Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tread Head: Will CM2 incorperate arty flares? [ 09-02-2001: Message edited by: Tread Head ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CMBB (Great Patriotic War) - most probably not, since you would need dynamic lighting. CM II (the engine rewrite) - will be considered, according to BTS, IIRC.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Andreas, at the risk of sounding stupid (must've missed that one): what's GPW stand for?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry - that is my private acronym for 'Great Patriotic War'. Which AFAIK is the official term for the war in Russian. I find it more appropriate than 'Eastern Front' or any other term I have heard. Steve, thanks for the update.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: How so? All that is required, as I've suggested is that the weapons be treated as pseudo-artillery. You have, as they did, a spotter forward, he calls in fire. That fire is give a beaten zone. QED.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Brian do you have examples of regular use on CMBO's scale? Not as part of preparatory barrages, but in battle? How regular, who did the spotting, how were comms established? How effective was it? Same questions as the ones I asked your PM If those can be answered positively, you are on your way to having a good case - if not, not. The fact that it could do it, does not mean it did it on CMBO's scale. Tanks did fire indirectly (e.g. South Albertas at Kappelsche Veer and during Plunder), and PIATs were used as mortars (according to Bowlby) - all this is not part of the game, for various reasons.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Crowley: Now there are almost no CMBB threads posted at all. The few that have started have just fizzled-out, as there has been no "official" response. CMBB seems to have become rather ephemeral; to the more casual observer it would appear not to even exist<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would suggest that is a case of the culture on the board - it currently does not lend itself to serious discussion of historical events, and there also appears to be a lack of interest in discussing GPW issues, probably due to a lack of knowledge of the 'casual' posters. It is difficult to get information of the same depth as is easily available on the web for the western allies, and the Germans. I would welcome more discussion on GPW matters, and I am busy reading up on it, but that all takes time.

Whether that is realistic or not is debatable, I for one don't think so, but YMMV - having a fog cut-off point to visibility certainly helps making the game display faster though. Does that have LOS implications? Also, what are the system minimum requirements for Op Flashpoint? I can't find them on their website, they are either not there or damn well hidden. CMBO can run on an iMac A, w/2MB graphics card. It ain't pwetty, but it runs. I ran it on a 4MB card with no problems, and now fully modded on an 8MB card. I notice that the Normandy mod seems to slow things down on the very detailed maps (which are a lot more detailed then anything I saw in the screenshots, BTW). Can't test it myself, don't even know if it is available for the Mac, have a 31.2k connection, and am simply not interested.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I'm not sure if it can be compared, but - if I take a look Operation Flashpoint with similar (and gigantic) maps/landscape, more detailed buildings, also lot's of units running around...and it's running mutch better on my machine at the same graphic settings as CM. Even if I only play a very small scenario. And CM displays 'only' a precalculated movie, not a real time action.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So what does Ops Flash do under the hood? Damage model, Tac AI, all that stuff? Well, just checked out the (p)review at Gamespot... Seems it has a non-locational armour model, so that will make things easier, and funnily enough as soon as you get into an overview perspective on the screenshots you have fog in the background. Hmm, I wonder why that is... Could it be that they would not be able to portray the whole map? Nah, not possible - it must be able to sing and dance as well, since it was not programmed on a Mac. 'Similar maps/landscape' uh, not the ones in the screenshots, sorry. CMBO maps are more detailed than that, much more. Also, what is maximum size you can go in Operation Flashpoint regarding units? Bad graphics because it is programmed on a Mac - that is a classic.

No and probably no - abandoned indicates light damage. Also, even if the gun was not damaged before it was abandoned, it was SOP for the gunners to remove the breech block or somefink, to make it unservicable. Has nothing to do with heroism. There will be no further patches for CMBO.

Ground to air cooperation was not as advanced during WW2 as it is in the TacOps world. targets were often inidcated by firing purple smoke. 19 sets (the standard radio in the Commonwealth) were not too reliable. You could not just switch frequencies. Arty FOO teams were the norm. FACs were still experimented with. Platoon level radios often did not reach across a hill, or were useless in woods. Tanks and infantry were not on the same frequency, AFAIK. it would also often be the other way round - tankers would take their orders from the infantry. CMBO does not have an armour command model, and therefore this can not be handled. I would be surprised if there was a lot of interchange between tanks and infantry, other than organic, as e.g. Tankodesantnikyi (sp?) in CMBB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Rather doubtfull as there will be no BritCom forces in CM2 (its an East Front game). CM3... who knows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah, good point - I did assume he meant CM II - if anyone wants it in CMBB, question is whether the Red Army Maxims had the equipment to do this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Anyway - to come back to something resembling the topic in question..... No-one has yet disproved that the BritCom Forces were trained to exploit some unique features of their MMG equipment - viz long-range, sustained barrage fire. What I have failed to see in the game is the ability for this to be used where appropriate. I trust that the greater "Gods" of CM will allow for this in CM2. But will it happen ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite correct - this has been mentioned by people, amongst others me, and there is no need to disprove it, it is indeed not possible to disprove it, since it was real life use. What you need to do is supply proof of it being used at CMBO's level. If you had examples of tactical employment of this, I would be interested in seeing them, because the only ones I have seen are in preparatory barrages (Pepperpots) which are outside CMBO's scope. It is also difficult to judge their effectiveness in that situation, since it might well be that they just got drowned in the noise ('the noise' being e.g. a Field Regiment firing into the same area). So, if you could give some actions where the Vickers was used in that way, the likelihood of it going into CM II is much improved. Where would it be appropriate? Was it done ad-hoc or only after registering the machine-gun? How long does it take to set-up? Should all MG gunners be able to do it equally well (i.e. green as well as crack)? If it was done on the hoof, how were comms between the forward units calling it in and the MG Battalion done? Was it the 4.2" FOOs? Was it done on a regular basis, and part of doctrine, or was it a case of private Bowlby doing it one day in Italy in a desperate situation? If you answer those questions, I am sure BTS will take notice - does not mean they will implement it, but it might make The List™. Personally, I would rate this as a low-priority item at the moment (I may change my mind if you bring compelling evidence), compared to getting dismountable Carrier machine-guns, correct splitting of the squad, more realistic treatment of the 3" mortar, higher ROF for the 25-pdr, 8-gun FOOs, Churchill IIIs, Staghound ACs, Buffalo amphibious APCs. There is only so much that can be done for the game, even by the time of CM II. [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seanachai: Good to see your smiling face again. Did you know that my Landsmann and The French allowed a Million German POWs to die during the war through starvation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah - you lot have something to answer for. Ethan has started to make amends by being generous about buying drinks. If he posts more Grog Porn™, you may just be forgiven. Does not Fargo play in Minnesota? Would explain why Minnesotans were not involved, they would not be able to find the way out of their state, judging by their average denseness in that no doubt documentary movie, let alone mass-murder POWs. Especially if there are no woodchippers around. I liked the former Panzergrenny bawling at you - we have a saying in the Bundeswehr: 'Er ist kein Mensch, er ist kein Tier, er ist ein Panzergrenadier'. Run it through Babelfish, or learn German.

Great stuff Andrew - just installed your German/US uniforms yesterday. I was hoping this one was going to come out rather soon too. Thanks for the work.

Just looking at this makes me wish the Antelope would have aimed better. Where's the Grog Porn™? In honour of Elvis: Tossers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: LL and the Marshall Plan are, IMHO, two of the things the USA has to be proudest of last century. An incredible, and unprecedented, degree of generosity of material and spirit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed - very good post Jason, BTW. AFAIK, Marshall Plan money is still being used today in Germany for low-cost loans by the Kreditanstalt fuer Wiederaufbau (KfW) to start-up businesses and for domestic renewable energy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfe: the single-barreled "Flakvierling 38" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, 'Vierling' (quadruplet) stands for a four-barreled gun. 'Zwilling' (twin) for a two-barreled gun. Speaking in Hapu's voice from the Simpsons: 'A single barreled Vierling - who has ever heard of such a thing?!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: You must really have liked that book eh? To further a point made elsewhere, this is what the professional historian likes to see - any historian worth his salt usually feels the necessity to qualify his remarks - "in the opinion of", "in my personal experience", "in the case of" etc. Provides much more ground for intelligent discussion (and also, not coincidentally, a way to back out of something you've said if someone calls you on it!) Are there any British regimental histories that you are aware of that are in the same league as "South Albertas at War"? Either armoured or infantry? The more I read about the British the more interested I find myself becoming. [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do really like that book - by far the most informative regimental history I have seen. Unfortunately I have yet to see one in similar quality for a British unit. Delaforce does not come close - 'Tank tracks' is good, but taking 'The SAR' as a measure of 100, it would be around 65 (most of Delaforce comes in at 25-50). The DCLI regimental history is interesting, but not objective (50). A nice one is the 'Illustrated History of 6th Airborne (70-80). YMMV. I am still looking - future purchases include 'Only the Enemy in Front', the history of the Recce Corps, and 'Battleaxe', the history of the 78th Division. I'll let you know then.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: CM making the rounds of the Apple websites was how many Mac players heard of the game. Is that how a lot of the long time Mac heads first came here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I found it either on [CNET.com or on Happy Puppy . Can't remember now.

Not sure what 'extention' means. Clausewitz (not being an English speaker by birth) said in German: 'Der Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln'. I would translate this (and have seen it translated) as: 'War is the continuation of political action by other means' 'continuation' in the sense of 'going on', 'constant succession' and 'extension'. Implying that when you don't get anywhere with political action, you resort to using the armed forces. I would contend that that is as true today as it was in the 18th century, although what has changed is the introduction of democratic politicians and their risk-averseness. Been ages since I read this quote, so it may be off, but this is what I recall.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Indeed, so much so, as I noted that when Rommel lost his ability to actually intercept and read the enemy's signals traffic, his supposedly "brilliant" generalship disappeared. Being "brilliant" is quite easy, when you're able to find out exactly what your enemy is doing, by reading his every move. The Allies did it, and managed to sustain and improve on it. Rommel couldn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The joys of looking at things in isolation, eh? Couldn't it be that other reasons playing a role were the defense at El Alamein, the reduced supplies for Afrika Korps and the increase in supplies for the Commonwealth, the disappearance of the 8th Army command problems with the arrival of Monty etc.pp. Yep, loss of the radio interception company when the Kiwis overran the HQ of Afrika Korps (think it was then) was a heavy blow, but it certainly was not the reason that Rommel lost his 'supposedly brilliant generalship'. The mistake had been made before that, when he decided to attack into Egypt, and he still had his radio intel then. Last I checked Rommel still fought a very decent defensive battle around Caen, without any captured radio intelligence - one that was so decent that it became the basis for the NATO concept of Vorneverteidigung, AFAIK. Faced with the British command pre-Alamein, one could also say it was very easy for Rommel to look good. I agree that Rommel appears quite a bit over-rated, but the reasons for Rommel's successes and failures are certainly more complex than captured radio intel. Opportunism, quick decision-making, being up 'there', seeing the state of battle, disregard for risks (some might call it gambling), pushing the men hard, a good grasp of the battle, all these can help, and some of them can also be dangerous. You appear to be saying that a monkey handed radio intel can win a battle. I would disagree with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: Good point. The only source I have that states how much ammo units were issued is the HANDBOOK OF GERMAN MILITARY FORCES, which Jason will probably regard as incorrect because it was published by the U.S Army. Forget the fact that much of the info in this book came from German prisoners, captured weapons, and German documents. (this is from memory because I don't have the book in front of me) The handbook lists the German HMG as having over 6000 rounds of ammo issued to it. And, no, this does not include company, battalion, or divisional reserves, those are listed separately. it also lists the LMG has having over 3000 rounds or over 1200 rounds. The 3000 figure is probably the MG42 as part of a squad where the extra ammo was carried by other members of the squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah well, there we go then. So unless somebody brings some other data, maybe we can just take this as some sort of agreed number? (A lot to hope for, I know) Now, what was the standard load-out for the various US MMGs and the Vickers? Come on, some of the Commonwealth former flatfeet must know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: It would not since mass is directly related to the ability of an object to soak up heat, while conductivity says how past that heat will be soaked up. Pretty much you have three tactics for cooling: run a high conductivity fluid over the barrel and into a radiator (or replace the fluid as it boils off), maximize surface area, or maximize mass. Lead would make a great heat sink, so does iron. Aluminum makes a poor heat sink, and so do light alloys. Low conductivity heat sinks like silicon will be counterproductive since they keep the heat in the metal longer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I meant the lining went, not due to heat, at least as far as I understand it. Or maybe due to a combination. I am no gun expert, the less I have to do with these blasted things, the better.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges: IIRC, the only significant advance in gun-barrel metallurgy is a harder lining (I've forgotten the name of the alloy) for the inside of the barrel that prevents the barrel from wearing as quickly as WWII barrels did. I don't think that it had any effect on the barrel's resistance to heat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah yes, rings a bell - the lining was the problem, at least with the South Albertas.

Maybe this whole discussion could be quickly knocked on the head if someone could provide the standard ammo load-out according to regulations for the various nations, and any evidence as to whether they regularly deveated from that in the field? Just a thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The MG-42 fires 20 rounds per second with the trigger down. The other MGs fire about 8 bullets per second, typically using longer bursts, but not 2 1/2 times as long. An MG-42 burst might be 1-2 seconds, a burst from the others 2-3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are we talking lMG or HMG? The lMG should be a 3-5 round burst, at least that is what they taught us on the MG3. Regarding happyness being a 200-round squeeze - in WW2 this would have led to your MG being unusable in a very short time, and to ammo cook-off (not necessarily in that order). Not sure if metallurgy advanced a lot post-war, but from what I have read the likely consequence of this in a Sherman was that the rounds would just drop a few yards from the barrel. Tankers still did it (not having to carry the ammo seems to encourage that ) though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Germanboy, I believe he means operations, not battles. There are no reinforcement markers in operations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah well, that might make sense then. Since I don't dabble in ops, I would not know.