Pak40

It's the same damn conspiracy that killed JFK!

Someone already said this but the M18 Hellcat gives you everything you just mentioned plus the punching power of a 76mm gun. The M18 also moves at 55 mph and has a lightning fast turret. However, it does cost a little more than the M8 and has less overall rounds, especially HE. It also probably has a slower rate of fire. Another negative factor is that it is bigger than the M8, presenting a bigger target to the enemy. I agree though, the M8 is an excellent vehicle for scouting and flanking.

Steve, I've got a mortar question for you. Why can't a leader unit act as a spotter for mobile mortars?

ScoutPL, I found this manual at a used book store. Pure luck. It even has a person's name in handwriting on the front cover, Pierre Oubre, probably the original soldier who owned it. It's in good shape for an old manual and it has several maps/illustrations. Not only is it pre-WWII but it is pre-bazooka. It will be interesting to read the AT tactics.

The following is an excerpt from "Infantry Field Manual - Organization and Tactics of Infantry Rifle Battalion" by the War Department, Oct. 1, 1940. ****** page 182, paragraph 246, SECTION III - RIFLE PLATOON e. In uncovered movement of the platoon, the platoon leader covers his advance by scouts and regulates their movement by the assignment of successive objectives. The scouts precede the platoon by sufficient distance to insure its protection against enemy fire wihtin midrange. When the situation indicates probable contact with enemy elements, the platoon leader holds the platoon under cover and awaits reconnaissance of the assigned objective by the scouts. When they have reached the objective, the platoon leader moves the platoon to the line of the scouts and again sends them forward to the next objective. During the movement of the scouts, he posts himself so as to hold them under observation and maintain control over his platoon. When the platoon must pass through small woods, villages, or defiles, the platoon leader designates the far edge of the woods or the exit of the village or defile as the next objective. The method of advance adopted by the platoon leader varies in accordance with the need for rapidity of movement and security against hostile surprise fire. f. When some of the scouts are caught under fire in unfavorable terrain, the platoon leader pushes forward reconaissance of undeveloped portions of the platoon zone in order to clear up the enemy situation before involving the bulk of his unit in the fire fight. He designates squad positions for the attack without regard to the positions of their scouts. Scouts join the squad nearest them unless otherwise directed by the platoon leader. If one or both of the flanks of the platoon are open, he provides for flank security by means of small patrols. ****** So there you have it, official U.S. Infantry tactics at the platoon level circa 1940

"what about ScoutPL's contention that the scouting has already happened, once you get to the CM battlefield" I believe he's talking about scouting on an operational level (piper cubs, forward observation posts, radio chatter intel, etc...). CM is on the tactical level and there IS a need for scouting at this level. For example: Let's say that operational intellegence has informed your CO that your unit may encounter a King Tiger. That's fine, but where exactly is it? Scouting on the tactical level can help determine exactly where that KT is located which will help your CO devise a plan to attack it. Question: would you rather your scouts walk into an ambush or your main attack force? Question: would you rather your scouts discover the AT ambush or your Shermans? The scouts in the above situations act as a point man, commonly used on the tactacal level in WWII. It is not a gamey technique. Here's what I consider gamey recon: 1) running a half-squad, bazooka, or sniper, across the map just to draw fire, knowing full well that he will be killed. 2) Using a Jeep to cruise behind the enemy's MLR, knowing full well that he will be killed.

ScoutPL, "Are we to beleive that each of those "scout" half squads is carrying a radio?" I understand your point and mostly agree with you that these scouting techniques in CM arn't 100% realistic and maybe could be slightly gamey, but here's a reasonable justification for using scouts or pointmen: The pointman's job is to scout the area ahead of the main group so that might discover an ambush or enemy's position before the main group does. It is true, in WWII, that these pointmen would not have radios to relay their findings, BUT, they would most likely either use hand signals (if in in LOS of his unit) or send a runner back. CM does not simulate either hand signals or runners so should I abandon scouting all together? I say no. CM is a game, it is not 100% realistic by any means. The simple fact that you can see all of your units on the battlefield at any givin time makes this game less than realistic. I think that we have to play CM for what it is - a game. And if scouting is a good technique in this game then it should be used. I am, however, against the suicidal scouting techniques such as sending a jeep behind enemy lines or sending a leg recon too far ahead of it's parent unit.

Deanco, "I believe you may have hit the nail on the head. Todd states in the article, "I am schooled in 1990’s infantry tactics, not 1940’s tactics." This MAY explain his attitude towards recon in CM." I believe you are correct about the modern infantry tactics and that's what I suspected as I read his article. Modern scouting techniques are so much more advanced than in the 1940's with the use of satellite, infared, helicopters and so on. It's not as hard for a company commander to get an accurate report within minutes or even seconds from the acutual enemy sighting. However, it would seem logical that the US Army would have their officers study and read past tactics as well. I remember bumping into an old friend of mine a few years ago, he was a platoon leader in the reserves at the time. He told me that he was required to read "Company Commander" by Charles McDonald, a book that I had already read.

Advice about scouting: While I was very impressed with this tactical guide by Todd Justice, I was somewhat disapointed by his hard stance against scouting in Combat Mission. Please understand that I reqard his training and combat experience very highly, but I have to disagree strongly with the "no scouting" recommendation. Scouting is extremly valuable in CM. For very little resouces used you can know a heck of a lot about the enemy by using cheap scouts(sniper, bazooka, half-squad). Would you rather a sniper or a platoon walk into an ambush? Would you still bring that Sherman around the corner knowing that a King Tiger sits on the other side? Justice suggests that scenario designers write their briefings so that it includes the scouting reports. His reason being that the scouting would have been done prior to the main battle. I agree to this, but the hard facts are that scouting reports are usually wrong to some degree. For example, the 4 MkIV tanks that the scouting plane spotted from the air may just as easily been Tigers. Big difference. But let's suppose that the scouting report is correct and the enemy does have 4 MkI4 tanks. Sending scouts ahead of your troops can help determine where those MkIV tanks are on the map. I can now make informed decisions based on what my scouts see. Also, based on lots of 1st person accounts that I have read about WW2 small unit actions, there is almost always a scout team or a point man ahead of the main group. Specific Examples can be found in Webster's "Parachute Infantry" and Donald Burgett's book "Seven Roads to Hell". Information is extremely valuable in any combat situation and the commander that has the most has an advantage over his enemy.

Hi guys, I live in New Orleans but havn't been to the D-Day Museum yet. I have heard, from several friends and relatives, that it is very well done. Plan to spend at least 4-5 hours there, maybe longer if you're that fanatical about WWII, which most of us on this board are. From what I gathered there are lots of 1st person accounts, both oral and written. Since Stephan Ambrose was the chief architect of the museum, you will probably see and hear lots of qoutes that already appear in his books. My impression is that the general public will be facinated by this museum but us grognards who have already seen and heard lots of this material will a little less so. But no matter, it is still worth the price of admission and the time spent. I think it's only $7 admission. As far as bars to visit: In the French Quarter: 1. O'Flahertys Irish Channel Pub - Lots of Irish Beer, music and dancing - this makes for a great drunken experience. located on Touluse St. only 3 blocks off of Bourban St. 2. Pat O'Brien's - it's the tourist thing to do but still worth visiting. Don't drink too many hurricanes, they're stronger than they taste. 3. The Dungeon - this freaky place is a must. It doesn't open until midnight but it's worth it. When you get there go upstairs and dance with the freaks, lots of fun. Also on Touluse st. right off of Bourban St. 4. If you want to check out the gay side of bourban then go to Oz. 5. lots of blues clubs, too many to mention, almost all of them are on bourban st. 6. lots of cheezy strip clubs, too many to mention, but all of them are fun, or should I say funny.

Hey, this reminds of those days back in the early 80's on my Atari 2600. It's kind of like the old classic Combat. Too bad we cant set it to tank pong where the bullets bounce off the walls.

Chairman, The high ground does have it's advantages but it needs to be used properly. I've also had many instances where my units on high ground were just shot up, but I eventually learned which units should sit on the top of a hill and which units should not. Here's what I've learned: 1. Unless your tank has great frontal armor, then sitting him on top of a hill isn't a great idea. 2. If you do decide to place a tank ontop of a hill use the reverse slope a lot and only peak out every once in a while. Have a leg unit hidden ontop of the hill to do the spotting for the tank. 3. If there is some sort of cover on top of a dominating hill (trees, buildings, brush) then your artillery spotters should be there. They will be able to call fire missions down on most of the map. They wont be seen as long as you dont move them. If the hill is void of cover, then it's prbably not worth occupying execpt by a sniper (used as a scout) which brings me to #4... 4. The reason why high ground is so important is because it offers the commanders the ability to scout the battlefield, not place his big guns on top. The commander who knows where the enemy is and what he has is the one who has the biggest advantage. 5. The most common units I put on top of a dominating hill are: AT guns (Im always willing to trade one AT gun for 1 tank), Art. spotters, and some sort of scouting unit. I almost never put infantry on top of a hill, it's too easy for them to get clobbered from a long distance by an enemy tank. Infantry are better in the valley's in cover. A Sherman or PZ IV on top of a hill is just asking for his own death. hope I helped

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Any1 come up with a proper set of drinking rules for cm tcp/ip? I suggest: Lose a tank - skull 1 can of beer Lose a recon car - skull 1/2 can (could be a good way of stopping gamey recon Lose an infantry man - 1 mouth full of beer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Gee, with these rules I'd be killing my own men on purpose. Since the who purpose of a drinking game is to get drunk, you should rewrite the rules so that there is incentive. In other words: Kill enemy tank - skull 1 beer Kill enemy recon - skull 1/2 can Kill 1 enemy infantry - 1 mouth full Lose your own recon - no beer for next 3 turns This system awards you(with beer) for good play and penalizes you (no beer) for bad play.

My guess is no, proximity of units do not influence the recovery of vehicles. The vehicle recovery rate/supply rate is set in the operations paramters. Two other things that will determine if your vehicle was recovered are crew survival and vehicle brewing.

Deanco, Points well taken. I'm not bashing you or typing in anger for what you have said. I'm just simply stating the facts that there is only one Historically accurate 3D game in existence and ton of 3D shoot em ups. And making CM open for mods will seriously mess things up (as far as historical accuracy is concerned) - I've seen this happen with all the Close Combat Mods; not the the CC mods were bad but that people started bickering over such and such a setting being historically accurate. Also, It's impossible to play someone in a multiplayer game if he has a different mod. I think it's best to let BTS keep the mod key . Also, since BTS has done such a wonderful job there is no doubght that other companies are looking at CM as a model for their next game. I'm willing to bet that in a couple of years there will be new "WEGO" games on the market. We'll just have to wait to play them.

looks like it's appoximately 25 miles, as the crow flies, NW of Bastogne. It's a little more north than west. It's almost halfway to Namur coming from Bastogne.

ah, well. His loss if he doesn't realilze it.

Well, if he's anything like me, he keeps CM running 24-7 and never needs the disk (you only need it when you first launch CM). Therefore you can run other games or play music on your CD. But I guess the real question is, why would he be playing anything else

I like the idea of used created maps for ladder games, most of the QB maps tend to look the same. But what I don't really care for are perfectly fair maps. It kind of ruins the randomness, the flavor, and the charisma of the game. It's kind of like playing an entire baseball season in the same stadium with the same crowd. It gets old and stale, no excitement, nothing unexpected to spice things up. Part of the charm of baseball is that different fields are different sizes and characteristics. It's sort of the same with CM. If you always play with a fair battlefield then you loose that little bit of flavor that adds to the game. So what if you loose a game every now and then to an unfair battlefield? It will come back to you in another ladder game because every time you load a QB you have a 50% chance of being the side with the advantage(if either side does have and advantage). Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Deanco: " I really gotta laugh when you guys get on your high horse about realism. Wanna know why us non-wargamers like CM? Cause it's a deep, fun game that takes a long time to get good at. And you can blow up and destroy things in 3D! And you wanna know what's REALLY funny? All you grognards like blowing up things in 3D as much as us headbangers, but you WON'T ADMIT IT, even to yourselves!" ********************************* Deanco, First, if you've been reading posts on this forum for any length of time you'd know that BTS is not going to sell out to make (or let 3rd parties make) a mass oriented blow 'em up game. Most of the reason why they are an independent software company is so they can make the kind of games that they want to make, not some game that Microsoft or Hasbro wants them to make. Have you even read the Battlefron.com Manefesto??? You obviously havn't, so go the battlefront.com main page and find it. By the way, here's what's on the main page: "Welcome to the wargaming revolution! While other publishers go chasing the Twitch crowd, we here at Battlefront.com only wish to make great wargames for people who like engaging their brains instead of just physical reflexes." Second, Yes I like to blow stuff up too. I admit it. I like Half-life and I've played most of the click fest strategy games and had a good time with most of them. There are TONS of these "unrealistic" games to choose from, BUT there is only one historic 3D Wargame. ONLY ONE!!! So why not let us keep this one game historicly and physically accurate. Just give us this one game and you can have all the other 3D games that are ever made? Deal?

Mods are NOT a good idea for CM. This is a historical game based on real world physics. If BTS were to make it mod-able then we'd see 15 different versions of CM, some of these with unrealistic physics values (e.g. a Stuart that has an AP round which can take out a King Tiger with a frontal shot). Everyone and his momma would be "tweaking" the combat values in the game to suit his or her own tastes(Close Combat is a perfect example). It's best if BTS be lone keeper of all the values in the game. This way we can all be compatible with each other because there is only one version.

How can you possibly edit a scenario while playing it? When you save a game in progress the entire battle's parameters (OOB, map, etc.) is saved to a file. That file contains ALL the data needed to load the battle. In other words, CM doesn't need the original scenario file to load the saved game. Since you cannot load a saved game file into the editor, it it not possible to edit a game in progress. I'm glad you can't edit a scenario in progress, that would just breed cheating in a multiplayer game.

All are good points. Here's my thoughts: 1) The accuracy and abundance of US artillery can be simulated by giving the allies more FO and lots more TRPs. This will work well for user made battles and operations. Quick battles, however, will still be limited by the number of points allotted for artillery, so you are correct, company commanders should be given the power to call in artillery. But then you would have to model the fact that enemy artillery could cut your phone line.... then you would have to model the fact that your company commander could send runners out to repair the line.... the list goes on and on.... You see my point? 2) Unless I misunderstand something here, CM already models the ability to call in air strikes. But I agree, the Allies should definitly get more points in this area in the Quick Battles. 3) Heck most US AA units were pretty much turned into infantry support units, especially later in the war. There should be more AA units period. all three of your points are valid but can pretty much be simulated by giving the ally more points than the Germans. The allies just had more resources than the Germans and the only way to simulate that is to give the allied player more points.

"Why fight and die for ground only then to willingly step back some 200 meters?" Yes, that's exactly my point. I guess the question is: Do Steve and Charles feel the same about this? Are they even aware that this is a big issue for us Scenario/Operation designers? If not, then we should definitly voice our opinions.

MadMatt, Wild Bill, BTS, and everyone else.. This issue still needs to be addressed. Even with the "no mans land" set to zero the defender is pushed back. I have tested this many times in my Arnhem Operation. At the beginning of every new battle, the British are pushed back at least 100 meters forcing them to give up many well defended buildings. It doesn't matter if the Germans are close to the British or not, CM likes to push back the defender and straighten out his front line. In an operation such as Arnhem, every meter counts. When the British are pushed back 100m or more it really affects the quality of the operation. THE BOTTOME LINE IS... Defenders should be given the option of keeping the ground that they have successfully defended not be forced to pull back because of the CM operation coding.