busboy

Just to clarify, I'm sure you mean no detailed armor hits on enemy vehicles in extreme fog of war. Its kind of nice to have that info on your units.

My particular sourse, though I don't know which of my books I got this from, was from a Stuart gunner who fired 3 cannister rounds at a tightly spaced cluster of 3 german troops from "very close" range, though I don't remember a number. After 3 shots the Germans surrendered without a scratch...the gunner observed his aim was good but the cannister did not hit them. Part of that is incredable luck, I'm sure, but it also was clear to the gunner that the cannister wasn't too useful. He noted that he also felt that the HE round for the 37mm was no more powerful than a hand grenade.

For what its worth, and I posted this earlier on a now burried thread, the cannister on the 37mm gun of the American Stuart tank was, as from what I have read from first hand accounts, completely ineffective even at close range.

This pleases me mightily! Hahaha and so forth!

Well, the answer to most of that is that CM is an abstraction. The men you see on the map are markers, not actual men like in a Close Combat game. Unless something changed dramatically, grenades are not something that are limited, they represent the combats between close quarter infantry combat, tank assaulting, ect. Likewise, each infantryman does not have his own ammo count. When squads reach low ammo, they slow their firing and have a dramatically less chance of scoring a "hit" on a target. They keep firing, but their chances of killing anything are less to show that they're not firing as much. I think binoculars on troops are useful for spotting enemy positions, not for increased weapons accuracy. I could be wrong of course. As for optics, I could argue that this is represented by crew skill level, but I'd have to admit that such an arguement is not solid. The simple answer I guess is that the only way of modeling optics in CM would be to give tanks "bonuses" in calculating hits when they fire. Thats not a good judge of optics, thats just being more leninet when you role the dice. I guess what it boils down to is that you have to think of CM as a board game when such questions pop up. This help?

I believe the 75mm gun on the Sherman had a cannister round that never saw much service. As for the cannister round for the 37mm on the Stuart, it can be described as ineffective, and not widely used. The explosive power of the HE round of the 37mm was described by a Stuart gunner of being no better than a standard hand grenade, and with none of the shrapnel effects. He then went on to describe how his tank found a few soldats hunkered down behind a hedge row after being flanked by this Stuart. The gunner stated he fired 3 rounds of cannister at these men (3, grouped closely if I recall) from "close range." (its been too long to give a number) Short story shorter, the Germans surrendered from being scared by the bombardment, but did not recieve a scratch.

To our credit, we have been posting spoiler disclaimers quite liberally.

Saurkraut eating BASTARDS!

And the H-39 and R-35 had 40mm of armor, fairly well shaped. I've been smoking history books I suppose.

This thread gets four stars in the general coolness category.

For what its worth, if I recall my data tables correctly, the armor thickness of the T-34's hull was 45mm all around, including on the rear upper hull, and all of it was sloped at something like a 40 degree angle. So in essense, it doesn't matter where on the upper hull you hit the T-34, the armor is the same. However, from the side the lower hull (that is, where all the running gear is) is thinner, and a 90 degree angle as well. And then there is the turret. First, the angle of the turret armor is pretty steap all around, and the shape doesn't add too much to protection. Secondly, it does have some shot traps. Just checking www.onwar.com and they list the turret armor as still 45mm thick all around. However, the turret is still the most vulenerable part as the shape doesn't add as much ballistic protection as the hull.

Note: I speak no German, that was "Pig German," ment merely to look like Krautalkese for humorous effect. Actually, I believe it was a bystandar of the interrogation who said that, but it is a historic quote. "Not fair to use 88s on our tanks." You know, I think that is about the most British military quote since: BOOM! British General: My God sir! I've lost my leg! Wellington: My God sir! So you have! The whole attitude of British war just seems to reek of Monty Python...

Dryfear is absolutely correct. (As a WW2OLer should be on this matter... ) The 37mm gun the Germans used was nicknamed the "doorknocker" it was so ineffective. In the battle for Poland, the 37mm PaK was effective against the very very few Polish tanks it might encounter. But after that, the 37mm was outarmored by almost everything it came up against. There were a few British crusier type tanks that it could penetrate without difficulty (wrorse for the crusier tank crews, the U.K. did not develop a H.E. round for the 40mm, 2 pounder gun.) But if you look at everything from the invasion of Norway onward, the 37mm PaK is outclassed...the majority of French tanks in 1940 were too heavily armored to be effective. It was the ineffectiveness of the 37mm that lead Erwin Rommel to use his 88mm FlaK guns as AT weapons to stop the British Matilda counterattack at Arras. And I think the quote is brought up often here: British tank crewman to interrigator: I say, I think its unfair that you chaps use your FlaK guns against our tanks. German Interrigatior: Ja? Unt we zink it ist unfair zat you use tanks zat only our FlaK guns can penetrate!

I think this is a good example of exactly why Russian wave tactics were a waste. Sure they worked sometimes, but wouldn't it have been better to use *tactics* rather than a CHARGE?

Seems a good place to ask...has anyone had success playing either CM games in OS X? I have to restart in OS 9.2.2 to play either.

Hey folks! Got a total Russian victory on my first time out for the tutorial. Total fog of war, no German bonuses though. Possible spoilers below, I dunno... . . . . . . . Anyhoo, I started my forces in the left, and gradually sort of shuffled them into the center of the map, massing in that large clump of trees. The tanks remained left of this. As they got closer to the German held tree line, that 37mm PaK opened up on my command tank, and both T-34s returned fire. Their first 3 rounds each overshot, probably killing some hapless Fritz chewing on a sausage safe behind the lines. My command tank was hit perhaps 5 times, 2 or 3 did penetrate the turret, but did no damage. The other hits all ricocheted off of the lower hull. Finally someone found the range and KOed the gun. After that I skated my tanks over so they were on the left and right sides of the tree clump, I brought my support units into position, and then began advancing the infantry squads forward using foxholes for cover. This is when the Kraut infantry opened up. I advanced my tanks with my infantry, and they kept the German troops pinned for the most part. At this point, my troops were still in a sort of line stretching across the field of craters...now I split them and had them run 45 degrees away from the objective flag, and into the woods. As this happened, I advanced my tanks to the tree line, and then ordered the infantry to assault or advance to contact until resistance was met. By now my Maxims and the mortar were out of range, so I began bringing them up, but they missed out on the rest of the battle. Fighting never got hand to hand, after my squads made contact in the woods, they'd lob a few grenades and finish off whatever the tanks hadn't already liquified. I suffered 5 casualties, 2 KIA. One perforated tank, but a crew with some 37mm souvineers rather than emotonal trauma. The Germans had 5 men escape if I recall right. The rest were either casualties or captured. Thoughts on the game: Wow. Utterly Wow. I think the biggest "Oh my God" factor was when I realized that the trees were swaying in the wind. Side question: Anyone had any success running CMBB or even CMBO on Mac OS X? When the game field opens, the screen just stays blank. If I restart the computer in OS 9.2.2, it works fine. Great work Battlefront!

If you can't remember, the Claymore is pointing toward you. Friendly fire...isn't. Never share a foxhole with another man braver than you. Finally, the most famous of "Murphy's Laws:" Anything that can go wrong...will.

I'd like to quote Patton on this topic: (this is quoted from memory, accuracy might not be complete, but the jist is correct.) "The two worst causes of casualties for us are the Jeep and the Halftrack. The jeep is one because these kids go out joyriding in it and wreck 'em, and the halftrack because the drivers think their in tanks and act invelnerable." Not knowing just what your vehicle can and cannot take is very very dangerous. And, if an MG42 can penetrate a halftrack, then so can rifle fire.

Pak, what the ****?

Well, with the above notes in consideration, I'll try to describe my "style." My objective is not to take VL flags, my primary objective is to kill or capture every enemy soldier on the map (and I do hate seeing them run off the map too...) Now the fights that I go through in trying to break them are generally heaviest around victory locations, so I focus my attcks on them. Once I have them I press forward and leave only "placeholder" folks there to watch for other enemies trying to grab the flag for points. If anyone does, I send a tank back to polish 'em off (if I can spare a tank) In general, first I set up to attack enemy concentrations (generally areas offering cover near VLs), I then attack them with much vigor using any tactic that might gain the victory (flanking, surrounding, suppression & charge, artillery, ect) After I dislodge them off the flag, they're generally off balance and I keep charging until they're dead. If the enemy has a reserve, things can get sticky, but otherwise I'm moving in the direction of ending the battle before the time limit. And if you win the battle before time is called, you get the flags anyway. Only if my troops have no push left in them will I be content to hold positions on VLs.

That sucks. I was blocked out of this sight back at my high school (thank God I'm outta there...college now baybe! ) but it was blocked out by some security system called "Bess." (get a damn little picture of a dog saying "Bess can't go there.) You could send an e-mail to the service to have sites reviewed. I sent review requests for this and several other WW2 related sites. They were blocked for "violent content" but I argued for their opening on "educational grounds." They unlocked 'em. And relocked 'em again 2 weeks later. I complained again, They unlocked 'em for a week, then locked 'em again. I gave up and graduated.

Iron, I use accrylic paint for my models (its like liquid plastic, with water cleanup. Can mix colors, and it dryes really fast. It peels easily, but you can buy a sealent that protects it) With the accrylic paint, I can grind out a model in one single day of intesnsive work. (most modelers are wondering what they've stepped in, but it IS true.) I wouldn't say my models are the highest of quality, but I think they're damn good myself. Just less than the fanatical and wonderful jobs that go into models on the "missing lynx" page. Also, scale greatly effects production speed. I can make a good 1/72 scale tank in about 4 hoursor less, but I hate that scale for vehicles. I much prefer 1/35.

18 here, I didn't answer the poll. (wasn't back to posting at the time). Being an 18 year old "military historian" (as best I can, that is) I can say this: Thank God for older people! I know age is not always a sign of maturity (I suppose I could use myself as an example there...but I won't ) but it generally plays a big part in the behavior of people. It is SOOooooo annoying to have kiddies with no attention span that enjoy insulting people just to be insulting, finding everything they don't like about a game and beating issues into the ground...I'm gonna try not to get started. I used to play Warbirds, an online WW2 flight sim that required a monthly fee and a fair bit of dedication to realism. Because of this, the average age was close to 30. Kiddies just didn't play. I now play World War II Online, which is sold in a box (greater accessability) and has a small[er] monthly fee ($10). While realism is as good as the producers can get, the kiddies are INSANE... Long story short, I'm glad this community has some wisdom and experience behind it. Some folks my age are wonderful human beings, but so many of them are little ****s.

Thanks for the recomendation WWB. I just got back from the bookstore (usin up a Christmas gift cirtificate) I just bought Caesar's Commentaries, and the translated histories of Polubus and Liby. That, with a new book on Greek warfare should keep me busy for a while. But, again thanks for the link.

WWB, also, horses don't like unusual smells. Camelry (cavalrymen mounted on camels! no foolin'!) and Elephants were very useful against horses who hadn't foguth them before. A row of emephants stretched across a battle line will block the advance of cavalry just by the smell (unless the horse has gotten used to it.) If I recall, no, thats incorrect. I was about to say that I recalled, Cataphract meaning "armored man" but thats the translation of "Hoplite." I can certianly understand "cooking pot," though. You mention "Roman Army at War." That by chance isn't one of the men at arms series is it? I just bought a cluster of those on the Roman era of warfare. My other extensive sources are "Warefare in the Classical World" and "Greece and Rome at War," the latter by Peter Connolly. Excellent resources, all of them. A side note on the siege debate, didn't the walls of Constantinople stand up to Arab cannon until well into the 1000s?