Panzer Command: Ostfront is the latest in a new series of 3D turn-based tactical wargames which include single battles, multi-battle operations and full war campaigns with realistic units, tactics and terrain and an informative and practical interface. Including a full Map Editor, 60+ Scenarios, 10 Campaigns and a very long list of improvements, this is the ultimate Panzer Command release for the Eastern Front!
What unit was your Uncle with again? It's been a long time since our discussion of his participation in the Battle of the Bulge. I'm sorry to say I've forgotten his unit.
I agree too that paratroopers are extremely important. Not so much the paradrop itself.
Good Hunting.
MR
I was reletively young when he died but I recall something about the V corp engineer battallion.
X3:Universe of games rules them all!! Xtra coming soon X3:REBIRTH 4th qtr 2011 YAY!
There were several Engineer units assigned to V Corps during the Bulge.
254th Engineer Combat Battalion
1111th Engineer Combat Group (51st, 202nd, 291st and 296th Engineer Combat Battalions)
1121st Engineer Combat Group (146th, 254th Engineer Combat Battalions)
The unit I served with in Germany was also an engineer battalion and a part of the V Corps. I was in the Corps 30 years after your Uncle's service. Lot's of U.S. Engineer units saw extended combat during the Battle of the Bulge.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
I understand BUT PCO is finished. It's time for us to consider the toughest part of the next project. Most of the German vehicles are already done. There remains a few basic models of Allied Vehicles, some of which have also already been done, unless we get to do 1940 as well.
Bocage needs to be looked at in terms of what we as gamers want to see it do/react in game terms. BFC doesn't use the PC map maker to produce maps. That means that while BFC may have a good set of answers for their game series it may not work well in PC4 at all. The two game systems already seem to have radically different approaches to things like foxholes, gun pits, etc.
Most of the rest of the NWE terrain types are already available. Bocage is not and IMO, it will be by far the toughest to try to model. Part of the challenge lies in that it is a two part challenge. To get the natural untouched model right and then the part about blowing holes in it and penetrating it. Those two models will need to work hand in hand if the bocage fighting is to feel right.
Blowing holes in the bocage also solves problems like rat holing row house walls. If you can blow holes in a bocage wall you can blow one in a row house wall as well. That's just one example of where getting the bocage right can benefit the rest of the game.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
I think of PC as more of a tank-centric game, but my impressions are largely based on the first two releases.
Still, I do not think I want a bocage game. From anyone. The terrain forced the warfare into a confused infantry blood-letting. It would probably be best handled by a game that modeled individual soldiers. Or companies. Commanding any unit in such terrain, and the modeling thereof, is just as daunting as getting the messy terrain right.
http://www.amazon.com/Clay-Pigeons-St-L%C3%B4/dp/0811726045/ref=pd_sim_b_7#reader_0811726045
I would recommend this book for anyone interested in what the fighting was like.
I think of PC as more of a tank-centric game, but my impressions are largely based on the first two releases.
I think you're impressions are pretty accurate. While PCO has moved from where it started with PC:OWS which was totally tank-centric, to more of a middle ground we still have aways to go to get the game to being well balanced.
Still, I do not think I want a bocage game.
I don't either. That's not what I'm proposing. We aren't about to make a bocage game. From all our screen shots you should have seen by now that this particular team is very broad minded. We aren't focused on a single campaign, time period or location. I have scenarios in the release that span a period from one of the first engagements of the war to fighting outside Berlin. That's more what you will get from us. That means that the Normandy area will have a very important place in the offering.
All of June and July were spent fighting their way out of the bocage. That's roughly 1/6 of the time spent fighting the Germans in NWE 44-45. That begins to lessen a bit if we can do 1940, and I see no reason why we can't. The only differences would be the vehicle and infantry models.
The terrain forced the warfare into a confused infantry blood-letting. It would probably be best handled by a game that modeled individual soldiers. Or companies. Commanding any unit in such terrain, and the modeling thereof, is just as daunting as getting the messy terrain right.
Agreed it will be for the most part an infantry fight. Which will be the main focus of where PC4 is going. To bring the infantry combat model up to the same high standards that armor combat now enjoys in PCO.
It's not my intention that we turn PC4 into a Normandy slugfest, instead of that we just need to include that Normandy slugfest in the game.
What we're both saying is that it will be a nasty place to fight. What I want to do is to get the thoughts of those that have played it in other games before and what they liked, or didn't like and what we may do to get it right here.
I have some ideas. I'm sure the rest of you do too. The PC series has always been about where the gamers wanted to take it. In PCO you had a group of gamers that took it where it is now. We are just wanting the views of those that will play the game later. It's been my experience that you do heavy research before you start a project. Get all the information together before you start so you have fewer things to change once it gets going. That's the purpose of this thread. To gather information. I have the technical data. I have the photos. We know what it looks like. We know where it needs to go. But some of you may have ideas of how you think the boacage should work as well.
There will be other PC4 threads in the coming months. What to do about things. Like buildings exploding and catching fire. Do we want fires that spread? Do we want mis-ID units, which in NWE I don't see how you can not have them considering the American penchant to turn any German vehicle into another report of a Tiger engagement.
To me the obvious place to start all that was with the bocage. The single toughest part of the puzzle. Once we get that piece in place the rest should be a piece of cake.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
The 29th Infantry certainly would agree with you. I believe they fought in various bocage country well into August (All the way from the beaches). They fought till they linked up with the Brits I believe. They were still losing 100+ guys on certain days while Patton was burning fuel on road trips and tipping over apple carts.
I think the only computer games I have played with bocage are Close Combat and VFV?
It remains to be seen what BF has done with bocage. I believe they have modeled two types of hedgerows; big and small. Since they still have not modeled gun depression, I can almost imagine a sherman parking right next to a hedgerow and pounding Germans on the other side. In reality, they probably would not be seen. But perhaps they have abstracted relative spotting to abstract this.
edit: white phos. Must have. I read that right after d-day landing, its use was soemthing like 3% of shells. That RAPIDLY increased as it was shown to be a cure-all for entrenched infantry. 105mm, 81mm and direct fire sherman 75mm had the Germans crying 'foul'. I can cite very detailed reports of it saving the day in the bocage. Some shermans just loaded AP and WP with minimal HE.
I wonder if it would not be better handled if it was known what the infantry combat model was going to look like. Or at least what we think that the infantry combat will look like. If PC is going to follow the road of 1:1 infantry representation like CMx2, (which I do not think is that way to go) then the bocage fighting will have to be handled very differently then if PC stays with the abstracted squad representation. Fighting in bocage should be in the game, and should be the potential bloody combat that it often was.
The PC infantry model will have the orders process looked at. The casualty rates and it's ability to fight looked at.
The scale of the series isn't planned to be changed that I know of. What you will see are more improvements to the existing series.
The PBI has waited it's turn to get a face lift but it's coming.
As of yet there have been discussions that were a bit ongoing. They were made at times when we thought the PCK update was just about finished and what did we want to do for PC3. Now, most of the things we talked about you are getting ready to play with. PCO incorporates about 2/3 of the things we had originally discussed. You can go back to the discussion threads here in this forum and check all the things we talked about wanting to see. Then go and check the features thread for PCO. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the number of features discussed and those being brought to you in an UPDATE!
What that's done is to push the PC series forward by a game and making the series considerably less tank-centric. At least I think it has.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
As far as the tanks using cullin-type devices...I have my doubts they could make it through the larger hedgerows which were VERY thick. The M5 tank in this pic has rubber 'flat' tracks. I assume these tanks would get up to speed and ram the hedgerow and use momentum and low gear to plow on through.
CHAPTER 3 EARTH MOVERS
19. Description. The special armored earthmovers described below were extensively employed in the European Theater.
a. Tank Dozer is a medium tank, M4 series, equipped with a bulldozer blade similar to that mounted on a standard tractor dozer. The moldboard and blade are pivoted to brackets on the middle bogie assemblies of the tank. A hydraulic jack, powered by an oil pump driven off the propellor shaft, is mounted on the outside front of the tank to raise and lower the blade. The blade may be jettisoned by the tank driver in ten seconds. The tank dozer blade assembly and all its appurtenances weigh 7,050 pounds.1
b. "Rhino or Hedgerow Buster" is a substantial, pointed or bladed steel projection extending approximately two feet forward from the front of the light and medium tank final drive assembly. The device was first improvised an the Continent during the first three weeks in July 1944. Various models were based upon steel plate, railroad rails, and sections of pipe; all reinforced with gussets, depending upon what materials could be hastily obtained. The "Rhino" was run into the hedgerow by the tank, thus loosening the dirt and roots, and permitting the tank to crash through to the next field with a minimum reduction in speed.
20. Basis of Distribution for the Tank Dozer and the "Rhino" was determined within the theater.
a. A total of 390 tank dozers were requisitioned from the Zone of Interior prior to D-Day as a Class IV item of supply. An additional 100 were requisitioned for the British and 24 for French Forces. A total of 24 were received in April and 81 more in May 1944. Initial receipts were allocated to the major commands by Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces; for instance, the first 30 received were allocated as follows: First U.S. Army, 13; British 21st Army Group, 11; Canadian Forces, six.
(1) Initially, First U.S. Army allocated its dozer blades to units based upon availability, but an attempt was made to provide dozer blades on the basis of six per tank battalion (separate or with armored division), plus four additional per armored division. The four D-Day Tank Battalions landed on the Continent with four tank dozers each.
(2) Third U.S. Army initially allocated one dozer blade per division in the United Kingdom for familiarization training, and on 24 June 1944 asked for dozer blades on the basis of one per tank battalion (separate), three per armored division, two per infantry division, three per tank destroyer group, and one per ordnance ammunition company and battalion, requesting additional tanks to meet the requirements of the three latter type units. However, these additional tanks could not be made available. [/align]b. A standard basis of distribution for tank dozer blades (outlined below) was finalized through Headquarters, 12th U.S. Army Group, the latter part of July 1944, and an additional 278 dozer blades were requisitioned from the Zone of Interior to meet this overall requirement. The European Theater subsequently recommended to the War Department that dozer blades be made a Class II item of equipment included in tables of organization and equipment end supplied on that basis, and that all armored units shipped from the Zone of Interior be so equipped.3
(1) Two per medium tank company per medium tank battalion (total - six per battalion).
(2) Two per medium tank company per medium tank battalion with armored divisions (total - six per battalion).
(3) Two per self-propelled tank destroyer company with tank destroyer battalions equipped with 3" Gun Motor Carriage, M10, or 90mm Gun Motor Carriage, M36 (total - six per battalion). [/align]c. Tank dozers were included in the 738th Tank Battalion (Mine Exploder) on the basis of four per tank company (Chapter 10, Section 1, par 59 below). Tank dozers were also obtained from theater and army reserves and distributed among ordnance ammunition dumps including fifteen tank dozers for the Communications Zone.
d. All light and medium tanks engaged in operations in hedgerow country with the exception of tank dozers were equipped with the "Rhino" or "Hedgerow Buster" insofar as was permitted by time and materials available, with last priority to command tanks.
21. Employment in Combat.
a. The employment of the "Rhino" was limited to hedgerow country.
(1) The infantry-tank (and in some cases, engineer) assault team would advance from one small field to the next, with the tank making the breaks through the hedgerows, digging out machine gun nests, and pinning down the enemy with fire. Some units developed the technique of having the tanks advance alone 300 to 500 yards forward from the line of departure making breaks in the hedgerows and disorganizing enemy resistance while operating under artillery "time fire", finally returning and advancing again in conjunction With the infantry. The "time fire" would serve to pin down the enemy and protect the tanks against attack from hollow charge weapons, in the absence of supporting infantry.
(2) This hedgerow busting device was removed from surviving tanks, and the installation by the armies to replacement tanks was discontinued once the bocage country of Normandy and Brittany was left behind. [/align]b. The tank dozer was employed extensively for numerous purposes commencing immediately after D-Day. Some of the missions for which the tank dozer was employed in the European Theater are outlined below:
(1) Shortly after D-Day a platoon of four tank dozers of the 741st Tank Battalion operating on the beaches under intense fire, removed beach obstacles, opened roads, and pushed off beached landing vehicles.4
(2) The tank dozer was used to break through hedgerows, broaden existing gaps and gaps blown with explosive charges; and thereby facilitated the use of other than normal entrances through hedgerows.5
(3) Tank and gun emplacements were prepared.
(4) Road blocks were cleared; and in addition, rubble, wrecked vehicles, and snow were removed, and craters filled. It was found necessary in many instances to provide a tank dozer for these purposes to work in conjunction with the roller type mine exploders in sweeping roads and shoulders.
(5) In connection with the Roer and Rhine River operations, bridge approaches were built, launching sites for LCM's and LCVP's and crane sites were prepared, and cuts dozed in the river dykes.6 [/align]22. Merits and Deficiencies of the Rhino and the tank dozer.
a. The "Rhino" or "Hedgerow Buster" was simple, reliable, and effective. The only criticism applicable is that its need was not anticipated, the most effective design conceived end standardized, and tanks equipped accordingly prior to landing,
b. The Tank Dozer has the following merits and deficiencies:
(1) Merits:
(a) The tank dozer provides armored units with a standard vehicle that can be readily employed to reduce obstacles and assist in the advance of units or to assist in the preparation of defensive positions.
(b) Armor protection is provided for the crew.
(c) The tank dozer can also be employed as a fighter tank.
(d) The tank dozer installation is simple, reliable, and its maintenance demands are negligible. [/align](2) Deficiencies:
(a) The tank dozer installation overloads the front of the tank suspension system, and increases bogie tire failures and suspension maintenance demands.
(b) The tank dozer installation materially limits the driver's field of vision.
(c) There is insufficient clearance between the track and dozer blade arm to insure safe operation with the addition of the standard 3-5/8 inch track extended end connecters.
(d) Sufficient dozer blade accessories were not available so that dozer blades salvaged from burned tanks could be readily reinstalled on other tanks. [/align][/align]23. Summary.
a. An efficient and reliable "Rhino" or "Hedgerow Buster" design should be standardized, and all tanks should be equipped accordingly when combat in hedgerow or similar country is anticipated.
b. Tank dozer blades should be authorized in tables of organization and equipment on the basis of one per tank company.
c. Light weight, reliable tank dozer blade installations should be developed for such new model tanks as may be necessary to insure standardization of tank chassis within a tank company and the provision of dozer blades on the basis listed in paragraph b, immediately above.
d. All tanks on which a dozer blade can be installed should be manufactured with the necessary brackets in order that the blade, piston, pump and controls can be installed with the minimum of time and labor.
e. If full track cargo vehicles are provided for self-propelled artillery units, consideration should be given to equipping a corresponding portion of these vehicles with dozer blades.
f. A dolly or similar device that can be towed behind a tank should be developed to facilitate transportation of the dozer blade on extended road marches. Consideration should be given to developing a device that can receive the dozer blade when jettisoned by the tank, and thereby obviate the need for a crane.
g. An economical armored bulldozer should be provided fire fighting detachments protecting ammunition dumps to avoid the necessity of using tanks for this purpose.
In the 747th Tank Battalion, attached to the 29th Division, someone -- name unknown -- suggested using demolitions to blow gaps in the hedgerows. After some experimenting, the tankers discovered that two fifty-pound explosive charges laid against the bank would blow a hole in a hedgerow big enough for a Sherman tank to drive through. ......... Good enough, excellent even. But when the planners turned to the logistics of getting the necessary explosives to the tanks, they discovered that each tank company would need seventeen tons of explosives to advance a mile and a half.
Supposedly the Sherman tanks initially had pipes attached to the front. They were to ram the hedgerow and make neat holes so that explosives could be inserted into the holes. When the drivers did not stop in time, they found that the pipes acted as guides and the tanks would go right through the hedgerow themselves. Thereby the 'cullin' device was born.
SGT Curtis G. Cullin Jr., an American serving in the 102nd Cavalry Recce Squadron, devised a sort of fork made of iron which could be attached to the front of the tank thus enabling it to cut through a hedgerow rather than climb it. A maintenance expert in the same unit then worked on the technical aspect of the problem and built forks out of salvaged iron bars which the Germans had used for beach obstacles. A frantic pace developed to equip as many tanks as possible with the simple contraption before the final breakout - "Operation Cobra".
SGT Cullin was later awarded the Legion of Merit for his innovativeness.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Good Vids. The videos are showing small hedgerows like I thought. Also, the AFV must get a good running start. The US sector of the battle had the worst of the hedgerows.
There seems to be a few different designs but the main thing is that the device digs into the hedgerow and stops the tank from climbing up onto it. The momentum then takes the tank through with a piece of the hedgerow.
Tanks in WWII, which almost all had stick-shift type transmissions, would need a running start to get up to speed like the video shows. I wonder if the 1:1 boys know about this?
An interesting fact is that once a WWII tank has started to go up any incline, it's only shift option is to go to neutral and then reverse. It can not downshift in other words. If it picks the wrong gear, it will stall. So a 'non-cullin' equipped tank trying to just climb over a hedgerow would be in very low gear and committed once started.
Would two classes of bocage be unreasonable? One that would be able to be dealt with effectively within the time frame and one that would need some significant earth moving machinery that is beyond that which would be found on the battlefield. There must have been sections of bocage that were smaller and more readily handled then were others. In the game, some would be unalterable barriers and others affected by tanks, explosives ect.
As well, would there be a need to be able to issue a command to take advantage of the protection offered by the bocage, somewhat like the CM command to Seek Hulldown, except that it would be for the infantry. It would lesson the work trying to position squads manually so that they have protection from the terrain yet be able to have a good field of fire form a position behind the earthen hill of the bocage.
