Pak40

Yea, I agree with womble, the 105 Sherman is not a good match for the MkIV because the HEAT round are not as accurate as AP rounds due to the slower velocity and they don't carry too many of them. Why not match Pz IV with Sherman 76mm? Should be fairly even at long range.

"colors that end in 'urple'. "

If the single vehicle is added to the platoon then it will be considered part of the platoon. Select the platoon in the unit editor, then find a single unit to add to it. I think a yellow arrow shows in the unit editor when this happens.

I wonder how much percentage goes down when the target is moving. You could do another test with the Tiger moving in a circle pattern around the zooka.

I Absolutely agree with you. The action square thing has often ruined perfectly good area targeting opportunities not only with tanks but with leg units as well. It usually involves an extreme angle on a building when that building is partially blocked by another building or tree. I wish they would change the "action sqare" to the "action cube" so that any area fire that draws LOS to the walls of the action cube would allow a valid target to stick.

I don't think they were Lend Lease. Probably they were sold to Yugo after WWII or Korean or whenever the U.S. took the Shermans out of their OOB. I know some U.S. AFVs have been used by several other nations throughout the years after the war.

No, actually that is a completely different point. I was simply pointing out that many people criticize Ambrose solely for writing mainly about Americans in WWII and often from the point of view of the American side. I'm certainly not brushing off the errors that he's made, which were few and not egregious (nice choice of vocabulary, by the way) like you claim. He's made some foot note errors and missed some quote marks that lead to the so called plagiarism scandal. Also, that bit about misquoting the soldier on D-Day, probably the worst offense if it's true. The bit about Eisenhower I've already responded to JonS about. If you have solid evidence of many historically inaccurate texts beyond what I've posted then by all means, please post links. Until then, anything you or anyone else claim is baseless.

To each his own. I find his writing eloquent and thoughtfully put together. Other times his writing is justifiably frank and vivid, e.g. his Omaha Beach landing descriptions certainly inspired Spielberg to finally film a worthy and realistic D-Day scene. Examples please. Ambrose, Ryan, and many other historians certainly do have some errors and certainly omissions of their choosing - Ryan's A Bridge Too Far has so many omissions it makes me scream sometimes - but you act as if it was common practice for Ambrose to do this. So just being a historian requires you to write about all sides of history? Should a historian that focuses on Wester Civ be shamed for not giving Eastern Civilization is fair share of research? Honestly, there were a handful compared to what has come out since SPR. Some can be directly the result of Band of Brothers popularity. So, the Eisenhower thing is a gray area. Nobody really knows for sure what actually happened. I suggest you read both the accusation and the reply by Ambrose's son. It's obvious that the Ambrose/Eisenhower relationship was deeper than the accuser has led us to believe, especially since he never actually acknowledges the fact that interviews can be written as well as oral. After reading both I find it very odd that the accuser did not bother contacting anyone in the Ambrose family to get their side. I kind of thought that was a critical error in any piece of investigative journalism. Almost seems guilty of the thing he's accusing.

I could say the same about many other authors but this depends entirely on the subject of the book. If an author writes a book on the 'Battle of X', then I would expect the author to try to fully represent both sides to the best of his ability and resources. However, if the subject of the book is the 'American side in the battle of X' then that's a different story. I've only read An Army at Dawn but it was pretty much pictured as the Brits bailing out the U.S. Army in Tunisia.

I'm not sticking up for the mistakes that Ambrose made but Citizen Soldiers is outstanding book. My grandfather is a prominent historian who knew Ambrose and never said anything negative about him. He is quoted in Citizen Soldiers and accurately, I might add. And as Ultradave said, Citizen Soldiers is outstanding because of the collection of 1st person narratives that really give us more of a sense of what it was really like - not just the historian's perspective. People love to bash Ambrose for his love of writing about the American soldier in WWII. He was an American History professor - of course he's going to write about Americans. Why on earth would his focus be on other countries' soldiers and battles??? (yes I know he wrote Pegasus Bridge). His books are a homage to the American WWII vet because quite frankly, there were only a few writers out there before him that gave them credit that was due, and most of those writers were veterans themselves. Also, he deserves huge credit for the massive collections of 1st person narratives: writings, audio, video of WWII vets before they've died. Without all of this material and his own published books you wouldn't have had the resurgence of WWII movies starting in the late 90s and the National WWII Museum. Also, many authors since then have used his massive archives as sources for many excellent books(check the bibliography). Because of all this WWII resurgence since Saving Private Ryan was made, vets by the hundreds, probably thousands, have come forth to talk and write about their experiences. Have you noticed the massive amounts of autobiographies since 1997 - certainly spurred by Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. Without Ambrose's D-Day, SPR never would have been made. So yes, he misquoted some vets and possibly plagiarized a paragraph or two. Certainly mistakes that shouldn't have been made, but the vast amount of what he's written is accurate and a tribute to the American vets.

**SPOILER ALERT** I got absolutely shredded in the Lock Bridge scenario as well. My tactics were to use the 40 rounds of 81mm on the Pak and then assault with the 2nd platoon which had run up the left side of the map and then along the canal towards the bunker. I used my MMG to constantly fire .30 at the bunker for about 15 turns until it ran out of ammo. It hardly suppressed the bunker by the time my platoon assaulted it - they got cut up real good. The 81mm did not knock out the Pak but I think a subsequent 60mm mortar did. Anyway, I was able to get a few rag tag shells of units across the bridge (the mg bunker occupants were finally killed). I mounted an attack past the Pak to the small compound that was worth 100 VP, only to find a couple of units still alive in it. I mounted to assaults into it figuring those units had been spooked or broken. Nah, they were just baiting me and slaughtered almost all my remaining men. I finally managed to capture the VP but didn't have any men left to mount a final attack on the trenches beyond. I should have received enough points to win but I forgot to leave a unit in the first 50 VP objective, oh well. In retrospect I'd change my tactics to smoke the bunker area so that units can get around the wire and across the bridge. The 60mm mortars would be used to suppress the Pak while the chargers were crossing the bridge - or possibly the smoke might help with the crossing. Once all infantry units were across I'd mount the attack up the peninsula. I think it'd still be very tough to achieve a victory. I'll have to read about this assault to see how historically accurate it was. I think PT probably made it much tougher than it really was.

I haven't read the book yet although it's on my shelf. However, after reading your comment I kind of recalled the same implications about another German soldier's autobiography called "The Black March"(I forget the author). Anyway, after reading the Wiki entry on Guy Sajer, which goes at length to discuss the questions on the author's credibility, I believe this is a true account from soldier who is a non-historian. In other words, this is an autobiography written from memory of a very chaotic time; it is by a man who is not a historian who isn't going through the lengths of fact checking etc.. So he got a few details such as names or dates wrong - hell, I can't even remember **** that happened to me a few years ago with clear detail. I certainly get dates and chronology mixed up.

Yes, I second this. Also, since you like East Front, "Stalingrad: the fateful siege" by Beevor. Well put together with jaw dropping statistics.

I might as well ask this here since it will contain spoilers as well... Is anyone having issues of scenario length time set at 3 hours? I'm on the Mook mission now. Both the Mook mission and the one before it are set to 3 hours length despite the briefings saying otherwise (25 minutes for the Mook mission and 45 for the other). At first I though this was just an oversight by the campaign designer but since discovering that the subsequent mission is also 3 hours long I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a deeper problem. Phil, in any case, yes this is a very tough campaign. I've technically only lost one of 5 battles so far but I'm taking huge losses, especially with the Brits.

c2yeung, In all honestly the AI doesn't surrender enough. If you read 1st hand accounts of battles in Normandy and especially Market Garden, there were lots of soldiers surrendering on both sides. This leads to bloated unrealistic casualty figures, especially KIAs. In CMBN, you might occasionally get a soldier or two that surrenders in a battle. Also in some rare cases where the global moral was low to begin with, the AI might surrender the entire battle (like in your case). The enemy may have had a company's worth of units left but it's quite possible that they were low in morale to begin with and your previous success has pushed them over the edge. You could possible open the battle up in the editor to figure this out.

Actually it's not time consuming to install or uninstall a mod. If you can move a folder then you can install or uninstall a mod. The mods make a big difference in some cases. I only get the major overhaul mods such as Juju's UI and one of the major sound overhauls. They only took a little while to download and installing might take two seconds.

I think they're trying to be confusing as Dell is by making both a desktop and laptop version with the same name.

This is a realistic aspect of combat: ammo management. You have to learn to limit the firing of your units otherwise they run out of ammo. Use covered arcs to restrict their firing, it's usually a waste of ammo to fire at something over 400+ meters. Sometimes, especially in campaigns, you have to resupply your units with ammo manually. Move a squad into a halftrack, use the acquire command to have it grab some ammo. I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that both the support carrier and the infantry gun itself had 8 HE and 13 ap? Infantry guns don't usually carry ap rounds. Maybe this was an AT gun? In either case most gun units have an ammo bearer team or carrier which it will take the ammo from.

This was a change in the recent MG upgrade. Heavy gun crews will use ammo from nearby organic ammo support units first. There is a pecking order of which units a heavy gun crew might swipe ammo from next. See the manual that came with the MG upgrade. The main reason for doing this is so the crew will always have a healthy supply of ammo, as it should. Before MG module, the heavy MG unit had to completely run out of ammo before any unit near it would give ammo to it. My advice is to keep the ammo support unit close to the mg crew so that it will only take ammo from that unit and not other normal rifle units.

"all inclusive" & "any module" wording is there. I'm not sure why it's not clear to you.

It's an all inclusive patch for any 2.0 version game including any modules. So, obviously if you're running 2.10 then you'll want to install the 2.11 patch. Once that's installed, then install the artfix. It's all quite clearly written on the download page.

Don't forget to remove your mods before applying the patch!!!

Welcome to the CM Series, Col Handgrenade. I think you'll very much like CM even without the strategic level, which I think everyone here in the forums would love to have, but sadly BF has said they don't have plans to make one. If you search on the forums you'll see some posts by some who have developed methods to use other game engines as the 'strategic' layer. While the campaigns are static, they're actually semi-dynamic. Depending on how the designer has made the campaign, a loss on one battle might load a completely different map and/or battle than if you had won. Individual battles are designed with several AI plans (typically). You can play the battle once where the AI attacks down one avenue but if you play the battle a second time it might use a completely different tactic. Unlike the CC Series, which I've also played since it's inception by Microsoft/Atomic, the AI setup routine is governed by the battle designer. You will have cleverly hidden units in cover and concealment - there's no dumb AI deployment in the middle of the road for you to easily ambush. Also, I know you love real time games but give WEGO a try. You might find it easier than real time in larger battles where controlling 30+ units is maddening. The ability to replay the battle from any angle is priceless. Of course, the trade off is that you lose control of you units for 60 seconds but that's not too far off from real combat. The TacAI does a decent job of changing your bad decisions and reacting to new threats.

Dawoox, Did you move your Z folder from outside your Data folder before installing Market Garden module?

I think you accidentally listed these as armored which obviously isn't the case since they're in Infantry divisions. Anyway, Stanton's book has the insignia for the 302nd Infantry Regiment (and most other regiments and divisions), but doesn't have any insignias for the battalion level.