The German Army in the Soviet Union 1941-45 - Effective or not?

[gatpr]

Manstein was defensive-minded? When he was practically on the verge of breaking the ring at Stalingrad. I think pragmatic is better, after all, he wanted to continue at Kursk. There couldn't be a more pragmatic decision than to orchestrate 1st Panzerarmee's breakout in order to keep a continual front, instead of letting Hube break out south. My opinion is that he was one of the finest commanders in WWII. Even Hitler conceded that much.

[JasonC]

I agree that Manstein was one of the finest commanders of WW II. I just don't think that statement is contradicted by the additional statement that he was defense minded compared to the average and certainly compared to the high command. Defensive minded was something like a swear word to them, and some may take it that way even today, but that is their problem, not Manstein's.

Why do I call him defense minded? He knew to get out of the Stalingrad pocket. His retrival operation there was never meant to hold the city but only to evacuate it. He wanted the Caucausus evacuated ASAP. He saw the threat to the left of AG South and thought meeting that was the most important thing. He conducted a splendid rear guard action with scratch, beaten forces to stabilize the front enough to allow the Kharkov counterattack.

He thought of that counterattack as a means of maintaining the front. He had similar ideas for the summer, south of the Kursk area, before the Kursk decision was made. After the defeat at Kursk, he knew withdrawl was inevitable and "hold at all cost" stuff was nonsense. After trying to hold at the Dnepr, he realized the bend was lost and wanted to fall back to the Bug. He was consistently willing to retreat, to conduct a strategic defense, to concentrate on accumulating reserves and using them for reactive actions to maintain the front, in turn meant to maintain the army alive and in being.

In the course of all of the above, he came as near as anyone in the German army to inventing a defensive mobile doctrine. He was regarded as something of a heretic by the high command because of it, and in the end was relieved over disagreements about further withdrawls.

[Janster]

I'm pretty impressed by this discussion, and im gonna add my 5 cents to it.

It seems to me that the 41 offensive proved that good trained men can win the day over inexperienced men and that tanks and guns altough having effect, are not the primary key to success.

The german army in 41 was equipment wise and technically inferior to the russian one, as the russians did have better tanks, more of them, and somewhat better small arms and guns.

Later on for all the vauntet guns and tanks, the german army lost because the trained experienced men where gone, lost due to the inevitable attrition that is war, and being unable to replace them.

While I have little else to add, I must admit that russia's deal with Japan, during 41\42 where Japan agreed not to attack Russia, was more or less a masterstroke, allowing them to transfer troops and ignoring the eastern areas for a while. This shows how good the russian diplomacy was at the time, and the german-russian treate before the war was again in my eyes, another time buying affaire from the russians, seeing they were not in anyway prepared for a war.

I noticed a what if book in the stores recently, with stories about what would have happened if germany had won the war.

I belive myself from seeing the political chaos that was germany back then, that it would have simply ripped itself apart, as too many 'strong' men wanted a place in the sun.

The dog eat dog politics must have been hell for the german commanders...

But then again, other nations proved not to be that much better...

With regards

Janster

[kipanderson]

Hi,

“Was the MG42 really the right weapon for the job of "squad automatic"? Do you really want something pumping out 1200 rounds a minute on the attack, or was a Bren-type weapon far more suitable?”

Got it in one. No, it was not a suitable LMG for the reasons implied above.

I have read a British, 1950s report that reaches just this conclusion. Contrary to popular belief, the MG42 was not considered the ideal squad LMG, by all the major powers, post WW2. Note that all the new General Purpose Machine Guns developed by the top players in the 1950, the US, Soviets and FN of Belgium, had a ROF of between 550-750 rpm. There is along list of very good and important reasons for this. The report I read was designed to address the question of the type of weapon the British should adopt as a LMG for the new NATO 76.2mm round. The conclusion was to use a new version of the Bren. Later they used the FN GPMG.

The MG42 is rightly famous, and regarded as a classic, for being the first truly successful GPMG. That “could” be used as both a LMG and a HMG. With quick change barrel and all the rest. However, the feature it is most famous for, it high ROF, was regarded as a weakness by those tasked with studying this matter post WW2, on both sides of the Iron Curtain. People tend to forget or understate the problem of the heat generated by rates of fire, of say, over 50 rounds per minute. I have the statistics on heat accumulation and ROF from a text book produced by the staff at the Royal College of Military Science at Shrivenham, they make very interesting reading. Even using two quick change barrels the maximum “useable” ROF of MGs is very far below the “cyclical” rate that is always quoted.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. When fired from a bipod the MG42 was also less accurate than wished for. It was its high ROF, and low accuracy from the bipod, that dammed it in British eyes as a LMG.

[John D Salt]

'Scuse me, finger trouble.

I seem to have quoted myself instead of editing.

See next post.

Or not, just as you please.

[ August 10, 2002, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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

“Was the MG42 really the right weapon for the job of "squad automatic"? Do you really want something pumping out 1200 rounds a minute on the attack, or was a Bren-type weapon far more suitable?”

Got it in one. No, it was not a suitable LMG for the reasons implied above.

Mr. Picky says that of course you really want something pumping out 1200 rounds a minute; what you don't want to do is carry all those ammunition belts around all day, every day.

The MG-42 was certainly a pretty dam' good light-role MG, or at least looked that way to the folks on the receiving end. Jary has been referred to before; James Lucas, who was also an infantryman who faced German MGs, has this to say on p. 36 of his "The British Soldier" (A&AP 1989):

"The German soldiers were good fighters who handled their weapons well -- and their weapons were first class; many of them superior to those in our own service. Because they had a higher distribution of machine-pistols and faster-firing machine-guns which were capable of being used in a light or medium role, the Germans could put down a volume of fire which we could not match. Their attacks rode in on waves of bullets and the assualts of their enemies died in the criss-cross fire of their fast-firing MGs."

For a contrary point of view, we have Colonel I. W. Gore-Langton, late Commandant of the tactical wing at the School of Infantry, who is quoted on p. 113 of Jac Weller's "Weapons and Tactics: Hastings to Berlin" (Nicholas Vane, 1966) as saying that area fire may be psychologically important, especially against inexperienced troops ; he found he needed three Brens to make as much noise as one MG-42, but reckoned the Bren as good as two MG-42s for hitting people.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

I have read a British, 1950s report that reaches just this conclusion. Contrary to popular belief, the MG42 was not considered the ideal squad LMG, by all the major powers, post WW2. Note that all the new General Purpose Machine Guns developed by the top players in the 1950, the US, Soviets and FN of Belgium, had a ROF of between 550-750 rpm. There is along list of very good and important reasons for this.

I can only think of two; conservation and overheating. I believe that the MG-3 (descended directly from the MG-42 and long in service with the Bundeswehr) has the option of two buffer and bolt combinations. The Type N buffer and V550 bolt give a RoF of 1150 to 1350 rds/min; the Type R buffer and V950 bolt produce 750-950 rds/min, much more in line with the post-war GPMG fashion.

As I still have the old 1978 IDR special no. 5 on infantry weapons on my desk, I shall mention that a piece in it by Maj. F W A Hobart (founder editor of Jane's Infantry Weapons) rates the MG-3 as being "at least as good as any GPMG in service".

There is also an article by one T. Fabry of Dusseldorf (whose affiliation is unstated, but we suspect Heckler & Koch) which says of rate of fire:

"A burst from a machine gun with a low rate of fire against a moving target is often ineffective as the target area is not covered in sufficient density. The rapid firing MG-3, on the other hand, is most effective against fast-moving infantry targets. Objections are made to a high rate of fire, on the grounds that it is too costly in ammunition; but what is the point of saving ammunition, through using a low rate of fire, if the bursts are ineffective? It is a fact that if a comparison is made between the effectiveness of two machine guns using the same quantity of ammunition, one having a low, the other a high rate of fire, the latter is found to be more effective. Only an intense concentration can deny the ground to the enemy. Ammunition saving should be effected, not by reducing the rate of fire, but by a more efficient usage of a high rate of fire."

One could wish that Mr. Fabry had included a source for his statement. I'm afraid he also reminds me of the Colonel who said "I want to hear less talk of denying things to the enemy, and more talk of biffing."

Originally posted by kipanderson:

The report I read was designed to address the question of the type of weapon the British should adopt as a LMG for the new NATO 76.2mm round. The conclusion was to use a new version of the Bren. Later they used the FN GPMG.

I would suspect that the reason for choosing the Bren was merely that there were so many of them lying about. PRO doc WO 291/474, "Rate of fire of the LMG", which I have referred to before, did if I remember correctly contain a mention that it was already settled policy to move to a belt-fed gun after the war. This report (dated 1944) indicates that more advantage is to be derived from belt feed than from a high cyclic rate of fire. The high-RoF belt-fed gun does show up as the best in the (theoretical) study, but not spectacularly so except in the case of enfilade fire (where the failure to allow for over-hitting may have biased the results).

Another point not mentioned in the report that favours belt feed is that, if one is carrying a large amount of ammunition, belt links add less extra weight than do magazines.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[snips]

Even using two quick change barrels the maximum “useable” ROF of MGs is very far below the “cyclical” rate that is always quoted.

The study mentioned above considered four theoretical guns, each with different feed mechanisms and rates of fire. The peak rates of fire achievable (rds/min) were considered to be:

Feed__Cyclic_____Bursts___Continuous fire

Mag_____500_______112______218

Mag____1000_______120______285

Belt_____500_______124______400

Belt____1000_______134______660

Major Hobart, in his IDF special no. 5 piece, seemed to think a sustained rate of 200 rds/min from the MG-3 highly creditable, for a period determined by the supply of spare barrels.

One can perhaps argue that a minute is too long a time to consider for problems of this kind; ISTM that a competent infantryman will not expose himself as a target for more than a few seconds.

All the best,

John.</font>

[gatpr]

Jason C I think to some degree we're trying to read a dead man's mind. I've read his memoirs too.I agree Manstein was a great practitioner of mobile defense, and it was surely his intent for VI army to break out of the pocket. Isn't it interesting that it wasn't one of the more offensive minded commanders who believed it the Ardennes wasn't tank-proof. I think it's also telling that when Hitler fired Manstein that it was because the Eastern Front was entering (in Hitler's view) a defensive phase; and that there weren't enough mobile formations to spare for the kinds of operations that were Manstein's forte.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Janster:

It seems to me that the 41 offensive proved that good trained men can win the day over inexperienced men and that tanks and guns altough having effect, are not the primary key to success.

The german army in 41 was equipment wise and technically inferior to the russian one, as the russians did have better tanks, more of them, and somewhat better small arms and guns.

Although I agree that your argument contains good points, I think it needs to be kept in mind that for the most part, in the summer fighting of 1941 the German tanks were in fact superior in a number of ways to the vast bulk of Soviet tanks.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the Soviet guns being superior. In what way were they superior? And which guns are we talking about?

Michael

[ August 10, 2002, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

It seems not all writers of reports agree on these matters. There does seem to be agreement that the Bren was the more accurate. To be even more specific, in the report I read it was made clear that, in the LMG role, the reason for the lack of accuracy with the MG42 was uncontrollable recoil.

Also, the book I have on Small Arms from Shrivenham, in its section on the problem of heat, seems to set the limits rather lower than your chaps. It agrees with your figure of 200 rpm, but, without a spare barrel, that is more or less your lot after just one minute for that gun until it has cooled.

To give one specific figure from the table and stats that stuck in my mind, the maximum average rate of fire over fifteen minutes, without a barrel change, is just 50 rpm. Note, within that there is very little room for “mad minutes” that go over 50 rpm. Up that ROF to, say, 70 rpm, and it is all over in half the time. When I have unpacked all my books I will no doubt produce a bunch more stats. It is a great section with graphs on rates of cooling and all sorts.

What normally happens is that people lock on to different figures, stats.

I am sure the MG 3 is a very fine gun, but at the lower rate of fire, at 1200 rpm it is just wasting every ones time. Hence, my point about the US, Soviet and FN post-war GPMGs not even having a 1200 rpm option.

That is what makes life fun, we do not all agree!

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Logistics was abysmal by western standards, but the rail system was reasonably efficient and made up for a lot.

One man's opinions.

My understanding is the following:

Soviet railway lines were of a different guage than German trains, Soviet rails were lighter and only capable of carrying a 17 ton axle load (7 tons less than the European standard), Soviet locomotives had larger water capacity which meant that watering stations were farther apart in the USSR than in Europe - a problem when the Germans decided to relay the track in the country to the German guage. Construction of new railway lines were inefficient, and length of track laid was given priority over necessities such as roundhouses, depots, workshop facilities, coal and water stations, etc. Only about 25 percent of the Soviet rail lines were double tracked rather than single tracked, and poor roadbeds in many areas limited maximum speeds to 20 miles per hour.

Is this not correct?

[Michael Emrys]

Michael,

Another interesting little bit of information I stumbled across recently is that Soviet locomotives ran their water lines through the interior of the boilers so that they didn't freeze and burst during winter like the German ones did. No pictures or diagrams though, so I would like to find out more on this matter.

Michael

[Tarquelne]

MG42 speculation:

Much of what's been written here makes me think that a highly trained/experienced MGer might be able to take advantage of the very high ROF of the MG42, and minimize it's disadvantages. So for the "best trained army in the world", as _early war_ W. is sometimes characterized, the MG42 (or MG34, of course) might have been a very good choice.

Especially if they did use the riflemen to support the MG, and not the other way around. If your squad LMG is more for keeping the enemy's heads down and in the same place the high ROF would often be wasted... A targeted rifle squad isn't going to try to slip into the "gaps" resulting from a ROF of only 600 rpm rather than 1200. But I'm guessing that a highly skilled MG42er could use his weapon's short-but-potent bursts to both suppress and kill.

At least, if I were manufacturing MG42s, that's what I'd tell the Army. "You _do_ have the best trained soliders in the world, don't you?"

[ August 10, 2002, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[snips]

It seems not all writers of reports agree on these matters.

I don't think there's necessarily a vast amount of disagreement.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

There does seem to be agreement that the Bren was the more accurate. To be even more specific, in the report I read it was made clear that, in the LMG role, the reason for the lack of accuracy with the MG42 was uncontrollable recoil.

I'll certainly go along with that -- while flonking around my collections of Hoggs and Weekses I found a critcism of the MG-42 on exactly these grounds. However, Mr. Fabry seemed to disagree.

Considering some vaguely comparable weapons, from my own limited experience, I know the L4 Bren to be a more accurate gun than the L7 GPMG -- despite the fact that they fire the same cartridge, both use gas-operation, and are comparable in mass.

However, when we talk about "inaccuracy" here, I think it's not the spraying-rounds-half-across-the-horizon kind of inaccuracy you'd get if you tried firing, say, an FN-FAL on full auto from the shoulder. The weapon remains perfectly controllable, it's just that the stream of bullets is wider (a "positive cone of fire" as you say if you think it sounds better than "inaccurate"). Instead of putting every burst on the black, you'll spread them around a bit. If the people you're shooting at are using proper tactical spacings, this may be no bad thing, and I imagine that MG-42 fans regard it as a virtue rather than a vice (and the findings from project Salvo would support them).

For a long time I liked the Bren better than the GPMG, not on;ly for accuracy but because it was more pleasant to shoot and easier to strip and clean. I was definitvely converted to a GPMG fan after a shoot when we had a lot of rounds to burn, and I was given the memorable fire order "Gun, 200 metres, target to your front, in your own time, f***ing obliterate it". None of your namby-pamby bursts of 3 to 5 rounds then, by golly -- it's fun to send long, ripping bursts down the range and see wood splinters, dust and small pebbles flying all over the place. I don't dount that anyone in the target area would have considered themselves thoroughly suppressed.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Also, the book I have on Small Arms from Shrivenham, in its section on the problem of heat, seems to set the limits rather lower than your chaps. It agrees with your figure of 200 rpm, but, without a spare barrel, that is more or less your lot after just one minute for that gun until it has cooled.

I should perhaps have mentioned that the rates they calculated assumed a barrel change every 280 rounds, so not all that much different. This reinforces the point, made on another recent thread, that there really is a considerable difference between a proper LMG (with a quick-change barrel) and a heavy-barrelled automatic rifle in terms of delivering intense firepower.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

To give one specific figure from the table and stats that stuck in my mind, the maximum average rate of fire over fifteen minutes, without a barrel change, is just 50 rpm. Note, within that there is very little room for “mad minutes” that go over 50 rpm. Up that ROF to, say, 70 rpm, and it is all over in half the time. When I have unpacked all my books I will no doubt produce a bunch more stats. It is a great section with graphs on rates of cooling and all sorts.

I'll look forward to that, it sounds interesting.

In the interim, I have just found these figures for the M-60 from http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/9283/page29.html

Cyclic rate: 550 rds/min, barrel change every minute.

Rapid rate: 200 rds/min, barrel change every 2 minutes.

Sustained rate: 100 rds/min, barrel change every 10 minutes.

The "by-the-book" deliberate (as the Brits call it) rate for the Bren was 1 mag per minute, and the rapid rate 4 mags per minute (28 and 112 rds/min respectively); for the GPMG, I think unless dame memory deals me a turd that it was 50 rds/min deliberate and 200 rds/min rapid. There must be some suspicion that the deliberate rate was determined with reference to the report you mention.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

I am sure the MG 3 is a very fine gun, but at the lower rate of fire, at 1200 rpm it is just wasting every ones time. Hence, my point about the US, Soviet and FN post-war GPMGs not even having a 1200 rpm option.

I think the high rate of fire makes it only a little less than perfect. I could fire bursts of one round with the L4 and two rounds with the L7, so I would think that 3-round bursts at 1300 rds/min should be perfectly possible -- there must be someone on the board who's fired one, so tell us! Then again, one of the regular contributors to the soc.history.war.world-war-two newsgroup who served as a raw grenadier at the close of WW2 absolutely hated the thing. He had very little time for the Panzerfaust, either.

Originally posted by kipanderson:

That is what makes life fun, we do not all agree!

"If we were all the same, they wouldn't sell many mixed biscuits", as somebody's Scottish granny probably said once (if I may introduce an ethnocentric biscuit perspective).

Perhaps I should mention here a French veteran of the Algerian war I once met who regarded the FM-BAR as "l'arme le plus terrible au monde" ("the most terrific weapon in the world") because of its accuracy. It takes all sorts, I suppose.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Regarding the controlability of the MG42, I have this notion rattling around in the rust bucket I use for a brain that it had a cleverly designed trigger that permitted either sustained fire or a three shot burst. Have I confused it with another weapon?

Michael

[Uedel]

@ Micheal

i shot the MG 3 in the German Army (88-92) what is about the same as MG42 (3 pieces changed only), and there is no such fine trigger mechanisem that selects between bursts or sustained fire, it is the gunner that has the feeling of how many rounds u let out the tube.

As for me it was easy to shot 1, 3 or ~10-15 rounds per burst.

@all

the Accuracy for the MG 3 (MG42) is very high and i was very well in shooting targets at 600meters with it, also it is by far NOT uncontrolable in sustained fire mode (i fired once a 200 rounds belt in one piece for showing close defense capapilitys of the MG 3) and it was at every moment very controllable on its bipod (thats the way a Soldier fires the MG 3)

Also it was very accurate when u used the Lafette for the MG 3 with Scope. Damn then this MG is like a Autofire Sniper Weapon.

[Michael Dorosh]

The MG34 had a dual trigger.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

The MG34 had a dual trigger.

Okay. That sounds about right. I was sure it was on one or the other but I couldn't remember whether it was added or dropped in the upgrade.

Michael

[josefhesser]

I just signed up on this forum having only found this game about three days ago. I'm afraid I have to jump into this discussion right off the bat.

First off I have to let you know that I'm a WW2 reenactor doing an Panzergrnadier impression and I am currently working up a Pionier impression.

My area of study is almost exclusely Regular German Army (Heeres) troops. I focus primarily on the Eastern Front since that was where the war was really fought at its' fullest.

The Wehrmacht was absolutely amazing in its' ability to wage war. If you would like to see how effective they were without Hitler's meddling, then I would suggest reading up on the Conquest of the Balkins. It was Hitler who saved Russia by ordering his troops to stop as he did at Dunkirk.

The Russian Army was very much larger, much more mechanized and had adequate support available. Yet after 2 weeks the capability of this Army was effectively wiped out. As evidence of this one must look at the fact that it took 4 years to recover the land taken by the Wehrmacht in 19 weeks. What made the battle for Moscow interesting is that about 70% of Russian military production was in the Moscow-Gorky Park District. Tanks drove out of the factory door to the front line.

The supply system was slow but managed to support the invasion. Remember, the Wehrmacht was a horse-drawn military throughout the war. In their own words, it was a poor mans Army. Replacing anything lost was difficult. Tanks and guns were always in short supply and the Luftwaffe was not as large a branch as one might think. It fell to the ground troops to meet the task as always.

I will provide my resouce list if anyone feels I am mistaken in my assessment. There is always room for new information and corrections to old.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by josefhesser:

I just signed up on this forum having only found this game about three days ago. I'm afraid I have to jump into this discussion right off the bat.

First off I have to let you know that I'm a WW2 reenactor doing an Panzergrnadier impression and I am currently working up a Pionier impression.

Does this mean you have a weight condition?

What do you mean by "fullest"? You mean my grandfather wasn't "fully" dead when that machine gun ripped out his guts at Salerno?

So you mean the Dunkirk that was in the Balkins? I have heard of the Balkans, but perhaps you mean Balkins as a province of France? Or did you mean the Dunkirk that was in Greece/Albania/Yugoslavia? :confused:

I wasn't aware Russia had an Army in World War Two. Do you mean the Red Army as a whole?

Wasn't the front line several dozen miles away from Moscow - at its closest point?

You can't fool me! I bet they said it in German!

I agree.

Welcome to the forum, incidentally. Which panzergrenadier unit do you portray, and why do you think a pionier impression would take "working up" to it?

Does your unit have Opel trucks or Sd Kfz 251 SPWs? That would be pretty cool.

[josefhesser]

As for a weight condition, I'm not in bad shape but by no means fit to reenlist anymore.

Sorry to hear about your Grandfather. My relatives fought for America, Canada, Germany and Lithuania. Good Euro mix heritage.

As for the war being "ffoughtat its' fullest" in the East, that was the German focus. France was primarily manned by serity forces, refit units military schools, and volunteer troops many countries. There were sme full scale units there, but nothing compared to the Eastern Front. Even after D-Day units were removed from the West and sent East since it was seen as the greater threat.

Dunkirk, as in France, were Hitler's orders to halt finally caught up to his Army. Balkans as in Greece/ Albania/ Yugoslavia. During these operations Hitler was preoccupied with the invasion of Russia and let the Wehrmacht fight as they saw fit. Many people feel that this was an easy offensive and don't give it much merit. However, the British were excellent troops ready to fight and if the Greeks were anything they were tough.

Yes, I do mean the Red Army as a whole.

Several dozen miles in mechanized warfare is practically behind your mess tent. A very convenient location if its your factories making your equipment.

Yes, they did say they had a poor man's Army in German! The German Army Recruit Handbook (Der Rekrut) 1935-1936 to be exact. At least that's the source in my collection.

I currently portray a soldier in the 2 K. 110 Reg/11 Pz. Div. but the supporting Pioniere Zug ( Combat Engineer Platoon) would have been posted in the 5 Kompanie, same Regiment.

I won't actually start the unit until I have material to properly portray their role. Simulators for mines, demolitions, obstructions, comunications, and maybe even a converted flamethrower. All these things use sound and/ or smoke signals, or in the case of a flamethrower,sprays water.

We have a half track but no Opel (Chevy) trucks. We have purchased a Ford, which was also widely used.

For reenacting information, go to www.nwha.org or www.reenactor.net

[Michael Dorosh]

I was out at the NWHA D-Day event two years ago. Maybe we met there?

[josefhesser]

Well then! Your in the area of the events at least. I have to drive down from Washington State to go. Some guys come from as far as Idaho and British Columbia.

We are actually having a public event this weekend at Fort Stevens. That's the same place we usually have D-Day. It has to be the most ideal location to have public WW2 events since the park layout almost acts like a cut-away view of the battles.

You should pick a unit and try it out! Most new people get loaner gear from the unit so they can come play 1:1 scale G.I. Joes. As I said before, I'm attached to the 11th Panzer Division.

I think its next month a bunch of members (hopefully me too) are going to what has become an annual California event. We are trying to put together an Eastern front snow battle to invite them to. If we can get a snow event together, they say they will bring their T-34. Wierd fun!

That invite is extended to any interested parties. Perspective members welcome. Look for a battle near you!

Believe it or not, I actually joined this forum to talk about the game. Next posting I guess.

[Michael Dorosh]

I do Canadian up here in Alberta, and came down to play with the Queen's Own Camerons. Jim Pharris invited me down; I did a bit of a book signing there at the event, got to know Steve Borts briefly as well. Class act. I sat in on the NWHA meeting and was impressed. A friend of mine flies in from Saskatchewan on occasion to participate with the Brit Airborne guys. I have a full set of Canadian, American and German uniforms and equipment. I was hoping to make it down this year to do German - probably war correspondent (if they would have me) cause I'm no spring chicken anymore either. (32 years old is almost twice the age of the front line German infantryman in 1944!) I like taking photos of the uniforms and vehicles and stuff. NWHA seemed like a good little group.

There will be plenty of CM stuff to talk about soon, 20 September is not far away now at all...

[ August 13, 2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[josefhesser]

Propaganda Kompanie would be great! I'd like to see some new action photos on the web sites. Remember though, all Wehrmacht Soldaten were soldiers first.

Perhaps we shall meet this weekend then. I think I do remember meeting you briefly, but there have been a few people who travel from Canada.

Which ever side you feel like falling in with, good hunting!

[killmore]

Originally posted by josefhesser:

As evidence of this one must look at the fact that it took 4 years to recover the land taken by the Wehrmacht in 19 weeks.

That is not true!

I have not seen such bogus numbers for a very long time.

1) Germany continues to gain ground in 1942. So Soviets were not recovering it in 1942.

2) Soviets were pretty much back to pre-war front line in summer 1944.

3) Soviet only started to recover ground lost in 1941 after Zitadell. So mid-1943.

4) Germany was Gaining ground from 22 June to december 5, 1941. Thats not 19 weeks but 5.5 months. So closer to 24 weeks.

Therefore Soviets recovered ground taken by Wermacht in 52 weeks.

Thats still 24 weeks vs 52. But that not nearly 19 to 210.

You can look at it this way:

Germany gains ground in 1941 and 1942. Soviets in 1943 and half of 1944.

That makes it about even.