FM Paul Heinrik

Change the intro music? Cool how do you do that?

What I'm finding is that the pillboxes are moot. It is the support stuff that hinders the advance not the pillbox itself. Therefore, if you forgo the pillbox and just have the other support stuff your defense is none the weaker. I don't know, it is just that pillboxes don't seem to play out like I wanted them to. I think the high rate of firing slit penetration thing is ruining them.

You obviously don't know the politcal climate in the USA regarding the Iraqi war. You obviously, don't know about the US peace movements during the Vietnam War that help cause the US withdrawal. You obviously don't know that the US army doesn't execute civilians or prisoners of war. You obviously don't know that every US general has a big government body that calculates the political impact of every single order he gives, which in turn actually hinders the action of our military and endangers the lives of our troops, all to minimize enemy caulties. It is obvious that you fall in line with the folks that think it was all Hitler's fault and the German people were forced or tricked to his will. We in the US know the truth. I think most Germans know the truth.

I've read quite some third-party-view literature on Rommel (though nothing written by himself), and especially in the North Africa theater, he was a commander well-respected by his opponents because he had honor, and treated e.g. POW's no worse than he had to. I find this a strange notion. You don't have to have some evil inside to be a good soldier, or officer, IMNSHO. When I served my term in the German army, we exercised with dud munitions. We were told that, for safety reasons, we shouldn't aim directly at the other person, but a bit off to the side. (Since the gadget screwed on top of the barrel to increase the dud's recoil so the action would work could come off if you had really bad luck.) When the **** hit the fan, I could never remember that. I went "target, aim, fire, change position, target, aim, fire, reload, ..." and fought until cease fire was called or ammo ran out. If anything, I was frustrated because those targets kept moving and firing back, with nothing to prove that I won and they lost... Those were my comrades, the guys I did spend months with drilling and exercising, but when the action was up, they became mere targets, threats to be dealt with in the most effective way possible. I think it isn't much different at the officer or general level. If you have the skill, you apply it. No sinister "dark side" involved. Killing is part of any animal capable of doing so, and on the battlefield it's to kill or being killed. And besides, that would mean Patton, Montgommery et al. would have that "dark side", too. What they did was no different. </font>

I really hate the planes! I try my best to purchase at least 1 AA gun to provide some type of cover. I never purchase air support anymore because of 2 things. 1) My air support thinks it's funny to bomb and strafe friendly troops. 2) My AA guns won't shoot back at my air support. I was playing some operation once where I was starting to dominate the battleground when all of a sudden MY air support shows up and starts to demolishing all of my inf. guns and armor. It was the best display of airpower I had ever seen in CM unfortunately, it was all blue on blue strikes.

Well it is possible, the Moscow push would have been stalled and failed just as Leningrad and Stalingrad did regardless of weather.

One of the main reasons I posted this question was to help me in designing my own scenerio depicting said operation. But, as it stands the bunkers get ko'ed before any infantry/pioneers reach it. The tank platoon gets a firing slit hit fairly often and takes it out. I want the terrain to allow the tanks and FO's to see the bunkers so they can provide support as the infantry advances. I'm trying to make all the Russian units fairly static (no afv). This scenerio is obviously tilted toward the Germans because if pt. balance were used the Russians would have a lot of AT guns available. I want the bunker to be the focal pt. not the more deadly ATGs. I think I'm just running into problems with play balance. Maybe I should post this in scenerio section.

How do you force shot type in CM?

I should have clarified that these bunkers in question were on the East Front. While reading that excerpt I did not get the impression that the Germans were assaulting major concrete pill boxes, nor was that their style. Did the Russians employ such bunker complexes as the Maginot Line? I know that they had some well protected fortifications around, well, their forts like in the Crimea. I thought all they had was a bunch of log op bunkers/mg nest along the Bug.

I'm trying to assess this German army tactic on bunker busting. This excerpt comes from this website on various military strategies http://etloh.8m.com/strategy/offense2.html "In attacking enemy pillboxes, the Germans use combat groups consisting of tanks, infantry, and engineers, assisted by artillery. The normal composition of a combat group attacking one bunker is one platoon of tanks and one platoon of infantry reinforced by one squad of engineers. Before the combat group is committed against the enemy pillbox, artillery fires high explosives and smoke shells at the neighboring pillboxes to isolate them, shells the terrain between pillboxes, and conducts counterbattery fire. Under the protection fof this fire, the combat group advances close to the pillbox while other infantry units attack the enemy in the terrain between the pillboxes. One tank squad covers the advances of the other tank squads and the infantry platoon by direct fire against the pillbox, particularly against the observation and weapons' openings. The first tank squad halts under cover whenever possible and covers the advance of the second tank squad. When the combat group reaches a barbed wire obstacle surrounding the pillbox, the two tank squads have different missions. One tank squad remains in front of the pillbox, and it's tanks are driven into a position from which they can overlook the terrain, and watch out for antitank guns and machine-gun emplacements, while the other tank squad (the pillbox tank squad) rolls across the obstacle to enable the infantry and engineers to get close to the pillbox. The pillbox tank squad then fires on the pillbox at close range. The infantry squad meanwhile takes the surrounding terrain and covers the engineers who blast the entrance of the pillbox with TNT." I don't think this tactic is feasibly applicable to CM. It utilizes way too many resources to accomplish the task with in the frame work of CM combat. From the description it sounds like a scenerio inwhich an infanty platoon supported by arty, pioneers, and a tank platoon assault a single enemy concrete bunker that has a few items providing covering fire for it. From the article it makes bunkers sound a lot tougher than they are in CM. Thoughts?

I thought the same thing and then for 1 reason or another I bought CMBB and it is a lot better than CMBO. It is definately a bigger game. Since I got CMBB I've never played CMBO again. I do miss using American/British forces so I going to purchase CMAK too. But, I still hear that CMBB is the one people keep coming back too. You should get CMBB, you won't regret it, besides it doesn't even cost that much relative to other games.

I've seen opponent's mines. Do you mean you can only see the opponent's mines that you have uncovered during play? So, if you didn't uncover his mines you want see those hidden mines in the after action screen? That can't be right either because sometimes looking at the after action screen I've seen mines on parts of the map and remember thinking "I'm glad I didn't try going that way!".

How do you use them to your advantage? I've tried using them as a screen, but they get whacked by probing inf. I've tried using them in reserve and bring them to area of need but once contact is made it is hard for them to get into the fight. Only success I've had is in the occasional lucky ambush role when the opponent advanced armor without infanty support through confined spaces. Besides that tank hunter teams seem to die rather easily for me and do no damage just a waste of 11 pts. Lately, I just use them as suicide recon teams. Do you play with tank hunters or just use 'zook/pz'faust troops instead.

Opps! Yes the "Balkans" not Balk-land. I don't mean the Balkans anynow, just referencing Hungry-Romania-Bulgaria. What's that region called if any? I can't remember right now what role Yugoslavia played in pre or post war politics. Hitler supported the Croats, Italy ruled some parts, Tito took power later was a puppet to Stalin?

I don't remember the exact reasons on how the situation came about, WW1 or probably even prior to that but Soviets had territorial claims on Romania and Hungry. There were Soviet armed border crossings into Romania (Bessarabia)resulting in combat prior to WW2 (late '20s early '30s?) I think Hilter forced them to cede that land to them (he would get it back later). Soviets wanted Finland, they didn't get "permission" from Hitler to attack it. Treaties and such are just excusses for countries to do what they want. I don't know how you can think that there would be no Soviet aggression regardless of what Nazi Germany does or doesn't do? It is no secret that the Stalin wanted to expand his influence into Eastern Europe. Soviet aggression can not be excussed by Germany's timely attack on Russia. I think history proves Soviet aggression. They didn't liberate Poland did they? Now maybe Stalin could make an agruement about occupying the Balklands for a while since they did ally with Germany against Russia. But we know that the Balklands had to choose between Nazi rule or Communist rule. The biggest mistake of WW2 was the US not declaring war on the USSR and kicking them out of Eastern Europe.

Someone says spring another says black powder. Which is it? Both types of propulsion? Black powder charge sounds reasonable, but the spring? That is one strong spring. How do the charge it?

The blitz IS combined arms warfare, at it's finest. If Hitler didn't split up AG Center, the Germans take Moscow. Now, that doesn't mean the Red army is knocked out nor does it mean they surrender. It probably means that the Soviets fight harder but they would be at a terrible disadvantage. By saying Germany wouldn't have invented the Panther yet because there was no need to at that time is a very valid point. Mother of invention truely is necessity but that line of thinking takes the fun out of "what if" plots. Like possibly no atomic energy, no USA economic super power, no USSR super power, ect. WW2 put a lot of things in motion that might not have happened or at least jump started them. Germany wasn't the only country hurting economically at this time, Germany actually saved the economies of the Russia and the USA by bring then into the war. What would they have lost by waiting? Initiative? They are the aggressor, they have initiative. Strategy? Please, everyone was brushing up on WW1 doctorine. The Soviets Deep Penetration offenses was still a theory and when implemented it still failed. When they went on the offense for good in '44, the war was over. Stalin was terrified of Nazi Germany no way he initiates an attack on German soil. Resources is the only problem Germany has by delaying, and they would have gotten them through normal trade after they sold their peaceful attentions toward the rest of Europe. If Germany delays maybe French and British join Germany into stopping Russian aggression in Poland, Finland, and Romania. Then Germany turns around and strikes France and British forces while they are far from home. Now that IS a little Ian Fleming'ish.

Why do you think so? </font>

Russia-Germany conflict was inevitable due to Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, and Finland. Germany had to knock out Russia before Russia gained enough confidence to take more areas in the Balklands. On paper, the gamble looked good but I think they knew if they could not take Moscow quickly then the Eastern Front would be a 50/50 chance. They gambled and lost (Japan also took this gamble against USA). I don't think Russia would be out even it Moscow was occupied. So I think Germany lost the Eastern Front battle the minute they went over the Bug. Now what if Germany greeted the Ukranian peasants with open arms? Who knows, but they were Nazis so that wouldn't happen. When German could not force the British to the negotiating table quickly, the UK was in it for the long haul until Mussilini abdicted and Germany negoitiate a release of Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Holland, (France ?) The US was inevitably involved due to the proximitity of PI and Imperial Japan. Naturally, US and UK would ally to defeat Japan in the Pacific. Due to the alliances Germany would be forced to fight US, or more likely US would help UK fight Germany. Germany's alliance with Italy was also their undoing. Italy is a very vulnerable country in aspects of modern warfare. Italy would fall without help from Germany. Germany would be in a very bad situation if Italy fell so they had to defend the approach through N. Africa. No matter what, once US resouces and manpower was ashore in N. Africa it was over for Germany. Remember, most of Germany's war/political stragegy was to capulate oppossing leaderships quickly and force them to negoiate a favorable Nazi peace treaty. I don't think Russia or at least Stalin was going to sign anything. Maybe they hoped that someone like Zhukov would coup Stalin and negoiate with Hitler if Moscow fell. Also remember before the Polish invasion not everyone was sold on the Blitzkrieg most thought it would fail and it was only really used once in full effect (in France). They cut it short in Russia, trying to secure Leningrad and the Caucasus instead. I think a better "what if" is what if Nazi Germany waited until about 1948-50 to attack? They would really be at a supply and technology advantage to out class everyone. Not to mention their navy and airforce would be more prepared.

IMHO, the HTs with guns are junk except for the mortor carriers and FT. I think they stink because: 1) the cost a lot 2) they can die from MG fire 3) they are spotted very easily. The difference between a Pz II and 20mm HT is that the Pz II can survive MG fire and that is a big deal. Within the rules of combined warfare the HT are only good against infantry only and even then inf. supported by guns can decimate the HTs. If one has a hard time using Marders then the use of gunned HTs is out of the question. If you're dealt a hand of gunned HTs then there is the right way to attack but the rules are the same with armor it's just that you can't afford even the slightest mistake with the HTs.

This is very true. Also, I think the maps for most games are too small because you are restricted on the flanks. So this in effect makes ALL defenses "line defenses". Even if your defense has several layers of screens it's still a line defense. Elastic defenses are set up with corps not battalions. The battalion/company level we play is just a small portion of the overall picture and it could be that our battalion/company is the group that is suppose to fall back on contact. That's why I don't think we can think in terms of "layered defenses" with in the scope of CM. In CM everyone staggers their defensive troops to gain the most los advantage and it would be almost impossible to actually line them up like a WW1 battle scene. So it might seem like an elastic defense but were just seeing a small little peice of the overall operation. In reality there would be battles being conduct on our maps flanks and our actions would depend on how those battles faired as well. Walpurgis Nacht, please comment I like reading your "professional" CM tactics, and this is a good subject.

I don't think one can truely represent a "layered" defense on CM's scale. I think a layered defense would work with say 5 to 20 miles of battlefield. With this thinking you hope that the enemy goes through your 1st lines so that your other layers can start the process of encircling them. Now you stagger your units when you set up, which I think is a must if your trying to create fields of fire, but that isn't really a "layered defense". I think for CM a "static" or "mobile" defensive docturine is more approperiate strategy to discuss using. Is the layered defense the answer to or the result of "deep penetration offenses"?

Thanks for clearing that up. I guess I'm showing my age (or ignorance) when it comes to internet lingo

Wrong place to ask </font>

Looks awesome. I noticed that most mods are not CMMOS compatible, why not? Are most people just overwriting their files or you using a different mod manager? Is there any reason not to just overwrite the original files with someones mods?