Zalgiris 1410

CMers have a big problem with Borg spotting because it really spoils ambushes and times when an ATG is getting a sideview jump on a Tank etc that is 'looking' else where. While there are of cause spotting and sound contact functionalities in CM, it might be good to know about these kind of things in ToW. I am wondering about the realism factor of ToW in regards to say for example; how an infantry scout is going to directly pass on information about what's up ahead, around the next corner or two or over the rise to a buttoned up Tank- use the Tank phone or open a hatch if it doesn't have one? What kind of role will runners, phone wires (repairers too) and radio traffic play in the game? How are fortifications such as sandbags around foxholes and trenches going to provide evidence of the enemy? How are track marks going to be handled if at all? [ July 29, 2006, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Not automaticly set pause intervals, that sounds hard for two-player, even H2H?

OK thanx George Mc, I know a bookplace that will get it in for me if a copy is around. Thanks very much for the invite. If I can't get it I'll mail you down the track to be sure. Just a few questions at this stage on 24PzD for the period if you don't mind, no rush though. Was this its first action as a PzD (from the 12 of Aug'42) and if so does it give a TO&E at least for its arrival back in theatre regarding the numbers and actual types of Panzers, other AFVs, artillery pieces and ATGs in it at either date? Secondly, does it detail any reinforcements or replacements of such equipment during the battle? (Well lets face it, up until the morning of the 23rd of Nov'42! :eek: )

What! What! What! :eek:

Is that definately right Sanok, because I thought (read it somewhere) that the number of casualties that end up as killed was calculated at the end of the turn, not on any individual basis to every man when he becomes a casualty? For example I once had a sniper wound a tank commander who actually cried out "Ouch I've been hit in the leg", or some such thing! Then that tank was brewed up by some AT weapon, IIRC a Panzershreky team. At the end of the game the Sniper had no kill stats while the Pzshreker had 5. Don't remember how many kills and wounded that there were but I like to think that that TC WIA became a KIA, not being able to move out of the tank fireball quickly enough! Thanx for the screanshot Timu24, it might have been nicer at one or two camera levels down, but cool enough all the same. I can't see what the Panzer was canistering away at, the former Tank crews?

Thanks very much Jason, the 24th PzD is of keen interest to me especially including the return of it to the Front after my Kursk cut off date. I think I'll expand my scope out to D-Day or even as wide as Spring Awakening, why the hell not, but short of those fabricated last ditch conglomerations, hopefully. I have of course heard of the book "Death of the Leaping Horseman", it sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind hearing a reveiw or two of it. It is probably about time that I get myself some more books on my most favourite subject. :cool: Jason your assessment of the equiptment of the 2nd PzD in 1942 seems right when thinking about it and those T-38s would have to have been Es at the best for sure, but that's just it we have to assume. I don't want to be wrong and make an ass out of u & me though! [ July 29, 2006, 04:53 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

That's something of a start Andreas, thanks. I'm assuming that the T-38s in the 2nd PzD for the mid 1942 are at least Es or Gs of cause, not that it makes much difference really IME in CM terms. Hope their Pz IIIs are Specials to make up for all those obsolete Czech Panzers, I doubt it but how am I gonna know for sure?

I am interested in the early phase of the War on the Eastern Front especially regarding the 2nd & 5th Panzer Divisions, the formation of the 22nd & 23rd Panzer Divisions, the conversion of the Cavalry Division into the 24th Panzer Division and and information about the addition of the Panzer Battlions to the Motorized Divisions. Of cause the SS Divisions also come into this but for a cut off date I'll say Kursk for now. Not sure where this leaves the 25th & 26th Panzer Divisions but obviously would include the short lived 27th Panzer Divisions. I am interested in the first two (2nd & 5th PzD) with regard to how many Panzers and of what makes they had and received during the period that they were held off the front until their arrival before Typhoon. I'm aware of the formation of the 22nd & 23rd PzD but I'm not exactly sure about the dates and with what equipment these two arrived at the front with. I know that both arrived in the Spring of 1942, the 22nd in the Crimea in time to smash the Russians perched in the Kerch finger while the 23rd was deployed near Kharkov in the way of and to the surprise of the Russian soon to be devisated May offensive. I have no detailed exact information about the creation of the 24th, 25th & 26th PzDs nor the virtually still born 27th PzD. I know that part of the 22nd PzD was grafted to form the 27th and that both Divisions were annihilated in the snow outside of Stalingrad and were no long on the German OB by the time that the Kessel had been surrendered. On top of that I would also like to know when the 14th, 16th & 24th PzDs started to be reconstituted with hardware especially with actual Panzers and other AFV such as Panzerjagars & Stugs. While that's all that I would also like to know about the rebuilding of the 6th PzD since having still been equipt with T-35 until they were all finally lost during Typhoon or during the retreat from infront of Moscow through the town of Klin etc. AIUI the 6th PzD was withdrawn at some point and returned to the Russian Front directly fron France by rail arriving at Kotelnikovo to rescue the 6th Army in Stalingrad. All the same I don't know exactly with what and how many Panzers all up the 6th PzD was equipt with even though I know for sure that it had a large number of PzIVGs. Also relavent to this time period is the 10th PzD and how it was rebuilt before it was sent to Tunisia and the HD Parachute PzD all up, not just the portion sent to NA, but also how that part that was lost was rebuilt. Finally, were there any other PzDs taken away from the Front and refitted? When, and what were they refitted with and when exactly did they return to the operational theatre? I have information on what Regiments each Panzer Division had etc, but I don't know what equipment that they had or received while rebuilding or even at the front. Any info or direction to sites would be really very much appreciated. For some idea of the kind of info that I am interested in I'll give the board an example of the trouble that one can run into without this kind of detail. I have a book of Panzer Divisional insignia that has history bios on each and every Wehrmacht PzD, thereby excluding HD or the SS. Anyway, eg: specifically for the 5th PzD it mentions only that it was on the Russian Front for most of the War etc, but it doesn't detail with what Panzers it was refitted with and counter-attacked against the storm of Bagration. I have other sources about the destruction of Armee Group Mitte that the 5th PzD was quite strong after having been withdrawn and fairly well refitted just beforehand! It would help to rate things and to understand what is going on in some of my reading etc. PS I know that the 26th PzD spent most of its time in Italy, thank you very much! [ July 27, 2006, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

It came with the Disc, CMBB Special Edition, if you don't have it ask someone to e-mail it to you Sivodsi or in fact I'll ask now for anyone who knows how to do this and can do this to please ablige. I remember playing this one once, verry early on, I found it to be an interesting challenge. I actually pretty much followed Jason C's plan- by default! Still it wasn't pretty and I'm not sure what result I achieved. Firstly I captured the central island after being drawn into a shoot out that I found myself having to follow up with some minimal infantry support finally close assulting the former occupiers. Having taken that I felt that an assualt across the bridge was suicide in the face of the enemy, let alone with those tank turrets on the flank. So that left the left as the only possible avenue of advance. Of cause I had to deal with those turrets once I learnt through receiving some shot up onfantry casualties that they had a field of fire that coverred the left. So while I prepared and re-sent the rest of most of my infantry that way again, I engaged the tank with my armour from several positions. I think I got them and my infantry attacked the final objective with heavy weapons support from the central island. Even though my artillery strike had knocked out the Russian AA gun and therefore my troops coming up from the south only faced small arms, the final flag remained contested at the end of the game. My infantry had sufferred too many casualties and lacked the breath to fully secure it in time. I was disapointed about that, but all the same I really did enjoy the senario a lot more than I had expected to.

Steve I can't believe that the BFC are as worried as you are making out about including the IDF vs Arabs, be that in Lebanon, Syria or against others that they can't simulate it. I mean CM:SF is not about some fantabulous place called Syriana, no it's not. It's with the US invading the actual Arab state of Syria while the US is currently in Iraq and you can't says that that is not 'on going', 'unclear' and controversial. Are you blind to this hypocracy or does the BFC collective just have seletive blinkers on? As uninterested in another US-centric simulation that I am, I'm actually definately going to get my copy of CM:SF for the very reason that it will (somewhat hopefully) allow me to pretend to play out something like the War on Terror in ways that overly sensative people wont want to know about- emotionally. (Or rather that I don't want the placard weilding unwashed to know about!) I really don't see the difference between just having the US attack Syria and having the IDF fighting the same or similar. IMHO these situations are both just as intractibly complicated these days as each other. This is for many different reasons, but also many that are related and some the same. I know you see all that at most levels, but huh? What it is fine to depict the Nazis, the Russian Front, play Cowboys and Indians, US verses Syria but just don't mention the War, you know Vietnam and don't tackle anything of contestible consequence to others like an episode out of the Arab-Israeli conflict series. No don't, not our thang. O'h what's the word that I'm looking for? Umm, how very ethno-centric of you, shame. :mad: PS I like Vietnam war games, cos it at least means that I'm not out to kill Germans yet again and with a cool sound track too. :cool:

Jason a German/Wehrmacht MG ammo box contained 300 rounds, that said you are quite right that the 2 ammo carriers only carried 2 boxes each, a fifth box was carried by the 'Gun leader' who also carried the heavy MG gun sight. The boxes weighed 11.53 kilos each, that is obviously of course when fully loaded. Therefore the total 1st supply (meaning initially carried 'on hand' by the crew into combat) was 1500 rounds. For the lMG in the Squad the gunner carried one 50 round belt or drum, the loader carried two spare barrels with gloves and 4 belts or drums (weight of drum 2.45 kilos) for another 200 rounds and a box of 300 rounds, while the ammo carrier carried another 2 more boxes. Origionally the Squad lMG crew was as follows: Gunner 1- carried the lMG and a belt or drum of 50 rounds Gunner 2- 4 bets or drums, a box & 2 barrels: 500 rounds Gunner 3- armed with a rifle carried 2 boxes for 600 rounds Gunners 1 & 2 also each carried a pistol. Total 1st supply of 1150 rounds for the lMG in a Squad. Later during WWII the role and indeed the position of the third gunner for the lMG in the Squad was dropped and the two extra boxes were passed around the riflemen in turn, apparently officially! (That is according to T/O&E) [ July 25, 2006, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

AFAIK the 'Rifle' Squads as aposed to the regular motorised 'Infantrie' always had two LMGs per Squad. The switch to Panzer Grenadier was just a change in name encompassing all motorised/mechanised 'Rifle' & 'Infantrie'. Note especially the different types of PzGren type of organisations throughout CMBB. These represent the distinction to be made later on between the origional 'Rifle' types which were only in Panzer Divisions and the single LMG veriety. Regarding the sMG team the short answer is no it didn't take 6 men to man that weapon. In fact information that I have leds me to believe that it was only 5 according to OT&E. AIUI they way a German sMG was served goes as follows- 'Gun leader' (with binos) Gunner 1- fires the sMG and carries the gun. Gunner 2- loads the sMG and carries the tripod. Gunner 3- ammo carrier. Gunner 4- ammo carrier. Each with a pistol for personal protection like the medics! (Total amount of 1st supply ammo carried 1500 rounds) Two sMGs and crews combine to make a Squad which has a Squad commander making 1 NCO and ten men per Squad. Two Squads are paired up to make a Platoon which is commanded by a Leutnant & has at least a driver for a 2 horse cart or a four horse wagon upon which the guns, mounts and ammo were put on for any long march. I may be wrong in that there were two drivers on 2 horse carts, one for each Squad per Machine Gun Platoon which nicely makes 6 men per sMG while there was also a 'Platoon' 4 horse wagon with a driver or two, since there was a driver and a 2 horse cart for each two 81mm mortar batter in the mortar Platoon of the same Company. What ever the case, I appreciate the effect in game of there being a 6 man crew for German sMGs in terms of ammo load out and survivability. [ July 23, 2006, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

O'h, I've just had whole Platoons of Panzers wiped out by Russian OT-tanks, be they of T-26, T-34 or KV make. I've recently been play testing quite alot with swarming T-38s around T-34s and KVs with good results (only losing about half of them everytime) except against the OT-34. Even at five to one odds they still manage to FT the poor little buggers to toasted carcasses very bloody quickly and I lose all my cute little Czech Panzies! :eek: Sounds like I ought to try'em T-38s against ATGs and FT teams, what do you reckon hey? Edit: Tried'em against ATG's & FT & TH Teams, interesting results. Only the longer 76.2mm Field guns work out with the proper tactical deployment, but even so a well handled T-38 Panzer force can still roll it up satisfyingly- for a draw! [ July 23, 2006, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I only ever have played against the AI, so while I'm talking with that kind of poor quality opponent in mind I still think that the tactical principle of holding your fire to the shortest possible distance (within grenade ranged coverred arcs) holds true for a human as well. Even against a skilled one to be sure! I imagine that it would be an even more important principle when defending against a proper cognitive opponent. There are a lot of tactical reasons why it would be a good idea to have hiding troops in exposed, forward or say flag holding or blocking positions use very short coverred arcs. Sometimes set ups allow players to set up isolated troops in very forward or cut off positions, especially in campaignes etc, with the choice of whether to leave them there or of placing them further back somewhere in the rest of their set up zone. Sometimes the is no choice and they have to stay out there! In such instances the player faces the same dilema: Option 1 or 2. Plus there can be situations created by players in Meeting Engagements who have advanced say a platoon very fast or by vehicle very far forward into an advanced building in the way of an unsuspecting opponent. I try to do the same when on the defence in quick battles against the AI as well, usually because the terrain demands tactically that I do so while the set up zone runs short of some better deffensive positions. Thus the troops who have siezed the building must now hold out in the way of the advancing enemy, but how? Ambush maybe! Even on the defence against a superior sized attacking or assaulting opponent a forward position or two such as a building or a clump of woods could be occupied by a small force as a sacrificial decoy position, while wishing to draw the attacker to it it is probably best done in a way that wastes the most of his time by forcing him to maneurvre against it over the longest period of time as possible. Soaking up his time if done with even a proper overwatch that finally results with the interuption of sufferring an ambush and then forcing him into launching a set piece assault against an insignificant portion of the defender weasting lives, ammo and time and may be becoming unco-ordinated on the process and thereby wasting more time in order to re-aline his attack formation etc. A lot of players know about employing distant fire beyond the range where the firing units are only going to give away sound contacts and using spotters for artillery both on and off board. I'm pretty sure that a successful ambush upon a small proportion of the advancing enemy say a squad or a probing platoon can also result in them only receiving sound contacts while they are immediately suppressed, panic, break and rout or are just simply wiped out! Anyway an ambush that is at least able to spring itself is always going to upset an opponent, IMO hopefully. [ July 15, 2006, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

That is the craziest site that I've every visited, checkout the other rubish in it and the links it has from absurd pro-North Korean anti-US prpaganda to a whole heap of wierd anit-Masonic stuff and of course plenty of anti-Semitic & anti-Israel junk. The part preparing the anti-Allied/anti-US pro-North Korean seems to be the main catalyst for this discussion and butchering of BCW, and rightly so. Hey check out the rest of it fallas, I'm still trying to fathom who would have posted all that crap or collected it all together! Leaving aside the rather strange stuff such as linking the Free Masons with Satanic Cults etc, it is a shame that some it covers some very real events that ought to be looked into in greater depth and detail than they have received. Many millions of ethnic Germans did suffer trekking East to West and away from the Russians and large numbers of them died in the process, the mass bombing of Dresden for example resulted in a large number of casualties to all the refugees from the East in the city at the time. I just think that such outrageous claims and misinformation does the victems a massive disservice and shows them a lack of decent respect... Edit: (My Computer crashed here soon after visiting that ridiculous site!) [ July 15, 2006, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

O'h thanks for reminding me, I haven't forgotten to keep up with it, I've just had a lot of CPU problems. A whole lot of them. I'll see if I can get this one going again soon! I learnt a hell of a lot playtesting many tactics and techniques for this senario. I've played up to turn 6 or 8 at lest, may be 10 in the first battle and have been going excedingly well actually. No tank or gun losses yet while having knockout about ten Russian tanks and a fair number of guns. IIRC I'm just shooting my way into the buildings on the left with the Panzergrenadier Regiment and the left wing Kompanies of the Infantry Regiment in the middle of the map. All my HTs and Armoured cars and most of my guns are up out and firing...gee I'm getting excited just thinking about it...

One thing that I would like to point out in this discussion is that Infantry type units, ie; all Infantry Squads, HQs, Tank Hunter teams & IIRC HMGs) still fire when low on ammo! As said above ammunition loads are not the biggest concern. Expending it effectively is. I actually don't worry about stopping these units from firring & either hiding them with a short coverred arc or withdrawing them from the firefight altogether until they have reached their low on ammo statis. I still think that they are best hanging on afterwards and holding their ground anyway. IME they can be very effective with short coverred arcs firing a few times and throwing out grenades. Often times while checking kill stats at the end of the game such units tend to have the large figures as aposed to other similar units that have fired all out to a low statis at a much larger range, say 100m and above etc. I remember playing a game with a low quality reinforced Italian Infantry Platoon deployed outposted in a heavy building with, similar to how markshot has described in his origional example, clear terrain nearby but alot of cover including woods as close as 40m-60m away on one side and obsticles to fire such as walls and a small building and more woods farther out in other areas around the isolated 'stronghold'! So in this situation I was faced with almost exactly the same dilema between which to go with either Option 1: hiding with short coverred arcs, 30m-40m, or Option 2: hiding with medium distanced coverred arcs ranging from 70m-100m or so. I chose to go with Option 1 for two reasons, firstly because I knew that the Commonwealth troops were of a much higher quaility than mine therefore I could not out shoot them or dominate them by fire at the medium range, especially because they heavily out numbered my outpost force. The enemy troops' quality aposed to my slackish firing effects not to mention the weight of numbers against my troops meant that my unit if it fired at the medium range wasn't going to delay the approaching enemy for long before they would either be fixed and finished or suppressed and assaulted. The enemy also had tanks out there to silence such foolishly early ineffective delaying fire. Secondly, I reasoned that my inexperienced troops might at least achieve a close range ambush within grenade range with attendant enemy casualties and break up and rout part of the enemy before essentially forcing the following up enemy forces to mount a time consuming assault upon the outpost before overcoming it and pushing on. Thus by choosing Option 1, I was hoping to subsequently force an upsetting return play upon the enemy, or in one word delay. Anyway, in my example I was very much hoping to destroy the first comers and then basically hide afterwards and do it all over again. However there were just too many enemy troops around to be able to rehide the outpost platoon after it had sprung its ambush. It did succeed in eliminating some and routing the rest of the other very close enemy units, as planned. But more and more enemy troops approached under the short coverred arcs, some of whom were also decimated while there were more firing as they approach in the medium range distance, so much so that my troops were rather quickly overwhelmed and overrun by being suppressed by a large volumn of medium ranged fire from in cover enemy troops & teams and finally close assualted by some enemy squads down to one man icon figures! :mad: In my own personal AAR I reasoned that I would do it the same way again in that instance because it was in general terms the right thing to have done tactically speaking. In my apprasial of the above instance I estimated that the foreward outposted strong point had inflicted greater enemy casualties for both the amoung of fire it had managed to throw out and for expending their lives and liberties, (since some were captured) than if I had chosen to apply tactics along the lines of Option 2. IMO, the platoon would have been found, fixed and finished much more easily and quickly if it had have fire too early and ineffectively. It would also have meant that the enemy tanks would have been redirected to engage the platoon just that much sooner too. All in all while the platoon was wiped out it did manage to soak up a considerable amount of enemy troops, time and fire for what was lost, but much more than if I had have tried to shoot it out at a greater distance. I also considerred the outpost to have been relatively successful in holding out since it was only taken out with a close assault by seriously depleted Infantry squads which could be considerred a near run thing because they could have been wiped out if my troops weren't so heavily suppressed and some already panicked! (I consider these things to have been computer veriables.) Anyawy I also estimate that it took the enemy troops some extra time to compose themselves afterwards and to continue their advance. When the units that had been decimated by the outpost garrison reached further opposition they didn't remain effective in the field for much longer because of the damage that they had sufferred earlier both in number and in morale! :cool: As a general rule engage the enemy from the shortest distance attainable! [ July 14, 2006, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

I know for absolute cirtainty that the 5th Leichte Division orrigionally arrived with a number of PanzerJagar Is with their 47mm L/43 guns, but I am wondering about wheither or when they might have been replaced with Marders in NA. I'm also positive that Rommell requested better ATGs, ie captured Russian 76.2mm ATGs and therefore; did they actually come on top of either Pz II or T-38 chasis especially for the 21st Panzer Division during 1942? OTOH it could have been the later 75mm Pak 40 mounted Marder IIs &/or IIIs that replaced the PZJgr Is in the Anti-Tank Abteilung of the 21st Panzer Division? I'm not sure but I don't think that neither the 15th Panzer or the 90th Leichte 'Africa' Divisions had any such equipment but then again I might be wrong on that for the whole of the North African campaigne. While on the subject I might as well ask if anyone knows if the 10th Panzer Division or other German formations brought any Marders with them to Tunisia?

Final Protective Fires! Hmmm, when hearing about Hedgehog positions I'm always reminded about Cholm and Velikiye Luki, admittedly both examples of those larger Eastern Front kinds, the later ultimately unsuccessful one had two internal forts or castle keeps. Anyway I like what's been discussed and that you've concluded so far SteveP, but I'm windering if it is better to have a continuous all round circular initial defence, vertually equally strong everywhere with a mediocum of reserves and an internal final or all firing strong point, or if it would be better to have a hedgehog position at CM scale made up of many multible strong points designed to support one another adjacently to the best extent possible, though also backed up by a central reserve and baston of fire support? The continuous circular scheme could have re-inforced sectors at likely enemy coverred approach routed break in areas, while similarly the multible strong point method would be appropriately deployed with better and heavier positions aranged accordingly. Think in theoretical catch phrases of this being between a wagentrain circle as apposed to something like a depolyment like that of Dien Bien Phu although not as ****ed. To illustrate the latter further: say that the hedgehog force is a full stength Infantry Company re-inforced with another Infantry Pltn of some higher quality troops (be they Paras or SMGers etc) a HMG Pltn of four MGs, a couple of on board mortars, one light artillery spotter, a few TH & LMG teams, a sniper or two, 4 light ATGs and just two Tank Destroyers, be they Marders or Assault-guns, SU-76s or M-10s. Now if that force was to go into a continuous circular all-round hedgehog position the ordinary Infantry Pltns would be positioned all around that circle with each of their squads 'in the line' as it were while the HMGs, TH & LMG teams and 3 light ATGs would be spread out equally amoungst them. May be the forth or extra HMG and a few of the other extras including the 4th ATG might be concentrated against that most likely attack zone with the coverred approach route or held back at the 'keep' somewhere in the centre with the best Infantry type Pltn, the mortars, Arty spotter and the two Tank Destroyers, etc. OTOH with the second scheme of hedgehog defensive positioning, the 3 ordinary Infantry Pltns are positioned within their own well defined, self contained strong points, with a HMG, an ATG, an LMG or TH team or two, etc but that these strong points are designed close enough for mutual fire support from the other two, even if much of it only reaches the flanks of the Pltn strong point positions. The central baston is similarly made up as above with the same option for those extra 4th HMGs and ATGs and other teams to re-inforce the most likely Pltn size strong point to be attacked. I hope that that is clear enough and please remember that there are mines and wire and plenty of trenches to go around for either kind of deployment scheme including enough for some communication trenchs to aide the movement of infantry re-informent both from the elite central reserve infantry type Pltn and to help with the lateral re-inforcements coming from the adjacent ordinary Pltns.

Thank you very much for this helpful if not absolutely clear posting civdiv. (Who are you refferring to as 'They' who preferred the ISID to [aid] equally effective groups such as Massoud's group?) Obviously not Hekmatyar. I disagree with you that the term the 'Northern Alliance' in and of itself was not a Western invention, diplomates and journalists posted to Afghanistan and responsible for making reports upon the situation there, I assume picked-up the term being used by locals even if any when answering their questions as to who was who and what was going on. Of course the locals themselves had to have developed a short hand tag, at least those trying to make sense of the split of the Five Parties and who was continuing to resist when the Pashtun and thereby Southern based Taliban came to power...in Kabul. That said I am no expert but that's my hunch, and I think that the 'NA' was always being applied to a vague collective group of differrent political militia groups not all of whom were actually allied. Anyway I now feel confident to now really look in to this more and in much greater depth from an initial set of assumptions that hopefully will help even if they are not entirely accurate. Now to find the time to do so... :eek:

Thanks for the rant Bigduke6, thanks for providing that informative montage about the nature of Afghanistan and the Northern Alliance. This is more like it, a discussion, and I agree with you that just being in the military on an operational posting to a foreign area doesn't make one (especially an American) an expert about it and certainly not an authority on the place and its people and their politics. In fact if anything military personal are going to have a distorted view of the situation, biased by their mission requirements propaganda decided for them by their higher-ups who have probably been looking down at the very same ground on maps with overlays and flawed computer models through rose coloured classes with glossy self-deceiving but comforting SIT-REP assessments! Granted, such said military personage are going to have much better ideas and clearer understanding of the place 'over there', than the man in the street or their neighbours (especially when them being Americans) because of their actual experiences. Remember though that their personal experiences are just that and therefore are limited in scale and scope and as I've indecated squewed somewhat, both intentionally for morale purposes and operational security reasons, but mostly unintentionally by their superiors ineptitude even if that is very far up and not from their immediate circle of commanding Officers. :eek: Back on the subject though AIUI, the term Northern Alliance was not just created out of the arse of some Western spin doctor in order to dupe the public, but that the term was in use at least from during the earliest Taliban ruling days describing colectively or however the opposition groups in the North of Afganistan resisting the Southern, meaning Pashtun dominated, Taliban imposing authorities. Your mention of the especially well-represention of Tadjiks and Uzbeks in the Northern Alliance is a hint of this. That said, 'NA' may have been a sound bite all the same, just a local Afghan sound bite that may or may not have had significant meaning in the right context. It may now have lost its applicability. (I've not come across this use of the word lateral before, or come to think of it the word 'lateraled' ever before; quote: 'So, after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans willingly and uncritically lateraled making decisions on Afghanistan to his or her elected leaders', however I understand the allusion Bigduke6, but I'd have used the word deligate or blindly deligate or somethink. I'm wondering if it is just me? Anyone else?)

You'll need to do a search for 'Smk' in the CM1 forums, ought to get 40 hits, the two most relavent one's that I quickly checked were: 'MG42 versus Allied Halftracks', 'Russian Small Arms Against AFVs in 1941'.

Regarding signing up, I would have to be bloody good enough to join the SAS, which is pretty much our only unit operating in them Afghan hills over there, alas I admit they wouldn't accept my little arse between the ranks of their members. In terms of an analysis of the Northern Alliance I now gather from even Wicky's link that the make up of the NA is & has not been concrete and has always been a fluid and loose coalition of sorts. I'm not looking for an easy answer, I don't expect one. I'm sure that there are many multible views upon it. O.K. purhaps I ought to say what has been bugging me about my understanding of the NA for a while now. Two things actually. Firstly, that the NA is something different to the major Mahoudjadin elements that took over Afghanistan after the Soviets left, especially those elements that became or submitted to the Taliban. Secondly, it is my understanding that the Northern Alliance received much less if even indirectly any support and supplies from the US & Britain etc, than these other elements, during the Soviet occupation. I would also like to know why this was so and such like. The analogious comparison that I would like to make here, if my understanding is correct, is that between the relatively recent NA situation amid the Mahoudjadin (later Taliban) with the situation of the Chetniks (or local nationalist Serbian partisan bands) and Tito's communist partisans who received vertually all of the massive amounts of airdropped supplies from the British Royal Air Force durring WWII. I am thinking of this as not one little tactical mistake but as a major strategic mistake made in US foreign policy during the 1980's and didnt rectify during the 1990's and that is now still being of influence on the ground in Afghanistan today.

Thanks Scott B for your book recomendations, that's one handy & helpful area, but well specifically for now I was hoping for an informed discussion to take place here. I mean I am aware of the Northern Alliance but feel that I lack an informed opinion about it and its history and further more that I havn't had (yet) access to good assessments of it. I've seen an interview here or heard one on the radio there and watched some TV current affairs reportage piece on it when one is done at times and I have had occation to read a few newspaper or magazine articles on it and Afganistan. But this has really all been a bit sparce. However, while this has all been out of mild interest at times these I feel were merely just in passing. So yeah, some pointers as to where to start and directions on credible assessments of the Northern Alliance is what I'm looking for both as a military force and in the socio-geopolitics of Afganistan., from the NA's origins through the wars until today. I'd really like to know what the NA really is now and both where and how it has come along since it began. [ April 01, 2006, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Oooh thanks Wicky I was looking out for this bloke: Ahmed Shah Massoud the Lion of Panjshir, assasinated by AQ posing cameramen on the 9th of September! :eek: