Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Ron: I would guess that BTS in there wisdom have gone with the official figures as an average ROF. It is possible that the gunners interviewed for these books (which I have not read) exagerrated their ROF. Also the quality of gunners is not modelled to my knowledge, only the quality of the spotter. Hence while initial fire may arrive faster and be directed better the ROF remains pretty constant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please note that the 25-pdr ROF in the game is 3/turn, while the 'official' ROF is 5/turn. Nobody is asking for it to be 10/turn, although it would be nice to have the ability to determine fire intensity within certain parameters, e.g. like this: 1) Harassing - low ROF 2) standard - official ROF 3) Intense - official ROF + 50% 4) Super-intense - official ROF + 100% You would expend your ammo faster or slower, and consequently be able to tailor the fire more to your needs. Having said that, I am not sure how much something like this was going on during the war. It probably was a measure of the demands on the gunners. If they had a high number of conflicting demands, they would presumably service them a lot quicker.

Grr, double-post. Hasn't happened in a while.

Jesus Christ on a crutch... [ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Silly me to trust the scholarly analysis of a staff school text over the self-effacing memoirs of a grunt peddled to the masses under "popular history".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was one example, I had others which you did not address. You are most welcome to your opinion, but if you base it on the Canadian study only, you have failed to convince me. Blackburn has some issues, and he overstates the contribution of artillery, and it may not have been the greatest system, but what Simon is saying is that the 25-pdr is undermodelled in terms of ROF, and it is according to what I read. You brought up the idea of low ROF arty being some sort of simulation of crappy Commonwealth practice. Well in my opinion that does not wash. We will have to agree to differ here. I think you are wrong, you think I and Simon are wrong. Fine with me. [ 08-13-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: It would be nice though to be able to tell LOS from a specific location in the map that is not being occupied by a friendly unit: you click a feature in the map and then you just draw the LOS line to see where a unit can see if it was there. Also, that feature would be nice when determining where an enemy unit can and can not see. This would make it a hell of a lot easier to plan your approaches and ambushes when the game is under way and the situation is/becomes volatile. And it would not be overly unrealistic or micromanagementiental IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But you are wrong - how can you tell if you are on a rise somewhere that from the woods 500m out you would be able to observe the hill-top yonder? Or if your squad is at a street-corner in the SE part of the city, how can you know that from another street-corner in the NE part of the city that is currently enemy controlled somebody would be able to see the church steeple in the next village that you also don't control? This is totally unrealistic, and BTS have dug their heels in on it, and rightly so. I would not be surprised if changes to the current LOS tool happened, but your suggestion is utterly unrealistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: I have read all of Blackburn's books. I stand by my position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are obviously wrong then.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: I also rather wonder what the bleeding point is supposed to be. Your big anti-tank gun KOed the light tank, just as it is supposed to. Nothing further is militarily useful or required. Maybe some people have been playing too many splatter games, and have forgotten they are (macabre) fantasies, not realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed. I am sure you and many others will join me in hoping that the day soon will come when Fieldmarshall grows up. Hopefully it is not too long away. Some of this talk is quite disgusting, and this bloodthirstyness I find repugnant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: Ina similar vein to the post above are Ken Touts' experiences as a tankr with the British from Normandy till Holland. He was rumbling around in a Sherman for the most part, and what struck me was not so much how busy he was, but how much time-off he got. IIRC, in his 4-5 month campaign, he was in action for a total of about a week, maybe two. The rest was in the rear, or waiting for something to happen. Though not explicitly chronicled, the losses to Touts unit appear to be of a similar magnitude as those of the 68th Armd Bn detailed above. Regards Jon<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought Tout was in 2nd Northants Yeo, 11th AD's Recce. He was in a Cromwell, IIRC, since he complained about the poor quality of it (the Sherman was seen as the Rolls-Royce of the Allied tanks). His unit was almost totally destroyed in GOODWOOD (lost 57 out of 64 tanks or somefink), and rebuilt by disbanding 1st Northants Yeo. All from memory, long time since I read it. This is all based on Tank!, haven't read any of his other books.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: No, BTS did not "cripple the British arty to model this", and I did not say they did (nor use your foul and childish language -- kiss your granny with that mouth?). What I did say was that combined arms doctrine was quite weak, which makes the decided lack of oompf for the 25 pdrs a little easier to bear. As for the 25 pdrs themselves, I repeatedly run across references to them as the "best" divisional artillery in any army, though no one ever seems to qualify what they mean by "best". For a detailed examination of Commonwealth doctrine, several hundred pages worth in fact, I would refer you to "Failure in High Command - The Canadian Army and the Normandy Campaign" by Lt. Col.-Dr. John A. English, ISBN 0-919614-60-4. I don't much feel like mulling through it to enlighten you, but the short of it is that once moving, Commonwealth forces had real troubles getting sufficient artillery support, regardless of how much was theoretically available "on call". Accept it or don't, but save your gutterspeak for your puddlian friends.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Think you are reading the wrong books try George Blackburn 'The Guns of War', he was the longest-serving FOO in the Canuckian Army in NWE. Bottomline is that the UK and Canucks had enough arty on tab, and it was extremely flexible, that they could make up for the poor quality of their tanks, and the insufficient weaponry of their infantry. It was the 'best' system, because of its ability to deliver MIKE, UNCLE and VICTOR targets within a very short space of time, due to the design of the 25-pdr. But really the fire direction system was the key to this. Reference battles would be St. Lambert, the Essex Scottish south of Caen (off the top of my head). All references by the Germans at the receiving end are of stunned awe. The system was perfected later on in the war. It is quite significant that the only two major defeats of sizeable Commonwealth troops that I can immediately think of are 1st Airborne (out of reach of XXX Corps arty) and Worthington Force (arty called on wrong location, due to inability to read maps). Otherwise breakthrough after breakthrough, right from day one in Normandy stopped in artillery fire (21st Panzer at the beaches, 12th SS NW of Caen, 7th AD after Villers-Bocage). When designing scenarios, I get around the ROF issue by giving the Commonwealth 2 or 3 FOOs instead of one, but with lower load-out per FOO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: [snip] 5. How far from the enemy would they dismount? Or did they dismount already when under fire? -From 250-300 metres, usually it occurred after the first foe's shot. Sometimes we didn't dismount at all but fought riding on tanks. Artem tried to clear up when did they dismount and when they did not? He said there were no rules, they desided themselves to dismount or to stay on tanks. [snip] ---From this vet's experience, his unit did fight on the tank at times.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I had actually seen this one. The quote above to me is the key-bit, and it suggests to me that the norm was to get off the tank when fire was opened, at the range quoted (what was the effective range of these SMGs again?). Of course that is my interpretation and yours may vary. The problem with these things is that if you allow fighting on the tank, you can be sure that it will become the norm, instead of a rare occurence. The CMBB variation of the VG SMG squad. Unless that is, the Beta testers can show that if this was coded in, the loss rate would be so high and/or the accuracy so low that it is really a trade-off that you have to pay for. 12-15 guys. Have you ever seen a T-34? I have, and I can for the life of me not imagine it to be a platform from which 12-15 men can fight, even when it stands. It is a bloody small tank really, with many sloped surfaces.

Eric, hi. Just my point. Barkmann got the Ritterkreuz for his action. I have some accounts of tankers from 9th RTR (Churchills) sticking it out after penetrating hits. They are written up in the citations for the Military Crosses and Medals that these guys received. The safest option seems to have been (talking about Allied tanks here) to get out, drop into a close-by ditch, and just pray that more important targets than you are around. Running away from the tank was a very bad idea. Someone running on a battlefield must have a purpose in mind and is therefore subject to considerable attention of the wrong kind, I imagine.

This speculation is of course very interesting, as to how they could fire, what speed the tank was at, and whatnot. I would be interested how many here have been on the back of a small tank (as the T-34 really was) while it was driving over rough countryside, and been able to do anything but hold on for the life of it. For that matter, I would like to hear how many have been on the back of a small tank while it was driving. Americans can try this by getting their pick-up truck out of the shed, have the wifey drive, while themselves getting on the back, drive through a plowed over field, and try to shoot gophers with the old .22. I can't wait for the results to roll in. Really, I think while all this surmising might pass the time, the only thing I can really see help the issue is: a) doctrine, i.e. training manuals the voices of the vets, both German and Red Army c) pick-ups and gophers Until then, this is really a non-discussion in terms of usefulness of what BTS ought to do. For every surmising as to what may have happened, I raise you one on why that may not have happened. Regarding indicating by firing at a target - IIRC Loza states they knocked on the hatch. Also, who said the tank was buttoned? I would expect a tank with a bunch of TRs to not be buttoned. Why bother, there are lots better targets than the TC. Also, what would the TR think of the TC when he buttons while they hang about outside. Again, according to Loza they had a close relationship in which that may have mattered. Also, can we have a definition of 'range'? Somebody above said 'at such ranges' - what ranges? Driving into the trench mounted? Getting off the tank at 200m out? Getting off when fired on by automatic weapons? Sorry, so far I have not seen anything that would convince me that they: a) fired if so, could deliver fire at any accuracy, even to achieve suppression. These guys were armed with SMGs. How accurate os a PPSh or whatever they are called at 100+ metres?

Hi, you are of course right and this has been posted and shot down in flames. BTS' line according to my memory was that it would be too much micromanagement or somefink. My memory is going though, so if you can get the search function to run (best use Steve's membership number as search parameter), that would give you the right answer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: We'll obviously we can have troops ride on tanks now in CM1 but you'll notice they don't actually fire back or anything while they ride. That's my question on CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I know they used tank-riders, and I know that they were the only ones doing that in that style. What I doubt is that they could actually deliver a significant amount of fire from the tank. I have not seen much mention of this. That is why I asked for your sources, because I am interested. Vet accounts are conflicting (e.g. one TC of a T-34 says the tank never fired on the move and always moved full throttle on the battlefield, stopping to fire, while Loza says that he moved at 12 km/h and fired on the move, but rarely; both interviews on the Russian Battlefield). The interesting question is when these guys dismounted. If it was far out (200m range plus), they probably would not need to fire from the tank. If they only dismounted in the German position, it would make sense. As someone else here said, it was partly alleviation of a transport problem anyway, and the doctrinal use was to have infantry ride along to protect the tank from enemy infantry. Loza says that the Tankodesantniki pointed out targets. I can not recall him saying that they opened fire themselves, but that may just be my memory. Again, the pictures I have seen and my vivid imagination of having 8-10 guys clinging to the sides and back of a T-34 does not make me believe that they can deliver much fire, even in suppressive mode. I may be well wrong on this though. Do you have sources in English or German stating that firing from the tank was done as a matter of course? Afraid I don't speak Russian. [ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Maybe for the longer battles in CM2 we should see a declining in morale of any tanker who has seen heavy combat as the time wears on. Do you think this would be in the time span of CM? Very interesting issue, sadly overlooked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not really, since I thought there will be a vehicle morale model in CMBB I don't think it would be as much an issue of how long a fight takes, but maybe connected to experience at some level. 7th AD performed badly in Normandy because the tankers were too hesitant. They had fought the Germans for too long. OTOH, if you saunter to the attack as part of your squadron, and those 75s and 88s brew 6 out of 15 tanks up within the first minute, you probably want to leave for blighty right there and then. In a longer fight (30 mins+ in CMBO), concentration and adrenalin may just do the trick.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: In CM, the crew often bails out unwounded after the hit of a hollow charge. This seems to be unrealistic - heat and pressure should (fataly) injure them, and the tank should tends to start burn easy. Generally, the casualties of crews after an AT hit should be much higher - they are not killed always, bad often badly wounded and not able to run around - or am I wrong here?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think CMBO has that about right. My impression is that casualties from hollow charge hits are indeed a bit higher. Other than that, my readings indicate that casualties IRL were in the ballpark of CMBO casualties. I seem to recall that Steve said they actually built the model on figures of tanker casualties from the war. It is certainly not correct that that most of the crew were KIA or WIA in all cases after a hit, even by HC. Also, the hit does not necessarily occur in the crew compartment, but it could just go through the engine block. Still enough to brew the tank, but gives the crew a decent chance to bail.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: Considering the Red Army extensively used tanks to carry troops into actual battle, I was wondering if anything has been said concerning having these tank riders fire while mounted on the tank on the move. It was a common tactic but I was wondering if the tweaked CM2 will allow this. Any info is appreciated. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You can carry squads on tanks now. What was so special about the Red Army that you can not do now? These squads were just very SMG heavy. I am sure they died as fast if a MG swept the tank deck as Germans who rode on a tank would. Regarding their firing on the move, have you seen a picture of them on the tanks? I would be interested in your sources that say they fired on the move, from pictures I have seen there was no way they could fire. They had to hold on to the tank. Also, even if one or two might be able to fire, with their SMGs from a moving platform at a distance of more than probably 20-30m they would just be wasting ammo.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Murph: This is fantatic. I will now sit down and play one...or all three!! Please, keep them coming, and thanks again. Murph<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're welcome Murph. They are actually fun to make. I just did another one today that went off for testing. Once you are done, make sure you review them honestly and critically at the Scenario Depot.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: After thinking about it for a while, this seems to be unlogic. A tank crew was an easy and valuable target when they have left the tank. The don't know about the situation outside of the tank. Wouldn't it be more sensefull to stay in the tank as long as possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> May I recommend that instead of thinking about it, you would learn a lot by reading about it? Whether it appears logical to you today or not is reasonably irrelevant in light of the words of the tankers who got shot at then. I gave you a number of good recommendations that showed this point in the other thread. Here's another one, and that is excellent: 'The South Albertas' by Donald E. Graves. Does not come cheap, but worth every Pfennig. The best regimental history I have ever read. Staying in a tank that was hit but not immediately killed was a great way to get yourself a medal, a mention in despatches, and a black-rimmed telegraph to mom.

KV-1 56 tons, heavy tank Sherman 35 tons, medium tank KV-1 diesel, hard to set alight Sherman - petrol, aka Tommykocher, aka Ronson KV-1 decent gun, capable of fighting back against threats Sherman - 75mm Peashooter You may insert Cromwell, Churchill, or Stuart for Sherman.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: I guess, the purchase costs are generally not very realistic. I remember something that it should (also) model the rarity of a unit. But doing this by using purchase points only is - IMO - bull****. It would be more sensefull if the game generates the types and numbers of available units, combined with a realistic purchase system. In reality, a commander can request special units - especially tanks/support/artillery, but that doesn't mean that he will get them. Please don't ask me how to model that!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The current system does NOT take rarity into account. You heard wrong. There will be a different system (optional) in CMBB. I am sure BTS would love to hear ideas about how to deal with rarity. For those thinking their solution is BS, they will be able to turn it off. Isn't life wonderful?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: Yeah, but... The author is Heinz Günther Guderian, son of THE Guderian, , so it is technically correct in the strictest sense, eh? And isn't that what we would expect from a Guderian?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dust-jacket writing is an artform that few can handle It is usually not done by the author but by some minion in the dungeons of the publishing company. Anyways, I think I'll get that one. The publisher looks good, and there is far too few German stuff on the market. Anyway, here is Feldgrau's info. http://www.feldgrau.com/heer116p.html The division gave the 1st Canadian Army a very hard time during BLOCKBUSTER, part of the battle to clear the west bank of the Rhine. The relevant pages in the South Alberta Regiment's history make for some really chilling reading. [ 08-11-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OstFront6: Anyone know if we'll be able to create a map ourselves and be able to do a quick battle with it in CM2? If not, why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would guess it depends on how code-intensive map-handling is. I would not hold my breath for this feature.

Hi and welcome. The best place for you to go is to the Tips&Tricks board, and have a dig around there. Then there is http://www.combatmission.com for mods, links, and articles. Finally, high-quality scenarios at the link below

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Måkjager: No problem at all Icm1947 , glad that you like it. BTW there will be a variant coming along soon....all i can say is it involves snow and Mr GM Regards Måkjager<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's a nice mod Makjager. And Shatter, cute try...