chiavarm
-
Posts
144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by chiavarm
-
-
Originally posted by JasonC:
Why not flip a coin to see who wins? Pointless.
-
Unfortunately I don’t think I made myself clear. I am not looking for an exact equal. (T34-85 = PIV) These are PBEM battles and could easily take a month or so to play. So it can get frustrating after three weeks, you are unable to defeat a unit because your units are not capable.
My forces were:
5 x t26 tanks
3 x t34 tanks
1 x KV
1 x platoon of pioneers
1 x rifle company
2 x 45(?) at guns
2 x trucks
1 x jeep
He had (to the best of my memory)
3 x PZ III
2 x jadgpanzer
1 x stug assault gun
some off map artillery
and Infantry
The terrain from my position was a hill sloping into open, flat area to mid-map. At mid map there were two forest areas in proximity of the objective flags.
The terrain from is position was high open, ground sloping at mid map with an area of trees on his right.
I advanced my infantry, at guns w/trucks and light tanks to the trees. I immediately lost three light tanks to enemy fire. Moving my T34’s to return fire I suppressed the enemy fire while losing a T34(hq). Moved my units into position. I expected the battle to be in the area where my group of trees in center map and his trees on his left. I guessed correctly. Lost both AT guns to PZ IIIs. A jadgpanze knocked out the remaining T34s. Off map artillery decimated my infantry in the wooded areas.
At this point I had in effect 1 KV, 2 T26s and a platoon of pioneers. His force did not appear to have taken any losses (later I found his Stug had sustained a gun Hit). In an attempt to maneuver my T26s out of harms way and engage the infantry in the woods, I lost them. So I positioned my lone KV in a group of three small, light buildings that were within 50 meters of woods occupied by the Germans and objective.
My opponent was unable to defeat the lone KV. My pioneers stopped any infantry advance and knocked out a PZ III. The KV knocked out a PZ III and a jagdpanzer.
The battle was a stalemate due to the KV but this was not known until well into the battle.
So in an attempt to avoid this type of outcome I want to know when is the best time period when the available equipment is capable, using the proper tactics, of defeating opposing units.
In my mind opponent clearly defeated me but his units didn’t have the ability to take out the KV.
What if I had taken a platoon of KV?
There must be a time when the available units were evenly matched.
-
In a recent PBEM QB (‘41) I had several Russian tanks including only 1 kv. My opponent knocked out all of my tanks except the kv. I don’t think the jadgpanzer or panzer III had the firepower to do so. So the next game we chose ’43.
At what time period would you say the force quality is approximately equivalent?
i.e. If I were to say at summer 1943 the Russians and German equipment were not the same but could effectively defeat each other using historically available units.
-
Thank.
Great web page!
-
Directions to Folke's please>Originally posted by junk2drive:Go to Folke's CMBBdb or CMAKdb and there will be very good descriptions of each type. Click on the infantry type.
-
-
Here is a general list of inf types I was hoping to get educated on:
Gebirgsjaeger
Fallschirmjaeger
Fusilier
Panzer Grenadier
Grenadier
Jaeger
Aufklarungs
What Are They?
In what context were the used?
-
What makes it more confusing is the text box comes up informing you if you were to do a full install it would not be necessary.
I did a full install.
I can and will live with this. How would it work if you bought the direct to drive version?
-
The German attack in WWI faltered in the infancy of the war. To suggest that the German could have won the war in 1918 had the Americans not intervened is highly improbable. The weapons at the time were suited more for defense and Germany did not have the manpower necessary to move the line or inflict causalities to win plus to attack across the channel. The best Germany could have hoped for was an armistice with its present territorial gains.
Most of the causalities were sustained while attacking. Defenders, while not immune did enjoy a more favorable survival rate.
When thinking about what is victory,
The American tactic of engaging the Me 262 when it was coming in for a landing comes to mind. The 262 is low on speed, altitude, fuel, and ammo. Hit 'em where there vulnerable.
Destroy the enemy on your terms not his!
By the way, about the laundry list of causalities, these countries did field armies again.
I guess what I am trying to say don't just defeat a nation's army. Conquer IT!(the nation)
Oops not politically correct!
[ December 08, 2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: chiavarm ]
-
To eliminate the opposition is the primary objective of any conflict. If you do not take or destroy the opposition's resources then there will always be opposition Therefore you must occupy the source of the opposition – land. This is where the troops, arms and supplies originate.
In theory, if one were contain the armed force and occupy all of the land of the enemy except that footprint of its armed force, the armed force would eventually capitulate. Thus you have attained victory.
Should you eliminate the army and not the resources it would be just a matter of time before it produces another armed force i.e. Vietnam.
-
"German forces released from the Eastern Front launched a major offensive on the Western Front in the spring of 1918. Despite some minor initial successes, by July the Germans had failed to break the Allied lines and, in effect, this meant that the war was reaching its endgame."
-
By the way I thought a CD/DVD with an area that was Read/Writable would allow game creators to use the r/w functions of the drive to protect their intelectual property. If you can write to that (r/w)sector then you are OK if you can't then it is a CD-r. Then you would try to write to the normal area if you could then it must be a copy burned to a CD-r/w.
Just a thought.
-
I believe that CM and games like draw a certian type of sophiticated/mature player who would not resort to piracy.
Although slamming each other on the forums is fair game.
-
Yes this is true, but the point I was making is that the inability to transport supplies to these large armies over the distances they traveled led to trench warfare thus Germany could not have finished off the French and English in 1918.(as stated by Jason C)Originally posted by Cuirassier:From what I have read, the German WW1 offensive stopped dead in its tracks because Moltke seriously undermined the Schlieffen plan and allowed von Kluck's army group to turn directly on Paris instead of wheeling around it. Do this, the army group exposed its flank and was counter attacked at the battle of Marne, ending any chance of movement on the western front. Not positive, just what I have read.
For all I know this lack of supply might have been one of the reasons Moltke did not wheel around Paris.
Russia was soundly beaten and eventually their soldiers just up and left the trenches. At this point Germany could have moved troops west but due to the nature of trench warfare, would have made little impact.
-
I don't know how it prevents priacy, I use a burned copy so as not to further damage my original, which was getting scratched since it had to be handled.
-
-
Is it possible to run CMBB 1.03 with out having the CD in the drive.
Wasn't bad when I had two drives in my old computer.
I know I'm lazy but I only have the one drive. It gets to be a pain after a while.
-
Road to Moscow sounds good. Could somebody email it to me?
-
So you (grisha) are trying to say: the halt of Germany's initial advance was not due to supplying a large army (who was extending its supply lines) while the French were falling back on their supply lines. The rail was the primary mover of supplies. To move supplies Germany would have to build new rail or use the existing French system. The German and French rails were different gauges. Not to mention the Belgium rail system. Quality roads were not in existence so transport by truck, which was used in WWII, was not reliable.
-
I disagree the ability to supply armies over long distances was responsible for the resulting trench warfare. The best Germany could hope for was to hold their present gains. Bleed them white I think became the strategy of the Germans. Fortunately they bleed white.Originally posted by JasonC:Germany had plenty of depth of resources and knew how to use them. In WW I, they beat Russia, France, and would have finished England too (in 1918) had not the Americans arrived to bolster them.
-
I think the question would be; Who would YOU like to serve under?
Who would give you the best chance at Victory and survival!
-
I still have dreams of performing a Double Envelopment.
I still think it would sweet, and if I were to do it against a numerically superior foe would be Piece de Resistance!
-
Jason, My apologies I did infer that you placed them as great, not because you emulate them but because of the comment of the “maneuverist pantheon”.
It is history relived in the game, that draws my attention to CM. To simply replay history is of no value to me. If a game is army A did this and army B did that, so if you can end with the same result you win is a bit redundant. I think it is more entertaining to play the slight variation, the realistic “What if” of history. This of course can be taken to the absurd. (sometimes also entertaining) One of my favorites is Patton vs. Rommel. I regard these as very good commanders. The two never met on the battlefield. But “What if”. My belief is that Patton would has been victorious but not due to his skill set but due to the resources he had at his disposal. Air Power was the key to the Allied (less the Russians) victory in Europe. So to Qualify their ability as a commanders, another type of measure has to be use, not just being victorious.
And there in lies the rub. What if Rommel and Patton met on equal levels. The same could be said of Grant and Lee.
In the end brute force is an effective strategy if you have it and in Grant’s case you have to give him credit for recognizing he had the resources to use it unlike General G. Mc Clellan .
-
If he actually existed, Sun Tzu. Still used today even beyond the scope of military warfare.
The reason I don’t consider Grant and I guess for that matter Blucher “Great” because brute force only can work when you have it. Rommel performed well in N. Africa and the numbers were not in his favor. He could not use brute force. This would also apply to Lee.
I’ll stick with my original nominee Alex the Great. I don’t know enough about Genghis Kahn but from what I have read in this thread he is definitely a contender.
Something I just thought of: The operational aspect of war is a much larger task as warfare evolved into the modern age. The “Total War” did not come into play until WWI. So it might not be possible to make a valid comparison.
Mortar/Artillery Spotting with HQ's
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
As long as you have a LOS to the target area and your HQ AND your Art. unit(on map)is in within command of that HQ, then when you target that area (w/ the At. unit) you will get a yellow line indicating a valid target. If these conditions are not met then you will get a red line to the target which indicate an invalid target.