Snake Eyes

An ASL scenario converted to CM gives you the same general goals and forces but there the similarity ends. There are enough differences in the terrain, squads, leaders, support weapons and vehicles to make it like comparing apples to oranges. FOW really makes for a difference in the way you handle your units as well. CM forces you to use tactics that are more closely related to real battlefield tactics, especially before the enemy is found and fixed. The excitement level in CM is much higher, too. I've never felt the hair on the back of my neck stand up when playing ASL as it does while watching an M18 running through some open ground towards the cover of a wooded copse while a Panther slooowly swings its turret around to take a shot. Nothing in ASL compares to that kind of real-time excitement. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I understand the numbers argument, but when it comes down to actual numbers, the argument for Sherman quantity over Panther/Pershing quality just does not add up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the real hang-up was in retooling production. As D-Day approached and thereafter, no one wanted to slow down production in order to start producing Pershings. Also, the need for the more powerful tank wasn't as clear before D-Day as it became after the invasion, when the Allies were engaged more often by the heavy German tanks. When it became clear that the M4 was completely overmatched, the cry went out loud and clear for relief. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: They were not done because someone decided that it just wasn't important when the data made it abundantly clear that it was. That is the sad part of the story of the US Army Armored forces in WW2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll get no argument from me concerning this fact. McNair was the big ego and the biggest obstacle. I guess it was poetic justice that he was taken out by 'friendly fire'. Unfortunately, by D-Day the damage was done and the US was stuck with the M4. However, even Patton preferred quantity to quality. I think it depends on your viewpoint. If you're a TC you want one M26! If you're a theatre commander you want thousands of M4's. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

Speaking of trains, the Tiger I had special narrow tracks to replace their battle tracks for the purpose of rail transport. The battle tracks overhung far enough to cause problems when being transported on trains, thus the narrow ones were used. This is another example of the overhead required to field these 'superior' AFV's. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

Too often, I fear, we overlook the big picture and only concentrate on the tank vs tank aspect of combat. In reality a lot of things must precede the battle. Just getting to the battlefield is one important factor. The Sherman was one of the most reliable, if not the most reliable, tanks of WWII. Panther and Tiger I & II were far less reliable and prone to various breakdown problems. Another factor is weight. Heavy vehicles are restricted to roads and strong bridges. Cross country not only risks bogging but also increases fuel consumption dramatically. This brings us to speed and agility. The M18 Hellcat was well liked by its crew (even though its armor was only 1/2") due mainly to its speed of 55mph; the fastest AFV of WWII, IIRC. It's nice to be able to get in and get out fast. The Sherman was agile, too. I've raised but a few of the overall factors that make US AFV's a better package. But when you're man-y-mano on the CM board and your M4 is facing his Panther, all these factors become moot. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: When put up against the T-34 though... that's a whole different kettle of fish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually the Sherman did pretty well against the T34 during the Korean War. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

The Germans were VERY surprised when they first encountered the Russian T34 and KV in 1941. They had nothing in their inventory that could stand up to these Russian behemoths. The German MBT was the PzIII with its 50mm main gun and 30mm armor. The T34 and KV boasted 76mm main guns, thicker and well sloped armor, as well as great speed. It is reported that a single KV tank delayed the 6th Panzer division for two days. Because of this shock, the Germans rushed the Tiger I into production and began designing the Panther. The Tiger I made its appearnce in late 1942. Some initial Panther designs bear a remarkable resemblance to the T34. It took two years of development before the Panther appeared on the battlefield. The Sherman was a very good tank in 1942. It was probably the best tank in North Africa on its debut. However, due to the desperate need to create a large number of armored units as quickly as possible the basic Sherman design was maintained. From 1942-1943 the Sherman was a match for the German PzIV, which was their MBT. However, as the US encountered more and more Tiger I's and Panthers it became clear that these heavy German tanks were far superior to the Sherman. The M26 Pershing made its appearance in early 1945 and brought balance back to the technological battle. The Pershing was a match for Tiger I and Panther, but was still inferior to Tiger II. So you see, the real tank masters were the Russians. Their excellent pre-war designs put them well in the lead. However, a good design does not win battles, and due to better tactics the Germans won most of the early battles on the eastern front. Even the excellent T34 had some major deficiencies, such as a two-man turret. It wasn't until 1943 that this was overcome by the introduction on the T34/85. So, as you see, it seems to take about two years to notice a need and then develop an AFV that will meet that need. The US, and Brits for that matter, stayed pretty much on the same tact as all the other ETO belligerents of WWII. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

A prototype Sturmtiger was transported on August 12th of 1944 to Pruszkow and next day was moved to Warsaw to take part in the German attempt to contain the Polish Home Army's Uprising. This Sturmtiger saw action in Starowka and Mokotow districts of Warsaw. One of the projectiles which failed to explode is still on display in Museum Wojska Polskiego in Warsaw. On August 28th, after successful debut, it was brought back to Alkett plant in Berlin-Spandau. In early September of 1944, newly formed PzStuMrKp 1000, equipped with two Sturmtigers arrived in Warsaw. From August to December 1944, Alkett completed only 18 Sturmtigers which equipped four Panzer Sturmmorser Kompanie (PzStuMrKp) - 1000, 1001, 1002 and 1003, which served on the Western Front. Each company was to be equipped with 14 Sturmtigers. Seven took part in the Ardennes Offensive (PzStuMrKp 1000 and 1001), while most of them took part in the defensive battles along the River Rhine. Sturmtigers proved to be an excellent defensive weapon and had to be either destroyed by a heavy artillery bombardment or an air attack. It is reported that a single shot fired by Sturmtiger from PzStuMrKp 1001 completly destroyed three M4 Shermans. The Sturmtiger's main armament was short-barrelled 38cm Raketenwerfer 61 L/5.4, breech-loaded mortar which launched a short-range (4600-6000 meters) high-explosive rocket projectile. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 12-09-2000).]

Sorry, double post during the BBS problems. [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 12-05-2000).]

I've seen it both ways in the same game. On the first turn my M10 took out a Tiger I at 600+ meters. A few turns later I ran into another Tiger I and it proceeded to devastate my entire armored force. It endured multiple hits by 76 AP and 105 HEAT from front and side. Several bazooka rockets were bounced off it as well. It was even penetrated by a 105 HEAT round, which caused only one crew casualty. This Tiger destroyed two M10's, four M4's, a M8 GMC and survived the game. One Tiger was made of glass, the other of titanium. Go figure! ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

Hi-res velvet grass with grids. I prefer the brighter color and the ability to more easily see elevation changes. One disadvantage I've noticed with the grids is that they disappear at resolutions higher than 1152x864. Has anyone else noticed this? ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: What we DO hope to change is the self defense part. That has always bothered us too, but it is not an easy thing to recode...For the rewrite of the CM engine (whenever that is) we will go one step further and simulate individual small arms for crews<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Crews that abandon vehicles or run out of their primary ammo should be low in self defense ammo as well. I think this would limit their ahistorical use. It would also be reasonably accurate since these crews would not carry more than a few clips/magazines/loose-rounds anyway. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

Since I play CM mostly in PBEM mode, my remarks are primarily from that viewpoint. I would like to see a confirmation for GO! as well. If you accidently hit the Go! button you've lost all your moves up to that point and have to start your turn over when using PBEM mode. CM is not a test of dexterity or hand-eye coordination, I hope; Combat Mission: Beyond Deftness? The DONE button doesn't cause nearly as much of a problem if hit accidently when playing in PBEM. Just reload the turn. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

CM needs nuclear hand grenades. Pull the pin and run like hell! ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans: ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/patches/cm/cm_public.exe ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

I have a Voodoo3 with 16MB. My system is a Pentium Pro 200mhz, 128MB. I run at 1152x864 and could run at higher resolutions but don't because I prefer grids and I lose them at higher resolutions. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Red Dog: Apparently the BAR was quite popular with several American gangsters in the 1920's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...and it was the BAR that took down Bonnie and Clyde. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I can't recall if the adoption of more BAR's was official TO&E for late war squads (I think it was), but it was commonplace never-the-less.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't recall any official increase in the number of BAR's per squad in the ETO, but the PTO US Marines officially allocated three BAR's per squad towards the end of the war. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars: Thanks for the Info, Snake Eyes. Did you scan that in from a book or off of a website or CD-Rom? Just curious, but I wouldn't mind finding a copy of that all around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I scanned the info from The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II by Ian V. Hogg, 1977, Thomas Y. Crowell Company Inc, New York, New York. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars: Beyond any doubt it(Bren Gun) was-and still is-the finest light machine gun ever adopted in quantity by any army. Kind of flies into the face of the standard "MG42:God of LMG's" Line, but hey, I'm into difference of opinion... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is Ian Hogg's opinion. I favor the MG42 as the best MG of WWII. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silver Stars: p.s. anybody have info on the bren gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II Gun, machine, Bren Caliber .303 in Length 45.25 in Weight 22 lbs 5 oz Barrel 25.0 in long, 6 grooves, right hand twist Feed system 30-round detachable box magazine System of operation Gas; tipping bolt Rate of fire (cyclic) 500 rpm Manufacturer Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock, Middlesex The Bren Gun is spoken of with affection by every British soldier who ever used one, and with good reason. Beyond any doubt it was-and still is-the finest light machine gun ever adopted in quantity by any army. It was reliable, robust, simple and accurate, and beyond that no one has a right to ask. It is fairly well known that the design came from Czechoslovakia, but some doubt was thrown on its real parentage and an interesting theory advanced by the late Lt. Col. R. K. Wilson, a noted authority on automatic weapons. In his Textbook of Automatic Pistols published in 1943 and largely written before the war, he included a chapter on light machine guns, and after discussing the French Chatellerault went on to say, ‘Since . . . the Great War, Czechoslovakia has been the most faithful of France's allies, and the connection between the French War Office and the Czech Ministry of Defense has been of the closest. One result of this has been the manufacture of the Chatellerault at the Czech government arsenal at Prague, and its sale as a commercial weapon under the name ZB . . . It has recently been extensively tested by the British Army . . . and now seems likely (1935) to be adopted . . .’ There is certainly some similarity of outline between the Chatellerault and the ZB26, but more recent research has revealed the existence of a ZB24 model, produced before the Chatellerault was revealed, so it looks as if the ZB was, after all, a native Czech product. In view of the disastrous record of explosions and other malfunctions suffered by the Chatellerault during its first few years of service, this is probably just as well. The ZB26 was succeeded by a slightly improved model the ZB30, and this was taken to England in the early 1930s and demonstrated. The British Army were looking for a light machine gun to replace the Lewis, and expressed interest, provided the gun could be made to work satisfactorily with the British .303 cartridge. In a surprisingly short time the Czechs were back with a specially produced model, the ZB33 of which only a handful were made, solely as demonstration and trials weapons; they were ZB30 guns redesigned for .303 with the barrel shortened, the gas port repositioned and the sights graduated in yards. If nothing else, the production of these weapons showed a high degree of salesmanship. The other weapons under consideration at the time were the Danish Madsen and the Vickers-Berthier, and the latter was almost at the point of being accepted when the ZB33 appeared. Subsequent comparative trials showed the superiority of the ZB design, and it was put into production as the Bren Gun Mark 1, formally introduced into service on 4 August 1938. This model was a direct copy of the ZB33, and had a drum-pattern rear sight, a strap which passed over the firer's shoulder, and a grip for the firer's left hand beneath the butt. The magazine was curved, due to the demands of feeding the British rimmed cartridge; the original Czech design, using rimless 7.92mm ammunition, had a straight magazine. Variants Mark 2 The Mark 1 gun was luxurious by wartime standards, and in order to simplify manufacture some modifications were made. The butt fittings were discarded, the drum sight replaced by a simpler tangent sight, the telescopic bipod replaced by a simpler fixed-length pattern, the cocking handle no longer folded, and certain lightening grooves on the body were omitted, resulting in the weight going up to 23.25 lbs. This mark was introduced on 6 June 1941. Marks 3 and 4 Introduced 18 July 1944; were identical with the Marks 1 and 2, except that the barrel was 22.25in long.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-24-2000).]

The heavy machine gun of WWI was great for defensive use, but was lacking as an offensive weapon due to its weight. Many countries realized this problem and during the years between the world wars developed LMG's for use on the offensive. The US, too, had seen the need for a LMG, but having developed the BAR, did not see the need for something more akin to a true light machine gun. The BAR is neither fish nor foul. It was developed to be used as a LMG, but its limited magazine precluded its use in that roll. The US never had a decent LMG throughout WWII. When the Infantry Board finally decided to replace the BAR, the best they could come up with was a modified Browning MMG. The troops were not thrilled with this expedient. The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II classifies the BAR as a rifle, in the same category as the M1 Garand and MP43. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II Browning automatic rifle, M1918A2 Caliber .30 in Length 47.75 in Weight 22 lbs Barrel 24.0 in long, 4 grooves, right hand twist Feed system 20-round detachable box magazine System of operation Gas; lifting bolt Rate of fire (cyclic) 500 rpm Manufacturers Colt Patent Firearms Manufacturing Co. Winchester Repeating Arms Co., New Haven, Conn. Marlin-Rockwell Corporation When the United States Army entered World War I in 1917 it was in no sense equipped with automatic weapons; it merely possessed an assortment, and one of its first tasks was to acquire a supply of machine guns. John M. Browning stepped into the breach with two designs, one of which was this automatic rifle. Unfortunately, organizing production took time, and it was not until the summer of 1918 that issues began. From then until after World War II it remained the squad light automatic of the US Army. While it was laudable to equip the army with an American weapon, it has to be said that the Browning was not one of the best of its kind. It was originally intended to be used during the assault, firing from the hip, a French theory for giving covering fire while crossing no-man's-land which, along with a lot of other peculiar French theories, was adopted by the US Army. But the action of the weapon is so violent that accurate fire under these conditions is almost impossible, and the gun was later provided with a bipod so that it could be used in the more conventional prone position. The mechanism used a tipping bolt operated by a gas piston, a system more or less based on Browning's pump-action shotgun of 1904, but the lightness of the weapon (15.5 lbs without bipod in original form) led to light reciprocating parts, and in order to keep the rate of fire within reasonable bounds, it was necessary to include a shock absorber in the return spring assembly. In spite of this, the violence of the action led to rapid wear, and the rate of attrition in action was higher than for other light automatics. Another drawback was the bottom mounted 20-round magazine, inconvenient to change in action and with a limited capacity for automatic fire. In spite of all this, however, it had the advantage of being designed with mass-production in mind, and it was relatively easy to produce. As well as being standard in the US Army it was widely adopted by other countries as a light machine gun, and large numbers were supplied to Britain during the war when it was used to arm Home Guard detachments. Variants M1918 The original model; no bipod, sights not adjustable for windage; selective full automatic or single shot fire. M1918A1 Hinged butt plate; bipod attached just ahead of the fore-end stock. M1922 Basically a 1918 with the barrel finned to improve cooling. Few of this pattern were issued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The BAR was the main squad support weapon used by the US in WWII. As many as three were allocated to each squad and provided much of the squad fire power. It was not a machine gun, but was designed to be used on the offensive. I consider it a heavy assault rifle. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-24-2000).]

ASL via VASL. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

All units are to FALL BACK at 14:00 hours while the area is shelled. We will then SPRING AHEAD at 15:00 hours. Anybody got the correct time? ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop [This message has been edited by Snake Eyes (edited 11-21-2000).]

I see 1-2 crew casualties, on average, caused by knock-Outs and brews. However, I have seen an entire crew wiped out in a catastrophic explosion. ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop