Foreigner

Actually, I've read in some memoirs (IIRC at the iremember.ru site) about a case of an ATR being fired from the shoulder standing - what is more, standing on a fellow soldier's shoulders! Apparently, they were in a ditch about 2m deep, and that was the only way to reach over the edge. Of course, it was a risky, strictly one-shot-at-a-time affair, as the recoil simply knocked the shooter (possibly the fellow standing below him, as well) back into the ditch. Then they had to dust off, and repeat the whole climbing-then-shooting-then-falling back exercise again. The memoir claimed they did score a couple of knock-outs... Then there was a video of 2 Germans shooting a MG-34 (I believe) from a standing position by resting the barrel on the shoulder of one of them... Never underestimate the toughness and ingenuity in battlefield expedients!

I've read there were two versions of 85-mm tank guns that competed for approval - D-5T and S-53 - and two turret versions - 2-men and 3-men. S-53 won the trials, but could not be fitted to the 2-men turret, which was ready for production earlier. Apparently, in the rush to get an upgunned T-34 to the front, for a couple of months one plant produced a T-34-85 version with a 2-men turret with the D-5T gun with a run of several hundred. By March 1944, though, the 3-men turret with the S-53 gun was in regular production. I think Battlefront can be excused for ignoring a stopgap version that was a very small fraction of total numbers produced, and discontinued some time before "Bagration" started.

Going back to the point how IS-2 was so much "lighter" than comparable German designs. IS-2 had both the engine and the transmission/final drive at the back. German WWII tanks (at least from PzKpfw III on up) had the transmission/final drive in front. That means you have a heavy driveshaft running the length of the vehicle. On heavier tanks, just that adds several tons. But this also results in the need for a taller profile, and larger armored volume, adding additional weight, which in turn requires a more powerful engine and stronger suspension ... Coupled with the German weapon designers' tendency to overengineer everything you get the vicious circle idea. Granted, the German approach has its benefits. The turret can be placed more in the middle (see how forward IS-2's turret is). The middle placement reduces crew compartment "travel" especially over rough terrain, creating more comfortable crew conditions. The chance to stick the gun in the mud in an unexpected "dive" is also lower. You spread the weight of the turret more evenly on the suspension. And you don't have to turn the gun back during transport. I am less certain about the claimed degree of additional protection forward transmission placement gives to the crew. On one hand, there's more iron/steel between the incoming round and the crew. On the other hand, it doesn't cover the whole front - moreover, it is fairly low in the hull, where the chances of hit are not big to begin with. Also, now there is a greater chance that even a non-penetrating hit might disable the transmission and immobilize the tank, which greatly increases the vulnerability. In the end, I believe history has provided the verdict - to the best of my knowledge, no modern main battle tank has the engine and transmission/final drive at opposite ends of the vehicle...

Purpheart23, I'd say that these forums are nothing short of Hair-splitter Central. :-) In all seriousness, though, the Soviets themselves never called it (at least in official documents, to my best knowledge) anything other than "пушка", i.e. "gun", as opposed to "гаубица" ("howitzer"). The Wiki article was just the most conveniently available source, but hardly the only one. Unfortunately, most of the cited sources are in print, not online; and those that are available online will probably not pass the "higher-than-Wikipedia" standard. I did find some places online where it was labeled as a howitzer, but mostly on pictures, not in source texts. Some of these mentions were actually for modeling, so they have to be considered secondary, IMHO. A-19 does have some "howitzer-like" features such as high maximum elevation and separate loading ammunition, but its design and battle application in my opinion firmly put it in the gun category. To compare it with the 122 mm M-30 howitzer just below it in the manual, the A-19's barrel length is 45 calibers, giving it a reported max muzzle velocity of about 800 m/s, while for the M-30 the barrel length is 18.7 calibers giving it a max muzzle velocity of just 515 m/s.

On page 31 of the PDF file (page 84 of the manual), the Russian A-19 M1931/37 gun is mislabeled as a howitzer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-19_122mm_gun

LukeFF, Soviet use of captured PF was recorded on film and in memoirs, although most often in urban fighting, not in PF's intended antitank role. I think the amounts they captured was one of the reasons they did not rush to produce their own version until after the war ended.

Sequoia, I think that partly can be attributed to the fact that, at least initially, a series of Hitler's crazy bets paid off big time, which made their otherwise reasonable objections seem weak, cowardly, and stupid in comparison. Afterwards, there was an element of "groupthink" - once enough people (at least publicly) profess their belief in something - no matter how wrong it was, such as the infallibility of the Fuhrer kissed by Providence and selected by Destiny - even the best people would subconsciously start to question their better judgement. There are interesting tests where a roomful of paid actors giving the same wrong answer most often force the unsuspecting test subject to repeat it (regardless of the obvious truth). Of course, it didn't help that often disagreeing with Hitler was disagreeable to one's health, freedom, and life... ... or it may be a banal case of a lot of the high-ranking officers missing a spine.

John Kettler, Thanks for the description! But I think it can be argued that French (and possibly British) intervention was less likely in 1936, even if the odds were more in their favor than in 1938. The re-militarization was clearly a violation of the Versailles treaty, but not an outright threat of war with another nation. After all, that was indisputably German territory. So in the Rhineland case, an intervention would be harder to justify than in 1938 if Hitler had indeed attacked Czechoslovakia. After all, in 1923 - 25 the French and Belgians did occupy the Ruhr as Germany failed to make their reparation payments (a clear Treaty violation), but drew international condemnation in the process (in part for using "colonial" troops). So it seems there was a tacit understanding that the Versailles treaty would not be kept anywhere near to the letter without grave consequences. Still I believe that if not the Anschluss, then at least the threats surrounding the Sudetenland should have been "whistled" for crossing the line.

I believe there was an author who claimed that while in 1939 Britain and France would not be a match for Germany, in 1938 they had a decent chance of winning a conflict (if they had not gone to accommodate Hitler in Munich). Britain and France were ill-prepared, but according to the author in 1938 German preparedness and overall strength were even worse. Surprisingly, Hitler seemed to think of the Munich agreement as a defeat of his. He reportedly complained that his war was stolen from him.

Regarding the very high octane gas, I think I remember reading (in memoirs or studies) that the lend-lease supply was primarily (or almost exclusively) going to lend-lease planes. Soviet-made planes seemed to have been fine with the local gas (after all, that was what they had been designed for). Of all the lend-lease supplies, my impression is that the most frequently and fondly noted by the Soviets themselves was Spam. Trucks were recognized, as well, although it seems they've only relatively recently began to admit widely that from a certain point all new "Katyushas" had been mounted on US-provided chassis. P-39s were also celebrated frequently due to their association with Pokryshkin, but also because they had proven themselves capable German bomber killers. One had to dig in more specialized sources to find recognition of supplies of aircraft-grade aluminum alloys and rubber, Hurricanes (protecting Murmansk and Archangel), and Spitfires for high-altitude protection of Moscow). They didn't much like the M3 Grant/Lee, calling it (loosely translated) a "7-seat coffin".

Well, the final medal count is in. What was that about quantity vs quality?

Sailor Malan2, Thanks for your reply. You raise valid points, but I feel that, depending on the implementation, the problems can be avoided or mitigated. For example, a higher "undiscounted" rarity level of the "uber" stuff should discourage use in situations where its appearance was less likely, while discounts may make them more "affordable" only in the "right" situation. Alternatively, discounts on the "less uber", but still "rare" equipment could make it relatively more attractive than the ""super uber" units. This discount principle need not be applied just to assault and/or towed guns alone. Technically, it can be done for any unit with a non-zero rarity "cost", so it really is not limited to units only at army-level control. Of course, it need not apply to all units with rarity, either. Getting it right is going to take some work which might not be worth it at this stage (or ever), but then at some point 1:1 representation might had looked the same. Just wanted to start the argument rolling.

Gentlemen, I am under the impression that currently whether a player is on attack or defense, the point/rarity "cost" of any item (unit or piece of equipment) is the same. The limitation of this approach is that by necessity these values are averages. And I would argue that an attacking formation will have a more-than-average likelihood to get "rare" assault guns, for example; by the same token, an assaulting formation will be more-than-average likely to get heavier assault guns than an attacking one, etc. Conversely, a defending formation will have a more-than-average likelihood to get towed guns; if defending in an assault scenario, then there would be a more-than-average likelihood of trenches and bunkers vs foxholes. Of course, a lot of players are likely following these guidelines even in the current system, so any potential benefit might simply end up not worth the trouble. However, it seems to me there is some value in applying at least a "rarity" "discount" for some "appropriate" items depending on whether a player is attacking or defending; or in a Probe, Attack, or Assault scenario. I would like to read your opinion on the matter!

Gentlemen, I think the discussion is starting to veer in an "alternate history" direction, and while I enjoy it thoroughly, I feel somewhat responsible for helping "hijack" the thread from its original theme. Maybe it will be more appropriate to move the discussion into a thread of its own - here or in the general forum - if there isn't one already. Just a suggestion...

On Hitler declaring war on the US... I'm not sure I remember it correctly, but didn't the U-boat arm press for just that? Someone more knowledgeable may correct me, but my impression is that as far as the U-boat captains were concerned the US had already been in the war for some time, escorting convoys and attacking U-boats, while they had had to "restrain" themselves from attacking US warships and American-flagged transports ("Reuben James"? What "Reuben James"?). After the declaration of war, it was no holds barred, and the initial period of attacks in American coastal waters were called "the second happy times" by the German submariners. And, if the recently discovered typed pages are indeed authentic and have been correctly identified as the dictated second volume of "Mein Kampf", Hitler considered a war with the US eventually inevitable, anyway. To him, the moment must have felt right.

Gentlemen, I think the discussion above, while useful and insightful, tends to overlook (or under-appreciate) the fact that holding ground is not merely a tactical consideration; holding ground means also holding manpower reserves and/or economic resources (or at least denying them to the enemy). I think you'll agree that the whole Nazi military-economic model for Germany was essentially unsustainable - short of a swift and complete victory on the Eastern Front (and maybe even with it). And it tended to get increasingly worse with time and with ground lost. A bit like a person whose expenses are consistently higher than their income, can find certain logic in spending increasing amounts on lottery tickets, and/or taking out more and more loans - however slim the chance of success, the alternatives in their view might have differed only in the depth of the sh*thole they would end up in. This all-or-nothing gambling style seemed to have served Hitler and the Germans surprisingly well for surprisingly long, so in some way it is understandable that they were reluctant to "jump off the tiger" and start giving ground - again, viewing the alternatives just as different shades of crappiness. Just my humble opinion.

100 mm BS-3 guns starting from January 1945 to really spoil a Cat lover's day. 152 mm ML-20 gun-howitzers and 122 mm A-19 corps guns as on-map pieces for the same purpose in earlier periods.

I have a couple of questions concerning bunkers based on the information in the online manual. 1. Will bunkers only be allowed for the German side, like in CMBO? The manual doesn't say specifically, but since it mentions only MG-34- and MG-42-armed options, I would say this strongly implies it. I guess even if they were limited to the German side, there would be some editor workarounds to allow the Allies to have them in scenarios, but not in Quick Battles. 2. The manual says "some heavy weapons such as machine guns" can be deployed there. I would expect mortars would not be allowed, but how about AT and field guns and howitzers? 3. Can bunkers be knocked out? And if yes, how (especially with flamethrowers not yet in)? 4. Can both sides occupy a vacant bunker, or only "its side"? Thanks in advance!

I agree with you that's how it most likely worked in real life. Yet, in my opinion, to implement it in the game exactly would be too involved. I don't think anyone would argue for making PFs standard equipment for Allied forces, so the game would have to include some limitations or ground rules as to what types of squads during what periods of the war would have had what chances of getting them. Once a squad gets them, do they discard their bazooka? Or if they keep the bazooka, should the "Antitank Team" order (or its CM:BN equivalent) split the PF, the bazooka, or both? Or should there be a separate "Split PF team" command? While not very historical, making a separate team available for purchase would seem to me the least painful way of a) including PFs for the Allied side at least in some way, and finding a reasonable middle ground between having too many or too few of them (or rather, leaving the choice to the player/scenario designer). Furthermore, I understand that in CM:BN one can subordinate a team to a platoon commander, so apart from the need to give orders to one more unit there should not be any C&C issues. I would also expect that in most cases, even if the PFs were organic to the squad, when the situation called for their use, they would be split out into a team anyway. In short, I would say that including a separate team is the cheap and dirty alternative to getting it right - however, it can also be an acceptable alternative to not including them at all.

How about allowing the Allied side to purchase, let's say, 2-men Captured Panzerfaust teams with a huge cost in "rarity points"?

It's not obvious, but look for something like "misedit.bat" in the main T-72 directory. There should be a "buildedit.bat" for a stand-alone building editor. Check out the "Docs" subfolder buried in the "Data" folder, IIRC (you can trace the location by looking where the link to the gameplay manual leads). Some rudimentary editor manuals there. Hope this helps.

And what makes "drunken casual cruelty" worse than systematic cruelty and policy of extermination of indigenous people? And "manifest destiny" doesn't count as an excuse. On the question of loyalty and sovereign respect - there's the affair of 1776, when a certain number of colonies rebeled against their sovereign - over taxes (read money), no less. Then they allied itself with France - what does it think of the French now? On the other hand, it had two wars against the British, and two wars against them - I guess to even things out. The Americans who settled in Texas swore allegiance to Mexico - how long did that last? But I guess the US did offer to buy the land first, so the Mexicans have only themselves to blame for not taking the generous offer when they had the chance. Hawai was also an independent kingdom until the XIX century. The area of the Black Hills in SD was granted by treaty to the Indians for eternity. Alas, eternity lasted only until gold deposits were found. Now you can see the faces of four presidents there - I guess as a reminder of how the US government keeps their word. [ March 23, 2006, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: Foreigner ]

How many millions of Africans died on the cotton fields? And what makes a "god-annointed soveriegn" so much better to serve than a community? Just cause he/she says so?

JasonC I did read the whole thing - but you denied them any independence whatsoever. And you don't seem to mind lionizing the Good Old US of A which is guilty of many of the crimes you accuse the Cossacks of on a much larger scale.

JasonC Since you challenge my comprehension, how do you comprehend this direct quote from the website that, incidentally, you do not dispute (emphasis mine): In the 15th century, the Cossack society was described as a loose federation of independent communities, often forming local armies, entirely separate from the neighboring states(of, e.g, Poland, Grand Duchy of Moscow or the Khanate of Crimea). By the 16th century these Cossack societies merged into two independent territorial organizations: - The Cossacks of Zaporizhia, centered around the lower bends of Dnieper, inside the territory of modern Ukraine, with the fortified capital of Zaporizhian Sich. They were formally recognized as a state, the Zaporozhian Host, by a treaty with Poland in 1649. - The Don Cossack State, on the river Don, separating Grand Duchy of Moscow from the Nogai states, vassals of the Ottoman Empire. The capital of the Don Cossack State was Cherkassk, later moved to Novocherkassk. /endquote/ Or do you simply ignore what you don't like? Funny you mention piracy. Need I remind you that most "piracy" was done by privateers, officially sactioned by a "civilized monarch"? Of course, when caught by the affected parties, they were hanged like the pirates they were. Only if they avoided capture, could they be knighted like Sir Francis Drake. Talk about good old England as a culture promoting violence and robbery on the high seas. And, please, help me find the morality in using torture as a legitimate part of the judicial process; burning people alive to save their souls; glorifying crusaders who, by their own admission, "walked knee high in blood", witch trials in which essentially the only way to prove innocence was to die (and if found guilty would die anyway). It wasn't a Cossack who told their suporters to "Kill everyone - God in heaven will sort the good from the bad." It wasn't a Cossack that stated: "Britain doesn't have eternal friends, or eternal enemies, but eternal interests." And it was still not a Cossack who advised the ruler to renege on any treaty that no longer was in their interest. Oh, and I'm sure the French, the Dutch, and especially the British and Americans can teach even the most brutal Cossack a lot about killing, abducting, and selling people for profit on an industrial scale - in view of a generally accommodating society. But, hey, they were civilized people, so this must definitely be a good thing. So, "massa", don't talk about the straw in your neigbor's eye. And, no, not all Cossacks fought for the Nazis. And debunking wholesale slander on any social/national/religious group is not Nazi apologism.