Zalgiris 1410

Thanks Dorosh I was thinking it was something along those lines. 3 Coy x 3 Pltn x 4 HMGs makes a British and Commonwealth Division equal to the number of HMGs in a German Regiment! 36 HMGs for 9 Infantry Btlns (named Rgmts) as aposed to 108 HMGs for 9 Btlns all up. This is scewed further by the fact that the Brit and Commo Inf Btlns usually had 4 Coys of 3 Pltns, while the German Divns were 3 Rgmts x 3 Btlns x 3 Coys x 3 Pltns. Thus this essentially means that for the Brit and Commo Infantry the ratio is a case of 1 HMG per Inf Coy! I had been assuming a higher ratio in my force compositions, say 48 (4 Coys x 3 Pltns x 4 HMGs) or 64 (4 Coys x 4 Pltns x 4 HMGs), not that I had any info except that each (H)MG Btln was likely to have 4 Coys. I am now confused about the number of 3 inch mortors in these Divisions. Anyone know for sure and that the TO&E of MG Btlns stayed the same throughout the War and during the CMAK time period?

Thanks Krill for the close up photos and yes I mistyped PAK 40 for the 37mm PAK 35/36 in the origional post. Actually those photos give me an idea, there are plenty of WWII guns around my city, out the front of Returned and Services League Clubs and in War Museaums, I should bloody take a look, hey! I am now convinced that the heavy figures given in my only source for any ATG shields were completely incorrect. I am interested in the overall effects and implications of the shields on ATGs in terms of protection, penetration and tactical survivability. But also I just want to know for the sake of it!

I am interested to know the thickness of ATG shields of all major armies and how this is or could be relavent to CM and the reality of the importence of these qualities historically, given the vital role they serve against tanks. I can get this started initially by presenting the German PAKs' shield thickness numbers from an authentic (enough Alex Buchner) source. 37mm PAK 40 50mm thick shield. 50mm PAK 38 2 24mm thick shields with a 25mm gap. 75mm PAK 40 2 24mm thick shields with a 25mm gap.

T-34s are good, in fact very bloody good, early in the war. Especially in the period 41-42 before the appairance of Tigers. The Germans don't have Pz III Specials until Dec 41, Pz IV Specials until March 42 and Stug III Specials until then either. The Tiger and later the Panther were the response to the gap between the early disparity that the Panzers faced against the T-34 and the KV. Later the Russians countered with SU-122, the IS and ISUs while the Germans responded with the Tiger II-King Tiger. It has to be understood with these terms in mind. It has to do with the timeframe and the armour development race. [ July 14, 2005, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

All fine, beauti mate, no worries, but I was just being careful to be sure to be sure. (Can you tell that I have transported Irish Convict ancesters.) Thanks Dandelion for the leason in nomenclature. Picking up on the subject of the correct ortharised tables of establishment and equipment that has come up in this thread, I would like to know specifically the amount and therefore the ratio of HMGs that will be historically accurate for British and Commonwealth Divisions. I know that they had a Heavy (Vickers) MG Battalion (as I understand the British and Commonwealth named regiment systems) in each Division, but I don't know the numbers of HMGs nor mortors either. Can anybody with the correct information please enlighten me? I ask this because some of my reading indicates to me that the Anglo-Americans seemed surprised or irritated by the amount of HMGs they faced in Normandy. They also were respectful with regards to the OTE&E of 81mm mortors as well! Any good help most appretiated thank you. [ July 14, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Point taken. I realise that improvements were made, you just have compare the flaking Italian tank armour with everything else in CMAK. All the same it doesn't make sense say to leave that 7.9mm shield on the 2 pdr ATG nor to put it on the 6 pdr ATG later, if the British in fact did so, while it was penetrated by S.m.K. / APMG rounds. Especially considering the amount that is likely to be fired at them from Panzer MG42s! I don't have any information as to wheither the British installed thicker shields on their ATGs after they realised that 7.9mm of whatever kind of alloyed armour thickness was penetrated at under 600 yards. If they did then it should be something to be aware of. So here is my point, I would like to see these armour qualities and differrences verses penetrative power effects modelled or explained as readouts in the game. Have ATG shields treated just as realistically as AFV armour is in CMx2. And to return to the subject of this thread, HE effects on those shields could also be treated better or more clearly if that is managed. Phew! Bloody oath I am going to have to start up an ATG shield discussion. [ July 14, 2005, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Obviously Mike, actually German 50mm & 75mm ATG shields were double spaced with a 25mm gap. The shields on these PAKs were 24mm thick each. The 37mm PAK had a single 50mm thick shield on it. My source for this is Alex Buchner- 'The German Infantry Handbook 1939-1945'. (I appologise for mistakenly saying that German Inf Guns were also double spaced, they were not and I hereby whole heartedly correct myself.) Anyway Mike as to the reasoning behind the double spaced shields with an inch gap, I am accepting that the S.m.K discussion referred to above by Andreas makes it somewhat clear. I think I understand that it is because it is likely to help prevent more than a single shield would. Thanks Andreas for the link to the Spitzgesschoss mit Kern discussion.

Please take no offence jacob ladder2 since I have read you a lot and respect you. I am not going to quote you immediately from above me from here as you did from me immediately above you from here, but for everybody who needs to, just clime the ladder and refer to the immediately above discourse to follow along. (Paul, you copied as a quote my last paragraph!) You are right about the playable gameyness of the IGO/UGO machanics of those kinds of simulations. Similar to the Panzer General series which were much much better in enjoyment terms than the Decissive Battles Series. That said PG was at least a combined arms simulation that work well but too generically unrealistic as it was duellistically opperational-tactical. The Decisive Battle Series was absolutely bloody hopeless so we are agreed. It was terribly regressive even childish considering all the research and developing they must have done. Although I think that in IGO/UGO simulations it requires a forced suspention of reality and you are meant to attempt to believe that each of the players shots are actually taking place at the same time! This is why I strongly recomend the Avalon Hill World at War series. While they developed out of their IGO/UGO board games these had six turns a day for which each player plotted movements and gave orders to all their battlions and assests before an uninterupted simulatenious simulated action phase. It was kind of like CM in this respect, except that instead of 1 minute turns with what amounts to miniture figurines, it was with counters that represent divisional assest formations occupying 1 square km hexes. I also do recomend Talensofts' East Front which uses platoon half counter half miniture figurine sized units which as a simulation falls between the 2 levels and with up to mixed divisional level command responsibilities. Unfortunately I don't know if it is still around. Pay to register and subscribe I guessed. I have come down from that divisional level to this tactical level. From World at War and Talensofts' East Front via Close Combat to CM and patiently to CMx2. For HenryInk and everyone else IMHO if you want to go higher than CM and if Avalon Hill hasn't kept the World at War series current or follwed upon them then the only suggestion I have, as above, is the Highway to the Reich Airbourne Assualt game. (Poor bloody moi!) [ July 11, 2005, 05:59 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

When towing guns on the offensive I think of it at first defensively, with the intent of providing protection from aircraft or probing enemy tanks or other forces. Have enough of AAGs and ATGS set up to cover the whole area in a liniar sense and avoid surprises. Secondly bound them, moving some at a time with enough active at all times, especially as mentioned above into key position to cover counter attacks on the flanks of your main force direction. Thirdly think in terms of combined arms, guns are effective at ranges and should follow up with overwatching the main force. This spares having to use AFVs to do so and allowing you to concentrate them and reinforce them. This can also be done using techniques described above repositioning them for the best effects.

Thank you Andreas for the S.m.K discussion link, much appreciated. It was interesting to read that the early tanks started out with 8mm armour plate. The armour piercing bullets would penetrate that at 500 meters at zero degrees obliquity according to a reliable soure of mine. Further that they would penetrate 12.5mm of armour at 100mm at zero degrees obliquity. The British first increasing the armour thickness on their later tank models or Marks to 12mm and then to 14mm before they were proof against the armour piercing rounds. That said though it is a wonder why they fitted only a 5/16 inch (7.9mm) armour shield on their 2-pounder ATGs for WWII!!! The British confirmed themselves that the armour piercing rounds were not repelled by them. This often happened after their guns held their fire until Panzers had approached to within 600 yards (550 meters) and the crews were frequently knocked out by German machine gun fire which had actually penetrated their shields. That is all from the same reliable source in relation to the North African campaigne. (Jentz.) That said I don't know of the thickness of any other guns' armour shields even the German ones, including their Infantry Guns which were similarly spaced double shielded like their PAK with 4mm between all their shields. Thank you very much Administration for the good news, bloody beautiful mate. Getting halfway back to the subject of this thread there could be effects of or penetration through the armour shields on guns of shrapnel from HE rounds exploding near them. Either the crew gets hit or the guns are damaged or destroyed as a resault of this. The game comes close enough to modelling this anyway, but I just want to have the readouts of this happening. It could make it all that more real or at least understandable. I would also like to see this with the armour shields of SPW / Halftrack MGs. It would be really cool to see guns tossed around or turned upside by HE or even heavy AP shots as well. (I would love to see the T-34 take its' hat off when it meets a Tiger.) [ July 11, 2005, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

German Infantry Guns were also similarly spaced double shielded. My only source for the shield thickness is unfortunately corrupted or miss printed, I think. However, it does seem pretty sure that the width of that spacing is 4mm between sheilds. I would like to know the actual gun shield armour thickness though, anybody? On the other hand I can say that a more reliable source states that the S.m.K. 7.92mm rounds (especially from machine guns including those on vehicles and on Panzers) would penetrate 12.5mm at 100 meters and 8mm at 500 meters of armour. That was given for zero degrees obliquity. This source further states that this was confirmed by the British reporting that their 2-pounder anti-tank gun with a 5/16 inch (7.9mm) thick armour shield did not repel the armour piercing bullets fired from German machine guns. It stated that when British anti-tank guns held their fire until the Panzers approached within 600 yards (550 meters) the crews were frequently knocked out by machine gun fire which penetrated their shields! In my CM experience to get on to the actual topic of this thread I have had light axis tanks knocked out or whose crews have abandoned them just by extremely close Russian machine gun fire alone. [ July 11, 2005, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Ah, you are absolutely right with the only exception being, to be pedantic, you are referring to S.m.K 7.92mm ammunition. (Not meant as an attack as you did get it essentially correct.) Man one can really be drawn in to describing things in the minutiae of details! That said now I think that it was introduced in WWI as a response to the first thin armoured tanks and was then found to be effective against the gun shields of ATGs some time later. This makes sense in that WWI artillery was not in the trenches but behind them for support. (Not to mention the fact that Gremany would first have to have tanks before they were confronted with ATGs and their sheilds, and at the close of WWI they had built about, oh ten!) I am willing to concede that they just may have origionally been developed to defeat gun sheilds but I'm pretty sure they were to deal with those first tanks. Unfortunaitely for them the British improved the armour in the Mk Vs at the very latest so they ended up useless. Actually that reminds me that the 77mm BAK and the first actual (man handled) assualt guns went the other way and were found to be effective against tanks more than their intended purposes. Balloons were rare although the BAK led to the 88AAG while the small guns suited the AT role being more mobile than field guns. I've read that Wehrmacht riflemen carried ten such rounds each at least during the invasion of Poland and may be at the start of later campaigns. They were also instructed to mainly fire them at the vision slits of tanks and they were only expecting to deal with light tanks. It should be kept in mind that they had the PB38 ATRs to put holes in light tank armour and they only learnt to use tungsten in them from the Poles. I hope that supports my point somewhat? Wow I'm really off the subject of this thread. Oh, hang on, getting back on track I have been wondering how those S.m.K rounds went against the gun sheilds of Russian guns including Infantry guns! My MGs do kill them fairly well. All the same I think I mean that the guns and their sheilds could still be treated better in the game and were more like vehicles and had hit readouts and have ricochet effects etc.

Awesome, "The Defence of Duffer's Drift" is a bloody ripper. I've read a lot of general Boer War material in my time, loved it. It felt like looking at a mini version of the 'battle' of Colenso except without Buller being able to stuff it up!

On the subject of divisional level simulateded gaming I agree with the refferences about the Airbourne Assualt Highway to the Reich being a very good current enough option. I don't think that Hearts of Iron would help in understanding the divisional level of commanding brigades and asset battlions. Bone is right it is light but it is more about the strategic use of divisions rather than the actual purpose of them. Fun though all the same but I've only got the first version to go by. (It is more about production!) There were some old games that fit what I think Henry is asking about. I'm talking ten years ago I had and still have some World at War games such as Stalingrad, Crusader (the British Operation in North Africa), Normandy and some VE 50th aniversary compolation which included Operation Market Garden and Velikyi Luki which was a mini Stalingrad near Rzhev which took place at the same time. These were divisional level games in the sense that you moved units like battlions and special companies about on a map where one hex represented one square km. Does anyone remember what I'm talking about or remember something similar? There were a lot of Avalon Hill board games in the same vogue where one hex was one km and the counters were battlions that you moved and had to fight with a roll of the dice die chart. (Thats how it was done before PCs, the old fashioned way!) They also had Corps level ones also. The World at War games were by Avalon Hill (just checked which makes sense) and there must be blokes on these forums who know what I mean. Any info would be much appreciated on where they have gone these days. I also had Close Combat with them on my old PC which was flogged and I have been unable to install them on my upgraded PC. Bloody miss them these days! Anyway, those type of games might be more along the lines of what Henry meant. I agree with jacobs ladder that the Decisive Battles Series is lacking in depth and not that enjoyable but I think that that is because it mainly is regiments that are represented. I don't recomend them. [ July 09, 2005, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

This thread has been interesting, IMO. While I am no expert on ballistics and other bull for that matter, I think (despite inacuracies) that it has been applied in context here surving its purpose. Applying knowledge and thrashing it out in a descussion with the correct details is not to be confused with obsessive compulsions. The aim is to enlighten anyone interested. Unfortunately I'm gonna do no such thing! The best that I can do is agree that guns arn't mod right and should be treated like vehicles. The other area that might need to be improved is HE blast effects and their impact spread. It would also be more realistic if you got impact info on the gun and their sheilds. For example in CMAK I've had some Boyes ATRs and a few 2pounders firing AP at ATGs from several directions and the gun crew only ever abondon them after a while with no other read outs or damage to the guns or their workings as I would of expected. Surely firing against the rear of guns, that is behind the sheild should damage something bloody sensitive or do something other than just may be hit a crew member or two. (This I've often done at very close range!) That said, in CMBB a pet annoyance of mine is killing the last bloke behind the sheild of Maxim MGs. Even having two or more MG34s and squads firing from different directions at them isn't enough, I often have to use HE to get him if I can't charge him down while hoping he is not set up yet or else fully suppressed! This happens so often that it can't be due to any depressions in the ground etc. In closing, I've killed crews of guns with small arms curtainly but I agree that their structures should not be treated like they don't exist when it comes to dirrect hits of AP / HE / HEAT / etc shells or small arms AP either. I've read that it was SOP for German Panzers to use their MGs to penatraite the sheilds of 2pounder ATGs even still in North Africa to injure the crew most effectively! Obviously, but that Italian MGs didn't as I recall. [ July 09, 2005, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Firstly, regarding the Total War concept (though I am not familiar with the series) I fully agree with Sergei to the extent that games altinating between strategic to tactical levels often seem trite. IMO it is just too great a leap to adequitely do as a game without either or both levels falling short in various ways, usually too much. Strategic to operational at the big end and over time fine, but that's not what CM is about. Operational to tactical for battles and campaigns of limited to some duration fair enough also, and more what I like rather than shoot'em up arcade games. A fair example of what I mean was the Talonsoft Eastfront series, although it was a platoon sized turn based you go I go game. In it you progressed in rank as an officer gaining command responsibilities while your surviving troops increasing in experience and having equipment inprovements over time. Thinking about it, there was no real operational level as you were just assigned missions but it kinda felt operational looking at the greater area map while pursuing a career, to my mind at least any way! Secondly, Roqf77 is right in saying that some of Josh Coady's suggestions sound a bit like Close Combat and I think that for CMx2 there are quite a lot of aspects that should be incorporated. Not that it is appropriate for me to say really, excuse me please! But I miss the personalised stats it has especially the light wounds concept which would work great in CMx2. Thus getting some blood and guts in to it like having experienced, crack or fanatical troops continue effectively enough in battles and going AWOL from the medics to rejoin their comerades! Have determination and morale factored in but personalised. This way having individualised medals awarded and acting and full promotions etc. Nevermind all that CM is the game that I was looking for and enjoy for all its tactical excellence. I just wish for the absolutely bloody brilliant! Anyway I think that expanding the game to an operational level is the most that should be aimed for but not let that get out of hand, sorry Josh Coady. However, I do agree with you in that it would be fantastic to be able to fight a more looser campaigne style of CM game. That might also increase the randomness and thereby the playability. (I hate badly positioned set up zones.) An operational level could serve as a means for chance and choice to come into effect to a much greater extent. At that level have an area map or campaigne map so the attacker or defender can examine it enough to choose where to set up or fight. This would solve a lot of poor sights of battle zones etc. Further options could also be included such as choosing or having attached units assigned to your command or interchanged etc. Same goes for equipment and hardware. That I hope is really well illustraited by having to decide if you as the commander would like to receive this or that or another actual unit or force mix but not another. Think Kampfgroup or Task Force or of such and such numbered Company or Battalion etc. That could work, having real and actual numbered units would be great, I know that some of the designers name the units that are actually meant to be represented in battle, but you don't see that in the game. All the same, it has to work well and that is what CM does at the medium scale tactical level and the best I've come across so far, but one can dream on mate! Hey. [ July 08, 2005, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I absolutely agree that a low ammo squad (or HMG team) can still kill tons of enemy. I have had that happen loads of times, as long as I manage them correctly or find them in the right circumstances. I admit that I've gained my experience only against the AI, but all the same when I've been defending they still fire effectively for suppression and often actually inflict more casualties than they did when they had a real amount of ammo! IMHO. Obviously, this could be because of the way that I play, but just in case you suspect that I may be a novice at CMBB or CMAK, I'll just state that I often suffer only 15-80 casualties and a gun or tank or three as against the AI's totals of 500-1500+ and 30-60 ATG/AFVs, not to mention the shot down aircraft! I normally fight large 3000-5000 point defensive battles, eg my re-inforced Inf Btln with a good combined arms mix against regiments of Inf, guns, tanks and lots off board and air support all very badly handled by the AI. My tactics basically involve holding fire until a position has to start firing and then just firing in support for suppression as much as posible, move supporting weapons and units up or around to re-inforce the innitial contacts which then become the anvil upon which I grind the attack to a holt. Most of the squads and HMG teams in these key positions run out of ammo but I inflict so much damage (especially of AFVs) that the momentum of the waves of attacking Infantry becomes a dribble. Low ammo Squads and HMGs can easily deal with these fatally fanatical dribblets. With the AI enemy tanks and guns mostly all abandoned, destroyed or burning a coup de grace in the form of a counter attack is all that now needs to be arranged. At end of battles the kill figures are massive for my key low ammo Squads and HMGs. Usually they're the guys with all the enemy dead finished off around them. And trust me I've been watching them with desparate attention! On the attack some of the advice in this thread is spot on for low ammo Squads, at the very least because the more you pressure the enemy with numbers and finish off broken and routed troops so much the better. Low ammo squads can bayonet and capture hopeless enemy Infantry and crews just as well as those carrying ammo. Also they can be used for probing or guarding wide or important areas, just to be sure. I've noticed too that they still fire especially at the start of turns (good for suppressing the enemy) and usually still have some grenades and can close assault hiding or upset HMGs, mortors, guns, as well as bunkers and AFVs, bloody beautiful! With command delays and time management they really help suppress enemy fire before each step of a charge over the areas of the attack. IMO just use common sense and enjoy worrying about the lives of those low on ammo while wasting the enemy in time and numbers. [ July 07, 2005, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I've shot down many planes against the AI, most of what has been said is right in my experience. The best way to know that you have shot down a plane is to find your unit that it is targeting and see the attack line from the plane disappair midflight exactly the same time as your AA red lines also disappair when reviewing the turn. I think the only sounds and sight of explosions is just the flak. If you shoot it down before or during its attack run the engine sound stops or doesn't even begin and sometimes the only way I know that a plane has turned up is hearing my AA guns firing flak. With multible AAGs you can hear them all really open up. Sometimes the plane turns away or flies though after missing its target completely (which is a good enough objective anyway) and if it comes back it usually doesn't survive for long I've noticed as well. Kills arn't always acredited to the right gun, but that happens with ATGs/AFVs also. I think AAMGs on vehicles do fire at planes though I'm surprised that Russian 12.7mm MG units don't and nor do AA88s!!! Anyhow the only surefire way to know that aircraft have been shot down is at the end in the summery but I'm experienced enough now to be certain when they are during the game. My tips are to have quite a few AAGs, say 3-6-9 in big battles and I suggest considering 37mmAAGs for their blast effects vs infanty and have them positioned in the back for support or as an overwatch reserve. When on the attack have vehicles to move a couple at a time forwards or even mounted light AAGs following. I hope you all have as much success as I do, it is very satisfying to see those bloody planes fatally come to a sudden stop, believe me! Best of luck. [ July 09, 2005, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]