Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Final Blitzkrieg v1.01 released!   05/21/2016

      Once again proving that we don't sleep much, we have just released v1.01 for CM: Final Blitzkrieg.  There's lots of great improvements and fixes now just one download away.  Click HERE to see the release notes and download links.  Thanks to everybody for reporting issues and special thanks to the testers who make sure we don't overlook them.
    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
Bil Hardenberger

CM Final Blitzkrieg - ALLIED (Defense) BETA Battle Report

Recommended Posts

Well, I didn't see this one as all that close to be honest.  I made many mistakes, one of the first and costliest being my reaction to the JagdTiger moving up.. I had one turn's warning that it was on its way if you remember.. instead of closing with my Hellcats and using my Shermans as bait I withdrew all of them and lost the battle.  

Goes to show actually how close the tipping point was.. after that error Baneman's force inflicted Pain and Punishment on my tanks until I could see the writing on the wall and could tell that I had no chance to win.   

There were other mistakes as well.. advancing without enough intel (lost three Hellcats that way), pushing a counter-attack well beyond what was reasonable (the Team Punishment Sherman Section), etc.

Well I doff my cap to you Bil.  Being willing to step up on near every release and do a DAR with all that goes along with that takes some guts.  That you manage to do so with humility and a good natured attitude says a lot for you.  You are a true treasure to this community.  You may not have won this round, but I have no doubt you'll still be the favored bet on the next no matter who pulls the short straw.. err I mean agrees to go forward and battle you in the next release.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bil,

  I have to echo the previous sentiments.  No apologies necessary.  This was an amazing AAR and one hell of a showcase.  I enjoyed every part of your presentation, from the build-up to the choices for OOB to the stunning screen shots.

  You presented us one smashing battle with a rollercoaster of action, from the good to the bad.  As I said in an earlier post, Colonel Abrams would have expected you to bring the fight to the enemy, not just sit back.  Your aggressive moves felt very real for those of an armor commander who had been given a fast and varied mix of tanks to accomplish this mission.  It was all good!!!

  Bravo Sir.  I salute you for a most impressive showcase of the upcoming CMFB.

  Now, if only the map guys had given the commander of the Pershing the right directions….:o

Heinrich505

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I'll do an AAR of the game against Scott after release, if just to exercise the demons from this one.  ;)  

 

Now that would be great, it is a real pleasure to read your AARs Bil, and I always feel a little bereft when one ends. It also goes without saying that I have learned a great deal from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to this party late but read the whole thing over the past three evening and must admit I am sorry to see it come to an end 

and especially this kind as I always am for the underdog and In opinion we ( Americans ) were the underdog back then.  

Anyway I really enjoyed it and yeah thanks for that bold decision to use a offensive defense.  I also assume you choose that partly for 

our enjoyment so yeah thanks.  It worked!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the M10 and M36: 

 They were never very popular, the US take on turreted TDs looks quite good on paper and in Cm scenarios, though. 

I think the main gripe against them was that they were inadequately armored, especially the turrets. In contrast, the Soviet and German TDs had very heavy armor, at least frontally. And of course the lack of overhead protection for the turrets made the crews more vulnerable to fragmentation weapons. The other big problem for American TDs was that for the last year of the war they were used not for their designed purpose, but to provide infantry support as substitute tanks, a role they were not especially well suited for.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the M10 and M36: 

<snipped>

The other big problem for American TDs was that for the last year of the war they were used not for their designed purpose, but to provide infantry support as substitute tanks, a role they were not especially well suited for.

Michael

The irony of which is that 1940's US TD doctrine stipulated that Tanks were for infantry support and TD's for killing tanks!  I opine that US TD doctrine was a bad outcome from a US Services Infantry lobby that followed French thinking to subordinate armor as a support system and a Cavalry branch which didn't want to unsaddle their horses.  I will always wonder how US tank battle history would differ if those wonderful TD high-velocity cannons had been mounted on Sherman tanks instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael. Since I posted that I did some reading on the topic... the story gets really interesting when one learns about the tug of war between generals Leslie McNair - the proponent of the doctrine that Badger mentions - and Jacob Devers on this issue (who would go on to command the 6th Army Group). That kind of struggle, and an underestimation of the ability of the Germans to equip and field the Panther goes a long way to explain some stuff.

Edited by BletchleyGeek
Gave credit to Badger73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The myth that US doctrine said that tanks should never engage enemy tanks, that this was a job for TD:s only, is just that, a myth. There is a very interesting video on this subject, busting this and a lot of other myths about US armor, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

I concur.  My post does not say such.  It referred to the 1930's US doctrine development determining PRIMARY and SECONDARY roles assigned to US AFV's.  I continue to wonder how US tank battle history would differ if those wonderful TD high-velocity cannons had been mounted on Sherman tanks instead.

Enjoyable video which notes so as well but elaborates in much greater detail very nicely.  Thanks for posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur.  My post does not say such.  It referred to the 1930's US doctrine development determining PRIMARY and SECONDARY roles assigned to US AFV's.  I continue to wonder how US tank battle history would differ if those wonderful TD high-velocity cannons had been mounted on Sherman tanks instead.

Enjoyable video which notes so as well but elaborates in much greater detail very nicely.  Thanks for posting.

Ok, sorry. I guess I didn't read your post carefully enough... glad you enjoyed the video too, it is indeed very interresting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bil for the effort you put into your DAR vs Baneman, Always clear as crystal your ideas, your writing style and your graphics going with it.
You are a boon to the Combat Mission Community. A real treasure.

Regards,

WineCape

 

Edited by WineCape

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WineCape,

Always great to see you surface--however belatedly I noticed! You continue your tradition of recognizing great CM AARs. I believe the current CM community was greatly helped in its early days by your inspiring oenophile gifts to the near mythic CMx1 Invitational Tourney and the far better remembered RoW winners. And I was certainly inspired by your wholly unexpected wine gift for my, as you termed them, "excellent posts." Well do I remember the magnificent Springfield Estate Life from Stone Sauvignon Blanc with its distinct gunpowder note in the wonderful wine selection you so kindly sent me. How gloriously grog appropriate! Gunpowder! I need to go find some more. Can you recommend a specific year? Hope you and your still undefined-near-two-decades-later relative Charlize Theron are doing well.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎21‎/‎05‎/‎2016 at 1:01 PM, Aragorn2002 said:

That reminds me of something I wanted to ask for a long time. Is it possible to upload this map, so it will be available to everyone?

It's the Noville Master Map cutdown - The village of Foy was cut off the East side and Vaux off the North side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×