Big Boss

I will play this as soon as I get the time over, look beautiful and sometimes its fun with lots of explosions.

Well written and I agree with the points you make. Its true that mr bergström holds a very high admiration for the FJ units in the 7. Army and most of all the 5.Fallschirmjäger-Division. He states that the 7.Army accomplished most of all German higher command units given the scope of their operations and the small resources at their disposal. I have read two of George M. Nipe´s `books (Blood, Steel, Myth And Decision in the Ukraine) and see the familiarities you mentions to the Ardennes how Waffen-SS was often unimaginative lead on the higher echelons although how competent officers and NCOs on lower levels sometimes had the ability to correct these with superior tactics or manoeuvres (Not Peiper then of course ). I do think that Bergström mentions that the 17th AB and 11th AD were green, over reliant on artillery and air support and fought in pro-defence-positions but as you said maybe not enough. And this tends to create a negative US-perspective (missed US oppertunites, uncompetent commanders, etc) while the German misstakes are maybe more blaimed on the the allied air attacks and lack of supplies and gets a more neutral description.

Thats a pretty good one. I for one can see how this debate could go one for quite a while for no real benefits for the matter at hand, good books about the Battle of the Bulge. Its hard and often not quite necessary to make other people change their minds about favorite books etc, myself very much included.

From Another Swede! Well written and I mostly agree with what you wrote but I have some observations. I don't make that sharp distinction between a ”professional” and an ”amateur” historian as you do. I think it's over simplifying to state that a professional historian would never fail to "contextualize" a historical topic. That Mr Bergström wouldn't be aware of the "swing of revisionism and counter-revisionism" is IMO wrong as he clearly and often describes the past (mostly allied) history writing about the Bulge and how he come up with new conclusions using material from a massive Archival research and a familiarity with primary sources from both sides. That leads up to the definition of what a "professional" historian is. IMO it seems to come down to education (as in a "professional" education), like a degree and peer review articles. If this is a precondition to produces what is considered "good" material compared to amateurs seems to be a hard question to ask. For example, a history degree from former East Germany is not much worth in Germany these days. What I wanted to say is that the background of the author is by no means a predetermination factor for the quality of the written material. Autumn Gale (Herbststurm) written by Jack Didden and Maarten Swarts and the gigantic KURSK: The Battle of Prokhorovka book by Christopher A. Lawrence seems to be fairly well received even if written by amateurs. The question if Mr Bergström is a "Wehrmacht cultist" need my opinion as well. Cult, with its negative signification seems to be in fashion whenever a author holds an admiration for the quality of the German Soldier, leadership, tiger tank or whatever. But then again when I read an account from the "Allied" side there is almost everywhere some admiration as well. Either examples of stalwart defense, attack against all odds (sometimes even Band of Brothers type of glorification), man against tank etc. the author includes these special incidents with no apparent ulterior motive to exaggerate. For examples the Medal of Honor citations are takes as example for superhuman, heroic, unselfish efforts. But every nation participating in the war had their quantity of "heroes", just read the German Knight Cross citations. But when such stories from the Axis side is told the "Cult" description have a much easier time to pop up. Mr Bergström criticizes the commanders of both sides noting Pieper’s grave error in not turning north and rolling up the American defenses at the twin villages Rocherath-Krinkelt and Panzer Lehr’s wandering lost and failing to take Bastogne early in the battle. Likewise though US commanders were slow to appreciate the situation and only Ike’s personal intervention got desperately needed reinforcements moving. And I have written in earlier posts Montgomery for once gets a balanced account. Regarding the statement about the Me-262 I think a lot of great ww2 authors have named their best weapons; Be it the Spitfire, Mustang, Jeep, Spandau, Sherman, T-34 etc. Your right in that sort of list is impossible to verify and even harder to get consensus for .

There is also a Panther in Celles (Kampfgruppe von Cochenhausen / 2. Panzer-Division) and another in Grandmenil from 2.SS-Panzer-Division Das Reich.

John Kettler; About the restoration of the KT I have this to add. When I was there at the Museum in 2014 the guide told me that the barrel was a new one made of wood (sic) and the muzzle brake was from a Panther from Skorzeny's 150. SS-Panzer-Brigade found near Malmedy. But then again I read on the link in your post that the barrel is from a Panther as well as the muzzle brake.

"In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics". George Orwell Maybe he doesn’t hold pro-American opinions about everything about the battle and he dares to point out things that’s will stir up emotions from many sides. Montgomery’s involvement, Patton’s counter offensive, the Russian January offensive, did the Germans race for US fuel supplies? etc. But he also clearly describes con-German facts about the bad decisions made by Kampfgruppe Peiper, 12th SS and Sepp Dietrich leading to the KG´s destructions, the siege of Bastong etc. The best way I think to get a grasp of the battle is to really read a lot, from both sides, and even some sources from neutral countries. This book is just One good book of MANY.

This is a tiny if not totally insignificant find. Page 84 Marder I ...August 1942, 170 Marder I`s were... The word Marder seems to be of another font.

Just trying to help Spelling and military nomenclature can be a real headache so it’s probably hard to make a definitive answer and I definitively not trying to be a besserwisser. I have only seen the spelling with a – between the words in post war literature like http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/Infanteriegeschutze.htm But even here they sometimes use the combined word without -. In wartime German Kriegsstärkenachweisung (KStN) they seems to use the form with punctuations to separate the word. For example; Inf.Geschütz and I.G.. But even here there are discrepancies as they sometimes use the whole word schweres Infanteriegeschütz. http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/kstn/kstn1761nov41.htm Maybe ist best to focus on more "important" matters

Thanks for the reply CM-Kane. Maybe your right with using no -, but I´ve seen both forms even in German documents. But the spelling geschuetz in the manual is wrong either way :). Then in your view the manual is wrong with schweres Infanterie Geschuetz 33 and not Infanteriegeschuetz?

Here are some other thoughts. On page 113 The spelling of the different geschuetz shown should be Geschütz. Also the whole name of for example the 75mm leichtes Infanteriegeschuetz 18 should be 7,5cm Leichtes Infanterie-Geschütz 18 in correct Geman. schweres Infanterie-Geschütz 33 instead of schweres Infanterie Geschuetz 33 etc. I thought maybe the missing German ü was intentional for easier understanding of the English speaking players but then again I noticed that for example the Sturmgeschütz on page 87 had a correct spelling. Also on page 113 I would like to see the same sentence structure on all the guns. On the 75mm guns the whole name is written in the text and the short form is in bracket but on the 150mm the whole name is in brackets but the short form is in written in the text. It would be nice to include RoF and maximum range for the 75mm leIG 37 and maximum range for the sIG 33.

The new Final Blitzkrieg manual is excellent and quite the fun to read. I stumbled on just one misspelling. Hope its ok to post my findings here. Page 91 Sturmmörserwagen 606/4 mid 38 cm RW 61 Should be; Sturmmörserwagen 606/4 mit 38 cm RW 61

Excellent news indeed. Thanks a lot BF for all the effort in expanding and complementing your games. I personally really look forward to the CMRT module, winter fighting in the east has always been a favourite of mine. The soviet January offensive in 45 (the death keel to German ambitions in the Battle in the Ardennes) should make for some frightening experiences for the German player.

Although of low quality here´s a comparison of a Sherman and a King Tiger from the front.

I also strongly recommend Christer Bergström´s The Ardennes 1944-1945 Hitler's Winter Offensive. This excellent book, well-written and thoroughly researched is filled with accounts from both sides. Nearly 500 pages that also describes operation Bodenplatte and the often (from American accounts) ignored all important January battles.

And last. A M3A1 From Stavelot.

From La Roche en Ardenne. A Achilles tank destroyer tributed to 1st Northhamptonshire Yeomanry.

Another shot from La Gleize from a trip in 2014.

I will aslo miss the Schwimmwagens! I think the photo abaove in RockinHarry shows men of the SS-Panzer-Aufklärungs-Abteilung 1, Kampfgruppe Knittel at the Kaiserbaracke Crossroads near Recht in Belgium on December 18th, 1944. http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675054506_wrecked-armored-cars_Nazi-soldiers_anti-aircraft-gun_cigarettes

What's that?

Great news. Take your time. No H2H this time I suspect?

George MC; no other missions in the making?

Small scenario but with some good and interesting action. I usually only play H2H and larger ones but this one was fun. Thanks for the efforts.

Yes, there have been some impressive improvements on every aspect of the game since the beginning . But as you say nothing beats storming panzer men, burning and molested but still willing to fight for the Endsieg.

That would like hat very much although probably pretty difficult to implement in the game engine .