ISUs. In the meantime, it was to be avoided or outflanked. That's the only role Tigers were really good at - heavy tank destroyer. But in that role they were not better (probably, worse) than real heavy tank destroyers - and at a much bigger production cost. Sherman was quite a decent medium tank for the era, albeit the turret design was not very good. The problem was lack of a heavy TD and a heavy assault tank in the western allies arsenals. Which meant that Shermans were too often called for jobs they were not designed for.

> Every bit of footage I've seen of the > Eastern Front has been on very large and > vast flat lands. Even Moscow is dead flat. You may want to consult your globe. Russia has a lot of woods. Steppe is in the south. Moscow is surely not Caucasus, but to say it is dead flat is a bit of exaggerration, too. There quite many small rivers (and hence, valleys) around, and about half of the terrain is forrested. > Yes, but remember that all troops which > used Bt series tanks and all tanks in > 41/42 where very low trained and with a > very low tactical capability! Not true. But we've been there before, right?