Kevin Peltz

Greg: Wehrmacht/SS/USA/BRIT: Schutze/Schutze/Private/Private Oberschutze/Oberschutze/PFC/--- Gefreiter/Sturmmann/---/Lance Corporal Obergefreiter/Rottenfuhrer/---/--- Stabsgefreiter/---/---/--- Unteroffizier/Unterscharfuhrer/Corporal/Corporal Unterfeldwebel/Scharfuhrer/Sergeant/Sergeant Feldwebel/Oberscharfuhrer/---/"Senior Sergeant" Oberfeldwebel/Hauptscharfuhrer/Sgt. Major/Sgt. Major Stabsfeldwebel/Sturmscharfuhrer/Staff Sergeant/--- Leutnant/Untersturmfuhrer/2nd Lt/2nd Lt Oberleutnant/Obertsturmfuhrer/1st Lt/Lt Hauptmann/Hauptsturmfuhrer/Captain/Captain Major/Sturmbannfuhrer/Major/Major Oberstleutnant/Obersturmbannfuhrer/Lt Col/Lt Col Oberst/Standartenfuhrer/Colonel/Colonel "---" means either no equivalent, or I wasn't sure. Hope this helps. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-10-99).]

Rick: The deeper you dig, the more vague an issue gets. I checked three different sources on the M26, and none agreed entirely on when the first arrived in the ETO, or what actions they were involved in. The worst was service in the Pacific, with answers ranging from "actively" to "none" (covers all the bases, anyway). The number that saw action seems to be agreed on at around about 20, so that's something. As far as Remagen, maybe they were in the area, not necessarily helping in the assault on the Ludendorf Bridge- just can't say for sure. I did find a small mention of the "Super Pershing" that Robert mentioned above: seems what combat reports that were coming back to the States re the M26 were not that encouraging, especially against the Tigers, so one M26 had a beefed up 90mm gun and extra frontal armour installed, plus some suspension rearrangements to handle the extra weight. Whether it went to Europe, and what it did if it did get there, I can't find out. I only found three tiny snippets even mentioning the M26 in a combat situation: - One destroyed by a Nashorn at 300m, with the round going right between the driver's legs and setting the tank on fire. The crew bailed out with no casualties. -One going toe-to-toe with a Tiger (model not mentioned), got off a shot that bounced off the Tiger's front armour. The Tiger fired three times, penetrating the mantlet and killing the gunner and loader, another penetrating the hull, and the last tearing off the cupola hatch. -An M26 destroyed a Tiger (again, type unspecified) at 1450m. That's all I could find. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-07-99).] [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-07-99).]

I show that 20 T26's arrived in Europe in January of 1945, and were assigned to the 3rd and 9th Armoured Divisions. They were used by the latter unit in the advance on the Remagen Bridge on March 7th. The Pershing was standardised as the M26 at the end of March. By VE Day, 310 units were in NW Europe, but only the first aforementioned 20 tanks actually saw any combat. So, whether these numbers are the gospel or not, it is safe to say that the amount used in combat would have been minute. It will be great to have in the game, all the same.

I missed the moving to the edge thing, too. That sounds fine to me. Also, I do recall somewhere that POW's would be OK alone, as long as they aren't exposed to their own side, with no enemy units to offset this.

A couple of people have asked where to get the Tiger I manual that I mentioned in a few of my posts- check out: http://sites.netscape.net/wulfdbrand/main/Teutonia-Tigerfibel-main.html Gives a pretty good idea what it was like to drive one of these monsters around.

Mike: You have made an interesting point. Bagging prisoners in other games is given pretty short shrift (in the HPS games they surrender and basically vanish into thin air). Although capturing prisoners is a realistic side effect to the main effort, I also wonder if it wouldn't be better if they just made their way back to the rear on their own, without compromising FOW in any way. In the time frame covered by a typical scenario, the POW's would be too dazed, disoriented, or demoralized to think too much about running away, I would expect. Barring that, when you are creating your own scenarios, maybe you could set aside a low value unit to act as jailers? This is hard- I like the concept of prisoners (I got a kick out of the infantry throwing up their hands, "Hande hoch!"), and definitely they were a byproduct of almost every action, but they seem to be taking on a life of their own in the Fionn/Martin game. I guess not having them would cause other problems too- if you don't have prisoners at all, then their loss would have to be abstracted some other way, like KIA or something, and this may lead to unrealistically high death tolls? [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-06-99).]

Mike and Dar: The acquisition, aiming, and firing procedures were easily the biggest part of the whole Tiger manual, and numerous tips on how to do this more easily are included- your example of the 500m sight-line sounds pretty close to one of them, Mike. And Dar, the manual is exactly as you described- comic book fashion with cartoon characters. The gunner's girlfriend seemed to play a big part in the book. Guess where the rounds went when they were right on target, for example? I think it was mentioned in the historical epilogue that Guderian did not approve officially of the books (can't recall the reason, if any was given), but his signature was forged on every copy, because the Panzertruppen respected him, even after he had fallen from grace in higher circles.

Mike: I got it loaned to me from a friend of mine- had to give it back, but I will email him ASAP and ask where he got it. Pretty sure he had to mail order it- but I will let you know soonest. It was called "Tiger Fibel" (literally, "Tiger Primer"), and it was translated into English, original spelling mistakes, forged signature of Guderian, and the whole shot. Covered all aspects of vehicle running and maintenance, weapons, ammo, and had a very comprehensive section on how to determine target size, distance, and how to aim at them. That part was actually very complex, and my hats off to the gunner who could remember all that drill in the heat of battle! Also a section on how to deal with specific threats, such as the T-34 and Sherman, plus an ID silhouette section at the end, with details of each vehicle. Apparently the real book was about as big as a small pocket bible, and pretty tough to read. This one is way bigger. Absorbing reading. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-05-99).]

Kristian: The Germans used a stripped down (air cooled) version of the MG 34 as the coax MG in pretty much all their tanks. I had a copy of the crew manual for the Tiger I, and it listed something like 41 different things that could cause a stoppage! The gun was easily removable probably just for that reason alone, but I would think that an experienced crew would not overheat the gun in any case. I am not sure how this is going to be modeled in the game itself. I have read of an instance where some M4's were supporting infantry in some house-to-house fighting near Koln, and the coax thirties were fired until the rifling wore out and the bullets were going all over the place. Sorry this doesn't answer your question, but it just passed five more minutes until the game does come out, at least. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-05-99).]

As an addendum to my last post- the US 90mm AT gun T8 never came out until 1947, due to difficulties in trying to get the weight to an acceptable level. It never got standardized in inventory. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-05-99).]

Here is a brief outline of what my sources show for the M36: The first were redesigned M10A1's using the service 90mm AA gun in a new, power operated turret- the US Ordinance Dept did not use the original M10 turret because they did not want to use counterweights (reason not specified- the Brits used counterweights when they put the 17pdr in the M10 ("Achilles") and it worked fine). The M36B1 was the same turret mounted on an M4A3 chassis, the B2 was on an "Easy- Eight" HVSS chassis). Some of the vital statistics: Armour -Front 86mm, Side 38mm, Rear 38mm -Turret Front 78mm, Turret Sides 32mm 90mm Gun Penetration APCR- 150mm @ 2000m (angle unspecified) APCBC- 85mm @ 2000m AP- ca. 90mm @ 2000m Could also fire HE Max useful range- 3800m 2324 of all versions were eventually built, and was used up until 1954. The crews tried to fight the M36 as a tank and not an SP- a serious mistake considering it's relatively light armour. This was one reason why the US went away from the tank destroyer, and concentrated completely on building tanks. Given the proper conditions (hull down with a good escape route), I would think that the M36 could even rattle the coffee cups in a King Tiger. I see that one source calls this the M36 "Slugger", but all others call it the "Jackson". [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-05-99).]

"Don't shoot Corporal, I can't find my tape measure..."

Rhet: I am not sure if sabot rounds are affected by muzzle brakes (makes sense though), but I did read somewhere that a muzzle brake will prevent the bore evacuator (the bulge or "can" partway down the barrel) from doing it's job, which is keeping propellant fumes out of the turret when the breech is opened. Improved recoil dynamics and stronger structure also would make a brake less of a necessity, as you said.

Simon: The M10/17pdr combination in Commonwealth service was called "Achilles" by the Brits. They also used the unmodified M10, calling it "Wolverine". The Achilles was apparently well liked.

As mentioned, the Jumbo was only used by the US. It came with either the 75- or 76mm gun. Not only was the War Department not in favour of disrupting production to produce tanks with the 17pdr- there seemed to be some sort of aversion to using "foreign" equipment, unless there was no other choice. I scratchbuilt a model of the Jumbo a long time ago- it would have been a bear to retool for the 17pdr, involving altering the turret "bustle", same as on the Fireflies- except the bustle on the Jumbo was more than 4" thick, because of the thicker cast turret. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 09-01-99).]

Can units be equipped with satchel charges? [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 08-31-99).]

Will there be any means to close assault vehicles in the game? The Germans had a number of devices, both manufactured and field expedient, that would come to mind, such as the Panzerwurfmine and the Haft Hohlladung magnetic AT mine. What about tossing a satchel charge into an open vehicle, that sort of thing?

Steve: Please charge me $2.00 extra and put mine in a jewel case- Canada Post loves a challenge when it comes to destroying parcels, etc. [This message has been edited by Kevin Peltz (edited 08-28-99).]

A 15 meg download? The last three demos I downloaded were 50 megs each. I think 15 in one chunk is just fine.

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere- what is the maximum time limit that can be entered in a scenario created with the editor? Also, in a canned scenario, when time expires, does the game end, or can you continue, just to see what happens (if only I had five more minutes...)? Some games allow you to play on, but you still lose because you didn't meet the schedule.

I think it's quite funny- Number One is not even out yet, and already people are clammering for Number Two (even Three, if memory serves). Time to buy shares...

How much time will be devoted to fixing glitches that show up after release? Will there be regular patches, or will improvements be added to any sequel that may follow instead? Not implying anything, but things can crop up unexpectedly, no matter how thorough the playtesting.

Steve and Charles: Here is something that I found re the British camo stuff: http://www.mo-money.com/AFV-news/breuro.htm Hope this helps a bit- this is a good site for anyone who likes to build models of armour. KP

Steve: I did not mean to sound as though I was being critical of the Cromwell colouring- I wasn't. What I was trying to say was (in response to the sound of all the reference books cracking open)that best guess is good enough. I am sorry if it came out the wrong way. KP

Fionn and Rick: The interface does take some getting used to, but I found that after awhile, I developed a pattern whereby I tended to check certain things in certain orders, and it sort of becomes ingrained to the point of being reasonably fluid. I find the interface to be a bit easier than the one in Harpoon II, another game that I like- but the more detailed the game, the more "buttons and levers" you have to contend with. I can't abide games like Steel Panthers, et al, anymore- I am more than willing to contend with a tough interface if it means a better, more realistic game. Getting back to the topic of a game revolution, I don't think it will happen with CM- it will be supported by a small niche of fans like the people who have written into this forum, and hopefully, it will prove lucrative enough to launch a sequel or two. It has nothing to do with quality- "wargaming" is supported by a smallish group to begin with- I think the last Gamespot survey showed something like 12% of 9500 respondents played "strategy wargames", or something along those lines. I think if you examine the names of those who have posted to this forum, you will probably find that maybe 80% of the messages were generated by the same two or three dozen individuals. A small, but loyal fan base, to be sure. Even if CM proves to be a ground-breaking game, it will still only appeal to this small cadre. I have tried a number of times to start computer wargaming clubs here where I live, and each time it fell apart because ten different people wanted to play ten different games, and were not willing to slip even temporarily into another game category. People just know what they like, I guess.