gunnergoz

Doesn't look like many are trying this scenario from the American side. If you are, I'd like to hear your experience and impressions. I'm about 40 minutes into it and my recon units have killed off the German recon units and their tanks are only now beginning to show up at a distance, in one corner of the map and are slowly beginning to approach the objective that has a farm across the river from it. I already occupy the village, having cleaned out what recon elements were trying to hold it.

I'd be curious to know if the gunner ever showed the status "aiming" instead of simply "spotting." I have the impression that "aiming" pretty much guarantees a round is on the way in the next second or two.

The delivery acceptance dates are presumably at the factory, upon delivery to the Army acceptance teams.

My Hunnicutt collection is getting a workout today. According to his Stuart book, the T8 and T8E1 were ordered evaluated by Army Ground Forces and 2 M5AI's had the turret removed and a gun ring with a .50 added in its place. The Ordnance Board evaluated them and found them superior in cross country performance to the M8 and M20 but the latter two were quieter. In the end the Armored Board recommended the adoption of the M24 light tank as a standard reconnaissance vehicle. The T8 had the .50 ring offset to the right over the vehicle commander, who sat in the open area in the upper hull where the turret used to be. The T8E1 had the ring centered over the turret opening in the open hull. Both models mounted a smoke mortar, carried 10 land mines and had a crew of 4. Hunnicutt mentioned that during the war "many light tanks were frequently modified in the field for use as command or reconnaissance vehicles," which is probably how the idea of an official M5 recon variant got seeded in Army Ground Forces to begin with. So yes, vehicles similar to the T8 existed as extemporaneous field modifications, but no actual T8's were produced beyond the two prototypes. I've only seen the odd photo of them in the field so it is hard to say how many were actually modified.

Guys, I just posted Sherman series production figures from Hunnicutt in its own thread if you are interested. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98003 Hunnicutt had it broken down by model series, variants and sub-types and includes the delivery acceptance date span.

I tried the file in the depository...it works for newly started scenarios but if you try to use it with a save, it will not work since the game apparently retains the original sound file in some sort of list to use the next time you re-load the game. Or so it seems to me.

The game seems to regard that if a unit (infantry or vehicle) butts right up next to bocage, there is some ability to see through it and yet still some concealment, at least until the unit gives itself away by firing through the bocage.

For those interested, here's Hunnicutts figures for all M2-M4 series production acceptances: ACCEPTANCES OF SHERMANS AND RELATED VEHICLES FROM U.S. PRODUCTION DURING THE PERIOD 1940-1945* Vehicle - Total Acceptances - First Acceptances - Final Acceptances Medium Tank M2A1 94 December-40 August-41 Medium Tank M3 4,924 June-41 August-42 Medium Tank M3AI 300 January-42 July-42 Medium Tank M3A2 12 January-42 March-42 Medium Tank M3A3 322 March-42 December-42 Medium Tank M3A4 109 June-42 August-42 Medium Tank M3A5 591 January-42 December-42 Medium Tank M4 6,748 July-42 January-44 Medium Tank M4A1 6,281 February-42 December-43 Medium Tank M4A2 8,053 April-42 May-44 Medium Tank M4A3 1,690 June-42 September-43 Medium Tank M4A4 7,499 July-42 September-43 Medium Tank M4A6 75 October-43 February-44 Medium Tank M4(l05) 1,641 February-44 March-45 Medium Tank M4A1(76)W 3,426 January-44 July-45 Medium Tank M4A2(76)W 2,915 May-44 May-45 Medium Tank M4A3(75)W 3,071 February-44 March-45 Medium Tank M4A3(76)W 4,542 March-44 April-45 Medium Tank M4A3(l05) 3,039 May-44 June-45 Assault Tank M4A3E2 254 June-44 July-44 3 inch GMC M10 4,993 September-42 December-43 3 inch GMC M10A1 1,713 October-42 December-43 90mm GMC M36 1,413 April-44 July-45 90mm GMC M36BI 187 October-44 December-44 90mm G MC M36B2 724 May-45 September-45 105mm HMC M7 3,490 April-42 July-45 105mm HMC M7BI 826 March-44 February-45 155mm GMC MI2 100 September-42 March-43 155mm GMC M40 418 February-45 September-45 8 inch HMC M43 48 June-45 September-45 TRV M31 509 December-42 December-43 TRV M31Bl 296 October-42 December-43 TRV M32 163 March-44 December-44 TRV M32Bl 1,055 December-43 May-45 TRV M32A1B1 37 May-45 August-45 TRV M32B2 26 June-43 May-44 TRV M32B3 318 May-44 December-44 TRV T14El 80 March-45 July-45 Prime Mover M33 109 December-43 February-44 Prime Mover M34 24 March-44 March-44 Prime Mover M35 209 January-44 June-44 Shop Tractor T10 (CDL tanks) 497 June-43 February-44 *lncludes conversions such as CDL tanks, 90mm GMC M36 series, TRVs, and Prime Movers M2 Tanks 94 M3 Tanks 6258 M4 Tanks 75mm 30,346 M4 Tanks 76mm 13,954 M4 Tanks 105mm 4,680 Total all M4 Tanks 48,980 M10 TD 6,706 M36 TD 2,324 M7 4,316 M12 GMC 100 M40 GMC 418 M43 GMC 48 TRV 2484 Prime Mover 342 CDL 497 NOTES: I took the liberty of using Excel to add up the sub categories. Sorry I can't figure out how to properly set up the columns here, but they are properly divided. For those who do not know, TRV is Tank Recovery Vehicle and Prime Mover is artillery towing vehicle, mostly for large artillery weapons like the 8" gun CDL was an acronym for "Canal Defense Light" which was a cover name given to tanks armed with a large searchlight under armor to be used to light up a night time battle for friendlies and blind the enemy.

Medals? I think they'd rather get a ticket to go home.

Do you play any games where shadows do affect concealment? Just curious.

Thaks Steve, that will even be nice for my IPad since the brown tends to wash out a bit in daylight.

Yes, have you looked at the repository? It's all there for you to ponder.

I'll be curious to see what changes they bring to C2 in the Russian Front. I'd guess the artillery won't be as freely on call but the pre-planned stuff will probably be awesome. Also look forward to the Russian SP guns, which were my favorites in many respects.

Rankorian - Can't say for sure this is what they did back then, but in the game I pull a two man scout team from each squad and send them out ahead to reconnoiter. That would account for the "operating in pairs" part of the manual...two teams on either flank, one on point in the middle. The squads provide the scouts but while they are scouts, they work for the platoon leader because he's the one with the most immediate need to know, so he can deploy the squads according to what the scouts report back. To the best of my knowledge, dedicated scout squads were only in the recon troop of the infantry division and in the mechanized recon troops of the mechanized recon squadrons. Otherwise they were an ad hoc thing.

Steve - just think what your kids or grandkids will be able to design with the technology they'll have by then. WW2 with the original cast! In 3D with direct sensory inputs. Game comes with a complementary 30 day vacation in your local VA hospital.

The later Shermans had "wet" ammo stowage which helped at least delay brew-ups unless of course a round managed to hit the ammo lockers. These models also had the ammo moved from the sponson sides (very exposed) to the turret basket floor where they were relatively safer. The change cost a few rounds (from 97 total to 91 IIRC) and required some fancy footwork in action on the loaders part. I suspect that the Sherman in the video was a wet variant because it did not burn quite as intensely and as quickly as did the Panther. In the video the Sherman clearly was smoking and starting to burn after it was struck, but nothing as catastrophically quick as how the Panther went up. It is clear from other photos that the Sherman was hit in the lower left side (as seen from the rear) of gun mantlet, right over the driver's position. The driver was unlucky enough to be driving with his hatch open and the fragments from the penetration apparently struck him fatally in the head. A hit in that location would also likely kill the loader instantly and indeed he did not survive. The commander, standing above and behind the gunner, lost his lower leg, perhaps taken off by the round as it ricocheted around the turret interior or by shrapnel in the turret and subsequently died from the wound. The co-driver was the only other survivor besides the gunner.

Yes, that exit button is a killer. I was in the Navy in 84-85 doing a temporary detachment on Diego Garcia with my P-3 patrol plane squadron. I was the maintenance officer for the det and just after we landed from the long flight from Thailand, I followed the pilot and plane commander into the briefing room so we could all go to the BOQ together after they debriefed. The two of them sat down at this complex computer sort of device with which they had to hand type an involved report called a "Purple" back to Fleet HQ, to tell them about how our mission went. It was important because en route we had actually spent some time tracking a Soviet sub we had been told about in the area. Anyway, these two exhausted aviators spent about 45 minutes laboriously hunting and pecking this report into the computer. When he thought he was done, one of them pressed a button and the other one suddenly said "oh sh!t you pressed exit instead of send." All that work, for nothing. The other aviator didn't say a word but as I watched this big beefy guy in a flight suit sit there, a little tear trickled down his face...I'm sure it was just dust got in his eye, yep, that's it. So yeah, that exit button has ruined many a day.

I just got what I consider a really nice ViewSonic 24" 1080p LCD Widescreen Monitor, (VA2431WM) for my wife from Walmart for $179. It has speakers and should show off your video card nicely. We've had it for about 2 months and I'm now jealous! http://www.walmart.com/ip/ViewSonic-VA2431WM/14301919

For anyone talking about tank vs tank and the effects thereof, this documentary footage from Cologne in 1945 is well worth watching if you have not seen it before. It shows a Panther KO'ing a Sherman and an M26 knocking out the Panther. This is very graphic actual footage so be advised. Another perspective from the Pershing's gunner and more background: This amateur researcher's site has details I'd never known before checking it out: http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html My point in posting this, which I'm sure many have seen, is to reach those who have not seen it. It is as close to the real thing as we are ever likely to get. Draw your own conclusions as to what it teaches us about tank warfare, but I hope that one of the ones you draw is that tankers (on both sides) really earned their pay.

Don't know what actual practice was, but they did have the option to wear the .45 in a shoulder hoster so it would always be with them. As you say though, there was probably often little time to pick up anything if you didn't already have it on you.

He did indeed leave us with a gem. Do we know he's gone for good or is it that we haven't seen him in a while?

Yeah, by the time the next installment of CM2 comes out, I'll feel like I've done my time in bocage he//, thank you very much.

Argie, thanks but I was looking for data if someone has run across it, that does not come from the Marshall studies.

Destraex1: No offense but it seems to me you are working on the assumption that all German tanks were Tigers and Panthers. Their most common tank quantitatively throughout the war was the Pz IV, which was equal to if not inferior in some respects to the Sherman. Yes, tankers were aware of the Sherman's limitations and did ask for something better, at least better armed. Up-armoring and adding wet stowage only went so far. The Sherman could have had a 76mm gun from 1943 production on, making it conceivable that every American M4 at Normandy could at least have had that gun, but the Army Ground Forces decided in its infinite wisdom that having it would tempt Sherman crews to fight enemy tanks when their primary responsibility was to support the infantry and exploit breakthroughs. And yes, Sherman crews had to be careful, savvy and lucky to survive. But they were very often able to defeat the weapons in front of them if they handled their tank well. And, as I've noted, every tank is a potential death trap if it's vulnerabilities are exposed. The Sherman, like the Mk IV simply had to be fought smarter (and have a bit of luck) to survive on battlefield. The way you speak of the Sherman makes it sound like there were other tanks that were invulnerable to the point where crews did not have to worry about their own survival. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the Sherman was the result of a very different mindset than the one that designed the Panther and Tiger. Again, thought the Sherman did fight tanks, it was not primarily designed to do so. That was the job of the TD's according to American doctrine at the time. Russians were of mixed emotions about the Shermans they got. Compared to the Valentines, the Shermans (and even the M3 Grants they got under lend-lease) were far more roomy and had tons of neat spares that came with them. They rode so well that the troops using them felt like they were riding Cadillacs compared to their own T34 and KV series. They liked the reliability and mobility of the Sherman and the M3. But they were not crazy about the gun or the armor, that is true. Just try to remember that no one set out to design "death traps" but the mindset that went into these designs had intrinsic flaws that were not apparent until they really got illuminated on the battlefield. By then it was too late and the tankers had to make do while the army tried to get its collective head together about how to resolve the problem. Panthers and Tigers OTH were from the start designed with tank to tank combat in mind. That was reflected in their superior armament and armor layout. But at the same time, they were not produced in anything like the numbers that the Sherman was. The USA had to fight two wars and the Germans really only had to deal with one continent. The tank designs in part reflect that reality. Were the German designs (apart from the Pz IV superior? Yes. But the Sherman was there in quantities the Germans could not conceive of. And Quantity has a quality all its own, they say.

I seem to recall seeing them in old Ordnance department photos of tank interiors, where the placement of all the controls, spares and accessories were depicted. Also have seen them strapped to turret exteriors in some photos. I doubt they were used much, except perhaps in a bivouac scenario. The tankers loved to pick up guns from wherever and if you look closely at contemporary photos you will often see Thompsons or other weapons slung from the exterior or sitting on top of the turret. Bailing out was a real possibility for these guys and I know that if I were one of them, I'd be tempted to liberate a grease gun or carbine if I was not issued one for the vehicle. As for actually using the tripod lugging it around with the .30 and its ammo, well, I doubt most tankers would bother since it would weigh them down too much. Again, its the old story of you are trained one way and behave in the field in quite another.