>Yeah, a decent pilot in a Hunter could probably waste an entire assault
>group. : }

1 CEF hovertank = entire allied invasion of D-Day ;)
>
>I can't wait to actually see some of the miniatures.

Those should look cool.  This was from an email I sent to the V-man himself:

>>>PS:  Is the German 'Kampfer' on the info fax a walking version of >>>the
>>>Wirbelwind flak tank?  It certainly looks like it, with four >>>light
>>>(20mm is my guess) cannons.

>>It's one of our prototype GK designs. We've since refined the walker
>>system, but it may appear in an updated form in one of the books
>>later on.

If you haven't seen the picture in question, look for 'Store support, then
the monthly info fax.  You'll find it.

>Hm, anyone know if aircraft ground-assaults will be included with the basic
>rules, or as a later addition?
>
>Pat
>
I doubt they'll be in the basic book, unless it's in a rather abstacted
fashion, as the GK FAQ states that a 'air power' book is planned for early
2001.

Ron
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

> >Mr. Vezina sent the list a link to stats for some of the GearKrieg units.
> >Here's the link for those interested:
> >
> >http://www.dp9.com/test/gkvehicles.txt
> >
> >Pat
> >
>Thanks for the link!  Lol, these thinks really do suck, don't they?
>Statwise, it looks like the M12A1 'Longstreet' is about the best walker
>around.
>
>Ron Tracey

Yeah, a decent pilot in a Hunter could probably waste an entire assault
group. : }

I can't wait to actually see some of the miniatures.

Hm, anyone know if aircraft ground-assaults will be included with the basic
rules, or as a later addition?

Pat

>Mr. Vezina sent the list a link to stats for some of the GearKrieg units.
>Here's the link for those interested:
>
>http://www.dp9.com/test/gkvehicles.txt
>
>Pat
>
Thanks for the link!  Lol, these thinks really do suck, don't they?
Statwise, it looks like the M12A1 'Longstreet' is about the best walker
around.

Ron Tracey
http://www.crosswinds.net/~gatewaygso/gearkrieg.html
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

At 07:21 PM 19/06/00, you wrote:
>Well, it looks like I was beaten to the punch (by only four days!).  When
>the Egroups error message came up 'GearKrieg is already in use' as I was
>inputting the data for a GK list, I decided that I might as well join up the
>existing group and save me some trouble.
>
>One question, how do you guys know so much about GK already?  Did you sneak
>into the Pod's office one night and steal thier stuff or what?
>
>Ron Tracey

Mr. Vezina sent the list a link to stats for some of the GearKrieg units.
Here's the link for those interested:

http://www.dp9.com/test/gkvehicles.txt

Pat

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Tracey" <Farcaster@...>
To: <GearKrieg@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 6:21 PM
Subject: [GearKrieg] Hey All

> One question, how do you guys know so much about GK already?  Did you
sneak
> into the Pod's office one night and steal thier stuff or what?

Dunno if you know but Marc-Alex put up a link to stats of some of the units
used in GK on the HGML. I've played a few demo games of GK at some
conventions up here in Toronto. However I know next to nothing about the
military and WWII vehicles. ^_^

From the looks of it though, quite a few people on this ML are big military
buffs so it's interesting reading some of the posts.

--
Eric Chau, the City Ronin
Sergeant Major Kwan "Redeemer" Alex, 31st Heavy Gear Regiment - the Desert
Sharks
Nationality: Fort Henry, WFP, CNCS
Desert Sharks' Web Page: http://ds31.surf.to/

"Though I can see to the ends of the earth
  Still I ramble down this treacherous path.
  Over my shoulder I glimpse the corpses gathering.
  This day I walk the Way of the Beast."
  -- Blade of the Immortal, Dreamsong

Well, it looks like I was beaten to the punch (by only four days!).  When
the Egroups error message came up 'GearKrieg is already in use' as I was
inputting the data for a GK list, I decided that I might as well join up the
existing group and save me some trouble.

One question, how do you guys know so much about GK already?  Did you sneak
into the Pod's office one night and steal thier stuff or what?

Ron Tracey
The (sherman-killing) geologist
http://www.crosswinds.net/~gatewaygso/gearkrieg.html

Unfortunately, there isn't much here right now, not until the book comes
out, anyway.

PS:  Have anyone sent an email to the V-Man to get the site for this list on
the 'DP9 on the web' part of the website?
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--- In GearKrieg@egroups.com, "J. H. Frank" <frankjoh@p...> wrote:

> So, the GK T-44 isn't the historical T-44.  The T-28 had 4 7.62mm
MGs and a
> 76.2mm main gun, so it's not that.  The closest match I can think
of is the
> later version of the T-35, but it had one 76.2mm and 2 45mm guns

It also had armour you could spit peas through... OK, wildly
exaggerated, but it was way underarmoured for it's massive target
size (over 10 foot tall and 30 foot long at a guess, maybe more), and
ridiculously confused inside with 10 crewmen (and women!) firing off
a howitzer, two anti-tank guns and 2-4 MGs! The land battleship
concept originated in Britain, but we dropped it quick. The T-35
struggled on to the siege of Moscow, and actually fought the German
advance, briefly. The only survivors ran away... one ran as far as
the Ukraine! I happen to have a great deal of fondness for the T-35,
nonetheless, and have frequently imagined it, blazing fire in every
direction, rumbling over German trenches...

Wulf

>So, the GK T-44 isn't the historical T-44.  The T-28 had 4 7.62mm MGs and a
>76.2mm main gun, so it's not that.  The closest match I can think of is the
>later version of the T-35, but it had one 76.2mm and 2 45mm guns.  Aside
>from that juxtaposition, the "Nikolai Lenin" is a dead-ringer for the T-35.

Good to go. Now all we need are some stats for Finns and rules for ski
infantry and we can rock n' roll! :)

>9. Wasn't the reason the T-34 was so scary (aside from the number produced)
>that it was very manueverable and fast for a medium tank?  It seems odd that
>the T-34 has the same speed and manuever-rating as the KW-1, as the KW
>series was abandoned due to the fact that they were too slow and lumbering.
>In fact, it seems odd that the KW-1 is basically a T-34 with another MG.

There were a lot of things scary about it early on:

-It had a 75mm L/35-L/40 cannon (compared to German tanks, whose biggest AT
cannon was still the 50mm L/42 in 1941)
-it had sloped armor, around 45mm thick on the hull (sloped armor means
that a round approaching in a flat horizontal arc has more steel to go
through, plus it increases chances for deflection)
-it had a diesel engine, which was less a fire hazard (diesel fuel is not a
volatile as gasoline/petrol, which just about everyone was still using).
-It had big, wide tracks which greatly increased flotation over soft
ground. This means greater mobility for the tank, and less chance of
getting bogged down)

The story was that before the war, the Soviets were invited to examine
German tanks. It was hoped that this disclosure would awe the Soviets. When
shown the Pz. IV, they simply couldn't believe that this was the heaviest
tank the Germans had. Of course, there was a good reason for this...

As for the KV series tanks, they were not abandoned. Indeed, the Soviets
fully embraced the heavy tank concept, and late KV tanks became the
infamous IS series of heavy tanks, which were only taken out of service
(after being re-designated as the T-10) in the '60s. IIRC The KV-85 became
an early IS-2 (which didn't last in service...most being upgraded with the
122mm cannon).

>10. This is a personal issue, prolly, but I want more German half-tracks.
>Specifically mortar and flamethrower halftracks, and maybe an AA one.  One
>of the visually unique things about WWII is the half-track, and for a
>cinematic game, that seems important.  I remember watching war movies with
>my dad on Sunday afternoons, and the Germans had lots of halftracks!  Or
>something.

Except all those German HTs were actually US with suitable crosses added! :)

I'd like to see a few SPW 250s so that I can build German Recon groups. Or
I could just design it myself...

Or SPW 251/8 for those who want to deploy full PzGren. platoons.

Damon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
dca@...
Easton, Pennsylvania
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Now Building: Maquette's Panzer 38(t) Ausf. G
---------------------------------------------------------------

<snipped North Africa stuff, as that's a theatre of the war I've never read
about>

> 3. It's interesting that they include the T-44, however, there is a
> significant problem--the T-44 had the 85mm cannon in a turret nearly
> identical to the one in the T34/85! The stat line has it as being
> a 76.2mm weapon.

Snipped directly from one of the better Soviet armor webpages (Red Steel:
http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/introduction.htm ):

"During 1944 a new tank design based upon the T-34/85 appeared, designated
T-44. It was originally planned to produce a T-34/100 but the inadequate
size of the T-34/85's turret made it impossible. Due to the pressure laid
down on the tank designers no time was given for trials and testing the
vehicle good enough, and the design was doomed from the beginning. Even
though the design itself was revolutionary with a low height, heavy
armament, thick armour plates and the new transversial transmission, early
machines proved to be unreliable due to its short testing times. The T-44
was a 35 ton medium tank beeing armed with the same 85mm L/53 gun used on
the T-34/85 and SU-85."

So, the GK T-44 isn't the historical T-44.  The T-28 had 4 7.62mm MGs and a
76.2mm main gun, so it's not that.  The closest match I can think of is the
later version of the T-35, but it had one 76.2mm and 2 45mm guns.  Aside
from that juxtaposition, the "Nikolai Lenin" is a dead-ringer for the T-35.

<snipped BAR vs. big .50 thing>

> 5. I felt that the designation of "StuG L/33 B" to be rather
> confusing, and
> easy to mistake for the SiG 33.

Being only a mild WWII historian, I didn't even realize that a Sturmgeshutz
L/33 was a StuG III.  Thanks for the info.

<snipped SPW and PzIV comments>

> 8. I REALLY wish they would've used a different weapon for the German
> Walkers rather than making up new ones. You can't get much more
> Sci-fi than
> arming them with 2.8cm sPzB.41 squeeze-bores (that is, 28mm at the breech
> and 20mm at the BARREL). This doesn't seem to be the same weapon as the
> sPz.B.41 as the latter was just as--if not more--powerful than
> the 37mm cannon.

I wish that the German walkers were a bit more up-gunned.  While they have a
significant range advantage over the U.S. .50s, the damage from the 1.8cm
KWK is only slightly more.  Then again, it's balanced relatively well the
way it is.

On to my own comments, and keep in mind that Damon has far more knowledge of
this stuff than I, so my comments may be silly or downright wrong.

9. Wasn't the reason the T-34 was so scary (aside from the number produced)
that it was very manueverable and fast for a medium tank?  It seems odd that
the T-34 has the same speed and manuever-rating as the KW-1, as the KW
series was abandoned due to the fact that they were too slow and lumbering.
In fact, it seems odd that the KW-1 is basically a T-34 with another MG.

10. This is a personal issue, prolly, but I want more German half-tracks.
Specifically mortar and flamethrower halftracks, and maybe an AA one.  One
of the visually unique things about WWII is the half-track, and for a
cinematic game, that seems important.  I remember watching war movies with
my dad on Sunday afternoons, and the Germans had lots of halftracks!  Or
something.

And, to show that I'm not a mean bastard who exists to tear down what others
have worked very hard on...

Thanks for writing this.  I appreciate it.  And thanks for including the
dreaded 88.

      John H. Frank, megalomaniacal list-owner at large...

> Did anyone notice there is a GearKrieg chat option?

Yup.  And now I know the pain of "load: class ChatApplet not found."  Grr.

> Well, it is sunday afternoon/evening.
> I will probably be on a while.

I'm thinking of setting up a weekly chat session, with each week being for
the discssion of a different topic.  This week, assuming I can figure out
how to make friends with java, will be for general discussion/ranting about
the vehicle list.  Whee.

      John H. Frank

OK, I really looked at the stats for the vehicles and have a few comments.

1.M3A1 Stuart "Honey": I hope they're not trying to suggest this was the
vehicle used so successfuly by the Brits in N. Africa! Those were early
production M3 Stuarts with welded turrets. A nit, I know, but...

2. M3A5 Lee/Grant: These never saw service in N. Africa, possibly ever
outside the training establishment. ALL of the M3s used in N. Africa were
of the baseline version. Additionally, the tank had TWO fixed MGs in the
hull. These were NOT aim-able and were used only for suppressive fire. How
to represent that in the stats?

3. It's interesting that they include the T-44, however, there is a
significant problem--the T-44 had the 85mm cannon in a turret nearly
identical to the one in the T34/85! The stat line has it as being a 76.2mm
weapon. Besides, why choose such an obscure tank which saw little service?
Also note that the "official" line in the vehicle creation rules states
that a T-72 has 22 points of armor; this has 20.

Actually, I think they're confusing this with some other tank (perhaps the
T-28?).

4. I noticed all of the US walkers are armed with the M-1918. IIRC this was
the BAR. The Browning Machine Gun was either the M-1917 (water cooled) or
the M-1919. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference here!

5. I felt that the designation of "StuG L/33 B" to be rather confusing, and
easy to mistake for the SiG 33. Why not go with the conventional
designation of StuG IIIB? I suppose things can be confusing when you start
dealing with StuG IIIFs and F/8s and StuG IVs, but how confusing are the
differences between a Jaguar and the DartJaguar?

6. The SPW 251 had mounts for TWO machine guns--front and rear. Why not add
both of these?

7. I found it interesting that they detailed several different variants for
the Pz, III but only one for the Pz. IV. Guess we'll have to wait to see
the infamous "Mark VI Specials".

8. I REALLY wish they would've used a different weapon for the German
Walkers rather than making up new ones. You can't get much more Sci-fi than
arming them with 2.8cm sPzB.41 squeeze-bores (that is, 28mm at the breech
and 20mm at the BARREL). This doesn't seem to be the same weapon as the
sPz.B.41 as the latter was just as--if not more--powerful than the 37mm cannon.


Those are a few comments that I have. Interested in hearing what others
have to say.

Damon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
dca@...
Easton, Pennsylvania
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Now Building: Maquette's Panzer 38(t) Ausf. G
---------------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

Did anyone notice there is a GearKrieg chat option?

Well, it is sunday afternoon/evening.
I will probably be on a while.

later,
Lloyd Doug "Jesster" Jessee
ldjessee@...

Hello All,

Well, I am not sure what I am allowed to say and what I am not.

Also, things have rapidly changed in the background and setting over
the last year, so I might say something that is wrong.

I am checking with Marc on all of this.

What was the reason for this post? Oh, to just say that some of your
fears are unwarranted.

Hopefully posting more later,

Oh, and the Allied assualt with the Japanese defending it an awesome
scenario... :)

Lloyd Doug "Jesster" Jessee
ldjessee@...

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:42:24 -0400, "Eric Chau"
<eric.chau@...> wrote:

>> The famed Japanese Pole Mine :)

>Ouchies. Although a bunch of fanatical Japanese soldiers screaming
>"banzai!!!!" at the top of their lungs come to mind. ^_^

Actually more likely a lone man in a camouflaged hole, ambushing. The
other one was a guy sitting in a camouflaged hole in the ground with a
live aircraft bomb and a hammer, waiting for a tank to pass over
him...

Wulf

---- Original Message -----
From: "Wulf Corbett" <wulfc@...>
To: <GearKrieg@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [GearKrieg] Japanese Walker armaments


> >I know when I played a demo of GK a couple years back, all of the
Japanese
> >walkers carried these "shape charges", I think they were called.
Basically
> >they were long sticks with some explosive at the end and they would run
up
> >to their target, sorta stab at it with their sticks then pull the trigger
to
> >detonate it.
>
> The famed Japanese Pole Mine :) A Shaped Charge is the correct term
> for any explosive relying on explosive power rather than impact
> momentum to penetrate armour. Bazookas use it (also called the Munroe
> Effect after the guy who developed the technique), as do Anti-tank
> rounds from some, usually low-velocity, guns. The frightening thing is
> that in reality it was carried by ordinary soldiers, and 'stabbed'
> against allied tanks! Even though a shaped charge directs all the
> major force forward in a thin jet of superheated plasma, the reflected
> blast off the tank, not to mention the recoil of the pole, would have
> almost certainly wiped the soldier of the map!

Ouchies. Although a bunch of fanatical Japanese soldiers screaming
"banzai!!!!" at the top of their lungs come to mind. ^_^

Actually that reminds me of the guy I was playing with in that same
scenario. We were the Japanese who were trying to keep American soldiers off
a beach. One of the American tanks got to shore when my teammate decided to
stay "true" to the Japanese and had his men jump out of their bunker and ran
straight at the tank to throw explosives into its tracks. Of course, we
forgot that the tank still had an action so it used opportunity fire to pop
open the hatch and proceed to gun down half of the men with its machine gun.
^_^


--
Eric Chau, the City Ronin
Sergeant Major Kwan "Redeemer" Alex, 31st Heavy Gear Regiment - the Desert
Sharks
Nationality: Fort Henry, WFP, CNCS
Desert Sharks' Web Page: http://ds31.surf.to/

"Though I can see to the ends of the earth
  Still I ramble down this treacherous path.
  Over my shoulder I glimpse the corpses gathering.
  This day I walk the Way of the Beast."
  -- Blade of the Immortal, Dreamsong

>I know when I played a demo of GK a couple years back, all of the Japanese
>walkers carried these "shape charges", I think they were called. Basically
>they were long sticks with some explosive at the end and they would run up
>to their target, sorta stab at it with their sticks then pull the trigger to
>detonate it. The only other weapons I remember were maybe machine guns for
>all of them and a rifle for one walker.
>
>Eric Chau, the City Ronin

Probably the 'Teppoyari' listed on that stats page.

Pat

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:38:59 -0400, "Eric Chau"
<eric.chau@...> wrote:

>I know when I played a demo of GK a couple years back, all of the Japanese
>walkers carried these "shape charges", I think they were called. Basically
>they were long sticks with some explosive at the end and they would run up
>to their target, sorta stab at it with their sticks then pull the trigger to
>detonate it.

The famed Japanese Pole Mine :) A Shaped Charge is the correct term
for any explosive relying on explosive power rather than impact
momentum to penetrate armour. Bazookas use it (also called the Munroe
Effect after the guy who developed the technique), as do Anti-tank
rounds from some, usually low-velocity, guns. The frightening thing is
that in reality it was carried by ordinary soldiers, and 'stabbed'
against allied tanks! Even though a shaped charge directs all the
major force forward in a thin jet of superheated plasma, the reflected
blast off the tank, not to mention the recoil of the pole, would have
almost certainly wiped the soldier of the map!

Wulf

---- Original Message -----
From: "J. H. Frank" <frankjoh@...>
To: "GKML" <GearKrieg@eGroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 2:10 PM
Subject: [GearKrieg] Japanese Walker armaments


> While browsing through some articles on MagWeb, I ran across references to
> the Japanese Kyunana Shiki 20mm Model 97 Anti-Tank Rifle.  The Model 97
was
> a gas-operated full-auto AT rifle, and it seems like the sort of thing
that
> would make a really appropriate Gear weapon.  I wonder if it'll get
included
> in some of the late-war stuff.

I know when I played a demo of GK a couple years back, all of the Japanese
walkers carried these "shape charges", I think they were called. Basically
they were long sticks with some explosive at the end and they would run up
to their target, sorta stab at it with their sticks then pull the trigger to
detonate it. The only other weapons I remember were maybe machine guns for
all of them and a rifle for one walker.


--
Eric Chau, the City Ronin
Sergeant Major Kwan "Redeemer" Alex, 31st Heavy Gear Regiment - the Desert
Sharks
Nationality: Fort Henry, WFP, CNCS
Desert Sharks' Web Page: http://ds31.surf.to/

"Though I can see to the ends of the earth
  Still I ramble down this treacherous path.
  Over my shoulder I glimpse the corpses gathering.
  This day I walk the Way of the Beast."
  -- Blade of the Immortal, Dreamsong

While browsing through some articles on MagWeb, I ran across references to
the Japanese Kyunana Shiki 20mm Model 97 Anti-Tank Rifle.  The Model 97 was
a gas-operated full-auto AT rifle, and it seems like the sort of thing that
would make a really appropriate Gear weapon.  I wonder if it'll get included
in some of the late-war stuff.

     John H. Frank

>Where were the gear sized Panzerfausts? They were around right at the
>beginning of the war me thoughts...

I don't believe so. Early in the war the primary AT weapon in infantry
battalions was the Anti-tank rifle. The PzFaust didn't make an appearance
until around 1943.

Damon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
dca@...
Easton, Pennsylvania
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Now Building: Maquette's Panzer 38(t) Ausf. G
---------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 06:13:23 -0000, "Jason Prince"
<wanderer@...> wrote:

>I am very glad though that we are not goign to see design rules
>because that really annoyed me with HG, with ever second post being
>about the next bestist gear config. I like the idea of stock models
>as it would have been for the rest of the military. We can then see
>more stuff on tactics for existing hardware, good ideas for
>scenarios, how to play part of a much larger set scale piece,
>modelling and scale discussions etc

I agree in principle, but as a wargamer and 'scholar' of WW2 and the
various projects and developments of vehicles therein, it'll be
annoying if I cannot reproduce my personal favourites. There's just no
way DP9 can detail every single vehicle and variant of the period,
never mind the oddball projects, and the late-war designs that never
saw steel cut. Still, the good point is that, if it's a matter of
reproducing real designs, the real statistics (weights, speeds,
weapons, etc) will be known. And I for one will not be using a point
system anyway, just as I never do for WW2 gaming. Real-life (or
realistic) combats were not carefully arranged to be equal!

Wulf

> >I'm not all that familiar with the Belgian end of things.  In fact, I only
> >really recall that they had bicycle-mounted cavalry.
>
>As for bike mounted infantry, many European nations went for this at one
>point or another. One thing that may not be as obvious to people living in
>Canada and the US is the extensive and very well developed road system that
>Europe had. Bike troops were just like normal infantry but they had the
>added advantage of greater mobility thanks to their bikes. This idea would
>be resurrected by the Germans in the late war period with their Fuesilier
>recon units.

IIRC, the Swiss still have a bike corp.

'Course I could be wrong. It's 3AM and I can't sleep as I've been drinking
litres and litres of Diet Coke all day.

Pat

--- In GearKrieg@egroups.com, "J. H. Frank" <frankjoh@p...> wrote:
>
> Oh, and another observation.  The Soviets have no walkers, but the
Japanese
> do.
>
>     John H. Frank

Yeah, I would have thought if anybody needed Walkers it would have
been the Soviets in all that mud and snow - but then again maybe
thats why they dont have them... or more likely that list we saw was
not the whole "kit and kabodle". For example there were no landing
craft, artillery of size, super tanks (well maybe that russian
thing), battle train stats, fortification gun stats etc.

I also wonder if striders will make an appearance, more spider/lizard
like than HG early types, packing antitank stuff for poor terrain.

I was a bit disappointed that gears didn't (except the Japanese one)
have melee weapons or at least bayonettes for popping those pesky
tank crew compartments and engines. I really see GK as a game were
gears will want to get very close to toss grenades and bend barrels.
I hope the rules are all there for that sort of thing. I can also see
gear sized trenches :)

Where were the gear sized Panzerfausts? They were around right at the
beginning of the war me thoughts...

I am very glad though that we are not goign to see design rules
because that really annoyed me with HG, with ever second post being
about the next bestist gear config. I like the idea of stock models
as it would have been for the rest of the military. We can then see
more stuff on tactics for existing hardware, good ideas for
scenarios, how to play part of a much larger set scale piece,
modelling and scale discussions etc

I am looking forward to seeing the glider model pictures :) I can
just see black Death Head Commando's on wing.

Most of all I think an GK RPG done right would rock. A pulp genre /
1940's rpg game, with this cool future science that doesn't break my
suspense of disbelief, lots of room for espionage, Gear special ops,
different theatres of war, would be great. Perhaps the Silhoutte
system will need to move from "realistic" to "pulp" settings to make
it work, but its able to do that as JC pointed out. I thoguht FASA
was on a winner with Crimson Skies but then no rpg evenuated and Mike
Stackpole didn't get paid and pulled the plug (see his web page)IIRC.
Hopefully the POD will get enough interest from us to make an RPG a
goer.

Jason P.Prince

>I'm not all that familiar with the Belgian end of things.  In fact, I only
>really recall that they had bicycle-mounted cavalry.

The original plan for the Maginot line was one that would include future
Belgian defences. However, the Belgians were reluctant to foot the bill so
instead they concentrated most of their defences into a few strong forts
(two IIRC). The most famous one, Eben Emael, fell to an under strength
German Para company (or a strong platoon...).

As for bike mounted infantry, many European nations went for this at one
point or another. One thing that may not be as obvious to people living in
Canada and the US is the extensive and very well developed road system that
Europe had. Bike troops were just like normal infantry but they had the
added advantage of greater mobility thanks to their bikes. This idea would
be resurrected by the Germans in the late war period with their Fuesilier
recon units.

This actually has a sort of HG and GK parallel, with the SMS system. Except
they're roller skates! :)

OK, not really...

>In counterpoint, and I believe this is why you stressed "seemed", France was
>quite possibly the most evenly matched campaign of the early war on a
>manpower and equipment level.  Only through some horrifying strategic and
>tactical blunders did the the Germans do so well.  To analyze, and this is
>all imho, the main things the Germans had going for them were the ingrained
>inflexibility of French high command, and the overstated and fear-inducing
>reputation of the Heer.

I think it was more than that. There's a large number of factors that
contributed to German success. The tanks were better designed (though not
necessarily more powerful), the crews better trained, and more importantly,
the officer corps had a great level of personal initiative and understood
how to fight armored battles (mass, concentration, etc)

However, from a purely wargaming standpoint and with players who are not
familiar with how the French deployed their armor, they can be a powerful
force.

>A final question, seeing that you seem to have quite a grasp on WWII
>equipment: the "ausf" designation is equivalent to the english use of the
>word "mark" for variations, right?  Is the repeated use of "aust" in the GK
>vehicle thing a typo, then?


The full designation is Ausfurung. Aust is indeed a typo. I generally
interpret it as "model". (i.e. Panther model D). I hope they DO correct it,
as something like that will really bug me!

>Oh, and another observation.  The Soviets have no walkers, but the Japanese
>do.

Well, the Japanese would probably have received plans from the Germans.
This is how they were able to license produce quality in-line DB 601
engines for aircraft, as well as the never deployed jet and rocket fighters...

Damon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
dca@...
Easton, Pennsylvania
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Now Building: Maquette's Panzer 38(t) Ausf. G
---------------------------------------------------------------

<<Oh, and another observation.  The Soviets have no walkers, but the
Japanese do.>>

Yeah, but the Soviets get a frickin' huge tank. : }

Gotta note, I'm not terribly knowledgeable about WWII armour or battles,
but I do love the GearKrieg idea. Lookin' forward to learnin' a lot from
you folks. : }

Pat

Enter your vote today!  Check out the new poll for the GearKrieg
group:


Do you want a Gear Krieg role-playing
game?

   o Yes.
   o Umm, ok.
   o Whatever.
   o Not really.
   o No.


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://www.egroups.com/polls/GearKrieg

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the eGroups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

> Hi. When I checked I was the only other member on the list. Hopefully
> others have joined and we can get a really good discussion going!

This is pretty much a crash-course in forum dynamics for me.  It'll be
interesting to watch the poster-to-lurker ratio.  List admin tools are neat,
aside from the incredibly tempting "ban this user" button.

> Think of the audience though; to many, the fall of France looks to be a
> good example of how to lose a war (from the French perspective, though I
> think the Brits were just as guilty, and the Belgians somewhat
> less so...).

I'm not all that familiar with the Belgian end of things.  In fact, I only
really recall that they had bicycle-mounted cavalry.

> However (IIRC) the first book is going to deal with the European campaign
> while the first supplement will deal with the North African
> campaign. These
> are two campaigns were the opponents at least *seemed* evenly
> matched, and
> were longer and so leaves open much more material for gameplay.

In counterpoint, and I believe this is why you stressed "seemed", France was
quite possibly the most evenly matched campaign of the early war on a
manpower and equipment level.  Only through some horrifying strategic and
tactical blunders did the the Germans do so well.  To analyze, and this is
all imho, the main things the Germans had going for them were the ingrained
inflexibility of French high command, and the overstated and fear-inducing
reputation of the Heer.

A final question, seeing that you seem to have quite a grasp on WWII
equipment: the "ausf" designation is equivalent to the english use of the
word "mark" for variations, right?  Is the repeated use of "aust" in the GK
vehicle thing a typo, then?

Oh, and another observation.  The Soviets have no walkers, but the Japanese
do.

     John H. Frank

And now a GK list! Wonder why we don't do all of the stuff through
EG, what with all the weird jumpiness of the coffeehaus server!

So, thoughts on the new stats that Marc posted?

Hi. When I checked I was the only other member on the list. Hopefully
others have joined and we can get a really good discussion going!

>Despite covering the early years of WWII, GK doesn't include the
>French, Belgian, Polish, or Czech armies.  I wish that the pod was
>releasing a module for the fall of France, as the Char B1 bis is my
>favorite tank of the early war.  *shrug*

Think of the audience though; to many, the fall of France looks to be a
good example of how to lose a war (from the French perspective, though I
think the Brits were just as guilty, and the Belgians somewhat less so...).
However (IIRC) the first book is going to deal with the European campaign
while the first supplement will deal with the North African campaign. These
are two campaigns were the opponents at least *seemed* evenly matched, and
were longer and so leaves open much more material for gameplay.

>The omission of Czech equipment strikes me as somewhat irksome, due
>to the fact that the Czech-made Panzer 38t is considered by some to
>have been one of the better light tanks of the early war period.

Totally agree. After Germany took Czechoslovakia, they quickly integrated
some 266 Pz.35(t) and even more Pz.38(t) into the Panzerwaffe, additionally
keeping the latter into production (in various forms) until 1945 and
*after*, the Swiss G-13(?) based in the old Hetzer was still in use in the
mid '60s (and additionally formed the basis for a few re-enactment groups
and museums). Czech equipment even extended to rifles, SMGs, MGs, field
pieces, and other equipment. During the invasion of France, the majority of
German AT gun tanks were Pz. 35-38(t)s.

Damon.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Agretto
dca@...
Easton, Pennsylvania
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Now Building: Maquette's Panzer 38(t) Ausf. G
---------------------------------------------------------------

As the subject states, welcome to the interim GKML.  Now to start a
small discussion and rant at the same time...

Despite covering the early years of WWII, GK doesn't include the
French, Belgian, Polish, or Czech armies.  I wish that the pod was
releasing a module for the fall of France, as the Char B1 bis is my
favorite tank of the early war.  *shrug*

The omission of Czech equipment strikes me as somewhat irksome, due
to the fact that the Czech-made Panzer 38t is considered by some to
have been one of the better light tanks of the early war period.

Then again, these are rather nit-picky quirks of the vehicle list.

      John H. Frank