Zitadelle

It would be a good option, but considering the current functionality of the CM scenario naming and listing, I think it would take some additional design/development work and possibly a change to the CM scenario process (maybe even affecting all of us). Currently, the CM scenarios are listed alphabetically by name- and the name used is the same as in the file name (look within the CM\Scenarios directories). To get CM to sort the scenarios both alphabetically (basically existing *.CM(*) file name) and by date would pursuing a different option; including: 1) A nasty process, where CM internally launches all *CM files and determines the date and then re-displays the files in a date order. Of course, the more scenarios a player has loaded the longer this could take. 2) BFC changes the naming scheme for the files to include a date value within the structure. Then the module that lists the scenarios would need to be modified to understand the new naming scheme. Of course then all scenario authors would need to follow the same methodology- otherwise you have scenarios just hanging onto the end of the list. 3) BFC creates a new file structure for scenario files where the date is easily separated and the module that lists the scenarios can easily pull out either the scenario name or the date. It is no longer necessary to use the file name for the name of the scenario (e.g., scenarios could be called SCEN001.CM*- the information for name and date would be within the file- not the filename). In either case, the scenario listing GUI would also have to be enhanced to support 'List By Name' and 'List by Date' buttons. These were just some quick ideas, and I am not saying that it couldn't be done. I'm sure the BFC guys could easily come to a decision and implement it in a patch. On the other hand, there are other things that could be added (such as setting ground conditions in scenarios/QBs different than the weather) that would have more value. Or, just more 3D models....

I am impressed with many aspects of the demo- I can't wait until I get my hands on the full version. As for the above quote, I found an interesting use of fire while playing the Yelnia scenario. The Russians were advancing through the brush towards the woods. I started by dropping 81mm and 50mm mortar fire on their position; which started two small fires at the back of the brush. Meanwhile the Russians continued the advance. As they closed on my positions, I opened up with the MG34s effectively pinning the majority of the force. Now, the fire starts to spread- effectively sealing off the Russians ability to withdraw. So, I have the Russians pinned with MG fire and fire to their rear (which is continuing to spread). The end result was amazing to watch. Yes, provided fires spread correctly- they will be your ally. I can see a CMBB tactic coming into play that is very similar to fighting a forest fire. You start a back fire behind your enemy and take away his escape routes. Of course, I guess fires can also be the death of you if they spread the wrong way.

I agree, I remember seeing a few screen shots awhile back, and they were beautiful. At least IMHO. Perhaps you guys(if it's not to much trouble)could post a couple of screen shots of some of those bad boys. I'd like my son to see how a model is supposed to be done. </font>

Two things related to CMBB on-line advertising: 1) Any ideas of advertising on Missing-Links? During the Winter, you co-sponsored with Missing Links the CMBB Modeling Contest- which from my understanding went quite well. Now, that the demo has been released (and the full version forthcoming?), any thought about advertising on the Missing Links web-site. I would think that the armor-grogs over there would really like CMBB. BTW, I almost posted messages across their Discussion Groups regarding the release of the CMBB demo. But, I thought better realizing how annoyed you get with forum raids (e.g., General Icky Copy) and that you should probably breach the subject with Missing Links. 2) And on other note, the backwards 'R' returns! Earlier today I visited the Gamespot web-site and they had an advertisement for CMBB and the demo. Unfortunately, it was the infamous backwards 'R' version. Don't they have the most recent image? Or, are they using that image to connect with their 'kewl klick-happy krowd'? [ September 06, 2002, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

Set up an MG behind your frontline and area fire where you have cowardly troops. I'm sure that the "friendly fire" will cause a few casualties- thus getting rid of your cowards.

Thanks Gordon. Let's see if I can contribute to the CM community beyond just a few posts on the forums. And, I will get some experience in PhotoShop and Corel PhotoPaint. I was planning on including the other nation's markings as well; I have a few good sources in my library that I hope to scan and use. As for Air Recognition markings, I was planning on trying to model Russian markings throughout the conflict. Apparently, they were used for all of the Great Patriotic War- starting with a cross painted on the turret at the beginning and concidently ending with a cross painted on the turret at the end. Of course, we will need to capture images of the German flag for their recognition markings (have some ideas for sources on good weathered flags...).

"All Quiet on the Western Front."

Gordon- I would be willing to be part of the Pig Pen. I know that there are quite a few vehicles that would need modding. So, include me on the e-mail distribution list (see profile). I am new to the skills of modding (only tried a few minor changes for my own usage), but I am willing to learn and contribute however I can. Plus, I am hoping the veterans could give a "modding-newbie" some pointers/advice. As I stated before (in another thread), I tried to add slogans, but it did not work out with the single turret bitmaps. However, I am not out of ideas, and I would like to include those in some of the mods. These simple ideas include: 1) Eastern Front specific unit markings; example: the 2nd SS Panzer Division "Springender Teuffel (gnome)" on the Kursk Tigers. 2) Air recognition markings: the stripes on the Russian tanks during the Berlin '45 campaign. 3) Weathering and Battle damage to fenders; examples: T-34s missing front fenders and IS-series tanks and SPGs missing complete fenders (especially on the right side...). [ September 05, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

One more thought in reference to "logs". I have fired numerous rifle and handgun rounds through logs the diameter that are on the sides of the photographed StuG III. Somehow, I don't think that that diameter is really going to stop, or even slow down, a 75mm round.

An opinion that is becoming more prevalent amongst the military historians- like Jentz and Zaloga- is that the addition of sandbags, logs, concrete, tracks, or what-have-you does not actually provide additional armor protection. They argue that the only advantage added was an improvement in morale as the tankers felt that they had additional protection. Moreover, both Jentz and Zaloga have gone further by stating that in some cases the addition of supplmental armor was acutally detrimental. The example that Jentz provides is with the PzKW VIB (KingTiger) and the mounting of spare track links on the side of the turret. The Germans initally mounted the tracks on the side in the hope that additional protection would be provided. However, when the tested this they discovered that armor pentration was actually improved when it hit the track links. The German command immediately recommended that the practice of mounting tracks on the side of the King Tiger's turret be dis-continued. Jentz stated that the German test did not speculate why pentration was improved. Jentz has continued by discussing the mounting of tank tracks on the PzKW III and PzKW IV- hanging from the front lower hull- as well. Steven Zaloga gives the example of the notorious "bedsprings" (which they actually were not, but fabricated in the field...) mounted on the sides of the T-34/85 and IS-2 in the Berlin city fights. These were to serve as Panzerfaust shields. Unfortunately, they were only mounted a few inches from the side of the hull/turret. The distance was too close, and when the shield was hit by a panzerfaust the shaped charge detonated earlier, and had just a little extra space to create a better HEAT blastcone before contact with the armor. The result was better pentration of the armor. So, in this case supplemental armor actually was a detriment. This case was very similar to the result created by the TOW II warhead (1980s ATGM) where the detonator was mounted at the end of a rod in front of the warhead. The warhead detonated before contact with the armor and created a better blastcone. So, the value of supplmental armor is current in dispute, and the "uber-grogs" are arguing that it only helped tanker moral- not the actual effectiveness of the armor.

That is a rear view of either an ISU-122 or ISU-152 assualt gun; can't tell because they were the same vehicle with a different gun. Anyway, the sides of the assualt gun are symmetrical- probably the angle in which the screenshot was taken creates the illusion that the sides are not symmetrical. Indeed they are. On other note- any official word from the BFC uber-guys? I know you are busy (and probably don't have time for such a trival response), but I had just loaded the cyrillic fonts into Corel PhotoPaint8 and was looking forward to painting some slogans.... [ September 04, 2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Zitadelle ]

My goal is to start issuing mods with less Russian stars (not that common in the field) and more slogans. Plus, the slogans open up CMMOS possibilities and all sorts of fun ( "Death to the Fascist Occupiers!" ) I just tried an experiment with modding the turret sides to include Russian slogans. I took Tiger's KV-1 mod (thanks Tiger- great work), and tried to add the cyrillic slogan: "Stalin" on the side of the turret. When I fired up the CMBB demo, the right side had the text displayed correctly, but the left side displayed the text backwards. So, in the final version is there going to be bitmaps for both sides of the turret, or are the turret bitmaps the same as in CMBO? (Unless of course, the turret has differing details on each side.) Please answer my comrades don't want to be half dyslexic. By the way, thanks guys for an excellent forthcoming game. I just downloaded it yesterday, and was thoroughly impressed. The CM world has definitely changed- and for the better. (Also, other than a new paint job that T-70 in the bones looks a little familiar...).

The corrrection cometh. The Brummbar was developed after the German experience in Stalingrad (S. Zaloga). The Germans did realize, however, that they needed a large gun (bigger than the 105mm) SPG in an armored casemate- something they did not have at the time. So, they created 12 "Sturminfanteriegshultz". These comprised of a 150mm howitzer mounted in an armored casemate on a PzKW III hull. If I remember correctly, most- if not all- were lost in the Stalingrad campaign.

The later IS-2s did have three MGs, and I am not counting the versions that had the externally mounted 12.7mm DsHK machine gun on the commanders cupola. These are: 1) The typical co-ax MG with the 122mm gun. 2) A MG mounted in a flexible mount at the rear of the turret. 3) A fixed MG mounted next to the driver's station. This was similar to the MG mounts found on the M3 Grant/Lee series; it was a fixed forward facing MG, and intended for use by the driver. The latter two (2-3) can be seen in this image: IS-2 detailed interior view-2 Further views of the fixed mount can be found on subsequent detailed views on this site.

I think the goal of CMBB is to create a computer wargame that reflects reality as closely as possible. If that results in software that appears to be balanced toward the "defense," then my answer would probably be that is possibly a sign of reality. Much like most good wargame simulations (e.g. Larry Bond's sea combat miniature wargames, and the Empire series for Napoleonic warfare), the goal is not to create a "balanced" game, but a game that models reality and the players can use the tool to re-create battles with the tools that the acutal combatants had. The challenge then falls back to the player to find the tactics and strategy that will work- not worry about the fact that the forces, setup, and rules are not balanced. Yes, defense will probably be harder to overcome. I think that is commonly the case in reality (forces typically require greater odds at the spearhead of an offensive). Also, it will fall back to the commander (you as the player) to figure out what works and what does not. As for me, I am looking forward to the increase in realism.

I am more of a US microbrew fan- so from the beer perspective it will be India Pale Ales (IPAs), Sierra-style Pale Ales, and Stouts. Probably, at least one Russian Imperial Stout, like: Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout Also, to toast the BFC guys- it will be Oban Scotch. Of course, if the wife is around, we will have to have a glass of red wine. Then, she will roll her eyes, mutter something under her breath, and walk away (at least she will have the wine...). So, during the first weekend of CMBB play contact me about mid-Saturday for a game of PBEM I should be drunk enough to accurately portray a lousy Russian general of 1941.

(Source _The Red Army Handbook: 1939-1945_, Steve Zaloga; multiple pages paraphrased). No. The T-60 was not measurable in unit TO&Es into 1943. By analyzing the TO&E tables and Zaloga's textual discussions, a reader comes to the conclusion that the T-60 was not to be found in unit structures beyond the Summer of 1942. The T-60 is found in the Spring/Summer 1942 TO&Es- as defined by 'Nos 10/370-380 for the 1942 Tank Corps. And, even then the tank corps' organization is a combined T-60/70 deployment. By the Fall of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, the light tank structures are primarily organized around the T-70. The light tank units in the 1943 Tank Brigade TO&E (Nos 10/270-277) use the T-70 for its small tank; no mention is made for the T-60. Incidently, Zaloga makes the reference that the Russians were losing, "2,000-3,000 tanks a month during the mid-year, and only declining to about 1,000 per month for the rest of the year." Furthermore, the Tank Brigade organizations that were initially formed in September, 1942 used T-70s for their organizations. By January, 1943 the Tank Brigades were dis-continuing use of the "less capable T-70 light tanks" and replacing them with the T-34. And finally, for the independent tank units the light tanks were to be maintained in the TO&Es up to 1944. The T-60 was used through 1942 (in combination with the T-70); with the T-70 fully replacing it in the TO&E by 1943. "In February, 1944, the light tanks were dropped completely from the organization...." As for production figures, in the Summer of 1942, "...the little T-60 was dismissed as being nearly useless; its small 20mm gun and its thin armor made it a toothless death trap.... Although light tanks were not popular, the automotive plants manufacturing them could not produce medium tanks, so the T-60 was replaced by the slightly larger T-70 whice was armed with an inadequate, but better, 45mm gun." Thereafter (as stated above), the T-70 production was ceased by January, 1943 and the automotive plants began manufacturing the SU-76; and the SU-76M starting in Spring, 1943. The T-60 and T-70 production lines were complete by the beginning of 1943.

I would probably agree that it was common to have T-70s in TO&Es through the remainder of 1943; however, by 1944 I am sure that attrition was making them uncommon. I would have to argue that the T-60 would not have been a common sight after 1942. The Russians realized how useless the tank was in combat, and production had ceased by early 1942. Moreover, T-60 losses from combat (especially with the losses during the Spring/Summer, 1942) and attrition would have definitely been adding up and without replacements it would have been rare to see units organized around the light tank. Does anyone have any data on the organized use of the T-60 after the beginning of 1943?

Vader- Just forget the demo, and go out and buy the thing (especially for $30 at Best Buy). If you liked S:TW, you must get this one. It is truly amazing. (Heretical statement- the CMBO disk came out of the drive last week and has been replaced...).

I would probably make a few amendments to the Russian listings, and I will primarily examine the role of the lighter vehicles produced by the auto factories: the T-60, T-70, and SU-76. On the production lines, the T-60 was fully replaced by the T-70 in Spring, 1942 when the Russians realized that it was an under-strength and useless deathtrap. Up to that point nearly 6,000 of the little critters were produced. The T-60 was typically not in the TO&Es of Red Armored units beyond the end of 1942 (more commonly by Summer, 1942 they were phased out due to losses). Production of the T-70 models continued until the end of 1942 (SU-76 production began the first of January, 1943). By 1943, the Red Army began to use the T-34/76 in the role of the T-70. However, units were still equipped with the T-70 through mid-1943 (they did appear during the Kursk battles). In addition, I would add the SU-76 prior to 1945. This SPG was the second most common armored vehicle after the T-34 series in the Red Army. The auto factories that could not build the heavier tank hulls, built this little support beast (after the discontinuation of the T-60/70). Production began in January, 1943, and continued until the end of the war (2,000 in 1943, 7,000 in 1944, and 3,500 in 1945). Finally I would include the SU-85 and SU100. The SU-85 first battle appearance was September, 1943 and it continued on the production lines until Spring of 1944 when it was replaced by the SU-100. Total production figures for both were about 2,000 and 1,600 respectively.

The T-70 didn't have multiple turrets; only one with a 45mm gun and co-ax MG.

Check out bone #6 on the first page of the CMBB gallery (the BFC website). It is the halftrack in the background; on the crestline and between the two Matildas. Basically, it was a US M3 halftrack equipped with a quad .50cal gun mount. BTW, I think the imagine also has a Valentine in the far right background.

So, let me get this straight. You want your company of T-34/85s to destroy only one out of ten Mk IVs on the battlefield? [From the literal translation of the Roman term 'deci'- (tenth) mate.] That doesn't sound very exciting. As for the Ostfront tanks that I am looking forward to- the list is far too long and will change depending on the year I am fighting. here are some- 1) Starting with BTs and T-26 against PzKW IIs and early PzKW IIIs. 2) Then, the ill-formed Russian combined tank regiments of KVs, T-34s, and T-60/70s in '42 against PzKW IIIs with the 50/L60 gun. 3) The PzKW III "Struminfanteriegesfchultz" in the Streets of Stalingrad. 4) Followed by T-34s against a German defense long-range AT gun assets (including the Nashorn...). 5) Then T-34/85s against Panthers and Tigers. 6) Finally, the ISU-152 and IS-2 supported by a re-inforced assualt company in the streets of Berlin.

Remember, the Maxim was literally a copy of the German Maxim gun from World War I. It would look nearly identical to the weapon of the "War to End All Wars." The wheels on the Maxim probably did not add that much for mobility. It helped with level ground (and paved- even better), but in your typical combat conditions the small wheels did not really help. And, they probably added additional weight for when you had to carry the damnable thing. Yes, the Russians used the classic Mossit-Naggat (sp?) bolt-action rifle through the war. Starting in 1942, the Red Army modeled the triangle structure (platoon through corps) for unit organization; so the advantage of having four squads disappeared. In my opinion, Steve Zaloga's book _The Red Army Handbook: 1939-1945_ presents an excellent overview of the changing structure of the Red Army through the Great Patriotic War. He presents multiple TO&Es for the various organizations that the Soviets had for their units.