Jump to content

CombinedArms

Members
  • Content Count

    1,363
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CombinedArms

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • Location
    Oneonta, NY 13820
  • Interests
    Military History
  • Occupation
    Professor
  1. A platoon of infantry in halftracks can sometimes be effective in applying the coup de grace to an enemy position that is almost but not quite overwhelmed. At the point when decide to send them in--they've been comfortably resting out the battle behind cover to this point-- you're sure you've taken out all the AT assets within line of sight and your footsoldiers have fought the defenders to the point of collapse--but maybe your men are starting to stagger a bit, too, and their ammo is getting low. If, at this point, you rush in your reserve platoon in half tracks, landing them in cover
  2. Tigrii, Like Redwolf, I'm puzzled by your claim that it's "unikely" for the defender to have "a shielded lateral movement area behind your MLR." I pretty much always have such an area (or areas) and construct my MLR in such a way to be sure I have it. Sometimes it comes from trees, sometimes hills, sometimes buildings (or often a combination of the three) but one test of the positioning of an MLR is that it provide for that shielded lateral movement in the rear area, along with covered lines along which reinforcements can move forward and attacked units can retreat. Covered lines of
  3. The thing that really bothers me is that routed units so frequently run TOWARDS the enemy, not away from it. I don't know what the statistical likelihood of this might be in actuality, but it certainly happens far too often in CM to be plausible. It breaks the sense of realism of an otherwise highly realistic game to see all three squads of a platoon at the edge of a woods break in succession and run across the open towards the enemy when all they really have to do is fall BACK a few yards into the forest to achieve safety. If I could change one thing about the current game, it would be to eli
  4. I would tend to agree that the 150mm is too cheap. However, 40% rarity cost helps with that a bit. I don't play a lot of PBEM QBs (I favor scenarios), so the cost issue doesn't have practical consequences for me, but if I did play QBs, I'd consider banning the 150s as a house rule. I don't think they were used much on the line in actual battles, were they. You'd be more likely encounter a 150mm if you overran a rear area? In any case, I'd think it would be considere a major asset, worth a lot more than 50-some points. They certainly can turn a game around if they can manage to stay alive, a
  5. I think it's definitely true about the bang for buck when fighting German armor. You get the 76mm gun (not great in all respects but better than the 75) for less than the cost of a vanilla Sherman. You do sacrifice all-around armor, MGs and mucho HE, however. The Sherman 75 is definitely much better at fighting infantry. If you know you'll be facing mostly German tanks, I'd go for the TD's. I'm mostly a scenario player, so I'm in this to learn the best tactics to play with what I get.
  6. Thanks. This is cool info. It looks like a serious effort was being made by Jan 45 to replace the M10 with the M18 and M36. Mostly the more veteran units are getting the M36. That's what I would have wanted if I were driving one of these things...
  7. No problem, Redwolf. And it isn'tt really the thickness of the turret, it's the slant: only 57mm for the turret but at a 45 degree angle. The upper huil is only 38mm but at 55 degrees. It's the lower hull that's useless (51mm/10 degrees). I've been accustomed to think of M10s as paper-thin, but my accidental discovery is that they can handle the 75/L48 if you keep them hull down and increase the range. Again this particularly works against the PzIV because of its vulnerable turret (just the obverse of the M10). At shorter ranges, the M10 becomes vulnerable to the PzIV. Actually, the
  8. Well, yes, of course, but that's not really what I was talking about, now, was it? I wasn't talking about duking it out with Tigers--which is hazardous for anybody's health. I was talking about killing PzIVs at long range. The key point, in my mind, is that the M10 has pretty good survivability vs. the PzIV (et al's) 75/L48 at ranges of 1000m and above. My "mini-AAR" was already approaching treatise length, so I didn't add the point that you might want to know a little bit of what's out there before you go hulldown. A Tiger or Panther or lurking 88 is still going to be trouble. But
  9. I've never given the US M-10 tank destroyer a whole lot of thought, but I've recently been doing some experiments with the US 76mm gun, which I've discussed on the CMAK forum, and made a discovery that I found interesting. I was frustrated with the cost of the 76mm Shermans relative to their killing ability vs, Panthers, in particular, and some folks recommended the Hellcat. I had fun with a Hellcat vs. Panther AI battle (many Hellcats for the cost of a few Panthers) and thought to run another ME QB of that type. This time, I let the Axis pick its own tanks (armor only). But I had variable rar
  10. Did anyone besides me manage to complete "Bump" as Allied commander without making any contact? I exited my entire force that way by hugging the edge of the rocky ravine after transiting the board from my far left. Fortunately for me, my opponent didn't block the escape route. And how did those who got big positive scores as Allies in Bump find a way to manage it. I wanted to avoid contact because of the full exit requirement and also because my units had such crappy attack values. Side note: one thing about that bridge in Melon is that it's a heavy or stone bridge. Those are very, very di
  11. As Allies I first of all tried the blitz down the road approach and wound up with many burning vehicles--my opponent had set up his Pak40 and dug in PzIII to frustrate that strategy. That pushed me to take to thescattered trees with both my infantry and armor and that worked out much better for me. It was probably sheer luck but few of my vehicles bogged and none was immobilized going through the scattered trees. I thought this was a great scenario and clearly the class of the tourney. I wouldn't want to see it changed much... And please, please maintain the chance of allied suprise with th
  12. I think there's a strong context element to briefings. In some battles, the opposing units have been in contact for a long time, or the enemy position has been heavily scouted, or prisoners have spilled the beans, so a lot is known. In other contexts, one might have bad intelligence or be performing recon on an unknown location. So I think we have to allow for variation. Also, scenario's have different difficulty levels and for a really hard attack--or one based on an elaborate historical plan--and there the designer might give one a more detailed briefing. I have noticed a trend toward mo
  13. How does this tactic avoid making pincushions out of the PzIIILs? Grants and Shermans can generally KO any PzIII and the PzIII has trouble striking back. So I'm surprised you escaped with no tank loses in this situation.
  14. Slappy has it right. The poor Ambush function in CMBO is just one of the many, many reasons to progress to CMBB and CMAK. Both of these games feature the much improved cover arc command to replace the admittedly lame ambush command. If you want to play the west front get CMAK. It's really not just for North Africa and Italy. You can fight your way through northern France and Germany as well. The only reason I can conceive of to still be playing CMBO is if your computer lacks the muscle to run the newer games. But if it does, you deserve a new computer.
  15. I got the impression from the visual representation that daisy chain mines covered a smaller area than regular (hidden) anti-tank mines. Perhaps there was just enough room for the armor to maneuver around the minefield? Either that or your opponent was very lucky. </font>
×
×
  • Create New...