Bullethead

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry if people don't understand that our time and energy are limited, and therefore we must first focus on what we not only know, but what we love first. PTO isn't necessarily something we couldn't LEARN to love, but if we give it a shot it will certainly be after we are through with our own announce lineup first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, this is perfectly understandable. I didn't realize you had the practical problems with making a PTO/CBI version of the same depth and quality as ETO versions, I thought you just weren't interested. I agree--if you can't do PTO/CBI to the same detail and quality as the other versions, then don't do it. But please keep these theaters in mind for the far future ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Major Tom said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Back to the desert. There was A LOT of terrain. How could Rommel use his brilliant tactic of constantly ambushing British armour with concealed AT Guns if there was no cover?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Having been surprised several times by Iraqis in another desert, I see no problem with this at all. The haze, dust, and mirage effect work wonders hiding low things like 50mm PaKs. You wouldn't see it until you were right on it. For taller things like 88s, just dig them in a little so they don't break the flat horizon so much, put some camo nets over them to break up the outline, and voila, invisible ATGs in plain view. Approaching tanks, OTOH, are too tall, loud, and dust-producing to hide like this. So the ATGs could see the tanks and had the performance to kill them long before the tanks could see the ATGs. Thus, the "ambushes" reported by the Brits. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> North Africa isn't flat. It is rocky, hilly, and offers a lot of cover for infantry and armour. Hellfire Pass was a very rocky and hilly area and offered the best route into Libya from Egypt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As I understand it, there are 3 or 4 widely scattered places between Tripoli and Alexandria where big terrain features come down to near the sea and make good natural defensive positions. But in between, it's all flat sand with the occasional small rock outcrop. Or so I've read and been told--never been there myself. But when you look at photos from the war over there, how many of them have any type of terrain feature visible at all? Sure looks like Saudi/Kuwait to me, and that was FLAT. The west end of North Africa, however, I think has much more varied terrain. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Plus, the sand itself was easily kicked up into the air with all these tanks roaring around, resulting in almost 0 visibility.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's something not in CM1 that I miss from PITS and TOP. Hopefully BTS would add this feature for this theater. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Los- Thanks for putting that up. You sure saved me a lot of trouble I might add that the Japanese maintained the strategic initiative in Burma until 1944. This is the ONLY place in the whole war where the Axis wasn't in strategic retreat from 1942 on. There the Japanese used bold maneuvers through seriously difficult terrain to destroy entire Chinese armies sent to help the Brits, as well as beat the Brits up numerous times. If the Japanese were so ill-equipped and poorly led, how did they manage to do this? And don't forget the Chindit raids. Then the Brits finally outmaneuvered the Japanese in 1945. Definitely different from the Central Pacific. You analogy of hedgerow fighting with, say, Tarawa is quite apt. The entire Heurtgen Forest campaign is also in this category. Was there ever any doubt in either case that the Allies would win if they threw enough bodies and bullets at the Germans? I understand both of these campaigns will be in CM1, so I just don't understand Steve's problem with island hopping. Especially since most of the Italian campaign was the same sort of bloody grind combined with amphibious ops. I guess the main reason I'd prefer to see the PTO/CBI before North Africa and Italy (besides wanting Marines in CM) is that the latter 2 theaters seem just more of the same stuff as in CM1. Especially Italy. Looks to me you could do pretty much all of Italy with CM1. Maybe tweak the terrain textures if you felt like it, but that would about do it. I'd rather have something completely different ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Honestly, I can't take your comments about the desert and the rest of the Med. Theater seriously...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry you feel that way . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sorry, but PTO excites far less than anything in the ETO, so if we ever go to the Pacific it will be after we have exhausted the ETO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMHO this is a matter of personal taste. Of course, it's your taste that matters, being as how you get to decide on these things. And taste isn't something that's likely to change despite well-reasoned counterarguments as to the similarities of Italy to the PTO, or the lack of scope for combined arms actions in North Africa except for assaults on "static bunker lines." All I can say is, if you announced a PTO/CBI CM for release 4 years from now, I'd pre-order tonight. But North Africa and Italy ain't on my "must have" list. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Tommi said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All kidding aside, I was just trying to point out that ALL indirect fire at greater than mortar range is NOT a gift from God, as JonS put it. What, are you questioning the divinity of the artillerists? Heathen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh no Gunners are God's gift to ground forces. But fire missions are the work of Gunners ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

The movie had some good parts but mostly I didn't like it. I wasn't expecting good acting or tactics anyway, but the thing that really ruined it for me what that the whole situation was wrong. The main characters were in the 28th Division futilely attacking Schmidt. In real life, however, the 28th practically walked into town but then was routed (literally) out of it by a counterattack. The situation in the movie was more like what happened to the 4th Division IIRC ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Steve- Just for the record, US PTO casualties significantly INCREASED as the war went on and we got closer to Japan itself. Both in total numbers and in percent of forces engaged. This despite us getting better tanks, more flamethrowers, achieving total air and naval superiority, etc. The simple fact is, the Japanese got way better at defending islands as the war went on, especially once they realized they were on the strategic defensive and really started digging in. They had a few years to really work on some of the last islands we took. I recommend reading a book called "Code-Name Downfall," by Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar. It does a good job itemizing US casualties in the latter part of the Pacific War, as well as describing Japanese defensive techniques. Anyway, it was far from boring over there. Constrast taking Mt. Suribachi to taking a hectare of desert that looks just like all the other hectares. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PTO is not currently on our list. If it were, it would be about 4 years out. It absolutely will not come before any of the other three games currently planned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (BH clutches his chest) Hold on, Elizabeth, I'm comin'! It's the big one! (grumble grumble) boring (grumble) North Africa (grumble) early war (grumble) clunky tanks (grumble grumble) no Marines (grumble grumble) ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Elvis said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>never tell anyone you are going away..all sorts of strange and barbaric **** will be said about you while you're gone and you can't do anything about it<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hell, that's not as bad as going through the guy's footlocker, stealing his smokes, and then telling everybody what perverted and depraved toys you found in there ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

That's one of Max's best pictures yet ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was looking at Bullethead's excellent Tank Page site<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From their previous statements, Charles and Steve think that 3-4 years is way too far ahead to make reasonable forecasts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is why I hope that, with sufficient support, we can still get them to do PTO/CBI before NA and EW ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hey c'mon! I can't be the only one who would love to see the Med? I used to love AH's Tobruk. How 'bout Crete? I assume that would be in CM3! I think it would be great to see the Italy vs. Greece fiasco in a wargame context too....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Italy is fine with me. But consider: what's so different about Italy that it can't be done with CM1 and maybe just a few additional unit types? I also used to enjoy AH's Tobruk -- it was one of my 1st wargames. However, from a tactical viewpoint, it was pretty boring. Flat, featureless terrain as far as the eye can see so no dead ground, no real hull-down positions, no cover for the grunts advancing on the enemy. Pretty much a Wild West gunfight of guys standing in the open street and blazing away. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I will say I'd be much more interested in a PTO setting for CM4 than the early war stuff...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you call "early war" ? I call it clunky old tanks armed with peashooters. That fits Greece, Crete, and most of North Africa before 1943, as well as France, Norway, and Poland. So under this definition, I agree--let's have the PTO/CBI before the "early war" ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Bobb said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the shells would climb for miles and be at the mercy of winds which could not be easily calculated<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, all high-angle arty shells go miles into the sky, all the way up there to jet airliner altitudes. As they go up and back down, they pass through layers of air of different densities with winds moving at different speeds in different directions. But arty units have meteorological sections--another thing tank units don't have. These guys' job is to figure out what the effect of all the atmosphere along the trajectory will be, so the gunners can take it into account--windage corrections, if you will . These days, the met guys are constantly launching weather balloons that carry instruments to read the atmospheric conditions, and they track the balloons with radar to figure out what the winds are doing. I don't know what they did in WW2, but it had to have been something fairly similar and fairly accurate, because you can't shoot IF accurately at long range without taking this into account. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I was just pointing out that all the reasons for it being a difficult thing historically, seemed to have been overcome in Korea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think so. Tank IF is never going to be any less difficult, simply due to the nature of tank guns and tank units' need for a lot of support external to their TO/TE to do the job. But remember, after the huge ebbs and flows of the early part the Korean War, things settled down to more or less a WW1-type stalemate for a long time. Under these conditions, you have the time and ability to set up tanks for IF: select and prepare positions for them, tie them into the arty communications and control network, stockpile large amounts of HE ammo for them to shoot, etc. This is the same sort of situation as in WW2 when tanks were used as arty in preparation for a major assault. The whole process of getting tanks to do effective IF is very analogous to that of bringing up the seige engines in the Middle Ages. It's a big pain in the ass and requires a rather static front line. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I recall being told on one military base, that tanks could not fire there because the range of the guns exceeded the size of the base-- by several miles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. This is because there's very little you can do to DECREASE the range of a tank's gun. With arty, you can shoot nearly straight up with a very light powder change and have the round land very close to you--just a gentle toss. Can't really do either with a tank gun. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tank leader to HQ: "Have arrived at, uh.... Riesburg" How would we know with all the signs down?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hell, tankers couldn't read the signs even if they were still up. The Tank Leader quoted above was merely dredging his fume-clouded, vibration-impaired memory for the name his boss had beaten into him by rote before he set out <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pretty quiet about the lawn chairs, I see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Contrary to cannonfodder superstition, gunners don't have lawn chairs. We can't stay in 1 place long enough to set them up because the other side has gunners just as skillful as we, and we're their #1 target. We do, however, generally have more of those little things that keep morale up: food, booze, smokes, and dry socks. Not because we have more opportunities to acquire them (grunts and tankers generally having picked the area clean ahead of us ), but because we can carry more of what we find in our trucks. Pretty quiet about the adult supervision, I see ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Steve said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>P.S. Result -> my Sherman lived P.P.S. Fionn, that crew was Green and they killed two of your Panthers and a half dozen of your infantry. Kinda rubs salt in the wounds, eh? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And this coming from the guy who just said he wasn't trying to "rub our noses" in how much cooler CM is now than "yesterday's" demo....... I'm immensely relieved Steve's previous post had me half-way wondering whether he really had enough of the Dark Side with him to be working on wargames I'd want to play. That post gave me visions panzergrenadiers picking daiseys with Barney the Dinosaur. OF COURSE he was rubbing our noses in it! Thank all the Dark Gods for that, too ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 02-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tanks are much too valuable to be squandered with slow, soft, target things located amidst the field kitchens<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. Tanks are fairly high-value arty targets <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tankers can certainly provide 6-digit (and 8, if necessary) coordinates on request, because tanks have things called destinations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tank leader to HQ: "Have arrived at, uh.... Riesburg" One HQ staffer to another: "OK, tell the gunners we've now got friendlies at 462528." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are busy with things like taking, holding, stopping the enemy, dodging the enemy, and generally...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ... being big, loud, highly flammable targets All kidding aside, I was just trying to point out that ALL indirect fire at greater than mortar range is NOT a gift from God, as JonS put it. It requires a LOT of hard, very complex work by a LOT of highly trained specialists with the proper equipment. Tank units have none of this stuff. IF is hard enough for gunners to do, which is why we're so proud of it. It's impossible for tanks without adult supervision ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Germanboy said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I guess the short answer is: not yet, but I am sure something will be coming. What exactly would you be interested in? Just everyday life behind the front-line, heroic exploits or technicalities like how they took measurements for the artillery?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I for one would be very interested in all the details you can get on German artillery doctrine and the details of its operation and application. Me and JonS are currently writing the artillery rules for Fionn's CMMC thing and although we have the US and UK/Commonwealth pretty well covered between us, we really don't know that much about how the Germans did things. Rather than clog this forum, you could send it to me email (see sig). Please feel free to get as technical as possible I'd really appreciate anything you can dig up. Thanks. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 02-11-2000).]

Hmmm, I forgot about this topic. How many Cool Points should we make this worth? -5 or -10? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>sewers are also an intregal part of the Urban Combat enviroment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If BTS ever does sewers, then one of the biggest arguments against doing a PTO/CBI CM will disappear. Seems to me sewers are not really different at all from Japanese defensive tunnels. So, let's hope sewers show up someday. Then maybe we'll have the exciting, inspiring PTO/CBI version instead of boring ol' North Africa ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

I have been waiting patiently for somebody to ask this question since I mentioned the subject in passing during the big infantry gun discussion a while back The problem with flat trajectories already mentioned but not fully appreciated. Using hillsides and pits to artificially increase the elevation of the gun is only a bandaid on the problem because there is no real way to alter the amount of powder in the cartridge of a tank round. So when fired at high elevation, the shell is going to start with its usual high anti-tank velocity and go MILES into the sky before coming down. In fact, using a hillside actually INCREASES the minimum range of tank IF fire. And on top of this, any given hillside will provide you the correct trajectory to only 1 target area (very small in relation a corps' front, for example). To shoot at something else, you'd have to find a different hillside. Besides this, there are about a gazillion things involved in doing indirect fire effectively, and tanks and tankers are unequipped and untrained to do them on a whim. One of the key elements of successful IF is knowing exactly where you are, so you can shoot at the estimated target location without unknowns on both ends of the gun-target line. If you ask an artilleryman where he is, he'll give you a 10- or 12-digit grid. If you ask an infantryman, he'll give you a 6- or MAYBE 8-digit grid. If you ask a tanker, he'll say, "I'm headed North." Seriously, tank units do not have the survey assets needed to precisely locate the tanks--they have to borrow this from an arty unit. Tank units do not have the FDC assets required to compute the firing data--they have to borrow this from an arty unit (and the chore is a bitch due to the aforementioned problems with trajectories). Tank units are not in the normal FO/FDC communications loop so would have to be specially patched in (and arty supervision provided at the tanks to be sure the tankers correctly followed instructions). And even if all this was done, I don't believe that WW2 tank gun sights and gun movement controls were graduated fine enough to shift the point of impact ONLY a couple hundred yards at long range. IOW, tank IF is very inaccurate, so as I understand it was only used in saturation bombardments of area targets. So yes, tanks COULD do IF. However, doing so required they be taken over by arty units, carefully positioned on sites carefully chosen to fit the trajectory to the desired target, patched into a totally different communications network, and carefully supervised at the tanks themselves to try to get the guns laid correctly. And the result of all this work would be rather inaccurate fire of very small-caliber shells landing in a relatively small, fixed area. To shoot at something else, you have to move the tank and redo the whole process (even assuming you could find a hillside that fit the need). IOW, not something you'd see every day. As Fionn mentioned, there's no way for tanks to IF as ON-board arty--the trajectory is totally against it. And IMHO, tanks should not be simulated as OBA in direct support of a CM tactical battle. They are neither responsive enough, nor accurate enough, nor able to adjust their aim finely enough, to shell whatever the FO decides to shell during a CM firefight. I'm very doubtful if tank IF was EVER used in this way in real life. Instead, I think it was ONLY used as part of major bombardments in a general support role at fixed targets. Geez, sending a tanker to do a gunners job.. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 02-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Awesome never before screenshots of new graphics and Interface Enhancements!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, really like the new lines. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

Madmatt- There seems to be a problem with the message board at your site now. Last night I posted the 2nd message there, after your 1st. Later I tried to go back and see if you'd replied, but the message board was down. Tonight I looked again just now and there are no messages at all, not even yours. Oh yeah, and it flushed my registration, too. ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 02-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, the Cullins gear isnt shown on vehicles (at least it isn't yet!) but it IS a Firefly (Sherman with a 17 Pounder) and CM does make the gun look diferent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not talking about the gun, I'm talking about the lower front hull. It sure looks to me like there's something sticking out well in front of the drive sprockets that can't be explained by trees in the way. I believe most Fireflies were based on the M4A4 hull, which was about 3 feet longer than that of other Shermans. All of these M4A4 hulls had the more "laid back" front slope of the early Shermans, too. So what I could be seeing is just this longer front slope sticking out in front of standard M4A3-sized track assemblies being used as placeholders until BTS makes the longer M4A4-sized tracks. Oh yeah, and I meant to say it's Paul holding the map in Max's picture. And that's George pointing off to the left ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

I have had tanks become Immobilized for no apparent reason (ie, no mines, no enemy fire) while moving FAST. Also, I've seen tanks bog down, fight it for a while, and end up Immobilized. There's no message that says "thrown track," and in these situations there could be other explanations for the immobilization. For instance, the bogged tank might have just become hopelessly mired and the speeding tank might have blown its motor. It really doesn't matter what exactly happened because the result in game terms is the same--something went wrong and the tank is now incapable of moving under its own power. So you're free to say, when talking about the episode, that the tank threw a track . ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm