Motorcycles, and bikes in CM2

[gatpr]

unexpected unexpected

[Kingfish]

Rumor has it that BTS will create a game specifically for horse drawn artillery, bicycle mounted infantry and motorcycle recon. It will be called CM:BTL (combat mission: behind the lines) and will feature scenarios like 'moving the artillery' (a convoy of horse drawn artillery moves a battery across a map), 'Troops on the move'(a convoy of bicycle mounted troops move across a map) and 'motor recon' (a group of motorcycle mounted recon units travel across a huge map, sighting an enemy unit, stops to observe for a few minutes, then rides off in search of others).

Yawn

[MrSpkr]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Kingfish:

Rumor has it that BTS will create a game specifically for horse drawn artillery, bicycle mounted infantry and motorcycle recon. It will be called CM:BTL (combat mission: behind the lines) and will feature scenarios like 'moving the artillery' (a convoy of horse drawn artillery moves a battery across a map), 'Troops on the move'(a convoy of bicycle mounted troops move across a map) and 'motor recon' (a group of motorcycle mounted recon units travel across a huge map, sighting an enemy unit, stops to observe for a few minutes, then rides off in search of others).

Yawn<hr></blockquote>

Hey Kingfish - I personally find most Operations, and most battles with large numbers of units boring as heck too.

You know how I handle it?

Get ready for it -- I don't play them!

You should try this simple solution if BTS comes up with something as boring as a partisan ambush of a supply column, German advances across the Steppes, or the retreat of the German armies before Warsaw, or (heaven forbid) Operation Uranus.

Then you won't have to worry about those boring old bicycle/motorcycle/horses, right?

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Moon:

No, the idea (as in "ideal" ) is to find them and observe them, gather intelligence and then get the heck out without being seen. Few recon formations are equipped to actually fight what they find, and if that's indeed the mission (combat recon) than you can be certain they'd send in armored cars and light tanks instead of motorcycles <hr></blockquote>

The reconnaisance battalions of the german army, especially of the Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions, were expected to fight for information. In the Wehrmacht, as I expect you already know, these units were very heavily armed and did not depend on stealth. As the war progressed and the fighting intensified, the motorcycles were replaced by infantry in halftracks, but the idea remained the same: proceed with all prudent speed until you make contact, then deploy and see how much muscle and determination the enemy dispose. Early in the war, the recce battalions could often overcome the half-hearted resistence they encountered and press on. When they couldn't, they broke off and called for reinforcements, or alternatively looked for a weak spot somewhere else.

Michael

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Sergei]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

The best you can do at home with your pants on is to play with it. <hr></blockquote>

What... you play it with your pants on?!? :eek:

[Tero]

Originally posted by Moon:

For self-preservation while moving in rear areas and/or during scout operations when running into unexpected enemy and trying to get away, but certainly not as an assaulting weapon I would say.

Why was the MG facing forward with a very limited field of fire then ?

[Battlefront.com]

The LMG was on top of the sidecar because there is no other place to store it

The SOP for a Motorcycle formation was to zoom into position, disembark, and then fight on foot as normal infantry. The LMG would be quickly detached from the sidecar and carried into battle normally.

To the best of my knowledge the disembarkation happened (when planned!) while safely out of harms way. Basically, a scout would find the problem area, and report back. The follow up units would get as close as they dared, then deploy for combat. They would not ride into town like a bunch of 1920's American Gangsters shooting as they went. That would have resulted in depriving Panzer formations of their recon units, not taking and holding a location

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by MrSpkr:

I am using anecdotal in the general sense, i.e., based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers. That fact that someone is not a scientific observer does not deter his ability to look across a field and see horses being used to limber guns or to pull carts.

I know. But BTS has taken a defensive posture that relies heavily on this point.

If you are looking for quantitative evidence, review German military records relating to the number of horses (in broad terms) used on teh Western Front.

I am not escpecially looking for it but BTS will not hear of it unless there is a wealth of evidence cathered that is undeniable.

Note also that many German infantry divisions had staff veterinarians whose job was to take care of the horses.

The Finnish army had an even more extensive veterinary service (relatively speaking).

However, if 'anecdotal' causes you problems, then let me rephrase, at least as far as MacDonald is concerned:

There are EYEWITNESS accounts related BY THE AUTHOR involving the use of horses.

Chill, man ! I'm rooting for the good guys in this one. Just like you.

So, if you believe anecdotal was a poor term, substitute 'eyewitness'. Eyewitness works much better, thank you.

You are wellcome.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

Sadly horses are out, as per BTS, not because of their supposed non-usage in battle, but due to modelling and coding difficulties. After all, think how long it took for someone to realize that when a horse runs, all its legs are simultaneously off the ground...

At least British paras used a collapsible wheelbarrel to haul stuff around. I would think this would not be too hard to model.

I still fail to see why a horse cart can not be modelled using an infantry unit as a base (the para wheelbarrel for example). The only alterations would be load bearing capability, stamina and speed. All the other factors, like morale (panicking under fire etc) could be used straight from the infantry unit base settings without the end result being overly unrealistic.

The 3D graphics should not be to complicated. Hell, we accept a field gun in tow with its undercarriage deployed without any undue gripes of it looking unrealitically funky.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Moon:

No, the idea (as in "ideal" ) is to find them and observe them, gather intelligence and then get the heck out without being seen. Few recon formations are equipped to actually fight what they find, and if that's indeed the mission (combat recon) than you can be certain they'd send in armored cars and light tanks instead of motorcycles

You ARE aware of the German recce SOP ?

A unit would drive along towards a suspected enemy position, it would stop, look around, perhaps fire a round or a burts or two and then haul ass back to cover at high speed trying to convince the concealed enemy unit to think it has been spotted and to get it to open fire to actually reveal its positions.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Bikes, bicycles and horses are out because there is no evidence in the Anglo-American WWII history writing of them ever being in the frontlines.<hr></blockquote>

Uhmm... so you mean that since I am an American, all I am allowed to read is stuff from the American perspective written about the American experience in WWII??!? Damn, that means I'll have to return about 90% of my multi thousand dollar library. That SUCKS, but thanks for letting me know that I've been a naughty boy by reading up on things non-American written by people born in Godless non-American countries.

In all seriousness, we have said this before... motorcycle units are NOT going into CMBB. By and large they were NOT used in the combat zone as CM defines it. Yes, I know that one can create all sorts of different scenarios in CM, but the game was NOT designed to have "I am the spearhead of a division in the middle of somewhere that may or may not have troops".

Yes, I understand that there is, in theory, a place for motorcycles, horses, and bicycles in CM. They are, however, not generally part of its scope. They CAN be, but not generally. See the difference? The problem is that you have NO idea how many problems there are with supporting these types of vehicles. Trust me, the entire Beta team tried to figure out a way to make it work and everybody came up with bupkis. And yes Tero, there were Fins, Germans, Russians, French, Aussies, Irish, English, Canadian, and probably some others involved in the discussion. Wouldn't want you to think it was just a bunch if ig'nert 'mericuns calling all the shots

Steve

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Sergei:

What... you play it with your pants on?!? :eek:

With both hands. If I am feeling gay I alternate hands when I'm doing the magic that I do. :cool:

[Simon Fox]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MrSpkr:

Hey Kingfish - I personally find most Operations, and most battles with large numbers of units boring as heck too.

You know how I handle it?

Get ready for it -- I don't play them!

You should try this simple solution if BTS comes up with something as boring as a partisan ambush of a supply column, German advances across the Steppes, or the retreat of the German armies before Warsaw, or (heaven forbid) Operation Uranus.

Then you won't have to worry about those boring old bicycle/motorcycle/horses, right?<hr></blockquote>Let's face it MrSpkr only wants horses in CM because he's watched Gladiator one too many times and wants to stage panje (sp?) races with firearms instead of chariots and spears. Did the Germans typically attach those big scythes to the wheels of their military carts?

As for tero's obsession with Finnish BMX bandits one can only speculate as to what the hell they used them in combat for. Jamming the tracks of Russian tanks when they ran out of logs perhaps?

BTW Stuka it's do somefink (or sumfink)

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

If I am feeling gay I alternate hands when I'm doing the magic that I do. :cool: <hr></blockquote>

I'm not going near this one.

Michael

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Uhmm... so you mean that since I am an American, all I am allowed to read is stuff from the American perspective written about the American experience in WWII??!?

By no means.

In the past whenever this topic has come up one of the arguments was the lack of quantifiable evidence to support the presence of said units in the FEBA.

I have read more than a few English language WWII histories (both American and British along with others) and from experience I know the Anglo-American histories very, VERY rarely mention these particular battlefield "assets" in their narratives.

Given the saturation of the German army with horses I find it curious to say the least. Perhaps GI Joe from Montana felt it better to leave out the unsavoury tales of battlefield butchery of these innocent (Nazi ? ) beasts of burden as it would have blemished his clean record as the saviour of the world. "War is hell" would cover that bit of the battle field occurances.

Damn, that means I'll have to return about 90% of my multi thousand dollar library. That SUCKS, but thanks for letting me know that I've been a naughty boy by reading up on things non-American written by people born in Godless non-American countries.

I hope you are not going to wind down this thread and lock it up because of biased remarks like that. Given the present international situation. Or does that apply only to the General Forum ?

Can you corraborate or trash my assesment on the Anglo-American WWII histories and their handling of said "battlefield" assets in the text ? IME the "cool" stuff like tanks and guns are well covered but the not-so-cool stuff is bypassed with the remark "the German army was not the mechanized force it was painted up to be" and it is left at that.

Yes, I understand that there is, in theory, a place for motorcycles, horses, and bicycles in CM. They are, however, not generally part of its scope. They CAN be, but not generally. See the difference?

What prevents you from widening the scope ? The game engine could already handle the different types of battles. Stuff like the map generation routine and deployment zone assignement ?

Trust me, the entire Beta team tried to figure out a way to make it work and everybody came up with bupkis. And yes Tero, there were Fins, Germans, Russians, French, Irish, English, Canadian, and probably some others involved in the discussion.

Can you give any concrete examples of the trials and how they failed to deliver ?

Wouldn't want you to think it was just a bunch if ig'nert 'mericuns calling all the shots

Perish the thought. Pretty much nothing happens for no reason.

[Michael Emrys]

Gee, tero, I must either be spoiled or have been blessed by exceptional luck (which may amount to the same thing, yes? ), but I was exposed to the prevalence of horse-drawn transport in the German and other armies quite a while back, along with some discussion of their logistic and maintainence burden. And that in spite of being by the handicap of being an American and only reading in the English language. I suppose it was just blind luck that I stumbled onto Strategy & Tactics magazine nearly thirty years ago, where such tidbits of critical information often found their way into the pages, and thence into some corner of my brain.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while your presumption may be a reasonable inference drawn on your experience in reading, it isn't the whole story.

Your posts strike me as good-natured in spirit and tone, and I hope mine does as well.

Michael

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Gee, tero, I must either be spoiled or have been blessed by exceptional luck (which may amount to the same thing, yes? ),

The two seem to go hand in hand.

but I was exposed to the prevalence of horse-drawn transport in the German and other armies quite a while back, along with some discussion of their logistic and maintainence burden.

Well, I'll be damned. Who let the cat is out of the bag ?

And that in spite of being by the handicap of being an American and only reading in the English language.

Is a handicap necessarily an impediment ?

I suppose it was just blind luck that I stumbled onto Strategy & Tactics magazine nearly thirty years ago, where such tidbits of critical information often found their way into the pages, and thence into some corner of my brain.

I trust Strategy & Tactics has as wide a circulation the National Enquirer has.

I guess what I am trying to say is that while your presumption may be a reasonable inference drawn on your experience in reading, it isn't the whole story.

I fully agree. The problem in many of these multinational debates is there is precious few sources accessible to both parties. I can direct you to any number of Finnish sources and you could point out a similar number of obscure, long out of print, sources. The net result is (too often) a pissing contest of biblical proportions unless a lucky break (like the issue of a magazine dated 30 years ago, when I was ~7 years old and could not speak English yet) comes along and resolves the impasse. Provided both parties are still in speaking terms.

Your posts strike me as good-natured in spirit and tone, and I hope mine does as well.

I try to keep things civil for my part. Your posts have always been on the up and up.

BTW: you do not happen to have a scanner on you ? And the article. I would love to add it to my collections.

[Stuka]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

BTW Stuka it's do somefink (or sumfink)

<hr></blockquote>

Bite me, Foxy.

[Andreas]

All that talk about eyewitness evidence of horses on the FEBA is very interesting. Now apart from Falaise (which we no doubt can all agree was a special situation), and the number of horses in a German division, do we have anything else? More specifically, were there any horses in the FEBA at Tilly? South Caen? Maltot? Hotton? Arnhem? Hochwald? Huertgenwald? Bastogne? Breskens Pocket? St. Lambert? Leningrad, Kursk, Kingissep, Mga, Sevastopol?

Any other battle catered for too, take your pick. The same goes for motor-bikes. I am always interested to learn something new.

I await the recollections by German participants of those actions, detailing the contribution of the brave and proud beasts in defending the Fatherland, with baited breath.

Contrary to tero's claim, Anglo-American writers do mention the horses, at quite some length when it comes to the Falaise pocket. They somehow fail to mention the stout Germanic warhorse that dragged the Pak40 right up to the FEBA for emergency use though. Shurely some oversight.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Contrary to tero's claim, Anglo-American writers do mention the horses, at quite some length when it comes to the Falaise pocket.

But you do agree that the German army (along with its horses) did travel and fight elsewhere in the beautiful French countryside. And Eastern Europe. And not just in the Falaise area.

They somehow fail to mention the stout Germanic warhorse that dragged the Pak40 right up to the FEBA for emergency use though.

They had to get there somehow. Can you give any narratives about how they pushed them for miles into positions manually ? Or drove comfortably on their SdKfz-10's or Krupp Protzes all the way to the position and just drop the damned piece there ?

Shurely some oversight.

It must be, I'm shure.

Could it be that it was so commonplace they did not think it was worth mentioning in their memoires.

I do not recall ever reading the recipe for the German army bread but I'm sure the field bakeries made millions and millions of loafs of it.

[Moon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

You ARE aware of the German recce SOP ?

A unit would drive along towards a suspected enemy position, it would stop, look around, perhaps fire a round or a burts or two and then haul ass back to cover at high speed trying to convince the concealed enemy unit to think it has been spotted and to get it to open fire to actually reveal its positions.<hr></blockquote>

Eh, yes, tero, I read that book, too But do you think this is how Germans would be doing it every single time? Or even most of the time? This tactic you are describing was never a SOP, it was a "trick", a military feint or whatever you want to call it, born of experience, and useful at some time in some circumstances. But try to imagine that this was how German recon looked like all of the time? Move up to tree line, fire burst, flee, come back, move to next treeline, fire burst, run away? Come on... By the way, I apologize in advance if you were actually joking and I misunderstood your post.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Germanboy:

[qb]Contrary to tero's claim, Anglo-American writers do mention the horses, at quite some length when it comes to the Falaise pocket.

But you do agree that the German army (along with its horses) did travel and fight elsewhere in the beautiful French countryside. And Eastern Europe. And not just in the Falaise area.

They somehow fail to mention the stout Germanic warhorse that dragged the Pak40 right up to the FEBA for emergency use though.

They had to get there somehow. Can you give any narratives about how they pushed them for miles into positions manually ? Or drove comfortably on their SdKfz-10's or Krupp Protzes all the way to the position and just drop the damned piece there ?

Shurely some oversight.

It must be, I'm shure.

Could it be that it was so commonplace they did not think it was worth mentioning in their memoires.

I do not recall ever reading the recipe for the German army bread but I'm sure the field bakeries made millions and millions of loafs of it.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Funnily enough, I have read a number of comments from British/Canadian vets on the quality of the captured German food stuff they had to live off when the supply lines came close to breakdown. So there goes that argument.

I agree they fought elsewhere, e.g. Tilly, Breskens Pocket (see my above post). So I am sure that either you or Mr. Spkr. or whoever the other chap was will be happy to supply a lot of eyewitness references by German/Anglo-American/Russian/Finnish/Fidjian vets to the no doubt prolific use of the mighty horse in the frontline. That's what I asked for. I gather you are all still digging?

How did they get there? Simple pushing and shoving (works for short distances, and there were harnesses for the crew - I have a picture of my grandfather in one of these) comes to mind. Certainly more sensible than exposing the fragile and large prime mover (Fury or Black Beauty in the German case; a 15cwt or whatever in the UK case) to enemy veterinarians with guns?

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

I trust Strategy & Tactics has as wide a circulation the National Enquirer has. <hr></blockquote>

Er, regrettably no.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I guess what I am trying to say is that while your presumption may be a reasonable inference drawn on your experience in reading, it isn't the whole story.

I fully agree. The problem in many of these multinational debates is there is precious few sources accessible to both parties. I can direct you to any number of Finnish sources and you could point out a similar number of obscure, long out of print, sources. The net result is (too often) a pissing contest of biblical proportions unless a lucky break (like the issue of a magazine dated 30 years ago, when I was ~7 years old and could not speak English yet) comes along and resolves the impasse. Provided both parties are still in speaking terms.<hr></blockquote>

Sadly true. And that's not even taking the testosterone levels into account.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>BTW: you do not happen to have a scanner on you ? And the article. I would love to add it to my collections. <hr></blockquote>

No scanner yet. On my list of things to get "one of these days". But it's only fair to warn you that the likelyhood of my poring through my collection of S&Ts looking for that certain paragraph, while not quite nil, is not high. But a scanner would indeed be nice for when I do come across something of interest.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Originally posted by Germanboy:

[qb]They somehow fail to mention the stout Germanic warhorse that dragged the Pak40 right up to the FEBA for emergency use though.

They had to get there somehow. Can you give any narratives about how they pushed them for miles into positions manually ? Or drove comfortably on their SdKfz-10's or Krupp Protzes all the way to the position and just drop the damned piece there ?[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Actually, I believe I have read that even in the infantry divisions the AT battalions were "completely" motorized. How far this was carried in practice on all fronts is a fair subject for speculation I grant, and the matter cries out for further research. So far as I have been able to determine though the infantry guns and all the rest of the artillery was horse drawn.

Michael

[Jack Trap]

I, for one, am glad that horses will not be included in the next CM game, if for no other reason, because of all the idiotic threads regarding the correct morale algorithm assigned the animals and whether a veteran horse is worth the cost versus a regular horse!