gunnergoz

"Dammit Fritz, why do you keep dropping the mortar sight?"

When I was young, stupid and h0rny I overstressed a spinal disc while carrying a young lady upstairs for some fun and games. It had an...inhibiting effect on certain recreational athletics, lets say. And no, she was petite...I was just taking the stairs two or three at a time.

And maybe a "shoot only at infantry (or nearby AFV's if you have AT capability)" for the infantry and MG teams? Nothing like having your 30 cal MG open up at a German tank which, until then, had never noticed the MG's existence...

Heh, just noticed I hit 2000 posts with that one. Where's my kewpie doll?

OK, never saw it, couldn't stand the premise. Thanks though, it makes sense now if it refers to some comedic mortar section commander.

OK, I'll bite. Mulligan? I googled Mulligan and got a golf term. Movie? Someone said it was a movie...and yes, there is some chick flick about the Mulligans. Sorry, I'm just not getting the reference. Care to let me in on the joke?

Cool, didn't know that until now.

Nothing like having an open mind.

Learn something here every day...

Don't you hate it when that happens? I stand corrected So there was one US WW2 mortar round with a TD fuze: http://www.90thidpg.us/Equipment/Weapons/81mmShells/M56/index.html

Actually, I have to side with Michael on this...I know delay fuzes were standard fare on artillery other than mortars, but US WW2 60 and 81mm mortars used the M52 PD fuze which was impact detonation only. I am not aware of any US time delay mortar fuzes that were in widespread use in that period. Postwar, I'm sure you are correct, the mortar fuze technology advanced a lot and that time delay fuzes were eventually introduced. Here's some links: http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa5/6081/60mm.html http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/72548-Question-60mm-US-WW2-mortar

The Germans did flood fields, partly to impede airborne and glider assaults and partly to channel armor and vehicle movement. A number of airborne guys were killed by drowning in those swamped fields.

I had the impression that in the demo "hunt" meant look, and when you see something enemy, stop...and maybe, if you have opportunity, engage. The trouble is, when the opportunity to fire goes, the tank stays immobile, a perfect target. I would prefer it resume its movement on the plotted "hunt" path. BFC: possible?

One thing that is interesting to do is to start the scenario and go over your units one by one with the T key and look at just what their lines of sight actually are. I was surprised for instance with the quite limited lines of sight of the two US AT guns in the scenario with the Panthers. I moved them around but they still had limited arcs that more or less had them firing at enemy frontal armor, which is less than optimal obviously. The one on the right never got off a good shot before it was destroyed, while the one on the left got only one armored car which wandered too far into the open field near the crossroads. My point: check out actual lines of sight this way and you might be surprised. It might account for some of the issues spoken of here and in other threads.

So far, my mortars have been accurate both on direct and FO observed fire. If there is a glitch, I suspect it is related to loss of FO LOS to target. It seems you need continuous, uninterrupted LOS for the FO calling in the request (to direct the fire and give feedback to the mortar section, presumably) or else the rounds may wander.

Here's some WW2 data from the US Army Office of Medical History: link: http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter1.htm

FWIW a post from this forum: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=46534&highlight=causes+battle+casualties says this:

One more reason I only play against AI.

From what everybody is saying about the Rambo tank crews, maybe we should just dismount them from the Shermans and let them lead the infantry assaults. But to tell the truth, I can see how scenario scripting could lead to something like this but there needs to be some balance to it so that, once dismounted from a disabled AFV, they become "highly motivated to report to the rear echelon." On the other hand, deliberately dismounted scout car and recon jeep crews should be able to stick around, scout on foot and report what they observe and not just hightail it back to the rear. I hope they can finesse this some at the programming level.

One per squad? Dream on. Actual medics were usually assigned two per company, so if you were lucky your platoon might have one nearby. Nowhere near as many medics were out there as one would think from watching the movies but they did a heckuva job and paid a big price for it. Here's a nice breakdown for one regiment: http://www.30thinfantry.org/medics.shtml

To be fair, a WIA is a form of combat loss, whereas dismounted tank crews were not really losses (unless WIA or KIA in the process) for they could easily go back to the rear and pick up another Sherman from ordnance reserve stocks. I say they should be counted as surviving troops. Their damaged/destroyed AFV is already counted in the win/loss column so why double count the crew as well?

Sherman Gunner to TC: "Hey Sarge, I thought he was one of ours! He was full of holes."

I did see a photo of one officer in Normandy with a custom made carbine bayonet, so maybe he wasn't the only one. Maybe he had a secret factory! And made Bren tripods on the side!

Gutsy, but not very realistic. Fluke or feature?

Nice to hear from them from the "real world" that has BTDT and got the T-shirt to prove it! Thanks for your service, gentlemen!