BadgerDog

Our M4A2E8 Sherman had gyro-stabilization for elevation on 76mm master weapon only. It was primarily designed for firing on the move. All firing on the ranges was done level while sitting on concrete pads and stationary. MTR (mechanical target range) fire and movement was on regular ground, but it was often just flat terrain and "hull downs" on even ground. Anytime the driver got us into a more then a few degree tilt (I can't remember the exact amount), it was a really tough to use the horizontal reticule lines in the sighting telescope for setting longer ranges. Often we'd have to get him to "jockey" back and forth to get the gun platform (and sighting pattern) level for longer range shots. Up close and personal was easier as we would be using the bore sight "+" in the scope and it would be pretty accurate regardless of what angle we were leaning on. Dug in units would have taken the time to level their gun platform using the "bubble" and certainly would have sighted in pre-registered targets, recording them on what we used to call a "Range Card". Does this help? Regards, Badger [ May 12, 2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Hi Meach... I answered a similar question in another thread. Tank Brigade Sizes

We were trained to stay out of craters in our Shermans. The primary reason was that they often caused lateral (horizontal axis) angular offset with the sighting telescope. In other words, the tank would be sitting slightly tilted one way or another. You simply couldn't hit much beyond bore sight (800 yards) range because the reticule pattern in the scope was tilted. I don’t think this is modeled in CMBB, as I've had tanks sitting on the side of slopes (look like Swiss cows... ) and they seem to sight and fire at long ranges as if they were on flat ground. A good driver would work really hard to try and take up a fire position that would keep the master weapon platform as level as possible. Regards, Badger

Toronto ... arrived today in mail... Thank you Battlefront... Outstanding Customer Service... Regards, Badger

Hide them.... It makes them harder to spot with the trade-off that supposedly it's harder for them to spot the enemy from their hiding position. Personally, I've never noticed a great deal of difference with their spotting ability when hidden and they DO engage when their arc is compromised. Also, pay attention to the "stealth" bonus of the HQ in command of the ambushing units. The stealthier they are, the better the ambush you can spring if you pick the right kind of ground. Regards, Badger

True, but the way I looked at it was simpler. If I can help and motivate a small six person business to continue to develop and sell a specific genre of game style, that gives me untold hours a week of really enjoyable entertainment value with a great bunch of PBEM people, then I have no problems contributing to their continue fiscal health by buying a second, or even a third box. Heck, I'll give it to my grandson... of course, he's only two years old, but at least it will give me a PBEM opponent I can finally beat. I realize that not everyone can financially do that, but I think that everyone here contributes to something we all enjoy in their own way. Some do great mods, some do fabulous technical research and post here, some answer questions from newbies and help them learn the game, while I just take all of that and benefit from everyone. So, I have no problem giving a something back that I can afford, in the hopes that CMAK and CM 2 continue making our Combat Mission gaming world a whole lot more fun for several years to come. Regards, Badger

Thanks for the update... appreciate the work... Couple of things... 1. When selecting the color tracer options, after hitting apply I get something called a "Tbar error"? and nothing else happens except I'm no longer able to use "Apply" command in any mod, unless I close the program and re-start it. I had removed old Misc rule set and downloaded March 19th one and re-installed it. It says it's v1.05 Misc Rule set and the tracer mod says it's v1.01. Don't know if this helps or not. 2. GD mod says it's corrupt.... Regards, Badger Edit: Had incorrect version number for tracer mod in original post. [ April 23, 2003, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Excellent news ....... :eek: I'll have to buy another copy to help the cause when it hits the stores .... Regards, Badger

You know..... that might have something to do with it. I can't remember exactly, but it may be that I wanted to cancel the current fire mission and re-engage a new area (blue line) that was close to the original, but outside of the adjust (green line)capability. I hadn't thought about that... thanks for the feedback. It would makes sense as it would require the 81mm battery to cease fire and re-lay for the new target, hence an increase in time delay. Regards, Badger

Situation: Playing a CMBB PBEM match where during one battle an 81mm FO with radio has a targeted (blue line) for area fire and the wait time shows as 1 minute. The same FO under command of the same HQ and from exactly the same position, later targets the same area (blue) line, but this time it shows it will take 2 minutes. Question: I can't find any reason or pattern as to why this variable would change, since nothing else changed. If anything, it should have been reduced as the off-map battery would be working from coordinates that have already been used and performed a "fire for effect". Anyone have an ideas as to why this happened? Regards, Badger

Radio? What radio? We were lucky to have one cheap WWII type walkie-talkie per every four vehicles.... and they were very unreliable. Our contact reports were either in-person (send other call sign back with report), or if you could locate a friendly unit with a vehicle mounted N-19 set (Russian markings and WWII desiged for export), then you could use it. Most often though, we would travel within sight of the main armored body lead elements and use either hand signals or "DBC" reporting. DBC = "death by contact" observed by main force so they could spot the location of enemy fire that killed their recce unit. Now you know why they rotated regular AFV crews through that job. Regards, Badger [ April 22, 2003, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Just some food for thought..... I've seen a few comments and threads here that using jeeps as recce vehicles is "gamey". Well, it may be thought of as gamey, but if available, I do it all the time in CMBB. Not only do I find them appropriate in CMBB, but we used them in real life exactly in that manner. During the mid 60's as part of our Sherman armored regiment, we all had to do a stint in our attached forward recce unit. The standard recce vehicle for us was the 1951-52 pattern jeep, complete with our personal weapons as a primary defensive tool. We were organized into 2 vehicle patrols and 4 vehicle troops. The joke was that our life expectance up against BRDM's was like about 30 seconds. The object wasn't to engage anything, but to sneak-n-peek, withdrawing to cover at the first sign of enemy forces while simultaneously sending a "contact report", better known here as borg spotting. In more modern times, they have been replaced with the Cougar and other armed vehicles, but I have to tell you.... the good old jeep had such a small profile, it was easy to park her at the side of the road, camo her up and set-up a nice OP to view the terrain in front of a AFV defensive position, or in the "advance to contact", move quietly with stealth along some very tight country roads. Anyway, I find nothing unusual or wrong with using any jeeps I have available as recce vehicles, just as there were used by our forces in real life. Just a warning for my PBEM opponents. Regards, Badger

When we engaged and hit target tanks on the ranges (usually broken down old Shermans) with our own operational 76 mm M4A2E8 Shermans, you would be hard pressed to know you had a hit. As a gunner, I would see through my reticule sighting telescope, the 76mm round going down range and approach the target. If I obtained a solid hit, their might (or might not be) a slight puff of smoke. If I didn't lose eye focus and managed to keep my eye on the round as it impacted, I would sometimes see a deflection (ricochet), but not always. Our SOP for engaging enemy armor was to keep firing until the CC (Crew Commander) hollered "cease fire", the enemy tank stopped firing itself, or was obviously knocked out. Unless obvious from massive destruction, the knocked out evidence (often told to us by old WWII and Korean Sherman veteran gunners) would be seeing a crew bailing out (they always said to count them) or flame and smoke emanating from the hit vehicle. We used to walk down range and check our hits sometimes. All that one would see in a Sherman was a hole the size of your fist, if you achieved penetration. There were sure a LOT of large scrape marks revealing shiny base metal where rounds had ricocheted. I could see how a lot of crews would have escaped, except perhaps those that were struck directly by a penetrating round. I think CMBB's coding of the dead tank syndrome is pretty good. I hadn't heard of the "death clock" thing since I never played CMBO, so I wasn't aware how they managed to create this kind of realism. Now that I understand it, it seems to do a pretty good job of simulating what a real life gunner of that era would be up against trying to judge whether he had a kill or not. Crew (gunner) quality was a factor in real life. It did take lots of experience and the firing of lots of ammo to learn "round following". I sure as heck never got the real life option of messages like "front turret penetration". Regards, Badger

The term "hull down" to a tanker, specifically the driver, means that your AFV when viewed from the front by the enemy will expose ONLY the turret silhouette to their gun's line of sight. It is a cardinal sin for a tank to stop in the open unless there's absolutely no other alternative. If one can't stop, then you should keep moving in order to deny the enemy's AT guns or other tanks a whole silhouette firing resolution . When moving, you kept zigzagging as well, in order to alter the sight picture of anyone trying to lay their master weapon on you. The Crew Commander (CC) normally hollered into the headsets, "driver, hull down, ridge to your left". The driver would "jockey" and move to that general position where he from his periscope, was not able to see over the crest. The term "turret down" to a tanker, specifically the driver, means that your AFV when viewed from the front by the enemy will expose NO silhouette to their gun's line of sight. The CC would usually be standing on the turret floor with the upper part of his body exposed outside through the CC's cupola ring. He would be using his binoculars to scan the ground to the front for targets and his next hull or turret down fire position. Sometimes, depending upon the ground, he would stand on top of the turret viewing with his binoculars. The turret down position was used to lay "indirect fire" (no line of sight) onto enemy positions, such as HE while support an infantry advance. It was quite boring being a driver, since if you were doing your job taking up fire positions correctly, you couldn't see anything but the reverse slope of a hill in front of you, or a hard obstacle you had chosen to take up a hull or turret down behind. As a Sherman driver, there was many a large fallen tree whose bark work I have studied extensively, while sitting for hours stationary in a hull down listening to the drone of the engines. It was not uncommon for many drivers, including this old badger road kill, to fall asleep sitting in an extended hull or turret down. The result would always be the CC sliding downward in the turret and moving his lower body forward to the driver's compartment from the rear. He would then give a swift boot to the back of the head and holler "wake up". It is important to note that when it was time to move forward from these fire positions, the AFV didn't simply drive forward over the obstacle that was being used as a hull or turret down. A good AT or enemy tank gunner would sit patiently after he had seen you. He would lay and sight his primary weapon upon you, waiting for that movement forward. Why? Well, simply put, as the tank moves forward, its front end will rise up high in the air when clearing the obstacle such as the ridge line. The front mass of the vehicle would usually expose it's under belly and at that point they would fire. To avoid this as much as possible and to deny that solid sight picture, one would "jockey" backwards from a hull or turret down, to the right or left a fair distance. At that point the driver would build as much speed as possible, cresting the obstacle at a different spot then the original hull or turret down location, running like stink for the next hull or turret down position selected by the CC. Note the fact that before you moved, you ALWAYS picked out you next fire position. It would be nice to have a "jockey" command available to simulate the "fire and movment" of AFV's. Regards, Badger

God that makes me feel OLD </font>

My wife actually thinks its pretty neat.... Sometimes she looks over my shoulder during my PBEM moves and makes some good suggestions that I hadn't thought of. :eek: Of course, I'd never admit that to her. Regards, Badger

Thank you.... Even with the issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the first edition I purchased and I'm looking forward to making the second edition "dog eared" as well.... Great customer service... class act.. not too many of those kinds of companies around nowadays... <big salute> Regards, Badger

Again.... the purpose isn't necessarily to use it.... As a CEO, given the nature of Battlefront's business .... I would have snapped it up simply to create the potential for a one time non-recurring revenue bump, should some company like Sony with big bucks, decide that actually wanted to build some kind of product that was appropriate to that trademarked name. If they (Sony for example) viewed the trademarked name as critical to their product development and launch, they'd probably buy rights to it or license it through a royalty stream, depending upon how much world wide revenue they expected the product line to achieve. It might be cheaper for them to do that, then go through the expensive legal process of trying to invalidate the trade marking, due to the massive public theme that it represents. Anyway, again.... consumer companies produce revenue through many channels, not necessarily the obvious... Regasrds, Badger

Ahhhhh.... thank you.... <salute> Regards, Badger

I have the sound recorder... I'm just not sure what to load, or what to do with it even if I did know what to load? doh!!! Is it possible to email me the WAV files in question? Regards, Badger

Registering product trademarks and possible naming conventions is a standard practice. It's not necessarily reflective of any product development in progress, or even something that's on any business development roadmap for a company. It's purely a defensive and opportunistic move, costs little to do and may have merits in regards to non-traditional business revenues that are completely outside actual core product offerings. Our companies do this on a regular basis, so I wouldn't read a whole lot into this until you are given direct reasons to "panic". I think we should probably just take a Prozac, Valium, or whatever your relaxation poison is and focus on the great stuff we know is happening such as CMAK! Just two cents from an old investment executive. Regards, Badger Edit: Sorry, didn't see keke's post... was typing mine when he posted... doh!!!! [ April 10, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Hmmm.... I'd like to do that... so, how do I do that? Or, would it be simpler if someone emailed me the finished result? Thanks Regards, Badger

Thank you... Anyone have any feedback on them? Regards, Badger

You're welcome... I'm glad somebody actually reads my ramblings.... One other point came to mind as I was day dreaming and reaching back for some 40 year old memories. I distinctly remember that it was an SOP that high speed turns were to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for purposes of avoiding enemy fire, or taking up a fire position. The reason was that it was very easy to "throw" a track pad connector link, thus spew a track if you locked up a tiller bar during a high speed turn. I remember throwing at least two tracks (they actually curled up into the air in front of the drive sprocket) during one high speed turn, plus another during a ditch crossing. The ditch was too wide for the specified ditch crossing distance in the manual, so I ended up getting in deep ca ca from the Sergeant Major over that one. The high speed track toss was simply one of those turns at too high a speed that exceeded the lateral strength of the track in order for it to stay on the drive sprocket teeth, so... she gave way. Fortunately, the Crew Commander had ordered a "driver.. hard right" command on that one, after spotting an AT gun during a defile drill. I remember us staying up all night having to change the track and be ready to go for the next morning. Everyone else went to the "field mess" for a beer while we worked by "black out" lighting to winch the track back on and secure the connect links. Anyway, as I said, I think whether by accident or design, the CMBB code is pretty good in this department, although I've never thrown a track yet. By the way, CMBB has crew quality as a factor. That was also true for real Sherman tank drivers. A driver that was very physically strong in the arms tended to be much better and sought after by Crew Commanders. The reason was that the Sherman's tiller bars had to be really man handled and held hard in various positions when turning tight (ie: stationary) or performing manoeuvring at most speeds. One's arms actually would be aching by the end of the day. I assume our "crack" CMBB crews have arm muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Regards, Badger Edit: Track Tensioning and checking was a mandatory part of a vehicle "first parade", "halt parade" and "last parade". If the track tension was loose and the track was floppy against bogey wheels, it was easy to throw a track even doing a stationary slow turn, let alone a fast turn... so it was a critical crew inspection element. [ April 09, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Thanks for the tip MajorH... So, where is the M4A2E8 Sherman in this simulation? Regards, Badger