c3k

Nac4, Nice to see someone trying to implement this. Ken

Gents, nice discussion. Tomb, John, et al., thanks. Steiner, you touch upon the cultural differences. That is indeed a huge factor in the success (kill ratios/cohesion/etc) of German units under difficult conditions when compared to other units. Wisbech_Lad, double your medication and try to troll another thread. You add nothing to this discussion. Ken

Hunter, The standard 800m sight range before engagement sounds more like exploiting advanced technology to me rather than overcoming limited technology. (My apologies if I've misinterpreted the meaning of your post.) Here's why: setting a sight for 800 meters will give a certain projectile trajectory, assuming you place the tip of the sighting triangle on the same location of the target for each engagement. (If you set the sight for 799 meters and use the same sight picture, the projectile will follow a slightly different trajectory.) Anyone by the name of Rexford should feel free to add in some real numbers at any point. So, how large a target will you ordinarily engage? At a sight range of 800 meters, how high will the projectile reach at the maximum point on its trajectory? How much further past 800 meters will the projectile continue and still hit a target tank hull if the aimpoint is set for center of mass? (I.e., the target is further than 800 meters, say 1,100 meters. Will the shell only drop 1/2 meter over the next 300 meters? Thus still killing the target?) In other words, that 800 meter default sight setting may be good, given the gun, for first shot hits on all tank-sized targets from 300 meters out to 1,200 meters. No need to adjust the sight at the beginning of each and every engagement. Odds are quite high that you'll hit the first time. And here's the big part: you'll hit the target the first time, WHILE PLACING THE AIMPOINT ON THE CENTER OF MASS OF THE TARGET. Western style, fixed graticle sights (reticle?) cannot be adapted for this kind of expediency. You've got to estimate the range, eyeball how high to elevate the sight picture and hope for the best. You cannot place the center of the aimpoint on the target and expect a hit, unless the range is extremely short. Advantage, Germans. Ken (semi-graticulated)

Okay, another of my 2 cents, now up to .04. The command and control element was considered critical enough by the Germans that they had dedicated command tanks. I believe this is unique in that period. Why a dedicated command tank? Simply, the radios were too big. In order to get the required radios to enable a command net at long range to function, something had to be removed from the tank. The only thing possible was the main armament. Thus, company commanders and higher did not have a gun. Instead, they had, in addition to the platoon radio/company radio, a radio capable of communicating with battalion and higher. Now, plunging into battle with no weapon is hard enough. But it also marks you as a priority target! Therefore, they started attaching fake barrels, usually wooden poles, to camouflage their command tanks. (Some ballsy anecdotes come to mind of company commanders penetrating enemy columns at night, having to bluff their way through with what little Russian they speak, being almost totally vulnerable if discovered.) This dedicated command tank with radios is an important tactical/operational advantage. Later (~'42-43), tanks got bigger and radios got smaller, so that the command tanks were able to be armed with the same weapons as the rest. A while back I posted about trying to imagine yourself in the place of Russian tank commander. In order to signal your platoon/company, you've got to open up your hatch (presumably under fire, since why else would you need to change plan under way unless in contact with the enemy and something isn't working out the way you'd imagined it would), shells going off nearby, bullets flying, tank rocking and slinging you around, dust obscuring everything (anyone else ever ride a tank when it's dry out?), adrenaline pumping, ball-sack shrivelled, and start waving your little flags around. How many of your tank commanders are looking at you at the right time? Right, none. Hence, the standard Soviet tactical briefing: "Follow me. If I die, follow Yuri. Questions?" (Erickson's appendices have some interesting information regarding German radio set's ranges, weights, and frequencies.) Ken (again, I wrote too much.)

To add my .02, The edge JasonC gives to larger German formations can again be explained by the doctrine the Germans implemented in having Tank Commanders command their tanks, instead of operating part of it. I don't know if this tactic was used early on, but by mid-war it was. A tank unit (platoon, company) would be directed by its commander to fire on a particular target. The engagement was CONTROLLED, not a wild melee. For example, using the radio, "2nd company, enemy tanks at 12 o'clock, 800 meters. Concentrate fire on 3rd tank from the left, with all the command radio antennas." Hmmm, 15 or so tanks concentrating on a single enemy tank will win. Next call, seconds later, "1st platoon, engage from left to right. 3rd platoon, engage from right to left. 2nd platoon, manuever to the right to flank them." The enemy formation, leaderless, with each tank out of communications, alone, is doomed. The commander and his radio are critical in achieving tactical superiority. That's why lesser German tanks, in formation, could rip up better and more numerous French, and later Russian, tanks. Another factor was the types of gun optics. I won't get into the quality issue. What I mean is the actual sight picture. Anyone compare actual WWII German sights vs. others? Okay, how about using Panzer Commander or Panzer Elite. That highlights the difference. (The Panzer Elite web-site has a great link to discuss German sights.) Here's my attempt to verbally describe the difference. Western sights were similar to what you see in a rifle scope. A cross with gradations. You estimate the range, say 500 meters. That corresponds with, say, the first hack beneath the horizontal line. Okay, elevate the gun so that hack is on target. Now, lead the target, since it's moving (say left to right), so put the target into the open space to the left of the vertical line. Hmmm, slight miss, so eyeball the change and try again. Another miss, etc. Very hard to accurately adjust fire at anything beyond short range. German sights use a central large triangle, the point of which is the targeted impact point, with smaller triangles in a horizontal line. (The size of the triangles are scaled to correspond to tank lengths at given ranges so it's easy to estimate the range.) Here's the BIG difference. Given a 500 meter range, you don't elevate the aim point. Instead, you rotate the sight's "focus" to the 500 meter range point. Internally, that changes the sight's relationship to the gun barrel so that the gunner just keeps the tip of the triangle on the target. Now, to lead the target, you use the triangles to either side. Miss in range, just dial the sight so the tip of the triangle is on the impact point. That is your EXACT range to the impact, and allows rapid fine-tuning of your shot. Too little lead? Just use the next triangle over. The German style of sights was/is FAR superior to the simple vertical and horizontal lines with gradations. Finally, the Luftwaffe and its operational employment were decisive. Account after account details Stuka attacks on enemy command centers. They tried not to waste bombs trying to plink tanks or bunkers. They sowed confusion and paralysis behind the front lines. The air units were trained to locate command centers. Then they would be attacked. So, a battalion CP might start a coordinated attack, only to be destroyed soon thereafter, leaving 3-4 companies flailing, waiting for coordination and direction. Ken (wordy, too long, maybe only JasonC can read posts like this!)

Okay, okay, it's not even released and I'm griping about it. I saw the link for the Computer Gaming ad for CMBB. It shows the title spelled out, but every "r" is replace by the cyrillic backwards "R". Guys, it looks stupid. First thing I thought of was "Toys 'R' Us" (with the backwards "R"). Don't do it. If the release is delayed 6 months while you redesign the box art/ad campaign, it'll be worth it. So, agree or not, pile on! Ken

Well, a little more to add here. One of the questions was what did the Germans use to cover the infantry anti-tank gap between Panzerfaust/panzershreck issuance and the retirement of the ATR's. Simple: they invented the anti-tank close assault badge. Seriously, this was the period of great feats of personal bravery with a series of jury-rigged weapons. Teller mines, grenade bundles, demo charges, etc. I understand from my reading that an oft used device was tying two smoke grenades together by a length of string and draping it over the main gun barrel to obscure the vision of the tank crew while another member set the explosive. I'm sure others know more about the German assault badge than I. Ken

Very nice! Low res AND looks great! Once you find a host, it'll become my default grass. Thanks for the work. Ken

Hi all. An idea sprang to mind as I was perusing some TO&E manual last night. Since CMBB will incorporate a command radius for vehicles, shouldn't it include command tanks?? (Background: the early war - up through '42 - German AFV's were frequently outmatched and outnumbered. They achieved victory through better command and control. One of their innovations was the dedicated command tank. It had to be dedicated because the early war radio equipment was so bulky and complex, that to fit it into a tank required the removal of the tank's main gun. Often, instead of a turret, the command tank had a boxy superstructure. Now, these vehicles were obvious targets. For operational camoflauge, they'd use a fake wooden barrel to simulate one of the battle tanks. These vehicles had various radios with differing frequencies, ranges, and links. Erickson's appendix has a good listing. In contrast, Soviet tank unit commanders had to set a plan prior to battle, then, to modify it, had to stand up out of the turret and wave signal flags. A standard early war practice. Later in the war the radio sets were small enough not to require the removal of the main weapon.) How do command tanks add to the game? Well, they give the German player a much larger command radius. I imagine them very similar to a CMBO HQ unit. The fact that it's a command tank should be hidden from the opponent unless they're very close. Fog of war. The loss of it should hurt the German player. Also, I've read many after-action accounts of German Pioneer units using specialist vehicles. Usually converted Pz II's. These could drop off demo charges, and perform other engineering functions. Again, mostly limited to the early war period. Will these be included in CMBB? I don't think it'd be hard to model these two types of vehicles. But then, I'm not a game programmer. What do the rest of you think? Thanks, Ken [ April 25, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: c3k ]

ciks, Thanks, good thought. Okay, when you "Target" an enemy unit and you get the "Use main Gun?" menu, does that prohibit the main gun from being used against a pop-up target of greater threat? Meaning, the TacAI could break off from your pre-selected target to deal with new threats as it deems suitable. So, my idea is target a known enemy unit, choose whether or not to use the main gun, then, if you want, choose to try to override the TacAI ammo choice. (Not a guarantee.) If the unit selects a different target, all your choices are out the window. Ken

Guys, I know it's probably too late, but I thought I'd post this anyway. Playing a PBEM game of CMBO. I've got my opponent on the ropes. (Showing 83% victory at turn 25 of 40). I have two of his squads isolated (two different instances). Both are out of command. Both are under infantry and HMG fire. I target, on each, a Marder II, and additionally a Wespe on one. Each SPG has full ammo loadout. What do the damn Marders fire? Any of their HE? Nope. They fire smoke. What the hell is up with that? Range of about 100m, no incoming fire on them. Just a meaty, juicy squad in scattered trees, pinned down. (The Wespe did fire HE.) My suggestion: it would be beneficial to enable the player to select the ammo type to be fired in certain circumstances. Just like we get to decide to use the main gun on targets, how about a choice of ammo? Restrict it to good order units, etc. Some times you don't want AP, even though you may get a kill. You may desire HE or smoke. And, in my example above, it seems ludicrous that the TacAI chose smoke. This could also stop the give away actions of on- board mortars. When they fire on a target, if they run out of HE, they switch to smoke. I hunker down when my opponent fires mortars, on the first smoke round, out I come. If HE ammo was selected as an over-ride option, I wouldn't know they're out of ammo. Just my thoughts. Ken

Yeah, It was a real life tactic. The massed tank assault reached a zenith with the Israelis in '73. During a battle in the Yom Kippur war in the Sinai, an Israeli battalion/brigade (?) attacked across the open ground in a phalanx. Yep, a phalanx. Several thousand years after Alexander the Great figured it out, the Israelis used it as the penultimate tactical formation.(They depended on a quasi-mathematical approach: what shape will put the most firepower in an area with the least exposed? In this case, it was assumed only the outer most layer of the phalanx would be exposed while closing with the enemy, then the survivors could engage the enemy.) Of course, the Isrealis were introduced to the Saggar wire-guided anti-tank missile. They lost. The phalanx has since fallen back out of favor. Real-life or gamey? Ken

Hi, As a comparison to WWII era tanks and guns, the book "King of the Killing Field"(?) is about the M-1 Abrams. Some facts off the top of my head: muzzle velocity of ~5,000 feet/sec. Penetrator mass of ~10kg. Of course, its armor is classified. Don't know about ANY Iraqi kills in Desert Storm. Well, that's the modern stuff. Ken

Hi, I have a US Gov. Printing Office manual about German tank recovery units. In the example you give, a Tiger, they'd use 2 or 3 SdKfz 7 (the great big, honkin', huge, half-track used to tow 8.8cm Flak guns around) cabled together to tow a single Tiger. The time involved would be enough for a single scenario of about 30-60 turns. ken

Bastables, I do not think that the III Flak Corps was a unique unit. The Luftwaffe had several such Flak Corps deployed on various fronts. If you'd like me to come up with verifiable sources, it would take awhile, but I specifically recall that several of these units existed. (By several, on the order of a dozen). Ken

BTS, Wow. Thanks. Ken

Gents, I too have Jentz's books. The Panther book has more detail for the production figures specific for that vehicle. Fernando has already posted them, so I will not repeat it. I took another approach: I poured out all the PzKpfw V counters from my "Panzerblitz" game and counted how many there were. Each counter represents 5 vehicles. This was a much simpler method than all this quoting sources stuff. I highly recommend it. Ken

To expand on the "Guards" theme: the units given Guards status had a different TO&E than standard units. Better stuff AND more of it. Ken

yes, +2 experience, +25% force.

Gents, I just scanned pages 4 & 5 of the nebelwerfer thread. It seems to've degenerated into a flame-fest about counter-battery detection techniques. However, in reading some messages there, I saw a few things I'd like to address. Someone mentioned that they thought that rockets should be treated as aerial bombardment, making massive craters, particularly effective against dug in troops. My understanding, subject to grogs who know better, is that rocket rounds were very thin-skinned and did not penetrate much, if at all, on impact. Instead their explosive force was very much directed on the surface, making them very good against exposed troops caught by surprise, but ineffective against dug in targets. (The benefit of the U.S. VT fuse was it enabled regular arty rounds to detonate above the ground, spraying splinters across the ground, instead of burying in dirt and losing effectiveness as normal fuzes would do.) More on that later if this thread develops. As for "rockets are cheap, tube arty is expensive why not just make more rockets?", that's not totally correct. It is easier to manufacture rockets and their launchers than it is to produce arty barrels and shells. BUT, the standard rocket round uses 3 times the propellant of a normal arty round. Propellant was in short supply in Germany. Very short. I believe the Russians also may have had to be careful with their propellant allocations. (I.e., they were not awash in the stuff.) Ken

ooops. Not trolling. A demo post, posted in error. My apologies. So, how do I edit a previous post?? (Or delete or lock it?) Ken Never mind [ February 04, 2002, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

(Deleted entire post - an example for my brother- in-law, about to be sucked into CMBO!) Sorry, Ken [ February 04, 2002, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

I am, plus an email buddy not on this forum. Add 2. (Ahh, make it 3, I just sent a copy to my brother in law.) Ken

thanks

Bump......because I can. Ken