jshandorf

Cav, I totally agree with the barrel being hit, but the reasons given out by BTS and others refering to Gun Damage have also stated things like Optics, Gears, etc... which would all be internal to the tank. Now a direct hit on the optics lens would destroy the optics but the Gun would still work, right? And really what are the chance for an optics lens hit?? I would have to say it is very, very low, but in game it just doesn't seem that way. That banana removal platoon consists mostly of Green Monkeys. IMO completely unreliable and possibly a detractor on the battlefield. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Let's get something straight, right now. First off, Raskal and Croda have a problem using that ubiquitous technology known as E-mail. As much as I enjoy seeing illiterate sub-morons punch out their various attempts at using technology, I would much more prefer to just smash them like the proverbial Meekshead with the proverbial brick. I have tried to tell these two ape-men to attach files rather than use their primitive cut-and-paste method of sending PBEM data but they seem as incapable of using E-mail as their are a bathtub, soap and simple etiquette. Would that CM was made of Zebra skins and teeth from the flying rat, then maybe they'd be able to send me a freaking turn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL. But tell me Elijah.. You have nightmares of my PBEMs don't you? Come on.. I know you do! So far in our PBEM you have succeeded in only crippling ONE platoon, and I tell you I have MANY more. So quit running your darn troops and tanks around like a bunch of headless chickens and come out and fight me. I have practically taken about half of the objective flags and you have barely raise a finger in resistance. But I suppose since you are playing the Brits your battle field maneuvers are historically accurate. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: In one scenario, I had 3 tank main guns taken out by enemy artillery In all 3 cases, the MG could still fire. Now this is not negligible: an armored machinegun is still a dangerous weapon, much more so than a stationary machinegun, because it can move fast and is impervious to everything by AP hits and lucky artillery top hits. I DO believe however that information concerning the state of the gun should not be given to the enemy: I like to use tanks with disabled main guns to run around the flanks of the enemy hoping to get slow-rotating AT guns from the side or rear, and lemme tell ya if the enemy didn't know whether or not that tank had a functioning main gun, he might get very nervous ... Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I believe the MG you saw firing was the Bow MG. As far as I know when the Main Gun is damaged the Coax MG is inoperable, which I don't agree with, but that is another thing all together. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Play as the Allies and you'll hardly have to worry about "gun damage". Shots that would only "gund damage" the Panther will kill the Sherman. Cav<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So I wonder... Do gun damages actually penetrate the front armor?? If so then I can understand the gun being damaged, but if THAT is true then I would see my Panthers getting knocked alot more by the Allies' armor, and that is just not the case. If gun damages DON'T penetrate the front armor then that WOULD explain why German tanks take more Gun Damage hits, since obviously German tanks can withstand front turret hits from Ally armor in general. This in turn would increase the chance for gun damage hits, but that doesn't make sense for the reasons I pointed out above... A gun damage hit, sans the actual barrel being hit, would require a armor penetration which doesn't seem to be the case. Arrrg... All too confusing.... Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: In the case described, the gun was not visivle from the tank, and you would have liked the tank to appear from a hidden position with an HE round in the barrel. If I were commanding a tank and I was going to pop up somewhere unsure of what I am going to see, you an bet your bottom dollar that I would not have an HE round in the barrel! Look at the options: OK, so YOU want an HE round in the barrel; you come up over the hill, and there sit an enemy tank traversing towards you ...and you have an HE round in the barrel!... Now I have an AP round in the barrel, I come out of hiding,and there is an enemy tank traversing. WHAM!...I let him have it. OK, so let's say there ISN't an enemy tank, only an AT gun. No sweat, I machingun the hell outta them and hope that I can suppress them before they get off a shot. Anyway, going after an AT gun with a TANK is conducive to getting your ass shot off What do you think infantry is for? Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, sure I can see that, BUT then all the crew has to do is eject the AP round and load a HE round for the AT gun. In my experience I have had WAY more success knocking out AT guns with tanks than infantry ever. AT guns usually ambush tanks for a distance where you infantry has yet to even get to. I can show you numerous examples of this in PBEMs I have played. I so much haven't had problems with tanks engaging AT-Guns, in so much, as having them engaging infantry that is a threat to either the tank or to units nearby. Jeff

Actually Fionn might be putting out an AAR of a battle that he and I did. I will be contributing to my side of the report. Not that I am at this point excited about it cause currently I am getting waxed by him. Jeff

Well, it doesn't to me. Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time? Infantry squad leader: "Okay, guys, we are at the top of the hill now. Since we are spread out over 20 meters Bob, Larry, Mike and I have to be positioned on the other side of the hill where the enemy is. You guys stay on this side where there is cover." Yeah, that makes ALOT of sense. Until the issue is addressed I will just keep my guys VERY far on the back sides of hills. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

Maybe the use of the Main Gun stems off of the MG? For instance, if the MG fires on a target then the option for the Main Gun to fire is somehow "figured" from that? The tank I was talking about was a Panzer IV(L70). I know it doesn't have a MG (even though one is listed in the Unit description???) but still.... I had my infantry moving left to right and forward through a field to the cover of some forests. The Tank was probably about 50-100 meters behind them up on a slight hill overwatching this. Suddenly for the tree line on the opposite side of field, about 200 meters from my Panzer IV(L70), a bunch of British infantry comes storming up and takes my platoon underfire. Needless to say they slaughtered them, and the whole time my tank just sat there and watched it. The TC was unbuttoned and everything. Next round I had to manually tell the darn tank to take the infantry under fire, which it did as the british pulled back. Very annoying. A tank just HAS to be more willing to take infantry under HE fire. Especially when they are within 200 meters. But your right about it being random. I have had Panthers take infantry under Main Gun fire all by themselves. Maybe if the Coax MG fires on a target the tank is more willing to use the Main Gun?? Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

Hey, all. I am playing my first game using a Panzer IV (L70) and I have noticed that it does not appear to have a Bow MG, BUT when I click on it and pull up the unit description it says that it has a Bow MG. Was'sup with that? Does it or doesn't it? And if it doesn't then get rid of the the little desc. that says it has one. If that MG is a commanders MG, well then I have had the tank unbuttoned ALOT and the TC has never fired it, even though he has had plenty of targets. Thanks, Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Turret Ring: Wow! So much for concepts like fire discipline and extended operations with limited resupply. No. In real combat you have to be smarter than to just hold down the trigger on the biggest weapon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hardly... Fact is, if you are being shot at and you think you are going to die imminently your precious “fire discipline and extended operations with limited re-supply” concepts go right out the window. Period. I have another movie where a tank of mine refused to engage infantry with the main gun, even though they were cutting down some of my men in an ambush that was happening right in front of the tank.. It just sat there… Lah dee dah. Jeff

I think Gun damage happens TOO often and it is by far TOO absolute. Just because the main gun may take some damage doesn't mean it is inoperable. Also the Coax should not automatically be taken out. Does it still shoot? Can you pull the trigger and do bullets come out?? If yes, then the MG still works!! The TC could stick his head out and direct the darn MG fire if need be. If anything BTS should implement a scale of damage to the guns that decreases the accuracy of them. In general I believe the most common, by far reason, the main gun would be damaged would be because the actual barrel is struck by an incoming round. This B.S. about optics and gears getting damaged I feel is SO rare that it should barely, if all, happen. They only way for optics, gears, etc… to get damaged significantly is for a shell to penetrate the front turret. The shock of a shell striking the turret armor is NOT going to destroy internal gears or whatever. Tanks were design to take punishment, but the ones in CM seem so freakin’ fragile you treat them like china dishware when moving them about the battle field. Personally I think in BTS'S zeal for realism that they went a little too far here. The chance for gun damage should be scaled back. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: As I said, from the same distance. Scattered, around 3-4 hundred meters. Mind you, the guns can easily be killed with the cars by racing right next to them. While a single car can't reliably suppress a gun from 30 meters, 3 cars bunched up will invariably kill the gun in a few minutes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From 30 meters out a MG should be able to suppress about anything. Unless the front plate on those AT-Guns provides protection, which is historically inaccurate. At medium to long ranges the front plate on AT guns provides "some" protection but at close range (30meters) most MGs should be able to punch right through that. That only further proves my point about how MGs are not very realistically portrayed in CM. But hey, as long as it is like that for both sides then it's fair, right? Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: OK, I did a test scenario. A flat map, with some woods and some scattered trees at the german end. I gave germans 4 105mm howitzers and 4 150mm infantry guns. Distributed some at open, some at woods and some at scattered trees. ----- I first gave allied 12 armored cars.4 M20's, 4 Humbers, and 4 MMG carriers. First scouted the gun positions with carriers and then engaged them from 200-500 meters distance. All cars were KO'd, they managed to kill one gun in open ground. ---- Then I gave the allies 3 jeeps to scout the guns, and 8 Sextons to engage them. From the same distance, all guns were killed. One sexton survived. --- The Sextons did not fare better because improved armor, as none survived a hit. They fared better because a main gun is a much better weapon against a gun, than MG. And thereby should always be used against threatening guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At what range did you engage them with the sextons? Jeff

All I am trying to say is that IF the tank that is engaging the Infantry, AT-Team, AT-Gun, or whatever "thinks" that the MG will suffice to eliminate, suppress, or pin the target then is should, but if it doesn't then use the main gun. With my experience with MGs, in observation and firing, (In a non-military sitiuation) I know that there isn't much of a "fudge" factor with MGs. If you see a soft target with no hard cover between you and the business end of the MG you will KILL/INCAP/WOUND, or severly mess up whatever you shoot at, given it is within effective range. So with that said, the behavior I see tanks demonstrate, sometimes mind you, in battle in CM runs counter to this knowledge. Therefore, the tank should engage with the Main Gun, whether or not this is historical. Basically if I could crawl into the the game and be a TC and if I saw that my MG fire was not suppresing that AT-Gun, AT-Team, Infantry charging me, or whatever, I WOULD fire the main gun. Hell, it's either me or them, who cares if I use a few HE rounds. If I live, is all that matters. Get where I am coming from? Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I have PzKpfw IV's Panther's etc useing main guns to engage Inf all the time as well as AT guns, as long as CMs conditions are met they will fire the main gun. More below The main gun was put their to kill enemy AFVs, its HE purpose was secondary. Look at it this way, the MG puts out a continious stream of lead, typicly over an large area at waist height. The main gun fires 1 HE round at a much lower ROF with its limited shrapnel effects due to its small size. In CM terms you have a squad spread all over a 20m hex in CM, what you see in the graphic representation is a clump of 3 guys representing 8 - 12 men & how the TAC AI sees them is diferent as it see's all 8 - 12 positioned thru the 20m hex. So basicly you have the AI MG spraying lead at multiple targets in the squad & the Main Gun fireing 1 HE round at 1 member or if lucky 2 members reletively close to each other The AI then picks the most effective weapon Ie, If the tanks MG's is more lethal in this instance, as in wound & pin Sqd members, vs the HE capability then if the MG pins the squad, and incrases the % to hit & the lethalty of the HE increases over the MG the main gun will engage. The MG was put on the tank to supress infanty. The HE was put in the tank to destroy fixed positions. & as Bastables posted the MG vs AT guns at 500ms or less is deadlier in CM then the the Main guns HE round as it will penetrate the gun sheilds etc. The M4 75mm Sherman is an great example of a tanks main purpose changeing, Ie its 75mm AP capability was useless vs German Tiger's & Panthers but its HE capability was considered excelent, so it switched roles when the M4 76mm's began arriveing, it dealt with Inf in prepared positions & generaly carried an WP round in the chamber while on the move in case an AT gun or tank was met wherein the 75mm would fire the WP at it & withdraw while the 76mm's armed Shermans with their inferior HE capability dealt with tanks. But they both engaged moveing inf etc with MGs as well. The StuH was developed as a close supt Infantry weapon, to deal with fixed positions or in urban fighting as experienced in Stalingrad. Its main gun was by no means effective vs moving disperced Inf except in supression. If the Inf bunches up, you have better results. 7,5cm, 76mm, & 17lb HE ammunition was not that effective vs inf except in certian situations, and the 17lb didn't even have an HE round till Sept 1944. Then consider that even today the SOP for the US tanks vs Inf is still to engage Inf with machine guns not the main 120mm gun. I had the opertunity to discuss this with an Col in the Gulf during SP2 - SP3 development as the same argument Ie, why arnt the tanks fireing their HEAT-MP at Inf. The Col who's tanks had actualy engaged Iraqi infantry confirmed that they used the 50Cal & 7.62 MGs vs Infantry no HEAT-MP round's were fired in his Bn's tanks vs dug in or dispersed moveing Inf unless an hard target such as a bunker was encountered. SOP was blast away with the MGs & call in Arty. He Also commented that the MGs were much more effective then HEAT-MP vs Infantry. We had a similar discussion over the AI 76mm not useing APCR-T vs a Panther at 300 - 500ms not long ago and it was basicly because the AI knew that the M79 APCBC could defeat the Panther's front turret @ those ranges, Ie it decided that the APCBC had a better % to kill the Panther then the APCR-T. Regards, John Waters ------------- "die verdammte Jabos". [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I totally agree that in REAL LIFE MGs are more effective than HE rounds vs Infantry, but I have NOT seen this in CM. For the same reason I have continually pointed out again and again. Doesn't anyone actually READ my posts before responding? Until MGs become more effective VS infantry in CM I want the main gun to fire at ALL infantry. I can send anyone who asks a movie of a battle where shooting MG fire at the infantry is a practice in futility and that it is only until the HE comes in that I actually damage the foxholed infantry and move them out. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-08-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robo: I'd venture to say that one's marksmanship could improve in a fog, what with no sun's glare to deal with and less visual distractions etc...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree. I hate it when my guy lines up a good shot on a sunny, clear day and then out of the blue this pink elephant runs out and distracts my guys targeting. Damn! Then I have to retarget him all over again next turn. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: So again your saying you want the game not to represent the tactics used by the Armies of the time. What you want is WW2 as Jeff sees it, you ignore the fact that the game models correct SOP. You're also saying that a HE shell from the main gun would have done a better job than just the MG fire which is pure conjecture when seen in the light of German experience in Nth Africa were below 500m the MG-34 with AP ammo was deadly vs. the crew and gun shields of British anti-tank guns and howitzers. 'This was confirmed by British reports that the 2pdr anti tank gun that had a 5/16 inch (7.9mm) thick armour shield which kept ordinary (Ball) small arms fire but did not repel AP bullets fired from the German tanks machineguns. When anti-tank guns held their fire until German tanks approached to within 600 yds, the crews were frequently knocked out by machinegun fire, which penetrated their shields', (Jentz 1998:P, 54). You are still operating under the assumption that HE shells are inherently more effective than MG fire, which is false when seen in the light that the TAC-AI knows the figures of the to hit and to kill and with the addition of vaunted fuzzy logic the TC of the tank makes his decision. What information do you have that proves British and German training and battle field knowledge wrong? Because right now all you have brought to this is 'I think, I want and I feel'. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When are you going to learn to seperate reality and a game, Bastables? I could care less what history has to say about the effectivness of MG fire on infantry. Quit quoting it, it's pointless. What I am referring to is the actual game we play. When I watch MG fire on infantry in the open it doesn't nearly come close to reality. Considering that I want my tank to use ALL of the weapons at it's disposal to eliminate the target. Period. I can watch my tank shoot at infantry in foxholes with it's MGs until I am blue in the face and those infantry will NEVER move. Try it. Load up and game and try it. Put some infantry in a foxhole at 150 meters from a tank. Have the tank shoot it's MG fire at them. Now wait for them to run from the cover of that foxhole. (Hint: it's not going to happen.) NOW tell the tank to fire the main gun on the fox hole. I would predict it will take less than 10 shots before the infantry will get up and haul ass out of that fox hole. THAT is what I am talking about. One more point... Have you ever seen an MG42 fire for real? I have. I stood about 10 feet from one when it was unloading into a car at about 50 meters. All I have to say is that I would never ever want to be on the recieving end of that weapon. It is devastating. Watching MG fire in CM I just don't get that same feeling. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: I fourth it. I've been trying to use this tactic since I saw it in an AAR by Fionn. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But in that AAR the reverse slop was either made up of scattered trees or forest. So the guys were in doubly excellent cover. I also agree with everyone. I have had the same problems with my troops running for "better" cover on the front side of a hill when they were perfectly safe on the reverse slope. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: All right, I'm taking bets on when ol' Bates finally blows his top and starts spamming the board about how poorly he's treated and how none of us are really funny or smart! Who's got Tuesday? Who's got Sunday? Let's go people! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am going with the "premature" blow-up. I got Sunday. Jeff

Turkish Gold cigarettes, and lots of them. Usually they spend most of their life in the ash tray while I stare transfixed at the monitor. Every now and then mumbling, “Go little dudes..”. I usually wash ‘em down with whatever is most plentiful at the time soda, kool-aid, beer, scotch, sour-mix, water, etc… Jeff

Where else can I Monday morning quarterback my favorite war game of all time? You kiddin' me? I'm staying. Elijah, the end is near for you my friend. Muahahahhaha!! Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: Boy you can really spot the REMF's arount here I've seen PEOPLE, of the temporarily alive variety, do the same stupid things the TacAi does, so it's not that far off the mark, Also consider this, a small gun has a gunshield that's about 2-3 foot square, if you don't have that old reliable, "close is good enough" HE, You probably wouldn't stake your life on pegging it with an AP round, MG's have a higher volume of fire,are capable of suppression,(hard to fire a gun while you're eating dirt) and have that endearing quality beloved by panicked troops the world over, spray-n-pray, your tankers were too ballsy, shoulda reversed out instead trying to engage, but no dumber than any other dead tankers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I totally agree with the idea behind suppressing ATs and AT-guns with MG fire but in the game I have not seen this reliably demonstrated to me. I have seen an AT team stand up in the face of MG fire from about 30 meters out and lob one into my Panzer IV. The whole time I was screaming (yes, at the monitor) “Fire the frickin’ gun you fools! Fire!” Also I have targeted an AT-gun with NO LESS than 6 squads to suppress them so that a tank of mine could make a back track behind a reverse slope, but the AT-gun just fires away. If this suppression thing actually worked I wouldn’t mind my tanks deciding for themselves on whether or not to fire the Main Gun. Not to entice flaming but I recall in CC that AT teams were pretty much dead AT teams after the first or second shot. It was utterly amazing if they got a third shot off before being vaporized by the enemy tank. Most AT teams in CM have a pretty good survivability. I recall one AT team firing an errant shot at one of the THREE Panzer IVs I pulled up into a a ridge line. The AT-team was proabably about 80 meters out and ALL THREE Panzer IVs opened up on the AT-team with MGs and, thankfully, thier Main Guns. The team not only survived they managed to get a couple more shots off. Luckily all misses. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Abbott: The vehicle mounted MG's acquire the target first. Then there is a bit of a delay as the main gun is brought to bear. Could this delay be what you noticed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nahh.... My tank will engage a foxholed infantry unit and just sit there shooting the MG. It does nothing else. What if the tank IDs the infantry wrong and it is actually an AT team, well then you have one dead tank. I have yet in a battle for a tank to run out of HE rounds. Mind you I have come very close but every round fired at an enemy target is not a round wasted IMO. Jeff

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: German Panzer SOP was to engage infantry targets with MG fire unless they were dug in, in trees or in buildings. Are you saying the Germans did not have a clue? Or that on the basis of limited information that you the player know better than the TAC-AI in this case? Because the TAC-AI makes its decisions based on a deeper understanding of the chance to hit and lethality involved. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 09-06-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, you actually believe little Germans inside your computer are making TAC-AI decisions? Okay... Lets separate reality with the game, alright? In real life a human can make those decisions. I am not arguing that. In the game the AI screws up sometimes and doesn't fire at threats with the main gun that are real threats that can kill the tank. Period. To rectify this the tank should use the main gun until you tell it not to. Simple as that. Also, are you saying that if I had infantry in the open and as a TC I would only use the MGs on them? Your nuts! Blow them away I think would be the correct assessment here. Use all your firepower to the maximum effectiveness to destroy the enemy. That would include I believe the Main Gun. In combat you never know how long you are going to survive so make an impact when you can and be decisive. Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-06-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Why? Sometimes the MG is more effective than an HE round, which is why the Tank commander will use the MG in leiu of the main gun. The ratio of MG ammo to Main gun ammo is factored in as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? Becuase I have seen the AI make really dumb mistakes. Sometimes targets that should be engaged with the Main Gun sometimes jsut aren't. Why? I don't know... It just doesn't. I would like to see the tank always engage a primary target threat with the main gun. Saving the HE rounds isn't going to matter much when your tank is dead because it didn't use them. Jeff