BloodyBucket
-
Posts
986 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BloodyBucket
-
-
Being stuck with a PCI card (no AGP slot) on my current system, I can attest to the fact that you can run CMBO just fine with one. I had a Maxi Gamer Cougar, that bit the dust, and it was replaced with a Kyro based Prophet, both PCI cards. The Kyro card has some issues with transparency, but works fine. The Nvidia based card was better.
What model Dell did you get? I am going to purchase a 4550 at 2.66 GHZ with an MX or Ti card in the AGP slot. I have read about some issues with dells and CM, so I am getting a little edgy about it....
-
Haven't been playing SC lately, due to some real life military/new baby/work distractions, but I have just downloaded the latest patch and hope to get back to playing as time permits.
I noticed that Hubert called this the "final" patch. Before last call, I'm still wondering: Has the "odd looking" German soldier on the cover been explained? That is still bugging me!
-
Just interesting to note that the .50 was moved inside the vehicle, and the enormous amount of .50 expended. I hardly think that was due in total to the conversions. This list is for a division, not just the Shermans, so the .50 expended includes trucks, peeps, halftracks, infantry, wastage, etc. It does show that this division went through a lot of .50, more than the ammo loads mentioned prior in the thread would suggest. The Germans had very few aircraft up in March of 1945, and those .50 rounds were being used on something! Interesting to compare .30 vs .50 calibre (original spelling if transcribed properly!) expended.
The fact that the need arose to move a .50 inside the tank suggests to me that the turret mount was not making folks happy.
I have begun posting the inside/outside, used a little/a lot/not at all, at what targets question on some armored division websites, perhaps some vets will chime in with the answer.
[ December 13, 2002, 12:58 AM: Message edited by: BloodyBucket ]
-
Here is some more interesting, completely circumstantial, evidence.
"...combat history of the 4th Armored Division
Covering the period 17 July 1944 to 9 May 1945."
"The 126th Armd Ord Maint Bn began mounting high-speed firing air corps .50 calibre machine guns in place of the .30 calibre machine guns in the coaxial position of all medium tanks mounted with the 76mm gun. The .30 calibre machine gun was then mounted on the turret of the tanks."(March 1945).
Ammo expended in March:
"IX. Ammunition Expenditure.
A. 105mm Howitzer, M2 73.995
B. 76mm Gun 12.995
C. 75mm Gun 10.325
D. 75mm Howitzer 1.900
E. 37mm Gun 2.140
F. 81mm Mortar 4.822
G. 60mm Mortar 1.278
H. Rocket 2.36 Asst. 2.520
I. Grenade, Hand Asst. 21.525
J. Grenade, Rifle Asst. 1.420
K. Cartridge, Carbine M6 1.150
L. Signal A.C. Asst. 432
M. Cal. .50 Machine Gun 2.040.000
N. .45 Ball 104.000
O. Carbine 249.800
P. Cal. .30 Asst. 2.118.000"
From this after action report.
Very interesting.
-
Good question. Flat trajectory is a good thing, unless you are trying to hit something behind cover with plunging fire.
As to the original question, it might be that the mounting on the Sherman changed over time, and there may be more than one answer. It would be interesting to see if the .50 was used more in Africa, when the sky was not ruled by allied air, and the chance to engage targets at longer ranges was perhaps more prevalent.
This seems like something that might be covered in one of those post war "lessons learned" pubs that the army put out.
The commander might have been required by doctrine or circumstances to expose himself more than he might have liked. A buttoned WWII tank is a pretty blind beast. I seem to recall that the Israeli army at one point required the commander to fight the tank unbuttoned all the time.
If the .50 was considered something that was really needed for ground targets, and the factory mount was unsuited, field modifications would almost certainly be made. I have never read of such, and specific mention is made of extra armor, phones, hedge cutters, etc.
So far, the evidence seems to be pointing to the .50 being unavailable for ground targets without getting out of the turret, or at least having a passenger willing to use it. Maybe this is a good question for R. Lee on "Mail Call".
-
IIRC, there was a thread where the BFC boys stated that the Pacific was a no-go because they did not have any personal interest or knowledge of it, and since CM is a labor of love, and the Pacific is unloved by the aforementioned, that is that.
Hard to argue with, really. If you don't like it, why do it?
-
Being an American, I am free to mangle the language. It does get on the nerves of my wife, she is a teacher. Or should I say, teachre.
-
I got a chance to ask my dad if he recalled seeing the .50 on the Sherman being used, and he said no. His experience with tanks being limited to working with them assaulting pillboxes, and watching some tank battles from a distance, this makes sense. He did say the ground mounted .50s were a sought after asset in the defense, and some German prisoners expressed an intense dislike for the weapon.
By the way, Mr. Dorosh, you spelled caliber wrong.
-
I think the basic question is: the .50, when mounted on the Sherman, was intended as an AA gun, was it used in combat against infantry targets?
No one is denying the gun could be effective against infantry, the question is would the commander expose himself by using it, and did the commander have to leave the cupola to employ it?
BTW, that idea of the .50 being outlawed for use against infantry is still around, at least as of my boot camp days of twenty years ago(Yeesh!). We were told to aim at the equiptment of the enemy, i.e. belt buckles and helmets. A sorry attempt at humor, I have no idea if the laws of war prohibit using the gun as an antipersonel weapon.
-
The .50 that Murphy used was on an M-10. I bet he wasn't picky at the time.
Light internet searching and a quick glance at some books reveals only some stuff like:
"... tank could fire its cannon into the far corners, using white phosphorus shells, guaranteed to burn out the Germans at the machine-gun pits, and hose down the hedgerow itself with its .50-caliber machine gun. Infantry could follow the tank into the field and mop up what remained when the tanker got done firing."
From Ambrose (may he rest in peace), so should be taken with a grain of salt. Another Ambrose passage quotes a Sergeant flagging down a tank and convincing it to use the .50 and main gun against a steeple that housed an observer.
Doubler in "Closing With the Enemy" mentions "heavy machinegun" fire from tanks vs. hedgerows, but that can be taken two ways.
Nothing pops up saying "The .50 was useless, we got rid of it or never used it", and nothing pops up along the lines of "Every time we went into action we used all our .50 cal ammo". A fascinating question, I'll ask my old man in the morning. Being an infantryman, he will undoubtably claim that the tankers never did anything to expose themselves to any danger, if it could be avoided.
Looking at some pictures of M4A3 cupolas, it looks as if the commander could use the .50 without getting outside the vehicle, but the play would be to the aft of the tank.
-
Well, there is Audie Murphy and that whole medal thing.
I bet, based on a few pictures and a little knowledge of the Ma Deuce, that it was used when appropriate, and not by doctrine. By that I mean that the commander would not get out when it did not make sense, but IIRC the gun can be employed without leaving the turret, at least with a limited traverse.
When would it make sense to use it? When dealing with targets that don't shoot back accurately. Fleeing infantry, area fire at light buildings, trucks, infantry out of normal small arms range. The low rate of fire is cancelled out by the tremendous effect on soft targets.
Would be a great question to ask a Armored division reunion!
-
Yep, this one is annoying. Not much to be done about it, beyond the forementioned use of ambush markers. On the flip side, infantry can be used by you to distract those nasty tanks!
-
Still playing CMBO. Will get CMBB when I upgrade the ol' machine. I will still play CMBO, because the Western Front is more interesting to me.
Also playing Strategic Command and Age of Sail II: Privateer's Bounty. Will look at Hearts of Iron after it is patched. Really waiting for a good WWI flight sim to come along.
-
Going back to the 5084 drivers for the kyro card seems to have solved most problems. Good call. Some battles still start with POV off, but there is no more CTD. Thanks!
-
One thing you won't see is a Pacific version, and that breaks my Jarhead heart. The city fighting in Naha, the jungles of Guadalcanal, the flamethrowers vs. the caves and spider-holes on Iwo Jima, never to be done in CM splendor. Oh, the unfairness of it all!
-
Both games are great. I am waiting on a new system to get CMBB, and if you do get CMBO only, you get the following advantages:
</font>
- Great game, still fresh after two years of constant play </font>
- Fully patched and a ton of mods and scenarios for you to enjoy </font>
- Western Front setting, your stated preference </font>
- CMBB available for later purchase, so you have something to look forward to </font>
- Wife knows you only bought one game instead of two </font>
</font>- Save a few bucks </font>
- Have it all now, dammit </font>
- No chance wife will prohibit CMBB purchase once you have demonstrated that she is now a true computer game widow </font>
CMBO can be enjoyed as a stand alone item for years. CMBB is an improvement on a superb game, but it is the Eastern Front, and if that isn't your bag, tough. You just have to wait for the new Western Front version (Drool!)
-
Kyro based card with the latest drivers from Hercules, latest version of DirectX,(not the Beta), have tried reinstalling sound drivers (on board ESS Solo), video drivers, directX, and CMBO, all to no avail. I use Powerstrip to tweek brightness settings, but have tried with and without Powerstrip with no improvement. I could save a file and send it to you if you are interested. Cheers.
-
If you like Close Combat, you will play Combat Mission 'till your eyeballs fall out and your family leaves you. Get the game, do not pass go, do not consider any other options.
(I really like it).
-
CMBO CTD all scenarios but Quick Battles. Checked to make sure that the extensions are correct on the scenario filenames, tried copying scenarios off the CD to make sure the ones on the HD are not corrupted, no go.
Some scenarios start, but shortly after getting to the "game" they CTD. Oddly enough, when the scenario starts, it often has a camera view that is way off the map!
Running windows 98 on a 350Mhz Aptiva, never had this happen in all my CM time before!?
-
Stay hull down, let enemy tanks come to your field of fire, have infantry nearby for protection, and reverse out of trouble.
-
On a human scale, the sacrifices on both fronts are beyond my ability to comprehend, and I think it is silly to compare one to the other. On the Vastness meter, Eastfront wins hands down. On the Inhumanity meter, the Eastfront wins, but one could argue that the take no prisoners fighting of the Pacific was worse.
I just like the Western theater because of the cast of characters, the fact that my father fought there (28th ID) and the simple reason that I am more familiar with it. To each his own.
-
Well, it is something that CMBO has that CMBB doesn't. I just heard that phrase in a game, and got me thinking about how good it will be to see the improvements when the Western front rolls around again. As far as I'm concerned, BB is just another step in the developement of the new CMBO.
-
Not having BB yet, I can only say from what I have read that I am looking forward to it when I get it. What I am really looking forward to, however, is BO with the BB improvements. Since I am mainly a player of small battles, the increased oversight of infantry is merely more nuance in the game, a good thing. I find huge battles in BO to be somewhat tedious, and I expect that in BB they are more so.
The Eastern front is OK, but it doesn't have the same fascination for me that the Western front does. I look on you hardcore BB players as merely beta testers for the new version in the West! Now, if only there was a chance for a Pacific version, with the Marine Corps featured in excrutiating detail...
-
And that alone is enough to keep me playing BO!
Checking in , latest patch, etc.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
This sig is a tribute to my skills as a leader in SC and CMBO.