RockinHarry

Excellent! Finally....

+1 Good article Describes well the overall situation vs western allies and necessities to deal with it, when it comes to offensive actions. But germans were lacking prerequisites for most of the time in 1944/45. Mostly unskilled troops, inexperienced low level leaders and general opportunities to apply any such tactics vs a "weak" enemy in favorable terrain. The only opportunity that comes in mind is the first stages of the Bulge battle, particularly in 5th Pz army sector with Manteuffel in command. For the remainder of the war, germans more or less had to stick with their costly and ineffective (counter) attack methods, as this was the only way to follow Hitlers no step back, no retreat orders. If a defense line portion was lost to the allies, there was no flexibility allowed in adapting to a new defense line, so the only method left, was to try regaining it with mentioned counter attacks.

One idea I have in mind since years, is to make an operation style game (CMX1), where the first scenario in the chain is used for reccon, with following actually stage the true full scale battles. In CMX1 this does not work without special rules for H2H and vs AI it would not work at all due to redeploying forces each turn. Vs human it would also not be a very fun game as it requires the defender to more or less stay idle or just do some basic counter patrolling. Haven´t dealt with the idea in CMBN yet, so I ask those who already made campaigns for this game. Assuming this would be a vs AI defending campaign only, can one set scenario lengths individually? Does the defending AI redeploys units each battle or can these be more or less fixed for every follow ups? Another idea is to use the enemy intel settings, maybe setting this as high as 50-70%. So an attacker already would know (from this way simulated thorough reconnaissance) many to most defenders positions and then can focus on actual infitration attacks. Depending on map size, one chooses for the defender a force size, apropiate to simulate a streched or thin defense line. Combine that with bad visibility or night time, you´ll have a good setting for a basic infiltration attack game. Might be more fun playing vs AI, but could also be made interesting for a human defender.

Yup, it´s video #3 (of 4) and the mounted platoons main task was to cut the russians off and then drop at or near the breakthrough point to clean out the russians from the former MLR. No mounted combat scenes are shown, but that´s part of single mounted squad tactics, which is not the topic of this training video. If mounted Grenadiers had to bypass single russians in foxholes or in the open at close proximity, they could deal with them by use of handgrenades or SMG on the move, but usually would depend on mutual support of other HT´s nearby, blazing with MGs. True generally. During the attack of Panzer Lehr on positions of 9th US ID on July 10, 1944, the division still could muster some 500 HT´s combat ready, but I have no data how many were actually employed during that attack and some reports tell that many Grenadiers rode on the tanks and not half tracks (Helmut Ritgen, History of Panzer Lehr Division in the west, 1944-1945). That surely was one of the last major opportunities for germans to use such a "mechanized" force in strength and breakthrough tactics applied on the western front 1944 though. There´s surely few other examples and I remember about the Arracourt counter attacks with the newly built panzer brigades employed, but these stay exceptions for sure.

Yep. Surprise charges are a possibility, but not advised as standard combat method and highly depended upon a particular leaders character and personal combat methods. If such a leader would sacrifice his valuable weaponry (tanks, HT´s, troops...) too often with such risky methods, he would not hold his command for too long usually. The better, more experienced commanders would know when to take risks/unusual combat methods and when not. One can try it in the game, but usually it does not work and just produces high losses with appropiate end game scores. However, I played many of GeorgeMC´s CMBB Blowtorch scenarios and I remeber I had applied such a daring attack once or twice successfully, even vs. the master himself. This was under low visibility conditions, vs dug in russian infantry in open terrain and no AT opposition around. Moved a platoon of mounted Panzergrenadiers right into the russian positions and with some fire support of another platoon further back, disembarked the Grenadiers right into close combat with the russians, finishing them off in brutal combat and moderate friendly infantry casulaties. I had alternatives dealing with the given situation (flanking the russian position, or avoid it entirely), but I wanted to try and was successful, enjoying some quite intense game turns as well.

Maybe BFC can code in "on the fly" foxhole and trench creation, like it does for craters, altering the terrain mesh during live play. The FH/trench owner sees the terrain at original stage, while the opponent has to spot these terrain alterations at unmodified stage. Maybe the action spots containing foxholes/trench sections would be just "marked" for the opponent to spot and then altered to real terrain, once spotted (ain´t that the CMX1 way?) on the fly. Obviously this requires to maintain 2 terrain databases (?) and I do not dare to think, how this can be coded with reasonable efforts. "Spotting" could still be abstracted with spotting probability %, to avoid a true 3D tracking/spotting necessity. Just a quick idea and BFC surely had considered something like that before and declared no go.

That also coincides with my original "Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere (combat training of the panzer grenadiers), Helmut von Wehren, 1944" training book. http://openlibrary.org/works/OL1454235W/Gefechtsausbildung_der_Panzergrenadiere Mounted combat from HTs was applied as oftenly as the combat situation allowed, not just in 1941, so anybody who says it´s propaganda, just knows half the story. Unfotunately it´s not modelled in CMBN, but yes....it´ll be a nightmare to code, so I leave it be asking for it. From the mentioned training book: Mounted combat will be (and was) generally applied, when AT opposition (incl. mines) was none or scarce, on course to the units objective, fighting enemy infantry at close proximity or good opportunity targets. Usually all squad weapons (mg, rifles, smg and hand grenades) were employed when applicable, either during movement or short halts. So it´s all part of the practiced "doctrine" and not just a seldomly applied emergency measure or even "propaganda".

Makes sense to me and I do not like the bunker (&foxhole) = vehicle solutions at all, no matter if it makes coding the stuff in the game more simple or not. Hopefully BFC puts it higher priority in the "improvement" list anytime soon.

Well described and coincides with my own view of things.

Plain technically one may call it Hutier tactics, but on the given levels of command (Btl. and above) and german "Auftragstaktik" in hindsight, individual battle tactics will be chosen by commanders on the spot, according to the situations. There´s no high order from above to use a particular tactic, unless Hitler intervenes himself as he too oftenly did. Manteuffel might have given "suggestions", but thats about it. My point was that unit commanders with a particular theater experience (eastern front) will not think in specific terms (or schematics), but will rather apply experiences to given battle situations. "Infiltration" is a generic term for more or less stealthy movement between enemy battle positions. Russians used it a lot on germans (and vice versa), to either reconnoitre behind frontline, cut off small detachements or to even assemble larger attacking forces prior to a major (russian) offensive. Personally I don´t care if one calls it "Hutier tactics", but I do not find the term anywhere in german WW2 field regulations or tactical handbooks. The main "infiltration" tactics in the Gremecy forest battle aimed at finding weak or uncovered spots in the lines of the 35th ID and exploit them if applicable. The german main attacks were at the roads with help of tanks from the 106 panzer brigade though.

I´m that kind of guy, thinking most realistic level game play is best, so I´m on Iron mode since the demo and never tried any other. I actually like the relative spotting friendlies and also have no probs with C2. This setting tells me alot about CMBN spotting and C2 rules and as well helps me designing scenarios, which needs full understanding of how the game works under the hood. Might be I´ll switch to lower levels for testing purposes occasionally, to reflect player preferences and play balance. The full unit type ID of enemies when clicking their icons bugs me as well. I´d expected to see just generic unit types (infantry, tank, truck...), but not whether it´s engineers, a MG and such. That´s not that "iron" I had hoped for, but generally I like this mode for mentioned reasons.

And yet an excerpt from the FORET de GREMECEY-FOREST battle book, telling about german situation: "While the Americans had superior combat support by this stage of the war, and used it effectively, the German divisions were not so well off. Their commanders did not have access to significant reserves, adequate artillery, or tanks. The volksgrenadier divisions were made up of units which had been all but obliterated on the Russian Front. They were infused with the youngest category of mobilization troops who were given mediocre training. Some replacements came from NCO academies, which at one time were well run, but by now the demand for bodies had become stronger than the demand for quality. However, the corps of noncommissioned and commissioned officers who had gained experience in other theaters formed a strong nucleus. In the final analysis failures on the part of the 559th and earlier the 553rd Volksgrenadier Divisions was due more to personnel and equipment shortages than inadequacies in leadership." "The 559th VG Division was committed peicemeal with three other elements to counterattack the Foret de Gremecey. This was not an error in leadership, but simply a matter of necessity. There were few other reserves available; the Allies had continuously cut rail lines which hampered transfer of what forces could be gathered up, and it was imperative to block the gap and restore contact between the German 1 AOK and 5th Panzer Army. the Germans displayed admirable leadership qualities as evidenced by well dug defenses, constant counterattacks in the face of superior forces, execution of the-difficult tactic of infiltration, and success of small groups of forces to defend critical villages and road networks."

WW1 Hutier tactics and large front Infiltration attacks on a defender holding an overextended front in wooded terrain, is two different matters. The latter is typical eastern front german experience, well applied to the Cremecy forest situation. The attacking german infantry division, applying the infiltration attacks at Cremecy forest, was the 559th VGD (mainly). This was a normal 29th wave Grenadier division, then officially renamed to Volksgrenadier at October 9th, 1944. (Might have been designated inofficially Volksgrenadier before that date) CG was lieutenant general Kurt Freiherr von Mühlen, knights cross holder. Formerly commander of MG-Bataillon 5, Eastern Front 1942 at rank of major. Commander of Jager-Regiment 75 / 5.Jager-Division / II.Army-Corps / 16.Army / Army Group North, Eastern Front in 1942 to 1944 at rank of lieutenant colonel, then colonel. Took command of 559 Grenadier Division in July 1944 at rank of colonel, then promoted to lieutenant general at November 9th, 1944. I have no data on regimental and battalion commanders, nor data on general troop quality (experience, training, amount of veteran cadre, ect.) Beside not knowing these additional facts, one still can safely assume that the CG, with his extensive eastern front experience, particulary northern front, did well apply typical eastern front tactics vs. the 35th ID in Cremecy forest.

Not to be misunderstood, while the thread indicates "issues" with the Sherman, it´s a general problem with CMBN armor. The Shermans is the only tanks in my scenario WIP, but if the scenario would see germans attacking with armor, it could also have read "Super Pz-4, Panther, Tiger,...annoyances". Beside the excessive smoke laying capabilities, I have no other general problems with the Shermans in the game. @ LemuelG No petitioning necessary. If you watched the video in my initial post, you noticed its indirect fire capabilities already, did you?

After reading halfway through the first post, the first thing in my mind was, the german commanders (Btl. level and up) obviously had eastern front experience. Also the general situation and terrain looks pretty much "eastern front" like. Overstretched defending forces holding a large wooded sector. That was what germans many times experienced vs. the russians attacking and infiltrating. The big difference here is that the low motivation german troopers could not hold the gained ground and positions as tenaciously as the russians did and thus could be more or less easily destroyed, once the US counterattacked the now isolated german units.

I´m about to finish my "Block by Block" scenario very soon and I´m looking forward to unavoidable comments re Sherman Rambo tanks in this one. Might be, every CMBN tank has blind spots when watching around, but as said there´s no blind spots for shooting, particularly at very close range (point blank range actually). I´ll make some more videos, as these are better than a thousand words... It´s mainly a tank vs infantry at close range problem and It bothers me since playing Busting the Bocage in the Demo. I have no data re Sherman smoke mortars, but in the game I find them to be as effective as a full light artillery smoke barrage. Tank MG emergency fire: Could be, single burst are fired without interruption, making them look/sound like a "long burst" instead. No problem with that. Yet can´t get rid of the "Star Wars robot gun" impressions, when watching tank vs infantry engagements at close range.

The MG burst originates just from the turret MG and it surely is longer than anything I´ve seen from infantry HMGs. Shrek hits. That was just a sidenote. Disregard please! The gun depression/elevation programming compromise is a bad compromise. It just produces Rambo tank capabilities and makes them lone rulers of urban combat.

Sorry, you missed the point, or maybe I used a misleading thread topic. It´s not about Shreks, Sherman armor and the like, it´s mainly about: Limitless gun/mg traversing capabilities, continuous mg burst capability and smoke mortars pesting the map with ease. Just wondering that nobody in WW2 sent a lone, unsupported tank battalion through the streets of Berlin, rooting out Hitler in quick order. To be more serious and not that mentioned issues had been discussed before: CMBN tanks appear not to have "blind spots", increasing their all around awareness to unrealistic levels, particularly vs. nearby infantry. If it´s not blind spots, it is the capability of robot like tracking and engaging nearby targets, when gun traverse and elevation limits actually should prevent this. (check YT video) But CMBN AFV do apparently NOT have these limits. Continuous fire MG bursts for tanks only? Why? I´ve not tested other AFV smoke mortar capabilities and their FX in the game, but I can´t recall having something like that seen before. Can somebody enlighten me?

I´ve already been bothered from it since the beginning, but now I caught it all in a short video sequence. Limitless gun (and MG) elevation, allowing to shoot where it isn´t capable of in RL. Continuous machine gun bursts. Something that non tank mounted MGs are capable of. Smoke mortar capabilities, I´ve never seen before for such an AFV. ...and all while beeing hit by two Shrek rounds in short time. BFC...fix or do somefink. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5pAZqCs_wA

"Funny" for sure, but from a more serious point of view, you´d rather see any such "briefings" for a soviet union commander, but surely not for a german one. Or maybe in a Hollywood made film at best. Beside anything else, taste matters off course.

From latests experiences with the games features and as defending germans, I´d aim for a "Fusilier" unit for their big short range punch (many SMG´s), either as part of a maps main strong point, or a good infantry counter attack force. Foxholes and trenches are good, if placed tactically sound. You can choose to place them in keyholed positions, mutually supporting, but avoid placing them too close to bocage and trees (air bursts!!). Spare isolated buildings in the defense and rather use them as "shield" for keyholed defenders behind. Aim for mutually supporting keyhole defense positons as oftenly as possible. HMG´s should be placed with longest possible range of fire in mind (if map parts allow) and both, frontally covered, as well as the flanks. A platoon of Stug or Pz-4 should be enough as counter attack armor, if any US tanks get beyond the screen of Fausts and Schrecks. Thus avoid towed AT.

Wasn´t speaking particularly of your mod, which currently is the best alternative to original files available. Files I do consider "nonsense" generally is those that use a tongue not that normal in the 1930/40ies. german taking fire 8.wav - "nehmt die die Birne runter, Deckung" (heads down, take cover) or german capture 4.wav - "Waffen runter und keinen Mucks" (weapons down, no move)...would a GI understand that anyway? or german chatter 4.wav - "sie hören" (literally: you listen)...not considering the somewhat gayish tone. rather means "zuhören" oder "herhören" (listen up) many of the phrases have an "unmilitary" tone...

That´s the voice mod I´m playing with for quite some time now. At least it has the worst files replaced with better ones from other games. Yet all we still have is a weird mix of realistic command phrases, some Hollywood style stuff and a bunch of plain nonsense, not considering file quality. Some suggestions beforehand: The "invitation" to surrender files should be made in english with german accents. Something like...."Hands up! Drop weapons"...or..."Come over here, Amerikaner". There´s little bit more of freedom with the chatter files. These are usually played for "idle" units, so beside all seriousness, one can mix in some occasional "funny" stuff like "Herr Leutnant, ich muss mal austreten (kacken,...)" usw.

So far I only see 16 Bit, 44kHz, Mono PCM files. (*.wav) So that would be the targeted format when recording as well. Minimum is 16 Bit and 22kHz yet results in good enough quality for the game. A cheap microphone plugged into your sound card s/b sufficient for the recording. Make sure to know how to set the right input gain when recording first. Hold the micro at a distance of at least 20 -30 cm, preferably at an angle to avoid pop noise and other distortion. While one can cut any reverberated sound or edit it with a noise gate/expander in an audio editor, it´s best to avoid any reverb sound during recording at all. I figured you can pull a blanket over your head while shouting and speaking into the microphone, to avoid most of the unwanted reverb effects. This all should produce audio files, one can work with.

sorry, links are obsolete. Here´s some working ones: http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cdm/ http://www.ahco.army.mil/site/index.jsp http://www.history.army.mil/ http://www.scribd.com/collections/2499675/WWII-German