Tanaka

As for the UK light tank, a Stuart V, But the Light tank used by USA Army in game is the M5A1 and not the M5, so: Notice this doesn't necessary go against http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ sayings... As I see it, there is no evidence that supports the in game "slow ROF" factor for the Stuart V... But as in every thing, some people will read the same and have a completely different opinion One thing I noticed during this last search, is that there is a considerable number of this vehicles restored and running in the US… So it is not up to me to go personally and check the interior of both vehicles turrets (M3A3 vs M5A1) One thing is for sure, as any WW2 AFV owner will testify, room for the crew was not an important part of the 30’s/40’s tank design Cromwell. The nickname “Honey” was, as you said, common among 8th Army cavalry veterans (N Africa) for all Stuart tanks… On those days, there was no INET, so I bet it was common only for them… But as the N. African/Italy front was also for a long period (late 42/ early 44) the only source of of “good” news for the western allies, it had an above average coverage within the UK press, so the idea that the “Honey” nick name could have been generalized within the UK army is also well valid. Brian, No, I’m not going to talk about Moving & Firing vs. Stop & Fire… at least on this topic. I just pointed it out in order to show the Gyrostabilizer can’t be the reason behind the “slow ROF” factor within game… at least on its own. There are several other tanks within the game that have the “slow ROF” remark and never had a gyrostabilizer… These above together with BTS statements that no “tea”* or “dumb as$ command”* factors are put into game… leaves me with few clues. * For instances: The Italians had a poor command in 40… so we give them a negative shifter.

As typed earlier on this topic, I’ve already looked into the archives, far back as January 2000… While there are quite some good gyrostabilizers topics, in likes of http://www.battlefront.com/cgibin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=012481 there isn’t any about the subject trying to be argued in this topic. As I tried to say in my last post, I don’t “buy” the gyrostabilizer “reason”, there must be something else, something I’m not the only one failing to see… If one of you “good souls” out there would like to have another go in trying to bring light onto this subject would be more then welcome… by the way, Brian, thanks for your effort. PS- If you are the lazy type (we all are entitled to be lazy once and a while) and want to shut my mouth, a small post with only a copy/paste of a link with material regarding subject would also be welcome

Hmm... I could bet CM had a different modifier for the gyrostabilizer factor, other then "slow ROF"... "gyrostabilizer" maybe So, what you are basically saying is: In CM, tanks with "gyrostabilizer" get a positive accuracy bonus, while tanks without it on top of not getting this bonus, also get a negative "slow ROF" bonus. I wonder what a German tank commander of the 2nd WW with the "fire only when stop" doctrine would have to say ?!

Argie, why enlighten people and share such know-how ? Do you believe on a better world by any chance ? As every day passes by it is becoming more difficult to win a pbem... So, any more information made available to "troglodytes" and "pedestrians" is a pure nonsense if you ask me PS- For all pedestrians out there… it’s only a joke, don’t flame me ! :cool:

Hmm... That coincides with my view and information regarding the gun mounts on both these light tank versions. Since I’ve looked far back as the 2000 forum archives (inclusive) and didn’t find any discussions regarding the ROF difference, it would be nice if some one could come up with the BTS source of information... basically just one idea/fact that backs up the game information. Apart from the technical stuff, I’ve used the UK version of this tank quite a few times in the game, the 37mm gun even with the “slow ROF” factored in, can take well care of it self… Of course, a little more speed wouldn’t do no harm, only to those side and rear German AFV armors

Hmm... I wonder if there is more then tea into it Some technical explanation on this one would be appreciated…

I think by mid-44 the U.S. 37mm gun had a canister round, like a giant shotgun shell, maybe it hasn't anything to do with what is being described on this topic, but anyway, here it stays a small reminder [ March 04, 2002, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

...Then in a sort of safely way we may say there will be no goofy "rocket panzer" in CMBB

Hmm... A Stormtiger, but beside the 380mm Stu M RW61 L/5.4 gun & the MGs I can't see any rocket system. For "rocket panzer" I’m a bit disappointed, but never the less maybe… perhaps only IC can say it for sure.

Wish is ? Because goofy "rocket panzer" is outside my vehicle identification capacities, so if you could be a little more specific... I would appreciate. [ February 27, 2002, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

I feel said because in this topic I see a general feeling arising... MD typed a post where he putted and interview with ex-ww2 German soldier, a small explanation in how and why he got the interview and asked what the board thought… A great number of posts went on the “great”, “very interesting” direction… Very few, in likes of my 2nd post, picked up with details of Herr Günter saying in order to try to show this man at lest doesn’t tell us the all truce and that at same time is full of old prejudice… (my 2nd post also goes into other terrains…but I already ask for the forgiveness of the board ) A great deal of posts goes in what I call “Patton’s disease”, let me elaborate… 1st we must remember a fundamental rule in politics… the people’s memory is short. Moving along… I find a lot of posts that go in this general direction: “Ia ia , the Germans did that but the Russian did equal or far worst and no one says nothing !” or “ Russian killed millions on the X place on the Y time”… $hit of ones, does in no way justify $hit of another… if it was to be like that, we were all in a world of Sh… and I hope we aren’t I could start here a full analysis of the number of kills… Nazi Germany vs Stalinist USSR… I find it a bit morbid but, I can assure you the kill/year ratio of the Nazi German is greater… and all this for what ? To remember a great deal of posters in this topic, what there country administration of the 40’s didn’t fail to see, wish is… between bad and very bad… we go bad. Came on guys… even Churchill wish was a deep conservator and right wing anti-communist of 1st rate, sow that the Allies had to play along with the USSR. At the time (40’s), only lunatics and mad generals were saying, “lets hit USSR”… and dive the humanity in a long “hot war”… Hollywood for cold war reasons painted Patton and his ideas with the USA flag behind and made him a “true American”… but forget the large majority of the American combatants were not lunatics. So, people! lets forget the old cold war idea… ”God said, do not kill!* ….*- but killing a communist is good” The American system didn’t hate the Communist system because of the Stalin’s murders… to prove that is very simple, just look in the number of murderous dictators who were big American friends. The American system hated/hates the Communist system because this last one was threat to the basis of the 1st… Private propriety vs Communal property … Is that simple, there is no need for TV… just a few books. So don’t try to justify an old cold war feeling, that definitely must go, with a more human thoughts about bad treatment of human beings… So lets move along form that stupid discussion about who killed more… and go back to the original MD question “…Let me know what you guys think…”. Just type your thinking… If it is like the minority, (like my idea) I think he doesn’t say all… only what he wants and there are small lies in there Or like the majority, that say more or less “great this man is saying the truce.” Just to end will clarify one last thing… I don’t agree with some of MD points of view, but in general I thank him for sharing with us this interview.

Well, as no one wants to do it… I do it then… “Gary was originally named Günter, but changed his name when he came to Canada because people in this country always pronounced it "Gunter" which in German means "male goose."” Sorry, won’t buy it… won’t buy that reason… at least he didn’t want his new fellow Canadian compatriots to see right away he was German… “I published a letter in the Calgary Herald to chastise that the phrase "Nazi Army" was being used incorrectly to refer to the German Army.” There was no Nazi Army as there was no German Army… Maybe you were talking about the “Nazi German Army”, but both parts forget a word… “…was punishable by death, though Russian girls were "so filthy" that no one was likely to perpetrate such a crime….” Here Herr Günter revels is true self… How can an entire people (Russian women in this case) be all filthy? This the kind of thought that killed and kills many people even nowadays… Judging people by their religion, country, culture or yet… their economical poverty. “When the Germans arrived in Russia, many felt they were being liberated from Stalin, and …” True, but after a few time, the German police showed up and the true face of the regime arise… an even more brutal then the one they have been “liberated” from. All this talk smells to me like “He only did is duty to the fatherland” kind of $hit… When the Nazi Party came to power in 1934 with 17,3 millions votes… this left out more or less 22 million people who didn’t vote for them. Many of this 22 million felt that instead of the fatherland, they due obedience to a “higher” identity… the entire human race. Many were students with only 17 years old, they refuse to take part on what was to come, they didn’t go into the “Reich Arbeits Dients” and organizations of the kind. Some managed to escape but others paid with their lives to do something that the entire Europe was afraid to do… to face the Nazi Germany. They did it from inside, they didn’t had a chance… but they did in the name of the human decency and in order to save guys like me of a 1000 years Reich. In the end, they didn’t get any Iron cross… even on nowadays German, if a street is to be named after one, a bunch of good patriots shows up saying they were traitors and that they should had serve their country. This last part is not a direct assault on what Günter had to say, it’s just a part of an idea that stayed with me after an interview I conducted with a German born old lady… I’m sorry board, but since we are in old tales mode, I felt the need to tell this one… I’m sure you can forgive me. What made me sick, is that this gentlemen wants us to believe he only did/sow this war things on 7 years of war… I don’t get it, why did he just tell us that? Why these specific facts and not others… I smell something other then generosity is in here… unless Michael didn’t told us the full story. War deeds, are just that, bold (or not) acts portrait during war… and war brings out what man has worst and better all together… I can assure you that it is not just good and heroic things. I want by no means undermine the WAR achievement of this gentleman… What ever he did to earn his Iron Cross, must have meant something to him and above all to his comrades... But, any way, most of the ex nazi German army WAR heroes died doing the only thing they did well… fighting. Fighting a war in Indochina in the name of their former “picnic” host… France. Wish by the nowadays political standards, means they were illegal combatants… so not under the Geneva Convention… that’s why those who were held under captivity by the VC had no legal rights This last one is another joke… I’m sorry if some one didn’t like this one too…

Great... Now just give me his address, so the Mosad can run a check on him

Hmm... I was pretty much sure I did a post on this topic; I even remember one answer to it… I must be going crazy

After a not so good day, nothing like a post like this to make you laugh without being able to stop…hahaha…hahahaha… I’m almost crying…. :eek: Oops, maybe I should cry, what have the world come to!

Although I think this topic should be on the general forum… If I may I will “use” your words Grisha: “…the Polish Home Government in London definitely had a political reason for signalling the uprising when it did, because it had no tactical sense to it at all. In fact, the Polish Home Army had no intention of seeking Soviet assistance, nor did it actively seek it(the Soviets did all of that)…” Together with this quoted from Slapdragon’s post: "…I have familiarized myself with more closely with the Warsaw affair. I am convinced that the Warsaw action represents a reckless and terrible adventure, which is costing the population large sacrifices. ... In the situation that has arisen, the Soviet Command has come to the conclusion that it must dissociate itself from the Warsaw adventure as it cannot take any direct or indirect responsibility for the Warsaw action…" Says it all… No one gives anything; there is always an upper interest behind… on a last instance, for sure, the guys who got “$crewed” were the ones fighting in Warsaw. Russia wanted to politically control Poland… as much as the Americans wanted to economically control the post war Europe. As an European myself, it’s obviously I very much prefer to live under Uncle Sam boot then Uncle Joe’s one… but that doesn’t implies I like to live under anyone’s boot The fascist dictators in likes of Hitler; Stalin; Noriega; Mussolini; Tito; Metaxas and many others, seam to have there days numbered… So our “old” order view, E and W, will gradually go away and perhaps allows us a more fair view of the past. If I may, I will just leave here a small warning, just don’t let yourself be dragged into a new one (good & evil, black & white or whatever)… For sure, as the old one, would diminish the clear “view” of the facts and make the joy of many state budgets planers all over the world. To have a “clear” view doesn’t prevent us of siding with one of the teams… just makes sure we are always open minded, retain the “big” picture view and don’t turn ourselves into “blind” puppets. My 1/4 hour

Although I think this topic should be on the general forum… If I may I will “use” your words Grisha: “…the Polish Home Government in London definitely had a political reason for signalling the uprising when it did, because it had no tactical sense to it at all. In fact, the Polish Home Army had no intention of seeking Soviet assistance, nor did it actively seek it(the Soviets did all of that)…” Together with this quoted from Slapdragon’s post: "…I have familiarized myself with more closely with the Warsaw affair. I am convinced that the Warsaw action represents a reckless and terrible adventure, which is costing the population large sacrifices. ... In the situation that has arisen, the Soviet Command has come to the conclusion that it must dissociate itself from the Warsaw adventure as it cannot take any direct or indirect responsibility for the Warsaw action…" Says it all… No one gives anything; there is always an upper interest behind… on a last instance, for sure, the guys who got “$crewed” were the ones fighting in Warsaw. Russia wanted to politically control Poland… as much as the Americans wanted to economically control the post war Europe. As an European myself, it’s obviously I very much prefer to live under Uncle Sam boot then Uncle Joe’s one… but that doesn’t implies I like to live under anyone’s boot The fascist dictators in likes of Hitler; Stalin; Noriega; Mussolini; Tito; Metaxas and many others, seam to have there days numbered… So our “old” order view, E and W, will gradually go away and perhaps allows us a more fair view of the past. If I may, I will just leave here a small warning, just don’t let yourself be dragged into a new one (good & evil, black & white or whatever)… For sure, as the old one, would diminish the clear “view” of the facts and make the joy of many state budgets planers all over the world. To have a “clear” view doesn’t prevent us of siding with one of the teams… just makes sure we are always open minded, retain the “big” picture view and don’t turn ourselves into “blind” puppets. My 1/4 hour

Grisha I myself have read some books who portrait the history on a specific point of view of a certain side of the cold war… each sides enlarges the “facts” that convenes them most. I go along with your view of the problem and I’m very pleased to see that at least some of us don’t go fully with the “short view” way… Poland since early times has been in constant disputes with Russia (latter USSR), when ever this 2 go to “war”, there is a lot more into it then just what shows up on surface… Poland has the “unlucky” factor of being in the middle of 2 powers… Russia and Germany, and after the Polish golden age, it had always to go into the influence of one of them… For instances, USSR after the 2nd WW and now Germany (economically speaking) For those who don’t know, the Polish “colonized “ the “Kiev” area on the 1st half of the 2nd millennium, on a time that Russia was not even a country… that was just a start All this business about Poland and Russia remembers me another one… The Finnish/Russian conflict, where people also tend to have a one-way view of it too… Kingfish, That is very good... I had a good about it [ February 12, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

Grisha I myself have read some books who portrait the history on a specific point of view of a certain side of the cold war… each sides enlarges the “facts” that convenes them most. I go along with your view of the problem and I’m very pleased to see that at least some of us don’t go fully with the “short view” way… Poland since early times has been in constant disputes with Russia (latter USSR), when ever this 2 go to “war”, there is a lot more into it then just what shows up on surface… Poland has the “unlucky” factor of being in the middle of 2 powers… Russia and Germany, and after the Polish golden age, it had always to go into the influence of one of them… For instances, USSR after the 2nd WW and now Germany (economically speaking) For those who don’t know, the Polish “colonized “ the “Kiev” area on the 1st half of the 2nd millennium, on a time that Russia was not even a country… that was just a start All this business about Poland and Russia remembers me another one… The Finnish/Russian conflict, where people also tend to have a one-way view of it too… Kingfish, That is very good... I had a good about it [ February 12, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]

Marlow, Thanks for the link... Now as for the M-36, I know the tank destroyer and its 90mm gun… and I think although the hull gives it some protection, the turret is another business, its low angle value (0º to 5º) doesn’t give it much. As for the top cover on that picture, lets see it as an hand grenade/rain protection plate, wish would make the escape no longer fast & easy Comparing the T-34 with the M-36 is like comparing the “good overall” idea, with “ the all or nothing” one… guess who is whom ?

Marlow, I can bring a North Korean to the forum and I bet he will state the contrary about the Shermans and the T-34/85… Well after all, the T-34 and the JS-II still are operationally and used today, just take a walk in central Africa. The tankers on those tanks do not exactly have a degree in tactics, but after all… What a piece of equipment, 50 years of history on its armor and working… These machines knew Russian crews; Egyptians; Sudanese ones and now those unita monkeys and they just go on and on for ever… How much do you think a full with extras (gear box with “personality” and “forced” air included), T-34 costs ? a 1/100 of a Abrams ? A few little diamonds ? Even less ? The engines of those babies work on anything that burns, just don’t try to give them water… You can see the engine smoke well before you see the tank, what a sight…brum,brum…braumm. A toast to the best all around tank of the 2nd WW, the T-34 !!! :cool: A M-36, you are joking… what is that ? Some exotic mammal ? Ok, I agree with you… open top is good, it makes the escape easier & faster… This remembers me another honest product that came from those parts of the globe, the famous AK 47… Nowadays, with 70$ any one can buy one in Pakistan, and it is brand new and it has never been fired (that’s why I advice to ask for the seller to fire it first on the other direction), after that you can go anywhere on the globe and be sure to be able to shoot back and make your self heard.

I want water buffaloes… Get some !

The question shouldn't be why aren't FT inside squads ?... The question should be, why are not squads divided into man ? I will try to make myself clear... Right now the men in the battlefield are abstracted, unlike AFVs that are represented individually, they are represented by a squad (group). A squad turns and fires like 1 man without much brain (just try put a fast moving target running around a squad and you will see what I mean). This is done because the current CPU limitations that prevents the vehicle game engine to be translated into soft targets (much more abstracted one). In my view, anything on the game engine that goes in the direction of portrait the reality better is welcome (like fire arks). Putting the LMGs/ AT/ FT teams back inside the squad just goes onto the opposite direction... As for the teams to be pointed out at 300m and fire upon, that’s a FOW “problem” and putting the teams inside squads in order to dilute the “problem” is not the good solution. Understand that I do not wish to control every man on the battlefield.... (CM is for Bn level and not squad level). A good representation of a infantry squad should be made like on the CC series... I command de Sgt, and the TacAi commands the single man... Now there are 2 problems... 1- CC was a 2D game engine... So much, much less CPU resources were needed, remember a 3d fire arc is an all volume integral and not an area one... 2- Even on 2D, those like me who played CC, remember the bad TacAI... So to make a good one on a 3D level would be a masterpiece on his won. From what I have read, CM is going into the “right” direction…so no worries.

German regular Rifle 44 platoon... 105pts British Regular Rifle platoon... 127pts If we take out the cost of the 2” mortar and PIAT (9+13), the British platoon will cost 105pts wish is the exactly same price of the German one… The advantage of the German platoon is a better medium range (95 to 69 from British)… The advantage of the British platoon is a slight better capacity of enduring damage (1 more man per squad as its German counterpart) The big difference in all this, is that the British player his forced to take Rifle Platoons (Engr have the same fire power) if he wants to fight with the regular army. As for the German player, he has more from where to chose... (read Motorized platoon)

Now you are thinking with me... That’s why, in my view, when you chose those "rare" army branches, you pay the price of less buy options. Generally players, who complain about this, are trying to get rid of the “historical” element of the game… and trying to transform the game in collection of data with an equal average for every side… notice that I'm not saying that is your case... Don’t try to transform the US army into the German Army by giving SMGs (airborn units) to its infantry and making it go into battle with AFVs… A regular US infantry squad has its advantages over the German SMG squads, and it is expected to fight in a different way, don’t try to apply SMG tactics to a rifle squad, it has an high probability that it wont work… To explain here the different tactics that should be followed regarding US infantry and German Infantry, goes beyond my time and English . What do players want ? UK Tanks + US Glider Infantry + US Art ? GJ + Heer Tanks +Rockets ? US side as it’s advantages...(read Artillery)...the German side has theirs (Read a more easy application of the infantry)...ignore this, and I don’t know... Scenarios are an all-different business; they model the authors’ vision of the history and are not QBs... So, on them mix what ever you want, it is a simulation of a particular situation. Just to finish, I have not given much time into reading news about the new unit purchase method for CMBB... but I just hope they give the Airborne army branch the tanks the players so much want (i.e. IS-2 with USSR Airborne) but with the rarity factor multiplied for that army branch PS- I know UK rifle infantry squad brings infantry tactics to a surrealist level... but that its an entire different topic on its own. [ January 31, 2002, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ]