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
markus544

M-26 Pershing..Super Pershing ??

Recommended Posts

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 6:37 PM, MikeyD said:

Steve was about to put uparmored Shermans into the CMFB basegame but I located hard data on the conversion program. It not only detailed how and how many, but also WHEN. So we were obliged to wait until the timeline got expanded to war's end. They were portioned out as substitute Jumbos in platoons. So roughly one per platoon.

So we will be seeing these. Nice.

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 12:19 PM, markus544 said:

Sandbags were a big help as well.. I guess back then it made you feel better if you were a driver or asst driver.

Making you feel better was about all they did. The armor value was basically nil.
If your frontal steel plate armor isn't going to stop the AP shot, adding a sandbag to it won't do anything either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve also has no respect for sandbag armor or add-on track links, says they did no good. But I have a recollection of a German test that showed spare track links offered a degree of protection when struck above a certain angle. They were no help when hit straight-on but made a difference at 45(?) degree angle... or something like that. That reference is lost in the past somewhere.

Sandbags were probably more concerned with hollow charge weapons. Here's a photo of a thoroughly angry general Patton walking away from a heavily sandbagged 'Easy Eight'.

M4A1 76 late added armor 1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the RHA figures for both sandbags and concrete are available.....I'll see if I can find them.

Coincidentally I found this among the posts in the Sherman GB, thought it might be of interest here:

M4_Sherman_Tank_with_Concrete_Armor.jpg

PS - @MikeyD  Is it my imagination or is that an M4A1E8 underneath all the sandbags?  They were kinda rare!

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the RHA figures for both sandbags and concrete are available.....I'll see if I can find them.

Coincidentally I found this among the posts in the Sherman GB, thought it might be of interest here:

M4_Sherman_Tank_with_Concrete_Armor.jpg

PS - @MikeyD  Is it my imagination or is that an M4A1E8 underneath all the sandbags?  They were kinda rare!

So that's where the term "Cowboy builders" comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:09 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I believe the RHA figures for both sandbags and concrete are available.....I'll see if I can find them.

I don't think they report fractions of an inch. ;)

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:09 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - @MikeyD  Is it my imagination or is that an M4A1E8 underneath all the sandbags?  They were kinda rare!

Maybe. The front slope looks about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M4A1E8s were as rare as hen's teeth during the fighting. I wonder when that photo was taken. I can't recall ever seeing photos of a cast hull E8 in combat. Plenty showed up for occupation duties after the war. That's why France and Israel got so many of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, SLIM said:

I don't think they report fractions of an inch. ;)

The numbers for concrete, sand & rubble were surprisingly good IIRC ('good' is a relative term here), much of the slat armour we've seen is apparently useless, or at least not terribly efficient.

On ‎15‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 6:26 PM, SLIM said:

Maybe. The front slope looks about right.

The slope of the sides too. 

What do you think to this one? 

25510352348_cd87c44078_b.jpg

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a Belgian Catholic priest I'd be just a tad annoyed if the crew left the engine running during Mass. Of course, as a Puritan cavalry officer and general, I think, "Oh gosh. I could have done with the few of those, Rupert's boys would have found our God's wrath over whelming and the war would have been over in a flash". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
On 2018-02-15 at 1:26 PM, SLIM said:

I don't think they report fractions of an inch. ;)

The numbers for concrete, sand & rubble were surprisingly good IIRC ('good' is a relative term here), much of the slat armour we've seen is apparently useless, or at least not terribly efficient.

LOL I keep hearing that sand bags really worked and sand bags didn't do much. Slat armour really worked and slat armour didn't do much.

I say, time to put up or ... show some credible numbers. :D

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I of course will NEVER find my references, but I recall debating the existence of M4A1E8 with Steve while putting together the CMFB title (years ago). The conclusion (based on now-missing documentation) was the M4A1E8 never made it into the theater before war's end. An M4A1E8 model was even built and made it into an early Alpha but it got pulled. You see them plainly enough in Korea, in Israel, in post-war France, in post-war Italy. They're hard to miss. Also standard suspension could be unbolted and replaced with E8 suspension, M4A1 (76) could have gone through a refurbish program. But not during the war.

What's MORE intriguing is AMERICAN Sherman Fireflies sitting in depot in Europe! Hybrid Chassis with fender extensions, which either means E8 suspension or double duck-bill track and suspension units spaced out from the hull. They were delivered to Europe but never saw any fighting.

 

24c3d9293ff82def64aa80c4184f899d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

What do you think to this one? 

25510352348_cd87c44078_b.jpg

Under all those sandbags, I simply cannot tell. If the angle of the slats on the back of the tank conforms to the hull shape, then it is a welded hull tank, but it could have the cast front and welded rear. I just can't tell with all that trash all over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I of course will NEVER find my references, but I recall debating the existence of M4A1E8 with Steve while putting together the CMFB title (years ago). The conclusion (based on now-missing documentation) was the M4A1E8 never made it into the theater before war's end.

The only reference to the M4A1E8 in Hunnicutt's 'Sherman' is a single reference on the page (243) talking about the adoption of the HVSS.
There are no other mentions of it. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

What's MORE intriguing is AMERICAN Sherman Fireflies sitting in depot in Europe! Hybrid Chassis with fender extensions, which either means E8 suspension or double duck-bill track and suspension units spaced out from the hull. They were delivered to Europe but never saw any fighting.

Have to say I've never seen the like of those before, where did you find the picture? 

Nothing about the track that I can see suggests HVSS, which suggests we are looking at some kind of peculiar variant (M4E9 Hybrid?) even before they stuck a Firefly turret on it, or stuck a 17pdr in the existing turret.....Is it my imagination or does one of them have an all-round-vision cupola?  That's not something I recall seeing on Fireflies.

AFAIK the Hybrid hull was only used for M4s, not M4A2s or M4A3s, which is partly why I think the image I posted above may be a M4A1E8.  The glacis looks like it's cast but sadly the sides are obscured, however I'm not aware of either any M4A3 Hybrids or M4(76)s.....QED it must be a M4A1 under the improvised armour.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the later reprint of Hunnicutt's book and it shows the M4A1E8 76(w) on P265-266. Just a cutaway drawing and some pics but like Slim said not much about it. Being the last production M4A1 it also had the M1A2 76mm gun with a muzzle brake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IanL said:

LOL I keep hearing that sand bags really worked and sand bags didn't do much. Slat armour really worked and slat armour didn't do much.

I say, time to put up or ... show some credible numbers. :D

Anyone, anyone, Bueller, Bueller?

The durability of concrete and cement varies wildly depending on how it's made, and what you've mixed into it. I don't think field expedient cement was formulated with stopping armor piercing cannon rounds in mind. Sandbags are not a reliable source of protection either, and I don't think anyone bothered to conduct ballistic tests of the "armor protection afforded by a few sandbags instead of an extra inch of steel".

Sandbags were applied by some crews as protection against shaped-charge warheads, but that certainly didn't help this guy:

eiyjL6s.jpg\

If you're waiting for actual numbers though, you're in for a very long wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SLIM said:

Sandbags are not a reliable source of protection either, and I don't think anyone bothered to conduct ballistic tests of the "armor protection afforded by a few sandbags instead of an extra inch of steel".

Somebody really did.....Seriously!  :o

I wish I could remember where I saw them (I've checked the usual suspects).....It's doing my head in now!  :wacko:

5 minutes ago, SLIM said:

Sandbags were applied by some crews as protection against shaped-charge warheads, but that certainly didn't help this guy

Nail on the head.....But I suspect that round actually impacted below the sandbags.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Nail on the head.....But I suspect that round actually impacted below the sandbags.  ;)

Either way, the sandbags didn't help any... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Somebody really did.....Seriously!  :o

I wish I could remember where I saw them (I've checked the usual suspects).....It's doing my head in now!  :wacko:

If you do find it, I'd love to see it, but don't beat yourself up over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Have to say I've never seen the like of those before, where did you find the picture? 

Originally I saw that photo in the hobby historical journal 'AFV News' Vol 24, No.1 1989. It was first printed in a 1970 article about the M22 Locust (foreground), then someone spotted the weird Shermans in the background.

According to the brief article, Eisenhower asked Montgomery for 17 pounders during Normandy but Britain needed all they had so none were procured before 1945 (supposedly 160 guns). The Shermans in the photo have US '30 series' war dept numbers, .50 cal stowage brackets at the rear, and late US commanders cupolas. The article says they're remanufactured M4s. They may be VVSS suspension with grousers added. Hard to tell. I saw another article on them noting where the picture was taken but that reference in long gone.

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

×