Maj. Battaglia

While this is true, I've also had regular US infantry take out German AFVs. I had a rifle squad destroy a Jagdpanther with a rifle grenade from the side (about 50m?) and rifle squads use regular grenades to take out things such as StuGs from 10m or so. A word of caution: don't charge a vehicle from any direction if it has the nahverteidigungswaffe. I learned that the hard way.

Harry, You only need to click on the mortar unit. When you do, make sure there is a red command line to the HQ unit in question with LOS to target area (sometimes a closer, passing friendly HQ without LOS to target will usurp command automatically-a pain). If so, all you need to do is hit "t" and click on the area you want to target. The line before you target will likely be red and black indicating no LOS, but once you click, the target line will be amber (white if smoke), indicating indirect area fire. If not, the HQ does not have LOS to that exact spot, so try something close by.

Another thought on ammo resupply (and if I'm hijacking, say so and I'll shut up). Also forgive me if this has come up in other ammo resupply discussions (I have not participated in many of them). Perhaps the abstractions included in operations are a problem and long scenarios are the answer (complete with ammo resupply). Two problems I have with operations are the map control determination and mitigation of counterattacks. With map control, if you have a long scenario where it is necessary to rest and replenish troops (and have an option to do so) natural lulls will occur in fighting, particularly if for resupply you can't just send one squad back willy nilly, but have to resupply platoons or even companies at a time, and this takes quite a while to accomplish. The result may be intermediate objectives, and once secured, hold with some troops and, if the enemy has not retreated far away, move back to resupply. Commanders wishing to preserve their forces would have to pull back where necessary to strengthen newly-won ground, but not be forced to abandon strongholds at the computer's whim while on defense. If supply units were modeled, supply points would have to be far enough back to be unseen by the enemy. This would also bring counterattacks into play. Currently, why counterattack in an operation if you are on defense when you can better use your troops in defensive positions? Plus, the initiative is always with the attacker by default, there is no ability for the defender to launch a surprise counterattack while the erstwhile attackers are opening self-heating soup cans: when the next turn rolls around, the attacker has done all this and has remarshalled his troops on the front line. No vulnerable spots to counterattack (and recent intel from fighting is lost anyway during the re setup). One common theme I've seen in pieces by US veterans is how they usually expected and typically prepared for a German counterattack after taking some real estate.

Michael, another voice thanking you for posting these. Brings up a lot of intersting ideas and questions. Regarding ammo resupply, perhaps we are approaching the issue the wrong way. It is possible (I take BFdotC's word) that CM ammo loads are accurate and heat-of-battle resupply being left out is also accurate. Perhaps we (in CM) are always running low on ammo (and hence this becomes an issue to us) because we keep our squads engaged for too long and they fire too much (either because of game engine or our own tactical need). Maybe Marshall was right (that only a few men really fired their weapons)? Or maybe the no-reload in CM is another way of saying "after X amount of combat, a unit is no longer effective and needs to be relieved if you want to hold the position or move forward." The going to a supply point, being TI for a bit, and returning with more ammo and a smile is a good idea, but in practice would units really do this? I mean, after fighting so much your ammo runs out, are you going to go back a few hundred meters and NOT find a way out of returning within half an hour (or more)? On the other hand, perhaps scenarios are just too long, and all but the shortest should be converted to operations with only a few turns per round (say 20 or less). Perhaps a 60 (or even 30) turn scenario is just not accurate: under the time pressure, you keep pushing your squads until they run out of ammo (or even then you fix bayonets). When reading about the length of time some Real Life™ engagements took (all day), but are then boiled down to a 60 turn scenario, I have to wonder if we are going in the right direction. Is being engaged for 60 full minutes accurate? Or should we consider something closer to a series of shorter engagements, where resupply is handled between turns (as it is now). The latter is closer to what I (at least) have read regarding combat. Just some thoughts. I do not claim to have any definitive (or even close) answers.

A lot of good points have been raised here. The US use of the .50 has been raised before, both as an infantry weapon and mounted on Allied tanks. I would suggest, as others have, that the Germans relied on their MG34/42 for infantry and 20 mm for light AA use (and used in a ground role if needed). Therefore, given that they had their bases covered with these two weapons, why add a 12.7 mm MG? The question should be put into the context of what purpose the 50 cal was intended by the US Army. The US intended the M2 to be used as an AA weapon. That is one reason why (in addition to ammo weight and girth) that Shermans and other tanks only carried a fraction the number of rounds as they did 30 cal. rounds. In German TO&E's, there is a lot of inherent AA in regiments and battalions, made up by 20 mm guns. Not so in the US formations: this role is filled by the 50's. AA units were attached separately and typically used heavy quad 50 mounts and 40 mm guns. In the US infantry TO&Es that I have seen, the M2 is not included for use by rifle companies. Battalions have them, but only three to six (TO&E's I've seen say three, interviews I've read mentioned six). All the research I've done on this topic points to an error including the 50 cal as organic to US rifle companies and as the backbone of the heavy weapons companies (which, through Korea, was the M1917). The 50's are in the hands of battalion trains and units needing rear area AA protection primarily and protection from roving light enemy armor, plus whose mobility is already limited by their primary weapons or nature of the unit. So in other words, I think they are over represented in CM:BO, particularly in the context of US offensive operations. If they were less common in CM, perhaps we would not be asking why the Germans had none of these powerful guns if they played a less influential role in the game as I believe they did in real US infantry engagements. That is not to say they made no appearance in the hands of the infantry. They did, but it was the result of someone's initiative. They should not be organic to rifle companies, rather available for separate purchase/inclusion. Please see these two links for the full background from the previous discussions: Use of 50 cal on Sherman Most common US HMG

Dalbrech, I don't mean to be a smug jerk, so excuse me if it comes off this way: Do read the manual. If you were not aware of the many different camera angles, I assume you may not be aware of other cool features such as selecting a unit and hitting the tab key to lock onto them and follow them through the action (really cool from views 1 and 2). This game has a lot of other nuances that are wasted if you do not read the manual.

I'd also like to see the Greeks included. If they were you would not even need a mod for the invasion of Greece, since the Italians will be included. However, I also realize that the research required to accurately represent a new TO&E is not insubstantial. I think the sound files would be less an issue, although not without its own challenges. My choice for an additional nationality is Indian troops. The kit would not be difficult since they are outfitted with Commonwealth equipment. I think that the contribution of non-European (and descendant) troops to the British cause is sometimes overlooked. There were more than Indian troops who fall into this category, of course, but they were the most important in terms of number. For example, during Crusader, there were 4 Indian brigades involved (and 3 NZ and 5 SA)

Regarding the Wasp firing while buttoned, actually I was incorrect before. It can fire while buttoned. I don't know what the chances of this are (if the engine models variable chance to acquire target while buttoned), but this talk of Wasps inspired me to play a QB as the Canadians vs. AI. On a medium map, town, I had a company of infantry, two Sextons, and the Wasp, plus 3" mortar spotter. The main attack went into Jerry's right flank, and I was at the point when it was time to start clearing him from the large heavy buildings in the town. I had laid down a smokescreen to cover the assualt from any enemy in the rear and had previously moved up the Wasp to about 100 m of the action. He was hiding behind a house, and I moved him to within range of one building, buttoned, such that at the end of the turn he'd just be in position and next turn I'd unbutton and turn on the gas. He actually got a shot off just at the end while still buttoned. Of course, the very beginning of the next turn he got nailed by a panzerschreck in a small house 10m away that I thought had been cleared by the Sexton (two other doofi had been seen running to their mommas, so I figured no one else would be skulking in there). The infantry advancing had not quite made it into the building (a mistiming on my part, I wanted them there before the Wasp pulled up). And the psk set the building on fire, so they no longer had the cover they were assigned. Fortunately this was just a speed bump.

Perhaps the tank of gin was empty or some cocktail olives had jammed the pipes. Those WASPs are always tippling. Oh, you mean Wasp, bren carrier with flamethrower? I have used them with mixed success, but they have a high mortality rate. They seemed to work best against a suppressed enemy in buildings. If you've ever seen a bren carrier up close, you know there is very little cover provided to the crew by the things. You can duck down, but anyone with an elevation advantage is going to have little problem fiting into the vehicle--it is only about a meter high. Perhaps the crew came under fire and cowered, not able to fire, or buttoned. The game engine may not allow buttoned fire from the Wasp (like halftrack MGs); I forget if this is true. Once you lost one crewman, I think the engine would not allow any firing, again like HT MGs. In short I'd say don't bother with them unless in a town or village and you are attacking. Keep them out of sight, then use them to finish off a pinned enemy.

If anyone is interested in further info about this topic (as I seemed to have been), here are some links that provide more info about fuzing: 43rd Annual Fuze Conference Keynote Speech Royal Artillery Methods in WWII Actualy, this has a lot more info, but talks about fuzes in British use to some degree and when they become available in ETO. Radio Proximity Fuzes This from the Southwest Museum of Engineering, Communications and Computation.

KR, Good explanations on the use of VT. Regarding the German use of timers, actually this was not something they held a monopoly on (it is a very old principle). I believe every country used them in one form or another, including the US before VT was introduced (and one source I have says that for the Army this was not until Jan 1945--Cooper's "Death Traps"). I don't know how effective they were, or if they are at all modeled in CM. This type of fuse was used in an AA role, and if Cooper is to be believed, the Navy pioneered its use.

Back during one of the MG debates in CM:BO, I was doing some research and came across some guy who collects, of all things, slide rules. But he has a slide rule used for aiming the Vickers in just such a manner described. The Vickers Slide Rule If something like this were ever to be included in CM, I would suggest it be handled like on board indirect mortar fire, with the spotter a HQ unit, rather than a FO for an offboard MG.

Regarding production figures, I only mentioned tanks, and with the US, only Shermans. The Germans also built about 7000 StuGs and thousands of other SP AT vehicles. The US also had its own TDs not included here. And of course, many of the Shermans produced by the US ended up in the UK/Commonwealth, USSR, and Free French forces. Some were sent to the Pacific and never faced the Germans. And in the total I have not factored in USSR and UK production. Overall, I would not be surprised to see that total production by the Allies and deployed in Europe neared high odds versus the Germans at any one time (another key factor). One thing you may be thinking of is the oft-told method of using about 5 Allied tanks to take on one German heavy tank, with one or two maneuvering to the flanks to make the kill while the others kept the German tied down. But again, the main point in terms of CM is what units are facing off and what resources do they have? The overall theater odds mean little if a US infantry battalion that can possibly count on a US tank company for backup is being attacked by a German panzer regiment. Militarily resources are rarely spread evenly across the front in question. Offensive assets are massed to make the biggest difference on a small front. Tanks are definitely offensive assets, and the Germans almost always took this approach in employing them. [ April 23, 2003, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Maj. Battaglia ]

The US did build about 50,000 Shermans (with 75/76mm guns; another 4000+ 105mm), but according to Feldgrau (Feldgrau AFV stats), the Germans built almost 6000 Panthers alone, with a total of about 29,000 tanks (not counting StuGs, Marders, Jagdtigers, etc.). But that is all really beside the point. In a tactical level simulation, what counts is local odds. The Germans usually employed their tanks in such a way as to avoid the overall odds present. That is not to say it was always the case, but hardly every tank vs. tank engagement on the Western Front saw German tanks facing such overwhelming odds.

I think Dorosh is correct about no 76mm Shermans being found in North Africa. Same with Fireflies, for that matter. The 17 pdr made its combat debut as an AT gun on 6 March 1943 in Tunisia. Both the 17 pdr and US 76mm were fitted to the Sherman in late 1943, in the latter case after the US shelved the T20 tank program. This is according to Macksey's "Tank Versus Tank." As a bonus, though, maybe we'll see the early Shermans with dual bow mgs! And CombinedArms, you are correct that the Germans did not send many tanks or panzer divisions to Italy. Not to say there weren't any (Hermann Göring Panzer was in Sicily), but given the terrain, they relied on AT guns and TDs for the most part. I have even seen somewhere how the Germans used Panther turrets as makeshift pillboxes. I suppose you could use a dug in Panther to represent this.

Dook, Thanks. Interesting links. I especially found the UK conversion to squeeze bore 37/30mm fascinating.

It would seem to me that since the description includes Italy, scenarios could be made that are really France 1944. Perhaps some of the OOB would not be there, but a good portion of the basics would have to be. At least, that would seem to be the case to me. The reverse was true with CM:BO: people designed scenarios for late war Italy and Southern France. Thanks for pointing this out, Carr. Plus, since the US 10th Mountain Division went to Italy in Jan 1945, maybe the game will include the elusive Weasel! They received these in the greatest numbers of any formation. [ April 18, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Maj. Battaglia ]

It was also known as the M22 after September 1944. The Standard Ordnance Items Catalog from 1944 gives the specs. 16,000 lbs, very light armor (1 inch max), 37mm gun, one 30 cal mg. I did not realize any saw service. Panzertruppe, do you have any more info on the action they saw? Perhaps they also were used in the Pacific? Download the catalog from MHI

For some reason, whenever I hear "Bolero" I get a mental picture of forlorn formations of tanks and trucks ploughing through North Africa, with blinding sand in abundance. And the occasional camel that has strayed from the Somaliland Camel Corps. That's not necessarily a vote, though.

Oh man. I'm coming back to DC in July/August. If you do another one then, count me in. The place I want to try out when I get back is RFD (Regional Food & Drink) near the MCI center. It was opened by the Brickskeller people and features lots of the same beer as the Brick, but dozens on tap. Hopefully the food is better than the Brick. I've heard tell that it is. After two years in Jakarta, I'm dying for good places to go out for a beer. If only Bardo were still around.

As far as I know, Slovaks were only deployed for rear area security. And there were not a lot. No point putting them in the game. If you wanted to do something with the SNP (Slovak National Uprising), you could probably use Soviet partisans. Zimorodok, the 369th is the one I've seen in regards to Stalingrad. Regarding the SS formations, you are correct that they only saw actin within Yugoslavia. Maybe someone could do a mod and put fezzes on German troops to portray the Handschar. . . .

Hub, Your information appears correct to me, but you left out one point: The Bulgarians never devlared war on the USSR. For some reason they saw fit to do so against the Western Allies (and British SOE operated in Bulgaria, mostly the part annexed from Yugoslavia). But because of Bulgaria's cultural and historical ties to Russia (Russia helped assure Bulgarian independence), they never did declare war. I also recall that they resisted pressure from the Germans to round up Bulgarian Jews and send them to the camps. Zimorodok, the Croats did send some ground and air personnel to the USSR (some participated in the Stalingrad campaign), but not many as you say. Are you from Croatia? I've got a number of pals there. . . .

Icm, Here is a link to a thread, now in the archives, that I started almost two years ago: Most common US HMG We can't add to this now, but if you have comments, feel free to start a new thread here. I'll add anything new I have if I have time (got more work this week than usual). Otherwise, I think it is something worth considering when outfitting your US forces.

JasonC had a thread "How to fight like a German" and "How to fight like an American" that listed not only tactics, but realistic OOBs for various point totals. If you search, they are worth the read. One thing I would add is that, from my own research, it is more realistic to not give many (or any) M2 .50 cal HMGs to the US, especially if attacking (and even more so if doing a company size action). From my research, the US infantry battalion heavy weapons company was armed mostly with the M1917 HMG. The M2 was, from what I can tell, not an organic part of the infantry company (they had the two M1919s). They were available, but would have to have been taken from the support elements, and that would require proactive leadership, not always the order of the day. I can provide more info on this if you wish. To me this is an important issue due to the power of the 50 cal against German HTs and ACs.

Gentlemen, Regarding the 50 cal AA mounting on the Sherman, please see a thread started by Michael Dorosh back in December. I found it to be a fascinating topic because it showed that there really was no one answer to this question. I pulled away from it that generally, the 50 cal was not used from within the turret against ground targets unless a modification to the mounting was made. Use of .50 cal against infantry Feel free to add any additional info to this thread, if you have some. It was a great topic (thanks again, Michael).