dieseltaylor

Nice to see an old Foden lorry - apparently working in Swizerland. Indeed I think the nickname was definitely a reference to its shape.

It was a geoghraphical request. : )

Which part of the galaxy are you in?

Turn on Shift G would seem to do the trick for yuo then

I suspect you have your CMBB called by a different name to how it is on hard drive. Helper might look for the CMBB.exe and you have CDV version calling it CM2.exe or something. So check the script on Helper against the exe. That is do the Options drop down click modify programs find CMBB and then click on that and it will show you which exe.'s it recognises. You can amend it to see your existing exe. or change the exe. on the hard drive.

Playing both sides you can log each units caualties each turn so it is realy quite simple. The DIA and WIA show at the end but if you re-open and close the final turn for the end screen you will get different DIA figures : ) It is a known feature - well to some of us.

Aha " ....... Disallowing the StugIIIF with the 80mm frontal armor should be mandatory to keep things fair. I did some testing and ricochets are constant from 200 to 1200 meters. Stugs KO ATGs as soon as they are spotted, even after sustaining three full turns of constant ricochets. In three separate playtests (1250, 600 and 300 meters) at least one 76.2mm ZiS3 ATG expended its entire AP loadout on ricochets, both lower and upper hull. Only one StugIIIF was knocked out, 1250m two partial penetrations in a row?! And aside from that probably three dozen ricochets at all distances. Weird."

Other Means. At the Band of Brothers site which unfortunatley does not archive so it is a problem to pull up threads for searching. I am alwaays available for sponsorship I might yet dig it up but then again you could as quiclkly set it up yourself. I think it was done with ATG's in batches of ten.

PTRD = Russian ATrifle

I have seen Stug III's take out Stalin's at range which I assume was plunging fire. In a recent test on the inadequacies of the Russian 76.2 mm against Stugs it was found that you actually could kill at 1250 metres which suggests something : ) as you could not kill them closer.

Holland 1944. Possible Dutch architecture and a metalled road incline me this way.

In CM game terms I think the Germans benefit greatly from the great flexibility they have in the very varied weapons they can purchase. You will note that when it comes to artillery the Germans have some cheap stuff whereas the Allies pay large prices for their artillery. It may well be doctrinally true but it does provife flexibility on spending. The most potent Allied weapon was artillery and in CM it is emasculated. Generally speaking the German troops have excellent weapons so there squads can be very tough. British in 1944 where most infantry is rifle armed fare badly if they cannot fight at their optimum range. So no surprise if your opponent tries to maximise the advantage : ) I mention the British attacking as obviously in Italy thye mainly were. I was quite shocked to find that an HMG42 basically has better firepower than a British rifle squad at any range so when buying battalions the vast number of intrinsic MG's is quite an advantage. The Brits having to buy them separately at additional cost - and of course suffering from the gross under-modelling of the HMG in terms of non-jamming and length of time able to fire uniterrupted. Lastly as in all battles the terrain should act as a force multiplier for the defender unless he is dropped into a position quickly or is faced with an attacker who has more appropriate kit. I mention appropriate kit as in the case of Cherbourg where the US army borrowed a platoon of Crocodiles who demonstrated the length of the flame thye could put out which lead to a rapid surrender of the bunkers that had been resisting. Not masses of weapons just the right ones in the right location at the right time to achieve the result without loss. Makes the stats look good.

Given the level at which CM is fought I am not aware that final figures for a campaign have much relevance to the local level or reflect the amount of odds required at local level to achieve victory at modest cost.

I agree with Nemisis Lead's more than JCut then I am an unsuccessful 100+ game player : ) All this theorising and AAR is silly if we cannot see the size of the map etc. Terrain is so,so important but of all the topics it gets so little attention. I mentioned using cannon armed ones in towns ....not one reply to the point! I have had many problems with Greyhounds that have worked themselves, by luck or judgement,into positions that seriously embarrass my plans and troops. Please note that the importance of AC's is also to do with what bloody use they are so you need every game to consider the effectiveness of what is avialable and where you are fighting- and what the enemy has also. As I said before AC's normally turn up as Vehicle spend so in certain parameters they are vital. In Band of Brothers we assisted a psychology student with a test where we were given a period to decide on forces and then the map was revealed and we were asked if we wanted to change our force selection. Terrain and size of map will make so many comments you read here irrelevant. I have just played the smallest scenario I have ever seen on a 400 metre square map, I personally like huge maps with resulting open flanks for light forces to play on. In the first AC's were cannon fodder, as were the tanks, and in the latter light forces tend to have fun. As for speed - if you think you are likely to get shot without reward go fast to get behind cover. It will limit the shots fired at you. It does not make any difference to your chances of being hit given the way the engine works. If you want to see things you have to go slow as fast degrades spotting.

I am convinced that flags under contention do add turns. I have played 100+ battles and as someone who will call off attacks when I think I have the winning score , and also press if not winning I can promise you there is a difference in overtime.

All this talk but nothing on terrain! My take is that the question should be discussed after you have said how big the battlefield is, how much town do you have, weather etc. I have never tested it but I imagine AC's with two drivers reverse a damm sight faster than anything else particularly on road. In town fighting this may be a worthwhile trick as at short range any hit is likely to be a kill o normal tanks. I have found in fog that AC's can be painful as infantry really do not like meeting them at say 100 metres if they have no ranged AT ability. Of course you having plenty of long range ATG's in fog does not help much. If you are playing combined arms parameters you may well lean to buying some. There are some very interesting oddball choices late in the war. The Littlejohn adaptor, AC's with masses of smoke shells. I agree with other theories posted before me. : )

the_enigma Please see above.My contention has been that the Sherman should have been up-gunned in view of the likely trend in armour. I cannot see any reason to look at other tanks and pointing out how pathetic they are advance that as a counter argument to my point. The reason to mention Churchill's was that at an early stage irregardless of their gun the armour would defeat a Shermans gun to 100metres. If the British forsaw the need for the 17pdr in 1941 you have to wonder what they intended to use it on as at the time it would have been more than a match for any known tank. Please see if you can agree with me that all development in tanks has tended to make them tougher and more powerful. If you cannot accept this then there is no point in discussing any further.

I agree wholeheartedly about repetition JC. Lets cut to the chase. I criticised the cancellation of the 3" gun trials for the Sherman as being a poor decision given the reasons I outlined. The resumption of the fitting of the 3" gun to Shermans subsequently would appear to be vindication of the view it was a bad decision. Do you agree or disagree with this view.

Difference between real life and the game. In the game wat too expensive for casual use. The tanks can be nailed through top armour and regardless of that have all external stuff like wireless stripped from the hull. No to mention track damage etc. Of course it also tends to signify that the enemy know you are coming : )

www.tinyurl.com PLEASE! enigma The British recognised the need for the 17pdr early so showed an appreciation of the future of tank warfare. The fact that in an emergency they were fitting 2pdr's is not that important. At the time they were fitted the 2 pdr could still deal a nasty bite particularly if the armour of the Churchill would defeat most German tank guns. Regarding looking at other tanks etc. and their armour and guns. Here am I talking about planning for an invasion two years hence and you suggest we look at tanks of 1942. The basic incontrovertible fact is the US Board should have gone for the 3" gun and did not do so at the first opportunity. I have suggested that they should have been aware that both Britain and Russia had existing tanks that would defeat the 75mm's penetration and that to think the Germans were not up-armouring and up-gunning was incredible. The notion that when you invade new territory that your anti-tank arms modus operandi of ambush is going to be effective is hopeful. You are attacking therefore ambushing enemy tanks is unlikely because they will prefer to do that to you.

I think that showing Germany and Russia were also tardy is not really fair considering that they were both involved in a major land war where tanks on the ground were more important than switching designs. However for the Russians once they had mastered the original assault and moving of factories seem to have got their act together. The Commissariat of Defence ordered a more heavily armoured tank than the KV IN ANTICIPATION of further German progress in heavy tanks. Thereofre towards the end of 1943 they 21 prototypes and of these six went forward for production. One hundred IS's were available at year end and 2250 by the end of 1944. The IS2 was not perfect and as a result of its first battles in February '44 the major re-design was commneced for the IS3 in time for it to appear at the Berlin Victory parade. So given the constraints the Russians did very well. As for the Germans it was not so much not upgrading as the ability to churn them out effectively, and Hitler, that they suffered from. Anyway that is irrelevant in that the Western Allies had the opportunity to imagine ahead and failed. The decision to stop / start the 3" gun programme was a great failure of vision. According to Gander and Chamberlain the British saw the requirement for a battle tank to mount the 17pdr in 1941 and in fact an order was placed in early 1943 for this - the A30. So whilst the US decided not to up-gun the British were trying to do so. An obvious example of technological change would have been the air war and you might have thought that this a portent. Furthermore I have made no reference to the possibility that the Western Allies should have been aware of the Russian tanks ,armour, and guns which though primitive vehicles was hardly likely to lead to an arms race in reverse.

The enigma, Your argument is different from the one of JC's that production imperatives lead to there being 20000 M4's with 75mm. Let us look at it differently then. If you knew in 1941 the enemy was producing tanks with 100mm of frontal armour would you still go with a gun that cannot penetrate at reasonable range? Doctrinally you can say we are building tanks not to fight other tanks however the enemy may force the point on you. Arming your tanks sufficiently well to deter must be a consideration. Strangely the 3" T13 project - placing it in a Sherman was started in August 1942 but DROPPED in November 1942 for lack of support. The same gun was used later in the T23 turret was deemed a great success and the Armoured Board agreed to going into production. After the earlier refusal it can be seen as the face saving decision it was. I must admit to being curious as to why test firing had not revealed the shatter gap as I would have thought this a necessary part of warfare. The tank destroyer seems to me to be a little bit of an after the event rationalisation of having tanks just capable of defeating the enemies tanks. The M10 had serious drawbacks, it was a rush design, and all cases the open top meant if the enemy was devious enough to launch a combined artillery/mortar/tank attack the TD's were at a disadvantage. Lastly I would have thought it reasonably certain in 1941/42 the concept of invading Europe was seen to be a few years away. Allowing for the trend in larger guns and more armour it would have been easy to consider that tanks would be tougher in 1944/45 and then when proof positive ,with the sighting of Tigers occurred, make plans accordingly.

shatter gap I was curious to see when the concept of shattering was first being experimented with: wiki Interesting stuff from here regarding the shatter gap and other interesting stuff. web page [ November 09, 2006, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

JasonC I find your argument persuasive apart from one major factor. In June 1941 the Churchill was being produced with frontal armour of 102mm which the Sherman would barely penetrate at 100 metres. Given the UK probably mentioned this fact the question must be what persuaded the US army that the Germans would not be up gunning and up armouring their tanks. Working on a gun with more oomph to fit to the Sherman should have been actively managed in 1941 regardless of what current success was occurring.