Drifter

Hi all, Does anyone know if there´s a list of all the units available in CM, with specifications regarding armor, firepower, speed etc.? I´m trying to get a better idea of which units are suitable for what, and there are so many available to choose from. Hope you can help. Thanks Soren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sniperscope: 8-My unit database Excel file with pictures comes from Jason McGrody. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Sniperscope, A unit database Excel file! That sound very interesting. How do I obtain it (if obtainable)?. Best regards Soren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Malmvig: Scandinavia CM Players! Please take a look on http://hjem.get2net.dk/CutAway/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Malmvig, Very nice thank you! Nice to see some danish CM support. I hope it will further our cause of bringing CM to the masses! Your site also brought to my attention the game Steel Beasts. I just checked Shrapnel Game´s website too. It certainly seems worth the USD 40,- I think I´m going to order this baby Good luck with your site. Med venlig hilsen Søren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ironcross: i think this point was discussed as well about sighting from a tank,have you tried to look out of a tanks vision slit when closed down and moving? with smoke in the air even wind rustling bushes,you would be hard pressed to see anything thats why m.g fire is used ,firstly as a means of suppression secondly.main gun ammo may be more important to use when a hard target is seen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Ironcross, No, I haven´t tried to look out the vision slits of a tank, but I would still suspect that it requires as much vision to aim the mg, as it does to aim the main gun! But maybe the guy aiming the mg is not in the same position as the main gunner?? Who´s actually firing the mg in a tank? best regards Soren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoePrivate: Hi Drifter, You never said what kind of ammo loadout the Comet and Firefly had. I'm curious because it may have something to do with them not engaging the light gun with their main gun, something I have yet to see. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi JoePrivate, Good point! I just checked the setup for the scenario (I can tell you which one if you wish -just don´t want to spoil anything for you) The Firefly had 42 HE shells (+ AP rounds) The Comet had 34 HE shells (+ AP and Tungsten rounds) I might have used a few shells by the time I faced the gun, but certainly no more than a few. best regards Soren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: It's late a night so I decided its me v.s. the world Regards Keay <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Bastables, You´ve got the odds stacked against you on that one - let me know how that battle goes Goodnight to you! best regards Soren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: In Spielberger book on the Sturmgeschuetz and its variants, there is an interesting combat report upon the early StuG IV and the immense problems they had in dealing with infantry when they had only the Magic wand aka main gun with HE and the top mounted MG which could only be fired from the outside. This report stressed the need for a coaxial MG and or the new remote controlled ones to be immediately fitted to the then new StuG IV to redress its poor ability in engaging infantry at ranges below 300m. (No I’m not going to do a quote, that’s all you’ll get from me. Do your own frigging work!) Another aside is the infamous deployment of the Elephant without bow mounted MGs and its corresponding losses to infantry attacks during operation citadel. The Germans interestingly did not state at any point during the rebuild that increasing the number of Spgr/HE rounds for the 8.8cm would handily eliminate all infantry in the general area. No the emphasis was placed on putting an internal MG so they could kill the infantry. Now the common thread is that these high velocity guns are not magic wands. When one designs for a stated aim, in this case killing other armoured veh other criteria fall by the wayside. The 10.5cm gun in the StuH is a low velocity howitzer; the 77mm actual calibre 76.2mm aka 17pdr is a high velocity gun. Draw your own conclusions and then see if you can find any proof that refutes the little I’ve so far put up. Or you can continue to side step it and continue whining about the “ineffectiveness of main guns vs. infantry” backed by your own subjective belief of WW2, which is what you’ve been doing at any rate. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Bastables, I don´t know if you´re referring to mine or Jarmo´s post, but that doesn´t really matter, since we have the same problem. I also don´t know if you´re even responding in the right thread. I don´t see anybody whining, and I certainly haven´t heard the sound of someone sidestepping I merely see questions being asked by someone not as experienced with tank warfare as you. My original posting regards tanks not engaging an enemy gun. Your replies are about main (tank)guns not being as efficient in dealing with infantry as mg´s?? Are guns and infantry the same thing?? I just had high hopes that my tank would be able to render the enemy gun useless by damaging it - I really don´t care what happens to the crew, since I´m pretty sure my infantry will know how to dispose of them. Thanks for your input about the infantry though - good research Best regards Soren Svendsen

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: I think you’re still playing under the assumption that the main gun is a magic wand. High velocity and low velocity gun were designed for different criteria and battlefield effects. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why, yes I´m operating under the assumption that the main gun is a magic wand! Are you here to tell me otherwise? Please tell me which spell the TC should recite while waving the main gun in mysterious patterns to lower the guncrews defense! (insert smiley) No, honestly I´m fairly new to wargaming, and - I think - just assumed that a big gun would mean more damage to a not too well shielded crew. Well, I have an open mind, and I´m prepared to change my views as I´m learning a lot from this forum every day. Thanks for all your replies. best regards Soren Svendsen

Hi all, Wow, happy to see so much response to my question. What an involved forum this is! I didn´t do any research about doctrine etc. before I started this tread. I can see there are differing opinions as to how the crew should react to a threat, such as a yet unidentified "light gun?" I just thought it logical that the tank should engage such a real threat to itself with the most powerful weapon in its arsenal - the main gun. In the turn immediately following the situation that prompted my post, I had two engineer squads, and one company HQ (all full strentgh) charge the gun while firing at it. This didn´t even suppress the gun crew sufficiently, to hinder it from shooting at my next (third) tank that joined the assault. The gun crew still managed to fire two shots at my centurion, while being shot at by my two squads and an HQ within 9 meters of the gun. My point is this; if two squads and an HQ within close range AND a centurion firing it´s main gun at the guncrew is not enough to suppress it, I think it´s time to whip out the big gun i.e. the main gun. I have been unable to search out BTS´s comments to similar posts, and would very much appreciate if any of you ´veterans´ on this forum could give the link to me. There may well be a good explanation why my tank doesn´t engage with the main gun, but until proven, I think it´s a strange behaviour on the part of my tank crews. just my two cents. Best regards Soren Svendsen

Hi there, Has anyone had this happen?; I have a tank turning a corner, when it suddenly takes a hit: "upper hull hit - no damage". This happens three times, until the crew identifies the threat. and designates it "light gun?". My problem now is, that the tank (a Comet)doesn´t engage this light gun with its main gun - only with mg fire. After 2 more shots from the light gun, my tank explodes - the AI didn´t do any evasive maneuvering. Okay, I have another tank lined up, this time the light gun is going to feel my wrath. NOT! My next tank (a firefly) doesn´t have LOS, but I order it to move forward just a few meters, and tell it to engage the light gun position with its main gun. As soon as my tank is within LOS, the "fire with your main gun order" is apparently cancelled, and the same thing happens again: My Firefly engages the light gun only with the bow mg... Kabooooom, one more tank lost...... Has anybody else experienced this? Shouldn´t a tank crew deem a "light gun?" a threat to itself, and therefore engage it with the main gun? I find that guns are very hard to destroy by mg fire alone - it takes a well-placed shell or two! Opinions please! best regards Soren S.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TeAcH: Hi Drifter. I too had a similar problem and voiced my concerns (and request for a Defend Arc) in the forum. I suggest you read the following posts: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007263.html Take care. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 09-02-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Teamski (and all others who replied). Thanks for the link. I can see this topic has been debated thoroughly. I have played around a bit, and I´ve found that Ron´s suggestion of directing my tank to area fire without the main gun, will keep the turret facing the way I want. It has actually helped in my current game already. (I´m vers. 1.05) Thanks for the input guys. cheers, Drifter

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski: I thought that's what the rotate command was for. Turn the tank into the direction you want him to defend. With the default position of the turret to the front, it shouldn't be a problem......Then when he hears the tank a comin around the corner, he's ready. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Teamski, Thanks for your reply - my problem is that my tank is immobilized, so I have no opportunity to swing it around. It´s just prey, sitting in the middle of the road, facing the wrong direction. I just think that as the overall commander of the tank (and everything else on the map), I should be able to instruct the crew as to the likely direction an attack will come from, and therefore have my turret facing in that direction. Just my thoughts. cheers! Drifter.

Hi all, I´m new on this board and fairly new to wargaming in general. I just purchased the game recently, and I´m having lot´s of fun learning the to do´s and not to do´s. One thing is annoying me a bit though - a lack a ´defend arc´ command as in CC3 (Close Combat 3). In the Villers Bocage - Tiger mission, I´ve run into a problem a few times: One of my tanks becomes immobilized by shell, and the tank commander gets killed, thereby limiting the tanks spotting ability. There I am - stuck in the middle of the street. I have a fairly good idea of where the next threat is going to appear, because my other units have spotted incoming tanks from the west. My problem is my tank was immobilized headed east, and the turret tends to face that way. I´d like to be able to tell my tank commander something like "There´s a tank coming around that corner shortly - keep the gun pointed that way and let him have it!!" - something similar to ´defend arc´ in CC3. I tried to do a search on ´defend arc´, but came up short, so excuse me if this has been debated or there´s another way to obtain the result. I´d like to know how other´s handle this situation? While I´m at it - this is my first posting, so I better take the time to thank Big Time Software for the greatest game I´ve come across in a long time. I thought spending a whole night in front of my monitor was a thing of the past. Cheers from Denmark.