Kaunitz

Some impressions of the battlefield in its current state. The whole map is 2.5 x 3km, so I still got a lot of work to do. In the video, you can see some major features: we're traveling down the Strada Statale towards Gerbini, pass Masseria Landolini (the bunker will be somewhere behind the house...). We enter the large orchard (the foliage is aligned so that there are sometimes longer LOS in one direction). Then we take a look at the dry irrigation lake and some irrigation ditches (the small dried out pont is my own invention). Finally we take a look at the small wood, which differs quite a bit from the larger orchard as it is a bit more open (more generous LOS)m chaotic and has more bumps in the ground.

14. I'd love to have an "area fire (burst every x seconds)" AI-order available in the scenario editor. I think it would make a lot of sense for heavy MGs (and perhaps also some vehicles). 15. Probably very complicated to implement, but personally, I'd really love to see it: Allow us to aim behind concealment = shoot through concelment. By concealment, I'm mainly refering to bushes and hedges. Often I know that the enemy must be somewhere approaching behind the bushes. I have an MG ready and I'd love to just fire away at the bushes to make the attackers go down and at least delay them, but I'm not allowed to because the MG can't see the ground behind the bushes. It feels quite awkward. Only under very specific circumstances can you create some effect on places you can't see (i.e. aimpoint directly in front of the bush and completely flat terrain behind the bush --> grazing effect). My suggestion nr. 6 (Let us area-target reverse slopes) could help a bit, but being allowed to fire your weapon in a direction through concealment (MG bullets don't really care about bushes...) would be ideal. Perhaps it could be limited to firing at TRPs. As you can see, I really think the engine could give players better means for defence. Apart from proper fortifications, MGs are the main issue, as it seems they were used in quite intricate ways. For example, there is no real way to fire indirectly with heavy MGs, or, as described above, along pre-defined lines of fire. I don't think that MGs should be limited to firing on sight. 16. Option to toggle TRPs on/off.

Some information on the axis troops that might have taken part in the fighting at Gerbini For Nazi-Germany, it's much harder to come up with an OOB than for the British, as I could not find any detailed accounts that would touch on the German perspective. Most likely, the area was held by parts of the Panzerdivision Hermann Göring - more specifically the 2nd Panzergrenadierregiment Hermann Göring, parts of the Panzerregiment Hermann Göring and also parts of the recon unit of the Göring division (this is where the armored cars mentioned in the British accounts came from…). So I have a lot to choose from and great freedom to balance the scenario: Panzer III (Ausf. M) // from II. Abteilung of PReg. Hermann Göring Panzer IV (Ausf. G, H) // from I. Abteilung of PReg. Hermann Göring Marder II // from 11. Komp. of PgReg. 2 Hermann Göring (NOTE: a Marder is depicted on the contemporary drawing: https://www.warmuseum.ca/collections/gallery/?q=service%3ACanadian+Army&page_num=1&item_num=13&media_irn=5559681&mode=artifact&pid=72098) STUK III // from III. Abteilung of PReg. Hermann Göring Sturmhaubitze 42 // from III. Abteilung of PReg. Hermann Göring Grille (available as artillery in the game) // from 9. Komp. PgReg. 2 Hermann Göring Armored cars // from Aufklärungsabteilung of the division Halftracks (only 250 is available in the game unfortunately) // from 1-4 Komp. of PgReg. 2 Hermann Göring 15cm schweres Infantriegeschütz (towed) // from 10. Komp. of PgReg. 2 Hermann Göring Here is the OOB for the German troops involved: Panzerdivision Hermann Göring (Generalleutnant Paul Conrath) Panzergrenadier-Regiment 2 Hermann Göring I. Battalion (Kompanien 1,2,3,4): armored – Sdkfz 251 [not available in the game - the game only features Sdkfz 250/1 which can only carry 3 people!) II. Battalion (Kompanien 5,6,7,8): motorized – trucks 9. Kompanie (self propelled infantry gun company): a number of „Grillen“ – 15cm schweres Infantrieeschütz 33(Sf) on Pzkw 38(t) Ausf. H [ithe game offers these as offmap artillery] 10. Kompanie (infantry gun company): number of 15cm sIG33 infantry guns (towed most likely by Sdkfz 250) 11. Kompanie (tank hunter company): number of Marder II Panzerregiment Hermann Göring I. Abteilung (Kompanien 1,2,3): Pzkw IV (mostly Ausf. G, some H)) II. Abteilung (Kompanien 5,6,7): Pzkw III (mostly Ausf. M) III. Abteilung (Kompanien 9,10,11): mix of Stuk III and Sturmhaubitze 42 (companies 4 & 8 were training on mainland Italy and did not take part in the Sicily campaign) Aufklärungs-Abteilung (6 Kompanien – only 4 made it in time) ? armored cars (the game suggests PSW 231) divisional artillery 1. Abteilung (3 batteries): 10.5cm leFH 2. Abteilung (3 batteries): 15cm sFH Haubitzen 3. Abteilung (3 batteries): 15cm sFH Haubitzen 4. Abteilung (3 batteries): 10cm schwere Kanone 18 (long range gun mounted on 15cm howitzer carriage) Nebelwerfer battery: 12cm/21cm rocket projectors Next, I will present some thoughts on the overall scenario-design (also some problems) and the set-up of the British troops.

Thanks for all the tips guys. It seems the tanks have incredible manoeuverability. As always, scenario-design is about the looks/immersion competing with functionality. So I had to create a pretty exagerated ditch in order to stop the tanks for real. I tested three designs, from left to right (a = black, u = blue): a0, u-5, a-2,a0 --> works a0, u-5 (mud), a0 --> works (shows up as impassable in movement planning) a0, u-4,a-3,a0 --> does NOT work The ditches in action: I suppose that British managed to pass over the tank ditch in some places simply by blasting the sides of it, thereby creating a ramp (and then also blasting the double wire on the other side...)? As the ditch served as a starting place for the three involved regiments, I assume that any places ------------------------- Unfortunately, there are no footpaths in Fortress Italy. So all the small farmtracks are represented by relatively broad dirt roads. There is nothing I can do about it. Other than that, I'm working on the overall scenario idea. I will post the OOBs and the briefing soon and I hope you guys can give me some feedback on it.

Yeah, I suppose that whatever was cultivated it would stand relatively high by then. I will go for tall grass and a few barren fields (surely there would have been some crop rotation....). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I failed at anti tank ditch design.

In scenarios in which the defender is supposed to preserve forces and not launch a counter-attack, we could give a sector to him as well. Of course we don't want to lose the tactical options that we all love in Combat Mission. So this idea is not supposed to make the game duller. I think it would need to be compensated by a slightly larger map-width across the board. Despite being restricted to his attack-sector, the attacker should still have some options to choose from - to make sure that this is the case, the attack sector needs to be large enough. ----------------------------------------- 12. Pre-planned bombardements (set by the scenario-designer). Especially for smaller scenarios, when you're but a captain or lower, arty support might be decided by the higher echelons. 13. Another slightly weird idea: More factions per side. What I mean is that there could be troops on the battlefield that are controlled by friendly AI. They could represent different units, units to whom there is no direct or only very difficult communication, units of a different sector, brigade, division, etc. etc. I think that some "WTF are they doing?!" moments could enhance realism. Also, it would allow us to play a smaller part in a bigger, plausible battle. I'm always a bit overwhelmed by the micromanagement required to control a single company. With friendly AI, I could take command over a smaller unit in a larger battle (patrol actions get boring after some time...). So this would actually make me play the game more often. Right now, I'm often overpowered by the amount of brainwork I have to go through before I click to start the first turn (so much time spent on terrain analysis... the bigger my force/the map, the more time-consuming it gets...).

10. Attack sectors - Unless the map-designers place some restrictive terrain on purpose, the attacker can often "exploit" the border of the map. He can easily keep one of the flanks clear by hugging the border. It feels a bit cheap, so I think it might be worth to consider a movement-restricted zone for the attacker (i.e. on each flank of the map) He should not be allowed to order movements into these out-of-bounds areas and stick to his attack sector (ie. the center of the map) instead. Unvoluntary movement into the restricted area - a squad panicking, e.g. - should still be allowed, of course. 11. Flares.

Some WIP screenshots OVERVIEW - The main road into Gerbini, which A coy/1st BW was supposed to clear is in the west. The starting position of the British is the anti tank ditch in the south - one would assume that the road over the AT-ditch was not left intact (according to the contemporary map, the Shermans crossed the ditch further to the east...). In the center-east, there is an area with lots of bushes. On the contemporary map, you can see that three ditches/rivulets run through here and the area still looks strange on today's google map's satellite view, still featuring a few smaller irrigation lakes. In the actual battle, the area is mentioned as a covered approach and a company attacked along it into the orchards to the northwest, towards Masseria Landolina. I suppose it might be a dried out lake, dug (?) for irrigation purposes. I prefer to keep it dried out, as the scenario takes place at the end of July. Most of the remaining battlefield is flat fields + irrigation ditches. I don't know what kind of crop was cultivated (crop-height in July 1943?). Judging from the contemporary map, the abundance of citrus orchards was not the case back in 1943. There are only two citrus groves on the 1943 map. (overview 2) (dried out irrigation lake) (anti tank ditch) (citrus orchard - Note that the small size of the trees is on purpose. It looks okay, but needs some testing. The turrets of the Sherman can look over it, so I might need to mix in a few larger trees here and there) (British on the main road - Note that the scenario will take place at dawn) The German troops and positions need to be based entirely on conjecture. The British accounts mention earthworks and pillboxes, and also mines on the main road, so I guess I'm free to do whatever I like to set up a defence around Gerbini. We only know the position of the single bunker overlooking the main road and I'm not entirely sure if it was able to overwatch the AT-ditch (700m distance) - the lay of the land would probably allow it, but the contemporary map places the orchard between the bunker and the AT ditch and also I don't think the bunker could house anything bigger than MGs? I found this here, which might offer some additional info: http://www.milistoria.it/Apps/WebObjects/Milistoria.woa/wa/XDirectAction/viewProduct?id=90843&lang=ita But I'm not willing to spend 30€ on what could turn out to be a few photos of the airfield itself? I'm interested in the defensive structures around the airfield.

1. Embrace field fortifications wholeheartedly, not as an addition to the "core" gameplay. Ideally, players should be allowed to place trenches and the like into the ground-mesh, and they should not be visible to the enemy at the start. Players should have a good selection of fortifications (hastily dug firing positions, foxholes, slit trenches, AT ditches, hesco blocks, etc.), a choice of fortification shapes (it's fiddly enough to place them with the current size of action squares) and all fortifications should work properly (versus direct and indirect fire). That being said, I could also imagine to give the defender some options before the scenario starts (blasting through housewalls, perhaps even cutting a few trees to get fields of fire, laying down telephone wire (--> info sharing), barricade some doors/windows, etc.). But I understand that this might be a bit extreme. 2. Shoot and scoot/fire and run orders (as mentioned above) 3. Ability to chain together multiple "fire briefly" orders in one turn without using waypoints. This is a bit related to point 2. I often find myself wanting to give several targets to a vehicle in one turn (mostly for suppressive fire), i.e. I want to chain together "fire briefly" commands. Right now, it's quite tedious to achieve what I want (by setting lots of short waypoints, moving back and forth if I want the vehicle to keep it's position). 4. LOS needs to become more reliable in some cases - Right now, it can be very bad when your unit decides to go prone instead of kneel down behind an obstacle. In case of doubt, give us an override button ("force kneel/stand" - unless suppressed/under fire, of course). 5. Give us the option to camouflage weapons/vehicles/positions. I know it's already in the game for AT guns, but it would be great if we also get it for other stuff and get a visual indicator. 6. Let us area-target "reverse slope" spots. 7. UNIT SELECTION: Give us a 3D preview of the unit in the unit selection menu. 8. EDITOR: Greater variety of wall/fence variations (new options to make them run at the border of an action square, not in the middle of it). More bushes/trees in between the size of the tallest bush and the smallest tree. Narrow ditches and dykes as mentioned in point 1. Right now, terra-forming ditches is not really very satisfying due to the large size of action squares. 9. EDITOR: Add info about all kinds of effects (movement slow-down, LOS shape/effect, etc.) to all terrain pieces.

PS Interestingly, one of the two drawings shows the same scene as Eadie's drawing: two knocked-out Shermans, one of which is flipped over (on the new drawing, you have to look closely on the left hand side of the beam in the center - it's flipped to a different side than the one in Eadie's drawing though). Even the winded course of the road fits. I'm not quite sure to what house the beam belongs though - and why you can't see the bunker on the drawing.

Two new internet-findings in the Canadian War Museum: https://www.warmuseum.ca/collections/artifact/2691135/?q=service%3ACanadian+Army&page_num=1&item_num=13&media_irn=5559681 https://www.warmuseum.ca/collections/artifact/2690855/?q=service%3ACanadian+Army&page_num=2&item_num=2&media_irn=5559787 It's not easy to tell the direction/angle of these drawings. I suppose that we can assume Mount Etna in the background of both of them. Does anyone know if aerial recon photos of the area exist (preferably in digital form? )? No success here: https://ncap.org.uk/search?bbox=12.05543278515696%2C36.45352738313425%2C17.328870285156622%2C38.63101732307491

It will continue! Real life and other projects get in the way at times, but I will not waste all the effort that has gone into the research. Looking forward to continuing this! I have to admit that I commited too much to testing lines of sight last summer. But I do think that - as a mapmaker - it's highly important to understand how LOS works in the engine.

John! I haven't really thought about the things that happened in the video here so thoroughly. The truck was used as it would be less likely to be targeted by an ATGM (and it was out of effective small arms fire). I don't know what kind of explosions you're referring to? Perhaps you're rather refering to my bullet-zip-sounds/the supersonic crack of the bullets? To my surprise, the ATGM actually fired at the advancing russian infantry platoon. I didn't give an explicit cover arc to prevent it, but I thought the AI would not do this on its own. At some point it was simply spotted by the tank (from ca. 1.6km distance - might explain the arc?) and knocked out by the first shot. Ranges varied from ca 1.6km (wood to BMPs and tank) to ca. 150 meters (fire fight up close). These long lines of sight are pretty adequate for some of the Ukrainian countryside (flat, many fields are even larger than that). I tend to prefer longer ranges. More bullets flying around for longer times, fewer casualties (that is: if the defenders take proper defensive positions, safe from longer range fire by vehicles, while threatening anything that ventures too close with hidden ATGMs and RPGs). Thanks for watching and the feedback!

With a very broad brush that ignores all nuances, I'd say that the layer on which modern warfare gets really interesting and deep from a competitive point of view is located slightly higher up (battalion level at least) than the level portrayed by Combat Mission games. I suppose that many scenarios in Combat Mission games are rather implausible/unrealistic as they usually boil down to full blown trials of strength with casualties on both sides or deliberate attacks on prepared defenses. And while situations such as these - i.e. situations in which both sides have an equal chance to win - make perfect sense for a game, they're not exactly what you'd be looking for on the operational level (which of course does not mean that they didn't happen at all). On the other hand, situations that are plausible if you consider the operational background tend to be situations in which one side has decisively more power on the field. And this, in turn, makes for rather dull, highly asymmetrical games on the tactical level. It's just a matter of executing the inevitable. Perhaps you loose a bit more or less in the progress, but still, the result is already clear. With highly asymmetrical forces, the best one player could do is to delay, but that's not really a lot of fun from the player's perspective. That being said, despite the scenarios being implausible, Combat Mission games offer very deep micro-tactics (you don't need me to tell you that!), and executional skill and knowhow are key, even though some of it sometimes feel a bit gamey. I think that a major factor of Combat Mission's attractiveness lies in the focus on micro-tactics. It's has a huge immersive appeal. I mean look at all the video-AARs (thanks replay-function!!). It's a miniature's wargamers dream come true. In Combat Mission, I'm on the battlefield, seeing individual soldiers engage! If I was in a battalion-level-simulation, I'd be looking at a map, moving counters (hello, Command Ops!). I don't know if Combat Mission games should try to grow towards the operational level. I don't think so (we'd need games with durations of 6+ hours... phew). But perhaps it's worthwhile to think more about operational plausibity, both on the level of scenario-design, but also concerning game-mechanics (or rather additional options for scenario-designers). It would be interesting to have more asymmertrical scenarios, with slimmed-down objectives. Also, I fully agree that operational recon should be represented at the start of a scenario. I'd also like a lot if the defending player had the option and the need to preserve his forces by withdrawing more often (when some event is triggered), so that he'd need to carefully gauge how long to delay and when to retreat. Also, it would be interesting to have friendly AI-controlled troops on the battlefield. This would help greatly to make scenarios more plausible while keeping them at a manageable size for the player (you're the captain of this company, the other company to your right is commanded by someone else...). It would be great if players could feel that they're only one cogwheel in a larger battle, part of a battlefield that is alive. For this it would also be super if objectives could be updated during a scenario. I.e. if the player was confronted with sudden changes (due to the operational developments out of the player's control) and could receive new orders during the scenario. Generally speaking: enhancing the narrative aspects of scenarios. Plans may change: "Battalion command informs you that B coy to the right has spotted a platoon of enemy tanks coming your way. Retreat your company immediately!" --> New objectives: exit your troops at X. Bad example, but you get the idea. But I fully understand that these are very ambitious suggestions. In any case, nothing compares to Combat Mission games.

I've taken a closer look at the battle report itself. So here is my understanding of what happened: 1BW = 1st Blackwatch battalion, 7A&S = 7th Argyll and Sutherland Highland battalion. Broad light-blue line = hypothetical german defense. This shows the planned course of actions for 7A&S's coys (dotted arrows) and their actual progress (full arrows) during the night. Of course this depiction gives no information about time and most of it is uncertain. I think that the final positions of A coy and C coy (which had lost all its officers) are well documented. For B and D coy and the tank-squadron it's much harder to tell. Also, the terrain on the western flank is quite interesting (orchard, bunker, ditches/alluvial plain (where the ditch splits up in three parts)) D coy started the attack (togeter with C coy) and came under fire. At ca. 00:00, enemy movements were seen south of Gerbini (around the bunker area), so D coy sent two of its rifle sections there (in fact the coy was supposed to go there anyway!) and found the enemy in "considerable strength". The report by Dell Porchetta (A coy) states that D coy took part in the battle for Gerbini station, and that at some point parts of D coy retreated into Gerbini station on their way back from Gerbini airfield. So it seems as if D coy stayed off course and joined A and C coy along the railroad, probably pushing though to the airfield at some point. B coy was the reserve coy. When enemies were found in considerable strength south of Gerbini (see above), B coy was ordered to "subdue" the enemy there. So I assume that D coy actually advanced into Gerbini. This is quite important since practically none of the other coys of 7A&S seem to have made it there! If we assume that B coy entered Gerbini via the wood/orchard, then we also need to assume that the coy was unaware of the bunker a bit further to the south (which would pin down the blackwatch-coy tasked with securing the road). It's not unreasonable, given that all this happened during the night. The tank-squadron (on paper: 15 tanks) of the 46th Liverpool Welsh Royal Tank Regiment arrived at C coys final position around 00:00. It temporarily sent a troop (3 tanks) to support A coy which was heavily engaged by counter-attacks along the rail/in Gerbini Station (also by a self propelled gun). The further movement of the squadron is a riddle to me. Dell Porchetta mentions that the tanks moved off to support B company, which was sent to "subdue" the enemy south of Gerbini (see above). Next, we're informed that the squadron has taken up position in the woods at Gerbini. I wonder how the squadron moved from Gerbini station to Gerbini woods. This image describes the course of actions on the following morning. A strong german counter attack induces the the British to retreat to their starting positions. Rennie draws some conclusions from this battle: He sees the failure to reorganize a defense against an imminent counter-attack in Gerbini as the main reason for the defeat/withdrawal. Obviously the ground that had been gained during the night had to be reinforced with AT-guns against the counter-attack. But as pockets of resistance (with the help of darkness) in and around Gerbini still held out and the road (strada statale 192) turned out to be defended, it seems as if the British were not able to organize a proper AT-gun-defence at Gerbini in time. As a conclusion, Rennie suggests to pre-plan AT-guns' positions in the furture („It seems now that the A.Tk plan for reorganisation down even to the sighting and responsibility of each gun should be worked out beforehand. A.Tk defence should follow up the various stages of the attack, making good ground as it is captured.”) and speed up the follow-up of the AT-guns in the attack, or, to be more precise, to make AT-guns join the attack. He carries on emphasizing that AT-guns must not stick to a strict AT-role, but should support their infantry’s attack by firing HE rounds. He even suggests to make them fire from exposed positions and follow the infantry very closely (if necessary under the cover of a smoke screen or an artillery barrage). He also argues that even the larger calibre Phearson AT-guns should have been brought up to the AT-ditch to support the attack in this case. This naturally makes us question why the performance of the Shermans was so poor. A squadron is a pretty large unit of 15 tanks! One would assume that the Shermans in the woods were in a good position to beat back a counter attack. But apparently, the squadron got badly beaten by the attacking tanks/sp. guns. (Of course we lack a precise number on how many vehicles the Germans could commit). Rennie mentions that the squadron performed so poorly because it had had no time to prepare the attack and it had not been involved in the planning phase. (Remember it was sent by a different division!): “The Sqn Commander knew the plan at 1700hrs and this left only three and a half hours of daylight for recce. It appears however that in this operation that orders were not given to Troop commanders till after dark and no troop commanders therefore saw the ground or the infantry with whom they were to cooperate.” So the tank-commanders were operating in unknown territory in the dark. This would explain why the squadron failed to take up good positions and was beaten so badly at dawn. -------------------------------------- Two maps with all the details I could find for the attack of the 1st Blackwatch companies on the western flank (since this is my potential first scenario): ---------------------------------------- Next, I will try to break this battle down into interesting scenarios and also think about where the german defences could have been. Obvious points would be the bunker (controling the strada statale) and the orchard (protecting the bunker's eastern flank and also enfilading the approach to the railroad, itself protected by the ditch). In fact the area around these two features are mentioned very often in the battle reports. Further obvious defensive positions would be Gerbini Station, the railroad, Gerbini airfield. I still need to take a closer look at Gerbini itself. For the start, I think it's a good idea to concentrate on the western part of the battle: the night-attack of B company against the wooded area south of Gerbini - which, at some point, was supported by the tank-squadron- , and also the dawn-attack of the blackwatch-companies along the road. A third (very large) scenario could be the morning-counter attack on western Gerbini. Also, the terrain on the eastern flank is quite interesting: orchard, bunker, ditches and alluvial plain (where the ditch splits up into three branches). I think that the eastern part of the battle is more difficult and less interesting to put into a scenario, as it seems that A, C and D coys were mixed all over the place and I don't really get a clear picture of the events. It seems to have been a slow frontal attack over terrain that was not really that interesting - just open fields. (Plus I'd need train carriages and ideally some airplanes to properly represent Gerbini station and airfield).

I fully agree on fortifications. The lack of a broader choice of defensive structures is a real pity and my biggest (still very, very small compared to other games on the market!) criticism. For CM:BS, it is most significant, because you don't even get bunkers. Ideally, we'd get a variety of different bunker/pillbox sizes and shapes, slit trenches, proper foxholes (single, two-man), additional camouflage options, options for overhead-cover, battlepositions for vehicles, straight sandbag-walls, (oh and also allow the defender to use democharges during the deployment phase!) etc. Right now, I think that overall casualty rates for defending infantry are too high - especially in CM:BS - which is to a good part also the result of a lack of fortifications. The first thing an infantry unit would do if tasked to defend is to dig in. And if they had only half an hour, they would still have some kind of pan for cover. A problem seems to be that fortifications need to be set into the ground-mesh/earth. If you're a scenario-designer and do some terra-forming to make your fortifications "sink" into the ground properly, then their position is immediately evident to any opponent who takes a look at the ground. Far from ideal. If you make fortifications purchase-able and placeable by the player, then that kind of blatant terra-forming is impossible and the fortification needs to be spotted, but the fortification will be placed on top of the ground-mesh, rather than sink into it - I can't really tell the gameplay-implications of it. Obviously the fortifications is easier to hit/the troops within it suppressed more easily? That being said, I wonder if it would be possible for fortifications and soldiers occupying them to simply clip into the ground. I couldn't vare less if the legs of my soldiers in a slit trench were cut-off. This way we would need no terraforming and the bunkers/trenches would still have a low profile. I think it's already partly the case with foxholes right now, while soldiers in treches or bunkers don't clip. I can only speculate wildly - and there are some theories about how foxholes and trenchers are working right now -but another issue might be to model the ingame-effects of fortifications. Here a problem might be that an action spot comes in the size of 8m², whereas some fortifications might ask for a more detailed resolution. Also, I think it's worth noting that strong defenses (bunkers) might not be that interesting from a gameplay-perspective. For the attacker, it's a case of identifying them (which is rather one-sided in favour of the defender) and then either evading it (not on CM's tactical scale) or bringing heavy weapons to bear to suppress & assault it or knock it out - which, in turn, is rather one-sided in favour of the attacker. Scenarios in which support is not strong enough to fully suppress a bunker might be interesting though.

I've entered "Bunker gerbini" a thousand times. I also tried refugio, casamatta and all the like. According to the 1943-map, the motorway that you mention did not exist in 1942. It seems as if the major east-west-route in the area was running south of Gerbini (though I did not check all the adjacent map-sectors). So it would even make more sense for the bunker to be oriented to the south. @ Kaunitz: Oh, well if it's in Westfalia, then the case seems pretty clear: Since the 17th century, the Kaunitz-family held the dominion/county (reichsfreie Grafschaft) Rietberg (as in Kaunitz-Rietberg) in Westphalia, and Kaunitz was part of it. So they seem to have named one of their villages after their family. PS: You can even make out some traces of bullet-impacts on the front of the bunker (on the connection-part in between the loopholes). Interestingly, they're all pretty high up, which would make sense if the bunker was dug-in as it is shown in Earie's drawing.

Thanks for the tip! The problem with centralized placement is that it only gives you one tree/bush. (I'm using the bushes because the shortest tree is too large and doesn't look as if it blocks LOS on the ground level like those short orange trees would.) And one bush per 8m² doesn't look like an orchard. These little trees should stand very close together. The bocage therefore serves to make the orchards denser (still with 3 trees it is not dense enough) and align the bushes symmetrically in the action spot. It seems to be my very personal problem, but I really miss something in between the tallest bush and the shortest tree in the editor (also in CM:BS). Forest tiles only come with very sparse (and deep-dark green) undergrowth that doesn't really look right, I'm afraid. Wow! Chapeau! How did you find this? Let's try to interpret these pictures. I still strongly suggest that the bunker is oriented to the south, which is the direction of the allied advance (and also the tank ditch is supposed to support the airfield against an approach from the south). I think that the first (left) picture shows the bunker from the southeast, the second one (right) from the southwest. (Note the little crater/earth track in front of it which can be seen on the satellite image too). So these two "towers"/risalits are the loopholes. It seems as if there was one loophole at each of the southern corners of the bunker. Outside, each loophole is reinforced with brick-walls that protect it from oblique fire/shrapnel and a little roof against artillery. We can't see whether there were also loopholes to the north (unlikely...). I'm not an expert so I wonder whether you think that these loopholes were designed for MGs or bigger stuff? The pictures also strongly reinforce my suspicion that the bunker is indeed the strange structure we can see on Eadie's drawing. First, I think it's pretty safe to say that this was the only bunker of that kind around Gerbini. Second, it looks like the bunker on the photos! On the drawing, it's obviously better camouflaged/dug in, so that one cannot see the concrete walls. But if you look closer, you can actually see one of the oblique protective brick-walls of the southwestern loophole. The two superstructures on the loopholes still look a bit strange, but on the photos you can see that there might indeed have been something on top of the loopholes that got destroyed. This still leaves the question about that building in front of the bunker, which must have restricted its field of fire. On the 1943 map, it's hard to say if there really was a building. There is a small dark dot, but this could be anything, really. On the drawing (if it is indeed oriented like I suppose it is), there are ruins directly south of the bunker. These might have been ruins in 1943 as well, or maybe a buildig that got destroyed in the battle. Today, there is a house on this very location, but it bears nothing in common with the one on the drawing. It dates from more recent times. Another issue that the 1943 map shows another orchard south of the bunker which must have limited its field of fire as well. However, if we ignore the possibility of an orchard and assume that the modern house is positioned on the place of the old one, then the most plausible role for the bunker would have been to overwatch the anti-tank-ditch (which was lined with barbed wire) to the south? You can travel down/south the strade statale quite far and still see the bunker, so its field of fire would have been excellent. The question is where the tank-ditch was exactly located. Judging from Rennie's sketch, my guess is a modern day street. But this street is 900 meters away (direct beeline) from the bunker. Not really the optimal distance? But maybe the ditch was further to the north? Any way, the positioning was not bad, given that the allies attacked exactly here - the only bunker far and wide in this area. Also, I wonder whether the note on the Rennie's sketch actually refers to the bunker. He clearly circled the position of the bunker and noted "mortar 4 mg task". Suppress/smoke this bunker (which houses 4 machine guns) with the mortars? We are told the Blackwatch coy took it with the help of a smoke screen... @ My name is pretty uncreative. My primary military-history interest was/is the Third Silesian War ("Seven Years War") 1756-1763 and I simply took the name of the famous state-chancellor Kaunitz (Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rietberg), which I used as an avatar in some forums for some time. The Kaunitz (czech Kounice) originated from Bohemia. Interesting that there is a Kaunitz in Switzerland. I have no connections to it! I live in Vienna. - in the shadow of those giant, immensely ugly WWII-flak-towers.

Orange cove The 1943 map shows an "orchard" in Gerbini. This must be what is called "woods" in the actual battle reports. In the real battle, a platoon of Shermans took up position here (and got badly beaten by the german tanks in the counter-attack). I think it's okay to assume that these were orange-plantations. Today, the area is full of orange-orchards but back in 1943, they seem to have been a bit rarer, judging from the 1943 map -maybe because of less developed irrigation-systems. On the old map, all "orachards" are close to rivers or ditches. Now, what would these woods have looked like? I couldn't find a single historical photo of an orange-plantation in the Catania plain. All I could find was this photo of a Sicilian orange tree. From this picture I think it's safe to assume that orange trees in 1943 looked quite similar (very short and small!) to those that can be found around Gerbini today (no major differences due to new methods of breeding, etc.). So, I'm trying to nail down the look of today's plantations around Gerbini: I've tried out a lot of design patterns and different kinds of vegetation. This is the best basic/unpolished design I could come up so far: It consists of sand ground (I'll have to test the ingame effects) because sand has the best matching colour. On top of that, I've planted echelon/arrow-shaped "low bocage" to give the orchard a higher density while still allowing for long diagonal lines of sight. I could still cut LOS here and there. Finally, on top of that, I've planted bush C (3) all over the place - I think it might actually be an orange tree with its white blossoms. The leafes are a bit darker, but that doesn't worry me too much (and there is no real alternative...). Luckily, the bocage reduces the randomness of bush-placement which would otherwise cut all the diagonal LOS. Not quite perfect but close enough. Trees are much too large, while bushes only are not dense enough and too random. So in my eyes a mix of bocage and bush seems to be a good work-around. PS: In fact these bushes are a tad too short. I might use bush B instead of C, but it looks quite ugly (and doesn't fit to the bocage's colour). But well, gameplay aspects take priority over aesthetics...! So this is the new version with slightly taller trees:

Hehe. Of course you're right. "Problem" solved. Out of total negligence, I made myself believe that unit selection in the editor is the same as in quickbattles. I can only hope that you're asll getting used to my misguided improvement suggestions by now. But even a blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while! @ arty fire plans: It's not that important since scenario designers could still write down a historical/scheduled fire plan in the briefing for the players to issue themselves at the start of the game. But still it would be more convenient.

Here is an image to give you a broader perspective on the area: The Highland division attacked from the south. One would assume that the tank-ditch (red) would link up the Simeto and the Dittaino river and would be overwatched? If I'm not mistaken the accounts also mention pillboxes and earth works in the wood north-east of Gerbini station/north west of Gerbini airfield. The 1943 map might give you some idea. (I didn't find anything suspicious on the satellite view). And here is a second view concentrated on the "bunker-area" (I tried to blend features of the 1943 map with features of the modern satellite map) - the red square is the bunker, greenish-areas are the 1943-orchards, the green lines follow (approximatively ) the 1943-contour lines (south: 50 meters, north: 60m), black = streets or paths,, blue = irrigation ditches: PS: Italy bunker in oblong shape : http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-italy-second-world-war-bunker-62473154.html

I've been scanning the surroundings, yes. To the south, there is some kind of factory or garbage dump today (see link). There are plenty of strange-looking earth shapes, but I think these are of more recent date: https://www.google.at/maps/@37.4654875,14.8386701,179m/data=!3m1!1e3 (the bunker is a bit to the north). But I have to admit that I have no eye for satellite-archaeology. I even tried to make out artillery-craters, but to no avail. By the way, the only indication that this might be a bunker is the information of the OpenTopo-map which states "1943 bunker" here if you zoom in. And also, this is the position which gets mentioned in the battle-reports. I'm still waiting for my delivery of a small Osprey (sigh) booklet on bunkers in Italy (and Sicily, I hope). I doubt it, but maybe it will prove that this was a common shape for a bunker in Italy. The vegetation seems to have changed quite a lot. Naturally, the soil around the Etna volcano is very fertile. In the Catania plain, there are three major rivers (Dittaino, Gornalunga, Simeto) whose water, by means of a system of reservoir dams and irrigation-ditches, is used to irrigate the orchards. I can’t tell for sure how extensive this network was back in 1943. Judging from satellite views, almost all the ditches noted on the 1943 map still exist today. However, the 1943 map does not show the (irrigation-)basins/pools that can be found on the modern satellite view. One would assume that if these existed, they would be represented on the map for sure. Today, the fields around Gerbini are dominated by orange (arance rosse) orchards (and maybe some sparse olive orchards). The question is whether this was true in 1943. In accordance with accounts of the battle, the 1943 map shows only two patches of orchards south of Gerbini (today the whole area is plastered with orchards...). In the smaller, southern one, there are also some symbols for “vine” mixed into the trees. So, if we assume that these patches were the only orchards arouznd, we need to ask what the rest of the terrain (the blank terrain on the 1943 map) looked like. With no means to make any safer conclusion, I will simply use "ploughed fields" and "dry grass". I also wondered what the orange orchards looked like back then. I can’t really nail down the exact look of the modern day orchards. There is only one good choice to represent these short orange trees (perhaps 2-3 meters height) in the engine: bush B. The smallest "tree" (D) is by far too large. The problem, however, is that I cannot recreate the density and the symmetrical pattern of the orchards with bush B. So, in the end, I will have to make a compromise which needs to focus on the ingame effect rather than on visual and mimetic fidelity.

PS: View of the bunker via google street view (taken from strada statale 192): https://www.google.at/maps/@37.4662765,14.8364244,3a,15y,73.64h,90.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4ZAolfVidamSX7eTHWGuJw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Gerbini west: axis defenses I was quite surprised that there is no detailed (by that I mean down to company level for important individual battles) book available either in german or english when it comes to Sicily. So, most of the german dispositions will be guesswork and I'll have a lot of freedom here. For the western sector of Gerbini, however, the reports mention three distinct features: 1) anti-tank ditch: The accounts and Rennie's sketch mention an anti-tank-ditch, ca. 20 feet deep (lined on the north side with barbed wire), south of Gerbini which served as a starting line for the attack. I've tried to make out the exact location on google maps' satellite views, but I'm not entirely sure, as there are a lot of irrigation ditches all over the place. Moreover, one would assume that the tank-ditch would link up to the Dittaino river to the west and the Simete to the east. Anyway - the anti-tank-ditch was not a really important feature for the battle itself. It would just serve as a starting point. 2) axis pillbox/bunker: Reports of the action mention a pillbox (maybe this is what is sometimes also called "barracks"?). The bunker is visible on google maps (see pictures). It was assaulted and taken by the 1st coy/1st Blackwatch and will also be a central feature of the scenario. Unfortunately, I could not find a ground-level-picture of it. However, I wonder if this bunker might actually be the left/central building on Eadie's drawing? The shape would fit quite well, I think, and also, vegetation is growing on the building - so it seems to be camouflaged. The building to the right can be found on the contemporary map too (maybe these are the "barracks"?) - a strange dot south of "mass.a Landolina". Moreover, there is (or rather was) a "wood" behind that bunker, which would be correct. The viewpoint would be on strada statale 192, looking north-east. So the tanks would not have wandered too far off the street - a small tip of the (dirt...?) street might be shown in the lower left corner. The rise of the ground is also reasonable and the place has obviously been shelled (crater, defoiled trees, buildings in ruins). Also, Rennie's account mentions two tanks getting knocked out (well, at least "hit") somewhere around here: "Two tanks of the troop sent to E, which had moved far out onto the open and level ground, were hit." But in the end, it's all speculation. Maybe you are in the mood to help me interpret whether this strange building might indeed be the bunker? 3) mines: According to Rennie's account, 6 AT-guns were moved up north modern Strada Statale 192 into Gerbini in order to fortify it against the imminent german counter-attack. The leading portee hit a mine. So one can assume that some parts of the road south of Gerbini were mined.