John Kettler

Having recently seen Kelly's Heroes and having built a model of one as a child, I can assure all of you that what's in the movie is either a T-19 or something designed to pass for one visually. I watched this film most carefully specifically to confirm or deny an earlier impression that I had seen a T-19, a rare piece of armor. As I write this, I have No. 12 of the Leavenworth Papers before me. Titled Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II, it was published September 1985 by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel of the Combat Studies Institute of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Pages 28 and 31 of this seminal work have photos of the 75mm armed M-3 tank destroyer, which is notable for the long barrel, the absence of an upper recuperator, and for the presence of a low armor shield with closed sides. The vehicle in the film has a short barrel, an upper and lower recuperator and no shield. The gun looks just like a 105mm howitzer (have seen hundreds of 105s on film and in photos, as well as real ones on several occasions in person). For the record, I've seen quite a bit of footage of M-3 tank destroyers in both the European Theater of Operations and the Pacific Theater of Operations. I even spotted one in a World at War segment on combat in Normandy. In short, I saw no evidence that the vehicle in Kelly's Heroes was an M-3 tank destroyer, and plenty of evidence that it was a) a real T-19; a real vintage halftrack with a 105mm howitzer custom mounted on it after the war; or c) a real vintage halftrack with a 105mm howitzer visual mockup installed. Regards, John Kettler

TeAcH, Your fundamental idea is correct. Unfortunately, what you have in the game are sharpshooters, not snipers. Sharpshooters are simply considered common soldiers who are better than average shots. As such, they lack the special attributes one would normally expect them to have, especially in the stealth and camouflage areas. There have been several threads on this. I suggest a search under "snipers" as a good starting point. Regards, John Kettler

Excellent feedback from the troops! This is precisely the kind of information I was hoping for. Does anyone have any information on WW II battery impact patterns? Delightedly, John Kettler

I really like this thread and would explicitly invite feedback from the Redlegs out there on the ideas put forward by Bullethead in his superbly argued case and in the comments made thereafter. From reading FM 6-20 years ago I'm aware that artillery does have at least two patterns, a converged sheaf used against point targets and an open sheaf for maximum ground coverage. I don't know whether other patterns were used during WW II, unless we invoke the barrage, a topic hugely outside of CM's scope. I would like someone qualified to please comment on this question of battery firing patterns. I would like to see a spotting round as something creating a pillared smoke like an AFV kill, in white, though, which would be visible over typical European trees. Theoretically, a compass measurement and a pair of binoculars with a mil scale (for range estimation) should suffice to put the fire pretty much where it's needed, even though the target proper can't be directly seen. For that matter, I believe, based on watching lots of WW II artillery fire footage, that we should be able to see artillery bursts over all but really high obstacles. As cool as the new explosion graphics are, they don't even come close to showing how much dirt and debris a ground burst throws high into the air, even from a small shell. Can anyone from the artillery community tell me how high a dirt plume a 105 and 155 throw up when they hit? I would further add that I know of no inherent real world mechanism which would cause the extreme pattern spread unobserved fire has in CM. Note, I'm not talking about where the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) is relative to the Designated Mean Point of Impact (DMPI). Given map errors, FO error in determining own position (average 200m for that alone, based on Army studies) and a host of other small errors, I have no problem with the centroid of the pattern's not going quite where I want it. I do have a problem with the intrapattern spacing (distance between the shell impacts) oscillating wildly from volley to volley when I am not using Target Wide. I understand the concept of round-to-round dispersion, in range especially, but it shouldn't be an off target, fairly tight string one volley and four almost random shots which miss the good sized woods the next. I've run ballistic dispersion tests myself (got an Army award for them), and I know it just doesn't work that way. The pattern will deviate from the DMPI, creating the MPI, around which the rounds will congregate according to the laws of statistics. There is no exterior ballistic phenomenon which would create such extreme variation as I'm seeing in the inter volley impact pattern. I also confess myself baffled as to why the impact pattern follows the gun-to-target line and is not perpendicular to it. This is even more odd when one looks at the way artillery is deployed in the field. The most common deployment is in a simple line, which parallels the front line. This is true to this day. Just look at pictures of Russian D-30 122mm howitzers deployed in Chechnya. Other deployments are possible, of course, and offer greater pattern depth, but they take longer and require more survey work. So, why are my shells arriving in a pattern counterintuitive to what logic would lead me to expect? Inquiringly, John Kettler

Having just read the entire thread straight through, it occurs to me that several changes might (if doable) make recon more viable in Combat Mission. 1. Allow either a recon dismount element (assumes driver remains aboard, thus not triggering Abandoned logic in AI) or allow crew to dismount bodily, temporarily abandoning the vehicle, but using a vehicle functionality test to override the normal "no remount" provision. 2. Add some additional logic (useful for other vehicles too) which would allow the vehicle commander to expose only his head relative to an obstacle to his immediate front. In other words, add a new exposure rating in which only the commander's head could be seen and targeted. The rest of the vehicle would be in defilade from LOS and might or might not be hittable through the LOS block, depending upon what it was. Doing this would create one more vehicle state between "hull down" and "fully exposed." It would directly correspond to the "turret down" state which is familiar to any U.S. tankers here on the Forum. This is the ideal mounted position from which to scope out suspect areas with binoculars or conduct recon by fire with the MG, usually without exposing the vehicle to direct fire. 3. Implement an intel degrade subroutine for all spotting against targets in cover from fast moving vehicles. In other words, something will be sighted, but it may or not be properly positioned on the map and it may or may not be properly identified. Proper target ID would be a function of both time observed and observer posture. I've seen this done before in naval wargames for aerial scouting reports, and it does a good job of modeling a real problem. Think of this one as normal FOW--on steroids. 4. Aside from reducing the chance of spotting from fast moving vehicles (with due considerations for suspension travel, tracks vs. wheels--fast HT NOT same as fast jeep, which is not the same as 8-wheel German AC), consider blocking sighting for one turn. If vehicle gets killed in turn of initial spot--no report. There are probably other things which could be done, but I believe using one or more of these would pretty much defang the matter under discussion and open up richer tactical possibilities as well. What say the troops and BTS? Regards, John Kettler

Congratulations, one and all, and for all the right reasons! The news from the front is indeed good and bodes well for all of us. I'm delighted by the massive talent infusion in both graphics and Web stuff. Concerning the latter, I join with Leland in requesting that you not use black background with white text (w/wo microtype). It's hard to read and requires extra steps to print out. Graphic coolness is possible without artiste black. I would also ask you to please remember the Netscape and Mac users. There are plenty of sites out there, Claus Bonnesen's On Armour, for example, whose lead pages are unreadable on my iMac under Communicator 4.5. Also, I've noticed an alarming trend toward oversized pages which exceed my screen size and have to be scrolled all over simply to view them. Finally, I'd like to request that you systematically corral the constantly expanding string of reviews and put them all in one easily accessible place. A hyperlink from the CM Forum would be nice, too. Looking forward to great things, John Kettler

Dear BTS and all you rabid and thoughtful CM types, The more I play this incredible game, the more I miss having a military topographical map for battle planning. This is particularly true in larger battles, in which unit count is so high that it becomes frighteningly easy to get units dangerously intermingled. In the real world (where I used to be a military analyst) such problems are significantly reduced by such marvels as phase lines, assigned sectors, no fire zones, etc.--graphical control measures (GCM). I fully appreciate that a "proper" map is asking way too much, but is there a way to give us a hot keyable tactical overlay, a sort of super Shift-P command? We can already show all fires and movement paths this way. What I'd like to see is a way to designate unit sectors, axes of advance and related military matters. I think a simple tool to click and drop a line from here to there, a minimal freehand drawing tool, an eraser and perhaps a dozen or so tactical symbols (optional) would make planning and fighting the battles much easier. Implementing this would also enhance the game's immersiveness. Instead of simply seeing the map, you might now get a scenario which showed objective goose eggs superimposed on the 3-D map. The briefing could be text and graphics. "Major, you are to attack on an axis of X with force Y in order to seize Objective Zebra NLT than 1400." Of course, we'd need a user settable game clock (in military time) to get the full effect. I feel that this would go a long way toward eliminating the unfortunate Capture the Flag feel the game now has. I, for one, have repeatedly found it extremely perplexing and sometimes vexing to relate QB flag locations to any conceivable military rationale behind their positioning. With graphical control measures (GCM) available, we would then have something much closer to reality, with options such as cutting supply routes, defending from successive positions, holding road junctions, overrunning assembly areas, raids and much more. Those are my ideas. What do you think of them? Sincerely, John Kettler

Bump! Still looking for an answer to my question. Regards, John Kettler

I concur with Kingfish, since he's describing my tank. I'd like to add that my troops apparently have X-ray vision, being able to detect daisy chain mines from 190m out when the mines are located in grass. We're not talking about these things being out in plain sight on the shaved-almost-to-turf golf course, but in grass which must easily be 30cm high. A Hawkins (sp?) mine can't be much more than 3 cm high, hence should be invisible until you're on top of it. I'm attacking uphill, which should make sighting even more problematic. Granted, it's always nice to know where the foe has placed mines, but I prefer to win via superior technique, not intel I have no business getting. I've noticed this before, though last time it was on a road which was out of LOS to my units. I think something's off with daisy chain mine implementation. Has anyone else noticed a problem in this area? Regards, John Kettler

I think it would help if we had several types of roadblocks in the game, each with different characteristics. Engineers, feel free to chime in; I'm working from memory here. * Road crater Little cover (unless IN the crater), but some some from the lip. Goodness as obstacle would be based on crater size and location. * Log crib Typically a triangular structure, put together much like a log cabin, but anchored with stout, deeply set logs and filled with rammed earth. Impassable to all wheeled and tracked vehicles; easily climbable by infantry.Treat as stone house or wall for cover. * Abatis or blown trees Protection as for woods; prohibited for wheeled vehicles; may or may not be passable to AFVs depending on size and extent; acts as barbed wire for infantry. * Daisy chain mines Ideally, the pull cord should be almost invisible. Pulling the cord just before the enemy vehicles arrive emplaces the field (string of mines) on the road. This prevents seeing the mines until it's too late. No cover * Hasty minefield Engineers only. A few mines laid on road (sighting as for deployed daisy chain mines) or hastily buried (reduced sighting chance compared to proper minefield). No cover. This is by no means exhaustive, merely a crack at listing some of the many possibilities. Regards, John Kettler

Recently, Jochen Peiper asked a serious question about captured vehicles and was told that they aren't in but that many would like to see them in. In my reply I went on to note several instances cited in the period covered by CM. Andrew Wilson's FLAMETHROWER describes the acquisition of German trucks, a big halftrack, a Panther and a bus crammed full of Panzerfausts by his Crocodile troop and the measures taken to hide them from higher ups. I recall that the U.S. 4th Armored Division had so much captured gear in combat use that it went around festooned with air recognition panels to avoid friendly fire. German use of captured Jeeps and armored cars is well established and would make Bulge scenarios even more exciting. The real fun with captured equipment will come with CM2 (Eastern Front) and beyond. To support this effort, I commend to all Red Steel (www.algonet.se/~toriert/introduction.htm), which has extensive photo sections of captured vehicles in German, Russian and Finnish service--captured Panzerjaeger Ibs to a Russian Panther company and Russian King Tigers; even a photo of the near mythical Wanze (Borgward B IV demo AFV armed with six Panzerschrecks on a pivoting mount with armored shield). Of course, there are pictures of captured T-34s (some on strength of Das Reich at Kursk), T-60s, KVs, etc. Enabling the use of captured equipment in the game becomes particularly important in some of the winter battles. I recall that one Panzer division had no German tanks at all and something like two KV Is and a T-34 as its entire tank inventory. The Germans used an enormous amount of captured Russian artillery (76.2mm high velocity gun, for one), and there are quite a few pictures of German infantry armed with PPSh m1941 SMGs and some of Russians armed with MP-40s. Partisans, of course, definitely used captured German weapons. I've seen footage of a band carrying an MG-34. While we're at it, the long post someone put up giving the U.S. troops' assessment of their weapons vs. the Germans said that one division had replaced all the bazookas in its recon units with Panzerschrecks, much to the delight of the users. In short, I believe that there is an excellent historic database supporting the use of captured weapons. This should particularly be true for elite units like the Rangers, Commandos and Brandenburgers which should be able to use enemy small arms. This may be a nightmare to code, (so limit it to the scenario designer, perhaps?), but I feel it would add much flavor to the game. What say the rest of you? Sincerely, John Kettler

I've read the extensive threads on this thorny technical issue and distinctly recall your having asked for full particulars some months back on the projectile for this beast, a projectile you precisely identified. Did you ever get the information, and if so, what did you learn? Would love to see the data and a pic or line drawing if you have any. Regards, John Kettler

Jochen, Though it's not permitted in the game at present and would be a further demand on scarce coding time from Charles, I'd love to be able to use captured vehicles and weapons in the game. As I recall, the 4th Armored Division ran so much captured German stuff that it lavishly used air recognition panels and such to prevent being attacked by Allied forces, especially air. Wilson's book, FLAMETHROWER, has a fascinating section in which various German trucks, a Panther, a 251 and a bus loaded with Panzerfausts are taken into the Crocodile troop and hidden from higher authority. Similarly, the long post someone put up on what U.S. soldiers thought of their equipment vs. that of the Germans had a juicy morsel to the effect that the recon units in one division were armed with the Panzerschreck. Of course, the real fun will come with CM2, where we'll have German T-34s (Das Reich at Kursk), a Russian StuG III or a company of Russian Panthers. I highly recommend that everyone take a look at Red Steel (www.algonet.se/~toriert/introduction.htm) and see that I'm not making this up. The photos are amazing. (Special note to M. Hofbauer. The light AFV mounting six Panzerschrecks (conversion from Borgward B IV demolition vehicle--I forgot the name; starts with "W") in a pivoting armored shield is shown in a photo, complete with proud new Russian owners, in the section on captured German vehicles. This is the same vehicle for which your site shows a profile drawing.) Of course, captured Jeeps and armored cars are a must for true Bulge afficionados--Operation Greif(sp?). Hope this helps. John Kettler

Leland, Right and right. It's the file selection box from which I choose attachments when sending out a turn. Why won't it flush? Regards, John

Leland, The list I'm referring to is the PBEM folder or the dedicated game specific folder. In either case, it's where incoming turns are saved and from where outgoing ones are attached. I've deleted the contents of both folders, yet somehow they're still there when I download turns or send them out. Hope this is clearer. John Kettler

I recently played the above scenario PBEM vs. Black Sabot and got whupped--Axis Major Victory, with practically every American (228) a casualty (roughly a fourth killed) and 27 captured. Axis casualties were far less (167/28 KIA?). The scenario was historical, the terrain bad for defense at the roadblock (too much cover for attackers--nullified the extra BAR) and good for the defenders on the relief column's path (plenty of cover, with long sight lines in critical areas and great mutual support). In a nutshell, I repelled the initial attack on the roadblock, survived the encounter with German reinforcing armor (killed his, lost half of mine) and thought I could load up and really roll. Wrong! The supposedly nullified German infantry, in spite of tank, infantry and indirect fires, refused to quit, pouring out so much fire that I had to debus the infantry and conduct a fighting withdrawal in order to advance...which is when I ran into his main defenses. Boom! Flaming tank. Infantry sent to the right flank is demolished by direct fire from the tank immolator and harried by infantry fires. Plan B is to move up through the woods on opposite side of road, but only HQ and a squad are available, since I'm still trying to break off behind me. That force runs into a force much larger than itself and in spite of heroic effort, including committing otherwise doomed tank crews, is killed virtually to the man. Supporting this effort also cost me a tank abandoned after a gun hit from something on the other side of the road. Meanwhile, with all kinds of combat going to the front, my last tank took a Panzerfaust from the German force to my rear and died. Thus perished the relief column, less a squad remnant, a crew remnant and a not-so-sharpshooter (no kills) who tried to get back to the Ranger roadblock but were captured still en route when the game ended. Aside for some map fires which didn't knock out the tank immolator and were sorely needed later, things were quiet at the roadblock. Some German armor was briefly heard, the odd squad seen; then all hell broke loose. Mortar fire rained down, armor appeared out of nowhere, and the woods erupted with hordes of Germans. Squads were blown from their foxholes by armor fires, and I was under attack from multiple directions simultaneously, sometimes as much as two platoons against a single Ranger squad. Bazookas stopped some of his armor, but were blasted to extinction or overrun for their pains. Artillery fired practically on top of my own positions shredded the German troops, but there were too many, over too large an area to stop them, a situation made worse by running out of artillery fire and by an M1919 on my left flank which jammed early and wouldn't clear. This saved many German lives which otherwise would've been ruined by close-in MG fire. Both Black Sabot and I know that the Americans won the real battle and that two tanks (and some infantry?) actually reached the roadblock. What we don't know is how. I gather from something Wild Bill said to me in an E-mail that I took too long in the reinforcement battle and that this cost me. Maybe so, but if the main defense position is already there, it almost doesn't matter what shows up later. The AAR was a real shock, because then I got to see the full tactical picture. Can you say nightmare? That town was a miniature Stalingrad, and we haven't even discussed some countermobility capabilities I knew nothing of. Would someone who knows the story of the real battle please tell us what happened, post a link or something? Black Sabot and I would LOVE to know how the Americans pulled it off. Legions of angels flying top cover all the way, perhaps. Or brave and lucky? Perplexedly, John Kettler

In reading a locked thread denouncing the AI's lack of competence on the attack in large battles, I had the felicitous thought that this might not be such a problem in CM2 (Eastern Front), particularly for the early years. The very things which apparently drive quite a few people up the wall (unimaginative tactics, poor use of terrain, misuse of armor) would seem to be to be a near ideal depiction of Russian combat behavior in that period, leavened by intermittent flashes of tactical brilliance that the AI is capable of. It's beaten me several times attacking without additional advantage. Just think, since Charles won't have to write special code for the Russians, maybe he can write some special code so Panzers and Panzer Grenadiers are fully integrated into CM's command and control model. Dare we hope for Luftwaffe air strike direction as well? Regards, John Kettler

Aussie Smith, you're welcome. Machineman, I don't know of a site, but if you can find a 1973 Beekman House book called TANKS & WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, page 23 has a beautiful color shot showing a range of complete rounds, from Italian 20mm AP, through the stock 88, the U.S. 90mm AA, the British 3.7" AA and many others. No 122mm or 128mm, though. Pages 50 and 51 feature a side by side comparison of WW II British and German tank ammunition, including the German 128mm. These pictures should serve to give you a good idea of relative ammo size and power. Hope this helps. John Kettler [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 08-31-2000).]

Bumping this in hopes of getting some feedback from BTS or other knowledgeable parties on production quantities, battlefield employment, etc. for T-8, especially in light of AFV NEWS thread link I posted. Thanks! John Kettler

For some strange reason, when I attach a file for my new game the ones from my old one still show in the list. I find this decidedly odd since I trashed all such previous files, both in the game specific folder and the PBEM folder, as well as killing the originals in my E-mail in and out boxes. I'm running under CM 1.05 on an iMac under OS 8.6, but the prior game was under CM 1.03, though I doubt that matters any. Can anyone explain why this has happened and how to flush what should be an almost empty file? Also, does anyone know why the outgoing PBEM file consistently refuses to go in the game specific folder and winds up in the general PBEM folder instead? Regards, John Kettler

Guys, I believe if you check the World At War episode covering the bocage fighting after D-Day you'll see the vehicle in question. I distinctly remember seeing it in the footage and being stunned by the sight of it. Regards, John Kettler

Here's a real world data point for this thread. Years ago, I saw a photo of a U.S. halftrack which had been hit by an 88 in North Africa. The AP hit went right through the armored radiator covers, through the engine compartment, emerging at roughly floor height. The projectile passed through the entire vehicle and exited the rear armor. Outwardly, the vehicle looked fine; the interior was thoroughly shredded, as was the crew no doubt. Of course, I can imagine situations in which an AP hit on light armor would pass through doing almost nothing. I believe there are such accounts concerning Stuarts in the Western Desert, but generally, a solid hit by AP on light armor should be effective. The secondary missiles generated by the penetration alone should suffice to wound/kill the occupants even if the vehicle isn't destroyed. On the other hand, how well would your car work if someone blasted the interior with 00 buckshot? An AP hit on light armor would be much worse than that. Regards, John Kettler [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 08-28-2000).]

I say this because it says that CMBO hasn't been released yet. You might want to fix this. Regards, John Kettler

I saw a thread the other day in which people wanted to add cavalry to the game. Fine by me. Unfortunately, the old lie about Polish cavalry charging German tanks has appeared there and has yet to be refuted. As the defender of Polish martial virtue, I thought you'd take special glee in educating the ignorant on this board about what really happened. I will be happy to chime in with further material once you've struck the first blow against the lie that will not die. Regards, John Kettler

First of all concerning the "What's the original topic?" crowd, very funny, guys! Juardis, I like your thoughts and believe they'd be worth running by Steve and Charles, either indirectly through this thread or through direct E-mail contact. Hemo2, I don't think so, but I might be wrong. All I can tell you is that the ground I was trying to occupy wasn't burning. It looked like normal ground. Maybe Steve or Charles would care to respond? Regards, John Kettler