John Kelly

To demonstate this quirky game element, I will relay an amusing pbem encounter. My Sherman was being stalked relentlessly by a panzerschreck. I was afraid he would get me when I decided to order a TD crew to distract the German AT team and sacrifice themselves. My hope was the crew would give my tank a moment of respite...just enough time to beat the chain of command order delay of 13 seconds. In 13 seconds, the schreck team could make mince meat of the tank. Low and behold, not only did my tank crew distract the schreck team and allow the Sherman to escape, they eliminated them with their pistols. I know that at least one of the schreck crew should have been armed with a Kar 98K, but I didn't complain. I think my opponent was distressed. John

Yes! John Kelly was the main character in the book "Without Remorse" by Tom Clancey. He took the name Clark after joining the CIA. But I am not the gentleman who calls himself Mr. Clark on this forum. John

I too would like to play with infantry only, but I don't want my opponent to know it. If I select "infantry" as a setting, then he will choose his force accordingly. The player who sets up the map, can pick "armor, infantry or combined arms" and the other player would never know it. At least with the unrestricted setting, he doesn't have a scouting report before the battle begins. I for one like that. With an unrestricted setting, one must select the best all around force where your skill at procurement and tactics will determine the outcome. John

In an earlier post, I pleaded for BTS to introduce a way to disguise the force setting in a quick battle. I felt that if my opponent knew I had selected combined arms, he could easily predict my armor capability and probably my entire order of battle. I believe the unrestricted setting solves this, and I will request this in both my team and individual games. What do you think? John

What creates game immersion? I submit that the 3D graphics and sound combine to make this game we love head and shoulders above the competition. The user mods and the ability to edit and create new battles keep the game fresh. This weekend, I downloaded some new sound mods from Pete Scipio and Jon Johnson. I even recognized a few sounds from Close Combat. As a matter of fact, the MP40 sounds made me smile. That is until I noticed that the British submachine gun shared the MP40 sounds as well. Did the sten or Thompson sound like the MP40? When the MG 42 fires, the sound is unmistakable. When the .50 caliber fires, it is immediately recognizable. However, when the tanks, submachine guns and other lmg's fire, it could be anything. Please BTS, go the extra mile and create a wav file for each weapon. Let us revel in the rapid report of the PPsh41 Russian smg. Let us thrill to the staccato roar of the Thompson burp gun. Sound is more important to me than any other element. As a commander, I can identify the enemy force against me. I want to hear the Kar 98K, not just when a sharpshooter fires it. I should hear the correct machine gun on the tanks...not just a generic heavy tank or light tank. I want to know the BREN gun is firing...it shouldn't sound like a BAR or .30 cal. Please take this into consideration in the next installment of Combat Mission. Then guys like Pete and Jon can truly keep it alive. Comments are welcomed. John

Scipio: If the only sound you ever created or contributed to this game was the .50 cal, you would be forever praised. I also love your MG42 sounds and BAR. There is a live firing link out there and this is the closest to the actual sound I've ever heard. Tales of the Gun on the history channel did a piece on Machine guns that illustrated the rhaaaaaaah sound of the MG42. Individual explosions were difficult to pick up because of the extremely high rate of fire. Your sounds, German voices too, enhance the already terrific gaming experience. Thanks, John [This message has been edited by John Kelly (edited 02-16-2001).]

Half tracks have become omnipotent. I am involved in a pbem game now, and my .50 cal position is peppering a German HT. I was quite surprised that it lived through the two turns...75m from my gun with clear LOS. Hmm, perhaps it's this bug you speak of, or perhaps my gunner is worthless. Cheers, John

I took the name John Kelly from a character in the book "Without Remorse" by Tom Clancey. John Kelly, a former Navy SEAL, was virtually a super hero. I have used this name in a number of role-playing venues and I decided to keep it as my screen name. John

Stalin's purge did as much to handicap the Soviet Army as the German tactical superiority. There is evidence that the border units had to seek permission to return fire. Perhaps the night combat issue could be addressed by allowing them to initiate this type of combat, but I can't imagine allowing any particular advantage otherwise. John

I selected one of these in a quick battle, but it was toasted by a marauding US fighter-bomber. Its bombs had been dropped elsewhere, but the six .50 caliber machine guns ripped it apart. I didn't have a chance to see what it could do. It fired in hapless fashion agaisnt the incoming plane...and then was no more. John

Wow, Rudedog, you've got some issues. John

I played this scenario as the German against Capitalistdoginchina. I lost, but had a blast. He then tried it as the German against another oponent, and also lost. I haven't spoken to anyone who has won as the German. It sounds like you came very close. I still loved it!!! John

I like the M36 Jackson. It's fairly cheap and the 90mm gun will handle the heaviest German tanks. You must be careful, its armor is quite weak. John

I haven't had much luck with the Panther, but especially the "A." In a PBEM team game, a Cromwell VIII took my Panther A out with one shot from 1,000 meters. I thought I was taking advantage of its best features and decided to order an overwatch. Bad move! I haven't learned how to otimally manage this tank...any suggestions? John

Hey BTS, this smoke thing is still going on in beta version 24. I thought it was absurd then and I still do. Please fix this. John

You guys are terrific! Please let me know when your publication is ready. I spoke with a physics teacher at the school where I work today. He was very interested in the concept and, not being a WWII enthusiast, hadn't contemplated the topic at great length. He did, however, lend me a T1-83 calculator that enables me to plug the numbers into the formulas you spoke of. With this calculator, I can multiply the projectile's mass times the velocity squared, times the diameter of the projectile raised to the 1.43 power, divided by "C" the constant of 2.5, divided by the shell's diameter cubed...all raised to the 1/1.43 power to determine "T" or thickness of the armor perforated. My problem arises when I have to consider not only the slope of the armor, but also the angle of attack. Also, in what way does the distance impact penetration? The muzzle velocity doesn't change for all practical purposes although air friction plays its role, but rather the angle at which a shell strikes due to gravity and a falling shot. Is not the angle more important than the velocity? In attempting to create a game that works, I will have to fudge on a chart. Otherwise, any poor devil who attempts to determine armor penetration will have to calculate the darn thing with a sophisticated machine. Well, that's where I hope your work will help. You guys obviously know what you're talking about. Thanks for the feedback, and let me know when it's available.

Rexford, that's great news. I will be the first to seek it out. In the meantime, how does one determine penetration requirments for sloped armor or armor at oblique facings? The formula given on the sight I mentioned is terribly difficult for me..."at higher angles than 30 degrees, the power of the cosine will increase, leading to a further decrease in penetration." That's some deep stuff. The constant in the formula is n=1.43. A standard four function calculator won't begin to handle it. I'm anxious to see your booklet. The web-site also uses velocity at the point of impact. Gracious sakes, how does one determine that? Most velocity stats are muzzle based. How can we know the diminishing velocity over distance? Velocity is also influenced by the type of ammunition fired. I can use the muzzle velocity for the formula at ranges of 100 meters, but when the distance increases, what is the velocity at impact going to be, at...say 500 meters? Does your booklet cover that? John

Playing Combat Mission has rekindled my interest in 20mm miniatures once again. I am fascinated by the concept of armor penetration, kinectic energy, velocity etc., but I don't know enough to understand it. I know there must be a formula out there that will allow me to create a chart whereby I can determine the chance of my tank's survivability. How much does an oblique angle impact penetration? At what rate does muzzel velocity diminish? I have located an interesting web-site that details a formula, but I can't make it work. http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/background/pentypes11.html. It has a lot of information regarding mass of a projectile, velocity, angle, thickness of armor and diameter of the projectile. I am trying to write some miniature armor rules. Can anyone help here? It will also assist me in understanding CM with respect to armored engagements. I thought I recalled a thread with some technical stats on this subject, but my search came up empty. Thanks, John

It's curious to me that the sharpshooter has 10 rounds...unless you edit the unit to 15. With every report of the rifle, one round is expended. It leads me to believe that one crack of the rifle equals one bullet spent. My sharpshooters never hit anything...even elite ones. You're lucky. John

Perhaps it's just the luck of the draw. As I tested it again...version 1.05 and the beta patch 24, it doesn't appear to be that much different. But the villages do not seem as dense in the new patch and there are not as many large buildings. Again, perhaps random chance has played a cruel trick on me. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Also the ability to save QB maps to be reused with different OoBs and victory conditions. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now I do like that idea! John

That is interesting. However, on a documentary titled "Deadly Weapons" a demonstration was performed to show that hollywood fabricates many of the things we accept as fact. Such as a car exploding into flames after receiving gun fire. To show this as a falsehood, the host set up a gas tank full of fuel and fired an assortment of ordinance. Even a .50 caliber machinegun with tracer ammo was unable to ignite the tank. Finally, the host lit the tank with a match...just so the audience could see the pyro display. It's an interesting question...I don't know the answer. John [This message has been edited by John Kelly (edited 12-23-2000).]

Dan, I've tried it as a PBEM twice and three times as a solo with the AI. In my opinion, it is considerably poorer than version 1.05. I was shocked when I saw the map against my current email opponent. My last five 2000 point quick battles with a large map, large hills, moderate trees and a village were all similar and acceptable. This is different. Was gibst mein freund? John

I have recently started a quick battle with the updated beta patch. Man, was I disappointed with the map. I requested a large map with large hills, village and moderate trees...essentially the same thing I have been doing with v. 1.05. What a poopy map! There is barely enough cover to hide a sharpshooter, and the village is nothing more than a scant few shacks scattered about a "plain" and very open country side. What happened? John

Hey guys...how about the ability to use demolitions. Wouldn't you like to blow the damn bridge before the enemy can cross it, or perhaps rig booby traps to kill unsuspecting soldiers. I'll post more later. I like everything folks have already said too...especially individual soldiers in squads. John