LimShady

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wilhammer: There is somewhat of a work around for this, just area target in the general direction you'd like the turret to point at. To save ammo, just AT without the main gun. You can add elevation to this as well, just point your Area Fire up or down hill or building.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I used this now... but why should you have to waste ammo to do it.... LimShady

I'd want a turret rotate command just so some of the formations would be realistic. When was the last time you saw a column of tanks moving with their turrets all facing forward? Or a wedge for that matter. You might be assuming the role of the company/platoon/squad leader, but they should've known this is the first place. Chris

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurtz: Bicycles? :confused: I thought they were equipped with Swiss Army knives!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well shouldn't a Swiss Army Knife be able to do everything? LimShady

LOL LimShady

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I would like to see any comment with the following phrases disallowed when arguing a point on this board: ..."Wouldn't be able to handle the processing power"... ..."micromanagement"... ..."gamey"... ..."ahistorical"... ..."outside the scope of the game"... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then what would we talk about? LimShady

Great book by David Glantz. Gives a good operational overview of the war from start to finish. Includes data from recently opened archives. LimShady

Just what to get it before the lock comes. LimShady

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! LimShady

The Department of War regrets to inform you that your son is dead because we were stupid. Okay I'll get serious now, I think that it was a "flawed" doctrine. Not insomuch that having armor breakthrough into the rear and shoot it up is bad, but that such as doctrine is dependant on having the ability to advance over long ranges and be generally mobile. IMHO, I don't feel that the war in the ETO was the open. THe combinations of rivers, forests, cities, bocage, strictly curtained the ability to the US armor to achieve the goals set forth in its doctrine. The apparance of German tanks that were slower, heavily armed tanks that could stand and fight was better suited to the defensive war they were fighting. Now, the US knew about the Tiger tanks since North Africa, but stalled the development of the Pershing and thus had no effective one-on-one counterpunch for it. Why engage the enemy at a disadvantage knowingly? It seems negligent to me (in hindsight of course). One other thing is that the US counter on superior mobility to flank the German tanks. As Belton Cooper put it, mobility is related to ground pressure. The US neglected to use the Christie suspension in the Sherman (until the HVSS?) so the Sherman could be faster, but would be more likely to bog off road due to higher ground pressure and smaller treads. [This message has been edited by LimShady (edited 03-31-2001).]

Yup they did. Just look at the different models of Shermans to see how heavily modified they were. The M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo Assault Tank had 100mm of armor and could take a frontal hit from a Panther. Some were provided by the factories, or crews just welded steel on the front of the tanks wherever they could get it. The presence of spare tank tracks, roadwheels, sandbags, etc. shows to what lengths the crewed went for better protection. LimShady

It wasn't so much a problem of developing the tank, but getting it in production. For a good read on the topic pick up Death Traps by Belton Cooper. Lt. Cooper was a maitainance officer in the 3rd Armored Division and in one of the chapters, he says that at a pre-D Day demonstration of weaponry, there was a newsreel of the M26 Pershing that was just coming off development. The decision was made to low prioritize the Pershing, which Cooper attributes to the "arrogance of certain high-ranking officers" and keep the Sherman in mass production. LimShady

The short list: Thin armor (compared to most of everything in the German arsenal). Dry ammo storage (alleviated somewhat by the introduction of wet storage which are designated by a W in the model name (ex. M4A3(76)W). Ran on gasoline instead of diesel. LimShady

Well the grenade throwing is just a representation of a close assault. So they could be throwing grenades, fixing bayonets, etc. LimShady

I read the book and to use some of the tactics aren't modeled well in CM (IMHO, of course). For instance part of one of the tactics to have the tanks shoot smoke or WP (which isn't in the game) at the hedgerow corners to blind AT guns and MGs while the infantry moves in behind the tanks. The problem in CM is that when confronted with that threat the TacAI switches from smoke to HE. Also, getting the infantry through the hedgerow is another difficulty as, CM doesn't model a hole in the hedgerow made by the Rhino/Cullin device, so the infantry STILL gets hung up in the bocage and gets cut to pieces. LimShady

Yup, read the book. There's a picture of Major Winters(?) on top of Hitler's Mercedes Benz (after some of the company decided to test how bulletproof the bulletproof windows really were). Also, there's a picture of Captain Nixon after raiding the Eagle Nest's wine cellar... LimShady

Yes, do not attack fortified ports head on. LimShady

I would think that the Thompson was famous and the M3 was "infamous"....

It's not a question of where they grip it. Its about POWER TO WEIGHT RATIOS.... LimShady [This message has been edited by LimShady (edited 03-27-2001).]

Come to think of it, could you change the bird sounds for DFDR. Those swallows (or whatever) just don't sound right. LimShady Maybe it was an African Swallow.... but they're not migratory...

When was the PIAT introduced? I noticed they're in DFDR scenarios, was wondering if that was because there is nothing else like it models, or that they were actually there. LimShady

The tank ammo was stored in a liquid compartment which helped prevent the Sherman from brewing up. According to the Battle Stations: Sherman program, the brew ups usually occured after the ammo was subject to the intense heat of the fuel burning (or the German PaKs kept firing at it). I imagine the the liquid submergence kept protected the ammo from cooking off my absorbing some of that heat. LimShady

Only by 5 minutes. LimShady

Against the Panzers, Closing with the Enemy, Downfall, Storm Landings (yeah, its the Pacific, but great reads anyway). LimShady

There are few posts further back in the Forum about the different Sherman designations, but they can be broken down into: Armament, Mobility, and Protection. Armament: 75mm, 76mm (US), 17-lb. (76.2mm, UK) Pretty self-exclamatory. Note that UK designated all 17-lb. armed tanks with designation C (so the Firefly is a Sherman I/V C) Mobility: Upgraded tanks with Horizontal Volute Suspension System (HVSS) to reduce ground pressure. Thus the M4A3E8 HVSS or Sherman Easy Eight (for E8). Protection: Orginally the Sherman was equipted with dry ammo storage. Some modification were made starting with the M4A1 model (IIRC) to incorporate wet ammo storage to make the Sherman less prone to brewing up. That's the W designation. If additional armor protection was added which I think give the W+ designation. Or you could weld extra armor to the tank hull to get 100mm of armor (proof to the Panther's 75mm gun) which was known as the M4A3E2 or Sherman Jumbo. I've probably made a few mistakes in the above. Feel free to correct. LimShady