Stacheldraht

I've used HQ units to spot for mortars in CMBO as a regular practice for as long as I can remember, and that multiple-HQ issue has always been an annoying problem, even if you don't technically classify it as a bug. Hopefully a patch will finally put that problem to rest in CMBB.

Man, those are just wonderful when you're the defender. Buy the biggest rocket "module" you can and let 'er rip. In a few different defences, I was able to nail up to 74 troops and two vehicles at once that way. Casualties were always in the dozens, either way, despite (or because of) the very wide spread of the rockets. And then there's the morale degradation factor, which is very important. Nothing gets 'em pissing their pants like having a 300mm rocket or whatever landing on the other side of the little wheat field they're in

But that's what wargamers do. Whining, counter-whining, bitching, moaning, throwing written temper tantrums on forums. That's nothing new in the "grog" community (at least on the Net) and is arguably one of its defining features (look at the deriviation of the word "grognard," for that matter). Obviously, lots of people have as much fun complaining and then complaing about the complaints as they do playing the actual games. Lots of people here also reflexively leap at the chance to defend poor little BTS/BFC, as if they weren't big boys who could defend their own actions--assuming they even needed defending. That's nothing new on these forums. For those who don't like the way the game industry or BTS/BFC works, I'd recommend politely letting them know and, equally importantly, letting your wallet do the talking. The publishers will keep ripping you off or taking advantage of you (or just selling you crappy games) and laughing all the way to the bank as long as you let them.

A non-scientific anecdote: I was playing as the Germans in a big assault on a large city. Things were moving along nicely until a platoon of German regular troops, in contact with their HQ, tried to cross a street, using either run or advance, I don't recall. A Soviet MG in a building way down the lane suddenly opened up, and most or all of the platoon panicked or broke and ran back to the buildings they started from. (Admittedly, it wasn't a genius move to send them all across the street at once, but I thought I was just mopping up, and I did have bases of fire set up to cover them, just not pointing at that MG, it turns out. Oh well.) Annoying from my end to see things grind to halt like that on one side of my advance, but I welcome the realism. Who wouldn't freak out when caught in the middle of a street being raked by machine gun fire? Urban fighting's going to be nastier than ever in CMBB, it seems, and rightly so. Time to call in the flamethrower tanks [ September 27, 2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

For more on the Soviet POV, Russia at War: 1941-1945 by Alexander Werth. 1100 pp. of accounts by a Russian-born English journalist who was in the Soviet Union for most of the war. More of an overall focus than just some divisions-on-the-map approach. Gives you some appreciation for the political, diplomatic, social, and economic forces at work and lets you know what it was like for ordinary people and common soldiers, not just the generals. Many have recommended Glantz & House's When Titans Clashed, which is indeed a useful book, but be forewarned that it's dry as dust and tedious for the most part and gives you little appreciation for the sorts of things Werth and other authors have covered. Rather, it's primarily (though not exclusively) limited to "Division X then approached the Y river and met with heavy resistance." Sadly, the authors rarely give you any idea about those divisions' nominal and actual strengths, equipment, or histories, so it doesn't mean much. Iirc, it gives almost no significant impression of fighting on the tactical level (i.e., that of CMBB). (Been a while since I read it, admittedly.) Limited maps, too. So, caveat lector.

Another vote for the opening of the fourth movement of Bruckner's phenomenal 8th symphony as a piece of music to suit the mood. What a powerhouse of an opening that is. I believe they also played his 7th on German radio when Hitler killed himself, btw. That's a desecration of Bruckner's music to associate it in any way with Hitler or the Nazi regime and its militarism, particularly given Bruckner's fervent traditionalist Catholic belief. (Putting it in a game would arguably be in bad taste too, given what the music meant to him and what he put into it.) Actually, the subject of Nazi Germany, Hitler, and the classical music tradition is a whole huge discussion in its own right and the subject of numerous books and analyses--not to mention Decca's Entartete Musik series. Anyway, anyone mention "Mars" from Holst's Planets suite? The passacaglia from Shostakovich's first violin concerto? Now there's some gloomy, ominous music. Another vote for Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky, too--the theme of the film also ties right in. One of the best film soundtracks ever! Perfect choice here, too. [ September 13, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Very cool site--thanks for the link!

Those three books are superb references. I put in a second vote for Keegan's narrative history, if that's what you're looking for. What sort of books are you seeking? If it's Eastern Front books, try these for good introductions: Glantz & House When Titans Clashed Zaloga & Ness Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 Anthony Beevor Stalingrad Alexander Werth Russia at War: 1941-1945 James Lucas War on the Eastern Front Peter G. Tsouras, ed. Fighting in Hell Wolfram Wette & Gerd R. Ueberschär, eds. Stalingrad: Mythos und Wirklichkeit einer Schlacht (in German) Outside of books, you should consider The World at War on DVD--about 30 hours of great documentaries on the war as a whole.

Zaloga and Ness in the Red Army Handbook note that Molotov cocktails were "widely used." They also state that "KS bottles" (the manufactured Molotov cocktails someone else mentioned) were "mass produced early in the war." These had "an exterior chemical packet to ignite the weapon after it shattered on the tank." I've also read a German field manual discussing various infantry AT weapons and tactics, and it urges using Molotovs and other improvised or crude weapons of the sort when necessary.

This page may be of use, too: http://www.usapa.army.mil/

Along similiar lines, be sure to check out The Color of War on the History Channel in the U.S. It's usually on Sundays at 8pm, iirc. Some very well-written, informative shows with, suprise, loads of color footage from multiple theaters (particularly the PTO).

Artistic license is often for the artist, too, not just to appease some supposed unwashed masses. I think one should differentiate, too, between general historical accuracy and obsessive or anal retentive grog-like attention to detail. The vast majority of film viewers, it's probably safe to say, don't know the difference between a Panzer Mk. III and IV or know what markings should be on a Soviet uniform in 1942 or whatever. Nor should they reasonably be expected to care. Playing it fast and loose with history in general is ok as long as the filmmaker isn't pretending to recreate history. They need to make that clear out of respect for the topic and the audience. As for all those little details that only wargamers or military history buffs might care about, sure, it's nice to seem them done properly, but they're probably ultimately not that important in terms of making a good film or educating people about history through a work of historical fiction. I bet many Westerners, particularly young Americans, don't even know the Soviets fought the Germans--that they did most of the fighting against the Germans, actually. It's perhaps enough to help them see that. As a film, Enemy at the Gates was entertaining and pretty well conceived and executed, no pun intended Sure, the story has cliches, the actors have British and American accents (better than badly faking Russian and German ones, surely), various details may be historically innacurate, but it's a very visually memorable film in terms of set design and cinematography, the storytelling knows how to grab the viewer (even if coarsely), the actors largely acquit themselves well, and the action is pretty intense.

Well, I don't think the movie was about the battle of Stalingrad per se, but ultimately rather about the experiences of a group of soldiers there. I.e., it wasn't trying to faithfully recreate large-scale historical military actions. Stalingrad was more a backdrop, which is how most filmmakers would probably approach it. Most of them aren't going to make a war movie from a "grog" standpoint since that would bore or confuse most people. Plus, that would be passing up on one of the great artistic merits of making a war film (or book, for that matter), which is that the background of war serves to heighten any human drama cast against it. A romance, like in Enemy at the Gates, immediately means more, or at least appears more dramatic, when the whole city is being blown apart around the lovers. Of course, that can become an artistic crutch, too. [ March 09, 2002, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Fwiw, Kazimiera J. Cottam has edited a number of books dealing with Soviet women soldiers. I can't vouch for them personally, but they're on my to-read list. [ March 10, 2002, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

The fact that the film is from Germany makes the whole thing all the more thorny, or heiklig, as the Germans might say. I was almost surprised to see the Swastika on the transport plane's tail, actually. I have the feeling it may be some time still before everyone can take more objective approaches to that whole subject--probably after all the veterans and those who lived through the war have passed away, I imagine. Even then, who knows? The American Civil War can still be (emotionally) contentious among some.

Well, I'd certainly admit that it is a movie and not a documentary That's quite true about the convenient coincidences, but that's how most movies work--it generally goes with the territory. You find stuff like that in just about every war film, no matter how good. Look at Pvt. Ryan, for example. Complete realism would likely generate either an incoherent or boring film. And that "I'm no Nazi" bit was precisely the part I was thinking of when I mentioned the moralizing. That was one of the few egregious examples, whereas most of the film makes a moral statement more from it's relatively documentary sort of approach than from encounters like that. I should add, btw, that as a film (i.e., a work of art), I don't think Stalingrad is all that incredible, but for a war film about the Russian Front, it's darn good and certainly worth seeing for anyone interested in the topic. Among war films, the extended DVD version of Das Boot struck me as forming a stronger artistic whole in terms of writing, directing, acting, and editing. [ March 09, 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

You’re probably familiar with Enemy at the Gates, but perhaps you haven’t heard of Stalingrad. I recently got to see it and wanted to highly recommend it in light of CMBB’s forthcoming release this year. It’s a 1993 German film directed by Joseph Vilsmaier. The DVD version is in German with English subtitles and runs 150 minutes. The film easily stands among the newer breed of relatively gritty and realistic war films like Das Boot, Saving Private Ryan, and Enemy at the Gates (whatever you think of the romance part in that one). Stalingrad follows a single battalion (quickly whittled down to smaller units through attrition and the director and writer’s choice of focus) from their leave in Italy after fighting in North Africa to the Russian Front. They engage in brutal street fighting in the gutted ruins of Stalingrad and later fight in the “Kessel” itself of the encircled Sixth Army to the west of the city. What makes the film so powerful is the way it emphasizes the “human side” of war precisely by focusing on military actions. There’s relatively little pensive dialogue like in Pvt. Ryan or any romance like in Enemy at the Gates. Instead, it’s largely one gut-wrenching battle after another with momentary pauses in which you see the harsh realities of soldiering in that war. The action is realistic and unflinching and certainly not for those with faint stomachs. The writer and director do a superb job getting across the essential stupidity and futility of war by showing what thise poor grunts (or Landser, I suppose) had to go through. It’s not at all pretty or noble or heroic, but rather just enormously depressing. There’s surprisingly little overt moralizing; it’s there, but it usually feels appropriate to the arc of the story and the characters. One thing, btw, that’s really impressive about the movie, besides its emotional impact, is the research that went into it. You’ll see the Germans struggling to get hold of the Russians’ warm felt-lined boots or their well-regarded PPSh submachine guns. When they have to take on some T-34’s (with Russian infantry appropriately riding on them), they dig “tank pits,” and use Hafthohlladungen (magnetic hollow charge mines), Molotov cocktails, and bundled hand grenades, just as in real life. Not many films would take the time to research those sorts of tiny details. In that regard, it’s very reminiscent of Das Boot. (Both were produced by the same people.) *** If you’re looking for other insights into what the war was like outside of the sorts of operational histories you get in Erickson and Glantz, you should read Alexander Werth’s Russia at War: 1941-1945. Werth was a Russian-born English journalist who spent almost the whole war in Russia. In 1100 pages, he gives an overview of the military actions, but he primarily focuses on the life and moods of the people. Additionally, he provides some interesting details on the diplomatic scene before and during the conflict, as well as interviewing various figures, from factory supervisors, to diplomats, to generals. He also relies on memoirs and official histories that are only available in Russian or have been translated into English but are out of print. I’m only on page 400 or so, but I’m quite impressed with the book so far and have learned a lot. Along similar lines, if you want to see more of what it was like in the USSR during the war, you should check out the classic World at War documentary series, available on DVD with many hours of extras (it runs to around 30 hours overall, iirc). The series features a number of episodes on the German-Soviet war, with some unforgettable footage. You’ll see just how incredibly bad the roads got during the Rasputitsa (spring and fall snow melt and rains, respectively), how harsh the winters were, what Stalingrad looked like as it was being obliterated, what the Germans did to supposed Partisans, how imposing a bank of Katyushas looked when firing, and so on. Similarly, you may want to look for the classic Time-Life World War II book series, which you can find in just about any library, it seems. There are a number of books on the Russian front in that series with some incredible photos that speak far louder than words.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not again!

Herzlich willkommen beim Borg! He says he wants to found a clan for both CM and MOH:AA. He's looking for members and people to help him a little with his homepage. The clan name is set and will be "Division Brandenburg." He's currently working on a logo for the homepage, and the one you see below is just a proposed design--CM will be added to it. He's seeking enthusiastic CM or MOH:AA players who simply want to have fun as a team. He'd prefer those 25 years or older--he's 30. Whoever is interested, contact.... (Sounds a bit like a personals ad, now that I read it ) [ March 08, 2002, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Well, you do have to hand it to Ambrose and writers/popularizers like him: they don't feel the need to kowtow to the PC police and afford courtesy to Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. They just come out and call a spade a spade, as it were, and sound rightly proud that the Allies put an end to those abominations. A lot of younger people sit around admiring cool Tiger tanks in their computer games or whatever yet never had their village razed or never watched their relative dangling from a gallows in the breeze. It's perhaps a bit too easy to sit back and be objective about it all now, but to the millions who endured the war, it was real and important--not just something to read about for amusement in your leisure hours.

Amen, Scoop 88! I appreciate rigorous scholarship at least as much as the next guy, but I know some of the strongest and most important impressions of WWII that have been made on me have come from the World at War series, PBS or History Channel documentaries, and that classic Time-Life book series on the war. Some recent war movies, too, taken with more than a few grains of salt. WWII, after all, wasn't just about the movement of divisions across a map. Scholarship can too easily neglect the human element, precisely because it's not quantifiable. And for the last couple centuries or so in the West, history, like its siblings in the liberal arts, has struggled mightily to be "scientific" like its more reputable peers (math, physics, astronomy). Also, scholarship in the academic context so often boils down to inane linguistic masturbation. Just try to slog through an academic liberal arts journal. Talk about publish or perish [ March 07, 2002, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

And don't forget Ian Holm as priest Vito Cornelius in The Fifth Element.

One thing to bear in mind about history writing: it's hardly the case that it has always been conceived of as an objective and scientific (and perhaps dry) recitation or analysis of the "facts." (As if that concept weren't problematic in its own right.) In many places and times, the ideals of history writing/telling have been rather different, being geared more towards didactic, moral, and/or propagandistic ends. *** Fwiw, Ambrose's Pegasus Bridge is rather enjoyable and interesting. Since it focuses on one small but famous and dramatic operation, it seems to suit his writing style and aims well. Btw, if you want a good example of eminently readable and seemingly well-researched history writing, check out Cornelius Ryan's The Longest Day. A true classic that will grip you like the best of novels. [ March 07, 2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

I've often read rather the opposite regarding the Germans: that their junior officers were expected to understand overall doctrine and make flexible, relatively independent decisions based on that. I don't know if that's a correct assessment, but if it is, that would certainly hurt Ambrose's argument. Perhaps apropos this topic, you may want to read Michael D. Doubler's Closing with the Enemy: How GIs Fought the War in Europe, 1944-1945 (University Press of Kansas, 1994). It's a scholarly work based largely on primary sources. [ March 07, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

To Ambrose's credit, he did help found the D-Day Museum, whatever his merits or lack of them as a scholar might be. *** I've seen a number of statements attributed to him that seem to imply it was primarily the Western Allies who won the war in Europe. (His jingoism seems to be one of his least-liked traits.) The Soviets of course played an enormous and often unappreciated role in defeating the Germans. Then again, Ambrose was a "talking head" in a recent History Channel miniseries about the fall of the Third Reich, in which he gave the Soviets their due, if only in brief.