Mark Gallear

I may turn Runes account into a CM scenario to see if the game works or not but then he might have thought of that one already .

Wrong. I have watched many a close-in exchange of fire. A squad may throw none or many grenades, but the average appears to be 1-3 per turn. Probably depends on unit experience, casualties, morale, energy level, leadership bonuses and whatever. Also, I am convinced that I have seen casualties caused by grenades. The grenade went pop and the casualties immediately appeared on the unit information screen. This has been observed on more than one occasion. It's much harder to isolate grenades as a cause for routing, but I take it that they contribute to the cumulative effect of all firepower received by a unit during the turn. Michael </font>

Sorry I know I should just shut up and I know my post will not change anything but I thought I would have my little say on the grenade system. My understanding is that grenades would be used prior to an assault on a position – not one but a number would be thrown. So typically the squad comes a cross a trench system instead of engaging it in a fire fight they cannot win, they sneak forward under the cover of smoke or terrain until they get within grenade throwing distance and a number of grenades are thrown at the same time into the trench and then they rush forward and engage the survivors. In CM does not work like that – one grenade is thrown – from being on the receiving end, it is rare for even a single man to be killed or the unit pinned let alone routed. The infantry squad seems to have infinite grenades despite the display suggesting variable numbers are issued the icons never drop. Against vehicles it works much better, an infantry unit can disable a tank who dares to come to close to infantry. However, sometimes a unit will attack with grenades other times it will not. I have had an open top halftrack disabled in front of infantry unit and just begging for a load of grenades to be thrown inside but nothing happened. The squad had good morale, was in cover, nobody was firing at them but they just sat there! I think I would have preferred a system more illustrative of the effects and tactics, than one of working out the minute blast and arc of throw of a single grenade. If indeed it is calculated that way! [ February 10, 2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

I agree there are big time problems with the British and "Commonwealth" TO&Es On the Universal carriers - that’s what they are carriers - not Bren gun carriers or Boys mounts. The carrier is there to carry troops and equipment about if these soldiers had a Bren or a Boys they could fire them from under the armour. When they got to their destination, they would get out and take them with them. The current vehicles are a fudge to represent this. On the Boys there was a special carrier developed in the pre-war period for this which the British Army experimented with and decided they were not that keen on the idea. The remaining vehicles were sent to France in 1940 and lost there. There was also a "Bren Carrier" dropped before WW2 its name continued to be applied to the Universal carrier. I think the idea of the carrier as a weapons platform is a bit of pre-war created myth and the troop would normally dismount to fight. There was an AA section in the battalion equipped with Brens on AA tripod mounts they would frequently be fitted to the vehicles in the carrier platoon, and if the crew man stood up and exposed himself would add an extra Bren to the armament. So yes you could potential fire the Boys from the slit and the Bren from the AA mount at the same time. Neither is normal, however! There is carrier armed with a Vickers but much more normal to carry one. Only a few specialist formations were equipped with them. It is common to see vehicles in the first year of the Desert War with Vickers guns used as AA MGs. The Bren had just replaced it as the squad weapon, however apart from the HomeGuard far as I know there was enough Brens to go round to the infantry.

WHAT!!! We have got a modern Leopard gunner with a laser range finder and battle computer, thermal sites that believes a WW2 tank crew can do better than him! So pray tell where does this figure of 91% first hit with a Tiger at 1000 metres come from. Ok the Germans have got a sophisticated targeting site but you still have to guess the range – and at 1000 metres guessing wrong is going to make a big difference. Just read an account of Kasserine where the German tankers could not believe how stupid the Green US tankers where fire at long ranges, which they new they could not hit at! I personally think the chances of hitting especially at longer ranges are far to high in the CM system – a tank will slowly site his gun in from observing where his misses land could take 5-6 rounds at minimum to hit. Forgot the official do it in 3 of the British Army is a bit optimistic at over 1000 metres. The fact that the engine does not remember the last target and decrease the chance to hit is a big realism problem. A post war Example would be the clashes between Indian Centurions and Pakistani M60s. The M60 was state of the art with a ballistic computer, the Indian Armies Centurion was seen as basically an obsolete WW2 tank and its crews had being trained by the British Army to observe the fall of shot. Guess who won? Don’t believe I even joined in this debate!

I had a Mac when CMBB came out, and I had nothing to do with the Waffengrenadier issue (since I did not know the little factoid then). I am not sure why you infer that I had. I have no friends in high places either, but I am certain I know quite a bit about the British Army in WW2, and I am German. Nationality is no excuse for lack of knowledge. Sincere disinterest is though, and who could blame you. </font>

Well done JuJu - now how did you do that so fast - seems like you only got the game 5 minutes ago!

Don't think Mod Corner is big enough or "mainstream" enough for what is required. However if somebody wants to give it a go I will voulnteer my services to help out. Not a web hosting expert like WWB to know the pitfalls but can do HTML!

So it was Andreas who dreamed up the totally historic Waffen Grenadier thing then! Why mention it now when we are in Italy and I assume they are SS and not Waffen Grenadiers! Sorry not an expert on the SS being British! (I assume Andreas has friends in high places in America and has the BFC version of CMBB?)

I have some Mods on Mod Corner and an introduction to making simple Mods on Mod School. Be warned some of my useful mods could be considered done in "the best possible taste" category.

By God! Is Terry Pratchett an Englishman?! Dear Christ, my dear lad, my sincerest apologies! As you know, we here in the Colonies are not allowed to read the works of English authors except by express permission of the Crown! I abase myself in my contrition. Perhaps, Mr. Gallear, you would be...dare I ask? Oh, I must! Would you be so kind as to 'sponsor' me, so that I might read Mr. Pratchett's wonderful satires without fear of transgressing English law? I'd be ever so grateful. Please, sir, consider my heartfelt request! With your approval and support, I'd be legally entitled to re-read "Jingo", which would make me ever so happy! As for your almost bizarrely pointless reference to Americans needing flag mods, I've no clue as to 'what's going on in the land of the free'. Fill me in? I promise to listen for hours, with every indication of fascination, if only you'll do me the favour of helping smooth the way to my acceptance by English people. Do you know, deep inside, I've always thought that I had the heart of a true English gentleman! </font>

Despite the Terry Pratchett quote Mr Seanachai comes from Minneapolis ! However, even Americans seem to need German flag mods for some reason? What gives in the land of the free - Mr Seanachai? [ February 08, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

You probably won't notice by the time you're used to tea tainted by the taste of petrol from the cans you carry your water in! Many thanks for the note about the Vickers K. I am ashamed (blushes deeply) but, up until you set me straight, I had been confusing the Vickers K with the Lewis gun seen festooning SAS jeeps. Dumber than a box of spanners. That's me. Presumably if the Vickers K is the same as the infantry model just less the water jacket, so no changeable barrel, it must have suffered from overheating? [/QB]</font>

I just thought that some of you people might like to vist MOD Corner . (I bought my copy from Battlefront this time!)

I am glad Andrew is happy with the Machinegun modelling, on tanks. I am still unhappy. Not sure that I am arguing that the tank machinegun should be the same as a heavy machinegun or that water cooled MGs have a higher rate of fire or have some other advantage over the newer air-cooled types. (I hope not anyway!) The problem is we do not know how tank machineguns are treated in CM. Are they the same as LMG or Heavy Machineguns or do they have their own class? Are they different for different tanks and machineguns or are they all the same. My feeling is much more like the 7-9 point LMG than the more expensive HMG. (I am not happy about the LMG class at all with guns like the MG42, Bren and BAR designed to do different things – give high rate of area fire, give fire accurately at very long ranges, or be mobile on the assault or modelled, being differentiated.) Although I would not want t be seen as crawling or anything, I do think the CMBB infantry combat system is very good indeed - (Apart from the LMGs, close combat with grenades and hand to hand combat anyway!) Andreas is making some very good points. The hull machinegun range is short mainly because of its limited view but the mount would allow you to rapidly spray an area in the front of the tank, and the mount and pistol grip would make this very controllable. The crewman should be able to insert a new magazine/box or even belt by him self and probably in most cases do it very rapidly indeed. Co-axial machineguns are used at very long ranges like heavy machineguns. Not sure why Andreas believes the mount is not as good - once the turret and machinegun are moved to fire at a particularly point it will continue to do so. Not sure you can say the same for a tripod mounted HMG in which the gunner has to manually keep the gun on the target point. As the tank space is cramped - loading can be awkward, do not think that is necessarily an overriding factor though. The big compensation is that they can carry many more boxes of ammo than a crew served HMG can. I would have thought target acquisition and aiming at these very long ranges in the later tanks is in many ways more sophisticated as they have zoom sights. As for the modelling my perception from playing CMBB is that tank machineguns are fairly effective at close range against infantry in the open it will get them to rout from the tank but I not sure that is the effect a tank machinegun would really have spraying from the hull. Against infantry in cover such as forests or houses much, much less effective. Against AT and field guns you may get a pin but you probably won't get to kill or rout the crew unless its right out in the open. (I think that early MG armed tanks such as Pz I type tanks have their firepower greatly underestimated.) At long ranges beyond the 200m of normal small arms they are good at killing tank and halftrack crewmen and trucks. Against spotted field guns, pretty much a waster of time if you are lucky you might get a pin. Against infantry, forget it. This last point may be ok, as I do not believe tanks can spot infantry beyond 200m very well and even if they do they can hide very rapidly. If other units can see them does not mean that the tank can and that goes for HE from the main-gun as well. A case in point is the Cruiser MK II, IIA - the II has the old Water cooled Vickers HMG and the IIA the new air-cooled Besa. Both were used in the desert - no doubt with the II being upgraded to IIA standard. Not looked to see if CMAK treats them as different tanks but if it does the only visible difference will be in the name - although a Vickers MG icon is available it will not be used - you will just see the Browning tank gun icon for both. Is BFC telling us something? Sorry Michael had to rush - other things to do! Probably not up to my usual standards . A Quick Extra Note The Besa was a new gun just being introduced at the start of WWII. It replaced two types of Vickers MG used in tanks the .303 and a rarer .50 (used in the LT Mk VIB). I gather the infantry would probably have had their Vickers MG replaced with it but the Czech design could not be made to fire the rimmed .303 cartridge which the infantry had standardized on. The 7.92mm rimless was deemed to be unacceptable as it would have caused supply problems. [ February 07, 2004, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

I have had this one happen to me in CMBB. Sometimes they do just sit there and refuse to do it. Trying a new position and different angle could be good advice. (Last time it happened to me, I realised later that my opponent had stacked 3 or 4 mines in one spot! My men didn’t spot them all and sat there bemused.) Maybe some kind of bug? Also looking for a gap in the mines might be a good idea. If they are AP mines rather than AT - you can always try crawling through at worst you (should) only lose one man.

</font>

Looks like this one is going to be about as good as it gets. Do not think BFC are going to revise the British QB lists or added a Churchill III anytime soon if ever. I cut the length slightly. Revised version up on Mod Corner, the Proving Grounds and I have submitted it to the Scenario Depot. Many thanks to the people at the Proving Grounds, (especially GJK) who took the time to play it and comment on it. :cool:

I have a CMAK scenario Icon bar at Mod Corner as well as Von Luckes CMBB bar and others. If you send me your icon bars and hidden unit icons at my hotmail or even better my site address which is empty, I will put them up to join the collection. Make sure you say who you are in your email. [ February 04, 2004, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

OK then Sergei, I agreed to some extent with everything you said. (The period British Army perception of German MGs including the MG34 is that they are very reliable and good, the British Besa was one bit of British kit that was also considered good!) Do you: A) think that a tank MG 34 either in the hull or coaxial is much worse in performance than a tripod mounted MG 34 HMG? think that tank MGs are modelled correctly in the game i.e. as far as I can see - not all that effective even at close ranges against AT guns and infantry? Bare in mind that there is usually two of them letting lose in front of the tank. (Some British tanks – like the Valentine have only one in the turret which is subject to the dreaded gun kill!) I think if the tank MGs were a bit more deadlier than the lack of HE rounds in British tanks particularly in the early war period would not look so Monty Python goes to the Desert. And more importantly, I think it would be more realistic if they were deadlier! (Maybe this will happen in CM*2 or whatever they are calling it.) Gosh from all this info about the MG34 being a piece of Sh*t maybe it was possible to kill a Tiger by running round it and causing the gunner to have a heart attack from the exertion! (For Flamming Knives - if a 75mm Sherman HE round cannot kill an AT gun god help us - but in my experience they usually rapidly do once the AT gun has made its exact position known. I have read battle accounts from Normandy of the German AT guns supposedly using special smokeless rounds that didn't give their position away. Accounts of British tanks suddenly being knocked out without knowing where from in that campaign are very common.) [ February 04, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

I hoping they will bring CMAK to CMBB standards :eek: !

Aye - I have turned this into a serious thread about the game Model and it is no longer PENG for the BRITISH. "So yes, bigger is always better and you are correct that MGs are not totally useless. But I don't think it is correct to say that the desert tankers were better off without an HE round at their disposal." They noticed that one! - But where do you get this information that 37mm and 50mm He rounds are useful? Germans, Americans and Russians issued them certainly. British doctrine says not so is there some scientific evidence on this - I have found out that "Some" HE rounds were issued to Churchill 6pdrs in Tunisia and later to AT guns. So 57mm sort of all most there for British Doctrine. Suspect 50mm Short maybe a different breed to 6pdr AT specialist gun. Certainly (in my experience)the game model in CMBB of 37mm against AT guns does not make it out to be a miracle round. Closing to effective MG round usually makes the AT gun much more effective against the extra weight of fire the tank MGs should be putting out. quote: ii) CM underplays the effectiveness of tank MGs. Tank MGs come on an armoured and fixed mount... I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but as worded that statement is false. The only fixed mount MGs on tanks I can think of offhand were the M2A4 light tank, which only saw limited use in the Pacific, the M3 medium, and the JS-2 heavy. It was not a good idea, which is why it was not widely employed in other designs. AVF MGs tended to be either turreted (either coax or as main armament) or flexible. quote: Maybe I didn’t putting it very well but would have thought a tank mounted gun either in the turret or in a hull flexible mounting must be as good as HMG tripod or are they better at putting out rounds for some other reason? My perception of playing CM is that a HMG tripod machineguns are much, much better than bipod or tank or halftrack mounted MGs. Tanks might be slightly better than a 7 point bipod but thehalftrack MG42 is certainly as pathetic as a bipod and despite the gun shield and armour the gunner is rather more vulnerable. Maybe I’m wrong and have got the wrong end of the stick about what is happening in the game and that the tank MG is just as effective as its HMG cousin? Sitting behind all that armour and with stacks of ammo, I think I would have the confidence to keep my finger on the trigger. Ok jamming including changing the barrel, etc is not covered in tank mounted MGs by the game. (Maybe they should.) Tank MGs do tend to be slow firing reliable types – MG34, Besa etc. Did I make myself understood as to where I coming from Michael or is this really Peng for the British :eek: !

Yes, what Michael says is of course true - in a way - if the other tanks could deliver a decent sized round. What I am saying is: i) that we these AT guns designed to fire a small AP shot rather than HE they are not very good at doing HE so the tank relies on its MGs for anti-personnel work. Ok these are rather more limited in range but AT guns and infantry tend to pop up into close anyway. Hence the British Army decision. ii) CM underplays the effectiveness of tank MGs. Tank MGs come on an armoured and fixed mount and carry loads of ammo. Yet it s not necessarily suicidal for infantry to pop up in front of one. I also think the balance between tripod and bipod guns is too great. (CM is not the only system to do this one.) Look at the effectiveness of a .50 Browning HMG from a tripod compared with on a halftrack (and some halftracks come with gun shields.) Read the account in my Steamroller Farm scenario brief - (Cheap and nasty plug!) - at close ranges the Besas - were very effective in getting AT crews to rout a way from their guns even if they had gun shields. Ok, your Besa is not going to do you much good at 2000m when engaged by an 88mm but then even a Squadron of Sherman’s is going to be in deep do-do. (Sorry, make that Parrot sick.) (Grenade assaults at close range are also poorly modelled in CM but that is another story.) [ February 04, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

If you are talking about the 2pdr/6pdr (and for that matter the 37mm [bofors 2pdr] carried Portee is just a method of carrying the gun rather than towing behind. I would imagine it took longer to get the truck off the back then to unhitch it but these are small light movable At guns. They were used as adhoc SP guns - they could be fired from the truck from an ambush position, which could then speed off to the rear. You certainly couldn't hit anything from a moving truck as one player keeps popping up and suggesting and the truck is of course very vulnerable. This method resulted in the purpose built Deacon.

Oh my god does flaming knives actually agree with me :eek: !