Bullethead

Madmatt said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Charles has said that CM fully models small arms/MG damage to passengers but I will run some tests when I get the chance and share with you what I find.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, I believe you. But I'm still concerned over the tendency of various weapons to aim at passengers rather than the vehicle, even when they can destroy the vehicle or, if they don't, the vehicle will certainly destroy them once they reveal themselves by shooting at passengers. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Alex said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Aaahh, the tanks aren't there anymore. That would explain why I haven't seen them. That makes the dozen piats I layed out in ambush pretty useless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, you'll appreciate the PIATs in the next phase when you'll need them for bunker busting . But for now, they do add a small amount of firepower to your defensive lines. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The AI has massacred me in the Tennis Courts, despite me defending them with a full company. The AI made no moves I could see for the first 8 or so turns, and it looks like it took that time to transfer the better part of a battalion from the Jail Hill side to help against the tenis courts. I'm calling in heavy arty (as in basically all of it, except 1 spotter) as the Gerpaneses advance up the hill. My line at the top of the hill will hold for a little while as so far they've been able to concentrated fire on 1 or 2 enemy units at a time, but they will most likely be overrun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting. Let us know how this turns out. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's looking like the sceneraio mugh have a new problem, with the AI now putting a disproportional amount of force against the 2 big flags on Garrison Hill. This may be fixable by tinkering with where the initial setup zones are. I'll let you know after I finish getting destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Objectives seem to be the biggest cause of AI behavior so you're probably right. Let's see, small flags are 100 points and big flags are 300. There are now 2 big flags (Garrison and the Bungalow) and 4 small (Jail, DIS, FSD, and Kuki). This makes the 2 big ones close together worth more than all the others combined. So yeah, I can see that causing massive shifting of forces to the north flank. So let's consider. If we change the Bungalow to a small flag, that would only put 400 points on the north end, and that would equal all the others. And if you took all the small flags, leaving Garrison in Brit possession, you'd have 500 points to 300 for the Brits. The AI might then adopt this strategy, which would be in line with historical results. What do you think? ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Mr. Clark- Excellent work on the Kubel and also a great sales pitch . I hope you do consider doing a jeep mod to go with it ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I have noticed invulnerable passengers also. See my post about the AI Targeting Passengers that I posted last night. The problem seems restricted to tank passengers because truck passengers DO take damage from smallarms aimed at them instead of at the vehicle (which is a separate problem--I'd usually rather shoot at the vehicle). OTOH, I can't recall ever seeing tank riders take damage or morale penalties when THEY are targeted instead of the tank. This seems rather strange. When you shoot at the TANK, its passengers often take collateral damage, almost always bail, and are usually freaked out, even if it's just 1 sniper bullet at the TC. But none of this happens much or at all when you aim at the passengers themselves, even with an IG's HE round. Further, the tank doesn't seem much affected by collateral damage from fire at the passengers. The only times I've seen this happen is MG fire from the front causing the TC to button from its grazing effect. On top of this, often MGs and IGs will target the passengers instead of the tank, and instead of other infantry in cover right beside the tank. Apparently the AI thinks that tank riders have a very high exposure rating, making them attractive targets. But as noted above, in actuality they seem to be almost invulnerable. So Scipio, I'm wondering if your IG was really targeting the tank. I have great difficulty in making them do so--they like to switch to the passengers instead. And when they do, both tank and passenger seem unaffected. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

First off, I'm using 1.1b24 if that makes any difference. Anyway, I have noticed for some time that the AI likes to shoot at passengers instead of the vehicles they are in or on, or instead of not firing at all. This has been a mild annoyance until today, when it really burned me. Worse, I can see how this feature can easily be exploited as a "gamey tactic". Therefore, I'd like to see some tweaking of the AI's target selection process when it sees passengers in its field of fire. Here are some examples illustrating why: 1. Trucks and Jeeps vs. Smallarms When the AI shoots at the passenger instead of the vehicle, the vehicle is never damaged and thus escapes, carrying with it whatever passengers survived the fire. It would be far more effective to shoot at and destroy the vehicle, thereby stranding the passengers in the kill zone for subsequent destruction. 2. Tank Riders vs. Small Arms In this case, shooting at passengers is often suicidal. It just alerts the tank to the nice, squishy soft target, which it then procedes to blow to Hell. It would usually be better not to fire at all. OTOH, if the unit MUST fire, shooting at the tank is usually more effective because it will usually cause a button and may kill the TC, crippling the tank. 3. Tank Riders vs. IGs This is pretty much the same as Case 2 above, except that the IG almost always has the ability to kill the tank with a shaped charge round. So why doesn't it recognize the tank as the bigger threat and take a shot at it instead? It's also a bigger target so you'd think the odds of hitting would be better as well. Both cases 2 and 3 are what I fear being exploited. They lead to the easy discovery and rapid destruction of MG teams and IGs. Anyway, I guess what I'd like to see is the AI giving more consideration to the consequences of its actions. It should think about what the result will be if it shoots at the passenger instead of the vehicle. Either the target will escape or it will have to face an enraged tank. On a related issue, I don't see much evidence of tank riders bailing when shot at themselves. OTOH, if their tank is shot at, they almost always jump off. This doesn't seem quite logical. Also, I think the exposure value of tank riders is sometimes overstated, further leading to bad AI decisions as to targeting them. For example, most fire comes from the front so that the riders are shielded by the turret of the tank. This indeed seems to block a lot of fire, which to me means the exposure of the riders is actually much lower than that reported. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Rexford said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The center portion of the glacis has 51mm at 52°, 53° and 55°, and the large driver hood is 64mm at only 35°.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is what I was asking you in the Firefly II thread. The Brits called the M4A1 a Sherman II, but you said in that thread they had 47^ slopes. I'd never heard of such a thing on this model. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, M4A1 front hull armor is all cast, which could lower the 85% quality modifier even further (the 85% quality appears to apply to rolled armor with flaws, and cast is less resistant than rolled).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't agree with this statement. There are many advantages to casting tank hulls and turrets compared to welding them up out of small plates. This is why, until modern composite armor was developed, most post-war tanks had predominantly cast components. Some of the advantages of cast structures are as follows: 1. The force of an impact is more easily spread throughout the structure instead of being isolated in a small area by plate seams. This allows the armor to be harder than that made of small plates, leading to better resistance to penetration without excessive cracking when hit. Also, there is no chance of an impact breaking welded joints and dislodging an entire plate, even if it's not penetrated. 2. The curvature possible with cast surfaces not only increases the odds of a ricochet from an AP projectile, but also has a tendency to disrupt the proper formation of the jet from shaped charge warheads. 3. The metalurgical properties of the structure are more uniform throughout due to all being "cooked" at once in the same casting and heat treating processes. With welded structures, the welding itself changes the metal's properties in the area of the weld, usually making it softer and more easily penetrated. All the above (except the part about shaped charges) were recognized well before WW2, in fact before even WW1. They were employed in battleship armor schemes that far back. The shaped charge bit was noticed during WW2. Knowing these advantages was why the US built cast tank hulls. This was the preferred method, in fact, and was used on the M3A1 Medium and T1E2/M6 Heavy tanks as well as the M4A1. And at first, the only reason for having welded versions was because only a few manufacturers had the plant required to make such large castings. And when the 47^ slope came into production, the main reason there wasn't a cast version of it was wartime expediency. It takes far longer to "de-bug" a casting to eliminate voids than it does to simply weld something together. Also, it takes longer to make and properly cook a large casting than it does to make and weld together the smaller parts. Note also that the front hull of the M26 Pershing was cast, at least the upper slope. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-08-2001).]

My list: Combat Mission: best wargame so far made PITS/TOP2: previous holders of that title Myth I and II: actually wargames like CC and SMG, definitely NOT RTS Age of Rifles: one of my favorite eras Steel Panthers I: lots of fun Task Force 1942: they STILL haven't made a better naval wargame Stars!: best space opera war yet, can't wait for the sequel ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Matt said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I make them by enclosing a field with a stone wall and using hedges as the vines. I decided against using bocage as I didn't want to restrict LOS that severely. Also, I didn't want to restrict vehicular movement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do also when I want to make a young vinyard. But for old ones, where the vines have attained the diameter and woodiness of trees, only interwoven, I think bocage works OK. Adding wire just makes them even older and denser. OTOH, the problem with bocage is that Allied vehicles can go through it and Germans can't, which can make for a serious play imbalance if you're not careful. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Rune said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>About 600 of these Shermans were built on Mk. I and Mk. I Composite/Hybrid, Mk. II (47 degree front upper hull), and Mk. V hulls. A small number were built on Mk. II hulls, this being a rare M-4A1 built at the Pressed Steel Plant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure about that 47^ slope on the Sherman II (aka M4A1)? That version had the cast hull and every one I've ever seen had the older, steeper but thinner sloped front hull, so that the drivers' hatches protruded a bit in front of the front hull surface. Also, are you saying the M4A1 was rare in general or just in Brit service? My sources indicate there were actually about 1500 more M4A1s built than M4A3s, the favorite US version. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Tiger said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seems that 1 second of replay clock time = 1.5 seconds of time for units. In other words game time and replay clock time are not the same (in synch).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tiger, you have merely observed arty following Einstein's Theory of Relativity, specifically the time dilation part of it. As you know, arty fires lots of very massive bullets and they move quite quickly. So you have high mass at high speed, which causes time to move slower for the shells than for the outside world. In order to make accurate fire corrections, the FOs need to know this so have special stopwatches calibrated in shell time, so they can compare shell time to outside time. This lets them know when the shells will arrive, letting them give moving targets the proper lead. It's just a reflection of CM's attention to detail that it shows these special shell time stopwatches working when you click on an FO unit ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Andread said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>excellent ideas BH. Would mess up the look of the map though<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, my FTP site pulled its head out so I was able to upload the screenshot. Here it is: This version uses bocage for the vines and barbed wire for their supports. So going across the grain of the rows, you'd have all kinds of problems, but going along them gives you clear alleys. The CoC lines shown here also correspond to LOS, with the red lines having LOS and the black line not. I think it looks OK. Not great, but much closer to a vinyard than a brush tile. More importantly, it has much more realistic combat and movement effects. Anyway, just a suggestiong. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-06-2001).]

Hmmm, this is a tough one. Vinyards are not only low-level LOS blocks but also severely restrict movement. I'm not sure if brush is the best answer. In all the vinyards I've seen, there has been a grid pattern of 8" diameter fence posts, each about 6-8' high, set about 10' apart. Heavy-guage wire is then strung between these posts in parallel lines. The vines are planted between the posts and are supported by the wires, making a series of dense vine curtains and cart paths repeating from 1 side of the vinyard to the other. This makes vinyards somewhat unique. If the wire is strung E-W, for example, the vinyard offers little LOS or movement problem E-W. However, the LOS is totally blocked up to at least the height of a man N-S and movement is greatly impeded, maybe even for tracked vehicles, in those directions also. There aren't any tiles in CM with different properties from different directions like this. This means you have to be creative. I think the best way to do vinyards is to enclose a field about 100m x 200m or up to double that size in size with a stone wall. Then put in parallel rows of bocage or hedge inside the fence to be the rows of vines. If you want to be really nasty, add barbed wire in each hedge/bocage tile, right next to the hedge/bocage (that's the only place it can go in the tile anyway). The result has the directional properties desired--severe movement and LOS problems perpendicular to the rows, but no real problems parallel to them. The rows are farther apart than they perhaps should be, but that's no worse than the other modeling problems caused by 20m tile size. I'd post a screen shot of this type of vinyard but my FTP site seems to be porked right now. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm obviously missing a major point here. I don't even know how to place a unit in its own colored zone. Also how do you padlock a unit in place?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> To set up the colored zones, go to the map editor and hit the ZONE button up in the upper left corner area. This puts the editor in zone-making mode. You'll see the map tiles overlaid by colored squares. It always starts with a default red area for the Allies and a default green area for the Germans. The rest of the tiles will have gray outlines, meaning neutrual. To change the colored areas, just click on the color you want and then click the tiles on the map you want that color. If you screw up, just use gray to erase the color. Once you have the zones established and units purchased, hit the PREVIEW button in the editor. Then click on a unit, select P for place, and dump it into one of the areas surrounded by a colored set-up area border. Repeat for all units you want in these areas. Units that you put in such zones will show up in the set-up phase during play with their bases colored the same as the border of the area they are in. The player can then put them anywhere inside that border. And note that you can make multiple patches of the same color, so that a unit placed in Red Area #1 for example, can be put in Red Area #2 during the set-up phase. Padlocking units fixes them in place. During the set-up phase, they have orange bases and the player can't move them at all. To do this, use the PREVIEW mode to put the unit where you want, then bring up its orders menu. Select Padlock and voila. Note also that if you put a unit in the gray area outside of all colored set-up zones, it's the same as padlocking it. In the set-up phase, you can't move it. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ok guys as the subject says Who was the Most successful tank destroyer in WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Simple question. That was none other than John "Mad Dog" Brisco, a West Texas oilfield worker who was 4-F due to the loss of a couple fingers in an accident before the war. During WW2, he cashed in on the scrap iron recycling market, starting a company to destroy tanks: old oil tanks, water tanks, septic tanks, you name it. He enjoyed immense success, becoming a multi-millionaire by 1945. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The Hetzer shares the same tactical limitations as all other turretless AFVs. It's primarily a medium-long range defensive ambush weapon, although it can be useful for overwatching a sector of an attack. It needs to keep the enemy to its front. It's best used in at least pairs so they can guard each other's flanks. It needs some form of covering terrain to hide behind or shield its flanks, and something to channelize the enemy advance into its kill zone. If you accept these limitations, it's a question of what JPz is the best buy. When considering buying Hetzers, you're already thinking in terms of a light-medium vehicle, so don't consider JPanthers and JTigers. Also exclude the PzIV L/70 (s/b JPzIV L/70?) because it's a special case. This leaves you comparing the Hetzer to the StuGs, Marders, and early JPzIVs. All members of this group have exactly the same gun and very nearly the same speed and ground pressure, so the only real differences are size, armor, ammo capacity, and cost. On these criteria, the Hetzer has the best over-all score. It's the smallest and has the best frontal armor. It's also the cheapest fully enclosed JPz, not costing much more than a Marder. However, its ammo capacity is the lowest next to the Marders, being about 1/2 - 2/3 that of JPzIVs and StuGs. Still, the Hetzer's got enough for a small or a short battle, which is mostly what you play, so at the bottom line it's the best bang for the buck in this group. The only other medium JPz is the PzIV L/70. This thing packs the Panther's awesome gun with plenty of ammo and has frontal armor a bit better than the Hetzer's. OTOH, it's about 20% slower than the Hetzer, has a 25% higher ground pressure, and costs nearly twice as much. In effect, it's really a cheaper heavy JPz instead of a medium, so you should use it differently than the Hetzer. This leaves the Hetzer still supreme in its class. NOTE: I can't prove this, but I believe I recall BTS mentioning 1 drawback of the Hetzer not covered above. That is, due to cramping of the crew compartment caused by small size and heavily sloped armor, the Hetzer's ROF is somewhat lower than that of a StuG or JPzIV. However, I can't tell the difference in the game. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Magnifico! ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

V-Weapon said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, as I understand it, the gunner's are doing what they're trained to do in the heat of combat, aim at the center of mass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> rexford said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Germans were most effective at training crews to target weak areas like turret/hull meeting line. 37mm Pak crewman in one message recently said that they automatically fired at turret/hull line due to kills on even a heavy tank like KV-1, and they were trained to do it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Rexford has it right. Consider the following scenario: You're out squirrel hunting armed with a 20guage full of #6 shot. Then you meet an angry wild hog where there are no trees amenable to rapid climbing. Now compare this to crouching behind the tinfoil shield of a "doorknocker" while facing an enraged KV-1. I think in both cases you'd put your shot where it had the only chance of doing any good. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Ain't it funny that when he was doing it for free, CMHQ updates were both more frequent and more lavish. But once he started getting paid for it, he slacked off considerably.... ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Marco said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Would you mind emailing a vehicle-set of Mod-managered files to Old Dog, so that we can compare how someone else is arranging these? (US M4A1 is probably the smallest.) We're just trying to figure out the best way make these mods compliant, so another input would be helpful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Done. No offense to Old Dog--his batch files were very good, but after a while I had so many icons for them it was difficult to make sure I was getting the ones I wanted . What I've been doing is pretty simple. I unzip your mod into a temp directory. Then I make sub-directories off that for each version. I leave the screenshots and the textures common to all version in the main temp directory and move all the version-specific files to the sub-directories. Of course, I then have to rename these latter by eliminating the version suffix after the texture number in their filenames. I usually make the different nationalities "options" in the MM. But sometimes, like for Hernando's recent 250 halftrack mod, I get into using "extras" as well. Thanks for the cool mods and keep up the good work ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Urban Shocker said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(1) How did you model Japanese fighting behavior since they tended to fight to the death?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Like Alex said, I made them vets (which they historically were) and gave them the highest fanatic rating (all troops 50%). This seems to work rather well. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) Later in the Burma campaign the Japanese tended to be low on ammo and arty, did you model this in the scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They are low on arty in this scenario. They have only some 75mm and not many rounds per FO. This is due to them not being able to bring much with them here. As for smallarms ammo, I have found no reference to any shortages there in this phase of the battle. I believe this was because 1) there were numerous bodies to rob; 2) Kohima was something of a supply dump and the Japanese captured most of it; and 3) during this encircled phase, Brit resupply was by airdrop and much of it landed in Japanese territory. IOW, the Japanese were either using stuff from their dead buddies or using Brit weapons and ammo. Later, I plan on making another scenario on this same map modeling the later phase where the Brits were retaking the parts of Kohima Ridge they lost in the initial phase. At this point, the encirclement was broken so there were no more airdrops, and the Japanese weren't left in control of the area fought over, so scavaging no longer worked. In addition, they were very short on rations and disease-ridden. I plan to model the former by manually lowering the ammo count of each unit. The latter I will model by reducing the quality of the Gerpanese troops. BTW, the 2nd phase is in the monsoon, so expect mud, fog, and/or rain ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Jarmo said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The AI picked british forces, some halftracks and arty with a lot of infantry. I picked a fleet oh H-39's. Then I just drove them against the enemy hordes, completely and utterly smashing them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I set up a battle of 14 H-39s vs. 2 M5 Stuarts at 400m, totally open, flat terrain, head-on. The H-39s poured their fire on the M5s, achieving hit after hit, all doing no damage, not even to tracks and exposed TCs. In fact, the Stuart TCs rarely even bothered to button up after a ricochet. Meanwhile, the M5s slaughtered the H-39s. In a few turns, they were all dead or abandoned. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Manx said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now obviously there are quite a few variants of the Sherman within CM, so the pro's & con's and the way you would tactically use a Sherman I, might be completely different to how you would use the Sherman Firefly for instance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No type of Sherman is entirely satisfactory. They all do one of tank's tasks rather well but tend to suck at all the others. That is, a given Sherman might be good at killing infantry but is nearly hopeless against heavy armor, or vice versa. Which task they specialize in depends on what modifications the basic vehicle has received. This can be determined by the nomenclature of the unit in CM. All the different basic Sherman mark and model designations (i.e., M4, M4A3, Sherman II, etc.) really don't mean much in game terms. In real life, all these meant was what type of engine the tank had, or whether it had a cast or welded hull. So in CM, these various basic designations usually translate into insignificant differences in speed, armor thickness, and ammo stowage. As such, you can pretty much ignore them. This leaves the other, "suffix-type" designations to consider. These suffixes can be divided into 3 main types: those dealing with guns, those dealing with armor, and those dealing with mobility. An individual Sherman in CM can have a combination any or all of these types. Depending on which ones it has, the tank will be much more effective in one role or another, and usually noticeably better than the baseline, unmodified vehicle. Armor suffixes are the easiest to understand. There are 3 with game effects: +, W, and E2 "Jumbo". The + offers somewhat better protection against older AT weapons such as 50mm and 75mm PAKs but doesn't seem to make any difference to more powerful weapons. Therefore, I find this suffix not worth the purchase points in most cases. OTOH, Jumbo means armor from Hell, capable of taking some major hits, although at the cost of speed. Jumbos are useful for frontal attacks on prepared positions. The W designation just means the tank is less likely to burn when penetrated. Thus these tanks are slightly less likely to be knocked out by a penetration, usually cost you fewer casualties when they are knocked out, and have a better chance of recovery during operations. There are 2 mobility suffixes--E8 and HVSS--but they both mean exactly the same thing. That is, E8 is the official designation for the HVSS suspension. This mod carries a very significant reduction in ground pressure, meaning a much lower chance of bogging. In real life, the ride was reportedly smoother as well, which should increase accuracy while moving. Also, you'd expect a somewhat lower chance of setting off mines. However, I haven't verified either of these in the game. This leaves suffixes dealing with guns, which IMHO have the most game effects because the whole purpose of tanks is shooting the enemy. Shermans carried 4 types of gun: short 75mm, long 76mm, 17pdr (also a 76mm), and 105mm. The 75mm is there by default if the designation doesn't specify, and the 17pdr is indicated by "Firefly". The 75mm is very good at killing infantry and is adequate vs. older German armor such as PzIVs and Stugs. Also, tanks so armed carry boatloads of ammo. OTOH, the weapon is pretty hopeless against heavy armor and loses accuracy at long range. The 105mm is like the 75 on steroids. It's extremely good for killing soft targets, buildings, and even pillboxes. Plus its hollow charge round can take out even heavy armor. However, it's slow-firing, not very accurate, and tanks so armed burn very easily. Consider it a hammer with a balsa handle. The US 76mm gun is a compromise in the anti-tank and anti-personnel roles. It offers better anti-tank performance, both in accuracy and penetration, than the 75mm, but at the cost of reduced effectiveness against soft targets and amount of ammo stowage. But even so, it's still not adequate against heavy armor. Fireflies with the 17pdr (Brit 76mm), OTOH, are specialized anti-tank vehicles. The gun is capable of dispatching heavy armor but is less effective against infantry. In addition, to allow adequate ammo stowage space, the Fireflies eliminated the assistant driver and the hull machinegun. This reduces their ability to defend themselves against enemy infantry and makes them more vulnerable to crew casualties than other Shermans. So, how do you use all this? In general, all Shermans except Jumbos are easy to kill and no Shermans except Fireflies can do much damage at long range. So basically, this means you have to rely heavily on terrain and smoke to avoid long-range enemy fire as much as possible. This is the great equalizer because Shermans are really no more vulnerable at ATG and tank fire at short range than at long, but German vulnerability and Sherman accuracy increase at short range. Plus relative turret speed starts to enter the equation. Thus, on the attack, put your 75 and 105 Shermans fairly far forward, just behind your assault grunts, so they can deal with strongpoints as they appear. Use covered avenues of approach to avoid long range ATG and tank crossfires. Use mass to sustain firepower despite losses and to surround isolated heavy vehicles encountered en route. Advance by bounds from cover to cover if possible, sending 1 tank first to the next position to see if it triggers an ATG ambush before moving up the main body. Fireflies are best left behind hills in the rear. They're no more durable than other Shermans and leaving them exposed on the skyline simply makes them targets to any unspotted AT platform with an LOS. Then, when your advancing 75 Shermans cause the Germans finally to commit their Panthers, pop the Fireflies up over the hill and nail the Panthers while they're fixated on your expendable tanks. Of course, achieving this requires proper appreciation and use of terrain. The US 76mm Shermans are rather like weak Fireflies. Because they are generally your best anti-armor weapons, and because you're usually attacking, you should try to use them similarly to the Fireflies above. However, they need to be closer in to be as effective, and having flank shots at heavy armor is a big plus. Thus, as your main force advances, you may have to halt periodically to move the 76s to new positions, either further forward or more to the flank, so they'll be most effective when needed. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Just wanted to express my appreciation for the cool PC Mod Manager you made. It works like a champ and since I got it I have been converting all of Marco's wonderful multi-version mods to the packaged format of the Mod Manager. All the textures available at a mouse click and no swarms of batch file shortcuts to confuse me . ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Jarmo said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It just hit me, with a 1 man turret, who's doing the shooting/loading when the "commander" decides to grab some fresh air?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember that a CM turn is a full minute. During that time, it seems to me quite possible for the H-39 "T"C to poke his head up for a quick look around between shots, then drop back down to do his other jobs. Such an abstraction seems to me in keeping with the ways in which CM handles other individuals. For example, we all know CM doesn't keep track of the position of every member of a squad. OTOH, I have found that leaving H-39s unbuttoned in combat has a real disadvantage. If the "T"C is killed, the driver bails out, thus effectively destroying the "tank". IOW, I have never seen a shocked H-39. This seems reasonable because the "tank" is no longer capable of any offensive action. But it makes smallarms into effective "tank" killers, instead of just cripplers. Thus, regardless of any advantage to being unbuttoned, I think the disadvantage of greatly increased vulnerability outweighs it enough to keep the "tanks" buttoned ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-04-2001).]

OK, I have now tweaked Kohima Ridge as follows: 1. Brit FOs: now have Crack experience 2. Eliminated victory flags in Gerpanese-occupied areas. 3. Changed Jail Hill's flag from large to small. 4. Eliminated all Gerpanese tanks. Much to my embarassment, I have discovered that I erred in including them at all. Got confused due to the book shifting scenes to the Imphal area without me noticing it at first. If interested in trying this version, send me an email at jtweller@earthlink.net ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-04-2001).]