Glider

I will try it out... any takers? My turn rate will be quite bad, a turn every two days or so, RL issues are taking their toll.

They can be used in specific situations like these... you target them from 150m-200m away at single squads you need suppressed until your inf can roll over them. They will not kill, they will not panic the enemy but they will keep them suppressed for the critical 60 seconds. A single 81mm mortar will not do much better against a single-squad target we have here, and an 81mm is more expensive than a 50mm.

Actually no, not if the enemy has only off-board artillery. I am not sure what can be done against such a defensive position... except I am sure it is not advancing assault guns because that will only lose you 100s of additional points. Hmmm... I'd want either a 2:1 or 3:1 infantry advantage (with SMG squads, too) AND organic 50mm-60mm mortars deployed at short ranges AND several 81mm-82mm mortars also not too far away (for accuracy against point targets). Or well-protected 150mm-152mm SP&assault guns as support. They can do things even to infantry that is behind 30-40 metres of trees. Even that way it would take a lot of time and more casualties. Thank god my opponents don't play like this

It was almost certainly the 11th Pz Division in Yugoslavia, attacking Nis. That 22nd seems to have been an ill-fated division. The story about mice damaging electrical cables insulation is well-known, I guess it must have really happened.

Here is what I managed to find searching the net: Panzers on the Eastern Front Summer 1942 From Panzer Truppen Volume 1 by Thomas Jentz pages 236-239 By Steve "The Mad Russian" Overton http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/research_results.html?sku=117 22nd Panzer Division (1 July 1942) 28 Pz II 114 Pz 38(t) 12 Pz III Long (50L60) 11 Pz IV Short (75L24)

In my opinion, its madness to advance an assault gun, let alone a Hetzer, closer than 150m from enemy infantry. At shorter ranges they are always buttoned, can hardly acquire moving infantry, take enormous time to rotate so they can engage enemy infantry coming from the sides. Besides, when you check your kills at the end of a game, even successful tanks rarely show more than 10-20 inf casualties caused. Is that worth risking them, bringing them closer so you can increase that number by perhaps 20%? Carl Puppchen, that game style sounds very interesting, have you tried using the heavy 28mm AT rifle against his T-34s? It sounds like an early war game and those "rifles" can kill a T-34 at some 500 metres and remain unspotted down to a few hundred even when firing.

I find infantry to be so effective that I mostly spend the inf points to the limit (if there is at least some kind of tree/hills cover) and then spend the remainder on artillery/tanks. My preferred selection would be something like an inf battalion, 2 crack 81/82mm mortars, 8 regular 81/82mm mortars, 1 crack sniper and then I would try to buy a couple of decent AT-capable tanks.

33

IIRC, the old German Armbrust needed just 60 cm (2') clear area. Not that we will see it in this game. Most of various RPGs are much more "hosue-sensitive".

Now, I am going off-topic here, but I participated in these events so bear with me for a several sentences The decision to pull back from Kosovo was a political one, i.e. at that time there was not a single military reason why the army positions there would be considered untenable. The obvious determination of the NATO pact to use ground forces, the destruction of the civilian infrastructure in the Serbia proper and the failure to obtain any kind of significant diplomatic support caused the government to cave in. As far as the troops are concerned, the regime was not popular but NATO was far less so. At the time of withdrawals the losses among ground forces were light and the morale was quite high. They would have fought (and lost), no question about that. Another thing, as a signaller who served with the General Staff I helped with computer graphics for some pre-war evaluations of the expected NATO performance. I couldn't help read some of them, though . And I can tell you that the General Staff signals&communication department severely overestimated the effect of NATO/US attacks on our strategic communication network. [ October 12, 2005, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: Glider ]

Yugoslav Army 1999, serving one year of compulsory national service, trained as signaller. Commanded a small mobile radio-relay post (one truck, four men) during NATO air attacks in 1999.

Didn't the Poles actually participate in the partitioning of Czechoslovakia? Didn't they seize one part for themselves? Talk about diggining your own grave...

If those problems were anything like the problems the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had when facing the Germans in April 1941, they must have been very bad indeed. In Yugoslavia the army practically fell apart along the ethnic division lines, with units firing at each other in some parts of the country, units composed of Croats overrunning the 4th Army headquarters, everybody suspecting everybody else... Of course, I don't think it was nearly as bad in Poland... I am talking about a country that had far more serious ethnic problems and was facing the Germans after they overran most of the Western and Central Europe. But if Poland has similar problems even to a much lesser degree, they could have curtailed its fighting capability.

I might We enjoy our fun where we can find it, we ordinary men

Nah, that lousy excuse for a weapon would never be able to wound our resident superman here. The bullets would just bounce off, you see.

Damn don't know how the switch from MC to MG happened in my head, strange place it is But I had one Pz38 destroyed by molotovs. It was closed top, but it took about 10-15 Russian squads to do it.

Yeah they do. Just ran a test with 6 x 12.7mm Russian HMG teams deployed in circle around 4 x Hetzers. All 4 Hetzers were destroyed by the end of the turn one.

I've had Hetzers destroyed by 12.7mm HMG fire. Not sure if it was CMBB though.

I used 7.62mm models, the M80 was not widely available. In fact I don't think I ever saw one during my service. Also I searched the net a bit and it seems that rifle enthusiast like the Zastava model because the manufacture quality is better, the clip (or some important part it is attached to) is made of about 50% thicker metal sheets making it far more resistant (but also heavier) and, finally, it appears that the rifle is rather more accurate than other mass-produced 7.62mm models due to the fact that its barrel was not chromed. As far as the difference between various AK models is concerned, I can only repeat that veteran special forces appeared to prefer the heaviest type, the M72 LMG model (bipod, longer&thicker barrel, more accurate, can fire loner bursts), to the M70, let alone the M80.

I spent some time under fire (under bombs would be a better description) and I have fired an M-70 (aka AK-47) both at firing ranges and after the rifle spent months in trenches and rain. However, I never fired another military rifle so I have no point of reference. There is one fact I could contribute, since my signal unit was attached to a special forces brigade, I had an opportunity to see what kind of rifles special forces soldiers were using. Most of them had years of combat experience during infantry-intensive Yugoslav wars. Now, I found it a bit strange at that time, but all units that were allowed to choose their own weapons, among various Heckler&Kochs, Desert Eagles, Western sniper rifles etc always had an inordinate amount of AK-47s. To be more precise, they preferred to use the Yugoslav AK-47 LMG version, with a longer barrel, bipod, and some other alterations that made it heavier and, I guess, more accurate and reliable. Obviously, the LMG version was capable of firing longer sustained bursts and I think this was the main reason why it was popular. I think this fact supports Bigduke's argument that infantry units have a significant advantage if they can fire more bullets in the general direction of the enemy. [ July 07, 2005, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Glider ]

I think we served in the same regiment, damn I am not certain about the number any more, the 398 was the signal regiment of the General Staff, was it not? As far as your experience is concerned it is fairly consistent with what I saw. Our rifles were exposed to war-time conditions, mud, rain etc and it never occurred to us that they might jam. They never did. I googled around and it seems that among hobbyists the Yugoslav AK version is considered to be of highest quality. Strange, personally I would have expected East German one to be no 1.

True. A modern superpower, especially one as sensitive to public outcry as the USA is, will obviously try the option 2 first. If it succeeds you have the Serbia result - you win suffering no loses. The main problem is, in my opinion, the fact that political leaders are wishful thinking animals. If the no-infantry-meatgrinder options are exhausted they will rarely cut their losses. There is always a powerful momentum demanding that the next escalation step be taken. And it is always easier to take that step than to turn back. So you listen to your generals who promise quick victory and ignore those who express doubts and you plunge ahead because "our credibility" would be threatened otherwise, "the threat to our geo-strategic interests in the region" cannot be ignored. As casualties mount the great mass of reasons, explanations and justifications that pushed you into war in the first place gets bigger and bigger, "we lost too much to give up now", "our sons have made the ultimate sacrifice and we cannot betray them". I see only three possible results: 1. You cut your losses and leave. Only possible in initial stages, while the great power still does not feel like it would be losing too much face. 2. You escalate always hoping that the next step will force the enemy to give up. And, fortunately, at some point, he does. 3. The war starts really tearing apart both your armed forces and the fabric of your society back home. At that point whichever political leader is left with the hot potato in his hands *must* cut his losses and leave. The fallout is tremendous. Wow, this is getting rather long The point is, well-trained professional infantry allows a Western-democracy type superpower to suffer less and inflict more losses, thereby shifting the "we admit defeat" point further along the escalation curve.

Hmmm... a very interesting point you have there Bigduke. But a country like the USA really has no choice. Its society will not accept significant casualties so it has to train the infantry it has as good as it can, no matter the cost, thereby minimizing the losses. In case of war US leaders can only hope that the will of the society to accept lists of killed and missing in action will outlast the enemy's supply of AKs and teenagers.

AK-47s, in fact M-70s, Yugoslav version of the AK-47.

Just wanted to say that this is a considerable underestimate... I saw a bunch of signals unit soldiers, i.e. soldiers with a very basic infantry training, score regular (30-40%) hits on man-sized targets at 200 and 250 metres. I also saw hundreds of 40years+ general staff officers who probably touch an AK-47 once every few years score even better results, all this using AK-47s that, while regularly maintained, have been used by generations of recruits.