Little_Black_Devil

Hey - good points! "Hunt & Scoot" does make more sense Michael - and I dare say is more descriptive as to the intent of the movement order. I also think you're idea for "Contact & Scoot" (with regards to scout cars) would prove pretty handy too. Thats exactly the type of thing that would help me cut down on my recce unit losses. I have myself, attempted in the past to use the combined orders for "hunt" and "reverse", but because they are two different movement orders, and depending on what unit they are being issued to (if it has a command element or not), I find there are longer delays myself (in executing the order). I have also found that again, the computer is more concerned with moving your unit from "Point A" to "Point B" than it is with your intent - i.e. - engaging units as you see them, and then falling back to safety (hopefully ) In all, I find the orders "Hunt" and "Reverse" to work, but they are together rudimentary and clunky, often casusing me grief because the unit is more wrapped up in the mechanics of the game and those seperate orders (which usually has the result of leaving my ass hanging in the breeze). The existing "Shoot & Scoot" - is in my opinion, still a usefull order. This is apparent considering its current manifestation/performance. It will race your unit of choice to "Point A" to look for something to shoot at - give it time to look around, and possibly shoot, and then promptly move back to "Point B" once it has accomplished this. Aside from its use in creating feints (in conjunction with pauses for instance - best used towards the end of a turn), it does allow you to put a given unit on a given piece of terrain for a brief amount of time in an effort to engage any enemies it comes up against enroute or when it reaches "Point A". Its the focus on waypoints, which I'am making use of in "Shoot & Scoot", as I can depend on the vehicle to make its waypoints - but not to engage the enemy in the manner I'am attempting to foster. However, as an order that should promptly your unit to move towards a given position with the intent of engaging the first enemy unit it sees, and then falling back under cover - the current "shoot & scoot" order is kind of lacking, as its too wrapped up in getting your unit to the objective/waypoint - "Point A", during the first leg of the movement order. Obviously - something akin to "Hunt & Scoot" would be more desireable to use, in order to run up your tanks to engage the enemy and fall back under cover, without the dangerous or dibilitating blind sighted determination of the computer to move your unit towards the waypoint at all coats - which inherently works against yours, the "commander's intent". I'm curious to see if you come to some of the same conclusions Other Means, as I'm still receptive to the idea - that HOW I'am using "Shoot & Scoot" may be improper, or that HOW I have been using the "Hunt" and "Reverse" orders together simply hasn't been done in such as way so as to produce results more along the lines of what I'm looking for. Perhaps I'm altogehter wrong, or could be doing something in a slightly better way - but I think a movment order like "Hunt & Scoot" would be very desireable for the reasons I've covered above. Thanks again for the feedback.

I was playing some CMBB today, (TCP/IP) with a buddy of mine and it prompted some questions regarding the "Shoot and Scoot" order. Currently, I've had mixed success with shoot and scoot myself. I don't want to complain about its overall effectiveness, but rather suggest an alternative command which I'd like to see added to the command repetiore. To put this all into some context, I'm going to try and give you the short version of what happened in my most recent game which has prompted this. I was playing Soviet, as my buddy was playing the Germans in a 20 Turn (fixed) Quick Battle, where the Soviets were attacking. We were playing on a medium map, with undulating ground - and essentially, there was one piece of high ground in the centre of the map which his defensive was sited behind. Most noted of his assets were 4 PzIIIH tanks. One of them was sited in defilade so as to cover the approach towards the bottom of the hill on his left flank. From this position, this particular tank could cover a substantial degree of low ground angling towards my end of the map. However, the closer I got to the hill he was on - the more dead ground there was which he couldn't cover. I chose this dead ground to push one of my armoured cars through - to see what I could see and stir the pot up more than anything. Anyhow, I was able to decetect his tank on the side of the hill, partially behind it - but had no LOS to it at all, just sound caontacts revealing its position. He too - knew I was there, but didn't want to move out of his defilade position and expose himself to one of my anti-tank guns that he had just recently discovered was covering his hill. Anyhow - in an effort to get rid of my eyes and ears probbing a little to close for his comfort - he advanced his PzIIIH down the hill, and on a slight angle - in order to remain in defilade to my anti-tank gun, but increase his view of the dead ground at the base of his hill as much as possible - so as to get LOS on my scout car. Well - he utilized the shoot and scoot order, to move his tank down, and partially around the base of the hill. Upon execution of the shoot and scoot order, his tank easily advanced to the point where he had LOS on my scout car - which was now moving obliquely to him at top notch speed in an effort to get out of dodge. His tank fired while on the move, 3 times - and missed all three times. His tank continued to move, because it had yet to complete the first leg of its "shoot" order, before it could fall back and "scoot". As such - when he did have LOS on my scout car - his tank was moving, and firing on the move - so inaccuracy was to be expected. However - it was the tanks apparent "determination: to carry on towards its waypoint, which cost him that kill. Had his tank stopped, or even stopped a few seconds after he spotted my scount car while enroute - he would have been able to shoot, while stationary, and would have quite likely brewed up my little scout car. What I don't understand, is why - if the "Shoot and scoot" order is "move towards this waypoint quickly - when you get there look for a target, shoot at it, once MAYBE twice, and then fall back" - why then, enroute - the tank didn't stop. I mean - the tank commander, is being presented with the opportunity he was ordered to create or look for - only its happening a little earlier than anticipated. Why then, can the tank not stop upon the discovery of an enemy unit in the middle of the "shoot" portion of shoot and scoot - fire, and then fall back from this position (which is obviously short of the actual waypoint?) What I propose is a "Contact and Scoot" order - which would be akin to sending your tank in its first "shoot/contact" leg of the order - to move to a waypoint - BUT - engage anything along the way. Most importantly - if anything along the way can be engaged, then the actual issued waypoint is eliminated, as the tank comes to a grinding halt - fires - and then pursues from its current location the "scoot" phase of its movement, as it then reverses course. This way, you can issue this command so as to get your tank to boogie up to "point A" - engage something - and then boogie back towards "point B" - knowing, that if he runs into anything BEFORE he reaches his "shoot/contact" waypoint - that he'll stop to properly deal with it, instead of continuing to fire ineffectively on the move. I believe that the current "shoot and scoot" order still has its place - especially as a good tool for attracting someones attention as part of some sort of feint. Its also good if you want to move a tank into a specific location to accomplish your goals (albeit briefly). However, I believe that an order like "contact and scoot" might better suit the purpose of advancing towards a point of ground with the primary objective being the engagement of the enemy over the secondary objective of completing a leg of movement/reaching a waypoint. Essentially their difference is intent. "Shoot and scoot", intends the waypoint to be considered most important, leaving the engagement of the enemy as of secondary impotance. "Contact and scoot", intends the engagement of the enemy to be of primary importance, which makes the absolute necessity to reach a waypoint very much a secondary objective. Sorry for all the babble to spit this all out. I'm just wondering if others see merit in this, or - if there are ways to make better use of the existing shoot and scoot order - OR if I'm just making something out of nothing. Thanks [ August 10, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

So - does anyone know if the tungsten cored AP ammo as fired by German MG's was ever phased out (due to the shortage of tungsten) - or were they prevelent right through the duration of the war?

Wow - thanks for the responses. I'm begining to think that the issue of small arms vs gunshields is not as cut and dried as I originally thought it was. Within the context of Combat Mission, I do wonder when and if the Germans ever stopped making their armour piercing MG round as fired by the MG-34 and MG-42 respectively (whether it was from a vehicle mount or not). Obviously, the early war years would have seen the continual availability of the Patr Smk (armour piercing round) for the German MG-34. This makes me wonder if small arms fire (and specific munition - i.e., AP) will be taken into account for CMAK. Obviously, if the tungsten cored Patr Smk ammunition becomes less and less available, the so too would the German "advantage" over allied gunshields disapear. Having read some of your guys comments, and also having refered to my newly aquired copy of Thomas L. Jentz's "Tank Combat in North Africa" I'am begining to see a distinct difference between Allied gunshields and German gunshields. That difference would indeed seem to be, as Rexford pointed out, the difference between face hardened armour on the German gunshields vs. the rolled homogeneous armour on the allied guns. What I found significant, was that Allied guns were on the whole, suceptable to the MG-34's armour piercing rounds up to 500m - and in North Africa, regularly taken out by machine gun fire. In contrast, the German guns with their face hardened armoured gunshields, seem to have resisted small arms fire. Partially because the Allies mostly used standard ball ammunition - which was ineffective against the German gunshields, and partially because of the German practice of using face hardened armour on their gunshields. Only armour piercing rounds, fired say by the .5 inch Vickers were able to penetrate the German gunshields. It seems what we end up with is a stark contrast between Allied and German anti-tank guns respective abilities to resist small arms fire, where German guns on the whole were well protected and Allied guns were not. With respect to the dual-layered gunshields seen on a number of German guns - I also wonder if both layers were face hardened armour, or if the frontal layer would have been of a softer metal. Regardless their composition, the dual layers would seem to add an additional level of protection. I wonder indeed just how much protection they would have provided against enemy anti-tank rifles or larger calibre machine guns. In any event - does this analysis seem reasonable? Bastables - any idea where I could get my hands on those reports you mentioned and others like them? Thanks again guys.

Something I've been attempting to look into, is the interaction between small arms and the gunshields on field pieces. Needless to say, there doesn't appear to be a great deal of conclusive information out there. Perhaps some of the experts out there could shed some light on this elusive issue. I believe, from my own experience that gunshields are not entirely bulletproof - having seen the 10mm roof plate of a modern AFV cleanly penetrated by a .303 hunting rifle. Gunshields may stop most small arms at range, but as the range deminishes, so too does the shields ability to stop bullets. However, I find this difficult to substantiate through other verifiable sources. I realize that there were all sorts of different gunshields, some perhaps which may have even been purpose designed to take small arms fire (like the Pak38 and Pak40 for instance). Most others I would hazzard to say, are likely constructed of softer, lighter metals - and are not actually "armour" in the conventional sense - though I could be wrong. I also wonder if there was a distinct difference between howitzer gunshields and anti-tank gun-gunshields. The gunshield on the Pak38 for instance, consists of two seperate plates, each 4mm in thickness, spaced 25mm apart. I'm not entirely sure if they were indeed armoured plate, or a softer steel. This type of configuration would seem to be designed to defelct and otherwise protect the guncrew from small arms. Was it effective to that end? To the best of my knowledge, gunshields are in place to protect gun crews from srapnel and debris being kicked up. They may inadvertently stop some small arms rounds but I can't see most of them flat out stopping a hail of small arms fire at closeer ranges, like 100-200m. Can anyone comment on this with more specifics? Thx

Thanks for the bibliography! Are there any books you guys can reccomend (preferably in English) that comprehensively cover Italian Armour? It'd be nice if there was a book like Chamberlain & Ellis' "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two" that covered Italian armour with as much detail. Thanks

Excellent! Thanks

Just wondering if the Battlefront Bookstore will carry any new books which may be more relevant to CMAK. There is lots of readily available information on the Germans, Brits, Americans and Russians. I'm really hoping there is something comprehensive you guys might put on your bookshelf that covers the Italians. Hint Hint

Royal Winnipeg Rifles re-enactors eh? I'll be damned, thats pretty impressive. If you or these re-enactors are interessted in contact with the R.Wpg.Rif. let me know and I can hook you up with either the Regimental Kit Shop (who can hopefully help you get a hold of stuff like period shoulder flashes and other Regimental accountrements - for WWII Battledress I assume) or alternately, I could hook you up with the Curator for the Regimental Museum who may be able to supply you with any Regimental information you require or might find useful. I'm sure my Colonel would be quite interested to know more about these re-enactors, if there is indeed much more to know. Its really unfortunate that I'll only be able to mention to him about these re-enactors now; as he was just over in Normandy for the opening of the Juno Beach Centre and could have perhaps contacted them, even if just to say hello and thanks. In any event, I'll be talking with him tonight so I'll have to pass this along. As a serving member myself, its the first I've ever heard about re-enactors representing the Rifles - not that I've got a monopoly on everything remotely related to the Regiment. Interesting, and cool :cool: - thanks for the info. - Edit - I'd be interested in learning more about this trek you and these other re-enactors have in mind - could you tell me more Michael? Thanks [ June 10, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

Are any of them?

Well, I play a great deal of CMBB single player and a few Multi-player games with some of my friends. I get the odd CMBO game in every once in a while. In no particular order, I also play; "Operation Flashpoint", and official add-ons (waiting for the Invasion 1944 Mod to come out) "Vietcong" "IL-2 Sturmovik Forgotten Battles" (looking forward to the "Barbarossa" Mission pack) I also play a great deal of "World War II Online" (WWIIOL). Okay, it probably eats up most of my gaming time... Its got both its high points and low points, but it does keep getting better every patch. The armour model (in my opinion) by far and away is better than than the one in "Panzer Elite", which I have - but no longer play. I find WWIIOL a really fun game, when your playing with friends and have voice comms, but only moderately fun by myself. That having been said, I have absolutely no desire to join a clan or squad. I'm also beta testing "Star Wars Galaxies". ...wow...I just realized that I don't sleep much. Its hard to keep track of all of the recent games I've played and finished, or found lacking and turfed into my dusty collection of un-loved games.

A large number of members from my Regiment, the Royal Winnipeg Rifles are in France right now for the opening ceremonies of the Juno Centre. I'm hoping at least a few of them will be bringing back some good pictures. Our Regiment was the first Allied unit in the entire 21st Army Group to reach their D-Day Objectives, so there is a great degree of pride with which I expect to see my Regiment showing its colours. I look forward to seeing members from the Battalion on national television, as well as listening to our Regimental Band, which is always a pleasure. Its a great honour for our troops to be on Juno beach for this special occaision. Personally, I'm hoping to make it to the Juno Centre and Normandy next year for the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. There are a great deal of specific Battlefields I'd like to visit, as well as most of the Normandy cemetaries accross all of the Allied beaches. I'd also like to see the monument to the 54 soldiers of my Regiment, executed in captivity by the 12th SS "Hitlerjugend" near Juno Beach. Of course, while in the neighborhood, I'd also like to see the Leapold Cannal, Bastogne and Pegasus Bridge to name but a few of the other key attractions in Northwest Europe I intend to visit.

I'm wondering if anyone out there has a specific date, at which the Stielgranate-41 (hollow charge spigot bomb) munition for the 37mm Pak36 anti-tank gun entered service. The game doesn't identify its inclusion until January 1942, however Ian V. Hogg's "German Artillery of World War Two" identifies the munition as having become available as early as mid-1941 (on page 189). This vague reference to 1941, is complemented by Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander's book "Anti-Tank Weapons" (part of the "Fact Files" series printed in 1974). On page 27, they state that; With the next and final (1.03) patch about to be released in the relative near future; I wonder if anyone else can confirm the existence of or use of the Stielgranate 41 before January 1942 - so as to hopefully warrant its availability being expanded a few months earlier. Thanks

So - is it possible then, that the PzIII Ausf H was equipt with the layered plates on account of battle experience, freshly gained in France? Considering that the Ausf H began production in October of 1940 (three months after the Battle of France) perhaps its reasonable to surmise that there was not enough time to re-tool factories and what not to produce PzIII's with an original or factory built single plate, 50mm in thickness. Surely, some time must have been used to compile after action reports, and then derrive the lessons learned. Some of these lessons (like armour thickness) would have then had to have been administratively initialized into reality in the form of changes/upgrades. If thats the case, it would seem logical that the plates bolted/welded onto the PzIIIH were indeed a stop gap measure. The PzIII Ausf J, began production in March 1941 - so the Germans must have seen the layered plates, as a stop gap measure and a liability - therefore they were to be replaced by original factory produced armour as thick as 50mm to protect the tanks frontal surfaces. Considering that "production" of the PzIII H ended in April of 1941, I wonder if other earlier Ausfs, refitted were part of its total production run of 308, or if they were a production, or rather refit run unto themselves? In any event it would seem that the additional plating put on the PzIIIH was indeed a stop gap measure, to bring the tanks ability to take hits more on par with what they could expect (primarily) on western battlefields. Perhaps indeed the required time/effort to produce or upgrade PzIII's with the layered plating was excessive - when compared to factory produced PzIII's with thicker armour. Maintenance, and the possibility of shearing would also seem to make the practice of layered plating a band-aid solution and not a conventional means of providing their tanks with additional armoured protection. I guess, despite the two face hardened layers, the Germans must have worked out its overall effectiveness to 50mm - otherwise it does seem somewhat contradictory to move from a collective 60mm (or 62mm) of layered armour to a single factory produced 50mm plate. I guess this must reflect on the differenes between layered faced hardened plates and a single face hardened plate. It would seem logical that a layered plate, exposing incoming projectiles to two face hardened layers AND and additional 10mm of armour would provide additional protection over that of a single 50mm face hardened plate. However, in light of some of the things I've seen covered in this thread - it doesn't appear to be quite that "simple". Perhaps, as has been mentioned here also, it is partially dependant on the penetrating projectile in question. Food for thought anyways.

I'm glad I'm not the only one Rexford. Thanks for everyone's help - most helpful and informative (as always). Still though, from certain perspectives it does seem somewhat of an elusive mystery as to why the Germans didn't just stick to the PzIIIH model of layered armour, which would seem to have originally been a stop gap measure. So far, it would seem to me, that the foremost reasons for moving to a single plate in succedding varriants are the weight issues as well as the shearing/maintenance issue and the time required for face hardening seperate plates. I'am glad though, that I'm not the only one perplexed by this.

I've been doing some reading, and reflecting lately on the armour plating as seen on the PzIIIH. What has me perplexed, is the difference between the Ausf H, and later varriants - which seem to be less armoured - which logicaly seems like a step backwards. My question for the armour specialists out there is - why? What is it/was it about the PzIIIH layered armour that, despite its effectiveness - prompted the Germans not to make this type of layered armour common practice? Why didn't they at least increase the thickness of the single layered plates to an equivilent of the two layered plates to achieve the same level of protection on newer versions of the PzIII? What were its drawbacks that made it so undesireable so as to convince the Germans not to reproduce on other variants of the PzIII, to say nothing of other tanks and AFVs which incorporated layered armour? On a side question - can anybody confirm the thicknesses of each respective plate? I've seen it refered to as both 30mm+30mm and 30mm+32mm. Are both correct? Thanks in advance.

Yes - I've got XP, and I'am now using the 44.03 Detonator drivers - which work. Whatever was broken in a few of the previous drivers, seems to have been fixed with this one. Give it a try - if you find it doesn't work on your system, then please post here to let people know, though I'd bet the 44.03 Detonator drivers will work fine for you in XP.

Well - I recently installed WinXP, and I'm running a GeForce 4 Ti 4200. I installed the 43.45 Detonator driver, and it seemed that CMBB bogged right down as mentioned in BTS' troubleshooting guide for CMBB; Anyhow - as of today (May 14th 2003) Nvidia released its latest detonator driver, the 44.03 driver. I installed it, and immediately tested CMBB. I'm ELATED to report, that CM once again runs smoothly on my machine. Click here for a link to the; Nvidia 44.03 Detonator download page.

Cool. Thanks for pointing that out.

I'm wondering if anyone has some conclusive information, regarding the thickness, or combined thickness of the front of the PzIIIH turret. I've seen figures, which specify that including the mantlet - there was only 30mm of armoured protection (which I believe are the numbers used in CMBB). I've also seen numbers which specify that total armoured protection was 37mm. I've also seen some references to an interior mantlet and an exterior mantlet, which equate to 67mm of armoured protection. To me, the later could be feasible. My reasoning is that, it seems odd to up armour the uppper and lower front hull to 60mm (two 30mm plates) and leave the turret in comparrison, so weakly armoured. However, later models of the PzIII also seem to use 30mm as the standard for frontal turret armoured protection. Can anyone sort me out on this? Perhaps I'm misinterpreting some of the figures I've seen. Thanks

Well - I suppose thats well and good for CMBO, CMBB and probably CMAK, but what would be nice, is the option in the new game engine, to watch the entire battle with the same options we currently have in the one minute clips - but extended to cover every clip as they collectively form a larger and continuous picture. This means people can look around from any view, and direction and otherwise manipulate what they watch of the entire battle and how many times. Further more, once a battle has ended, both sides should be able to watch the entire battle movie as they saw it, as their oppoent saw it and as a collective picture of how each unit saw it (assuming borg spotting is fixed in the new engine). Of course, time compression would be a welcome addition as well, for those longer battles with little action near their begining. It would also be nice if there was an accompanying text log with all of this, detailing who saw what, when. Probably made best available after the whole battle is over. With the possible elimination of borg spotting, I think it'd be interesting to see which units call out contacts and when. Who knows, perhaps a text log detailing contact reports for your side should be available to you from start to finish. After all - if you're the commander, your troops need to communicate with you, as you do with them. Perhaps not really nnecessary but I think it'd be pretty cool. Just food for thought.

Well - I've been listening to both the English and German versions of "Lili Marlene". I'm increasingly torn between which one might be "better" - or which one might be able to best capture the atmosphere. [ July 25, 2003, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

I think "Lilli Marlene", as sung by Marlene Dietrich would be the best choice, preferably the English version.

You guys are missing a crucial point. Its called a beaten zone. An auto-cannon, could have one I suppose, but its smaller and less lethal because there is not as much density of fire, despite any shrapnel. An auto-cannon, uses a larger round, with the intent of either penetrating something, or breaking something apart. A machine gun on the other hand, is a suppressive weapon. While it can kill people with its bullets - its bullets are of more use to keep an enemy's head down, so that friendly riflemen can get close to assault the enemy's position with grenades, small arms or the bayonet. By their rate of fire, and volume of fire - they put a lot of bullets down range. A beaten zone - for those who are not aware, is essentially the chunk of land, where all of these bullets land within a given pattern defined by the range the weapon is being eployed at. I feel I must point out, the machine guns don't fire like rifles do - thats to say, they are not pinpoint accurate. They bounce a bit with the rapidity of the recoil, and they also count on rounds tumbling differently as they fly through the air. This causes dispersion on the ground. This dispersion, ends up as an oval in shape. Closer beaten zones (to the firing MG), are smaller, and less elongated. Distant beaten zones, are elongated and larger, though with less concentration of rounds. This is why, its better to use your machine guns at more distant ranges (like 800 - 1800m), so as to maximize the amount of ground they are covering with their beaten zone. Remember, bullets, though they are going fast - are still arc in flight, particularly at more distant ranges. All of these bullets - while they do immediately theaten to hit and kill those in a beaten zone, have the effect of cranking up the pucker factor of the same troops caught inside the beaten zone. This means, they are looking for cover or hiding behind cover - to avoid being hit. When they are doing that, they are subsantially less threatening to your own advancing riflemen who will ultimately close with and destroy the enemy. Its for that reason - that I would rather have a 7.62mm machine gun for anti-infantry work, than an autocannon. Moreover, you can carry a lot more 7.62mm ammo with the MG, and hide it easier than you can with an auto-cannon. Auto-cannons have their place, but for engaging Infantry in the open, machine guns would be preferable. Built up areas, like buildings however, would be a much more desireable target for an autocannon. Concentrations of troops are also meaty targets for cannons. Hope that helped a little.

They're abstracted. The sound, and visible projectiles are simply cues to let you know that the weapon is automatic, and is firing more than one round/projectile. The real question is, what specifically has been taken into account in this abstraction?