Shosties

A sharpshooter has no quiet means of getting information back to his unit while he is out of LOS other than making his way back and reporting, so it's a bit gamey to send him far out by himself and reap the benefits of borg spotting. {aside} It just occured to me that one can simulate radio-equipped dismount cavalry scouts by using an empty artillery spotter. This might be a useful trick for scenario design.

Calling all Uebergrogs... I recently did a spate of QBs playing as Finns and infantry-only and they were a real blast. In 1941 you can purchase sissi platoons (insert cheap pun here) which pack quite a lot of firepower at short range because they are primarily SMG-armed. I developed a taste for attaching a LMG team to each platoon to give them some organic base of fire (maybe gamey and ahistorical, but hey!). When I did a setup for 1944, also infantry-only and from an infantry division as before, they were gone. I find it a bit curious as the general trend (well at least for the Germans) as the war progressed was towards more use of SMGs. Is there a particular (real life) reason why sissi companies were dropped from the OOB?

Perhaps the shells issued for the Brummbar were shorter than the ones fired by the infantry gun, and being shorter they held less explosive filler. Making the shells shorter would make them handier within an assault gun and allow more to be carried. Well, that's my idea anyway. Is there a German arty ammo grog in the house?

Speaking of Rommel's book, those of you that have read it: has it provided you any insight into how to use infantry in CM? Boy has this thread come a long way from its original topic!

Take a close look at the pictures of the ISU-122 and the ISU-152. Notice anything? The gun barrel of the 122mm L/? A-19 and ML-20S cannon the ISU-122/ISU-122S sports is much longer than the barrel of the 152mm L/? D-25S. Longer barrel = more working distance for the expanding gasses of the burning propellent charge to accelerate the shell and hence generally a higher muzzle velocity. Two major factors in armor penetration are sectional density of the projectile (mass/longitudinal cross section) and the velocity. I'm not sure about the former, but the latter is defiantely going to be higher for the 122mm cannon all other things being equal. An analgous situation exists with German cannon... the Panther's 75mm L/70 is actually somewhat better for anti-armor work than the Tiger I's 88mm L/56. The King Tiger and Jagdpanther have the best.. the longer 88mm L/71. The 100mm L/56 D-10S cannon of the SU-100 was actually the best anti-armor weapon fielded by the Soviets during the war, but they had difficulty mass producing it apparantly. By the time the ISUs were fielded, there were T-34/85s, SU-85s, KV-2s, and eventually SU-100s to fight the armor battle with the big cats on more even terms than when the Tigers, Elephants, and Panthers first appeared (and the SU-152, **not the ISU-152**, developed its reputation). So the ISUs were mainly meant to serve as mobile direct fire artillery against infantry positions and fortifications. Because of this, the 152mm with it's greater weight of shell (higher blast value in CM) was preferred... but 122mm production was such that were plenty to mate to the ISU chassis so this was done. Both indeed could be potent tank destroyers, with the ISU-122 having an edge there, but that was not their main mission. Some online refs: http://www.battlefield.ru/su152.html http://www.battlefield.ru/isu122_152.html http://www.battlefield.ru/su85.html http://www.battlefield.ru/su100.html [ October 07, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

Playing out the exploits of Sturmabteilung Rohr and the young Rommel in Italy would certainly be interesting. Even within the scale of a CM-like game. My Cliff Notes understanding of the Western Front in WW1: Rapid-fire breech loading artillery and, to a lesser extent actually, the machinegun put an end to manuever for cavalry and traditional infantry on the battlefield, static warfare results. All sides grope for an answer to the deadlock: French: artillery destroys, infantry occupys British: as French, but then finding a technical solution in the tank Germans: independent squads and even fireteams, SMGs, LMGs, trench mortars, infantry guns, flamethrowers, smoke and gas shells and using all of the above in a coordinated and rehearsed manner. American: Uh, what problem? Fix bayonets, boys! The problem noone got around to addressing: OK, so you've cracked the enemies defensive depth in the target sector... you're leading wave is exhausted and is beyond artillery support, and the enemy is sending reserves to the breach by rail while your follow-on forces are slogging through shell-churned mud.... Offensive operational mobility (horse and foot mainly, especially across the shelled area) vs. defensive operational mobility (trains). Big mismatch there. Hence mechanization of forces (at least your spearheads) for WW2.

Linked to this through your post in the CMBO forum regarding the Rugged Defense tourny; nice AAR Nippy! :cool: Regarding the SU-152s, my impression is that the Russians utilized them in the AT role as an ambusher on the defensive. I hear you regarding shoot and scoot: slow speed + slow ROF is a major drag. On the offensive, the Russians preferred to let their tanks and SP AT (SU-85 and SU-100) engage panzers and leave the assualt guns to smash infantry and fortifications (which is why they liked the ISU-152 better than the ISU-122 even though the 122 had better armor penetation and more ammo). Here's my armchair suggestion: Make Group A and Group B an even split for your armor, each one having one platoon of the 34/85s in the lead and a SU-152 hanging back to provide heavier HE support when the coast is clear. As much as six SU-76s sound attractive, I like having big tubes handy... size does matter!

Hi Mom!

That and mechanical reliability is what I believe lead the CW forces in North Africa to nickname it the "Honey".

Someone not too long ago posted hereabouts or on the CMBB forum that Guderian said/wrote that the skirts were to protect the suspension from ATR fire.

RHA = rolled homogeneous armor

The most unfortunate thing about the Sherman in my opinion was that, once it was realized they needed to be upgunned, the Ordance Department settled firmly on the 76mm despite offers from the British to allow license building of 17-lbers. and the fact that a 90mm really could be fit in there (as proved by the M36B1 with the turret top).

In the CMBB demo, you're mostly dealing with lighter ATGs (37mm and 45mm) vs. tanks, so less havoc takes place when you manage to get a penetration. Play Citadel Schwerpunkt enough and you should see the occasional spectacular explosion+burn from lucky 45mm hits (I saw this happen once at ~500m on a Mk. IV). The KV-1S's should be able to achieve these too in favorable circumstances.

I agree with sage2 that high octane does not mean more explosive for gasoline. I'm afraid I will have to kick the other leg out from your post, Mikey. T-34s were apparantly infamous with their crews for exploding like a giant bomb if they did brew. Guards tankers issued Emchas (M4A2 lend lease Shermans) considered theirs' the safer ride in these terms. Not that they wouldn't brew, but that they would not explode and kill the crew that managed to bail from the tank and were pinned down by enemy fire underneath it or in the near vacinity. Dimitri Loza believes this was due to the sensitivity of the HE filler used in Soviet-made 76.2mm ammo compared to the filler in U.S.-made 75 and 76mm shells. In this interview he describes being pinned underneath his burning Sherman expecting to die at any moment from having the ammo explode. To his puzzlement and relief, he believes that he heard the propellent for the rounds cooking off but not the HE charges within the shells. So the T-34 *may* have been harder to light up than the Sherman, but if does light up, the results are far more catastrophic. [ October 03, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

Scenarios based of the exploits of the Sturmabteilung would actually be quite interesting. Attacks with Limited Objectives!

I'm not sure if this is just the demo or if this happens in full-up CMBB, but I've seen a tendency for tanks given the hull-down command to reverse into full defilade if they take a significant amount of fire after they reach position. Anybody else notice this?

Interesting test there, Michael. A general question regarding setting cover arcs for mulitple HMGs on the defense: does it make sense for your flank HMGs to sweep the opposite side? i.e. Right HMG covers the left, left HMG covers the right, center HMG overlaps both arcs in the center. I get the general impression this works somewhat better than all of them simply shooting ahead (the view from the recieving end in Yelnia Stare). Anybody got a link to a page dicussing sophisticated sustained-fire MG tactics?

American scientists at last uncover another secret Uberfinn combat technique!! Honeybee mine detection!! http://www.msnbc.com/news/812909.asp?0bl=-0 So, why have you guys been sitting on that one for so long, eh?

Actually, Shosties4th and I are going to play some other battles, we're both kinda burnt out on CE...although CE version 2 is a new ballgame, I've only seen the German setup (never played it) but it is *different* all right </font>

If you mean my comment to Fieldmarshall about my first runs through CE, no. Not so far as the church initally. I sent a couple of the tanks, some squads and zooks up to the houses. Not sure how things developed after that but I did have some Shermans left after the AI's STUGs were gone. [ September 24, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]

I actually used captured Finnish ones, maybe they behave better, but here is what I've seen:</font>

redwolf, What's cool about the Soviet tankettes?

Regarding the "hat tipping" tendancies of the T-34 this might be relevant. (Yup, quoting Loza again, I should find another interview shouldn't I? Was Loza commanding a W Sherman at the time? He got the impression the AP rounds were cooking off, could that have been something else? Did the HE rounds cook off too, but just the propellent and not the HE? :confused: Is "hat tipping" the result of an immediate, big secondary explosion of the HE ready ammo in the T-34? Kinda reminds me of the British battlecrusiers at Jutland... and the Hood.

So nobody's managed to give you a bad day with the schreks then I take it? *shrug* I had some sucsess the first couple of times I played the scenario by sending Shermans forward quickly, but then I started reading advice on the forum about Tophat and Lowsky and such. Trying to apply it my game went to hell. LOL What I do now is the result of reconstructing from that debacle.

My siting of M4s hull down for Chance Encounter, from left to right: one at the back edge of the left rear wheatfield one behind the two houses, or sometimes I put it on the spur of the road to their left and roll it forwards and back to engage/hide from targets on the ridge one in the depression behind the center wheatfield one (the platoon leader in the uparmored one) beside the road behind a small rise in the setup zone and the last one on that diagonal strip of low ground behind the scattered trees where it can go forwards and back to make/break LOS to the ridge. Since they have ample open space in front of them (or cover that I will sweep through), I don't feel the need for an infantry screen. Last time I played CE I lost the M4 that rolled out from behind the scattered trees to engage, but that was it. Knocked out the three STUGs piecemeal in the heart of the kill zone (clear space on the ridge right next to the woods I cede intially to the Germans) brewing two of them nicely. Nothing satisfies like presenting widely spaced threats to a turretless vehice and raining fire down on it immobilizing it, getting gun hits, and eventually a full KO. The key to the 75mm-armed M4 for the armor battle is volume and spread of fire in my book. When I started playing, I bunched my tanks like crazy as I played West Front and East Front II with my armor stacked up for local concentration. *LOL* Facing issues were handled very abstractly in those games (you could even turn facing off and have a single all-round defense factor). I quickly learned that bunching your tanks means they all have the same shot... which is naturally the front turret or hull slope of your enemy, right down his gun barrel! American optics mean you'll rarely hit on the first or even second shot at reasonable distances, so you need to play very cagey or you will burn. What I do now is look for the open spots from which enemy armor can appear and find the broadest possible spread of sites that are hull down (and further back, turret down) and have LOS to the spots. I also learned tanks operating singly are doomed, esp. those on 'overwatch', it's all for one and one for all unless you want to brew. If you can nurse your M4s though the armor/ATG phase of the battle, they save your infantry's bacon on the close assault. [ September 18, 2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Shosties4th ]