Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Cuirassier

  1. BTW-In my reference above I neglected to say that Hartman's 352 kill claim was for aircraft shot down, not tanks or vehicles destroyed.

    Now that that is out of the way, what about the Faliase Gap? That has always been touted as the great killing fields where Typhoons and other aircraft slaughtered the Germans.

    Putting aside the actual kill tally. Getting strafed, bombed and rocketed by aircraft, regardless of whether they actually hit or kill anything cannot be pleasant.

    I remember a quote from the 1991 Desert Storm campaign to the effect that the carpet bombing of positions by B-52s may not kill a lot of enemy combatants, but it sure will make them s*** in their pants and render them ineffective.

    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. I recall some arguments that the process of kill verification for the Luftwaffe in WW2 was not as stringent as was the case in the American and British Air corps so you had highly inflated numbers not only for Rudel, but also pilots like Hartman who claimed something like 352 kills or so.

    Perhaps someone knowledgeable could shed some light on this , if it hasn't already been done.

    The Stuka would always suffer in the fact of determined air opposition. In 1940 during the opening days of the Battle of Britain they got butchered by the RAF and pulled back or given heavy escort. The Me-110 also proved to be less than stellar in air to air.

    Some today say the A-10 is nothing more than a modern day version of the Stuka-in fact ex-Stuka pilots were used as consultants when it was being designed. Many believe that in the face of determined air resistance the A-10 would suffer the same fate as Stukas.

    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:


    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. 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.

  5. Yeah, 2.20 is correct. Don't ask why, down that route lies madness.

    Insert disk error is probably because you don't have all the files for the patch. the 3.11 patch has several files you need. Extract them all to the same location, then run the executable.

    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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. Reminds me of something I wrote about 25 years ago, which was that just about any political ideology could be made to work if we were perfect human beings who always acted wisely and humanely. Unfortunately we are not, and all ideologies I have seen thus far stumble over that fact. Some sooner some later, but all at some time or other.


    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...

  9. "the nearly 350 tanks under his command became hopelessly tangled in swampy terrain and Soviet minefields, and then were then badly shot up by Soviet defences"

    First point to notice - there is a direct connection between trying to use 350 tanks on a single divisions frontage and becoming "hopelessly tangled".


    Indeed. Goodwood comes to mind. There comes a point where one can reach too high a force density (even with armor), and all the extra vehicles create far more problems than they actually solve.

  10. 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."


  11. There are no plans for anything like this ever being added to CMSF as some of sort of random knickknack. If we were ever to include vehicles from different time frames, they would be as part of a new product themed specifically for that time, not a random anachronistic add-on.

    There's a few reasons for this:

    - We keep the scope of our games focused on the conflict presented in the storyline. Isn't a potential item that could be used in Syria 2008? Not going to be in CMSF.

    - Including things like this would lead to calls/requests for more things like it. Then people will want a Russian tank appropriately old enough to fight it, then APCs to go with them, then 1980s European terrain, and so on. It would be better to just to make a fully featured game with that specific setting than try to shoehorn it into another game.

    - Most pragmatically: we've already got plenty of work to do that already logically fits into our games without having to stray from the chosen setting. ;)

    So make that fully featured game with that specific setting. Please, of course.

  12. Have you considered what really happened at Prokhorovka namely he evisceration of 5th Guard Tank Army by II SS Panzer Korps. Contrary to the tradiional account which we now know originated with a lie by Rotmistrov (to save his career and quite possibly his life) to Stalin. A lie that was contiued after Stalin's death because it would have been politically embarrassing for a certain Nikita Khruschev who, at the ime was a senior Commissar at Voronnezh Fron and therefore closely involved with the events immediately before ano on 12 July 1943. From II SS PZK records we now know they destroyed at least 400 Soviet tanks during the day (the Corps commander was so ncredulous about the claim he actually came down and counted them himself see Nipe Decision in the Ukraine)

    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...