Praetori

This! And one has to keep in mind that the US entered the war late and had little practical experience of "modern" tank combat while the Germans had been at it from '39 constantly learning and improving their designs. During the invasion of France the German machines were in part inferior to the tanks on the Allied side. Inferior armor or weaponry didn't prevent the Germans from knocking out scores of T-34s nor did it prevent the Allies from crushing the German Panzerdivisions. Comparing the earlier Shermans with a Panther or Tiger is like comparing a PzKpfw III Ausf E to a Matilda II or a Char B1 (or a guy with a rifle vs a guy with a howizer).

It's unsettlingly similar to 2 Para John "Patch" Adams during the battle of Plaman Mapu in Borneo. http://www.militaryimages.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7307

And built fences that could wreck a Tiger.

I personally don't think there's very much to see here. Battlefront was kind enough to give us a little marker to show an approximation of the health of the tracks. Not something a RL crew has much information on, even after-battle inspection won't give you much insight into how you'r vehicle is holding up (other than the obvious leaks, cracks or odd noises). I've found the CMx2 engine to be very kind to tracked vehicles terrain performance in general compared to my own experience. Real terrain is not made up of easily identifiable squares and bogging does occur frequently (there's a reason most western armored battalions has integrated towing vehicles). Now Combat Mission IS a GAME and everything that's realistic might not be fun from a gameplay perspective. Rather than harsh mechanics I'd rather see extra candy to help the players tackle the issues presented. I for one wouldn't say no to AFV re-arm and battlefield towing (and possibly track-repair of thrown tracks) as it's something that armored forces really do, on the battlefield, all the time. And it would make for some interesting gameplay if the AI could handle it (and bogging would be a lot less serious).

I must say after reading the initial deployment that I'm quite curious. It's an intriguing method to deploy the actual platoons in-depth instead of handling it on company level. Could we please hear something on your reasoning behind this because it seems to have been very effective? Also the American commander seems to have made quite an excellent job in finding your troop dispositions. As the initial attacks (as far as I've seen from the text) seem to have been directed with at least some precision at 1st Company's weakest spot namely the terrain held by 2nd platoon, correct? Edit: Awesome job btw. Although I don't have the time to play right now my fingers are itching. Astounding AAR so far.

SOP is responsible for a lot of stupid actions in war. Then again it's still stupid to leave vehicles for the enemy to use for ruses and such (proven time and again on the eastern front on both sides). http://www.wio.ru/tank/capt/capt.htm

Maybe a stupid question. But does it matter if you place the tree in the tile before placing the road or vice versa?

Then again, hindsight is always 20/20. Very little was actually known about the a-bomb at the time. The strategic implications was not something thoroughly understood at the time and all but the most senior brass actually involved in the project were pretty oblivious to the possibilities.

If by failed one can attribute a failure to achieve the planned strategic goals (so that something else had to be tried instead). Norway 1940 (forces evacuated) France 1940 (some forces evacuated, rest epicfailed) Market Garden (didn't open the road to Germany as planned nor did it trap the German forces west of the Rhine) Italy (terrible stalemate although it did push Italy out of the war). Then one could claim that the entire strategical bomber campaign was a failure as the resources invested could have been put to better use elsewhere.

As both Georgia and Azerbaijan are US friendly wouldn't a push down along the coast of the Caspian Sea be the simplest route to Tehran? Combined with a large amphibious operation from Bandar Abbas to split the country in half? The problem with both Afghanistan and Iraq are the logistics side. The nations are too unstable to ensure sufficient supply for some 10+ divisions. Turkey although a NATO member would probably be VERY hard to sway unless they EU provides a signed and stamped membership into the union.

I've moved back to CMSF from BN to play the brit campaign and just the other day I had a very scary encounter with ATGMs. My challengers peaked over a hillcrest and the missiles started flying. One Challanger got hit pretty bad, knocked out the targeting, optics and smoke launchers. Another was about half a second from dying when it got a good hit with the 120 main on the ATGM crew which made the missile spin away out-of-control as the ATGM gunner died. This was at a distance of some 2000m at which you normally expect western tanks to hold an edge.

Well it's always been a matter of time. Had the US not built the bomb the Germans or the Brits or the Soviets would've and then the US would have been forced to build one anyhow. The US did USE the bomb, twice, which in the long term showed just how horrific a weapon it is. As technology becomes cheaper and more available it's just a matter of time before everyone who feels threatened by the larger world-powers will try to get one. That won't mean that they'll use them, just that conventional war is less likely once they got 'em.

Stalingrad by Beevor is probably the best English book concerning ww2 and the eastern front in particular. Blixtkrig! 1939-1941 By Niklas Zetterling as well as April 9th by the same author is among the best historical books written although I've no idea on the availability in English. If I had to pick just ONE book it'd be Verlorene Siege by von Manstein as it's authentic book written by a man who had a gargantuan insight and influence on the actual battles. He leaves out or covers up some events, deliberately or not, but it's still a pretty interesting read.

Yeah this is quite troublesome. I played the Brécourt Manor mission and even though I was only facing the rear of the bunkers could not get to the single officer still inside until my zook teams got there. The assult teams had already spent most of their grenades (which they seemed VERY reluctant to use btw).

Regarding the zook teams: There's a lot of smoke floating about in the area judging by the screens. It could affect the spotting. It would've been nice with a screen detailing those units that can see the tank and those who can't. As far as I understand the zooks got movement orders. Fast or quick movement units tend to ignore firing upon the enemy and prioritize movement. The same goes for spotting. Infantry has the best chance of detection and ambush if they stay perfectly still with limited firing arcs. As soon as they guys start moving an experienced tank crew is likely to spot them while the infantrys chances of spotting is reduced. When faced with this kind of situation it's best to have nerves of steel and use the hide command until the enemy armor has passed and then sneak up a shot from behind. Edit: In WeGo a pause of 30sec ->move->fireArc usually does the trick.