Vark

Of course you could use Peiper's solution, drain the Pz IV tanks and fill up the Panthers! Tooze's hypothesis is that the Nazi's scarcity of resources and failure to modernise the antiquated Germnan economy shaped their strategy, especially the invasion of Russia, which ironically precipitated their eventual collapse.

DAF, fascinating figures, 30 PAK's per Panther, though you would have to build the prime movers as well so that figure would drop. I am curious about the costs, does this include approximations of the raw materials involved or is it based on man hours? The Cold War economic analysis of the USSR shows how hard it was comparing communist production costs with models designed for western economies, so how 'reliable' are the Russian figures? Is the drop in costs for the T-34 because of more advanced production line techniques? Finally, have you read Tooze's book "The wages of destruction", about the Nazi economy, I have a book token waiting for a suitable target, all the reviews, especially in financial publications have been glowing.

Kamui, yes I agree with your analysis. Either produce high quality armour that is superior to your opponents and loose as you do not have enough tanks/resources to produce a critical mass, able to achieve a sustained operational victory. Or you try and out produce your opponents which is impossible because you are trying to out compete the two largest industrial nations in the world, whilst withstanding a day/night strategic bomber offensive. Alternatively, one could argue that the Germans Pz IV was superior already to the majority of allied armour and instead of developing so many platforms they should have taken a leaf out of the Russian playbook. Guess the Germans should not have fought a war on multiple fronts!! Does anybody have data on the industrial man hours and raw materials used in creating various German weaponry? It would be interesting to see how many AT guns/TD's (especially Jagdpanthers)/AG's you could produce for one Panther/Tiger.

The only time I have heard of T-34's driven straight from the factory into battle was Stalingrad, we are focusing on 1944-5. The reason the Russians could produce so many tanks was not because of starving their people it was because they grasped the concept of total war, the economy was put on a war footing very soon after the German invasion and long term production plans fitted their strategic aims. The Germans on the other hand created an illusion of efficiency but had a ramshackle economy totally unsuited to producing what was needed and in the end relied on slave labour. I heard that after each JU-88 was produced a ceremony happened, complete with speeches and classical music, great for the news reels, lousy for the Luftwaffe. The mindless Russian hordes myth and the "Hitlers Teutonic Knights", propagated by the Germans, seems to be colouring your thinking. If the average German tanker could have emulated the panzer aces then the war on the eastern front would have been completely different. T-34's lasted a lot longer than five minutes (50% of the KO'd T-34's were recoverable) and I believe the average fatality/injury rate was 2 crewman for each tank KO'd. All those Panther crews who had to abandon their tanks did not magically teleport back to a depot to jump into a new shiny Panther, they often became temporarily very poor infantry men. The Russians were all to aware of the effect of crew quality and had specially trained medical teams to deal with the unique injuries caused by tank combat, by 1944 it was the Germans who were suffering from the skills shortage, which only got worse. As for T-34's only being reliable because they lasted a week read the accounts of Katukov, etc. The simple fact is their were so few Panthers that a T-34 crew would rarely encounter them, they were far more concerned with AT guns and panzerfausts. Wargamers love them and some devote shrines to Dr Bake and Barkmann but in reality the Panther was not fit for purpose. I wonder if in CM2 we will finally have a game that truely depicts the failings of the German heavy armour, though it might have an effect on sales. Finally, yes I will accept a tactical loss rate of 5-8 tanks per Panther from x tank brigade because y brigade is 50km behind you, messing up your rail network that you need to move your over engineered behemoths.

Kamui, the original poster said "What are the arguments to be made in favour or against each of these tanks?" You automatically take a 1 for 1 basis, I prefer to look at the argument this way. The T-34 fitted the Soviet operational/strategic direction, both militarily and economically, the Panther did not. The T-34 was never designed to take on the Panther, there is a reason the respective ammo loadouts were 70 HE versus 30HE, looking for a 1 to 1 basis misses the point, the T-34 was all about operational success, not small scale tactical victories. Put it another way, it does not matter if your tanks main gun is twice as powerful/accurate as mine, if my tanks operational success means you are fearful of re-supplying your ammo so have to limit your targets. It does not matter if I cannot penetrate your front armour and you can from 2000m, if you knock yourself out by your fragile drive train, unreliable powerpack, over complex suspension system and inability to recover yourself without specialist recovery equipment (Bergpanther) or running a risk of the towing tank(s) burning out gear boxes. I don't care if your command Panther has three types of radio and my tank has a radio that is unreliable whilst moving, if your tanks have to respond to my operational breakthroughs so rapidly that they cannot establish a proper radio net. For every abandoned Panther I pass, in my advancing T-34, is a kill to my side. It reminds me of the captions to photographs in 70's-80's uber German Panzer books, "these German tanks were not destroyed by the enemy but were abandoned after they broke down". It does not matter what happened to your Panther, if it is not there ready for battle it is a 'kill' to me. All these arguments for the T-34 can be applied to the Sherman, a much maligned tank. Finally, now if the poster had said which tank looks cooler to go into battle then I'd say an ambush camoed Panther, everytime!

Kamui, your point about mobility is true, on paper the Panther has good mobility, but alas battles are not fought on paper (unless you play Squad Leader!). The Panther needed to get into 7th gear to exceed the T-34, which in combat was rare, more typically the respective tanks would be using third gear, in which case the T-34 was twice as fast. Similarly the weak drive train handicapped the Panther, seriously reducing its theoretical capabilities, as for the Russian armour, low nickel content was the main problem causing non penetrating rounds to produce spalling. Panthers you leave to the supporting SU's, tactical air, infantry tank hunters, mines AT guns etc. Who cares if you lose 5-8 for every Panther, if you encounter any, there are plenty more T-34's behind and they can move quickly, under their own engine power to mass at decisive points to win the operational battle. Our Cold-War perspective on the 1943-45 Eastern front has been fixated on the tactical accounts of tank battles since the Germans demonstrated superior tactics and often triumphed, even in 45. In the end the T-34 was fit for purpose, ie it suited the Russian operational/strategic requirements, it was quick to build using a minimum of resources, fast to deploy, had excellent mobility and reliability. Yes, the Panther looks like a German tank, efficient, menacing and boasting very impressive statistics and theoretical capabilities, but it was a failure as an operational weapon as it placed far too much strain on a weakened economy to produce and its design severely limited in its operational deployment. As for the Tiger, read Wilbeck's "Sledgehammers" which shows the operational costs inflicted on the Germans when they designed and deployed the Tiger.

"And that is what you need if you are to counter Soviet armoured breakthroughs before they get into the strategic hinterland." Yes, agree completely, guess you also need a tank that does less than 7.3 litres a km (twice that of a Pz IV) when your country is suffering from fuel shortages. Also, talking of mobility you might want to design a tank that can be moved more than 100km, without recourse to rail transportation, especially when you are losing the battle for air superiority. So absolutely, the Panther for the wargames table/computer simulation and tactical battle the others for an operational/strategic victory. All facts courtesy of Ospreys Panther v's T-34 1943, yes, I know, Osprey fact-lite, not for real historians, but all the same a refreshingly different perspective/conclusion. The Panther's advantages were outweighed by its disadvantages, whereas the the T-34 had plenty of disadvantages, but these were off set by its advantages.

Thanks for the additional info Hinkar, I take it medium, for the terrain settings, is moderate. Could not sleep so did the CMBB equivalent of counting sheep, running through various scenarios, for your up and coming battle taking 1250 as a point limit, with a medium map and moderate trees, slight hills and set in the summer (Bagration?) I initially bought a platoon of regular KT's and a Pz Gdr company. I simulated the opening couple of turns, looking at how best to degrade his covering infantry, without them the Tigers are toast, literally. Two modules of green 132mm rockets on average, (simulation repeated 10 times) inflicted 25% infantry fatalities and half the remaing infantry was broken/paniced. Waiting for the infantry to move, by delaying the barrage by 1-2 minutes, increased casualties by 10%. The tanks suffered a 25% gun damaged/commander ko'd result. IL-2's, forget it, they popped up and attacked the infantry mainly, only once actually damaging a tank. Just finished the 2000 point simulation, opening turns, I do have a life!! Bought a platoon of veteran King Tigers and two companies of veteran Grenadiers and still had change for two modules of 105 and one of 150, oh and some VGndr smg platoons to baby sit the tanks and tank hunters to scout ahead. The map is now so wide that the 132mm rocket barrage is ineffectual, 10% infantry casualties and it uses up too many points. So my advice, mine the approach routes, pre-register artillery and create AT strong points, guarded by MG's, mortars, snipers and SMG/pioneers. Tanks might survive better on the larger map and could be used as a mobile fire brigade to stem infantry assaults. As for mud the five pregenerated battlefields all were dry, cold but dry (this was the central region). Good luck.

Reiterate MeatEtr's comment. 1. How many points to play with? 2. When you say lots of cover, what type of cover, what is the map like, contours or flat? 3. Do you know the quality of his troops, and what is the quality of yours? 4. What month are you playing and what is the ground condition like? 5. Is your opponent experienced, or are they new to CMBB? Possible suggestions If the ground is wet then let nature take its course as they bog and immobilise! If the map has plenty of wooded areas then lay mines along the gaps and position Maxims in trenches to pin his infantry. Highly effective if the contours allow reverse defences, negating one of the main advantages of the 88 L71. I would not advise armour as it will come of worse, the KT is over modelled and tanks cannot ambush as they did historically, ie invisible till they fired. Take AT guns and buy lots, just keep the infantry away from them as the damn borg spotting will mean the tanks can stand off and pick their targets, if the map allows. If you are up against King Tigers, buy aircraft, especially IL-2's or PE-2's for the rocket bomb combination. Better still a module of 132mm rockets fired at the start should screw up his infantry armour cooperation, especially if his troops are average to poor quality, ditto for 203mm's though ROF is poor. Make sure your infantry are SMG's, if forested and pioneers for the tanks, with barbed wire to channel infantry and mines/roadblocks to herd the tanks into pre-registered kill zones. Use of smoke is useful to separate tanks from infantry, or vice versa, so that each can be engaged individually. Snipers and tank hunters are a given, and don't forget 82mm mortars firing in full defilade. If you refuse to buy armour and out number him in infantry he will most likely loose. Final point, make sure your opponent does not read this advice!!

In Russian anything you can do we can do better! Either that or the state of their armed forces are so bad they have run out of tripods!

I believe this is the footage of the Gimpy gunner you are refering to. They are, I believe, SBS not SAS and the fighting was at the Quala-i-Janghji prison in Afghanistan, as to the firing stance involved several points. A) They are UK special forces who have the pick of the top RM recruits, so they should, one hopes, know which appropriate technique should be used for which occasion. Though it is true that the SBS infantry training was overhauled after their first tour in Afghanistan, I don't think it included basic GPMG instruction. Interesting because the stance is similar to the GPMG gunner and the MG-42 has a higher cyclic rate and the gunner has adjusted the sling to further increase stability. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp0FbdrsIGM&feature=related. C) Interesting because it show the relative accuracy of firing from the hip, the dusty terrain is excellent at showing the beaten zone. Sorry about the appalling music though! D) Shows various techniques of the Bundeswehr for firing the MG-3, note the techniques for marching fire. E) I remember asking an IDF soldier why he had canvas wrapped around his GPMG bipod, he said it was to stop his hand from slipping when he fired it from the hip. F) Finally, if you are going to fire from the hip do it with style!

Yair, is it true that Israelis are far more democratic in their army, officers called by first names, all a platoon asked their opinion about how to attack/defend. Given the pool of experience, would this approach replace a professional NCO class. The young British army officers I have talked to have all said that after an O group they sat down, told their sergeant about the forthcoming operation and waited for his suggestions what to do.

Sergei, absolutely, there are pictures of German troops, in 44, practising on tanks from the early war, it does look a little strange. Watch-man I thought that, up until very late on, German infantry training times were not reduced causing replacement shortages, unlike the allies, where it was slashed dramatically due to the loss rates, late 44. Dietrich, the context in which my comments were made was a discussion about the reaction times of infantry and armour in CM1 and how CM2 might change the ambush beating tank/infantry combo's using borg spotting, in CM1. So yes, you are right, a dedicated tank infantry team should be able to pass on spotted targets to each other faster than infantry hitching a lift. How a player uses these teams is of course the players responsibility but some units should be more effective, when the player uses them, than others. Perhaps we might have proficiency slots for different troops allowing for differing capabilities, and better reflecting specialists in combat, or troops who have received specific training for a particular operation.

I wonder why Londoners made all that fuss about the blitz and V1's-2's, after all, the population of greater London in 1939-45 was eight million and they only suffered 20,000 dead. Thats only .25%, and if we only focus on inner London then the figure is only .5%, beedin whingers the lot of them!! The whole point about the Gaza rockets is not the death toll but the emotional toll, living in a bunker for hours on end, always waiting for the sirens, not being able to lead a normal life etc etc. Hamas do not leaflet likely targets, you have 30 seconds to try and find cover, as my mother said, V1's killed proportionally very few people, but your heart stopped when their engine cut out. Even 40 years later the very sound of one, on the TV had her in tears. There is no way Israel could just ignore a sizeable proportion of its citizens being terrorised daily, the solution can be debated, but arguments about proportionality do diminish the real impact of what is happening in Southern Israel. As for reservists, there is another side to their effectiveness, their combat experince and their shared experiences. One of the farmers I worked for was a reservist who had just served a tour in Lebanon, with his friend. The two of them had fought in 67 and 73 side by side and, as their wives used to say, they know exactly what the other is thinking, similarly with other reservists, their combat experience was of incalculable benefit to the IDF. As for the youngsters, if found most of them wise beyond their years, as one 18 year old paratrooper said, Lebanon has made me an old man. Again this was during the eighties so the situation might have changed, perhaps the 2006 performance by the army was partially a result of not having fought a major conflict in 20 years. Yair, interesting point about the reservists and casualties, some of the guys I knew, in their 30-40's, were on their second tour of Lebanon and the impact on their families, and the local community was considerable. As for Gaza, Hamas were voted in to stop the appalling corruption of Fatah, not willing participants to their juvenile displays of inadequacy, as the head of Shin Bet has suggested, when the dust settles there are some very angry Gazans, angry at Hamas for bringing the wrath of the IDF on them. Final point, when Gorbachev wanted to pull out of Afghanistan he gave the military all it needed to crush the rebels, once and for all. When the massive offensives, with all the latest weapons, failed, the military really had no argument against the pullout. Similarly, maybe the end result will be to show both sides the military option is useless. The enemies of Israel will suffer far more pain than they inflict, especially if they allow the radicals with their dead-end philosophy of perpetual struggle to gain power, and the Israelis get no lasting security from the military response. Then again perhaps I should just remember the Israeli joke about the frog and the scorpion!

In the future, when Battlefront have made millions from their DoD contracts, ahem, we can all dream, would it be possible to take the basic engine and turn the game into a skirmish game. I was thinking, could each soldier be individually modeled as are AFV's, scenarios would be platoon/company size with perhaps a few AFV's fighting on small patches of terrain. Troops could move individually, like AFV's now, with perhaps preset templates allowing proper formations, just a thought. As for the recent comments on Israel, what relevance do they have to CM:SF?

I've just set up test, based on Jasons figures, and wonder whether the results reflect a realistic simulation of the Katyusha's effectiveness on a regimental armoured target. 100 Veteran Pz IVG's versus 3x Green 132mm M-20 spotters (representing an IGM battalion) Terrain: flat open step with the nominal panzer regiment taking up a roughly 900 square metre footprint The tank crews are unbuttoned and are travelling approx 50m apart with 80-100 metres between each platoon. The FO's are delayed by one minute to allow the panzers to get moving, though the AI moves in overwatch mode, so roughly 50% of the tanks are moving when the rockets strike. Each FO targets the middle one third of the regiment facing it to allow maximum coverage. Initially they had all targeted one aim point but the results were similar, a higher concentration of damage to the centre but flanking units getting unscathed. After 20 tests the results are as follows Tanks KO'd: 3-5, interestingly if I hit them immediately, when they were stationary, then 1 tank would be lost. I was wondering if the higher figure is due to poor AI movement doctrine allowing a higher target density. Crew casualties: 28-41 Gun damaged: 4-6 Immobolised: 2-4 I tried the test previously with 100 tanks made up of 10 tank units, ranging from Pz II's through to Elephants and noticed a 20% increase in damage to the lighter units (PzII's suffered 40-50% damage loss ratios and a 10 increase in mobility hits to the elephants (vulnerable engine grill?) My question, is this realistic, or is the weapon undermodelled? I do wish CMBB could model smoke from HE strikes, as the tank crews would be blinded by the dust generated, adding to the confusion. I know the BM-21 is a more modern system with 40 rockets, but look at the results of a 4 battery strike in this clip! http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ElZif0KOFKI

Making what up? I always relish playing the underdog in games, gives me a good excuse for when I loose! As for Hamas, recreate the underground tunnels environment, pitch a well trained sniper unit with 50 calibre rifles against mech infantry etc, etc. I do agree thought that computer games are not the best medium to play these engagements, as the rules cannot be adapted to suit the environment. Look at the prototype "Sharp End" rules, for miniatures to see how this conflict could be equally challenging, for both sides. I do hope the next generation of computer games will allow the basic code to remain but allow far greater input from the players, Steel Panthers allowed a modicum of adjustment, but was a very basic game.

Sorry, can we nip this "warfare has to be symetrical otherwise it's so unfair" meme right away. The whole point about war is that it is meant to be won and the way to increase your chances of winning is to make it as 'unfair' as possible. The only people who would love this conflict to be symetrical (whatever that means) would be the IDF, if Hamas had conventional forces they would be slaughtered. The Iraqis learnt in the first Gulf War that conventionally confronting top-tier troops is a receipe for humiliation and disaster, hence the irregular strategy used in 2003. If you were to simulate this conflict it would be challenging for both sides, period. As the IDF you have to move with caution, precision and patience all the while being constrained by Western liberal notions of war. As Hamas, you have to try to inflict casualties against a well trained, well equiped army, but the rules that constrain your opponents are some of your most powerful weapons.

Request to Battlefront, shut this thread down please, we already have somebody who has now used the N word to describe the situation in Gaza. This is a travesty of the present situation and shows how quickly the thread can deteriorate, I come to BF for informed comment, not sub DU/Huffington comments. Please Battlefront drop a MOAB on this thread. p.s. Cpl Steiner, I thought your original point was valid, I went up a water tower in Northern Israel, approx 5/6 storeys on a small hill, looking out I realised I could see more than a quarter of Northern Israel! The whole area is alot smaller than most people realise.

Just to add my tu'pence worth. I came to CM from boardgames (SPI, Avalon Hill etc) and early tactical simulations, on the pc, like Steel Panthers I II and III. CM came with a severe learning curve and I created a lot of sandbox scenarios using the editor, just to find out what my troops/enemy could do/not do. My first games of CM BO were a shock and so much seemed to be happening at once that I thought arghhh, what is going on? Then I realised that the game demanded a level of tactical appraisal that had been absent from most of the games I had played, and to succeed I would have to fall back on my basic knowledge of real world military tactics. The most helpful of these were Intelligence: Use the Battleground forums to garner helpful hints from seasoned players, Tux's AAR's are very useful in this respect as he cogently explains each move and backs it up with clear screenshots. Understand the mechanics of the game and what each move order or fire command is trying to simulate Have a plan (and try to stick to it) In CM I have found it essential to stick to the axiom, order, counter order equals disorder. Even having a basic plan really helped my early games and the more proficient I became, at planning, the more effective my forces became. I built up my competency in stages, planning movement, then shooting and finally a combination of the two. I learned that being out of command imposed fatal delays as units constantly pinned or routed and that reacting to the enemy, as a substitute for a scheme of manoeuvre, was a guarantee of defeat. METT-T This simple formula helped with planning many a game allowing plans to be created in both time and space. Mission: Look carefully at what you are being asked to do and try to make sure you pick up any hints, though if a scenario writer says "there are no reports of any tanks" usually means you will bump into AFV's Enemy: This is where the endless sandbox training pays dividends as you begin to be aware of your opponents capabilities and restrictions. Play all sides to see the unique nature of certain forces, though hopefully CM2 will make these national differences even more acute. Terrain: This is where CM is unique, careful terrain analysis is essential in both the planning and execution of your offensive/defensive schemes. That overlooked patch of brush or a slight change in elevation might offer a key to crack the defences or be an ambush site. I often spend alot of time on this pre-battle recce, though I only view the battlefield from my lines and normally at troop level, as at higher levels more subtle terrain features can be missed. Troops: Again look at what you have before you plan. I normally line up my platoons by quality and always carefully examine the HQ's to see what bonuses they have as this helps in creating your plan. Russian 41 conscripts are only going to be able to carry out the most basic of plans, treat them like crack fallschirmjager and they will die horribly, along with your plan. Time available: Don't rush, CM brutally punishes incautious players and exposed or exhausted troops are only of use to your enemy. Your plan should be based on successive phases often with intermediate objectives and each phase designed to further your final objective. For example, after supporting your lead company, where is your MG section going to move to, how long will it take and will they require any security elements? Is the most effective HQ commanding them, given the plan. When they have arrived what will they achieve, who are they supporting and why. As you get more proficient you can factor in contingencies plans and possible enemy reactions etc, etc Finally, CM is an elephant and we all know the best way to eat an elephant, one piece at a time! Or in the CM world, use a sharphooter to button it, your MG's and artillery to suppress and pin it's supporting infantry and mines, and AT grenades/flamethrowers to kill it.

So how do MG's operate in CM2, does the system replicate a beaten zone? CM1's depiction of MG's (a casualty of the approximation approach to simulating firepower) turns them into just a weapon that has a higher fowerpower factor than others, at certain ranges. URC, if pin results were easier to obtain then turns per game would have to be increased, imagine playing in a 30 turn game where your units pin for half the game!

Eeeejet!!! My first test was in steppe terrain, too much mucking around with Kursk scenarios, I instinctively selected those nice tan tiles, doooh! The new results are more in line with Jasons test, though there are some differences. This time the MG-42's are spotted at 258 and 236 metres suffer three casualties are down to 6 and 4 ammo and have caused 22 casualties (9 KIA's). The maxims suffer even worse loses, with both guns surrendering with two crew left and the Germans suffering 7 casualties (2 KIA's). Was the maxim such a poor weapon? Also why do the MG teams open up at approx 300 metres, surely the crew can spot the advancing infantry, remember those 6X30 binoculars! I thought the whole idea about SFMG's/MMG's was that they could outrange a squads weapons. Is the close range a combination of the stealth 1 HQ and the move to contact order?

I'm officially confused now! Ran two tests, after reading claim and counter claim. Both tests had a platoon of regular 1943 infantry advance 300m, in flat, clear terrain against two regular MMG's, one platoon was German, one Russian. The HQ's both had plus ones for all categories and the MG's had a plus ones for their HQ and were in foxholes, in brush terrain. The advance command was initiated when under fire (previously the platoons had short arcs and were moving to contact). In both cases the advance was not coordinated but given to all the platoon. Germans v's Russians After taking fire from the Maxims the Germans spotted the first gun at 328m and two turns later the second gun was spotted at 318m. With both threats located the German platoon advanced, took 11 casualties, destroyed one maxim and captured two crew from the second. Russians v's Germans The Russians failed to spot the MG-42's until they were 122m and 115m respectively. The Russians then continue to assault and take out both MG's, but lose 18 men wounded and 6 killed. Why are the Maxims so much easier to spot? Why did the sniper training video (link posted in my first post) suggest a DP was a threat to a whole platoon, yet a platoon can, in an uncoordinated advance knock out two MMG's. The re-enactors I've talked to, who gave a seminar to Sandhurst graduates, about the Red Army, actually got to live fire some of these weapons. The most telling comment came from the range instructor, who told them that a maximum of a one second burst, with the maxim, at 500m targets was advised otherwise the targets would be too badly damaged. They also said that regular body mass hits could be achieved at 200m with the PPSH-41, though they prefered the 43 model. So, how come Jason's MG teams only had ruffled hair and mine were riddled and how come the maxim can be spotted at twice the range of an MG-42? Were the German platoon leader's Zeiss 6X30 glasses that good?

I believe, reading first hand accounts, that quite a few of the survivors of the first wave, on Omaha, stripped off most of their kit and lay in the surf, pretending to be dead. I guess the Germans, hunched behind their 20rps MG-42's, were carrying out exemplary fire discipline. As for the Boer war, the widespread introduction of Khaki uniforms should have hampered the Boers target aquisition, once the soldiers had gone to cover (tropical topees and white webbing notwithstanding) that, and the disproportionate amount of fire directed at the officers. All those ostentatious badges of rank and uniforms, festooned with shiny buttons, might impress the ladies, but it also attracts a Mauser bullet. On the topic of the Boer war, did the battlefield tactics of the non-regular regiments, especially the Commonwealth forces, have any influence on British Infantry tactics? John Ellis is fantastic, it's not just infantry though, the account of the brewed up Shermans at Salerno still haunts me. The story of Davis in C Squadron, deliberately bouncing the shell of the Panthers sloped mantlet, to KO the tank, is also instructional, when debates about realistic simulation occur. His commander reported, that after pulling off this feat, (the only one to have done so) he was, "back at Headquarters, trying to recover his nerve". I'll second the comments about the special forces, the only one who conformed to Hollywood was the South African, a 6ft four, moustachioed block of muscle. The rest were so 'normal' they wouldn't stand out in a crowd of one, the eyes though, being the mirror of the soul, were a different matter.

Great, that should have read Shi'ite, though in truth most were ****e soldiers!!