Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cuirassier

  1. By Falaise most of the German armor in theatre was already knocked out. It was the destruction of this armor by allied ground forces that made the breakout possible in the first place. Allied air helped indirectly by by interdicting roads and rail, hindering any daytime movement. But none of that German armor was going to make it out anyway, since it was already dead.
  2. Pilots are notoriously bad at verifying kills (or rather, failing to kill things). Being charitable, they overclaimed ground kills by a minimum of a factor of 10; more realistically, they probably overclaimed by a factor of 50 or so. An example: During the Mortain offensive in August, the Germans assembled a force of approximately 75 Pz IV, 70 Pz V and 32 Stugs for the attempt to cut of the American breakout. During the first three days the British and American pilots claimed 252 German tanks knocked out. The Germans had only deployed 177 full AFV's for the offensive. Furthermore, later OR analysis showed that allied aircraft only accounted for 9 German vechicles destroyed, the rest instead going to the usual causes (TD's, artillery, zooks, etc). Later analysis by the Brits of lost Panthers in Normandy and the Ardennes showed that only approximately 6% of Panthers were lost to air weapons. Losses of Soviet armor during Kursk to German air is even lower than this figure, the Luftwaffe accounting for 2% to 5% of armored losses. Quite simply, WWII aircraft did not have the weapons or accuracy to successfully attack armor. It was one of the worst targets to direct them against, as FLAK took a very heavy toll for practically no purpose. Air superiority was useful, but not in attacking armor.
  3. Yes, Rudel is full of crap and the Ju-87 was never an effective tank killer; no aircraft in WWII was. JasonC has written extensively on this in the past here on this forum. I recommend looking up some old threads if you want details. Here is one useful thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=45658&highlight=rudel Another good source is Zetterling in his Normandy book. While he does not talk about the Luftwaffe or Rudel, he debunks the myth that USAAF and RAF aircraft were capable tank killers in Normandy by looking at actual Operations Research data after the fight. Naturally, if the much more powerful Allied air forces under vastly better conditions were unable to be effective tank killers, then there is no way that the Luftwaffe achieved more with a handful of Stukas. The best way to debunk the stuka claims is to look at the actual loss reports of Soviet tanks. Essentially, if the air force claims are correct, then there would be hardly any losses remaining to be accounted for by all of the German tanks, PAK, panzerfaust, etc. This argument comes up in a number of Jason's posts, if I recall, and is sound. Can't argue with the math.
  4. The Pacific is at least ahead in priority of one game possibility: Arab-Israeli wars.
  5. Is this the second scenario in the campaign? I just started the terrain analysis for this one myself. Spoilers................. (maybe) The terrain at first glance definitely looks difficult, as there are a number of peaks/ridges that can hit your lead elements while staying outside of los. So far I've ruled out an advance up the right most bowl area, as it can be hit by enfilading fire from both peaks, which cannot be readily seen by overwatch. The gulley on the centre left looks like a promising approach, but also screams trap for anyone exiting its protective defilade. The far left is mostly open terrain, which permits some good overwatch los, but also allows you to get hit by the whole enemy defense, with little cover to set up overwatch or a base of fire for the infantry. In order to deal with F/O problem, I have considered using turn 1 fireplans, but this of course limits flexibility. At least the scenario has quite a bit of time on the clock to probe and shoot. And those 155mm guns pretty well kill anything they hit that isn't in great cover. My initial supposition is that success will largely be dependent on anticipating where the major enemy concentrations and firelanes will be, and hitting the with arty before advancing.
  6. If it helps, I have no modules but just finished a complete install from the base to 3.11 today. My process was: 1. Base game 2. version 2.0 upgrade 3. 2.12 patch 4. 3.0 upgrade 5. 3.11 patch Game seems to load fine. Again, I have no modules.
  7. Nevermind, figured it out. I never extracted the files before attempting to install.
  8. Lol, thank you. So I at least have version 3.0 running then. However, I am still having trouble with the patch. I have tried to install using the .exe file in the zip folder, but I get an error message saying "The file CMBN_Setup-1a.bin could not be located in...Please insert the correct disk or select another folder." I get this trying to install in the CMBN folder on my C-drive. Is there some other folder I need to select? I can't find it. Thank you.
  9. Hi all, I just decided to finally fully upgrade CMBN (I only have the base game). So I downloaded the 2.0 upgrade, installed it, and then patched it with 2.12. Then I downloaded the 3.0 upgrade and installed it. However, when I load the game, it is labeled V2.20 at the bottom of the screen. Is this correct? Also, I am trying to install the 3.11 patch, but it says I need to insert a disk, which I do not have (I download all of my games only). How do I get this installed and working, assuming the 3.0 upgrade is working (not sure it is)? Any knowledge on these matters would be greatly appreciated.
  10. It is an interesting plan. But I do always cringe a little when so much artillery is used and it is not followed up with an assault.
  11. If people were able to manage it as Syria vs NATO in CMSF, I'm assuming they will be able to manage it here, since the comparative tech gap is much smaller. I'm guessing in many of the scenarios the Ukrainians will be on the tactical defensive, which gives significant advantages with modern technology. Hills, woods, buildings etc can provide important los blockages, which allow defenders to hit the attackers piecemeal, get flank shots on armour, etc.
  12. It will very much be a 'first look, first shot, first kill' kind of environment I imagine.
  13. Looked through those first screenshots. I'm really liking those BMP's.
  14. I don't think so. Some ideologies are just intentionally nasty. If everyone was humane, moral, wise, etc., there would be a whole stinking pile of ideologies that wouldn't exist. Hitler wasn't trying to be a boy scout...
  15. Indeed, the free market is entirely imaginary in a Fascist State. There is no personal property in reality, as the State can seize anything you own whenever it wants for whatever reason.
  16. I recall at least one on the Feldgrau forums.
  17. Posted by JasonC, from a previous, similar thread re: the state and performance of German mech divisions in Normandy. Below is Jason: "To cut through the straw men and baiting, a little at least... There is how green or veteran a unit was at the start of the campaign, and there is how well it was equipped, and there is how well it actually fought. The first two influence expectations about the last, but there is independent variation in that third item. Overall, there is variety - as usual. In that variety, there is nothing special about the SS mobile divisions. 17SS was green, poorly equipped for a mobile division, gave a poor initial performance and later improved to about average. 1SS was veteran, very well equipped, fought well. 12SS was green, well equipped, fought well. 9+10SS were regular, middling equipped, fought relatively poorly for mobile divisions. Lehr was new to combat but experienced personnel, the best equipped mobile division in the German armed forces, and fought well. 2nd Panzer was veteran, well equipped, and fought only middling well, plagued by piecemeal commitments. 21st Panzer was new as a division, weirdly equipped (middling, non-standard items), fought pretty well early but lost much of its strength in that early fighting. 116th Panzer was green as a division, well equipped, and fought very poorly (committed late, bad performance both in Mortain and defensively). The best of them was Lehr, in actual performance and in experience level of the men. The second was 1SS. The worst was 116 Panzer, despite being well equipped and committed as a unit, though late in the campaign. The next worst was 17SS. 9SS and 10SS were below average for mobiles; 2nd Panzer underperformed its experience and equipment levels in this specific campaign (it was strong again later). 12SS was above average in performance for its prior experience level, just par for its equipment level, which was strong. Were any one of these the best performing armor formation in the Normandy campaign? No. That accolade arguably goes to the US 2nd Armored division, which was a veteran formation at the start of the campaign, and fought rings around them all. It made Cobra a clean breakthrough, fought its way through half a dozen formations in the process including major armor in the later portions of the breakout, was instrumental in defeating the Mortain attempt, bested 116 Panzer, 2nd Panzer, 1SS, overran half of France, etc. There weren't any slashing Guderians on the other side of the hill, but "Hell on Wheels" made it look like 1940 again. Of course it had help, and a favorable operational chance - the outstanding armor formations always do when they get their chance to shine." FWIW
  18. So make that fully featured game with that specific setting. Please, of course.
  19. Which is why Germany won the war, right? Oh wait... No one denies that the II SS roughly handled the 5GTA at Prokhorovka. Two points are to be drawn from that confrontation. The first, small one, is that it was mostly poor Russian tactics that led to excessive losses. Rotmistrov's 5GTA took an overly aggressive, offensive stance and attacked into German strength. It was a tactically poor use of Russian armor. No German brilliance about it whatsovever. The second, big, point, is that the battle didn't matter. Citadel had already been decided and any German successes were tactical only. The Russians were dominating at the operational level. Does a week long German tactical success really matter when the Soviets are conducting Front size, offensive operations at Orel and the Mius, to be later followed in the Kharkov area itself? Not particularly.
  • Create New...