Mark IV

Hmmm... is Fresno north or south (the usual question), being the very middle of the state, and the third (central) California? Doesn't matter, we're stealing all your drinking water and dumping it on our parched earth to ensure that America has enough raisins... Work takes me south to SD county every couple weeks (5 hour drive if LA cooperates); SF is 3.5, Sac 2.5 hours. In other words, the middle of nowhere, or everything, depending on how much you like driving. There is a tank/AFV collection in LA just off I-5, I think near the 605 interchange, mostly American. No ICQ but keep me posted. I know there was another poster from Fresno and one from Madera a while ago.

Here's a quick note to let you pathetic vermin know that I am watching from afar. Another week or two of traveler's purgatory, and then I am going to kill you all. I have only caught up with about half this drivel, as I was truly in the wilderness amid the bears and coyotes, literally living on roadkill (which may explain the recent absence of certain regular contributors), without showers, phone jacks, or decent scotch- really not much of a change from here, come to think of it. I just wanted to share some general ugliness with people who would understand. The closest thing I've seen to a decent explosion in 2 weeks was an attempt to light a campfire with Coleman fuel (successful, to a fault- always hunt with certified organ donors). Damn anyone who has insulted me in my absence, and damn the rest of you for forgetting me so quickly. I shall return. It won't be pretty.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Yeah <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I generally enjoyed your post. I'll need to sharpen up on Soviet ground force TOE when CM2 arrives, but I'm on the road and CMless now. Since I'm traveling east where people are still literate, I have raided the book stores and come up with "Warriors of the Rising Sun" by Edgerton (very good read, excellent R-J stuff, though with a point to make), von Senger und Etterlin's "German Tanks of WWII", and Jentz's "Panzer Truppen" v.1. I'm groggin' out, ovah heah. The high-volume sports retailer at home was just selling Moisin-Nagants for about $89.95 and even had ammo for them, and I was thinking about picking one up when I get back... love them old military bolts. If they have an all-matching number I'll get a box of ammo and write a review....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tiger: Each rifle squad had 1 nco and 10 other ranks. Their weapons were... 8 semi-automatic rifles (7.62 Mosin Nagant Model 1891/30--same one used in WW I with minor changes) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Moisin-Nagant was definitely bolt-action, NOT semi-automatic. They were repeating rifles with a magazine, but the shooter had to manually work the bolt between each shot (just like the K98 Mauser and the Enfields, etc.). Nit... picked. Would certainly affect FP numbers, though. Just passin' through....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by flyingcursor: "In War's Dark Shadows". About pre-wwI Russia with a great description of the Sino-Soviet war of 1905.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have and like that book, but I think you mean the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. One of the most interesting of the overlooked wars... "The Boer War" someone referred to was probably Thomas Pakenham's (he was also present at the Russo-Japanese War, and specifically at the sinking of the Russian fleet at Tsushima, as an observer on the Japanese flagship). Both Prange and Shirer were good reads, but both have axes to grind and both accept a lot of hearsay as fact.

I had a bad feeling about leaving town with the 'Pool in the hands of you methane-sniffing pack of incompetents. Now look what you've done! Certainly the board's most unique thread should continue with the sobriquet of the most... curious life form it has spawned, the pod known as Peng. Peng was a lone cessdrop before there was a pool in which to waller. With all respect due Meeks, which is precisely none, I can't respect a thread whose opening posts contain bizarre non sequiturs from something called kain. I don't think he is able. And who hasn't enjoyed the mystified posts from newbies, wondering where this "Cesspool" was to be found? If we just put up multi-national signs with arrows saying "Cesspool Here" it will lose some mystique. Make them Search! BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAH!!! The mutha-beautiful Peng thread, the Cesspool, LIVES!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Fox: I do agree that CM (the best I've seen inover 30 years in this hobby like many other wargames does tend to overrate German capabilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I keep hearing that. All some are asking is "how", and "where". If something is modeled incorrectly (we have the recent example of the recon vehicle spotting), what is it, what's wrong, and how would you quantify the alleged fix? Getting pouty about sides is just stupid. I think at least a few agree that some German tanks have taken a hit with the mantlet armor not being factored (much more knowledgeable folk than I supplied documentation with their case). I don't hear these emotional accusations about that. What other factors on units and AFVs have you unearthed that are documentably in error? BTS has shown itself willing to listen. It's amazing that the obviously massive amount of research that went into CMBO is being challenged on the basis of some people's "feelings". BTS has listened, whenever a rational case has been made for a change. They have, on occasion, made changes, when their criteria for relevance and accuracy have been met. There are undoubtedly some inaccuracies, some judgement calls and abstractions, on which some documentation could be brought to bear. Where is it? Forget the pouty feelings stuff, and do a thousandth part of the research that has already been demonstrated in the finished product to make your case. Or, if the units are accurate but the force mixes bother you, create your own scenarios to taste.

From my CM-less exile far away: I have the book and enjoyed it, but hardly consider it decisive on the matter. For a previous thread with some good discussion on it, see http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003149.html I think the German infantry of CMBO's time were better articulated in small units, had a higher officer to enlisted ratio, and more anti-tank defences. There were a higher percentage of German soldiers with extensive and bitter combat experience, and while they were "scraping the barrel" to an extent, the presence of these hardened old vets in their midst stiffened many a green unit. The Germans had cult-ified the military like few other modern nations and produced some exceptionally motivated young men. By CMBO the Germans were fighting for their homeland in a very visible way. Their news from home was about the bombs falling on the old neighborhood and family. The GI may have been fighting a crusade, but crusades can be tempered with many a rationalization- home and family can't. No indictments here, just some insight into the high levels of determination and even fanaticism noted among some German troops. So there were times and places where German troops outperformed equal numbers of their Ami counterparts. It would be silly to make blanket judgements about an entire nation's forces, but the Germans had already learned many lessons the hard way. The US Army studied Wehrmacht practices and organizational structures after the war, and disseminated the memoirs of German officers to combat arms, signal, and logistics officers in the American army. Even if we could determine that on average, the German platoon was more capable than its American counter-part, it would in no way diminish the valor of the American soldier who took part- he didn't design the equipment, organization, or political situation. He went and did his job and the result is history. And the equipment, organization, or political situation were the best the US could do on short notice, and they proved sufficient. Summing these random thoughts, I think the better (and more soluble) question would be "are the units and equipment of all sides modeled correctly in CM?". BTS states that there is no inherent pro-German bias, and I don't see it if it's there. If the units and vehicles are modeled correctly, isn't the rest up to the individual gamer/editor? If they are not, shouldn't supporting evidence for correction (regardless of the army) be submitted dispassionately, for public discussion?

Ooohh, I could write a long one on this... but what would it serve? Curiously, Maximus has said at least some of it well. The pure dedication and willingness to die for the higher goal- which to the average German was the homeland, and the perseverance in the face of all odds... this has a certain mystique. The Napoleonic comparison is quite appropriate, as is Xenophon. Their reach exceeded their grasp and that has always appealed. Japan- very different on the surface. But from their point of view, they were the first and only non-whites to seriously challenge the licentious sway of colonial powers in the Pacific. They swept away the myth of the inferior Oriental in 1904-5 and continued sweeping until they bit off more than they could chew... and then came back again as very serious businessmen. If you don't admire the spirit of your enemies, why are you playing this game???

...try Allied air when forces are 5-800m apart and you'll find what the Allies found (and why they quit doing it). That's not what Allied air turned out to be real good at. They excelled at whacking units on the way to the front... but the Allied troops (and generals) themselves didn't want 'em launching that close to the lines... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I object to is the hypocrisy is neturalizing Allied "historic" advanatges to make the game "balanced" but the continuation of so-called "historic" Axis tweaks<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's called "scenario editor" and if you want to jellify a company of Green Volksstuermers with 14" batteries, or whatever, you can do it all day. Words like "hypocrisy" really don't achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. Local superiority (or parity), and concentrations in time and space, were understood by attackers and counter-attackers of all sides. These concepts are well-represented in CM. Are you trying to prove that the Allies won the war (sorry, needs documentation )? You have yet to state just what it is you are "for"? Like, specifically? In CM terms? What Allied tweaks are you interested in researching and presenting, other than just that there were more of them?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: A Korean War version of CM would be more like a WWI version with rockets and jets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ca-riminey, can't have that now, can we? Can I pre-order now? (Bit more than that, I think, but I like the concept).

Precedent! Lion's share goes to whoever gots it, and is then redistributed to next prevailing party. See Germany vs. Belgium, 1940, England vs. Germany, 1944, and subsequent judgements in favor of England. Also Germany vs. Poland, 1939, USSR vs. Poland, 1939, Germany vs. USSR, 1941, USSR vs. Germany 1944, USSR vs. soon-to-be NATO, 1946, and Poland vs. USSR (or somefink), 1988. This gives us time to tape the classic and pass it on. The Lawyer's Cup!!! Or athletic supporter, as the case may be... with Greed still the bottom line. Yes, I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Now Korea (drools) that would be somefink. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I fink u r rite. I have one of the Oral History series (Pusan to Chosin) and one of the US Army Historical Series of TMs on Korea, along with "regular" histories. The individual recollections sound like CM AARs. Mmm... 3" bazookas. Pershings & Chaffees vs. T-34s. 106 recoilless rifles. Chicoms! Mmm... anybody hungry?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Yes, and the answer from BTS has been a resounding 'No'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it wasn't a resounding no, more of a "probably not" (for all the reasons you stated). I found this very encouraging... Knocking over atolls with 10-1 superiority wouldn't be much fun, IMO. But Burma, Malaya, New Guinea and the Philippines might be. When CM2 is done, there may be enough hardware modeled to make some as modpaks/custom scenarios.

Lawyer, you really gotta start hanging in the Cesspool thread. You have The Gift. Hell, if we recruited Croda, we'll take anybody. There's already a lawyer there, but what fun is one lawyer? It's like staging D-Day on an undefended beach...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My problem comes in when one side argues for realistic historic equipment, or the perceived realism, for one side but at the same time prevents the other side from have its historic and realistic levels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cav, I've read the threads to which you refer and I don't recall ANYONE making that case. There were folks who thought German optics should add more advantage to spotting/accuracy at longer ranges, and folks who questioned why optics were not specifically taken into account, when gyrostabilizers were. The saner of those arguments were refuted, or at least countered. Without taking a side in those debates, I can't say I recall anyone seriously arguing that optics should be added while gyros should be removed. Even the flamiest posts weren't arguing for an arbitrary German advantage. I believe CM was supposed to be a game offering realistic models of WWII equipment and tactics. The "balance" factor is up to the scenario designer, and the forces at the beginning of a scenario represent those present after the pre-shelling, strafing, bombing, starvation, etc., at the beginning of the actual ground contact by company/battalion-sized ground forces. There are plenty of historical scenarios with accurate OOBs which demonstrate local parity in force size. Then it comes down to tactics and, yes, equipment. You can't play Allies very successfully using Axis-type tactics, nor vice versa. They really HAD different equipment with differing characteristics and the game reflects this well.

Don't forget a grenade sump! In the bottom of the fighting area you would dig another hole, about the diameter of an entrenching tool, on an angle, as deeply as you could. The theory was that an incoming grenade could be kicked down the hole and covered with the steel pot from your helmet. This was considered "better" than unassing the hole under heavy fire to escape a grenade.

One-stop shopping: http://etloh.8m.com/strategy.html

These were really great. Please put more up. Had no idea that Andreas was so Mephistophelean in appearance as well as mind. Yer a hideous lot.

This latest "I lost a (PBEM, AFV, etc.) so the game needs fixing" thread piqued my interest, so I set up a 1500 pt. QB against the AI with attacker at minus 10%, me as Allies attacking. Open farmland, small hills, dry at dawn, AI picked all the forces. Axis surrender on turn 20, with 14 vehicles wiped (I lost 7). Axis had about 6 StuG III, 2 Hetzers, 2 PSW234/1, a PzIV/70, and 3 Mk IVs dominating one large central hill. My deadliest weapons? The flanking Stuarts, one of which quietly killed 5 AFVs and a flak gun while they dueled Sherman 75Ws (I had one Sherm 105 as well). The mortars and two arty spotters helped (whacked a couple of StuGs with top hits). A 'zook crept laboriously across a wheatfield to plant a rocket in the side of the Pz IV/70. All my troops were Regulars, by the way. I wouldn't ordinarily recommend a head-on shoot-out with short 75s against Axis tanks on a hill, but they had some of the very little slight cover available and allowed the Stuarts to work into firing position. I guess this proves those darned German tanks are too vulnerable to top hits, eh? Or is this just a balanced game where real world tactics work, and "things" happen?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: I have already decided that if I play an Attack game against someone, I will never allow my defending opponent to be the Germans.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That kind of narrows it down, doesn't it? You can't use the Allied tools the same ways as you would German tools, but that certainly doesn't mean they can't be successful in the attack. You DID buy arty, didn't you?

I generally enjoyed your primer. "However, the minute an enemy sharpshooter or sniper appears, button EVERY vehicle up." If he actually appears, I would instead give him the arty-spotter treatment: target him with everything in sight. His sharpshooting days will be over... I imagine you meant if one was suspected, or deduced from sound or TC casualties elsewhere.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: it would be my opinion that the KEY phrase here is "All estimations are in percentage and do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under actual combat condition. However, the average, cool gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the result presented in the second column: "<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, the key phrase is "do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target during under [sic] actual combat condition". These experience ratings are necessary abstractions to make a game and do not exist in real life. Why wouldn't "Average" cool gunner refer to a CM Regular, anyway? This is a guy who had not only completed his training on the equipment but uses and maintains it as a full-time job. "Properly trained, have likely seen some combat, though not extensively" (manual, p. 78). Combat shooting is virtually always of lower accuracy than target range shooting, for many reasons. A "cool" gunner still has to deal with weather, explosions, and odd positions (our tank gunnery for record was done from level concrete pads). A gun fired from an AFV parked on a lateral angle (cocked to the left or right) has a much harder time dealing with ranging and elevation, because the drop of shot is no longer aligned with LOS.

Carve away, you grave-robbers, but the Lawyer has just gotten the old Wehrmacht tattoo and it doesn't spell "MOM" (and obviously not Death Before Dishonor). The Beemer is in accelerated life-testing and the only gear it's got left starts with R. If I can hold him to a single-digit score, I'm going to press for the movie AND the sims AND the Rolex. Then I'll come looking for you sisters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lawyer: I may stop being so nice if you don't stop touting my gifts as your tactical genius.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please. You offend my humility. Tactical genius? I placed my guns and clicked Go. Since then, I sit with my scotch and watch you feed the shredder. Go. Shred. Go. Shred. I should have bought a jeep to order around behind the lines, so I can feel like I'm participating.