winkelried

Accordingly to the KSTN 154c for the Infanterie Panzer Jäger Kompanie for the Grenadier/Jäger/Gebirgsjäger-Kompanie had 18 Raketen-Panzerbüchsen (Panzerschreck), 1 LMG, 24 Karabiner, 19 Pistols and 5 MPs for 48 men in each platoon. So almost no MPs in real life ... Checking a few more KSTNs ...

as far as i understand the biggest user after WW2 was the East German NVA and the Volkspolizei. They produced the kurz ammo well into the 1980s it seems. The Yugoslavian Army used the MP44 with its paratroopers well into the 1980s too. Quite a few confiscated by UN troops during the 1990s as far as i remember. The Czechs had quite a few in 1945, but it seems that they never issued them to their own troops on a large scale - although there are some photographs of Czech paratroopers equipped with the MP44. seems that most turned up in Africa (also from YUG). My father in law had a photo with a few they confiscated in Algeria in the early 1960s ... No idea on soviet use.

Didn't expect another comment from you. Don't think that you even watched it. I have seen all three parts including some of the documentaries which come with it (I also have "Das Boot", "Die Brücke" - the 1959 version, "Der Untergang" etc as well as the US BoB, TP etc in my collection). Here my comments: Pro's I liked the attempt to show the war from the point of view of common people. Crimes against humanity are one of the core themes of the movie - also how "normal" Germans became involved in those. The movie also tries to show the difficulties of common people to see the real face of the regime - and their difficulty to react when they finally have seen it. The locations, the units and as it seemed to me the equipment is quite well done and historical (some goofs though). I liked the ending of the movie as it shows how the system transitioned into the FRG/GDR. Con's The series is too short to develop the characters over a rather long period properly - BoB e.g. is almost three times longer - so some changes in the characters are rather surprising. They seem to try to show every negative aspect of this time period. Too much for the short time available. In the end it is a well intended serial, but a bit exaggerated on some sides. I would give it a 5.5 on a scale of 10. Although it gets an 8.3 on imdb.com.

Sounds to me a bit like the Alice in Wonderland and the Chesire cat story. If you don't need the overlay, then it doesn't matter - you'll work with the available tools anyway.

I use DEM sometimes to check stuff, but you are right, the data is not very accurate. Preferring elevation data i get with contours from maps. CMBN does support this kind of data in the Direct mode pretty well. Then you need just to adjust for the small anomalies you find in the field.

probably just a problem when boiling their tea

my tools are independent of the OS

still prefer paper and this caran d'ache

During the cold war we had a procedure, when on the defensive, where the arty would prepare positions in advance (with sticks in the ground and all calculations done) and the SP howitzers would roll in only after the FO placed the request and fired a few volleys (usually within a few minutes) and then drive away quickly to avoid counter-battery fire. I vaguely remember a discussion in the 70s with an Austrian who served with the Nebelwerfers on the Eastern Front where he described a similar procedure with prepared positions. With the long smoke trails it was important to move out very quickly and to get into the next position fast.

Right. Sorry about that. This was even after the Korean war? Or did the B2 see action there? Low priority - sure. Like to have a Long Tom on-map - since I work on a scenario where a LTs stopped a German armored attack with direct fire so - i'll substitute

We already have the deploy command. Why not used it for vehicles who want to set-up for indirect fire. With an appropritate time penalty. True, or you have to know the angle of the platform to calculate the difference into the laying of the gun. But this would probably be too much. See above Here i strongly disagree. On one hand we have now the possibility of maps with a length of 4 kilometers. On the other hand the larger calibre SP Howitzers M7 and Wespe, Hummel have the possibility to "play" with the charges since their ammo is split into charge and projectile. In addition their higher elevation is not that far off the elevation of the IGs. E.g. the Priest has a higher elevation of 60 degrees compared to the IGs which can go up to 73/75 degrees. The Hummel and the Wespe had 45/42 degrees. Certainly intervening hills would have to be taken into consideration. BTW if anybody has access to fire tables it would be interesting to see what they say about minimal range in indirect fire. But you're right. It's probably low on the TODO list

At least we should be able to use M8 HMC, Priests, Wepse etc with indirect fire on-map too, just as with the IGs and the 88 Flak.

YES - In RL this is one of the first things you learn - make qualified estimates of the distances in the area you're in or you move into - you will be much better at hitting a target when you approx know how far away it is. There are different methods like adding smaller distances you can estimate (e.g. in certain areas the spacing between telephone poles is pretty much constant) or then by using your binoculars and measuring. This is important not just to get an estimate on how far you need to walk/drive, but also which distances you will have when coming under fire or seeing a target of opportunity. So you can already prepare your weapons. In my life as soldier i did probably nothing more than estimate distances - followed closely by asking myself "where the f*** is north". We had what we called three point orders - where to go? how to get there (path)? and what to do when arriving there? ... usually these orders involved also distances and timing ... so you got an idea how long you would e.g. exposed ... No. But estimates - eg. 3-5 minutes.

hope we get this one with Market Garden ...

Eastern Front with Human Wave order :eek: no seriousely - CMBN:Bulge would be my favourite. If there is a CMSF2 then I would like to see the 70s/80s ... Europe, Middle East, Falklands, Afghanistan, Tchad, ...

1) +1 from me. An ETA would be a nice feature. Just an estimate not more, not less. 2) Could be a bit extensive with 4 hours of battle at the max. as above - won't happen (probably).

ah forgot one thing: instead or to prepare personal visits i use google streetview quite a bit (where available).

Agree with you Broadsword. One always needs to assess the amount of change that has happened since WWII on modern maps (including, but not restricted to elevation - creeks, trees, hedges etc are also subject to a lot of change). I am a bit careful with google earth/maps data. Sometimes i am not sure what the base data is (especially for elevation) and how well it is aligned and fits reality. I found some strange anomalies with google earth data in my work. what i usually do is to create several overlays: - aerial photograps (mostly contemporary - 1940s) - maps of the era (anything above 1:25'000 is pretty useless) or older. - modern maps. - sketches made by locals. and (if possible) i make personal visits to the area to get a feeling of how things look - e.g. if creeks are an obstacle just to vehicles or not.

Just to get the figures right: There were 28 separate tank batallions for 42 infantry divisions in ETO which means that 2/3 of the IDs could have such a batallion attached (sometimes they had none, sometimes even more than one). BTW this means that 1'700 tanks were in these batallions overall. and there were 17 tank destroyer batallions in ETO (3 remained towed, 3 began towed and were re-fitted with SP). then overall the average infantry division would still have 90 to 114 guns in AT role (36 to 60 mobile). Still: A German infantry division would still have trouble to match this figure ...

Often it is forgotten that a lot (or even almost each) of the U.S. infantry divisions had 150 guns in an anti-tank role (thereof 90 mobile) - since it had a tank batallion with 60 Shermans and a tank destroyer batallion (most of them SP) with 36 M10/18/36 subordinated - in addition to the AT guns in the three regimental AT companies and the AT platoon in each of the nine batallions. That was far more direct and AT firepower than any German infantry division could muster ... and more than half of what a German panzer division could bring to the table. There was so much AT firepower, that the U.S. could allow for the tank destroyer batallion be used in an indirect fire role as an artillery batallion ...

True - commented your post where it lacked accuracy

This is not correct. The first Panther's the U.S. met were in Italy well before Normandy. Despite the problems to be able to deal with those tanks, no other measures were taken, than to up-gun the M4 with the 76mm gun which entered service only in mid-1944. The reason for this was, that the U.S. intelligence assumed that the Panther was the successor to the Tiger I and not intended to become the mainstream tank as replacement of the Panzer IV. So suprise in Normandy to encounter Panther's in larger numbers ...

too many if's - the french military establishment was so deeply marked by what had happened in WW1 (France lost 10% of its active male population in these four years) that it is extremely improbable that these if's would ever happened ... in addition the French defense industry was far from being effective in delivering the necessary weapons. btw i am always impressed how many names are listed for 1914-18 on the monument in the small village I spend my time.

just as you came up with the 100% first hit probability for the 88 ??? as soon as it gets factual - with citations and so you don't respond and rapidly make statements on another topic - equally well founded ...

On of the best sources on combat effectivness is Col. T. N. Dupuy's research. He states that relative combat effectivness is pretty much constant since the napoleonic wars. Maybe somebody has access to his work - mine is buried somewhere in a heap