Captured KV Tanks

[Battlefront.com]

Brain,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Personally, I'd rather see the Su76i, rather than the Ferdinand. Both would be nice but as I've said in the past I wonder if sometimes the wargamers' own delight with the weirdy, wacky and the wonderful blinds us to making sure, as I said, the mundane aspects are done correctly.<hr></blockquote>

You know, besides the "rather see the SU76i" statement, I don't think I could have said this better myself We only have so much time to do things and the list of "cool!" stuff is far too long to get everything in AND the mundane as well. So when push comes to shove, mundane wins. Even then we have to pick and choose there too

While the SU76i would be cool to see in the game, it is not likely to happen. It was fielded in very small numbers for a fairly limited time. Sure, something like the Ferdinand was as well, but more of them were present at one time and in one place than the SU76i.

More importantly, as Mattias pointed out, the SU76i was more redundant to other more plentiful Soviet AFVs while the Ferdinand was unique in many ways. Many people find these unique qualities to be very interesting, and in fact far more interesting than what the SU76i has to offer in a game/tactics sense. Therefore, from an interest AND impact point of view, the Ferdinand wins out hands down.

There were two vehicles not included in CMBO that hammer home the importance of staying focused when making decisions about what to include:

1. Sturmtiger - we caught so much crap for NOT including this vehicle, even though only nine of them were documented to have fought against the Allies in one single battle, of which only scetchy battlefield reports are available. Some people even thought that CMBO was a total write off because of our decision to exclude this vehicle, which just goes to show how narrow minded some people can be

2. M16 (US Quad 50 cal HT) - we have also caught a lot of crap for not including this one too. We had it on our list of things to do but simply ran out of time. The Germans received flak vehicles first because, in theory, they were more likely to be used since, in theory, the Allies were more likely to have aircraft. We did not put such vehicles in the game to be the übergamey vehicles we have seen since the release. Had we know this we would have either excluded all AAA vehicles or made sure that the Allies got a few of their own. Life is but a never ending learning experience

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I remember reading in the past about mass amounts of Soviet field guns being captured by the Axis forces in the opening stages of Barbarossa.

Everything from 47mm anti tank guns to heavy artillery was captured and used against the Soviets.

I have a question, the majority of the Axis forces, contrary to propaganda film, invaded the SovetUnion not with a completly mechanized force, but mostly with horses pulling thier guns. I assume the Axis captured plent of Soviet trucks, but did they use them?, and will they be modelled? Because of they used them, then it would with out a doubt have to be over 30.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I remember reading in the past about mass amounts of Soviet field guns being captured by the Axis forces in the opening stages of Barbarossa.

Everything from 47mm anti tank guns to heavy artillery was captured and used against the Soviets.

I have a question, the majority of the Axis forces, contrary to propaganda film, invaded the SovetUnion not with a completly mechanized force, but mostly with horses pulling thier guns. I assume the Axis captured plent of Soviet trucks, but did they use them?, and will they be modelled? Because of they used them, then it would with out a doubt have to be over 30.

[Battlefront.com]

Mattias,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>On the 1st of January 1943 it was reported that 1.2 million motor vehicles were in use, They were of around 2200 different models and approximately half of them were of non German origin. <hr></blockquote>

Which is exactly why readiness was VERY low among motor vehicles. Keeping so many differen makes and models running was nothing short of a nightmare.

From a CM standpoint a truck is a truck is a truck. The only real difference we really care about is transport capacity. On road capabilities are all pretty much the same from CM's point of view, offroad were of course different depending on a host of variables. Basically, we really don't care much about trucks since they are barely within CM's scope and spending the time on detailed simulations of them is therefore inadvisable.

Contrary to the way wargames have portrayed trucks in the past, their use at the front was generally only because of a mistake (i.e. being ambushed) or an emergency. They were just too easy to knock out and too hard to replace short term. Even the US, whith its huge number of motor vehicles, practiced a "safety first" policy when it came to using these vehicles at the front.

Jeeps and other small vehicles are not what I am talking about above, although they very much did try to keep them away from the fighting.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Mattias,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>On the 1st of January 1943 it was reported that 1.2 million motor vehicles were in use, They were of around 2200 different models and approximately half of them were of non German origin. <hr></blockquote>

Which is exactly why readiness was VERY low among motor vehicles. Keeping so many differen makes and models running was nothing short of a nightmare.

From a CM standpoint a truck is a truck is a truck. The only real difference we really care about is transport capacity. On road capabilities are all pretty much the same from CM's point of view, offroad were of course different depending on a host of variables. Basically, we really don't care much about trucks since they are barely within CM's scope and spending the time on detailed simulations of them is therefore inadvisable.

Contrary to the way wargames have portrayed trucks in the past, their use at the front was generally only because of a mistake (i.e. being ambushed) or an emergency. They were just too easy to knock out and too hard to replace short term. Even the US, whith its huge number of motor vehicles, practiced a "safety first" policy when it came to using these vehicles at the front.

Jeeps and other small vehicles are not what I am talking about above, although they very much did try to keep them away from the fighting.

Steve

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

...Basically, we really don't care much about trucks since they are barely within CM's scope and spending the time on detailed simulations of them is therefore inadvisable.

Contrary to the way wargames have portrayed trucks in the past, their use at the front was generally only because of a mistake (i.e. being ambushed) or an emergency. They were just too easy to knock out and too hard to replace short term...<hr></blockquote>

At the risk of being branded with the uberCW label ...

At various times in the Western Desert the Brits had a fairly aggresive policy with regard to their use of infantry mounted on trucks. IIRC Pitt in Crucible of War relates several cases where motor inf bns were carried very far forward (ie, within several hundred yards) during assaults on, for example, Bardia and Tobruk.

Silly/dangerous/wasteful possibly. But not accidental or in an emergency.

Of course, WRT CM:xx, this is moot since the modeling of the trucks as-is is sufficient.

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

...Basically, we really don't care much about trucks since they are barely within CM's scope and spending the time on detailed simulations of them is therefore inadvisable.

Contrary to the way wargames have portrayed trucks in the past, their use at the front was generally only because of a mistake (i.e. being ambushed) or an emergency. They were just too easy to knock out and too hard to replace short term...<hr></blockquote>

At the risk of being branded with the uberCW label ...

At various times in the Western Desert the Brits had a fairly aggresive policy with regard to their use of infantry mounted on trucks. IIRC Pitt in Crucible of War relates several cases where motor inf bns were carried very far forward (ie, within several hundred yards) during assaults on, for example, Bardia and Tobruk.

Silly/dangerous/wasteful possibly. But not accidental or in an emergency.

Of course, WRT CM:xx, this is moot since the modeling of the trucks as-is is sufficient.

Regards

JonS

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brain,

<hr></blockquote> Thank you for the compliment. Perhaps you've been working too hard lately or was it just a Freudian slip?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You know, besides the "rather see the SU76i" statement, I don't think I could have said this better myself We only have so much time to do things and the list of "cool!" stuff is far too long to get everything in AND the mundane as well. So when push comes to shove, mundane wins. Even then we have to pick and choose there too

While the SU76i would be cool to see in the game, it is not likely to happen. It was fielded in very small numbers for a fairly limited time. Sure, something like the Ferdinand was as well, but more of them were present at one time and in one place than the SU76i.

More importantly, as Mattias pointed out, the SU76i was more redundant to other more plentiful Soviet AFVs while the Ferdinand was unique in many ways. Many people find these unique qualities to be very interesting, and in fact far more interesting than what the SU76i has to offer in a game/tactics sense. Therefore, from an interest AND impact point of view, the Ferdinand wins out hands down.

There were two vehicles not included in CMBO that hammer home the importance of staying focused when making decisions about what to include:

1. Sturmtiger - we caught so much crap for NOT including this vehicle, even though only nine of them were documented to have fought against the Allies in one single battle, of which only scetchy battlefield reports are available. Some people even thought that CMBO was a total write off because of our decision to exclude this vehicle, which just goes to show how narrow minded some people can be

2. M16 (US Quad 50 cal HT) - we have also caught a lot of crap for not including this one too. We had it on our list of things to do but simply ran out of time. The Germans received flak vehicles first because, in theory, they were more likely to be used since, in theory, the Allies were more likely to have aircraft. We did not put such vehicles in the game to be the übergamey vehicles we have seen since the release. Had we know this we would have either excluded all AAA vehicles or made sure that the Allies got a few of their own. Life is but a never ending learning experience

Steve<hr></blockquote>

We have clashed over this before and I don't particularly want to travel that path yet again and get everybody's back up. As far as the Sturmtiger is concerned, its an interesting piece of equipment from a technical viewpoint but from a tactical one, its pretty much a non-event. Ditto for the M16 or the M15. Yes they were present but one wonders how much of a workout they really got. I'd much rather see effort expeded on getting the artillery fire control system right (and the ROF for artillery), as well as OrBats correct. Its the effort on what are normally considered by most wargamers as mundane stuff which makes a good game great IMO. Its easier enough to slot another vehicle in (particularly one based on an existing one). Its harder to make sure the subroutine on artillery FCS delivers consistent results or you got the correct numbers in a Finnish infantry section, with the correct equipment as well.

I think though, my present bugbear which is shaping up to be a big one is the map editor. Its adequate for a 3 x 3 km map (barely) but it needs serious changes if, as promised, the maps will go up to 9 x 9 km in CMBB. Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist but I find it rather time consuming doing even basic editing in the present editor. I have a background in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and computer cartography. While I suspect its too late for CMBB it might be a good idea to start thinking about alternative editing methodologies for the rewrite of the game engine, Steve. If you want some ideas, don't hesitate to contact me, I have several already in the back of my head about how it could be improved.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Brain,

<hr></blockquote> Thank you for the compliment. Perhaps you've been working too hard lately or was it just a Freudian slip?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

You know, besides the "rather see the SU76i" statement, I don't think I could have said this better myself We only have so much time to do things and the list of "cool!" stuff is far too long to get everything in AND the mundane as well. So when push comes to shove, mundane wins. Even then we have to pick and choose there too

While the SU76i would be cool to see in the game, it is not likely to happen. It was fielded in very small numbers for a fairly limited time. Sure, something like the Ferdinand was as well, but more of them were present at one time and in one place than the SU76i.

More importantly, as Mattias pointed out, the SU76i was more redundant to other more plentiful Soviet AFVs while the Ferdinand was unique in many ways. Many people find these unique qualities to be very interesting, and in fact far more interesting than what the SU76i has to offer in a game/tactics sense. Therefore, from an interest AND impact point of view, the Ferdinand wins out hands down.

There were two vehicles not included in CMBO that hammer home the importance of staying focused when making decisions about what to include:

1. Sturmtiger - we caught so much crap for NOT including this vehicle, even though only nine of them were documented to have fought against the Allies in one single battle, of which only scetchy battlefield reports are available. Some people even thought that CMBO was a total write off because of our decision to exclude this vehicle, which just goes to show how narrow minded some people can be

2. M16 (US Quad 50 cal HT) - we have also caught a lot of crap for not including this one too. We had it on our list of things to do but simply ran out of time. The Germans received flak vehicles first because, in theory, they were more likely to be used since, in theory, the Allies were more likely to have aircraft. We did not put such vehicles in the game to be the übergamey vehicles we have seen since the release. Had we know this we would have either excluded all AAA vehicles or made sure that the Allies got a few of their own. Life is but a never ending learning experience

Steve<hr></blockquote>

We have clashed over this before and I don't particularly want to travel that path yet again and get everybody's back up. As far as the Sturmtiger is concerned, its an interesting piece of equipment from a technical viewpoint but from a tactical one, its pretty much a non-event. Ditto for the M16 or the M15. Yes they were present but one wonders how much of a workout they really got. I'd much rather see effort expeded on getting the artillery fire control system right (and the ROF for artillery), as well as OrBats correct. Its the effort on what are normally considered by most wargamers as mundane stuff which makes a good game great IMO. Its easier enough to slot another vehicle in (particularly one based on an existing one). Its harder to make sure the subroutine on artillery FCS delivers consistent results or you got the correct numbers in a Finnish infantry section, with the correct equipment as well.

I think though, my present bugbear which is shaping up to be a big one is the map editor. Its adequate for a 3 x 3 km map (barely) but it needs serious changes if, as promised, the maps will go up to 9 x 9 km in CMBB. Perhaps I'm too much of a perfectionist but I find it rather time consuming doing even basic editing in the present editor. I have a background in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and computer cartography. While I suspect its too late for CMBB it might be a good idea to start thinking about alternative editing methodologies for the rewrite of the game engine, Steve. If you want some ideas, don't hesitate to contact me, I have several already in the back of my head about how it could be improved.

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[Kallimakhos]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time? (or something like that).

Steve<hr></blockquote>

A bit more than that, I believe, 2-3? Some confusion is created by the fact that Finns considered the Sotka also a heavy tank . Anyway, the number is still indeed very small number, but I really hope Finns will be able get also these heavies, both KV-1 and Sotka. Not so much for QB, but for historical scenario builders they are a must. Finnish heavy tanks played a very important, almost decisive role early in the Ihantala Battle, in the Portinhoikka counter attack, which was very important for the outcome of the whole Tali-Ihantala battle. As a whole, I dont think Finnish KV-1(s) saw real action more than 3 times, if even so many, so rarity must of course be insanely high for them.

I haven't seen a affirmative answer yet, so are they going to be included? Please pretty please... and yes I know this is a one big favor for Finnish scenario builders!

On general level, all you've been telling us sounds good so far, big thanks! Just one clarification, maybe I'm just stupid: is there only one Finnish TO%E or more, in pragmatic terms, with rarity on, can you make somehow a choise (unrandomize?) that you get tanks and jägers in reasonable price? In other words, if you get tanks, you should also get jägers, but not vice verse, cause if I remember right, there were also jäger units on divisional/regimental level. With rarity on, getting any tanks at reasonable prize for any infantry type should be quite rare of course.

PS: from what I hear, also Romania and Hungary will be very interesting to play with . Can't wait!

PPS: This goes of topic, but I gotta ask: what about play balance with infantry only agains tanks? In CMBO it is really hard to KO AFV's even without infantry support, will the ods be adjusted (not much, just a bit)? And will there be specialized AT infantry units before the schreck/faust era at least for some nationalities? This question is related to the FT debate, and according to your principles - if I understood them right - historically at least Finnish AT guys should be (mostly) a separate unit. They had a special training and were company level assets, so preferably also with more experience, if that is possible in random QB's.

[Kallimakhos]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time? (or something like that).

Steve<hr></blockquote>

A bit more than that, I believe, 2-3? Some confusion is created by the fact that Finns considered the Sotka also a heavy tank . Anyway, the number is still indeed very small number, but I really hope Finns will be able get also these heavies, both KV-1 and Sotka. Not so much for QB, but for historical scenario builders they are a must. Finnish heavy tanks played a very important, almost decisive role early in the Ihantala Battle, in the Portinhoikka counter attack, which was very important for the outcome of the whole Tali-Ihantala battle. As a whole, I dont think Finnish KV-1(s) saw real action more than 3 times, if even so many, so rarity must of course be insanely high for them.

I haven't seen a affirmative answer yet, so are they going to be included? Please pretty please... and yes I know this is a one big favor for Finnish scenario builders!

On general level, all you've been telling us sounds good so far, big thanks! Just one clarification, maybe I'm just stupid: is there only one Finnish TO%E or more, in pragmatic terms, with rarity on, can you make somehow a choise (unrandomize?) that you get tanks and jägers in reasonable price? In other words, if you get tanks, you should also get jägers, but not vice verse, cause if I remember right, there were also jäger units on divisional/regimental level. With rarity on, getting any tanks at reasonable prize for any infantry type should be quite rare of course.

PS: from what I hear, also Romania and Hungary will be very interesting to play with . Can't wait!

PPS: This goes of topic, but I gotta ask: what about play balance with infantry only agains tanks? In CMBO it is really hard to KO AFV's even without infantry support, will the ods be adjusted (not much, just a bit)? And will there be specialized AT infantry units before the schreck/faust era at least for some nationalities? This question is related to the FT debate, and according to your principles - if I understood them right - historically at least Finnish AT guys should be (mostly) a separate unit. They had a special training and were company level assets, so preferably also with more experience, if that is possible in random QB's.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

The Germans certainly used "enough" captured Soviet trucks and cars to warrant inclusion based purely on numerical considerations. But, as Steve has pointed out above, from there to actually seeing it in CM is something that takes more than just numbers.

The "truck" representing this type of vehicle in CM:BO for example is just one of dozens of models deployed by the different warring nations back then. Adding special truck models just because they were captured seems a bit over the top, unless they had radically different capabilities perhaps.

M.

P.S. Just a number from Spielbergers book on the use of captured vehicles in the German forces:

On the 1st of January 1943 it was reported that 1.2 million motor vehicles were in use, They were of around 2200 different models and approximately half of them were of non German origin.<hr></blockquote>

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns? Or if this can not be modeled will their own tank guns price at least be lowered to show the surplus of captured field guns?

[Iron Chef Sakai]

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

The Germans certainly used "enough" captured Soviet trucks and cars to warrant inclusion based purely on numerical considerations. But, as Steve has pointed out above, from there to actually seeing it in CM is something that takes more than just numbers.

The "truck" representing this type of vehicle in CM:BO for example is just one of dozens of models deployed by the different warring nations back then. Adding special truck models just because they were captured seems a bit over the top, unless they had radically different capabilities perhaps.

M.

P.S. Just a number from Spielbergers book on the use of captured vehicles in the German forces:

On the 1st of January 1943 it was reported that 1.2 million motor vehicles were in use, They were of around 2200 different models and approximately half of them were of non German origin.<hr></blockquote>

Good point about the trucks, i agree, but will the Axis be able to use 47mm and 76mm anti tank guns? Or if this can not be modeled will their own tank guns price at least be lowered to show the surplus of captured field guns?

[Battlefront.com]

OK, bunch of answers...

JonS, my comments are always assumed to be about the ETO or EF unless otherwise specified However, I am not surprised to hear that the Brits used trucks like that in the Western Desert. With little to no cover it made no sense to drop the guys off 1000m from their target since heavy MGs and other weapons could hit the trucks there too, then the infantry would have to cover a CRUD load of ground. I think in that situation the risk:benfit ratio definitely tips towards the tactics used. Brits certainly weren't foolhardy, so I am confident that some VERY sane thinking was involved when this tactic was developed.

Brian, yes you and I have clashed over things in the past. No need to drag that up as I am very much a "now" kind of a person. You have good points, why should I disagree?

As for getting the "mundane" stuff right, that is exactly what we are doing. I have spent (good lord...) about three solid months doing the TO&E for all the nations (except the SU, which Charles did). I can not tell you how frustrating, time consuming, and just plain frustrating (did I mention frustrating and time consuming?) this is.

I can not believe how poorly documented this crap is, even after being surprised while doing CMBO. Not only is it very often NOT documented, but when it is there are errors all over the place. I just had one of my best sources list a German formation having 4x50mm Light Mortars for a 1944 formation instead of 4x120mm Heavy Mortars, and another double count the Battalion's 81mm Medium Mortars! Geeze, like that wouldn't make a difference in CM... ohboy. Anyhoo...

Vehicles and stuff is all very interesting, but if the game system is not fully fleshed out or contains major fundamental errors, what is the point of having all these nice little 3D models driving aroundhe map? If this were a "twitch" game that would be another story.

Oopps... sorry. Forgot to mention I was in RANT MODE. Switching it off now

As for the Editor... well, I agree that bigger maps are going to be a bit more cumbersome to make in CMBB than CMBO. However, the overhauling of the Editor interface is a huge task. Although it would certainly be a VERY good thing to do, it is not necessary when compared to other things (like getting artillery done up right). The other reason why we don't want to do fundamental changes now is because we will have to toss out the code and start fresh when we rewrite the game engine after CMBB is released.

Think of our time as not being product specific. What I mean is that if we spend 2 months delaying CMBB to do up a new editor, then have to spend another month redoing it for CMII, then we have spent 3 months total on the eiditor. If we just held of and rewrote the thing from scratch it might only take 1 month TOTAL, thus feeing up 2 months to do other things. So I thank you for offering up ideas, but now is not the time. When we rewrite the engine we'll all be having a nice big chat about what people want from the new Editor, and that will be the time

Kallimakhos, I don't know what the final list of AFVs is going to be for any nation, but in particular we have not done Finland's armor yet. As for Rarity, you can always turn it off and then make a particular battle you wish with whatever forces you feel are correct (or not) to have in that battle. However, with Rarity on we have subdivided all Armor/Motorized formations into one Force type, Infantry, Mountain, Cavalry, Security, and a few specialized things (Partisans, Volkssturm, etc) for each nation. This should take care of the infantry/tank combo you asked about.

As for "Close Defense" tank hunting teams, we think we are going to have time to add some specialized behavior that will basically order the unit to "follow" the target (breaking off only when certain conditions met). This will be a highly dangerous order to issue in some cirucmstances, but it will increase the realistic use of AT hunter teams.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

OK, bunch of answers...

JonS, my comments are always assumed to be about the ETO or EF unless otherwise specified However, I am not surprised to hear that the Brits used trucks like that in the Western Desert. With little to no cover it made no sense to drop the guys off 1000m from their target since heavy MGs and other weapons could hit the trucks there too, then the infantry would have to cover a CRUD load of ground. I think in that situation the risk:benfit ratio definitely tips towards the tactics used. Brits certainly weren't foolhardy, so I am confident that some VERY sane thinking was involved when this tactic was developed.

Brian, yes you and I have clashed over things in the past. No need to drag that up as I am very much a "now" kind of a person. You have good points, why should I disagree?

As for getting the "mundane" stuff right, that is exactly what we are doing. I have spent (good lord...) about three solid months doing the TO&E for all the nations (except the SU, which Charles did). I can not tell you how frustrating, time consuming, and just plain frustrating (did I mention frustrating and time consuming?) this is.

I can not believe how poorly documented this crap is, even after being surprised while doing CMBO. Not only is it very often NOT documented, but when it is there are errors all over the place. I just had one of my best sources list a German formation having 4x50mm Light Mortars for a 1944 formation instead of 4x120mm Heavy Mortars, and another double count the Battalion's 81mm Medium Mortars! Geeze, like that wouldn't make a difference in CM... ohboy. Anyhoo...

Vehicles and stuff is all very interesting, but if the game system is not fully fleshed out or contains major fundamental errors, what is the point of having all these nice little 3D models driving aroundhe map? If this were a "twitch" game that would be another story.

Oopps... sorry. Forgot to mention I was in RANT MODE. Switching it off now

As for the Editor... well, I agree that bigger maps are going to be a bit more cumbersome to make in CMBB than CMBO. However, the overhauling of the Editor interface is a huge task. Although it would certainly be a VERY good thing to do, it is not necessary when compared to other things (like getting artillery done up right). The other reason why we don't want to do fundamental changes now is because we will have to toss out the code and start fresh when we rewrite the game engine after CMBB is released.

Think of our time as not being product specific. What I mean is that if we spend 2 months delaying CMBB to do up a new editor, then have to spend another month redoing it for CMII, then we have spent 3 months total on the eiditor. If we just held of and rewrote the thing from scratch it might only take 1 month TOTAL, thus feeing up 2 months to do other things. So I thank you for offering up ideas, but now is not the time. When we rewrite the engine we'll all be having a nice big chat about what people want from the new Editor, and that will be the time

Kallimakhos, I don't know what the final list of AFVs is going to be for any nation, but in particular we have not done Finland's armor yet. As for Rarity, you can always turn it off and then make a particular battle you wish with whatever forces you feel are correct (or not) to have in that battle. However, with Rarity on we have subdivided all Armor/Motorized formations into one Force type, Infantry, Mountain, Cavalry, Security, and a few specialized things (Partisans, Volkssturm, etc) for each nation. This should take care of the infantry/tank combo you asked about.

As for "Close Defense" tank hunting teams, we think we are going to have time to add some specialized behavior that will basically order the unit to "follow" the target (breaking off only when certain conditions met). This will be a highly dangerous order to issue in some cirucmstances, but it will increase the realistic use of AT hunter teams.

Steve

[Brian]

OK, Steve, as I suspected its too late for CMBB, which is OK. Lets talk when the matter comes up for the rewrite as I feel this is one area where it might be able to take CM to yet another, higher-level than its nearest competitors. With an improved editor/generator, it should be possible to make some truly stunning maps and at the same time making it possible to input maps much easier IMO.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding OrBats and establishments. Lots of conflicting information out there. Even limiting myself to the area I know, which is the British/Commonwealth, I'm forced to make some assumptions based on educated guesses. I recently came across an American source which claimed the British infantry battalion had a battery of 25 Pdrs in its 1940 establishment. Now that was a screwy idea, if ever I've seen one! More than likely they either mean attached (unlikely) or 3in Mortars (much more likely).

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[Brian]

OK, Steve, as I suspected its too late for CMBB, which is OK. Lets talk when the matter comes up for the rewrite as I feel this is one area where it might be able to take CM to yet another, higher-level than its nearest competitors. With an improved editor/generator, it should be possible to make some truly stunning maps and at the same time making it possible to input maps much easier IMO.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding OrBats and establishments. Lots of conflicting information out there. Even limiting myself to the area I know, which is the British/Commonwealth, I'm forced to make some assumptions based on educated guesses. I recently came across an American source which claimed the British infantry battalion had a battery of 25 Pdrs in its 1940 establishment. Now that was a screwy idea, if ever I've seen one! More than likely they either mean attached (unlikely) or 3in Mortars (much more likely).

[ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[Battlefront.com]

Whoops... I reread my previous email (which I wrote quickly) and noted a pretty confusing bit which I would like to clarify:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However, with Rarity on we have subdivided all Armor/Motorized formations into one Force type, Infantry, Mountain, Cavalry, Security, and a few specialized things (Partisans, Volkssturm, etc) for each nation. This should take care of the infantry/tank combo you asked about.

<hr></blockquote>

What I meant is that each of the things I named above is its own "Branch" of that nation's armed force (if applicable, of course). This means that when you select something like Mountain Infantry you can only select "infantry" type units which were organic to that organization. Support weapons, vehicles, and so forth can also be purchased according to Rarity. This would therefore not prevent having Gebirgsjägers from being supported by King Tigers in theory.

However, when playing a Quick Battle you can also select the Force Type you wish to play with. If you select Infantry instead of Combined Arms (for example), there will be no points available to spend on Vehicles and Armor.

Like many things in CM, the multitude of choices available should give nearly everybody the tools to play games the way the envision them to be without having to use premade scenarios. Especially now that you can play Quick Battles using Editor created Maps

Brian, you know... I can understand why there aren't many sources out there telling me how many men were in a 1943 Hungarian Heavy Support Company's various sub units, but why the information is so hard to find for CW/US stuff is beyond me. Our documents are intact, accessable, and in our own language. The German stuff too should be in better shape since so many people are interested in it. But when I have 4 sources all coming up with a different official (as opposed to realistic) OB... that really ticks me off

Steve

P.S. The next version of CM is likely to be based on a GIS type system. Yup... already given this quite a bit of thought

[Battlefront.com]

Whoops... I reread my previous email (which I wrote quickly) and noted a pretty confusing bit which I would like to clarify:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However, with Rarity on we have subdivided all Armor/Motorized formations into one Force type, Infantry, Mountain, Cavalry, Security, and a few specialized things (Partisans, Volkssturm, etc) for each nation. This should take care of the infantry/tank combo you asked about.

<hr></blockquote>

What I meant is that each of the things I named above is its own "Branch" of that nation's armed force (if applicable, of course). This means that when you select something like Mountain Infantry you can only select "infantry" type units which were organic to that organization. Support weapons, vehicles, and so forth can also be purchased according to Rarity. This would therefore not prevent having Gebirgsjägers from being supported by King Tigers in theory.

However, when playing a Quick Battle you can also select the Force Type you wish to play with. If you select Infantry instead of Combined Arms (for example), there will be no points available to spend on Vehicles and Armor.

Like many things in CM, the multitude of choices available should give nearly everybody the tools to play games the way the envision them to be without having to use premade scenarios. Especially now that you can play Quick Battles using Editor created Maps

Brian, you know... I can understand why there aren't many sources out there telling me how many men were in a 1943 Hungarian Heavy Support Company's various sub units, but why the information is so hard to find for CW/US stuff is beyond me. Our documents are intact, accessable, and in our own language. The German stuff too should be in better shape since so many people are interested in it. But when I have 4 sources all coming up with a different official (as opposed to realistic) OB... that really ticks me off

Steve

P.S. The next version of CM is likely to be based on a GIS type system. Yup... already given this quite a bit of thought

[Tero]

NOTE: smileys omitted because the server said so.

Theory and practice are very different

Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war.

My point is that planning for war and dealing with the reality of war are two different things.

True. A small country like Finland with meager resources and little hope for outside help plans a little differently than a superpower.

From what I have read I have concluded the Finnish army was pretty much the only army that finished the war with pretty much the same tactics and doctrine as it had started it out with. IMO one of the contributing factors was the ability to utilize captured arms and ammo effectively.

More relevant example is that prior to launching the offensive towards Moscow in the Fall of 1941, most German Panzer Divisions were only at 25% established strength. The vast majority of the 75% not available were sitting in repair shops. Too many broke down too fast too far away from major supply depots which in turn were not adequately stocked with spares.

I rather like the annexation of Tsheckoslovakia and the attrition suffered in what was basically a simple, if a bit long, road march as an example. SMILEY OMITTED

The point again is that keeping captured material functioning was very difficult, even for the situation described in Finland and Romania. There is a reason why the smaller vehicles were maintained in higher readiness and larger numbers than larger AFVs.

I think size does not matter ( ), only the available replacement parts. The more you can scavenge the more you can put together and repair.

Think of how many T-34s the Finns encountered compared to how many they fielded. There is a reason for this

That one is easy: between 1941 and 1944 there were practically no present in the Finnish sector apart from the few during the initial stages. And they got captured if they did not make it across the river Svir or beyond the old border in the Isthmus. SMILEY OMITTED

A few were bought off the Germans but the T-34/85's that served were captured during the summer of 1944. How do you think they got their ammo replenished along with the necessary spare parts ? KO'd ISU-152's were scavenged for suitable parts for the KV's etc. SMILEY OMITTED

Very interesting information! Also proves my point well

Perhaps. SMILEY OMITTED

But you must also remember they were bought off the Germans, not captured. The deal included the necessary tools and some spares. Captured equipment were used as long as these Stugs and they managed to find enough bits and pieces to make 10 T-26 runners for the movie Winter War in 1989 while only recently a few of the Stugs have been brought to running condition here in Finland. The ones that have been sold abroad have been runners but in poor condition.

No. This one is owned by a man in California who has a large private museum with about 100 AFVs from WWII and after. However, I am pretty sure he bought it from someone in the UK in unrestored condition and not directly form the Finnish government. But I could be wrong about that.

I know one fully restored vehicle was sold from the UK to the US not long ago.

I generally agree, but I think you are missing one crucial point. Some Soviet AFVs were never pressed into service because they were too much of a problem to support. The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time?

The usual number given is two in service. They were captured in separate occasions. Regretably I have no serviceability records but since they did not see real action before the summer of 1944 I'd say they were serviceable the whole time. Others (at least one ) had been KO'd so I'd expect that/they were scavenged for spare parts.

Certainly they had the chance to acquire more from the battlefield, but for various reasons were not able to use more than a couple through the course of the entire war.

You are mistaken. There were only a couple of them (and the T-34's) encountered before 1944 and all captured specimens were repaired and pressed into service (or as I suspect used for spares in case they were beyond repair). But in no case did the number of them rise above 10. The most numerous AFV's encountred in 1941 were BT's and T-26's and other assorted light AFV's, not the better KV's and T-34's.

Interesting note the Romanians were initially given PzIVs before the Stalingrad disaster with NO AMMO!! Since they had never before had such a vehicle they had no ammo of their own to use. Good planning!

I bet the Romanians had payed an arm and a leg for the vehicles in any case.

That is why it was better to use captured weapons and ammo. You could get anything you need from the enemy, fully set up and primed instead of being forced to wait for them to arrive from your rear AND having to work them up too.

Tell me about it They have probably more artillery models available to them at any on time than probably the Germans or the Soviets. And yes, we are simulating a very large number of them.

That is only the field arty mind you. I trust you have also taken into account the coastal artillery that was used to support the infantry in coastal areas around the lake Ladoga and the Isthmus. Gotta luve those 6", 8", 12" and 14" guns.

In the Editor all of these things can be customized. This will allow you to have worn out frontline troops and fresh reserves. But for Quick Battles this is far too detailed and can not be done easily, which defeats the purpose of Quick Battles

I personally would hate to set up all the battles involving Finns in the Editor.

It was introduced to a) prevent the Gamey use of Split Squads (i.e. doubling your force, which the game and graphics system was NOT designed to handle)

An absolute spotting and targeting issue ? Got it.

to realistically penalize the player for spreading forces too thinly.

If it wasn't for the absolute spotting issue I'd say the reduced long range FP would be a sufficiently severe penalty.

There is a reason why the Squad size has not changed much in the last 60 years or so. A particular number (8-10 men) was found to be effective in terms of combat and staying power.

I concur. But most armies I have read up on trained with the half squad/fire team as its most basic formation, not the full squad. Men were trained to act as a member of a smaller unit than their nominal parent unit.

Starting off with only 4-5 men eliminates staying power and greatly reduces combat power derived from combined efforts of a larger group.

Only when you are conducting frontal attacks using walking fire over relatively flat and open terrain. In contrast half squads move less conspicously in covered terrain and are able to handle surprises better in restricted LOS conditions if you are conducting infiltration attacks using sneak or rush tactics. In defence a full squad does have its inherent advantages but they present a larger target, which will be a problem when they are manning a dug out instead of the usual foxhole.

Automatic weapons go a long way in equalizing the FP between smaller groups and larger groups. (But lets steer away from the SMG usage issue ) The word has it the squad split will work differently in CMBB from the 50-50 split in CMBO. What is the use of this difference if the split itself renders the half squads/fire teams more susceptible to morale related troubles in the process ?

[Tero]

NOTE: smileys omitted because the server said so.

Theory and practice are very different

Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war.

My point is that planning for war and dealing with the reality of war are two different things.

True. A small country like Finland with meager resources and little hope for outside help plans a little differently than a superpower.

From what I have read I have concluded the Finnish army was pretty much the only army that finished the war with pretty much the same tactics and doctrine as it had started it out with. IMO one of the contributing factors was the ability to utilize captured arms and ammo effectively.

More relevant example is that prior to launching the offensive towards Moscow in the Fall of 1941, most German Panzer Divisions were only at 25% established strength. The vast majority of the 75% not available were sitting in repair shops. Too many broke down too fast too far away from major supply depots which in turn were not adequately stocked with spares.

I rather like the annexation of Tsheckoslovakia and the attrition suffered in what was basically a simple, if a bit long, road march as an example. SMILEY OMITTED

The point again is that keeping captured material functioning was very difficult, even for the situation described in Finland and Romania. There is a reason why the smaller vehicles were maintained in higher readiness and larger numbers than larger AFVs.

I think size does not matter ( ), only the available replacement parts. The more you can scavenge the more you can put together and repair.

Think of how many T-34s the Finns encountered compared to how many they fielded. There is a reason for this

That one is easy: between 1941 and 1944 there were practically no present in the Finnish sector apart from the few during the initial stages. And they got captured if they did not make it across the river Svir or beyond the old border in the Isthmus. SMILEY OMITTED

A few were bought off the Germans but the T-34/85's that served were captured during the summer of 1944. How do you think they got their ammo replenished along with the necessary spare parts ? KO'd ISU-152's were scavenged for suitable parts for the KV's etc. SMILEY OMITTED

Very interesting information! Also proves my point well

Perhaps. SMILEY OMITTED

But you must also remember they were bought off the Germans, not captured. The deal included the necessary tools and some spares. Captured equipment were used as long as these Stugs and they managed to find enough bits and pieces to make 10 T-26 runners for the movie Winter War in 1989 while only recently a few of the Stugs have been brought to running condition here in Finland. The ones that have been sold abroad have been runners but in poor condition.

No. This one is owned by a man in California who has a large private museum with about 100 AFVs from WWII and after. However, I am pretty sure he bought it from someone in the UK in unrestored condition and not directly form the Finnish government. But I could be wrong about that.

I know one fully restored vehicle was sold from the UK to the US not long ago.

I generally agree, but I think you are missing one crucial point. Some Soviet AFVs were never pressed into service because they were too much of a problem to support. The Finns had what... one KV-1 in service at a time?

The usual number given is two in service. They were captured in separate occasions. Regretably I have no serviceability records but since they did not see real action before the summer of 1944 I'd say they were serviceable the whole time. Others (at least one ) had been KO'd so I'd expect that/they were scavenged for spare parts.

Certainly they had the chance to acquire more from the battlefield, but for various reasons were not able to use more than a couple through the course of the entire war.

You are mistaken. There were only a couple of them (and the T-34's) encountered before 1944 and all captured specimens were repaired and pressed into service (or as I suspect used for spares in case they were beyond repair). But in no case did the number of them rise above 10. The most numerous AFV's encountred in 1941 were BT's and T-26's and other assorted light AFV's, not the better KV's and T-34's.

Interesting note the Romanians were initially given PzIVs before the Stalingrad disaster with NO AMMO!! Since they had never before had such a vehicle they had no ammo of their own to use. Good planning!

I bet the Romanians had payed an arm and a leg for the vehicles in any case.

That is why it was better to use captured weapons and ammo. You could get anything you need from the enemy, fully set up and primed instead of being forced to wait for them to arrive from your rear AND having to work them up too.

Tell me about it They have probably more artillery models available to them at any on time than probably the Germans or the Soviets. And yes, we are simulating a very large number of them.

That is only the field arty mind you. I trust you have also taken into account the coastal artillery that was used to support the infantry in coastal areas around the lake Ladoga and the Isthmus. Gotta luve those 6", 8", 12" and 14" guns.

In the Editor all of these things can be customized. This will allow you to have worn out frontline troops and fresh reserves. But for Quick Battles this is far too detailed and can not be done easily, which defeats the purpose of Quick Battles

I personally would hate to set up all the battles involving Finns in the Editor.

It was introduced to a) prevent the Gamey use of Split Squads (i.e. doubling your force, which the game and graphics system was NOT designed to handle)

An absolute spotting and targeting issue ? Got it.

to realistically penalize the player for spreading forces too thinly.

If it wasn't for the absolute spotting issue I'd say the reduced long range FP would be a sufficiently severe penalty.

There is a reason why the Squad size has not changed much in the last 60 years or so. A particular number (8-10 men) was found to be effective in terms of combat and staying power.

I concur. But most armies I have read up on trained with the half squad/fire team as its most basic formation, not the full squad. Men were trained to act as a member of a smaller unit than their nominal parent unit.

Starting off with only 4-5 men eliminates staying power and greatly reduces combat power derived from combined efforts of a larger group.

Only when you are conducting frontal attacks using walking fire over relatively flat and open terrain. In contrast half squads move less conspicously in covered terrain and are able to handle surprises better in restricted LOS conditions if you are conducting infiltration attacks using sneak or rush tactics. In defence a full squad does have its inherent advantages but they present a larger target, which will be a problem when they are manning a dug out instead of the usual foxhole.

Automatic weapons go a long way in equalizing the FP between smaller groups and larger groups. (But lets steer away from the SMG usage issue ) The word has it the squad split will work differently in CMBB from the 50-50 split in CMBO. What is the use of this difference if the split itself renders the half squads/fire teams more susceptible to morale related troubles in the process ?

[patolino]

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

Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war.

<hr></blockquote>

Just out of curiosity, Tero, when did they stop the production of "Emma" (Degtyarev LMG for non-Finns)? I recall we took a few out of storage for some fresh air a couple of times when I was in the army in '91. They were in perfect condition still, too bad we were not allowed to do full auto on our shooting range so no firing experiences of them. Just taking to parts, cleaning and dummy fire exercises

Not sure now if they were borrowed materiel or bought after war?

NB for non-finns: of course most of the training was with a modern assault rifle, but learning Emma, Suomi-kp and Ukko-Pekka rifle (is that a Moisin-Nagant copy or what?) was considered "good to know" just in case. It was actually a lot of fun to compare them to RK-62. Gotta love Suomi/m31, that cute little thing

[patolino]

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

Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war.

<hr></blockquote>

Just out of curiosity, Tero, when did they stop the production of "Emma" (Degtyarev LMG for non-Finns)? I recall we took a few out of storage for some fresh air a couple of times when I was in the army in '91. They were in perfect condition still, too bad we were not allowed to do full auto on our shooting range so no firing experiences of them. Just taking to parts, cleaning and dummy fire exercises

Not sure now if they were borrowed materiel or bought after war?

NB for non-finns: of course most of the training was with a modern assault rifle, but learning Emma, Suomi-kp and Ukko-Pekka rifle (is that a Moisin-Nagant copy or what?) was considered "good to know" just in case. It was actually a lot of fun to compare them to RK-62. Gotta love Suomi/m31, that cute little thing

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war.<hr></blockquote>

A fact which I have already addressed. In the USA there are literally thousands of running military vehicles dating from WWII to the 1970s. I personally keep one running whose manufacturer (Studebaker) went out of business 40+ years ago. In peace time this is not hard to do if the desire, time, and money are available. If not, things break down or are not used like Finland's StuGs.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I think size does not matter, only the available replacement parts. The more you can scavenge the more you can put together and repair. <hr></blockquote>

I agree, but you are forgetting something else. The bigger the AFV the more it breaks down, which means the more spares have to be aquired more frequently. In another thread started up a few days ago there is a link to some Finns who are keeping a T34/85 running. They specifically stated that the thing is always broken, which is what I know to be true of ALL heavy armored vehicles.

My point is that it is a LOT easier to keep a captured truck in service compared to a light tank, and a light tank a lot more easier than a heavy tank. Think of it this way...

The Germans faced a couple 10s of thousands of T-34 models alone. Maybe as many as 40,000 or more. How many of these were they able to recover from the battlefield? Just take a guess... 2,000... 3,000? How many did they have in service at any one time? But a handful. Yet every single armored formation was underequipped from 1941 on. If it were as easy as you think it is to use captured equipment, the Germans would certainly have done more with the T-34s and other vehicles they captured. Just look at what they did with lighter captured French and Czech equipment.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>That one is easy: between 1941 and 1944 there were practically no present in the Finnish sector apart from the few during the initial stages. And they got captured if they did not make it across the river Svir or beyond the old border in the Isthmus.<hr></blockquote>

OK, then that makes sense. But coupled with the purchased materials from Germany it also means that Finland's experience with using captured heavy AFVs is pracitcally non-existant, and therefore not relevant to the discussion about keeping captured medium/heavy AFVs in service.

Honestly, I don't know what your point is. I often find you arguing for the sake of arguing, and now think you are doing so here. If you are trying to say that utilizing captured enemy vehicles was easy, I think the evidence is totally against this. If you are saying that überfinn capabilities meant that Finland, and no other country, was capable of keeping captured stuff in service to a high degree is also unsupported and even if true irrelevant.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>There were only a couple of them (and the T-34's) encountered before 1944 and all captured specimens were repaired and pressed into service (or as I suspect used for spares in case they were beyond repair). <hr></blockquote>

During a time of static, low intensity combat, which is again a luxury that no other nation fighting for the Axis side had.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>That is why it was better to use captured weapons and ammo.<hr></blockquote>

If it were, then Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians would have had lots of capture Soviet heavy stuff in service all the time. This is absolutely not the case, and therefore it is obvious that your thesis is somehow flawed. I propose it is flawed because you are completely misapplying Finland's unique experience to the rest of the war in an apples to oranges comparison. Since you have done this in many past debates, I am not surprised

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>An absolute spotting and targeting issue ? Got it.<hr></blockquote>

One of many. The other is a unit's inability to explicitely target more than one thing at a time. A full squad should, in theory, be able to return fire on an enemy squad sized formation even if split into two pieces. But this is not guarranteed in CM. A few split squads do not negatively affect this, but if all squads were split up... disaster. Plus, most CPU/graphics cards would not like this for larger battles.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I concur. But most armies I have read up on trained with the half squad/fire team as its most basic formation, not the full squad. Men were trained to act as a member of a smaller unit than their nominal parent unit.<hr></blockquote>

Men were trained to act individually too, but it is foolish to think that a single man can act as effectively as a group of 4, or a group of 4 as effectively as a group of 8 or 12. Squads were trained to fight as smaller teams so that the squad would be more effective as a whole. So if two teams were seperated they would lose something that a full squad would have. Threfore, it is reasonable to penalize a squad being broken up into smaller pieces.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Only when you are conducting frontal attacks using walking fire over relatively flat and open terrain. In contrast half squads move less conspicously in covered terrain and are able to handle surprises better in restricted LOS conditions if you are conducting infiltration attacks using sneak or rush tactics.<hr></blockquote>

True, but they also cease to function effectively if they lose only 1 or 2 men. If the squad is together then it can reorganize to retain its effectiveness when suffering the same number of losses. Since CM must assume that a split Squad is totally seperate, then this logic is correct.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The word has it the squad split will work differently in CMBB from the 50-50 split in CMBO. What is the use of this difference if the split itself renders the half squads/fire teams more susceptible to morale related troubles in the process ?<hr></blockquote>

I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Yes. Except the Finnish army managed to large stocks of captured and out-of-production vehicles in service for 20 years after the war and and captured out-of-production weapons in service for 50 years after the war.<hr></blockquote>

A fact which I have already addressed. In the USA there are literally thousands of running military vehicles dating from WWII to the 1970s. I personally keep one running whose manufacturer (Studebaker) went out of business 40+ years ago. In peace time this is not hard to do if the desire, time, and money are available. If not, things break down or are not used like Finland's StuGs.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I think size does not matter, only the available replacement parts. The more you can scavenge the more you can put together and repair. <hr></blockquote>

I agree, but you are forgetting something else. The bigger the AFV the more it breaks down, which means the more spares have to be aquired more frequently. In another thread started up a few days ago there is a link to some Finns who are keeping a T34/85 running. They specifically stated that the thing is always broken, which is what I know to be true of ALL heavy armored vehicles.

My point is that it is a LOT easier to keep a captured truck in service compared to a light tank, and a light tank a lot more easier than a heavy tank. Think of it this way...

The Germans faced a couple 10s of thousands of T-34 models alone. Maybe as many as 40,000 or more. How many of these were they able to recover from the battlefield? Just take a guess... 2,000... 3,000? How many did they have in service at any one time? But a handful. Yet every single armored formation was underequipped from 1941 on. If it were as easy as you think it is to use captured equipment, the Germans would certainly have done more with the T-34s and other vehicles they captured. Just look at what they did with lighter captured French and Czech equipment.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>That one is easy: between 1941 and 1944 there were practically no present in the Finnish sector apart from the few during the initial stages. And they got captured if they did not make it across the river Svir or beyond the old border in the Isthmus.<hr></blockquote>

OK, then that makes sense. But coupled with the purchased materials from Germany it also means that Finland's experience with using captured heavy AFVs is pracitcally non-existant, and therefore not relevant to the discussion about keeping captured medium/heavy AFVs in service.

Honestly, I don't know what your point is. I often find you arguing for the sake of arguing, and now think you are doing so here. If you are trying to say that utilizing captured enemy vehicles was easy, I think the evidence is totally against this. If you are saying that überfinn capabilities meant that Finland, and no other country, was capable of keeping captured stuff in service to a high degree is also unsupported and even if true irrelevant.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>There were only a couple of them (and the T-34's) encountered before 1944 and all captured specimens were repaired and pressed into service (or as I suspect used for spares in case they were beyond repair). <hr></blockquote>

During a time of static, low intensity combat, which is again a luxury that no other nation fighting for the Axis side had.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>That is why it was better to use captured weapons and ammo.<hr></blockquote>

If it were, then Germans, Hungarians, and Romanians would have had lots of capture Soviet heavy stuff in service all the time. This is absolutely not the case, and therefore it is obvious that your thesis is somehow flawed. I propose it is flawed because you are completely misapplying Finland's unique experience to the rest of the war in an apples to oranges comparison. Since you have done this in many past debates, I am not surprised

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>An absolute spotting and targeting issue ? Got it.<hr></blockquote>

One of many. The other is a unit's inability to explicitely target more than one thing at a time. A full squad should, in theory, be able to return fire on an enemy squad sized formation even if split into two pieces. But this is not guarranteed in CM. A few split squads do not negatively affect this, but if all squads were split up... disaster. Plus, most CPU/graphics cards would not like this for larger battles.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I concur. But most armies I have read up on trained with the half squad/fire team as its most basic formation, not the full squad. Men were trained to act as a member of a smaller unit than their nominal parent unit.<hr></blockquote>

Men were trained to act individually too, but it is foolish to think that a single man can act as effectively as a group of 4, or a group of 4 as effectively as a group of 8 or 12. Squads were trained to fight as smaller teams so that the squad would be more effective as a whole. So if two teams were seperated they would lose something that a full squad would have. Threfore, it is reasonable to penalize a squad being broken up into smaller pieces.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Only when you are conducting frontal attacks using walking fire over relatively flat and open terrain. In contrast half squads move less conspicously in covered terrain and are able to handle surprises better in restricted LOS conditions if you are conducting infiltration attacks using sneak or rush tactics.<hr></blockquote>

True, but they also cease to function effectively if they lose only 1 or 2 men. If the squad is together then it can reorganize to retain its effectiveness when suffering the same number of losses. Since CM must assume that a split Squad is totally seperate, then this logic is correct.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The word has it the squad split will work differently in CMBB from the 50-50 split in CMBO. What is the use of this difference if the split itself renders the half squads/fire teams more susceptible to morale related troubles in the process ?<hr></blockquote>

I am not sure what you are talking about. There have been no changes to split Squads in CMBB already, nor can I think of any that are planned.

Steve