jacobs_ladder2

The links are broken, I think. Any chance they have maps of the Smolensk area? Google Earth here is pretty amazing as well. I just downloaded it last night and spent hours looking at the Himalayas. A truly unbelievable tool (and for free). Cheers Paul

Hello. Can't see any reason to take offense. Our views are pretty much the same, after all. On the topic of brigades, they can be thought of, generally, as units which are more easily controlled than divisions and which can be "attached" to other units for specific purposes. An infantry division, or motorized division, might have an attached AT or assault gun brigade if the specialized or extra firepower were required. The Russians, for example, organized their armour into corps (two or three divisions) in the early war, but later found they couldn't control such large formations. They later disbanded them and formed tank divisions, disbanded those, and formed tank brigades. The smaller brigade could be maneuvered more easily in order to meet the threat of German armour. The Russians also liked to do the same thing with artillery. They kept most of their guns (organized into regiments or brigades) at corps or army level and assigned them as needed. Armies also maintained battalions for specialized purposes (like the American tank destroyer battalions). The Russians had independant motorcycle regiments and everybody had engineer units of different sizes for everything from demolitions to bridging to road construction. These are units which serve specific purposes on the battlefield and do not need to be present everywhere (an infantry division on the defensive, for example, is not likely to need bridging equipment). They are usually controlled at the corps or army level and assigned where they are required. Basically. Cheers Paul

So where did Hastings and D'Este (and others) come up with an air raid on the 11th? I wonder if one of them didn't make a mistake and then become a source for the rest? Yet in this case he, Leo, continued to plan a counterattack immediately after discussing the situation with Rommel. By all accounts he disregarded the conversation and went right ahead with his plans. Why would he do that if his orders would only be negated? It doesn't make sense. He must have believed that he could make the counterattack happen. What does this mean? Not bad at all. I thought the same. Quick and effective. In fact, the massive Allied response is in proportion to the radio traffic that must have been going through the area. Now I see why they sent in that many aircraft. Not sure about the fate argument, but I can see how Ultra's role in the whole thing could have been missed. Cheers Paul

Actually this was not what D'Este said, but rather my poor choice of words. He does claim that the attack on Geyr von Schweppenburg's HQ effectively ended any chance of a counterattack, because the commander of Panzer Group West was the only person who still believed it possible. Dietrich, he goes on to say, did not support the attack either and so it was forgotten. In other words, Dietrich did not continue whatever plans Geyr von Schweppenburg had concocted before the air raid. The strange thing is that both Hastings and D'Este seem to be under the impression that Dietrich could have done so if he had desired. Similarily, they both agree that, after meeting with Rommel, Geyr von Schweppenburg continued planning an attack regardless. Odd. Here is the key point I was after. What is your source for this imformation? According to this information the attack took place the evening of the 10th. Air raid. Your information seems to lead to this conclusion, but I am wondering why at least two major accounts of the Normandy fighting agree that Geyr von Schweppenburg had decided to counterattack despite Rommel's words to the contrary. It seems clear that he, Geyr, felt he had the authority to do so. Am I wrong in thinking that his successor, Dietrich, would also have had the same freedom? Well, freedom officially or unofficially. Or is there something wrong with the entire story? Thanks. Damn Anglo-Saxons. Who could love them? Cheers Paul p.s. Did people originally believe the air raid to be just luck? I mean, 4 squadrons of fighter-bombers and 71 medium bombers converge on La Caine, and they call it a lucky coincidence?

Exactly my criticism of the system (well, apart from it being hex-based and IGO/UGO which, generally, sucks). Divisions are broken down into three or four parts. Usually you get two or three regiments and a recon unit and that's about it. Divisional artillery is supposedly factored into the regimental firepower, and all other divisional assets are absent. Turns are 24 hours in length, which doesn't work at all. Two 24 hour turns in IGO/UGO add up to 48 hours of movement in a single day. Unless you give only 12 hours to each player which of course would beg the question: Which 12 hours do I get? Night is not taken into account in any way (which is almost comical considering how important a role interdiction played in Normandy). Generally, the series offers no balance between authenticity and playability. It heavily favours the latter over the former to an absurd degree. Cheers Paul

Amazon keeps offering me Colossus Reborn and Slaughterhouse for $50 Canadian, a decent deal, but I am unsure about Slaughterhouse. Anyone else have it? Is it a good source? Any reviews and/or opinions?

Just checking on some sources and I have come up with some varying accounts of the wounding of General Geyr von Schweppenburg during the second week in June. All sources agree that his HQ was located by Ultra intercepts and destroyed by an airstrike the next day. The strike followed a meeting with Rommel on the 10th of June in which Rommel stated that a counterattack would be impossible at that time for various reasons. Von Schweppenburg stubbornly ignored him and decided to pursue the attack anyways. According to Carlo D'Este and Max Hastings, von Schweppenburg's HQ was hit the next day, the 11th, by fighter-bombers and destroyed. The General himself escaped with serious wounds, but most of his staff was killed. Dietrich took over and quickly decided against a counterattack, correctly deducing that the British were about to attack. Anybody have any sources that disagree with this version of the events? Any further details would be much appreciated. Cheers Paul

Not that far out at all. In fact, the way this thread is going I would hesitate to offer any kind of opinion. I only hope to get some answers and duck out before I get hit by flying debris. Cheers Paul

Did anyone have a look at that flash representation of the entire war? It is unbelievable. I have been looking at it today and it is stunning. Even without having a decent grasp of Russian it is definitely worth the time. The website is also making an effort to record the names and locations of two million some veterans. They have just over a million so far. Impressive. Cheers Paul p.s. I am officially renewing my efforts to learn Russian.

Oddly enough, there are very few good operational games. The Operational Art of War is pretty interesting for a lot of good reasons, but was designed to be too flexible. That may sound strange but it is true. The engine was made to handle any battle in the 20th century, but was never particularily good at any one era. Matrix Games has come up with some very serious efforts, but have a lot of problems getting these games onto the market. They have three or four that look to be amazing, but have been "in development" for a loooong time. In fact, I wonder why there is such a gaping hole in the market. It seems to me that there is a large community out there that would love to see a new operational level game with the kind of research and depth that we love about CM. Cheers Paul

Not necessarily, but anyway …</font>

This site has a flash presentation of the entire war in the east from beginning to end. It is quite the piece of work. Unfortunately it is in Russian, which is a bit of a drag, but it is worth a glance. Is it just me or are there a lot of excellent Russian language websites these days? Cheers Paul

"Battles in Normandy" is a fun divisional level game. It might be just what your lookin' for. </font>

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but the point concerning accuracy fits in with something I have been working on. So, as the distance travelled increases the shell inevitably follows a flat trajectory. Just a few questions about this. In longer range firing, are HE shells less effective against defensive works? Do you want a high-trajectory when hitting prepared defenses? If so, when firing at near minimum range, how much choice do gunners have over trajectory? Would you be able to choose a high or low trajectory depending on the type of target? Cheers Paul

Accuracy is relative. Low velocity adds some advantages - particularly in terms of adjusting and terminal ballistics. </font>

Was there a reason the Russians wanted Karelia in the first place? Cheers Paul

Well, one thing is certain. Your pubs are infinitely more interesting than our own. Cheers Paul

Well, you can always take heart in the fact that they are selling themselves out at the same time that they are buying us up. Globalization gets everyone in the same way. The Americans are no more immune to it than we are. Cheers Paul

You go out and drink with Finns. They make this homebrew stuff that tastes like licorice-flavored gasoline, and it defies the laws of physics by being at least 400 proof. Drinking with Finns=certain death, or worse, living to experience the hangover. </font>

That, my friend, is an invitation to get really off-topic. Paul

Numbers. If they weren't the basis of reality I would deny their existence like I do bad music. Cheers Paul

But I think the density of snow can vary quite a bit depending on atmospheric conditions (i.e. humidity, temperature, etc.). Snow can be quite hard, usually nearer the surface, up to as hard as ice. On the other hand, if the air is dry and cold, snow can be fluffy (you can blow it off your hand). Cheers Paul

LOL...true enough, but remember, how often is it that a Canadian gets to offer cultural expertise on anything relative to the world at large? Eastern Coastal Regions, or simply the East Coast, Canada's Ocean Playground for the tourists, is a pretty snowy place. Nice in the summer though. I just wanted to say that 90cm, although it may not seem like a lot, is a crapload of snow. That kind of depth pretty much shuts things down until the roads can be cleared over a period of days to a week or more. Lightly-armed troops in skis might be able to move around, but any heavier equipment would be a real drag. 90cm as an average would produce some pretty deep drifts, btw. 300cm is incomprehensible to me. That kind of snow would bury entire towns. Me too, but I'll offer something. Two years ago we had a big snowstorm. My nephews spent the day throwing themselves off our roof (about 12 feet) into drifts a little higher than themselves (say four or five feet). For them it was a blast, but what I now know from experience is that adults require much more snow to break their fall. Even from a modest height, that much snow is still not enough to stop you from getting to the ground. My brother, who is shorter than me, buried himself up to his neck and needed to be helped out. I went straight through. And, as a side note, the snow would need to be pretty powdery for your impact to create an explosion of any kind. Most often, that kind of powder comes from a machine. Snow, at least the kind we get here, is not powdery at all. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing any depth of snow that I would describe as powdery. Cheers Paul

I just finished reading Max Hasting's Overlord and remember at least two or three references to Sherms throwing their tracks while attempting a breakthrough. In fact, that is by far the most common source of immobilization, outside of enemy fire, I remember reading from any source. Except for stories from 1941 on the Eastern Front where inexperienced and panicked tank commanders would lead entire regiments into soft terrain and lose 70 percent of their vehicles. Seems to me that tanks were only likely to break down if arriving on the battlefield in need of category 3 or 4 maintenance. I'm sure the odd AFV simply imploded (especially the newer models), but in general, I don't think vehicles would break down so spontaneously. Normally, wear and tear over the course of a long journey or days of combat would be necessary. Having said that, breakdowns (the number of vehicles not "combat ready" at any one time) according to Guderian was always around 25%. In 1941, It seems to have been a constant struggle to keep higher than 60% in good enough shape. Not sure about France, but at least during Barbarossa the number of tanks lost to mechanical failures was higher than those lost to combat. Of course, it needs to be remembered that AFVs were required to travel interminable distances on their tracks and that the infrastructure of Eastern Europe did not compare to that in the west. Anyways, I imagine that, generally speaking, breakdowns were caused by stress and insufficient maintenance over a period of time. Tracks were very vulnerable to failure, and motors sometimes simply burst into flame, but overall, an AFV would usually only die if too much were asked of it. Cheers Paul

Exactly. Cheers Paul