New features wish list!

[womble]

- Half tracks which stand up to bullets.

Might as well ask for "Shermans which stand up to 75mm AP". They already do, to an extent, but get the angles wrong, (or ignore the fact that they're open topped, in the case of halfies) and your pTruppen will pay the price. And any greater resilience would not reflect their real world performance.

[MikeyD]

I was playing a 'certain Beta game' and watched as an incoming 65mm howitzer round skirted the top of the Sherman turret and hit the unbuttoned TC right between the eyes. Must've 'virtually' taken the poor guy's head clean off. If it had hit six inches lower it probably wouldn't have scratched the tank's paint job. I don't know about standing up to 75mm AP, but versus many of the weapons fielded in CMFI the 75mm Sherman practically earns 'ubertank' status.

[Odin]

Might as well ask for "Shermans which stand up to 75mm AP". They already do, to an extent, but get the angles wrong, (or ignore the fact that they're open topped, in the case of halfies) and your pTruppen will pay the price. And any greater resilience would not reflect their real world performance.

I would disagree half tracks are constantly put to flight by small arms fire, being little more effective than a jeep in taking hits. Their raison d'etre was to stand up to small arms fire, or troops might have well as been transported by trucks.

[Steiner14]

The real Normandy would burn your eyes too.

A beautiful house and not that kind of US-american cardboard boxes that fly away with the first storm and a nice garden instead of a flat green desert.

[womble]

I would disagree half tracks are constantly put to flight by small arms fire, being little more effective than a jeep in taking hits. Their raison d'etre was to stand up to small arms fire, or troops might have well as been transported by trucks.

Perhaps that was their initial designed intention, but in the case of Normandy '44, the engagement conditions don't allow it. Doctrine adopted by the combatants at the time did not have the half tracks carrying troops under fire. Their armour simply wouldn't withstand it, especially from the sides and rear. Ranges are short enough that commonly issued ammo types will regularly penetrate the 8mm or so of steel plate they carried on their flanks.

In my experience, Half tracks are as much "put to flight" by being threatened as they are by actual penetrations, and that's a sound historical reflection of the doctrine on both sides. And if you push your half tracks past that "inbuilt" shyness, they often suffer, badly. Since armour thickness and penetrations are modelled with immense care in this game, that has to be a realistic result. Unless you think BFC have made some sort of mistake, at which point you'll be needing some decent sources to convince them that full-power rifle bullets can't penetrate 8mm steel plate with commonly-issued ammunition at ranges under 100m. Good luck.

It's entirely possible to use half tracks as fire support vehicles, if you don't expect them to be tanks, even light ones, and recognise that their gunners are vulnerable. As protection for their passengers, they're good for distant small arms and a fair amount of shell fragmentation.

[c3k]

US Halftrack armor was significantly worse than German halftrack armor.

"The halftracks were initially extremely unpopular and dubbed "Purple Heart Boxes" (a grim reference to the US Army's decoration for combat wounds) by American troops[2]. Chief complaints centered around the complete lack of overhead protection from airbursting artillery shells and that the armor was inadequate against machine gun fire.[2]"

Now, remember that German machineguns used the SAME ammo as their rifles, and you'll see why US halftracks were properly "put to flight by small arms fire". Anecdotally, there's the old saying that they're okay; they only let German bullets in, they don't let them go anywhere else. (Penetrating one side and getting into the passenger compartment, they then lack the energy to get out, so they ricochet for a while. Flesh loses.)

As for the Sdkfz 251: "...involving many angled plates that gave reasonable protection from small arms fire."

Armor plate thickness (NOT angle or hardness):

.............US..........German

Front: ---12.7mm.....14.5mm

Others---6.35mm.....8mm

Thicker, albeit only slightly, armor and at a better angle provided the crucial difference for the German halftracks.

[McAuliffe]

Are we supposed to be excited about new features in the next module, that were already available in CM1, but failed to make it in the first editions of CM2 generation?

Sounds like 2 steps forward, 1 step back each time a new engine is developed.

In my humble opinion the game would be revolutionised by the implementation of a "follow the leader command". The current repetitive plotting of way-points for each and every individual unit really puts me off. At the point that for as far I play the game, I design myself a scenario where I play the defensive positions and program the AI to attack. At least I don't have to do all that work of plotting.

What I really do not understand is that the developers design - I admit - impressive graphics of all the hardware and scenery, but on the other hand promote real time play as the way to go. Who has the time to admire all these details when playing real time ? Unless you have the feature of recording and playing back I see no sense in designing all these fancy details. Actually all these nice representations hinder smooth real time play. You are better off with 2 dimensional top view, NATO unit symbols and enter a click fest.

A third development I would appreciate, but which I would rather consider like a cherry on the cake is that the game can be played in multiple screen mode. Especially in real time play it would be nice to have a screen with top view mode and and one other that gives you the point of view down and dirty at the hot spot of the moment.

[Odin]

Ranges are short enough that commonly issued ammo types will regularly penetrate the 8mm or so of steel plate they carried on their flanks...

Unless you think BFC have made some sort of mistake, at which point you'll be needing some decent sources to convince them that full-power rifle bullets can't penetrate 8mm steel plate with commonly-issued ammunition at ranges under 100m. Good luck.

Whilst I don;t know enough about Allied half tracks, yes I would say that they've got it wrong in regards to German variants. Every source I've read on the subject states that their half tracks could stand up to small arms fire and drivers were expected to drive through it.

To get geeky on the subject here's a quote referring to the sf kfz 250 series taken from Military Vehicles in Detail SdKfz 250/1 to 250/12, 'The armoured body provided protection against rifle calibre projectiles and small artillery or mortar fragmentations, frontal protection was .57in (14.4mm) thick, with .32in (8mm) each side'.

I'd also add that in my game experiences halftrack armour is often penetrated beyond ranges of 100m.

But whilst we're on the topic of wish lists and halftracks, how about the inclusion of halftracks armed with mortars like the sd kfz 250/7, with the mortars able to fire mounted in the halftrack.

A more detailed rate of fire option (similar to that available for artillery) would also be useful for all types of units.

[Odin]

Just referring to C3K's point about Allied half tracks, you may well have a valid point about the vulnerability of their side armour. I would still argue though that their 12.7mm thick frontal armour was considerably thicker than the Germans' side armour (and it was also angled), and so should still stand up to small arms fire even if made from inferior metal.

In agreement with you though, this can't be said about German halftracks.

[WriterJWA]

I'd like to see a more true-to-life advance and assault commands for infantry.

Instead of the current assault command breaking a squad down into teams and advancing by rushes, the assault command should be where the entire squad gets up and advances quickly while firing on the move, used within the last 10 or 15 meters to the objective (this is called "assaulting through the objective" in infantry terms)

An advance command could be used as the squad fire-and-movement command. The only difference I'd make across the board is that the teams and men need to be more spread out. A rifle squad on line advancing by team has a (ballparked) width of about 50 or more meters. Even when resting, or lying against a hedge or bocage, it feels like the men are too bunched together. Sometimes the game gives new meaning to "one grenade will get you all!"

[YankeeDog]

Just referring to C3K's point about Allied half tracks, you may well have a valid point about the vulnerability of their side armour. I would still argue though that their 12.7mm thick frontal armour was considerably thicker than the Germans' side armour (and it was also angled), and so should still stand up to small arms fire even if made from inferior metal.

The 1/2 in. plate didn't cover the entire front of the U.S. Halftracks; there were significant sections that were covered by lesser plate. The louvers over the radiator, for example, were only 1/4 in. (and this strikes me as a very bad place to have thin plate...)

As far as frontal protection on any of the HT models (German or American), there is also the issue of the driver viewports, which are particularly large on the U.S. halftracks, but are still certainly large enough to be targeted by aimed rifle fire at close range on the German HTs as well. Of course, there are armor plates that can be closed over these, but then the driver can't see a damn thing; most HT models did not have armored glass viewports like tanks.

[Baneman]

True YD, I just had the driver of a Sdkfz251/1 killed by one of those crewmen with a pistol at about 50m.

Viewport is the only way it could have got him

[Mord]

Are we supposed to be excited about new features in the next module, that were already available in CM1, but failed to make it in the first editions of CM2 generation?

Do you remember when CMBO was upgraded with features from CMBB and CMAK?

Yeah, me either. THINK POSITIVE! There's a brand new horizon but people can't see it 'cause they are focused one the one from 10 years ago.

Mord.

[sburke]

Do you remember when CMBO was upgraded with features from CMBB and CMAK?

Yeah, me either. THINK POSITIVE! There's a brand new horizon but people can't see it 'cause they are focused one the one from 10 years ago.

Mord.

Exactly!! The only way I could get shoot and scoot for NW europe was to mod the heck out of CMAK. Once CMBB and CMAK came out I never went back to CMBO due to the missing features. That should not happen again going forward. Total bonus! There simply is no downside to this. At least not in the realm of reason. And before anyone asks, yes I can do shoot and scoot in CMx2, do it all the time. I even do it with my infantry.

[MikeyD]

Their raison d'etre was to stand up to small arms fire, or troops might have well as been transported by trucks.

Actually, I believe the unofficial rule of thumb at the time was US half tracks could safely transport troops up to 800m or so from the front line before being forced to disembark. Trucks you were compelled to disembark at twice that distance. 8mm side armor is 8mm side armor.

[Michael Emrys]

The only difference I'd make across the board is that the teams and men need to be more spread out. A rifle squad on line advancing by team has a (ballparked) width of about 50 or more meters. Even when resting, or lying against a hedge or bocage, it feels like the men are too bunched together.

I sort of agree with that. Problem is, realistically, unless troops were very well trained/experienced and disciplined, they tended to bunch up just as the game depicts them. Or maybe even worse. Under stress, humans seek each other's company and that's a hard instinct to overcome. It can be done, but like I say, it takes hard training or hard experience for the lessons to truly sink in.

Michael

[nachinus]

1) Improve Terrain Lighting. This accomplishes two important objectives:

-Make terrain elevation more noticeable, hopefuly making grid mods less necessary.

-Make the game look cooler. IMHO terrain graphics have a bigger impact on the look and appeal of the game than unit details.

2) Ability to man friendly abandoned ATGs

3) Increased chance of surrender or flee for demoralized, outnumbered soldiers when the enemy gets *really* close quarters. This also accomplishes two objectives:

-Makes up for the absence of melee mechanics

-Improves realism (I believe)

[WriterJWA]

I sort of agree with that. Problem is, realistically, unless troops were very well trained/experienced and disciplined, they tended to bunch up just as the game depicts them. Or maybe even worse. Under stress, humans seek each other's company and that's a hard instinct to overcome. It can be done, but like I say, it takes hard training or hard experience for the lessons to truly sink in.

Michael

Absolutely! I suspect it could be bunching could be mitigated based on the quality of the troops and the rating of the leader. That's what NCO's are for. If the NCO is weak (like a -2 or -1), then the troops aren't as organized, or don't use their training as well. If the NCO is better, then the troops are more dispersed, and operate better.

[womble]

...German half tracks... Every source I've read on the subject states that their half tracks could stand up to small arms fire and drivers were expected to drive through it.

There's a difference between driving into the teeth of concentrated fire and driving across the threat zone of a platoon 500m away.

To get geeky on the subject here's a quote referring to the sf kfz 250 series taken from Military Vehicles in Detail SdKfz 250/1 to 250/12, 'The armoured body provided protection against rifle calibre projectiles and small artillery or mortar fragmentations, frontal protection was .57in (14.4mm) thick, with .32in (8mm) each side'.

http://forums.thecmp.org/showpost.php?p=351271&postcount=6

0.3" is approximately 8mm. So at 200m M2ball will punch the side plates. M2 AP won't penetrate the thickest parts of the armour, but by no means all of the front of a Hanomag is 14mm thick. Last time I had the pleasure of shooting up a stream of AI-controlled Hanomags, frontal hits did bounce a lot, but they also produced spalling (which seems fair, given the difference between the thickness they can penetrate and the thickness of the armour is about 2mm) and the occasional penetration. As well as ricochets through the 'opening'. And what, pray, is the point of a track driver continuing to advance with a load bay full of dead and wounded troopers?

I'd also add that in my game experiences halftrack armour is often penetrated beyond ranges of 100m.

Those numbers suggest that shouldn't be a rare occurrence.

But whilst we're on the topic of wish lists and halftracks, how about the inclusion of halftracks armed with mortars like the sd kfz 250/7, with the mortars able to fire mounted in the halftrack.

That'd be cool, indeed.

A more detailed rate of fire option (similar to that available for artillery) would also be useful for all types of units.

[Childress]

I sort of agree with that. Problem is, realistically, unless troops were very well trained/experienced and disciplined, they tended to bunch up just as the game depicts them.

Michael

Right. Which is why some of us have lobbied to inflict penalties on lower quality squads splitting into teams. Which would have the side benefit of alleviating micro-management. Go bersaglieri!

[Odin]

What you aren't taking into account though is the 35° angle of the side armour plate, which in effect makes it much thicker than 8mm.

If you present a decent combat source which says an M2 Browning could penetrate the armour of a sd kfz then fine. But I haven't found one. Without fail every source I've read says they could stand up to machine gun fire.

[Odin]

I'd also add than small arms fire coming from guns with less punch than a .30 cal seems to do damage to half track armour in CM.

[womble]

What you aren't taking into account though is the 35° angle of the side armour plate, which in effect makes it much thicker than 8mm.

Yeah, so it'd maybe need AP, which was common as muck. Or a square hit from someone on a different level, or as the vehicle tilted on uneven terrain.

If you present a decent combat source which says an M2 Browning could penetrate the armour of a sd kfz then fine. But I haven't found one. Without fail every source I've read says they could stand up to machine gun fire.

You're almost certainly right, since doctrine meant they didn't close with the enemy, but debussed where the tracks weren't in danger. Hell, if you get to 100m the vehicles are under threat from the bazookas and rifle grenades of the Ami infantry.

Still, from recent experiences, it wasn't the just penetrations that was driving off the halftracks, but the absolute slaughter of their passengers by close range plunging fire from elevated positions. Overall, the effect seems entirely reasonable to me, for open topped vehicles.

[Steiner14]

What you aren't taking into account though is the 35° angle of the side armour plate, which in effect makes it much thicker than 8mm.

+22%! [from: 1/cos(35°)]

But that's only valid for a 90° hit! The angle not only increases the effective thickness it also reduces the effective penetration depth of the ammo dramatically (the bullet slips and therefore only a part of its kinetic energy can be transferred into the material).

Oh, this reminds me, how badly i miss the unit-data window with the penetration tables we had in CMx1.

[YankeeDog]

If you present a decent combat source which says an M2 Browning could penetrate the armour of a sd kfz then fine. But I haven't found one. Without fail every source I've read says they could stand up to machine gun fire.

I can't believe we're even discussing this. You seriously doubt a .50 BMG could knock out a halftrack? I mean I can understand questioning the degree of threat that a .30-cal class MG poses to a Hanomag, but Ma Deuce? Might as well ask for real a combat source confirming that troops running through water will, in fact, get wet.

But if you want a combat source, fine. Took me 5 minutes to find. Anyone wants to pay my research time, I'm sure I could find a bunch more. But this one is gratis. Here you go:

B Company reported CP Recon section, aided by Security section 3rd platoon fired at enemy near L'Orangerie. Our party was fired on from across the river from hilly terrain. No observed effect. A Company reported Lieutenant Thompson and 6 Enlisted Men, 3rd platoon, in three 1/4 tons on Recon for gun positions on hill. Unable to secure suitable gun positions, installed two .50's and one .30 machine guns from their 1/4 tons covering target Nouzonville. Mission was to fire and dislocate enemy in house and strong points in town as they were unable to cross river; bridges all out. They were supported by elements of Troop C of 24th Cavalry Recon Squadron who in turn were supported by two 75mm assault guns and one 60mm mortar. Lieutenant Thompson registered the artillery in for the 24th. Our Enlisted Men fired bazooka in roof of enemy headquarters building at approximately 300 yards. Three enemy half-tracks were observed firing into civilian homes. Our machine guns knocked these out. We also knocked out two camouflaged civilian cars. Our detail remained in position from 1230 to 1600 hours September 4th until relieved by 102nd Cavalry Recon elements.

(emphasis added)

From the AAR combat records of the A Co., 635th TD Battalion. Available here:

http://www.kansasguardmuseum.org/dispunit.php?id=37