busboy

Agreed Iron! WWB, I'm not referring to the Byzintine cataphracts, I'm referring to some of the early units formed in the Imperial Roman period. Note, I'm not trying to compare tactics to the middle-aged nights, only the "armored horse and rider" appearence. My sources show, however, that the first regular cataphract units were formed by Emperor Vespasian in 69 AD, and were Sarmatian auxiliaries. And, of course, the shock effect of a charge of massed cavalry is perhaps the most effective weapon the horse has. In all consideration, awe and terror were probably the elephant's most effective offensive weapons as well.

Well, there are a few "Mod Packs" out there. However, if you don't want terrian, and only winter vehicles, then you have to download them individually. Find what you need/want and go hinting. The CMHQ is the best place to start your search.

FWIW, those little doosies are garunteed to ruin your day in the Close Combat games #3 and #4 (haven't played 5)

Hello! The yellow line means the unit that it is attached to has been spotted by the unit it is attached from (the highlighted one) but is not targeted. You may see multiple lines like this if the unit sees multiple targets. Also, the line may mean that the unit isn't firing on the one with the yellow line going to it because it is pinned down, or the unit doesn't consider it prudent to open fire (like a bazooka trying to hit a kraut jeep at 1.5 KM) Hope this helps, welcome to CM! Also, there's a dandy little FAQ floating around here somewhere too, that'll answer lots of questions for you, often before you have 'em!

First off, if you're on a Mac its a tad more complicated than the PC way of just slipping BMPs into a folder, but I have no reason to think you're a Mac user. Just a heads up if you are. As for PC, all you have to do is put the winter graphic in the graphics folder with everything else. There is a different number for winter textures that the game looks for under winter circumstances. If it doesn't find anything, it uses the regular graphics. So, as long as the alternate .bmp is numbered correctly, its a "fire and forget" method of installation. Every mod I have ever seen naturally has the correct number (some might have #####A.bmp, or a letter in it. This designates an optional selection. Pick the one of the options you want, edit out the letter, and pop it in). Translation: if you're on a not on a Mac, its plug and play! Have fun!

From Iron: "He laid down a solid foundation of tactics for the worlds generals to forever build upon." I disagree with this statement, and I guess an agreement to disagree is what is called for. I admit that he was the first to illustrate so potently the value of certian tactics and boldness, he was not THE first. Hannibal is important in military history, but I just can't consider him the "supreme dude to study." Iron again: "In doing this he in a sense created the Roman Empire, or at the very least catapulted their civilization to the heights it achieved in a far shorter time span." Absolutely! This is the most far reaching thing Hannibal did (what a horrible epitaph for such a man!) I agree whole heartedly here, couldn't have said it better if I tried "If not for Hannibal you would not know Scipios name." I have to agree with wwb on this one. Scipio's father was a senator and General. Scipio may not have become as famous, and the Rome so powerful so fast, but Scipio would have proved his genius eventually. Perhaps he would have subdued Gaul before Caesar was born, or soundly defeated the Parthians early on. Who knows how well we'd know him if not for Hannibal, but he'd be in Livy and Polybus, I'm sure. As for ancient cavalry...yes, cavaly were often used as shock troops, but they were more "reliable" in the skirmish, scout, flank, rout, and persue role. However, violent line breaking charges were performed with cavalry, as in many of Alexander's greatest victories. It must be remembered that the main weapon of a cavalryman of this era was a spear, not the sword. The Roman spatha was used if the spear was lost or broken (often the butt-spike was used as a secondary spear, as archeological finds show square penetrations in ancient helmets...OUCH!) Based on evidence from some Roman tombstones, some cavalrymen may have carried more than one spear into battle, or have a aid waiting in the rear to "refill" his master's hands. The late Roman era saw the adoption of "Cataphracts" by the Romans, after their experiance against the Parthians. These mounted troops are the first sign of the move toward the "mounted knights" of the middle ages. The rider and horse were both covered with scale armor(in the case of a horse, it was kind of a "blanket") with mail on the joints of the rider. Again, the primary weapon here was a long spear, which was braced under the right arm, and layed diagonally across the horse to the left side. Another thing that is worth pointing out...almost all Roman cavalry was made up of non-Roman citizens. Roman citizens joined the legions. A legion generally had 150-200 cavalrymen attached to it. (though all soldiers were trained to ride fully armed) These cavalrymen were used mainly as scouts and messangers. The Romans "hired out" for things like archers, skirmishers, and cavalry. The reward for a full service in the Auxileria units was citizenship in Rome. So while the nucleus of the Roman armies were the legions, the bulk of the strength was formed by the men of previously conquered nations.

Hehe, one fellow did a "Gettysburg" scenario, apparently while mildly intoxicated... The way I see it, any ancient combat mod would require a great imagination. Also, setting the ammo to "0" on all those infantry squads is very time consuming (my "test" zama scenario...I didn't bother.) Anyhoo, you'd have to pretend that grenades are actially pilum. Small arms could be modded into swords and the like, helmetes could be made to look bronze, uniforms to look like chainmail, ect. Non infantry units are the kicker. I used Greyhounds for Roman cavalry, and flamm-halftracks for the "elephants." However, I'd like to come up with something better. Sounds would need to be modded (gunfire replaced with steel on steel) If anyone speaks Latin or ancient carthaginian, a sound mod could go with it. Volkstrum could be celts, SS could be a phalanx, CM's BMP list is extensive enough to give a colorful conversion. An interface and unit graphics mod would help too. This would be a very very fun but very time consuming effort. Secondly, while I could fiddle around and make some graphics for it, anything "scratch built" would be sub-quality on my part, I'm afraid. However, I've got lots of ideas and eenough skill, resources, and energy to make maps. If anyone is serious about an ancient warfare mod, drop me a line at "busboy@integtechnology.com." I love CM! I'm sure BTS folks are rolling their eyes, but I love CM!

On the Roman saddle, It was copied from a celtic design, and had 4 horns on differing corners. My understanding is that when the rider sat on it, the horns are slightly inclined to angle inward and "pinch" the leg so, yes, fixing the rider into plce. Again, inferior to stirrups, but ancient cavalry simply functioned without it. While much ancient cavalry fought dismounted, really only useful as very mobile skirmishers, there were many many examples of decisive cavalry units. Alexander's companions (which he always led in person) and the Numidian cavalry are two examples.

You simply misunderstand my point. I'm just saying that Hannibal should have won, and he could have too. Naepoleon, on the other hand, couldn't have won (after he invaded Russia anyway.) The fact that Hannibal lost the war shows him to be "merely" a wonderful battlefield tactition. I do, however, think that you can call the loser of a war a brilliant commander. Look at the Conderate masters from the American Civil War, or Naepoleon. All I'm saying is that Hannibal's lessons in tactics are everywhere in history. However, Hannibal's lessons in strategy are limited to crossing the Alps. That is quite a feat, but his strategic skill wasn't sufficient to win the war. I personally think the crossing of the Alps was an act of tremendous leadership of men, and a dash of luck, not to mention great darring and determination. That says alot for his personality and ability as a leader of men. Let me reiterate: Hannibal does indeed rock! He kicked asicus and took namiticii! However, Scipio did that and more! Hannbial's campeigns are worth studying, but every military commander should have a comple knowledge of military history anyway, not just the "highlights."

wwb, good points. The evolution of horses suitable to be ridden allowed chariots to be replaced by cavalry, that was a major development. Iron is absolutely right. While weapons have changed, the principals of war are exactly the same as they ever were. Battles look different because of technology, and communication and mobility allows armies to fan out like in WW2 rather than function like chess men like they did even as late as the American Civil war. However, while technologies come and go, war is and always will be the same bloody business it has been. Finally, I'd like to throw in that Hannibal was indeed worth tactically studying, but his failure was to win the war he should have won. As I quoted before, he knew how to win the battles, but not how to use them. By the way, would anyone be intirested in an ancient warfare mod for CM? I was thinking this before the conversation anyway. It'd be very VERY crude mind you, mostly graphics mods and infantry running around with "low" ammo, but I thre together a Zama scenario last night and it actually functions ok. Just a pet thought, I dunno if I'd find time to do the work.

No General before or since has achieved such results because such a situation hasn't presented itself again. Battles then could be compared to a chess game, with the opposing sides marching onto the field, ect. Mobile war of today does not put 50,000 soldiers in one field to be matched against another force in a single battle. The idea that everyone is still trying to "out do" Hannibal is rediculias. As for "no General for or since." How many men did Armenius wipe out in the Teutoubourg Wald? Finally, again I look at traditional sources to prove my facts. Much of Hannibal's forces were Celtic, many of them were of Spanish origin (Iberian is the name for them if I recall) and many were from the regions that Hannibal marched through going into Italy. His central line at Caenne, as the gentleman above me noted, were made up of the Celts. At Zama, Hannibal's first line was made up of Celts, and his second line made up of conscripts from the city of Carthage itself. Iron, perhaps your "?" key is sticky, but every time I post something you don't quite agree with (be it a difference of opinion to a missing fact) you respond with, what seems to me, a tone of shocked outrage at ignorance. Please understand sir, I'm not trying to insult your knowledge or opinion. This is merely a friendly conversation of history where there is bound to be a difference of opinion, and thats ok. I just wanted to make sure the "???s" weren't a sign of hostility. We may not agree, but we're all on the same side here. <S!> bud!

I won't go into Monty accept to say he wasn't my favorite. Anything more than that and it looks like I bash Monty to support Patton. Monty was a general who got the job done, and was a great leader of men (which, in my opinion, was his greatest trait.) However, he just took too long and too much to do the job compared to other folks. I think Market Garden is a strike against him, as he should have called it off, but it was a good plan if there was a realistic chance of sucsess. I also think his massive Rhine crossing operation was a bit more than needed. In the end, all I will say is that Monty isn't my type of commander, but he could indeed lead his men. I do think Eisenhower prolonged the war by giving Monty his chances, but I don't mean to insult Montgomery by saying that. I'll shut up on that note before I dig myself into a trap. Iron, you misunderstand me. Hannibal was a great commander, but I think he pales compared to Scipio. Yes, Hannibal did throw a spear at the city walls of Rome, but he did not lay siege to it. The spear was a sign of defiance after Caenne. If you'd like, I'd be glad to find several sources on this for you. Hannibal most decidedly did NOT invent encirclement. Hell, the Greek/Persian navel battle at Salamis demonstrates the practice of pinning the enemy between the rock(s) and a hard place. You want a textbook example of encirclement? Look the Athenian assault on Sphacteria in the Peloponnesian wars. Conclusion: Crediting Hannibal with inventing encirclement is like crediting Patton with the idea of the light bulb. However, encirclement was not a "famous" manuver for quite some time. Why? Because armies until the Roman age fought either in hordes flailing at whatever they saw, or phalanx. Once you get a phalanx army into position, there's only one way to go-forward. The men can shift their spears and baisically rotate the phalanx 90 degrees, but if you have formed a line, then you're suddenly in coloum. At Caenne, Hannibal used his phalanx on his flanks. His celtic "hordes" were in the center. They kept the Romans busy while the phalanx marched forward until they were alongside the Roman forces. They then rotated 90 degrees (one on each flank mind you) and advanced. At this critical moment the Numidian cavalry decends on the Roman rear and the result is Rome's worst defeat ever. Even with this envelopment, Hannibal still is limited by the phalanx. When his time comes at Zama, he is totally outclassed by the tactical versitility of the Roman cohorts. If Hannibal was the master of envelopment, he should have seen Scipio deploying his reseves on his flanks rather than hacking at the center, especially considering that Scipio was known to use the tactic himself. But Hannibal's veterens were formed in a phalanx, which offered no flexability. It offered so little room for gaps in the diciplin that when the celtic and conscript ranks fled, the phalanx would not open their ranks to allow their men passage. So, the shattered remains of the celts and cathaginian levies formed on the flanks. Rather than swapping out his Hastii as per the usual Roman meathod, Scipio uses his Hastii to "grab 'em by the nose" while the Priciptius and Triarii headed to the flanks made of shattered troops. Again, at this critical moment the Numidian cavalry returns, only this time they're on the Roman side. With troops in front, the phalanx can't break rank, and they are assaulted from the sides and rear, concluding a classical envelopment with a "kick in the ass." I would be daft to say Hannibal wasn't a great general, but Scipio was far superior. If he had been in command at Caenne rather than two senators that were too busy tripping over eachother than to fight, then Hannibal would have met his fate much sooner when he was outnumbered two to one. Instead, Hannibal has a celebrated victory, and Scipio remains forgotten by far too many.

Andreas, that is the funniest post I've seen here in a long time! Thanks I have to admit, I don't know as much as you folks about the mongels, though I know some. Certianly, I don't know enough to get involved in that conversation, but do continue! I'm learning a lot. Now I DO know a bit about the Hun. Perhaps you've heard about a chap called Atilla? If you ever see a picture of him, he looks evil the second you see him. Know why? Because Atilla was the model that renisance artists used for Satan. Just a neat tid-bit I picked up somewhere.

There's a good aeronautics museum in Florida near Orlando (I think) called "Fantasy of Flight." If you're intirested in the American Civil War, I'd check out Vicksburg Mississippi. There's also a very good air museum up in Ohio, but thats a bit out of your way. Again, I forget where it is (or exactly what its called too.) Oh, least someone forget the Smithsonian in Washington DC.

If I understand correctly, trenches will indeed be included in the next Combat Mission game, Combat Mission, Barbarossa to Berlin. They will be purchased like barbed wire and mines are now. The present CM is done with updates and development though. I recall the makers saying a while back that they *might* retrofit some of the up-and-comming improvements into CM, but thats a "wait and see" type thing. I've been away for a while, so a more knowledged person might be able to tell you more on that.

Thats right, American kids are tought very little about WW2, mainly about the politics and the attrocities. Patton was never mentioned in my high school text books, or my college one for that matter. By the way, I don't recall ever saying I'm an American. Maybe I just fit the steriotype that well. Most Americans not really into war get their military history (sadly) from Hollywood. There is ofcourse the George C. Scott movie, which does an excellent job portraying fact but it strays several times. I was not not raised loving Patton. Its something that came naturally. Fierce nationalism is not the reason why I find him my favorite general of WW2. If any Patton had been fighting for any given nation, I'd admire him. As for how would Patton have performed in the Eastern flank of Europe? I don't think he would have advanced as fast as he did in the south, but I think he would have advanced much faster than Montgomery...without resorting to massive airborn operations consuming tremendous amounts of resources. As for my "efficient" comment, that is an opinion which I can support, though ofcourse not prove, with numbers. Those numbers I base primarily on combat performance. I don't think comparing the similar statistics on the mongels would be a very fair annalesys. In fact, I now find the term efficient a poor one to say what I ment to. Saying efficient when talking about a modern army can mean several completely different things. Don't get me wrong here either folks. I'm not some mindless Patton fan. I'm am, or try to be, a student of military history. We're talking about Patton because he was a World War II general. If CM was a Punic War game, I'd be "mindlessly" touting Scipio. I haven't put all my eggs into one favoritism basket here folks, but this topic is one that I could debate ad nausium. I'll continue to do so as well as long as the conversation is as stimulating as it is! (It would be dull if everyone agreed with me. Just because I think it doesn't make it right, I know. Its only places like this where military history buffs facelessly cluster that I can really have these discussions. I salute you all for your opinions, and your intellegence!)

Neat. I found CM on a CD of "MacAdict." I loved the demo, so I got the game and I've loved it ever since. But I honestly don't recall when I got here. I'm not one of the old hands thats been here since the development days, and I don't think I was here before that first update. However, I've been here for a good long time, longer than I've realized actually. I've been somewhat of a lurker on these boards because its only been recently that I have been able to play again. That was a good nistalgioc (sp?) read. Thanks!

Vanir Ausf B...they're ivory handled too, not pearl! Just kidding. I don't model myself after Patton, but after studying him I found the resemblence between us greater than any other historical figure, so I'm naturally drawn to him. As for the rest, it is impossible to compare ancient with modern leadership. War and its principles haven't changed, but battles have gone from affairs with thousands of men in one place to scattered, driving, rapidly moving thusts and counterthrusts with equipment than an ancient soldier could never dream of. You cannot compare an modern commander to an ancient one. Modern commanders don't get to prove decisively which is tactically superior against their rivals. Modern leaders don't get the chance to singlehandedly conquer nations for the sake of conquest. You simply can't compare them. However, if you want to try, Patton's 3rd Army, on paper, is the most efficient army in history I believe. I'll dig out the numbers if you'd like. (Date in operation-date of end of war, casualties inflicted, taken, territory taken, ect.) As for Hannibal. He was brilliant, but the Romans he faced at Caenne were led by a bumbbling command structure. Two councelor armies were combined...and the councles took turns commanding. Caenne was a masterpiece, but if one competant Roman had been in command, Hannibal would have been slaughtered and the Second Punic war would have eneded right there. But he did win and...he did nothing. He marches up to Rome, lobs a spear at the walls, but cannot take it. One of his own generals told him "You know how to gain a victory, but you know not how to use one." Hannibal loiters around Italy for a while longer before Scipio utterly destroys Carthage's armies in Africa, and is recalled. He is then soundly defeated by a tactically more brilliantt manuver that has the same effect that Caenne had. Hannibal was good, but he wasn't great. You want great, study Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanius. B.H. Liddel Hart has a great book on him (written before WWII, yet Hart shows through ancient annalesys what future wars will be like...very good read). Its called Greater Than Naepoleon." I'd recommend this book to anyone remotely intirested in military methods, or with an eye towards WW2.

Hehe, I'd actually agree with the self importance thing, hell, I'll present myself as Exhibit A! But, atleast some of us are willing to admit that. The worst folks are those who won't admit it, and I know a few. The issue with Patton wasn't that he thought that only he could win the war, just that he could do it a whole lot quicker, and was prevented from doing so by politics. Wheather or not you're looking strictly at Patton or not, the fact remains that politics dictated army policy almost as much as was, and sometimes it was the war effort that was hurt. As for the technical questions. By the time Patton faced the Africa Korps, Rommel was out of Africa. He was taken to Germany for illness, and retained by Hitler so he wouldn't have lost the battle. As for the Faliese pocket, that was a very very intense German counter-offensive that was absorbed by Patton's 6th Armored I believe. While the Faliese pocket wasn't strictly a Patton battle, only Patton was capable of closing the gap at an opertune time, but because of politics Patton was stopped short. I'm not saying Patton was cheated, I'm saying the Allies were cheated. They had the opportunity to drastically shorten the war if the Anglo forces (specifically Polish I believe) had been quicker, or if the Americans were allowed to continue past their boundry. As for the whole self importance issue. I understand what you're saying there. However, I'd like to offer a slight twist. It was Patton himself that said individuality in war was a load of crap, and personal heroics were hyped by the media. Dicipline is all important in an army, not the courage of the soldiers. Well diciplined soldiers will behave reliably, even though afraid. However, heroics can cause problems if a person's sense of revenge or lust for glory wells up at the wrong time. This has been shwon from ancient days to today, from a Spartian soldier being diciplined for his tremendous heroics at Marathon (I think, forget the name too) to the current saying "never share a foxhole with someone braver than you." The self is not all important, the unit is the important part. However, leadership is an area where it is the individual that becomes all important because he personifies the force he leads. His soul is taken on by his men, whether this is good or bad. Look at any great army in history, and you'll see what I mean. Alexander's men, Caesar's X legion and their revolt, the men of the Scipios, the Naepoleons, and the Robert E. Lees. It is not sucsess that defigned the support and performance that these men got, but their leadership. With skill and determination, they led their men to victory, and sometimes defeat, but the men followed as good soldiers. But name a faceless General that sucseeded so brilliantly. Name a man who kept, or rather naturally had total humility but led his men to fantastic victories. I'm not saying swagger is a necessarry element for military sucsess, but in every great and fabled army a name has been the standard of the men, as well as the banners and eagles. Arrogent Americans like me may indeed have an overblown sense of self importance, but as long as diciplin remains most important, this may indeed serve as a positive personality trait, not a negative one. Just so long as we don't think ourselves superior human beings. More capable at certian tasks...thats one thing, but resepct for one's fellow man is what seperates the proud from the pigs.

Well Brian, if you read "The Patton Papers" you might change your mind there too. Of course, our own opinions have so much to do with the debate, but you'd be suprised. Patton took on oponents that are considered the best the Germans had. He defeated Rommel's Africa Korps in El Guitar (sp) and Runstedt in the Falaise Pocket (which Patton could have closed but was stopped by SHAEF.) Again, this is all opinion. I myself am rather like Patton, so I have a natural tendency toward his type of leadership anyway. Some people can't understand this personality, though. I understand that, and thats why I don't force the isse. But its still a load of fun to debate!

The Ta-152 did see some very limited combat. It looks like a stretched FW-190 because, well, it is! It was designed by the same fellow who designed the 190, Kurt Tank (the "Ta" designation was in his honor) The Ta-152 was designed to be a high altitude bomber killer. The FW 190s had very short wings (which gave 'em TREMENDOUS rates of role) However, a smaller airfoil means reduced sustained turning, and less lift in the thinner air. The Ta-152 also had a larger liquid cooled engine designed for high altitude performance. The P-47 is a powerful looking beast, nicknamed "the Jug" for its resemblence to a milk jug, OR short for Juggernaut. The P-47 actually was the fastest plane in the U.S. inventory at high altitude (though the acceleration of the 7 ton monster left something to be desired) No plane, with possible exception of the P-38, could out-dive a P-47. While the FW-190D9 (the "Dora", long nose with the liquid cooled engine) was very fast, the P-47 was faster than the lot of FWs. Ugliest aircraft? Thats hard to say, as most anything that flies has some form of elegence and power. However, I think the Brewster Buffalo really looked like poop.

Iron, you're entitled to your opinion, but so am I. I say you're wrong. Comparing Patton and Monty is rediculias unless you mean they both loved the spotlight. Bradley was reliable, a battle winner, but not the best we had. Patton overrated? Hell, look at statistics, or look at how others held him. He was the only General the Germans really feared ("Monty was reliable" they said.) Stalin himself said that the Red Hordes couldn't have done as well as Patton's 3rd Army did. Dorry if you don't like flamboyant cavalrymen, there's always gonna be folks who don't, I know. Commissiar, my knowledge of that war is limited too, but what I do know comes from, among a few other sources, that very book you quote from! I agree with your annalesys, but what I'm saying is that even in the desert where a tank like the IS-III is tactically best suited, it could be overcome by more numerous, and more universally useful tanks. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the IS-III isn't a monster (especially in infantry support) I'm just saying its overrated in a tank vs. tank sense. As for the Patton quote, Patton was baisically calling the Russians cowards for developing a weapon system that could engage targets from a long range. He was telling the Russian that he'd want his tankers to courageously charge to point blank range to allow more personal and efficient killing. Of course, for a Sherman 76 to kill an IS-III, it'd have to anyway. It was Patton's disrespectful audacity that really shut Zhucov up.

Sorry to hear that Iron Chef, you're missing out on a lot of fun. Don't hold the grudge against CRS, they didn't finished product. The culprit was Strategy First. Since the release, the game producers and the testers have worked their asses off to make the game what they want it to be. And ya know what? They're almost there too. CRS is not an immoral, money grubbing company. They are dedicated to making their game be as close to real war as they can make it. And they will continue to improve the game too. It already is a blast, though it isn't quite the war simulation it hopes to be. There's not enough strategic element there yet. Tactically, the game is OUTSTANDING. Trust me bud, give the game another chance and don't be bitter.

Well, I didn't say it "sucked" as I didn't want to sound too harsh. (with exception of the Peng challenges, things are generally very civil around here) However, it does suck! The turret, no matter how well "shaped" you think it is, limits gun depression. It has a slow rotation rate. Considering the ammo is two piece, in a SMALL turret with a BIG breech, reload time is tremendous. In the desert, an environment where a heavy tank like the IS-3 would in theory dominate, the Israeliis TORE APART the IS-III. The M-46 and M-47, and Centurion tanks admitedly couldn't penetrate their front armor, but through superior tactics they flanked and wasted 'em. Combat experiance is all I need to see to show how horrid those tanks are. I remember a Patton anicdote. Patton was present with Zhucov (damn, I can't spell his name, sorry) at a Russian victory parade, in Berlin I believe. The Russian general was particularly proud of the heavy tanks in the parade, and he gloated to Patton: You see those tanks there my dear General? They are capable of engaging targets more than 2 KM away. Patton, without mission a beat replied: My dear General, if my tankers were to open fire on your tanks at any range less than 500 M, I'd have them tried and shot for cowardice. Zhucov's interpreter said it was the only time he'd ever seen him too shocked to speak. The heavy tank in question was almost certianly the IS-III. (Described as "a new heavy tank" in the sources I found it in)

Good post. The IS series of tanks would have been vastly more effective if they had been equipped with the 100mm navel gun, which had a smaller round (quicker reload) and better armor penetration than the 122mm. The facts on internal spalling are really intiresting to me. That statistic really negates the thick armor. In addition, the fact that "only some rounds managed to fully penetrate" in firing tests, then that means armor quality varried greatly. The pet question that I entertain is: how much trouble would the Allies have been in if WW3 started right after WW2? Facts like thatonly go to strengthen my mental battle images in favor of the Anglo-Americo-Germanic forces. IS-IIIs stunk!