Dandelion

Head stuck in the marmalade jar? What does that mean? What happened to the guy? Regards Dandelion

TCP/IP bug? There's a bug? Regards Dandelion

There was no offence taken Firefly. I am merely upholding the civilisational hereditary task of showing you windward Anglo-Saxons. You know. The err of your ways. Biologically, it is an interesting situation, with Anglo-Saxons calling Lower Saxons Huns, and Lower Saxons calling Saxons Ossies, and Saxons not saying much at all right now, all out looking for a job. All while they were collectively called Saxons, all living in Saxony, when the Huns hit them, enslaved them, dragged them off to slave markets and burned their villages. I haven't really heard neither Yank nor Brit used in a derogatory sense. Are they ever used as such? I think that generally one will be hard pressed to find any derogatory ethnically based remark against a group within that groups own language. Cheerio Dandelion

It would indeed appear that regardless of the tenacity of my endeavours, I simply cannot get away with simplifications on this forum. You are of course right Andreas. The Zugführer with retinue did not compose a Stab as such. The Stab designation will normally indicate a leadership function combining several specialist functions (intelligence, planning, logistics). Such a unit is indeed found at Bataillon level at the lowest. Indeed, mean we formally trained Stabsoffizieren, we find them only at divisional level and up. Thus, formally, I have been caught in err. My defence is thus. The quest for a formal designation for the unit containing the Zugführer yielded no results at all, a regrettable state of affaires most probably attributable to the fact that it was not a unit. Be they water carriers, funkers, platoon medics or deputy Zugführers, they seem all to have lacked the solace of a unit designation. Retreat being as inconceivable a notion as always, I made a perhaps slightly daring detour to contemporary army jargon, where some comfort was indeed to be had. Riflemen appears to have had, with predictable rifleman insolence, the bad habit of designating anybody serving in any hq function as serving at "Stab". With - when referring to "other ranks" such as perhaps water carriers - the implicit meaning of being shirkers. All in the same tradition as the calling of any personnel serving in supply functions as a/the "Qu". The wickedness of which will become all the more obvious to Jon - and all you other heathen Anglo-Saxons who have since your exodus so decadently forgotten your original native Saxon and 'developed' this awkward, imprecise and highly undisciplined German dialect we are now communicating in - when reflecting the similarity of sound between spoken Qu and Kuh (cow). Real Qu's were also only to be found at divisional level and up. No pun intended. And so I wrote the dot dot dot and used "referred to as" rather than "called" or "designated", hoping the very obscurity and elusiveness of English would veil my trickeries. Alas, a German caught me at it. The defence rests its case (I love that phrase). How parsimonious, to not issue umlauts in London. No wonder ze English can't say ü... Cheerio Dandelion

Pbem. I really like TCP/IP, but you know, finding mutually agreeable time, and being tied down for an hour or so. Really difficult. Regards Dandelion

I guesss it didn't. Include the Huns I mean. I think it might be because this turco-mongol tribe became extinct as separate ethnic group in the 460's AD. Thus fielding their military forces as playable units in CM would be of minimal - if not profoundly so - interest. Dandelion

Ah yes, gruppen were numbered with Arabic number and a dot... and platoon hq was not considered a gruppe but simply a collection of specialists referred to as Stab. Dandelion

...and to add further on the topic of numbering, Germans numbered their units alternating Arabic and Latin numbers. Starting from platoon with Latin, i.e. I Zug 1. Kompanie I Bataillon 1. Regiment (Then Brigade, Division, Korps(Gen.Kdo.) and Armee(AOK), finishing with Armeegruppe that used Latin lettering (A, B, etc)) The dot after a number (1.) signifies the unit was a unit considered capable of independent action. Companies, Regiments and Divisions were such, whereas platoon and battalion were considered subdivisions of a higher unit and not units themselves. The exception being independent (usually divisional) battalions. These battalions usually used Arabic numbers with a dot, just like Regiments, sidestepping the normal hierarchy. On a tactical map or in an order, any unit would be referred to as part of the next independent unit. Thus, 1./1. means 1st company of 1st regiment. That it is also part of I bataillon goes without saying. If there was risk of confusion, the unit abbreviation would be written out. Abbreviations normally used Arm-Unit-Number order (e.g: P[anzer].D[ivision] 1.) Cheerio Dandelion

I have no real qualitative overview on that, except on the widespread resistance movements of various kinds and shapes. I share your belief that there was frequent civilian aid of military forces, both such asked for and such volountarily lent with no prompting. Five years under the fascist boot, I would imagine people to be euphoric to see the allies, and even sensible people might take unnecessary risks in such a state. There are quite a few well known photo's displaying civilians showing the way or pointing on maps, aiding the allies in their home area. Or aiding in other ways, such as the famed photo of an Italian woman puring some water (possibly wine) into a cup she has placed near a Canadian Bren gunner engaged in street fighting. As you point out the Germans were being pushed back, I imagine they had few opportunities of reprisal, or even investigating events. The situation was very confusing throughout the campaigns of France, BeNeLux and Italy. All of Europe was chaos. Quite a few Germans, Austrians (being also Germans at the time of course) and Italians were also convicted of "collaboration" (civilians) or "treason" (Military staff) during the years 44 and 45. In the case of the Italians, the proverbial "treason is a matter of dates" was very much true. All were to my knowledge executed, as this was policy, and if possible strung up in telegraph poles with placates explaining their crimes. The Germans took the libery of expediting Italian justice as well, post reinstitution of Mussoulini in the North. German policy in the West was by and large to conform with treaties. German interpretation of the treaties led to the reform of these after the war. For example (one among many sad such), Germany felt justified to take hostages in the fight against terrorism and banditry - they called resistance thus - and also to commit reprisal killings for any German killed in breach of treaty. So, when the resistance would kill a German, the Germans would simply kill tenfold the number of local civilians to avenge them. After the war it was found to be extremly difficult to pin these atrocities on the people responsible, as the treaties were so vague at the time. Was it proportional? Was it obviously unproportional (well to you and me it was of course)? Many, many within the security forces thus got away with murder (but many others did not, as they were foreign nationals, and later trialled by their national courts). The Germans used the same line of reasoning against their military enemies. The murder of Canadian PoWs in Normandy on June 9th, e.g., was ordered as reprisal for an alleged British shooting of German PoWs the day before. Treaties on treatment of PoWs were however much clearer, and here the allies were able to show that these acts were criminal, and those responsible thus also criminal. So, very few military personnel got away with murder (committed in the West), regardless of rank. In the East, Germany observed no treaties, or even their own national legislation, including the German constitution. Nor was military penal code observed in regards to neither civilians nor enemy military personnel. It was, in its core, an act of piracy and a brigandage rather than a military campaign. Regards Dandelion

Laxx, HTs must have been the luxury variant. Having antitank guns "en portee", i.e. strapped to the back of ordinary thinskin trucks and firing them that way, would be the Western Desert norm No limit to the possibilities one has with such amounts of resourcefulness and bravery uninhibited by reason. Cheerio Dandelion

Free Work, I'll try and have a go at your last question, that on reconnaissance. (Like Moon points out, you will find large amounts of tactical tips using the Search function on this forum, including movement and assault tactics). Reconnaissance in CM is by and large a matter of spotting. Spotting here in wider sense (i.e. including audio contacts). The basic equation is that various troops in various situations have various possibilities of detecting the enemy. Conversely, various troops in various situations emanate various levels of detectable visual or audible noise. Surveillance Stationary infantry units have the highest surveillance ratings. If the infantry unit moves, range of surveillance is reduced, and it will only scout forward, i.e. in its direction of advance. Fatigue (Tired, Weary), Stress (Pinned, Shaken) and Quality (Green, Conscript) also has significant bearing on the reconnaissance performance. Vehicles have substantially lower surveillance ratings than infantry, and are affected by the same variables as the infantry (Movement, Stress, Quality). Surveillance performance is drastically lower if buttoned down. I don't know if individual vehicles differ in capacity, or if they all have the same basic rating. Of course, numbers (of observers) increase chances of detection. Officers can improve observer ratings if they have a relevant bonus. Stealth Conversely, the unit most difficult to spot is a small stationary infantry unit in covered terrain. The larger the unit, the easier to spot, and even the smallest of vehicles is much easier to detect than the largest of squads. Movement increases detectability for all units, the faster the movement the greater loss of stealth. Firing also drastically increases a units detectability, and the larger the weapon the easier to detect. Officers can increase stealth capacity of units if they have relevant bonuses. Environment Visual range on a clear day in CMBO is practically limitless (longer than map limits). The most drastic range limitation is a night with thick fog, with visibility reduced to 30 meters. Any other condition is in between these extremes, and it is of course essential that you find out maximum visibility range for each scenario. Terrain features reduce sight. Some block it entirely but most block it gradually. I am unsure of wether ground conditions, terrain and weather affects sound detection possibilities. I have always assumed it did, to not take unnecessary risks. Reconnaissance Much is to be found on the topic of patrols, observation posts and infantry reconnaissance in other threads on this forum also. You will not find much on armoured reconnaissance (armoured cars). Armoured reconnaissance was an operational tool, normally used for intelligence needs of larger scope than the CMBO environment. Though there are exceptions of course, with very large operations. But generally, when appearing in CMBO the Armoured Car is to be regarded as a tactical weapons system rather than reconnaissance system. Much more could be added I suppose, but I suspect you will rapidly get the hang of it anyway. Just keep in mind that to detect the enemy undetected: - Stay small - Stay footborne - Stay silent (immobile, or use crawl or sneak, stopping often and sitting still a minute or two) - Stay lowline (anyplace lower than your enemy) - Stay in cover (a gully is also cover) Cheerio Dandelion

Grumlin, I didn't really have any specific spot in mind. Just environmental, panorama type and detail. You know the kind that gives a good idea of what the terrain really looks like, in shape and colour. Also I was curious if they (used to) build in Caen stone all the way to the Vire valley. I have a pretty rich photo material on the landscape in most weathers from Caen up to (about) Putot, but my material on real bocage country, which starts west of there, is pretty bleek really. But you know I didn't mean to cause any problem or send people off to a lot of work. I just thought that if you had some holiday photo's many of us here would probably be thrilled to see them. Scenario designers, modders and plain grognards Cheerio Dandelion

Well Tessy sur Vire and the area around was the scene of the opening battles of operation COBRA. Very heavy figting indeed. Tessy sur Vire celebrates August 1st as liberation day. They claim US 30 Division liberated them. I haven't actually been there, just noted it in my travel journal. So somebody told me I guess. There was a rather big and boisterous celebration of liberation in Moyon that I did frequent. July 31st. If you had ever served in the US 29th Division, or generally were from around Baltimore it seemed, you'd most probably get free wine and food. As a German, I had to pay of course I took it Moyon was liberated by 29th, and that the 29th was recruited in Baltimore, and so maybe their divisional history will reveal the circumstances. But I never really asked. Its still a bit awkward to ask about the war you know. Come to think of it, I guess you don't Next time, I'll fake being British when I ask the old timers about the war. Did you get any good pictures of the bocage area? That you'd like to share I mean. Always interesting to see I think. I've got some space on a server if you'd need someplace to put them up so they can be posted here. Cheerio Dandelion

Thanks Major, happy to oblige. The input as well as the photos below are from two publications, the publishers of one being American. Also hope Tank Ace won't stomp me for this minor hijack. Anyway, here is the "original" maschinekarabiner that inspired the 1938 contract from HWaA, a Walther design which for various reasons was unsuitable for mass production: Looks more than a little like the M1 Carbine does it not? Except tho nose, which looks very H&K to me. Here is the loser of the first trials, the Walther Mkb: Which still contained many bright ideas later incorporated into Mkb43(G)/MP43. And the winner, the Haenel prototype: Already looking a lot like we know it (this is 1942). This is the Gustloff Mkb, the one that faked the name to MP43 and entered testproduction: And here is the MP44 which, other than the finishing, was identical to StG 44 (The StG 44 had a more matt finishing - all German weapons did after 1/45): The differences between MP44 and 43 are not evident here, being internal. Regards Dandelion

Very dramatic twist there on Feldgrau. But the StG 44 story is a telling one of wartime arms production in Germany, and perhaps deserves being told in greater detail. As early as the 1920's, the army found that the 9mm cartridge used in most then serving smg's placed an unacceptable limit on effective range as well as accuracy. The HWaA (Heeres Waffen Amt - 'Army Weapons Department' sort of) thus ordered a new weapon, which they called "Mkb" (maschinnekarabiner - Machine Carbine), to use the standard 8x57IS cartridge, then in use with all carbines and machineguns. In April 1938, the contract was awarded to the rival companies Haenel (in Suhl) and Polte (in Magdeburg). Both were rather small companies at the time and so it was not a priority contract. Polte later dropped out and was replaced by the significantly larger Carl Walther company in january 1941. The specs of the order were fairly straightforward: - Not longer nor heavier than a the 98k carbine. Shorter and lighter if possible of course. - Accuracy not less than the 98k. - Rifle grenade attachment for 98k must be attachable. - Simple mechanism, fully covered (against dirt). - Theroetical rate of fire between 360 and 450 rpm. Haenel was able to deliver the requested 50 prototypes on time, June 1942. Walther missed the deadline with their 200 prototypes. The weapons were issued to troops for field tests, and the HWaA opted for the Haenel design - the Mkb42 (H). The Mkb42 (W) had proven too complicated and had several designs not liked by the troops, making it difficult to handle. Only some 12 000 of the Mkb42 were produced, i.e. a normal testproduction run. These weapons were issued to troops for field testing. But production (massproduction) was never ordered, as it was considered too demanding in resources, and not urgent enough (compared to other needs). I've never seen any results of these initial tests and don't know what unit received the weapons either. It would probably not have mattered, the decision to stop was not due to any shortcoming of the weapon itself. It was also certainly not the decision of Hitler alone, but primarily that of the HWaA and OKW. Assets were simply needed for other production lines. But the project did not end. The Gustloff company was still contracted to develop a Mkb using the standard 7,92mm rifle cartridge. Going had been slow, but the Haenel design team (containing among others Hugo Schmeisser) joined the effort and contributed their own design ideas (cheifly the firing mechanism) as well as some old Walther ideas. The result was the Mkb43(G). Only a handful of prototypes were built, as the army was still denying any new Mkb designs as had been previously decided. It is here that the Mkb was simply renamed MP43 in a rather surprising bid from the private companies to fool HWaA (and utlimately, fool Hitler himself). This way, they got access to testing production, producing some 14 000 "MP43" that were issued mainly to I.D.93. Immediately upon testline production, the ruse was discovered and the project cancelled. No, nobody was shot or hanged. However, the I.D.93 testresults from October 1943, when it had been engulfed in very heavy battle, were very positive. So positive in fact, the HWaA came to reconsider the original plans and suggest to OKW (and thus Hitler) that massproduction should after all be commenced. What primarily convinced OKW were the reports from I.D.93 about how the need for machineguns was drastically reduced. This fact seemed to hold many promises of future rationalisation of both production and unit firepower. The decision was taken to introduce the new cartridge and commence production. In march 1944 a slightly altered prototype (chiefly firing pin) was introduced, carrying the name MP44. This name was simply a heritage from the bogus naming of the Mkb 43. Nonetheless, mass production began using the MP44 model. Production was still low intensity and low priority. It was not until a delegation of several divisional commanders, severeal types of divisions, visited the OKW and testified in great detail to the efficiency of the new weapon that it was turned into a priority production (Besondere Dringlichkeit). The companies Steyr, Sauer and Walther were then all involved in the production and in December 1944, the weapon was rechristened StG 44 (a.k.a. Stgw 44). Production companies tended to still call it MP44, as that was the name in their contracts, but to the army it was StG 44 from 12/44 on. Initial outspoken objective was to replace MP40 with StG 44, with a visionary aim of replacing rifles and squad light machineguns as well in a distant future. But there was only a total of 425 977 weapons all models of Mkb43(G), MP43, MP44/StG44 produced during the war. So the Germans never came anywhere near objectives (there were over a million MP38/40 in service, along with large quantities of other smg's). It was the research and introduction of standards that were so costly, not the weapons themselves. A StG 44 costed about 66 RM to produce, as compared to about 65 RM for a 98k rifle, so it wasn't particularly expensive. Regards Dandelion

I'd have to call it a draw between the Tokarew M1940 SVT and the Garand M1. The Gewehr 41 doesn't reach the same standard of design, speaking both performance and craftsmanship, and indeed beauty of lines. Have a soft spot for the Arisaka 38 (M1905) as well, but perhaps its just an affinity for antiquities popping up there. Early war models of the Lee Enfield and Beretta smg's are really nice too, but they seem to drop previous ambitions of aesthetics as war progresses. Actually I have a soft spot for the really, really ugly ones as well; the Sten, M3 and Mannlicher Carcano. It is difficult to comprehend how such Goblins could ever have been conceived. I feel an urge to defend their rights as outcast minorities, shunned by normality. Cheerio Dandelion

Yes, well, the Sherry was extremely practical and all that of course but in the end, there is the issue of T-34 curves. Quite a way away from the obese-hydrocefalus inspired Sherman design I fear. I mean, the 55+ cleaning lady at work is probably also extremly practical, whereas I wager Catherine Zeta-Jones probably can't even cook soft boiled eggs. Speaking of which, I do believe the T-34 had some beautiful children as well. Cheerio Dandelion

Red, stating such a specific date it sounds as if you have a good source to share here? I have never seen any stating that the GJ or J followed any other K.St.N. than the infantry did. Nor have I ever seen a photograph of a GJ or J squad with such an array of smg's. So I am honestly curious and want to catch up on this. I understand your point, though I'd say the drop in manpower as such, rather than the quality issue, prompted the introduction of increasingly smaller organisations with increasingly higher ratios of automatic and heavy weapons. But I can't see the immediate connection to the GJ. The smg is an assault weapon. If you want to raise defence potential of a unit, you'll do better to issue more mg's instead. The MP40 was not very useful at ranges beyond 50 meters, and virtually useless beyond 150 meters. Only in close quarters, such as in the urban environment, would the MP40 be handy. Initially, the smg was issued to command personnel in infantry companies, actually as a personal defence weapon very much akin to its namesake, the pistol. The men intended to actually fight were issued rifles and mg's. As an assault weapons, the smg was issued in large quantities to typical assault units, such as Sturmpioniere (not in CMBO though) and parachute assault formations. Irregular assault formations (e.g. Divisional or Regimental assault companies) and formations mainly employed for reconaissance and patrolling (e.g. Ski Jäger battalions) would also often have large amounts of smg's. The GJ were not assault formations, nor specialised intelligence units, but just Bavarian and Austrian light infantry with a tradition of operating in mountains. They were dealt some high risk assault tasks in the beginning of the war since their light weight made them suitable for air- and naval transport. But the same light weight made them unfit for modern war in any other context than extreme environments. So I don't see the benefits of issuing more smg's to the GJ than was issued to archetype assault units such as Panzergrenadiers and paratroopers. Finally I can't really see alpine terrain as the place where one will want a short ranged weapon. The environment rather invites scoped rifles. But, all of this is academic really. I am actually assuming the BFC did have a original source when equipping the GJ like that, and so I suppose they really ran around with all those smg's. I just want the source to be able to study the reasons myself, as it certainly eludes me why they would have been thusly attired. Regards Dandelion

There are two parties to the act of using civilians as scouts: the armed force employing them and the civilians. The act of engaging civilians in a armed conflict was not illegal in 1939-45. In fact, you could take hostages, forced labour, just about anything short of murder and torture. It is not until after the war, in 1947, that the 4th Geneva Accord (covering the protection of civilians) is added. Today it would normally be a warcrime to endanger any civilian found in a zone that is in a state of armed conflict (internal or external), such as e.g. approaching them and enticing them to become part of an armed effort (e.g. by the lending of informations of military significance). Unless they are the nationals of the armed force in question, or volonteer information without prompt. As per the second protocol to 4th Geneva, added in 1977 after the Vietnam experience. But by 1944, both Axis and Allies would be in the clear. The scout is worse off. A civilian forwarding the armed effort of a belligerent nation in any way (such as the lending of informations of military significance) loses status of civilian and becomes a combattant. As an enemy combattant, he or she can lawfully be eliminated. That's why he/she is endangered by the approach as above. However, the principle of proportionality still applied. There was no automatic death sentence. Unarmed combattants (as civilians tend to be) were to be arrested and trialled (if they were armed or resisted, they'd be shot). If their aid to a hostile armed force caused significant harm, they might get the death sentence, if the nation concerned had death sentences as a domestically legal option. If the ex-civilians themselves committed armed aggression while not wearing signs of recognition (uniform - e.g. partisans), or even worse were wearing Red Cross signs or the recognition signs of the opposing armed force, most nations in WWII would find it quite proportional to shoot or hang them. The scout would probably be in some very serious trouble if caught performing tactical reconnaissance for the enemy, as it has a very direct (easily established) connection to the death or grevious injury of individual members of the prosecuting armed force. The scout would be much better off today. Guilt has been shifted to the armed force employing them. Of course, national legislation on treason and illegal intelligence still applies... All major powers in WWII were parties to the first Geneva convention, regulating the legality of various weaponry and legal use of the same (incorporating the Haag rules). The first also contains some major principles that (still) guides the application and interpretation of all other conventions. Such as proportionality. Most were parties to the second convention, regulating mainly naval issues. The third regulated PoW treatment, and here the Soviet Union and Japan were not signitary powers. The three covered only some 40 articles in all, as compared to the 600 now regulating lawful behaviour in a state of war. Regards Dandelion

It would be interesting if they shared their source material. The source prompting their interpretation of the GJ I mean. Obviously they have access to something rather unique. Meanwhile I guess one can depict Gebirgsjäger using ordinary Rifle infantry. I usually do. They'd normally use their helmets if not in alpine terrain anyway. Still. Sad. Cheerio Dandelion

How do you mean Flame? The breech mechanism actually hit the driver? (before we see a lot of jokes on this, I've never been nor looked inside an Archer...) Cheerio Dandelion

I never noticed that, thats very interesting in fact. I can see the reasoning behind it - with leaf forest. But is it the same with pine forest? Pine is evergreen! So is any other needleleaf you'd find in a pine forest. Did you check effects on pineforest? Cheerio Dandelion

Actually Major B, I have a question, that I wonder if anybody has the answer to. The Gebirgsjäger squads. AFAIK the Gebirg-Schützen-Gruppe did not differ in armament to any other infantry squad. Seven 98k and two MP38/40, with a MG34/42. Extra allotment of pistols, and later on some StG44 as well. So what's this thingy we have in CM? Anybody know why it was created like this? A typo exchanging rifle and smg count? Regards Dandelion

The Germans used a number of basic vehicle designs: The Panzer: PzKpfw IV, V and VI all models. Vehicle intended primarily for the destruction of enemy tanks and rapid exploitation duty. The Panzerjäger: Jagdpanzer, "Panzer" IV/70, Hetzer, Marder, Jagdpanther, Jagdtiger, Nashorn, (StuG). Vehicle intended antitank work in the long range ambush role. The Sturmgeschütz: StuG and StuH, vehicles intended for artillery support of infantry assaults. Self propelled artillery: Wespe, Hummel. Vehicles intended to bring mobility (including terrain) and some amount of protection to the artillery of Panzer divisions, not combat vehicles in the sense of being exposed to hostile direct fire. Armour is mainly for protection against enemy counter-battery fire. Self propelled antiaircraft guns: Wirbelwind, Ostwind, SdKfz variants. Vehicle intended to enable AA guns to keep pace with Panzer divisions in attack. Not indended as combat vehicles. Armoured reconnaissance vehicles: PSW series, also the Lynx. Intended for the armoured recon role, i.e. advance to contact along roads. Not primarily combat vehicles, but in fact often employed as such. Lightly armoured Infantry transport vehicles; The SPW 250 (recon) and 251 (Amd Inf) series. Vehicles intended to carry infantry at flank speed to escort armoured assault, or to reconnoitre. Not intended as combat vehicles exposed to direct hostile fire. Prime movers and towers: The SdKfz 7, Truck and Kübelwagen. Certainly not combat vehicles. Cheerio Dandelion [ July 02, 2003, 05:41 AM: Message edited by: Dandelion ]

I played that one too. To let off some steam. I find most scenarios to be balanced against the Germans. It gets frustrating with time. So its qite a relief to play one that is not. Battle of the Bulge certainly is not balanced against the Germans By mid-game, the Americans prudently surrendered, there being 70 burning Chaffees and 189 enemy casualties on the field, and 89 prisoners after the surrender. 5 guys got away somehow. Not sure how. They did manage to damage the gun of one Tiger. That's it though. There was this American crew that actually stopped in front of us and fired their pistols, before disappearing under the tracks. I'm not sure if this is to be called brave, but it did make an impression - not only on the ground. Looked around, lit a cigarette and said to the US PoWs: "Gentlemen, that's why they call it the KING Tiger." Then I went back to my frustrating Pbem's with a smile. :cool: Cheerio Dandelion