Zitadelle
-
Posts
291 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Zitadelle
-
-
Joshik-
Good looking Late Panther G; I've been waiting for this cat for a while and would be willing to beta test it. Unfortunately, I downloaded the *.zip files and when I tried extract them they were translated into:
*.bmp.bin files
My PC doesn't know what to do with the files even when I re-name them to *.bmp files. I can open them as ASCII files, but trust me these will lead to one ugly cat.
You may want to check your host webpage settings; also you can e-mail me the files.
-
My bad- and probably others as well.... I will make the change in my verbage and forthwith refer to Battefront.com by its correct name. Afterall, I wouldn't call a Jagdpanzer 38(t) a 'Hetzer.'Originally posted by Madmatt:By the way, it's not BTS, it's BFC if you wanna be technical. Although BTS is engrained in everyones verbage we would really prefer to be referred to as Battlefront, not BTS.
....
Madmatt
-
Madmatt and BTS-
Yes, the new look now is well balanced and appears well on the monitor. If my vote counts (and it probably does not...), I would say go with this format.
The text is much easier to read in black (rather than white on color). And, the brighter colors minimize the dreaded "negative space" (black or dark backgrounds) that seem to be the craze for hip web sites these days. Yet, the colors still have that camo-look that you were probably aiming for while still being easy on the eye.
I signed on yesterday afternoon, and thought that I would definitely have to give the site some thought- the first impression was not too pleasant. With my experience in software application design, I have discovered that dark areas on a screen tend to attract the eyes and eventually lead to eye sore and a screen page or tab that just seems off. Unaware of the conversations last night, I proceeded trying to find some backing evidence for why I felt the new look did not work, and started reviewing Edward Tufte's writings on presenting data and information.*
In the meantime and before I could offer some insight, you went ahead and made definite changes for the better.
*I would highly recommend the following resources for anyone who wants to investigate concepts of displaying information:
Edward Tufte: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information
Edward Tufte: Envisioning Information
-
Yes, the second 'schrek managed to get a penetrating knock-out hit. I had detailed hit information activated (frequently do for the thrill of the action). Also, the Sherman displayed the usual droopy gun barrel, and when I highlighted the tank on its march downhill it did not have any red target lines (it wasn't targeting anything)- only the yellow lines.Originally posted by Offwhite:Are you sure the first several hits were killing penetrations? If you're playing without detailed hit info, it can be hard to tell sometimes.
Either way, it sounds like an interesting sequence. Still got the file, by any chance?
I will check to see if I still have the file.
-
This happened to me last night while playing the AI (it was a slow night and I'm not currently involved in a PBEM). I was playing a scenario that I downloaded from Manx's old site (now its at Scenario Depot). I won't tell the name of the scenario to avoid spoiling it.
Here is the setup:
I'm playing the Germans in a meeting engagement that centers on a wheat field on a slope. I hold the upper ground, and the Americans are approaching from my right flank. The right flank is a forested area that borders the wheat field. My troops are a standard 1944 SS infantry company and supporting PzKW IVHs. The Americans have a similar force- including various Sherman tanks.
In the forested area I have about two platoons with supporting 'schreks. At the each of the wheat field and overlooking the downhill slope are three PzKW IVHs. The American Shermans are approaching from the right- in front of the infantry platoon.
Here is what happens:
A Sherman appears at the crest of a slope in front of the forest. The infantry and two 'schrek units target the tank. The infantry gets the commander to button-up, and the two schrek units fire their first rounds (misses). As the Sherman tries to get into a good position for targetting it tops the crest, and the second 'schrek gets the knockout.
The tank's momentum keeps it rolling off the crest and down the slope.
At this point, the Germans still think it is an active target. The other 'schrek unit continues to target the Sherman and fire rounds. Moreover, the knocked out Sherman now emerges into the PzKW IVHs' LOS. All three target the Sherman, and begin firing (ignoring their previous targets). The reported fire is classic to review:
Several misses (the first 'schrek still can't hit the Sherman).
A ricochet off the turret.
And, two penetrating knock-outs hits (the tank keeps moving so, the PzKW IVHs continue to target).
The Sherman is knocked out three-separate times- and not a single brew up. Finally, the Sherman rolls to a halt after 100+ meters and a single crew member emerges.... One damn lucky dude. The Germans now realize, "ahh, Fritz I think that the Sherman is dead," and go back to whatever they were targeting.
So, the AI uses its knocked out Sherman to draw fire from two 'schreks and three tanks saving its other units. Very gamey, but I also enjoyed watching it. Moreover, I realized that I had viewed yet another undocumented 'feature' of CMBO that makes it a truly worthwhile purchase and enjoyable game.
Great work to BTS!!
-
Jaw drop....
Congratulations to Adam Vukich and Liao Jer-Woei! Your claim to fame is now duly noted. Based upon these two examples and the PzKW SIG I, I see that there was quite a bit of good examples sent into BTS.
Now back to the long wait.
-
Thanks fellow grogs for the updates on A. Beevor's book. And, I also know where and how much the book will cost if I purchase it in Britain (next time I happen to visit)....
Reviewing the direction that the conversation is going, I probably will dust off my old copy of C. Ryan's The Last Battle (first edition) and read that rather than Beevor's book. It has been too long since I read Ryan's book, and it probably will serve me better.
As for the grogs analysis of the battle- I guess I phrased the question incorrectly. I would not think that Beevor's book (nor Ryan's) would get into TO&Es and equipment. That would be beyond the scope for both books. Rather, I was trying to determine whether Beevor's book gave an accurate representation of the Soviet advances and German defense through Poland, across the Oder, and into Berlin itself.
As a sidenote: if someone is looking for a excellent overview of the conflict (January-May, 1945), I would recommend the BBS Program Battlefield and the episode entitled: Battle for Berlin. Very well done with excellent research and video footage from the correct era.
[ May 23, 2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]
-
Alright, this message will probably end up on the General Forum, but before it gets there, I thought I would ask my fellow CMBO grogs this question first.
Has anyone read Antony Beevor's The Fall of Berlin 1945 yet? If so, would you recommend the read- particularly from a detailed/grog perspective.
I read the _Washington Post_ book review (5/19/2002) of the book, and the reviewer could not get beyond Beevor's dicussion of the various crimes commited by the Russians during the advance. Is this a valid assessment of the book- it details sex crimes?
-
And the attendant flock of grogs telling you why it should really be Combat Mission: Beyond Manassass....</font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Runyan99:
Just like to mention that I sure would like a Combat Mission: Beyond Bull Run.
-
Congratulations on Battlefront's and Panther Games new game officially reaching gold status and being released. I am sure it will be another excellent product.
Unfortunately, for me at least, it is the wrong product. I really think that another product (name withheld to protect the innocent...) should have been released and being shipped in mid-June. Sooo, I continue to wait for the simple message post:
"CMBB Goes Gold and a New Demo Released!!!!!"
And, if I can't get that at least some indiction on the results of the CMBB-Missing Lynx Modelling Competition.
Now, since I have to go back to finalizing a detailed design, so should so other folks get back to system testing....
-
I think I will still be able to look at a Quick Battle map if I so desire. Hell, I'll even be able to create the map; remember the bone from February, 2002:Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:[QB].... Mare's system would also have the added benefit of eliminating the current map-peek cheat....
QB]
....Now then that about wraps up my overview on what CAN be seen in this picture. How about what CAN'T be seen? Well, for starters Dan is kicking my face in during this nightime December 1944 Quick Battle and I even have intimate knowledge of the map too...Yup, in fact I created this map myself..Yup, sure did, some time ago in fact..Way before me and Dan played this QB last night...Now some of you are probably smiling and the other 99.8% are wishing I would get on with it...So, why are those select few so happy?
Well because the only way I could have seen this map before I played a QB is if we have allowed custom made maps to be loaded into Quick Battles...Guess what? WE HAVE ALLOWED CUSTOM MADE MAPS TO BE LOADED INTO QUICK BATTLES.
Yup! You can build your own map in the editor, save it and then next time you want to play a QB with your friends and neighbors you can load IT instead of having the computer make one for you. Right now, the computer will create new setup zones and victory flag locations and I am not sure if we will be able to be carried over or not from the pre-created map but I think Charles is going to try to make that work.
Even so, just the ability to finally play a QB on a pre-created map is really cool.
Well, that about wraps it up, chew slowly, I wouldn't want you to choke on this bone...
Enjoy!
Madmatt"
-
I don't think those two Germans had to worry too much about staying awake. They were soon going to experience Stalin's alarm clock that rings with a very big kaboom.....Originally posted by Grisha:It's 0300hrs 11 January 1945, and in a frontline trench opposite a certain Soviet bridgehead centered around a city called Sandomir, two German soldiers try to stay warm - and awake ...
Yeah, it's going to be rough for BTS. Ahh, but the perk$$$$$
Bring it on!
I think the past several months have been rough for BTS, and I'm sure they are not planning any vacations until several months after they make the final delivery (whenever that may occur).
I don't need to pre-order the game, I understand why they don't want to institute that process. However, all I ask for is that we receive some form of advance warning that CMBB is being released.
(By the way guys, excellent work I am looking forward to the CMBB delivery. CMBO redefined my view of PC games and CMBB will do far more. I'm sure the product will impress all- despite their constant grumbling about a product that they have not even seen. Now, stop reading my praises and get back to coding/system testing
). I hope I don't log in one day and find a bold message CMBB is now available. I would like to see a message two weeks before its release stating that CMBB will be available for purchase on MM/DD/CCYY.... (then I can log in at 12:01am that day and pay ~$50 to lose all my free time).
-
TSword-
Interesting analysis of the battle, and how the Germans could have pulled it off; you actually gave me something to think about. I was looking at how the Germans could have won the battle following the battle plan that they followed. The simple truth is they could not.
You, on the other hand, presented an overall different approach to the battle- resting with the Kharkov battles as a viable approach. The Germans could have initiated minor attacks on both flanks of the salient, and been mindful of a Russian counterattack. Therafter, they could have fought an active defensive battle following with an encirclement once the Russian committed/expended themselves on the German defenses. I think your idea has merit, and could have worked. To borrow a cliche- you thought outside the box.
Just because the Germans had the armor strength that they had, does not mean that they had to fully deploy it offensively. Using their armor to blunt a Russian counterattack (in respond to initial probes) would have played to the advantage of their available armor. The Elefant definitely would have proved itself in the defensive role, and the Tiger as well (as the Germans eventually realized...).
This approach would be interesting to model- all one needs is an old copy of the Grisby's PC game _War in Russia_, or one of the old Campaign series table-top wargames (cannot remember the name of those monsters...).
One last thought, have you read any sources that would back up your theory? If so, I would be interesting in reviewing the material.
-
If you are in for a long read, I would recommend John Erickson's two volume set _Road to Stalingrad_ and _Road to Berlin_. While reading them- especially the first one- it is advantageous to have a good map of the western USSR at your side as he gets into talking about individual towns and it let's you follow the battle.Originally posted by Colonel Klink:Hmm.. All this is making me hungry for some more Eastern Front Reading material (Not to metion CM:BB!!) [sp!]. I've only read Alan Clark's Barbarrosa, which I believe might be outdated, and Zhukov's Greatest Defeat by David Glantz (Excellent book, that one). Any of you guys got recommendations for me?
I can also recommend both Glantz books: _Battle of Kursk_ and _Stumbling Collossus_. The latter gives a good account of the status of the Soviet army in mid-1941.
Also, Bidermann's _In Deadly Combat_ is a well written book giving the memoirs of a German infantryman. And, unlike Sager's _Forgotten Soldier_, there is not much argument about it actually taking place.
This is a start, and these days you can go on and on. Finally, the Eastern Front is getting the appropriate attention it deserves [editorial comment- (and even in the United States with Ambrose paraphrasing everyone...)].
-
I am curious what would have qualified as a "victory in the south?" What objectives would have had to been met for a victory; destruction of forces, control of a particular area? Help me understand....Originally posted by Roksovkiy:The germans could have achieved a victory in the south....
By mid-July, the German advances in the southern section of the salient were slowing down to a complete halt. In Glantz's book _The Battle of Kursk_ he outlines how the SS Panzer Divisions were encountering stronger and stronger resistance and unable to find gaps in the Russian line.
They were unable to obtain a breakthrough, their troops were becoming more and more exhausted, and they were a long way from the initial objectives of the operation (the railway junctions outside Kursk); let alone meeting up with the forces in the North and achieving an encirclement of the Russian forces in the salient.
-
I would argue that Operation Zitadelle should not have been launched at all- not in April, May, or June. Whenever the attack would have been launched, the Russian reserves still would have eventually made an appearance. Yes, the Germans may not have lost as much equipment (i.e., armor) trying to roll through defense-prepared ground, but loses still would have occurred since the Russians had improved on their defensive fighting capabilities by then. Furthermore, the Kursk salient could have been stablized through other means than trying to remove it. With the Germans trying to hold Kharkov in the south and Orel in the north, the salient was a natural curve in the line.Originally posted by Thantis:The Germans should have either launched the Kursk Offensive when it was originally planned (May '43) or abandoned the idea, husbanded their tank reserves and used their superior manuevering skills to fight a flexible defensive action on the Eastern Front for the remainder of the war.
Its interesting to note that the Germans were able to launch a strategic offensive in 1941, operational offensive in 1942, but only a tactical offensive in 1943. These reduced expectations for the offensive should have been a huge red flag to the Germans that they could not accomplish any meaningful victory at Kursk. Even a German tactical victory is still a strategic defeat due to the overwhelming equipment advantage held by the Red Army.
I would support your contention that the Germans should have, "husbanded their tank reserves and used their superior manuevering skills to fight a flexible defensive action on the Eastern Front for the remainder of the war."
Finally, even though Operation Zitadelle was not on the scale of Operation Blue (summer, 1942), I would still call it an operational offensive. Remember the scale of forces involved.
-
Here is an idea for re-creating exact Axis recognition flags. Archer Dry Transfers has two Axis flags available- the national flag and the air recognition banner. Both are red with the swastika (in black on a white background).
You could purchase the dry transfers mount them on card or foil and weather/wrinkle them appropriately. Then, take a digital photo of the completed banner and the image can be applied to whatever vehicle you choose.
Check out your local hobby store for Archer Dry Transfers, there is also a link on the Missing Lynx website.
-
Yes, the Russians had lost quite a bit of material for those units that were directly involved in the fighting of Operation Zitadelle. However, and more importantly, they still had a strong strategic reserve. This strategic reserve allowed them to begin their offensives and finally rest the strategic initiative from the Germans.Colonel Klink-...the standard interpretation in most history books of the Battle of Kursk is that is was an unqualified Soviet success. However, I've been looking into the battle recently, and I've found a lot of folks who argue the battle was more of a draw, and that the Soviets lost catastrophic amounts of tanks. They all agree that even if the Germans had won, the Soviets still would've won the war, but say that calling the battle a Russian victory is a mistake.
On a strategic/operational level, Operation Zitadelle was Germany's last moment of holding the initiative on the Eastern Front. Thereafter, they could only establish the initiative on the tactical level- not at the level of an Army Group or Front.
I would probably state (and agree with S. Zaloga) that the Battle of Kursk became a large battle of attrition. The diffences between the two sides equipment, intelligence, deployment, urgency, etc... still make it an interesting battle. Kursk battles will have all sorts of fun tactically, but on the strategic level it was two armies mauling each other over only a few miles.
I agree with Redwolf that the Battle of Kursk was not considered a true victory for the Russians. Where the victory came into play was after the battle. The Germans had use their reserves for what became a battle of attrition. Thereafter, their troops were exhausted and supplies had be used up for a mere 25 odd miles (sorry I'm an American- still using obsolete measurements...) of gain which probably increased their frontage.Redwolf-I know of no decent and recent military analysis that claims that the battle of Kursk was a victory for the Soviets when considering this battle alone.
For the Germans it was a battle where they had to score a big win, otherwise they were doomed. And they were, whether you interpret the actual result as a draw, light loss or light victory.
Starting in late July and proceeding through the end of 1943, the Russians were able to use their reserves- which were still available- to begin the great summer/fall offensives of 1943. These quickly re-took Kharkov (for the last time) and pushed to the Dnieper. In Glantz's _Battle of Kursk_ he begins to outline the beginning Russian offensives and the Germans pulling back from their gains (all in several days).
I think we can argue whether a big win would have made any difference in the long run (and I will leave that one for later....
The plan for Citadel was to stabilize the front and remove the salient (Kursk salient) that had formed in the German line after the Russian winter offensive of fall/winter 42-43 and the German re-taking of Kharkov (for the third time...). The goal was not an eventual defeat of the USSR as the previous Summer Offensive had been (Operation Blue- leading to the Battle of Stalingrad). Rather, it was to take a large salient out of the front- minimizing the length- and to allow the Germans to maintain the initiative but hold on defensively.Chupacabra-Citadel was intended to be the blow the knocked out the Soviet Army.... The Soviets could more easily make good their losses than the Germans, regardless of the fact that Soviet losses were numerically greater. Pyrrhic victory, certainly, but the Soviets won.
-
I like the idea of aerial recognition flags for German armor, but it should only apply for earlier conflicts (as you will see in CMBB) when German air support was still common. By June, 1944 through the end of the war on the Western Front, the allies definitely had air supremacy (greater than superiority...) and the Luftwaffe for all practical purposes had been chased from the sky. The Luftwaffe- except on a few occasions- was unable to provide tactical air support and would not have fighter-bombers supporting armor. So, the end result was that there was no reason for German armor to need to be recognized from the sky- in fact it would have a negative affect upon their overall survivalibilty.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Has anyone done a nicely wrinkled up German flag mod as seen on the back deck of German tanks that I can affix to all my armour? I like the orange aerial recognition panels on Marco and Gordon's Allied stuff a lot; makes it easier to pick out when viewing from high elevation (kinda the point of them...) A nice red German flag for my German stuff would be great...
The use of flags, much like Zimmerit by late 1944, was thus discontinued.
Steven Zaloga even refers to the Germans starting to use Russian air recognition symbols at the end of the war (April, 1945) to confuse the allies. At that point in the war the allies were close enough that common air recognition symbols were necessary so that both sides could recognize the others' armor. The Germans copied some of the Russian recognition symbols to confuse allied pilots and protect their armor.
-
Actually the PzIV always had a 75mm cannon, its just that it was L24 or short, also known as the "stummel" or stump. In the Ausf F2 they went to a longer barrel and this greatly increased range and penetration. I think it was the L40 maybe? And I think they bumped up the L at least once more thoughtout the range of the PzIVs but one thing is certain: they ALL had 75mm cannons!</font>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by reichpapers:
I always thought that the German tanks were not matching up to the Soviets because of the short barreled PanzerIV, isn't that why they started arming the PanzerIV with 75mm starting with either ausf. F1 or F2.
-
I'd be very interested in hearing more about this, if you've got more information. I've always heard how expensive the Tigers were to manufacture, and saw some figures on production hours. Why was this the case?</font>Originally posted by Jagdratt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Zitadelle:
[
Tanks (ughh, here come the grogs...)- I don't think that Russian and German tank equity can be easily compared. The basic philosophy behind both tanks were radically different. The Germans followed a quality approach (hell, Tigers and Panthers were hand made with individual part numbers!!) QB]
-
I think you may want to focus your question a little more. What sort of parity are you looking for- tactics, tanks, artillery, infantry, morale? There will be different responses dependent upon the question.Originally posted by Le Tondu:[QB]I was wondering what your opinions are about a time on the Eastern Front when each side was relatively the same in terms of quality of tanks, etc... I know that the Germans early on had the advantage and maybe the Soviets had the upper hand at the end. So, somewhere in the middle, I presume.
It would seem to me that this time of relative parity (if it existed) would be an excellent time for Meeting Engagement scenarios. My buddy and I like it when each side is equal to each other and the winner ends up being the one who is the most resourceful, tactically speaking.....QB]
This response will probably get the grogs going, but here are some thoughts (along some focused arenas).
Tactics- the Germans definitely held the lead in the early phases, however the Russians eventually learned the lessons and were applying them back to their instructors (i.e., the Germans). It could be argued by the time of Operation Uranus; definitely by mid-1943. By the later part of the war, however, the Germans were not following their own tactical rules. For example, during Operation Bagration, Hitler did not allow the Germans to withdraw to gain tactical advantages.
Also along the tactical realm- remember we are recreating the battles. The tactics that you and your buddy will use, will probably not follow either German or Russian doctrine. You are fully aware of using combined arms elements. Remember Russian commanders in 41-42 did not fully follow that doctrine. Your Russians will probably act more like Germans in their tactics than they would have in reality.
Tanks (ughh, here come the grogs...)- I don't think that Russian and German tank equity can be easily compared. The basic philosophy behind both tanks were radically different. The Germans followed a quality approach (hell, Tigers and Panthers were hand made with individual part numbers!!) versus the Russian quantity approach. How many T-34/76s were built versus how many PzKW IVs or Panthers. Other factors come into play as well (e.g., radio availability). The tanks were also different weight categories. The Panther would have qualified as a heavy tank in the Russian army (similar weight to the JS-2m and the 75mmL70 pentration was about the same as the 122mm).
For quick comparison, I would say the T-34/85 versus the Tiger I or Panther (in Spring/Summer, 1944). However, then parity doesn't work either since the numbers were radically different. By 1944, the number of available tanks along a German army group did not compare well against the available numbers along a Russian front. The number argument even is a factor in the great Kursk tank battles.
This is just a quick summary- we can go on and on about this one....
Infantry- again we fall back to tactics and also quality of training. How are the units used will have a major impact on the play balance. Are you going to follow (and enforce) German and Russian doctrines? The German infantry unit was organized around the machine gun. The Russian infantry unit used machines guns as supporting elements, and focused on the rifle (unless of course it is the SMG squad).
Additionally, the two armies looked at infantry entirely differently. For example, on the offense Germans used the tank to establish breaks in defensive lines and then exploited/encircled with tanks and used infantry to take care of the mop-up actions. However, Russians used infantry to initially establish the break in defensive lines. Thereafter, tanks were used for the exploit/encircle phase.
In summary, I don't think there is an actual period where the two sides were at parity due to the radical differences between the two sides. Tactically, it will be easy to create well balanced scenarios, but an overall balanced phase of the conflict did not exist. The approach I would recommend, is to analyze the two forces (for whatever time period) and work at creating balances through their advantages and disadvantages. Think about how many T-34/76s will need to go up against a PzKW VIE platoon in a good defensive position. How many German infantry companies and supporting artillery is need for unrooting a well defended Russian position in a factory?
Compounding the problem, will be our use of the computer soldiers. We live in the present, so we tend to think in the present. Our Russians will probably act more like Germans on the offensive and defensive. They will work as a combined arms group- something that did not exist in the early part of the conflict. And, our late-war Germans will actually retreat. It would be interesting to have two CMBB players fight several battles following the forces' doctrine of the day.
Ok, grogs....
-
Arghhhh!!! The allies run for the hills; it's the ultimate uber-panzer is upon them. The Germans tremble in fear as though, "Joan Crawford has risen from the grave." :eek:Originally posted by SuperTed:Tom has a new tank mod at Tom's Combat Mission HQ. See firsthand what strikes fear into the hearts of GERMAN tank commanders merely when hearing its name uttered...
-
I'm interested in re-creating battles of the Falaise Pocket; especially the retreat of the Germans through the gap just before it is "closed" by the 1st Polish Tank Division and the US 90th Infantry Division. Also, of my interest is the Canadian involvement.
Are there any created historical or semi-historical scenarios (day and night) depicting these battles?
Additionally, does anyone have any maps or know of resources for the Cambois and Trun areas, or have an idea what the topographical characteristics of the zone is like?
I am also thinking about creating a series of scenarios myself for these close battles. I foresee at least one scenario with the Germans moving west-to-east with an east-edge exit zone, and the Poles coming from the North and the US from the South. Basically, an interesting squeeze play.
Thanks in advance....
CMBB: drop the cutsy 'R'
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
And to top it all off, a backwards 'R' is not the 'R' in Russian. The cyrillic letter that appears as a backwards 'R' is actually pronounced "ya;" the cyrillic letter 'R' looks like an English 'P.'