gunnergoz

I like to say that heroics can win battles, but logistics wins -and loses- wars.

The original files seem to have been deleted from the hosting site???? I reloaded them and the references seem to work now. Please try to download and see if you can get them now. Thanks again!

Just got back in town from work, I'm on it and will post (hopefully) a solution ASAP. Thanks for letting me know!

Panzerman, I don't think anyone here means to belittle you: your question seems earnest and your intent sincere. I suspect that some of the lack of patience you perceive here from grogs comes from the fact that their knowledge of the facts you seek came the hard way...from months and years of reading, study and, yes gaming also. What you are being told (in a groggy sort of way) is to go out and find your joy with the abundant reference material to be had...even on the internet, which you clearly have access to. Your questions are welcome, but a certain amount of preparation will enable you to draw out the information that you desire, without asking for the moon, so to speak. Good hunting!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzerman: At his point he mite have been talking about the M3 Medum tank (Not the light M3 stuart) as its HE firing gun was a fixed 75mm if I remember correctly. And there was a turel 37mm AP gun. So the 75mm fixed gun would be very hard to use on infantry.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The sponson-mounted 75mm was not "fixed and in fact had a fairly wide arc of fire (about 30 degrees IIRC) and was specifically intended to take on HE type targets. The 37mm turret gun was at the time the premier AT gun in the Army's thinking.

You guys obviously need a life, dreaming and ranting on about tanks wearing skirts...IT'S THE WOMEN WHO WEAR THE SKIRTS GUYS. Next thing you'll tell us, your Kubelwagen has a bra...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: In general, civilians in the european and Russian countryside knew what to do when armies got near: bury everything of value and hide out in the woods until they pass. In general, they would not be too close to the actual shooting per se, except in odd cases. WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You need to expand your reading. Especially in the opening weeks and months of Barbarossa, hundreds of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian peasants were killed in and around their towns and villages. They were systematically divested of their farm animals, homes, property and finally their lives. And there aren't any forests in the steppes of Ukraine to hide in. Not that the Russians dealt with their peasants with any kindness...the scortched earth that they left behind for the Germans as they pulled back included the homes that peasants would have occupied through the forthcoming and record-cold winter. And if their homes somehow survived the Red Army pullout, then the Germans would occupy the homes and toss the inhabitants out into the snow to freeze to death. No, it wasn't always as easy as walking away or hiding in the woods... Our fascination with the military side of this war all too frequently overlooks the fact that it was a total war which was waged on civilians with equal ferocity to the combatants. It was a war that gave everyone an equal opportunity to die, and some got more than their fair share of that deadly opportunity as it was. I'll get off my soapbox now, but I am a bit touchy about the issue of civilian casualties as there were plenty in that war that included blood relatives and in-laws of mine.

Thanks, Daniel. A bit too Teutonic for my taste, but nice work.

Civilians, especially in the East, were ignored, abused, exploited, neglected, abandoned, terrorized, pillaged, executed, or otherwise treated like an impediment to operations by both sides. Their inclusion in a game would serve no purpose. Personally, I'd rather not trivialize their memories. Our digital soldiers at least can fight for their lives...

What's interesting about the Patton desert experience quote is that it reflects his knowledge of the use of both the early Sherman, the M-3 Grant and the Stuart. The Grant had the armament (in effect) of the Sherman and Stuart combined so it potentially packed a heck of an HE/antipersonnel wallop. Still, Patton prefers the use of the tank m.g.'s for antipersonnel use. HE rounds seem to be favored for use against point targets, and a squad facing a tank is going to spread out or they'll be dead pretty quick from (you got it) main gun HE fire. The m.g.'s beaten zone is a far more efficient way to get to a bunch of spread out and probably prone targets.

Daniel, 1. I have a PC not a Mac; 2. I don't get any image on your first post either. You may be looking at a cached version on your own HD.

Too bad the 37mm canister round is not modeled. It was extensively used in the Pacific and saw some use in Europe as well. Think of a shotgun on steroids!

All that your URL reference gets is the login screen...care to give me your password?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Pretty typical... Get an interesting topic going and you can expect it to be hijacked by some grogs who take it kicking and screaming down some dark, boring corridor filled with big german words that refer to "metal skirts". Bah. Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And your point is...? So take it back with some interesting observations of your own! Captivate us! Get us fired up! Grogs will blather on unless you seize their (limited) interest beyond such minutiae.

Thu US Army approved of camo paint and furnished sample color drawings in it's field manuals. Combat units did the painting rarely, in part because of the high turnover of AFV's. The Brits used camo a lot more in practice.

With regard to the History Channel, I don't get the impression that it produces inferior documentaries as much as it tolerates the showing of poorly-researched "history lite" shows produced by less-professional outfits. I'm not basing this on hard knowledge, but I watch it a lot by default (it's the only TV that remotely interests me a lot of the time) and I put up with it's foibles for that reason. Unfortunately, two truths apply: 1. The bulk of the TV watching public doesn't know and doesn't care about history, let alone military specifics; 2. The media industry is absolutely clueless about things military, when it is not outright hostile about such issues.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42: Is that the one that had two .50s and a 37mm gun? That one has a lot of fun potential. [ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: panzerwerfer42 ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are thinking of the M-15. The M-17 was the export International Harvester version of the M-16. IIRC, it was identical for all game purposes, the major difference was the armor was a bit thicker to compensate for it's lower ballistic tolerance (it was welded instead of riveted.)

The M16 is great but the quad 20's are even more powerful. The M16's absence from CMBO is a sore spot with many of us. This has been debated ad nauseum in the forum. I seem to recall that the BTS guys basically forgot to include it, I don't think it was deliberately excluded, especially over a "firepower" basis because the 20mm weapons are modeled and having an explosive round, are real powerhouses. CMBtB should model the lend-lease M-17, however, and I'll finally get to play with my meatchoppers.

I personally don't want anything to delay the new engine re-write as it may address some limitations of the current engine that we'd all like to see changed (e.g. tile size, multi-floor buildings, command rules, relative spotting, to name a few.) I'll enjoy the Med a lot more with an engine that can truly do it justice.

More to the point: Who DIDN'T fight on the Eastern Front?

The Apache attack helo does have a 30mm chain gun, perhaps that's what the post refers to.

What I like about CM as it currently is implemented is that I get to be the "brains" of my small unit commanders, without having to frantically switch and click all over the map while my units out of sight get rubbed out because I'm not there to tell them to duck or run or fight. The phased system appeals to me because it gives me a measure of control which I then give up to sit back and enjoy a minute of combat. This combat is depicted with sufficient realism and with sufficient chaos and uncertainty that it becomes very credible. The suspension of disbelief catches me up and I gnaw my fingernails while I wait to see how my troops execute their orders. So, I get to be the boss, and spectator at the same time. Sort of like a real military commander. This isn't a very cogent or convincing argument, I'm sure, but it distills why I like this game so much, and why I don't really want it to change except to become grander in scope (of battlefields) and detail of graphics, terrain, weapons, etc. [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]

Apologies to all Link corrected, files should download normally now. Thanks for your patience, this is my first stab at making a web page (and what a trip that turned out to be!) Oh well, even old dogs can learn new tricks.

Hi guys! If anybody is interested, I've set up a web page where you can download the terrain files seen at http://photos.lycos.com/s.asp?r=rlqjer622dt4rf9pb7c82bon4s_239707 My download site is: http://members.home.net/egosnell/gunnergoz.htm Hope you enjoy the files!

With respect to the issue of Russian winter and it's effect on Germans in '41 vs. the opposing Russians, I'd heartily recommned you all to read "War without Garlands" by Robert J. Kershaw. Not only is it an excellent way to understand the opening months of the East Front war, it also helped me envision what the opposing sides experienced at the human level. When the book goes into detail about the first winter and the German problems that ensued, I began to see that factors besides inappropriate uniforms came into play. Specifically, the Germans had badly outrun their supply capabilities and were barely able to furnish the units in front of Moscow with ammunition. The landsers had to live off the land to a great extent. Added to this, Kershaw describes the weariness and bone-tired exhausted state of the badly depleted German divisions. The men were not even close to the shape in which they'd crossed over the Polish border. The Russian defenses and Kessel battles had depleted the divisions of hundreds of thousands of experienced troops, especially officers and NCO's. German morale suffered as a result, not to mention front line leadership. Russian units were laboring under the same weather, but many of their divisions were well-equipped ones brought from the East and were excellently prepared for the extreme weather conditions they faced. Incidentally, Kershaw points out that the German Army was not used to fighting in such deep winter conditions and during peacetime would return to barracks from the field precisely because it was not contemplated to do combat in such weather. A "wintering over" phase was apparently expected. Similarly, German vehicles, artillery and weapons were not designed for the deep winter conditions that they faced in Russia from October '41 on. Try the book before you play CMBtB, it'll really fire your imagination! [ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: gunnergoz ]