Krasny999 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Two observations from Barkmanns, one specific one general. 1. In the three times I have played it as the Americans, the German AI has always placed the Panther in the lower right corner, thereby making winning a walkover as the Americans. 2. Lots of Vehicles lead to traffic jams at choke points. They seem to have great difficulty in deciding who should go first and thereby dither a lot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 In the three times I have played it as the Americans, the German AI has always placed the Panther in the lower right corner, thereby making winning a walkover as the Americans. There is a flaw (IMHO) in the AI Plan for the Axis, regarding groups and setup zones. The panther should probably be in its own group and given its own setup orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 1. In the three times I have played it as the Americans, the German AI has always placed the Panther in the lower right corner, thereby making winning a walkover as the Americans. I can confirm this. Its always setup there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets_All_Fight Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Isn't it supposed to be played from the German side? I imagine it would be pretty easy from the other side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Isn't it supposed to be played from the German side? I imagine it would be pretty easy from the other side. Easy? I wouldn't know. However, we did play this HvH at the Liverpool preview and the USA side ran out a clear winner (lost 8 Shermans, some to infantry AT weapons). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 The scenario is intended to play as German. You can play it as US but a human playing with 17x tanks vs 1x Panther is too easy. The place where Barkmann’s Panther is now is the place where even a US human player can have a hard time. We tested this H2H too and the US won most of the time. But mainly cause both players know they fight only one Panther and therefor take risks they normally wouldn’t have taken. So no bugs just calculated limitations. Anyway I hope you enjoyed it:). The US has more attack plans btw 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Hey be a man and dont play 17vs 1 vs AI!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herr_oberst Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Hey be a man and dont play 17vs 1 vs AI!! Yeah, and while you're playing the Germans, play just ONE German... Barkmann. You get to drive and command the Panther, that's it! No fair moving or issuing orders to the crunchies. Tons of fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Marlow Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Does anyone have information on what American armor unit may have been involved in the battle? As far as I can tell, there isn't much information from the US side of things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Does anyone have information on what American armor unit may have been involved in the battle? As far as I can tell, there isn't much information from the US side of things. I doubt it ever even happened, at least not as described in the scenario. Apparently, no American armor units recorded losses anything remotely approaching this scale in this time frame. Barkman was said to have been involved with one incident against a mechanized cavalry recon unit that lost a couple of M5's and M8 scout cars and some jeeps to his guns, but that is all I've been able to find that can be corroborated...and that is from Wiki. I have my suspicion that a lot of these "tank aces" victory's were overblown at the time for propaganda purposes back in the Reich. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Yes, I totally agree with you. After reading about these panzer aces, it seems to me killing tanks was more nuanced than I thought. I mean in reading Carius' book, he would recon the ground in his kubel, go back. Move the tigers into position, get out, go back in his kubel. Move the tigers again into an ambush position, etc. It was a lot of waiting, and not these shoot em up cowboy things we have come to believe. Also, one thing that was very fascinating was that it appeared that when they did engage, it was one shot one kill, period. No misses for these boys. I had come to believe that it was more a few shots then kill. Seems like they were pretty spot on. Also, he said the most important position on he tank by far was the driver. They were the difference between a great tank and a lousy one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Oh. And in Carius' book when he did win the knights cross, he tallied a total of 35 tanks in one engagement, one of which was an is-2 driven by an order of Lenin winner who was gunned down running with a map. They killed a total of 17 is-2's in that engagement and not one is-2 fired back. Against six tigers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Don't forget Wittman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hm_stanley Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Oh, and I forgot one important detail in that engagement. Carius' tiger was not one of the tanks firing, he was riding shotgun in one since they couldn't get his tiger into position for that ambush. He got all the credit though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 History as written by the first ones to have a journalist handy... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirx Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Funny I was about to post on the same topic. Played as Americans and not surprisingly routed the Germans with a total surrender. What was disappointing was that Barkmann's panther did nothing. It sat in the corner of the map taking no action. The Germans surrendered before I even found it! So the AI plan, whatever it was, didn't produce a challenging or fun game. A larger issue is how to figure out which scenarios are playable solo or not. I don't have time for head to head games so I play scenarios vs. AI only. It would nice if the scenario designer provided information on whether the scenario was balanced for H2H or vs. AI (and which side). I think this information should be mandatory, actually. Maybe this experience will prod me to finally try PBEM! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Don't forget Wittman. Who ?????????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I doubt it ever even happened, at least not as described in the scenario. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gen5.htm That is a link to the widely regarded account of the action by Barkmann, it has no references tho' so no idea where the account comes from. I have read a similar but more detailed account in a book many years ago but cannot remember the name. The two accounts could of course be based off each other. It is always hard to know what to believe, I am sure there is a certain amount of "sexing up" of the Panzer Aces, I mean Herr Goebbles was a master at such things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Magpie, claims are worthless. Gunnergoz has it right; there were no Sherman equipped units in the area, and none that were even remotely close recorded losses that tally. There was, though, a Cav Recon Trp (or Sqn?) in the area, which was engaged, and suffered some losses of light vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokko Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 One should remember maybe, that the Germans often called every American tank "Sherman", just like the Allies called everything a Panther or a Tiger. At least that's what I've seen and heard in German newsreel footage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Magpie, claims are worthless. Gunnergoz has it right; there were no Sherman equipped units in the area, and none that were even remotely close recorded losses that tally. There was, though, a Cav Recon Trp (or Sqn?) in the area, which was engaged, and suffered some losses of light vehicles. The issue remains in doubt and probably will forever more, who can say which is the accurate account? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 There was an attack at a defensive line at another point where there were losses, it is speculated that he was part of a defensive line, but was the only tank there. I created a scenario based on this hasty defensive line battle. Here is a partial story: According to the 3rd Armored Division history, Spearhead, on 28 July CCB was ordered to return to the area near Comprond to assist a regiment of the 1st Infantry Division in reducing a German strongpoint. In his book Breakout and Pursuit, Blumenson mentions that 15 American tanks were lost in this engagement which held up the advance of the 16th Infantry regiment. Seven of the tanks were mediums. The advance was held up for hours by the German defense, and according to Spearhead, CCB did not make contact with the 16th Infantry until around mid-night. Comprond is just west-southwest of Le Lorey. The date is wrong, but given the fog of war, maybe this is the actual site of Barkmann's amazing tale. So I made a scenario on that possibility. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The issue remains in doubt and probably will forever more this is true who can say which is the accurate account? Oh, that's easy. Barkman knows he shot at something, and probably hit some of the things he shot at. He thinks they were Shermans. The Americans know what they lost, and where. From that it is more than easy to deduce with account is more accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 this is true Oh, that's easy. Barkman knows he shot at something, and probably hit some of the things he shot at. He thinks they were Shermans. The Americans know what they lost, and where. From that it is more than easy to deduce with account is more accurate. I'd contend that the confusion would be equal to both and numbers of losses where an when for what reason would be unclear. Do you know of any accounts which seem to match the parameters of the action? Any listings or references to US losses in the general area on the days around the event? I have had a bit of a look and have not found a lot of tactical detail in the US accounts of the Breakout from St Lo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Just the one I posted. The recon did not show losses, nor did CCA. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.