Kevin Kinscherf

Hey Guys ... I will post "Designer Notes" for Frontier Firefight '40 above over the weekend. Thanks for playing and then analyzing the scenarios. - Kevin

Thanks for posting the details. This is not just a gift to CM but to many other gaming competitions that will benefit. Kevin

I would like to see France 1940 in the current system. We are really missing this this era. Kevin

That's a real screen shot from the software that they use to plot the rover's movements. After hearing the term shoot and scoot I had to post this. Kevin

Looks like an early beta version ... looks to be heading hull down ... can not tell Kevin http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rover-images/mar-11-2004/captions/image-6.html

My reading indicates that WW2 armored infantry fought mostly dismounted - by design and doctrine. I would say mostly is better than 95% of the time. Dare I quantify? But with that information, how does that affect the way we design and play CM? Given the potential map sizes, APCs are appropriate to carry infantry TO the firefight. However, motorized transport was always in short supply. The USA had the most in proportion to the overall force. Should the loss value of trucks and APCs be increased to limit their tactical use? Kevin

Good find ... thank you Sir.

Hey Michael - Your post beat mine to the board. We agree on what it means. How about a small victory ... nay ... its all semantics anyway.

That's one way to look at it but cost may not always count. For example, toward the end of WW2 Germany had many "tactical victories" using economy of force. Commanders were able to complete their missions but in the strategic sense they did not matter. Successful delaying actions come to mind. Perhaps a tactical victory is accomplishing the mission in a manner that does not immediately and drastically improve the conflict at higher command levels - a company's victory does not affect the battalion's over all status; a battalion victory does not affect the Division’s status etc. I never understood why the second level of victory was called tactical and the others did not have military descriptions. Kevin

Just when you thought my questions were over ... Recon had 75mm half tracks to support the infantry. Would they be ever posted to cover open ground ahead of a screening position? Or would they be held away from the "point" and brought up once the enemy attack was identified? Would they ever be posted in woods away from a road? - Kevin

Armor Magazine also has some scenarios. However, the site is not updated a lot. http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/vignettes.htm

"In coming sols, Opportunity will "shoot and scoot," meaning the rover will shoot pictures of the terrain and acquire new scientific measurements of the rocks, then scoot up, down, and across the inside of the crater." - JPL web site

Jason - This is clearing the picture for me and helping me on a scenario for CMBB I am scripting. The main thing for folks to know is that the infantry component was never split up and went into battle together. The infantry component is the key component in the infantry heavy combined arms battalion. It is also important to know that panzer units were trained to provide local recon so they would not be completely blind if the recon battalion was on a non-screening mission. - Kevin

Jason - Looks like 4 main deployment modes: 1. The entire Pz recon battalion works together as a whole fanning out to front, flank or rear of the Pz Divsion - "screening mode" 2. Held in reserve as a whole - "reserve mode" 3. Concentated en mass - "mop-up/exploitation mode" 4. Armor Car and engineers held by division command and the rest as a whole working as regular armored infantry in a specific tactical assignment after which the battalion is reestablished. (I wonder where the battalion commander is when his unit is used this way?) - "task organised mode" - Kevin

"The attachment case is just the armored group use I mentioned, meaning paired with the single armored panzergrenadier battalion, working with the tank regiment or its best battalion. They didn't send the single armored car company with that group - that is the only variation from that common scheme." In this case were they performing a recon role for the battle group or just filling in as regular line armored infantry?

Excellent post. I have that link but never thought to look at the narratives. Here is some more stuff I found in: Sharp's "Panzer Tactics in WWII" p. 76. It is hard to tell where he quotes these from ... but they are quotes: 1st Pz Div 11/43-1/44 "the engineer and recon batallion were very fit and well organized. They were used as a last resort by the commander" 24th Pz Div 11/43-1/44 "The Pz Div detached from the normal organization of the recon battalion the only armored car company we had of about 16-18 wheeled ACs. They were always under the direction of the division commander because it was normal the the rest of the recon battalion consisting in this case of two armored companies in light APCs and one in heavy APCs was attached to the armored ... command as an infantry unit." Authors comments for this section: all comanders need an immediate reserve even if this means the division commander has to detach a company from his recon battalion for his own use" Is this evidence that recon battlaion were broken up (last resort?) and attached (in 24 Pz Div case) to KG. Kevin PS: very useful thread.

Micheal - Perhaps we would have been in the same training company going after that same job! I really have an interest in mech recon. My personal library does not paint a clear picture of the standard mode of operation for panzers. I just pulled out the "Hand Book on German Military Forces" by the War Department in 1945. Its talks about German recon battalions operating on a front up to a width of 30 miles! That can not be the norm. I have been collecting published information on how panzer platoons through battalions fought. We have plently of info on how divisions fought as part of corps. But how panzer divsions themselves fought seems to missing in the literature. Good panzer divsion commanders seemed to get promoted any we don't have a good first person account at that level of command spanning several operations. If so .. someone send me the ISBN # - Kevin

Jason - Thanks for the thoughtful answers. The implications seem to be: Panzer recon battalions operated both en mass and over wide areas where formations could not directly support each other until they concentrated again. Panzer recon battalions did not task organize into KGs ie the battalion commander never lost control of his formations. Within the battalion they would organize as required by the tactical situation. Tank and Infantry heavy battle groups needed to provide for their own recon ie point formations. This view and Jason's comments appear to be born out in Panzertaktik by Schneider. He describes area and local recon. The recon battalion conducted area recon and the tank battalion provided local recon with their organic recon platoon. - Kevin

Given the battle space on the East Front, deployment in the line formation we see on a map may not mean the battalion was deloyed en mass tactically. I have Scheibert's pictorical on GD and will check it some of the maps. I get the sense that the recon battlions contained such valuable trained troops and equipment that they were real "force multipliers". They were broken up as the situation needed. But I may be wrong hense this post. Kevin

When one looks at the OOB for these formations and reads how in theory they were to be fought, I still wonder how they deployed on a regular basis. From the get-go (1939) these babys were armed to the teeth and self contained combined arms formations. They were trained to conduct standard recon but also armed to break through or fight off all but the heaviest enemy force. I wonder how often they were deployed en mass as a complete battalion. Sure at the opening of key operations and when the ground allowed they would - Poland 39, France 40, Kursk etc. I wonder if more often and as the war progressed they broke up into small battle groups to cover far apart battle areas that were not mutually supporting by fire. That is .. they were not used en mass. Panzer divsions were always forming battle groups by mixing and matching formations. Recon elements would be part of these groups I am sure. Perhaps in North Africa they saw mass action most often given the terrain. The battalions are interesting formations that remind me in some ways of the US armored cav regiment concept. Kevin

Nice AAR. I liked the animated Gif. But I do not care for your unfunny: "Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics... Even if you win, you're still retarded" This signiture line is in very poor taste. - Kevin

The idea of using a tactical game engine to resolve higher operational combat has been talked about over the years. I wonder if my old General magazines have any articles? You may want to search the archives for some threads. People have invented their own rules and "boards" or used commercial products to provide the higher level boards. It takes imagination to translate the tactical combat into operational and stategical outcomes. For gamers who like to tinker with rules etc. it is natural. So, it is not crazy at all. Although this is the first time I heard of using Risk. But if it brings you and wife together "what the heck". I remember working on combining the games Panzer Blitz and Panzer Group Gudarian. If I recall the simple rules called for a small Panzer Blitz battle when the combat odds where 1 to 1. But that was many beers ago ... There are also groups of guys doing something along these lines for CMBB: http://www.combat-campaigns.com/cmbb/ Kevin Boots and Tracks

Thanks for the tip Kip ... Will they include North Africa? Kevin

Rommel's southern pincer must have really worked afterall.

"B&T and found it by accident" Looks like we need to double our PR budget this year! All new battles are announced here in the forums. Have fun. Kevin