Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • 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
John Kettler

Ma Deuce on CM Shermans--My Cognitive Dissonance

Recommended Posts

In reading Zaloga's generally excellent Armored Thunderbolt, which really gets into all sorts of matters Sherman not covered well in the past, I have noticed, not only that Shermans with forward mounted .50 cal MGs are rarer than hen's teeth, but for there even to be a Ma Deuce installed on most of the tanks shown in all sorts of different ETO combat locations, dates and in an array of different units. This is true regardless of basic type (cast or welded), powerplant, main gun, etc. If you ignore the dust jacket photo of an Easy Eight with a Ma Deuce in front of the TC as being highly atypical of the images in the book, there's hardly a photo to be found in the book proper of that configuration or any .50 cal. HMG at all.

Speaking from the perspective of someone who got hosed down wholesale with .50 cal. fire in "Barkmann's Corner" in a scenario in which, as best I could tell, all the tanks had forward mounted .50s (sure looked that way based on where the tracer lines were coming from), I find myself more than a bit perplexed by my CM experience vs. dozens and dozens of photos in Zaloga's book showing Shermans, in combat zones all over the place both spatially and temporally, in some cases, in active combat, with nary a Ma Deuce to be seen, still less one forward mounted.  Offhand, if we may consider Zaloga's pics to be remotely representative of battlefield reality, it seems to me there's a lot of HMG firepower loose on the CM battlefields which wasn't present on the real ones. I well remember the bitter arguments over HMG placement, but am now wodering whether the arguement shouldn't have instead been over simple presence, never mind positioning!  Shall be most interested to see what sorts of replies I get.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the Sherman photos I have see have the HMG, albeit in the rearward mounting. I think it was kind of late in the war before it was widely realized that it could be useful against ground targets. Added: And wasn't needed against aircraft.

Michael

Edited by Michael Emrys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Emrys,

It may be a statistical fluke that the Ma Deuce is hardly to be seen in Zaloga's book, but I found its near total absence jarring. Also, I need to write better OP titles. Not many eyes on this one!

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to explain the same thing on one forum?  :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as a forward mounting or a rearward mounting on the VAST MAJORITY of Shermans.....The circular surround of the split-hatch commander's cupola (also later used as a loader's hatch on some 76mm T-23 turrets) which supports the .50cal pintle mount rotates through 3600.

There is also a stowage position for the gun at the rear of the turret, it was usually covered by a tarp when stowed, so its presence might not be apparent to someone who doesn't know what they are looking at. 

This Sherman has both a .50cal and a 3600 MG mount:

75ID_Riedwihr_45-1.jpg

Can you see them?

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes the stowage position pretty clear (but note that while these tanks clearly have the stowed gun they also have all round vision cupolas, which means they probably did not have a 3600 AA MG mount as I shall explain a little later in this post):

m4a375w_44.jpg

As for the 3600 AA MG mount, this may help (76mm T-23), notice the position of the mg & orientation of the hatches (labelled 'REVOLVING HATCH DOOR') and compare with the winter camo example in the first picture, also note the stowage pintle at the rear of the turret labelled 'CAL .50 MOUNT':

m4a375w_39.jpg

Some more examples showing the cupola rotated to various angles (on a few varieties of Sherman, but it works the same on all of them):

m4a375w_34.jpg

high_bustle_2.JPG

high_bustle_1.JPG

The exception to this rule comes generally with the late war variants with a true all round vision cupola and oval loader's hatch.....This is the sole arrangement with a fixed pintle that I can think of off the top of my head (I should add that the same goes for both 75mm & 76mm turrets with this hatch configuration) :

m4a375w_43.jpg

However 76mm T-23 turrets produced even later in the run replaced the oval loader's hatch with the older cupola and thus the 3600 mount returns:

T23turret.jpg

 

Hope this finally clears things up.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.50 cal is an AA self-defense weapon. The turret rear pintle mounts on M10, M36, *late* Sherman and even Greyhounds were judged all but useless in ground combat. That's why field depots started welding truck ring mounts onto Greyhound turrets in NW Europe. After reaching Germany the army went modification crazy on its vehicles. That's where you see ladders welded to Sherman rears, extra armor added, and placement of MG mounts moved. These all had to be officially sanctioned. A TC couldn't take a welding torch to his tank and relocate the MG mount. His commander would have skinned him alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument with that @MikeyD, indeed I suspect more than a few Shermans that already had 3600 AA Mounts may have received extra guns at more or less the same time, I've certainly seen several Shermans with both a .50cal and a .30cal, but I couldn't tell you what their specific turret configurations were without checking.

Not sure what level these modifications would be authorised at, but I know a man who would be, so I'll ask him when I get a chance.....My guess would be battalion maybe with companies or even platoons adopting a particular modification strategy, but that is only a guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a motorcyclist with 3 bikes there is a certain proportion of owners that have a propensity for modding their bikes - some don't and adhere / revere factory standard - but on forums at least, modding (mechanically / cosmetically)  is a fashion that grows from acorns and spreads like wildfire (even between different model cliques) admittedly without any overiding authority forbidding it (unless it's Switzerland).

Then in turn factories pick up on these fashions and turn out bikes reflecting what''s happening on the street ( as well as on developments made on race tracks).

While typing the above, it also brings to  mind, gamers compulsively modding CM ;-) Imagine same thing happened in days past with boys and their splodey toys...

Edited by Wicky

Share this post


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

This makes the stowage position pretty clear (but note that while these tanks clearly have the stowed gun they also have all round vision cupolas, which means they probably did not have a 3600 AA MG mount as I shall explain a little later in this post):

m4a375w_44.jpg

As for the 3600 AA MG mount, this may help (76mm T-23), notice the position of the mg & orientation of the hatches (labelled 'REVOLVING HATCH DOOR') and compare with the winter camo example in the first picture, also note the stowage pintle at the rear of the turret labelled 'CAL .50 MOUNT':

m4a375w_39.jpg

Some more examples showing the cupola rotated to various angles (on a few varieties of Sherman, but it works the same on all of them):

m4a375w_34.jpg

high_bustle_2.JPG

high_bustle_1.JPG

The exception to this rule comes generally with the late war variants with a true all round vision cupola and oval loader's hatch.....This is the sole arrangement with a fixed pintle that I can think of off the top of my head (I should add that the same goes for both 75mm & 76mm turrets with this hatch configuration) :

m4a375w_43.jpg

However 76mm T-23 turrets produced even later in the run replaced the oval loader's hatch with the older cupola and thus the 3600 mount returns:

T23turret.jpg

 

Hope this finally clears things up.  ;)

Nice pics. Thanks for posting these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will this have an impact on CM? Maybe change it so that "rear facing" versions are turned into normal ones? Or maybe take away the 50cals from most Shermans, as it seems they were rarely mounted in combat, but stowed on the back?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first step would be to look at the turrets of all Sherman varieties across all dates. In-game, that is. And, looking at them, see if there are discrepancies between what should be vs. what is. Defining "what should be" would be the next step. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a need to change anything, the actual frequency of use of the .50cal in game just doesn't warrant the extra modelling IMHO, plus it's bloody awkward.....at the moment I'm building these mid-production(ish) M4A1s:

HoustonThisIsApollo

You can probably make out that the pintle on the cupola is rotated to the front on all three turrets.....Squeezing both a crewman and a .50cal into that space is going to be a royal pain in the rear (so two will be buttoned, but I always leave the platoon CO opened up)!  default_wall.gif

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Will this have an impact on CM? Maybe change it so that "rear facing" versions are turned into normal ones? Or maybe take away the 50cals from most Shermans, as it seems they were rarely mounted in combat, but stowed on the back?

I think everything is fine the way it is.

Share this post


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

I don't see a need to change anything, the actual frequency of use of the .50cal in game just doesn't warrant the extra modelling IMHO, plus it's bloody awkward.....at the moment I'm building these mid-production(ish) M4A1s:

[image]

You can probably make out that the pintle on the cupola is rotated to the front on all three turrets.....Squeezing both a crewman and a .50cal into that space is going to be a royal pain in the rear (so two will be buttoned, but I always leave the platoon CO opened up)!  default_wall.gif

Interesting. Are these 1/72 Unimodel kits? I have a couple of Dragon 1/72 shermans in the works, very slow progress though:  M4 + M4A1-76W + M4A3-76W + Firefly Ic. For decades there were hardly any decent shermans in this scale, but all is well now.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kevin2k said:

Interesting. Are these 1/72 Unimodel kits?

Yeah, those are the ones.....You can find my build thread here:  http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/235031277-sgtsquareheads-shermanicus-genericus/

If modelling is your thing and you are not already a member, I'd recommend joining BM.....That way we can discuss stuff like this in detail without derailing threads here too badly.  ;)

If you bought Dragon when they were new, you made a very good investment, some of the better kits fetch £40 plus.  :o

Share this post


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

If modelling is your thing and you are not already a member, I'd recommend joining BM.....

 

Thanks for the tip, I will consider that. So far I just lurk a bIt on Network 54 braille-scale forum and onthewaymodels.com.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I post at ML Braille Scale DG under this ID too.....If you know OTW! you will already be familiar with Henk's site, so you are probably about as well equipped as you could be. 

I use BM for the atmosphere, it's a proper friendly Gentlemens' Club sort of a forum.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone else will need to tell us the exact model/s used in this Battle of Bloody Gulch (had forgotten how intense that was) scene from "Band of Brothers," but note well how the .50s are mounted and employed at 7:05, 7:39, and continuing. If the Ma Deuces can be simply rotated forward while staying in the turret and engaging that way, then why are there crewmen outside of the turrets and behind them? I haven't read the book, but so can't comment on what's said there about this. Also, from what I recall reading, the film had top period experts involved throughout. Seems to me that putting the Ma Deuce operators on the engine decks would be about as counterintuitive as it gets if all that had to be done was rotate the mount forward and fight while ensconced inside the turret but unbuttoned. Audie Murphy did the same thing in his MoH action at Holtzwihr, Belgium. He had no choice but to fight from there, for the M10 was dead and the .50 mount was to the turret rear.


Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2018 at 11:46 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Will this have an impact on CM? Maybe change it so that "rear facing" versions are turned into normal ones? Or maybe take away the 50cals from most Shermans, as it seems they were rarely mounted in combat, but stowed on the back?

If they were stowed for combat when did they bring them out?  Parades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 12:51 AM, John Kettler said:

Michael Emrys,

It may be a statistical fluke that the Ma Deuce is hardly to be seen in Zaloga's book, but I found its near total absence jarring. Also, I need to write better OP titles. Not many eyes on this one!

Regards,

John Kettler

Plenty of .50s mounted in the Zaloga's Armored Attack 1944 and Armored Victory 1945.  Not a careful analysis, but I'd guess half or more.

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

×