Maj. Battaglia

The only mods you can make are audio and visual, with some limitation. You can't tinker with weapons effectiveness or make amphibious trucks. Aside from keeping the code proprietary (a good enough reason in itself), it also makes sure people don't cheat in their multiplayer games.

Dandelion, I found the same thing with long range Tiger fire. I was playing around with a scenario where the two Tigers indict an allied attack with fire to the attacks flank. I found that at a range of 3500 m or so there were pretty much no hits, and even when there were, even the 88mm shell would riccochet. At ranges between 2000 and 3000 m it would often take a number of shots to secure a hit, but the Allied attack, with 7 tanks, was stopped with all tanks knocked out after about 10 - 15 turns. I also don't own CM:BB. I need a new computer, and fast. But I hear the optics are better for many German AFVs.

In both McKee's "Caen: Anvil of Victory" and Reynolds's "Steel Inferno" there are references to Commonwealth tank attacks in Normandy coming under fire from Tigers at long range. Of course, there is never confirmation that they were indeed Tigers. I'm sorry I can't give page numbers, as the indices in these books don't help me find the passages I remember. But when I read these I was thinking about such German tactics in terms of CM:BO, and how difficult it is with the maps we use to incorporate them. The maps represent the main thrust of the attacks and unfortunately long range fire from the flanks isn't usually included. I suppose you could with a map 4000m wide, and through terrain and setup restrictions force the attacker into a 1000 - 1500m wide advance on one extreme. Then give the Germans some flanking units that can only set up on the other extreme. I've played a lot of scenarios and not come across one like this. In CM:BO the Tiger has a disadvantage in that, generally speaking, opposing forces have closed to a range (before the action begins) where they have a chance of hitting and killing it. Any long range sniping by the Tiger is considered to have already happened.

The Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue from 1944 provides the following information: 3-inch gun motor carriage M-10: 3-inch gun M7, APC 2600 fps, 30 mph level 76mm gun motor carriage M-18: 76mm gun M1A1/M1A2 APC 2600 fps, 50 mph level Armor penetration at 1000 yards is the same, according to this source. So why did the US Army use both? The M-10 was a way to get the 3-inch gun (I think originally an AA gun) onto an existing chassis to meet the German armor threat. It appeared before the M-18. The M-18 had a much higher speed (thanks to a better suspension and 26,000 fewer pounds) and so better met the doctrine of the TD forces. The guns were not the same (at least in designation) but both used the M62 APC ammo. I am not sure what the differences were between the two, aside from a muzzle brake on the M18's 76mm. They did have different optics.

Some friendly advice to you fellas: You need to find a better solution. You need a woman who wants to move to the other side of the world from where you are presently. You have to resist at first. You don't want to interrupt your carrer, etc., to move to some place like Indonesia. But then you reluctantly go along with it (and make sure she is given a shipping allowance so you can take your computer with you). Then, since most overseas positions require a fair amount of regional travel, you should not get a job. That way you can accompany your wife on (most) of the trips she takes, and besides, you don't want another committment to keep you there in case the job turns sour, etc. So, while she goes to work in the morning, you play CM TCP/IP with your pals back home (their night time--oh, make sure said country has reasonable Internet connectivity). Once they go to bed, you can devote time to the forum and become a research assistant to Michael Dorosh, read relevant (and other) books that you brought with you or pick up on trips home, etc. You refrain from more than a modicum of CM on nights and weekends while she is there. In return, every so often you have to clean the bathroom, do the laundry regularly, cook dinner, do the dishes, etc. (no fair getting a maid). I even managed to negotiate taking up golf into the package.

RMC, you are quite correct: I mistyped the first time around and fixed it quickly to read loader. I did not think anyone would notice that quickly that time of day. Damn. I agree the photo may have been staged, especially since it is May 1945: someone probably wanted some photos before it all ended. Either way, the "target" is far away. If real, it would be outside of Michael's 0-300m range. I thought the photo was interesting because it did show one sort of modification where someone could use the 50 sitting in the turret. Of course, use of the 50 by the loader would likely mean the main gun would be idle. How common this was, who knows? Further, since it was late in the war, how long had it been like this? Probably not very common.

And Grant drank like a fish and swore like a stableboy, while Hodges apparently was clean cut.

Some evidence from the 11th Armored Division site. First, a photo dated May 4, 1945: This looks like the AA mount was moved to the front of the loader's hatch so he could use the 50 from within the turret. (edited to provide link in case broken graphic: AA mount on Sherman Next, a quote from a story about a tank unit in the Bulge: "the Kraut infantry was coming along he ridge on the other side of the river. We opened up on them, knocking off quite a few before they dispersed. It really was a sight to see Junior up there outside his turret on the back deck of the tank, firing his 50 caliber machine gun like mad." According to the story, they had just been shelled by mortars, so I'm guessing he had gotten out of the tank (where he would have been sheltering) to do this. Also, the implied range is far. Searching through the 11th's AOM Bn material turned up nothing about the 50 cal. [ December 14, 2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: Maj. Battaglia ]

I don't know a lot about Hodges. But if I had the interest you do I would probably try to get a picture from those who served under him. Anything by or about his corps commanders (e.g. Collins must have a lot written about him) or even below (MacDonald's "Battle for the Hurtgen Forest" has many entries in the index--I have it but not yet read it). Perhaps Marshall talks about him in some detail (or writings about his war time career). Just some thoughts.

Bloodybucket, I checked my set of .pdf Combat Lessons. Good idea. I only found this from #6, p.55: "A .30-caliber machine gun on the antiaircraft mount comes in handy; it can be operated more easily than the .50-caliber and enables the tank commander to stay lower in the turret while he is firing it. The more plentiful supply of .30-caliber ammunition is an additional advantage." This sort of implies that the commander could be in the turret and fire the 50, but who knows exactly what is meant. By the way, thanks for including that factoid about 50 cal coax. It shows me that thing I dug up in my previous post (about the 50 in both mounts) may not be fiction or bad memory. However, I would not be so sure about "moving the 50 inside." The maintenance guys could have in fact got hold of some 50s used in fighter aircraft as the sentence implies. Not a big deal either way, just saying it might have been an extremely rare modification. As for ammo expenditure, who knows what the story is there. I've seen similar stats on the 6th AD site. It is hard to tell what 50 weapon is firing the ammo, and who knows, they could have used their M-16s a lot or included figures for attached AA units with the quad trailers. As for the case of modified mounts, one has to wonder how common that was. Of course, we want to know this information to evaluate the realism in the CM system and influence its future development: so was it so common that all Shermans should just be considered to have it? I'm thinking no. Good luck with the posts on the divisional websites. Another good source I would imagine. Perhaps if things really get desparate, we could try to contact someone who, from context of his story, would be in a position to know. However, I fear this might seem like an intrusion over an assinine issue (not that I think it is, but I'm no veteran).

Here is another tidbit, a story written by a John M. Williams on the Fifty Caliber Shooters Association website. An excerpt: "On the back of the turret [of his M4A3E8] was a pedestal-mounted 0.50 caliber which seldom got used. Lets face it, nobody was dumb enough to get out of the tank and stand on the back deck to fire the thing. No Alan Ladds or John Waynes in our outfit." I don't know who the author is exactly, other than the info provided by the site. Also, he mistakenly identifies the coax as a 50 cal (unless his M4A3E8 was somehow modified). Again, not proof, just more pieces of the puzzle.

Doing some more searching, I found the following text on the site of Center of Research and Informations on the Battle of the Bulge (Belgium). It describes the capture of the town of Poteau during the Bulge. It was put together by George J. Winter and based on AARs as well as interviews and letters with participants. "As Van Tine neared the edge of the village his tank was subjected to a near miss from a panzerfaust fired from the building behind Spencer. Almost simultaneous to this the 75mm [gun barrel] struck a tree to the right of the Sherman causing the turret to spin. Nelson, the young gunner, was stunned by the impact. "I was dazed as I was pressing my face against the sights when we hit and just then our tank commander yelled to shoot straight ahead." (letter to the author from Gerald Nelson, August 31, 1987.) "Van Tine's order to fire was, without doubt, a reaction to the panzerfaust that had just missed his tank. With no immediate response to his order and certainly realizing a quick measure was absolutely necessary to save his imperiled crew and tank, Van Tine climbed out the turret hatch. Manning the .50 caliber machine gun he was almost immediately struck in the head. (Van Tine's intention to leave the tank can only be concluded from the known facts. It is unreasonable to suppose that the tank commander left the Sherman and the security it offered simply to fire at a sniper. Gerald Nelson supports this view. "I don't think Van Tine would have gotten out of our tank to fire a sniper. A sniper wasn't a threat but a bazooka was.")" (Note: Van Tine was on the deck, as is described a bit further.) Click here for the whole story. I don't submit this as proof of anything, rather I suggest we take it for what it is worth: one story. However, it does lend creedence to Michael's theory about engaging ground targets from outside the turret. Why would anyone take the time to climb out if one could simply pop up and fire from within? Michael, thanks for bringing this up. I admit I was skeptical at first, but I think you are on to something. It's funny how hard it is to find information about this. I suppose to tankers there it was obvious (if it is indeed true) and therefore not stated in manuals or accounts: if you can't do it, you can't do it, end of story. But since it is not stated, we become unwitting revisionists.

jtcm, I agree it is somewhat hard to visualize, and perhaps harder to describe, how this would work. But I'll try. First, let me say I am no expert on the mount of the 50 cal on the Sherman, I have never sat in a Sherman, or been close to one that still had the 50 cal mounted on it. So this is my common sense explanation based on pictures, simple mechanics, and imagined ergonomics. If someone thinks I am full of weasle oil, and can be convincing, please say so and I won't be offended. I only want to get to the truth of things. Look at the picture on page 1 as a reference, and move the 50 to the front of the cupola. Now, to elevate the gun to, say, 30° or more, you end up with the back end of the gun about level with the top of the cupola. By moving it like this, the back end moves in an arc and also creates more room between the end and the back of the cupola. But in any case, you would probably be less exposed (and not need as much room) because, in order to be holding the handles and aiming with the site, you would need to sit lower in the cupola to align yourself properly. So perhaps only your head would be out of the cupola. By the way, the 50 cal mounted on the M1 is very different. It has a ring mount, but is attached to the ring by an inverted V assembly. The gun rests on a pivot mount at the point of the V and the two ends are attached to the ring. This makes it easier for the commander to sit exposed in the cupola and still grab the handles of the gun and aim at ground targets. I know this because when I ran for president in 1988 there was a photo op with me. . . oh wait, that was someone else. But at some point the Army realized this type of mount was a better option.

jtcm, I think the question is more about whether one can use the 50 cal against ground targets (i.e. at low or negative angle) without getting out of the turret. In other words, M Dorosh wondered if anyone other than Olive Oyl could sit upright in the commander's seat, with, say, half the torso above the cupola and actually physically fit (and be able to have any accuracy) in the space between the back end of the 50 cal and the back lip of the cupola. See his diagram on page 1. For AA use, presumably one could be further down inside the turret to get a high angle (i.e. the breech end of the gun would be near level with the hatch to shoot about 30° or more). dalem, I agree 100% with your remarks about the Luftwaffe threat and the 50 cal. Even in infantry divisions, which had over 200 50 cals, the vast majority of them were not in the hands of rifle battalions, rather with artillery and support units as (presumably, and often stated so by sources such as Forty) AA defense. I have been looking through my accumulated sources and can't find a satisfactory answer. I keep finding references to it being mounted as an AA weapon (such as in the Standard Ordnance Items Catalogue: "a cal. .50 machine gun, mounted at the top of the turret, operated by the commander for antiaircraft use") and that, as someone said before, carrying limited rounds for the 50 (300 in M4 75s and 105s, 600 in the M4 76's, compared to 4750 30 cal). I am very intrigued, however, since the 50 cal is a powerful weapon and certainly has an impact on battles in CM. I am interested to find out a better answer to Michael's questions.

Michael, Here is something from an interview with a Russian armor officer who spent most of his time in Shermans: - The Sherman had an antiaircraft machine gun Browning M2 .50 caliber. Did you use it often? - I don't know why, but one shipment of tanks arrived with machine guns, and another without them. We used this machine gun against both aircraft and ground targets. We used it less frequently against air targets because the Germans were not fools. They bombed either from altitude or from a steep dive. The machine gun was good to 400-600 meters in the vertical. The Germans would drop their bombs from say, 800 meters or higher. He dropped his bomb and departed quickly. Try to shoot the bastard down! So yes, we used it, but it was not very effective. We even used our main gun against aircraft. We placed the tank on the upslope of a hill and fired. But our general impression of the machine gun was good. These machine guns were of great use to us in the war with Japan, against kamikazes. We fired them so much that they got red hot and began to cook off. To this day I have a piece of shrapnel in my head from an antiaircraft machine gun. This is from the following web site: Emcha I agree with your points about the 50 cal being intended as an AA defense weapon and that it would not be used at close quarters. At close quarters (out to 300 yards as you say) most tank commanders would probably be buttoned up. I also read something once in a personal account on the Internet (and I can't find it again) about the Geneva Convention limiting the caliber of antipersonnel MGs, making the 50 cal not "legal" for use against infantry. I'm sure no one cared. But I think that supports the idea that its primary intended use was AA (since the M1919A5 was in the bow and CA of the Sherman).

Parabellum, To add to your comment, here's the rest of that second paragraph: "You’ll also find yourself re-enacting the battle at Kursk, which is where the war began to turn to the Russians [sic] favour, and the game begins to become increasingly difficult once you get this far." Increasingly difficult? Does he mean he somehow played it as a campaign anyway? And I thought perhaps Winter 1941/42 or Stalingrad at the very latest would be where the war began to turn in favor of the Soviets.

panzerwerfer42 is quite correct about the 8" and 240mm guns/howitzers. According to Forty's US Army Handbook, 139 M1 8-inch guns were built by the end of the war. He gives no figures for the M1 8-inch howitzer and M1918A1 155mm gun although, for comparison, he says 4,000 M1 and M1A1 155mm howitzers were produced. Heavy artillery is unlikely (though not unheard of) to be used as close support during a battle. If CMBO had CMBB's pregame bombardment, it would be a candidate for that. That would even hold true, but to a lesser extent, for 155mm as well. But it is fun to use. . . . If you include it for yourself and want to be realistic, use it early and at suspected or slightly revealed targets toward the rear of the map (i.e. not 100-200 yards ahead of your own troops). Also don't ramp up the number of rounds (the defaults are good). If your map and the defense have a lot of depth it would be more apropos. Also, for the corps or army to assign its use, it would have to be a priority battle.

I also see them used a lot in forests. The cover allows them to get close (or the enemy to them) and then at a range of about 20 meters they let them fly, as long as they are not pinned.

Claus B, That picture you posted is of an M-10 TD, right? You wouldn't happen to know if it is an A1 model, would you? The M-10 had a GM diesel engine (about 5000 produced) while the M-10A1 had a Ford gasoline engine (about 1000 produced).

Thank you Michael, that is interesting information. I got the feeling from things I have read and seen on the Internet that escort companies might not have been completely standardized, as you say. I've seen either towed or SP 75mm AT/20mm AA sections, for example. CM:BO has all towed assets. Also, I imagine when committed to combat some elements might not have been included (the motorcycle platoon seems like it would be primarily a divisional HQ courier/taxi service, for example).

A guard for the Div HQ makes sense. Brightblade, I meant more along the lines of securing a specific railhead, bridge, etc., as opposed to the entire route of the march. You are right that one company (with only one platoon of inf) would be too small. Does anyone know when this formation first appeared in the German Army? I am wondering if it was inserted later in the war as a result of partisan actions and breakthroughs in Russia.

The escort company in the panzer division was part of the divisional HQ element, one per division. I can't be sure, but since it was a mix of infantry, AA, and AT assets, and given the name, I assume the original purpose was to provice security for the division while on the move, particularly strategic movement. Someone correct me if you know better. From what I have read, a corps might also have an escort company. These would also be used as a reserve formation, filling gaps in an emergency.

I'm sure there has been discussion about this before, but searching it out might be a bit complex and time consuming. I would just point out that one has to remember that there is typically a lot of time considered to have elapsed between battles in an operation, like a couple of hours and usually more. During this time troops out on the flanks might feel vulnerable and rejoin the main force, return for a meal and more ammo, be pushed out by a patrol not modeled by the operation, etc. In order to obtain a flanking position (and this can be done to some degree) you need to occupy the flank in force and not just with a few elements. Depending on the "no man's land" built in by the designer, the enemy may be forced to withdraw from the pocket in between battles anyway, so in this case you have achieved the goal of taking the real estate. You are correct, in operations the new setup areas are not always ideal, but from what I've seen of other games where troops begin 10 feet from the enemy in the following battles, I'll take this system.

One source on Lend Lease is the Statistical Review of WWII by the Army Service Forces. It can be downloaded from The Military History Institute. Here is some data from one chart, though: M4 and M4A1 (75) - 3105 (UK) M4A2 (75) - 7414 (UK) M4A2 (76) - 2115 (USSR) M4A4 (75) - 7436 (UK) The country in parentheses is the "principal recipient." They don't break it down individually and the French also received some. But this can give you an idea. Another good source is this web site: M4 Sherman It shows production figures by model and notes where some of them went. It also explains the British coding for Shermans (for example, 'C' after the roman numeral means Firefly). I don't have sources to answer your other questions.

Actually, in Normandy Wittmann commanded the 2nd company of the 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, then became battalion commander after von Westernhagen was wounded. Wittmann was killed near Cintheaux on 9 Aug. while supporting a 12th SS counterattack. Wittmann's 101st, 1st SS LAH, and 12th SS were all part of 1st SS Panzer Korps, so the confusion is understandable.