Ozzy

Correct, it is a museum, but it is unknown to me despite being German. Neither does it provide any info via Internet. The fact that almost no information can be found about the "Preßluftgranate" lets me second the opinion that this ordnance in reality never existed. This source: http://www.balsi.de/15cmpanzerwerfer.htm confirms your assumption about the 15cm Panzerwerfer 42 ("Stuka zu Fuß", "DO-Werfer"), which was mounted on - Opel "Maultier" as SdKfz 4/1 (typical) - schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper - 3-t-Halbkettenzugmaschine - Somua (It's predecessor, the 15cm-Nebelwerfer 41, was mounted on a wheeled gun mount and towed by a SdKfz11) It fired - Werfergranate (propulsed Sprenggranate) - Flammölgranate - Nebelgranate The source also mentions that a battery equipped with this weapon fired 108 rockets in 10 seconds (and was generally more powerful than the Katyusha), and that "by the impact of the innumerable grenades an alteration of overpressure and negative pressure was created, with severe consequences for the enemy", which obviously generated the legend of the Preßluftgranate. When comparing the Flammölgranate with later weapons (Napalm, Daisy Cutter), or comparing the dense barrage of Sprenggranaten with British Blockbuster bombs) the effects of pressure shocks or low pressure become obvious. In the memoirs "Meine Jugend in Stalingrad" by Josef Mairinger, he mentions the usage of the Do-Gerät, and the consequences "Our Panzers ahead, we're in the follow. After seizing the hill without any fighting, we saw a sea of dead bodies. We assumed the Do-Geräte have used the Preßluftsprenggranate for the first time. The effect was brutal, within a radius of 50m around each impact any creature was smashed. The dead were standing in the trenches, resting on the riverbank with the rifle in firing position. Blood ran out of noses and ears... In the following night, Russian aircrafts dropped leaflets - if we would ever use again such Sprenggranaten, they will immediately answer with gas. Henceforth we have never seen again the Stuka zu Fuß" The description of the effect on the casualties does also underline the theory about pressure effects. Similar reports have been heard often from British air raids against German cities. The 5000kg blockbusters have caused the same lethal effects on people in cellars and shelters. It is obvious that a very dense pattern of substantially heavy Sprenggranaten will cause the same effect. [ June 16, 2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

CMMC1 is about to conclude (the second last turn is running). Contact Head GM here: jbailey@resolutecapital.com He will tell you more. I think it is almost too late to participate (before you got familiar with concepts and rules, the campaign might be over). But soon after, the CMMC1 forums will be opened to public, and a debriefing will take place. CMMC is semi-historical, i.e. only time, place and ToE are (almost) historical. The rest is absolutely depending on skills and leadership of the opposite chains of command.

bab, check http://www.cmmc2.org and you will find most of what you are suggesting ,)

Had the same crew lock problem, with any kind of GERMAN crew (bailing out, hiding, shaken, pinned, broken, dead) Striking Alt-Tab, CM:BB screen minimizes and an error message appears on desktop. (Can't remember currently the exact message, but it's obviously from CM:BB). Are you interested in that piece of info, then I'll try to have it sent to you. Pentium IV 900MHz Windows XPpro 256mb Ram NVida GForce 4 MX400 Regards [ September 02, 2002, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

Man, are you ill???? :eek: You trust Microsoft MORE than BFC???

gautrek, try this: http://www.worldtimezone.com/

In your silly sod of a brain, maybe. Or did the world start rotating the other direction sometime during the last 24 hrs?</font>

arcor ist ein echter scheißladen...

I would keep this in mind but i am on GMT so am i forward or behind you? SO if you do announce a time can some clever person please convert it into GMT for me Thanks :confused: </font>

Nope, sorry. Next!</font>

Yes, of course, give me a day or two. Actually I would have liked to use a higher viewpoint myself, but many prefer playing on level 1 or 2, so I chose this level. I'll giv it a try at level 4, which should be best for the purpose. I forgot to mention: these light terrain features include *many* transparencies, and hence come only to full effect if used on grasses with a high colour/terrain elevation gradient (i.e. gunnergoz's grass) They are high res.

Tanks, here is the result of the light treebases mod for your trees (don't know if you saw it in the other thread) Would like to here your (honest ) comments.

Thanks for the comments. You will note in-game that the difference can be distinguished much better than on the preview .jpg

I am led to believe the German General Staff system was an envy for other armies to emulate, and that many militaries suffered from not having anything equivalent. I am not sure I understand what the General Staff was. I am led to believe that besides wearing red stripes on their panataloons, a General Staff officer was one who attended schooling in the military arts, and was assigned - even if only a field grade officer - to the staff of division sized formations. Here, he was to lend his expertise to divisional and regimental commanders, despite his low rank - the divisional commanders were usually men who came up through the ranks - not the staff college. Is this remotely correct? Yes, that was and still is the usual way. Staff officers usually attented military school before assigned to a Staff position. But every officer had (and has in the Bundeswehr of today) to pass field training and field command as cadet before entering school, and every one had/has to pass school (though the Staff officers attend to more specialized lessons). That enabled both to cross the border line - Rommel served as teacher in an infantry school, was Chief of the Führerhauptquartier (staff work), and later became one of the best field Generals in WWII - his Ic (intel staff officer) in Africa, Hans von Luck, later commanded P.G.R.125/21.P.D. near Caen. The German military term "Stab" (staff) has several slightly different meanings. Especially on Korps and Divisional level, the Stab (also called Generalsstab, therefore the appendix "i.G." to the rank, e.g. "Maj.i.G." = "Major im Generalsstab")) has three enormously important functions: 1) collect data from subordinate and superior echelons, formulate reports and provide analysis to CO. 2) decide on requests from subordinate units 3) provide all administrative requirements (logistics, artillery, communications, medical, etc...) to execute CO orders An excellent summary about this can be found here: http://www.feldgrau.com/germanstaff.html Generalstabsoffiziere were initially of considerably lower rank than the commander of the unit. Standard rank for Division was Major i.G., Korps had Oberstleutnant i.G., and Army Oberst i.G.. Somewhat different was the Artilleriekommandeur (Arko), who was also part of the Stab, but, as he was considered Regimentskommandeur (Artillerieregiment), had one "standard" rank higher, i.e. for Division he was Oberstleutnant d.A. (d.A. = der Artillerie). Later in war the differences in the ranks became apparently smaller. Their importance should not be underestimated; the homogenuous mixture of boldly leading COs and specialized, skilled Staff officers was often the way to the success. The second meaning of Stab is referring on "Oberkommando" = "High Command", which existed from Army level upwards (A.O.K.) to O.K.W. "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht" (the highest Stab unit). In Army and Armygroup, the tasks and duties where almost the same, while the Oberkommandos of the highest levels (OKH,OKW, etc.) also fulfilled the administrative work for weaponry development, recruitment, national military logistics, etc. Secondly, I understand that Hitler ruined the General Staff system - firstly, he was deeply suspicious of it yes, since his days as grunt in the WWI trenches, he had a deep mistrust in officers who had achieved their rank and command through their merits and skills. I understand FHQ to be Hitler's personal command group, and that Jodl/Keitel reigned over OKW, which was really just a rubber stamp for Hitler's personal directives. Is this correct? Actually it is my understanding that the FHQ was where the plans where made (by Hitler, of course), and then it was left to OKW to execute them - if you like, the FHQ formulated the political desirements, which had to be achieved by OKW's military efforts. But he entire systenm was corrupted when Hilter begun to remove inconvenient officers - finally Jodl and Keitel (mockingly nicknamed "Lakaitel" from "Lakai" = lackey) were left in charge of the OKW, and blindly fulfilled the orders issued by Hitler, without daring to show own initiative. This is IMO the main reason why Germany lost the war. Now, I see Dupuy refers to OKH as the German General Staff also. So what is the difference between the General Staff, and the Army High Command? I thought the General Staff was simply a body of professionally trained officers, who at the lowest levels advised regiments and divisions on how to conduct operations, and who at the higher levels staffed the various headquarters (OKH being one of those headquarters). Is it correct to refer to OKH as "the German General Staff"? Staffs are not only composed of officers - there exist "Stabsunteroffiziere" (Staff NCOs) and "Stabsgefreite" (Staff Private) as well. The term "Stab" must hence be understood as a complete body to perform all supportive and administrative work - from peeling potatoes up to commanding a regiment of some dozens large caliber guns. The General Staff = "Generalsstab" (see above) extists at Div. level as well, therefore Dupuy's (don't know his book, but I assume you've quoted him correctly) definition is flawed. The OKH (land forces) was a subordinate unit to the OKW (High Command of Armed forces), just as the Oberkommandos for Luftwaffe etc. and the General Admirality for the Kriegsmarine. The OKW and OKW are IMO correctly "High Commands", not "General Staffs"

I am led to believe the German General Staff system was an envy for other armies to emulate, and that many militaries suffered from not having anything equivalent. I am not sure I understand what the General Staff was. I am led to believe that besides wearing red stripes on their panataloons, a General Staff officer was one who attended schooling in the military arts, and was assigned - even if only a field grade officer - to the staff of division sized formations. Here, he was to lend his expertise to divisional and regimental commanders, despite his low rank - the divisional commanders were usually men who came up through the ranks - not the staff college. Is this remotely correct? Yes, that was and still is the usual way. Staff officers usually attented military school before assigned to a Staff position. But every officer had (and has in the Bundeswehr of today) to pass field training and field command as cadet before entering school, and every one had/has to pass school (though the Staff officers attend to more specialized lessons). That enabled both to cross the border line - Rommel served as teacher in an infantry school, was Chief of the Führerhauptquartier (staff work), and later became one of the best field Generals in WWII - his Ic (intel staff officer) in Africa, Hans von Luck, later commanded P.G.R.125/21.P.D. near Caen. The German military term "Stab" (staff) has several slightly different meanings. Especially on Korps and Divisional level, the Stab (also called Generalsstab, therefore the appendix "i.G." to the rank, e.g. "Maj.i.G." = "Major im Generalsstab")) has three enormously important functions: 1) collect data from subordinate and superior echelons, formulate reports and provide analysis to CO. 2) decide on requests from subordinate units 3) provide all administrative requirements (logistics, artillery, communications, medical, etc...) to execute CO orders An excellent summary about this can be found here: http://www.feldgrau.com/germanstaff.html Generalstabsoffiziere were initially of considerably lower rank than the commander of the unit. Standard rank for Division was Major i.G., Korps had Oberstleutnant i.G., and Army Oberst i.G.. Somewhat different was the Artilleriekommandeur (Arko), who was also part of the Stab, but, as he was considered Regimentskommandeur (Artillerieregiment), had one "standard" rank higher, i.e. for Division he was Oberstleutnant d.A. (d.A. = der Artillerie). Later in war the differences in the ranks became apparently smaller. Their importance should not be underestimated; the homogenuous mixture of boldly leading COs and specialized, skilled Staff officers was often the way to the success. The second meaning of Stab is referring on "Oberkommando" = "High Command", which existed from Army level upwards (A.O.K.) to O.K.W. "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht" (the highest Stab unit). In Army and Armygroup, the tasks and duties where almost the same, while the Oberkommandos of the highest levels (OKH,OKW, etc.) also fulfilled the administrative work for weaponry development, recruitment, national military logistics, etc. Secondly, I understand that Hitler ruined the General Staff system - firstly, he was deeply suspicious of it yes, since his days as grunt in the WWI trenches, he had a deep mistrust in officers who had achieved their rank and command through their merits and skills. I understand FHQ to be Hitler's personal command group, and that Jodl/Keitel reigned over OKW, which was really just a rubber stamp for Hitler's personal directives. Is this correct? Actually it is my understanding that the FHQ was where the plans where made (by Hitler, of course), and then it was left to OKW to execute them - if you like, the FHQ formulated the political desirements, which had to be achieved by OKW's military efforts. But he entire systenm was corrupted when Hilter begun to remove inconvenient officers - finally Jodl and Keitel (mockingly nicknamed "Lakaitel" from "Lakai" = lackey) were left in charge of the OKW, and blindly fulfilled the orders issued by Hitler, without daring to show own initiative. This is IMO the main reason why Germany lost the war. Now, I see Dupuy refers to OKH as the German General Staff also. So what is the difference between the General Staff, and the Army High Command? I thought the General Staff was simply a body of professionally trained officers, who at the lowest levels advised regiments and divisions on how to conduct operations, and who at the higher levels staffed the various headquarters (OKH being one of those headquarters). Is it correct to refer to OKH as "the German General Staff"? Staffs are not only composed of officers - there exist "Stabsunteroffiziere" (Staff NCOs) and "Stabsgefreite" (Staff Private) as well. The term "Stab" must hence be understood as a complete body to perform all supportive and administrative work - from peeling potatoes up to commanding a regiment of some dozens large caliber guns. The General Staff = "Generalsstab" (see above) extists at Div. level as well, therefore Dupuy's (don't know his book, but I assume you've quoted him correctly) definition is flawed. The OKH (land forces) was a subordinate unit to the OKW (High Command of Armed forces), just as the Oberkommandos for Luftwaffe etc. and the General Admirality for the Kriegsmarine. The OKW and OKW are IMO correctly "High Commands", not "General Staffs"

want mods? Here you have some preview of a mod I am working on. It's treebases (summer/fall) and brushes for grass types which vary with terrain altitude (e.g. gunnergoz) [and yes, I use his grass...] and for Ed Kinney's excellent trees (thanks, Ed )

John, you are absolutely correct, the KettenKrad should make it into CM:BB in every case. BFC should rather drop one of the Hungarian, or what-do-I-know vehicles that I never heared of, than the KettenKrad!!! BFC, please fix or do somefink!!!

err.... not that I could help you much here, but for which nation served your grandpa?

I would pay for towers in general (clock towers, church towers, etc.) if they could be used by sharpshooters, MGs, spotters, etc. [ August 20, 2002, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Ozzy ]

Why don't you ask one of the well-known CM website hosts (TomCMHQ, CMHQ, DerKessel, CM Outpost, etc.pp.)??

Basically, I like the idea very much. But a) I think I wouldn't PAY for it what actually shall I pay for? rubble/debris? I think some factory buildings with the appropriate facade mod would work for my in most instances. Usually I have a glance at the entire beauty of the CM terrain at the beginning of a battle and shout some decent "woot"s. But after fighting started, I do no longer care much about terrain details.

Hey Kump, excellent list!! One small detail: would be very appreciated if you'd spell my name correct, which is "Thorsten", not "Thorton" (minefield marker)

Assuming that date does effect how effective wood terrain is as cover, how deep would you have to go in Dec, and how deep should you go as a gerneral rule. Or is there a general rule? There is never a general rule. You should a) test how deep YOUR units have LOS into the terrain, then run some feet more look in one of the common CMBO data sheets created by some excellent buggers, which provide you with coverage % depending on how deep your troops are in the terrain. (sorry, don't have the link at hand, but you'll find it here or in CMHQ) Like to ask about how you handel scouts. In a lot of the tactical articles I have read that invloved scouts, they implied that the only time they split one of their squads up in the platoon is when they wanted to: 1) Make sure there would be no threats while crossing unsecure terrain 2) To scout a unsecure area, usually cover, for enemy activity (ie: before entering woods, scouts go in first to secure it for the platoon) 3) Any situation that would minimize risk to the platoon by sending a split squad. This is pretty standard stuff. In recent games though, I have been splitting my squads during setup. I have been buying VG companies, off of what JasonC suggested. The 3rd platoon is always the rifle platoon. I have been splitting one squad from every platoon. Since the map is so big, and I don't have enough resources to cover the entire map, I have been both parts of the squads for scouts. I normally have one ahead of the Comapny and one on the flanks. If I have 2 companies in the area, I use the 2nd set of "scouts" in other areas of the map that I can't cover with a full company or even platoon. These guys are forward observers. No where have I read that this tactic is either sound or effective. Essentially I have given the enemy X amount of points because I have no intention of preserving their lives(the X has been about 6 squads). Points are tight, even in 5000 point games and to replace these scouts would cost 216 - 108 points if I were to use Sharpshooters instead. Anyone have any ideas or comments? a)If you have sharpshooters, use these. If not split suads and take the SMALLER halfsquad. The rest of the platoon MUST provide covering fire for the scouts! c) The idea of scouts is that these unlucky buggers will catch enemy fire. Thus, they have a hell of a day, but it helps preventing the bulk of your platoon to be slaughtered by 2 HMGs. But see !! d) the scouts are not outposts. They cover the axis of advance, not your flanks. Choose an appropriate march formation, and apply it to your entire force within the same axis of advance (e.g. 3 Squads in Wedge formation = platoon, 3 Platoons in wedge formation = company, 3 companies in wedge formation = Bn.; with this you can cover most of the required terrain. Flank protection is implicitely provided by these formations. f.x. I use line formation ONLY if I have encountered substantial resistance and need max. firepower) I ALWAYS use scouts. What is your reason for using sneak in cover? Is it for stealth, or is it so your troops stop if they engage an enemy? Do you use sneak moving through cover on the first few turns (ie: Absolutley no threat from small arms)? Or is this reserved for the later turns? Also, I have read several places that using run isn't always the best situation when crossig open ground to cover where there might be an ambush waiting for you. I used to always use run, and whenever there was an ambush I took heavy heavy casualties. Not only that, my guys kept running till they broke. My understanding is sneak will fix that, sort of. If you are fired upon by an identified enemy within range, you will stop...wherever you are, and return fire. This is desirable in cover, because if you have to stop, that is the best place to do that. In the open however, it may be as bad as running into a lead wall. I know this also has a lot to do with what units are firing at you, but lets assume you have not been fired on yet, so you have no idea of what could be waiting for you, but you are plotting orders. Is move then the best order for crossing open terrain to cover where there is a potential for an ambush? I know right before you enter the cover you should use sneak. The best answer I know would be to send the scouts in NEVER MOVE in open ground where you don't know enemy situation. Units that cannot run should NEVER be the first to move into the forward line. I use sneak both for stealth AND because they fire back, but the stealth is more important. Usually I use sneak to get into positions from where I can attack AND cover the attacking forces. The attackers will then usually run. However, I ALWAYS run in open terrain (except in reverse slope, where I use crawl) If you run over open terrain which is not threatened by enemy small arm fire, but prone to enemy artillery, RUN to cross the open terrain and *immediately* (with the same movement orders) SNEAK to another position within the covering terrain. This way enemy will wast his arty to empty spots. The rest of the question you answered yourself - use scouts, and there should be no more ambush surprising you badly...

AFAIK it is world's largest open air foxhole museum?!