John Kettler

First of all, let me be clear. I own an iMac; this is therefore not a flame, but simply a statement of fact. According to BTS, 2 MB of VRAM won't run Combat Mission. Yet that is exactly what I just got through doing. On a Gen One 233 MHz iMac (w/64 MB RAM and 2 MB VRAM (stock ATI RAGE board), OS 8.6) I played the Gold demo CE straight through vicious to and fro combat to a crushing Allied victory by Axis surrender. By game end, the Axis had 10 functioning troops left, 40 were captured, and 204 became casualties (57 KIA). All StuGs were killed. I lost two Shermans and 90 casualties (19 KIA). Roughly a fourth of my fatalities came from a tank crew forced to abandon its track and caught in a fierce fight for the church. The battlefield itself was a wasteland of burning vehicles, bodies, and dense arrays of craters. Not only did the game not freeze then, but it didn't even twitch earlier when the Germans dropped a major smoke bombardment on me. Of course, I didn't have transparent smoke, but I did have white smoke for screening and pillared oily black smoke for vehicle kills. The default resolution of 640x480 gave me a headache from eyestrain, because everything looks blurry compared to 800x600, yet the game was still eminently playable--even if the figures did look more like those in Close Combat! There are some odd things occurring,though. For one, the movement bar seems to not notice things like walls many times. I don't know whether this is a glitch or a deliberate effort to keep us from knowing as much as we did in the Beta demo. The curved, ground following line of sight display takes some getting used to, and I think that the movement bar used to also display information differently. The new rays for LOS and firing are huge compared to the Beta demo, though I suspect some of this may be because of reduced display resolution. Artillery fire has gotten really nasty, and the atmospheric sounds (distant crump of artillery) really add to the immersion experience. There are far more voices heard and commands given to the troops on both sides. It's also refreshing to see the enemy surrender when the situation becomes hopeless, standing up in foxholes with arms held high. I saw my first Panzerfausts tonight too. A combination of infantry assault and Sherman direct fire flushed an antitank team from the woods--squarely in the path of a Sherman with hunt orders. It was fascinating to watch the fleeing Germans being chased and shot at by the pursuing Sherman. Never saw anything like that before! I'm sure I've barely touched the surface of what's really in the Gold demo, but I wanted to tell all you Mac users whose machines seem way short of the minimum recommended specs that things are nowhere nearly as bleak as they may seem. CM Gold demo shouldn't run on my admittedly anemic rig, but it does. Try it on yours! Regards, John Kettler

The shuddering sound problem is no more. I dumped the Gold demo folder in its entirety, then unpacked the Mac Binary again. I then started the demo, only to encounter the same annoying electronic chatter. Confused as to the in game sound settings, I turned them off and on several times. Voila! Sound--MG chatter, engines, voices and all! I guess that toggling the control unstuck/reset whatever was out of whack. Thanks for all your help! John Kettler

I checked out the description and noticed that the Mac wasn't mentioned at all as a platform for Combat Mission. I therefore E-mailed the site director as follows. Important Oversight re Combat Mission This is MOST IMPORTANT. Please emphasize that Combat Mission is for the PC and the Mac, iMac and iBooks. The brief description otherwise might have the effect of turning away many Mac users who would otherwise be motivated to download the Gold demo. There are too few games released for the ever growing Mac community, and Combat Mission is one of the BIG exceptions. As was true for the Beta demo and the Gold demo, final release will be simultaneous for PCs and Macs. Combat Mission was developed on a Mac G4. Regards, John Kettler P.S. Feel free to contact Big Time Software (www.battlefront.com) directly if you doubt anything I've said here. I'm a Member of the Combat Mission Forum, the official board for Combat Mission.

I forgot to mention that I no longer have troop voices either. I had them in the Beta demo. I know how to use the escape key and such, but I was trying to find out whether the final release would implement CM as a Mac toggleable window with all the features that entails. If not, there ought to be some way to adjust the volume from within the game, rather than just switching sound on and off. Regards, John Kettler

I started playing around with the Gold demo CE scenario, to familiarize myself with some of the new features, when I noticed something both odd and annoying. It was a curious electronic shuddering sound, which began as my troops began to move and continued after the turn ended. To further confuse me, the distant crump of artillery was both clear and easily audible. If that annoying sound was supposed to be MG fire, what do I need to do to fix it? I never had this come up before with the Beta, which had clear, distinct MG firing sounds. I found the new shuddering sound so aggravating I quit the Gold demo. On a related note, is there any way to suppress the blaring music which plays right up to actual scenario start? Finally, will the finished game be implemented in such a way that I can treat it as a Mac window when it's running? Presently, the only way I can exit the window is to quit the program. I have (and had in the Beta) zero access to my control bar, which, among other things, lets me control the volume.Nor am I able to resize the window. I have no doubt that you have done some incredible things; I really want to see them, but the new interface problems are a major distraction from a tremendous game. I'd appreciate any and all feedback on the issues I've raised. Many thanks. John Kettler P.S. I forgot to provide platform details--233 MHz iMac under OS 8.6 with 64 MB RAM and 2 MB VRAM (ATI RAGE?) stock video board. [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 05-11-2000).]

Charles, Perhaps I wasn't clear. Even though Riesberg and Last Defense are still in the Beta demo folder, thus theoretically available, when I click on one of them to call it up I get the Gold demo screen, music, etc. Nor is either of the above listed scenarios available for play. The graphics are Gold demo also, the new church stonework being a major clue. If the old beta's still there, I don't know how to reach it. Finally, I've tried to read the Gold demo instructions, but can't access the file. How do I do this, please? Regards, John Kettler

While I'm delighted to add my voice to the chorus of rejoicing over the release of the CM Gold demo and the soon to follow release of the full CM, it is my sad duty to report a cyberdisaster. I'm running a 233 MHz iMac, with 64 MB of RAM, 2 MB of VRAM (stock ATI RAGE video card for Gen 1 iMac), under OS 8.6 at 800x600 resolution. Since I'm not all here today, I haven't actually played the demo yet, but I have looked at a few things. I thought that things looked a bit blurry, so I shut down the Gold demo and opened up the Beta demo folder. What I saw so confused me that I thought I'd mistakenly opened the Gold Demo folder, but I hadn't. The new icons from the Gold demo were in my Beta demo folder! Apparently, when the Mac binary self-extracted, it parked itself not only in the Gold demo folder, where it belonged, but also entered and overwrote my Beta demo folder, effectively turning it into another Gold demo and wiping out my Beta demo entirely. Has anyone else had this happen, or am I the first? I really wanted to do some comparisons of the graphics in the two demos. Also, I've read lots of posts today and saw something about a 640x480 default. Maybe that's why things seem somewhat fuzzy. Regards, John Kettler

I play the beta on a Gen One iMac (233 MHz G3, with 64 MB RAM, 2 MB VRAM (ATI Rage Pro, I think)). I run it with full sound, but so far, I haven't tried adding new textures or other add-ons. The only time I run into problems is when it's late in the game and there's a lot going on graphically--multiple vehicles burning, a field afire, numerous craters, rubbled buildings. That's when it gets downright slow, taking several minutes to compute the next turn. For a few weeks I had a 350 MHz iMac loaner with 64 MB and a 4 MB video card. It was faster, and I think the graphics were clearer as well. The built-in speakers were an order of magnitude better than what I have now. Basically, though, my present rig gets the job done. Whether it'll hack all-up CM remains to be seen. Hope this helps. John Kettler

Thanks for the explanation! John Kettler

Here's my contribution to the bouncing 75mm HE to get an airburst thread. It's taken from page 93 of the Bantam paperback edition of FLAME THROWER, by Andrew Wilson. Wilson commanded Crocodile flame thrower tank troops during WWII. "Fire an air-burst," said Wilson. The operator set the fuse screw in the side of the shell and tapped the gunner's arm. The gun slid violently back and the shell exploded above the trenches in a puff of smoke and flame." It is clear to me from the routine nature of the fire command and the total lack of reaction (other than obedience) by the loader, that this was a common gunnery procedure, not something unusual or out of the ordinary. The only other rational explanation would assume that the loader is able to instantly compute time of flight solutions to generate an airburst. The better explanation would be that the HE round is fired short, bounced into the air over the trenches and detonated after a supershort fuzing delay. Thus, it would appear that both Germany and Great Britain's troops used similar techniques in combat. Seems like a worthwhile tactical capability to me. Regards, John Kettler

I just got through checking out all the impressive new uniforms at CMHQ Annex. They're a real treat, though I think the bolt action rifles are on the skinny side. What troubles me, though, is the appearance of the occupants of all the new battle dress. To a man they seem to be lacking necks, face and chin definition, thus considerably weakening their martial appearance and visual impact. Could someone explain to me why this is so? Thanks! John Kettler

BTS's announcement that roadblocks can't be destroyed came as quite a surprise to me. I thought that combat engineers and such had demolishing roadblocks as a standard combat task for which they were specifically trained. Is my information wrong, or is this more of a coding/CPU hit problem? I'd very much like to know. Regards, John Kettler

Since I neither code nor am a graphic artist, I don't know how well this might work, but thought I'd pitch it anyway. My basic idea is to create one or more custom scenarios featuring black combat units in Europe. Naturally, this would require changing out the face graphics, as well as other parts possibly. If this could be done, I think it would be both interesting, cool and a way of honoring a largely unsung group of American soldiers. What do the rest of you think? John Kettler

Here's something I first posted on the Panzer Elite board, but I thought the troops here would like to know about it as well. My apologies for the text's appearance; the paste command seems to work crudely. ********************************************** I just got through watching an old Warner Brothers war film called Tanks Are Coming. A quasidocumentary of the 3rd Armored division, it follows a forward tank company all the way from the breakthrough at St. Lo to the penetration of the Siegfried line. It bluntly discusses the deficiencies of the Sherman vs Tigers and 88s, has dozens of Shermans, including the M-32 armored recovery vehicle, tank dozers, even flail tanks, plus Stuarts, Priests, M-8s and halftracks. The combat clips are mostly good (some great Marder shots, a IV H firing, German field guns firing, lots of German infantry moving through the woods, plus U.S. artillery firing and armored columns endlessly advancing), but there are some Blitzkrieg period shots (Pz Is) I could do without. The battle scenes are fairly good, and it's not every war film which has a real Panzerschreck in it. You'll see platoon tactics employed, tanks being fought, incredible interior action shots, units in the assembly area performing maintenance and remunitioning, medevac, crew replacements, spare tanks being brought up and the arrival of something much better than a Sherman. You'll even see some things not in Panzer Elite--dismounted reconnaissance and observation posts.If you can find this film, watch it, especially if you play the U.S. It's running currently on the Action Channel on Direct TV here in the States. Regards, John Kettler

While I don't know how CM would actually treat a hit on the fuel trailer for a Crocodile or Wasp, I can say that the trailer was armored against at least small arms, probably shell fragments as well and that its loss would completely knock out the flamethrowing capability of the affected unit. The reason for this is that both the fuel and the nitrogen propellant bottles are in the trailer. The flame gun is useless without them. Hope this helps. John Kettler

Fionn, I understand that in CM you will not be able to crush infantry beneath your tracks (or wheels for that matter). What I do not understand is why. I recently saw a set of instructions to Tiger crews which specifically told the crews to drive over infantry whenever possible. It specifically stated that this was an MG ammo conservation measure. So,if the Germans trained their tank crews to do this, why can't we do it in the game? I'd really like the detailed reasoning behind this decision. Regards, John Kettler

First of all, I'd like to say that having looked at all the new POTDs and the Gallery, I am in awe of the progress that has been made in game textures and graphics--especially the new Panther! Second, in looking at the various Panzer commanders and crewmen in the POTDs, I couldn't help noticing that headsets were conspicuously absent. I don't know whether throat mikes would even show, though. Somehow, I doubt it. I think it would be relatively simple to add headsets, but I'm no graphic artist. If it were doable, I bet it would look great. Third, the artillery firing procedure article was most interesting. I believe the author would find it worthwhile to locate and read Ian Hogg's long out of print BARRAGE, which was part of the Ballantine's Illustrated History of World War II. My copy has somehow vanished, but from what I remember of it, Ian Hogg went into considerable detail on how the various major powers actually organized, coordinated and conducted massed artillery fires. As a former Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery, Mr. Hogg is intimately familiar with his subject and has written dozens of books on technical military topics. On a related note, it's apparent that confusion still reigns when it comes to proper ordnance nomenclature. I say again. It's "fuze" not "fuse." While I'm at it, I also saw "site" where the needed word was "sight." I think it's in a figure caption. What can I say? I used to work as a proofreader. Fourth, if the towed antitank gun was a PAK 40, then a tweak needs to be made, since the real gun shield consisted of two layers separated by spacers. This was designed specifically to defeat antitank rifle projectiles by breaking them up. Maybe you could put in a black line to suggest a shadow between the armor layers? Unless you're simulating a field scrape, the antitank gun emplacement and the foxholes are much too shallow. The gun barrel should be almost at ground level, with a fairly substantial pit directly behind it which would expose no more of the crew than from the chest up. While we're on antitank guns, what are the chances of toning down the alarmingly bright paint on the uncamouflaged 88 so that it no longer is instantly visible from the other end of the board? Better yet, what about appropriate camouflage paint and foliage bits on all antitank guns? Has any thought been given to providing camouflage nets for dug-in guns, CPs, etc.? Fifth, I wish I were playtesting. I know there's considerable work involved, but you guys are SO LUCKY!!! In closing, let me thank you and all the mod developers out there for your immense contributions to this ever more incredible wargame. Sincerely, John Kettler

Here is a solid piece of historical analysis and tactical criticism of "Saving Private Ryan." I was so impressed with it that I'm posting it here verbatim for those who don't frequent the Panzer Elite General Discussion Forum. Thought ful reading! John Kettler Begin post. Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong With Saving Private Ryan? John Wayne 04/10/00 at 12:42 am A few thoughts on Saving Private Ryan. I suggest all of you interested read my following analysis of the movie. I actually did this research as part of my project (doctoral) to come in a few years: The western perception of Germans as seen after the two world wars and its impact in our society. Onto the movie. The release of Steven Spielberg's epic war film Saving Private Ryan has been accompanied by a near avalanche of critical acclaim and praise for its message, theme and realistic, unforgiving portrayal of combat in the Second World War. From HBO and History Channel specials, to Nightline to Newsweek magazine, the film has been lauded for showing World War Two as it really was. Mr. Spielberg himself has solemnly proclaimed his film's realism and his goal to finally make a film to do justice to the war and the men who fought so courageously in it. The director claims that for the film he "wanted to achieve reality" and "assumed the role of combat cameraman, not the role of artist." Star Tom Hanks has echoed Spielberg, claming "why make a fat fake movie when you can find out what really happened and do it that way."1 Based on the nearly universal acclaim for the film, it would seem Mr. Spielberg has succeeded in his mission to a large degree. No one can doubt that the combat scenes in Saving Private Ryan are the most spectacular, grisly and disturbing ever filmed and that the intensity of the movie grips the viewer from beginning to end. The details of the film are also stunning, especially so in the meticulously recreated uniforms and weapons. This is especially true in regard to the German Tiger tanks that appear in the end of the film, amazingly rebuilt with minute and painstaking accuracy. Yet, as realistic as the combat scenes, uniforms and weapons in the film are, Saving Private Ryan is by no means an accurate portrayal of the Normandy invasion and the fighting that went on there. Indeed, the film does what most movies do when confronted with historical details: it changes and omits them to suit plot and storyline. This fact is not so much evident in the beginning of the film, which depicts the American landings on Omaha Beach, which was recreated with the help of the testimony of many veterans and the distinguished historian Stephen Ambrose. However, as the cast of the film proceeds inland on its search for Private Ryan, reality begins to take a back seat to artistic license. This is especially true at the climatic battle scene at the end of the film, ostensibly fought between the American 101st Airborne Division , the principle characters of the film and a German battlegroup of the 2nd SS Panzer Division. The battle is indeed a fine piece of filmmaking, exciting and horrifying at the same time. It was also a battle concocted straight out of someone's imagination &endash; the 2nd SS Panzer division was nowhere near the front on June 13, 1944. Even if it was, the thought that it could march an armored column in broad daylight into a major attack in the face of American air and naval dominance is pure folly. Further, even if the 2nd SS had somehow been able to mount its attack, it is highly unlikely that it would have attacked in the almost ridiculously inept way the Germans in the film marched to face Private Ryan, Tom Hanks and comrades. Why would the Germans march into a town without first sending reconnaissance probes? Why did Tiger tanks (of which the 2nd SS Panzer division had none2) lead an assault into a burnt out town where they would be singularly ineffective? Why would a vulnerable, open topped vehicle such as the German Marder III, designed to engage tanks at long range, be slowly driven through the town to engage enemy infantry except to provide a convenient target for crafty, Molotov cocktail armed American paratroopers? For all the realism in Saving Private Ryan, it is by no means an accurate depiction of the Battle of Normandy. It has, according to those who fought there (obviously, the best authorities on the subject), recreated combat scenes in effective detail, but the film is not a historical work and while the film is powerful, it is not history. As it stands, those who watch the film, believing they are seeing a true story, are in fact seeing something that is largely the figment of the imaginations of those who wrote and produced the film. While the film's message will remain powerful and the emotions it arouses strong, when one analyzes the film as a piece of history, it falls short and this can only serve to undermine its overall purpose. Where was the 2nd SS Panzer Division? It was odd that the American soldiers in the film mentioned the 2nd SS Panzer division by name, considering the fact that it was nowhere near the front on June 13th, 1944. Better known as the "Das Reich" division, the 2nd SS was training in southern France when the Allies invaded on June 6th. Ordered to move north to the front, the Das Reich division faced an arduous journey in the face of Allied air power, which attacked its road columns constantly as well as the French Resistance, which also sought to disrupt its movement to Normandy.3 On its way northward the division achieved infamy for massacring French civilians in reprisal actions and it was not until June 20 that any of Das Reich's tanks reached the Normandy battlefield.4 When the division did reach the front, it was initially placed in reserve and when it entered action it did so against the British, not the Americans.5 The first week in July was the first time that any elements of Das Reich came into contact with the American army.6 Why the 2nd SS was mentioned in the film and not one of the actual formations facing the Americans is difficult to explain; it may be that a number was selected at random. What really happened? So far as the actual Normandy battle is concerned, the climactic scene in the film is apparently based on the 101st Airborne's defense of the town of Carentan on June 13, 1944. The previous day the town had been taken from the Germans and the German commander, Field Marshal Rommel, ordered the town recaptured, given that possession of the town allowed the two American beachheads, Utah and Omaha, to unify and move on the important port of Cherbourg. The principal unit selected for the attack was the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division (usually known by its name "Goetz von Berlichingen") which had just arrived at the front, harassed continually by air attacks. The battle depicted in the film and the actual battle that took place were quite different, however. The film conveys the notion that a few desperate, yet scrappy Americans managed to hold out against a far superior force deep behind enemy lines. The actual battle saw the town of Carentan defended by two regiments of the 101st airborne, supported by tanks, planes and naval gunfire from three battleships. 7 The Americans were also reading the Germans' secret code and knew about the planned attack a day before it happened.8 Thus, the attack was no surprise and hardly the close run affair shown in the movie and it is clear that the facts were altered somewhat in the interest of making an exciting film. Is this bad? Although Saving Private Ryan did not exactly adhere to actual history of the Battle of Normandy, the errors and omissions detailed thus far, have, in actuality, done little to lessen or weaken the impact of the film and its legitimacy as a historical work. It is a film rather than a documentary and a film needs to create atmosphere and dramatic effect. If anything, misnumbering German divisions and embellishing on the facts are errors that annoy no one but carping historical nit-pickers. Where does the film go wrong? Granting that Saving Private Ryan did not follow history exactly, where did it go wrong in its portrayal of the Battle of Normandy? For one, there are two things missing from the film that really &endash; if the film is being billed as a realistic portrayal of the Battle of Normandy &endash; should be there. The first is the decisive role of the American airforce. While it is true that a few P-51s make a dramatic appearance at the end of the film, not one other aircraft is shown flying in the entire film. This is a serious misrepresentation, for if anything defined the key to America's victory at Normandy, it was airpower. In training and experience, the Germans had something of an edge in terms of ground combat over the Allies. At the same time, they had nothing to match Allied air capability and by 1944 the German Luftwaffe had been driven from the skies, giving the Allies complete and undisputed air superiority. As such, the 36 ground attack squadrons of the U.S. 9th Air Force were a constant presence at Normandy &endash; destroying railroads, bridges and marshalling yards, attacking German columns and disrupting all German attempts to reinforce Normandy.9 Field Marshal Rommel himself was seriously wounded by marauding Allied planes and several other German generals were killed.10 Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, this important element of America's contribution is given short shrift by the filmmakers. A possible explanation might be that Mr. Spielberg wanted to portray the odds as facing the Americans as far longer than they actually were. If anything, the odds were stacked against the Germans, as Field Marshal Rommel ruefully noted in a letter home: The battle is not going at all well for us, mainly because of the enemy's air superiority and heavy naval guns…The long-husbanded strength of two world powers is now coming into action. It will all be decided quickly.11 Saving Private Ryan also does little to show the omniscient Allied naval presence. In the time frame of the film, the front was still very close to the sea and Allied ships shelled the Germans mercilessly with naval gunfire at every opportunity. If the German attack depicted in the film had somehow managed to escape bombing from the air, it would most certainly have been pounded by Allied naval guns waiting offshore. Indeed, during the time while Tom Hanks and his squad were searching for Private Ryan - roughly June 10th to June 13th - the Germans mounted large scale armored counterattacks in France for the first time and all of them were defeated with the help of naval gunnery. 12 The Germans soon learned to dread the Allies' high caliber naval artillery and naval power played an important role stopping the German attempts to push back the invading Allies. Yet, this important factor in helping defeat the Germans at Normandy is also ignored in the film. There is also little in the film to indicate the dominance of the American Army's land based artillery, which was also extremely plentiful and effective with high quality weapons and skilled spotters that could direct accurate artillery fire at the slightest German provocation.13 Were the Germans that stupid? When the Americans landed in northern France they encountered a German Army that was considerably more well organized, trained and led than their own.14 The Germans had also gained the benefit of nearly five years combat experience in the Second World War. Yet the Germans seen in Saving Private Ryan act with a level of calculated ineptitude that makes it difficult to ascribe logical explanations for their behavior. For example, the German attack at the end of the film begins with a Tiger tank obligingly driving down a deserted street followed by some infantry. The Tiger tank might have been the most feared weapon of the entire war, with extremely thick armor and a powerful 88mm gun. On June 13, 1944 a single one of these machines had destroyed over 25 British tanks and vehicles.15 However, driving down a street infested with hostile infantry it became a vulnerable, slow moving target for all sorts of devices that could disable it quite easily.16 The Germans were also well aware of the danger infantry posed to armor given that on the Eastern Front, their troops were forced adopt methods to contend with the huge amount of Soviet tanks.17 That is why it was common practice in an urban environment for infantry to precede the tanks and eliminate the threat posed by enemy footsoldiers. The following is a quote from a U.S. Army study on German tactics written shortly after the Battle of Normandy: The objective of the German infantry is to penetrate into the enemy position and destroy enemy antitank weapons to the limit of its strength…only after the destruction of the enemy anti-tank defense can the tanks be employed on the battle line to the fullest advantage.18 Yet, in Saving Private Ryan, we see the Germans obligingly march into an ambush and behave in a manner conducive to doing little but getting them killed. It is easy to conclude why the Germans act so stupidly in the film &endash; they are the enemy and movie audiences are accustomed to seeing the "bad guys" die. Similarly, the protagonists need to demonstrate their daring and ingenuity and "bad guys" have been doing foolish and inexplicable things for the "good guys" benefit since the invention of the movie camera. There really is nothing wrong with the filmmakers having the Germans act as they do, but if the objective was to make an authentic film, they have failed in not presenting an actual German attack in a realistic manner. What might have happened? It is possible to reconstruct how the film might have concluded based on the evidence provided in historical sources. For one, the Germans would not have been so obliging as to march into so obvious an ambush. Logically, reconnaissance patrols would have entered the town first and tried to discern the whereabouts of the enemy before the Germans drove valuable resources such as a Tiger tank through the town. A common German practice would have seen them send reconnaissance elements into the town and try to draw enemy fire and thus gain knowledge of enemy positions. Had the enemy fired, most likely a mortar barrage would have then been called directed onto the town, as an artillery observer would have been included in the German patrol.19 Similarly, the tanks, with the benefit of their long range guns would probably have shelled the town from a distance and provided covering fire for the advancing infantry.20 The infantry would also have attacked in a far more organized manner than shown in the film, where they run through the streets with little cohesion and organization. Accompanied by combat engineers who had specialized training in urban warfare, the Germans would have attacked each building separately, and moved through the town in a methodical fashion: Assault detachments of engineers, equipped with demolition equipment, flame throwers and grenades accompany the infantry. Where possible the Germans blast holes through the walls of buildings along the route of advance in order to provide the infantry with covered approaches…streets are avoided as much as possible.21 In Saving Private Ryan, when the German infantry advance into the town, they do so rather haphazardly and seem to go out of their way to make themselves convenient targets for the Americans. This too works to undermine the realism the film has worked so hard to achieve. The film also makes an error common to most war films in that the infantry of both sides are shown busily aiming and firing their rifles. While it seems logical that infantry would fire their weapons, the US Army discovered that during the fighting in France, only 15% of the troops actually fired their rifles in any given battle.22 Nerves and fear played a role in producing this low number, but many American troops were also reticent to fire their rifles because American gunpowder was of poor quality and instantly revealed the position of anyone who fired their weapon.23 The Germans had learned the lesson of the rifle's uselessness in the First World War and thus equipped every infantry squad with a MG 42 machine gun, a lightweight weapon with an extremely high rate of fire that would provide the firepower for attacking German infantry.24 A German infantry company (about the size of the unit that attacked at the end of the film) would have possessed 15 MG42s. Yet the attack at the conclusion of Saving Private Ryan does not show a single MG 42, an odd omission considering that German infantry tactics completely revolved around this weapon. Similarly, the film does not include the other primary weapons used to add weight to German attacks, the 81mm and 120mm mortars, dangerous weapons hated by American soldiers because unlike noisy artillery, mortar shells - because of their slow speed - made no noise as they were approaching.25 These weapons would have also been particularly effective against Americans holed up in a bombed out town. The only weapon that is shown in the film is the German panzerschreck, an antitank rocket that was effective against enemy vehicles, but of dubious use against infantry (its translation &endash; "tank terror" would also attest to this). Had the attack seen in Saving Private Ryan actually taken place, the American infantry, isolated in a town with no heavy weapons, probably could not have held out for long or inflicted the damage that they did upon their attackers. They would, however, have possessed the advantages of artillery and airpower to offset the German's superior combat tactics and their lack of numbers. Yet Saving Private Ryan does nothing to show the advantages and particular strengths of either the German or the American armies. Instead, the battle, although exciting and more realistically presented than previous war films, is strikingly similar to many of these films in the errors it makes. The film is a work of fiction, and cannot be expected to be completely accurate. However, if, as the director claims, its purpose was to provide a realistic depiction of the Battle of Normandy, it has not done so. What then, can be said about Saving Private Ryan? Obviously the film deserves the plaudits it receives for its brutal realism and being one of the few war movies that dares depict the horrible wounds and terrible damage caused by modern weaponry. Similarly, the film was also very realistic in how it created the mood of desperation facing American combat soldiers, who knew that they were merely serving until they too would be killed or wounded. However, in other places the film is far less realistic and rather than being an accurate historical depiction of World War Two is little more than another in a long line of outlandish war movies that disregards facts and reality in favor of dramatic effect.26 Sadly, in several places Saving Private Ryan is little different from the war films that the director has worked so hard to distance it from. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The following quotes were taken from Jeff Gordinier, "Message in a Battle," Entertainment Weekly, July 24 1998: 29. 2. See the division's table of equipment and organization in Max Hastings, Das Reich: The March of the 2nd SS Panzer Division Through France (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981), p. 244. 3. Hastings, Das Reich, pgs. 85-88, 213-215. 4. James Lucas, The Military Role of the 2nd SS Division (London: Arms and Armour, 1991), p. 128, 131. 5. Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno: The 1SS Panzer Corps in Normandy (New York: Sarpedon, 1997), p. 115; Lucas, Das Reich, 132. 6. Lucas, Das Reich, 135; see also Russell Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants: The Campaign of France and Germany, 1944 -1945 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), p. 129. 7. The divisional histories of the American units that fought at Carentan describe the battle in some detail. See Leonard Rapport and Arthur Northwood, Rendezvous with Destiny: A History of the 101st Airborne Division (Washington: Infantry Journal Press, 1948), pgs. 237-241; Donald E. Houston, Hell on Wheels: The Second Armored Division (California: Presidio Press, 1977), pgs. 201-204. For the attack described from the German point of view see, Jean Mabire, Les SS Au Poing-de-Fer: La Division "Gotz von Berlichingen Au Combat en Normandie (France: Librarie Athreme Fayard, 1984), pgs 71-84. Also see the official history of the U.S. Army in World War Two: Gordon Harrison, Cross Channel Attack (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History: 1951), pgs 364-365. 8. See Max Hastings, Overlord (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984), p. 160 9. A good source for the role and effectiveness of Allied ground attack aircraft is Ian Gooderson, "Allied Fighter-Bombers versus German Armour in North-West Europe 1944-1945: Myths and Realities," The Journal of Strategic Studies June 1991 (14,2), 210-232; for the effects of air power on the German supply situation see the German Chief Quartermaster West's report (Otto Eckstein) filed for the War Department, study #MS B-839, reprinted in Donald S. Detweiler, ed. World War Two German Military Studies, Volume 12 (New York: Garland, 1979). 10. Among the casualties were General Erich Marcks, the commander of the German LXXXIV Corps, killed on June 12th, as well as the complete destruction (on June 10th) of the headquarters of Panzer Group West, the principal command structure for the German armored units facing the Allies. The commander, General von Schweppenburg was wounded and 17 valuable staff officers were killed. See Weigley, Eisenhower's Lieutenants, p. 124; Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 85. 11. Erwin Rommel letter to Lucie Rommel, June 13, 1944 in Martin Blumenson, ed. The Rommel Papers (New York: Da Capo, 1953), p. 491. 12 . See Michael Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pgs. 75-76. Reynolds cites an example of an entire battalion of the German Panzer Lehr division that was wiped out by naval gunfire. Naval gunfire also killed the commander of the German 12th SS Panzer Division, Fritz Witt. For the effect of naval gunfire on the movement of the German panzer divisions see General von Schweppenberg's comments in War Department study #MS-B720, reprinted in World War Two German Military Studies, Volume 12.. 13. For the evolution of the organization and doctrine of the American artillery see Bruce I. Gudmundsson, On Artillery (Connecticut: Praeger, 1993), pgs 136-139. 14. Martin van Creveld makes this case convincingly in Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 (Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982). 15. The action, which played an important role in turning back the British attack toward Caen has been described many times. For a bio on the tank's commander, Michael Wittman, see Gordon Williamson, Aces of the Reich, (London: Arms and Armour, 1989), pgs. 86-90. 16. A good description the weapons and tactics used by infantry to disable enemy armor can be found in Alex Buchner, The German Infantry Handbook, 1939-1945 (Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History, 1987), pgs 64-71. 17. Ibid., p. 63. 18. U.S. War Department, Handbook on German Military Forces originally published in March, 1945 as Technical Manual TM-E 30-451, reprinted by LSU Press (Baton Rouge, 1990), pg. 220. There is also historical precedent to the danger enemy infantry posed to German tanks during the fighting in Normandy; on June 13, 1944 a few Tigers blundered into the town of Villers-Bocage without infantry support and were easily destroyed by Canadian infantry armed with firebombs. See Reynolds, Steel Inferno, p. 107. 19. For German reconnaissance see Handbook on German Military Forces, pgs 212-214. 20. Handbook on German Military Forces, pg. 253; for some historical examples see Allyn Vannoy and Jay Karamales, Against the Panzers: United States Infantry versus German Tanks, 1944-1945 (North Carolina: McFarland, 1996), pgs 111; 199. 21. Handbook on German Military Forces, p. 253. 22 . See Max Hastings, Overlord, pg. 187. 23 . See Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead: The 29th Infantry Division in Normandy (Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 1989), pg. 90; also Peter Shrijvers, The Crash of Ruin: American Combat Soldiers During World War Two (New York: NYU Press, 1998), pg. 68. 24. An excellent discussion on the MG 42 as well as a good comparison of the small unit tactics of the American and German armies can be found in Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead, pgs 80-105. 25. See Peter Shrijvers, The Crash of Ruin, pg. 67; Joseph Balkoski, Beyond the Beachhead, pg. 95. A standard German company was allotted 12 mortars. 26. Consider the similarity between Saving Private Ryan and other, far more outlandish films such as The Magnificent Seven and Conan the Barbarian, all of which work toward the same conclusion: a hardy band of heroes using smarts and ingenuity to defend a location against hopeless and overwhelming odds. Hope this lighten up a few issues about the movie. John Previous Message SAving Private Ryan: a glimpse on its impact on the public Next Message Re: Bloody But Not History: What's Wrong With Saving Private Ryan?

Mattias Andersen E-mailed me several other views of this vehicle, which were taken from Crimson's U.S. military vehicle site. Unfortunately, I don't know how to copy a JPEG over to this forum, and he didn't send me a link. Also, the photos he sent show a much more elaborate muzzle brake and the text on the vehicle's development is only partial, since the document scanned was used to capture the vehicle photos. Mattias, please resubmit directly to this forum. Regards, John Kettler

John, After wading through the long thread I think I may have a solution to your vehicle ID problem. I think what you're trying to describe is an M-56 SPAT, a 90mm self-propelled antitank gun used by U.S. airborne units back in the late 50s. Renwal or Revell used to have a model (since reissued, I believe) of this small, yet nasty weapon. I saw one at Ft. Benning in front of the Infantry Museum. It does have a gun shield, but the fire had better be from small arms and from directly in front! I don't have a picture link to post, but I imagine someone will find one soon. Regards, John Kettler

PeterNZ et al., the URL for Shogun is www.totalwar.org Not onlyt is the demo there but also new maps, scenarios, etc. Hope this helps. John Kettler

Guys, Having played the Shogun demo and spent quite a bit of time on the supporting Web sites, I can tell you that it has been repeatedly stated that the troop graphics in the demo ARE NOT the graphics for the final game. The demo troops use crude graphics by design, presumably to hasten the fielding of the demo. The tactical game itself seems quite interesting, but it looks like the tactical game will not be integrated with the strategic game, at least in the initial release. Hope this helps. John Kettler

MadMatt, The offerings at CMHQ are indeed impressive, but graphic coolness notwithstanding, the font is tough to read and having to read that spindly font as white on black is a real bear. It gives me headaches, in fact. Also, how are we supposed to print out Fionn's pearls of armor wisdom without gobbling up a printer cartridge per page? After all, we're talking printing white on a black background using white paper. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. I'm running Netscape Communicator 4.5.1 on a gen one iMac. Regards, John Kettler

Guys, While pulling my leg and yanking my chain are no doubt fun, that was a SERIOUS POST intended to elicit REAL ANSWERS to a REAL QUESTION. Regards, John Kettler

While channel surfing earlier today I came across, of all things, an Entertainment Tonight special on "The Dukes of Hazard: The Untold Story." What stopped me dead in my tracks was the clip of the Dukes' car "The General" being jumped over, so help me, a King Tiger. I am in deadly earnest here; this is no joke. Halfway not believing my eyes, I gamely hung in, hoping that the teaser shot would be repeated later on. It was, but only partially, breaking away almost instantly. I'm not saying it WAS a King Tiger, but it sure looked like one to me, complete with steeply sloped glacis, long, low turret, and a very long gun equipped with a typical German muzzle brake. Did anyone other than myself see this program and catch the shot? Did any of you tape the show? I am intensely curious as to what I actually saw, especially since I have NEVER heard of a King Tiger, faux or otherwise, EVER appearing in any movie or TV program. Would LOVE to know more! Regards, John Kettler