Bombardier

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Horncastle:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: In fact, reports from the front found that the US soldiers were far too friendly with the Germans and were missing the element of "hate" that sometimes makes for a better fighting soldier. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You would might want to consider the theory that there was a disproportionate number of German-Americans in the US military that led to this “friendliness” with the German soldiers. The Germans were the largest immigration group to the US for many years. It is also a little known fact that the official language of the US was almost GERMAN!!! Here is a fun “What if…” What if the language of the US was German. Would we even have fought against the Germans in WWI?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutPL: OK guys, FLAME ON!! I dont get it. Why the fascination with the Germans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is true that I do play the German more than the Allies. The German’s experimented more with their weapons than the allies did it. Hitler was forever in the search of the “ Miracle Weapon”. The US’s own rocket program advanced only after German scientists were “recruited” after WWII. The question, “If the German soldier and tank were superior, how did they loss the War?” Is answered basically with “ Because it takes more than soldiers and tanks to win a war.” Therefor it is interesting to see the results on a tactical level between two “equal” forces without the influence of politics.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket Fodder: I hate to beat a dead horse but... In an earlier post I moaned about how my two 76mm AT guns failed to load up Tungsten after bouncing 4 rounds (each) off a Tiger caught in an ambush. The range was about 200m to the tiger. So, at the end of that turn even though my AT guns didn't load T they managed to knock out the Tiger. I can live with that. Next turn. A panther that was trailing about 10m behind the Tiger manages to reverse out of the line of fire of both guns into a nice defensive position. One of my guns still has bead on him though, the range is 308m. The tank and the AT gun trade about 5 rounds. My AT gun misses with 1 and then bounces 4 off of the panther. Does it load up T? No. It then takes a direct hit from the tank and the war is over for that crew. Please battlefront, change the logic behind Tungsten. My gun had perfect aim, bouncing several shells off of the tank. I bet if it had loaded T on that last round, that tank would be history!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Absolutely!!! We all know quite well that your open turret TD’s will bite it real quick if they don’t get their kill shot in. Theoretically, that was the design philosophy behind the TD’s wasn’t it?!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Here, Here! Lets just keep to the science of testing this thing out. The Sherms can be "dug in" so they don't move but then you are introducing the variable of Hull down-ness. I did the same test last night yes you are correct they don't just sit there and look like pretty targets they all squirm around and try to get away, (sorry that was not really scientific way of describeing but that's what they do) I plan to test Crew and gunner experience if all crew levels of the Tiger I against dug in Sherms with no ammo at 1000 1500 and 2000 meters. The Hull down nature of the dug in Sherms could be a variable but thats the only way I can think if to keep them from moving while I use them for target practice. Unless we want to aim at an imbolie anti tank gun or a small house? comments? and please, NO wagering -tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How about placing a piece of terrain that is normally inaccessible to tanks (such as a “swamp” tile) under a pre-placed tank during the scenario creation. This method was used to place AT guns within houses. I have not tried it yet, but it seems that it should work.

I live and work in New York. 10/7 is no good for me. But I'm in for future meetings!!! We can get together for some of "The Black Stuff" and Oban's !! [This message has been edited by Bombardier (edited 10-06-2000).]

That is the most ridiculous thing (almost) I ever saw!!! What purpose would it serve that could justify the logistics of operating that “tank”? Oh, wait! Isn’t that what they use to move the space shuttle to the launch pad?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: This is the thread in question: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010395.html I recall reading it and I think it a least one good link to a VERY informative web page about the german's attempting infra red ight fighting technology -tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks again!! BTW- Great forum!

Apparently I used the wrong words in my search. I thought it a bit odd that no one has brought this up before. Thanks for the response.

I was originally going to post this on the earlier thread concerning German Optics, but it became a flame pit and I didn’t think I would get a response. I recently have read that during the battle of the Ardennes the latest Panther tanks were equipped with infra-red night sight optics. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true wouldn’t it be fair to include this feature? I understand that this equipment was probable very rare. However, it can not be as rare as the Super Perishing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: 76mm AT guns were part of independent battalions of 36 guns. Each Army had a battalion or two of towed guns, and an Army Group would have several. They were used to seal off armored penetrations (officiallY) but ended up Infantry support weapons. 3rd Army lost 24 towed AT guns of all types in September 1944, so someone was using them were they could get blown up. The 57mm was considered the largest AT gun that the Infantry could deal with because the 3inch (76) could not be towed by a Jeep and needed dozer support to dig in. The US Army was more smitten by tracked AT guns, of which is had a bunch. At the same time as 3rd Army had 1 battalion of towed 76, it had 3 battalions of M36, 2 battalions of Hellcat, and 1 Battalion of M10 (converting to M36). Infantry divisions in the line often had a TD battalion parted out and assigned to infantry battalions, and a tank battalion parted out and also assigned (usually M10s early and M36s later) and might be the hunting area of an M36 (which used hit and run tactics and was less often assigned to Infantry formations). The best books I have to show this are Men of the 704th and Reluctant Valor, both on the 704th TD Battalion, and Patton At Bay, on the 3rd Army in Moselle. Both books are a real pain in the butt to get a hold of, since they are essentially PHD dissertations or bound Oral histories, but they are incredibly detailed and a dream to read. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for the information. There a few good "out of print" book stores in NY,NY. One of them (so I'm told) has an extensive military section. I'll look for them there. My research continues......

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: Bombardier - if your asking for a "standing" rubble representation it probably isn't going to be "mod-able". The wire frames to "hang" the textures on aren't there (all the wire-frames are in the executable - so only BTS could change this). If, on the other hand, you're just asking for a redone texture that could be mod-ed. But anything else is going to require BTS to make the change.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand. That's too bad, it would have been nice to see a partial shell of a building. I am glad that there is going to be some improvement. Keep up the good work guys!!

I wish I had the talent to do this myself. I don’t however and must rely on the kindness of strangers: I wish someone would make a mod for a better representation of “ rubble”. (Which I assume is a demolished building. ) What we have now is passable, but I’m sure someone somewhere can create something better.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teutonicc: In the Battle of the Bulge by Parker in the back it mentions independent units. Under these units it mentions Towed TD Battalions consisting of 36 3in guns. It also mentions that practical operational strength of the tank and TD battalions around 85%. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That seems to be a paltry number of guns considering what the US was up against. I find it hard to believe that the Department of ordnance refused to issue the correct weapon knowing the ineffectiveness of the 57mm against the late model Germans. If this is indeed the case I will have to stop “Cherry Picking” 75/76mm AT Guns for the US and start using the 57mm more. I have a feeling the next PBEM I play. I’m going to be steamrolled

Hi guys, maybe you can help me out. So far my research as produced the following: U.S.INFANTRY DIVISION (c.14,000men) Division HQ & HQ Company (3 x 57mm Ml anti-tank gun, 3 x .50 cal HMG, 6 x 2.36" M9Al rocket-launcher [bazooka]) plus Military Police Platoon (c. 260 men) INFANTRY REGIMENT (x3)(c. 3,200 men) HQ Company (5 x.50 HMG & 7 x bazooka) (c.100 men) I Battalion (c.860 men) HQ Company (3 x 57mm Ml, 2 x.50 HMG, 2 x .30 HMG & 2.36" bazooka A, B & C Companies (each 2 x 81 mm mortar, 3 x 60mm mortar, 2 x . 50 HMG, 2 x. 30 HMG, 2 x.30 LMG & 9 x bazooka) II Battalion (c. 860 men) HQ Company (as above) D, E & F Companies (as above) III Battalion (c. 860 men) HQ Company (as above) G, H & I Companies (as above) (no 10th-12th Companies) 13th Company (6 x 105mm M2Al howitzer, 3 x .50 HMG & 9 x bazooka) 14th Company (6 x 57mm Ml, 3 x .50 HMG & 9 x bazooka) MEDIUM ARTILLERY BATTALION, 155m MlAl (tractor-drawn)(c. 530 men) HQ Company(10 x bazooka) A, B & C Batteries (each 4 x MlAl, 7 x .50 HMG & 10 x bazooka) FIELD ARTILLERY BATTALION, 105m M2Al (truck-drawn) (x 3)(c. 520 men) HQ Company(10 x bazooka) A. B & C Batteries (each 4 xM2Al, 7 x .50 HMG & 10 x bazooka) RECONNAISSANCE TROOP, MECHANIZED (c. 250 men) (13 x M8 armoured car, 5 x M3 half-track, 3 x .50 HMG & 5 x bazooka) ENGINEER COMBAT BATTALION (c. 640 men) HQ Company (2 x bazooka) A, B & C Companies (each 4 x.50 HMG, 6 x .30 LMG & 9 x bazooka) MEDICAL BATTALION (c. 460 men) HQ Company A, B & C Companies (each 10 x fl-ton ambulance) SIGNAL COMPANY (c. 220 men) (6 x .50 HMG & 5 x bazooka) QUARTERMASTER COMPANY (c.190 men) (59 trucks, 13 x .50 HMG & 5 x bazooka) ORDNANCE LIGHT MAINTENANCE COMPANY (c.140 men) (5 x .50 HMG & 5 x bazooka) ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY AUTO-WEAPONS BATTALION(c. 830 men) (attached one per division) HQ Company A, B & C Batteries (each 8 x 37mm MlA2 or 40mm Bofors & 8 x.50 HMG) TANK BATTALION (c. 740 men) (attached one or two per division) HQ Company (2 x M4 Sherman [75mm]) A, B & C Companies (each 17 x M4 [75mm] & 2 x M4 [105mm]) D Company (17 x M5 Stuart or M24 Chaffee) TANK DESTROYER BATTALION (c. 700 men) (attached one or two per division) HQ Company (6 x M8) A, B & C Companies (each 12 x GMC, predominantly M10 with some M18/M36) . . . If you notice there are no 75mm/76mm AT guns attached at the division level. Just that POS 57mm. Nor have I found any in the airborne divisions or "light" armor divisions. Can anyone tell me where these weapons were attached. It does not seem like they were used at all. Were they that rare? (table from Osprey Military's The Ardennes Offensive V US Corps & XVIII US (Airborne) Corps)

You’re comparing apples and oranges. You can literary complete any CC campaign in one day once you discover the “tricks”. It is hardly a challenge and certainly not a simulation. Once again I find myself praising the work BTS has done.

A point system increase seems a bit excessive. If your intent is to stop “ gamey ” uses of vehicles, then change the properties of those units which are be exploited/ abused. To increase cost would punish people who never used those vehicles in such a manner. [This message has been edited by Bombardier (edited 09-28-2000).]

That’s one game I never got a chance to play. Maybe someone who is familiar with it (nudge, nudge, know what I mean ) could submit a few scenarios.

30, Married for 7 years. 2 children (6 & 3) Project Manager/ Engineer for an Electrical Contractor. A word to the teens- I've been playing wargames since I was 13. (SL & ASL) Don't be discouraged by the age of the people on this board.

I have to agree with Steve. There never has been nor will there ever be a GAME that simulates reality perfectly. There will always have to be compromises when it comes time to implement rules. As much as we hate to admit it, CM is a game. A very entertaining and involved game but a game none the less. My friends and I used to have the same type of arguments with Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader. (Some of them pretty vicious!) If a player does not like his opponent’s use of mass jeep attacks. Guess what? He will not play that person in the future. It’s just that simple. IMHO. I mean, come on! We’re not playing for money!! (Are we?)

Can’t wait. I sure could go for some weekend marathons of CM. This does not means I’ll give up PBEM during the week.

This is not my first post, but I never made the mandatory “ I love this game!!” Post. So here I go…. I cannot stop playing this game! My kids don’t recognize me any more and the people at work look at me strange when I start talking about armor penetration of various tanks. (I know there is a joke there somewhere). Great work guys!!! You will forever be remembered for this work of art! There, now I feel better

Sorry guys. From now on I'll check old threads first. [This message has been edited by Bombardier (edited 09-25-2000).]

I think we can all agree that there is almost nothing worse than having a precious tank get bogged in a useless or dangerous position. Has anyone ever tried moving bogged vehicles with other tanks?

There is a great picture of three Pz IV flattened by Russian artillery in Janes's Tanks of WW II