busboy

I have the impression that the workmanship of lots of Russian tanks was medicocre. I remember seeing a picture of an IS-II for example (in tact, not knocked out) and it looked like it was barely able to hold itself together. It looked like a 122mm gun with some slag iron put around it. On the other had, I've seen some pictures of Russian tanks with apparently good construction, though I am no engineer. Nice MOD.

Scots, I thought it was a KV-1. As I recall the story, it had gotten into a rear area, knocking out trucks, some light tanks, and even crushing 37mm PaKs with its tracks. One attempt to set up an 88 ended with the loss of the 88, infantry couldn't dent it (though I think it was immobalized.) Finally, under the cover of darkness they got an 88 set up behind it. At a range of less than 500 yards, it took 3 or more rounds to knock it out. The story is related in the Cassell Military Classics book of "Tank Battles." Unfortunately, I've misplaced my copy and can't give a more accurate recollection.

Remember that German optics are good enough to allow accurate firing out to that far as well. We have the same quote, btw.

The 85mm surely had a higher HE content than the U.S. 76mm, but other than that I have seen that those two guns were very close in performance. (With U.S. HVAP ammo, the 76mm would be superior.)

Remember one rule of thumb... People can debate both ways over whether the T-34 was superior to the M4 Sherman. T-34s were well designed, but once the Germans cought up, they were still always slightly less powerful in firepower and armor than the German state-of-the-art. Sloping armor helps, but it also helps to have more than 45mm of it.

...Good God those look good!

All I can say is that is a superb mod! Thanks for your donation to the community! I prefer the striped version myself.

Only the shadows of planes appear, they're too high up to be seen (or you can think of it that way... ) As for the others...I dunno. Could you hit Escape if you leave your computer for a while, so when you wake it up CM is in the background and the OS in the foreground? That might prevent that crash. As for the file, just out of idle randomness, highlight the CM application, hit "get info" and crank up the minimum and prefered memory settings. I doubt very seriously this will help, but I have been suprised.

Great summary Michael, I agree 100%. I used quotation marks around intercontinental because the B-29 was still lacking. I believe its origianal title to fill was something like a "hemisphere defense platform." Like you said, it wasn't until the B-36 that we had anything like that, and by that time the B-52 wasn't far behind. You are also right about the planes that fought the war were, for the most part, pre war developments. However, its just interesting to note the early war designs that could evolve or were ahead of their time went on to be modified and dominate the air, while those that were at the limit of their abilities gradually disappear. (Many Japanese aircraft were rather obsolete at the start of the war. Even though the Kate was a better torpedo bomber than the TBD Devistator, it was still a horridly vulenerable plane compared to even the most obsolete aircraft that opposed it. In fact, in the Coral Sea, SBD Dauntlesses were used as ad hoc fighters to shoot down Kates. But thats Japan. You look at Germany's 109 and see the other end of the spectrum. By the end of the war the 109 was still the fastest climbing combat aircraft in the world (other than the Me-163.) with an impressive speed and firepower, and I believe its prototype first flew in 1933. The remarkable thing about WW2 aviation isn't how it transformed, but rather how thouroughly it evolved I guess. Scots, thanks for the input on British Armor development. The U.S. had the same problem. Right up to the start of WW2 there were still people who thought that horse cavalry would have a place on the modern battlefield. Its a shame that the conservativeness that leads some men to the military only hurts that which they serve.

Even in those planes you still see incredable advancements. By the end of WW2, the Spitfire was using an engine with twice the horsepower it origianally used. The U.S. at the start of its involvement still had some ancient P-26 Peashooters in the Phillipines, amd by the end of the war we had created the B-29, an 'intercontinental" attack weapon. I believe the first B-29 prototype flew in 1942. The most famous of all American WW2 fighter aircraft, the P-51 was created in a very brief time well after the U.S. was involved. In the interwar years, aircraft may have evolved faster than other elements of war, but the evolution in WW2 still marks such a drastic increase in that development the likes of which perhaps will not be seen again. It seems now any war that begins will be fought with the weapons at hand, not the weapons in production.

*gasp* Its Newkirk! What will Kilnk do if he has escaped from Stalag 13?

Hmm, thanks for the reply. The Depression sure hit military development hard in the states too. Congress was so much against wasting money on tanks that the cavalry was naming their armored vehicles "combat cars." Its Ironic to note that in the 30s, weapon development moved at probably the slowest pace of the 20th century, but during the 40s it moved at its quickest pace. In what other war in the history of man have the tecnhical aspects of war advanced so quickly and thouroughly?

I don't see why the Polish collapse made things pointless though. They were still at war with Germany, unless they expected the war to end fairly bloodlessly after that (which would seem the height of folly.) It would seem to me that the wisest course of action would be to get things into gear and get some sort of logistical something going before the troops in Poland got back to the French frontier. What I remember reading must have just detailed a smaller unit of the advance, I had no idea it was that large. I remember what I read specifically talked about a particular town being taken, and that they didn't destroy some powerplant on the way out. This was several years back that I read this, and I don't have the link, so yes it is poorly remembered.

In many cases the crew will abandon a gun because its damaged, and they might not be paniced (though they will be "shaken") It would be neat to see a gun be OK, have the crew flee from it, and then have them recrew it after you retake the gun and their nerves calm down. Maybe in the rebuild. Welcome to CM!

Interesting! I wish I had more time to read for leisure. The British certianly were very active between the wars with ides of mobile warfare, but it seems like by the start of WW2 they were back on the defensive stump. There were actually some very potent prewar tank designs being stewed over in England. If the English crusier tanks had slightly thicker and better shaped armor, they would have been more than a match for the Panzers if they were fighting by the same tactics. Did the Depression kill British armored development? Has anyone read about the French invasion of Germany in 1939? While the Germans were in Poland, a small (maybe battalion sized unit) actually crossed into Germany and occupied a town unopposed. Finding nothing there, they simply went home, causing no damage, not even to the local power plant. Its been a very long time since I read this article, a wargaming buddy posted a link about this a long while back (maybe it was even here?) Why were the French and British so hesitant about taking offensive measures at the start of WW2, and later in the Sitzkrieg? It seems to me that they still weeren't quite mentally ready to fight, and were waiting to see how serious the Germans were about the war.

Neat. I get the impression that by the end of World War One the Germans were realizing te folly of trench warfare and were beginning to adopt stormtrooper tactics, as I've heard it called. This is what I'd expect Rommel's book to be about. Indeed, that was something to be learned about the Germans between the wars. The British and French expected the next war to be fought like the last, but the Germans had moved beyond that.

Andreas, sir, did you not read my post? I WANT to have my errors pointed out. I never implied that I thought anyone was trying to insult me, but based on the comment that implied that "I was embarrasing myself," I thought people were afraid they were hurting my ego. I do not feel threatened about being wrong, that is what I am "about." I am still enjoying this debate, I am learning from it. I hope it continues in a constructive fassion. So exactly what does Rommel's book contain? Strictly infantry tactical ideas learned by the end of WW1?

Shortly after I posted (and was on the way to school) I realized that I had gotten it mixed up and "Infantry in the Attack" or however you would care to translate it was by Rommel. I was under the impression that this theorized on future mechanized warfare, though I could be wrong. I was using the film Patton as a rhetorical example, not a source of fact, which some of you seem to have missed. I have read numerous biographies on him, and have read his WW2 era diaries. That doesn't make me an expert on WW2 or anything, but I'm more read on the subject of Patton than you may realize. And I am not embarrassed about being wrong. I venture to guess that you gentlemen are 30ish judging from the general ages of the board, and your tone? I'm a mere 19 and I admit I simply cannot match the years of additional study that many people have against me on these topics. However, much to the chagrin of many, I don't put a disclaimer that *I may be wrong* next to everything I say. I consider it a given. I'm here to learn from folks with different opinions and greater knowledge, and I am doing that. I don't care if I show that I am missing knowledge. Finally, I will add that I'm slightly rusty on a bit of my WW2 facts and trivia. I've been engrossed in ancient warfare for about the past year and really only picked up the study of WW2 with the comming of CMBB. Are some of my sources awful? Well, it sure seems so. I'm, what, 0 for 4 in this thread thus far? Ahh well. Guess I'll have to learn. It seems the term "grog" is thrown around here with some reverence, refering to a person who knows it all, can quote so many sources, has them on hand, and can generally devistate all opposing opinions when it comes to war. I don't pretend to be that yet, though it seems some of you think I do. Consider me an "aspiring grog" who is no better than his sources, as I've had no first hand mentor. And I would NEVER cite a Hollywood movie as a source, though they make good rhetoric. I could right now write 20 pages explaining technical and biographical flaws in the film Patton, but to what end? Boar everyone? I instead used it to prove a point. Did you folks know that Patton really did say ".... you magnificent bastard; I read your book?" (name dotted out because I don't have a copy of The Patton Papers to confirrm my recollection that its Runstedt. Anyhoo, I'm not asking ya'll to go easy on me. Far from it, feel free to rip whatever I say to shreds. But don't think you're bruising my ego by proving me wrong. And my origianal point still stands, if Rommel wrote between the wars, he almost certianly WAS read by someone, atleast in Britian.

Thats wrong Michael. Rommel wrote about mechanized warfare between the wars, and there were soldiers of Britian and America that read his works, as well as Guderian, von Runstedt (sp) and others. Granted there weren't many interested parties, but there were SOME, and if they wrote, they were read. This is the inspiration for the line in the film Patton where George C. Scott exclaims "Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I READ YOUR BOOK" (which the film indeed shows Patton reading the night before. Actually, like many lines in Patton, this is a slight misquotation used in the same context but different actual event. In actuality, this Patton quote replaced Rommel With Runstedt (If I recall right, I don't have a copy of The Patton Papers handy.) Indeed, in the prewar Patton had read The Infantry in the Attack by Runstedt, Actung Panzer by Guderian, and Rommel's book (I forget the title, but I don't recall it being "The Tank in the Attack" as the film shows.) The biographies of Patton that point out that Patton and a very few of his American contemporaries read these works by their German counterparts, and that U.S. intellegence had gotten them from the British. So, in conclusion, I'm sure that the British knew something of Rommel and what he was about. What Montgomery or any particular British officer new, I don't know.

Roman epitaph: ERAMQVIDESERISQVIDSVM Eram quid es. Eris quid sum. Translation: I was what you are. You will be what I am. Makes ya think, eh? I like the mod!

Well, to use your example, the film Titanic is actually the most accurate rendition of the sinking of the Titanic yet filmed. It just happened to put a crappy love-story on top of an otherwise noteworthy event. Titanic was historical fiction with a well done historical event in the background. As to CM? Good question. I'd bet that some of them are cases of "There was this battle, with roughly these forces, in roughly this kind of terrain." If only a written account of one or a few men survive, with no maps or force lists of a particular event, then such a CM battle made from such events would seem to me to be "semi-historical" based on the suppositions that would have to be taken to build the scenario.

Is this thread breathing its last gasp? If so, I enjoyed it gentleman.

How about the cemetaries as well? Now tombstones are tombstones I guess, but how about those white crosses? They look distinctly non-German to me.

Slightly OT, nice to see another virtual flight simmer here taking an interest in the game. I used to be in Warbirds, but I quit there more than 4 years ago now (heh, guess I should update my sig.) I'm in WW2OL now. With WW2OL and CM, I think I've got WW2 on my computer about as close as I can get!

I think that experience is now sort of an average...I selected some green infantry in a quick battle the other day and a few squads came out conscript. I wonder if date effects that as well?