Bullethead

I, too, have seen units run right through the wire. The wire in question was 3 units at an angle from the valley road north up Hill 198. Each wire unit was placed carefully to overlap the adjacent wire unit a few pixels beyond the sloped part at the end, so that there was a continuous line across the upper surface of the wire. Units running through the lowest section of wire next to the road, where the ground is pretty flat, were slowed down. Units running through the wire higher up on the steeper sloper didn't slow noticeably. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Out of curiosity, why would HQ units be issued AT-weapons? In general?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because the HMFIC is afraid of tanks and he gets dibs on all issued stuff. I speak from personal experience. In the Gulf War, my CBR "platoon" (which numbered over 80 men) was divided into 8 tactical units and 3 HQ units (CO, XO, and platoon sergeant). Thus, a total of 11 units. We were issued 1 box of 6 LAAWs. 3 of these went to the HQ units. My tactical unit, at much greater risk of meeting tanks than any of the HQs, had to do without organic AT capability until we captured some RPGs. Obviously, we thus ended up better equipped. However, there were some anxious moments (pissed-off tanks within 400m) before we acquired the RPGs. ------------------ -Bullethead "Mopping Up" means bayoneting the wounded [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-24-2000).]

Sounds like your Post-Traumatic Mad Smilie Disorder is acting up again. Time for you to get another dose of Licking Smilies. Here ya go ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Lewis is right, shaped charges do great on concrete. I've never shot one at a solid stone but I'd expect it'd be less effective. Concrete almost always has water in between the grains and when this flashes to steam, it shatters the concrete. I don't think all building stone would have this weakness. So just off the top of my head, I'd say a shaped charge would do better against a pillbox than a stone house. OTOH, pillboxes are usually much thicker than house walls. Still, panzerfausts at least had considerable macho. There are documented cases of Shermans being hit on one side and the lance of flame exiting on the other side. Going through both thicknesses of side armor isn't surprising. But for the flame jet to maintain its integrity through the open air between is impressive to me. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-24-2000).]

There is no command for firing PFs specifically. It's all done by the AI--if it thinks it has a shot (and I think if the troops pass a morale check) it will shoot one. Apparently in the Gold version you don't even have to target the tank with the squad itself, and the other guys in the squad can be shooting rifles at enemy grunts while one of them uses the PF on a tank. To increase chances of shooting, it's usually a good idea to have the tank buttoned (shoot at it with smallarms) and be VERY close (30m or less) from behind or the side. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IIRC there was an American tank designer who went to the Soviet Union in the early 30s<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> His name was J. Walter Christie. He invented the "Christie suspension" where you have a row of big, huge roadwheels that the track returns on top of, instead of separate return rollers. But I don't think he actually went to Russia for very long, just briefly in connection with selling them one of his prototypes. The Ruskies used the suspension on some of the later BT-series tanks, the T34, T54/55, and T62. Christie also sold a prototype to the Brits, who used the suspension on the Crusader series. Christie was a very interesting character, in a way that pretty much guaranteed his failure in business. His dealings with the US Army through the 20s and 30s makes you just scratch your head. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The ONLY mods that I am aware of will focus SOLEY on Graphics and Sound improvements.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For realism, IMHO the voice sounds need to contain a lot more profanity. If somebody has the recording equipment and voice donors, I will be happy to provide some words for them to scream. I believe my experience as a Sergeant of Marines qualifies me as a technical advisor in this matter ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

I favor separate timers for orders and movie viewing. I also favor the ability to set the time limits for each phase (set-up, orders, and movie) separately rather than have them all part of a package deal. IOW, I don't want an "Expert" option that simultaneously sets set-up to X minutes, orders to Y minutes, and movie to Z minutes. I'm particularly concerned with the set-up time. I find I can easily spend an hour on the set-up phase if I've never played the scenario before. Sort out my units to see what I have, then do a thorough job scoping out the terrain to find its key features, avenues of approach, LOS in key areas, etc. Maybe there could be an option to do the set-up phase offline so players could do all this and save it beforehand. In fact, this would have other benefits besides preventing using gaming session time for set-up. You could save set-ups for a scenario and use them over and over, thus saving beaucoup time over the course of many future games. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In our opinion exact measurements are not needed, nor are they realistic to have for the most part (i.e. no squad running through a street would be able to tell that the hill beyond is 432m as the crow flies).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is why I suggested a) that such a measuring tool be only available in the set-up phase (to avoid the "running down the street problem") and be rounded to some nearest large number depending on location (for the "hill beyond" problem). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Just use the LOS tool from a unit and then make rough estimates based on that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This only really works if a point in question is close to the edge of your set-up area. Then you can temporarily put a unit there, use the LOS tool, and voila. But if you are interested in distances out in no-man's-land--say from points were you want to dash a unit to immediately--you've got to do something else. Despite many months of exposure, I cannot judge distances with any degree of accuracy in any of the CM views except 5 and 6, where the tile edges are easily visible. MAYBE if I played with the editor enough, I could recognize tile boundaries in other views. However, this is still a pretty cumbersome method and does not provide a very good simulation of looking at a map. This is why I think an interface tool of limited availability is called for. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

I agree that the non-availability of the LOS tool where you don't have units is good for LOS purposes. It forces you to do terrain recon with the low-level view modes and take calculated risks. OTOH, it would be nice if you could measure distances between points where you don't have units. Such ability would be realistic because in real life you could do this with your map for long distances (ex: how far from Hill 209 to a patch of woods in the Valley by the road?). And for short distances (at least in your own set-up area), you could measure them while doing your in-person terrain recon and eyeballing the LOS. So how about creating a new tool for the set-up phase only that measures distances only w/out providing any LOS info? You'd use it by clicking on Point A and Point B. If both points are within your set-up areas, then you have accuracy to 1m. If 1 or both points are outside your set-up area, then accuracy is to the nearest 50m or so. And you can only use this in set-up, not during play. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

IIRC, the wet stowage used a water/glycol mix to keep it from freezing in cold weather. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Lewis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tanks in WWII had no real fire suppression for the crew areas. So a crews greatest enemy was a propellant fire NOT a gasoline or fuel fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wasn't a tanker but I saw numerous tanks brew up in the Gulf. From this I formed the opinion that no fire extinguisher could do anything to help a propellant fire. Propellant burns to hot and way too fast for that. POOF and there's nothing of the crew but calcined teeth left. I believe this is why the M1 tank has blow-out panels on the turret roof over the ammo storage--the expanding hot gases vent through that instead of into the crew area. I believe the WW2 wet stowage system helped by instantly soaking any exposed power from ruptured cartridges. This prevented a serious fire and the water also absorbed the heat from whatever burned before it could soak, although from fireman experience I imagine this resulted in steam burns for the crew. As to cooking off ammo in general, the effect seems to depend on the type of vehicle. Propellant is a relatively low explosive and modern tanks don't have that many high explosive shells inside. So when they have ammunition problems, the result is usually an instantaneous pink fireball squiring out every seam as the propellant burns, followed by generalized burning of flammable contents. MG rounds can sometimes be heard popping inside and HE explosions are usually contained by the armor. However, sometimes there's enough HE aboard to blow the turret off. But HE is relatively hard to detonate so doesn't always go off even with a propellant fire. Still, I imagine riveted WW2 tanks could be blown to bits by HE secondaries. HE is a terrible thing for thin-skinned vehicles such as SP guns, though. When it goes off, it totally wrecks the vehicle. I've seen them reduced to nothing but engine blocks sitting on the ground amid twisted fragments scattered over hundreds of meters. My webpage has some pics of Iraqi SP guns in various states of disassembly following secondaries. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

US tanks weren't as standardized as this thread might lead one to believe. Due to the bottleneck of engine production, different civilian factories converted to tank production were allowed to put their own motors in their tanks. This usually entailed different transmissions as well. This policy led to several variants of the Sherman alone reaching volume production: M4 and M4A1: Wright Whirlwind 9-cyl radial (about 13,000 built with 75mm gun) M4A2: twin GMC 6-cyl deisels (over 8000 built with 75mm gun--most sent out Lend-Lease) M4A3: Ford GAA V-8 (nearly 5,000 75mm built) M4A4: Chrysler 30-cyl A-57 Multibank engine (7500 built--nearly all sent to Brits) So the Allies all had to contend with maintaining and repairing these different motor systems, and the Brits had the added complication of different types of fuel. That they were apparently able to do so very successfully indicates not only mechanical expertise in the field but also very well-organized logistical systems stretching across oceans back to the US factories. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

A veteran US rifle squad reaches the bottom of a small gully NW of Plomville and suddenly receives flanking fire down the gully from a dug-in MG42 at a range of 42m. 2 men are scythed down at once. The others don't even flinch. They immediately return fire, charge, and pelt the MG with at least 8 grenades. The sole surviving German then surrenders, all in less than 20 seconds. Moral: Momma's wussy babies don't live to be veterans.... ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

You describe your ADD nephew as not having sticky enough targeting. While watching said nephew's Little League game, you envision a flamethrower team hosing out the opposing dugout while arty rains down in the outfield and a sniper drops the umpire. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Put them next to each other and DONT give them any orders. They will recombine automatically at the beginning of the following turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was having them recombine on the run. The 2 pieces ran to new, adjacent positions in a turn. In the orders phase of the next turn, I was surprised to see them recombined. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Oh GAWD, I thought this thread (and several others very like it) was dead and buried back at Xmas RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, IT'S ALIVE!!!! Everybody agrees IGs could shoot indirectly PROVIDED the necessary FDC and comm work was done beforehand. Mostly this is outside the scope of CM battles both in time and space, but it could conceivably happen. So why isn't it in the game? At one point, I think BTS said IGs would function similarly to on-board mortars. They would be direct-only except for shooting at TRPs if they hadn't moved, but no indirect anywhere else even with HQ units. Thus, I was somewhat surprised to find the IG unable to hit the TRP in VOT. However, while surprised, I am not disappointed to find IGs being direct-only, because I was never happy with the above plan. IGs are things you position in or near your MLR to use their direct fire capabilities. From such exposed positions, indirect fire is not going to be very practicable during an enemy attack due to possible suppression. Thus, it would be foolish to base your defense in reliance on such indirect fire in addition to the IGs' direct fire--you would not likely have the indirect fire when you needed it and if you did get it, you would unmask the IG before the enemy was in its direct fire killzone. Because you never have enough time or resources when setting up defenses, therefore, it would be a waste to lavish what you have on something as questionable as IG indirect fire. Save that for the mortars. If you find IG indirect fire more important than their direct fire, position them in the rear (off-board) so direct threats won't distract or suppress them. So what CM has done by not allowing IGs to fire indirectly is enforce some organizational and operational realism on players. Always being able to have IGs on-map shooting indirect fire is very gamey. Therefore, I am happy with the current situation. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-23-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am thinking of completely re-doing the whole Heroes Corner section anyway and dedicate a whole page per inductee. The original idea as set down by Fionn and I was for people to actually VOTE on all the members and select the BEST Hero, sadly I have not had the time to put this together like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, very nice plans . I look forward to reading some stirring accounts. I'm with you, sheer bodycount isn't as important as killing doing the crucial thing at the time of ultimate crisis. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Over the last 6 months or so, I've toyed with the idea of trying to get a pool going on how many posts and topic this forum would have before CM shipped. I never brought it up, though, because it could have been construed as another "when will this game be released?" thread, the starting of which results in massive loss of Cool Points. However, I've had my own pool bet in my head all this time. In a fit of what I then thought was cynicism, I predicted 40k posts back around Xmas.... ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Madmatt said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Go ahead and write a few pages on your favorite unit that saved the day and if I have to reformat the whole section to accommodate this I will!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, this makes be feel a lot better about that massive email I sent you at 0300 this morning . However, I had seriously cut that post down so I'll send it again with all the details. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't forget, send TWO pictures. One with stats and the same view without!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Whoops, this is a new thing, or at least I missed it at 0300... Can't go back and get the shot without because that turn is long over. So I'll send you a top-down view of the map showing the incredibly long path Lengsfeld's squad followed on its epic journey through Hell ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

The 2 surviving crewmembers of a knocked out pillbox on Hill 209 gunned down a bazooka team that wandered up next to them while trying to sneak up on my Panther. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Are split squads supposed to recombine into 1 squad if the 2 pieces start a turn near each other? Today I used split squads for the 1st time and they recombined like this. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

>>>>>>>> What are the pros/cons of sneaking vs crawling? <<<<<<<<<< When crawling you are very hard to see but can't shoot at all and get tired quickly. When sneaking, you are easier to see than crawling although more difficult than when walking or running, and you shoot very quickly. My grunts only have 3 speeds: stop, run, and sneak. I typically run them up to my side of a piece of cover and then sneak them through to the far side in case there are any enemy in it. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Omer said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I deleted the prefs file (a preferences dialog would have made all this unnecessary...) and didn't click OK to the Voodoo2 resolutions<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Many thanks. I had the same problem and this cured it. At last, transparent buildings and smoke! This is a clunky way of doing things, however. You have to sit there patiently while it slowly cycles through every Voodoo resolution and hz combination before clicking OK on a primary adaptor resolution. And if you are overly ambitious here and fps isn't high enough, there's nothing for it but to go back, delete the new prefs file, and sit through the whole process again. I agree, a prefs dialog would be very nice (including all the graphics and sound options settings as well as vidcard and resolution). ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

10. The animations of the death throws of wiped-out grunt units. 11. Rifle grenades being used in near-but-not-quite-close combat. 12. Troops being caught in their own grenade blasts while sharing a foxhole with the enemy.