Generaloberst Guderian

Naturally I'd like to see as broad a scope as possible, and while such a concept would intrigue me, you are talking about a game that is far beyond the narrow tactical aspect portrayed by the current CM games. A map that large would be more "operational" warfare which I guess is roughly the category in between the "tactical" and "strategic" levels. Such a game would require more in depth logistics modelling, and would also have to take into account your success, which would presumably have an impact upon the greater war. As it stands in CM now, you can lose a battle that was in actuality won, or win a battle that was in actuality lost...but it ends there. Any larger scale campaign type operation would really have to be more of a grand-strategy type game, where the course and indeed outcome of the war could be changed...a daunting task indeed.

I'm not really sure how common smoke grenades really were for infantry platoons, but my guess is that they were far less common than they are today. I do know that the Germans did have some sort of smoke grenade (Nebelhandgranate), so I suppose that such things did exist. Tanks of course have their own smoke dischargers sometimes, but other than that I think that most smokescreens were provided either via direct or indirect fire artillery.

I played Mobile Defense awhile back and thoroughly enjoyed it, although I do know exactly what you are talking about. I actually had something very similar happen, with on of my P4s being cooked on the last turn of the first battle after missing a shot from some 60m away. I think the real issue in that particular case though is the inadequacy of the Pz.IV's armor. While the 75 L/48 is fairly well matched vs. the T-34s in the operation, if you get in any type of engagement involving return fire, expect to die. Either way, don't feel too badly as the Pz IVs aren't as useful later on. Do what you can to cause massive damage up front, and then rely on the King Tigers you get as reinforcements to carry the battle on from there.

Even if they are meant to engage aircraft, don't forget to consider FLAK placement relative to ground targets. Even if you don't plan on engaging enemy infantry or armor, you definately don't want to get careless and lose valuable AA to a long distance HE round.

Lol the next step is to teach your Grandson how to defeat the entire Soviet army in 1943 using only a StuG III and a Panzergrenadier Company. Thanks for the scenario btw, Panthers happen to be my favorite as well.

In addition to that, the manual that comes with CMBB, should you have purchased it, has alot of good imformation about various features included in the game, including a fairly complete explanation of how armor penetration and anti-tank gunnery works. I think that you'll find that employing your own armor effectively, along with having a good grasp of anti-tank tactics goes a long way towards winning a sizeable number of battles, especially when you're defending. Furthermore, you can always ask questions on this forum, as they'll likely always be answered in great detail. You definately made the right choice with CM though. It may have a few flaws, but right now it beats just about everything else for the money.

Hmm, planes are somewhat sporadic, so that is hard to test. The only thing I can think of that may have an effect is the exposure of the AA gun, i.e. is it cover (trees, woods etc) or is it out in the open. In order to eliminate it as a threat, an aircraft must first naturally have to spot it, and if it is unable to the effectiveness of you AA defense is likely higher than it would be if all your AA guns were destroyed out of hand . Still, thats just deductive reasoning on my part -- I have no idea if the game actually works like that.

If the T-34s had a top shot at the Panther, then I agree--they should have taken it. But if they did not have a top deck shot, then any other subroutine or heat of the moment response is just making the best of a bad situation, in my opinion. If you've ever played the "Golzow" scenario, in which a sizeable number of Panthers and Tigers engage 20+ Soviet tanks at point-blank range, you'll know that for whatever reason, Panthers seam to hold up surprisingly well against just about everything. I know that the topic of Soviet ammuntion and what not has all been debated before, but after having witnessed a Panther taking 3 shots from a JS-2 at 54m, I would not try to take on a Panther frontally even if I did have numerical superiority. While I agree that alot of things could be improved, and the various modeling, as it stands now, is less than ideal, the only way to avoid inordinate losses in a situation such as the one described above, would be reposition your forces so as to attack from weaker angles.

I agree, they are nice weapons to have around, and quite powerful. I know from my own experience at the local gun club, where we have a .50 M82 Semi-Automatic "Scoped Special Applications Rifle" (12.7 x 99mm for those of you that follow the metric system), that high-caliber rifles are viable against heavier targets than one would think. In some tests that we carried out just for fun, we were able to shoot through the engine block of a Mopar Inline 6 from an older Jeep from one hundred yards or so. I'm sure Soviet troops could have disabled vehicles such as halftracks with similar results.

The Golzow scenario in CMBB is also an interesting example of low-visibility close quarters conflict set in heavy fog. If you're more worried about advancing, I suggest playing as the Russians.

Pz.Kpfw I – A very light tank armed only with a machinegun, originally intended only for training purposes. Was pressed into service several times, and was present, but not common, during the initial stages of Barbarossa. Use only against infantry and other soft targets. When attacking treat it as little more than a tracked armored car or heavy halftrack. Variants: Panzer Jäger I – 37mm or 47mm AT gun atop Pz. I chassis. Effective against light tanks. 150mm Infantry Gun (Sturmpanzer I) – a mobile artillery conversion, used for direct fire support. Effective against soft targets, vehicles, and many tanks. Very vulnerable to enemy fire. Pz.Kpfw II—A very quick light tank armed with the 20mm L/55 automatic cannon. Good for suppressing infantry, vehicles and many early war light tanks. Susceptible to enemy fire, including the weaker 47mm Russian AT guns. Variants: Flammenpanzer II: Basically a Pz. II with a flamethrower instead of the 20mm cannon. Effective against infantry, buildings and also armor, if you can get close enough. In tests I was able to “cook off” heavy tanks such as the KV I and KV II with no problem Marder II: The 75mm L/46 atop the Pz. II chassis. Use to destroy all varieties of Russian armor, but use extreme discretion when attacking heavier models. Vulnerable to enemy fire. Pz. Kpfw. III – light/medium tank, depending on model. Originally armed with the inadequate 37mm cannon, the Pz.III is nevertheless a very capable and well built tank. The version with the 50mm L/60 is well matched with most enemy tanks prior to 1943, and with tungsten ammunition can challenge even heavier adversaries. Variants: Sturmgeschütz III – Assault gun/tank destroyer. A very widely manufactured series of vehicles which are essentially well armored gun platforms without a turret. Although they are not as nimble as tanks, they are generally well armored, have a low silhouette and are effective against infantry and armor alike. Very common. Pz. Kpfw IV—Originally conceived as a sort of support tank, the first Pz.IVs were equipped with a short barrel 75mm L/24 cannon best used against infantry and softer vehicles. As the war progressed the Mk. IV came into its own as a main battle tank, and although consistently under armored, proved to be an effective weapon. Use short barreled versions as described above. The up gunned version with the L/48 cannon can be used effectively against most armor. Pz. Kpfw. V “Panther” – A medium/heavy tank first used in 1943. The Panther, if used correctly is one of the most powerful tanks on the battlefield. It has sloped armor, and a heavily reinforced front gun mantle, making it very difficult to kill from the front. A design flaw however, makes it susceptible to fire from the side. It has a very powerful 75mm L/71 which can easily kill most tanks and has a good chance against the heaviest Russian armor. Be sure to always keep it facing the enemy. Pz. Kpfw. VI “Tiger” – A heavy tank introduced in the late summer / early fall of 1942. Armed with the excellent 88mm L/56 the Tiger has a comfortable advantage over enemy tanks until 1944, and from then on is still a formidable opponent. Be wary of its high ground pressure which will cause it to bog is all but the firmest ground. Pz. Kpfw. VI B “King Tiger” – Although fairly rare, if you are fortunate enough to have one, the King Tiger is one of the most powerful weapons on the battlefield. Extremely well armored, with the incredibly powerful 88mm L/71, the King Tiger, in my experience is immune to enemy fire at ranges exceeding 400m. Again, do whatever you can to keep it from bogging down, and carefully control its fire so that you don’t needlessly expend valuable ammunition on low-threat targets. I'll try to talk about some Russian tanks as well as the many German tank destroyers a bit later.

Hmm, alot of these comparisions depend on the time period you are talking about, and the features which you are comparing. Also keep in mind that the Germans had many, many variants of tanks, making this a big subject, but I'll try my best to give you my general understanding of it. I encourage everyone else to fill in anything I've missed. German vs. Soviet Tanks: A Comparison of Design Features, Armor, Armament Armored Fighting Vehicles: Design Features: An often overlooked consideration when assessing the relative strength of armored forces is taking into account how well the tanks are designed. On a real battlefield, there is much more to tank warfare than armor thickness and gun caliber. In general, I would say that German tanks are very well designed. They were equipped with radios throughout the war, giving them better command and control than Soviet tanks for some time into the campaign. They have exceptional optics, giving them unparalleled spotting and targeting capability. Many of the lighter German tanks have excellent all around visibility, due to a number of periscope type devices located around the tank. As far as the crew compliment is concerned, many German tanks, unlike their early war Soviet counterparts, had enough crew members to manage a complex fighting vehicle efficiently. A lot of the smaller early war Soviet light tanks, which they had in unbelievable numbers, were undermanned, and had 2 or 3 crewmembers doing the job of 4 or 5 people. From mid war on, many German AFVs also have special defensive features such as Zimmerit, an anti-magnetic paste meant to stop hand held infantry mines, Schürzen, or “skirts” (the word actually means aprons; “der Rock” is a skirt) which greatly help in defending against hollow charge weapons such as the US Bazooka, the British PIAT, and various Russian AT shells fired from some of the heavier guns. Some German AFVs also had a device called a Nahverteidungswaffe, which was effectively a short range mortar and smoke discharger. Armor: German AFVs used mainly faced-hardened, rolled steel armor that was of much higher quality than the cast-type armor found on some enemy vehicles. As a general rule of thumb, German tanks with armor of the same thickness and angle as a Soviet tank will have greater survivability against comparable projectiles. This will change a bit later on as the quality of German manufacturing decreases, but I think you will find that well hardened German armor greatly contributes to the number of shells that break up on impact. Armament: Although many tanks that participated in Barbarossa were hopelessly outgunned as they were equipped with the outdated 37mm gun, it is my firm opinion that the German army, from 1942 on, has a considerably advantage in armament. They consistently have superior ammunition, and are consistently able to achieve one-shot-kills against the more common Soviet AFVs. KEEP IN MIND, that the greatest strength of Soviet AFVs is their vast numerical superiority. While they may not always stack up well in a one-on-one fight, this isn’t normally a problem, as a German commander is always lucky to fight at 1vs.1 odds. If you think it’d be helpful, I can try to list the more common German and Soviet AFVs and juxtapose them directly.

Lol, didn't realize I did that. What I meant to say was that the armor on the KV-1 Model 1941 is 75mm + 20mm @ 30 degrees on the front upper and lower hulls. If you can maneuver a 50mm L/60 with tungsten rounds so that the angle at which it is attacking from offsets the slope in the armor, you can kill one even at some distance with the tungsten ammo. The reason that this is important is because armor slope greatly increases the chance of a richochet, which, as suggested by the manual, is partly a function of the shot-to-plate ratio. Since the 50mm Tungsten round kills due to its high velocity and not its large caliber. Thus the width of the shell, when compared to the thickness of the armor, does not stack up favorably. The theoretical chance of penetration, however, remains the same. Thus, in a quick scenario that I threw together to test it, I found that if I put a Pz.Kpfw. IIIJ on top of a hill I was able to kill the KV at 200m in 3 shots: -The first hit and penetrated the front upper hull. -The second hit the track -- no report on damage - The third penetrated the front lower hull, knocking out the tank.

In addition to the guns listed above: I was able to kill a KV at 100m in two shots with the 42mm German AT gun, listed as the 29.4 L/56 The German 75mm L/46 is also an effective alternative to the captured 76.2mm. As mentioned above the 50mm L/60 with tungsten is a possible solution. I've found that in that particular instance, the angle of attack is especially important. If you can maneuver so that the

A less talked about weapon that is equally effective is the 37mm Pak36 with Hollow Charge Rounds fired from the special muzzle attatchment they issued. As you know, the 37mm gun is really common, and if you were playing a quick battle, they might be a good cost effective choice. The only downside to the HC rounds is their really slow muzzle velocity...it'd be tough to hit a moving KV at range.

Its been playing in Pittsburgh, PA for about 2 weeks now, and in that time I've seen it twice. Its definately worth it, even if you do have to go a bit out of the way.

The scenario briefing mentions that intitially some of the Tigers had mechanical problems which caused them to break down on the battlefield. I do recall reading about instances where early Tigers, when functioning properly, could withstand a very large volume of AT fire, especially at range. I think the key to remember here though is the effectiveness of the 88mm gun rather than any particular defficiencies of the T-34. The reason it is considered by many to be the "best" tank of the war is not because it could outclass any other tank on the battlefield, but because it was by far the most capable tank produced in very large numbers. Although a slew of T-34s was unable to defeat 4 Tigers in this particular scenario, their combat effectiveness in less extraordinary conditions would be much greater than the 4 Tigers alone.

In that particular scenario, I believe the Germans get points for exiting the trucks, so if you have taken them out, I agree, call it a day. I feel that the main consideration before making any type of tactical maneuver is whether or not the final outcome will improve your position overall. Also, does the cost of failure outweigh the potential gain. You can ever look at it from a historical/roleplaying standpoint: The Germans need the supplies in the trucks to reinforce troops fighting at the front, you have deprived them of these resources by destroying the convoy, and have thus made a contribution to the war effort. Partisan operations depend on being able to "come back and fight another day" Attacking armor with unsuitably equipped infantry is possible, but for obvious reasons not reccommended. By sacrificing a disproportionate amount of your force to try to take out the German armor would in the grand scheme of things likely negate the success of destroying the trucks.

My intention was neither to give bad advice (as after reading your explaination of the various tactics involved, I would agree it is), nor was it to call your own experience into question. I simply wished to discuss the matter more fully; I wanted to debate. I am truly sorry if I have offended you, or if I have tested your patience. I'm new to this forum, but after considering that this is a "Tips and Tricks" forum and not a general discussion, I see my mistake in repeadtly questioning you. Please accept my apologies.

Again, that was a comprehensive and very well written post, and my intention is not to disagree with you in principle. Keep in mind, that everything I have written is in the general context of using craters as cover. Were one to have readily available HE support, an advantage in numbers and firepower, and the ability to traverse the most favorable defile of the terrain then his primary concern would likely not be what craters happen to be on the battlefield. The original author asked if craters were a valid type of field fortification. To me this question suggests an unfavorable for defferential from the outset. In such a case, a commander has neither the time nor the resources to get into a protracted battle that involves multiple rallying efforts and complex maneuvers As you said, in such a case, such a commander has no business attacking, and I agree wholeheartedly. At the same time, however, I can think of a number of scenarios in which on may be forced to do so, such as encirclement, or in an attempt to save an isolated unit. Or in an effort to quickly destroy an enemy position which poses a greater threat to your forces as a whole. Of course, whether you think there are any situations that warrant an attack against unfavorable odds is a different question altogether. On a final note about HE placement-- While I would agree that the effectiveness of High Explosive fire does not vary with distance, at least not in the sense that that AP fire does (in terms of the effect that it has in the eventuality of a hit), I do feel that it is at least somewhat less effective at range. Allow me to explain-- (I'm talking about direct fire weapons) 1.) It is ostensibly more difficult to hit a target at long range than at short range. Even with a good crew and optics, the longer the round has to travel, the greater its chances of being taken off course or deflected by brush and the like, especially considering the low muzzle velocity and short barrels of most anti-infantry cannons. 2.) Distance offers the enemy a greater opportunity to break contact. Due to the natural lay of the land, and his ability to either fall back or otherwise change his location, it is much more likely that an enemy would be able to find cover at 800m than at 100m 3) Overwatch may be less effective if the enemy has indirect fire support of his own. Depending on how well the defender is dug in, and what type of resources he has available, "counter-battery" fire may be effective in curbing your advantage.

I can see you've thought all of this out very well and agree with much of what you've said. My point about closing with the enemy was mainly in regards to how infantry firepower increases as you get closer to the enemy. As many assault squads, especially Soviet ones, employ large quantities of submachineguns, logic would suggest that these units would only be at their most effective at shorter ranges. As far as heavy weapons go, while it is true that the attackers can use their HMGs to support the assault from a distance, their ability to suppress the enemy in terms of firepower is limited to a fixed value determined by their distance from the target. The defending HMGs, however, will become more effective as the attackers get closer. Thus my point is that it is difficult for the attacking force to match the defenders in firepower, especially when accounting for distance and exposure, unless they are able to make use of all of the shorter range weapons in their arsenal. Therefore, the primary consideration is not the time that it takes to close with the enemy, but rather attaining a position from which you can bring all of your firepower to bear against him.

Although I can see how at times craters might be effective, I would argue that it is always better to use artillery against the enemy than to blow holes in the ground. Consider that when attacking, your objective is likely to close ground with the enemy as quickly as possible, becuase at any range the defender has the advantage of both precision fire from his bolt-action rifles, as well as the support of heavy machine guns and mortars. You on the other hand, have only the squad LMG and don't match up well as far as expose goes. Thus you want to avoid getting stuck in any one part of the field. While craters may offer more protection than just being in the thick of it, they should only be used if there is no possibility of advance, as being in a crater probably hinders your ability to fire back, and certainly makes it easier for the enemy to target you. The exception to this would of course be if you were the defender. In such a situation, a planned bombardment etc not only adds to the available defensive positions, but also tears up the landscape making it more difficult for the enemy to maneuver his armor effectively.

This is an interesting scenario in which I've found myself more often than I'd like. I generally agree with the sentiments expressed above, but I would like to add a bit. I think your course of action largely depends on how much you know about the enemy. For example, sometimes you get hit by a target that is labeled generically as "tank?". While you can generally tell what type of gun is being fired by the sound it makes (a 85mm or 88mm is deeper and louder than a 75/76.2mm), many times the opposition you are facing makes a considerable difference. In such situations, where you don't know exactly what you are facing or exactly where they are, smoke is sometimes effective, as they might not have the best line of sight to begin with. Furthermore, also consider your chances of hitting the enemy, as well as his chances of hitting you. Use the LOS tool to check your probability, and whether or not you are hull down. Similarly, evaluate the experience level of your crew, and see how it matches up to what you feel to be the experience level of the enemy. Many times, Germans with higher experience and better optics can win a shoot out with accuracy and composure under fire. A final consideration is your armor and which direction you are facing. Some tanks, such as the Panther in the "Golzow" scenario, have proven to be very well protected from frontal fire from large guns, even at extremely close ranges. I would advise that no matter what course of action you decide upon in the end, to always rotate the front of the AFV towards the enemy.