Wilhammer

Basically, except for Japan, either you were an Ally of the Germans or conquered, and most wound up being both.

Sorry Hispanic Grim Reaper, Didn't mean to steal the limelight. Maybe it is because I posted on a weekend, while you posted on a Wednesday. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-15-2000).]

Can we get a "Liberator" Sherman covered in flowers?

Bruce, A paste from the link you provided, which is my point, exactly; "[Wesely] Due to differences in how the fire calculations were performed, there were vast differences in the response time to a call for artillery. US and British artillery could respond in 2-3 minutes, while other nations averaged about 12 minutes." BTW, I always have assumed, excepting for TOT, American and British doctrine, British methods forming the basis of the American, are very much similar. The only other significant difference is that US would get requests and often prioritize them to get maximum effect on one target, then go to the next, which is one way the tables in the article you point us to would be used for. I am with you in calling Bitish doctrine of a superior quality no doubt enhanced in application due to the desire to minimize casualties. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-15-2000).]

Cirl sent me an email from a guy doing reseaarch for an upcoming game called "TCS-Armor". He mentions a tactic used by American tankers wherein they did a calvary like charge into a group of uber tanks shooting from the hip, they dashed through, blasting away, did a U-turn and came back. They took advantage of slow turrets and fast living as well acknowledging the need to flank attack the German uber-tanks. As soon as we get the guy's permission, we will verbatim post it here.

From pages 67 and 68 of Citizen Soldiers describing the methods used by the 29th Infantry Division in Hedgerow fighting. "Attack teams consisted of one tank, an engineer team, a squad of infantry men, plus a light machinegun and a 60 mm Mortar. The Sherman opened the action. It plowed its pipe devices (sic hedgerow cutters) into the hedgerow, stuck the cannon through, and opened fire with a white phosphorous round into the corners of the opposite hedgerow, intended to knock out German dug-in machine-gun its." The next two paragraphs describe the reaction of a GI to a rare German WP attack, it is very descriptive of why you did not stay where it landed. "The American tankers loved white phosphorous. They quickly learned that one or two shells fired into a German position meant you didn't have to worry about that machinegun any longer." "After firing the shells, the tank put systematic .50 caliber machine gun fire along the entire base of the enemy hedgerow. The mortar team lobbed shells into the field directly behind the German position (WOW: That seems to indicate that this was unspotted fire, not possible for on board mortars in CM). The infantry squad moved forward behind the Sherman, deployed on line and advanced across the open field using standard methods of fire and movement.....The tank, meanwhile, came on through the hedgerow, either its own power, or after backing out and (sic having the engineers) placing explosives into the holes (sic to blow out the hedgerow for tank passage). Infantrymen could plug into the phone (sic a phone jack for communication with the tank crew was mounted on the back of US tanks)and spot for the tank crew as it fired cannon and machine-gun fire at resistance points". Chapter 2, note 25. Doubler, "Closing with the Enemy" Guess what book is now on my Christmas list. Several questions; 1. Should WP be in the US arsenal? 2. Should we have the ability to have unspotted indirect fire with on board mortars. 3. The phone on the back of US tanks is supportive the "All seeing if one sees" spotting system of CM. 4. Can we have "rubbled hedgerows" in the future. I envision a blown or cut hedgerow becoming a rough hex. BTW, WOW are my initials.

Combat Lessons 4 has a focus on Hedgerow Fighting that is a great read; http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=144

Hey guys, check out these .pdf copies of "Combat Lessons" pamphlets issued by the US Army during WW2. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm#AWorldWarII19391945 Combat Lesson 5 describes the usefulness of the M-16 HT. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=145 CL #6 is excellent. http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=146

Glad you are back Slappy. I guess you gotta reread the whole board now. We spent a lot of time together arguing on the same side. Put me on your PBEM list when you are ready.

]http://combathq.thegamers.net/articles/Arty/arty.asp Let's all read this "corrected" version of the article mentioned in the first post, and then deny or affirm the information presented. Brucer, you are a bit to harsh in condemning it as WRONG. Also, no one is claiming that German FOs and gunners are incompetent, just that the German system was not as rapid in delivery compared to the British or American system. Knowing, as we all do, the propensity for German engineering "overkill" (for lack of a better word), it does not come to too much of surprise they depended on detailed surveys and "as needed" calculations. American management style (which leads the world and shows it the way) no doubt helped to create the the well organized idea of a book of pre-calculations for use by non-engineers, better known as technicians, and helped reduce time to target as the gunners had to do far less work to calculate the delivery of the shelling. The radio-net was a huge idea to and was readily adopted by the US as we were making far more radios and citizen ownership was far ahead of anyone else, a situation borne of necessity due to the vastness of the US. What is discussed in the aforementioned article sounds right to me. What I really want is a book or books that confirm, support or contradict any or all parts of the above article. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-14-2000).]

L.Tankersley wrote: "My feeling is that the land warfare problem is harder than the naval spotting problem, for the following reasons. First, at sea I think the lookouts can concentrate mainly on the horizon - there is no other signficant terrain relief behind which a threat might be lurking unless you're close in to shore. Therefore lookouts can spend most of their time rapidly scanning the horizon with their eyes or binoculars, looking for any anomaly that would then cue a more intense examination. [i recognize this is less true for aircraft.] 4 lookouts could divide up the horizon into quarters and scan their area of responsibility several times per minute. Plus, while spotting is time-critical, until pretty recently a minute or two passing without spotting a target on the horizon probably wouldn't affect your chances of survival much." Rethink this whole idea. 1. The horizon is not a flat line. Waves, clouds, wakes and various sized targets. The Japanese attack at Savo Island was in the dark to an enemy that was known to be there but was unknown in numbers. The Japanese spotted the destroyers first and then IGNORED them to engage the big guys. This is excellent training in use of superior optical equipment and discipline. Savo Island itself was a terrain obstacle. Nearly all surface engagements were in sight of land throughout history. Water "only" battles were/are extremely rare. 2. A minute or two spotting made a HUGE difference in WW2 combat at sea. The Americans learned to spot just a little quicker with the MK 1 Eyeball and radar, thus doing unto the IJN superior gunnery vs superior torpedoes. The minute or two was critical, becasue once those longlance torps were in the water, the range stopped closing and US gunnery was decreasing in increased effectiveness. Also, if spotted before the Japaenese could launch the LLs, then launching them was pointless as an aware torpedoe warship target was almost always a miss. In the next paragraph you seem to suggest there is no depth to naval warfare. Not true. If you study naval warfare just a little, it is full of depth, and I ain't talking about fathoms. Screening destroyers, Periscopes, A/C, Battlewagons beyond the cruisers. AMOF, one reason that Nelson won Tralfalgar was that the French/Spanish forces had no concept of depth to engagin an enmy force, so when the British broke the line by coming right at the F/S force, the inability of them to concentrate firepower on a non-lined force sealed their doom. What the heck does this have to do with CM? Nothing more than that the comparison of naval gunnery to tank gunnery is valid.

Cheetah....ROFL. BTS, not realistic chasing a Tiger's rear end to kill it? The fellow in the Cavalry link did just that, so it is realistic. This link brings up another thing, light AFVs like Stuarts and M-24s and the Lynx really need their own category or, in the interim, need to be moved to the "Vehicles" column.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/9517/page34.html Link describing a Tiger kill by an M-8 Armored Car.

I lost a Stug once because it was too close to a house. When it fired, it hit the house, buttoning the commander. He kept hitting the house trying to hit an M-18. The Hellcat managed to shoot through the house to get the Stug. Last weekend, a Panzer IV commander died when the house he hit was too close. I was parked right behind it. Eventually it demolished the house and got a clear shot on the infantry it was targeting. I have killed my own Priest before too.

Perhaps we need an "historically invulnerable death ray equipped" German tank option in future CMs? This option would greatly help the "tactically challenged".

Useful battle/command tips from Georgie himself; http://147.238.100.101/museum/helpful.htm

Josh, I am with you. From what I have read, US should get artillery deliverd for all types in 2-3 minutes, and the TOT thing is missing entirely. German artillery should be delivered in 10-15 minutes and should be most inflexible in correcting. Why do you think the Germans had so many SPGs? At this scale, the OBA stuff is not quick enough or plentiful, except for maybe directly attached mortars. The Allied AA tanks is, in my opinion, a balnciong choice and not historically accurate to omit. An M-16 would take out any HT or light armor it pointed at due to all that firepower. The US Army was first and foremost concentrated on firepower, and an M-16 was valuable. These things wer in high demand, and omiting them is equal to including the Puma. Will now begin the search to see just how prevalent they were.

Japan could of avoided war, but fortunately Yamamoto was a poor strategist. Brilliant tactician, totally ignorant of how is enemy would react to the one move that ensured a swift, determined American response. Without a doubt, one of the greatest Strategic blunders in History. Germany wanted to go to war with the US some kind of bad. Hitler saw us as the most practical threat to racial hedgemony dreams he was trying to impose. The one time he actually lived up to an agreement, he declares war on the US. Another stupid mistake. One can seriously doubt Roosevelt could of got a decleration of War against Germany without Hitler's assistance.

How about this one: I have destroyed AFVs and other Vehicles with "indirect" HE fire from other tanks. Example, a enemy Tank is spotted just below a rise by a scout, and I direct fire from my MBT that is just short of the AFv on to the Crest. The resulting nearby explosion can kill light armor (killed several HTs in a scenario with a StUH42 once) or immobilize or hurt the crew (I have done this to US TDs). Is that gamey or smart?

This is a "bug" inherent to all low ammo situations, at least as I have experienced it. I have seen tanks not fire HE at low levels and instead just use MGs. It is really noticed with "T" rounds as you always start up low.

As Stephen Ambrose notes in his writings, the system was horrible since it assigned all new guys in the theter to a generic "by-trade" pool to be assigned on a first come first serve basis. It is that portion of the replacement system that was horrible, for the individuals especially. Contrast that with the German system which basically let a unit get wiped out so that replacements were essentially reinforcements, if one uses the definition of reinforcements as "units" versus replacements, which are "individuals soldiers". Which system is better? Depends on your goals. I am sure the reson for the American system is to keep the press from being able to report that a unit was "wiped out". The replacement system prevented that.

Griffen, The mouse that broke was an optical mouse. The IR diode went out. I am sending it to MS as the warranty is lifetime. Tonight is the night I call him and discuss protocol and our first meeting. I would like to tape it. My secretary could then transcribe it for me. We have guys in the office who use the small recorders all the time. Monty, our CFO, is a fanatic about it. He looks like a mad man pacing around his office recording letters for Mary to transcribe (Ahh, lovely Mary. I just dig Mary, I taught her Excel Advanced and some VBA, she is my buddy.). I already mentioned CM (A historical WW2 company level simulator) to him. I have to thank Dr. Vernon Williams of Abeliene Christian University, he is the guy that heads up the 12th AD Society and got me Francis' phone number. I got the "Willies Hammer" [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 10-10-2000).]

The guy who I turned onto Steel Panthers and later got him a summer job in the States, Ciril Rozic of Split, Croatia, sent me an email about it last November. We played lots of Steel Panthers, which was the closest thing to my all time favorite wargames, Squad Leader and Tobruk. I d/led the beta, and ever since then I have regressed in mental age some 18 years. It really is THE GAME I always wanted. Now, if someone would go through all this effort to do a computer WW2 strategic game ala World In Flames, I'd be content and never buy another wargame type. Thanks, BTS!

Excellent. Thanks for the pics.

One thing I must say I dislike about CM is that I can frequently spot the foxholes before I spot the troops, in my opinion, unrealistic. Dig a hole, get in, throw some branches over it...I would like to see a change that makes it so that you do not see an occupied foxhole until you spot the occupants. Make foxholes as spottable as men. The problem could be the "hide" command as you can't issue a "hide" command to a hole in the ground