Hortlund

Well, the problem with using infantry to crack open the front is that you need lots of it, and you have to be able to accept heavy losses. Using infantry for initial penetration was standard procedure for the soviets in the later parts of the war. Normally at the schwerpunkt they would outnumber the German defenders 5-1 or higher. That combined with lots of artillery and a Russian approach to own losses made this tactic a very good way to achieve breakthroughs. Use the cheap infantry for the penetration, then send in the expensive tanks for exploitation. Same with Monty at Alamein. I dont remember the numbers exactly, but I know the Brits had a large superiority in infantry at the point of attack, and I also know that those british units suffered heavy casualties. This is why using infantry to achieve penetration really never was a good idea for the Germans. They didnt have alot of infantry, and they could not just throw them away. As for relative tank numbers in the north and south. Combined number of tanks and assault guns in the north: 920; in the south 1508. South also had a better tank to assault gun ratio. To add to this, Model chose to go infantry first. This made him extremely dependent on the Luftwaffe. On the first day, the combined number of tanks and assault guns that Model threw in the attack on the 5th July were: Tanks 505 Sch Pz Abt: 31 Tiger 20th Pz Div: 15 Pz III, 35 Pz IV Other units: 31 tanks Assault guns (various units): 89 Ferdinand 45 Sturmpanzer IV (Brummbär) 229 StuG III

Muahaha, Soon I'll be drunk, but Nidan1 will still be Nidan1. After that jump start in Budhist philosophy, I give you this to ponder over while I'm at the pub: If a man speaks in the middle of the woods and there is no woman around to hear him. Is he still wrong? OR you can Sod off.

Well, yes, I have no doubt that the AT gun spotting model is working exactly the way it is intended. What I am questioning are some of the results. I'm not saying that the model is bugged or flawed. Neither am I saying that it is working wrong or using faulty parameters, for I know nothing about it other than the results. And in my opinion the results are wrong. In my opinion it is too easy for tanks to spot AT guns. Now, Im not claiming to be a AT gun grog here, neither am I claiming to be a panzer grog, but from what I have read on warfare on the eastern front and tank warfare in general, at the moment it is too easy for tanks buttoned or unbuttoned to spot AT guns. The results of this is that AT guns are really expensive one shot weapons. They fire once or twice, then they are spotted and destroyed.

AIUI the principle needn't be the same at all. I am told by people who should know that APFSDS penetration is essentially a question of hydrodynamic flow, much more like HEAT penetration than classical AP/C/BC. All the best, John.</font>

This is my highly subjective opinion. I have done no testing whatsoever, in fact this entire post is based on my experience fighting against AT guns, or depending on AT guns on the defence. I think it is too easy to spot enemy AT guns. Situation 1: 3 Veteran or regular AT guns (German) vs 7 veteran or regular T-34s. Situation: T-34s driving around (hunt) without using overwatch, all crew exposed. AT guns hiding in woods or scattered trees. AT guns open fire at 3-400 meters. Each AT gun gets off 2-3 shots before being taken out. Estimated time between 1st shot from AT gun to T-34 turrets targeting Guns ~20 seconds. Situation 2: 3 Veteran StuGIIIs advancing across open field (1 using hunt command, 2 moving fast), all crew exposed. 1 Regular Soviet AT gun (late 45mm model) open fire from ~1100 meters. StuGs spot AT gun before it gets off its second shot. AT gun was hiding in brush. Situation 3: 9 Regular T-34s advancing across open field (using hunt command), buttoned due to infantry small arms fire. 3 veteran/regular German AT guns open fire at ~800m. All German AT guns are spotted, engaged and destroyed within 20 seconds. [ January 11, 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

Tungsten or DU is far less shatter prone than steel.</font>

Then I dont understand the principle behind APCR or modern day Sabot rounds.

Personally I see Kesselring as a German version of Eisenhower. Although the Italian and African theaters are not my strong side, my impression is that Kesselring was good in the same way Eisenhower was. A good "huge unit" leader, good with logistics, a good team builder, good at finding the right man for the job. In short, the type of guy you need at the top of the organizational chart. But I would not trust either of them with the actual planning and execution of neither offensive or defensive operations. I think Kesselring would have been an excellent choice for OKH/OKW-CiC if Hitler had realized the limits to his abilities. So to answer your question, no, he is not in the same class as Model or Heinrici.

Ok, I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly. Are you guys saying that if the projectile has a smaller diameter than the thickness of the armour surface it hits, it will shatter/the likelyhood of the projectile shattering is substantial? The armour thickness, would that be the total thickness (armour plate thickness + angle) or just the armour plate thickness regardless of angle?

Feature list for 1.02: Lots of new cool stuff. Some minor stuff that was less than perfect made perfect.

I'm not sure about Model. He was an excellent defensive General. In fact, I think he and Heinrichi were the two best defensive commanders the Germans had. But Im not convinced about Models offensive capabilities...His desicion for Zitadelle to use infantry divisions for the breakthrough proved disasterous, and might very well have been the factor that led to the northern shoulder bogging so very fast. In the south, Hoth did the complete opposite, focusing as much of II SS Pz Corps tanks in one spot (on top of unlucky 52nd Guards Rifle Division).

MAAAGGGGGOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!! MG you spineless coward, you goathearding jellyfish-wannabee, WHERE ARE YOUUUUUU. SEND ME MY TUUURRNNN so I can kill your last troops and give you to Abbot as an offering!!!

And so Lt Hortlund set out on this, the most holy Quest for the Anointed Armored Car. Before long, he arrived at an old and stinking cave. The entrance was surrounded by half eaten rotting fish, and a handful of used rubber gloves...he had found his first victim. Nidan1 where are you, you sorry excuse for a spineless goat. I have seen rotting jellyfish with more style and panache than you. Nidan1you can expect a setup from me, unless of cource you want to prove to everyone in here what a gutless and whimpering wannabe goatherder you really are, and publicly in front of everyone admit defeat before my able armoured cars. You need only say the words "I surrender" (with an amusing French accent) and you will be spared the utter humiliation of being defeated on the field of battle by a scrabble of armoured cars driven by Italians, Romanians and Hungarians...but NOT FINNS. Nidan1This is nothing personal you see, in fact I have to do this... even though I would much rather drive a rusty nail (sharpened at both ends mind you) through my kneecap using nothing but my own eyeballs as a hammer, than talk to you...as would any sane person...but alas, you must be punished, and I must dirty myself by being the one who deals you the thrashing you so richly deserve.

I say we blame the Romans. What did the Romans ever do for us huh?

You should blame the secret Swedish intelligence agency. That photo of the Swedish airforce fighter/sailboat was probably so highly classified, they had to delete the thread. Now they will be coming for everyone who saw that post. If you saw the picture, and if you see a blue or yellow car with a blonde guys behind the wheels wearing a horned helmet...run

I've read somewhere that craters and smoke are the worst CPU eaters. So Im making it a "clean" map with no damage. I still havent finished with the computer deployment yet, so I cant really say what the trenches does to the compute time though.

MG you scum sucking, sweat licking, monkey loving despicable excuse for a wannabee TNT chuckler, get your hands off your b*lls and send me the turn you coward its been three days since you got my move.

Suppose I'm making a fairly open map, (two dominating hills, two large patches of woods, and a river valley) about 2x3 km size, what is the limit for force size when it comes to reasonable turn compute time? Battalion on each side? Two battalions? I want to have this battle as large as possible without the sledgehammer effect on the turn compute times to the Volga has. What I would want to put on the Soviet side is roughly 1 bat guards inf, 20-30 guns, 2-3 coys of SMG infantry and 50-60 trenches. What I would want to put on the German side is roughly 1 pzgren bat, and 20-30 tanks and other vehicles. Is that doable? My own computer isnt having that much of a problem handling it (1800+, 512 ram, GF2), but I dunno if my computer is above average these days, or just average... Also I'm wondering if it would be smarter to make an operation of the battle instead, since that way I could make the map smaller, and not having to have all units start on map. But then I would not be able to do the computer setup, and I would rather have it as one large battle. Any ideas?

When Peter Jackson recieved the question "what is the target audience for this movie? What type of viewer are you aiming to please?" He replied "I'm making this movie the way I would want to see it, in a sense I'm making this movie for myself." That is the most brilliant answer I have ever heard from any movie director. And we all know the end result of Jacksons philosophy...two (probably three) of the best movies known to man. I see the same philosophy in BFC. As long as they keep that philosophy, they will keep making the best wargames there is. That is why I sincerely hope that they still play CM, and that they enjoy every second of it as much as we do. Because if CM should ever stop being fun for them, then its bad news for all of us.

heh "is it ethical" We are talking about war here, remember.

ClifVol, excellent post. Really interesting reading.

I think its the left Tiger that is should go. Not sure about them Panthers though...I never was a Panther grog. hehe [ January 10, 2003, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

Yeah I think I remember reading something about that. That was a direct order from Hitler to save fuel or something. Both LAH and DR entered the Ardennes with several platoons on bicycles per order from OKH with the intention to save fuel (and oh what fun it must have been to ride on those bikes on the muddy hilly dirt roads of the ardennes). Also Pz div Muncheberg had a complete Panzergrenadier-Regiment on bicycles. [ January 09, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

Amazing, you are completely correct. I see I have to learn how to read these **** German organizational charts *again* (why oh why did they not use normal NATO standard). About these halftracks, I've heard two versions on their use. Some say that they were used as armored trucks (that would mean, they were used to transport the soldiers to and from the battlefield, but generally they tried to stay out of the fighting), but then I've read several accounts stating otherwise. I'm in the middle of researching a Kursk scenario right now, and it would appear from after action reports that it was farily normal to take this SPW battalion, and attach it to one or both panzer abteilungs to create the breakthrough unit, or the tip of the spear. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember reading accounts like that from all periods of the war. Does anyone know which version is right (or if both are right)? Also, the armoured pioneer company in the panzer regiment had SPWs too (assuming I'm reading this Org chart correct)? *edit* I think I found another SPW equipped pioneer unit, the 3rd company in the pioneer battalion...is that correct? (Im looking at/trying to decypher Das Reich at Kursk btw, if anyone is interested) [ January 09, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

Ok, now I got confused. I thought each infantry regiment (in the Pz div) had one SPW battalion? Are you saying that only one of the infantry regiments had one? (Assuming that we are talking about a "normal" Pz div, with one pz regiment and two infantry regiments) Granted it is almost impossible to find a coherent OOB list that would apply to all German Pz divs, especially since most of them changed something at least once a year. [ January 09, 2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]