Andrew H.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by The Commissar: I don't think Christie had any say in the sloped armor. In fact, everything but the suspension was original Russian engineering. <hr></blockquote> Christie didn't have a say in the armor or the gun, both of which were the aspects of the tank most feared by the Germans. The Russians also didn't make use of one (supposed) selling point of Christie's suspension -- the ability to operate the tank, on roads, only on its roadwheels, without using tracks. (The BTs could do this, though). It was also a Russian innovation to use extra wide tracks on the T-34, based on problems that they had during the winter war. I don't want to take too much away from Christie, despite his tread removal idea (which is just sort of bizarre), the suspension was still better than the early Sherman suspensions. But it's wrong to give him much credit for the design of the T-34, since his only connection to it is that its suspension was based on a suspension he designed 10 or more years before the first T-34 was built.

Here's a link to Rexford discussing his book. Rexford's book discussion. IIRC from other Rex panther discussions, what he thought should be corrected in CM was not so much the quality of the Panther's glacis (I mean, he wanted it to be random averaging out to around 85%, not always 85%, but I don't think he had a particular problem with this number), but with the fact that the poor armor quality was only found in the glacis, and not in other armor on the tanks. Given the thin Panther side armor, this would be important for CMBO. I'm not sure how important it is for CMBB, although having a better turret might be. I'm not sure if BTS could do the "random" glacis quality thing before the engine rewrite anyway, but it could present certain problems for ladders and point games. But it would still be kind of cool.

I'm twice Chad's age minus 4 plus the mental ages of Maximus2k and Gunny Bunny combined. So I'm 37. Woot. [Edited because I was wrong about how old Chad is] [ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redeker: Everybody down! We, the grogs, are hijacking this thread! <hr></blockquote> Well, somebody's got to keep order around here.

Yeah, I've read Jentz, and other things, and AFAIK, none of them discussed the Scherenfernrohr being standard equipment. On the other hand, they are pretty specific about things like Turmsehroehre and Turmzielfernroehre: not only their existence and designation, but also other specific technical details. There are occasional pictures of men in tanks having the occasional scissors-type rangefinder (esp. StuG crews, which makes sense because they were part of the artillery branch), but neither photographic evidence nor AARs suggest that the scissors-type rangefinders were standard equipment. You may want to take a look at this thread for an earlier discussion that included this issue.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by TSword: The Tiger, StuG's, Panther had the "Scherenfernrohr" as standard equipment which vastly improved their longrange spotting cababilty, in CM not there. <hr></blockquote> Do you have any evidence that Tigers and Panthers were issued scissors-type rangefinders as standard equipment?

I think Rickard's discussion of Weigley, Patton, Moltke, and other US generals is too apples-and-oranges to have a lot of meaning, although some of what he wants to say about Patton may be correct nonetheless. In his discussion of a broad front strategy and Grant, Weigley is talking about the allied grand strategy for fighting in Europe. Decisions at this level involve things like whether the US troops land on the beaches to the east of the british or to the west. If you're opting for a narrow front strategy, the US lands to the east of the british because that's closest to Germany, so where the strongest force needs to be for a direct strike (strongest considering replacement ability, etc.). For a broad front strategy, you land to the west because you have the manpower to spread out through France. During the civil war, under Grant, the US Army also chose a broad front strategy. Important elements of this strategy included things like stopping prisoner exchanges (they used to be exchanged and rejoin their army) because the loss of one prisoner was a proportionally greater loss to the south than to the north. By contrast, the German grand strategic plan in France was a narrow front strategy calling for a strategic war-ending breakthrough in the ardennes. The advantage of a broad front strategy, of course, is that it is much safer: there's no danger of a large part of your army (typically, the best part) getting cut off and encircled if the breakthrough doesn't work. Of course, you have to have the manpower to be able to adopt a broad front strategy to begin with. And broad front strategies do have a place for breakthroughs: they happen after the enemy has been stretched and attrited so much that it's pretty easy to punch a hole. Patton is a couple of levels below the grand strategic level discussed above, and Patton's breakthrough did not come from a powerful punch delivered by the third army, but from the general breaking of the German line due to attrition. And Patton handled his exploitation (I think that's probably the right word) about perfectly. Unfortunately, there's no one really to compare him to. He's not a Rommel or a Stonewall Jackson who was able to defeat equal or larger enemies by manuver and fighting them in detail. He's not a Guderian, either, smashing through and encircling dangerous forces. What he is, really, is cavalryman in the 19th century cavalry-vs-indians sense. He is much faster than his opponents, and he can easily defeat any of the weak, isolated bands that he faces. The problem for Patton is that there are so many bands to fight,and the ones you don't fight, or capture, will eventually regroup and form a real army again. What Patton did so well was cover a lot of area while dealing efficiently with whatever resistance he met. Efficiently, in this sense, means that Patton peeled off enough of his force to deal with isolated resistance, and kept the bulk of his force always moving. It's easy to defeat an inferior enemy by attacking it with most of your force, but if you spend three days capturing every village defended by a battalion, most of the other German units would be able to escape.

You know, an interesting thing about the Juggernaut is how the modeller took the rear MGs from the back of the KV turrets and put them in the side of the turret bustle. There was some thought put into this.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>From this mentioned weapon heavy at the troop tank throw cannon (PWK)<hr></blockquote> Why doesn't CMBO model the Heavy at the Troop (HTTTC) Tank Throw Cannon? This is just another example of BTS's pro-commonwealth bias, as the HTTTC was particularly effective against tanks organized in troops. I believe US forces located a prototype of a Heavy at the Platoon Tank Throw Cannon near the end of the war, but there is no evidence that a HPTTC actually saw combat. I hope the Heavy at the Troop Tank Throw Cannon is modelled in CMBB

CM is better than SL/ASL in almost every way, although I am somewhat sympathetic to Cauldron's point: SL/ASL had some great scenarios. I can remember lots and lots of nail-biting fun as the the last turn comes up with the VL (usually a building I had to occupy) still in doubt. Sometimes you had to resolve a close combat in the building in the last phase to determine the winner. It also seemed like every unit really mattered. With a couple of exceptions (The Road to Wiltz (the same name as an old SL scenario, IIRC) comes to mind), I haven't found CM scenarios to have that sort of nail-biting ending. I think it might be a feature of FOW, though: its absence in SL probably made it easier to design more balanced scenarios because the designer could assume that both players knew what the other player had, and where it was located. The absence of FOW in SL/ASL is completely unrealistic, of course. (And dummy units or hiding units under ? counters doesn't count).

It seems like rockets might be perfect for the "preliminary bombardment" turn in CMBB.

I made a number of whiny posts about how CM's results more closely resembled reality when people used green troops. I argued that it made more sense for most battles to be made up of regulars and greens, not regulars and vets. (I wasn't the first person to make this point, but I'm pretty sure I was the whiny-est.)

The StuGs were actually disassembled and the parts distributed across a parachute battalion; I think in the ratio of 4 StuGs to a battalion. The men would then drop with the appropriate StuG parts and reassemble the StuG once they were on the ground. In ideal situations, a StuG could be assembled in as little as 15 minutes. Obviously, this only worked because the StuG was a relatively straightforward vehicle; it would not have worked with a turreted vehicle. Despite the fact that the StuG could be assembled rapidly in ideal situations, situations were rarely ideal. On Crete, for example, the paratroopers landed so far apart that they had great difficulty assembling their StuGs. It often happened that the troopers with critical components were pinned down or killed. In a battle near Malmeme, for example, the British pinned down the unit carrying the track pins for over 24 hours, with predictable results. The coastal areas were also treacherous; in one famous incident, the squad carrying a StuG transmission landed in the sea and every man drowned. It wasn't until the airports were seized that the situation became better.

The Alt+Tab fix is working very well for me; it seems to work better than using Esc to get to the desktop did, although I don't know if there is a real difference. But I'm pleased,at any rate. WRT actual fixes, instead of having BTS try and code something to fix the Nvidia problem, could it work to have a modder produce an XP friendly interface that had no white in it -- replacing white with some color that isn't currently used, like, say, light pink. I'm not much of a computer guru, but if the problem is that white...and only white...turns tranparent, then maybe replacing white would do the trick. Unless, of course, white is hard coded in some places.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: knokced out in the ardenees forest you said right? well tanks are not at their best fighting in forests, they can't just run over every tree in their path lik many people think. and if you do not think the tiger2's were superior to american armor, well just ask a veteren sherman tanker. your reading the propaganda that the american mg's were better then the mg 42's and we had the best tanks in the wolrd, wich was totaly false at the time, and the veterens agreed that the shermans were not as good as the tigers. the panzerIV's were a much better tank then the sherman. but i find alot of people just just biased and can't deal with the fact that germany had better armor, the russians did too, but that must be false as well, the shermans main strenghts were this. numbers,numbers, reliability, and adaptability. the british, americans, italians and japanese were judst not very impressive at creating good armor at the time. the briths and americans tried copying the tiger but they still lacked. just as the panther is very similar in design to the t-34<hr></blockquote> You're 14 right? You need to reread the posts that I and other people have made so that you can respond to those points. Sometimes it helps to say the words out loud. Making up arguments that you believe people made, and then attacking those made up arguments is called a "straw man" argument. It is not really an argument, it is a form of masturbation. Like masturbation, it's best not done in public. Turning to specific points: (1) Please show me where I ever claimed that Shermans were superior to Tiger IIs. (Hint: I have never claimed that). I have refuted specific points that you have made as part of your uber-German argument; specifically that (a) the US lost 5 Sherms taking out each German heavy tank and ( the US could not destroy a KT except with airpower. (2) Ardennes. Yes, I understand that tanks are not at their best in the woods. However, woods do not magically reduce the armor on a KT, and despite the absence of this magical armor reduction, 76mm AT guns were somehow able to destroy KTs with flank shots. You do know that this same gun was mounted on the 76mm Sherms, and a very similar gun was mounted on the M-10. (3) Propaganda and my reading habits. I would never claim that US mgs were better than the MG 42; they weren't. I have certainly never made that claim in this thread or even on this BBS. (See "strawman"). WRT my reading habits and propaganda, you are making stuff up again. How is the fact that 76mm AT guns knocked out KTs propaganda? Do you believe that it's not true? Present some evidence to support the claim, then. (4) Please provide some evidence to support your claim that the British or Americans tried to copy the Tiger. (5) I will note that you failed to rebut my earlier post about the 5-1 ratio. Do you concede that you were wrong. (6) Much of this thread has focused on how many KTs were destroyed by means other than airpower and abandonment. I would be interested in stats (from Sakai or anyone) concerning how many Shermans were lost to KTs. (7) Sherms and PzIVs. The contention that the PzIV was better than the Sherman is not implausible on its face, at least wrt the Sherm 75. The Pz IV did have a better gun for AT purposes. On the other hand, the Pz IV did not has much effective front armor as the Sherman, was not nearly as reliable as the Sherman, and had a marginally worse anti-infantry gun than the Sherm. I call it a wash, but it's reasonable to disagree on this one.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: i was not aware that all the king tigers were "taken out" where did you read this?it simply is not true, most of the ones that were counted as "knocked out" were simply abandonded by their crew due to running out of fuel and ammo and not being able to be resupplied, the western allies simply had no reliable way of knocking out these tanks without an attack from aircraft<hr></blockquote> Well, you're ignoring this: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> I say this because I can identify the following SS KT loss occasions in the Bulge - (1) a platoon of 4 KOed by 4 US 76mm towed ATGs on a slope overlooking a town near the tail of Peiper's column, firing from ambush; (2) 2 KTs KOed leading an attack on a US held village, knocked out by 90mm AA guns, at the head of Peiper's column; (3) at least 1 KT M-killed by infantry with zooks and then set alight after dosing it in gasoline, not with Peiper's column, but in the SS Panzer sector in front of the Elsenborn position.<hr></blockquote> It also seems that you believe that the fact that many KTs were abandoned, destroyed by their crews, or destroyed by aircraft, is an example of these vehicles' superiority. This does not follow; the fact that the crew chose to destroy their vehicle simply does not mean it could not be destroyed by other means. As Jason's point above demonstrates, KTs could be and were killed by conventional US weapons (i.e., 76mm AT guns).

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai: well i'll state the easiest source for you to find, the history channel actualy had a show on it and that wher ei got my 90% figure, from the historians they had on it. there are many other places you can find it as well, you have ot read more then a few biased books, and there are plenty, just keep reading, dont come across one random guys opinion and carve it in stone, you have to look arounbd, i found many comicla books written by marine so and so who claim the japanese were no match for himm and his 3 buddies balh blah blah. i even read in the local paper last year around here of a veteren of world war 2 who basicly got evey medel and had tons of war stories of great things he did and finaly last year it was discovered that everything he claimed was false and he actualy never was even near any of the battles that took plave let alone accomplished all the heroic deeds he claimed, so don't trust every "true acount"<hr></blockquote> The SOP for dealing with lone Panthers was to use 5 Shermans against it. This is very different from losing 5 Shermans per Panther taken out. There is no real evidence to support the view that this happened. You can find a couple of AARs describing 5 Shermans attacking a Panther (I think there's one in the US Army's history of the Lorraine campaign); the Panther always loses (to a flank shot) and no Sherms are injured. You need to find real evidence to support your claims; something you thought you saw on a TV show just isn't very good evidence.

Mostly you will find the answers you seek here. Enter at your own risk.

Post the article or the URL and I'll look at it too.

I was browsing around the 96th ID MoH site and found this amazing bit: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> CRAFT, CLARENCE B. Rank and organization: Private, First Class, U.S. Army, Company G, 382d Infantry, 96th Infantry Division. Place and date: Hen Hill, Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, 31 May 1945. Entered service at: Santa Ana, Calif. Birth: San Bernardino, Calif. G.O. No.: 97, 1 November 1945. Citation: He was a rifleman when his platoon spearheaded an attack on Hen Hill, the tactical position on which the entire Naha-Shuri-Yonaburu line of Japanese defense on Okinawa, Ryukyu Islands, was hinged. For 12 days our forces had been stalled, and repeated, heavy assaults by 1 battalion and then another had been thrown back by the enemy with serious casualties. With 5 comrades, Pfc. Craft was dispatched in advance of Company G to feel out the enemy resistance. The group had proceeded only a short distance up the slope when rifle and machinegun fire, coupled with a terrific barrage of grenades, wounded 3 and pinned down the others. Against odds that appeared suicidal, Pfc. Craft launched a remarkable 1-man attack. He stood up in full view of the enemy and began shooting with deadly marksmanship wherever he saw a hostile movement. He steadily advanced up the hill, killing Japanese soldiers with rapid fire, driving others to cover in their strongly disposed trenches, unhesitatingly facing alone the strength that had previously beaten back attacks in battalion strength. He reached the crest of the hill, where he stood silhouetted against the sky while quickly throwing grenades at extremely short range into the enemy positions. His extraordinary assault lifted the pressure from his company for the moment, allowing members of his platoon to comply with his motions to advance and pass him more grenades. With a chain of his comrades supplying him while he stood atop the hill, he furiously hurled a total of 2 cases of grenades into a main trench and other positions on the reverse slope of Hen Hill, meanwhile directing the aim of his fellow soldiers who threw grenades from the slope below him. He left his position, where grenades from both sides were passing over his head and bursting on either slope, to attack the main enemy trench as confusion and panic seized the defenders. Straddling the excavation, he pumped rifle fire into the Japanese at pointblank range, killing many and causing the others to flee down the trench. Pursuing them, he came upon a heavy machinegun which was still creating havoc in the American ranks. With rifle fire and a grenade he wiped out this position. By this time the Japanese were in complete rout and American forces were swarming over the hill. Pfc. Craft continued down the central trench to the mouth of a cave where many of the enemy had taken cover. A satchel charge was brought to him, and he tossed it into the cave. It failed to explode. With great daring, the intrepid fighter retrieved the charge from the cave, relighted the fuse and threw it back, sealing up the Japs in a tomb. In the local action, against tremendously superior forces heavily armed with rifles, machineguns, mortars, and grenades, Pfc. Craft killed at least 25 of the enemy; but his contribution to the campaign on Okinawa was of much more far-reaching consequence for Hen Hill was the key to the entire defense line, which rapidly crumbled after his utterly fearless and heroic attack.<hr></blockquote> My troops never do this

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: I wonder if Steve's rather sudden reappearance on the message board is any kind of an indicator of the imminent release of CMBB? What other explanation can there be for all this free time he has now? <hr></blockquote> Ever been to Maine in November? Brrrr.

High morale is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the troops won't cower and reduce their firepower. On the other hand, if they are facing overwhelming firepower, the troops will often stay and die when lesser troops would have lived to fight another day.

Those are pretty cool. They're not all in Russia, though; according to the captions, the Jagdpanther was knocked out by Americans, and the Panther is in France.

In "A Time for Trumpets," Macdonald talks about a Panther that is killed by a Stuart from the side. I wonder whether this got inflated into the Stuart taking out a KT story. WRT armor quality: in one of Rexford's posts on armor quality and the Panter, he made the point that the poor armor quality of the Panther was due to uneven/improper quenching of the glacis during fabrication, and suggested that, consequently, only the glacis should have the reduced armor quality. Apparently the fabrication of the Panther's side panels was relatively straightforward, in part due to the fact that the armor was not that thick. It may also turn out to be the case that the reduced armor quality in the KT only relates to the glacis and the side armor should be 95 or 100%.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>....I believe this was Sgt. Gordon's last action as he was wounded in return fire when one of three rounds from another Tiger struck his half opened hatch which slammed it shut striking him on the head - he climbed out dazed and was then further wounded.<hr></blockquote> The british say that the range was 700 meters, the Germans 800 meters. If the Germans had dialed in their guns to 700 meters, I wonder if the shell would have knocked out the tank rather than just clipping an open hatch.