Mark IV

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by blindseye: ...frequently while waiting for the opponent's move, I will select the same force, let the AI select its own force and play the "same" game against the AI...I just like to practice with the force that I have selected. Is that gamey or bad manners?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. It's exactly analogous to a unit training back in England, or Fort Knox, or wherever, for the upcoming real thing in Normandy... or wherever. You simulate the OPFOR as best you can, try to duplicate the actual conditions, and enemy tactics as you understand them, and drill and learn from practical experience everything you CAN learn without getting shot at. Training in Germany in the late 70s (Hohenfels and Graf), they used to line up a tank battalion and roll right down a valley to simulate Soviet tactics, right at our tentative leapfrogging tank companies-in-training. There were some pretty funny radio conversations between the training generals and the commanding LTCs of the simulated Orange forces, trying to get a US battalion to storm through the open like that, in violation of everything they had been taught. It gave the defending troops a taste of what the real thing might be like, and made sure that they wouldn't be trying everything for the first time. Think of what CMFG (Combat Mission: Fulda Gap) could have saved the taxpayer...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After what seems a millenium here, I can't imagine posting somefink like:could someone please step forward <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> See page 1, of most Peng Challenge Threads including this one, spanning two US administrations, six Italian governments, two millenia and as many centuries, and the volumetric equivalent of Lake Baikal in alcoholic spirits: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>coming in, striking a pose, and challenging everyone in the Thread to a match will cause the wastelands to echo with laughter, and you will look like the stupid pillock you are. You will then be told to Go Away, more forcibly, and people will really begin to mean it. Pick someone out, preferably something as newly arrived and worthless as yourself, taunt and challenge it, and you might get a game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HAHAHAHA (echo) hahahaha. Go Away.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roborat: Just a quick comment on the arty set up issue. I am familiar with the Canadian 105 towed, which is the exact same gun the US used in WWII (as well as in the priest), in fact, I was told of some guns in current service that were used in Korea. Anyway, the standard doctrine was that the guns are ready to fire within 5 minutes of arriving at the position, and is an easily met timing, except for putting up cam nets, which will add a little time, but this is usually done as circumstances permit, and would not delay the operational readiness. In an emergency, the guns can be firing in two minutes. The gun position would already have been surveyed and the gun positions layed out before hand. The comms weren't that important, wire is nice, but simply yelling and relaying firing data works just as well. The key is the foos setting up in their forward positions and establishing comms, but that was radio, not line. As far as I have been able to tell (grandfather in Canadian Arty in WWII) the basic techniques (and actual equipement) were not much different than used today, and the times would be about the same. The point is that the time frame is entirely within the scope of the game, at least for the allied side. The range issue, however, is an entirely different issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess we're starting to talk about two different things here, but the Priest was Self-Propelled Artillery, not a tank, and they had damn well better be more adept at setting up indirect fire than a bunch of treadheads. This nice Canadian site shows a Sherman in the artillery role (it also says that armoured regiments were "often" used for this purpose). Note attached dugout living quarters, and especially the angle of the gun. I don't think this round is coming down on the same CM map the tank is parked on! Indirect Fire with Tank Screwed the pooch all the way round on that link, which is much too large for the UBB frame. Here is the regular link to the site Canadian Armour and damn HTML anyway. [ 07-29-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: if you've played a scenario before are you obliged to inform your PBEM challenger?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes.

Hating to agree with Elvis here, but remember how the whole strategy for the Germans in "Last Defence" hinged on where you were when the Hellkitties showed up? "Chance Encounter", when after you smoked the 1, 2, 3rd StuG you could run those Shermies like a bastard in the open to blow that *&*^$#@ church to smithereens? Or counting burning Shermans to know when it was safe to rush from the big woods to the farm VL in the center? "Riesburg", slinking forward, out of LOS to the 88 you knew would be on the hill in the corner? Or starting out some infantry to that corner through the trees to take the heathen out, long before it had fired a shot? Those were great times, but not what I look for in a PBEM with one of the most versatile games ever made.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnergoz: I have to disagree on this one. It was clearly doctrine and training in the WW2 US Army mechanized forces for tanks and TD's to be equipped and trained for artillery-type indirect fire. They had the artillery quadrants and similar tools to do the job and they did so with some frequency. There was no "random lobbing" of rounds as implied by this post, rather the use of tanks in this fashion was only permitted because the troops were adequately trained and equipped for the task. If they weren't so prepared, the act would be folly, a waste of ammo and probably as dangerous to nearby friendly troops as to the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess what I meant was that nothing special was engineered into the gun or the controls to provide the tank with indirect fire capability. If they had been serious about it, they would have designed the gun to elevate further, and provide other artillery trappings. Tanks-as-artillery was a field expedient in actual practice. The "training" and quadrants were provided, but I sincerely doubt that the bulk of officers and crews were proficient in their use. The post is not attempting to portray "random lobbing". The analogy, however poor, was only to illustrate that the direct fire gun could be used as artillery, even though that was not its primary role. Doctrine and training are pretty well covered by the statements from the manual I posted earlier; tanks in indirect fire roles are explicitly of secondary importance in the manual. Here's some more: "Part I of FM 17-12 takes up some phases of indirect fire. It includes firing the single tank from fully defiladed positions and firing several tanks, up to a platoon, from similar positions. In Part I methods are given for adjusting fire when the observer is on or near the line of fire and, in general, in a position where he can see both the tank and the target. In this case his procedure is basically the same as when he is observing from his tank with direct fire. He gives his commands direct to the gunner. More advanced methods are classed as use of tanks as artillery because a different approach is taken to the problem. In both observed and unobserved fires discussed in Part II [Employment of Tanks as Artillery], sensings or data are obtained in a form which cannot be utilized by tank gunners. These are converted to commands which are delivered to the gunners by the tank position commander (the platoon leader or platoon sergeant). Several other elements such as changes in communications and consumption of quantities of ammunition in excess of organic loads are also inherent in the methods discussed in Part II." In RL, I would not want much "close" artillery support from a tank company (referring to the example that began the thread), and I don't think that's how they were used. The manual states: "The object [of unobserved indirect fire] is to mass the fires of the company on an area normally 200 x 200 yards." Kurtz: The 105mm tank gun did have variable powder charges for the HE round, btw, just like a "real" artillery piece.

To each his own, but I will go out on the limb to say that I would consider this poor PBEM etiquette, a step short of cheating, almost as bad as failing to number turns. I don't know why an opponent would agree to it, but of course if he did it would be OK... Knowing the terrain in advance is better represented in CM than in RL, because you can fly through every square inch of the opponent's territory in the setup phase, and acquire more in-depth knowledge than an RL commander could from maps and aerial photos. Playing the AI would reveal the exact composition of enemy forces (and reinforcements) and RL commanders just about never had this knowledge.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Geier: I need someone to send me 1 (one) zipped copy of the program MS-DOS. This is not a joke, I need it to install Windows ME which I need to play CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? Here is some DOS stuff: DOS stuff Did you chip your new PC from raw flint, or what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: ...That's why the y GAVE the tanks the indirect fire capability, to meet these unforseen circumstances, right? If you could visualize some recent battles you've had in CM, I would bet you would be able to think of ALL SORTS of cases were a couple of your M4's would've been a big help by lobbing some shells...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They didn't really give tanks indirect fire ability. All cannons have some indirect fire ability, by virtue of being able to point up, and let gravity do the rest. You can do indirect fire with a deer rifle. With the proper elevation, you can make a round come down very close to the point of origin. You cannot, however, hit anything. A good officer could certainly achieve better results than that with a tank platoon, but not as well as the artillery and mortar units that were trained and equipped to do it. It is simulated (sort of) with the 75 FO... I think the indirect fire training for tankers was more of an anachronism, myself. There are recorded instances of its being used in WWII, but they were recorded because they were exceptional. If a tank is on the CM map I want it laying crosshairs directly on my hated enemy and planting some HE +/- a couple of meters, not merely somewhere in the general vicinity. Also, you don't know whether there is "no enemy armour to contend with" until you have fully occupied the town, and even then you must be prepared for counterattacks (play many rune scenarios?). A commander who left his tanks behind a hill to experiment with arty, and then ran his troops into German AFVs, would be derelict of duty. The troopies tended to like some armored backup in town situations anyway... there was more future in rubbling an infested building than in countersniping all afternoon.

Proximity to tanks doesn't necessarily give you command of the tanks (in RL). Nor would it necessarily give you their radio frequencies and call signs. In other words, it the tanks are part of the assaulting force from the git-go, they already have a part to play in it, as direct fire support and as a counter-measure against enemy armor. They would be far more effective in this role (for which they were designed) than in waiting behind a hill, hoping for a call to lob shells in a general direction. If you want to shoot up the edge of town, a nice hull-down on a crest will do the job far more effectively with direct fire, than employing one of your most powerful mobile assets as an inefficient impromptu arty. Once you're halfway through the town, the tanks would have just as good a chance of hitting you as they would of hitting the enemy, or missing the town altogether, because that is the artillery role rather than impromptu indirect laying. If they are not part of the attacking force, then you would have no more luck phoning them up and asking for some indirect fire than the Germans would. They would belong to some other command. [ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>An old, mad, blind, despised, and dying Persecutor* pounded: ...it's obvious that there is a conspiracy afoot!... Now we have the self same Seanachai AND Peng AND Mark IV ALL lobbying for this Simonized Floss to be made a Knight for what ... for being an admitted Grog and Outerboarder! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 8) The Outer Boarders fear him. III. It will piss you off. 2) It may piss HIM off. 1.3.1: He was pissing people off before it was fashionable, before there was a Cesspool, and probably before there was a CM. I found him mildly annoying long before I read his first post. That is a considerable talent. xi. Anything causing that much consternation and ill-will is worth doing. * Isn't Milton just the greatest? I think I'll knight him next. Of course he's quite dead, making for a better choice of dinner companion than either Shaw or SimonFox.

There are really two types of indirect fire for tanks. Indirect laying was meant to be accomplished on the battlefield, with little preparation, by one or two defiladed tanks within voice or radio command of a TC or platoon leader functioning as both observer and Fire Direction Control. He would position himself between the defiladed tank position and the target, and instruct them to begin by "laying" the gun on him. A minimum safe elevation would be determined, test rounds would be fired, and the observer/commander would call out the adjustments in elevation and azimuth in mils. The gunner had a chart to consult for approximate settings for the initial range. The purpose of this battlefield expedient was to neutralize threat locations, such as known AT assets, with either a single tank, while the rest of the platoon maneuvered, or with a platoon, while the rest of the company maneuvered. It is very difficult to picture this technique getting much use on a WWII battlefield. This was considered a different practice than the use of tanks as an auxiliary to regular artillery. Roughly a third of FM 17-12, Tank Gunnery, 10 July '44, is devoted to Employment of Tanks as Artillery. Most of the details appear cut-and-pasted from mortar and field artillery training, with commands and instructions adapted for use with tanks. The Section opens with: "Part II of this manual covers the employment of tanks as artillery. This is the secondary role of the tank. The tank is primarily an assault weapon. It will be effective as such only when the crews are so thoroughly trained in direct fire and have complete confidence in their own ability to engage any target by direct fire methods. To permit indirect fire training to take time or emphasis from direct fire training is to impair the offensive spirit of the tank crews and offensive power of tanks. Training in the secondary role of the tank is undertaken only after the tank crews have attained a high standard in the primary role. However, no tank unit is ready for battle if it cannot deliver effective fire by indirect means within a reasonable length of time." (emphasis in the original). Minimum ranges and setup times do not appeared to be defined in this manual, but the procedures are complex and technical, including surveying techniques, staking, and taping. The introduction concludes: "It must be realized that tank units cannot shift rapidly from employment as artillery to empoyment as tanks, and vice versa. The artillery mission requires that units be dispersed and emplaced far to the rear in order to find defiladed positions from which the flat trajectory guns can be fired. It also alters the communications and organization of the unit. The employment of tanks as artillery is a command decision which requires careful weighing of the factors involved."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: To add one little bit to the above, I distinctly feel that my sire, Sir Seanachai in his weakened and addle-witted state, can offer me nothing in the way of future instructions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed, perhaps your squiredom should be transferred to JoeShaw, since you are both apparently paid by the word, and you are both severely delusional, he of his authority and grandeur, and you regarding the merest milligram of self-worth, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Regarding the controversial kannigetorialization of SimonFox: Before another bitter and divisive debate threatens our placid cess, I point out that M. Fox occasionally attempts to comment with authority in the OB on Serious Matters, particularly regarding Brit armor, and is thus widely esteemed as a Commongrog. The greatest disservice we can do him is to grant the coveted kannigetoriality, thereby destroying whatever credibility he may have with awe-struck newbie scum, BTS, and Lewis. For this reason (and the possibility of further annoying Shaw) I fourth his nomination and immediate appointment. Lorak, append the roll, let the rectal fanfare sound, and greet our kanewest kanigget, Sir SimonFox of the Welded Mantlet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: Didn't Mr Paxton wet himself in True Lies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, when Jamie Lee Curtiss stuck her lipstick container in his back, pretending it was a gun. What do I win?

I am inspired to post a game update of my own. What the hell, it's 4:30 Friday on the west coast and no one's reading anyway: Hiram: AWOL, dead. No turns in several months. Meeks: MIA, incarcerated. No turns in a year or so. Peng: MIA, dead or worse. No turns in a long time. Geier: Retarded. Sent corrupt file. The non-poolian acquaintance of Moriarty: MIA, presumed dead of terror. And that grueling schedule would leave... Wildman! Only the beginning of the little thriller where he stuck me with the French, but dyin' enough for all the deadbeats above. Thanks for that...

The reason for the fireball was the very short barrel causing unexpended powder to combust outside the muzzle. The 7.92mm round was designed for a full-sized rifle barrel, so the powder is chosen to be fully expended over about 23 inches or so (600mm). FG42 had selective fire, so could fire single rounds instead of full auto. And the really cool thing was that it fired from a closed bolt (for accuracy) in single mode, but the open bolt (to facilitate cooling and prevent cook-offs) in the full auto mode. In effect, this was the German equivalent of the BAR, though considerably more advanced.

Just poke his eyes out and tell him it's black. Saves time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I can assure you that they're only naked after you take off the wet t-shirt and tight cut-offs (thus named because you can't get them off without a pair of scissors).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly the kind of vicious abuse that drives grown men to give up on CM and run away. It is also reveals a reservoir of ignorance massive enough to cause a stupidity shortage in Texas, and worse, an ignorance of Things That Matter, i.e., drinking and women. I went to great pains to explain the difference between potentially naked, and kinetically naked. The short version, for your unscientific mind (I don't feel right calling you a lay person), is that all pretty girls are naked under their clothes. Thus, they are potentially naked. You do not remove the articles in question with scissors. You remove them with a bit of dinner, vodka-based fruit drinks, and flattery. At that time, the delicious young thing becomes kinetically naked, and do not expect to read details of said kinesis here, ya friggin perv. I hope this spares some young thing the terror of being confronted by a scissors-wielding scot in the future, you persecutor of artists, you grog Philistine. -------- Has anyone else noticed that this latest SSN affliction is a sort of euro-Hiram? Remains to be seen if he has the quirky edge under the veneer... doubt it. Useless wank. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: You gits in here are entirely responsible for this Tiger flamefest thing... If that demented dwarf Shaw hadn't persecuted Seanachi this would never have happened... Now our CM "community" (asylum being a more appropriate designation IMO) has cast out one of it's favoured sons... Furthermore this juvenile Knights thingy you have going in here has clearly backfired... "Meanies out!". As thread after thread spawn endlessly with the same plaintive cry I say: you people have a lot to answer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> F**k 'em. Christ, I thought I was a sycophant. Never heard so much pompous girley caterwauling in my life, not on this BBS, nosireebob. Aitken was merely being Aitken. What did they expect, the poor sod would suddenly change his spots and demand flying Calliopes and VB-scripted Move orders? Red flag to a known bull, that. I submit that anyone who can be driven from a board by Aitken could be driven from a naked, nubile, mildly drunk co-ed in a dripping wet t-shirt and tight unbuttoned cut-offs, by a rabbit. I further submit that the board profits more from this analogy than Mr. Aitken, that it was deliberate, willful, and malicious, and that it would not surprise me to see him sign off forever, after being thus singularly abused. You have gotten a few things right, notably the eyewitness thumbnail of Shaw. Otherwise it's a load of blather, we're innocent, and anyway it was justified. We weren't even there and we acted in self-defense and at least one of us (mensch) is insane. Please go back to darting out from under the furniture to bite the ankles of the righteous on the Outer Board. Keep it up, and you'll end up here like the rest of us, in containment, some day. I've half a mind to quit forever over this. Unfortunately, the other half went back to the rental agency after the turn-numbering thinkfest. Got charged a clean-up fee, too. Edited to clarify the difference between "potentially" naked and "kinetically" naked and ameliorate any disturbing conflicts in the imagery above, said imagery being the sole property of Mark IV, Inc., and its subsidiaries. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Mark IV ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you are bothered in ANY WAY by people who have strongly held beliefs, who can and do express them here, then please do not post here if you can not refrain from getting personal with such people. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> -Steve, in the last locked whinefest. Do you really think this tone is going to influence anyone, to anything except more flames? Or is this your way of "bringing us together"?

You can still push an Immobilized vehicle with another vehicle, a little. It stays immobilized, but changes position somewhat. If you Immobilize just short of a ridge, you might be able to nudge it into a hull-down view over the ridge, or through some trees... of course, then you risk bogging the second vehicle.

Threads about closed threads spawned by even more closed threads are so interesting. The recapitulation of 7 pages of nonsense, with ensuing "did so" "did not" analyses, is spell-binding reading. A fundamental question to this debate is, are we responsible for our own actions, or not? I was particularly curious about the linkage of Tiger's dead body to the Peng thread, offered by one of the analysts. This reminded me that we're all a little bit to blame for the death of President Kennedy, too. Please carry on.

I am receiving a steady stream of these from someone called Cobb Smift. Fortunately, I killfiled him (?) immediately, but they are still coming after 2-3 days. If you're reading this, check it out, guy.

Lorak!!! Record a bloody, smoldering DRAW with the arch-rodent von schrad. SMG-brandishing, tank-killing, we-don't-care-what-we-look-like-once-we're-dead Kuhltruppen: 42 Him: 48 Listen, my droogs, this was in the bolshy flamey mess called "Afterlife" authored by our sneering local scenario vendor germanboy (bolded in a nod to his former status, but denied the coveted capitalization reserved for active kaniggets), and a bloody stinking mix-up it is. M. Perdido, perhaps, will note the change of tense in mid-paragraph. Anal twit. As I was saying, this is not a scenario for the faint of heart. You will all die and burn up a lot, and that during the setup. I think you could call it attritionist. I did a maneuver thing but it got attritted, too. Damn. As I still don't play with mods, I can only guess at what I must have been missing in this blazing inferno. So it's too bad about Tige, but a lot worse about Priest, who blames the teacup for the tempest. Stupid trolling whiney baby gyro-licking non-sequiturial finger-pointing bandwagon hopper just couldn't make his point without stooping to name-calling. Typical.

Errr... a buttoned tank has reduced spotting. However, once a target IS spotted, why would being buttoned have any effect on accuracy? The gunner is looking through the same periscope/sight he would whether the TC was buttoned or not. On the second and third shots, being unbuttoned might help the TC to spot overs and unders and provide adjustment data to the gunner. But in the one-shot complaint which started this, being buttoned would not have had any effect on the gunner's ability to plant one on an already-spotted tank.