Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I have next to no information on the Nisei, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think you could do worse than starting with 'Lost Battalions' by Franz Steidl. I think he is married to a daughter of one of the 442 RCT soldiers (could be wrong) and it is a fascinating account of the Lorraine campaign.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Didnt say a damn thing about the Nisei. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would be difficult in the context of TD units, since most people who know anything about Japanese-Americans in teh US military know that they either served as infantry (442 RCT) or as specialists (interpreters etc.) I can make something up though if you like, although that won't be necessary, because you shurely know that the 442 RCT deserves the title of 'Most shabbily treated unit in the whole US Army in WW2'. That would go together with the title of 'Most decorated unit in the US Army in WW2'.

Thanks for taking the time Steve. That should lay some things to rest. Also nicely shows what good testing and comprehensible explanations look like. Now back to dealing with CMBB - shoo!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: No, it means the shell hits with a side angle of 60°. [ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Kurtz's point was that since the Pz IV did not have 60 degree sloped armour anywhere, calculating the armour penetration of the enemy gun against that angle is a wee bit pointless. Maybe you had a typo in there.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: No firing for ANY vehicle on the FAST move. -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I absolutely disagree with this. If you say 'horrendous' or even 'no accuracy', fine. But no firing does not chime with Red Army and early war British Army SOP at all, unless you can show that this SOP was for slow move only. (which it might have been, but I would want to be sure of that) You should still be able to fire, IMO. Much reduced ROF, 0% to hit chance, whatever, but not just saying you can not do it, regardless of fast or slow. There was a remark in the piece Mark IV produced in the other thread on German gyro research, saying that German tankers actually did fire on the move, and it implied that there might have been successes by very experienced gunners with power traversed turrets. Also, somebody else here (was it Scipio?) remarked about current German Leopard tanks being able to fire while moving at (can't remember the speed). Maybe different equipment (i.e. better than the US)? So far the arguments against this appear to come from US tankers. What about other countries?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fraser: And just for the record the AVRE went under the nickname of "The Flying Dustbin".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AVRE - Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers Petard - spigot mortar on AVRE 'Flying dustbin' - projectile for spigot mortar Funnies - all the weird tank contraptions Hobart's Zoo - 79th AD At least that is the terminology that I heard of. AVRE's were the base tank, on which various technical gimmicks could be installed, e.g. scissor bridges, Bobbins rollers for getting across soft bits of the beach etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar: Well apparently so. Try using artillery rockets in your next game and let it rain. You'll hear the rocket's howl as them come in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what I heard the Nebelwerfer had sirens fitted, especially to induce terror, although that could just be legend.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY Tank Armament Research<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mark IV, that is an excellent dig. Great stuff. One point in there I found particularly interesting is that German tanks started firing on the move in Normandy, and that it took very good gunners and power traverse to achieve hits. Meaning that they did achieve hits, and not just fired for suppression.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I think the clinching issue, as discussed in the above threads, was that the Petard round was seen to tumble in flight, thus negating the directional charge characteristic of the PIAT. Indeed I argued that the Petard was a bunker-buster, but others had reason to believe that the Churchill mouting a Petard was more of an all-purpose engineering vehicle designed for destroying obstacles, rather than taking on bunkers in a combat situation. For one thing, the loader is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The AVRE was both. The Petard was desed to deal with bunkers. The crew had an extra guy (demolition NCO), and the vehicle carried so-called Wade charges for destroying obstacles and bunkers. The Petard was used in combat situations, and although I have not finished the book yet, it does not seem that the loader was that exposed from the quotes by the vets who manned the vehicle. Looking at the Churchill design, it is clear that the loader would only be exposed towards the front, the two high tracks giving cover to left and right. He would slide out, and insert the charge into the hole. The charge would probably have tumbled, but according to what I read, as long as it did not turn over completely during flight, it should still have the shaped charge aspect, since it was a large steel-plate on the back of the explosive load that created the effect. They were certainly used in close combat in many a Normandy village, running around and 'Petarding' (that is a word) the houses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Recent threads on this subject concluded that the Petard mortar on the Churchill AVRE is incorrectly modelled as Hollow Charge instead of High Explosive. This makes it very effective against pillboxes and armoured vehicles, and useless against buildings or infantry. Yet Another SturmTiger thread: ST vs AVRE AVRE: Key new info, perf.& pics--BTS,grogs, mods<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, I am not so sure that this is such a big problem. The AVRE was designed to take out pillboxes and fortified houses on the beaches. It takes out pillboxes beautifully, and the blast knocks out guns too, quite easily. I agree that it is crap against buildings (small light - three hits, small heavy - four hits, large light 5 hits, large heavy nine hits required), compared to a 37mm AA gun. All things considered it is not too bad. The round was based on the same principle, and invented by the same guy, who invented the PIAT. Much of its devastating effect came from the application of the hollow-charge effect (or something like this), not from the amount of explosives. Apparently the bunkers for the coastal guns at Cap Gris Nez proved impervious, but all other bunkers just went.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: I don't have any information on this unit. I am assuming that the 290mm is a Howitzer type weapon. Is this correct? I started a QB last night and was given 3 AVREs, but not sure how to use them. :confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 290mm hollow charge spigot mortar. Worked on the same principle as the PIAT, and was invented by the same guy. Only real use IRL was against fortifications. Although I have read of one case where it hit a tree three yards from a Panther, disabling it through the blast. Very short range (effective about 80 yards, IRL) [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: This makes sense since the Soviets were always trying to get to close range where their tanks had a chance to hit something and their numbers would come into play. [snip] the Tobruk rules didn't allow you fire main guns unless you were stopped for half a turn (I think) [snip] I always thought those rules made sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously they would put the Soviet armour at a disadvantage by not allowing them to carry out their SOP though. Also, I am quite certain (my memory might play tricks on me) that the Pommies used shoot&scoot in the desert, so the rules would also not allow historical recreation of those battles. Which maybe connected to the way that Tobruk handled hit probabilities, not that I know how it did that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I know they won't fix this for CMBO but I hope that Steve and Charles will at least look at this "fire on the FAST" issue for CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess that accuracy would warrant looking at. It should not be forgotten though that some of the points in the other thread, whence you picked Stephen's quote, are quite likely to play a role too though: 1. The over-use of regular and veteran crews 2. That CM could just simulate the shoot/stop/shoot procedure without showing it. Also, I have just been told on the back-channel that Soviet SOP was to fire on the move. Maybe they even did hit sometimes??? So there, at least I learned something from this.

I think this whole discussion comes down to to-hit chances, and I have not seen anything like that in this thread. I also don't have time to do a test, but since I don't feel it needs addressing, I won't do one myself. So Scipio, first of all I think that your assertion that 'WW2 tankers knew they could not hit on the move' is a bit general. The armies of two countries (US, UK I think) had tanks that were provided with a device that should have enabled that. Whether they used it a lot/somewhat/not at all is open to discussion though, and has been discussed here at length. So theoretically at least these tankers should have known the opposite of what you claim. Different for the Germans, since they had stop-to-shoot as SOP. Not sure about the Soviets, but neither of the two had gyros. Neither did the UK have them pre-Sherman days, but they still had (I believe) a move&shoot SOP. So there goes your claim, without any lawyer BS. Now regarding the accuracy. I think we can all agree that this is indeed only a problem if a moving tank has the same to-hit chance as a stationary tank? If it is lower, it could be debated how much lower it should be. For German tanks somewhere near zero, for gyro-tanks somewhere near X? I don't know. I am certain it should never be zero though, since you always can have the luck of the draw. I read a story by some 88 gunners who did a first-shot kill on a T-34 at 7,000m in the Caucasus. Pretty unlikely, but an indication of what luck can do, if the story is indeed true. So if someone who wants this changed would go out and run a few tests (nothing major, just a few, to get a ballpark figure) showing what the to-hit percentage differential is between the same tanks, at almost the same distance, depending on whether they move or a stationary, then we would have something to work from. Until then, it will remain a gut feeling, and I am not even convinced at this stage that we have a problem here, regardless of assertions about what tankers in WW2 knew. I am open to be convinced, but I am not going to disprove anyones assertion here. Here is mine - the game is fine, because the US had gyros, and therefore all US tankers knew they could shoot and hit while on the move. German tankers if pressed did it, and sometimes scored a hit against expectation. If you don't like it, disprove me. Not very productive, eh? Now if someone could tell me what Soviet SOP was??? Where is John when I need him...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht: Again, I'm genuinely curious what others think on the issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't really have anything to add to what Steve said in the quote that Vanir dug up. Having said that, I am personally perfectly aware of the horrors of war, and I don't need or want any reminding of it. I enjoy CMBO as reasonably 'clean' fun, in which I can try to master the tactical problems I read about. It is a brain challenge, much like other people do cross-words. Schizophrenic? Maybe, but who cares. But that should explain why I am very happy with the way BTS has done this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: I think that enough people here are ignoring an earlier comment of mine, so I will repeat below: What BTS opted for, in the casualty marker, was a reasonable balance. Sure, some gamers can be bothered by their presence, while others can be bothered that they still don't represent enough "carnage." But how many such "outlier" gamers weigh in against those in the median zone that are satisified with the current representation? That last question needn't be rhetorical. Anyone here can try to provide an answer if so inclined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It will come as no surprise to you that I, like you, see the current marker as a 'happy' compromise aimed at enabling book-keeping and information flow in a decent way. I think it adds a lot to the game by enabling you to gauge enemy combat-effectiveness during a battle. I assume that is the intent of having them.

Thanks for digging Vanir, much appreciated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: The tankers of WWII KNOW that they have nearly no chance to hit on the move, so they usualy don't try it. In CM, they fire, and they hit. If someone can disprove this, then I accept that I'm wrong and feel happy about my historic correct modeled tanks. If not, it's up to BTS to proof the program (if they want).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't play much with tanks because it bores me. Having said that, I never really noticed German tanks to shoot & hit a lot, if at all. But that could be because I never ordered them to shoot & hit, since I knew it was SOP for the Germans from the start of the war to shoot only when stopped. Your assertion is only half right though, since I am quite sure that the UK tank-force at the start of the war had an SOP of firing on the move, even though they might not hit, it was felt that this would provide suppression or something. Needless to say they got their rear-end kicked viciously in the desert. By 1944-5 they sat in gyro-stabilised Shermans & M10s (I think) and presumably non-stabilised Cromwells and Churchills. I wonder if there was a different SOP for different types of tanks. Anyone knows what Red Army SOP was? I seem to recall they had fire on the move at least at the start?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelU: I guess that means I'll have to cut down on the mods though. What a pain. Time to look into a new machine. Cost of CM = £40 for game + £800 for computer. Good thing I spend so much time playing it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would wait until it comes out. I ran CMBO on my iBook 300 w/4MB ATI, and modded to boot. Worked fine, and was not really recommended either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Gee, Spanky, isn't that pretty much what I suggested? Thanks for "analyzing" the thread, BTW. It was mighty nice of you to let everyone know how wrong they all were, and how clean and pristine your own (and your faithful compatriots) actions have (as usual) been. Man, it must suck being on the side of all that is Good, Just and Pure. The constant need to bring the word down from the mountain to the peasants must get tiring for you and David. Do you ever get out of your Ivory Tower for a little R&R? Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Come and watch Jeff Heidman, still not addressing the argument. I think Tiger just wanted to have a bit of fun, by throwing the flame-bait out. That is of course as much fun for everybody else as someone yelling 'Fire!' in a crowd. Oh well. What is amusing though is to see the world according to Jeff Heidman: 1. Argue against the way (insert anything) is done in CMBO. This makes you an instant hero, and freedom fighter worthy of being in the Pantheon of Garibaldi, Che, the defenders of the Roman Republic, and the besieged at Lucknow. Your moral standing is impeccable, and the clarity of your thinking would be the envy of Aristotle, Einstein and Newton. 2. Argue that the way (insert anything) is done in the game is actually quite alright, and a nice compromise. You are a member of a global conspiracy, out to get all falling under 1. You have also been brainwashed, and are little better than a Moonie. You are stupid, and unwashed, therefore you smell bad. 3. Dare to suggest that BTS has in fact a view on how (insert anything) is done in the game, and that it is at odds with what the people under 1. have suggested. You are a brutal oppressor, on a par with Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Ghenghis Khan, capable of unspeakable horrors, and eat little children for lunch. You are also responsible for Area 51, the Kennedy murders, have the moral standing of the officers commanding Unit 731, and criss-cross the country in an unmarked helicopter wearing a black beret, looking for those mentioned under 1. to perform life vivisections on them. Obviously, Jeff has watched one or two episodes too many of the X-Files. Someone should take the remote control from him. Walk into the light Jeff, walk into the light!!! Now, the 'let's mod the casualty marker' lads have still failed to answer two questions: 1. Why is BTS statement that they will never have gore in the game (and to my understanding at least that implied moddable casualty markers) no longer relevant? 2. What is the point of having a modable casualty marker? 3. If the point is to show wounds etc. why is that not wrong in the light of the fact that the squad in question did not in fact die at the point where the marker stands but only finally lost cohesion? 4. What did Tiger aim to achieve by starting a discussion that was finished a long time ago. Answers on a postcard please. Oh, and before I forget, Hi Mom!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Hey, Germanboy, if the shoe fits, wear it. Someone who DOESN'T have a hidden agenda would have read that line, thought, 'well, that person isn't me', and moved on. Or one would have thought. Or perhaps you are defending the rights of those unknown people who DO have a hidden agenda, if they exist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah I knew you would come up with this one. Pretty weak, don't you think? If you want to capture the moral high ground, you should not be afraid to name the people you disagree with. So far you have not done so, but broad-brushed all of those who dare to disagree and actually think that the game is quite good the way it is (lo and behold!). While nobody on the side of wanting to see modable markers is addressing the real issue - that it is not correct to display a fallen soldier, or a tombstone, since not all members of the squad in question have fallen. To do so would reinforce the faulty perception of many people regarding the casualty issue. Unlike with tanks, which really got knocked out at the space where they stand. Anyway, I see the usual suspects (Jeff H, Stacheldraht) have weighed in on your side. Maybe you should just all ask for asylum from the persecution debate in a different place. I pity you all for being victims of the persecution brigade, no really I do.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rat: Im pretty currious to know if there are a lot of Mac users that play Combat missions. Since all Ive seen till now are PC users. This only to share ideas and 'stuff' with mac users and to know if the mods are 'hybrid' compatible. Thnx Rat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes there are, and yes they are. Running it fully modded on an iMac DV SE 400, 256MB. You have to get one of the two mod managers though.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: [QB] Just to clarify, Andreas, what exactly are the "gore" limitations to PC games sold in Germany? Beyond the typical action games, there are others like the Myth & Jagged Alliance series that sport quite a bit of bloody splatter. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uh, good question. I think it depends on what the guys at the BPS had for breakfast to some extent. The relevant paragraphs in the law are rather 'elastically' worded. There is a committee that decides on adjudication. I have not lived in Germany for seven years, and these standards are also dynamit. Wolfenstein, to give you one example, was put on the index, as was Beach Head II, which means you had to sell it to over-18s only, and it had to be in a special corner of the shop. Basically, if you do a wargame (with real people) and have splatter&gore in it, you are asking for trouble.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Y'all are doing HARM to these boards, you are discouraging the free exchange of ideas here, and you are scaring away newbies and probably harming Combat Mission sales in general, by doing this. In my humble opinion, that is. Oh yes, I certainly hope that those of you who don't need extra eyecandy to enjoy CM aren't using any of my interfaces. You don't need to, right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DeanCo, how about naming some names? Bit cowardly otherwise, isn't it? As for free exchange of ideas, that is what we do. Tiger has an idea, and my idea is different. I also know that his idea is based on a false understanding of how the game works in terms of casualties, so I tell him. Now where in this chain do I impede the free exchange of ideas. Or could it be that to you free exchange of ideas consists of 'anything that I like should be allowed to be told, and anything I don't like should not be, because it annoys me'? As for interface mods, I don't use yours. What that has got to with it I don't understand though. I thought that kind of logic (I don't like you, give me back my toy) should stop at about the age of six. Maybe I was wrong, or maybe you are a very talented six-year old.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: Since I have had a farm (up by Steve Grammont in fact) and did slaughter my own animals, I assume that he is just blowing smoke out of his ass. A bovine or deer is completely different when slaughtered than a human. At least, I found the sight of dead humans more disturbing than that of dead deer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Funnily enough, I actually helped slaughtering pigs a lot, on my grandfather's farm when I was a kid (used to stir the blood for making black pudding/Blutwurst). Those were the days. I still don't think I would like blood and gore in CMBO though, because pigs and humans are a bit different for me. There's a conundrum - err, not really. As for censorship in Germany, if anyone here thinks that there is no censorship in the US, they need their heads examined. Or maybe they should just stop reading Mr. Goose stories and arrive in the real world. Just different stuff being censored.