gunnergoz

I've admittedly not played the game to death yet, but I have yet to see any of my troops run out of ammunition. Unless it is a campaign like Devils Descent modeling a specific historical situation, I can't see the relevance of allowing Allied troops to use captured weapons. US units simply did not run out of ammunition unless they abandoned their supply trains. If you are playing games where your troops routinely run out of ammunition, you are not playing the same sort of CM:N game I am familiar with. As for the red herring argument that Germans used captured weapons, it is true only insofar as they had a centralized plan to collect enemy weapons, refurbish them, then issue them to troops trained in their use, who collectively all used the same captured weapons. The German army no more encouraged local scrounging and immediate use of battlefield collected weapons than did the Allies, for many of the same reasons. Yes there are cases of improvised use of collected heavy weapons such as mortars, artillery and the like, but those were specific unit-authorized initiatives and quite rare. If we ask BFC to model each and every example of exceptional behavior, we will soon find they have no time to correctly model the routine behavior.

Maybe if we allow the game kill off all the overeager, dumb pixeltroopen who open fire too early on tanks or who goad tanks with MG's (you know, the digital Darwin Awards), the smarter survivors will be the genetic prototype of a smarter class of computer soldiers. Any ideas of how to get them to reproduce? A leave plan in ole Paree?

I'll wager few penal battalion troops ever enjoyed the luxury of riding anything remotely like a jeep. A herd of them goes into a few dozen rail cars to the front and then its miles of marching to their fate. If they scout on foot on the way, though, that's fine by me.

I was living in that pre-civil-rights world, so perhaps that is the difference between us. What is history for you is memories for me. My standards thus are based on a different perspective than yours in all likelihood.

You are welcome to your opinion and I exercise my right to disagree. I am still ashamed of some of what the nation did then as I am with certain conduct since the second world war. I have my standards for judging my country's conduct, you can have your own and neither opinion is of more value than the other just because you say so.

That is just looking back that we can say that now. The vaunted standards I was thinking of were the likes of Roosevelt's Four Freedoms from his 1941 speech. Most Americans thought of freedom in those terms while the reality was that in fact, Jim Crow laws existed and were accepted. Hypocritical? Of course. But we did aspire to the better angels of our nature, did we not? Then as now?

I really can't see anything over a 155 howitzer being used on-call in most of these CM:N scenarios (perhaps other than beachhead ones with ship fire on call). The reason I say that is that these big guns were pretty much reserved for major planned fires against enemy concentrations and rear area targets...not for front-line support of US troops. The accuracy just wasn't there in those days to keep those big guns from accidentally dropping one too close to our own troops and their lethality was so great that even a near miss could be very dangerous. As always, I'm confident there were historical exceptions to this, but on the whole I think it is safe to assume that most of the time, the best a US company commander could hope to call on was mortars, 105's and 155's for support fires in his immediate area and within scenario time-frames. A scenario with first-turn planned fires for an offensive would be the primary exception I can think of.

For you, clearly. Others may have a different take, equally valid (and equally fun to play.)

Childress and Splinty - if you want to compare the US behavior against its own citizens to that of non-democratic states like wartime Japan, by all means go ahead. I always thought the US prided itself on standing head and shoulders above such fascist dictatorships. I deliberately did not make comparisons since there are no equivalencies. But I do hold our nation, the USA, to a higher standard than I do other countries, if for no other reason that this is what we are told we are: superior in belief and in conduct. And in my opinion, the nation's conduct against its Japanese American citizens in that era was appalling. The argument that Japan treated other races worse is a red herring that serves no purpose other than to distract Americans from the fact that their nation was not living up to its own vaunted standards at the time. America could have done better, but failed to do so, all the while touting itself as the beacon of individual liberty and at the forefront of the fight against arbitrary, tyrannical governments that ran roughshod over their citizens. In point of fact, numerous wealthy and politically connected Americans personally benefited from closure of Japanese American businesses and the confiscation of their assets, and pressure from these sources was not an insignificant aspect of the anti-Japanese-American sentiment rampant in the US at the time.

I finally decided to put this to rest one way or the other and began to dig into my resources at home and online. The original source of this account seems to be a publication by the US Army Armor School entitled "The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December 1944, An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense". My research indicates that the author of that study was likely Major Boyer of the 7th AD (see below). The reported incident is said to have occurred on 18 Dec 44 and was reported to Major Donald Boyer, the S-3 of the 38th Armored Infantry Battalion of the 7th Armored Division's CCB, by the commander of Co. A of the 38th AIB, who witnessed it. Troop B/87 CRS seems to have been the parent unit of the M8 in the incident. I could not accurately get text from the .pdf copy I located, but here is an image of the relevant portion of the report: Hugh Cole, whose book "Ardennes Battle of the Bulge" is the Army's own definitive study of the campaign, cites Major Boyer and the 7th AD histories as being exceptionally thorough in their documentation: So what German units were involved at or near St. Vith that might have had tanks in that time frame? St. Vith was on the border between 6th Panzer Army in the north and 5th Panzer Army in the south. The closest units were those of the 6th Panzer Army's 2nd SS Panzer Corps and it seems that elements of the 9th SS Panzer Division were possibly those involved since it was sent in to support KG Hansen of the 1st SS Panzer Division farther north at Poteau. There was much intermingling of units on the limited road networks in the area and getting definitive location/time fixes for the units is not simple. Heavy tanks in the German armored units in the area all seem to have been Tiger II's, though Tiger I's were with one battalion (PANZER-ABTEILUNG (Funklenk) 301) that did not make it into the area. I spent some time looking at all these Tiger units' histories and could find only losses of Tiger II's on the 18th and none in the vicinity of St Vith, although Panzergruppe Peiper had some just north of St. Vith. The 7th Armored Division's combat on the 18th, according to Maj. Boyer's account, was primarily with elements of the 1st SS Panzer Division and the division's reported kills by the end of the 18th included 1 King Tiger, 9 Pz. IV's, 1 "assault gun 88mm (Ferdinand)", 2 75mm assault guns and 8 armored cars. Since there were numerous Pz IV's and Panthers operating with all these known German armored units, the possibility that the tank said to have been killed by the M8 was one of them cannot be ruled out, given the frequency with which the IV's and Panthers were misidentified as Tigers, and (for that matter) Nashorns and Jagdpanthers were misidentified as Ferdinands. Given what we know of the Tiger II's rear armor being 80mm, similar to that of the Tiger I, it stretches the imagination to conceive how a 37mm weapon (with at best around 50mm penetration) could succeed in knocking one out, even at point blank range from the rear. To be fair, both Tiger I and II did have openings in the rear hull for exhausts and it is not impossible for a lucky hit to penetrate one of those exhaust port openings and proceed on to ricochet in the engine compartment and perhaps damage the engine and/or fuel lines. Is this what happened? Like Jason, I have to agree that the evidence to prove this story is conflicting and not necessarily convincing. We have the documentation of a mechanized infantry company commander that he witnessed this M8 knock out a tiger and he was convinced enough of his facts that he reported it to his battalion S-3 (operations) officer, Major Boyer. In the end, each reader will have to decide what he elects to believe about this story: either the wartime reports of witnesses (and the well-regarded histories published after the war) or to depend upon postwar analysis of data, albeit by an amateur (yours truly.) Objectively, I have to give great weight to the latter (data), but the former (wartime reports) cannot be entirely discounted since, as we all know, in wartime almost anything seems to happen at least once. My take on it is that it is entirely possible that it happened, but the odds are frankly against it working out as described. Now I leave it to some other forum member to simulate the attack and see if his M8 can penetrate a Tiger's rear from point blank range.

Exactly, which was why my first post (and the first response he got) was so negative since I sensed that fact. I subsequently moderated my tone a bit when I did some homework and realized that the OP is/was an old timer here and perhaps deserves some recognition for that fact. There's an old saying that goes, "All that I can really change about life is my attitude."

Absolutely hilarious! Never saw or heard of the vid or the product before, but a great intro to it I must say. BZ for posting it.

105's outnumbered 155's in the division by 4-1 if you count the infantry cannon companies as another battalion equivalent. But when you factor in the great numbers of 155 howitzer battalions that corps and army artillery had on hand, the overall ratio is probably something like 3:2 for 105/155. 155 "Long Tom" Guns were a different matter and were generally used in long range interdiction and counter-battery fires.

"National prejudice" = racism in a different guise IMO. The entire sad chapter of American abuse (and exploitation) of Japanese Americans during the war was nothing but rampant racism. Were there segregated Nisei units before the war? No, but that was because in pre war days, so few Japanese Americans entered the military to begin with. Once the war started and manpower needs ramped up, the army was not squeamish about accepting Japanese Americans on its own, racist (and segregated) terms.

MOSwas71331: You did not directly say anyone was conspiring against you, but in point of fact the title of your thread and the first line of your post was "You win," so you yourself shaped the discussion as one of everyone's opposition against you with this "you against me" sort of language. Perhaps you see life as a zero-sum game? Given the response your post got, with most people being far more eager than I to rush to your aid, I'd have to say that the majority of people here are not cheering your failure...to the contrary, they are on your side, wish you success and fell all over themselves trying to be of assistance to you. Yet in your only response, above, I do not see you say even one word of thanks to the many forum members who posted earnest and heartfelt advice and encouragement in 70-some responses to your original statement. As for your stated inability to use the forums private messaging system, have you checked your "User CP" to see under "Edit Options" to ensure that private messaging is turned on? (See, in the end even I could not resist the human urge to give you helpful advice. ) I see that someone with the same logon name and similar biographical data was around the BFC forums as far back as 1999, before I got here for sure. If that was you, then you are almost a plank owner here and your departure would be a loss to this entire gaming community. Not to mention that you are one of our rare, actual combat veterans, not that you ever bragged about it. I hate to see anyone leave this place all bummed out and feeling betrayed for whatever reason, be it game-related or otherwise. Personally, I'd rather you stay and contribute as you see fit to. But it is entirely your right to leave if you so choose. You were (are) part of a community here and that community has stood beside you and asked nothing of you other than that you do right by yourself. If you take nothing else positive away from here, I hope that fact sticks with you. I wish you good luck whatever you elect to do.

Sorry, I can't take the time to do the subject justice but the America of the early and mid 20th century was a society that was very prejudiced against non-whites. Racist, in other words. So yes, there was segregation of the military and blacks, for instance, were mostly employed in labor or menial roles. The more illuminated in the society fought this and that is why there were exceptions like the all-black 332nd fighter group ("The Tuskegee Airmen") and the Japanese-American 442nd Infantry Regiment and 100th Infantry Battalion, where racism was proven to be fallacious when the members of those units and many others covered themselves with medals for valor and sacrifice. It was a very different time, full of misguided ideas, bias, ignorance, hatred and all the suffering that those brought with them. The war brought change with it and after the war, President Truman altered everything when he ordered the military integrated overnight - something few men might have dared do in his shoes. Condescension was part of the lingo of the day, even with enlightened Americans. Black units of the wartime years did have some black NCO's and some officers but the unit commanders were invariably white except for that fighter group. The Navy was probably the most segregated of all the services, with the Marines a pretty close second. If you have the time, look up that book I posted, it has all the history one can stomach on the subject. It is not the best side of American history, but there it is. Racism is of course not dead in the USA today, merely made "politically incorrect" and illegal...which does not make it go away, it simply disguises the symptoms. I've been around since 1948 and I can honestly say that the changes of the American civil rights era were probably the most profound thing I've seen the nation go through - and the job is still a work in progress.

And if they do pick up and fire enemy weapons, be prepared for "Blue on Blue" right back at you as other friendly soldiers hear what they think is an enemy weapon and open fire on it. That killed more than one WW2 GI.

Yep and it was common as heck in WW2, at least for US forces. A very effective piece.

NP Clark, a lot of flak flying around in this one topic. Hope that cleared it up for you on that score at least.

Regarding the 60mm mortars, if players care about realism, the unit of issue was 220 rounds per mortar, divided this way: Unit - 60 Trains - 60 (typically Division) Upper echelon - 100 (corps or army supply depots or en route to trains) The unit of fire (UoF) was noted to be 400 rounds, with the estimate of the manual being 1 UoF per day for most battle situations, except the 1st day of an offensive or of a defense, when the expenditure being estimated as 1.5 UoF per day on those days. Data is from FM101-10 Organizational, Technical and Logistical Data 1941. What I find interesting is that the 60mm mortars had a Unit of Issue that was approximately half of the Unit of Fire. Given that this data is from very early in the war, it is possible that the planners did not anticipate the degree to which the Army would eventually become almost totally motorized in the logistical components. So if mortar ammo issued seems skimpy, there may have been doctrinal reasons for it, though for the life of me I cannot imagine why...perhaps they felt the 60mm mortars ammo was too heavy compared to its utility. But that was in '41 and I'm trying to find later data to see if it changed after wartime experience.

Looks like a corrupted save maybe? Or the Starship Troopers deployed a bit early.

I just ran into this in a "Combat Lessons Learned" pamphlet from 1944 and thought a contemporary take on the subject might interest some of you:

Strikes me that this engine was designed with desert environments in mind, with much sparser distribution of foliage, etc. Now that it is being used for N.Europe, we are seeing some of its limitations. I think if people are very specific about their issues with how it fails to meet their needs in understanding the fighting environment, the more likely BFC is going to look into them. It probably is true that RTS is especially difficult here - I don't know because I don't play that way, but I could see how it forces the player to make quick judgements about what he is looking at. And I know that some RTS players hate to pause the game, complicating matters further. As a WEGO player, I seem to have fewer problems than many posters here, but then too my gaming pace is probably glacial compared to theirs.

Regularly hitting anything over 100-150M away - even a tank - with these early rocket launchers sounds excessively accurate to me. I'm doing some research into it to see what the CEP on them was but data is sparse.

I think this source covers the topic of combat unit integration at the time pretty well, if anyone wants more details: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/11-4/chapter22.htm