Zitadelle

I remember a similar discussion a little over a year ago on the CMBO forum regarding the death of that forum. At the time, I was definitely a convert and predominately moved over to the CMBB forum. Afterall, a primary reason for my purchase of CMBO was to learn the game mechanics for CMBB- which I knew I really wanted. While I will purchase CMAK (isn't that slang for something???), I will probably continue to primarily fight battles on the OstFront since that is my primary front of interest (just ask my wife). Consider me a continuing regular visitor to the CMBB Forum.

The provided comments are right on target. The factories that were used to build the T-60, T-70, and SU-76 were automotive factories and were not tooled nor had the heavy lifting equipment necessary to build tanks. Since, re-engineering the factories to build tanks required too an extensive effort, the Russians decided to switch to the building of the SU-76 when the T-60/70 finally were proven as obsolete. Unlike the StuGs, the SU-76 was not developed nor deployed as an AT assault gun. The Russians developed the AFV solely in a direct fire support role. Furthermore, YankeeDog is correct that the SU-76 was not equipped with indirect fire sights and appropriate elevation mechanisms.

In preparation for the arrival of CMAK, you may want to read this book that received a positive review in the September 18, 2003 issue of The Economist. The book is entitled: Monte Cassino: The Hardest-Fought Battle of World War Two by Matthew Parker. I think I will be taking a break from the OstFront to check out this read. The review can be found at: Economist Book Review I have also inserted the text from the book review below: "The worst battle Sep 18th 2003 From The Economist print edition Most of the great battles of the second world war have been well chronicled in millions of battle-hardened words, allowing a reader to experience their fury from the safety of an armchair: Stalingrad, Berlin, Normandy, the battle of Britain. Now here is Monte Cassino, perhaps the most interesting campaign of all. It lasted six months, a quarter of a million soldiers died or were wounded and probably it should never have been fought. In 1943, the fourth year of the war, the Americans wanted to get on with the invasion of Europe, across the Channel from Britain to Normandy, through France and into Germany. But Britain believed the allies were not yet ready to take on the Germans, a wise assessment as it turned out: when the invasion did take place in 1944 after great preparation, it was no walkover. But the question that bothered the generals was what to do with large numbers of idle soldiers until D-day. Winston Churchill proposed an assault on Italy. Ever the phrasemaker, he said Italy was the soft underbelly of Europe. So at first it seemed. Sicily soon fell, the Italian leader, Benito Mussolini, was deposed and an easy landing was made by the allies on the Italian mainland. The allies set off northwards to Rome. But, as Matthew Parker notes, Rome had not been taken from the south since AD536, when Belisarius, a Byzantine general, managed it. Even Hannibal preferred to cross the Alps with his elephants rather than face the geography south of Rome. “Italy is a boot,” Napoleon said. “You have to enter it from the top.” Still, with most of the Italian army surrendering, the allies thought they could look forward to an easy ride to the eternal city. But the Germans fought on under their formidable commander, Field Marshal Albert Kesselring. He made his stand along a line stretching across Italy from coast to coast, most of it mountainous and bisected by fast-flowing rivers. At the centre of one of Europe's strongest natural defensive positions was Monte Cassino, the site of an ancient Benedictine monastery. The Germans said they were not occupying the monastery, but the allies did not believe them: anyway, it had become a malign presence, “the all-seeing eye”, as one soldier described it. By the start of 1944, when attacks on the Germans had failed with massive allied casualties, it was decided to bomb the monastery, despite pleas from the Vatican for it to be spared. In Britain there were some who agreed, saying it would be like bombing Westminster Abbey. The allied commander, General Sir Howard Alexander, said that “bricks and mortar, no matter how venerable, cannot be allowed to weigh against human lives.” On February 15th 1944 bombers turned the monastery into rubble, providing the Germans with new defences when the allies staged an assault exactly a month later. The Germans held on until May. In June the allies finally entered Rome, which would soon have fallen anyway: the invasion of Normandy, the decisive battle for Europe, started a few days later. Monte Cassino was the closest the war came to the attrition warfare of the first world war that, as Mr Parker observes, the generals hoped to avoid, relying more on technology than the bayonet. In that sense, Monte Cassino was the worst battle. The terrain and the weather conspired to make technology useless. In his moving and well-researched book Mr Parker takes note of many earlier accounts of the fighting at Monte Cassino and has in addition interviewed many veterans who still vividly, and bitterly, remember the battle of long ago. He is clearly on the side of the foot-soldier trying to obey demanding superiors. As in the trenches of Flanders, there was sometimes an unwarlike camaraderie between German and allied soldiers. During a truce agreed by the Germans so that the Americans could collect their dead and wounded, an American corporal recalled, “This German came to our side, and I gave him a cigarette. I talked to him for just a few minutes. He talked pretty good English. He said he had a brother in Brooklyn named Heinz.” The atmosphere was friendly, he said, and the Germans were anxious to help. Then the truce was over, and the two sides resumed killing each other."

The discussion that you encountered from your searches were probably based upon some of the issues with troops sneaking for cover. This issue was heavily discussed after the release of CMBB. If I remember correctly, the issue was addressed through the first patch 1.01. If you have not already done so, I would recommend downloading at least that patch (and the others as well) and see if that corrects your over sneaking troops. For a gameplay recommendation, I would say definitely use covering area fire. Area fire is far more important to taking a potential hostile position in CMBB than it was in CMBO. Remember, MGs are nasty now, and you need to keep the foes' heads down....

There apparently is still a problem with a bad gateway on the download connection for this scenario.

This article reminds me of a couple interesting items that I had heard regarding discoveries of World War II vehicles and AFVs. A couple years ago, the remains of a PzKW VIB was found under a road in France. Don't get your hopes up to see the ubercat, however, apparently there are no plans to dig up the cat and restore it. It is forever buried under the road. More recently, a Russian group calling itself the Phoenix Foundation has been reporting all sorts of "recent finds" of WWII Russian and German vehicles, AFVs, and artifacts. They have even dropped hints that the items will be put up for sale (which is illegal to purchase and export WWII historical items from Russia) However, a good share of the "finds" have been determined as false or a re-write of a previously known find. The Phoenix Foundation claims are really developing hot discussions amongst the AFV modeller groups. Still, there have been more legitimate finds recently. One can only hope that respectable groups acquire some of these finds and can work to restore them (unlike T. Clancy with his M4 parked in front of his house rusting away like at Aberdeen...).

What's the difference ? They were similar tanks as far as I know ? </font>

Also be very wary of the depth of your LOS versus the blast radius of a 150mm shell. I don't have access to CM right now, but I would imagine that the blast radius of a 150mm shell is substantial, and may be greater than the LOS that you will have at night in fog and rain. I would agree to use infantry and MGs to pin the opponent and provide protection to the 150mm IGs- just take care where you place all the troops. (Sidenote- interesting scenario concept, I may have to experiment with this force structure in a QB myself....)

Yes, I had successfully downloaded both zip files soon after you posted the original message (back when there weren't any replies). Only one click on each link and I had both, and now I can't wait to try a battle.

The tower gates are a part of the history museum located on the opposite side of Red Square from St. Basils. There was a tower gate on both sides of the museum entering into Red Square- actually only one remains as a gate now- on the side closest to the GUM. These gates are very open, since vehicles did pass through the entrance. The St. Basils side of Red Square is open and slopes down from the plateau of Red Square. No gates exist on that end of Red Square (just the open area and roads). Incidently, the courtyard of St. Basils also flows down the slope (to the rear of the cathedral).

Here are some additional details. The park off the Trinity Gate side is called the Alexander Garden (Alexandrovsky Sod), and in the upper corner adjacent to the Red Square enterance is ironically the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier for the Great Patriotic War. The building on the opposite side from St. Basil's Cathedral is called the Historical Museum. You will remember the twin tower and gates (leading into both sides of the Red Square) as the enterance points for the military parades (as I indicated in the prior post). Also, you show a walled open courtyard in the middle of the Kremlin (between the buildings and the cathedrals). That section is actually a paved open courtyard. Behind Lenin's Tomb is a cemetary/park area (about 20 meters wide ) that is for other heroes of the Soviet Union. It is a scattered treed area. Also, if you really want to get detailed, there are two bridges across the Moskva River near the Kremlin- one off the Alexander Gardens and another leading off the opposite end of Red Square and the Kremlin. (I can give you the street names if needed.) The Moskva is about 60-80 meters wide at the Kremlin as well. And, don't forget the GUM large department store (now a mall) across Red Square from Lenin's Tomb. That is a single large building and was the central department store from the late 1800s through the current day.

I downloaded the Kremlin Walls map to take a look at your depicition of the citadelle- especially since I had visited the Kremlin in late February of this year. Internally, you have placed the buildings in the correct position; however, there are a few differences that should be brought to your attention. First, you have St. Basil's Cathedral on the wrong end of the Red Square, and don't forget about the gate buildings at the end opposite St. Basil's (these were the gate buildings that the tanks head through enroute to the parade. Second, the Kremlin is not square- it is more trapezoidal. That will be difficult to model in CMBB so a square is probably acceptable. Third, the land that the Kremlin is built is not flat- remember it was originally a medieval-era fortress. Thus, it is actually on a hill and some of the slopes are rather steep. Here are some sloping directions (unfortunately I did not take elevation studies while I was there, but I do have photos). On the Red Square side the land is flat, but it slopes up to and down from Red Square. The greatest slope is noted on the Moskva River side. The fortress is dramatically above the river level, and for that matter the wall is actually at a lower level up the slope than the buildings built on the plateau. Also, there is a gentle slope following along the Trinity Gate side. BTW, Trinity Gate is accessed by a bridge from a tower building. In CMBB, the bridge would probably rate as a light bridge. On the Trinity Gate side, is a large park area stretching about 80-100 meters wide. The closest other buildings on that side are not that close to the side of the Kremlin (as you have modeled). The same is true for the opposite side of the Kremlin wall as well. If you are looking for other details let me know, and I can either jog my memory, look at photos, or find some other maps....

You might be right. I just looked into WW2 Fact Files and it shows 45mm (two models), 57mm, and (wait for it) 100mm. This last baby would, it is claimed here, penetrate 192mm at 450m. It doesn't say 192mm of what or at what angle, but I'd guess that it will do most jobs. Does anybody know if it made it into the game? But no 85mm. Maybe was AA gun pressed into AT service? Michael </font>

As appropriate for my log-in name, I need the Kursk Pack. However, when I attempt to link to the server, I get a series of "Cannot Find Server" error messages. Fix Somefink!

How's the beer coming along YankeeDog? Anyway, another drawback with the ford option is that vehicles are more likely to bog in a ford. While that can model a pontoon bridge, if too many vehicle bog/immobilize then it could throw the scenario balance off (of course, a realistic model may be better in the long run). As for Red Army bridging techniques.... A key for the Russian success was to establish the bridgehead first (example would be the multiple crossings the Russians created on the Dnieper in the fall of 1944). Ideally, the forces would try to capture a bridge, but if that was not possible, then the first assaults relied on infantry to establish the bridgehead. Thereafter, the engineer and construction units would build the bridge; typically under attack from the Germans (artillery and few available aircraft). I can get into more detail if you need. As for scenario ideas, I can provide some historical examples (of towns and maybe maps from the map site) taken out of Erickson's Road to Berlin (my current read). You know the e-mail address....

Is it possible that you are thinking about this prototype? Heavy Panzerjager The two vehicle that were deployed to the Eastern Front were armed with a 105mm gun.

I am also looking for this scenario to give it a try. Since it is not on the duplicated B&T web-site, please e-mail to my profile address.

Here is photographic evidence from the Missing Lynx web-site that vehicle recovery is not modeled correctly in CMBB. The BFC guys really need to address this approach with an immediate patch (1.04) or I am never going to buy their software again. Recovery of a KV-2 I should also be able to use this approach for moving an immobilized vehicle.

Talk about a hyperlurker!! Where have you been hiding since 1999? Anyway, according to Steven Zaloga in The Red Army Handbook 1939-1945 the United States sent approximately 8,500 zooks to Russia. However, he continues by saying that there is not any record of their use in combat. I guess that is the reason the BFC guys didn't include them in CMBB. [ April 10, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

OK, I'll bite since I have seen several message like this. Yes, sounds like a very intriguing scenario- and much like the others that have been documented something that I would like to try. Only one very small detail.... Where is it????? I do not see a link. I do not see a message "let me know if you want to give the scenario a try". Not to be blunt, but the theme of the message is "Hey, I created this really cool scenario based upon this historical information. It will really blow your socks off, but you can't have it." I'll apologize now, if I totally am missing the mark....

Grog statement here.... I would not expect to find a PzKW IVF with the short-barreled 75mm gun painted in an ambush pattern, and I would be interested in any references that indicate that such a vehicle was ever seen. The "ambush" pattern was introduced in late-1944, and by then I would expect that all PzKW IVs with the short 75mm gun would have either been destroyed in combat (a couple years earlier too), or would have been up-gunned to the long-barreled 75mm during a visit to a rear-area maintenance depot.

Once again, I will not be able to attend since I will be out of town. Tis a pity, I could have brought photos and AARs from my experiences at the Museum of the Great Patriotic War and the Museum of the Central Armed Forces (Moscow- February, 2003). Oh well, maybe next time I can make it (available after April 28th). BTW, definitely go to RFD. The drink is excellent (about 300+ beers almost as good as a selection as its brother), and the food is far better! Brickskeller food typically sucked, and RFD food is really good. Perhaps next time (or a later April date...).

Two things- First, who was the "NUMBSKULL" on our side who actually sold back their copy of CMBB. Would the guilty party step forward so that they can be drawn and quartered. Second, and on the lines of the clueslessness of the retail gaming industry. Go into your local store and spend a couple minutes looking around. Then, ask the clerk if they have any copies of CM (BO or BB). They will help you look and then check the computer. From there I have received all sorts of comments- including "we will be getting it with our next shipment." You can even take it a step further, and when they claim never to have heard of the game pull out the displayed issue of a gaming mag showing it as the "strategy game of the year"- then they really get confused.

Here is my take on a Russian city- based upon travel that I did to Moscow and St. Petersburg during February/March, 2003. Note: these opinions are based upon the two largest cities, downtown experiences, and in the 21st century (not the 1940s). I saw graveyards both standing independently and also near churches and monastaries. I think you have some free options there. The Communists did allow the churches that stood to keep their original names- they were not re-named. However, for a church to survive it had to meet certain historical/cultural significance standards. So, while St. Basil's survived (and just barely...), it did so because it was significant. Many other churches that were near Red Square, and associated with St. Basil, were torn down to make room for other buildings (including the ugly state hotel near Red Square). I spent most of my time downtown, and I really don't remember seeing many fences. However, many of the churches definitely were surrounding by stone walls. Rather, roads were very common, and in the classic European pattern- going in various directions versus the typical grid pattern found in the United States. I don't recall the official name for a city hall, and unfortunately, I am at work (trying to get in the critical 9-10 hours to keep upper management happy) so I cannot research it through my Russian books. I would imagine that it starts with "gost" something (Russian prefix associated with government). Overall, my visual experience (albeit limited) is that Russian city layout is very similar to European city layout. Moscow definitely had a feel of a combination of oriental, European, Stalinist, and modern architecture (a weird fusion). St. Petersburg looked much like a European city of the 1600s in building style (apparently, city codes limit new building style in the downtown to keep the Peter the Great feel). In fact, I think the "large building" style in CMBB is primarily based upon St. Petersburg building style. I really felt like I was walking through a CMBB map....

How about the following week (the week of March 10th)? Next week is a no-can-do since I will be in Moscow/St. Petersburg and enjoying the museums, beer, and vodka.