Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: timshin42

Not trying to be confrontational, but if you are not doing logistics, you are not doing anything that even remotely resembles combat . From an artillery perspective, managing ASR and RSR of ammunition is as important as fire planning and fire support coordination.

The original proposal for sophisticated supply truck rules is very interesting, but also very tedious [>:]and complicated for the player who thrives on pure maneuver with maybe a bit of indirect and air fire support. And there is nothing wrong with that as a personal preference.[:)]

I would welcome any features that add OPTIONAL features to enhance fire support and logistic dimensions to the combat simulations that we all obviously love!

Well said Tim!!! I have no objection to all this minutia that people are proposing. If they want to get into the intricate details of issuing bullets to soldiers, that's fine FOR THEM. But these ideas should remain OPTIONAL if they are included in any future patches or updates.

I think I first read about the Soviet penal units in a book called, "Hell in the East" or something like that.  The book was a compilation of American intelligence debriefings of Germans who fought on the Eastern Front.  It was an American attempt to gather intelligence on the Soviets and Soviet tactics and covered things like the muddy seasons, the intense cold and how best to fight in it, and, if I'm not mistaken, Soviet penal battalions.  I tried looking for the book on Amazon but didn't find it.  I've long since returned it to the used book store from which I bought it.
 
 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-Hell-G ... 0804116989

I believe this is the book you are referring to.

Jason Petho

Thank you Jason and Frank-I'll add this book to the old library.

Yep, that's it.  "Fighting in Hell - The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front," by Peter Tsuoras.

Tim41, read the reviews before buying it. The authors were writing to inform, not to entertain. It's informative, but it can be a dry read.

Well, if I can stand Hart's arrogance-I can stand anything, but thanks for the warning. When you read commercial insurance contracts for a living, the Cornflakes box is exciting reading.

Yikes!!! That book sure got some mixed reviews!!! [X(]

Erhard Raus' book is really my favorite read and I have always wanted to try his 'snail offensive' tactics. The Zone Defense sounds strange for a German general, but it works! Some of his tactics work well in the old version. His GROFAZ complaints are kept till the end for the most part, and the work was extensively used by the US Army during the Cold War. It's VERY readable and enjoyable. VM's Panzer Battles is great but he has his nose up Balck's behind....

Here's another link to the "Fighting in Hell" with some more reviews by readers:
 
http://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Hell-German-Ordeal-Eastern/dp/0804116989/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204926619&sr=8-1
 
I think the readers were evenly split between those who loved it and those who hated it.
 
Isn't Raus the fellow who said putting minefields in front of your lines was a waste of time -- the Soviets would just remove them the night before the attack anyway.  Wasn't it Raus who said to put your mine fields behind your front lines?  That's where you'd find the enemy eventually, and mines behind your front lines couldn't be removed.  The Zone Defense is the absence of a continuous line, isn't it?  The idea was to allow some infiltration but to counterstrike?  I don't recall "snail offensive" tactics, so maybe I'm thinking of another author. 

Page 279, "We laid no mines at all in front of our forward units, because the enemy could remove them and even use them for their own purposes before an attack opened. The main battle positionwas mined to a depth of five kilometers to the rear. Prior to First Ukrainian Front's offensive in the Lvov area that summer, First Panzer Army mined the sector in which we expected the main attack with 160,000 anti-personnel and 200,000 antitank mines within the zone defense.This was the first time that any German army had applied such zone tactics."
This was only a portion of six different problems from anaylisis of the reasons for most Soviet breakthroughs-see pages 276-285. The tactics applied were successful in the Battle of Lvov, and the breakthrough was made to the north-in another army's part of the line. In fact, he gave the Russians a good thrashing.

The line was continous in depth-a checkerboard and some overrunning of the ground was allowed by armor or local penetrations, but the idea was to withdraw the forward postions just prior to the usual heavy Russian bombardment-3,000 guns at Lvov to 400 German and thus avoid casualties-that was one aspect.

According to one of the reviewers, Erhard Raus was one of the contributors to "Fighting in Hell."  I think Tim41 is referring to Erhard Raus' memoires, which is a separate book.

The situation at the point of Lvov certainly supported mining his rear. The Soviet breakthroughs had to be slowed at least-applying the Zone Tactics to a whole army proved difficult, but again he was a favorite of Hitler because he ended up holding the same ground at the end of the fight-more than once. It was a six-fold answer to overwhelming odds. 1200 tanks to about 150 assault guns and tanks, 10 to 1 in infantry-the guns mentioned before at 3,000 to 400, and complete dominance of the air by the Russians. There was little fuel and manuever was out of the question.
If you ask me-it's a variation of an elastic line but with no tanks for the couterthrust, what could he do?
The snail tactics are during the Winter of 41-and after the Moscow retreat had somewhat stabalized the line into a bizare patch of pockets and fronts facing all directions! It involved securing and protecting a supply line to his corps and is interesting (he was by then a divisional commander).

Correct.

Panzer Operations, The Eastern Front Memior of General Raus, 1941-1945. compiled and translated by Steven h. Newton, C2003-Da Capo Press.
-This was his interviews with the US Army and other memoirs combined into one reading. It really gives a feeling of the tactics and relates combat examples more than those mentioned.

That is a good book. Another if you can find it is The Anvil Of War- German Generalship in Defence on the Eastern Front. Generaloberst Erhard Rauss and Generalleutnant Oldwig von Natzmer Editor Peter G. Tsouras. Greenhill Books

Although the snail offensive is in the book there are lots of other things in it to make it interesting reading.

Ok, so the supply truck wasn't such a bright idea. I understand, don't go too deep into such nonsense [:-].

I want to change the subject for just a moment. Don't worry, no more ideas.

When playing a DCG I noticed we're unable to take command of either an Armored Infantry Battalion or a mechanized battalion. I did my own experimenting with the DCG and I found that to play an AIB or a mechanized battalion which falls under the OOB of either an Armored Division or a Panzer Division I had to fool the DCG and create a duplicate division and recode it as an infantry division.

Jason, in future updates do you know if we can command a mechanized battalion without having to double up the OOB?

Rob

ORIGINAL: Mraah

Ok, so the supply truck wasn't such a bright idea. I understand, don't go too deep into such nonsense [:-].

I want to change the subject for just a moment. Don't worry, no more ideas.

When playing a DCG I noticed we're unable to take command of either an Armored Infantry Battalion or a mechanized battalion. I did my own experimenting with the DCG and I found that to play an AIB or a mechanized battalion which falls under the OOB of either an Armored Division or a Panzer Division I had to fool the DCG and create a duplicate division and recode it as an infantry division.

Jason, in future updates do you know if we can command a mechanized battalion without having to double up the OOB?

Rob

I can create a coded Armoured Division that is coded with infantry for you.

Now is a good time to tell me, as I am wrapping up the order of battles!

Any other oob wishes, get them to me by tomorrow at the latest!

Jason Petho

Jason Petho

ORIGINAL: Jason Petho

I can create a coded Armoured Division that is coded with infantry for you.

Now is a good time to tell me, as I am wrapping up the order of battles!

Any other oob wishes, get them to me by tomorrow at the latest!

Jason Petho

Wow, that was a fast reply! I was just wondering, no need to make a change like just for me since I can add that myself for my DCG.

While digging around the OOB for country 10 I did find some odd entries I could mention to see if you guys saw it. I figured since the whole team is doing such an outstanding job running a fine tooth comb through the OOB's you've probably seen it anyway. Give me a few moments and I'll post what I saw and see if it's worth checking. I don't want to bog down the process and it's no big deal.

Rob

Jason,

I stumbled upon this while looking at the 4th Armored Divison. Both the DIV 10 and BAT 10 oob's are v1.02b files, date stamp 7/30/2007 5:09pm.

-Division 10 oob -

Under the 4th Armored Divison (44 06 45 05 D1040005 7 4th Armored Division) there are 2 Battalions :

44 06 45 05 B1010010 8th Tank Battalion
44 06 45 05 B1010011 35th Tank Battalion

The reference for 8th Tank Battalion (B1010010) is duplicated 5 times in the Battalion 10 OOB in order :

42 11 45 05 B1010010 5 $ Tank Battalion (Light)
44 09 45 05 B1010010 5 3rd Tank Battalion (10th Armored Division)
44 06 45 05 B1010010 5 8th Tank Battalion (4th Armored Division)
44 09 45 05 B1010010 5 11th Tank Battalion (10th Armored Division)
44 09 45 05 B1010010 5 21st Tank Battalion (10th Armored Division)

It appears that it's selecting the "$ Tank Battalion (Light)" when it should be using B1010010 5 8th Tank Battalion (4th Armored Division). Looks like it's using the first reference to B1010010 and never gets to the correct entry.

The entry for 44 06 45 05 B1010011 35th Tank Battalion has a typo :

it reads...
44 06 45 05 B1010011 5 36th Tank Battalion (4th Armored Division)
44 06 45 05 P10305 36th Tank Battalion HQ
...when it should both read 35th.

Also, the entry for B1010023 has a typo ;

it reads ...
45 01 45 05 B1010023 5 35th Tank Battalion (8th Armored Division)
...when it should read 36th.


Thats it pretty much. I wasn't looking for errors but that's what I saw.

One other interesting note. The DCG called for some tank destroyer battalions and these entries in the Battalion 10 OOB seemed to have been REM'd out :

[44 06 45 05 B1013005 5 $(601-899) Tank Destroyer Battalion (76mm Tow AT )
[44 08 45 05 B1013002 5 $(601-899) Tank Destroyer Battalion (76mm SP AT )
[44 08 45 05 B1013003 5 $(601-899) Tank Destroyer Battalion (90mm SP AT )

I don't know if these were causing trouble in the DCG or not.

Thanks for listening and for all your great work!!!

Rob