Dear Sir:
First thanks very much for your excellent publication, The Command Post. I have found it to be very useful and informative, not to mention, highly entertaining. My only complaint is the obvious one-not enough issues and more than enough time between diem. I have received issue #6, but no more, as of 9 June. I don't know, however, whether any more exist. If you could drop me a line and let me know what's up with future issues, I would appreciate it. I would also like to know if the subscription rates have changed for issues 9 and up. My current subscription is supposed to run through issue #8.
Second, congratulations on Command Decision, 2nd Edition, and Armies of The Second World War, Volume I. The new format and typesetting of the rules and organizations are fantastic-much easier to read and use. I use Word on a PC with Windows, not a Mac, but I can still recognize it and appreciate it. The new format for the equipment data charts took a little getting used to, but I do like it. The new counter sheet is great, too. It's much more colorful and useful than the old one. However, there are some errors which were apparently transcribed directly from the first edition to the second. I pointed out some of these in my first letter to you.
In the Equipment Data Charts, the problems are with the weapon placement statistics for the various German assault guns and tank destroyers. These are actually worse than the errors in the first National Data Charts. Almost all of them are incorrectly listed as casemate weapons instead of hull weapons. The Sturmgeschutz III and IV, the Jagdpanzer IV (48 and 70), the Jagdpanzer 38(t), the StuH 42, and possibly the Jagdpanzer V, Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger, and Jagdpanzer Elefant should all be hull weapons in my opinion. The Jagdpanzer V, VI, and the Elefant have particularly high gun mounts that should probably give them the hull down firing ability of a casemate weapon, but all have been photographed fairly regularly with infantry on board. In the case of the early Elefant, (without the hull MG) tank riders were considered a necessity to protect the vehicles from Russian infantry. Some even had wooden sheds built onto them to protect the poor suckers stuck on the hull from HE blasts! Ali of this was, of course, due to the fact that these powerful, longer ranged SP guns were completely misused as breakthrough tanks.
Furthermore, shouldn't the GW II have its 150L11 howitzer in a casemate, not a hull mounting? What is the indirect fire range of the 88L71 FK43. Shouldn't the 88L56 AA have an indirect fire ability, as well? Its turntable mounting was capable of elevation to 90 degrees, and there is some evidence that it was used in this manner on some occasions. Also the early PZKw III models, (up to and including the Ausf F) had two MGs in the turret, not one. Do hull and turret skirts on tanks and assault guns give any bonus to vehicles so equipped when they are hit with hollow charge weapons, or is this taken into account in the armor ratings already? What the heck happened to the PzKw IVG? I know it might be considered redundant of the F2 or H, but it was a fairly widely produced and used vehicle. I would suggest the armor factors of the H model, with the 75LA3 gun of the F2. The SdKfz NW 41 is listed with a 1944 introduction date, but some of my sources indicate that it was in use in many units by the Spring of 1943. Finally, the 37LA5 has a hollow charge round listed. Assuming this represents the Steilgranat antiarmor bomb. These funny looking weapons had to be loaded into the muzzle of the gun. Something that I can't see a tank crew dismounting to do in the heat of battle very willingly. Some clarification on these issues would be very helpful.
The new Armies of the Second World War is an enormous achievement. The addition of the support units is greatly appreciately and should prove very useful in campaign games, if not in operational battles. However, there are some puzzling omissions in the volume. Where did the German 1943 cavalry division go, or did such an organization exist? As in the original National Organizational booklet, the antiaircraft battalion of the early 1943 panzer division is missing. Why was the Morale of this organization downgraded from 9 (10 recon) to 8 (recon 9)? Also, why are there no Raketenpanzerbuche stands in the panzergrenadier battalions of the early 1943 panzerdivision when theyexistin thebattalionsof the panzergrenadier divisions for the same period and in thelate 1943 panzer division. Further, since many Fallschirmjager division troops were equipped with the FG (Fallschirmgewehr) 42, shouldn't at least some of the infantry stands be equipped with assault rifles? In fact, shouldn't some of the late war panzergrenadiers be equipped with assault rifles?
Many troops in these units (particularly NCOs, Pioneers, and recon troops) converted from the UP-40 to the UP-44 toward the end of the war. I would suggest that some of the SMG stands should be assault rifle stands in the late 1943 or later formations. Finally, wouldn't the afore mentioned Fallschirmjager divisions be a great place for the unique 75/55 taper-bore antitank gun? As I understand it, that is where these very light but very powerful weapons were concentrated.
Last, but not least, I have a few rules questions. What's up with the new base sizes for 1/285 scale miniatures? I assume that vehicle bases should still be 3/4 by 1, the same width as the infantry with the depth 1" instead of 1/2". I base my 1/285 tanks, half tracks, and soft vehicles, as I spend far too long painting, decaling, and detailing them to have them manhandled in the heat of battle, much less dinged up in transit to the playing site.
Finally, when using the aircraft rules, how does one define the path a flight of planes takes to and from the target. This would be very important for figuring the ranges for antiaircraft weapons. Since the rules no longer require you to define a path from the flight's point ofentry of the game board to its target and then to its exit. I am confused as to how to take care of this. Also, how does your group base its planes? I'd be interested to know.
Please don't take all of these questions and comments as criticisms. I can imagine just how hard it must be to catch every little thing in such a monumental work as the 2nd Edition. It is a great product, and well worth twice the price. I'm just trying to do my part as an avid player of the most modern rules around. Thanks for your time.
William D. Gillespie
Details, details, details, and our thanks for pointing them out. If we have an error rate of one tenth of one percent, that's still quite a few. Answers of a sort to your questions.
1. On the Hull vs. Casemate question on the German assault guns. The rule on AFVs carrying passengers should read that open topped casemate weapons may not carry passengers. Thus one can load up the Stugs with passengers. Since these weapons could go hull down and still fire, they need to stay casemate weapons. Hull weapons are those that can not fire in a hull down position, i.e., the 75mm guns on both the Grant/Lee and the Char B.
2. The GW II needs to stay as an opened toped hull weapon instead of a casemate weapon as you suggest. It did not have the ability to take up a hull down position.
3. The indirect fire range of the FK43 88L71 is 288".
4. The ability of the 88L56 AA gun to carry out indirect fire is present in theory, and as you mention was done on rare occasions. I would not wish to list any such range in the rules, though the US Army Handbook on German Military Forces gives it a horizontal range of 16,200 yards. (324"). There are two items here that need to be kept in mind. First, this weapon was primarily used by Luftwaffe units, which were usually uninterested in firing their weapon except as an AA gun, or in the direct fire role. Second, when used by the army crews later in the war, there is no record of the crews being trained in indirect fire, and batteries being equipped with the needed FO spotters. I would suggest that gamemasters allow the use of 8856s with indirect fire only in special scenarios, and that the battery command stand will have to function as the spotter for the weapon.
5. On the question of the extra MG for the early PZ III models, they are still credited with one weapon even though they have two in reality.
6. Hull and side skirt armor is covered under the armor thickness rating as well as the way that damage is computed for hollow charge weapons.
7. PzKwIVG was left off by mistake. Your solution of using the armor/speed of the H with the 75L43 gun would be correct.
8. The SdKfz NW 41 1944 introduction date should stay 1944. Delivery dates of equipment can vary widely, with the dates in CD being those of general army wide usage. If you have evidence of units were issued these items earlier, I see no reason why you can't use them as long as you can prove to your players that they were there.
9. The German 37L45 HC weapon is the Steilgranat antiarmor bomb. Since the range for this weapon is reduced to 10", and ROF drops to 1, if some player really wishes to use them on his armored vehicles in 1943, I would let him. Remember that he counts as nonstandardized ammunition, and the vehicle can only carry three such rounds total, and has to give up any other non-standard ammunition, such as HVAP to carry them.
10. What happened to the German cavalry divisions in 1943? The one existing cavalry division was converted to a panzer division in 1942, and the remaining cavalry units were reorganized into brigade-sized commands during 1943. In 1944, these brigades were redesignated as divisions, hence their reappearance in the Divisional Order of Battle. In late 1943, the cossack division was formed using what was to be the 1944 organization.
11. What happened to the AA battalion of the early 1943 panzer division? Prior to early 1943, all heavy flak battalions were Luftwaffe and while often assigned to panzer divisions, were not part of them. The only flak units allowed under army control were the "MG" armed 20L113 battalions, and these were only of two to three batteries of 12 guns each. Starting in early 1943, the need for army flak units grew at the same time that as Luftwaffe AA weapons were withdrawn from the front to defend Germany from the Allied bombing offensive. The army's light flak units were still there early 1943, but they are spread out throughout the division assigned to different formations. To fill this gap in mid 1943, the army formed its own heavy flak units specifically for attachment to the panzer and panzergrenadier divisions. These new army flak battalions are those that appear in late 1943 in the panzer and panzergrenadier divisions.
12. Why downgrade German morale in early 1943? This is a point where most authorities, and German writers admit that they were no longer able to win the war. The loss of Stalingrad had an effect on the German Army, and overall morale suffered as a result.
13. Why are there no Raketenpanzerbuche stands in the panzergrenadier battalions when they are found in the panzer grenadier divisions of the same time? The Raketenpanzerbuche were issued on an army-wide basis in mid/late 1943. Thus, they don't show up in the early '43 panzer organization. Since panzergrenadier organization covers all of '43 and '44, they were included. If you want to be precise, from early 1943 to late 1943, replace the Raketenpanzerbuche stands where found with an infantry stand in the panzergrenadier divisional organization.
14. The use of the assault rifle rule by some Fallschirmgewehr divisions and some panzergrenadier formations in 1944 would be acceptable, though I think that it should be left up to the gamemaster and the scenario being played. I can't find any hard and fast data to which units were so equipped with it, so I hesitate to state the percentage that will be there.
15. Why not give the Fallschirmgewehr divisions the 75/55 taperbore AT gun? You are correct in stating that the 75/55 taper-bore AT gun was to have served with the Fal1schirmgewehr divisions. The problem with this weapon is that while it was a most effective AT gun, both the final production cost of the weapon and its ammunition was out of line with the achieved results. The gun crews found themselves unable to effectively train, and the weapons lack of an HE round was disliked as well. Its weight in action was the same as the 75L46 AT gun, and it appears that the Fallschirmgewehr dvisions for the most part replaced them with the 75L46. This becomes a call for the gamemaster to make on whether or not such a weapon might be present in a scenario.
16. Why the change to stand size to 3/4" by 1/2"? This was done to bring Command Decision into line with OTT and Combined Arms. The new stand size looks better and is more in keeping with the ground scale.
17. How does one define a flight path for aircraft? Aircraft may enter at any point on the board, and move from there to their destination in a straight line. If they move again to a different point, or exit, again all movement is assumed to be in a straight line. This is done to avoid allowing aircraft to wander the board at will.
18. For mounting aircraft, we use two methods. For 20mm, we use mainly 1/144th scale aircraft, and have wooden stands 3" square, and 1" high. To the top of the stand, and the bottom of the aircraft, we attach a piece of plastic hollow square beam, about 1/4" high. To connect the two, we use an sky blue painted plastic H beam that fits snugly within the square beam. (The hollow beam and H beam can be gotten at a railroad model shop.) We use different heights of H beam to indicate height, and some of the aircraft, such as the Ju-87 are mounted dropping at a 70 angle.
For 1/285th scale aircraft, we have used steel wire set into a cast lead semisphere. (Several of us used to be Rev War reenactors, and discovered that half of a lead 3/4" bullet made for a rather steady base.) One of our group members made at one point a slightly larger mold, and turned out a number of these. I hope that these answers help.
Sorry, I've been out of touch recently. Life has been rather hectic and though I've had some time for some gaming, I haven't had much time to spare for letter writing. Things have eased off a bit for me now, though not for my wife, who is still marking piles of university exam scripts. Anyway, on to the business at hand. A few months ago, I bought CA, more out of interest than any real intention to do any modern gammg. Most of it looks quite good, but the TO&Es are out of date. I'm working on some additional information, and will send it on at a later date.
I thought you might be interested to hear of the demise of the CVR (T) Scorpion and CVR (W) Fox. The problem with the Fox is that it is top heavy, in fact dangerous except on smooth straight roads. The problem with the Scorpion is that the gun breach opens into the turret, which is very small. If forced to fire with the turret hatches closed, after about three rounds the crew suffocates! The answer to both of these problems is very simple--scrap the Scorpion turret and take the turret off Fox and place it on Scorpion hull. Call the resulting (Scimitar-like) vehicle "Sabre." New, small turrets (we think similar to the old Vixen turret which never entered service) are to be fitted to the Fox hulls. The rolling program of conversions is supposed to be complete by the end of '93.
Phil Hendry
Back to Table of Contents -- Command Post Quarterly #1
To Command Post Quarterly List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1993 by Greg Novak.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com