MikeyD

Fury struck me as a western version of those lurid WWII fantasy movies that are coming out of Russia these days. You could have stuck them in a T-34-85 and had them driving screen right-to-left instead of screen left-to-right and it would have been a typical Russian action film. Actually, the Sherman was a lend-lease diesel so they wouldn't have had to change tanks, just uniforms. None of the crew seemed particularly 'American', they were just cartoonishly broad generic types.

The original plates for the Presidio Press 'Pershing' book were lost in a fire. The second edition (which I have) was a heroic undertaking by Feist to reproduce the original down to the smallest detail. They did a commendable job

Hollywood movies are not  merely judged important on their historical accuracy (though that helps a lot), they're important due to the unspoken world view, the subtext embedded within the story. I recall in the mid-2000s the Pentagon felt compelled to pay a visit to the set of '24' and asked the writers to please tone it down with the 'righteous torture' scenes. Because they were having to un-teach a lot of nasty habits being brought in by recruits who watched that show. By that measure, Fury was a vile film. The subtext of the film is "You ain't doin' war right unless you're shooting prisoners of war in the back." Not to say that it didn't happen, but the movie was promoting the notion that it should happen.

Hollywood movies are not  merely judged important on their historical accuracy (though that helps a lot), they're important due to the unspoken world view, the subtext embedded within the story. I recall in the mid-2000s the Pentagon felt compelled to pay a visit to the set of '24' and asked the writers to please tone it down with the 'righteous torture' scenes. Because they were having to un-teach a lot of nasty habits being brought in by recruits who watched that show. By that measure, Fury was a vile film. The subtext of the film is "You ain't doin' war right unless you're shooting prisoners of war in the back." Not to say that it didn't happen, but the movie was promoting the notion that it should happen.

A lot of game these days are pay-to-play. They may start out cheap but to get ammo/upgraded equipment you purchase with game tokens (real live withdrawals from your bank account). How much does it cost total to play through 'World of Tanks'? I read a single premium tank purchase can cost sixty bucks. Some players are spending hundreds a year. Heck, even Farmville sticks you with hidden fees!

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.

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.
 

Narrow mantlet Shermans without coaxial gunner's sight is certainly in CMFI. There's so much unseen going on 'under the hood', though, that its impossible to say how gunner accuracy is affected without extensive testing (which may have happened years ago). My *guess* is early Sherman types receive a penalty of some sort.
I read a first use report by crews of then-new Panthers complaining to the manufacturer that the Panther gunner ONLY has a high-powered telescopic sight. They said it greatly reduced the gunners situational awareness over T-34 (and Sherman) which included a secondary panoramic periscope for the gunner. The manufacturer did nothing to address their concerns, except give the loader a periscope.
 

Narrow mantlet Shermans without coaxial gunner's sight is certainly in CMFI. There's so much unseen going on 'under the hood', though, that its impossible to say how gunner accuracy is affected without extensive testing (which may have happened years ago). My *guess* is early Sherman types receive a penalty of some sort.
I read a first use report by crews of then-new Panthers complaining to the manufacturer that the Panther gunner ONLY has a high-powered telescopic sight. They said it greatly reduced the gunners situational awareness over T-34 (and Sherman) which included a secondary panoramic periscope for the gunner. The manufacturer did nothing to address their concerns, except give the loader a periscope.
 

Lets recall CMSF1 was released at the height of 'the troubles' (to use a euphemism) and BFC was very uncomfortable about turning their Syria invasion game into an Iraq occupation sim. Now things have flipped 180 degrees. CMSF2 is coming out in the middle of a hot Syria conflict. So they're taking pains to distance themselves from that and stick to the original 2007 narrative. Something similar happened with Ukraine. They really did not want to release CMBS into the middle of a hot war. I think the government of Taiwan should pay BFC money to keep them from making a Taiwan/China conflict game. Because  BFC's track record is not very assuring on that score.

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.

Lets differentiate between 'titles' for a theoretical next generation CM and their continuing to support & expand the current game engine. CMSF is being thoroughly rejuvenated, CMBS is the jewel in the crown with detailed future plans laid out. BFC has so many long-range projects that it may take 'em past retirement age to get to everything. Its not as though Steve can simply wake up one morning and proclaim "I want to do an India/Pakistan title!' and the final product magically appears three months later. Its a lot of prep, a lot of planning, a lot of research, and all the of gears in the BFC machine working together to produce a final product.

Lets differentiate between 'titles' for a theoretical next generation CM and their continuing to support & expand the current game engine. CMSF is being thoroughly rejuvenated, CMBS is the jewel in the crown with detailed future plans laid out. BFC has so many long-range projects that it may take 'em past retirement age to get to everything. Its not as though Steve can simply wake up one morning and proclaim "I want to do an India/Pakistan title!' and the final product magically appears three months later. Its a lot of prep, a lot of planning, a lot of research, and all the of gears in the BFC machine working together to produce a final product.

Lets differentiate between 'titles' for a theoretical next generation CM and their continuing to support & expand the current game engine. CMSF is being thoroughly rejuvenated, CMBS is the jewel in the crown with detailed future plans laid out. BFC has so many long-range projects that it may take 'em past retirement age to get to everything. Its not as though Steve can simply wake up one morning and proclaim "I want to do an India/Pakistan title!' and the final product magically appears three months later. Its a lot of prep, a lot of planning, a lot of research, and all the of gears in the BFC machine working together to produce a final product.

Lets differentiate between 'titles' for a theoretical next generation CM and their continuing to support & expand the current game engine. CMSF is being thoroughly rejuvenated, CMBS is the jewel in the crown with detailed future plans laid out. BFC has so many long-range projects that it may take 'em past retirement age to get to everything. Its not as though Steve can simply wake up one morning and proclaim "I want to do an India/Pakistan title!' and the final product magically appears three months later. Its a lot of prep, a lot of planning, a lot of research, and all the of gears in the BFC machine working together to produce a final product.

BFC is grinding forward like a steamroller. Pursuing a 'broad front' strategy (like Eisenhower) where the various projects are not really that far apart development-wise. Oh, I'd have tales to tell if weren't for the tester NDA.

It should be noted the top of the Bradley has a thick layer of MEXAS ceramic armor on it. Heavy-duty stuff, a superior (and more expensive) ceramic mix to that used on Stryker. I read (somewhere) the Bradley aluminum bow with ceramic armor was  equivalent to 120mm of armor steel. Lesser vehicles like LAV-25 or BMP-2 would be like hitting a can of sardines with a hammer.

Pretty much anybody can 'overwhelm local defenses' inside the first 60 hours, from ISIS fighters in pickups to crackpot ranchers hijacking and occupying an isolated federal building. The trick is what come after those first 60 hours. Let's remember the Allied defense strategy during the Bulge offensive. Let them enter the salient, firm up the shoulders to keep them contained, then close the bag once they're all inside. That netted the allies practically all of the German tanks on the Western Front in just a bit over a month.

I've read/heard from various sources (probably a British TV show ) that that often-quoted statement has been misinterpreted. Tanks normally operate in platoons of five. So EVERYTHING they do it would be five tanks doing it. A Tiger spotted on the hillside? You send a tank platoon (at the very least) to resolve the issue.

Pretty much anybody can 'overwhelm local defenses' inside the first 60 hours, from ISIS fighters in pickups to crackpot ranchers hijacking and occupying an isolated federal building. The trick is what come after those first 60 hours. Let's remember the Allied defense strategy during the Bulge offensive. Let them enter the salient, firm up the shoulders to keep them contained, then close the bag once they're all inside. That netted the allies practically all of the German tanks on the Western Front in just a bit over a month.

There are certain 'nice to have' features that might get used a couple times for novelty sake then largely ignored afterward. Like battleship artillery, minefield belts, marauding aircraft and corps-level artillery rocket barrages. And Sturmtigers. Everyone wanted Sturmtigers in the game but the novelty wore off pretty quickly.
Imagine the framerate hit if half the map in CM was billowing flames and black smoke. The BFC guys have been bending over backward to increase framerate, not slow it.

Battlefields are lethal. I recently read that WWII Germans on the Eastern Front were losing an average of 200 Panther tanks a month on a pretty consistent basis.  More recently, a report on Abrams in Iraq (from the middle of the conflict) reported that a thousand Abrams had been wrecked to the point of needing a complete rebuild. One famously had to have the two halves welded back together! When Israel talks about only six Merkava out of 50 hit being 'totally destroyed' do not underestimate the level of damage implied by 'not totally'.

There are certain 'nice to have' features that might get used a couple times for novelty sake then largely ignored afterward. Like battleship artillery, minefield belts, marauding aircraft and corps-level artillery rocket barrages. And Sturmtigers. Everyone wanted Sturmtigers in the game but the novelty wore off pretty quickly.
Imagine the framerate hit if half the map in CM was billowing flames and black smoke. The BFC guys have been bending over backward to increase framerate, not slow it.

A CMBB (game engine 1, eastern front) player back-in-the-day once stated that newbies tend to play Tigers versus IS-2s while veteran players preferred Hungarian infantry vs Finns (or some similar combination).   If you're burned-out on Ubertanks then leave the Ubertanks behind. Infantry with-or-without light armor makes for very different gameplay than clashing Ubertanks. Or if you want your  Ubertanks purchase the ones without Active Protection System. There's also playing in heavy rain, muddy conditions, anything that'll blunt effectiveness of IR optics.

One thing that does help is the new 'hull down' command. Park your vehicle hulldown to a line of approach and just sit there. You should at least get one good shot off before they react. If you try maneuvering into position within sight of the enemy try doing it behind a cloud of smoke, then hope as the smoke dissipates that you spot him before he spots you.
I read something interesting awhile ago. During one training exercise at a gunnery range the vast majority of Bradley gunners failed to hit their target with TOW, and a sizeable  number failed to launch at all! TOW doesn't seem to exactly be a 'magic bullet'.