Determinant

I suppose that you could say that the effect of the Commisar is modelled in the early war years by the long Soviet command delays. All the commanders being too scared to do anything without checking with the commisar first for fear of a bullet in the back of the neck if things go wrong. [ July 21, 2002, 06:09 AM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

If you get clearance I will be pleased to see that. This is the big nutty question about how the Red Army went about its business. We all have this conception of herds of men, like a flock of sheep, being pushed forward anyhow. The attack frontages that you quote are spookily similar to those used by the British Army in Jul 16 on the Somme. The key difference I suppose is the crushing weight of artillery deployed by the Red Army. But this raises the essential question of how the Red Army attacked: was it just herds of men plodding forward shoulder to shoulder (a la Somme) or was there something more sophisticated going on there? This is a critical problem for CMBB. As tactical wargamers we expect to encounter a measure of balance - it makes for a fair (and therefore an interesting) fight. The art of the operational commander is to ensure that an attack is a foregone conclusion: no fairness, just overwhelming victory - as seen above. Where does this leave the tactical wargame on the horrific broad canvas of the Eastern Front?

If you get clearance I will be pleased to see that. This is the big nutty question about how the Red Army went about its business. We all have this conception of herds of men, like a flock of sheep, being pushed forward anyhow. The attack frontages that you quote are spookily similar to those used by the British Army in Jul 16 on the Somme. The key difference I suppose is the crushing weight of artillery deployed by the Red Army. But this raises the essential question of how the Red Army attacked: was it just herds of men plodding forward shoulder to shoulder (a la Somme) or was there something more sophisticated going on there? This is a critical problem for CMBB. As tactical wargamers we expect to encounter a measure of balance - it makes for a fair (and therefore an interesting) fight. The art of the operational commander is to ensure that an attack is a foregone conclusion: no fairness, just overwhelming victory - as seen above. Where does this leave the tactical wargame on the horrific broad canvas of the Eastern Front?

Ooohh but that's just the point. If you know that a hit will pentrate you then that's a very good reason to expose as little of yourself as possible. The infantryman analogy is a good one. North Africa, and fighting in the desert, is an extreme example of this (thus the turret-down head-up quote from the Stuart Commander above). I remember driving through the desert in Oman - even a small rise seemed to significantly increase your sightline. And of course - if you can be seen then you can be hit. Hull Down forever must be the cry. Even on the attack. It's not as if tanks need to squish their prey 'neath their tracks like bugs. Good enough is to get to a good overlook position that's safe (HD?) then shoot the enemy to pieces. But I shall still be glad to see the advance to HD feature in CMBB because no matter how much I crawl around at level one I can't pick proper HD sites. Of course I blame the poor perspective rather than my own poor skills, but that's life isn't it?

Andreas, Thanks for that. Very interesting. I look forward to the CMBB scenario conversion and after-action report! Toodle pip! Nigel

Andreas, Thanks for that. Very interesting. I look forward to the CMBB scenario conversion and after-action report! Toodle pip! Nigel

There's probably only one way to find out. Go get 'em Tiger. Oh and while we're here. At least you're able to buy things on-line you lucky thing. I will have to buy some kind of 'not offend the company lawyers in Germany' variant of CMBB from a shop and I won't be able to buy direct like I bought CMBO. So you should count yourself glad and thank your lucky stars. I speak as a disgruntled company lawyer. [ July 19, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

Well the game is afoot. My dry mouthed and sweaty palmed Durham Light Infantrymen are doggedly plodding forward wondering to themselves how the OC got to be in charge when he has such fooking silly plans for an attack. They wince as they wait for the tearing roar of Reed Schaffer's MG42s to tear through their hapless ranks. War is hell. But not from where I'm sitting. Toodle pip. [ July 19, 2002, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

Yes. Splendid. Well done for all your hard work. I can't pretend to understand it all myself but I'm sure it will all go spiffingly. Greetings to my new opponents. The kettle is on, my pipe is drawing, there is whisky for my tea, and I am now officially 'at home' for a good kicking. Good luck and good hunting. Toodle pip.

Hmmm, now you've tickled my fancy: I love being on the business end of a trousers down six of the best thrashing and no blubbing afterwards. Put me down for the Brits in FK&C if you have room. Cheers, Nigel

I was once lucky enough to see a demo of a sustained fire MG (same thing as Stalin's Organ is talking about). My abiding memory from it was being shown one day's worth of ammo next to the gun. This was a pile of boxes nearly as big as a small car (that's a European rather then an American small car!). The gun commander pointed at it and said: 'As you can see moving around is a problem for us if we can't use a vehicle'...

It is the same sight that the mortars use. The C3 sight in British terminology if memory serves me. Actually 'sight' is something of a misnomer since it is really just a protractor - it allows you to measure elevation and direction from a fixed point: the rod - which is illuminated for night time use. All that this allows you to do in MG terms is to fire the gun on a pre-registered area target that you cannot see from the gun position because it is now night-time/foggy/smoked out. You have to have registered the gun on the target area previously when you could see the target and spot where your rounds are falling for it to work. As for indirect machine gun fire I think that it largely fell away post-war because the NATO 7.62 mm round does not have the long range punch of the .303 round. Sydney Jary is scathing in his comparison. I am also reminded of the quote in Guy Chapman's memoir of WWI, 'A Passionate Prodigality', when he is asked by a MG officer whether he minds if the MGs fire a barrage onto a German communication trench opposite Chapman's position. 'No, I don't mind' replies Chapman, 'And I'm sure that the Germans won't mind it either'.

The RPG-2 was adopted for service in the Soviet Army in 1949. The LPG-44/RPG-1 was developed during the period 1944-48 but never adopted. Source: "Protivotankoviye granatomyotnite kompleksi" ("Anti-tank grenade launcher systems"), Lovi, Koren'kov, Bazilevich & Korablin, Vostochniy Gorizont, Moscow, 2001. All the best, John.</font>

When did the Soviets start to use rocket propelled grenades? From my tiny knowledge of the subject they seem to have persevered with the AT rifle longer than was actually profitable. This has always struck me as strange given their interest in these weapons later - making the RPG7 the world's most popular light anti-tank weapon for instance...

The attacker gets more points by default because he can generally choose when and where to attack. An attacker would be unwise to attack where he did not have some qualitative or quantitative advantage. History is of course littered with attacks that were executed without an advantage - the abortive Nazi assault on the Kursk salient being a case in point. On a practical point the attacker needs the extra points because otherwise he will almost always be beat by the defender and that does not make for a balanced default game.

This sort of reminds me of that thing in school where they try and explain probability. Throwing five heads in a row doesn't make it more likely that you will then throw a tail - the coin has no memory. Or something. Geography was more my thing - all those pretty maps. Still, you should feel privileged to have witnessed such a consummate display of gunnery.

Jason, I fully agree with your general idea that, over time, attrition won. But why did it win? It only won, imo, because interdiction kept the Germans in place (operationally pinned them). </font>

Ahh. Nazi Germany. Those boys really were up to speed with 'rebranding' weren't they? Let's call four blond teenagers with bicycles a mechanised division and use them to halt that Soviet tank corps. Blah, blah. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for all the murders.

Words nearly fail me. It is with reluctance that I thank you for sharing that site. It is almost too strong for a family forum. I am shocked to the very core by the awesome power of this ammunition. I now understand why it was that Kartoffelgeshutz gunners who fell into Soviet hands had as much chance of survival as members of the Waffen SS. The fiendishness of it is repulsive.

Ahh. Of course! Sufficiently Accelerated Red Meadow Voles! I wondered about the otherwise incomprehensible reference to SARMVski Guards Anti-tank Regiments in the magisterial 'An Illustrated History of Antitank Mammals in the Red Army' (Gerbil publishing NY 1988). Thanks for clarifying that one!

Aggh. Voetsat! No biltong and cooksisters?

Prisoners of War were all a bit problematic on the Eastern Front. I wonder whether many PWs were taken in the East outside of mass surrenders like 1941 and Stalingrad. And none of those men had a chance of rescue from tactical action (and most were killed or died from maltreatment anyway). But perhaps it's a good idea for when CM makes the transition to other theatres - The famous Vietnam prison raid perhaps? [ May 25, 2002, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

This thread is pure blather. You have to be impressed by James Joyce. He invented stream of consciousness without any assistance from the internet. Humbling thought really. Guys: read some books without pictures, talk to people face to face. Maybe it'll improve your posts.

Well that lays to rest the old joke about the most dangerous thing being an officer with a map. It's not - it's an officer with a firearm!

There are two schools of thought on battlefield tours - cover as much ground as possible or cover your ground as in much detail as possible. If you want to do the first then an organised coach tour is ideal. I suspect though that most CM players would prefer a more detailed 'in the weeds' experience. My advice would be to do Normandy in some detail. Get some really good first hand accounts and good maps and go for the detail of what happened. For myself I will not forget the disappointment of driving through Villers Bocage and not having detailed enough sources with me to understand what Wittmann actually did on his rampage through the town. But here's the best tip: get the 2315 Hrs ferry from Portsmouth to Caen. This arrives at 0615 Hrs the next morning. You are of course retracing the voyage of the invasion fleet and at dawn you will have the same view of the French coast that the assault troops had in June 44 (less explosions and incoming fire of course). If that doesn't make the hair on the back of your neck prickle then nothing will...