Duckman

To return to the subject, there's a good overview of the WWII Soviet rifle platoon and its evolution here: http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters3.php For comparison, a look at the German panzergrenadier platoon: http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters.php ...and the regular German landser platoon: http://www.avalanchepress.com/BehindCounters2.php The Soviet squad clearly has less firepower than the German one because of the MG 34/42. It is quite comparable to the British or American one though. The American squad has a more firepower downrange because of the Garand, but with a couple of extra SMGs the Soviet squad has more at close range. The Soviet all-SMG squad is an interesting variant, with the only real counterpart being the late-war German StG 44 squad. As for organic AT weapons, the Soviet infantry as already mentioned don't have much but since German tanks were scarce and tank (and TD and SPG) support was fairly plentuful late in the war this was probably not a big issue. Looking a pictures from late war the Soviets also seem to have used a lot of manhandled AT and infantry guns, e.g. in Berlin.

Sounds strange since the MG 34 and 42 fire the same bullet and have the same muzzle velocity. The only difference I can think of is if the MG 42's higher rate of fire means lower dispersion and consequently a bit more accuracy at long range.

Haha, memory shock! I never could get used to those 3-man squads.

Interesting stuff. It reinforces my view that you should focus on the big picture and not worry too much about minutiae, i.e. make sure units are "sort of close enough" and they will have C2. The beauty of the game is that it has the pieces - fairly common-sense C2 and spotting, good-to-great TAC AI, and some other bits and pieces - to let you just play the game provided you have a working knowledge of tactics and computer games. In other words it lets me do what a real company or battalion commander should, which is - formulate a general plan - manage reserves - direct heavy weapons and indirect fire This is quite different from games that make you play as rules lawyer or squad leader because the game has to be micromanaged to work (some people still do this voluntarily, but that's another issue).

Spasiba. That means I will be commanding my Lendlease Shermans, emblazoned with patriotic slogans painted by the workers of Collective Farm 234, in the decisive battle to cleanse the Motherland of the Fascist defilers. Zu Stalina!

I'd love to see Bagration in 2013, but will settle for Bulge. :-)

You may have missed this, but wargames are not huge money makers. And even with this terrible patch blackmail it's still a rather unexpensive hobby.

While i broadly agree I think you could also make a case for the Tiger being quite useful on the Eastern Front in 1943-44 when it had its fair share of success both offensively and defensively. The Tiger II however achieved next to nothing. Otherwise the Pz IV was of course the most important German tank and its upgradability (especially compared to e.g. early war British tanks) was a big plus for the German tank forces.

I'm not him but I'll try anyway. The counter would be the new offensive tactics also developed in the last years of WWI, the so-called infilitration tactics. - Infantry goes forward in dispersed formations probing for weaknesses. - Artillery provides on-call support, i.e. not the rolling barrage of 1914-16. - There should also be some kind of direct fire support. WWI German stormtroopers used manhauled infantry guns, but tanks or SP guns are of course even better. The Sturmgeschutz was developed for this purpose, i.e. shooting the infantry through the fortified zone. Heavy "breakthrough" tanks like the Char B1 and IS-2 are variations on the same theme. The German attack at Sedan in 1940 is an example of how small forces with relatively weak support could roll up a strongpoint defense using infilitration tactics.

The British shot up a captured specimen in North Africa: http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt34/german-tiger-pzkw-6.html The Sherman's 75 mm gun could penetrate the rear and side hull armour from 100 yards, but not the front. However several shots fired from the front deflected and penetrated through the hull roof. Finally, and interesting conclusion:

I must admit I missed the start of this so I'm not quite sure if what's being discussed is if the .50 Cal was used against infantry (undoubtedly), if it was effective (certainly), or to what exetent this is modelled in the game (can't say). On the issue of how common they were in actual ETO firefights I think it's hard to be sure. As you show they are quite abundant in TOEs, but they also seem to be clustered at battalion level and the weight is mentioned as a problem for foot-mobile troops. At 60 kgs it is almost twice as heavy as the (rather bulky) HMG version of the MG 42, and the ammo is heavier as well. What it adds up to for me is that they were probably used a lot in defensive positions, especially if there was time to prepare. Offensively I think there's a good chance they would not be up front considering WWII infantry normally did not ride to contact. However given the vast numbers of vehicle mounted HMGs there would still be that kid of firepower up front, so I guess it wouldn't matter much.

I am probably derailing the thread here, but another very interesting find from WWII studies is that the vast majority of casualties were caused by shell fragmens and not bullets. Given the vast attention to bullet firing weapons in WWII imagery, wargames etc this is quite interesting. According to two US studies from the ETO shell fragments accounted for 60-75% of casualties while bullets caused 20-25%. In the PTO shells caused 50% and bullets 33%, showing a clear difference between the theatres. Figures from here: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter1.htm (Scroll 4/5 down page, or search for "causative agents".) As for the .50 Cal, wasn't it fairly marginal as an antipersonnel weapon in WWII anyway? According to Wiki the standard allocation was one per infantry battalion, and most vehicle MGs were .30 Cals as well.

It seems you were quite correct.

More info on Allied panzerfaust use, some of it properly sourced and some of it not: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=271957 There is one example, from a medal citation, of an American officer picking up a panzerfaust during a battle. There is also one (sourced) mention of a US unit carrying panzerschrecks as well as panzerfausts. A bit more on airborne use too.

Just want to share in the love for the Su-100, even if it missed Bagration. But we still get the T-34/85!

For some reasons developers seem to hate the PTO. I remember the same thing with Close Combat, even though that game was extremely well suited to the PTO and poorly suited to late war ETO. Of course that meant they did the Bulge... As mentioned in this thread there was plenty of interesting tactical action in the PTO, tanks and all. As for popularity it does lack Ze Germans, but the ever-popular USMC are there. The wealth of PTO material for ASL and other games proves it can sell. What makes me want it is 1) the lack of other games on the subject, as already mentioned and 2) the much-better-than-I-anticipated infantry modelling in CM2 compared to CM1. Really, almost all the pieces are there already: splitting squads, decent TAC AI, night battles, etc etc.

Sorry for the late reply. It was years since I read Gavin's book, but I clearly remember the panzerfaust part since this was discussed back in the Close Combat days as well. He says the 82nd first encountered them in Normandy. When they started using panzerfausts on a large scale is a bit more uncertain, but a Google Books search seems to indicate post-Holland: http://books.google.se/books?ei=QpvAUMTeOcedtQaiuYCIAg&hl=sv&id=DoYrENwKc4sC&dq=on+to+berlin&q=panzerfausts#search_anchor

According to Gavin's memoirs panzerfausts were used as standard equipment in the 82nd AB after Normandy, where they captured "truckloads". They had bad experiences with the bazooka in Sicily and other places. Gavin says they even translated panzerfaust manuals and conducted formal training with them. I remember another source saying "a lot" of American units were carrying panzerfausts by war's end (in addition to more automatic weapons and demolitions it was probably a sign of veteran units), and I think the Soviets used them too. But it seems it was almost always a formal thing, i.e. not "picked up in the heat of battle".

I agree, although I think Cassino hasn't exactly been done to death. The Bulge and Normandy though... From that perspective I desperately want the game to go somewhere else, like the Pacific. On the other hand WWII tactical combat has far from been perfected on the computer so there's still room for new games to offer improvement. In the case of the Bulge I think this game's modelling of armour, artillery, and air support is so far ahead of the rest that the game will actually offer a substantially better Bulge experience given how pivotal those elements were to that battle (well they were pivotal to almost all WWII battles, but you get the point in terms of late war hardware inflation). So while it would still be the same tried and tested "panzers and paratroopers" formula (and who can blame them, considering that's also the version of the war made marketable by books and movies) it could still appear somwhat fresh. However it will also depend on getting the weather and terrain factors right, which of course played a huge part in that battle. Anyway, about that PTO game...

Highly appropriate considering it was supposed to end the war by said date.

Great site. Appreciate the link. Very interesting to read about how much of the German force was really hodgepodge units collected from depots, train stations and the like. 9th and 10th SS usually get top billing, but it seems even those divisions were partly improvised units.

This has perhaps already been mentioned in the thread, but the main reasons armies were not in a hurry to go semiautomatic were - huge stocks of bolt action rifles and ammunition. - lack of tried and tested designs. - the fact that the machine gun provided most of the squad's firepower anyway, which meant additional bodies were to a large extent used a combined security element, assault force, grenade throwers, and ammo bearers. - the presence of 1-2 squad members with submachine guns which added substantially to the squad's firepower. So while semiauto rifles allowed the squad to send a greater volume of accurate fire downrange compared to bolt actions, the fact that the MG already provided a huge (compared to rifles) amount of firepower made this less important. SMGs also filled the roles where the MG was less suitabe, like assault fire.