Wartgamer

So you take advantage of Drunk men then?

One of the requirements for Blitzkrieg is communications. Radio communications in particular. Coordination of arms and command dictates this. The Soviets may have had forward thinkers prewar but they did not have the radios to carry off Blitkrieg style of war. They actually reorged thier armored forces into smaller groups after the invasion into units that could be handled better. They went to a very defensive use of armor till they could reorg again after Stalingrad. The German inclusion of radios into individual vehicles and having command radios higher up linking other arms together put the lightening (speed) into blitzkrieg.

Maybe a few calrifications about modules? If I bu a module, will it be month/year/season/weather limited in some way? Will I still have quick battles that could represent actions other than the module 'theme'?

Maybe a few calrifications about modules? If I bu a module, will it be month/year/season/weather limited in some way? Will I still have quick battles that could represent actions other than the module 'theme'?

Part of the CM charm was not only newer games jumping to new theatres, but also improvements in the game (mostly the the CMBO to CMBB jump). Multimodules about France 1940? I would not buy a portion of that nor a whole Fall Gelb.

By the way, the 1919a4 was a squad LMG in para terms. There were supposed to be no BAR. [ June 08, 2005, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

MACHINEGUN POINTERS FOR COMBAT-by Melton"Tex"McMorries, G/501 PIR To be an expert machinegunner, as any combat gunner will tell you, requires far more than being able to align the sights, traverse, elevate and the many more basic principles taught in the training schools and on machinegun ranges. (However) All this training is essential and should be carried out every time the situation could possibly demand. In fact, to fail to master the art of machinegunning in every prescribed phase of training, could cause an otherwise good gunner to let his entire combat unit down. For instance, the gunner's ability to lay on an auxilliary aiming point with accuracy, possibly might never arise. It could be important frequently, or it might possibly be required in a decisive showdown only once. But it, like all other principles, should be mastered, and in combat, it should constantly be remembered. Therefore, a mental analysis of the terrain must be made from every position, the range, the outstanding features of the terrain, blind spots, etc. Because, if a hidden machinegun suddenly opens up, there may be no time for this. Just a fraction of a second can mean the difference between life and death. When engaged with a modern and well trained enemy, the (expression) 'mow them down', is mostly talk. If the enemy presents this type of target, most any machinegunner can pull the trigger and align the sights. But a well trained enemy knows the rate of traverse of a machinegun, and the attack is paced accordingly. Mostly, the gunner will have one clear target only at a time, and that for only a few seconds. He may see many, but because of the wide traverse required to fire on the target, for all practical purposes, they are not there. When the gunner has to traverse five or six mills, this cuts his time to practically zero. For this reason, we readily see that the necessity for traverse should be cut to the minimum. The degree of effective firepower will correspond to the number of good targets that can be brought into the 2 and 3 mill traverse. I am not going to describe 'firing an area', as this procedure is pretty well established, and should be carried-out as often as the occasion demands. Of course on the attack, it is more frequently used, when there are no priority targets. The fastest way to decrease the necessary traverse of a machinegun in correspondence to good targets, is the angle of fire. A gun pointed straight into a attacking line has the greatest disadvantage, because of the traverse required to bring it onto various targets. And for another very important reason, it increases the number of times the traverse will be made to catch a target. This is considerable and sometimes fatal. Naturally, the position of the defense line will do much to increase the efficient firepower of a machinegun, and if the enemy's attack is coming from an angle, in relation to the position of the gun, the degree of traverse is automatically lessened. THEN, the gunner, by using all the angle the range will permit, can fire directly at a clear target almost continuously. For this reason, as well as safety of defensive gun position, it should be chosen with care. Where time permits, 2 or 3 positions should be prepared for each gun. Remember, a machinegunner is a priority target in ground operations. Perhaps the second best way to decrease the traverse is in selecting field of fire, assuming this does not conflict with the small defense set up of the unit. This is so lengthy a subject, I will only point to one or two examples. This again will depend to some extent on the first mentioned, because to have a good field of fire, you must have targets. In forest, this can be small lanes through the trees, at an angle. Other guns should be coordinated so that no section of the enemy line can sweep forward without being challenged with machinegun fire. There is one thing a machinegunner cannot do and (still)use the full efficiency of his firepower in a large scale attack: that is protect himself. The closer the attacking force gets to the defense line, the more efficient the firepower of the machinegun becomes, and the less he is protecting himself. (This is) because the angle of fire is more parallel, more enfilade, and the gun is moving toward the final protective position. If all the defensive machineguns have followed the attack in, that other few inches that you have to push the traversing mechanism over to lock on the final protective line will never be used. But the enemy will be pouring into foxholes around the machinegunner's area that kept firing straight ahead. Why was it, that identically trained units, units containing the same T.O.'s, varied so much in combat effectiveness? Morale? Training? Bravery? Perhaps all of these, to a small degree, but when it comes to the showdown, it is the unit that combines all this and gets the maximum, efficient use of its firepower. A unit can have many anti tank weapons figured into its overall strength, but these weapons are of little use, if they are not in the proper place, at the proper time. The same is true of all weapons. Therefore, a machinegunner that has arranged to place his gun in the correct position... that has figured-out the proper angle of fire to obtain the most targets that a given type of action permits... a machinegunner that has estimated the range... that can slap his gun in a second, to fire on the enemy's new phase line...these things and many more, are the final key. To estimate, to anticipate, and to be prepared. Machineguners, if you want to give your unit the maximum benefit of your gun, use what time you have between attacks, pauses in actions, to figure ahead. Remember, the machinegunner's life, as well as his unit's, can't wait to learn the little things the hard way. The subject of combat machinegunning is so lengthy, that only a few points have been discussed. In many cases, offense and defense are similar, with small variations. Melton McMorries ex-501st Parachute Infantry 101st Airborne Division http://www.101airborneww2.com/warstoriesintro.html

The first game/module must have some mass appeal. It must sell in numbers to support the effort already put into it. I would be very surprised if it were not US-centric and set in WWII. If the first release was something that did not interest me, I would just download the demo (to see the new 1:1 modeling, C&C, etc) but would probably wait till a module I liked came along. I would like to see a Normandy game that focuses on the Airbornes epic battles in particular. Since the game will be somewhat limited due to a downsizing of the number of units; I would think Hedgerow battles would be a perfect venue. Edit: Maybe Market-Garden since it has US paras also. [ June 08, 2005, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

How many posts has the seamstress accumulated? Please. Get a date Dorosh. Google a dating service.

So a patch will be a 'game' patch or a 'module' patch? Or both? Will 'modules' be packaged together at some point so that a 'series' may be purchased? [ June 06, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

So a patch will be a 'game' patch or a 'module' patch? Or both? Will 'modules' be packaged together at some point so that a 'series' may be purchased? [ June 06, 2005, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

One of the reasons the Soviets could 'ramp' production of tanks up so quickly was that they started the war with a chassis design which could take them through the war. The German 'mixed-fleet' had just one chassis that could marginally supply thier MBT needs through the war. This being the Panzer IV. Since they could not instantly convert all tank factories to start making Panzer IV in 1941 (They would not start making Panzer IV 'longs' till 1942), it makes no sense to ramp up production of Panzer IVs. The best the Germans could have done in 1940-1941 was concentrate on Panzer III L60 and supply it with AP40 ammo. In battles where they could mass and get even odds with T34s, they could prevail. The Germans decided in 1942 to stick with multiple chassis and '42 was the year of the Marder till Panzer IVs and StuGIII with long guns came along. Panzer IIIs were never built in great numbers. They did soldier on even till 1943. But the Soviets had a tank chassis that could not only swamp the Germans in 1941-1943, but also be improved AND mass produced with a 3 man turret with a 85mm gun in 44-45. The German tank fleets were dependant on parts/repair to keep up running numbers. The Soviets could keep up running numbers with replacements as well as fixing vehciles. They could do so due to concentration on one tank chassis also. Time and Numbers were the antidote to Blitzkrieg. [ June 06, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

I would much rather see a eastern front game that allows 2 vehicle tank sections, 3-5 tank 'platoons' and even 10 tank companys. Infantry units would mostly be company sized with some platoons. Focus on artillery realism an combined arms and command/control.

I would much rather see a eastern front game that allows 2 vehicle tank sections, 3-5 tank 'platoons' and even 10 tank companys. Infantry units would mostly be company sized with some platoons. Focus on artillery realism an combined arms and command/control.

Will there be demos for each module or just for each 'game'?

Will there be demos for each module or just for each 'game'?

Well it was the one and only time I played so the gun was a surprise and I had to rush it or be clobbered further. I mostly use move to contacts and very short advance/assaults. There is plenty of time but I had a auto cease fire stop me from bagging all the limeys.

No the actual thread has content. Unlike this sad lifeless thread of soldier clothes. I hated wearing a uniform. Takes a poser to like them. Won't say what I think of a Canadian-Seamstress.

Perhaps there should be a CM_Dorosh Forum here to specifically discuss all things Dorosh and Dorosh related? Maybe a Dorosh action figure? How many posts per hour will Dorosh post in the CM_Dorosh Forum? Should there be a General_Dorosh Forum also to include non-CM Dorosh matters?

I got a major victory as the Germans (auto cease fire). Basically did the same as Jason says above except my left hand flank attack did not go that deep. Tanking out the 18 pounder with a rush is key. managing exhaustion and ammo is also key.

The Germans found out in Poland that they would outstrip ammunition production when fighting a blitzkrieg type war. Ammunition consumption of artillery shells in particular would use many times what the current artillery shell production was producing. http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/GermAmmoPoland.html 105mm was used 7.33 times the produced level, 150mm 4 times and most other ammunition types were also used at greater rates than production was supplying at the time. The Germans clearly must have realized that ammunition was what was needed to sustain blitzkrieg type war. 1940 and 1941 tube production rates had been increased (but were actually at the same levels those two years). But ammunition production was many times 1939 production levels. As an example...105mm in thousands 105mm leFH 18 and 18/40* 1939 2112.1 1940 10,948.7 1941 3551.7 1942 18,459.8 1943 29,440.6 1944 38,055.7 1945 3226.4 The Germans clearly stockpiled 105mm during 1940 but reduce the rate during 1941. German rates increase thereafter. It appears that the Germans did ramp up ammunition production pre-1941 while keeping certain weapons production at a 'steady' rate. They apparently increased artillery production of 105mm and 150mm artillery in 1940. They kept the same rate in 1941 though. It would seem that the Germans believed they were either deficient in field artillery or that it was a very decisive arm that needed to be increased. http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/SovWarProd.html German mortar ammunition mysteriously decreases. This could be the drop off from reduced use of 50mm mortars but it would seem odd that 81mm mortar rounds would not be consumed at near artillery rates. The Germans also made quite a stockpile of 37mm ammunition during 1940. Ten times what was produced during 1939. More than 1941 and 1942 put together. Production of 37mm guns in 1940 was only twice of the 1939. This also shows that the Germans were focusing on ammunition production pre-Russia. Regarding: Jason's rose-colored glasses mystical hindsight assumption about the Germans possibly getting 1943 or 1944 levels of production in 1940.... Question: Could they really have done that AND increase POL supplies AND get all the trained crews needed? It would have taken time and given the Soviets time to fortify the border AND finish ammunition factories (which the Soviets knew were in short supply). Blitzkrieg is as much about time (lightening fast) as anything else. The Germans applied it against someone that had time and space. The early 'success' in Russia was at a price with very little gain. Clearly by November the Germans were losing the Blitzkrieg machine due to losses/breakdowns/etc. They went all out and it did them in. In retrospect, they should have realized that multiple-blitzkriegs were needed since they would not knock off the Soviets in one go. Blitzkrieg as a Strategic solution failed when applied to the invasion of the Soviet Union. [ June 04, 2005, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

The US did have the luck to start arming before being attacked. Notice that it still needed some time to get 'major-power' manpower under arms.

Will Space Lobsters be modeled 1:1?

Will Space Lobsters be modeled 1:1?

Sorry Moon, I'll be cool. I just don't like when someone underestimates other peoples knowledge, and starts rating books and arguments at will. Just don't lock anything. Thank U! </font>