Bullethead

Sirocco said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, he predicted the PzKpfw IV would advance on the left of the M10, and lo! it did. I can't understand the argument that because it didn't politely step on the exact spot predicted that the M10 should hold fire. The PzKpfw was a threat, and a mortal threat when it opened fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kanonier used the wrong tool (order) for the job. He says he had an LOS to the map edge, which I assume was somewhat further away than the ambush marker or the PzIV that appeared. He wanted to have the M10 covering that whole distance, apparently, and be able to shoot as quickly as possible. As has been pointed out, the way to do this is to ROTATE the M10 to face the desired direction, leave it unbuttoned, and let the spotting and target selection AI routines do their thing. This would have had the turret facing the desired direction, minimizing response time. Kanonier says the M10 was "behind a hill", which to me implies it didn't have to worry about being shot at from that direction. Hence, there was no need to have hull front facing the main enemy position (like an M10's front armor is useful vs. late 1944+ German AT weapons anyway). But instead, Kanonier used the AMBUSH command. This pointed the turret in the right direction, but focused the M10's attention on that particular close spot and not the whole field of its LOS. So when the M10 behaves as ordered, Kanonier starts bitching. And others fail to recognize his error in giving the wrong command, and chime in demanding BTS change a perfectly workable system to handle this 1 case in which it was the player's fault, not the game's. At the risk of being accused of being a flamer, RTFM people! Odds are, the game already has the command you want to give. It might not be named like you expect, or might be counterintuitive (as is this example), but it probably IS there. So learn how the game works. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

OTOH, fanatics can be a liability at night and other low-viz situations. For instance, say you're platoon advance meets the enemy MLR. Due to different lengths of delays in your units starting to move, your platoon is not on line but more in wedge or column of squads. So the 1st squad crosses the LOS limit and the whole enemy position opens up on it. It goes into berserker mode and charges the nearest enemy unit. While doing so, it is under fire from all enemy units in LOS, which are at point blank range, and is moving fast so is at its highest exposure. Men fall at every step, the last dropping dead on the parapet. Enemy losses are negligeable. This all happens so quickly that your next squad hasn't reached the LOS limit yet. By the time it does, the enemy units are ready for it. If you have a high fanaticism rating, there's a good chance of the process being repeated. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What interests me is, can vehicles be pushed up to a bridge from down below?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. It's a bug with the tall bridges that go over lower roads. You can play all sorts of games with a wrecked vehicle on such bridges. Say it gets killed on a bridge. The next vehicle using the bridge pushes it over the side. Then a vehicle on the lower road pushes it back up onto the bridge. Repeat. You can see this happen a lot in my Figure-8 scenario, which I may upload someday. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

I agree with MH . It seems that the unlimber times imply setting everything up, which is not usually necessary in DF situations. Because on-map guns can't shoot IF anyway, DF is all they can do. Thus, IMHO this issue needs to be addressed. But in the DF-only world of CM guns, you also don't have to put as much back on the truck, so maybe increasing limbering times isn't really called for. Of course, some guns would have faster times than others. So probably this would have to be addressed on a gun-by-gun basis. Also, some guns (88mm FLAK) could be fired limbered but only in VERY limited arcs. This might be a factor in whatever version of CM does the desert war. On this subject of limbering under fire, however, I have a rather large complaint. This complaint is that I usually can't do it because the damn towing vehicle lacks all physical attributes of manhood. This is because the guns are DF-only, which means they only reveal themselves when in enemy LOS. Then they have to leave before the big hammers start falling. But when you try to bring the towing vehicle up to the gun, it sees enemies out there and runs away, leaving the gun to its fate. Thus, I hope BTS addresses the panic response of towing vehicles. Their current behavior leads to excessive gun losses. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Hell, I've got pictures of Shermans towing 57mm ATGs. But there is also nothing on the back of the Sherman, indicating the crew and ammo were carried by another vehicle. Seems to me such incidents could be best explained as route march expedients as opposed to battlefield practice. For instance, perhaps there was a shortage of trucks that could both tow the gun and carry the crew and ammo. However, you had tanks that could pull the gun and could spread the rest over a couple of jeeps. So you do a big motor march this way. Upon arrival, you drop the gun, crew, and ammo, and then hope you get a real prime mover as a replacement in case you have to move the gun in a hurry. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Claus B said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael is right. The 8,8cm Flak guns and the PaK 43 (but not the Pak 43/41) all had a cruciform carriage where the two side legs could be folded up when the gun was limbered for transport. When firing from the limbered position, the two side legs were folded down to allow easy acces to the gun and to add some stability while firing. The gun could then be fired from while on its wheels. There are both pictures and footage of this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure, but at what angles? From what I've seen, the Flak 88s, which were carried atop a tall pedestal above the cruciform legs, could be fired from the wheels pretty much only when the tube was aligned essentially perpendicular to the axles. This was because only in this direction was there support. If you aimed the gun much to the side (more parallel with the axles), the gun would roll over sideways when fired. This limited a gun so deployed to a very narrow field of fire. So narrow, in fact, as to be pretty much useless except at extreme range, where the small angle opened out to a useful area of ground coverage. This might have worked on calm, non-mirage days in the flat, boring desert, where you can see forever, but wouldn't be useful in any other type of terrain. Also, as Mensch mentions, you had to leave the gun attached to the prime mover or you'd end up like that guy with the 40mm in that John Belushi movie "1941". Essentially, you could only fire down the axis of the prime mover. So all in all, the ability of the FLAK 88s to shoot while wheeled seems of such limited utility in European battles as to not warrant inclusion in CM. The PAK 43 solved these problems in 2 ways. First, being an ATG, it sat MUCH lower than the FLAK 18/36/37 family, so had much less tendency to roll the whole assembly over when fired to the sides. Second, it had the above-mentioned special firing platforms that could be put under the side legs to provide lateral stability. The FLAK guns didn't have either of these features. PrivateJoe said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IIRC it takes 8 minutes for the PAK43 to unlimber.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, upon further review, this doesn't seem so bad, either. That is, assuming you totally unhook from the prime mover. In such a case, even if you leave the wheels on the carriage, you still have to lower fore-and-aft jacks to get them off the ground to avoid the "1941 Syndrome". ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-07-2000).]

patboivin said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>is there any reason why we can't tow an AT gun with a tank or a halftrack with no portage capability?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This question pretty much answers itself. No portage capability, no towing But seriously, the reason why some AFVs have no portage capability and thus can't tow guns is like aka_tom_w said--no space for the gun crew, their personal gear (packs, tents, personal weapons, etc.), and the gun's ammo and ancillary equipment. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Beer. It's not just for breakfast anymore ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Wittmann said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Has anyone commented on the 88's inability to fire whilst hitched. From my research, hasty deployment could be made by lowering the two moveable legs which made up the cross shaped base, without the need to remove the wheeled bogeys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was possible only with the PAK 43 version of the 88, due to the special design of its carriage. The other 88s in the game (PAK 43/41 and FLAK 18/36/37) did not have this feature. But even with the PAK 43, some set-up work was required. According to Ian Hogg, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It was ... possible to fire the gun from its wheels by swinging out the two side girders [of the cruciform carriage] and placing special firing pedestals beneath the jack feet.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is going to be the work of a turn or 3, IMHO, based on experience with guns of similar size and design. The jack feet above mentioned have to be screwed down HARD onto whatever surface the gun is on, the ground or these pedestals, to keep the gun steady during firing. And the ground under the pedestals has to be scraped more or less level so the pedestals stand up straight and the whole gun ends up as close to level as possible. In CM, this question is somewhat moot, however. The PAK 43 cannot be limbered up during a game, so the only way to get in the hasty emplacement mode is to start the game with the gun hooked up. I've never played a scenario with the PAK 43, so don't know how long it takes to unlimber. If it's on the order of 2-3 minutes, however, I'd say that would be a fair approximation of the "hasty" emplacement technique. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-07-2000).]

First off, don't get me wrong here. I am greatly appreciative of the hard work put in on making all the winter uniform textures. However, having just installed MDMP2, I noticed something that you mod makers might want to consider in the future. Basically, it's the collar. Here's a guy in his white uniform (or, for Volksturm, his civvie trousers with snow caked around the ankles), kneeling at the ready in the snow with flakes swirling around him, and his collar is unbuttoned to display his manly chest hair and dogtags like it was summer. Granted, this is only noticeable when you zoom right in a troops, but it does look a bit strange. Also, because MDMP2 just overwrote all my existing winter uniforms, I can't remember if these "3rd party" mods had the same collar situation. But it seems to me it would be more appropriate to have the collar buttoned and perhaps even a scarf around the neck? Anyway, thought all you tailors might want to know. Good job all around regardless ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Warren Peace said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Q. Is five too young to be playing CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think so. When I was 5, my favorite bedtime stories were my parents recounting the martial exploits of my ancestors and cousins (from WW2 to the Dark Ages) and having chapters read from books of real combat stories, with all the bloody details. Had CM and PCs existed back then, I'm sure I'd have been playing that. As it was, I had to settle for plastic armymen in the sandbox. I don't think this warped my mind. I'm a law-abiding citizen. In fact, I think learning at a young age about how nasty wars really are, and why individual soldiers fight them, helped me develop a sense of community spirit and the recognition that self-sacrifice for your way of life is a necessity. This in turn has made me appreciate our freedoms all the more, as well as benefited society at large by my service in the Marines and fire department. Besides, IMHO one of the most important things parents can do to raise kids is to let them know, as soon as possible, that the real world is a harsh place and that life isn't fair. That bad things almost always happen to good people (because they happen to everybody), that the strong always try to dominate the weak, etc. War is just part of this over-all human condition. Easing kids into this sad knowledge as early as possible keeps them from developing illusions and thus suffering severe shock when they find out the truth. BTW, I'm not a cynic, I'm a realist ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Hey Madmatt- You need to get in touch with pritzl and put his Allied winter cammo patterns on CMHQ. He seems to be having trouble figuring out how to make them available to everybody. I suggested he talk to you but I don't know if he'll read that thread again. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Realtime and WeGo are both tools used to model tactical situations. But like a set of wrenches, you need different tools for different jobs. So used appropriately, I like both. If you need to use realworld tactics, then realtime only works if the player's span of command is very small: 1-4 units or so. More units than this and realtime games become clickfests of tank rushes, where realistic tactics are thrown out the window. NOTE: this is recognized in real life, where officers rarely have more than 3 subordinate units (tripod organization). So realtime works for 1st person things like flight and tank sims, which might give you command of a flight or platoon. Beyond this, you're talking RTS games that, while fun to some, have no basis in reality at all. OTOH, turn-based 1st person games don't work well. WeGo, OTOH, allows use of realworld tactics on any scale. This makes it possible for a player to command companies and battalions and still give each unit the required amount of attention that in real life would be supplied by the leaders of the subordinate formations. Which is the real deciding factor. The player has to be the leader of every squad, team, platoon, and company in his force. Forcing him to do all these jobs in the time given to only 1 such leader is totally unrealistic, and tactics suffer accordingly. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Pritzl said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm glad you guys like the textures. They're actually mine. I just recently finished them. The only problem has been finding a way to make them available to everyone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would recommend talking to Madmatt. He seems to be more than happy to make mods available on CMHQ. In fact, I HIGHLY recommend you do this, because I WANT THESE TEXTURES . I would have said so when you announced them earlier but I was out of the country. Your field-applied looks are outstanding here. Reminds me very much of the paintjobs we put on our vehicles in the Gulf War. They got shipped over there wearing the normal Euro-intended green/brown/black cammo pattern and the troops had to paint them sand-color upon arrival. There wasn't much sand paint available and folks naturally treated it as a matter of life and death, so it took mucho stealth or extreme violence to acquire any. Then we had to thin it severely to make it cover all our vehicles. So the net result was you could see the edges of the underlying cammo blotches, where 2 colors overlapped, as well as thin places and missed spots in the sand paint where the cammo showed through. Also, we just masked over the tactical vehicule markings, so they were still black letters on cammo rectangles surrounded by sand. We painted over reflectors and were rather sloppy on wheel hubs and window frames, so there was a fair amount of sand paint on tires and windshields. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So it would appear that the turret was a new construction, but the hull and mantlet were original equipment with applique armor<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Could well be that they were built both ways. I have read both versions, and you know how it seems no 2 Shermans of the same model were exactly alike, with various combinations of old and new features. Could be the prototypes were welded up with extra pieces on a standard hull, to see if the powertrain could handle the new load, and then they switched to thicker plates for production. Can't say for sure. But in any case, the photos I have show the edge of an homogenous front plate. And no, I'm not cutting up these books just to prove a point. I've done that already; it's somebody else's turn ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Movie turn file size seems to depend both on number of units and complexity of terrain. 1. The movie turns of "Sherbrook Fusiliers", which is a "huge" scenario (battalion+ forces, very large but rather simple map in terms of elevation changes and terrain types), have all been about 2.2 megs through 15 turns, despite horrific losses on both sides. 2. The movie turns of my Valhalla1 scenario, which is "medium" (medium sized map but EXTREMELY compicated terrain involving a massive volcano, and only a reinforced platoon on each side on the map to start with), also run over 2 megs even when there is no combat. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

jshandorf said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think I have EVER seen one in any pictures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here's a picture of a winter-camo'd M10. It's from the Tank Museum at Bovington Camp in England. This photo dates from 1991. When I went back in 1997, it had been repainted green. But many other vehicles had also been repainted, so I think they just do this periodically to keep the museum fresh to repeat customers. Anyway, like Chupacabre says, it appears to be mere whitewash over the green paint. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-05-2000).]

Dittohead said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. From what I remember The Jumbo's were fabricated by welding additional armor onto the body of a standard Shermans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think so. From what I can gather, both from text and looking at photos, the Jumbo hull was welded up from thicker plates than normal, and the turret, gun mantle, and final drive castings were also thicker than normal. You can see the front upper hull plate edge in most front quarter photos and it's 1 layer, not 2. Also, the heavier gun mantle is quite obvious, as is an extension on the back of the cast turret, apparently a counterweight for the heavier armor on the front. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Did the Jumbo's have any weak areas similar to the KT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never heard of any in particular. However, the bow machinegun opening would be a problem as with all tanks so armed. Also, the Jumbo's gun mantle was very similar in shape to a Tiger I's, so perhaps there was a chance it deflecting rounds down through the front hull roof. Finally, the sloping rear turret extension would have been a bad shell trap for shots from that direction. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. What effect would the additional armor of different quality and BHN have on penetration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this is moot because the armor was apparently homogenous. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. I read in the old SL GI anvil victory notes that the 76mm jumbo weren't available until Jan 45.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No idea. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Thanks for the interest. I've sent the thing to Seanachai, von Brizee, DaveT, and Elijah Meeks (I _hope_ I got Elijah's address correct, it's hard to tell on the profile screen here). Let me know what you think. This is enough testers for now. If their reports are favorable, I'll upload the thing. Otherwise, this scenario will be condemned to the Graveyard of Hallucinations.

There must have been a rubber shortage in Iraq during the Gulf War, too. When I went into Kuwait City the day after the cease fire, I noticed that the Iraqis had stolen the tires off just about every vehicle in town. In one parking lot near the waterfront, I came across several semi trailers stuffed with tires of assorted sizes, apparently abandoned in the Iraqi's rush to get out of town. And on the Highway of Death north of town, I saw many vehicles with a few extra, non-fitting tires aboard. Some trucks full of tires burned there for days. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that photo a publicity photo or an actual combat photo?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to the caption, it's a combat photo from the IWM. I agree. It has that battlefield look about it. Had it been a publicity shot taken behind the lines, I think it would have been better staged, better in focus, and more dramatic over-all. BTW, there are numerous other combat photos showing Germans advancing through steppe grass fires, many in color like this one. I'm sure you can find them if you look. I just picked this one because it best illustrates my point about grass fires not engulfing entire tiles at once. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The reason I'm asking is that in addition to any fire hazzard involved, running through a fire obscures the tank crew's vision. Great, they made it through, but what's on the other side? In combat, I think crews would be a lot more cautious than in training. They would tend to avoid any shakey situations and go around the fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, the same could be said of any smokescreen. Which is what a grass fire is more than anything else. But smokescreens don't have such dramatic effects on unit movement. If they did, then you could make your positions immune from direct assault simply by firing smoke in front of them and sighting all your weapons on the ends of the screen, where the enemy would be forced to go due to fear of moving through the smoke. This clearly isn't the case; in fact smokescreens are an aid to the attacker. So I doubt many troops chose to go around a fire simply due to fear of what was on the other side of the smoke. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

A while back, at the far side of a bottle of JD, I made a scenario something like this "Sunday Drive" idea. It's a 4-lane figure-8 racetrack and the participants are 8 US and 8 German trucks. I chose trucks over Jeeps and Kubels because the trucks have the same speed on both sides. Anyway, the trucks race around for a couple laps in front of empty grandstands. All is peaceful racing mayhem with thrills and spills. But then the CM Hooligans show up. Yup, each side gets a dozen or so snipers. They begin throwing rounds at opposing trucks and each other. Yet more CM Hooligans arrive with 81mm mortars and smoke ammo only to confuse the issue. What was once a harmless race becomes fearful carnage. Trucks are knocked out and careen into the walls. Drivers are killed and their trucks go wildly out of control until the other crewman takes over. Crews run about the track shooting passing trucks and each other. Now the only rule is to have the last surviving truck. Anyway, I find it strangely addicting. I've never uploaded it because, well, I didn't want people to think I was that weird. But if you want it, I'll email it to you. I'd appreciate feedback. If there's enough interest, I'll upload it and put you in the credits. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

Seanachai said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have a feeling anything with 'fire' is just in as impassable, but maybe that was just expediency, rather than a hard and fast requirement. Shall be interested to see how or if this is addressed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, it will be. It would really be something if they changed it. A true grognardian realism feature. I myself didn't think twice about the accuracy of fully burning, impassable grass and crop hexes and tiles until I joined a fire department a year ago and started dealing with such fires on a regular basis. So I can understand how most folks would be skeptical of my proposal, or would complain loudly of "unrealistic terrain" if BTS implemented it ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

On the subject of moving through grass fires, here's an actual combat photo of a MkIII and at least 1 grunt moving through a grass fire on the steppes of Russia. And note that the photographer probably has already gone through it himself, because he's in front of the tank. Anyway, this shot clearly shows several things. First, that grass fires do not involve entire tiles but are just rings of fire with grass on 1 side and ash on the other. Second, the tank is moving through without any fire clinging to track grease. If any such fire had started, it would be clearly visible because the part of the track that went through the fire is now up on top of the return rollers. Third, the tank is not buttoned--the commander's hatch is open at least. Finally, even though the fire is small, it's producing a fair amount of smoke. I hope you enjoy this shot. I had to razor it out of a perfectly good book to show you ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 09-04-2000).]

Seanachai said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think this whole issue would come down to more of a matter of 'mechanics' than anything else. BTS (and I'm sure most everyone else), would not want AFVs moving into and staying in a 'burning' tile.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember, for grass and crop fires, the whole field (or tile) isn't burning, just a very thin ring of fire somewhere in it. So being "in" a burning tile of this type does NOT mean the vehicle or troop unit is sitting in a roaring fire. It would only appear so due to the graphics used for fire always covering the whole tile. As for game mechanics, I don't see this being a problem. A tile arleady has movement effects based on its terrain type. As it stands now, if the tile catches on fire, these effects values are replaced by "impassable". I propose that instead the movement effects change by 0 or a very small amount. So the movement mechanics would be the same. As for the LOS effects, I'd leave them the same as now. Even though there isn't much fire, it still makes a lot of smoke. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Supposing this could be worked out, it would then require vehicle specific coding as many perhaps might not feel that trucks should be able to drive through fire, while buttoned tanks could do it without much trouble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I don't think this is much of a problem. Terrain already affects different types of units in different ways. For example, grunts can move on slopes but vehicles can't. As for effects on various types of units, I think fires in grass and short crop tiles shouldn't be impassable to any type of unit so there's no need for specific coding. Fires in tall crops tiles (a seasonal thing) should only be passable by AFVs IMHO. Remember, in all these fires, we're talking about only having to move through a thin ring of fire, only a few inches to a few feet thick. On the other side there's no fire. ------------------ -Bullethead Want a naval sim? Check out Raider Operations at www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html