Pak40

what Jons said

Have you looked in the Handbook of German Military Forces? My copy is at home, I will give it a look when I get home tonight. But, my personal opinion is that there was a AP round for this gun, although it wouldn't be very effective because of the low velocity. They did make a HEAT round but I have no idea when it became available.

Except that 200 rounds is a pretty big mission for a battery. It's even slightly heavy for a battalion, though not unreasonably so. Of course it all depends on the circumstances, and these could vary widely, but in a CM style firefight, a battery might drop 20-50 rounds and then move on to support other actions.</font>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Fire Missions worked like the following scenario (please excuse me if I don't use the exact lingo or terminology): 1. The FO would call in to the battery command and request a fire mission. Example: "This is Charlie One, I need an immediate mission at (x coordinate) and (y coordinate). Request 200, over." 2. The battery command would confirm if they are able and willing to comply for the mission, and then confirm location, possibly giving appoximate time for the spotting rounds to fall. 3. The battery command contacts FO to inform spotting rounds are firing. 4. Upon the falling of the spotting rounds, the FO then corrects the rounds and then calls for Fire For Effect. Example "Left 50, plus 100, Fire For Effect! over!" 5. The battery command confirms correction and drop count: "Left 50, plus 100, Drop 200, Over" 6. The fire mission comes in(all 200 rounds) without any more intervention or communication from the FO, unless he wishes to correct or halt the FFE. If I'm the lease bit correct, then the mission would continue even if the FO was killed.

Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think you misunderstand me. The purpose of what I proposed is to help "influence" the player to use a wide sheaf, which was more often used, histroically speaking. Let me repeat myself: To sum up: The rate of fire is exactly the same wheather you choose tight or wide sheaf. Also, my proposal has nothing to do with how much ammo is available. An Artillery Battalion's ammo availibility is beyond CM's scope, unless the scenario designer decides to simulate a low ammo situation by giving his FOs only a few shells. The best rational example I can give is that a battalion Artillery commander is more willing to expend a lot of shells on a larger area than a smaller area. Why should he waste a lot of shells on one small target? The FO had better have a good reason for requesting a larger number of shells in a concentrated spot. Is this making any sense to you now?

Yes, I agree. This would also account for telephone lines being cut by opposing artillery, a thing that happened all to often in battle. Officers would constantly have to send runners to find the break in the line and repair it.

Jason, I totally agree with your thoughts about realistic WWII artillery using wide sheafs with huge amounts of ammo and about how most CM players use tight sheafs to get the most out of every round. Maybe a solution to the this unrealistic use of artillery would be something like the following: Currently, CM players but a set number of shells. For example, a U.S. 81mm FO has 200 shells. Instead of buying a set number of shells, the CM player should be buying an abstract number of artillery units, much like an infantry squad has 40 ammo units. With these artillery units, the CM player has the choice of a wide or tight sheaf. With a tight sheaf, the artillery units are expended at a normal rate. But, with a wide sheaf the units are only expended at 1/2 the rate. This will make a tight sheaf more expensive because the artillery points will run down at a quicker rate. The wide sheaf will have more appeal because of the overall larger number of shells that will fall. NOTE: the rate that the shells fall will remain constant, whether wide or tight sheaf. Only the abstract artillery points will decrease slower for a wide sheaf. For example - a U.S. 105mm FO constantly using a tight sheaf would use all of his ammo with 3 turns totaling 100 rounds fired. If the same FO were to constantly use a wide sheaf, then he would expend 200 rounds over 6 turns. The player would have the option of changing the sheaf type from turn to turn with minor penalty. What are your thoughts? [ June 03, 2002, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

Yea, I posted something about that quite a while ago. About a year ago, I guess. But it's good you bring those up again. The St Mere and St Marie photos are valuable for historical scenario designers. You have to use "Print Screen" to capture the images or you could do the honorable thing and buy them.

Yes, and after the flatulence is modeled BTS must include spanking! And after the spanking, the oral sex!

Sounds a lot like a Boys to me too, Brian. Michael</font>

Yea, that sounds about correct. I'd make some of them crack troops. By D-Day the Rangers were highly trained, extremely fit, and had seen a good deal of action. Also, they tended to use whatever weapons were needed for their job. So, for instance, if their job required flamethrowers or demo packs, then they'd probably have them. Also, a Ranger Battalion had 81mm mortars and an engineer Coy.

The problem is that you have way too many units. CM was designed for force sizes of reinforced battalions. The most I've ever played with is about 3 battalions and it proved a real chore to move all the units every turn. You, however, have 5 battalions worth of infantry

Not really. The Rangers operated in smaller units and more mobile armament. Taken from the book "Rangers in WW II": Early in the war each Ranger company was only 66 men including 3 officers. The company was organized into a 4 man company HQ and two platoons. Each Platoon was organized into a HQ section, 2 Assault sections and a mortar section. Each Assault section was only 11 men. They carried several rifles, a LMG, and submachineguns. The mortar section, later called the special weapons section, included a 60mm mortar, possibly a .55 cal AT Rifle, bazooka and a LMG. As the war progressed, the Rangers adopted the new armaments such as the carbines and probably added more automatic weapons to their inventory.

Im doing this right now in the Rugged Defense Tourneyment Final Round. --oops, scratch that. I didn't see the bit about using the exact same forces. [ May 21, 2002, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

IMO, both routes were suicidal. That's a reason why I attacked both routes in my game. The road was my main attack and the ford attack was more of a diversion, but, they were both honest attempts to capture VLs. It all comes down to timing. If the attacker times the ford attack with the road attack, then the defender wont be able to shift forces around to the defend against the main attack. [ May 20, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

Actually, wire is much more effective. Imagine sending troops across wire(about 20 seconds to get through),then cross the ford(another 20-30 seconds) and then cross another wire (20 sec). This is all equivilent to running in the open with no cover, being shot at by multiple MGs, tank fire, and small arms less than 100 meters. Oh yea, and dont forget any artillery that the defender might have. Mines might kill 1-2 persons per squad but they will eventually all be detinated by the mass attack. However, mines will still be usefull if the attacker smokes the fords, wire will still slow the attacker down but the smoke will cover the crossing.

As a player in this tourneyment, I can say that it is possible to cross the fords successfully. I myself successfully crossed the fords. The odds are heavily against the attacker but there are many variables to every battle that can change the odds in a heart beat. Example #1: When I defended the fords, my attacker brought down 3 (yes 3) 105mm barrages in the exact same place at the exact same time. I watched in horror as two previously undamaged Heavy Buildings collapsed within 45 seconds. Inside those buildings were a MG, two squads and a platoon leader(all Vets). Only one squad survived at about half strength & panicked. Also, a priest was knocked out and another immobilized. Within one minute, 80% of my forces gaurding one of the fords was put out of action. If my attacker had timed it right, he could have waltzed across that ford on the following turn with little opposition. If there were two more barrages of that magnitude then he could have rendered about 75% - 90% of my ford defending force dead or inneffective. Fortunately, he decided to spread out the barrages and use some smoke on the fords also. The smoke allowed him to cross the fords but he still had to contend with my reinforcements. In the end, his attack was wiped out.

Hehe, You'll just have to wait until my AAR is posted.

You can target when the FO is out of LOS of the target area. When your FO moves within LOS, then the timer will tick down normally and the rounds will fall in "tight" eliptic pattern, not the spread pattern. I do this all the time because it saves time. It may take 1-2 minutes to move the FO into LOS, but it will save 30 seconds per minute.

Christ, you guys are geeks!

A true testament from the power of the Ma-Duce From Black Hawk Down, page 147 paperback ed.:

Based on what Moon is saying, it sounds like the game wont even go gold until mid to late Fall. It wont ship until 2-4 weeks after that. Man, this sucks :mad: Maybe I'm jumping the gun with my assumptions, it's not even officially summer yet.

Yes, please repost when the clips are up on the site.

Yes. It will still take a long time for a HQ with +0 morale to rally broken or panicked units but it's better than no leader at all.

Did you, at any time in previous turns, give an order to the tank to target something and not use the main gun? If so, the command may have "stuck" until finally you gave it a direct order to use the gun. I have seen wierd occurances like this before but it's rare. I usually chalk it up to one of those rare unexplained occurances in war. Like maybe the gunner got dust in his eyes or maybe a HE shell that landed nearby gave the gunner a concussion. It kind of sucks that we have to make excuses like this but the fact is that these things happen in war.