Steve McClaire

As I recall, the Germans rechambered many captured Soviet 7.62mm guns to fire the same ammunition as the Pak40. I assume that is where the performance difference comes from.

One quote I found of interest, regarding the organization of the early M-30 (300mm) regiments: "There were also problems in bringing up ammunition, since a battalion only had enough vehicles to carry half of a battalion salvo at a time." This helps confirm a vague bit from Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook" where he talks about how M-30 rockets were basically only used for one salvo, and only before a set piece attack, though he ascribes it to the weight of the rockets (which he lists as 72kg each) and short range (2800m). But if the unit can only haul half a salvo then it would pretty have to be used as he describes.

Individual mortars are pretty much useless in CM in any situation with limited LOS (bocage / woods, night, fog, etc). The FO unit allows you to call for fire anywhere and also doesn't risk the loss of the mortars themselves. Good news about the battery-sized units though.

So can an ME support itself? I.e. your infantry battalion ME has 6 x 81mm mortars. Can these be assigned to support the battalion and thus grant it an 81mm mortar FO instead of 6 x 81mm teams? How are regimental level indirect assets handled? I assume these are separate MEs of battery size? Or do they have to be attached to (and thus included in) another ME to be represented?

To further muddy the waters, I'll just point out that the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment DID have two A, B, C, and D companies in the same regiment.

To further muddy the waters, I'll just point out that the 327th Glider Infantry Regiment DID have two A, B, C, and D companies in the same regiment.

I rebelled against the restrictions of LfB and tried something totally different than the attack plan described in the Axis briefing. The result was one of the lowest Axis scores ... which just goes to show, sometimes you should do what they tell you to do.

My guess is it was an 'advance across the map' operation (forget the actual name) and the scenario designer started the Allies on the side of the map they were supposed to reach to win.

Nafizger gives (for May 1944) the strength as: I.btl: 4 batteries of 4 150mm sFH II.btl: 4 batteries of 4 150mm sFH III.btl: 1(?) batteries of 4 100m K18 guns I think the "1 batteries" thing is a typo (there are lots in his books). Probably meant 3 or 4 I would assume.

According to Nafziger the panzer battalion of for the 29th Panzergrenadier Division was Pz.Abt.129, not 29, and was equipped entirely with StuGs (though the last date for which this is stated is Sept. 1943).

Final score off to Kingfish this morning, and I am, at long last, DONE!

Sividosi and I are on turn 36 of Tiger Valley. Will see if we can arrange for TCP/IP to finish. Steve

Will the CMBB side of this interface be documented so that other developers can make use of it, or is this information the exclusive property of Hunting Tank Software? Steve

Due to the recoil problems they had to put a specially designed muzzle break on the M68 to mount it on the MGS. This was said to have increased blast and noise significantly, though I assume there's still a safety zone for the original weapon too. But it is (hopefully) all academic if they've gone with a new design.

Cool. Maybe BFC will model the blast effects on friendlies w/in ~400m of the MGS when it fires, and the damage it does to it's own internal electronic equipment like night vision systems. Though to be fair, they should model the blast effects of modern tank guns too ... being outside an Abrahms when it fires is supposed to be pretty unpleasant.

I haven't kept up on this, but I recall reading last year that the MGS (mobile gun system) version of the Stryker was pretty much a total failure and was never produced beyond a few test models. The vehicle just isn't big enough to handle the 105mm gun, and there were serious heat / blast issues when it was fired. They may be on the published TO&E but they've never been fielded to my knowledge. Does anyone have any more recent information on this?

In the interest of rescuing this poor thread from its political hijacking ... does anyone have a comment along the lines of Sergei's first post? I am curious to see how CM:SF comes out. I have to admit I am a bit skeptical about the choice of setting and units. The Stryker brigade is poorly suited to an offensive mission against regular forces. They'd require a lot of fire support to pull it off, so CAS and artillery will need to be modeled a lot more extensively then they were in the first run of CM. I doubt they want the game to become CM:JTAC, and it looks like a tricky balance to strike. All that said, if the game engine is good they'll at least be able to adapt it to the WWII setting regardless of how the SF stuff comes out. So I'm still optimisitc that, some day, we'll get a better CM:BO out of it.

So either way, what's the harm in asking for it? Either they will do it or they won't. But if no one says they want it, it's a lot more likely they won't, neh?

If CMx2 has a 1:1 representation of each soldier the data on a per-soldier basis has to be present at some point. Unless there's some limitation of the design (like they don't generate the individual soldier data until you start to play the battle) it's not rocket science to let the user edit it. As Mr. Dorosch so brilliantly argues, I probably will buy CMx2 even without this feature. And I am sure people will still make campaigns using it (In fact I've been involved with the CMMC for years and am quite familiar with the limitations of the current CM/BB/AK scenario editor). But neither of these is a reason to NOT allow users to edit unit compositions.

There's a slight difference between being able to accurately depict a unit that the game developer chose not to include and being able to change the entire force to use the weapons and organization of an entirely different army. I didn't ask for Brens and Stens in my US units. I only asked to be able to create a US unit that was TO&E and/or situationally accurate, rather then being locked into the 'stock' TO&E. If I am given this ability in CMx2 I am much more likely to keep buying the various modules. I'm also much more likely to run / be involved in multi-player campaign games involving CMx2, which is a sales multiplier. Yes, give the customer a minor feature they want. What a poor business decision.

It would certainly be nice to get the ability to edit individual vehicles and soldiers (and set the CoC) in the scenario editor. That way scenario design grogs and campaign GMs can get exactly what they need to reproduce a specific battle, but it wouldn't affect the hard-coded TO&E available to the quick battle players. Seems sort of silly NOT to allow the scenario designer this sort of flexibility, to correct TO&E errors (like in many of the US units in CMAK) and to create unit types that BFC doesn't choose to implement as hard coded TO&Es (US Cavalry Squadron, for example, or even 4 tube 105mm batteries). Steve

I don't think you can anymore. I tried a few months back to track down Mr. Bird (he used to post here) or any other link to the published material, and hit a dead end. But if you do manage it, let me know! Steve

The A&P platoon was trained in demolitions and mine clearing, and was equipped with explosives, but my understanding is they spent almost all of their time acting as a supply unit, and rarely saw combat.

I had a project deadline yesterday, which I did hit, but it didn't allow for much ROW. Thought I told you that. Turns sometime tonight. Steve

Less clapping, more CMBB. Still waiting for your first turn back on Loaded for Bear, WN.