gunnergoz

My recent readings indicate that the US independent tank battalions were initially not as well trained or led as the armored division tank battalions; the armored divisions had more cachet and glamor, attracted the better officers and the infantry-oriented independent tank battalions had to suck hind t!ttie. It does not surprise me then that one of them first tried this out. Some relevant WW2 Signal Corps videos of interest: http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675076253_American-soldiers_holding-hedge-cutter_mounting-on-tank_soldiers-working especially at 1:10 and beyond http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675075108_United-States-howitzer_World-War-II_M-4-Sherman-tank at 0:20 and beyond The latter video with the M5 light tank seems to show that such a tank could occasionally bust a hedgerow but given the multiple attempts, the enemy on the other side would probably be well aware of what was being tried and where, and would be ready when the tank popped through with its belly exposed.

Yes, there was really not much corporation input into American tank design in those wartime days - more of their expertise in mass-production, assembly-line and component design which was relevant and often tapped. Tank design was almost exclusively the realm of the Ordnance Dept, which often put forward designs that neither The Armored Force nor Army Ground Forces asked for...like the 76mm Sherman in '42, and the ill-fated M6 heavy. Ordnance was often accused of pie-in-the-sky design work (e.g. the T28 Superheavy tank) which no one except Ordnance seemed to want in the end. Anyway, I think further discussions of this stuff should go to a different thread since I'm curious to see how the fire on the move topic proceeds in this one.

But none of them were 4 engine bombers that had burned up, were they? Its one thing to rebuild a single-engine fighter and another to tackle a multi-engine a/c. Why do you think there's no Bettys or Frances flying around? Never in 9 years involvement in aviation maintenance did I ever see aviation aluminum components re-used after exposure to a catastrophic fire. That's why I think this a/c will be a near total write off. There may be a bidding war for some salvage parts by other B-17 restoration groups and that's how I think this bird will end up...parted out.

Shermans with wet stowage burned much lest often than did Shermans without. The exposed ammunition stowage in older Shermans was the primary reason they brewed up so quickly and catastrophically. Shermans were never designed to mix it up with the likes of Panthers and Tigers but if you must, be sure to maneuver because that is your best hope at a flank or rear shot. Vark: Yes BFC does its homework on combat records too. This game is based on their 12 years of cumulative research on this and other WW2 technical and operational subjects, which I doubt any other game design firm can approach.

Normal Dude - sorry, I deleted the post you quoted after I saw that Siffo998 seemed to be retracting his test. I agree, more testing is called for, but even one test is indicative of a need to look further into a topic and I'm not personally going to ask every guy to run 500 tests just to please me. You KNOW where they'd tell me to shove it.

Sorry, are you saying that you DID NOT run the test after all? Or are we having a misunderstanding?

I personally doubt it and take your bet. A/C grade aluminum is not reliable after being subjected to this kind of heat and even the parts of the a/c not burned up are now no longer regarded as airworthy. The entire center of the a/c is gone, wing main box, spar and all. Restoration is one thing but building a full fuselage and wings to spec is something else. In WW2 the Navy was in the habit of tossing apparently intact a/c over the side of carriers, if the a/c had been too close to fires, for precisely this reason.

I'd have looked closer at the damage report...it might well be a mechanical problem keeping it from moving. Blue boxes don't mean much to me but red text for the system name would mean it is KO'd.

Yes, and damn fine saucepans they'll be, mate. In fact, I'd love to have one in my kitchen. An AD Skyraider would do just fine, thank you. (Yes, I know it is post WW2 but it is my version of Viagra.) PS, if you are ever in Portland, Oregon, be sure to eat at The Bomber, a local restaurant famous for having a real B-17 on its roof. Food is average but the view is exceptional.

Just my two bits but WW2 tanks did occasionally fire on the move and even less occasionally, managed to hit something. German crews in the East apparently got fairly adept at this in some of their close-in knife fights with the T-34's but once the German crew training and experience went down as their losses went up, this became less common. Americans did so on occasion, in part helped by the vertical stabilizer, but it was not always functioning and the crew had to train with it and practice it to get any decent results. And Lt Bull is right on about the terrain the shooting tank is on, the speed it is moving at and its suspension type having some input into this equation. My sense is that the game over-models this capability, but that is just an impression. In any event, common sense would dictate that it would be most likely to happen, with any chance of success, at 500M or less, given the optics and technology of the day. If we want BFC to take note of the issue and move on it, we need to provide hard evidence in the form of saves, etc. (Sorry but that is my new drum to beat...evidence, evidence, evidence.) It is one thing to say "I smell something and think the cat sh!t in the closet" and another to say "I have cat sh!t all over my slippers."

I'm beginning to think that, if we want these examples of problematic behavior dealt with, we'd better accompany them with save files and maybe some screen grabs, or better yet some home-brewed test maps and saves. The BFC crew has its hands full dealing with the problems they can positively pin down and simply griping about something we've seen is just not helpful to anyone. I've been guilty generic b!tching like everyone else, but I have "seen the light" (and don't want to be "shown the door.")

Thanks, Blackcat, it does help me understand where you're coming from.

I don't know if this is coincidence, but I've had troops in buildings survive for a long time, undiscovered even, as long as I severely restricted their fire arc to a few meters, basically to defend just the building they were in. This seems to, in effect, move them away from the windows, at least in coding terms. The minute I open up their firing arcs, bang, they tend to get hit then. It is almost as if their being able to target the enemy somehow advertises their position to the enemy too. That is consistent with the real world behavior of troops moving to a window to look for targets. Having them hide helps concealment, but it does restrict their vision at the same time.

Until we get properly working anti-armor/anti-infantry cover arcs, we'll continue to have this debate ad infinitum. There are some good reasons for infantry to fire small arms at AFV's under certain conditions and what seems to be a popular idea is that the Tac AI be "smarter" about when to do this, and when to avoid doing it. When they do fix it, I also hope that they tweak the code so that an AT team does not fire its small arms at tanks, buttoned or not, unless the AT gunner in the team is also firing his primary weapon at the tank at the same time. Otherwise the small arms fire will prematurely give away the team's position, to their detriment. In general, I don't mind small arms fire against tanks if it is likely to benefit the situation to my advantage. I have confidence that the Tac AI in the game will get better and better as we define the wrinkles in it and BFC smooths them out for us.

Such as...? Examples please from your own experience would be helpful to support your claim.

I wish I could agree but I can't find it in me to do so. I've seen too many hot dogging CAF goups and wealthy private pilots running crazy risks with these valuable bits of aviation history. Sure, they love them and no one wants to die in an aircraft crash but I know from personal observation that corners are cut in the maintenance end and the pilots are often past their prime or some are primed with...let's say, antifreeze. I trained as an aircraft mechanic in the mid-80's, had my FAA licenses to maintain a/c and what I saw at some airshows in Southern California permanently turned me off to the likes of the local CAF and other local "historical re-enactment" aviation groups. They were slipshod, careless, boastful fools some of them, playing with toys that were in some cases irreplaceable. Yes there are many that are serious collectors and restorers, but also quite a few that cut corners and fly for fun and "profit" rather than for the serious purpose of presenting a historical artifact to the public. As much as I love the sight, sound, smell and visceral feeling in your chest from the "heavy iron" overhead, I rue the day when they'll all be gone. I hope that more of the specimens are retired from flight and that the ones that do fly, do so less often and with more regard for safety and proper maintenance than I've seen in some of these groups.

Thanks for pointing out the pause on the touch objective...I was not aware of that and wondered why I did not get credit for one of the ones I know I drove past l- but did not linger upon, as noted.

A lot of American WW2 generals were caught up in the fallacy that tanks were not the best anti-tank weapon, Patton included. Remember that Patton had a great influence in the early US armored force and commanded the 2nd Armored Division for a while. Part of the problem was faulty intelligence. Evidence from the 1940 French campaign was really inconclusive, at least to the American generals. The African campaign and the later ones in Sicily and Italy showed tanks fighting in unusual conditions not likely to be replicated on the European continent where the invasion would eventually take place. Not many American generals were looking at the Tiger as anything except a rare assault tank and the Panther was originally evaluated in the same category. It came as a shock when the Americans finally figured out, in mid-44, that the Panthers were now half the complement of the German panzer divisions - in other words, that it was their mainstream new battle tank. The push against the 76mm gun was there from the beginning and not just Patton was behind it. They did not want tankers to become involved in tank vs tank battles but to save their assets for the breakout and exploitation phase that the Sherman was designed for. They had the Tank Destroyer Force to tackle the enemy armor. That was the doctrine and they stuck with it until it was proven fatally flawed in the Summer of 1944 in the fighting in France. The Ordnance Department had prepared designs for 76mm Shermans in 1942 and they could have been fielded in '43, but no one was really interested...until they ran into the German panzer buzzsaw in Normandy. In part, the American tank design effort in WW2 was hobbled by a lack of scientific evaluation of the evidence and a faulty interpretation of the facts in front of them. It is a credit to the resiliency of the American army that they were able to take off their doctrinal blinders, adapt to reality and field a successful design like the M26 eventually, but by then the war was over in Europe.

Ever been to Normandy? Study some pictures of the real thing if you have not been there: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/showthread.php?2038-Normandy-landscape-gallery Even "low" or "medium" bocage is pretty daunting. Remember, bocage is more than trees and bushes, it is also a high berm infused with deep root systems, often including a ditch on one or both sides of the berm. Some of those bocage systems were centuries old in 1944. Running a tank at it only exposes the tank to damage and being shot at while hung up in the bocage. Experience taught that the only tanks to successfully drive through bocage were tank dozers and those tanks equipped with the various rhino devices. And even they had to pick their approach carefully. You might make it through a smaller bocage system in a tank, but it was not something I'd want to try under fire.

That may be true of the Brits, but only marginally. They were thinking ahead to their own 17 pdr even then. The American Ordnance and Armored Force generals stuck with the 75mm gun on the M3 and later M4 because of its known HE prowess more than any other factor. It was never envisioned in American army doctrine of the day as an anti-tank weapon except as a last resort of self-defense. Anti-tank duty was reserved for the 37mm then 57mm and finally the 3" guns of the Tank Destroyers. Recall that the Sherman was first and foremost designed as an exploitation tank, intended to enlarge breakthroughs and rampage in the rear killing artillery, etc. We today make a big mistake if we try to equate the Sherman to the Pz III, IV, Panther or Tiger. It was never meant to go up against the like of them. We know today that the best AT weapon is another tank but that was far from obvious to the US Army generals who designed the army and weapons that fought 1941-45.

Did anyone check the tanks' mechanical condition (wrench tab)? BTW, the Sherman also had a belly hatch and if need be, the body or body pieces could be slid out to be picked up later...unpleasant but better than having to a cadaver in the turret, though I know that happened too.

No question that behind-the-scenes army "politics" at the command level was influencing a lot of the decisions being made in wartime. I've been reading this stuff 50 some years and am still learning new - and appalling - things about how certain members of the US Army's generalship were making decisions based upon very little more than prejudices, preconceived notions, emotion, bias and personal animosity towards some other general and his "entourage" or branch. Once you actually get into that level of history, it breaks down into achingly painful images of flawed humans acting out of some misguided perception of what won/lost the last war. True visionaries and real leaders were rare and even those that existed, had flaws that were sometimes fatal to their own side. History has taught us that it is a nation's young men that pay the price for older mens' mistakes. But in the past, as often than not, some of those flawed older men would die off in battle, leading their armies into a final charge or last stand. Today, it is rare for that to happen to generals, particularly those in upper echelon administrative positions. Yep, there is a lot more to war than OOB's, TO&E's, TM's, FM's, Ballistics Charts and Op Orders. The really interesting background stuff has to be rooted out like a truffle, but the morsels are worth the effort. I very much encourage the OP to read up as much as possible about the generals of the day and their deeds/misdeeds. It makes you all the more grateful to those who sacrificed their lives carrying out some of the orders these very imperfect generals made every day.

It would help me envision people's problems better if they posted what level of difficulty they are playing at, as well as some details of their system, so I know if they are on a Mac or PC at least...or like the one fellow here posted, playing through a Mac onto an IPad. (Cool!) Also if they have edited the command keys and if they are playing WEGO or RTS. Thank you.

Since the game is about learning real WW2 tactics and learning to think like tactical leaders did at the time, I would not want to see any sort of tutorials that encouraged unrealistic behavior. A lot of young gamers were brought up on games that only rewarded quick reflexes and tank (or whatever) rushes. That is what passes for "strategy" in the world of the big-box retailers. Our newbies do need a sandbox to play in, but it should be every bit as unforgiving as the battles they play full-on later. I'm all for guided tutorials and video previews, media presentations and dog and pony shows to get the ideas across to those new to this level of simulation. It is also about learning something about history, about why the bocage mattered and how mortars make mincemeat out of the unwary. I do hope we can collectively put together something like a CM:N wiki with some way to hand-hold the neophytes through the tutorials and maybe some new sample mini-battles. But I don't advise we give them a special "invulnerability cloak" level or anything like that. Let them lose their troops and have to start over. Reward them for finishing a particular lesson with some sort of schtick medal or attaboy. But get them used to the awful lethality that was the era. And I do like the idea (that someone else here posted) of having a feature in the beginner tutorial where the player enters his name and the squad or platoon leader in the game takes that name. It gives the novice player a personal stake in the game's outcome.

I appreciate that having a sour stomach over such problems is going to make anyone a bit grouchy, but trust me, your problem is not commonplace and no, I do not work for BFC but rather, I think I put their kids through college. What is your CPU/Video Card/Video RAM and OS? Is your machine stable on everything else that puts demands upon it? 8 GB RAM is nice to have but is it well matched to your machine and is all the RAM from the same manufacturer and the same spec? RAM gets cranky when mixed. My favorite places to start looking when crashes rear their ugly head: 1. Outdated Video driver 2. Outdated Sound driver (yes flukey, but it does happen) 3. Other programs in overhead (Norton was one of the usual suspects but there are others like some screen savers or screen grabbers 4. Overheating, as noted, not restricted to laptops - any system pushed to its limits can overheat. Adequate cooling is a must and you have to have a big enough power supply to feed all those fans and cards. 5. out dated Bios and/or inappropriate boot up ROM settings 6. Overclocking CPU beyond its limits 7. Loose hardware, particularly cards and sometimes RAM not properly inserted 8. Malware you may not even know you have going on in the background (check your active programs and processes in the Task Manager) 9. System OS matched to your CPU and updated to latest verson. Finally, if it does kick you out with a blue screen, is it at all possible for you to document or snap a photo of the error message(s)? Best wishes for a speedy recovery and no, no one is out to deprive you of your game or your money. The more people here know about your system and the crashes, the more likely you will help them find a solution for your problem(s).