Andrew H.

The Amazing BTS sees all, knows all. In this thread, Steve mentioned that Sov. forces would place reliance on pregame bombardments because the delay for Sov. FOs would be so bad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir: I don't suppose that anyone likes the simple idea that 500mm is designed to simulate the impossibility of destroying a bunker with any weapon in the CMBO scope, eh? Abstraction, etc. Powerful concept, that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is exactly right. Pillboxes weren't, historically, taken out by tanks blasting through their concrete walls, nor were they taken out by minor artillery fire. They were either taken out by infantry assault or by direct fire through the firing slits. CM gets this absolutely right. Jason's point about spotting difficulties is well taken; I'm glad CM will fix that. WRT compartmentalization of pillboxes, IIRC, Steve once said that these pillboxes represented relatively small simple concrete pillboxes, and not the elaborate fortresses used in Normandy or in some parts of the West Wall.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rex_Bellator: AFAIK one reason Nebelwerfers were so feared was that the rounds would land virtually instantaneously and give the target almost no time to seek cover. So I wonder if we should see very high concentrated bursts of half a dozen rounds impacting together to represent each launch rather than the present spread of rounds over several turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In an earlier artillery thread, someone stated that the first shells in an artillery barrage were much more effective than follow up rounds because people quickly sought the best cover available, making subsequent rounds less effective. Thus, if Nebelwerfer rounds hit at the same time, they would be more effective than if they hit one after another. But this principle, if correct, would also have implications for all artillery strikes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jeffsmith: Does that mean if CMBB is not done in April we have to wait until September?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. BTS takes its vacations very seriously. :cool: But consider yourself lucky; the Finns won't get it until November.

A month that has an "R" in it...

Also, we need to make sure that canine and equine sound contact markers are different from normal infantry markers.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: Are you sure about this? You are saying that it will break down liquid H2O into O2 and H (gasses)? One of the ways to manufacture WP shells is to fill them with molten WP under water. Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to Martin Russ's "Breakout" (a book about the breakout from the Chosin Reservoir in Korea), this is exactly how the working of WP was explained to Marines (including the breaking down of H2O to liberate the oxygen). I can't say that it's correct as a matter of science, though: while it's possible that WP that has been ignited behaves differently from molten WP (i.e., the burning WP will keep burning under water, but will not ignite underwater in the absence of "free" oxygen"), it is also possible that what the Marines were told about WP was incorrect (maybe so that they would actually use proper first aid for WP and not just pour water on the wound). [Edit]If you go HERE you can find an experiment that has WP being extinguished by water. I would recommend not trying this at home, although,actually, the experiment looks like it could be tried at home. Probably the greater lesson is not to rely on chemical "facts" from mil history books. [ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: I had heard that immersion in water starves it of oxygen, thus slowing the reaction. Not so? Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. WP will liberate the oxygen from the water and keep burning. In Korea, I think the would use copper sulfate (or something like that) to try and make it go out.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dirtweasle: It's damage has a persistent nature maybe? Nothing else in the game has the potetial to cause damage for some + amount of time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't think that the persistent damage of WP is meaningful for the CM scale: a person hit by WP would be incapacitated by the first hit. The fact that the WP continues to burn would create a medical problem, but the eventual recovery (or not) of the wounded is not covered by CM. WP would not have the effect of causing apparently healthy squad members to become casualties later in the battle...which could, I suppose, cause coding problems. For that matter, a piece of shrapnel in your leg will cause persistent damage if you keep trying to run on it.

This book is wildly popular on Holocaust denial sites -- maybe you should post this crap there. FWIW, the authors book is not based on KGB archives (it was published in '89), is not widely believed, and was trashed in the NY Times book review. Here's a link: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/b/bacque-james/ambrose-001.html (edited to fix bad link) [ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]

I think that Jason's examples are all good, although I believe that the most significant pricing advantage that the Germans have is in the area of armor. As I understand it, CM uses a formula that takes into account things like armor, AT capability, anti-infantry capability, speed, number of rounds carried, turret speed, and I'm sure several other factors. Previous posts by BTS have noted that the Sherman's significant anti-infantry capability makes it more expensive than its armor and AT capability (including turret speed, etc.) would suggest. The difficulty in typical games, however, is that the Sherman's anti-infantry capability is contingent on the Sherman being able to survive attacks from other tanks (and, to a lesser extent, AT guns, PFs, Schrecks,etc.). Because the anti-infantry properties of the Sherm are contingent upon the tank surviving at least a couple of turns, the anti-infantry value for the Sherm should be discounted based on some probability of the Sherman being able to employ its anti-infantry (AI) capability. In large part this discount should reflect survivability, but to a lesser extent it should probably reflect the fact that the tank might not be able to shoot up as much infantry as it would like because it has to skulk around to avoid being killed. However, arriving at the proper discount is not easy because there is no one proper discount. As I suggested in my earlier post, BTS might have the value right for the entire universe of CMBO, but most people don't play the entire universe of CMBO. For example, I don't think that there are many ladder games involving combined arms attacks on infantry defenders, even though this was probably the most common type of action in France '44, and, incidentally, a type of battle in which the Sherman's AI capacity would have a high likelihood of being used. So the real solution would be to adjust the value of units based on the possibility of certain other units being present or absent. Which would be pretty complicated, I'll admit. Incidentally, the fact that the British appear to do about as well as the Germans provides more evidence for the tank supremacy theory, as the British have two tanks -- the Churchill and the Firefly -- that are very effective in the CM universe. I do find that Fionn's rules work very well at balancing things out, not only because they prevent ueber-battles, but because the point values seem more accurate in the Fionn universe -- there is a better chance of the Sherman living to use its AI capacity in the Short-75 world than there is in the entire CM world.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: Now either Jason is a small boy not capable of carrying his own weight or his idea of reality is blurred by some illegal substance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Jason has a point here. Germans, especially, were mostly not motorized -- meaning that they didn't have to just carry this weight 100 meters or so; they had to carry it for miles and miles to get to the location of the battle to begin with. Things were much better for US forces, but even when they were brought by truck to the battlefield, they were typically dropped off 4 miles away from the front line, and had to first walk up there before fighting.

I tend to believe that these statistics probably mean that the Germans have an advantage under some circumstances (which may or may not be circumstances under which I or others play). As has been pointed out, these circumstances could be extrinsic to the game -- perhaps it's easier for new players to play Germans. But it's important to keep in mind that the only thing that these stats mean (assuming that they are meaningful) is that the point values for units might need to be tweaked. That is, changes such as weakening the front armor of the Jumbo or increasing the armor on the Tiger's mantlet can only affect play balance if the point value of the Tiger or Jumbo does not accurately reflect the value of the vehicles. There would be no effect on play balance if the units were properly priced. My theory is that CM point values are probably pretty correct for all possible CM games, but that they may favor the Germans for the types of games played by most CM players. Say, 1500 point MEs in clear,dry weather, with small hills and moderate trees.

The AI plays a deep game. I think this "attack" was just a feint to pin your troops down. The AI will use those troops in a different battle where you arent' expecting them, just you wait.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Its called "stellite" and was first used in airborne .50 cals on USAAF bombers (notably B-17 & B-24). I have no idea if it was applied to other weapons in WWII but was/is commonly used in small arms today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, stellite is what I'm talking about. IIRC, stellite was used to line some parts of the chamber of some .50 cals (I assume for both infantry and aircraft use, but I don't really know) during WWII, but was not used to line the barrels of MGs until after the war. I don't know that much about aircraft armament, though, so I suppose it's possible that aircraft .50 cals had stellite-lined barrels in WWII. I understand that stellite lined barrels need to be replaced after 6000-7000 rounds, which is about twice as long as conventional barrels lasted. Some WWII barrels were chrome-lined (including the PPSh SMG). I don't think that this extended barrel life much, if any, but it did make barrels less likely to foul, and easier to clean.

I've followed this thread and the other Bren thread and don't believe that any of the proponents of the Bren-should-be-closer-to-the-MG42 theory have made this case. The MG42 is belt fed, the Bren is not, and this is a huge difference. However, it is not all bad that the Bren is not MG42-like. The absence of the heavier barrel and belt feed makes the Bren lighter, handier, and permits it to be used by one person. This would be of particular advantage at short range. These advantages appear to be reflected in CM as the following table demonstrates. Notice that at short range, the Bren has more than twice the firepower of the MG42, and is significantly more effective than the BAR as well. Presumably, this is the result of the relative handiness of the weapon; certainly the MG42 is not ideal for close combat with the 250 belt being held be assistant gunner as the gunner tries to move and find targets. Even though the MG42 had the 50-round magazine things, they were difficult to reload, as they were really just containers for a 50 round belt, and reloading meant threading the next belt through the action. The fact that the MG42 has a longer barrel, is heavier, and is not well-balanced (okay, those are three facts) would also hinder the MG42 at close ranges. Even at 100 meters, the Bren isn't bad at all, falling about halfway between the BAR and the MG42. It's only at longer ranges that the MG42 really pulls significantly ahead of the Bren. But for ranges of 100 meters or less, the Bren is not simply good, it's better than anything else in the game. And of course ranges of 100 meters or less are not uncommon on CM battlefields; if they were, people would not always be whining about SMG squads.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jgdpzr: I would beg to differ on both intelligence and writing skills. For example, "this game derives from the U.S.A." is poor English. The game is created by people from the United States, but that does not make it a derivative of this country. [ 08-30-2001: Message edited by: jgdpzr ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, one meaning of "derive" is "originate." It's rarely used in this sense in the US; it may be British English. (It sounded strange to me, too, so I looked it up.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Not sure if metallurgy advanced a lot post-war, but from what I have read the likely consequence of this in a Sherman was that the rounds would just drop a few yards from the barrel. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IIRC, the only significant advance in gun-barrel metallurgy is a harder lining (I've forgotten the name of the alloy) for the inside of the barrel that prevents the barrel from wearing as quickly as WWII barrels did. I don't think that it had any effect on the barrel's resistance to heat.

The more one looks at Mr "Dunphie's" post, the more suspicious it appears. Look at this sentence: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh and another thing; all the US tank crews I spoke too (NW Europe) insisted they disabled the gyroscopes on their weapons as they proved so defective. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It seems like someone who had written a book on WWII armor would understand the difference between gyroscopes and gyrostabilizers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dear me, how could those appalling political systems of 1940's Germany and Russia have come up with such weapon systems as the Tiger, Panther and T34, I wonder! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is sort of a weird sentence because the T-34 is not in CMBO. Maybe he really hasn't played the game.

Trollus vulgaris Observe the registration date and number of posts. [ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: Andrew Hedges ]

There are two PBEM helper programs. Which one are you using?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon: Cool box, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah, but, "Angriff ist die beste Verteidigung?" Isn't that sort of cheesy? Also misleading wrt the actual game. What about "Verteidigung ist die beste Verteidigung?" Or even better, "Artillerie ist die beste Verteidigung." Not to mention fear, surprise, and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.

John Keegan has written a small book called, I think, the Battle for History. The book basically evaluates/reviews/discusses various histories/biographies, etc. about WWII. I don't know that he delves into regimental histories, but he does criticize the British Official Histories as being overly concerned about damaging the reputations of various officers in the brit forces. I don't recall whether he discusses Canadian material. The book is a good resource to use if you're interested in buying (or consulting) WWII histories and want an idea about what's good. It just discusses the top books, though, somewhat skewed toward larger strategic treatments (i.e., Russell Weigley, Chester Wilmot). But it's worth taking a look at.

That's interesting. It occurs to me that some of the MG 42 increased FP could be due to the fact that it had optical sights in the HMG role. I know the Browning didn't. I don't know about the Vickers. I also don't know any details about the sights, or the range at which they were used.

I think it's also useful to keep the larger strategic picture in mind -- the British beaches were closest to Germany, and were on terrain that was good for tanks. It would be reasonable for the Germans to conclude that their main priority should be in prevening these allied units from unhinging Caen and striking towards the Ruhr. The Germans may also have believed that this was the Allies' initial plan. By contrast, US moves to clear Cherbourg and move south, were less immediately threatening. However, given all of that that, I am sort of surprised that proportionally more tanks were not sent against the British. On second thought, it may just be that the reserves were placed closer to the British -- behind Caen or wherever, in anticipation that they would be needed against British attacks, but they could also be used against US attacks, too. Of course several commentators have written the the Allied plan should have been to make a narrow strike to the Ruhr, so it was no unrealistic if the Germans believed that this was what was planned. Of course, if the plan had been to make a narrow strike, the US troops would probably have to have landed at the British beaches,and vice versa, since the Brits pretty much landed all they had on the beaches and the bulk of replacement manpower was American.