Username

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: BUT, those delightful cheap VG SMG squads that are assaulting will still benefit as well if they are now in close contact it will be a MUCH bloodier fight as the attacker and can ALSO "go for Broke" and unload the magazine in one turn. Works both ways I guess -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well as long as they are assaulting and not running 400 meters. Those old geezers would be having heart attacks after such a run.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Defender (Foxholes) 2xMMG .30cal M1919A4 Attacker 2xRegular Pattern 44 Infantry I took away all the ammo for the Attacker and positioned them 200m, bunched up, in front of the two US MGs which were about 20m apart (left to right). I had all the Attackers do Area fire where there was nothing to shoot at. Because of the range the Attacker gets to the MGs in one turn, so that is all I looked at. The results were as follows... 2x44 Platoons (Regular) - 30 Casualties (all units one casualty or more, except for one trailing HQ) - 1xBroken - 1xRouted - 3xShaken - 2xAlerted - 1xOK (the HQ towards the rear) I did two quick repeats and found similar results, although casualties were in the lower 20s both times. So it is very clear to me that MG firepower is not too weak and the lack of grazing fire, fire lanes, and even final defensive "go for broke" behavior is not the main problem to be looked at here. So imagine this situation where the Attacker has a reduced cover rating and ability to keep on going inspite of enemy fire. Hopefully you can see that without ANY changes to MGs the proposed changes to Run will do a whole lot all by itself. Toss in "go for broke" MG fire and possibly an increase in our current simulation of Grazing Fire (spreading out fire to nearby units) and I think we might be all set, but it is too soon to say one way or the other. We shall see Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve Actually you have modeled one of the proposed changes; limiting moving fire from running units and decreasing tired/weary effectiveness of fire to nill. You dont atribute this to the outcome much but just guage the MG fire. As I suggested in the other thread; reduce the FP of running units and make exhausted states very risky business. I dont get the "calming of running" effect at all. It tends to get people excited, running that is, and people firing at them doesnt help. I get your point though. This needs to be tweaked of course. It is not my contention that fire lanes/grazing fire needs to be modeled directly. I like some of the abstractions that achieve the same effect. Having an MG fire quickly at units within a narrow covered arc within a reasonable range is just as good. I would also like BTS to look at units that run/move through enemy positions on robot orders. It is my opinion that there has been something lost because there are no hexes to show a units "possesion" of terrain. I dont want units to get pinned because they are close to the enemy but rather "halted". A good order state. But it would take an assault command to get units to butt heads with enemy defenders "in their own space". Perhaps the space they command can be a function of their present suppression, etc. Anyway. Its my idea and you heard it here first.. Lewis

(Wasnt Steve bellyaching and crying about how bizzy he was an there was gamillions of things he had to do and he had no time for this and that WE wouldnt hear from HIM further on this issue and that it was THEIRS to fix and locking down threads about it, etc? I mean, what the hell is going on? He cant stop posting about it now. Little do many people here know, but I was instrumental in making changes in the initial infantry firepower handling debacle. It was like everyone was firing blanks. Ive been suggesting run limitations, assault moves,etc, since way back when. Its rapidly becoming apparant that my ideas are slowly transmogrifying into BTS "ideas". My subliminal messages are slowly taking hold. Steve doesnt know it but he wakes up in the middle of the night, zombified , and does searches under my name and whatever topic has been troubling him lately. He then goes to work the next day and says "Hey, you know what would be a great idea? Skipping High Explosive shells". Or something like that.)

Hopefully trenches for the germans and dugouts also. Germans called the dugouts mantraps. Basically build a trench position for a squad with alternate positions for the squad LMG. Then burrow into the earth wall of the trench and make a place to wait out indirect fire. A large caliber direct hit made this chancy.

I believe Panther tanks could have done this with HE fire. The HE round had the same velocity as the coax. Kind of nice; fire MG till you get the range and infantry go to ground. Blast them with the cannon. They run, repeat till uneeded.

Is JasonC related to Rexford? I notice the same long winded self serving style in his posts. Also the always lovely "follow my own post with yet another important post by myself". BTS has said all there is to say: 1. No fix for CMBO 2. THEY are going to show you the fix for CM2. Cant wait. Lewis

It will probably be coded similar to getting a hull down position. Some people (obviously great gun emplacers) will state that it can be done with practice and skill and others will not have a clue. Sometimes you wont know till you fire. The presence of enemy units defines the firelane. If a tree falls in the woods on a bear, does anyone hear it?

And ya know what else? Four of 'em cant stop a company of banzai-ing volkgranadiers! We dont have to just look at WWI. Theres plenty of insane infantry behaviour regarding MGs and WWII. During the great encirclements in 1941, russian troops literally pushed their way through stretched out MG positions rather then surrender. Japanese like a verry much charge a MG after a night of saki. Marines didnt have many options BUT to charge MGs. Anyway, back to the taxes. Lewis PS Glad it made it into the game.

I am using 1.12 and no mods.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Lewis, I clearly told you that the M1917 .30cal water cooled MMG is not in CM. Only the M1919A4 is simulated for the US forces. You must have missed that or not cared for my answer. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I clearly see a M1917 HMG with a speed of slow in the list of support weapons for quick battles with US forces. Its distictly different from the M1919A4. It looks like a water cooled weapon in the graphic (kind of vickers like). I referenced a website about Korea and this weapon was still tapping away and holding the line. Go check it out. You never take my word for anything anyway so just play a quick battle and pick a M1917 HMG. Lewis

I agree that hand signals are used by any unit that has to keep radio silence (read that as during a NON-CM modeled period of time). Intercoms are not so restricted. Be they primitive tubes (like used in ships) or throat mikes or whatever. They are not broadcasting in radio freq's but rather on wire. Intercoms make the tank a small unit. The better the intercom, the better the coordination. Intra platoon radios make the platoon a small team. Its really the smallest amount of armor anyone would want to field at one time. During battle, you would not practice radio silence. Most pictures during action show limited arm waving unless for a camera. If your radio is out, then theres always the hand signal. Ive read accounts of tank commanders having to give up their tank because a higher up has lost commo and he needs to be in touch. The 3 man turret and the two way radio made the modern tank. Is that basic principle also going to get the BTS remix? Lewis [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: What does this mean to CM? Since CM only models plunging fire, the machine gun cannot be used in the way it was intended to be used. Namely, firing grazing fire along the FPL. What will happen to CM when BTS gets grazing fire into the game for CM2? This will become a completely different game. You won’t even recognize it. If your experience with machine guns is limited to CM, then all your notions of how the machine gun is properly used will be thrown out the window and you will have to learn again from scratch. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dont think that BTS will model them as you describe. Steve has even said as much. They might quicken up the pace of engagements, burst length , etc. But he really thinks that belt fed, water cooled, quick-change barrels cant hold a line. Its like WWI doesnt count as a basis for firepower reality. He feels that testing is unrealistic unless every type of weapon system is represented so that its fogging up the tests. Whatever. Ive fired MGs and Ive been under fire. Even an aircooled belt fed like a bipod MG42 or a US MMG can fire a short lived wall of death. But a water cooled weapon like a Maxim, Vickers, Browning M1917 can put a crimp on an infantry assault. Its what they are designed for. The germans could reach near continuos fire with quick change barrels. Its either you get it or you dont. Cant wait to see what CMG2 is like. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skipper: The main (and practically, the only) cause for T34 holding the record for KO'd numbers is that it was the most produced. If you look at annual production and loss figures of both German and Soviet tanks, you will see that they very closely correspond. Ie, almost all tanks that you build, you SPEND within a year.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> {So they should have produced less? Huh?} Comparing T34 with a StuG is incorrect. These machines had different roles on the battlefield. RKKA fielded several variants of SUs, from SU-57 to ISU-152..}

So are there M1917 water cooled MGs or not? Anyway. I still say that MGs are offensively modeled weapons and that BTS undermodeled them as defensive weapons (their primary mission). Lets hope for the best as far as CM2. Lewis

The T3476 versions were much better suited for the defensive role. In the early war years, they put the screws to the germans offensive operations. They are kind of like StuGs with turrets. They were slaughtered in large numbers when used in offensive ops that required the coordination of radios and 3 man turrets. But the russians had the numbers to practice this mechanized bum-rush type of warfare. The germans had success with the 50mmL60 and 75L43-48 against the T3476's. It was only earlier when they had the 50mmL42 being the predominate PIII weapon and the 75mmL24 as the PIV weapon that there was such T34 shock going on (that line from the untouchables comes to mind "bringing a knife to a gun fight"). It was left to 88s and 105mm field guns to stop the dominance at that time. The german PIIIL and PIVG+ with their 3 man turrets supported by StuG G+ (plus means that version and later) and the always superior radio/command restored the germans to tank men. These vehicles could out manuver and find hull down positions with thier superior gun depression. The support of 75mmL46 and other effective ATGs helped hold the infantry in the line. When the russians starting fielding 3 man turret vehicles with radios in large numbers; it was all over for the germans in 44. Lewis [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

I agree. See aslo the Russian Tank Platoon thread. Even non-penetrating hits should have a morale effect. In my opinion, even non-hits (the supersonic crack passing by) should have some morale effect. The reason so many AP rounds are needed to destroy vehicles is because tanks arent stupid. If they are being targetted, and they cant identify who/what is shooting at them, they take evasive action. Its extremely rare that a vehicle has the "TigerI" syndrome of just charging into all forms of fire with the assurance that they are "immune". Its often a platoon commanders call. He quickly ascertains the sitrep and makes a decision. Discretion is the better part of valour and its reflected in german doctrine. Tanks are valuable and not to be just wasted. So I would like to see platoons of tanks pulling back and popping smoke together. Anything that limits the omnispotting uber-coordination is a welcome addition for me. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PeterNZer: God! We're not starting this thread again are we? I hope BTS don't waste time responding to yet another MG thread (when they could be working on CM2). PeterNZ<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hope they dont waste "time" responding to this but rather just decide if a quick fix is desired for the still for sale CMBO. If not, just say so and put this to issue to bed. I like the CM2 ideas. Some I have mentioned way back. Jason's idea (has anyone else said they liked it?) is too way out. He is getting extreme now, claiming that people want MGs to mow down everyone, etc. No one is saying that but rather a line of squads rushing across its firelane should all recieve a dose of firepower. Jason, just drop it. BTS is going to do what they want for CM2 and your idea isnt exactly along the lines of what they are thinking of. Lets see if CMBO is going to be updated or not. Lewis [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Just one additional comment; why shouldn’t this apply to German Tank Platoons as well? Tanks don't typically operate as independent entities; they operate in teams...(sections, platoons, companies, etc) and tend to play "follow the leader" so to speak. If you’re an “Indian” and not a “Chief” than you guide on the platoon leader or platoon sergeants tank. They're the guys that know what the mission is, and they're the guys with the maps. Unit cohesion, unit integrity, and unit teamwork is everything. Without unit cohesion and teamwork we are no longer talking about a combat unit, we’re now talking about an armed mob.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Radio communications. Three man turrets. Until the tank platoons had these two features, the team wasnt playing as a team. The advantage of a dedicated commander unencumbered with loading, shooting, radio tasks, etc made tha taem possible. So while they should still be within a reasonable proximity of each other, they didnt need to be in LOS of each other. They could share info real time, so that a heads up call about what is over the hill is broadcast to the rest. Having a dedicated radio operator WITH a radio is also important. This is often overlooked. Radio technology back then was tube based and required an operator that was trained. Intercoms are important for the internal operations of the tank team. So you have a tank platoon with a platoon leader that has a recieve-only radio. And someone above is squaking orders into the platoon commanders ear and he is yelling into a intercom-tube and kicking his gunner in the left and right shoulder while waiving some flags while hanging out a hatch without vision ports...sound like fun? Most likely he would just tell the tank on the left to stay on his left and the tank on the right to stay on the right and follow. They should concentrate on targets on the left and right respectively. When the T34s went to the 3man turret/radios and 85mm gun, the germans were in trouble. Targets could be effectively engaged and things like target overlap avoided. Take the following drill into account: Panther platoon firing on T34 company that is attacking. Panther platoon commander designates target "T34 company on the left, advancing at speed" he orders ""Platoon half-left". The platoon (5 tanks lets say) moves its left section and right section around the commanders vehicle so to face its armor towards the target. The platoon commander then orders "Left section/Right section fire at will". The section commander then orders his two vehicle command to fire in alternating turns. This has the distinct advantage of not overlapping targets and allowing the two tank commanders in the section to observe the fall of the shot from the other vehicles gun. The left panther section works from the targets left side in. The right section does the same. They destroy targets on the outer sides so that they are not getting flanked. The platoon commander (having the best gunner in the platoon) observes the T34s movements and trys to target either long barreled weapons or determine the T34s commander vehicle from its tell tale actions/antenna,etc. He also coordinated with his upper echelons, etc. Other examples are when moving forward in bounds. The overwatching vehicles can immediately broadcast where danger is lurking once it reveals itself. This can allow the manuver element to take better evasive action/pop smoke/etc. This is called force multipliers. The sum of the parts are GREATER than the whole. So yeah a T34 is great on paper but it may have been the most destroyed weapons system during the war (due to many reasons of course but also due to some of the reasons outlined here). In the case of the T34 platoon earlier, if he had a target on his left (lets say a StuG) , he could order the left hand tank to target him and advise the right hand tank as to where he was, Then he orders the right hand tank to wheel around/follow himself and they both take the StuG in the flank. A few years earlier it might be the following: Platoon Commander sees StuG but cant relay the info anywhere. He gets his flag out just in time to see the StuG get a shot into the left hand T34. He drops the flag and kicks the gunner in the left shoulder. He screams into the intercom-tube and the driver halts and points his tank to the left. The Stug is now targetting the halted commander. The right hand t34 is overshooting the situation and just notices the commander halting. He looks for the commanders signal (instead of looking for targets or firing). The commanders vehicle then goes up in flames. The right hand tank (being second in command) decides to pull back because he cant see the other tank and does have any way to communicate with him. [ 04-15-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

The Panzer IVs frontal turret is often pointed out as being its major weakness. Since it is only armored to 50mm at near vertical, most weapons can punch a hole there. But this area is actually pretty small in comparison to the size of the tank. Its roughly equivalent to hitting one side of the vehicles tracks. The gun mantlet over laps this 50mm area with another 30mm of armor. This is also Face hardened armor. So its my opinion that this achilles heal is over stated in CMBO. Hopefully it will be addressed in CM2. I have seen pics of tracks being welded on in this area on panzer IVs. They were obviously aware of the problem. Lewis

Sounds like a good abstraction. If the plt commander is KOd something has to be resolved. Will one of the other two take over, will they just be TACAI controlled or will a Company HQ tank take over, etc? But I like this kind of abstracted C-cubed limitations. Lets hope BTS folds it into the mix. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: By the way, why have you guys gone and created a second thread on this issue? It's already pretty much been resolved in the first one, and Steve has made his commitment to changing some things for CM2. This should be pretty quiet on this front until we make it to the East. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that BTS is on the right track for CM2. But I would like some kind of fix for CMBO. In any cse, its good that BTS get alot of input while they are creating CM2. Something needs to stop the russian mobs from just over running everything in sight. MG Bunkers that can fire across the advance of infantry should be the backbone of defense.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Nope, because I think such complaints aren't really justified and the solutions are more cumbersome than any gain in accuracy they'd involve. I don't want penetrating fire. I am not interested in making MGs uberweapons or making the game more cumbersome to play, or turning it into some single game of "optimise the angles". I am only interested in making long rushes without cover more dangerous, because they are too easy to get away with in CM as it is now. Another fellow suggested more rapid fire as the range drops. That is functionally equivalent to just raising the firepower as the range drops. I am dead-set against such changes, as a "blanket" matter, based only on range. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You really are confusing. I dont understand your delayed exposure suggestion and think its a bad abstraction. You seem to think that realistic grazing fire (calling it uberweaponry) will ruin your playtime? Sorry bud but its realism I want not bad abstractions. MGs hold ground and thats a fact. Having an MG engage targets that are in a narrow covered arc in quick succesion is NOT the same as just raising the FP value. Actually, its something that BTS might consider. I hope they do and dont go into bad abstractions like time warps or slow motion grounding of units.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rollstoy: I just finished L'Abbey Blanche as Allies and achieved a tactical victory in this quite difficult scenario. I transfered the .50 cal to a heavy building in the city where it blasted away at the Germans until it was low on ammunition. In the debriefing it had caused ONE casualty at a mean distance of 150 meters. Now, I do not know if only confirmed casualties are given in the debrief mode (this is what I suspect), but this result was a little bit disappointing for such a heavy weapon. Fighting nearby was a squad with 14 confirmed kills! Thomm<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unbelievable as this may seem; I agree with Steve's views on MGs as far as the 50 cal is concerned. In my mind, it is not the infantry stopper that a water cooled or a quick barrel change weapon is. It is great at anti-lt.vehicle tasks and is great at clearing infantry out of houses, bunkers etc. In other words, it is more like a light flak gun in the ground role than a true HMG (at least to me). Its also awesome at long range shooting. Ive carried ammo boxes for this weapon and if I remember right, you only get about half the ammo for the same sized box as a 30 cal MG. Heres a website where Canadians do a study and proclaim it a loser. web page

"In order to improve Stug III's performance, in 1942, small number of various Stug III models (from Ausf B to Ausf F) was rearmed with 75mm Stuk L/33 guns, which externally resembled 105mm StuH 42 L/28 howitzers causing confusion. In reality Sturmgeschutz was never armed with this of gun. 75mm Stuk L/33 gun was invented by the British, who misinterpreted German photos of Stug III Ausf F with its longer L/43 gun, which had the muzzle break painted out by censors as new type of gun - L/33." Thats from Actung Panzer website. Somewhat confusing if you ask me.

My ref shows that 7.5cm panzergranatpatrone rot 38mm @60 @500 meters. Also 7.5cm GranatPatron 38 40mm regardless of the distance. Was there a german 75mm weapon in between the 75L24 and the 75L43? I vaguely remember reading about one. Perhaps a lengthened L3X?