John Kettler

Here's another data point for the artillery realism thread. The joint U.S. military services use/used (probably computerized by now) a big set of mostly classified loose leaf manuals called the JMEMs (Joint Munitions Efffectiveness Manuals) for target planning and weaponeering. These huge volumes are the bibles for weaponeering (how many of what to load or shoot to get some level of kill against a specified target or target complex) and a must for evaluating new weapons against defined targets. The various volumes define the targets, vulnerable components, vulnerability to various kill mechanisms, etc. The weapon volumes provide detailed weapon delivery accuracy, mean area of effectiveness, kill probability against various targets, etc. You guys would kill to have the info in these books, one of which specifically addresses field artillery firing against troops in several postures. The way that manual models artillery fire against exposed troops is to treat the first volley as being against standing troops, with all subsequent volleys against prone troops. This, of course, models hitting the deck after the first shells come crashing down. Thought you'd like to know. John Kettler

Back in the 1980s the U.S. Army did a major study on the cause of losses to line infantry units. The major finding was that at this level, the main cause was fire from small arms, which inflicted 80% of the casualties. Believe this was published in INFANTRY magazine. Hope this helps. John Kettler

I just remembered the other item I wanted to mention. That is that the available film footage I've seen of bomb drops shows that most of debris goes up (not out) in a fairly acute cone, thus confirming the blast and frag masking I described in my initial post. My apologies for the typo in the first post. Regards, John Kettler

Having seen the horrific potential of Jabos in the recent CMHQ special, I have a few questions and comments. 1. How does CM model blast and frag damage from an aerial bomb? From what I can see, it looks like some sort of cookie cutter radiating outward uniformly from the explosion. As I recall from my military analyst days, though, a bomb delivered from low level (not vertical dive or medium/high level horizontal) doesn't arrive vertical to the ground and i tends not to go off until it's some distance into the ground (unless fuze extenders are used), thus masking much of the explosion and removing a considerable portion of the casing fragments from play as well. These factors being the case, I would expect that the worst orientation vs. the bomb for a target to be in would be perpendicular to the bomb's longititudinal axis. This would put the target in both the densest part of the fragment pattern and on the primary blast axis as well. I would expect that the area in front of the bomb's nose would be relatively safe, while the area behind the bomb would probably not be a major frag hazard, caused by narrow shape discharging upwards, but would be from the standpoint of blast, considering the bomb's tail is almost certainly out of the ground at detonation. Also, as I recall, blast falls off very rapidly as a function of distance (forget exact mathematical relationship), while shell and bomb fragments, some quite large, have been known to travel hundreds of yards and do all kinds of damage to men and materiel. Taken in aggregate, the issues I've raised would appear to argue strongly against the bomb explosion pattern as depicted in the special scenario on CMHQ. I would further argue that crater evidence tends to support this view, in that even Army manuals show artillery craters as being oval, while mortar craters tend to be more circular, the result of a more vertical delivery angle. A bomb would be hitting at an even shallower angle than tube artillery does, thus accentuating this oval aspect in the crater. 1a. How detailed is the CM bomb blast/frag model when it comes to representing and properly distinguishing the effects of the factors I've described above? 2. Though the article mentions 2.75" rockets, the ones which the British used with such devastating effect from their Typhoons were not 2.75s but 60 lb. rockets (warhead weight), something much nastier. Remember that a rocket doesn't have to undergo the 100,000 G load that a cannon shell does. Its HE fill percentage is therefore much higher than an equivalent weight artillery shell, so for a given warhead weight, the rocket puts much more HE on target than does the shell. Which rocket is CM modeling, and what are its warhead details? Seems like there's another question, but I'll post later if I think of it. Regards, John Kettler

For some reason page 2 of this thread doesn't follow the standard format and overflows my screen, requiring the annoying use of the drag bar to read each individual line. Is something wrong with the page format settings? Usually everything displays in such a way that I can read it without chasing text past my normal viewing field. Regards, John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: I looked through page after page of successively older posts in an effort to locate a reply I made recently to someone concerning HE charges in antitank projectiles, as well as replies to iggi on Panzer Elite and another one I did on ammo for the U.S. 57mm AT gun. Got nowhere. Tried high tech solution with search feature using both my last and first and last name. Would you believe it showed only four posts each time, not one of which was of the items being looked for? This is most strange, and I'm starting to wonder whether I inadvertently entered the Twilight Zone or whether it's simply some glitch in the search program, needs posting updating, perhaps? Can anyone tell me why I don't see a fairly long list of posts under my name? Or does the search feature only bring up discrete entries rather than ones in which my name appears? Do I have to make an original post to be found by this thing? Please help. Thanks. John Kettler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the first version of this I also forgot to mention that the reply counter apparently has a glitch. My query regarding artillery tweaks showed no replies on the box for that, but there WAS a reply. Something's wrong here somewhere. Regards, John Kettler

I looked through page after page of successively older posts in an effort to locate a reply I made recently to someone concerning HE charges in antitank projectiles, as well as replies to iggi on Panzer Elite and another one I did on ammo for the U.S. 57mm AT gun. Got nowhere. Tried high tech solution with search feature using both my last and first and last name. Would you believe it showed only four posts each time, not one of which was of the items being looked for? This is most strange, and I'm starting to wonder whether I inadvertently entered the Twilight Zone or whether it's simply some glitch in the search program, needs posting updating, perhaps? Can anyone tell me why I don't see a fairly long list of posts under my name? Or does the search feature only bring up discrete entries rather than ones in which my name appears? Do I have to make an original post to be found by this thing? Please help. Thanks. John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin: Sounds good guys thanks!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Colin, from what I can tell, the iBook's at least as powerful as my first gen iMac, which is only a 233 MHz w/ 4 MBs of VRAM and 64 MBs of RAM. CM runs fine on my antiquated rig, so it shouldn't have any problems on an iBook (assuming it has enough RAM). Regards, John Kettler

The new smoke textures are fabulous, and they got me to thinking about other possibilities. I mean improved artillery explosions. I found certain aspects of the new smoke to be applicable to depicting artillery explosions, especially the layering of textures and translucency, though even the solid new white smoke would probably look good with a color change. I did a search and read the prior posts on explosions, but they were some eight months ago. Given that the smoke's been tweaked, does BTS or the mod community see any hope for more realistic looking artillery and mortar bursts? I think such a tweak would greatly add to the game's look. Thanks for all the great work. John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Offwhite: Question for all the grogs on the board: Was there any WWII AT ammunition that was both penetrating AND explosive? Not like a shaped charge, but an actual shell. This is just too juicy to pass up, so here goes. First of all, the short answer is that most of the WW II AT ammo was AP shell, at least as far as tanks went. For example, German tanks armed with guns from 37mm on up all had AP shell (Panzergranate 39) as the primary antiarmor round. APCR (Panzergranate 40) was reserved solely for the toughest targets, was in short supply, and was strictly limited to weapons which couldn't otherwise kill key targets, such as T-34s. The Germans also had hollow charge ammo, but it only figured in an armored role on tanks, armored cars and halftracks equipped with the L/24 75mm gun. Otherwise, it was mostly used by various types of artillery. It was developed specifically to provide an antitank capability for guns which otherwise would have had none. The American situation was similar. I don't know the actual nomenclators, but the 37mm on the Stuart and Grant, the 75mm on the Grant and the Sherman, the 76mm on the later Shermans, the M-10 and M-18 tank destroyers, and the 90 mm on the Pershing and the M-36 tank destroyer all had AP shell as the primary antiarmor round. APCR (what the Americans called HVAP--hypervelocity armor piercing) was used for unpleasant run-ins with Panthers, Tigers, etc. The British were the exception to the general rule, starting with the 2 pdr., which fired nothing but AP shot, followed by the 6 pdr., which eventually fired several types of AP shot, briefly had APCR, and wound up with the revolutionary APDS (armor piercing discarding sabot). We supplied the British with AP shell for tanks armed with 75mm guns, but the British emptied the HE filling and replaced the fuze with a solid steel plug, thus turning AP shell into AP shot. From what I can tell, the 17 pdr. fired AP shot and APDS. I'm not up to speed on Russian AT projectiles, but I strongly suggest you make a visit to the links for the Panzer Elite Development Group (http://pedg.tripod.com). There you'll find listings for the sites Guns vs. Armour, On Armour and the Russian Military Zone, all of which have extensive sections on gun performance. The Russian Military Zone recently added a whole new section specifically on Soviet ammo, complete with cutaway drawings. Beware, though, that some of the projectiles depicted are modern (e.g., the submunition artillery shell). A long post to be sure, but I hope it helps. Regards, John Kettler This comes from a bit of wording in the old Squad Leader designer's notes - they included a passage from "Enemy at the Gates" which described an AT round passing completely through a tank turret before exploding. I've never seen reference to exploding AT penetrators anywhere else. Anybody know what this is all about?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DesertFox: Darwin I´m using the beta absolutely problemfree. No crashes, no slowdowns, no annoying advertising. Helge <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thank you, one and all!!! Not only did I get a crash course on the Internet which was most informative, but thanks to your help (iCab) I can now visit CMHQ and actually see what's there without courting a nervous breakdown. iCab's a HUGE improvement. Gratefully yours, John Kettler

I think that either TGN is run by an incompetent, or the server's grossly inadequate--or both. The Internet's great...until I try to get on Combat HQ. Seldom does the site come up right away, sometimes never, but usually it takes several minutes (run 28.8 modem on an iMac 350). And all the while the very bandwidth which could be used to load Combat HQ is consumed by an endless, ever changing procession of banners, most of them animated as well. Am I the only one who finds this annoying, or does everyone else have 56K, cable modem or DSL? John Kettler (AKA "Had It")

Last night my detestation of Hellcats (played German in Last Defense) rose further. My Tiger, ably supported by MG-42s, a mortar salvo and considerable infantry fire, shot the defenders of the stone wall to pieces and routed the rest, allowing the stone house to be seized. The Tiger was behind the wall and was buttoned. My skirted StuG was pointed straight up the road toward the hill and seemed to be firing suppression MG fire toward the American road entry point. My unskirted Stug was in the trees on the German right after having helped shoot in a combined mounted and dismounted assault which took the stone house on the German left, wiped out an entire American squad, damaged and drove off a second one. My Panzergrenadiers, minus a partial squad and a halftrack destroyed by an MG-42 I overlooked, had remounted, were suppressing several American MGs, and had seized several of the houses on the angled road, preparatory to a drive on the American HQ and the main road. I was in great tactical shape. Enter the M-18s. The Tiger survived the first hit, but was brewed up by a shot right through the turret front. The StuG pointed right at the Americans took a lower front hull penetration and fought no more. The StuG in the woods met a similar fate. All this in one turn! The next turn cost me two halftracks and any hope of seizing the objectives with infantry. You see, in a single turn an M-18 raced all the way from the top of the hill, across the bridge and ended its move opposite the American battalion HQ, effectively blocking any further infantry advance by its command of the approaches. Since the scenario doesn't provide Panzerschrecks and because Panzerfausts don't work in the Beta demo, all I could do was try to keep heads down and maybe lob a grenade in from above. Ha!!! My halftracks started backing up but died. The cursed Hellcat then started blasting away at my stone house strongpoint in the wheat field, at one point practically sticking the gun muzzle into the house. I tried to close assault the thing, and I thought at first I killed it, what with the huge column of smoke pouring out of the fighting compartment, but I was wrong. My friend and I then decided that maybe what we were seeing was a smoke discharger grenade which hit the house wall and bounced back. The Hellcat didn't like all that infanry and backed up, leaving some sort of smoke dispenser burning on the ground. Next thing we knew, there was another pillar of smoke pouring from the fighting compartment. Whatever was going on, the Hellcat still moved okay, but it was strange to watch. Could someone tell me what really was going on? Thanks. John Kettler

When my exhausted friend had to leave the other night at turn 26 of Last Defense, forcing me to surrender in a lost game, it occurred to me that it might be useful to provide for the AI to take over when a player has to leave the game. After all, people get tired, things happen on the domestic front, etc., any one of which could bring proceedings to a screeching, often frustrating, halt. We were playing hotseat, but it seems to me that this might also be applicable in LAN/Internet games as well. I don't know much about code, but I would think that it would simply be a matter of telling the AI who was where, what the goals were, then letting it do its thing. What say you? Regards, John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin: I understand and I agree. I just didn't think it out first. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Colin, I find the ever present threat of fratricide or as the British put it, "own goal" both refreshing and realistic. Just the other day while playing Last Defense as the Germans I conducted a Panzer Grenadier assault on the first objective house on the German left. Unfortunately, I neglected to redirect an MG-42 team which had the defenders in a crossfire. I don't know what happened exactly, but I do know the halftrack died along with a third of the occupants. I am now much more careful when planning attacks into areas already under fire by my troops. Regards, John Kettler P.S. As a Mac owner, I hope you don't scrap your CM for Mac site.

The new smoke looks great! It's far more authentic looking than what we had before when a vehicle was killed. Will this also change conventional smoke rounds? Regards, John Kettler P.S. The tiny smoke plume when an entire tile is ablaze looks distinctly odd. Are there any plans to address this?

Iggi, The learning curve is steep, but there is a lot of help available. First of all, since I don't have your exact configuration I suggest you go to the Wings Panzer Elite site (www.wingssimulations.com) and post the FULL particulars of your system configuration in the General Discussions or Technical Discussions area. Someone WILL answer you with suggestions on what you need to do to get PE running properly on your system. Also, there are some formidable enhancements out already, both in the Panzer Elite Development Group (link from Wings home page, then Panzer Packs) and from Michael Y. (www.ozemail.com.au/~pref8u/PE.htm). These provide whole new realms of sim experience, by adding immersive sound,dozens of new vehicles, fixing glitches, etc. Be sure to install the 1.07 patch first. A 1.8 patch is due out shortly. I believe it'll include a tank gunnery range, too. Until then, play a non-instant scenario, but set the realism settings to a level in which you can function effectively. Alternatively, take a Tiger, but realize you can still die. Hope this helps. Feel free to E-mail me directly if you need more info. Regards, John <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: Man , I bought Panzer Elite and it runs slow on my pIII450. I thought this would hold me over until CM. I find I'm having more fun playing the CM beta more. I bought PzElite to get a tanker's perspective. Someone please tell me that there's just a large learning curve. that things will get better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apropos of the grazing fire discussion, it is worth noting that the plunging fire described is technically indirect fire, such fire made possible by tripod mounts with built-in traversing systems. This allows a unit to defend a forward slope while protected from direct fire by the reverse slope. John Kettler

This may be intuitively obvious to some of you, but can/will Combat Mission (Beta Demo or release) work in PBEM and TCP/IP between a Mac and a PC? I'd love to take on my brother, but we're on two different computer types and I don't know whether it's an issue or not. Thanks! John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PanzerLeader: They should do a movie on the Eastern Front...soon. A movie based on "The Forgotten Soldier" would make SPR look like a Walt Disney production And it would also kindly remind some Americans that they were not alone out there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Achtung! Fremde Heeres Ost (Foreign Armies East) STRONGLY recommends you see Stalingrad (by producers of Das Boot) soonest. Fur der General Gehlen, Johann von Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: "Not sure where the Army would have theirs hidden, maybe at West Point?" They probably have lots at the Army War Collage in Carlile(sp?) Pennsylvania also. I live in New Orleans where Stephen Ambrose tought at UNO. He's heading the effort to build the National D-Day museum here in New Orleans. I'm hoping that this will become a good source for this type of information. The museum will open June 6, 2000.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You might try the West Point Campaign Atlas to the Second World War (U.S. Government Printing Office), which has dozens of maps. There's even one of St. Lo and surrounds. No scale listed, but it's about three miles to the inch and is color coded at 50 meter intervals. Regards, John Kettler P.S. For whoever was working the Battle of Villers Bocage the After the Battle magazine publishers have an incredibly detailed account under that name or close. Saw it only briefly but it had a diagram showing where each antitank gun was located. Regards

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: Mike, Have you seen the book on the St. Lo batlle? I'm not sure of the exact name but I've seen the book in the non-circulating section of LSU's library. It has has very detailed contour maps of the St Lo area. These are on par with USGS Quad maps. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Guys, the first place I would look for the kind of material you're seeking would be in the various official histories of the countries involved. For example, the official U.S. HISTORY OF THE ARMY IN WORLD WAR II has complete, separate maps in many of the volumes, some of these highly detailed. One volume in particular bears close examination--Three Battles: Arnaville, Altuzzo and Schmidt--a highly detailed tactical analysis from both sides of those engagements. Further, at least one of those engagement was filmed by U.S. combat photographers. I have seen the video advertised in Military History magazine or some such. The history volumes can be ordered from the U.S. Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C. (has Website but I don't know it) or from the regional stores. Another source would be the British official history published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. These should have maps done by the same troops who surveyed England, the Ordnance Survey. A further resource I used back when I was a professional military analyst consisted of Michelin and similar road maps for various parts of Europe; believe they were 1:100,000 scale. I got them at a large map shop near the Los Angeles International Airport. They definitely had contour intervals plotted on them, in addition to roads, etc. Of course, I was spoiled back then, for I had access to dozens of Army tactical maps at 1:50,000. Hope this helps. John Kettler

While playing the Germans in Last Defense I encountered something totally new to me--at least a battalion volley of American smoke. Having not done well in duels with the M-18s (killed one Hellcat for loss of both StuGs and the Tiger), I was pushing the infantry forward into buildings lining the angled road and had ordered up a smoke mission from the 81s in support. Next thing I knew the entire middle of the board disappeared. There was so much towering smoke that I could scarcely see to move my men, no matter which way I viewed the field. It extended from the main road all the way to the lone house on the angled road, from just past the house in the field all the way back to the road in front of the last of the single story houses. And that's not counting the ones that landed offboard to my FAR left and the ones which landed WAY behind the dominant ridge. It was an impressive and disruptive show (gutted my MG support), but was this a glitch? Sadly, even though it provided considerable concealment, there were too many Americans, too close, with too many crossfires. The SS tried...and died. John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Herr Oberest is not only a Member, but he is also a correct (and a bit funny too ). Lee, volume of fire is NOT what the military wants to train its soldiers to master. Skilled and judicious expenditure of ammo is what they strive for. This is one reason the MG42 started to become a liability to the Germans in terms of ammo supply late in the war. Nearly any moron could get that thing to fire gobs of rounds in a short space of time. But only a skilled gunner can use the RoF to practical advantage and not run out of ammo in the first 5 minutes of a firefight. As you well know, it takes NO time to dump a whole clip from a MP40. That is 20% of the soldiers' entire ammo loadout. So a Veteran unit isn't going to unload everything he has when someone gets up close. They aren't racing to see who can be empty first I remember a few of our MG guys on this BBS saying that if they fired more than a short burst their Sgt. would huck a rock at their heads, kick their feet, scream at them, etc. If you wonder why, check out a Green SMG team that gets spooked at close range and you will know why Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While we're on fire discipline/lack thereof and its impact on ammo consumption, I thought I'd mention what happened to the Grossdeutschland Division during the first day of Barbarossa. Seems the division got a little carried away (all right, a lot) and shot off its ENTIRE ammo allotment, then screamed for more. Alas, this cry for help fell on deaf corps commander ears (believe it was Von Kleist), who decreed that the trigger happy unit spend its first night in Russia sans ammo. What fun! Thereafter, fire discipline was a hallmark of Grossdeutschland (which also had larcenous tendencies regarding SS Tiger tanks). John Kettler

I'm new to this, but for clarity I'll put my replies to Moon in caps. John Kettler <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Whooo... ok, I'll try... 1. We have repeatedly observed the Germans losing duels in which they already had the Americans in their sights and were static, while the Americans fired on the move... There are so many variables in this that it's really tough to find an answer. Was the Tiger firing at something else? Was it buttoned up? Was it reloading? Was it a beta demo thing? NO, IT WAS TARGETED DIRECTLY ON MY M-18. YES, IT WAS BUTTONED UP. UNKNOWN, BUT PROBABLY NOT, SINCE IT HADN'T FIRED AND WAS LOOKING FOR THE ENEMY FOR SEVERAL TURNS. WE WERE PLAYING THE BETA DEMO. 2. Why is it that Americans can use bazookas against infantry targets but the Germans can't do the same with their Panzerfausts? 2a Speaking of which, how do you fire them? It's a bug in the beta demo with regard to bazookas and PFs. The full version works correctly and both can be used against infantry targets when ordered to. GOOD TO KNOW! 3. Does CM model the casualty effects against personnel, materiel and vehicles of white phosphorous in American smoke rounds? Nope, WP is not simulated. So far, it has not been proven how common this type of round was for tactical use other than smoke. WILL DO SOME DIGGING CONCERNING THIS. 5. Does CM model VT (variable time) late war radar proximity fuzes and the common mechanical time fuzes for airburst artillery fire? Does it model the resultant enhanced lethality against exposed personnel? 5a.Does CM model treebursts of mortar and artillery shells and their enhanced lethality against personnel lacking top cover? VT is in. Not sure about the mechanical fuze. And yes, airbursts (in trees or because of VTs) are simulated - i.e. lethal against infantry and open targets, but less lethal against tanks. GLAD VT'S IN; MT SHOULD BE THERE, SINCE TECH DATES BACK TO NAPOLEONIC PERIOD--SHRAPNEL SHELLS WROUGHT HAVOC AT WATERLOO. 6. Does CM model the mobility effects of ground pressure for tanks? Not sure if it is in the beta demo already, but when you hit ENTER after selecting a tank, you'll see the ground pressure in its stats. And it is used in the game as well. NICE TOUCH! 6a.Could we please have a going map for each scenario? It would show which areas were trafficable by various vehicle classes. How would you know that before you send one of your units there and see if it gets stuck? THAT SUCH GOING MAPS WERE USED IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT THE BRITISH PLANTED A FAKE ONE ON ROMMEL AT EL ALAMEIN BY "LEAVING" IT IN AN ABONDONED, SHOT-UP ARMORED CAR. IT CAUSED HIM NO END OF TROUBLE. SIMILARLY, THE ALLIES HAD COMPLETE ANALYSES (OFTEN SAMPLES) OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BEACHES ALL ALONG THE CHANNEL COAST. THIS INFO WENT DIRECTLY INTO THE BEACH SELECTION PROCESS AND WAS FACTORED INTO THE PLANS ON HOW TO GET VEHICLES ASHORE AND THEN OFF THE BEACH. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I EXPECT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE BATTLEFIELD, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THINGS LIKE ROUTE RECONNAISSANCE AND TRAFFICABILITY STUDIES WERE INTEGRAL PARTS OF MILITARY PLANNING LONG BEFORE WORLD WAR II. ALLIED MAPS WERE SO DETAILED THAT GERMAN COMMANDERS OFTEN SURRENDERED AFTER DISCOVERING THAT THE AMERICAN COMMANDER HAD MORE INFO ON THEIR WEAPONS, THEIR LOCATIONS AND FIELDS OF FIRE THAN THEY DID THEMSELVES. 7. In playing Chance Encounter I noticed that the German woods, renowned for their meticulous clearing of underbrush and for their numerous maintenance/logging trails, had no such trails, severely hamstringing my hasty defense plan. Nor does there seem to be any way to work armor through woods, when this was done repeatedly during the war, including the invasion of France and the Battle of the Bulge. The Russians were notorious for their ability to move armor through such "impassable" terrain. Why can't we? You can move your tanks through scattered trees. These also simulate small paths through the woods. Despite the myth that tanks can regularly and easily drive over houses and ram a path through the thickest woods, CM simulates their abilities much more realistically, by allowing them to only enter and pass through "scattered trees". Tanks CAN do all of the above, but it takes time and preparation, and the risk of throwing a track is so high, that it would have been rarely done in combat situations. WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, THERE SHOULD STILL BE TRAILS, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLY ONE VEHICLE WIDE AND CAN BE USED ONLY AT A WALKING PACE. 1. Please provide some sort of keyable terrain elevation contour map. The 3-D map is terrific, but it's a time consuming pain to use when siting units. The ground texture for the final version has been tweaked and contours are MUCH more visible now. THANKS! 2. Please provide a marked map with the scenario briefing and include a print option for that briefing. That's on the list as far as I know, but I have no clue if it makes v1.0 YAY! 3. Please provide a compass rose so that I can tell where I'm going and can plan my operations effectively. Compass rose is in the full version already. DITTO. 4. Please provide some way of systematically laying out defenses. The LOS tool is great, but what I need is a defense overlay showing all the unit visibility arcs, target reference points, artillery and mortar concentrations, final protective lines, minefields and barriers, etc. This was standard practice during the war. Among other things, it allowed units to keep vital points under fire, even when darkness, smoke or fog was present. I can see where you're coming from, the "all-control" wargames of the past. You'll need to "unlearn" certain things for CM, one of the most important ones is the "total control" aspect. The game will not show you more than you would know yourself. For everything else you have the LOS tool which you can use during the setup phase and create your own concentrations of fire etc. I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. AS A FORMER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY ANALYST FOR HUGHES AND ROCKWELL I AM WELL SCHOOLED IN THE FOG OF WAR AND CLAUSEWITZ'S CONCEPT OF FRICTION. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THE SAME LEVEL OF INFO MY WWII COUNTERPART HAD. SINCE IT WAS CUSTOMARY TO PRODUCE DEFENSIVE TARGET CARDS BASED ON WALKING THE TERRAIN TO IDENTIFY BLIND SPOTS, ESTABLISH INTERLOCKING FIELDS OF GRAZING (FOOT HIGH MG FIRE), PROTECT KEY CROSSROADS AND APPROACHES, AND PLAN FINAL PROTECTIVE FIRES, I FAIL TO SEE WHY WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS ANYTHING BUT REASONABLE FOR A STATIC DEFENSIVE SITUATION. NATURALLY, THE LONGER I'M THERE, THE MORE INFO I'LL HAVE. On a side note - the full version has also what is called "Target reference point" which can be targetted by on and off-map artillery even if not in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BIG HELP. IT'S BEEN FRUSTRATING NOT BEING ABLE TO USE MORTARS PROPERLY. THANKS, MOON. JOHN KETTLER