Renaud

Gautrek, You are more than welcome to use any and all of my photo's posted in Gyrene's Iwo Jima section. They should probably be considered public domain now. But that may be up to Gyrene. Ren

Gautrek, You are more than welcome to use any and all of my photo's posted in Gyrene's Iwo Jima section. They should probably be considered public domain now. But that may be up to Gyrene. Ren

Wow. All I can say is I look forward to playing these scenarios. Tiger or no Tiger. The FOW in this discussion only increases the anticipation. CM needs a higher rating than +2/all for officers like Major D.V. Currie, VC! And too bad we can't edit the command units to change their ranks. Ren

It's a commendable idea. I'd love for CM to be more user-group campaign friendly. If they would just seperate the map from the TOE (units), and allow import of either units or map (currently you can only import units or not with a map, not import just the units to a 2nd new map. But if there's anything less likely to occur than this idea or the ones you presented, I don't know what it is.

Here's my spiel on air defense when you expect planes in order of impact (all anecdotal experience, no scientific testing whatsoever): 1) Use towed Vet or higher AA guns and put them in command range of a combat-bonus leader, preferably +2. Cull out a suitable leader from the infantry. 2) Spread the guns out and keep the bigger slower 37mm pointed in various directions so some can start firing as soon as possible while the plane is still far out. 3) Put your light AA guns behind buildings or steep hills or other blocking LOS. This causes them not to open up until planes fly relatively close overhead, 'ambushing' the plane - you get more outright kills this way. Especially with quad 20mm. *note: however the planes will often get off their attack. If you want to simply fend them off, site light AA for long range fire. 4) US forces (applies to CM/CMAK of course) have tons of pintle mounted MG's on their tanks and halftracks which can create a storm of fire that causes most planes to abort. So the US can do without seperate AA in most cases. Otherwise, go for the various US AA halftracks (M16). [ February 23, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

lol gyrene. Yea they put a lot of work into turning the hill into a blasted landscape. A professional camera crew was there with a huge remote controlled boom camera (you can see part of it in the pic of the LTV), so i'm hoping for a DVD or somefink. The sound was great...constant blasts of various weapons, rising up whenever some group made a move forward. The tanks fired some kind of blank shells as well, not just those lame simulators we had when I was a tanker.

Staying out of threads like this is how I have achieved only 373 posts since Oct 1999...speaking of which, what am I doing here? :confused:

Couldn't agree more about the MG-last-man thing. I'd like to see HMG's changed to the same way mortars behave: can be abandoned leaving a little HMG model tossed on the ground. In reality HMG's, like medium mortars, are broken down into 2 or 3 components for moves of any distance. But the model on the ground is symbolic anyway.

I particularly favor the French 75mm field gun. It's exceptional in every way. I believe this is essentially the same french 75mm made famous in WWI. Rapid rate of fire, high muzzle velocity, large HE blast rating, low profile and hard to spot, good penetration rating even considering only HE is available. 25lbr is great too, if a somewhat big target. Put it in a trench.

heck, 50mm mortars can take out a 150IG or any other gun with 1 lucky hit. Things have completely changed since you last checked John. I have changed the nature of military terminology singlehanded.

I just started five simultaneous PBEM games...my first PBEM gaming ever in 5+ years of playing CM. Yea, Row V. Never started one even out of curiosity until a week ago. Nice in it's own peculiar way, but i've got mixed feelings. I crave the instant gratification of TCP/IP. It's like a drug.

I think the mortar pit pictured above does count as an entrenchment in CM. A foxhole applies more to infantry positions. Was it in WW2 that we discovered the 2-man foxhole was a bad idea...or vietnam? By the end of vietnam i think doctrine called for 3-man positions. The reason was psychological: 2 men alone freaked out a lot easier than 3 (3's a crowd or somefink...i'm no shrink). For my part, i've seen mortars, guns and MG's taken out in one hit. Sometimes with no casualties, but the crew abandons the weapon. Especially due to tree bursts above the weapon-pit. I have personally watched 4.2" mortar crews put a shell right into a 3'x3' target pit at 3000+ meters (the target lifters get blown to fragments). That direct fire with a lot of time to get the range of course. 120mm mortars can't do that - fin stabilized. I think every CM player has experienced entire entrenched squads decimated at one blow by sufficiently large HE landing on X marks the spot.

That looks awful. Most of the WWII fps's today look a lot better. The soldiers in the pic are all standing ramrod straight...pretty funny. CMBB/AK both look better IMHO...now if only BF can make the maps more natural looking without all those 45 and 90 degree angles! In my experience with government contracted tactical military simulators I have seen one common thread: they all put a low priority on visual fidelity and animation and a high priority on operational fidelity. They don't care if it looks real, only if the simulation can generate useful data for the military men. My experience is with UCOFT and the huge multi-vehicle simulator farm in Grafenwohr. This stuff is only nominally better graphically and that was 16-18 years ago.

OK, thanks to Gyrene the pics are now available. 19 now, more coming later. Iwo Jima Reenactment Pics Thanks Gyrene! Ren

securitygaurd: The Modello 38A has the longest barrel of any WWII SMG I know of. The MP40 barrell was 9.9" long, the 38A 12.4" long. It was originally manufactured as a single-shot carbine with high accuracy and later evolved into a full SMG. It comes equipped with 500 meter sights. It was manufactured to pre-war high-quality standards.

Yes, the Modello 38A and Modello 38/42 both had dual triggers. The forward trigger was for single shots, the rear trigger for auto fire. I can see no reason why either model would have much different firepower than the MP40. They both used 20 and 40-round box magazines. the 38A probably had better accuracy with a barrel 6" longer than the 38/42. Both were used extensively by the german and italian armies.

This was in Doss Texas Saturday and Sunday Feb 19th and 20th. 300 Reenactors took part including a platoon or so from japan with all the regalia. The battle was staged on a huge hill turned into a miniature Mount Suribachi. During the course of the 90-minute battle the reenactors worked their way up the hill, repelling the occasional counterattack, and then a squad of marines recreated the flagraising atop the mountain. It was kinda like front row seats to a reinforced company-sized CM battle. Equipment included 2 shermans, M16 halftrack, 2 M5A1 Stuarts, M3 and M3A1 halftracks, huge marine amphibious thingy, a japanese tank (possibly vismod but looked authentic), AT guns, M2A1 105mm howitzer, scads of .50 and .30 cal MG's, ground mount quad .50, bazookas (not fired), BAR's, M1's, Thompsons (even a Reising Model 50), Weasels, jeeps, jeep+50cal, japanese LMG's, SMG's, rifles, etc...and best of all...wait for it...6 fully functional flamethrowers which they used throughout the reenactment. Pretty much everything out there was firing including the Quad 50's and the tanks. The noise was amazing. The blasts and shots echoed off the hills and reverberated through the valleys. I need to post some pics once I figure out where to host them. Makes me wish BF would put out a version of CM for the WWII Pacific/Asian Theatre. They could hire some of the japanese reenactor voice talent: they had some awesome banzai screams!

I've always thought of the CM leader ratings as not only depicting the real-time influence of the leader on the scene, but also the previous training and experience provided by the leader. Of course when the leader unit disappears so does all the bonus, so that doesn't fly... re John Salt's troop characteristic thoughts... I'm hoping for a somewhat more detailed breakdown of troop characteristics. In a thread many years ago I wrote a summary of my ideal troop rating system and Steve said yea they would have loved to do something more detailed but there just wasn't the time. The 4 critical values are Esprit de Corp, Training, Experience and local Morale. Here's a summary (all values rated 0-100): 1. Esprit de Corps: This would be a unit-level rating shared to all squads/teams/vehicles under that HQ. For instance the parent company could have a 60/100 rating, but individual platoons could have their own possibly different ratings. This value more or less combines aspects of J.Salt's 'cohesion', 'resilience' and 'determination' and is fixed (does not vary in the course of a CM battle). The higher the esprit de corp, the harder it is to lower the unit's 'local morale' (below). A unit rated 90/100 would lose much less local morale than a 30/100 unit when subject to the same abuse (losses, friendly losses, etc.). 2. Morale (local unit). This is like the current 'global morale' in effect, but is rated for each squad/team/vehicle with a start value from 0-100 and is moved up or down based on what happens in the course of a CM battle. This would allow a local unit to surrender when their morale reaches a critical low due to local events while the company on the other side of the battle triumphs and their local morale skyrockets. Kind of like 'extreme' or non-borg FOW except for morale. 3. Training: determined by prior training and is fixed during a battle. It affects things like accuracy, firepower, hiding, repair jams, load time, etc. Obviously a critical rating. Troops such as rangers or airborne might have a very high training rating and a very low exp rating (below). 4. Experience: How much combat they have seen. This rating may overlap some in-game effects of both training and esprit de corp. This is a tricky rating because a unit with 90+ experience may well be considered war-weary and unwilling to perform some actions a green unit might perform without question due to ignorance of the likely bad outcome. With these 4 ratings you could simulate lots of combinations. For instance a unit with very low esprit de corp and very high starting local morale could simulate propogandized troops who start out fanatical but are psychologically fragile and will collapse at the first serious trouble. The reverse could simulate troops who have recently experienced high casualties and are resolved to limit further losses among their beloved comrades.

David, I think that's already in CMBB/AK. Isn't it? I'm pretty sure the guns fire slower after you lose a few men. Never actually checked it tho.

Will we still be able to manually split squads? I really liked and used that feature. A good platoon leader (+heart and +star) and vet or above troops seems to substantially negate the penalties for splitting. Figure 60-100 meters from the leading rifle teams back to the PL, LMG teams and perhaps 1 full squad (or whatever the PL command range allows). All squads advance to contact. This allows your rifle teams to pressure the enemy into opening fire while your LMG teams are still a fair distance away. Upon contact the LMG teams and full-squad open fire while the forward rifle teams cower in place, crawl or assault as the situation dictates.

1. Never move the marder into view of enemy units. 2. Move the marder into a hidden stationary position and engage enemy units as they move into view. This is typically behind a building or on one side of and slightly behind a hill. Set a armor cover arc so you will stay pointed the correct direction. 3. Cause the enemy vehicles to button before they move into view of the marder (typically with a sprinking of arty or long range MG fire). This will allow you to get 1 or 2 shots in before they spot you, assuming no other units have already spotted your marder. 4. Pin down infantry units so they won't move up and spot your marder. You want his buttoned armor to stumble into your line of fire first. 5. Post plenty of concealed infantry with good FOV so they can ID enemy units long before they move into view of your marder. 6. Keep the marder away from trees as this will allow even light mortars to knock out the open-topped vehicle with tree bursts. 7. Do not allow small arms fire to come from above, like a nearby tall hill or 2-storey building. This can knock out the marder due to the open top. Avoid getting within handgrenade range of any infantry. 8. Marders and other light tank hunters will often back away from superior vehicles. Make sure you position your marder so that the tacAI logic will not back you onto the top of a hill or other suicidal position. This requires experience with the way tacAI behaves.

get practice vs AT guns by in a QB where you purchase the AI forces, then let the AI set it up automatically. Onboard mortars are the ticket for taking out guns. Don't send your tanks out, send out the infantry screen to force them to fire...but then of course he has his MG's and infantry screen to deter you from finding his guns until you start to run out of time and must run your tanks forward without proper recce...and so it goes. Personally I like to have a big base of fire which blasts opposition as it is forced to uncover by my advancing recon screen. If all goes well I move up graves registration to do the clean up! I've found mortars are useful at night in the attack as well, if you've got some decent night visibility. A leader with command radius bonus follows 30-60 meters behind the front of the advance, with 2-3 mortars behind him at the edge of his command radius. As the screen reveals enemy targets, everyone stops (move to contact) and the mortar-leader directs the mortars onto strongpoints one or 2 at a time. Ideally the mortars are totally out of sight in the darkness, while the mortar-leader is just barely in sight of the enemy strongpoint and the forward screen is taking all the fire. This is pretty effective at causing defenders to run almost right way, especially at night when morale is shaky. The best mortar hands down is the british 3", followed by russian 82mm (more ammo than 81mm). The russian 50mm mortar is excellent due to it's large ammo supply. The US 60mm is decent. US and German 81mm are not my preference due to low ammo load. The british 2" and german 50mm are useful en masse but have only about 1 minute of ammo which seriously impairs their usefulness.

* Addition of flexible random variability in squad and team weapon TOE. This would enhance the you-are-there feeling and reduce the cookie-cutter feel of squads now. For instance, one squad might have 2 bars while another has none, but an extra SMG-man. Variability could perhaps be increased among higher-experience units, with a tendancy toward more captured weapons and preferred weapons such as extra bars or smg's. This would also allow a more variable dispersion of random captured enemy weapons appearing in squad TOE's, rather than the current hardcoded substitution of mp40's with PPSHk's, etc. Additional benefit of a flexible weapon-TOE system is that some or all members of a squad might have NO weapon, either through surrendering and then escaping, routing and dropping weapons, or entering the scenario unarmed. This would allow MG's and other integral heavy weapons to be abandoned, avoiding the syndrome of routing/broken HMG teams dragging 40+kg of equipment around. This naturally brings up the question of whether unarmed men could acquire weapons found on the battlefield. Unarmed men would probably be lost first, as they would try to recover weapons from armed squadmates who fell first. I do believe that a flexible, editable squad system is slated for CMII which may well address these issues. * Ability for attacker to start entrenched in assault or attack scenarios. Possibility for units to start with additional ammo, which is lost if they move from initial position (voluntarily or not). Mortar position pre-stocked with 40 extra rounds, etc. * Revamped fortification system. Keep the current 'pillboxes' with fixed armament, but add: 1) 'bunkers' with restricted cover arcs which are purchased empty, but allow friendly units to enter/exit much like the current vehicle mount/dismount logic. Occupants could be combinations of guns, teams or squads up to capacity limit. There could be several sizes of bunkers each with various occupancy capacities. Bunkers could be placed in any terrain, including buildings, and would be well-concealed unlike the current 'pillbox' style bunkers. Bunkers could be destroyed and occupants forced to 'bail out', much like vehicles, but only with the heaviest weapons. Occupants would typically have to be killed/incapacitated by hits/penetrations, while bunker remains undestroyed. 2) 'Communication' trenches in addition to the current 'fighting position' trenches, which would allow rapid concealed movement. No LOS in/out unless respective units are right next to or together in the trench. Perhaps addition of deformable terrain would allow this. I suspect current trenches are more of a kludge designed to give us something usable in the interrim. * Seperate current scenario files into 'map' and 'battle' files. This would allow maps to be re-used independent of the TOE. Also would allow transfer maps between ops and scenarios. Would be a boon to those attempting to fashion adhoc campaigns out of a series of CM battles. Ren

JasonC: I was wrong to state only a 'few' levels of elevation are needed. You need a lot of elevation, OR the enemy tank needs to be canted at an angle which is advantageous for the shooter. My observations are entirely non-scientific and gleaned from playing multiple staged QB's with various early MK III/IV tanks against early T34's in an attempt to find a way to defeat them. I don't believe trigonometry was involved. During these games I discovered where and how to negate the slope on the T34, by firing at them from high hills or while the target is canted at an angle which presents <30 degree angle on major surfaces. I noticed that from certain aspects and angles, I could get regular penetrations. I sitll hold that angle of attack on armor surfaces is dramatically affected by the relative positioning and orientation of shooter and target. A 60 degree plate otherwise impervious to everything on the battlefield can be reduced to tin foil by a slight change in vehicle position. For instance, T34 moves down a hill into a valley and is fired on while angled down and toward shooter firing from opposing hill. You don't need a scientific calculator to visualize how this situation is perilous for the T34. My whole point is that early T34 armor relies on presenting >30 degree slope to defeat early german ATG. If you use tactics which eliminate the T34 armor slope you can penetrate all the T34 armor faces pretty easily with 50l42. If not you are forced to rely on getting the turret front center penetration or side lower hull. Obviously mostly flat ground is going to negate this possibility as you will never catch the T34 at a good angle.

Tarqulene: I think that's correct. When trying to kill early (45mm welded turret front) T34's with 37mm, you want the turret to be pointed directly at the gun and within 3-400 meters (inside 300 seems best). That way your 37mm AP has a chance of impacting the turret squarely (0 angle of incidence), negating most or all of the slope effect. Of course if he's pointing at you this means you will be spotted soon and not survive much longer. But a 37mm pop-gun for a T34 is a great trade. The same applies to 50l42 of course, although you can afford to hit much more off-axis and still penetrate. I've also found that 50L42 fired from a slightly higher elevation at between 300 and 700 meters will regularly result in the close-to-0 angle-of-attack, negating the 45 or 30 degree slope of the hull. Also, the farther out you are the more the shell arcs downward and this seems to more than compensate for loss of velocity if, by the decreased angle of attack, you are negating the benefit of sloped but otherwise thin armor. The early T34 is heavily dependent on presenting a 30 degree or higher slope to incoming german projectiles. Negate that (there are many ways depending on situation) and the T34 suddenly becomes dramatically easier to pot. Conversely, keep your T34 on a higher elevation than the kraut tanks, creating even steeper AOA for the 50L42 or 75l24 to defeat. Don't bother with hull down as your rounded/curved (forgot which it says) turret front is the vulnerable part from all angles of attack anyway. Present that nice expanse of well-sloped hull-front to bounce their puny AP. Naturally this applies to early war only. After that all bets are off.