Pak40

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The .30 Carbine round is sort of like a .357 magnum on the power scale, and not in the same class as the Soviet 7.62x39 or the German 7.92 Kurz. The blunt .30 Carbine bullet sheds velocity like a stripper sheds a G-string, and M-2 Carbines fired full auto are very hard to control.

You guys might be interested in this qoute from Donald Burgetts book The Road To Arnhem, which I HIGHLY recommend. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As Our First Sergeant, Burley Sizemore, stepped through the gate carrying his personal, highly accurized, bolt -action, 30-06 Springfield rifle, the trooper with the camera took his picture. Sizemore told me in Aldbourne some time before we kknew we were going to jump in Holland that he'd had his dad send his personal rifle from home.....I told him he would be better off using an M1. It was a hell of a good rifle: semiautomatic, accurate at long distances, carried an 8 round clip, and if he lost it, it would be replaced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This qoute tells me 2 things: 1) A person with a bolt action can be just as deadly as a semi-auto if he's well trained & familiar with it. This guy obviously loved the Springfield enough to trust it with his life. The gun suits the person. 2) The M1 was highly thought of by the men who used them. ***************** Two things about the M1 that I didn't see mentioned above: 1) Although it only has 8 shots compared to the Enfield's 10, it was simpler to reload. On the enfield you need to take out the magazine, put a new one in and work the bolt. But, on the Garand all you need to to is drop the new clip in and you're good to go (the old clip was ejected with the last shot). So really that 2 round difference is reduced to maybe 1 or 0. 2) The Garand is a definitly a more powerfull weapon due to the fact that the soldier has a choice: He can take his time and fire acurately like a bolt action OR he can put down a large volume of fire if needed. The Enfield just doesn't have that capability to the degree that the Garand does.

Saw it last night and recorded it. That footage of the Pershing battling the Panther in Cologne was priceless. And to put the icing on the cake, they interviewed the commander of that Pershing to explain the entire situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: Germanboy, Since you are here, I have a question. Currently the British Airborne do not have the option of purchasing carriers (only jeeps are available under the vehicles category). Now, one (admittedly iffy) source, Avalon Hill's "Storm Over Arnhem" gives the Brits carriers. Is there anything to this? (I can't find my copy of "A Bridge to Far" to check)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The British 6th AB positively had carriers and jeeps with twin mounted MGs. Some of these made it to the Arnhem road bridge.

Keep in mind that the Operation engine in CM was primarily designed to be "reach the other side of the map" type of battle. In other words, objective battles like capturing a bridge or crossroads don't work well with the Operational engine. There are no VL flags to tell the computer AI what is important to capture. The computer AI is only interested in going to the other side of the map or defending his side of the map. If you put rivers in your Operation then make sure there are plenty of bridges so that the computer controlled side can cross easily. If there is only one bridge then the computer units will move towards the opposite side of the map, blind of the fact that a river blocks the way. You have to test these obstacles to make sure it works well. My advice is to use rivers as little as possible. The setup zones completely ignore rivers as an obstacle. In other words, say you have a river that is parallel to your British advance. If you have the British on one side of the river in the beginning battle, in battle #2 they will be able to deploy on either side of the river. It doesn't matter if they have a bridge or not. test.test.test

Who saw the Making of Band of Brothers tonight? The special effect in this series are increadible. It looks really good, I cant wait! This will be a DVD purchase for sure, but I'm going to tape them anyway.

in addition to the info above the two split squads need to be within a certain distance to reform, 10 meters I think. And they will only reform in between turns, not during a turn.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B: I did not make the assumption that the player's mission was to do so - sometimes capture of a bridge is important, and sometimes it isn't. The reason I said, "if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge" is that the reverse can also be true. If your mission is to get your men and tanks to the other side, I assumed most readers would read into it enough *not* to blow the thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I've never heard of both sides wanting to destroy a bridge. There is always at least one side that wants to capture the bridge, sometimes both sides want to capture the bridge. Let's look at your quote one more time <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You're actually making the pillbox more vulnerable if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "enemy" in this qoute is on the offensive. The defensive side had a pillbox on the bridge. Logically, the offensive side is trying to get to the other side of the river so he can continue on with his offensive. If the offensive side is trying to capture the bridge, why on earth would he destroy it just to kill the pillbox? Even if there were multiple bridges on the same map the order from the brass would be to capture all of them, not destroy them.

Calm down girls. MrSPKR, Yes they were basic questions that most on this board would know but he has a right to ask. He probably doesn't have the background and military books that a lot of us have. Colonel, you have a right to get PO'd with response like that but you might want to tone down your response or you get booted from these boards. You wont be the first. For the record, there are 4 basic types of Artillery these modern days: Guns: long barreled, and higher muzzle velocity give these guns longer range but low trajectory. Howitzers: similar to guns but the barrels are shorter. This gives the shell more of an arc (lower velocity) which helps hit the backslope of hills etc. Mortars: A tube that is pointed in the air, giving the shell a very high arc. This allows the mortars to be used very close to its target, often within site. Also, the shell is fired automatically as soon as it is dropped in the tube which gives it a high rate of fire. The shells are usually smaller than their Howitzer counterparts so the can be manhandled easier, this accounts for the lesser blast values than the Howitzers. A big advantage of the mortar is the close proximity to the front and easy aiming of the tubes, this allows less time between the FO requests and the actuall barrage. Rockets: Big multiple barreled tubes that fire rockets over a long distance. These are very inaccurate but they can be very devistating and a bunch can be fired quickly. [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

Cybeq, If you pick the 3 LMGs and one of the team dies(2 men) then you have only 2/3 of your original power. If the second team dies then you have 1/3 of the original power. Also, I think MG teams with only one man operate at half strength. If you pick 1 HMG and two men die then you still have all your original firepower. If two more die then you still have all your firepower, although you lose some ammo. I think it ultimately depends if you're attacking or defending, and what your strategy is. I personally prefer the HMG veteran unit. I used to get the the LMGs but I got disgusted at how easily they died. I then bought HMG regular units but got disgusted when they paniced easily. Now I get Veteran HMG units and they usually last the entire game or they die fighting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Concerning #4, I believe there are multiple issues which may need to be adddressed here. Some AT guns traverse by handwheels; others by essentially shoulder push. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting points. I was, of coarse, referring to the normal AT gun with the two arm mount, which would have to be picked up and rotated if the target was outside of the firing arc. The German 88 anti aircraft version and US 90mm both would have the hand wheel I assume and the rotation rate would be the same no matter if the situation is desparate or not. A man can only crank that wheel so fast I understand what you are saying about the arc of fire. I think this needs to be addressed in CM also. It would be similar to the SP guns in the game that have the same arc limitations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ghost Dog: At the Oosterbeek highway in the last days of fighting around Arnhem, a 6-pounder Airborne antitank gun troop arrives, with a somewhat reluctant hero,gunner Len Clarke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for that excellent example. It shows that in desparate situations they could, in fact, squeeze off shots without the gun being secured.

Kwazydog, Thanks for the quick response. I guess the problem with moving in reverse is that the AT gun is treated as a leg unit and not a vehicle, therfore it has no ability to go into reverse in CM. But, when you think about it, any leg unit should also be able to go in reverse (backing up while watching for the enemy, for example). Obviously this reverse speed would be very slow, similar to the sneak speed because one can't run going backwards very well. Hopefully they can code this into a future CM. Thanks for checking into topic #4 Jeff

Concerns about the specifics of Anti-Tank gun Ambushes in CM2:BB (This refers to AT guns doing their own ambushes, not directed by a leader unit) Topic #1 - The current ambush system only allows 1 spot to be ambushed. CMII allows you to place an arc cover area with a distance set which should eliminate this problem. However, the ambush distance allowed in CM:BO has a limit. For some reason, which makes no sense to me, an AT gun can set ambushes only up to a certain distance. Why let an AT guns set an ambush marker 300m away but not 350m away? An AT gun crew is trained to set ambushes no matter what the distance.I hope this ambush distance limit is not carried over to CM2:BB Topic #2 - AT gun ambushes are unit ignorant. If an infantry unit crosses near or on the ambush marker the AT gun will open fire, giving away it's hidden location. If I'm trying to ambush a tank, I don't want to reveal my location by firing at infantry, especially if they are no threat to the gun. I hope that in CM:BB, AT guns have the CHOICE of including infantry in their ambush arcs. Topic #3 - (not related to ambushes) It has been mentioned before on the forum that AT guns should be able to reverse. It is common practice to move a gun backwards rather than turn it 180 and move forwards (especially at CM rotating rate) Topic #4 - (not related to ambushes) AT gun crew rotation. This had been a much debated topic on the forums. I can't quite remember what the consensus was, but in my own opinion the AT guns in CM rotate too slowly. I'm well aware of the fact that the gun has be limbered/unlimbered. But I'd be willing to bet that any full crew could rotate their gun to meet a deadly threat within a few seconds and squeeze off that one round that would save their ass from being killed (as opposed to 60 seconds in CM). Obviously the bigger guns would take longer to rotate and crews with injured memebers would operate more slowly. Hopefully this can be improved in CM:BB

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by olandt: Ambushes are already being modified in CMBB (according to other posts) to have a 2 point fireing arc, which would allow you to control distance and direction. See if it's in the CM2 FAQ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i looked in the FAQ but I think that's referring to ambushes in general (directed by a leader unit) not from AT guns themselves.

The answer to your question is, yes, the ambush will be triggered if a enemy is with 15-20 meters of the marker, so long as that enemy is withing LOS of your unit that is targeting the ambush marker. However, I advise you not to use ambush markers with tanks. They will ignore all other threats until the ambush is triggered or canceled. There is rarely a time when a tank should use ambush markers because a tank is rarely a hidden unit and because they ignore all threats (as mentioned above)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: All guns can place their own ambush markers; they don't need an HQ to do it for them. Leave the gun on "hide". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AT guns placing Ambush markers themselves (not from a leader) are quite limited to the distance that they can place them. I don't understand why BTS modeled AT ambushes this way. AFAIC, AT guns should be able to place ambushes at any distance that they want to. What's the reasoning for allowing a 300m ambush but not a 400m ambush? Doesn't make sense. I'm going to start a thread in the CM forum to address these and other AT ambushing issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: Question unanswered? Can you move past the destroyed Pillbox?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The pillboxes are quite wide, however the pillbox can be placed to the side of the road so that they only block part of the bridge, allowing vehicles to pass. On a big bridge this is not a problem because the bridge is wide enough. Visually it not too pretty because part of the pill box is hanging over mid air, but at least it's a way to simulate a pillbox being on a bridge.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Trap: Please rate the "gameyness" of putting a concrete pillbox on a bridge right in the middle of river, oh yeah at night!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was done quite frequently in real life, so its not gamey at all. Arnhem Bridge had a pillbox near either end to protect the bridge from both directions. The Germans knew that an attack could come from anywhere with the allies airborne capabilities.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B: Nope (just checked). Blow up the bridge beneath the pillbox and the pillbox goes away. You're actually making the pillbox more vulnerable if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge. Scott B.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The whole purpose of capturing a bridge is so that you can use it. How are you going to get your men and tanks to the other side if you blow the bridge?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: [QB] A Sherman wanders around a corner 250m away straight into my brilliant ambush. I yell "Shoot!" [QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This sounds like you're using the Stug III primarily as an AT weapon. It is good against tanks but the Hetzer is cheaper and more effective as a AT weapon. A Hetzer would have deflected that 75mm round, most likely. Stug is a better multi-pupose SP gun. I usually start out using them against infantry targets. If a good AT situation arrises then I will take advantage of it, but mostly I use it against infanty. Try using Veteran or Crack vehicles, they usually can squeeze a round of faster and have a better chance to hit.

Sneak is more like the Move command, only your troops wont fire at any enemy units that it can see (unless they are dangerously close). The whole purpose of the sneak command is so that you can move a unit to a location under secrecy. It wont fire shots, thereby giving away it's location. Obviously, this command is also good for conserving ammo. The Crawl command is safer for a unit because the unit is considered prone. But this command is very slow and isn't very much use if your unit is trying to get to another location. I only use this command if a unit is under heavy fire and I want to move him out of LOS of the enemy units. I also only use this command if the unit is in some sort of cover. Do NOT cross open space with the Crawl command. Enemy units will be able to spot your crawling men easily and your men will be shot to pieces because it will take an entire turn to cross 20 meters. If you need to cross an open space that you KNOW is being watched by enemy units then use the FAST command. It's the safest way to cross because it will get your men into cover quickly.

Hi Pilgrim, Welcome to the front lines. I'd like to make a few statements in reply to your post. First, what you witnessed is uncommon: Two regular crews getting 1st shot hits at 500+ meters. If it were possible to replay that QB you'd get different results every time. Second, 500m is a close range for tanks. Not point blank but close. I'd say 700-800 is medium for most medium size tanks and 1200+ is far. Third, I also used to think that SL was the end all be all of wargaming, not anymore. I realized this when it dawned on my that in order for my bazooka team needed a 6 or below to KILL a Mk IV tank. That's a less than 50% chance to kill after he already hit. Someting isn't right about that. After a hit, a bazooka should get a kill 80-90% of the time with the remaining % damaging the tank in some way or a rare no damage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison: wheres the WP! why dont we have WP! im sure this has been beaten to death, but it was such an important round for the allies. and it was an excellent tool (i loved WP in adv squad leader!). i dont have time to wait for the search, and i dont expect an answer. i just wanted to say that i miss those little guys in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just curious: Does any have any figures on how many WP and Canister rounds were produced or used as compared to Normal HE? (tank rounds only, not artillery)

I've read about this also. I think it works like an oversized shotgun, correct? As to why BTS didn't model this, I can understand. It requires special modeling, this isn't your typical HE shell. Cannister will definitly decrease in effectiveness over a distance, although the spread would be greater. Also Cannister would not have the same Blast value as your typical HE shell. Therefore, it would have had to been modeled completely differently than the normal HE. For example, BTS couldnt just increase the Blast rating of a cannister shell in order to give it more killing power because the Blast power is also used to determine building destruction. To make a long story short, I think BTS didn't model special rounds due to limited resources and time. Phosphorus and incindiaries fall into this category also.