M8 the Killer

[delliejonut]

Haha, well, I do play PBEM.

Though I am confused. I've had several people say it IS canister that the m8 is firing, and several say they've never read of that being done. Those that say it's not, are you saying the game is incorrect, in your view, in giving the m8 that capability?

 

I played a QB against Bootie, aka Shane Greer recently, with only infantry and light armored vehicles. We both fired some canister rounds at each other. Here's a pic of one of my shots going off.

 

 

No bugs here, he was obviously trying to destroy Bootie's death star. Jokes aside though, canister is extremely lethal against all infantry, whether in the open or in cover. Anybody even poking their head up above a windowsill was a candidate for ventilation. 

 

For those playing along at home; after being called out on repeating previously-shown-to-be-wrong information, Kettler has now moved on to

i) a weird MilHist version of the Gish Gallop

ii) various forms of "woe is me, it's all just sooooo unfair"

iii) flooding the board with irrelevant, quickly googled, links

iv) vigorously contesting points nobody has made

all of which, like the repetition thing, we've seen dozens of times before.

 

Would anyone like to place a bet as to which of his 'tactics' will be trotted out next?

 

Stop.

Edited April 10, 2015 by delliejonut

[Apocal]

Canister Effectiveness

 

To claim that canister had no utility in the bocage is the same as saying six HMG-42s firing simultaneously at the same target, from spitting distance, have no effect. Anyone here care to make that argument?

 

Nobody made that claim. What we did say was that in the contemporary AARs, nobody mentioned canister in context of hedgerow fighting.

[Bulletpoint]

Canister shot is extremely effective in this game, seems quite brutal and realistic in comparison to regular fire. Sometimes it seems a bit odd that my whole platoon opens up on one fleeing german without hitting him, then finally one canister round does the job.

 

But the TacAi will only fire at targets it sees, so area fire is not possible. I think canister rounds would be very effective against enemy contacts in forests etc. but while realistic, it's currently not possible in the game. It's a pity, but maybe it would be exploited in games VS human opponents..?

Edited April 10, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[JonS]

Stop.

 

[Bud Backer]

Nobody made that claim. What we did say was that in the contemporary AARs, nobody mentioned canister in context of hedgerow fighting.

And this is what I was looking for. Thank you.

[Pak40]

For those playing along at home; after being called out on repeating previously-shown-to-be-wrong information, Kettler has now moved on to

i) a weird MilHist version of the Gish Gallop

ii) various forms of "woe is me, it's all just sooooo unfair"

iii) flooding the board with irrelevant, quickly googled, links

iv) vigorously contesting points nobody has made

all of which, like the repetition thing, we've seen dozens of times before.

 

Would anyone like to place a bet as to which of his 'tactics' will be trotted out next?

 

Really Jon? You just can't let it go, can you?

[Rambler]

sarcastic picture response

 

Yes, stop. Your constant vendetta against JK is becoming extremely tiresome. If you think you are winning people to your side, you are not. Every snide and demeaning attack you make on JK shows us what a small, petty and vindictive man you really are. Every time JK, for all his faults, turns the other cheek or addresses your attacks with civility shows us that he has a lot more character.

From now on, I’ll be reporting posts I see where you spout your usual belittling, denigrating and snide comments against fellow members whom you deem as a lesser or disagree with. As a higher profile unpaid employee of BFC (You create content, for free, that ships with the game, making you an unpaid employee for all intents and purposes), the way you conduct yourself throws a bad light on BFC. It’s time that they are made aware of this.

[Doug Williams]

Care for a match?

 

 

Hey, and we're both in FGM. Should be good times. PM or e-mail me and we'll sort out the details.

 

 

@JK  Just let me know when you get CM Helper sorted out. I'll be happy to play you.

[Doug Williams]

Haha, well, I do play PBEM.

Though I am confused. I've had several people say it IS canister that the m8 is firing, and several say they've never read of that being done. Those that say it's not, are you saying the game is incorrect, in your view, in giving the m8 that capability?

 

Very good that you play PBEM. That is really what CM is all about. The AI is just a practice dummy.

 

No need to be confused. That is indeed canister shot the Greyhound is firing. Best thing to do is ignore the troublemakers and play CM. That's what I do. :-)

[Bud Backer]

 

Hey, and we're both in FGM. Should be good times. PM or e-mail me and we'll sort out the details.

 

 

@JK  Just let me know when you get CM Helper sorted out. I'll be happy to play you.

Heh.. One of my and my wife's favourite movies.

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

 

My apologies, With so many informational balls in play, over so many threads and time, I get lost on occasion. My recollection was the claim had been made canister was useless vs dug-in MG positions. Guess my memory was off.

 

Bud_B,

 

Fortune sometimes favors the persistent! Found this on GameSquad in a thread Called Cmbb, Page 2. The main topic is canister for the T-34, but someone chimed in with the quote below. I'm reasonably certain someone here has that book, and Harry Yeide is one of our own, to boot. I think that having an ammo load of 70% canister says, if nothing else, what the Stuart tankers thought was appropriate ammunition for their particular combat environment with their own hides and necks on the line. The listed figure translates to 86 rounds out of 123 carried in total. 

 

"Steel Victory" by Harry
Yeide on the US Separate Tank Battalions in WWII.

"M5's in the 735th Tank Battalion, for example carried 70 percent of their
ammo load in the form of canister during hedgerow fighting." also noting it
was quite effective against snipers and mg positions.

 

Bud_B and Doug Williams,

 

"Tombstone" is indeed a terrific movie, and that huckleberry expression is quite interesting in its own right. Recommend you research its origins.  As for PBEM, SLIM is at the top of the queue, which presently is saying he'll be in the only game, until my brain is more productive on the tactical wargaming side of things and can handle more than one at a time. In better days, with the admittedly much simpler CMx1, I once had five going in tournament and was writing AARs on the fly, too. Sigh.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited April 11, 2015 by John Kettler

[Doug Williams]

I can handle about four concurrent PBEMs, as long as none of them are Huge. More than that and my play suffers.

[JonS]

You know, Kettler, if you weren't in such a gut-busting hurry to gish-gallop your way from one logical debacle to the next, you might have noticed this:

 

from Iron Knights, the US 66th Armored Regiment in WWII, p.224

Lt. Jim Burl, a platoon leader in C Company, used an effective technique to fight through the hedgerows with the paratroopers of the 101st. When a passage through the hedgerow was found or created, the Americans were faced with the problem of dealing with the German troops waiting in ambush on the other side of the hedgerow. Working closely with the men of the 101st, the tankers found an effective way of countering the ambush. With the paratroopers mounted on its back deck, the Stuart tank would crash through the hedgerow opening with all guns blazing. The 37mm gun of the Stuart would fire canister rounds to the left, the bow machine gun fire to the front and the paratroopers fire to the right. The massive fire-power directed in three directions simultaneously proved to be very effective. Amongst the hedgerows the Stuart light tanks made up for their light armor and gun by having the only tank canister rounds.

Yes, that's right. The thing you've been asked for, at least four times, but have steadfastly refused to provide.

 

Not surprisingly (Seriously; not a surprise. Memory is a terribly fallible thing.) it is fairly different to the way it has been presented, which is of course the point of asking for a reference. And it's worth noting that this tactic was far from being a widespread thing – it applies to one platoon for a period of about 7-10 days in the middle of June, since that's the only time 66AR was attached to 101A/B. That lack of common adoption might suggest how successful it was.

 

The description as given is also fairly mangled, making the relative spatial positions of the Germans and Americans difficult to follow. For instance, the M5 launches through a pre-existing gap and has to deal with a potential ambush on the other side of the hedgerow which they achieve by … firing ahead? What about the Germans along the hedgerow they just burst through? I'd also hesitate to call the firepower generated by a single M5 with a few paras clinging to the back as 'massive', particularly when directed speculatively against an entire hedgeline.

 

Finally, Blacker's book is basically an oral history, with all the problems that implies, rather than being a reliable academic history like Doubler's CWTE.

 

tl;dr: the thing you descibed sort-of exists. But not in the way you imagined.

Edited April 12, 2015 by JonS

[John Kettler]

Doug Williams,

 

How I wish I now had the brain I had back then! Things would be so much better for me, both generally and in terms of my ability to actually play my games.

 

JonS,

 

Am glad to see you're exhibiting something resembling civility. Thanks! Please continue. Contrary to the negative and false meme about me at which you've been hammering away at every chance, I haven't refused to provide the proof. Far from it. Within the limits of where I could think of to look, and my ability to correctly interpret what I found, I have tried very hard to produce what I knew, on some level of awareness at least, I had read. Though, much in the manner of Mark Twain in "The River Pilot," so great was the growing pile of evidence either contradicting my recollection or indicating it was a conflation, that I came to doubt my own memory.

 

Clearly, I didn't have all the details right, but the gist of it: Stuarts, canister, US tank descents, I got right. Though you don't say so, and it's not in the link, I infer that Blacker is the author of Iron Knights. LT Burl was evidently unaware the 75 mm T30 canister round, fired from Shermans, was being used to good effect elsewhere in the bocage. Now that I can see the actual Stuart tactics used, I think it would be cool if we had the means to do so in CMBN. I maintain we should be allowed to determine their efficacy (or, as you argue, lack thereof) for ourselves. Regardless, I have no idea now where I crossed paths with that tactical method in the first place. For sure, I haven't ever read the book you quoted. And if it's in neither the Doubler book or his paper, then I'm at a loss. Doubler's is the only book I've read where I recall an array of US bocage fighting techniques was discussed. Indeed, I remember being blown away by much of what he covered, having never encountered it before. 

 

In closing, I ask you to please change your defaults when it comes to me. I, like you, am here for the niche specific social interaction with gamers and grogs from all around the world; to learn from them and share what I know, to the mutual enrichment of all concerned. Your Forum survival issues aside, it is very much to your advantage to revise your approach to me, not merely because it makes everyone's life easier and more pleasant, but because it improves the odds of my being able to provide the desired information in a given situation. When I'm being assailed. that is when I'm least likely to be able to remember what I read and where. Think of it as the cognitive version of being a deer in the headlights. Nor does it improve my abilities to effectively articulate my position in reply. What you perceive as deliberate intransigence is, in fact, a kind of brain stall which your attacks induce. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[JonS]

Kettler,

You clearly still won't accept that you're just flat out wrong about Doubler. Despite being told you're wrong by at least half-a-dozen people across four threads.

 

Therefore, I propose the following. I'll re-examine my opinion of you when you stop spamming the forum, knowingly spreading false information, gish-galloping, and all the other nonsense you regularly pull.

 

Deal?

 

Frankly, there is NO advantage in this deal for me. You have shown over and over and over again that the best you are able to come up with is either wrong, worthless or trivial. I desire absolutely NONE of the dross you call information. Occasionally - occasionally - despite your best efforts you might accidentally stumble across something that's vaguely interesting, but even though broken clocks are right more often than you, there's no value in paying attention to them either. The rule of thumb did not come out of nowhere.

 

Though you don't say so, and it's not in the link, I infer that Blacker is the author of Iron Knights

Sweet FSM. Is that really beyond your google-fu?

Edited April 12, 2015 by JonS

[John Kettler]

JonS,

 

After having started, and deleted, no less than five replies, I have decided instead to let your own words convict you before your fellow gamers. To anyone with half a brain, it is patently obvious that the disconnect between what I've said and done vs what you assert I've said and done requires measurement in parsecs. Indeed, it may be necessary for SI to adopt a new and much larger measurement to more adequately reflect the acute disparity between what is and your (I'm being very kind here) unique perceptual approach and manner of expressing yourself. 

 

Bud_B,

 

I'm glad you asked your question, for much that's useful has emerged as a result. Never knew, for example the US 75 mm had canister, let alone it was used with considerable effect in bocage fighting. I shudder to think what sort of metal hornets that one disgorged. Nor had I ever encountered the fact that 70% of Stuart ammo load in the 735th Tank Battalion was canister. That alone paints quite a picture. As does the notion of M8s configured for ambush vs German infantry!

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler