*mod posted* German Unit Pictures

[Schoerner]

You can get it at: www.cmmods.com

[HeinzBaby]

These are fantastic!

...mmm..any possibility of going through the whole CMAK set? pretty please with cream

[WineCape]

Schoerner,

Do your German unit markings - they are excellent BTW - work for CMBB too? i.e. Do the bitmaps in CMAK correspond to those in CMBB that you have modified?

EDIT: Just read you readme.doc. Question answered. Brilliant!

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

-----------------------------------------------------

Wine donations send to the following for their contributions to CM:

</font>

• Staff @ Battlefront.com</font>
• Fuerte for his PBEM HELPER</font>
• Manx (He used to run the “sexiest CMBO modsite on the net”)</font>
• Boots & Tracks (RoW tournament scenarios)</font>
• Andrew Fox (modding art)</font>
• Keith Miller @ Scenario Depot</font>
• Gordon Molek for his CMMOS utility</font>

Sponsor of the following Combat Mission tournaments:

</font>

• The infamous CMBO “Invitational” (Ari Maenpaa)</font>
• WineCape Tourney I and II (Fangorn + KiwiJoe)</font>
• Ongoing “Rumblings of War” aka RoW (Winners: Wreck = RoW I; Kanonier Reichmann + Ali + Jon_L = RoW II; Deadly 88 + Frunze + mPisi = RoW III)</font>
• Download and play the RoW III Tournament Scenario Pack</font>

[Monty]

Excellent Stuff !

I hope somebody can make such a mod also for the other countries

Monty

[Schoerner]

Thanks for the laurels.

Yes, the unit pictures are identical for CMBB and CMAK (as far as i found out).

The full compatibility is mentioned in the readme.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'll copy my comments in the CMBB forum here for Schoerner's edification:

Interesting concept; a couple minor corrections you may consider

a) the black shoulder boards for the Luftwaffe should be field blue; black boards with green (Jäger) piping or yellow (airborne) piping would have been unheard of in the Luftwaffe, as all their uniforms were blue (excepting troops in the black AFV uniform).

the correct piping for mechanized infantry in the Heer should be rose pink for early war, and grass-green (weisengrün) for mid and late war.

c) grey piping as shown on some SS shoulder straps in your mod was actually used, as far as I know, by concentration camp staff (in the Army it also signified Propaganda Troops after 1942/3 when they switched from the lemon yellow waffenfarbe of the Signals troops(Nachrichten)).

d) shoulder boards for the Heer enlisted men in infantry units should be dark bottle green (early war) or field grey (after 1940), not black as shown in your mod. I would also recommend using an enlisted man's pattern of collar patch, the ones you have for EM and NCOs looks like the officers patch. I would change the colour to grey, and put the mittelstreife in dark green (early) or field grey (mid and late), with litzenspiegel "lights" in either waffenfarbe, dark green or field grey, depending on taste and date.

Otherwise, nice concept, and shows the rank much clearer than the stock graphics.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Interesting concept; a couple minor corrections you may consider

a) the black shoulder boards for the Luftwaffe should be field blue;

Ofcourse! Thanks for that.

black boards with green (Jäger) piping or yellow (airborne) piping would have been unheard of in the Luftwaffe,

With piping you mean the border-color i guess.

I didn't include green bordered LW shoulder-markings.

Only green colored collar-markings (LW field divisions).

The yellow bordered shoulder markings for the Falschirmjäger (airborne) should be correct: it is the color of the flying units.

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Soldat/Luftwaffe/Luftwaffe.htm

the correct piping for mechanized infantry in the Heer should be rose pink for early war, and grass-green (weisengrün) for mid and late war.

Are you sure?

The sources i used are all stating that

Pink was the color of Panzer and Panzerjäger troops.

I thought Infantry was just using the color of their weapon type, no matter if mechanized or not (i.e. Infantry white, Pioneers black).

But CM doesn't allow for that and uses it's own structure (mechanized, Cavalry).

Your suggestion to use the brightly-green color for CM's 'mechanized infantry' is interesting but there's a problem:

CM's 'mechanized' units and cavalry are sharing the same pictures.

The color of Cavalry was yellow-orange like from the paratroopers.

Using brightly-green for CM's so called 'mechanized infantry' would be a compromise to live with, but it would also mean giving Cavalry units brightly-gree as color, too.

Therefore i decided to leave it neutral.

c) grey piping as shown on some SS shoulder straps in your mod was actually used, as far as I know, by concentration camp staff (in the Army it also signified Propaganda Troops after 1942/3 when they switched from the lemon yellow waffenfarbe of the Signals troops(Nachrichten)).

No. This is the usual shoulder marking, just without the weapon color of each unit. I decided to leave the weapon-color out (like for Heer units) because CM doesn't have enough unit-pics.

d) shoulder boards for the Heer enlisted men in infantry units should be dark bottle green (early war) or field grey (after 1940), not black as shown in your mod.

This was simply a design decision.

IMO the important thing is, to see the correct shoulder marking, have a decent contrast to the background and it looks good, too.

I would also recommend using an enlisted man's pattern of collar patch, the ones you have for EM and NCOs looks like the officers patch. I would change the colour to grey, and put the mittelstreife in dark green (early) or field grey (mid and late), with litzenspiegel "lights" in either waffenfarbe, dark green or field grey, depending on taste and date.

That would be way to much labor for me.

Isn't the difference between the collar-marking of non-officers with the dark stripe in the middle and officers without it, clearly visible?

If you or anyone else has a quite simple, but nevertheless somehow historically correct idea, to give CM's 'Infantry mechanized' and 'Cavalry' units' pics (they both are sharing the same pics, but have different pics from 'Infantry') a different look to normal 'Infantry' i'd be glad to hear it! (same guilty for 'SS mechanized' units).

[ January 03, 2004, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

I didn't include green bordered LW shoulder-markings. Only green colored collar-markings (LW field divisions).

I would change the shoulder markings to match; this would be more correct than mixed waffenfarben in the same bmp. Again, just a suggestion. This refers to bmps 201500-201504. They should really be identical to the airborne ones, just with yellow substituted with green.

The yellow bordered shoulder markings for the Falschirmjäger (airborne) should be correct: it is the color of the flying units.

Yes, these are perfect.

the correct piping for mechanized infantry in the Heer should be rose pink for early war, and grass-green (weisengrün) for mid and late war. </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Are you sure?

The sources i used are all stating that

Pink was the color of Panzer and Panzerjäger troops.

I thought Infantry was just using the color of their weapon type, no matter if mechanized or not (i.e. Infantry white, Pioneers black).

</font>

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

I didn't include green bordered LW shoulder-markings. Only green colored collar-markings (LW field divisions).

I would change the shoulder markings to match; this would be more correct than mixed waffenfarben in the same bmp. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

In the case of LW field-divisions, mixed colors are necessary, because of their green collar-marking, which is independent from the weapon-color.

The green IS waffenfarbe, though. FlaK units wore red collar markings, airborne wore yellow collar markings, etc. Only the Jäger troops wore green collar markings - pioneer, panzer, artillery, supply, etc., all wore their waffenfarbe on the collar. You have shown this in the airborne ones, with matching shoulder and collar colour.

Green is not independent from weapon-colour.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

In the case of LW field-divisions, mixed colors are necessary, because of their green collar-marking, which is independent from the weapon-color.

The green IS waffenfarbe, though. FlaK units wore red collar markings, airborne wore yellow collar markings, etc. Only the Jäger troops wore green collar markings - pioneer, panzer, artillery, supply, etc., all wore their waffenfarbe on the collar. You have shown this in the airborne ones, with matching shoulder and collar colour.

Green is not independent from weapon-colour. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Every single example on that page, with the exception of the HG illustration, and the captain of artillery illustration, supports exactly what I said - the collar patches and shoulder straps are both in waffenfarbe.

I would suggest the artillery captain is incorrect; the collar patches should be red. Reference : Brian Davis UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA OF THE LUFTWAFFE as well as LUFTWAFFE FIELD DIVISIONS 1941-45 by Kevin Ruffner (Osprey N.229)

The Lexicon-der-Wehrmacht site is good, but there are a few errors on it. I would suggest the incorrect collar patch for artillery officer is one of them. Note the example directly above of the Flak Oberleutnant; both collar and shoulder insignia are red.

Waffenfarbe was worn according to the regiment one belonged to, not the division. Therefore, a medical soldier in a Jäger regiment, for example, would wear green, not cornflower blue.

A soldier in a FlaK regiment serving in a Jäger Division, would wear red, not green. If he was a kanonier in a regimental FlaK company, however, he would wear green.

The mixing of waffenfarben on the same uniform was not unheard of, but it was also forbidden by regulation.

[ January 03, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Every single example on that page, with the exception of the HG illustration, and the captain of artillery illustration, supports exactly what I said

But every single example without any exception supports what i said.

LW field and HG are exceptions.

I.e. Hermann Göring Pz.-div.:

Panzer units: after 1943 completely white collar-marking, but shoulder-marking with weapon-color.

I would suggest the artillery captain is incorrect; the collar patches should be red.

Not, if he belongs to a LW field-division, what he does in this example.

IMO they are correct.

http://wdienstgrade.tripod.com/luwa-farb.htm

[ January 03, 2004, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Schoerner]

New version (v1.1) with blue shoulder-markings for Luftwaffe-units is up.

[Meach]

Ok, I will get it from the usual place no doubt.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Not, if he belongs to a LW field-division, what he does in this example.

IMO they are correct.

http://wdienstgrade.tripod.com/luwa-farb.htm [/QB]

Not that those illustrated on the page indicated only show enlisted men's collar tabs - and note they are edged in waffenfarbe!

But, I honestly don't have better info on the officers ones, so I'll hold off until such time as I do. Thanks for the discussion, always nice to see someone else interested in ephemera.

[WineCape]

Michael/Shoerner, speaking of rank and insignia:

GeneralOberst (Colonel-General?) in the Wehrmacht

I have seen references regarding the above, and wondered how this rank tied in with the equivalent USA/British during WWII, as some websites show there is no Brigadier-General equivalent in the German Army and others do give the insignia/rank therefore. As I understand it, the ranks of general is as follows during/end of WWII:

</font>

• Brigadier-General (USA 1 star/British/German ?)</font>
• Major-General (USA 2 star/British/German)</font>
• Lieutenant-General (USA 3 star/British/German)</font>
• General (USA 4 star/British/German)</font>
• GeneralOberst (German) – is this “Colonel-General,” if so, I’m curious why this rank is between General and Field Marshal below? Shouldn’t it be the sequence Colonel-, Brigadier-, Major-, Lieutenant- and then full (4 star) General?</font>
• Field Marshal (USA 5 star/British/German)</font>

Appreciate if you could enlighten me.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

--------------------------------

”They were always late by a year, by an army, and by an idea.”

-- Rivarol’s comment on the émigrés and their foreign allies during the French Revolution

[ January 05, 2004, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

[WineCape]

Bump. Anyone?

[Michael Dorosh]

I would give up on the idea of "equivalents" between major armies.

The progression was

Oberstleutnant

Oberst

Generalmajor

Generalleutnant

General der Infanterie (der Panzertruppen, der Kavallerie, der Artillerie, der Gebirgsjäger, der Flieger, etc.)

Generaloberst

Generalfeldmarschall

A battalion was commanded by an Oberstleutnant

A Regiment was commanded by an Oberst

A Division was commanded by a Generalleutnant

In reality it was not uncommon to see these units commanded by men of lower rank; would have been very unusual to see them commanded by men of higher rank.

Incidentally, an officer assigned permanently to command a battalion or regiment was, IIRC, referred to as Kommandeur while if he was temporary, he was called Führer? Perhaps the German grogs can correct me but I do know that at the company level, a permanent company commander was called Kompaniechef and an acting commander was a Kompanieführer

Kind of funny that Hitler's grandiose title was Führer, that being so, as in the military sense it implied temporary command. His nickname in private circles was der Chef on the other hand ("The Chief").

"Full" generals in the German Army maintained a branch affiliation as evidenced by their titles; this was not done in the British Empire or American armies.

Even in the British and American Armies, a Brigadier General is not "equivalent" to a Brigadier, as they have different duties and responsibilities. In the US Army a Regiment (three battalions) is commanded by a colonel (which in the British Army is not a rank held by officers commanding troops, it is a staff rank only) whereas a Brigade (three battalions) in the British Army is commanded by a Brigadier.

So the whole concept of equivalencies is needlessly confusing and in the end pointless. In the British Army, a corporal leads a 10 man section of men, in the American army, that job falls on a sergeant, who leads a 12 man squad. The British sergeant on the other hand is second-in-command of a 36 man platoon.

The German soldier with two stripes on his sleeve (Obergefreiter) is often declared the "equivalent" of a corporal, but in reality he was only a private soldier with a pay increase - he had no leadership responsibilities normally, and was not in any way equal to a British corporal or American corporal.

etc....

Can't say how Colonel General ended up over Lt Gen and Maj Gen, or why a Maj Gen is less than a Lt Gen, beyond "tradition"...and leaving it at that!

[ January 06, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[WineCape]

Enlightened. Much obliged. I will now lobby that the moderator of this forum limit you to 20,000 posts only.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

----------------------------------------------

“Immobility and a rigid adherence to pattern are bad enough in European warfare; in the desert they are disastrous. Here everything is in flux; there are no obstructions, no lines, water or woods for cover; everything is open and incalculable. The commander must adapt and reorientate himself daily, almost hourly, and retain his freedom of action. Everything is in motion; he must be constantly on the alert, all the time on the edge of capture or destruction by a more cunning, wide awake or versatile enemy. There can be no conservatism in thought or action, no relying on tradition or resting on the laurels of previous victory. Speed of judgement and action to create changing situations and surprises for the enemy faster than he can react, never making dispositions in advance – these are the fundamentals of desert tactics.”

-- Erwin Rommel

[junk2drive]

In unit portraits, is there ever a private used? It seem corporal is the lowest.