Mad Russian
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mad Russian
-
-
There are plenty of stories, about tankers from all nations behind enemy lines driving past enemy columns without anyone the wiser.Originally posted by mrpwase:Lack of armour friendly fire...I dunno, could it be distinctive shapes? I'd imagine a T-34 would look at least marginally different to a PIV.
Distictive shapes isn't the answer.
-
Thanks. That scenario got quite a bit of playtesting done. I was surprised at how far off I was when I first sent it to TPG. I had to continue to make changes as each playtest came in.Originally posted by Wicky:Nice tight scenario - Got a nailbiting German surrender right at the end at standard.
Was it a really a main road they had to pass up?
The results of playtesting are evident in the final result of the playbalance of this one though.
I give reference to the sources I used for the scenario.
I then went to mapquest and put the map together. It was more than likely a dirt road back in 1944, but I couldn't tell for sure. I would have probably been closer to correct if I had used a dirt road, but the crossroad was definately a secondary road and I wanted to show the difference on the map.
-
Nope I have never seen a map with street names on it and if I did I would expect them to be in Russian. I don't read Russian either.
Where is the one on Pavlov's House? I missed that one. I have pictures of the house itself but I have no idea where it is in the city.
-
That site seems to only be an advertisement for rapidshare. I didn't find any place to actually download the zip file.Originally posted by Preserved Killick:What is the best book source for good city maps of WWII era Stalingrad? I have some maps that I found online but what I would like are maps with details like street names, names of railways and a lot of other detail, not just the major battle sites.
I'll share what I found so far:
The books I have are Beevor, Stalingrad; Hoyt, 199 Days; and Rotundo, ed. Battle for Stalingrad--1943 Soviet General Staff Study. All are excellent (especially the latter) but none have very good maps.
There are several sites on the internet. Here are a few. Hope this helps.
http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/maps/maps1942SW.htm#Stalingrad42
http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_maps.htm
http://battle.volgadmin.ru/osn_eng.asp?np=21
-
Really? What evidence do you have that supports that?Originally posted by JonS:Those interviews never actually took place.
I have no idea one way or the other. I'm just a spectator in this discussion so far. I haven't read the book and have no opinion one way or the other at the moment.
-
This would be their baptism of fire in France 1944. It would be a combat theater like no other they had ever fought in.Originally posted by John Kettler:Panther Commander,
"We're the bloody Desert Rats and' we done our bit.
An' done it. An' done it! So why in bleedin' 'ell
must we lead attack after attack? Time and then some for the other lads, the one's who 'aven't seen action yet, to step up and do theirs!"
That may seem shocking, but that seems to have been the view of the 7th Armoured troops, based on several things I've read. They arrived in theater
tired and burned out, yet were forced to lead attack after attack, despite years of almost continuous battle.
SOFAIK, a unit receives its baptism of fire the first time it enters combat. Since the 7th AD was long past that point, you may wish to substitute
another term. I'd suggest "European baptism of fire," but the 7th AD had already had that experience, too.
Your scenario sounds interesting, but I still owe rune the playing and completion of his North Africa one, but will consider yours for later.
Regards,
John Kettler
Jerusalem, France was the first time they entered combat in France 1944. Hence the name.
I've read about the situation with the 7th Armored before. If I understand it correctly, and I may not, they were not the only British unit that felt that way.
Hitler's attempt to drive a wedge between the Anglo partnership wasn't without merit. There were at times some dissention between the Big Three. All of the Big Three.
What Hitler didn't realize was that the partnership was stronger than the issues that they had with each other.
I don't think you can take anything away from the Desert Rats just because they were tired of fighting. They had been at it a long time.
-
What interviews?Originally posted by John D Salt:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:
I have read an awful lot of comments about SLA Marshal. I'm not sure how I view his interviews.
All the best,
John. </font>
-
I have not read "Men Against Fire" but have seen others debate it. I have read some of his other works and find them to be well researched as a whole.Originally posted by flamingknives:Michael:
Pans Narrans - the story-telling ape, perhaps.
Panther Commander:
Have you actually read the book "Men Against Fire"? ISTM that the exact proportion of firing riflemen (I don't think his claim included crew-served weapons.) is only a small part of his claims. The command and communication aspects are far more important.
MAF is on my list of books to get though. Soon I hope to have a copy.
-
I have read an awful lot of comments about SLA Marshal. I'm not sure how I view his interviews.
About the only thing controversial that I see is that % of men involved in combat. Before I go off the deep end, claiming him to be an educated idiot, I would want to see those same type of interviews done with other armies in the war.
What is very interesting to me, here, on these forums is the points of view we all take. Few, if any of us lived through WWII as combat infantry men or tankers. Having aaid that, we get our opinions from those that were, or claimed to have been, or wrote about those that were.
That starts to divide us out into groups that believe certain aspects of the war and those that don't.
The one and only example of that I will use is the tank/crewmen casualty figures and the kill ratio for German/Allied tanks.
Both sides are firmly entrenched with they believe. Both sides bring their expert witnesses to the defense of their viewpoint. All the production figures that are touted to "prove" that those figures couldn't possibly be right. All the rebutals about how tanks are often repaired and then put back into combat. All of it. The entire debate is based on other peoples opinions and written histories.
This debate is cleaner than most because the official records for production and own side causualties are at least solid. (Other debates don't even have that as a foundation.)
These debates often boil down to my research material is better than yours or my death trap tank mechanic had a better idea of what was going on than your ordinance report.
What is seems to be missing to me in most of these debates is common sense. Yes, you have the figures, and the figures don't lie, but liars can figure...
In the case of tank kills for instance. According the research material I have the Soviet Union produced 109,278 AFV's. If any German source comes close to declaring that even half of those was knocked out in combat 20 people will vehemently deny that here within moments.
But what is knocked out to one country may not be knocked out to another country. We are relying on the works of men, in many cases long since dead. And I know this will come as a shock to most people, but they didn't coordinate their efforts at recording the war, for our sake of discussion, all these years later.
Every nation had different classes of the state of repair for instance. Take a tank with at bad drive train. Did it break down on the road 50 miles from the front? In battle without ever having taken a hit? In battle after having taken a hit? After the battle without having taken a hit? After the battle after having taken a hit?
What were those guys thinking, that they didn't record every single round that the enemy and THEMSELVES fired, and what the results of that shot were.
We need to step back at times and look where some of these discussions go. I laugh at alot of them.
There are a few indisputable facts. Not many but a few.
* The Germans lost the war. They were not supermen.
* The Allies won the war. They were not the worst soldiers the world has ever seen.
* It took parts of 7 years for the war to be concluded. In that time some people became very good at what they did. Even then they could get killed. Look up Whitmann on the internet. You'll see.
Twenty people witnessing a car wreck will all write the police report about what would appear to be a different car wreck. Everybody's preception is different. Look at the American penchant for Tiger tanks. Or the German penchant for Spitfires. To the Americans, every German AFV, sometimes they weren't even tanks, were all TIGERS!! The Germans during the Battle of Britian were always shot down by Spitfires, never a lowly Hurricane!!
You have to view what has been written with a grain of salt. The victors write the official histories. They are going to make themselves look as good as they can.
The Germans write that, we were vastly outnumbered and only the production rates beat us. We were the best. We were supermen but for that.
The Allies write that, only our better tactical skill beat the Germans. Their equipment was much better than ours. The Germans were supermen but we beat them anyway!
Few times have I ever seen where the Germans give Soviet Generals credit for being better than they were. SOMETIMES, in the art of deception, but rarely for anything else. Few times have I seen the Soviets give credit to German generals for being better than they were.
Chuikov is an exception, but then he himself was an exceptional leader. That, of course, is my own viewpoint.
The discussions will continue to rage back and forth about who is right.
Was SLA Marshal right? Did only 25% of American infantrymen ever fire their rifles in combat on average? Could be. Was that the world's normal participation rate? Could be.
The evolution of tactics points that it might be. The MG was, for the Germans, and has become for most of the world now, the center of the tactical unit. Not the individual rifleman.
But that is only my opinion and within moments I expect to see opinions here that don't agree with mine.
But hey, this is where we come to discuss.
[ March 12, 2006, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]
-
Is this the force that took the Big Mushroom position just to the west of Rynok?Originally posted by Dandelion:1. and 2.
The assault on Stalingrad began at 0415 hours on the morning of the 23rd. The starting line was 60 km from city limits, depending of course on how you prefer to define Stalingrad city limits. By the fall of darkness, Pz.Gren.Rgt 79 had reached point 722 - it had already taken Gumrak by then. At 1835 hours the same regiment reached the Volga. So did an assault detachment of PzGren.Rgt.64, and indeed the armoured element of Pz-Pi-Btl.16. The later managed to reach the railway station with the 27 abandoned waggons before midnight.
So, pick your choice, where you would have city limits.
In the official announcement, the unit mentioned as first into Stalingrad is "Kampfgruppe Pz.Gen.Rgt.79".
(All units mentioned were part of PD16)
3. All this from
"Stalingrad, bis zur letzten patrone"
Osnabrück 1954
written by Heinz Schröter, chief of the Kriegsberichterstaffel AOK6, in cooperation with General a.D. Fr. Joachim Fangohr (cheif of staff 4 PzAOK), General der Flieger a.D. Koller (Chief of staff Luftwaffe), General a.D. Schulz (chief of staff Heeresgruppe Don), Oberst a.D. Selle (Pifü of AOK6), Oberstl.i.G.a.D. Toepke (Qu.I AOK6).
Cheerio
Dandelion
Also, do you have any idea which German unit was the first one into Stalingrad from the south?
Judging from the maps I have I would think it would have to be from 14th Panzer, 24th Panzer, 19th Motorized or 94th Infantry. I have a photo (in a book) taken near the Grain Elevator that shows a PzIII sitting in the foreground. The photo has a caption that reads, "first penetration."
As you pointed out, this is all dependant on what one considers Stalingrad.
Apparently, the German High Command considered Rynok as being Stalingrad, since that is the point and time that they record having entered the city. If so I'm thinking that the overrunning of the 37 Soviet antiaircraft gun positions must have taken place at the position known as the Big Mushroom. Any details that you have about that would be appreciated. I know the Soviet unit was manned by women factory workers and that they had no training in using the guns against ground targets.
I think I even have the Soviet AA unit number somewhere.
Just curious if you have anything more concrete about if they were actually positioned in the Big Mushroom position.
Thanks ahead of time.
-
The British 7th Armored Division has landed in France. It's June 1944 and they are getting their baptism of fire.
This is not North Afrika or Italy. This is the hedgerows of France and everything you thought you knew about fighting Germans is wrong!
Your orders are to capture Buceels and then Tilly-Sur-Seulles. Between you and Buceels is the small hamlet of Jerusalem. It is held by the German Panzer Lehr Division.
They should be easy enough to knock out of the way. After all the 7th Armored Division is equipped with Cromwells. Britians latest and best tank design.
After all we are the famous Desert Rats!! :cool:
This is a vs the AI scenario.
You can find it at The Scenario Depot II.
http://www.the-scenario-depot.com/index.html
The scenario is named HSG N Baptism At Jerusalem.
I think you will it challenging. What could possibly go wrong?!
-
Excuse me. I was discussing WWII and didn't get that in my post. I agree that the signature of a big gun is bigger than a small gun and that in today's world where the rounds are so much larger that a penetration has a much greater chance of achieving a catastrophic hit.Originally posted by John Kettler:Panther Commander,
While visuals in action films are almost invariably over the top (see the "thermonuclear" "knee" mortar detonations in "Wind Talkers" as an excellent case in point), the available main gun firing footage of M1A1/2s, Challenger 2s, Leopard II A4s, LeClercs, etc. indicates large, hard to miss visual and thermal firing signatures. The much smaller thermal bloom from the old 105mm M68 used to be enough to cause the Maverick IIR seeker to break lock, so 120mm fire must be enormous by comparison, given the vastly higher velocities, larger bores and enormous propellant quantities involved.
I think the kill assessment problem is very forked, depending on what's being hit. A modern
MBT fitted with automatic fire suppression systems, protected ammo stowage, blowout panels and the like might be hard to assess, but we know
from both Gulf Wars that ex Com Bloc MBTs hit by DU tend to blow up and burn spectacularly when hit, with turrets blown clean off by ammo detonation being fairly common. Even if the turret stays on, the fire is impossible to miss.
Regards,
John Kettler
My comment was aimed more towards look at the action adventure films and see how much flame there is comment. Hollywood does EVERYTHING for effect.
I have stood right next to M-60A1's firing at night and CEV's with their 165mm guns as well. They make plenty of light with which to read your evening paper by...
As you alluded to, those were the old 105's and I would imagine that the new 120's make an even brighter signature.
-
Few things are accurate in action movies. Tanks for instance, rarely blowup on battlefields, and are in fact at times hard to identify as being knocked out. They always blowup in the movies. I mean, you have to see the effects of the hero, don't you?!Originally posted by Krautman:John Kettler, you mentioned flash- and smokeless propellant being used in WWII. What about today's forces? The muzzle flash of a modern assault rifle or a tank cannon seems pretty bright (at least in those action movies); do modern armies use these kinds of propellants? Would the flash be even brighter if they didn't
Greetings
Krautman
-
Yes,but IIRC, the Opfor is the best of the best when it comes to Soviet doctrine. Being better than most Opfor units themselves.Originally posted by Andreas:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Panther Commander:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dook:
At the NTC, engagements between M1-equipped US units and the T-72-equipped OPFOR almost always result in a victory for the OPFOR.
Kind of like taking Panzer Lehr Division made up of instructors against a new American armored division never before in combat. Results would be as you said, "almost always result in a victory for the Lehr (OPFOR)." </font>
-
The TRP's are only good if the unit(tank, ATG, HMG,assault gun, tank destroyer, ATR, etc.) using them has not moved. To my knowledge rotating doesn't affect the value of the TRP.KrautmanMember
Member # 15973
posted March 08, 2006 10:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panther Commander: can you benefit from TRPs when the vehicle has already moved? What about when it just rotated?
Greetings
Krautman
[ March 09, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Panther Commander ]
-
Yes,but IIRC, the Opfor is the best of the best when it comes to Soviet doctrine. Being better than most Opfor units themselves.Originally posted by Dook:At the NTC, engagements between M1-equipped US units and the T-72-equipped OPFOR almost always result in a victory for the OPFOR.
Kind of like taking Panzer Lehr Division made up of instructors against a new American armored division never before in combat. Results would be as you said, "almost always result in a victory for the Lehr (OPFOR)."
-
You can win with Nashorns. The key is TRP's.
For those of you inclined to do so, try HSG KC Lt. Ernst. It can be found on The Scenario Depot II.
You have to attack with Nashorns(read that a platoon of Nashorns!!!) at close range!
Do so correctly and you win the Knight's Cross! Mess this up and you go home in a pine box...
Pine boxes are easier to come by than KC's...think about it...
-
What people often forget, as they read the after action reports, where a soldier wins a high decoration like the Knight's Cross, is that such actions are not typical.Originally posted by JasonC:JK - propaganda loves outliers. There is no way the average Marder accounted for more than one kill over its operational life. The Nashorns probably did better, and might have reached 2. The same goes for PAK incidentally. Yes in successful ambushes they would sometimes run the local table and live. But the operative word is "sometimes", which can be amended to "rarely". There aren't enough dead Russian tanks to justify all the "every weapon killed scads and lived" fish stories...
They are just the ones that are written about the most and impress the reader the most.
Killing 10 tanks in an engagement, and winning the Knight's Cross, or Hero of the Soviet Union, has won that commander the award BECAUSE such actions were very unusual and often death defying.
Meaning that, most of the time, if you even tried what they won the award for you got killed for your actions.
-
The hide command makes them quiet. Like telling a squad to hide. Like a squad you want to give them a covered arc if you tell them hide.Originally posted by tankibanki:ot: What does the hide command do? I've been wondering about that all along.
-
While doing research on Tiger I's for a Battle of the Bulge scenario, I ran across this information from Danny S. Parker's book, "Battle of the Bulge: Hitler's Ardennes Offensive
1944-1945". This appears to show, that for at least a time, the 301st Funklenk Heavy Panzer Battalion was assigned to the 9th Panzer Division.
I found the comments, by the battalion commander, interesting regarding the employment of the
B-IV's.
301 FKL s. Panzer Battalion
The 301st Funklenk Heavy Panzer Battalion was originally assigned to the Sixth Panzer Armee for the Ardennes Offensive along with the 319th Panzer Kompanie. This was the radio or Funklenk (FKL) Tiger unit that had hit the U.S. 29th Infantry Division on the Roer plain on November 26th. It was the only German panzer unit with Tiger I’s in the Ardennes fighting. The attached 319th Panzer Kompanie consisted of remote control
B-IV demolition tanks (3.5 ton low-profile tracked bombs powered by a 49 hp motor) and a few Sturmgeschutz. The theory was that the Tigers would control and provide protection for the demolition tnaks so that they might advance to the obstacle and blast a hole through the enemy line with their 450 kilogram charges. The robot tanks could be ussed to establish a path through enemy minefields. The Tigers would then exploit the breach in the line: a nice idea that usually didn’t work. Generally, the Tigers were employed as regular panzer units.
The 301st theoretically contained 31 Tiger I/E command tanks and 59 B-IV’s in the 319th Panzer Kompanie. As of 16 December, the battalion reported it’s strength at 27 Tiger I tanks, of which only 14 were combat ready, with the rest in repair. The assault panzer company had 36 B-IV’s with five Sturmgeschutz in long term repair. The battalion was still with the LXXXI Armeekorps to the north on O-Tag. Hptm. Kramer’s Tigers were subsequently detached from the Korps on December 20th and attached to the 9th Panzer Division, which it accompanied into the Bulge fighting. The Tigers appear on OB West maps at the end of the year, defending the tip of the salient with 20 operational Tiger Is. In the withdrawal from the Ardennes, one of the tanks was destroyed near Oberwampach where it was photographed by members of the U.S. 90th Infantry Division.
The overall usefulness of the panzer Funklenk concept was questioned in the after-action report submitted by Hptm. Kramer in early 1945 to the General Inspector of Panzer Troops:
“During the entire employment of the battalion since November16th, due to both tactical and technical reasons, it was not possible to utilize this unit as a panzer funklenk battalion. The battalion was employed exactly as a normal panzer battalion as part of a panzer division to attack enemy tanks or employed in tank pack of 5 Tigers for mobile defense and counter attacks. The operations in which the BIV’s were employed in all cases, resulted in complete failure or at best a partial success. Due to the small number of ‘Lenk-panzer’ (Tigers with control sets) only a few BIV’s could be employed. These were, for the most part, destroyed by heavy enemy fire before reaching their objective. The employment of the expensive equipment is by no means justified by the end result.”
Hope this helps some Kingfish.
-
It is hard to find the number of times vehicles were hit and repaired. There are some indications though in the personal histories of tank crews/commanders. I would think that there could easily have been an overall average of a tank being hit and repaired at least once. AN OVERALL AVERAGE. That would mean that a hit vehicle would be counted twice on average, and more important for this discussion, two crews would have been affected.Originally posted by JasonC:Some tanks are repaired and used twice, others break down mechanically without every being KOed in battle. One entry accounting always tries to pretend the first happens but the second doesn't for one side, and the opposite for the other side. Why? Trying to force apart exchange ratios to defend nationalist horsefeathers, mostly. There is no rational reason for it. So every T-34 is supposed to be KOed four times, while only half of German tanks were ever KOed at all. It is just rot.
Jasons reference to less than half a crew being casualties on a disabling hit is pretty well documented by the Americans and as he says, there is no reason to believe that other nations vehicle crews suffered worse results than American Sherman crews.
Some tanks are repaired and used twice, others break down mechanically without every being KOed in battle. One entry accounting always tries to pretend the first happens but the second doesn't for one side, and the opposite for the other side. Why? Trying to force apart exchange ratios to defend nationalist horsefeathers, mostly. There is no rational reason for it. So every T-34 is supposed to be KOed four times, while only half of German tanks were ever KOed at all. It is just rot.
It may be rot, but far more vehicles were disabled do to mechanical breakdown than you give them credit for. It has your contention in past posts that tanks rarely broke down in a combat zone and the greater number losses were by combat means.
That is rot to me. A tank may only be KO'd once in it's lifetime, but may breakdown multiple times. Maintenance records don't support your position. Not all of those broke down in the rear areas.
What is rot is that only Allied, or Axis tanks broke down that often. Tanks are tanks, are tanks, in that respect. Some were better than others but WWII track life alone had tanks unavailable for commitment. Death Traps, I believe, gives an example of their being a spark plug shortage and large numbers of American tanks were unserviceable until replacements arrived.
-
102,000 tanks produced, with 30,000 remaining at the end of the war, does not correspond to 75% crew casualties. Many of those tanks were hit and repaired numerous times, and that is what produces an overall casualty rate of 75%.Originally posted by 76mm:JasonC, thanks for the response. Even a 75% casualty rate (including killed and wounded) is much higher than I would have expected, but it does track with the vehicle stats that you cite. Just curious--any idea how these figures correspond to casualty figures for other fronts/armies?
Tanks recovered and repaired are also what causes German tank kill numbers to be much higher than actual manufactured numbers. A fact that escapes many people on these forums.
-
Which was the first German combat unit into Stalingrad?
What day was that?
Where did you find that information?
Thanks ahead of time.
-
There are 3 CMBB scenarios on every page of this book!!Originally posted by George Mc:Hi Sivodsi
Check out:
Last Victory in Russia: the SS Panzerkorps and Manstein's Kharkov Counteroffensive by George M. Nipe Jr
This book is very readable and gives an accurate account of the Kharkov fighting in the winter of 1943 - lot's of CMBB stuff for scenarios in it - or check out the Peiper's Blowtorch scenarios which are based on incidents detailed in the book (with supporting stuff from others).
94 clams - pounds or dollars - yippee looks like I have a collection now worth something
Cheers fur noo
George
It's a must for those interested in reading "in the turret" accounts. It's only worth about 65 clams though...
BFC and troops! Affordable grog resource found!!!
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
These sites keep me on the verge of bankruptcy at all times...
But money is made to be spent so spend we shall...