SSG D

I think group commands are a huge deal. I hope you are able to get them in the game. SSG D

You bring up a very good idea. I am not a scenario designer, but I have played around with your idea. The basic small unit attack tactic was the holding attack. It was taught and used at all levels from squad to regiment. If you get something put together, I would love to try it out. SSG D

I just downloaded Carentan operation remake for CMAK. I notice the paratroop units have the 1944 TO&Es that are not available in my standard scenario design features. How do they do that? SSG D

I think the briefings should include the old five paragraph field order format. Those told the unit leader everything he needed to know. Situation Mission Execution Admin and Logistic Command and Signal SSG D

I vote for contour lines with the overhead views. The game badly needs a topo to simulate one of the most important tools that every real combat leader carries SSG D

Javaslinger, Good idea, I wish someone, who is a better senario designer than am I, would do a Ft. Benning Infantry School series. IOBC (Infantry Officers Basic Course) They could take the Holding Attack (the fundamental US WWII tactic)from squad through company with their respective organinc and attached assets. I think it would be very helpful to the new players SSG D

It is amazing what one can learn from the folks on this forum. Thanks for the info. It sounds like CMAK got the parachute TO&E right for that early part of the war. I am still surprised that the army would not include a bazooka somewhere in a parachute battalion or company. You would think one might have come in handy somewhere in the Med. SSG D

I am surprised that there are 1xPlt HQ, only 2xRifle squads, 1x60mm mortar, 4xMGs and no Bazooka. I think the CMBO TO&E for the parachute platoons was 1xPLT HQ, 3x rifle squads, 1x60mm mortar, 1x bazooka, and 1x MG. In all my reading of the period, I have never heard of this CMAK TO&E. But maybe the Army changed the TO&E in the spring of 1944 SSG D

Do you suppose the 2xRifle squads is also a mistake?

Madmatt, I don't see any bazookas in the new Airborne T0&E with CMAK v 1.01. Am I doing something wrong? SSG D

Dear Combat Mission Folks, You have developed an excellent game. I have been practicing fire and maneuver holding attacks on CM. I love it and I don't want to sound picky, However I have one suggestion. I was not in WWII, so I don't have any personal experience with this time period. However I spent a lot of time doing infantry problems during the 60s, both live fire and blanks. During my time in Vietnam I was an FO or a Mortar guy so I can't claim any real experience doing a real on line assault. All that said, I am surprised how fast the CM infantry units tire while assaulting. An online assault should be a walking/shooting exercise with lots of adrenallin. Let me tell you when the guys to your right and left are firing live bullets you do not fall behind and you damn sure don't run ahead. It seems to me that in reasonable terrain two platoons which begin the online assault in rested condition should be able to sweep through an enemy platoon position from the flank without getting that tired. Perhaps you may wish to look at this issue before you do your patch. SSG D

AC, My time at Ft. Benning was with the Mortar School, so take this for what it might be worth. The whole point of Gen Marshall's triangular army (three maneuver elements plus a fire support element)was to facilitate the holding attack. As I remember, that attack structure consisted of a base of fire composed of the fire support element and one of the maneuver elements, and assault element composed of one or both of the other maneuver elements, and if possible a reserve element composed of the last maneuver element. Since we won the war, the system must have worked pretty well. If in CMAK we need to shift one maneuver element from assault/reserve to fire support, do you think CMAK correctly models WWII infantry realities? SSG D

Pardon me, but I keep stumbling on this phrase. Do you mean you had: • Three one-tube squads; • Three two-tube squads; or • Three-tube squads (number of squads not specified)? Michael </font>

Pardon me, but I keep stumbling on this phrase. Do you mean you had: • Three one-tube squads; • Three two-tube squads; or • Three-tube squads (number of squads not specified)? Michael </font>

redwolf, The basic 5 day log without mortar ammo was around 85 pounds. So add 3-4 rounds per man for the guys not carrying part of the mortar plus a round or two for anybody who could carry extra weight. We were always shorthanded. I doubt we had more than 25 rounds with us. The plan was that if we needed ammo the chinooks would bring us a pallet. Hence, it was best to leave the 81s on the firebase, and send the FOs with the rifle platoons. Which is what we did most of the time. SSG D

Dear BTM, I spent 10 months as an 81mm section leader in Vietnam with the 101st. Your description of your Grandfathers recounting of WWII 81 tactical practices amazes me. You should be very proud of him. His unit must have been in very good shape and been very well trained. My experiences with 81s is consistant with the manner Combat Mission handles them. I had three tube squads, an FDC and three FO teams. We were a battalion asset and usually co-located with the Bn HQ. 81s can move with the rifle companies but they are heavy and the ammo is heavy. It is pretty tough for a 7 man mortar squad to carry (let alone run 200 meters with) the mortar, their own gear and enough ammo to make a very big splash. If the Army wanted really mobile mortars they should have stuck with the 60s I suspect that Combat Mission is historically accurate in the manner it treats 81mm mortars. I think your grandfather's experience was an impressive historical anomoly. SSG D

One imporvement that should be added to the new CM2 engine is a new orders feature to permit HQ units to set formations. ie For Infantry platoons use Wedge, Vee, Echelon Left-right, line etc.

Combined Arms, I have read a several biographies of the US WWII generals. IMHO Marshall was the real genius behind the deal. He built the Army and put together the team. Each member brought their own strengths and weakness. But together they were great. Without question Bradley did a much better job of running 12th Army Group than Monty did with his 21st. Monty was probably a good example of the Peter Principle at work. I don't know if Marshall and Ike would have put Patton under Bradley in France even without the slapping incidents. But they did, and Patton was perfect for the right flank of the Allied NW Europe operation. I think Bradley had a lot of "best moments" during his command of 12th AG. But his "worst moments as a leader" were when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the early phases of the Korean War. Marshall was SEC/DEF then and they both (against their better judgement) let MacArther get in way over his head during the drive to the Yalu. SSG D

Are we going to see a CMAK demo?