C Colapietro

Dar, >> ... It seems the Germans particularly were quite active in coming up with defensive measures for AFVs vs. infantry, such as... It is my understanding that the Germans were initially very shocked by (and unprepared for) the American and Russian infantry's willingness to assault AFVs in close combat with satchel charges, grenades, etc., so perhaps that led to the focus on anti-infantry weapons. The loss of a tank and the extensively trained crew was a pretty big blow to the German army who could not replace them as readily as the Allies. Anyone have a more informed POV on this?

Fionn: My point about a tank platoon commander's influence was not that he would call out degree facings during combat, but that a good commander could influence his units behavior in the field. This of course would require this behavior to be defined prior to the engagement, and the Germans were particulary big on drilling combat situations during down time. I do object to your presentation of conjecture as fact, however. Again, just because it was in the manuals and of importance to high command doesn't mean it was common practice, and just because you think it must have been so doesn't make it so. German tankers were forbidden to weld to the armor as it was believed to disrupt the characteristics of the steel, and yet it was common practice to do so for tool brackets etc. And again my question is more along the line of would the facing thing come into play in a CS role as opposed to an Armor vs Armor engagement. Please don't take my debate as antagonsitic (this is, after all, a discussion board is it not?). This topic has probably strayed from the realm of usefulness to BTS, but I still enjoy the discussion. I'm not saying anyone here is right or wrong until I can drum up some factual support one way or the other, and if someone presents some factual info that shoots holes in my agruments, I walk away with more knowledge than when I came - a good thing in my book.

I agree that the Company Commander would not be directing the individual tanks, however the tank platoon commander would (and would be the one issuing the orders), and would have influence over how the individal tanks in the platoon behaved. While I'm the first to stand up and say that the tactic was known by the Germans, I disagree that any evidence has been presented to suggest that it was actually ever used in the field, especially in a close support context. Not to nit-pick - I just find this to be a very intersting topic.

I have a name-generator list published years ago for use with role-playing games. It breaks down by nationality and had hundreds of first & last names for each. If you are interested, I could try to dig it up next time I get home... You can contact me directly at the3furies@aol.com

Regarding Fionn's solution, I personally don't like it. It puts a specific behavior to units that is completely fabricated. I really think that simply not overriding a direct order to face the tank would do the trick, with the appropriate possibility of the crew ignoring this order and re-facing anyway based on experience. This puts things back into the commanders hands - There may be many things you do as a commander that are not representative of WWII tactics of the time, but may make the battle go your way. This is the point of gaming - could I do better than historical. CM adds the nice limitation that the troops may not always be ready to execute your ideal plan...

I suppose this really breaks down into two different issues. 1) Did the Germans (American, Brits etc) understand the effect of angle of impact on penetration at given priods. 2) Did troops in the field take this into account? I believe the answer to 1) is a resounding yes across the board. This was VERY well understood by the turn of the century from naval research. Tank armor/weapons were developed with the benefit of the experience from their well-developed naval counterparts. The Germans do leave behind evidence that this was intended to taken into account by the tactics of the time. The answer to 2) seems to be quite up in the air. We seem to have posters with access to some good sources - how about some solid anecdotal evidence one way or another. Of course anecdotal evidence is not very reliable, but in a case like this the mere mention of employing the tactic would provide some answers. As I mentioned in my previous post, the more I think about this the more I think that this issue applies more to a long range Armor vs Armor battle where weaving on the approach for example would give a benefit in protection, especially at longer ranges. The situations in CM employ the armor in a close support role, a very different situation. Hit those books! Anybody have some good WWII videos with tanks in CS? Are they head-on, or does the body follow the barrel?

I don't buy the side armor thickness argument - a 20 deg offset to a threat presents a small 70 deg offset side target - hardly a likely penetration. However this is all hidsight and I don't know if the tank crews actually followed the offset doctrine in combat situations anyway. On a related point, I believe it was definately german doctrine at least as early as the opening rounds of North Aftrica to zig-zag unpredictably at -30 to 30 degrees (? maybe less) when approaching a threat to both present a laterally moving target, and to give a poor frontal deflection. Unfortunately I'm on the road and dont have the references to back this up, so take this info with that in mind. I'll see what I can find when I get home. German tankers were forbidden to fire on the move, so this did not affect targeting in theory. If a source to back this can be found it would be a nice addition given the detailed ballistic modelling in CM, even if it waits until post-release. The more I think about it, this may make more sense in a long-range tank battle where multiple platoons are leap-frogging. Any ideas?

The issue may not be to change the AI to angle the tanks, but simply not to override a direct rotate command. This could be tied to crew experience I suppose With regards to other nations doctrine, I believe the Tiger manual is the only one I own. Also, from what I've gathered in doing some related research, the germans were the only force that really had a solid doctrine for their armor. Perhaps someone can dispute this with backup literature - if so I'd love to see it for my own edification. I've had a very difficult time locating anything other than anecdotal writings that give a clear picture of American platoon level doctrine for example. There must be surviving crew training manuals around somewhere...

Steve: "...several pages in "Tiger Fibel" devoted to ..." I have to agree with KP on this - asuuming that "Tiger Fibel" is really a translation of an issued Tiger manual. As far as I know, that is the claim. (The cartoons are too bizzare to be fabricated...!) From what I recall (I dont have it with me at the moment) this manual is very clear about the effects of angle of impact both on defense and offense.

Mark L: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I had the same problem initially trying a Voodoo2 card and reference drivers. First, do you have the "3dfx RAVE" extension enabled? (it comes with the reference drivers) You'll need that. Next, set your monitor resolution to 800x600 or less. "3dfx RAVE" doesn't seem to work at higher resolutions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aha - I do have the RAVE extension, but I was at 1024x768. The 800x600 requirement rings a bell - I will look into this when I go home this weekend. Unfortunately, I have a really old (but nice) NEC monitor and I dont think that 800x600 is a selectable option, only 832x648(6??) (or something like that) with the adapter I have. I might need the software to set the resolution to 800x600 directly (as in Unreal and so on). BTS: is there a way to set the resolution from the application that I didn't see? Thanks Mark L...

I can give you some general strategies that seem to work well on the defensive... While the temptation is to put maximum firepower up at the front line, it is extremely important to keep units back out of the action as reserves. While your weaker front-line units may take a bit of a pounding, this allows you later in the battle to bring up fresh troops on a second line of defense while withdrawing the battered front-line troops under covering fire to regroup. Also, try not to make your defending troops hold out in one place to the last man. Plan your rearward displacements before the battle begins and force the attacker to cross open ground to come to you. Planning good lanes of fire and secondary positions can give a superior attacking force a real problem to contend with. Giving up ground is not always a bad thing, especially if you are funneling the attacker into a well laid trap...

One thing I would like to see (and I realize that this touches dangerously close to a topic that has been closed) is the ability to scrounge ammo from downed soldiers in the unit. Of course this would involve tracking individual bodies... In a situation where a squad is holed up in a strong point like a building I think this makes complete sense and could have a big effect on hold-out time.

I'm using a G3/400mhz powerbook 128Meg ram OS9 with ATI graphics acceleration. Computes AI in a few seconds, and the framerate is great. I tried it over the weekend on my G3/300 128 Meg ram OS 8.6 beige tower with a microconversions Voodoo 2 12MB board, 3dfx reference drivers, and got terrible framerates, so something must not have been configured properly. The graphics did not look 3dfx enhanced... does CM support software rendering? Is there some way to determine which rendering method is being used?

I rarely use anything above view 3. I think the thing that differentiates this game from most others is that the 3-d nature of the terrain is integral to the strategy. When you put the camera on a hill with trees turned on etc. and look around, even without the LOS tool, you really get get a good sense of your lanes of fire and the superior positions pop right out. You really can't get this information as well from a 2-d view. I also think that using the low views puts you more in the frame of mind of a commander in the field. I takes a bit of effort to make the move from 2-d thinking, but I recommend trying a game where you never take the camera above 3 or occasionally 4. One note: I am playing on a fast mac, so my camera pans very quickly. This may have some influence on my choice of views...

Just as an FYI (I'm not sure what variety of Mac hardware you have at your disposal for testing) the beta runs beautifully on my G3/400 powerbook under OS9. Great frame rates. The only performance issue I have - and this may not have anything to do with playing on the powerbook - is that moving the view with the arrow keys & < > is choppy and sluggish as opposed to using the buttons on the interface. Great job on this game - Prof. House would be proud...