John Erickson

Ok, I pointed out earlier that the love story really happened. Now another surprise. Sacha was really hung. I haven't read any connection between Sacha and Vassili but Sacha did exist. He was a 15 year old cobbler working for the Germans and spying for the Russians. He was hung by the Germans for spying. According to the book he was hung in front of his mother though. I thought it was a pretty good way to work that story into the movie. Now as for the "political moral aspect" it's a movie that takes place during a war Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. How do think anyone can do a movie without some political moral aspect? The little speech at the end was a bit much but he was shot in the head shortly thereafter what more could you ask for? John

From the book "Enemy at the Gates" copyright 1973 Sgt. Tania Chernova. For many years after the war she belived that Vassili Zaitsev, her lover, had died of grievous wounds. Only in 1969, did she learn that he had recovered and married someone else. The news stunned her for she still loved him. That's why the love story was in the film. It was there in the war. John [This message has been edited by John Erickson (edited 03-18-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rattus: . Interesting that the AK-47 so close to the MP44 given the Russian had built & used "Assault Rifles" since the mid -thirties. (Simonov AVS-36). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought the big breakthrough on the MP44 was the cut down cartridge which allowed for some control of full-auto fire. I'm not too familiar with the early Soviet designs. Did they reduce the power of their rounds before the AK? The MP44 vs. AK47 controversy usually shows up soc.history.war.world-war-ii with some regularity. It hasn't happened in a while so it's due. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook: I'm not absolute in this view, however, as I need to ask BTS one thing first. In the small arms reference charts, we get values for 40m, 100m, 250m, 500m. How are base firepower values calculated for in-between ranges, like 80m or 140m as examples? Do they come from linear extrapolations, or follow a "small arms weapon curve" unique to each weapon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the important question as far as I'm concerned. If the firepower of the MP40 drops like a rock after the 100m mark and the MP44 firepower follows a more linear decline from the 100m mark to the 250m mark things would look great. In my games the shooting gets serious in the 120-170m range, and there aren't any stats for this bracket. Unfortunatly it's hard to test the firepower of individual weapons because you can't edit squad content. John

I was always under the impression that all references to "realism" applied to the initial Omaha beach landing scenes. Everything else was, like you say, made up by the writers and producers. I'm sure your project will be interesting but I would be more interested in an explanation of why so many people think they are seeing "real history" in a Hollywood war movie. good work, John

Just wanted to state the obvious. I am a John Erickson not the John Erickson. Although it did make for a strange look when I handed the clerk my credit card when I picked up the 2 "Road to" books. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beau: If any one is interested in this genre, i have I just finished Stalingrad by Anthony Beavor and have come to the conclusion that this must be the best book on World War II i have read, it is relatively new and im not sure if it has been released in the states but its well looking at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you liked "Stalingrad" try and find a copy of William Craig's "Enemy at the Gates". It's an older book so there might be some trouble finding it. My wife got me a 1st edition hardcover for Valentines Day last year. Ain't love grand. John

Joliet, IL John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mortiis: but how do I get to the point where I can choose where my units go, Ive chosen units who will participate in the battle but how do I actually place them. What menu selection do I go into to get to this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hit the preview button to look at the map. The units will be lined up along the edges of the map. Just drop them where you want them. John

30

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: Is anyone familiar with the Abrams versus German heavy armor battles in the fall of 1944? Andy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wasn't Abrams the guy in charge of the action described by Simon in the post above? John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Howling Cow??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, no, it was Holy Cow but Harry Carry is dead so I don't know what this has to do with CM. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: What happens is this. Using my tank (in this case) I target a house that I know contains enemy infantry. I want to destroy the house. I sometimes have to fiddle with the unit's targeting "line" to select the house. Seems like the targeting line breaks right a the end of the house. Issue two: The area fire continues throughout the whole action turn even if the house is destroyed (desired effect) on the first few shots. We have all seen this. The tank just blasts away at a spot in the rubble when the house we wanted destroyed is now gone. Your thoughts? Thanks TeAcH<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Regarding the LOS breaking at the edge of the house I've seen this but it happens with all terrain as far as I can tell. You can't area fire too deep into woods either. I've found view "5" to be the best for area targeting. As for the continued targetting I just had a priest stop targetting a house as soon as the infantry inside it bugged out. I was pleasantly surprised to say the least. One thing I did find odd though was when I was area firing into some woods that were on a hill/ridge line. While I could see the woods, since it was on a hill any shots that went long went right through the woods and landed about 300 meters behind it. I can live with it but I wouldn't have minded seeing some of the shots exploding in the trees rather than weaving there way through a forest. John

Thanks guys.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Or perhaps a spinoff: CMTV Interviews, museum tours , WWII movies, documentarys, Fionn doing an in depth potato masher expose.. I WANT MY I WANT MY I WANT MY CMTEEEVEEEEEEE... Lewis Programming Executive Producer CMTV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sure that's how it starts out but then you end up "Real World CM" and I might just have to kill someone then. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Erickson: Hi all, I'm reading through Jentz's Panzer Truppen vol.2 and I came across a table listing the number of allied tanks claimed to have been knocked out by July 3. One of the causes listed is "Nahkampfwaffen" since my German is limited to bad accents from Hollywood I had to look this up and the definition is close defense weapon. I'm assuming this is an inclusive entry for panzerfausts, shrecks and close assault. Am I correct? thanks, John p.s. For those who are wondering 537 allied tanks were claimed knocked out. On the other hand from 6 June to 8 July the Germans lost 349 assorted StuGs, PzIVs, PzVs, and Pz VIs as total write offs to all causes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, people can quote production numbers for every German vehicle made but they don't know what Nahkampfwaffen means? John

Hi all, I'm reading through Jentz's Panzer Truppen vol.2 and I came across a table listing the number of allied tanks claimed to have been knocked out by July 3. One of the causes listed is "Nahkampfwaffen" since my German is limited to bad accents from Hollywood I had to look this up and the definition is close defense weapon. I'm assuming this is an inclusive entry for panzerfausts, shrecks and close assault. Am I correct? thanks, John p.s. For those who are wondering 537 allied tanks were claimed knocked out. On the other hand from 6 June to 8 July the Germans lost 349 assorted StuGs, PzIVs, PzVs, and Pz VIs as total write offs to all causes.

Something that I don't think has been mentioned. Pay attention to your leaders skills. I've found that a veteran platoon led by a platoon commander with a morale bonus can take a huge beating and keep on fighting. Try infantry battles. That will allow you to concentrate on indirect fire and ambushing without having to worry about vehicles zipping around all over the place. Once you have that down switch to combined arms and go from there. One last tip, the 81mm FO is well worth the points for Amis or Germans. They can call down fire for about 4 full minutes. If you trap a platoon or a company in some woods and subject them to 3 minutes of airbursts, well the battle just got whole lot easier. John

The only problem I have with letting the AI choose is the large number of halftracks and armored cars you end up with. I usually play the AI and I choose equipment for both sides. No surprises that way but at least I don't have to kill 15 halftracks and 1 platoon of infantry. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOCHEN PEIPER: Doh! It would be nice to see the flaming wreckage of a recently dispatched Allied plane... well maybe in CM2 then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All too often the only flaming wreckage left after the jabos fly through is the wreckage of what used to be lynch pin of your defense. It's quite depressing to watch a 500lb bomb land right on top of you Panther. Of couse that doesn't stop you from watching it over and over from every possible angle. And seeing if you can pause just as the bomb hits. John

A quote from Fionn's AAR on CMHQ: "this platoon comprises 3 squads, the HQ element, a mortar team and a bazooka team. It appears that Chris is attaching his mortar and bazooka elements to his forward platoons. This provides me with some valuable intelligence. He obviously believes in homogeneity and isn’t saving his mortar teams to utilize en masse against one specific portion of my front. " My question: How do others handle those 60mm mortars? I usually leave them with their CO and attach the bazookas to my manuever platoons but it's hard to judge the effectiveness of the mortars. Usually I'm happy if I can get the enemy to duck when the 60's start shooting. Has anyone had much success actually causing casulties with them? John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WendellM: Thanks, John. I was looking through the CoW data in the "Century of Warfare Equipment List" file. Sorry if I picked the wrong gun (it's not my specialty). If you know more about the issue Fionn has brought up, please fill us in (especially if we/Fionn are talking about errors already fixed). To me, the current implementation of TOAW seems pretty good, but I'm not certain enough to defend it "to the last man" - just enough to say it's the best I know of. Wendell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wendell, Your welcome. What Fionn is talking about is something that Norm Koger did in TOAW 1. Frankly Norm screwed the pooch, to put it not so politely, when it came to armor/anti-armor combat. Fionn is 100% correct. Norm way overweighted the rate of fire and number of units. My understanding of the algorithm was that all the attack values just got added up and compared to the defense values. Know there is obviously more to it than that but this was the basic problem. It meant that, in one well publicised scenario, 100 jeeps could beat a Tiger tank. This was all changed in TOAW 2 when Norm switched the combat over to a new system in which every weapon "shoots" individually at a target. I prefer TOAW:CoW to TOAW 1 but to be honest most of these problems didn't bother me too much. My problems were in other areas. I'd better make this clear. I have no direct knowledge of how Norm Koger programmed the combat algorithms used in any of his games. All of the above is what I picked up on the TS boards and usenet way back when. All in all I like both games (CoW and CM) but my CoW cd hasn't seen the drive since CM showed up in the mailbox lo these many weeks ago. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WendellM: Fionn, <sniparoony> I'm not sure what you mean (really). In TOAW:COW, a German (1941) 50mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (kinetic) and an anti-personnel value of 5. The 75mm German (1942) 75 mm PaK has an anti-tank value of 24 (HEAT) and an anti-personnel value of 8. [This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 07-28-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Woah Wendell, The PaK 97/38 has a 24 (Heat). That's an adapted French gun. The 7.5cm PaK Fionn is talking about (I think) would be the PaK 40 which would fall under the 75mm Anti-tank gun category which is 44 (kinetic). Norm took a big beating over the 50mm v. 75mm AT ratings the first time through. He corrected that in CoW. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Actually, Fallschirmjaeger, Gebirgsjaeger, and Volksgrenadier SMG platoons all field more firepower than a Sturmm platoon --- and with fewer men. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes they do --- in the 40m range. That's a little to close to satchel charge range for me. The Fallschirmjaeger are a great but the other two rely too much on the mp40 for my taste. If you are sweeping a city they are nice but for that good old country fighting I find my shooting usually starts to get serious in the 100-150m range. Plus when it does come time for butts and bayonets I find that the extra manpower really helps out the sturmgruppe. John

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: I don't mind the whole company, but I could live without the flamethrowers. If that's the way it was, then it was (I have no idea). They don't seem to bring much to the party for the points expended, however.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think you are talking about Sturmkompanies. They come with 3 sturm platoons, 2 mg42 hmgs, and 2 81mm mortars. The individual squads have 13 men including 2xlmg and 3xmp44. There is some serious firepower in there. For an infantry battle you can't ask for anything more. John