Zalgiris 1410

Sir Jo Bjeklke-Peterson was origionally a Kiwi, I didn't know that so now I wish that he had stayed there, but just as with all bloody NZers who cross the Tasman he never went home! I don't mind about the rest of them since I've generally only meet good Kiwis over here. That said, I was told by a few of them that the shyte stays home. I am however not a NZ basher personally, I think very strongly of myself as an Australasian rather than as a dumb Aussie or as a stupid Skip in Wog terms. That said I'm fully awere that I am a Bolander and not a Pakaha. (White Australian and not a white New Zealander, how ever the Maori spell it.) [ July 29, 2005, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

What Australia invade New Zealand, you've gotta be joking! (While that would be a walkover as they haven't got an Air Force.) I tell you the reality is that they are taking over the land of Oz. There are more than a million of Kiwis over here across the Tasman Sea and it may altimately be the case that they will take over fully Oz if we are to combine geo-politically! That said, they have got some better refugee treatment policies and real cosmopolitan friendly inclusive multi-cultural policies amoung others that are being very maligned in the land of Oz these days. It may not be a bad idea, and if things get worse here I think that I might have to seek asylum in the land of the long white cloud... Seriously though; including the Greek Campaigne sounds like a good idea to me and to actually also include the Greeks in it as well. It could even start from October 1940, beginning with the Italian invasion and continue to April 1941 with the German conquest where the Commonwealth Expedition and the Wehrmacht and the SS (Liebstandarte) as well as Italins and Greek forces are availiable to take part. (Not something that is only Aussie centric and being apparently ADF restricted.) Some very interesting things happened in that campaigne and if the Greeks are availiable they should also then be included in the Crete campaigne as well. IMHO, CMAK is perfect for depicting and simulating the events. This would be historically correct and a good opportunity to appeal to the pride of any Hellens out their in CMAK world, since I'm sure that there are quite a few. PS: BTW what does IIRC stand for? I can't bloody fingure it out! :confused: [ July 29, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Thanks Tar excellent link, since as I really like the NZ Infantry arm patches of all the Commonwealth forces I go them quite a bit, this will be handy. The black and white colours look really cool, to me they feel as good as like going the SS in terms of inspiring fear in the enemy etc. That said I am an Aussie and not a particularly WASPy one at that, it feels a bit weird rooting for my little All Blacks! I know how ruff and tough they are even though we've got the worst reputation, convict shame and all that. But after all isn't Russell Crowe origionally a mad New Zealander!

I think it probably works best in the first three years of the war where tank guns aren't very effective at long range and their armor is thin enough to be vulnerable to the ATGs. The situation in NA was ideal for the Germans because, prior to the introduction of the 6pdr on the other side, their long 50mm ATG was more powerful than anything else. And as you point out, you need a pretty big map to have enough room to make all this work, and the dust of NA gives a screen for the ATGs to unlimber and get set up in. I think basically, you want to advance your tanks just far enough to get the other guy's attention, maybe exchange a few shots, and then pull back before any serious damage is done. It's the kind of tactic that needs practice to get all the timing right. It also helps if your opponent is not excessively bright. Michael </font>

Thanks for that Captain Pies, that's pretty well established then, alright. BTW I have been doing some test with HMGs against ATGs and watching for the protective performance of their shields for their crews. All this with crack troops too, to be sure. I have found that the American Browning M2 .50 / 12.7mm HMGs can knock out German ATGs by what must be the penetriation of their double spaced shields even out to as far as 500m or so, haven't tried farther out yet. On the other hand other HMGs in the .03 of an inch cal. can only force German ATGs to be abandoned by their crews and it seems to take them longer to do so. Even so the benefits of having a few firing at those ATGs suppresses them quite effectively beforehand anyway and that's in the case of both cals. IMO it is the penetration that unnerves the crew faster done by the .50 / 12.7mm HMGs that may account for the slight time differrence. I stongly suggest using a platoon or more HMGs on each ATG in order for full effect though and reason also that some of your HMGs are likely themselves going to be suppressed. I also recomend aiming area fire on them for a couple of turns when they become just stars. They can't move safely and eventually abandone the gun, this is easy enough to do against ATGs in foxholes because it is obvious where exactly to target. :cool: [ July 27, 2005, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Yeah that's all fine Mike I have learnt to live without K 18s in CM so far accepting the reason that they were more of a support weapon than a tactical one. I would of cause like to have them to depict when they were used tactically or as a fancy item and having them in my order of battle, in the same way that you can with the other small production guns etc. That said the 105 leFHs were only used tactically in emegencies themselves, after all they certainly were also meant to be an indirect support weapon to be sure.

This tactical concept that Micheal Emrys describes was known as Sword and Shield. I've tried to emulate it on occations but I find that my tanks get KOed to much for it to work or the enemy tanks don't follow up as expected, something always seems to go wrong for me! Anyway, I'm better with just using reverse slope positions, but I haven't tried destroying buildings to create a field of fire for hiding ATGs yet, but it sounds good, especially against an opponent that doesn't suspect what you really are up to. I also think IMHO though that the Sword and Shield tactic would best be used on large enough battle maps and given enough time, especially in dusty CMAK moreso than in CMBB where I have mostly so far tried to employ this kind of ruse. :cool: Mike the US 12.7 HMGs are a good counter to this kind of tactic being used against one's self, they penetriate the German ATG shields and quickly force even crack crews to become pined and suppress their fire thus sparing your tanks a lot of effective incoming AT-AP rounds. [ July 26, 2005, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Point of order, Napoleon was a thorough going Corsican.

Alex Buchner, mind you we've had problems with him before although I think I have other sources on a total production number of 183 for 28mm / 20mm Panzerbuchse, I'll look but I am pretty sure of that figure. I don't doubt that they were very effective in North Africa against lighly armoured British Cruiser tanks, in fact I know they were used there. But what is 'used in fairly significant numbers', Rommell at times only had 35 88mm Flak and they were used extensively against British tanks, no one doubts that. But that is not a case of them being 'used in fairly significant numbers' now is it. Thanks Mike for the link, really great. From it I agree that there were about 1700 or so K 18 105mm. this figure is more than the combined totals for: 42mm / 29mm conical PAK 41: 313 75mm L G recoil-less gun: 653 105mm L G recoil-less gun: 528. My understanding is that the 105mm K 18 often referred to as 100mm :confused: were usually in the third Battery of heavy Artillery Battalions in Panzer Divisions for their greater range. They were also found to be the only other gun able to deal with KVs (and no doubt Matilda IIs) along with the 88mm Flak in 1941-42. The 105mm K 18 were there and were used in this way just as these other guns that are in CM, including the 183 28mm / 20mm heavy Panzerbuchse. I don't have a problem with them being in CM at all. That said, in CM game terms, I don't like the tungsten only guns (no HE) or the smoke plume from the recoil-less guns, (gives away firing position to much) and with no protective shield either!

A smoke screen is another good answer to deploy ATGs to good firing positions and for waiting out their set up delays as well.

Mike I agree that they didn't have all that many of them but I consider them an important assest in the German arsenal especially in 1941 and 1942 to deal with heavy Soviet Tanks. They used them in emergencies to be sure but I think when they were they had an effect similar to 88mm Flak in a tank killing capacity. Sorry for being off the topic but to my mind it is related in the sense that if CM has 105mm Artillery spotters but only 105mm Howitzers availiable for on the map what would be the effect of them as actual guns against tanks? BTW CM has 28mm Heavy Panzerbusche ATRs in it and there were exactly only 183 of those made in total! Also there are the Recoil-less guns and the 42/29mm ATG I don't think they made many of those either.

When you sneak also order your Bazooka team to then hide, that way they should quickly become a lost target, generic star maker which doesn't attract fire, hopefully! Timing is the key, as Lucho said, since there is no shoot and scoot equivalent ambush order, its all up to you to manage with the commond delay and the pause to follow order feature. PS: Hey what's with slighting the French gavlong, they have nearly always stood and fought it out, AFAIK. [ July 24, 2005, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I fully concur that it always takes 40 seconds and for each individual shell AFAIK!

This may be so Mike, but they actually did have a 100mm or possibly a 105mm field gun usually in one single battery in some of their heavy 150mm howitzer battalions, especially in Panzer Divisions, though I think also in whole battlions as Korps or Army assests. I have read about them (at least from Raus including in the Luga bridgehead) as the only other answer that the Germans had along with 88mm Flak for dealing with KVs in 1941. I would like to have those in CMx2! Anybody else? [ July 24, 2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Thanks Dandelion for the pictures and I agree that they show the double shields on the 75mm PAK 40s were each of only 4mm thickness with a 25mm gap. I have come to the conclusion, through reading this thread, that the correct figures AFAIK are of- a single 5mm thick shield for 37mm PAK 35/36, 2 4mm thick shields with 25mm gap for 50mm PAK 38, 2 4mm thick shields with 25mm gap for 75mm PAK 40. However, Dandelion I did not misquote my copy of Alex Buchner which has on page 78 "The 37mm PAK had... a small angular shield, 50mm thick, raked sharply backward." IMHO I now believe this to be a misprint and meant to be 5mm thick, the 'small angular shield' hints that it should be 5mm and not a big 50mm of thickness. Also on page 80 "The 50mm PAK also had...the pair of curved shields, 24mm thick, with straight outer edges and mounted 25mm apart, making a double shield." And on pages 81-82 "Thus the 75mm PAK came...(with) Two low, sharply raked shields of 4mm thickness, with a 25mm gap and an auxiliary partial shield that folded forward, protected the crew." Thus, with these figures of ATG shield thickness not being the same I always new there was a misprint in my copy. I had assumed the 4mm for the 75mm PAK was wronge and the 24mm for the 50mm PAK was right for both of these guns, especially given that it had a 50mm thick shield printed for the 37mm PAK 35/36. This is what I had beforehand always believed, I now understand otherwise. But that is what threw me and made me start up this thead, strewth, all this from just a bloody printers' error! Well at least I've been enlightened, thanks. [ July 24, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Good story Wingmanx, I love it when Infantry take out an AFV with demo charges or grenade bundles. Fun to watch and hope! I agree with the other posts that it is best to stay in cover and let the AFV come to you, that is the ideal method given that the situation comes about. However it doesn't always pass close enough and you then have to move closer or follow it from behind and those emergency actions can be more fun. It is too easy to wait for the AFV to expose its self to a hiding squad, though that is best tactically for your troops. Obviously, but it is heartening to move troops against enemy tanks that have broken into your MLR or town, village or whatever and actually remove them when you've got no other means to do so. The AI is bad at handling armour and I find that it will advance tanks into villages and towns without Infantry support. Easy to close assault.

Thanks Andreas and Dorosh for the links. I shall now, for myself at least, sort this out and come up with the correct ratios for Vickers HMGs, 3 and 4.2 inch mortars, carriers, AAGs and for ATGs. (Conscious of the time frames and changes in TO&E for Commonwealth Infantry Divisions!)

My appologies JasonC I stand corrected, I really did mean something better than the SU-122 as a counter to Ubercats. Along with MikeyD I also confuse it with the ISU-122, but I was thinking of the SU-152 as the best initial response in the Soviet AFV arsenal to kill Ubercats, IMHO. I think we can all agree on that? Thanks (JasonC) also for your instructive second follow up post clarifying the uses of Sturmoviks, AT mines, 57mm ATGs, T-34/57s, T34/85s, the SU-152s and engineers with their demo charges. Good post. (I like SU-100s and IS-2 44s myself) That said I agree with Mike that the SUs and ISUs were Assult Guns come Tank Destroyers and not Self Propelled (long range indirect fire) Artillery. I think of the SU-122 as equivalent to or actually falling between the 105mm Stug H and the 150mm Brumbar, simply as HE chundering close infantry support Assualt Guns. As MikeyD points out only the SU-76 should be considered as SPA, its so vulnerable it has to stay back. I feel that SPAs on the map in CM game terms are forced to behave more like Assualt Guns because of the need for direct spotting to targets and thereby it is easy to confuse their role. If you want to depict indirect supporting fire from an SP battery then you have to take it in the form of off map artillery. PS: If you are playing with good AFVs I advise getting some AAGs especially of 37mm cal to deter or disrupt the attack run of or even to shoot down enemy planes. I always use a few, even bloody Sturmoviks do get shot down, thankfully! (Hopefully, especially for someone playing againts JasonC!) [ July 20, 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Thanks Krill, if ATG shields weren't designed to resist ATR and APMG ammo then it is not as big an issue as I thought it might have been. That then means that, as described in a few posts above, they were just to protect the crew from regular ammo and shrapnel.

I believe Alex Buchner (German infantry handbook) got these numbers wrong. More credible are the stated two 4mm plates at 25mm interval for the PAK38 and PAK40 and a single 5mm plate for the 37mm PAK. Sufficient to defeat incoming MG fire and not much else.

Thanks Kettler but I'm downunder, however I've seen plenty of guns around Melbourne. [ July 16, 2005, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Actually if you still want to fight with Soviet light armour during the first 6 months of the war, the best tanks are the OT-134 (flame T-26) with 37mm front turret armour thinkness and the T-26E (heavy) with 40mm of front armour. The BT-7M is the best BT but while still having only 15mm of armour it is slightly faster. You should match them up with Pz 35(t) and the Pz 38(t)A, since they both only have 25mm of poorer rivitted armour with a 37mm tank gun. They also have low stocks of ammo, but still you should out number them.

I just tested OT-34s and when they are in range they will use flame themselves but if you are giving them a target you have to give a "no" to using their main gun against the target. If you click "yes" to engaging the close target with the main gun then that is what the tank will do, instead of using the flamethrower.

All early Soviet Tanks are pretty thinly amoured with 15mm thick mostly. In the instance of your B-T7s they have only greater than that on their lower front hull. Paper thin and totally out gunned by Pz IIIs, which has 30mm of better quality armour that the 45mm tank guns with as mentioned poor AT ammo find extremely hard to penetrate at from 500 metres. Beyond that range during 1941 it is nearly impossible for all obsolete tanks to face. Less than 500m and the poor ammo messes with their confidence and it is still a daunting challenge for them. They have to retreat to save themselves! In fact Pz IICs out perfrom all those early Soviet tanks even the BT-7 despite the caliber differrence. Try Czech tanks, T-35s and T-38s for a more even fight for those old tanks. The Germans used plenty of them so it is historical to arrange such match ups. If you still want to fight against Pz IIIs with 50mm guns long or short you should use the T-70 which become quite common from early 1942. T-60 out guns the Pz IIs with its rate of fire for its longer 20mm gun if you compare them and it is very noticable at distance. So is the T-70 against the Pz III even with the long 50mm gun. They can't knock out T-70s until they come close enough for them to penetrate their thick armour. [ July 16, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I agree, I play on big maps and I find that there is a range limit on my Flak, so if I advance a fair distance I will need to move up AAGs or have it self-propelled for protection. The only thing that effects AAGs is buildings getting in their LOS. They may replot to the plane they are targeting but they reduce the amount of fire they throw at it because of the time it took pausing and re-aimimg. So don't place AAGs too close to builds esspecially doulbe story if you expect enemy planes.