Zalgiris 1410

Mace you mustn't have drunk all the beer downunder, try James Boags' Premium that's 5% and what's a Crown Largar at, hey Mace you can find out for yourself can't ya mate? There is also some import beer well over 5% the highest AFAIK is Elephant Beer approx 8% IIRC, it has been a while since I had a few of those and I must have always been too drunk to remember, I think its Belgian.

AAGs are excellent for shooting down planes but mainly should be invested in to disrupt bomb, rocket and strafe runs. If your AA prevents your equipment from being destroyed then it has contributed all that can be asked of it. As too the difference between 20mm and 37mm AAGs both are capable of shooting down all kinds of planes but you probably require more numbers of 20mm than of 37mm to be sure of kills. 2x 20mm AAGs is not enough IME. I love shooting down planes so I take 4-6 37mm AAGs in large point battles and the advantage of the 37mm over the 20mm is their effect on the enemy; 21 blast effect as apposed to penutes.

No way the Poles could have stopped the Blitzkrieg even if the Soviets didn't also invade for some Uncle Joe reason. The only way the Germans could have been stopped in Poland was if the French and probably others had attcked Germany strongly enough to distract them and coase them to divert their forces before they had overrun the whole of Poland. Not that that was going to happen either.

O.K. JasonC I conceed that the idea that the SS Korps even if re-inforced with availiable reserves or replaced Panzer Divisions in mid July 1943 was not going to secure victory, I don't seriously believe that they could have by then. I meant it fairly flipantly. Thanks for the stats but you haven't mentioned the 23rd PzD down with 6th Army and needed there to be sure just above the Sea of Azov. I don't agree with you that the existance of the forces of the 5th Guards Tank Army and of the Steppe Front was totally new information for the Germans. Hoth had not only taken it into account but had actually estimated and guessed its likely appearance accurately and planned to meet it as he did. His plan was hamstrung by the poor mechanical reliability of the Panthers and of the lack of successful support of his flanking Panzer Korps etc. I'm not disputing your figures for the 5th GTA of the 16th, I'm not going to claim that they picked up replacements or re-inforcements but I'll stress that I am referring to runners not to total numbers. Your second point here that Army Group Middle had to go on to the defensive and was therefore no longer able to continue with the offensive is to be seriously considered to be sure. What was knew information was the strength of the Russian reserves and availiable forces that were attacking elsewhere - the Germans found out that they had lost the strategic balance which was what they were attempting to achieve with Operation Citadel. In fact this supports my opinion that the attack needed to be lanched in early May 1943 to have succeeded in this goal and create an operational reserve for the Eastern Front. I still don't think such a force would have altered the outcome of the war too significantly as it would have been eventually exhusted counter-attacking all those coming Russian offensives. [ August 21, 2005, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Killed the lot of them? </font>

No I disagree with you as to the number of tanks left to 5th Guards Tank Army it had only 150 runners as reported by its commander on the 13th IIRC, that is all that I would consider effectively to have survived without damage and esp. if the Germans weren't delayed re-organising themselves that day as well. The other 150 or so were damaged and who knows how long it took for them to have been returned to opperations, at least the majority of them within time. Mind you the numbers of Russian tanks lost or left in the 5th Guards Tank Army doesn't concern me all that much, I think if there were enough there might have been another Death ride with simmilar results. IIRC wasn't it the 5th Guards Tank Army that suffered 500 tank losses trying to rush around and liberate Kharhov in just 3 days in August 43 against no more than 2 Panzer Divisions a few Infantry Divisions and some Flak! [ August 19, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Germany had lost the production war by Kursk. [ August 19, 2005, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Interesting but IMHO Stalingrad was more decisive. [ August 19, 2005, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Thanks Mike for the link, excellant enough depiction of the 105mm K18 in ATG role. Pitty about the typo / translation errors, so I'm not actually sure if the action refers to one single gun or battery, but no bother. This example provides a good example of why I don't like using 88mm Flak to represent 105mm K18s, they are spotted and knock out too quickly by those 76mm tank guns, I was hoping the K18s might last longer to be effective as in this example. Mike the link gives the K18 stats as 32 pounds and 835 m/s, great to know, is this correct and do you have any other info such as weight, etc? Also thanks to Jason C for the clear exposition, but I think the 105mm K18s were extremely effective in the ATG role from my reading when in the exceptional instances they were used, esp 41-42. Your summery corresponds to what I was saying earlier in this thread, 1 bty of 4 K18 guns in the heavy Btln of each Panzer Div and as Btlns at Korps and Armee level.

That recent opinion somehow appears to be ignoring that the Soviets had another front standing ready to defend. Also, only one division was sent to Italy (LSSAH), and it is open to question how much of its equipment it took. Finally, the Soviet attack on the Mius was a serious threat that needed to be defeated, and Armeeabteilung Hollidt was not capable of doing so without reinforcement. At the same time the Soviets were putting serious pressure on the 2nd Army front around Orel. In these circumstances an operational breakthrough by one pincer would have been meaningless, because it would not have achieved any of the aims which the operation was trying to achieve. So I think that this recent opinion is somewhat optimistic about the ability to break-through in the first place, and using blinders to studiously ignore what was going on elsewhere, making it less valuable or relevant as it may appear at first. </font>

On the subject of the French Generals of 1940, it was their doctrine that was flawed which is different to being incompident. Their techniques were hopeless, ie planning delays too long to deal with the fast pace of Blitzkrieg though to be sure they were strategically out thought by the Munstein plan of course. They also suffered from the technical / logistical falabilities of their armoured Divisions which were enept, the 2nd for instance was split up and vertually ceased to exist while trying to be diverted to face Hoth thus having no impact at all on the campaigne. Their tanks had one man turretts with all the problems that this entails in overloading the commander with too many responsibilities and were with out radios! Fragile WWI era tank forces for sure. I think also that the French Army was practically abandoned by its Airforce as it retreated and hid on airfields in the depths of France after Luftwaffe raids on their forward bases. So much was wrong that incompitence and therefore worst actual Generalship did not need to be a factor in their defeat, IMHO. That said, IIRC their overall commaders relied upon the public telephone lines as their most advanced form of communication, as bad as that sounds though I would suggest that this be taken as an indication of their static warfare dependent thinking rather than providing evidence of them constituting amoung the worst generals of WWII. They were following outmoded methods for the most part. The same goes for Soviet Generals in 1941-42 except those so far as mentioned as being totally inept in their military capacity. They understandably, given the system and the purges and what they were up against, weren't going to perform too spectacularly. As a Lithuanian I emphatically have no love for Soviet or Nazi political apointments period. On Clark, who has been castigated here as I have read elsewhere, I personally don't hold a negative view of him as most. He tried to bounce the Gothic line at its most strategically important offering, that is at Cassino and when that failed and again I don't blame the Texan 36th Div in anyway for that, wasn't it he who dreamed up the idea of combining the 2nd attempt with the Anzio landings? To my mind it was a good enough concept but failed due to 3 factors, the strength of the Gothic line, the limited amount of landing craft and reserves for the punch of the Anzio forces and thirdly the effectiveness and agility of the German response to the landings which were quite fast. The weather effected both these battles as well as the third battle of Cassino with the 4th Indian and Freybergs' NZer Div. Clarks lunge for Rome is cirtainly a case of attrocious misjudgement but it stemmed more for vainity at the worst while definately not being excusable militarilly. Sorry I'm no expert here on Clark but these are my impressions considering what he at least attempted to do to reach objectives more so than the British did in the North Western Theatre while under Alexander in Italy who was hamstrung strategically by a lack of priority. My Grandfathers' brother was captured in Sinapore and died after the Sandakan Death March so the less I say about Percival the better. The posts in this thread so far outline the facts true enough. [ August 04, 2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

It would have mattered in delaying the Russians by a few months as mentioned above but it would have resualted in large numbers of prisoners for slave labour, which was one of Hitlers' aims, a shortening of the Front line and the creation of German reserves that would not have mattered much in Normandy IMO but would have been consumed dealing with the continued Russian offensive blows across the Eastern Front after Kursk battles which at most would have been stimyed until some great series of winter offensives. The Germans ultimately were loosing the war of production. Recent oppinion on Kursk goes something like this AFAIK the SS led Southern prong had broken the 5th Guards Tank Army at Prokhorovka and could still have continued to achieve an operational break through but that the attack was called off, not lost. IMO Hitler lost his nerve sending the SS and Panzer Divs to other places on the Russian front or to Italy, the reason he gave for calling off Operation Zitadel was the Allied landings on Sicily! [ August 02, 2005, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

No, but you would have to follow cricket, so it means January, the middle of Summer downunder.

Freyberg commanded the Tenth Corps at end of the North African campaigne, IIRC. His two obvious sandout failures were IMO both exceptional circumstances. For Crete Wavell should also hold responsibility for not having equiped the garrison properly, (didn't provide more than a few captured Italian guns when he had more modern 25 pdrs and tanks that he kept in NA.) However Crete was cirtainly a case of him mishandling the accurate intelligence information that Ultra intercepts provided him, however he did not know of the reliability of that source. He was not informed of the exact nature of Ultra though I would assume he had some incling as to it. I view this I would excuse this as a case of being properly informed without knowing the nature of the information- as happened elsewhere with Ultra reports at times and I would expect elsewhere even these days in the information age. Of couse having that information was no gerantee of Genereals making the right decisions. For example O'Conner underestimating the threat that Rommell posed in March-April 1941 because Ultra sources gave the mission of 5th Light Division as defensive and that a Light Div :confused: was heavy in ATGs? Not that I rate O'Conner as anyway brilliant, penny packeter he was but good enough I suppose. Monty also expected a surprise reposte from Rommell after Alemain, Ultra info indicating Hitlers Fuhrer Order to hold on! This was the only excuse for his tardiness in following up hard enough. So I can forgive Freyberg for apparently dismissing the reports of two Airbourne Div being in the attack forces and as it turned out the 22nd Airlanding Div was diverted to Rumania anyway. It quite easily could have sounded hair raising I suppose. The critical loss of Meleme Airfield was due to the local NZ Battalion and Brigade commanders overseeing tactical withdraws in the face of the supprised attack that allowed the strategic defeat, definitively not Freybergs' fault. On the subject of the third battle of Cassino it was his best Brigade commander Kippenberger who convinced a not unwilling Freyberg mind you for sure to demand the carpet bombing of the Monestry, the position was just too stong for any kind of local success anyway. The way the NZ Div or rather more specifically the 28th Moari Battalion tried to pierce though the defence was a fair enough plan IMHO and probably resulted in less casualties than another kind of attack, while still attempting to successfully get to the open ground beyond, which had been the objective. Eventually in the fourth battle of Cassino the Allies didn't directly attack there again waiting until the Gothic line was smashed before allowing the Poles to move in. There wasn't enough support that could be given in the first three battles of Cassino including Freybergs' attempt mostly due to bad weather as well as the good German defensive positions in the Gothic line. After the failure Freyberg and Kippenberger AFAIK and everybody else drew the proper conclusion to wait to launch a full attack in better weather, they had still been trying to bound the Gothic line in bad conditions. If Freyberg had have continued to bash directly against the Cassino position and badly in the face of heavy casualties then he would have to be considered to rate amount the worse Generals of WWII, which obviously he was not. [ August 02, 2005, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Yeah I forgot to metion the T-34/57, but lack big enough HE blast effects as Soddball points out above. They didn't build many of these versions, a few for sure, but personally I feel it is a bit gamey to use them, unless I can imagine them being used on such and such occation. They are better againt Panzers than the 76.2mm tanks with a slightly faster rate of fire, however I prefer the KV-1s and Churchill IIIs with the thicker protection for the mid 1943 time period, but it is not me playing your games, just do as you wish.

Yeah I believe it, ATGs against AI tank forces are bloody devestaiting, the AI is no good at dealing with hiden ATGs. I find it easy to ambush with them. The AI has a tendancy to advance tanks forwards on their own without support or cover and lacks an effective technique of using combined arms or rational reasoning for that matter! IMO hiding ATGs positioned in cover or concealed on the creast line (hull down) give you the destinct advantage over AFVs. In my experience they KO the armour mostly without giving them enough time to effectively fire HE back at them. That I put down to the spotting prolems armour have against such deployments of ATGs. The only trick to it is to have enough guns properly positioned so as to dominate the AT fire fight with co-ordinated crossfire/combined arks of fire from several guns. Consentraition of fire is the key, while waiting for the armour to approach to within good range is the pre-requisite, then just let lose with AP. I have found it is not uncommon to have all ATGs servive after taking out dozens of AFVs so much so that I give them extra HE rounds when I edit because that way they are able to contribute against enemy Infantry, as apposed to just sitting their like a lame duck doing nothing while over stocked with unneeded AP rounds. After playing CM I respect ATGs and their RL crews as much as some Panzer Aces said they did! For sure quite the unexpexted shock. :eek: [ August 02, 2005, 02:48 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

This has been interesting fighting against a platoon and more PzIVs, as the Russians in the the July-August 1943 time period at 1000 points. From my experience I agree with the above posts, you have the option of going with a heap of SU-76Ms, or a few KV-1s or Churchill IIIs, if you don't want to use T-34s or a few SU-152s (which as I said are best for dealing with Tigers). IMO the SU-76Ms are annoying to use and not good against other enemy forces, while being cheap and therefore plentiful they obviously don't servive as much as T-34 43(late) can. On the best two tanks to go the KV-1s good because they servive the longest over all but with a 2 man turrett suffer the related spotting and lower rate of fire problems and the Churchill IIIs which fire a better AT ability 57mm gun faster than the others but are a little less well protected than the KV-1s, not much but does mean that when their turretts are hit they are more likely to be KOed rather than just have their main guns damaged. A mix of both kinds works well, and are these are both effective even as Conscipts against PzIVHs even when they are Cracked up! [ August 01, 2005, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Yes! I've touched it! I have a copy. You're right - it is just a stripped down version with Bren Tripods and a shed-load of Crete scenarios. Nothing fancy and no Greece. Also includes an historical interface to teach RMC cadets about 2nd AIF history. You're not missing mutch, but it it is suitable for what it is intended - to teach history & get a grasp of basic tactics. Using a great simulation as the engine I might add, BTW, I was disappointed too - about the missing Vichy French - but I got over it. </font>

I gather that you are playing armour only meeting engagements of 1000 with no point differences, if not I advise you as the Russians to spend any remaining points on 75mm F-22 (L/51) Guns, good high velosity AT potential. I've been playing a few tests of these kind of 1000 point QBs since reading of your difficulties ErikinWest, and I have had quite some success as the Russians. I have played against crack PzIVH platoons and sometimes given them ATGs with their left over points, though with rairity I got a platoon of crack Tigers for less than a thousand. (You sure that your opponent is sticking with PzIVs only?) Bear in mind also that just one Tiger can alone change the balance quite significantly. Against them you are best having SU-152s. That said as for going against a platoon of PzIVs as the Russians I have done quite well, that is win with 3 platoons of veteran T-34 43(late) each for 332 points with rairity. I genarally lost over half of them, some with damaged guns which is not a complete loss and they can still be used as decoys of course. I noticed that the Germans spotted my tanks quicker than mine did theirs even when I was stationary and waiting for them with a covered ark! That seems to be the main problem that I had going up against them, they knock out my guys before my guys fire effectively at them. I found the extra numbers are the main answer in this dual, so obviously getting more of your tanks firing at less Panzers at one time helps. I was using the best tactics AFAIK and I have actually had a bit of fun doing it. FIGJAM! Use covered arks, concentration, overwatch, hunting, shooting and scooting (the best trick with this is having your tanks bobbing up and down in different locations forcing the Panzers to keep rotating to different targets without getting locked on to one to kill while having any of yours not in danger take the Panzers out!), hiding in cover and behind buildings, hull down, creast line and reverse slope firing positions, etc. Therefore I suggest imporving your tactics as best you can by reading other threads if necessary but however the main thing is to bare in mind the poorer spotting performance of Russian AFVs at this time. This means that they are fighting at a distinct disadvantage. You could start playing in a different time frame or have more points going the Russians against your opponent, if they are willing. Best of CM luck.

Thanks again Michael Emrys for the all the good info, not that I'm going to be buggard by too much worrying about CMx2 just yet, I'll complain after I get it! :cool: As an aside, though on the topic of this thread somewhat, I find the exclusive demands of CM by the ADF slightly funny, I mean who are they kidding, really!

Points taken thanks Michael Emrys both about the Greeks in Greece and and Crete and with the obvious complications with the FF fighting against the Vichy French in Syria. I have a little info on the Allied occupation of Syria and the fighting but it does have brief referrences in relation to the fighting for Demascus between both kinds of French forces. I can't fathom a set of CM simulations without being able to depict such an important engagement, therefore my wish to have veriety of opposition for my Diggers only, IMO doesn't justify having the campaigne theater in CMAK. It could have been managed if French Forces where availiable as the Axis protagonist during June-July 1941 and then switch to being Allied when they become availiable some time after that, just like how the Rumanians switch in CMBB. Of cause, if CMAK had the whole Greek campaigne in it then people would be demanding having the brief Yugoslavian campaigne and may be also the partisan conflict depicted as well. What a whole can of worms! [ July 30, 2005, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

That's how I feel, it was all Mr Webers' fault for not keeping them in in his American Dictionary in the first bloody place. Dumbasre. [ August 01, 2005, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Thanks K.A. Miles, got it. BTW I should say that my above suggestion of including the Greeks and the mainland Greek campaigne is a wish of mine for CMx2. I just thought it was odd to be missing from CMAK especially since the demands of the deployment of Commonwealth Forces to Greece allowed the Africa Korps to arrive in Tripoli in early 1941. I mean there is Crete for just one month only, although it does also have the East African campaign for interesting diversity early on in CMAK thankfully. On the other hand on an Australian side of things I also miss the posibility of fighting against the Vichy French in Syria. [ July 29, 2005, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Mortars thus utilising a HQ for spotting, can only fire at target areas that this HQ can actually observe with direct LOS. Personally, I can undertand that high velosity guns would find it difficult or impossible to fire indirectly at the tactical level the size of CM battle maps. On the other hand I don't understand not being able to fire indirectly at least using HQ as spotters or at a TRP with Infantry Guns, that's what they were designed to do and mostly did fire from hiden positions indirectly. I am thinking here especially in the case of the German 75mm L/11 low velosity light Infantry Gun. It is a minor gripe of mine but to get around it I take the guns as off-board support if I intend to use it indirectly. Thanks WineCape for your excellent post, the only thing that I would like to add has to do with senario design. Give extra ammo please! Take note of these ratios: Infantry and their HQs can be given an extra 50% Support Teams (MGs, ATRs, THs, Snipers) extra 50% All on-board guns & mortars (non-vehicle) extra 100% All off-board Artillery spotted support an extra 300% In the case of Infantry, HQs and Support Teams it is 50% of given normal full Quick Battle amount rounded down. (ie 35 + 17 = 52 not 53.) In the case of all on-board non-vehicle mounted guns and mortars it is able to be double the amount of ammo rounds that can be given, also rounded down. (ie 27 + 13 = 40 not 41, and in the case of most guns they can have 100 shells.) In the case of off-board Artillery support ammo levels rather than have a miserly 20 rounds for 150mm+ have 80, or for 60 have 240 rounds etc. [ July 29, 2005, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]