Vark

Is the position (the main one not the hilltop outliers) visible from the treeline so that weapons can be bought to bear on it and vice versa and if there are hills, is their a road leading to the position? Also what distances are we talking about between the crestline and the outpost, finally how have you simulated the Russian sapper operations allowing the initial break in or did the assault force use the unmined sally points? The problem I have had with the German tactic is that borg spotting kills it, literally. I once kept a small two unit force (two of the platoons sections were under command of the HQ) with attatched elements under a platoon HQ with good morale and attack ratings. When the main position fell I launched an immediate response and was taken apart, I went back to having a platoon set back but able to cover the mainline by fire and never counter attacked again, unless in urban environments or with armour back up.

Jason, couple of points; regarding the Stugs "They would not have a whole company of the things, but that isn't what I suggested." Never suggested that, I was just surprised the Germans would penny packet armour that way, though in 1944, it is understandable if the local reality of needs must, trumped official doctrine occasionally. "Definitely don't give the Russians a passel of ATGs." Again never suggested, though I had to look up the word to understand your response so thanks for expanding my vocabulary. I would have thought though that the pair of 45's, in the TOE of a vanilla rifle battalion, would be rushed forward to consolidate the position, after having helped support the assault by targeting embrasures, weapons pits etc. They should have reduced ammo but any surviving gun would surely be used for consolidation, especially if the Russians were aware of the likelyhood of individual SPG's being included in the counter-attacking force. Perhaps have the guns half-way to the outpost before the Germans attack, as CM so poorly models their mobility, as it does with all support weapons. Talking of AT elements, would the Russians not scavenge the captured outpost for every working faust available? Making a weapon so easy children can use it does have drawbacks.

If you read Grossmans's book, "On Killing" he makes the point that soldiers, after an intense fight, find it very hard to act at their level of proficiency. The brain powers down as the psychological trauma, of recent events is processed. This is why a rapid counter attack often works, despite the smallness of the force whereas one delayed, to increase the bayonet strength, rarely does. I do not have the book with me but believe the figure is 20-30 minutes. I guess in CM terms making troops exhausted, reducing there morale level and shocking/pinning some might be representative, though the CM engine is not really about psychological realism for the pixel troops. I wonder if any psychologists have been asked to particiapte in designing wargames rules?

Aragorn, thanks for the message and will alert you when the map is complete. I am a just about to start mapping the sprawling village now, well over two km and the map does not include the school house or tractor repair/distribution depot, though I will put them on as their approximate positions can be guestimated (how's that for a qualified statement!). Estimated time of completion is now hopefully before Christmas as I am back at work and will be travelling to Holland on a school exchange in three weeks. I know about the major elevation changes but does anyone have a reliable source for military maps of the area, google earth is a very crude instrument. I used it to plot the Ponyri like terrain around this neck of the woods (The Fens) and then walked the same ground and found all the tactically important micro terrain was absent. Because of this, after each section is complete I add character, using invented local terrain elevations and accentuating various areas based on old photographs of Poseloks in Kursk. It's not up to the standards of a blowtorch/Strachwitz operation (stunning) but it looks better each day, Though if anyone has any info, in addition to the historical threads, I'd be delighted. What is fascinating, as I play at God, is the insights it gives to why the Germans came so unstuck. The open fields, on the outskirts, slopping upwards Ponyri, have got Ferdinand killing zone written all over it but as your approach the village/s the terrain fragments into small mini-hamlets bordered by orchards and tree lined paths and the terrain levels. Worse, there are only 6-8 clearly defined avenues for armoured advance, all within LOS of multiple key hole AT positions, and half of them near the raised rail embankment, which effectively splits the battle zone into two unequal sectors. You can see how the battle became an infantry meatgrinder as AFV's would struggle to help support units as they have the worst of both worlds, imagine attacking eight or nine villages and several industrial zones all within mutual supporting range and all set within patches of LOS blocking terrain. Unlike traditional FIBU, armour, if in a supporting role, will find it hard to hide and an infantry screen will not help much either as each mini-village can easily upset the traditional dance of mutual support. Infantry advance to gain the essential spotting positions and OP points and are engaged, their supporting AFV's and weapons must come to the perimiter of a mini-hamlet to engage any spotted units, these AFV's/support are then taken under often flanking fire or subject to an artillery barrage Artillery support, for both sides was massive but the scale of the map is so large that a Katyusha strike, if planned poorly, can miss its target. Into Ponyri proper, tomorrow night! My next project is the Stalingrad Rail station!

I am converting the ASL Ponyri boards to a CM map. Can I post my finished product on a CM scenario website or jut use it for my own purposes? The maps are being play tested and I am very mindful of concepts of intellectual property, I have the original artists email address so contacting him would be no problems. The task i have set me is quite daunting, these are massive ASL maps measuting 40 hexes by several hundred and it has taken me a fair few weeks of trial and error converting the 40m hex scale to the very rigid map editor (bloody rail lines are a nightmare). So far I am very please with the results and would like to offer the end product to any Ponyri fans.

Jason, couple of questions. Would this scenario be better as an operation to better reflect the gradual arrival of troops, perhaps a finale with a german tank platoon v's an infantry force reinforced by ATG's. Would the Germans have a Stug for the initial counter attack? Most of what I have read suggests the SOP was a near instantaneous counter-attack with the forces at hand (two squads of infantry with some specialised kit). Or did the set up of a small strong point have an AG normally in reserve? I have little knowledge of German small unit defensive operations barring extrapolations from accounts of larger battles or specific tactical vigenettes. Would your force mix not include 45mm ATG's in the supporting unit? I'm thinking of the storm group compositions, did this knowledge percolate down through to vanilla rifle regiments or was it a buy the book approach eschewing local initiative. Also the Germans had become very stereotyped in their response to Russian break ins and the Russians knew an armour supported attack would be launched rapidly, or did those battles mainly occur on the flanks or base of the penetration?

The second personal account is equally misleading as it refers to the only helicopter shot down in the conflict, infact the only Israeli helicopter ever downed by Hezbollah.

Am I the only person who thinks the article referenced reeks of inference and bias? Casualty rates based on Hezbollah public funerals, Lebanese comments about "shooting rubber bullets at women and children and the resurrection of the AT-3 as a wonder weapon destroying MBT's. All of the above may be correct but where is the evidence for such claims, I was looking forward to an analytical piece, given the posts content, not inferred arguments, based on quotes gathered from secondary and much used quotes and 'sources'. I do not intend to start an interminable IDF evil/IDF good 'debate' but the piece failed to address the real issues that caused the IDF's poor performance in 2006, factors that I doubt would be replicated by a US attacker (poor logistics, poor Opsec and the use of reserve troops etc). Perhaps if the CMSF scenarios featured thirsty and hungry National Guard soldiers with little or no FIBU training; walking into village ambushes, where their ROE precludes being able to flatten dug in forces then yes the results might be similar to SF's invasion scenario. The summary of the Winograd report can be found here in this NYT report showing the systemic failings of the IDF. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/world/middleeast/31winograd-web.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

At the end of the day the very fact that theses machines were crewed by humans, with all the attendant problems that creates. I was just sitting at work and considering five colleagues who have all worked here for roughly the smame time, 6-8 years and if my profession were to be modelled by a games designer we would all be rated Veteran. Yet our approach to work, our ideas about priorities and our effectiveness in certain situations covers a broad spectrum. The big problem that wargames designers are always faced with is that with the advent of computers mechanical factors, relating to combat, are far more accurately modelled, compared to the basic CRT's of classic games. Trouble is the attendant morale model is, by its nature retarded, get a realistic programme to simulate human behaviour under stress and you would retire with a Cressusian pile of cash from both military and civilian companies. I read a very good review of Squad Leader by an ex-soldier who hated the idea that all squads of a nation were bland and homogeneous and firepower dictated changes in factors, the morale model being mainly dependent on the squad leader counters. In CM terms your unit might be rated a veteran but the leader is very fragile, after seeing a close friend die recently and will be ok (act as a veteran) if things are going well but might crack (act as green leader) if too many casualties are taken. Similarly the squad 'over the hill' is green but the MG gunner is a lethal crackshot and its leader grew up near the battle location and knows the terrain from his boyhood escapades. They are green because they have had little training and experience but if the two squads clash the veteran squad will be the weaker, due to factors impossible to calculate other than assigning arbitary factors, which make a nonsense of any system. As for Wagner, the Germans took great store in converting their battlefield trials to titanic struggles between the pure human, steeped in the ancient ways of a warrior and the mechanistic hordes of his opponents. I even read an 'account' of an SS tank commander who, when blown out of his tank sans clothes, routed the slavic hordes with an aquired SMG and grenades. Just take a look at Nazi art and see the what they found appealing, hint it's not landscapes of abstract art! Finally, of course a small force can dislocate and disrupt a greater force if that smaller force is more culturally attuned to conflict, for conflicts sake, or if the smaller forces survival is more dependent than the larger. Ok we just had our lead units whacked lets go firm and call up the big boys, why sacrifice ourselves, we are winning the war and it's obvious it won't go on too long. That smae unit though fights to the death when it is cut off or needs to rescue a fellow unit under threat of anihilation. Apart from scenario specific rules the CM model will only offer the very vaguest approximation of human response, and a bloody good thing too!

Surely that is true of the development of a state/society but can you then transpose those observations to support multi-lateralism? If it benefits a nations self-interest to act unilaterally it will, if it perceives the opposite it will follow the other path. Why the, seemingly inevitable, dig at the US right, explain why counter-theory theory to yours is intellectually bankrupt and what has it got to do with the US military/industrial complex? I'd have thought a more apposite example of national self-interest would be the Russian behaviour to neighbouring states and the Chinese scramble for African resources. Finally, what is wrong with selling countries weapons, sometimes purchased because those countries do not trust the multi-lateral shield they are told will protect them. As for the question of Israel, one of the best quotes was from, I believe, a reservist on the West Bank, during the Intifada he said. " I will respect them (the Palestinians) when I fear their software engineers and not their suicide bombers".

Why don't we have long impassioned posts about how awful the Russians behaved/still behave in Chechnya, when we discuss their nice shiny new toys? Elmar, I'd have thought you would have been less naieve, man always has the ability, for some the propensity, to be savage. Civilisation is not an illusion but like out atmosphere very thin and very fragile. Paradoxically, the more you believe in universal 'civilisation' and international law being effective the greater the deathtoll will eventually be when you have to confront this error. In a country there can be vast differences in how civilised people are so I am not advocating racial superiority, but any person who believes in any transformation of mankind is sure to be very disappointed. Final point, there has never been a Palestinian state so they have never had it taken away, they did try to kick out the Israelis but got hammered, a fact they have never got over; read Wolfgang Schivelbusch's "Culture of Defeat" to see the impact this mindset has had on the Arab world and the Nakba.

What with cloaking devices and laser weapons, now this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/7487740/Star-Trek-style-force-field-armour-being-developed-by-military-scientists.html

I guess, given the events proceeding the invasion the traditional reticence to taking casualties would not be so evident. Neither, I guess, would the ROE be so restricted concerning civilian infrastructure. As for superior troops, the opponents of the Western conventional forces soon realise traditional large scale ambushes of units is a suicidal option. So small teams hit and run like old fashioned skirmishers, often after using IED's. There have been rare assaults, causing severe casualties, but often the attackers are savaged during the engagement and as they retire. In Chechnya, Russian units were often pinned and suppressed and then assaulted, often suffering tens of KIA, especially on convoy duty. When Chechen/Tadjik/Uzbek/Iranian advisors and their Iraqi/Afghan militia/insurgents tried replicating these tactics they found that even a lowly allied supply convoy would aggressively execute counter-ambush drills supported by state of the art fixed wing and rotary assets crewed by professionals. Artillery reaction times with small CEP's also added to the negation of typical insurgency tactics as units could not form large formations needed to inflict severe casualties. If you examine traditional, well supported insurgencies, what is remarkable is that in both Iraq and Afghanistan large scale deaths of allied troops have been absent and the enemy have adopted an entirely sensible policy of small engagements. Their greatest weapon is the Wests political weakness to continue operations, due to political factors, and their lack of any democratic accountability, allowing a decades long strategy to be used. Neither of these factors would be strongly in evidence in the SF world.

Plenty of mods for warning signs in the CMMODS page by Green as Jade, you can have a Cyrillic, weathered German Gothic and many others.

I've always wondered does BF produce such a unique product anymore? Will another company look at their carefully created niche and produce a rival product or is it such a small market that it would not be a financially viable big corporation strategy? As many companies know to their cost, brand loyalty only survives if the brand produces what the consumer demands, the company that can match the demand wins their temporary loyalty. Personally, I loved CMBB but find its shortcomings outweigh the enjoyment, if another company could produce a rival product that addressed some of those shortfalls I'd buy it like a shot. As it is the wait for CM N, featuring a very restrictive time frame, is now taking on almost comical proportions. Still with no rivals, we sit, asking each month "is it coming soon?" Seeking news of our electronic Godot. Strange, one normally would expect there to be some competition to exploit this state of affairs, or going back to my original point is the market so small it would not be worth the time and effort to mount a challenge.

I read a Q&A with the Major, looking at mainly beneath the hood calculations, but somebody asked if there was a TacOps II and he said it was always on the cards, especially looking at a new terrain model. This was quite a few years back so we live in hope? I just loved the simplicity of the game, where victory was determined by careful thought not luck. That is if you kept all the factory settings, if Opfor loose their advanced ATGM's and thermals it is laughably easy.

I really enjoyed the demo but find the very basic terrain leads to unrealistic losses from defenders. Tanks can go into improved positions (hull-down) but then are stuck, as there is no onboard simulation of contour changes (apart from the random chance to vanish during movement) which the defender/attacker cannot predict. Tactics such as TRPing likely areas of defilade and your own defensive phase lines become redundant as you cannot predict where these folds are. Similarly attackers cannot use the recce units to find covered areas of advance, unless it is shadowed by a pancake hill and or trees. I was tempted to buy the full game but the terrain model is so abstracted from reality I decided against it. The game though did an excellent job at showing why scout units are so important in their tripwire/counter scouting role. I well remember my first battle with the Marine taskforce, I neglected to scout and dug in and waited. I though I was doing well as Opfor units were dying in droves, but they kept coming relentlessly! No problems, an armoured counter attack will restore the position, my M1's dutifully stormed forward and were decimated by all the covering units waiting for just this response. When I pressed the run-game out option I was horrified to see streams of pink units swarm off the board!

This poor tank contacted us after being repeatedly hit by anti-tank weapons. It is now recovering in a special sanctuary, please give generously. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a8d_1268224939

Yup Bannon, what the poster has done is take snips from a French series about the war. I posted it originally not for any narative but the effect of colouring the frames, it just suddenly seemed, to me, far more immediate, less remote. As veterans die off, in ever increasing numbers and WWII is becoming like WWI, in the collective memory, I just was interested in the power of colour in affecting the response of the viewer. Strip away the PPSH's and the bolt action rifles and the ragged, fur hatted troops could be in Grozny, not Berlin. Does anyone know where a full copy of the original documentary can be found? Sergei this should help to explain the concept of a beaten zone http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/ch62.htm

I do get a little tired reading about how 'realistic' the latest CM incarnation is, but then find basic mechanisms are lacking. How can you simulate MG's properly if you do not have a rudimentary beaten zone, we have area of effect for HE why not treat MG's as area weapons? Their zone of effect could be varied due to range, at least then their true value on the battlefield could be better appreciated.

I believe tinted, as some of the footage has been around a long time. Interesting shot of the Maxim firing suppressive fire, try that with a tripod mounted MG-42. The crude factors in CMBB do not do justice to the Maxim when used this way at short range, sure the MG-42 is more accurate at long range engagements, where limited traverse is not an issue but close in, trying to suppress a building? Hopefully the MG suppression issue will be solved by CM2, but I don't think Shockforce uses beaten zones, so who knows

I believe this extract is from a French TV series and its interesting the effect that just a hint of colour can give this familiar footage. Ignore the crappy music and turn the sound down, I'm sure seasoned veterans of CMBB can do the sound effects in their heads. I 'liked' the soldier being literally blown off his feet by the 76.2 field gun going off, as he ran past. Enjoy. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e6_1267972120

Jason, was the deployment of such large calibre artillery SOP in the Red Army, or was its deployment due to intelligence that such a an armored assault was likely? As for Tigers and heavy guns, in Italy a barrage of 5.5 inch was often used to try to force the beasts to relocate, the bigger the tank the more surface area it occupies.

Not to mention the twenty additional MG's the Pz III's provided. I certainly know that when trying to simulate a mixed heavy company, the most successful tactic was to maintain an extended wedge with the Pz IIIs trailing in the flanks and making up the base. I still managed to lose a third of the force though!

A very, very well armed SWAT team!!