Username

Way to go tero. My thoughts exactly I am glad that someone here can be impartial and intelligent. Thats a new defense nowadays btw, "someones baiting me", boohoo. Why anyone would go to all the trouble of making a website and not maintaining it is beyond me. So the M18 is destroying over 2000 tanks and SPGs now? This was in france, italy and germany I assume? What percentage is that of the german tanks and SPs that were fielded at the time(s)? Did the brits get any of these? I have never heard of them using M18. They certainly liked the stuart with its speed. I am rereading Steel Inferno and if they were used at any part of those tank battles, and the brits were facing the real armor in the west, they would have been creamed. The artillery during these battles was intense. As far as I am concerned, noone has given any reason why they would be any better at moving fire than any other vehicle. The only thing I see that is different is its suspension and that was no better than the german tanks. These TDs were probably held back most of the time and couldnt be used unless there was some massive rupture in the lines and they could freewheel around and put holes in panzers that had been pummeled by arty/ships/planes. I believe the penetration of this 76mm was the same as the M4 76mm and M10 76mm? Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: In some quick tests I did in CMBO with running Company of SMG units (a whole 'nother overdone discussion ) overwhelmed two US MMGs taking serious, but not bad enough, casualties (IIRC 25%-30%). In the new Beta they got slaughtered. I don't remember the exact results of the tests (some weeks ago, posted to another thread) but I think in every single test the MMGs survived and all of the attacking units were either routed or wiped out. When we get done programming stuff the attacking units will most likely bugger off sooner, which will reduce their overall casualties, but of course stop them from advancing much. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Glad to see this type of testing is part of the new process. But why not use water cooled M1917's? lewis

Korea was also very mountainous. Having shooters/targets at different elevations throws off normal range gunnery numbers. ive read that US units in Korea would often fire blind over hills that tanks had pulled bacxk beyond the crest. They had some good results but burned up alot of ammo.

This from Brazen Chariots-Crisp. Author is a commander in a Honey (Stuart) tank and is relating the realities of firing from the short halt. "At the same time I completely discounted the possibility of shooting accurately from a moving tank, which is what we were taught to do when it was not possible to take uo a hull down position. So I worked out a system in my troop whereby, after the target had been indicated, a more or less automatic procedure followed if the circumstances were favorable. The objective was to get close enough to the enemy tank to destroy it. the first order was 'driver advance, flat out". The gunner would do his best to keep the cross-wires of his telescopic sight on the target while we were moving. The next order, heard by the gunner, driver and loader, would be "driver halt". As soon as the tank stopped and he was on target, the gunner would fire without further command from me. The sound of the shot was the signal for the driver to let in his clutch and be off again. From start to stop took 4 seconds. All I did was control movement of the tank." I havent read through the whole book but maybe someone here can tell IF the Honey HAD a gyro at the time the author was in North Africa. Notice that the gunner is only popping off one round. They know that to loiter is suicide. I am also glad that M18s are the Typhoons of the AFV world. They run up shoot and retreat like hell to notch their guns because of a confirmed kill. They only made 2500 or so of them and stopped producing them before the end of the war. The whole TD business was killed at the end of the war too. The M18 had a barrel, btw, that had less rifling than a normal 76mm weapon (less twist). I cant imagine that led to any accuracy benefits. It didnt even have a very fast turret either. The sherman turret being better. So. Gyros good or bad? Eh. maybe a little good. M18s. So freaking good they dont need no stinkin gyros!!!!!! Lewis

5 M18 were sent to russia along with a pershing and a couple of M24. What became of the M18 you ask? Why they married a russian tank... http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/M18+T55/1/*http://www.missing-lynx.com/library/modern/t55hell/t55hell.htm

This thread is getting sidetracked on Hellcraps. The M18 did not have low ground pressure. It was 12.6psi (M4a3=13.7, Panther 12.8, StugIII 13.5). It also had skinny tracks. It would stick in the mud as quick as many armored vehicles and skinny tracks are actually worse when you start to bog. You lose the battle against the mud. I know. Ive driven tracked vehicles. This high speed advantage is crap. Slappy wants to make a case that they need some specialized conditions that cant be seen in CM to be successful. They need circling fighter bombers pointing out isolated armored columns and arty to button them up so that the amazing Hellcats can rush in, blast away on-the-fly and pull back for more tungsten ammo. The only advantage the M18 had because of its engine was because of its acceleration. If the game models the accel, then it will be better in game terms. It can pull out quicker and move out quicker. the tank had a automatic 3 speed tranny. I bet it took quite awhile on flat terrain/road to get to that top speed! Since the hellcats didnt have gyros, what is the secret of thier moving fire "advantage"? Is it the torsion bar suspension? Hope not, cause the germans had torsion bar suspension vehicles with more torsion bars too. Was it cause they got in so close they couldnt miss? Did they drive in circles around the panzers? That would make them very vulnerable to any screening infantry or 20mm armed vehicles. I have a feeling that hellcats reputations are another well established urban legend. Lewis

Well like it or not, the game is going to introduce angles in the form of covered arcs. If the MG is given a narrow long covered arc, it remains to be seen what the 'crossing' effects are. Will each crossing unit get a squirt? Will they flatten out or keep on running depending on if they are assaulting or moving/running? Is there any point in making the arc narrow? Will narrow arcs generate quick reactions to units crossing the arc? Lewis I think most of the people here want to know. Its an exciting game change and the reality level of the game will go up. Personally, I think that the spotting should be tied into the arc angle too.

Heres slappy talking about gyros on Hellcats... "55mph on the flat, a 76mm gun with lots of tungsten ammo, and armor the smallest tank gun can blow sunlight through, the United States M18 Hellcat is also a vehicle that is hard to appreciate in a small level tactical game like Combat Mission. I have seen M18's going full speed get picked off in competition play by STUGs who in real life were easy meat for the M18 - they could not follow along with their guns fast enough to get an effective shot while the M18 crews, many of which knew how to use their gyro stabilisers in battle (something which the line tank crews often did not) allowed them to fire on the move while ducking from hiding place to hiding place. With cheesy armour, often called on to fight in close combat in support of Infantry, the Hellcat's expected life in combat is dismal in Combat Mission. Although it has some adherents, most people prefer heavy, slow tanks who do not have to duck from bush to bush with "reach out and touch someone" 1000 meter tank killing power." Thanks slappy! Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rune: More as i find it. Rune<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Rune If you looked at page 7 of this thread you would have found it also. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The M18 and firing on the move is discussed by Evans in several oral histories (he was a Captain in the 704th TD and on the design team for the M18). The M18, witthout gyros, was able to hit a target while moving cross country. The ability to suddenly accelerate but continue to figtht back was one of the reason the M18 was as successful as it was. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uh ...could you possibly supply a range that these feats were performed? Kind of matters don't it? Now , the capt was on the design team. Lets think about that with our academic analytical minds. Hmmmmmmmmm. Would he be very critical of something he was designing/proposing? Is he a really impartial source of information? Lewis

They had both electric and hydraulic. (h) RELATIVE MERITS OF POWER TRAVERSE GEAR. WESTINGHOUSE - Generally considered the best. OIL GEAR - Satisfactory and not very little inferior to WESTINGHOUSE. LOGANSPORT - Universally considered the least popular. No suggestions for it's improvement have been received. Ordnance maintenance: Electric traversing mechanism for medium tank M4 and modifications TM 9-1731E Ordnance maintenance: Hydraulic traversing mechanism (Logansport) for medium tank M4 and modifications TM 9-1731F

I think the game should severely hamper FAST MOVE firing gyro or not. It should probably keep the present level for MOVE firing but reduce rates of fire somewhat. If possible, aquisition can only be gained during a MOVE if there is a gyro. A Pershing destroyed a panther while moving according to Death Traps. It was point blank up a street though. Its that Cologne battle footage you see all the time where the panther is burning and a panzerman jumps out. I find it funny that there are no gyros in US TD. I could swear someone here was extolling the virtues of US TDs flying through the air and putting HVAP into the sides of tigers while in midair. Too bad the search engine is broke. No BTS on the board lately huh? Lewis

This has been brought up before and yes, there should be a "withdraw" for vehicles order.

I think those WWI casualty figures point out the deadliness of MGs and bad tactics. In CM, we have lots of bad tactics and not so deadly MGs. In WWI, there were great periods of non-activity. Followed by short periods of slaughter. In WWII, Jason is pointing out that units were expected to be in business pretty much full time (frontline) and the cost couldnt bankrupt you in an afternoon. Towards the end of WWI, there were some advances in this whole infantry warfare business. The germans in 1918 started to use better tactics. Anything was better than waves of infantry that followed a week long barrage (that did little to the defenders). The germans (and I am sure the allies too), started to put everything, including their own MGs, into KOing the enemy MGs DURING the attack. It got so that MG gunners had such a high casualty rate that they started getting extra time off the line. These so called storm tactics gave the germans better results than the tank gave the allies. Arty was used to paralyze the enemys HQs and suppress the enemys arty. Direct fire infantry guns took on the MGs and allowed the storm troops to close on the trenches. I really would like to have some playtester give some indication of how the infantry game is coming along or tested. Lewis

well thought I would try to dispel a myth.

I am rereading Steel Inferno. Its apparent that casualties are higher when elite troops and units with high elan meet. The SS fought like rabid wolverines. The canadians, being mostly volunteers, had a very large capacity for not backing down (even though they had crappy officers and brit equipment). But the numbers in the book rarely match the typical CM battle. Jason it right in that the game doesnt represent typical WWII combat casualties EFFECTS. My point is that the player just isnt hamstringed by casualties. In reality, battle usually meant losses to the units officers and NCOs. This would shut down attacking as coordination is lost. There isnt enough rallying in the game. Units are capable of doing that themselves usually. Another consideration is that line units, if they take the typical 25-50 percent losses seen in alot of games, would be combat ineffective thereafter even if resupplied with men. The green troops being untried and the vets unsure of them and of the leaders who are getting them killed. Elite units like armor and airborne realize heavier losses are part of the job because they are not going to do it everyday. They are like fire brigades that place winning over losses. Lewis

Jason is right that MOST CM battles are at the FAR end of the scale. Most CM battles are not conducted anywhere near reality either. In reality, an attacker does not have the coordination the game allows. In reality, most moving units, unless part of some organized assault or human wave, would just stop and become pinned instead of running willy nilly. I would like to see orders limitations at some stage of CM evolution. This would be when you have depleted squads in a platoon without a HQ not having many options. Perhaps defend/withhdraw being the only remaining orders they will recieve. This would crimp an attack when you can't give attacking type orders. The player would become mindful of concentrated casualties within units like platoons and companies. In the meantime, it would be nice if there was a formation elan level. Certain units could and would take atrocious levels of casualties. This elan number would represent that. Many US units wouldnt and the player would have to use arty/tanks/smoke better than most. Lewis

This from Britwar http://salts.britwar.co.uk/salt5.htm WO 291/90 Firing on the move from tanks. "With existing British tanks the effectiveness (hits per minute) of shooting on the move is never greater than 1/2 that of stationary fire under similar conditions and is often 1/20 or less. The Westinghouse gyro stabilizer produces some improvement". The "Movement is armour" argument was held to be confuted by results from a trial by gunnery instructors at Lulworth shooting at a target at 800 yards and obtaining 62% hits on a static target and 64% hits on a moving one. It is pointed out that the smooth, steady movement necessary to gunnery on the move does little to make the tank harder to hit. For MG fire, "...the number of machine gun bullets per minute that will come dangerously close to an anti-tank gun crew from a single tank firing on the move is very small." The best MG results, using the shoulder-controlled mounting in the Crusader and an expert crew, showed a reduction of one-half in hitting rate. "For average gunners factors of 1/4 to 1/20 or worse would be expected." For the main armament, it was found that "...a comparatively high percentage of hits can be obtained with a light gun in a free elevation mounting but that the rate of fire is greatly reduced by movement."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Results: 1st test one Sherman vs. one MkIVG (both Green rated crews) 30 Engagements played. <LI>Sherman total shots taken during all 31 engagements: 51 <LI>Sherman total hits during all 31 engagements: 15 <LI>Sherman total kills achieved during all 31 engagements: 13 Hit Ratio: 29.4% Kill Ratio: 25.5% (# Kills/total shots fired) <LI>MkIVG total shots taken during all 31 engagements: 43 <LI>MkIVG total hits during all 31 engagements: 23 <LI>MkIVG total kills achieved during all 31 engagements: 21 Hit Ratio: 53.5% Kill Ratio: 48.8% (# Kills/total shots fired) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good data. I find it hard to believe a moving tank can fire more shots. 51 to 43. This should be toned down, gyros or not. It takes longer to load when moving and it would take longer to sight in. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: In any case there REALY should two sets of firing on the move penalty modifiers, first the modifier (Much more substantial than it is now, i.e. Hard to get a hit) for firing on the FAST move, and then a different and MORE generous modifier for firing on the Move, thus implying the only real penalties for firing on the Move would be a slower ROF and No target acquistion bonus after every round, the "No target acquistion bonus" is in the game already, but I'm not sure about the slower ROF for firing on the move. AND of course the ROF for firing on the fast move should be slower than while firing on the move. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Id like Steve to comment on these thoughts. Theres some good ideas here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: My 5 year old has a plush Asterix, you want to kiss that one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why dont you kiss my inflamed asteroids?

I think the covered arcs, increased rates of fire, adjusted response to fire, decreased infantry speed using assaults, etc., Will all add up to a completely different infantry game . Proper overwatch and cover fire will be needed and other tactics brought closer to reality. It is hardly worth discussing unless someone with inside play information can relate some test results. Lewis [ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

I usually will recon with half the squad and have the other half at a midway point between the rest of the platoon and the point half squad. If the point guys have run into serious trouble, then I will withdraw them back to the other half squad. I usually define trouble as having 3 firelines on the half squad and not many responding firelines on those enemy. Just finding shotters is a job well done. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: U.S. 75mm HE 14.6# projectile, 1.7# HE filler German 75mm Sprngr.Patr.KwK(34) 12.6# projectile, 1.9# HE filler Fragment density and velocity is function of metal quality, ratio of HE filler-to-total weight (more explosive per metal weight means more fragments), HE filler effectiveness (does 1# of German HE filler equal more or less than 1# of U.S. stuff), etc. U.S. 75mm HE puts out more effective fragments than 76mm and 90mm HE, so it is pretty potent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But is the US 75mm more effective than the German KWK34? The German HE seems to have a higher ratio of HE to weight. The Germans used cast or pressed casings for the HE because it breaks up into more uniform fragments. You would not want a shell case made out of strong steel. This requires the energy of the explosion to be spent on rupturing the case instead of accelerating the fragments. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Offwhite: As for firepower, I thought the bow and coax MGs in Shermans were a version of the M1919, so you should be able to approximate FP by looking at the infantry version's stats. Many (most/all?) German tanks had the MG34 in the bow, and perhaps the same weapon in coax mount. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Another related issue is that not all bow MGs are alike. The US weapon was sighted by looking through a vision periscope away from the gun. He more or less walked tracers onto targets. The germans had a more elaborate telescopic aiming device next to the MG. The german also had a skull cap device that he put ontop of his head to steady his aim. I would wager the german system was more accurate. I know the german MG34 had a heavy barrel option that tankers used. The MG34 should have also allowed the radio operator to change barrels strait out the back in action. The US probably couldnt. The german tankers never went for MG42's (I believe) because they changed barrels out the side. Lewis