Keke

Yes. And yes again. </font>

Soddball you effin' loser! Have you lubricated yourself enough, or will you send me mah turn?! :mad:

Illustrated here is what is happening to beautiful Italian town of Castelforte, defended by Snarker's fat butter bellied Krauts, while a French squad is, quite typically, taking a 60 seconds nap on pavement. :mad: Battle 3, beginning of turn 1: After 60 seconds: :mad:

I guess Xena2121 is constantly creaming his pants when watching the latest movie of "Tank Warning" and is unable to send any turns. :mad: Scratch that scenario. How many times did the Germans actually surrender there? :mad: Are you ready for another Kursk monster? :mad:

Argh! You have turned into a Soddball! :eek: :mad:

Lol...won't make that mistake again...Anyway it is the scenario I'm working on as of now. It'll be a static operation modelling three days of battle, and all the craters will be provided by the artillery of both sides during the battle. When you see the map (there's a screenshot earlier in this thread) you'll see the difference when the map is made with Mapping Mission from a 1:20,000 topo-map instead of directly from a book...

Now, if I would make a Prokhorovka scenario for CMBB, should I take into account the tactical or the operational level?

Yep that has been my point. I wouldn't call it disastrous, that is what happened in summer of 1944, and then many times in a row, but a defeat nontheless. And I have never claimed otherwise, mind you.

You asked what Prokhorovka mythology had to do with the statement...And of course infantry losses do matter. When you cause them 5 times more for your enemy, like the southern pincer did 5-20th July against totally prepared defence, that ain't too bad...

Spanker!!! Whar be me turn??!! :mad: All the other maggots have turned into MasterGoodales lately. :mad: :mad:

No I don't. They would have been bled white if they had lost FE over 300 tanks 12th July at Prokhorovka, like the Soviet mythology goes, instead of 25 tanks (including stugs) which happened in reality...

Nope, I'm not planning a Kursk scenario for CMBB, at least for now. The idea to make a topographical 'study' of the area came after I had played Franko's "Tank Warning" -operation to see how accurate the map actually was. Let's just say that designers should use Mapping Mission more... Also, according to that operation Germans got trashed in Prokhorovka 12th July... Anyhow, if I was to make a Kursk scenario for CMBB, I'd try to keep it manageable in size. The system is not suitable for monster scenarios, IMO.

I don't know about TDI's current discussion because I haven't visited it for a while. Anyway I agree that Zetterling (and Frankson) tend to emphasize army level casualties too much instead of actual frontline formations. However this doesn't negate the facts FE about the Prokhorovka engagement on 12th July which had been so throughly mythologized... For the record, Zetterling & Frankson have also published a non-statistical counterpart, "Slaget om Kursk", which has not been translated to English yet (?), and it takes into account also the Orel offensive and the 4th battle of Kharkov. 'Nuff said.

Hehe, I remember you using the Reichstag argument at TDI forum, so I had to use it here of course. And no, I'm not dismissing Soviet successes during their offensives, but pointing out that German casualties were not as high during their own offensive phase as has been traditionally viewed. Newton challenges this, but it seems that he does take the Soviet offensives into account while Zetterling doesn't. 'Nuff said.

I'm dismissing nothing. Every battle, operation, campaign were linked together. The fact that Zetterling deals with the German offensive phase only doesn't mean he is "all wrong"...unless every campaign has to be viewed from "who was on the Reichstag in the end?" -perspective...

And some seem to exploit it at will. Check this: Newton's Zetterling critique.

Was it one of the desperate mud attacks? Although German accounts are not 100% reliable, as you well know, I think there's no reason for argue this. OK, I have to purchase Newton's book for more info. Have you read Zetterling's? Sorry but this is "Who was on the Reichstag in the end?" -logic I so much despise. 'Nuff said.

Let's see. The southern pincer, more succesful than the northern one, attacked against totally prepared defense, attacked initialy against 1:2 odds which later raised to 1:3 odds, took 10% overall casualties while inflicting 3 times more for the defender (6 times more in tanks). When the northern pincer is included, the casualties for the Germans were only 2-3% of overall casualties for the year 1943. Bled white you say? I hope the source for this info is not a Soviet General Staff Study...

How come none of you maggots have sent me any turns?! GGRRRARARAR RARAR GGG GAGAARARARR G G GR RRAARRRGGGGHHH!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Ah yes, looks very pleasing to my eye! How large do you think the operation will become, in battalions and battles? I wonder if Sardaukar still is working on a new Kuuterselkä scenario. VT line rocks. </font>

Thanks. It will definitely be for PBEM only, but it will be quite big. I will scale down the troops though.

Well, I'd be really interested to know what kind of numbers Newton presents then. Only thing I know about the book is that it constantly misspells Leibstandarde as "Liebstandarde", hehe. Anyway, if the conclusion there is that the Germans bled white, then we have a huge mispresentation of facts in one book or another... And my point was that it didn't happen in Kursk battles to significant extent. No 40% losses or more for every Panzer coy in attack...

Kip, If your example somehow presented a typical situation during the Kursk campaign, then how come German tank losses were so low? According to Zetterling irrevocable tank losses for the Germans, stugs included, were 280 5-20 July. Maybe they didn't just rush forward without securing their flanks after all?...

LOL! Whatever...