Jump to content

New file at the Repository: 130. Panzer Regiment auf dem Vormarsch (2011-12-28)


Recommended Posts

This mission is a large-scale semi-historical tank battle. Many thanks to Eddie for creating this scenario. Excerpt from the briefing:"Southeast of the Vire Bridgehead the 902. Panzergrenadier Regiment and the 130. Panzer Regiment are making a counter-attack towards Cavigny. This sector is defended by the 119th Infantry Regiment/30th Infantry Division who have freshly arrived in Normandy. As planned the attack began at night and thrust up the riverside road towards Cavigny. The attack is heavily supported by artillery. It is now 0620 hours and the attack is some five hours old. By 0930 hours the I Battalion/902 Group must have reached Le Cocquerie." Capture the ground on the opposite of the stream and push on to the crossroads toward Le Cocquerie. (play as Axis vs. Allied AI only)

More...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I'm certainly not a nazi but I am a equal oppurtunity grognard and love playing the german end of things which I found to be limited when I first got this awesome game but thru the community and the re[pisotory I am getting a nice collection of Deutschen campaigns and scenarios to mull and puzzle over for many many many lost hours...hahaha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preferring to play German sides certainly does not make one a Nazi.

The vast majority of older generation (cardboard) wargamers had to be bribed to play any other (Allied) side.

Playing Germans was just so much more fun even in beer & pretzel games like Axis and Allies. It was about moving fast and nimbly, taking big chances with object of global domination. Now, what normal person wouldn't want that??

I suspect the overwhelming desire to play Germany was also due to the wide array of sexy toys they developed and also that they emphasized the individual (each unit often was specialized) more than (for example) the "mass" of lesser-trained East Front slavic hords with their cookie-cutter units.

I still recall the gasps of awe that would issue around a gaming table when in the midst of some Soviet threat or breakthrough the SS Division Liebstandarte would appear... like the cavalry riding to the rescue with their ultra high combat factors that usually meant that all opposition in that area was to be crushed (ruthlessly and without mercy).

(Yeah, you had to be there...)

The advent of computer games and the need for a much wider audience to fund the expensive computer games is what brought in the "Ra RA America is the Greatest" players who insisted on playing the US and always winning with overwhelming firepower etc. But, that is a relatively recent (since late nineties perhaps) phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preferring to play German sides certainly does not make one a Nazi.

The vast majority of older generation (cardboard) wargamers had to be bribed to play any other (Allied) side.

Playing Germans was just so much more fun even in beer & pretzel games like Axis and Allies. It was about moving fast and nimbly, taking big chances with object of global domination. Now, what normal person wouldn't want that??

I suspect the overwhelming desire to play Germany was also due to the wide array of sexy toys they developed and also that they emphasized the individual (each unit often was specialized) more than (for example) the "mass" of lesser-trained East Front slavic hords with their cookie-cutter units.

The advent of computer games and the need for a much wider audience to fund the expensive computer games is what brought in the "Ra RA America is the Greatest" players who insisted on playing the US and always winning with overwhelming firepower etc. But, that is a relatively recent (since late nineties perhaps) phenomenon.

LOL this was pretty funny and I'd have to agree. I also think there was a lot of influence on how games were developed based on the printed histories. The Russians have gotten short shrift as the "nameless hordes" and frankly it is more interesting to play a more mobile force. There is also something to be said for playing the underdog which is pretty much the situation of the Wehrmacht from 1943 onwards. I have ended up playing the Germans in my PBEMs most of the time and have enjoyed it thoroughly. On the other hand I really do enjoy playing the Allied side and having to figure out how to beat the German units with the tools at hand. Dragonslaying Tigers if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, it's always been about the toys. The Germans had the cool ones. And you guys need to picture this, since I am half black AND live in Maine. My friends would stop by when I was playing CMBB with the nazi flags on vehicles as air identification placards. They would see this and just look at me funny for a moment. I still get a kick out of this. The first time for each I generally give them the rundown on the German military in WWII as well as you can in 5 minutes so they can rest assured that I am not a nazi. Still funny tho....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree as well, the germans had the cool uniforms, guns, tanks, but most of all the tactics is what i give them the most kudos for...to bad those brave men where committed to a no win war by a bumbling leader. Tactical brilliance with strategic failure.

I do feel a little guilty playing germans against the US, so much more fun leading the facists against the red hordes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick OT - do I need another login for the repository as well as forum - it keeps asking me for registered user and I enter my forum stuff again, and again and again etc. Thanks

You need to register for the repository separately from the forum in order to download any files. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When playing Army in the seventies in school I always played the Germans, which was cool as it ment I was always chosen and was always the German leader!

So it goes back along way for me way before I knew the crimes or the political aspects of Nazi Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it is always about the TO&Es, how squads are set up, organized, how the tactics are different depending on these things. That is the interest and the challenge. I will play a scenario differently when playing as Allies as opposed to Axis. I will play it differently as Syrians as opposed to any NATO and I will play it differently depending on which NATO TO&E I'm using. The Germans do have cool looking halftracks and tanks though...:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The legend of the lone hero annihilating numerous opponents predates civilization: think the Iliad, Gilgamesh, the Ramayana, Hiawatha, blah blah blah. There's a reason shooters, not chess or Go-type many-vs-many strategy games, have dominated video games ever since Space Invaders.

I went through my Paul Carrell phase as well, but as I read down into the accounts I realized he was full of crap. The Russians held, then thrashed the Germans head to head using superior strategy, plus equipment, tactics and good old fashioned individual cunning and courage that were every bit as good -- think T34/KV/IS tanks, SU-122, Sturmovik, La-7 and MiG-3 fighters, 76mm AT gun, 120mm mortar, Katyusha, PPSh41. Many of which the Germans themselves copied (yes, the Russians returned the favour).

EDIT: Oh, I've downloaded the scenario. Look forward to giving it a spin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ The Russians straight up copied the STG44, the germans barrowed Ppsh41s, captured ZIS AT guns(for marder IIs), and T-34s which then led to the panther.

The German weapons were genious and innovative, just took alot more time to mass produce compared to many of the soviet weapons.

It took the Soviets until Kursk to get there act together and find a way to beat the germans. Even then it took until Bagration summer 44 to really begin to decisively take it to the germans. If there was no D-Day or battle of the bulge, I'd say 80% chance the germans fight the soviets to a stalemate in the east inspite of Hitlers Strategic blunders.

There's no denying the tactical and operational brilliance the germans had compare to the soviets. Russians basically out bled the germans is how I look at it, no tactical brilliance there....just straight up attrition. There were reports that the soviets were stretched pretty thin logistally and manpower wise while taking Berlin, fortunate for them thier opponet was only a shell of what it once was....whittled down from a 2 front war.

It took the bumbling Giant called the Soviet Union 3 years and Millions of casualties to develop thier war winning "superior strategy"....doesn't sound too superior to me, lucky for Stalin he had millions of russian lives to spend.

If the Russians were so superior, what the hell was up with thier embarrassing effort in the 1940 winter war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they were pretty crappy in '39-42-ish due to Stalin having purged all his best officers. But, they did learn their lesson and it's almost a certainty that they could have beaten Germany alone in the final years.

The numbers of Divisions on the East Front make the entire West Front look like a small sideshow. And one reason why the vast majority of us old time wargamers really don't like Normandy, it feels like the 2nd eleven, or girl's soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strongly disagree that the soviets would have taken Berlin on their own. All those German divisions in Italy and France would have made a huge difference if they were deployed on the eastern front. I'm not saying the Germans would have won, but definitely could have successfully defended Germany in 45 by forcing a stalemate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would depend on how many divisions would be made available for the East Front. Also, the Germans were losing Divisions daily IITC, so any new ones may have simply been more cannon fodder.

I wonder if they could reallocate all their air to the East Front to regain air supremacy, if that could have had an effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thats more like an academic discussion. Since Germany was in war on the western front there was no way to transfer more units from france and Italy to the eastern front. Even without the actual landings in France and Italy the shear possibility of it forced the germans to station enough forces there. Which, like we know, they didnt.

And yes, the russians were still lacking behind the capabilities of the wehrmacht. But: Bagration for example showed nicely that from 43-44 onward they were well capable of conducting large scale mobile oprations, which, as an example, ultimatly crushed armygroup center (still a capable fighting force with more than a million soldiers) and gaining hundrets of kilometers. It took the russians about the same time to conquer poland in 44 compared to the germans in 39. And i would say that the wehrmacht was still a much stronger force than the polands in 39.

They struggeled with tactical problems right to the end of the war (Seelower Höhen), but their operational skill was quit good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ You missed the point of my claim, in hypothetical terms, no way russians beat the germans on thier own in WWII. If sealion went down, America stayed out.... no pearl harbor, Germany tackles Russia on one front......They would be speaking german in moscow today.

We all know the history and how it went down in a RL. I'm just saying with out the Allies collective effort, no way the Russians would have even gotten close to Berlin. To me thats more of a Stategic Success of the Allies than a success due to great soviet tactics or operational skill. The overall Allied Stategic Level success is what set the Russians up for operations like Bagration or Berlin.

Hitler stopped the II SS at Prokorovka because the Allies landed at Sicily, not because the 5th Guards Tank Army decisively beat them ( infact it was the other way around, reports stated the II SS was ready the resume the offensive after Prokorovka, while the 5th GTA was pretty wrecked....but they served thier purpose....just wasn't pretty in a tactical sense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree. Wars are essentially economic. Russia had and has far more economic wealth, people and land than Germany. German war was designed around Blitzkrieg - rather like western forces today. German manpower would have been like a drop in the ocean of the Soviet land mass. They would have been bankrupted by unconventional wars all over the Soviet Union rather like more recent "experience" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Once the Soviets recovered from initial shock, all their factories were evacuated east of the Urals well out of range of German bombers (since Jerry saw no need for long range bombers pre-war). Soviet production would have eventually outstripped that of the Germans, as did Russian manpower replacement. The result would have been the same had the west not helped out, but it would have taken longer. Western aid to the Soviets was a convenient/calculated way of fighting Germany with Russian blood. D-Day was needed as otherwise, the soviets would have ended up in Calais. (Churchill kept insisting till the end that the invasion should have been in the Balkans to stop the Russian advance thru Eastern Europe.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...