Tannenberg Line

[Imp]

Only just started & will be a while 2 other games in progress.
Have to say happy with choice of STG's as I have found in my campaign MkIVs are hard to use in defence due to the weak turret. Pain in general to be honest because they need to avoid the high ground also.
STG,s are set up with ranged capability as they should survive a few hits & MkIVs are not so sensible setup in my book.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by DRG

...and tossing in panthers and 94 APC's would mean having to give the Russians more to maintain the balance and they are only 90 units from the max and then you have a monster NOBODY wants to play.

I for one like to play monsters.

The games I set up for myself are usually max size maps, maxed out numbers of units...hehe...


But, I suspect the bulk of Nordland's APCs belonged to its armoured recce bn - which was detached from the division at the time set for the scenario (it was not even in Estonia when the Russian attack at the Blue Mountains kicked off).

The Swedish version of Willhelm Tieke's Tragödie um die Treue (Tragedy of the Faithful) claims that StG 44 began arriving for use by the III. SS Pz-Korps by late summer 1944 - and that it was in use in the field between July 44 and May 45 - (that could I guess mean a general sort of use not necessarily by Nordland units but it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch including them in the scenario IMHO).

Some use of SS Infanterie units certainly seems motivated given the concentration of infantry from the 20. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS that was present in the fighting...

[Ts4EVER]

[quote=wulfir;847856]

Originally Posted by DRG

The Swedish version of Willhelm Tieke's Tragödie um die Treue (Tragedy of the Faithful) claims that StG 44 began arriving for use by the III. SS Pz-Korps by late summer 1944 - and that it was in use in the field between July 44 and May 45 - (that could I guess mean a general sort of use not necessarily by Nordland units but it doesn't seem to be much of a stretch including them in the scenario IMHO).

That is true, but one thing I gleaned from looking at original strength reports is that SS divisions (or generally Panzer Divisions) did not have that many StG44s in general, compared to infantry divisions. As I posted earlier, the Nordland division certainly reported none in June 1944. The last report from them that I have is from March 1945, where they still only report 135 StG44, compared to 578 normal smgs. Also, according to the report, they were not supposed to have any StGs at all, the "Soll" (target number) column is empty.

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ts4EVER

...from looking at original strength reports is...

Do the strength reports mention anything about rocket half-tracks?

Herbert Poller's unit history of SS-PzAA11 claims there were 4 SdKfz Wurfrahmen in it's 5. Kompanie - which would not have been present at the Blue Hills - but Tieke claims there was one battery of 8cm Vielfachwerfer, a Corps asset I guess.

Lexikon der Wehrmacht:

Die „Tannenberg-Stellung“ im Kampfraum Narwa bezog die Batterie am 27.7.1944 und verließ sie am 17.9.1944.
Brennpunkt dieses Einsatzes war die „Grenadierhöhe“ bei Narwa...

http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/...S/VWBSS521.htm

[Ts4EVER]

Originally Posted by wulfir

Do the strength reports mention anything about rocket half-tracks?

Herbert Poller's unit history of SS-PzAA11 claims there were 4 SdKfz Wurfrahmen in it's 5. Kompanie - which would not have been present at the Blue Hills - but Tieke claims there was one battery of 8cm Vielfachwerfer, a Corps asset I guess.

Not sure if I read the diagram right, but it shows 10,5cn and 15cm artillery as usual. That being said, there is another units with "attached to SS A11" with symbols I don't know. These are crossed out though.