RockinHarry

Depending on map (size, open or rugged terrain, a hill between the defender and attacker, lots of cover terrain), some counter reccon makes sense. Go march some foot or vehicle scouts to those places that were initially out of reach during the setup phase and try gaining observation to likely yet unobserved enemy approach routes and assembly points. Might save some time to shift reserves or plot defending barrage earlier. Since CM assumes the rather rare case that contact between opposing sides is completely broken before a battle (beside any info given in the scenario briefing, unless a QB), it´s the only way to regain some otherwise available prebattle info about the attacking enemy whereabouts. Also an aggressive defending player might send an armored reserve (if available) to attack the flanks of parts of the enemy forces once discovered. Again, depends largely on above mentioned map attributes (size, cover terrain, ect.) A more defensive minded, passive player might spend more time during setup for terrain evaluation, thinking about enemy possibilities, movement routes...and then watch the carefully well thought out defense plan succeed...or fail.

Thanks for the info. Didn´t think either that the 37mm Ju-87 or upgunned Il-2 would´ve been overly "effective" as tank killer. I guess the Ju-87G was rather "experimental" as those other german flying toys were like Komet or the mortar lobbing Me109/FW190 variants used against allied bomber formations. I can´t tell, beeing not overly interested in airforce matters and not at all for anything beyond 1945. So what were production numbers of this 37mm Ju-87 version after all? HS129? And with regard to Rudel, what sort of planes or plane variants did he fly during his "career"? I neitherly did read his book nor any available biographies, so I would be interested to know tank kills (no matter if credible claims at last or not) made on an aircraft model flown base. Something like similar to Wittman who started to make tank kills as Stug commander and switching over to Tiger at last. So at last what was the most "effective" tank hunter/FB version with regard to armament? I guess it shares between rocket and bomb armed version of any AC type and nation. The Brits appear to have been more or less satisfied with the existing FB versions (Typhoon, Mosquito ect.) as well as were the US with the P47, Lightning and MP fighters. Maybe for similar as the "M4 Sherman is good enough" reasons, dunno. How much of that is implemented in Combat Mission? IIRC I have seen in at least 1 Combat Mission game a near miss from a heavy bomb (500lb?) disabling 2 or 3 AFVs the same moment. After some repeated tests it looks like those Combat Mission FB armed with about 2 or more heavy bombs like russian PE-2 FT and german FW-190F have the best chances to become "tank killers" generally. The gun versions HS-129 or Ju-87 G caused mainly an occasional immobilizing hit or tank commander loss, a whole tank kill maybe every 2-3 games played. So far I´ve seen nothing that makes me think that the air to ground attack routines in CM are broken or overly unrealistic.

yep, did mean the HS129 off course.

Checked latest screenshot gallery from 2.07 General impressions: The landscapes that obviously portray combat on the western front (France 1940, 1944?) reminds me quite much of my last holiday in the alps. Lots of green meadows, scattered mixed trees. Just cows are yet missing. Could be also any nature park somewhere in the US ect. :confused: Trench lines of this size and completely uncamouflaged is very much unrealistic. I guess bigger sized trenches are required to get 3D collision stuff working better, but completely carelessly dug out trenches and highly visible concrete installations is nothing like the Maginot or Siegried line looked alike. This could be a modders paradise, if ToW is moddable at all. The eastern front screenies show the same uber sized trenches unfortunately. The worse they´re even more visible in the snowy white surroundings. Generic gun positions: Some of the screenies shows a german Pak35/36 in the middle of one of those nice green meadows. Surrounded by a nice row of sandbags (!??), some crates and additionally "camouflaged" by a net on top. I can´t remember I have seen any such "composition" on contemporary pix of the time. This gun position simply says: "Here we are! Come shoot at us, kill us..quickly!" Wonder where this sandbag-mania comes from. Desert or italy combat might show some, but very very rarely for germans. Looks more appropiate for western allies far behind the frontline (artillery positions). As already said, the western front style roads look odd (at least those I´ve seen on screenies). Road ditches, telephone/telegraphic poles and cattle fences as well as occasional traffic signs would add way more than high res cobblestone where none would be found in the real world. I guess the ToW 3D world is not made from single "tiles" as CM is and rather a huge graphic similar to Close Combat or Il2 maps. That means there´s no chance for modders to do better and the developers have yet to make their "homeworks" before the outside russia game release. Not to be misunderstood, the graphics as a whole is superb, it´s beautiful, just some important details is wrong or wasted on secondary items! As is now you can´t "sell" the western european landscapes to any..(western) european. Check roads, rework those areas that contain trees (tree composition and floor), add more "dirt" and broken stuff (trees, an occasional destroyed truck in the road ditch ect.) and you start to have something looking like a "battlefield"! The eastern front landscapes appear to have more of these qualities already. Once I have a more modern PC on my desk, I´ll order the game for sure. ...not just to see how those mentioned national battle drills and doctrines are implemented.

I wonder what damage all that falling flak did. It's a lot of metal isn't it? </font>

Sorry to say that many many non european scenario makers don´t really have an idea what landscapes in europe look alike when it comes to crafting a map. They too oftenly create wildernesses more appropiate for most parts of deepest in russia (or the US!??). It´s mostly sufficient to consider that most parts of western europe is more or less densly populated and there´s few parts of landscapes left that weren´t shaped by man during past 2000 years for a particular reason. Considering that CMAK is more and more used to portray and play NWE type battles, it should be kept in mind that certain terrain types meant to be put on italy or desert style maps, simply don´t fit on north-western europe style maps. These are vineyards, rocks and rough (mainly due to graphics, less so for effects). Many map makers use these to add "variation" on their maps, where none of this kind would be present in real landscapes (excluding those that are KNOWN to feature the metioned terrain types). Map sizes: Not much to add actually. Make it appropiate for force sizes, range of main weapons and style of battle.

Everything said already (JasonC). Only thing that comes into mind, is that fighter bombers can have different armamant, not just small guns (13 to 20mm) and rockets, but also 50 to 250lb bombs. The latter surely will seldomly have direct hits on anything, but a near miss can turn even a heavy tank upside down! What btw was the most effective "tank hunting airplane" of WW2? Don´t know, but guess the HS-123, as well as 37mm armed Stuka were quite successfull in this role, as were probably the Il2 Sturmovik. Germans had to fear anything coming "from above" if one considers the vulnerable to less vulnerable vehicle ratio in combat formations. A trashed maintenance or supply unit (mainly composed of trucks, towage vehicles ect.) could be as good as any amount of true combat vehicles disabled. The point is these don´t reach the combat lines in sufficient numbers, due to bad maintanance, lack of fuel ect. How many (german) combat vehicles were destroyed by their own crews due to these reasons? If a single FB wrecks a supply column, causing a dozen tanks or so to be wrecked by own troops for lack of fuel, I would have no problem to acknowledge the FB pilot to claim those kills (indirectly). Fear of allied aircraft by germans was not limited to FB alone! A lone allied spotter/observation plane could mean a terrible artillery barrage on friendly positions in shortest of times! The presence of a single allied spotter plane very oftenly caused whole german artillery units to silence at once. Thus in the latter half of the war, bad flying weather was the best friend of germans in every case.

..and all cobblestone roads outside cities/villages in western europe is another no-go IMO. Is that meant to be standard "paved" roads?? :confused:

Awesome pics! :cool: One thing that disturbs me (as in many other 3D wargames)is that parts of the 3D world that include trees (any density) looks too much like a golf coursees or cleaned parks. If you have any chance to walk into local forests, you´ll notice that the forest floor is seldomly "grassy". In particular evergreen trees have a quite distinctive forest floor, as well as have deciduous trees with great variations during the 4 seasons. Having all that grass tiles under all trees takes much of the otherwise great looking landscapes realism IMHO.

Most likely not available in english language, but I find Guderian/Munzel´s "Panzer Marsch!" (Panzer march) and Eike Middeldorf´s "Taktik im Russlandfeldzug" (tactics in the russian campaign) of great value. Both are post war (1956) publications and deal mainly with the wartime experiences, application of the military regulations/tactics, their successes-failures and adaptions. Guderians book focuses mainly on tank arm matters (incl. combined arms) while Middeldorfs book takes a wider approach and compares all german vs. russian army combat arms and application of combat tactics. There´s also some very useful tactics books from german wartime authors publishing during and shortly before WW2, in example there´s the Greiner/Degener series of books dealing mainly with infantry bataillon and regimental tactics. There´s numerous other authors, too many to mention since most of their publications would be only available in german language and not easy to find usually. I find most this stuff either on local used stuff markets or ebay. Interesting to know is that many of the US wartime publications about german tactics is direct translations of german field regulations or tactics/training manuals of the time. "The german squad in combat" (german original is KÜHLWEIN´s "Die Gruppe im Gefecht") is one example, or US publications who include large parts of the german "Truppenführung" tactical doctrine manual (HDV 300/1), comparable to US field service regulation FM 100-5. Most of the US translated stuff is available from the net for free (MHI, CARL ect.) Also it can be savely assumed that all military stuff published by german authors and official authorities was aqquired before and during WW2 and that it can either be found in archives and/or micro films in the US somewhere. Here´s a list of original german stuff I collected during past 2 years (sorry, all german!): Publishers: OW-Offene Worte Verlag M&S - Mittler & Sohn Verlag Barbara Verlag Mars Verlag Format: Title, author, publisher, year. official german training regulations: D 102 Die Infanterie im Stellungskrieg, 1940 H.Dv. 73, Schießvorschrift sMG, 1937 H.Dv. 100, Krankenträgerordnung, 1934 H.Dv. 111/2 Teil2 Schießvorschrift für Infanteriegeschütze, 1939 H.Dv. 125/3a Fernmeldetechnik im Heere, Heft 3a, Funktechnik, 1939 H.Dv. 125/2 Fernmeldetechnik im Heere, Heft 2, Fernsprechtechnik, 1939 H.Dv. 130/2a, A.V.I, 1942 H.Dv. 130/2b, A.V.I, 1936 H.Dv. 130/3a, A.V.I, Maschinengewehr-Kp., 1936 H.Dv. 130/4a, A.V.I, Infanteriegeschütz-Kp., 1937 + 1941 H.Dv. 130/5, A.V.I, Die Panzerabwehrkompanie, 1938 H.Dv. 130/9, A.V.I, Führung und Kampf der Infanterie, Das Inf.-Btl, 1940 H.Dv. 130/11, A.V.I, Feldbefestigung der Infanterie, 1940 H.Dv. 200/2g, A.V.A, Ausbildung Batterie lFH18, 1937 H.Dv. 200/4, A.V.A, Bespannte Batterie, 1934 H.Dv. 200/6, Teil 1 A.V.A, Schießvorschrift, 1943 H.Dv. 240, Schiessvorschrift für leichte Waffen, 1937 H.Dv. 299/3, A.V.K, Die Radfahrerschwadron, 1937 H.Dv. 300 Truppenführung Teil 1 H.Dv. 316 Pionierdienst aller Waffen, 1935 H.Dv. 316 Pionierdienst aller Waffen Ergänzungsheft, 1941 H.Dv. 319/1, Behelfsmäßiges Bauen im Kriege, 1941 H.Dv. 487 Teil 2, Führung und Gefecht verbundener Waffen, 1923 H.Dv. stands for "Heeres Druck Vorschrift" = army printed regulation (technical, service, training ect.) A.V.I means "Ausbildungs Vorschrift Infanterie" = Training regulation for the infantry A.V.A means "Ausbildungs Vorschrift Artillerie" = Training regulation for the artillery A.V.K means "Ausbildungs Vorschrift Kavallerie" = Training regulation for the cavalry ________________________________ Freely available (unclassified and in selected bookstores ect.) stuff of the period: Technisches Hilfsbuch für Funker, OW, 1942 Der Kompaniechef, Ellenbeck, 1940 Offizierthemen, Gesterding/M&S, 1943 Das Wesen der soldat. Erziehung, Altrichter/Stalling, 1935 Die Rekruten-Ausbildung (Infanterie), Queckbörner/M&S, 1940 Der Dienst in der Kompanie, Stock/M&S, 1937 Kompanie-Ausbildung im Feldheer, Busol/M&S, 1942 Der Kompanietrupp, Wilhelm Strutz, OW 1936 Die (neue) Gruppe, Zimmermann/OW, ~1930-34 Die Gruppe der Schützenkompanie zu 12 Gruppen, Zimmermann/OW, 1941 Soldatenfibel, OW, ~1930-34 Gefechtsfibel, OW, 1937 Taktikfibel, Witzleben/OW, ~1934 Kriegsspielfibel, OW, ~1935 Pionierfibel, OW, ~1935 Kavalleriefibel, ~1935 Nachrichten Fibel, OW, ~1935 Geländefibel, Jordan, OW 1940/41 Leichter Granatwerfer Wa 38/39, 1940 Artilleristisches Merkheft, Barbara, 1941 Artilleristische Schiessaufgaben, Barbara, 1940 Praktische Ballistik für den Artilleristen, Schmidt/M&S, 1943 Taschenbuch für den Artilleristen, Rheinmetall-Borsig, 1942 Handbuch für den Flakartilleristen (Der Kanonier) 8,8 und 2cm Flak, Neuman/OW, 1941 Artilleristischer Ratgeber auf dem Gefechtsfeld, Kruse/Barbara, 1940 Das verstärkte Bataillon, K.W.Uebe, M&S, 1942 Die M.G.-Kompanie, Hofmann/M&S, 1939 Der Feuerkampf des s. M.G., Froböse/M&S, 1940 Das Kommandobuch, Die Schützenkompanie Teil1, Mars/Siwinna, 1941 Soldaten-Wörterbuch Deutsch-Russisch, 1941 Taschenbuch für den Winterkrieg, 1942 Das Nachtgefecht, Boltze/M&S, 1936 Kleine Lagen und ihre Durchführung, Bones/M&S, 1942 Taktisches Handbuch f.d. Truppenführer und seine Gehilfen, Cochenhausen/M&S, 1936 Die Planübung, Mahlman/M&S, 1942 Grundaufgaben für die Gefechtsausbildung im Inf.-Batl., Haymann, Gustav Kühn Verlag 1942 Die Maschinenwaffen im Rahmen der Taktik, Däniker, M&S 1942 Taktik im Rahmen des verstärkten Infanterie Battailons, Greiner-Degener/OW, 1940 Krisen im Gefecht, Greiner-Degener/OW, 1936 Gefechtsführung und Kampftechnik, Greiner-Degener/M&S, 1937 Kampftechnik, Greiner/M&S, 1941 Aufgabenstellung und Übungsleitung, Greiner-Degener/M&S, 1938 Felddienst-ABC für den Schützen, Kühlwein/M&S, 1935 Die Gruppe im Gefecht, Kühlwein/M&S, 1934 Schützenzug und Kompanie im Gefecht, Kühlwein/M&S, 1934 Panzerkampfwagen-Buch, Kaufmann/OW, 1941 Gefechtsausbildung der Panzergrenadiere, Helmut von Wehren, OW 1944 Das Panzerjägerbuch, Major Ritter Edler von Peter, OW 1939 Geschütz- und Zugaufgaben der Panzerabwehrkompanie, Hohmann, M&S 1939 Geländebeschreibung und Geländebeurteilung, Denckler Verlag, 1940 Richtig Entfernungschätzen, Denckler Verlag, 1940 Das militärische Geländezeichnen im Aufklärungsdienst, Distler/Selbstverlag, 1924 Gelände ABC, Thümmel/M&S, 1942 Gelände und Kartenkunde, Baumgart/M&S, 1939 Taktische Zeichen des Heeres, Graefe, 1938 Panzer Marsch!, Guderian-Munzel, 1956 Taktik im Russlandfeldzug, Middeldorf/M&S, 1957 Prices ranged between 5 to 30 Euro with most of them somewhere in the middle (10-20). All are in readable condition. There´s yet quite rare FM/TM and field service regulations that are not easy to aqquire, unless you have the right amount of cash at hand. Most of the rare stuff is from the Panzertruppen and prices my go up to 50-100 Euro or more. For an overview about german field service and training regulations check this site: http://www.superborg.de/ Have questions about the content of one or the other listed book, let me know!

That would be good news indeed! Looking forward to any improved version of MM! :cool: Still doing a lot of stuff with MC (map converter) to get MM work with CMAK.

There´s a whole lot of files (HTML and PDF) dealing with german WW2 tactics and doctrine. CARL and MHI require more of a search effort but keywords "german" and/or "tactic" should do the trick usually. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/contentdm/home.htm that one you know already http://www.lonesentry.com/ http://ahecwebdds.carlisle.army.mil/awapps/main.jsp?nid=-561/569 http://www.bvalphaserver.com/content-10.html

Personally I think the Tiger or 88 is also a "slang" affair among western allied troops and simply means something dangerousis shooting at you. At normal combat ranges (<1400m) it doesn´t really matter much whether your M4 Sherman is hit by the long 75 of a Pz-IV, Stug or Panther, since all of them most likely will penetrate and kill your tank. Same for the 88 which probably just means a dangerous gun, no matter if it´s a real 88 (Flak, Pak or KwK) or any of the common german Pak (75 and russian 76). A crew sitting in a Churchill model surely will have a different opinion about the fine differences between the performance a 75L48, a 75L70 and any 88 since the latter 2 are more of a danger than the first. German reports aren´t always accurate about enemy tank models either. In particular on the eastern front where designations of enemy tank models may vary largely. Sometimes you read about heavy tanks, sometimes you read a 52 ton model , sometimes an exact designation as KW (not always telling of 1 or 2 model) or a Stalin. At the start of Barbarossa in 41 also the T-34 models where described as beeing heavies. Same goes for russian light and medium tank models. Oftenly there isn´t even be made a difference between Tank and Assault Gun type vehicles. I can imagine since german infantry learned to fear the T-34 quite early, that many infantry unit battle accounts report of its presence more oftenly than would be actually correct (a larger amount were probably also of the T26, BT and KW type). Confusions between T-34 and KW might have happened widely too. Both are very dangerous to infantry (and early german tanks). Off course this is a sort of generalization and just a guess from my side, but yet worth to consider when reading those accounts just telling of opposing Tigers and 88. Also depends upon particular reporting unit (tank or infantry), style of report (official unit reports, stylish personal accounts ect.) and particular ToW, where a Brit unit with previous experience from the desert war surely has a better idea what an 88 (Flak) is and what not. Mentioning more Tigers and Panthers in reports up the chain of command might also have served the purpose to encourage delivering valuable Fireflies or 76 Sherman quicker and in more numbers, who knows. There´s many reasons not to take those Tiger/Panther and 88 reports always for granted. Truth is and numbers always tell, at least 50% of reported german tanks/AFV´s in 1944-45 were those with the 75L48. Considering reliability, favor goes even more to non Panther and Tiger stuff in the front lines. AFAIK there also wasn´t much of real differentiation between those oftenly reported german Bazooka Boys, which more oftenly were probably Panzerfaust equipped infantry and not those with the Schreck.

I would recommend to check GeorgeMC´s scenarios/OPS at www.blowtorchscenarios.com Some feature Stukas, as well as artillery and always lots of action on beautifully crafted maps! :cool:

Michael Dorosh, remember the "RHZ Death Factory" scenario US briefing discussion (thanks again for the help btw)? German forces in the scen have some Puppchen as well! Although I don´t have an exact report about the whereabouts of Puppchens within the german 275th Infantry divison, I have a report from AOK7 (7th army high command), dated september 28, 1944 which reports about actions to improve the strength of the units in the hurtgen forest sector. In particular it was stated that the 353rd Infantry Division (whose units where absorbed into the 275th ID taking over the sector october 2, 1944) received 10 Puppchens and 48 Panzerschrecks. 8 heavy AT (75mm) were delivered as well. While the latter most likely were delivered to the divisional AT Btl., the Schrecks and Puppchens surely were given to the regimental AT companies for lack of AT guns (quite much in short supply in autumn 1944). My assumption was that most of the Puppchens were parceled out to the frontline battalions, located in the depth of the hurtgen forest, helping to cover the vital forest roads and roads leading up to the hurtgen plateau. Not an ideal weapon for forest fights, but it´s lightness (100kg) and short range (best hitting up to 250m, 50% hit probability at 1x1m target) made it much better suited than the rare 75mm PAK which was mostly employed when field of fire was good and possible engagement ranges high (over 600m). Thus I suppose my research was good enough to justify a Puppchen beeing inluded in the scenario. Interesting to know is that although production of the Puppchen (8,8cm R.Wfr. 43) ceased in february 1944, there were still 1649 pieces (out of 3150 overall) in frontline units by end of the war in 45. You´ll find the (small size) scen at the Scenario depot; "RHZ Death Factory" by RockinHarry. http://www.the-scenario-depot.com/scenario_details.html?command=search&db=scenarios.db&eqskudatarq=553

A bad joke actually since nothing of it is really considered in the CM games. It´s completely up to a scenario maker to give the so called pre battle reccon to a player and to be honest, most scenario makers do it plain wrong if you take it all a bit more serious with regard to how it was done historically. In fact as a base any CM game gives you the intel as normally available in meeting engagement games, means "you know the enemy is anywhere on the map". Doh. That means you have to make the normal "battle reconnaissance" as has to be done anyway. If it comes to "prepared assault" style battles, you are in fact in a situation that forces you to attack just like you stumble unexpectedly for the very first time on the enemy. Quite unrealistic. Before the battle you know at least parts of the enemy whereabouts, some of his strongpoints (incl. fakes), HMG, gun positions, minefields, wire, ect. Only then you are to make the attack plan, decide for the main effort, position support units, ect. Most of the CM assault style battles put you in a situation where none of the vital info is known (usually known by a battle commander due to airial reccon, patrols sent out earlier, simple observation of the enemy lines from friendly positions ect.) If the scenario designer gives you unrealistically short time to conduct the attack based on non information, well..then have fun! Gladly you can make out those scenarios by just reading the brief, telling "you are to attack bla bla, no enemy armor is expected..." and those crappy info that personally makes me hit "Alt-A" instantly. The above said counts more for games vs. the AI. Games played H2H off course can´t be that specific, since most players prefer to reposition their units the way they like (me incl.), but still some credible info can be given in the brief by the scenario maker. QB´s of any sort are always to be handled as meeting engagements in any way, although I see no reason that BFC did not include any generically generated intel for the enemy player. Off course, the more you take CM just as a game (and not serious simulation of military actions), the less you miss the above mentioned intel procedures and have fun just "seeking and destroying" the enemy. Simple matter of preference. Know HPS Tigers on the Prowl/Panthers in the Shadows series games? Good example for how pre battle reccon can be done in some realistic ways! Parts of enemy improved positions (foxholes or trenches) are revealed instantly, depending upon battle type, range to friendly lines ect. Same goes for minefields and wire. Wire is not completely hidden, and lanes (purchased and set by attacking player) through known or suspected minefields are always known. Some enemy minefields are revealed pre battle as well. Depends also upon percentage of engineer troops in the force mix. I have raised expectations for CM2x, although I´ll skip the Shock Force something for my lack of interest in post WW2 combat. "Move to contact" command and "covered arcs": Be careful with that, as units most of the time only react to enemy units within the covered arcs, unless in emergency situations (beeing shot ect.). A more secure method is to give "move to contact" without setting covered arcs, followed by a "hide" command for infantry type units. It off course depends upon the terrain the scouting unit is moving through to make sure the "hide" does not take place in unsuited terrain (non cover). This helps survive infantry reccon better IMO. AC´s normally conduct tasks independently as part of a larger reccon unit (Cpy or Btl) or as part of a mixed battle group (mobile advance/point force, rearguard or in emergency situations). For the former in order to get it to work you need at least a map large enough and a task suitable to use AC´s (seek enemy, shield flanks in mobile operations ect.) For the latter there´s no rule actually. AC´s are just mobile MG platforms or when heavier armed, are of limited use vs enemy armor and heavy weapons. I personally opt for halftrack born reccon infantry (preferably a small HQ), since it can be used in more stealthier ways and when running into ambushes has slightly more survival (self defence) capability as crews enforced to bail out from a knocked out AC´. Again matter of preference. Food for thought: http://www.combatmission.com/articles/panzer_forward/panzer.asp http://www.25panzergrendiv.com/main_folder/Wermaht_Tactics/patrolling_from_static.htm http://www.25panzergrendiv.com/main_folder/Wermaht_Tactics/german_patrol_methods_in_italy.htm http://www.25panzergrendiv.com/main_folder/Wermaht_Tactics/Tactics_of_a_german_patrol.htm http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/articles/GermanRecce/GeReccBtl.html http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/articles/GermanRecce/GeRecce_USview.html EDIT: The Panzergrenadier links obviously don´t work anymore. Maybe I find the site at another web address again. [ December 08, 2006, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: RockinHarry ]

Though you´d asked for particular tactics to be used in the CM game, I would like to point you to an interesting article dealing with german reccon tactics and employment of reccon in WW2 from US point of view: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/articles/GermanRecce/GeRecce_USview.html The same site holds another article focused on german reccon units, both in Inf. and Armor Divisions: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891/articles/GermanRecce/GeReccBtl.html A lot of the real stuff still works well in the CM game, WHEN conditions are right, but many players and scenario designers tend to use AC´s inappropiately as expendable units. If the battle map is large, AC´s as well as half track borne reccon infantry is useful to cover open flanks against surprises and watch out for enemy actions, but usually they´re only strong enough to deal with enemy forces of equal or inferior quality (and numbers). That off course depends upon particular composition of your reccon force. Germans also had "heavy" reccon support units that can give a considerable boost to a reccon forces attack/defense capability, but in the case of the historic employment these were normally employed for "reccon in force" missions, when observation and just finding the enemy was not sufficient. German armor battailons and regiments usually had their reccon platoons, which were usually composed of the same (or lighter) vehicles as the "fighting" platoons, but it´s likely due to shortages in vehicles that this luxury was kept up for long during the war, when normal combat armor platoons were sent for (battle) reconnaissance instead. AC´s and tanks were mixed only when particular (german) "battle groups" were put together for special missions (Vorausabteilung) or in emergency situations, which were plenty later in the war. Can´t tell much about US, CW and Soviet armored recon tactics and employment of armored recon units, but I think they´re not much different from the german ones. As had been said by other board members already, even if the enemy has no AT guns or armor, a standard HMG (MG34/42, 30cal Browning, Vickers, Maxim ect. assumed to use AP shots) is able to kill your light scout cars/halftracks at close ranges (below 300m I think)! That means, even if the enemy player posesses AT guns/armor, he is not forced to reveal his units, if a HMG can do the job dealing with your light recon vehicles instead! Also AC´s (or other reccon vehicles) should be used at least in pairs, so that one unit moving has at least some support from another unit overwatching. Beside the above said; If you know strengths and weaknesses of particular units, there´s actually no rule how to employ these and "sacrificing" units is a valid "tactic". Depends all upon playing style and preferences.

Not much to add. If forced to leave the building, use "fast" or "retreat" (preferably have a HQ in contact nearby when doing!). Better to have an exhausted than a dead unit. In my latest games, full squads that were on the base floor of a collapsing building took about 60 to 80% losses. For a crewed weapon that means in case of survival a most likely immobile unit with little ammo left, badly shaken and yet of little use for the remainder of the battle. Don´t think there´s much of a difference when a light or heavy building is falling upon you :eek: , although in the former case more wounded than dead personnel is likely. In the game, the personnel is considered out of action immediately, no matter if the game tells you at the games end it´s just wounded or dead.

Did you have a look over at The Proving Grounds and the Scenario Depot ? Think I saw a couple of Arnhem related scens there.

Things that help me much when employing my armor is using the "fast" command oftenly and then "hunt" when near favorable firing positions. If enemy AT guns/armor whereabouts is known and flanking these is impossible or offers the side armor dangerously, it helps to approach with a 11 or 1 o´clock bearing, which adds some more horizontal armor angle, thus increasing "effective" armor. That´s a RL tactic that works well in CM too. Same can be done with the turret by setting covered arcs appropiately. Works the same when on the defense, using a combination of "rotate" (for hull) and "covered arc" (for turret). These are single vehicle techniques and things become more complicated and varied when you are to employ whole formations (platoon and up) and overwatch fire tactics come into play. Other support arms (snipers, Arty. ect.) when available are of good use to cripple at least a small amount of enemy armor. Killing tank commanders is best, getting tanks just to button up is second best result. Generally things as advised in Jentz or Guderians books (Panzer Marsch!) work quite well in CM IMHO. :cool: It also depends much on the map you play! Ideal tank country would be rolling terrain, flat hills with not too much cover terrain (brush/woods ect.) and large enough a map to allow standard shooting ranges when armor forces come into contact. A 2x2km map would be the absolute minimum to allow any sort of options for an attacking player. Larger is better IMO. If you prefer cat and mouse engagements where "normal" combat ranges is neglected (thus taking away the advantages of normally superior armor), then small maps, or lots of cover terrain/urban maps would be the choice.

forgot to ask; is that source anywhere available in the net? (I might have stumbled upon it under different name in the past) </font>

forgot to ask; is that source anywhere available in the net? (I might have stumbled upon it under different name in the past)

LOL! one more funny distraction from many that all too serious discussions at this bord!

Some good info about various Tiger units strength and composition: http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/tigers.html info about independent AT units can be found on a related page: http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/pzjgabt.htm If you know the designation of a particular (german) army or corps, you can do a simple site search (CTRL-F) for this unit and see what´s going to be highlited. This way I found out about lots of army corps support units. In case of the german Panzerjager company supposed as "attacking" force in the vicinity of Sesto Imolese, the schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung 525 (Nashorn) might be one candidate, if it´s an independent unit. Much more likely your german Panzerjager company was a normal divisional AT unit, as part of the mentioned divisions, comprised of Stugs or Hetzers ect. The Sturmvogel site also holds useful info about independent artillery, MG, Sturmgeschutz, Engineer and other units: http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/heer-obscure.html

It's "survey" rather than "surveillance", but you're basically right. As the name implies, the primary task of a survey regiment is to much about with theodolites and measuring tapes to survey guns and OPs on to the grid. 4th (Durham) Survey Regiment RA had a survey battery, a sound ranging battery and a flash spotting battery, outline organization as follows: RHQ - Survey Battery: -- HQ survey section -- X Troop --- A section --- B section -- Y Troop --- C section --- D section - S-R Battery: -- R Troop -- S Troop - F-S Battery: -- A Troop --- A OP --- B OP --- C OP -- B Troop --- D OP --- P OP --- T OP For Op Veritable, assigned to 51 (H) Div were: Survey section X Troop No. 1 4-pen recorder section S Troop S-R recce party B Troop short-base F-S party Tac BHQ, 48 Battery I believe that 48 Bty is the survey battery, but it is not entirely clear from my reading of my source for the above, "Z Location, or Survey in War, the story of the 4th Durham Suvey Regiment Royal Artillery", by Whetton & Ogden. My father was a Royal Artillery surveyor when he did his national service just after the war, and was instructed by some of the veterans of 4th Survey Regt. It's his birthday today. All the best, John. </font>