Martin Rapier

Agreed, to my mind CC2 was one of the finest computer wargames ever produced, despite the dumb AI, points based unit purchase etc etc mainly because of the scripted campaign. The higher level resource allocation issues worked very well but you also had decent tactical engagements on (for the time) very pretty maps, which were at least mercifully brief due to it being RTS(most of the time). Of all the CC series, CC2 is one I still actually play from time to time, whereas the change in the way forces were allocated in CC3 onwards meant the Grand Campaigns were no challenge at all, even playing 'iron man' (max difficulty and taking the default deployment). CC5 was probably the worst in this regard, at least in CC4 you couldn't cherry pick the units which made up your battlegroups. They are all OK against a human of course. I find that CC2 can still provide a challenge vs the AI, even if it does involve taking on half a dozen Panthers with a handful of US paratroops and a bazooka! Cheers Martin

IIRC Russian ATRs were effective up to 500m - bit better than the Boys ATR anyway! It is bipod mounted a rifle firing a really high velocity round at an enormous great halftrack 200m away - I'd be more surprised if they missed it at that range. Cheers Martin

In this case it was still the divisional panzerjager battalion though, one of the companies was requipping with Stugs rather than towed guns, which was common in later war infantry panzerjager battalions (as the later reference to Hetzers indicates). There was no 1007th Assault Gun Battalion, but 1st Company, 7th Panzerjager Battalion makes much more sense (although as Otto said, perhaops they were referred to as 1007th Stug Abt to 'fool the enemy'.) Remember abteilung only means 'detachment', there is no reason why a panzerjager abteilung can't have a subordinate Stug abteilung. At least they were lucky enough to get Stugs and not Marders or some lash-up on a captured French chassis. Cheers Martin

Umm, I thought 'Hitlers Greatest Defeat' was a fairly awful book, managing to barely skim the surface of the battle yet taking a whole book to do so! The Osprey 'Operation Bagration' manages to pack a lot more detail into a much slimmer volume, and of course introduces us to such exciting units as the 78th 'Sturm' Division. Cheers Martin

The TRP-HE defence works wonderfully well, I can now regularly get Total Victory in 1941 QBs (low quality Russian in vs high quality panzers). Covering all the infantry approaches with wire obstacles, a few AP minefields to channel them and then putting TRPs on the wire with long range MG fire from a flank and one or two battalion 82mm mortar batteries strips the German infantry away very nicely, leaving the panzers to blunder into massed 45mm AT gun fire from the flank/rear. It would be very nice indeed to see wire clearance via artillery, engineers, direct fire HE etc in v1.02 though! Cheers Martin

Albert Seatons elderly 'Russo-German War 1941-45' is also very good as it has lots of maps which Erickson in particular seemed to have an aversion to. For those interested in maps, a (large) set of 1942 Russian 1:100,000 scale maps have appeared at Berkeley: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/EART/soviet_maps.html I've already checked out the 'impossible terrain' around the entrance to the Crimea & the tartar ditch! The cover the Ukraine & Caucasus only unfortunately. Cheers Martin

This sounds more like it - if 8th PD was operating divison level Kampfgruppen along these lines then you can have a much more 'interesting' force in the scenario than a bunch of armoured cars trying to assault entrenched positions! Cheers Martin

At a tactical level, generally better troops, although their quality declined as the war went on. On some occasions their equipment was better than the Russians as well, on other occasions it wasn't. Pretty much the reverse, generally Russian troops were tactically less skilled than the Germans. Having a human in command of course means the Russians manouvre with the skill of SSLAH at their prime. The Russians main advantage as the war went on was the development of superior operational and strategic techniques which allowed to concentrate vast numerical superiority at the critical point and project mobile forces to great depths into the enemy rear. Conversely the Germans became less and less flexible, so more prone to piecemeal defeat. At a tactical level, probably Summer 1942. All the newly raised units in 1941 had gained combat experience by 1942 & sufficient new equipment had been issued to close the technology gap (Pz IIIj specials, Pak 40s & PzIVf2). The Russians best time was probably Summer 1944 when they were at the peak of their operational skill and again were just getting new equipment to close the temporary technlogy gap. Troop quality in their mechanised formations was at an all time high as they had not suffered repeated annihilation in combat (which they did in 41, 42 and to a degree 43).By 1945 they were running out of men and their force structures proved less suitable for fighting in the denser terrain of central Europe. Cheers Martin

The members of penal battalions weren't 'common criminals' but had normally been found guilty of some infraction of military law specific to the army in question - doubting the ablity of <insert appropriate mad dictator with stupid moustache> to prosecute the war effectively, expressing doubts as to final victory, refusing to shoot prisoners in the back of the head etc. There _were_ a couple of very well known units made up of actual convicts released from prison, the British convict battalion which fought on Crete (although they were from a military prison) and perhaps most notoriously SS Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger, whose rank and file were originally recruited from convicted poachers(!). Later on the unit effectively functioned as a penal battalion being a dumping ground for civilian and military convicts although individuals could volunteer for service with the unit and its exciting round of 'special duties' - which a number of rear area iron cross hunters duly did. see e.g. 'The Cruel Hunters'. Cheers Martin

This is virtually the _entire_ recce battalion - they only had an armoured car company, 1-3 motorised/motorcycle infantry companies and a heavy weapons company. The Sdkfz 251/10s were used as platoon commanders vehicles in armoured infantry companies so you wouldn't be very likely to find them operating independantly. A more likely advanced guard would be the recce battalion: Armoured Car Company: 1 x platoon of 6 x 6 or 8 wheelers 2 x platoon of 6 x 4 wheelers 1-3 Motorised/motorcyle recon companies 1 x recce weapons company: 1 x 75mm infantry gun section (2 guns) 1 x AT platoon (3 x Pak 36 AT guns) 1 x engineer platoon Breakdowns and battle casualties may well have thinned this lot out. It is possible that they may be supported by a detachment from the panzer regiment, but the Germans weren't keen on splitting their panzer battalions up. If they did have a panzer detachment it would most likely be either the regimental or one of the battalion recce platoons (5 x PzII) or possibly a light panzer company. The recce battalion would almost certainly be accompanied by artillery observers from the divisonal artillery regiment, possibly only a battery but more likely a full battalion. If the recce battalion wasn't leading (unless the opposition was very light it wouldn't normally try to fight the division forward) the division would more likely be led by the panzer regiment supported by the armoured infantry battalion, one of the armoured engineer companies either from the divisional engineer battalion or one of the infantry regimental companies and as much artillery and air support as could be provided. The divisonal anti-tank battalion would be on call to deal with any significant quantities of armour encountered. Cheers Martin

Lots of good suggestions but to add my 2p: 1) column movement on roads 2) relative spotting 3) beaten zones for tripod MGs so that they can operate as area denial weapons 4) more realistic combat engineering functions esp obstacle clearance (mainly wire) via artillery, explosives, direct fire large calibre HE etc 5) mine rollers, vehicle launched bridges etc 6) multi-turreted AFVs 7) more detailed artillery model, specifying number of rounds per mission, rate of fire, dispersion, round type, rate of drift etc. Tigers on the Prowl was doing this ten years ago (along with 4,5 & 6) so I don't see why a modern game can't. 8) paradrops & glider landings 9) simple campaign structure - linked battles, replacements etc similar to the campaigns provided by Steel Panthers, East Front, Close Combat & Tigers on the Prowl. 10) formation movement and/or setting multiple waypoints for group moves 11) embedding pauses within waypoints so units could advance, wait for 30 seconds to provide covering fire, advance again etc Cheers Martin

Bump. These are such great fun that I haven't played anything else since I came across them. Finally managed a Total Victory in 'No Hope' last night as my massed reverse slope rear facing 45mm antitank gun ambush took out an entire Panzer company in a minute. Cheers Martin

Yes, the OBs are very good although the German TO&Es are done using German symbology, which is all very interesting and historically accurate but very hard to read if you've been raised on old NATO symbols! 1941 Panzer Battalions had two light companies and a medium company (generally). The light companies got the Pz 35/38/IIIs and the medium companies the Panzer IVs. Light platoons of Pz I/II were also scattered between them (although IIRC battalions equipped with Pz35/38 didn't have any Pz II). Continuing shortages of PzIVs meant many medium companies only had two platoons of four PzIV each. I have recently run a couple of operational miniatures games covering the odessey of 56th Panzer Corps & 8th Panzer certainly saw plenty of action in the 'Dash to the Dvina' and the 'Zoltsy Hedgehog'. I also did a Spearhead mini campaign entitled 'The Race for Leningrad' with Manstein & Reinhardts Corps in a competitive advance - so everyone got to play the Germans and take it in turn playing the Russians;) Cheers Martin

Thanks, I'll maybe try some of the other Banshee drivers and see if it makes any difference, but personally I'm not that bothered as I know it works fine my other machine. Shame it chokes on something as trivial as browsing a list of files rather than something complex like doing the 3D map rendering! Cheers Martin

Partly it is language support and partly it is to do with legal restrictions in Germany on the display of nazi insignia esp swastikas. I notice that after the 1.01 patch that 'Waffen Grenadiers' seem to have turned into SS though;) Cheers Martin

Ahah - I've got just that problem, Voodoo Banshee 2 dropping to the desktop when accessing the scenario list although the map editor, preview etc work fine. Is there a workaround for this? I wouldn't normally have bothered trying to get CMBB working on my old computer with the voodoo card, but sadly my daughter just got 'Sims Unleashed' so I'm off the normal games machine for a while! Cheers Martin

The T37 was an amphibious light tank. It should be used in the same manner as other light tanks ie very carefully! Not sure if its amphib capability has been modelled in CM, but it could certainly be entertaining if your opponent had anchored his position on an 'uncrossable' river. Cheers Martin

I would be very surprised indeed of any members of the Brandenburg commando regiment accompanied 8th Panzer Div on its drive to the Dvina. The divisional CO was called 'Brandenberger' though. 8th Panzer had Pz 38s in its light companies, PzIVD in its heavy companies and a smattering of PzIIs in the various light platoons scattered through the panzer battalions. It was slightly unusual in that it had a three battalion panzer regiment though. The only Stugs in Army Group North were attached to the infantry armies, so there wouldn't be any with 8th PD. Having said that, in the HPS 7th PD campaign addon for 'Tigers on the Prowl', 7th Panzer Divisions panzer regiment (also with 38ts) seems to get a platoon of Stugs to help out on a fairly regular basis! The trees in that area are mixed coniferous and deciduous with 'pines, birches and firs' predominating according to Lithuanian govt. website. Cheers Martin

As I recall this one wasn't too difficult although I did better on the second attempt. I just divided up the troops, one company to each flag, identified the sections which had LMGs and reserved those for fire support then moved the entire lot to contact over the ridge, keeping the fire support sections back a bit so they weren't shot at immediately. The Germans opened up, my guys stopped and fired back, then the assault sections 'advanced' their way forwards covered by the LMGs and providing their own suppressive fire. First time I got the right flag but not the left, the second time I got both. A few sections were shot down, but there were plenty more guys where they came from - once the Russians got into the woods it was reasonably easy to mop up the Germans piecemeal. Embarrasingly I did manage to lose to the AI whilst defending! Same problem, once the Russians got into the woods they managed to overwhelm the German split squads fairly easily. Not tried it with 1.01 though. Cheers Martin

A proper divisional HQ is quite a large formation with all sorts of medical, supply, police, signals etc units. A tactical HQ might just be a few vehicles including a couple of signals. At a company level, tanks and infantry were not integrated. A tank company had tanks(!) in theory a company HQ of 2 plus four platoons of five vehicles ea, although IRL company strengths were often lower, but in some cases they were overstrength. Motorised infantry companies were quite complex as they normally had devolved heavy weapons from the battalion weapons companies, but basically HQ section, 3 platoons of HQ plus 3 sections (with 2xLMG each) plus a couple of tripod MGs, a couple of 50mm or 81mm mortars. Lorried troops would normally dismount to fight and leave their vehicles at least 1000m from the battle, troops in APCs might take them into the battle zone. AT companies consisted of 3-4 platoons of 3-4 weapons (usually towed AT guns until SPAT guns became more prevalent). As far as possible tanks would be kept concentrated, German doctrine stressing that the minimum unit size they should be committed in was company strength & ideally battalion or regiment. In most wargames tanks seem to get parcelled out in dribs & drabs, after all, what is a WW2 wargame without the odd tank parked around;) Cheers Martin

Neither was LAH a panzer division at this time, just a motorised infantry division. IIRC 11th Army didn't have any tanks at all at this time. One thing to have a look at in the real battle is the artillery density employed by the attackers - assaulting with two divisions on a 4 mile front allows one tube per 50m just from divisional resources (two artillery battalions and a regimental gun company per mile, assuming a two up attack). If you add in available Corps & Army artillery the gun density goes up even further. Given sufficient artillery & ammo density infantry attacks could be shot in over few thousand metres without any great difficulty over the most unpromising terrain using a combination of bombardment and a creeping barrage. Unfortunately the only OB I've got for Hansens Corps is for 22nd June, when it only had a single battalion of Corps artillery along with a few battalions of coastal artillery & 11th Army was considerably reorganised after this date. Kublers mountain corps alone had five battalions of additional artillery. Cheers Martin

Comprehensive OBs down to platoon level (in some cases) for the entire German Army on 22nd June 1941 at: http://www.freeport-tech.com/WWII/011_germany/41-oob/_41-oob.html Just click on the various unit organisation symbols to drill down. Cheers Martin

What is the difference between a Infantery gun and a AT gun from a technical point of view WAIT!! before you answer that and read on . Infantery is against infantery (duhhh) and AT are for destroying armor like units. But as far as I know this depends on the difference in AMMO these guns use...high explosive vs igh velocity (or other nifty ammo with specific anti AT usage). So what is different in the guns them self???? Infantry guns were a peculiarity of (mainly) the German Army. They were guns designed for support of infantry units by direct fire with the ability to be manhandled in necessary & were originally developed during WW1 as a means of destroying MG nests etc. Sturmbattalion Rohrs original job was testing the effectiveness of specialist Sturmkanone. In fact the fundamental problem was that German infantry mortars in WW1 were cr*p and they'd have been better off developing better mortars based on the Stokes principle, but they didn't & pressed on with the development of dedicated infantry guns instead. German WW2 infantry units were modelled on WW1 attack trained infantry units, so they got regimental infantry gun batteries as well. Later in the war the Germans figured out that infantry guns were an overexpensive waste of resources and replaced them in many units with mortars instead. The early versions of the Stug were simply SP versions of the existig infantry guns and were designed to be used in the same role, direct HE fire support of infantry units. AT guns OTOH were designed to destroy armoured targets so generally had a much higher muzzle velocity and a greater barrel length relative to their calibre. Early AT guns were also very small and capable of being manhandled, but later guns became extremely heavy & hard to shift, which is partly why towed AT guns were replaced by SP guns and then finally by 'Universal Tanks' or Main Battle Tanks as they are called now. Cheers Martin

I have always understood that the whole point of military training was to stop the individual thinking like an individual and to "programme" reactions that overcame the natural self preservation feelings. It certainly is, however I'm not sure that all WW2 armies had a doctrine of 'charge forward' if shot at. In the British Army units were supposed to follow their orders until they came under effective fire (ie fire which actually landed in the immediate vicinity of the section). In this case they were supposed to drop to the ground instantly ('as if shot' the manual says) and return fire until the section commander took control. He could then attempt to proceed by fire and movement ('advance' in CMBB parlance) but if the fire was too heavy then the platoon would have to attempt a more complex solution (usually the section under fire plus any available heavy weapons became a firebase whilst the platoon CO led the other two sections on a flanking manouvre). Anyway, the main point is that they were trained to drop to the ground instantly, it being stressed in fieldcraft training that there is no such thing as 'open ground' and that cover and concealment is available anywhere. This is from both the 1942 and the March 1944 Platoon Commanders Manual. Anyone got any idea what German & Russian doctrine was? The most detailed info I can come up with is just that German infantry generally operated in dispersed columns of files, shaking out into line when a firefight was initiated & that they the operated in small groups on a wide front advancing by fire and movement, decentralised heavy weapons aiding in suppressive defensive fires. This is pretty much what the eingrif divisions in WW1 did, and the stress on supressive heavy weapons, artillery and MG fire gives the impression that running around in the face of effective incoming fire was not exactly encouraged. Cheers Martin

I didn't receive not ONE single answer dealing with the infantry behaviour in the Brückenkopf (Bridgehead) scenario. I've played this one a few times now, and I found that simply leaving the few Russian sections with LMGs on the ridgeline for fire support and making liberal use of 'move to contact' & then 'advance'/'assault' for everyone else worked fine. A few sections were shot down (well, plenty more where they came from;) and the rest advanced over the open ground firing from the hip then cleared the Germans out in short order with grenades etc. No sneak of death at all as far as I could see. The worst situation for this so far was one of the new SL conversions 'The Capture of Balta' where a couple of German platoons had a terrible time covering the enormous expanses of open ground. It was mainly a matter of keeping an eye on the sections which started sneaking and getting them to hide or whatever to recover though. The AI behaviour does not seem overly extreme, however it does remind me of early implementations of 'run to cover' in the old HPS game 'Tigers on the Prowl' and I'll be interested to see what difference the patch makes. Cheers Martin