More Pie in the sky questions about CM2:Normandy

[Runaway!!!]

"Direct lay"? Pardon my ignorance; I just haven't come across this term before.

On-map indirect-firing IGs sounds good. =) Can you give us any more about the above-mentioned restrictions on on-map indirect fire?

"Generally speaking" only actual FOs? Would an exception to this perhaps be a US Army company CO with radio C2 to battalion, a la Captain Winters in that one episode of Band of Brothers where his company runs into two companies of Waffen-SS and he gets on the radio and calls for artillery which decimates the Germans? (I'm not saying BoB is realistic or strictly historically accurate, but I figured company commanders could radio battalion for artillery support without an FO being necessarily present.)

I'm guessing the "restrictions" on on-map indirect fire would be somewhat the same as it was for CMx1. Which basically means an HQ would have to be in short range direct command of the on-map artillery.

I also was thinking about having HQ's "CO-BT" not just being able to call in fire support from offf-map, but also from on-map "say, a set of 75mm inf-guns nestled in the corner of the map well hidden and acting as an alternative off-map type fire support". Of coarse this benifit would disapear if the inf-guns were to be moved, "like loosing the target referance point benifit in the old CMx1." But I doubt this will be the case. Am I right Steve?

[Dietrich]

I am strongly against crew tank swaps, small arms exchange, manning ATGs, IAWs, or HMGs etc.

Firstly it would be definitely abused by players to the degree that the game would be unrealistic.

Secondly put yourselves into tankers or grunts boots. In the heat of battle (especially a lost one) , I doubt that anyone fantasies to find another tank to ride, or to get more schmeissers to kill more Krauts. One just runs for it and prays for survival.

Remember Guys, to read the memoirs and other accounts critically. Even if the facts are recalled correctly, authors often tend to colorize their own role in the events.

I understand your point(s) and agree.

However, "fancying [if I understand you correctly] another tank to ride" or "get[ting] more chmeissers" is not what I am (or would be) arguing for.

I concur that yes, a typical grunt or tank crewman is worried much more about his own survival than about snagging a snazzy piece of enemy weaponry (contrary to the impression Band of Brothers might give about the keenness of certain Airborne soldiers to acquire a Luger) or of climbing out of his tank (which would afford relative safety) and getting into another one.

Consider this: If (while playing CM:Normandy) you were commanding a German infantry platoon defending against an attack by US Army infantry company and the MG42 gunner in one of your squads was wounded/killed, would you care or would you not care if a squadmate of his picked up the MG42 and put it back into action? Likewise, what if you were commanding an Airborne platoon in defense against a heavy German counterattack and the soldiers manning one of your few M1919s were wounded/killed -- would you care or would you not care if you could get that MG up and running again?

In the vast majority of scenarios, having a crew get out of one tank and climb into another one would not afford any tactical advantage, unless the first crew's tank has been immobilized or suffered damage to its cannon. Besides, it's not like whenever a tank got immobilized, the crew climbed out and 'commandeered' the nearest friendly tank of the same type. This happened most often when the tank of a commanding officer (who in some instances was also an ace) suffered damage which affected mobility or "fightability".

[Field Marshal Blücher]

This is where the potential Maus comes in I imagine. Okay guys what other late comers could they fit into a Maus module? The Soviets had the JSIII. There's the Centurian of course. What else?

American heavy tanks, M26 for example. Probably late variants of some Brit and German tanks, although I could be talking out of a part of my body that, shall we say, is not optimized for talking.

[Sergei]

I can see how someone infernally gamey (no nooo, not me!) with two tanks of the same type, one crack, the other green, would use the crack tank until they'd spent all their ammo, then swap the crew to the tank with ammo still left. Voila, you've got a 'new' crack tank with full supplies!

[akd]

I can see how someone infernally gamey (no nooo, not me!) with two tanks of the same type, one crack, the other green, would use the crack tank until they'd spent all their ammo, then swap the crew to the tank with ammo still left. Voila, you've got a 'new' crack tank with full supplies!

Most of the real world reasons not to do it exist in the game, so I don't see how it is particularly gamey. Personally, I would have snipers and mortars on hand for anyone who thinks switching a crew from one tank to another in the middle of a battle is worth it is just to keep that small skill bonus in play (rather than to preserve command and control and keep the CO in the fight, as it was done in real life). The only disincentive missing would be a loss of efficiency when a crew switches to a new and unfamiliar vehicle, but I would think a minor penalty could be applied to simulate that, if it is even justified in the first place. Also, you could disallow crew switching laterally across or up the chain-of-command, i.e. a subordinate cannot take the vehicle of his superior and a tank platoon CO cannot take the tank of another platoon leader.

Anyways, one crack tank and a green tank in play is superior to one crack tank in play for a longer period of time, so a kinda silly scenario in the first place.

[Dietrich]

Hmmmm . . . a good point, Sergei. That hadn't occurred to me -- I guess because I'm not an infernally gamey player.

Okay, fine. I see the reason(s) to not argue for vehicle crew swapping.

What about re-crewing of "de-manned" HMGs? While a rifleman may not know how to operate an ATG, surely he would know how to make use of a tripod-mouted MG, right?

[panzermartin]

I guess even in the case of HMGs, it would be a nightmare for the attacker to constantly face remmaning of previously abandoned machine guns. Destroying HMGs should be introduced to avoid this. For the ATs I dont want to think about it If there is a significant penalty in efficency/accuracy of remanned crew weapons from non specialist troops it maybe worth trying.

[mike_the_wino]

Hmmmm . . . a good point, Sergei. That hadn't occurred to me -- I guess because I'm not an infernally gamey player.

Yeah, but you're not Dutch.

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, but you're not Dutch.

Neither is Sergei; he's Finnish. Mutato mutando. Potayto potahto.

Michael

[Dietrich]

If an ATG were to be de-crewed but not actually destroyed, presumably the only troops available to re-crew it would be nearby infantrymen (riflemen as well as machine-gunners). Thus, it would be reasonable for there to be definite penalties in accuracy, rate of fire, etc., in using infantrymen to re-crew an ATG.

In the German Army (I know rather less about the US Army or the Commonwealth armies), the Grenadier-Regiment TO&E included a company of infantry guns, which were manned by infantryman with special training, rather than actual artillerymen. I'm not sure, but this may have likewise applied to the ATGs (5cm/7.5cm) in the regiment's anti-tank company.

Yeah, but you're not Dutch.

Neither is Sergei; he's Finnish. Mutato mutando. Potayto potahto.

Just because I live in northern California does not necessarily mean I am or am not Dutch.

("We may or may not be philosophers....")

Actually, I'm a native Californian of North German ancestry via Michigan and Iowa, and I enjoy speaking German as well as Finnish. (I know virtually no Dutch.)

[JonS]

I enjoy speaking German as well as Finnish.

I call BS.

No one enjoys speaking those "languages", unless by 'enjoy' you mean you get some kind of schadenfreude from the effect they have on others.

[Dietrich]

I call BS.

No one enjoys speaking those "languages", unless by 'enjoy' you mean you get some kind of schadenfreude from the effect they have on others.

Have you considered the possibility that I may well be this "no one" to whom you refer?

German is often labelled "guttural". As someone who has studied both German and French, permit me to offer the viewpoint that German is no more guttural than French. German, however, has more definite consonants.

But I don't discount the possibility that you are at least partially correct. I would have been more accurate to say: "I enjoy conversing in German and in Finnish with others [who also speak said languages]."

[mike_the_wino]

Neither is Sergei; he's Finnish. Mutato mutando. Potayto potahto.

Michael

There's a difference? :-P

[JonS]

But I don't discount the possibility ...

Where's that tongue-in-cheek smily? I saw it around here somewhere ...

[Lukmak5]

I understand your point(s) and agree.

However, "fancying [if I understand you correctly] another tank to ride" or "get[ting] more chmeissers" is not what I am (or would be) arguing for.

I concur that yes, a typical grunt or tank crewman is worried much more about his own survival than about snagging a snazzy piece of enemy weaponry (contrary to the impression Band of Brothers might give about the keenness of certain Airborne soldiers to acquire a Luger) or of climbing out of his tank (which would afford relative safety) and getting into another one.

Consider this: If (while playing CM:Normandy) you were commanding a German infantry platoon defending against an attack by US Army infantry company and the MG42 gunner in one of your squads was wounded/killed, would you care or would you not care if a squadmate of his picked up the MG42 and put it back into action? Likewise, what if you were commanding an Airborne platoon in defense against a heavy German counterattack and the soldiers manning one of your few M1919s were wounded/killed -- would you care or would you not care if you could get that MG up and running again?

In the vast majority of scenarios, having a crew get out of one tank and climb into another one would not afford any tactical advantage, unless the first crew's tank has been immobilized or suffered damage to its cannon. Besides, it's not like whenever a tank got immobilized, the crew climbed out and 'commandeered' the nearest friendly tank of the same type. This happened most often when the tank of a commanding officer (who in some instances was also an ace) suffered damage which affected mobility or "fightability".

Hi

Thanks for reply.

1. Collecting of Lugers during the war by US GIs is a confirmed historical fact, although it had mainly been done for their black market value/souvenir reasons.

2. I don't think that a regular GI/Soldat, even a veteran, had been able to operate MG42 HMG effectively (use of tripod installation, optics, different sights, use of the proper rate of fire not to overheat the barrel, and swapping the barrel itself, concluding with proper aiming)

3. I do agree that high ranking commanders did swap their vehicles if damaged.

But it didn't take place on the open field during the fire exchange.

I bet there was no command like: "Hey, you there, company stop, live those M4s alone and come back to pick me up!"

Instead, they probably came back to their lines, pick up new/other vehicle, and took part in next engagement. Which in terms of CM would mean next battle.

Obviously these things happened. But they were only exceptions.

Cheers

Luke

[akd]

2. I don't think that a regular GI/Soldat, even a veteran, had been able to operate MG42 HMG effectively (use of tripod installation, optics, different sights, use of the proper rate of fire not to overheat the barrel, and swapping the barrel itself, concluding with proper aiming)

Most German squads had 1-3 MG-34/42s. The squad was expected to keep this weapon in action at all times, and that was a responsibility born by every member of the squad. Basic operation of the MG-34/42s should be well within the capabilities of the majority of German combat troops, and almost certainly any combat NCO. The heavy tripod installation, although somewhat complex in design, added little complexity to the basic operation of the MG. Use of the complex optical sight for firing from under cover was not necessary at all times and the MGs could be fired over open sights.

3. I do agree that high ranking commanders did swap their vehicles if damaged.

But it didn't take place on the open field during the fire exchange.

Except for when it did. But anyways, all sorts of things in the game are possible that would not normally take place in an open field under fire. Using this criteria, on-map mortars and entering and exiting light vehicles would be excluded from the game, and your vehicle would never become immobilized unless it was taking fire.

Modern US comms technology lessens the imperative to keep the unit CO in the frontlines of the fight, but nonetheless here is an example from CMSF:

Playing the first mission from the Task Force Thunder campaign, you have to cross a portion of the map while protected from enemy observation and fire by a tall berm. Your Strykers can become immobilized while crossing this ground, which is exactly what happened to me, and it was, of course, the Company CO's Stryker. Luckily I was able to hop the CO over into another Stryker that I pulled up alongside and dismounted a 3-man MG team from. All that happened within minutes of the start of the battle. I was able to solve the problem and carry on because I was not denied the tools that would be available in the real world.

Now imagine if the same thing happened to your Pz. IV Company CO within minutes of the beginning of a CM:N battle. It would be "normal" rather than "exceptional" to leave the CO out of the coming battle?

I bet there was no command like: "Hey, you there, company stop, live those M4s alone and come back to pick me up!"

Instead, they probably came back to their lines, pick up new/other vehicle, and took part in next engagement. Which in terms of CM would mean next battle.

This makes no sense in the context of a fluid armor battle. The lines could be miles behind and I doubt higher ups considered a disabled vehicle a get-out-of-the-battle-free card for unit leaders.

Obviously these things happened. But they were only exceptions.

Cheers

Luke

Games are by nature exceptional, otherwise many CM battles would last hours and have long periods where not much of anything happens.

[tc237]

3. I do agree that high ranking commanders did swap their vehicles if damaged.

But it didn't take place on the open field during the fire exchange.

I bet there was no command like: "Hey, you there, company stop, live those M4s alone and come back to pick me up!"

Instead, they probably came back to their lines, pick up new/other vehicle, and took part in next engagement. Which in terms of CM would mean next battle.

Obviously these things happened. But they were only exceptions.

Cheers

Luke

Lukmak5 you are wrong here, it was not the exception, it was a rule and was expected to happen as soon as possible.

Commanders absolutely did swap vehicles during combat and while under fire.

I am speaking with over a dozen years worth of active duty training and combat experience on tanks.

akd wrote:

Actually shifting crews in battle was not at all uncommon. Not surprising considering that tanks were very frequently knocked out or disabled without loss of the crew, and a tank company or tank platoon leader is not going to sit out a battle because a track got blown off or because he is stuck in the mud. COs would switch rides as frequently as needed, often immediately after having a tank shot out from under them. It was imperative to keep the unit leader in the fight, moving with his unit, staying in radio contact, and maintaining awareness of the developing situation. For a tank unit CO, this could often only be accomplished in another tank from their unit.

akd nails it dead on with this statement.

The Commanders primary duty is to stay on the radio, if his tank/radio gets knocked out he must get to another radio as soon as possible, even under fire.

The Commander, or anyone that has knowledge that the Commander needs a new "ride", absolutley will order another vehicle back to pick him up.

The Commander is the most important person in the unit and keeping him on the radio is vital.

In my time as a tanker a CO jumping to another tank was almost a rehearesd drill, and every TC and crewman knew what to do if the PLT/Co/BN CO needed to "jump" tanks.

(in training Co/BN CO's almost never get "killed" they are allowed to "jump" tanks numerous times)

Usually the CO takes the loader's position, not the TC position.

(the Loader jumps off and catches a ride with the 1SG or stays with the CO's crew.)

It is easier for the CO to run the battle from the loader's position on an M1 because, there is more room for maps, the radios are located there, the CO doesn't have to worry about guiding the vehicle. (when I was a young CO gunner we used to do this anyway, I would TC and my loader moved to the gunners seat)

Luckly this never happened to any of my commanders in Iraq but I would bet that if it did he would have a new "ride" in minutes.

Now, on the topic of swaping an entire crew?

I highly doubt that would happen (not today anyway), and would not recommend it be inculded in the game. (unless they were cheating on a gunnery range )

[Clavicula_Nox]

So I reckon that you have to ask the question ... on how many occasions did US Airborne Infantry employ captured weapons against the enemy in ... as we are talking about it ... Normandy? If the answer is shedloads of times then of course the 1001110000 bloke needs to do something about it in detriment to including say ... well look at the 'Improving the Look of CM Normandy' thread.

In On To Berlin Gavin writes about the 82nd obsessively collecting, training, and employing the panzerfaust. Not relevant until post-jump Market-Garden, he describes the division being armed with "truckloads" of the weapon. By this time, the 82nd was well aware of the extreme limitations of the bazooka and were willing to use the superior panzerfausts against the Germans.

[silverstars]

As a side thought, I just realized that with all of this talk of how things happened and this books say this and so on, how much I've missed the old WWII grog debates( That German Optics monster thread comes to mind) that went on with CM1. Just a thought.

And of course, more questions:

Since it's obvious water will be included in CM:N, how detailed will it be? As in will there be just one "Water" tile, or will there be Deep water impassible by everyone, hip-to-neck deep water that could be fordable by Amphibious vehicles and men, fords that are water-filled but could be forded by most vehicles except the heaviest of tanks, etc. ?

[John Kettler]

Lukmak5,

I'd be perfectly happy if COs shifting tanks were tied to own tank disablement, immobilization or destruction, with modifiers applied to the receiving crew based on position taken by the leader, his quality, etc. I think it might also be a good thing to allow scenario designers to put shorthanded and wounded crews in the mix, for AFVs, armed soft skins and crew served weapons. The Russians used to load their ATGs and post a single man on each as crew, while keeping the rest nearby and under cover. They deliberately accepted lower rate of fire from their AT batteries to losing an entire crew if the gun was hit. Things like these happened during the war and create all sorts of interesting possibilities. I know of a case in which one man fought his tank when the otherwise asleep unit was "bounced" by a German night attack. ISTR the vehicle was immobilized because it was under repair, with our hero basically on sentry post in the turret when the balloon went up.

tc237,

In the WW II accounts I've read, it's the TC who gets the boot, not the loader.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lukmak5]

Lukmak5 you are wrong here...

Thanks for clearing things up tc.

BTW As far as Your knowledge goes, could U please tell us how well would casual GI (or a casual person) operate tripod mounted M2 HMG if needed today? Would it be somewhere near trained mgunner abilities?

[Lukmak5]

Since it's obvious water will be included in CM:N, how detailed will it be? As in will there be just one "Water" tile, or will there be Deep water impassible by everyone, hip-to-neck deep water that could be fordable by Amphibious vehicles and men, fords that are water-filled but could be forded by most vehicles except the heaviest of tanks, etc. ?

Yay! Have anyone seen water in 'World in Conflict'? I ve got watery mouth just from thinking of it... gentle waves going with the wind direction, reflecting moving clouds, choppers and planes from above. :PCould we please have WiC water quality:P.

Cheers

Luke

[sonar]

Will sabotage from forced labour in the reich arms industry, be factored into the game i.e. your brand new panther breaking down? I think there is enough historical evidence, to warrant an inclusion, and without it the game will be quite obviously be unplayable.

[dan/california]

Sonar is dropping depth charges.

[Wengart]

I don't see a problem with switching tank crews. Not only are you taking a risk by sending the crews out on foot, but you are in effect disabling two tanks for a turn or possibly two. Also, we currently have several vehicles in which crews can be switched; therefore, it should be pretty easy to extend that to all vehicles. Also, gamey exploiting of the ability seems minimal, and would not present a large advantage, if any, to the exploiting player.

Furthermore, although your average rifleman may not be skilled in the use of an HMG he could at least wield it with the skill of a conscript if the situation demanded it.

Oh, will AT gun crews be able to recrew AT guns?