Zalgiris 1410

:confused: Lets pretend that I don't know anything about the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan from pre-Soviet invasion, through the occupation, after the withdrawl; before & during the Taliban regime and during & since the US led liberation etc. (Looking forward to all your informed postings, thanks in advance.) [ March 26, 2006, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

The German HMGs, both MG34 & MG42 had an AP round which IMHO is fairly accurately portrayed in CM. The basic stat that I have on it is that the AP round could perforate 8mm of armour at 550 metres. That is why players are seeing HTs with 7mm of armoured thickness being abandoned by their crews or knocked out at such ranges as they are witnessing. While the LMG versions of MG34s & MG42s arn't modelled with the AP round & penetrating capacity, AIUI all German vehicle mounted MGs are modelled with the AP round. I don't know how accurate this absolute distinction is, certainly the Panzers were deliberately supplied with the AP MG round specifically to help them to deal with the enemy ATG crews behind their thin shields. (In my prime source about this German AP MG round, the British in the Western Desert complain about this as a tactical problem if their ATG crews held their fire into such short ranges and consequently needed to be trained to avoid allowing themselves to be so exposed to Panzer mounted MG return fire.) :cool: Not sure about say Kebelwagen MGs having the AP round in either historical reality or in CM but I can't fathom why the LMGs wouldn't have been supplied with them since they were exactly the same weapon using the same ammunition as the vehicle mounted and the tripoded HMG versions anyway. I can think of the only real possible difference from the supply side of things being that the non-LMGs were actually 'fired from the box' while the two man LMG crews had to carry their ammo after taking it out of the box first, if not using a drum. OTOH at the same time the drum was used for some vehicle mounts including Panzers though!

Just to paint a picture, AIUI most normal peasants in the region were smerfy serfs, while, let me say in non-Wild Cossack agriculture based communities the Cossack peasants were free members of them. During their lifetime the peasant Cossack would be given his share of land to farm, as much as he could farm during earlier to middle working life, and he would operate less as he got older. Although it was probably not all cut and dry and also I think things were done according to household, not on an absolute individual basis. The economic model was similar to other village based societies and completely baffles micro-economists to be sure! The obligation of military service was based upon their being an able bodied male either avaliable or even always on service or somethink. Anyway that's my very generalized understanding so far. O'h this is a stretch but on the subject of a society based solely upon robbery I've got a good timely enough (in the Commonwealth) example. I was catching a passing glimps of some long distance running in the bloody Commo Games last night on TV in the staff room, and of course the Kenyans were winning. No surprises there! There was some discussion about how those highland/mountaineer Kenyans are made for winning long distance running while we (the bloody Anglo-celtics) are good at swimming etc, yadda yadda. Then I rememberred a documentory that I saw a long time ago with some Anthropologist investigating the where, why and how abouts of these very Kenyan Marathon Goldmedel winning runners or at least their recent enough team members. Anyway it was very interesting cos it turns out that they all only come from one this tribe in one area of Kenya. Now sure that's not all that controversial a thing. Completely understandable, but it's got to do with the reason this is so about them imparticular that means this is so. I can't remember the name of this tribe but for generations upon generations they have been pedestrian cattle rustlers! Apparently in a region where most of the other tribes breed and raises cattle our Goldmedelist Kenyans' ancestors would run around the mountain sides pilfering the cattle from their neighbouring tribes doing all the herding. It is also an area where horses can't live so they litteraly had to run off with the other guys cows during the night until they got them home. Intregingly they didn't breed them themselves and therefore they were entirely devoted the robbery of cattle because cattle was the most valued thing as in ancient times. IIRC the men or probably rather the older boys of this tribe had to take a cow or possibly more in order to be able to marry their first wife or more! [ March 24, 2006, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

If as 1941 Soviets one must try and fight against likely Axis ATRs with T-26 tin cans, then I suggest buying T-26Es which incidentally even give early light Axis Armour a run for their money. Actually IMHO ATRs force players to handle their vehicles in a more realistic fasion, prevents them charging with the light stuff as though it were all as thickly armoured as Infantry Tanks, while also hopefully ensuring that SPs such as Marders & SU-76s are used appropriately. OTOH if a player is determined to try and deal with pesky ATRs then the best method that I've found is primarily though a large amount of area fire from HMGs including vehicle mounted as well as from lots of advancing Infantry Squads and HQs. Of course this mothod requires mass or a great advantage in strength oveer your opponent with those ATRs that you are trying to suppress. This attempt to empoly fire dominance againt enemy ATRs should be thought of as coverring all likely small arms opposition including enemy HMGs, Infantry Squads, Snipers, HQs and even spotters. Eventually your Infantry will hopefully get close enough to either spot or completely route them ATRs out along with everything else out. Easy!

Excellent read thanks for that John, very in-depth debunking.

Co-ordination is difficult with 500 units, the method that I'm using is direct area fire ahead of my troops by themselves and others moving in a leap frog fasion, HMGs and guns area firing further afield than where my infantry are moving to if near by during that minute, therefore the minute chuncks are working out fine. (I'd like to play in 30 second time chuncks myself.) That said I'm also trying to use concentrated mass to break into the depths of the buildings and co-ordinating that process in this big senario is a time consuming labourious nightmare. In answer to your last few questions firstly direct fire dominance is the answer that I'm endeavering to employ while to the second heavy armour first then light to soak up the ATR fire before it hits something that it is going to penetrate while yes you do use your infantry as well, but definately not to soak up HMG fire with their bodies but through their fire power upon likely enemy held firing positions and suppress them first then dominate them, work them over with your own HMGs and heavier direct fire guns before you advance the infantry across open areas. Think about what you would try in real life in such situations. Magnus must have had it tough for sure! Two things that I would like to add are firstly I'm trying not to create any more rubble or to set anything on fire. I find it harder to get the Russians out of rubble then the buildings and I want them for my troops to be able to use the advantage of two levels, easier movement, better sighting for fire etc. In 'To the Volga' I think the Russians are veterans and HE preparation isn't going to be all that effective in suppressing them for very long, since they recover quickly IME but OTOH a lot of direct fire, even area fire will successfully suppress and panick them much more effectively than indirected HE targetted fire does to them in buildiungs and in creaters and rubble. In 'To the Volga' fortunately as the Germans you have plenty of direct fire power and troops to effectively win this opperation through direct area firepower as the 'fire' part of fire and movement tactical method IMHO.

I am currently, or rather continuously still playing "To the Volga", against the AI at double strength! :cool: A full frontal coverring Smokescreen, WTF, that's a complete waste of HE firepower, IMHO for sure. Jason C is right, the way forwards is through fire dominance not manouevre. I hid all my vehicles and armour behind buildings, placed 27 out of 29 guns in creater firing positions within HQs with ? bonuses comand and deployed all of my infantry forces in forward firing positions, that is bunched up in the buildings along their walls and windows. Almost all HQs were up as well if not commanding guns or spotting for the artillery. I kept the pioneers in further back buildings but still with fields of fire. Everything hides. :cool: Bare in mind that I'm fighting against a double strong enemy force, which means my 2 grenadier, 3 infantry & 1 pioneer Btlns and 1 & 2/3 Coys of Motorcycle troops with 35 HMGs are fighting against 2 Regiments of Russian Infantry with SMG troops and other support units. And for good measure the Russians have 58 guns and 34 tanks. My AFVs consist of 32 Panzers, 2 SP-sIGs, 4 PJs, 7 PSWs and IIRC 14 Sd Kfz 251(MGs) & 3 Sd Kfz 251 (37mm). I'm gonna call those odds one to one-ish. My plan was to fire all of my Artillery from the first turn upon the back third of the battlefield because that is where the AI deploys most of his guns and tanks. Over the first few tuns my tank killing Panzers will move out to cover the clear areas towards the back with one team of a Pltn each of PzIIIJs & PzIVF2 on the far left, while the other such team will move from the centre to the centre-right to cover all that wide area of open terrain between the two main sets of buildings. My 7 50mm Paks were positioned in order to cover these areas as well as was one 88mm Flak for each area too. The other two 88mm Flaks are in reserve still being towed. (Once positioned they can't be moved even between operations and I'll need them later.) Anyway this anti-gun & anti-tank part of the operation has worked out exceptionally well, since these forces have only suffered one casualty while bagging all 6 of the enemy's exposed tanks and about ten guns or so that I know of, so far. It must be way more because his ten AAGs haven't shot down any of my planes while four of them have been KO'd by my Panzers. The relavent part of my plan has to do with how I'm gonna prepare the battlefield without using any of my off-board Artillery for fire preparation againt the Russian Infantry deployed in forward buildings, rubble and in creaters & trenches. The answer is through fire dominace achieved through direct firing weapons, from the big stuff, 4 150mm sIGs (plus 2 SP sIGs) through 8 75mm leIGs & 8 PzIVF 75mm Stummels, 6 20mm leFlak and 6 20mm cannon armed PSWs, through 35 HMG teams & 14 Sd Kfz 251 MG mounted to the little or all the small arms of the Infantry Squads and HQs. As with the Sabre Panzer Platoons, the anti-personel Panzer Pltns of PzIIIHs & PzIVFs move out against the main building infront of the Panzergrenadier Regiment, the thicker PzIVs more forwards than the thinner PzIIIHs because of all the likely Russian ATR fire and so that the Stummels might use some canister if the can! Then comes out the SP 150mm sIGs to fire into the rubble areas and then since I'm sure about the ATR situation the Armoured Cars and Personal Carriers come out to add to the fire storm but as I said only when I'm sure but more to provide extra direct (area) fire support to help cover the belatent advance of my Grenadiers. Anyway that's what my AFVs will be doing, direct firing in lieu of artillery preparation or a smokescreen. Direct heavy fire support will be provided by all those field guns, 4 150mm sIGs, 8 75mm leIGs, 6 20mm leFlak and when freed up the 7 50mm Paks & two 88mm Flaks. Some minimal indirect fire support will be provided by the Sd Kfz 251 81mm mounted mortars, although I plan to save some of their rounds for dealing with Russian guns later on during the first battle, but I need to add them early to hit some rubble areas. Now that's a lot of fire power especially when you add on the 16 anti-personal Panzers and all the other AFVs which will be handled in a tactical manner that hopefully ensures both their survival and fire power contribution. Finally the Infantry, HQs and HMGs will all be up concentrated and area firing all across the front into the buildings and other lkely enemy occupied creaters, rubble and trenches. At a quick count that will be approximately 220 LMGs, 350 SMGs and 1500 rifles all area firing towards the forward enemy areas. After a few minutes of all this fire the Russians will be pinned and suppressed if not outright dead or pannicked. At the most the AI will have deployed 1/3 of his Infantry forces in his forward zone so this will mean that I will have a 3 on one advantage in small arms not to mention all that direct gun and AFV fire power! OK that's all gone to plan and I'm moving my Grenadiers forwards into the front of the enemy buildings and that's where I am at. First I moved forward the 2 Pltn Kradshutzen Kompany just into the light building on the far left in front of the gap between the two sets of buildings infront of the Grenadier Regiment with the two small piles of rubble between and infront. Since they made their small advence or redepoyment in the face of the enemy I deemed it right to let the Grenadier Regiment forwards across the open ground and roads and into the buildings fronts opposite them. However, I'm not just simply running them across this terrain but advancing and assaulting through as much cover in creaters and rubble as possible while also area firing ahead of them. I've definately worked the forward enemy successfully over because I haven't been chewed up yet and I've still got all my guns and vehicles and there all exposed. Bloody hell, I've got a lot of troops! Interestingly I have received no enemy artillery HE fire in return so far, touch wood, I must have suppressed all of his spotters along with his forward troops, OTOH mind you I'm completely all out of off-board artillery rounds now. :eek: Anyway errantrecce I hope this might explain a different approach and gives you some ideas. BTW Jason C I wouldn't play this way against a human opponent especially bunching up all my troops in the front of the buildings shoulder to shoulder, suppression is a bitch that close together but in this case I was counting on gaining larger fire hit points from them this way. There is a reason why it is agood idea to deploy infantry deeper in a building errantrecce as you hinted, even if for no other reason than to spread out and not bunch up at the front walls of buildings where some light area or a single direct aimed fire at one of your units will cause casualties to and suppress most of the others around it. (May be trying to control 500 units is a bit much! :confused: Why can't the AI command some of them, o'h why not!)

The barman certainly did mix things up! And yes my night definately did improved afterwards thanks.

Actually it probably is although I had the Friday evening off so I could start at 7 on Saturday morning, which still drunk somehow I made. Ahem, but I was there er, early, had three Boags and left 7.30ish after the barman directed me to "Harry's" lane 15 with a group of about a dozen pastle shorted guys at it, some of whom thought that I was strange. I've now learnt for the future that purhaps it might not be a good idea to go to a Bowling club dressed as a goth! Which lane were you guys on BTW? Anyway I caught up with my Finnish girlfriend in Carlton before heading out much much later in the evening to er, you guessed it, a gothic club. :cool: So I didn't waste the rest of my evening. I'll be up for the next one, appropriately dressed enough if I'm still welcome. :confused:

Erhard Raus was the author of this pamphlet, bloody hell end the guessing game, I have a version of it in a book called "Fighting in Hell, The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front", edited by Peter G. Tsouras. It also has Pamplet No. 20-290, The Effects of Climate on Combat in European Russia, which was also by Raus. In another of Tsouras' edited collections, "The Anvil of War, German Generalship in Defence on the Eastern Front", Raus is the author of 3/4s of that book. And Buq-Buq yes Raus' Pamphlet No. 20-230 is the source of that early KV-1 story! Let me guess, Halder wrote that one?

I hadn't heard of that effect by the twice & trice passing and empty Stukas at the Meuse crossings. I had only thought (and read) of the the effect upon the French Infantry in their trenches etc, being unnerved as much by the Stukas screaching sirens as the bombs that they had dropped. What you are saying makes sense though, however AIUI the intended purpose was only to surpress French Infantry fire, at least as much as I remember it. It may well have been to silence the French artillerymens' fire as well, or even more so. I'll do a check of a few sources, but I was wondering if the suppression of French artillery fire at the Meuse crossings sites by this tactic was both a deliberately intended aim and if it was the key to the success of the crossings? I agree with this line, the French tanks weren't designed for handliability by their crews. One-man turretts, no radios and for many tanks they included a standing position only feature! Not only were most French tanks dysfuntional tactically, they were even more so on an opperational level as well. This does remind me of an incident where I think Rommell used flare pistols against attacking Char Bs on the 13th of May IIRC, apparently the smoking rounds convinced the French heavy tankers that they were being marked out for an air strike or an artillery barrage, so they turned back!

If you are having trouble finding your units red coloured base units, I suggest using the plus and minus keys (+/-) to toggle through all your units. BTW Dorosh if Damascus 'colourizes' the grass blue won't he have trouble seeing those blue coloured bases!

I'll be there, never ever played Bowls in my life but I be there. The 3rd of Feb is good for me, by the way how will I know ya when I get there? :eek: I would suggest that rocking up to any establishment in Fitzroy and asking for a 'Harry', or for some group for 'Harry Ink', is very likely to lead me into some complicated conversation with someone actually with Harry trying to sell me some really expensive sour powder! How embarrassment!

I remmember playing this one as a newbie several times over as both the Germans and as the Russians. Your right, going the Germans is easy although I always lost the Panther Pltn HQ, I sware every bloody time. I usually just lined the Panthers up behind the stone wall of the cemetery. Had the 75mm ATG's in good firing positions, one far left, on centre and one centre-right, across the road, all in the trees. The Infantry Platoons went into similar positions, re-inforced in the centre tree clumbs with all SMG squads, HMGs and Panzerschecks. Bang bang. I found that even against a trippling of the Russian forces I always won fairly easy against the AI for the loss of a Panther or 3 and may be an ATG and a Tiger at times. I did play the Russians a few times, tried the shoot & scoot from the ridgeline and that didn't work, tried the left hook and got shot to **** and tried a few other combinations inbetween that all also didn't work. As I said I was a real newbie at the time though...may be I should give it another go, hey!

Thanx Jason for your expanded post, I especially appreciate the re-direction to Alfred Knox and Bernard Pares, I'll definately look into them for sure. I do have a couple of good books that cover the whole period in the East very well actually, not brilliantly, but good enough. That's why I was stuned not to know about these 4-6 Divisions the Russians had to march on Berlin in August 1914! This claim was made in a TV doco as fact, not a hypothetical, although what was implied about them was I guess. I agree the they wouldn't have been able to manage to capture Berlin on their own for the obvious reasons etc, and my interest at least for the moment is not what they could have done ra-ra-ra, but confirming their existance and actual purpose, planned or intended. All the same, understanding the Russian planning and mobilization at the start of the 1st World War is something that I'm now getting a bit intreged about!!! BTW, the German General who lost his nerve in command of the 8th Army was a General Prittwitz, he ordered a withdrawl behind the Vistula after having lost the Battle of Gumbinen to Rennenkampf's 1st Army and then hearing about the unopposed 'pursuit' by Samsonov's 2nd to his right flank/rear. Thus it was he who inturn caused von Moltke to withdraw those two Korps from the far right hook in the West. He did learn from Lt-Col Max Hoffman, a senior Staff Officer at 8th Army listening to Russian radio traffic in the clear that Rennenkampf believed that he couldn't follow up or move on in any way. Therefore he started the move of the entire 8th Army against Samsonov's 2nd, but with the damage done he was still replaced by General Hindenberg with Ludendorff as his Chief of Staff in time for the actual Battle of Tannenberg, actually it was the first time that they had ever met!

Thanx very much for the back handed invite Harry, as for the date and time, any near coming Friday arvo/evening ought to be fine, I occationally get called to work them, but pretty much most of them will be free. Actually if the date gets set, I'll make sure I'm gonna have it off, **** it! :cool:

Can I invite myself along if the date and time suit, fallas? :confused:

I have a question which I was hoping might be answered here by a grog regarding August 1914! (That's right, not a typo, 14 not 41, ha, ha!) Basically some work colleges told me about a TV series on WWI which I've missed the start of, I've begun taping the rest of it since. They also explainned to me that they were amazed to find out while watching the earlier part that the Russians had 4 to 6 Divisians, just 60 miles from Berlin!!! :eek: Of course much like the French they couldn't believe that this Russian 'Berlin' Corps or mini Army didn't simply just march directly upon the German Capital and end the war in August 1914. This claim of both the existance of these 4 -6 Divisions and what they were supposed to do has been gnawing me since. I've tried to find out for myself through some chapters and articles that I've got on the Battle of Tannenberg and books that deal with WWI that actually cover the Eastern Front to any degree as well as also through Norman Stone's excellant book "The Eastern Front 1914-1917", both nothing yet. I've read abit on the Galician battles between the Russians and the Austro-Hungarians as well as quite abit on Tannenberg and the general course of events that the Russian attack against East Prussia took so I was surprised not to know or explain about this Russian 'Berlin' direction Corps immediately. I know that the French pressured the Russians to move directly upon Berlin as part of their agreement or the Entente just as they did with the Poles in 1939, but had to settle with the understanding that Imperial Russia was going to fully attack Germany...in East Prussia first AIUI. May be this phantom group was some sort of deployment to appease the French or show them that another Army would be created and expanded with the arrival of reserve Division as quickly as possible after the beginning of wartime mobilisation. If this 4-6 Division Corps or mini Army existed to attack in the Centre directly towards Berlin I thought that I might have read about it by now. It could have been just a covering force between the East Prussia direction and the Austria frontier, deployed West of Warsaw or something? Whatever it might have been that was referred to in this WWI TV documentry I would like to know for sure. I at least thought their number might have been mentioned as being absent from 2nd Army's left flank, or even right flank for that matter or what and why they were withheld from Genreal Samsonov's Army, etc? BTW I am especially embarrassed because I ought to be a grog on the Battle of Tannenberg because what was this 1914 Battle named after at Ludendorf's suggestion for the morale building purposes of claiming revenge for the defeat of the Knight's of the Teutonic Order; the Battle of what in Lithuanian Z...... 15th / July / 1410! :mad: [ January 13, 2006, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

If you are intent upon attacking across that open area I recomend that you not just rely upon smoke to both cover and ease your advance. You are going to have to soften the enemy up enough through winning fire dominance, or at least having engaged heavily in a firefight to your advantage. You have the means to do it with the KT, the 2 StugH's and LMG equipt rifle squads and company heavy weapons. You might want to move up your left assault groups to their jumping off positions quietly and hold off on the smoke coverred crossing attempt for awhile while you engage the enemy in a direct firefight. This is so you can disrupt some of your opponent's squads integrity and make then easier for your assault troops to deal with later. Also by waiting a few minutes more it gives your firebase the time to KO any of the Russian armour that they get the opportunity to take out. Hopefully this can be done to your advantange but in enough time before any Russian spotter team or two gets a fix on your firebase units. I also agree with Jason C about getting the 'Pinke' group on the right a little more to the left. Certainly have them move close to their position at or near "C" flag, but think about placing them so they can both win their own firefight and also fire across the double road highway abit and add their firepower into your opponent's left flank at some point. I would also take all of your snipers along within the 'Pinke' group both to recon to the front & right front of point "C" but also to have in defilade / enfilade firing positions behind the mini platoon. from here snipers should have effective firing positions, IMO. All the best, but I still prefer your orrigional plan of attacking on the right, because of the advantage of using a coverred approach and because it consentrates your assaulting force all together in one assault. [ January 13, 2006, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Absolutely no, the coverred arc only tells the unit not to fire outside the coverred arc without effecting its vision or spotting ability farther beyond say a deliberately very short coverred arc demarcation line. So no in the direction it is facing spotting is not reduced outside or beyond the coverred arc zone.

With one Artillery spotter team to position where you think that you might want to lay that smoke screen I really don't think that you are going to need a TPR for that especially if you use a HQ to spot for it or just pre-plan it and target it on the first turn hoping that your timing is right on the money for both when and where you'll need the smoke screen up for concealment. OTOH you might want one or two TRPs for the mortars to target the key buildings and the approach areas immediately farther back just behind those buildings to the front of flag 'C' on the right front (which is the unexposed approach route for the Russian infantry away from the straight roads to the 'C' flag's immediate area) that might help out your troops in their manoeuvres in that confined area. I hope you identify the right target positions here though, I'm pretty crap at that myself, I must admit, but I think this kind of fire mission would help to assist and protect your right hook, as you orrigionally planned it. I like your plan but as Jason C suggested you could combine those extra SMG squads with the company HQ and use it with the attack on the right. OTOH the other thing that you could do is to take the heavy squads out of the SMG platoons and put them under a HQ and use them for the direct 'red' line faint instead of a full platoon. The two rifle platoons could then be used on the right for cover fire and protecting the hook turn. I would recommend a couple more HMGs one more for the 'red' line overwatch group, and may be one farther on the left in the buildings on the left in front of the small 'A' flag. I like this thread, I've enjoyed this discussion so far with a good map to help, hope it continues thanks. :cool: [ January 08, 2006, 07:03 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Good question knalla, I don't actually know for sure if frozen ground increases the effects of HE explosions against infantry in CM but my understanding is that such ground conditions at lest don't reduce the effects of HE as heavy mud, snow and deep snow do which absorb the explosive and retard HE shelling blast effects. I assume that frozen ground conditions in CM just leave blast effects as they are and doesn't 'bounce' HE up AFAIK.

The infantry squads of different kinds of troops (PZG, Jgr, Volksturm, SS, etc) are only treated differently according to their experience level setting only. As Sergei demonstrated above in a fasion, units of different kinds are treated the same in terms of morale no matter what size the squads are or how they are armed and equipt individually. Veterans are all veterans, and your greenies are all just greenies no matter what their uniform, even if a full sized SS mannequin! However CM largely tries to be historically accurate so the 'Homeguard' Volksturm are not only a less well equipt as a Battalion formation but are more than likely to be of poorer quality both physically and experience. This is because they were the bottom of the barrell, pressganged young boys, old men and the unfit who had still not been good enough for the Volksgrenadiers let alone the regular rifled infantry. So I think Volksturm are only availiable as Conscripts or Green at the most, while other types can be up to Veterans or even Crack. There are a whole lot of other factors that effect the performance and fragility of infantry squads and teams such as HMG's, Tankhunters, onboard mortars, etc; having troops 'in command' or not of HQ's can be just as important in the game especially HQ's with bonuses. When units are out of command of a HQ they are more volnerable to morale cracks if for no reason more than the fact that when 'in command' of a HQ they are rallied by it more than if they were on their own.

<font color="tan"> (Please in your briefing could you after 39th and 60th Infantry insert 'Regiments' in order to be clear about what you are describing since we are not all experts on US protocals. Also to be consistent keep it as A Co. and not Co. A throughout at least again for consistancy and clarity but also because I think that letter then Company is the correct and usual informal method.) </font> While I'm no expert I believe that the FEBA (Forward Edge of the Battle Area) is just that a line from which the Main Battle Area begins from, MBA replacing the older MLR term some time in the 70's in US doctrine. In front of the FEBA was the Coverring Force in the Covering Area which could extend out in front as far as 50 miles, but usually 15-20 miles IIRC.

The Sturmgewehr44 had more kick and consequently much greater climb than the MP40 and therefore I can understand the 2 points difference at 40 metres range. However from my reading and understanding of the MP44's capability it was still quite effective in the sustained (burst) fire mode out to 300 metres, much more like a LMG rather than needing to be compared to a rifle at that range only although it was just as good as one going out further beyond 250/300 metres. I mean the Sturmgewher44 had about a 30 round magazine, better than the Browning's 20 and just as good as the Bren's 30. That said I don't understand why the Bren gun has a better performance with its 30 round magazine compared to the MG34 with a fifty round drum or belt! :confused: