BadgerDog

Thanks guys.... appreciate the feedback... I'm currently wading through a 245 page manual. This thing might be just too complicated for an old 1960's Sherman Tanker..... Regards, Badger

These are good observations. The Sherman (M4A2E8) had no "pivot turn" or as some call it "neutral turn" capability. As a Sherman driver, I'd have to perform a move forward followed by a hard tiller bar action (left or right) to get her to turn. It wasn't a turn in place, but rather an actual turn while moving forward or backward, so there was always a displacement of the position you were in to get the Sherman pointed in a different direction. It was very slow if all the Crew Commander wanted me to do was turn 90 degrees, but stay in the same spot as a fire position. It was a damn pain in the A&& to have to rock forward and backward over at least a minute or more, just to get the bow around. When moving at high speeds and cranking the tiller bar for a hard left or right, it was much faster, but the turn radius was wide and often there was an overshoot, which really ticked off some Crew Commanders because frequently he'd end up in a fire position that wasn't what he wanted. So, he'd have to get the driver to start "jockeying" (see above stationary turn) into the correct facing position. Don't know of this helps, but I do find CMBB's turning code pretty close to real life. Regards, Badger

Huh? :eek: Am I always the last one to find out about anything? Give me a coffee break and you have to re-train me. v1.03beta? Where? Regards, Badger

Hello everyone...... I'm an old soldier (very old) and I've become an avid CMBB player, primarily PBEM. I've just downloaded TacOps Demo and thought I'd check it out, however, I have noticed that there's very little activity in this forum surrounding the product. Is it because it appeals to a narrower audience then CMBB, or are there shortcomings to the software that make it not that enjoyable? I realize the demo may answer the latter question for me, but I didn't want to buy the product if I enjoy it, only to find a lack of PBEM opponents available to play against. Thanks for the feedback... Regards, Badger

Very nice interview.... Answered a number of questions I had about the product evolution. IMHO, it's going to be a great deal of fun and some exciting times for this company and their software series. I thoroughly enjoy CMBB and look forward to CMAK, as well as the second generation of the series. Regards, Badger [ April 08, 2003, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

ROFLMO............ Ian.... I noticed from your profile that you're just up the road in Collingwood..... I'm down here in Toronto and have the first version of the guide. Like you, I'm still waiting for the replacement, but I have read the first one cover-to-cover several times already. If you'd like, I could courier it up to you and you could have a read through it as a "fix" until the new one gets shipped. Let me know..... Regards, Badger BTW: If you ever want to try some PBEM, I'd be up for that as well.

Yes!!! Thanks for your efforts.... Regards, Badger

Does anyone know if I can install these great looking trees over top of Captain Whacky's terrific gridded terrain, without losing the gridding effect? Thanks Regards, Badger

NP Steve.... Sorry, I've been extremely busy with real life work the last few days, plus I find it hard to set-up on a small laptop..... I'll get it done when I get home tonight ... Regards, Badger

A good point.... The commands were a legacy of WWII (perhaps earlier) in the RCAC. They were heard through intercom mode of the "N19" radio set. They could be fuzzy sometimes and I know that I miss-loaded ammo at times. The loader-op was a busy crew station in the Sherman because he had to take care of maintaining ammo box loading of the 30 caliber coaxial mounted MG, operate and tune the N19 radio set, operate the auxiliary generator, replenish 76mm ammo from secondary storage to ready bin storage, hand eject expended 76mm brass ammo casings out of the "pistol port", plus provide all of the primary loading needs of the 76mm master weapon. One of the biggest loading errors I remember myself making was an incident where I shoved WP (white phosphorus) up the spout after having been order to load HE for engaging infantry in a wooded area. Pretty dumb mistake considering the WP rounds have a flat end (no pointed tip) like HE and AP, plus using WP as an anti-personnel weapon was against the GC. It's easy to get confused at that station due to the blow back effects of the master weapon when it fired. As the breach auto opened to eject the 76mm brass casing, a sheet of flame would shoot out the back of the breach, hit the back of the turret and wrap the flames both ways around the inside of the turret. That would sometimes set loose oily rags on fire inside the turret, or cause any loose paper to start smoldering. At the same time the cordite and smoke expelled would cause the loader-op's vision to be obscured and you could sometimes pick an incorrect round from the ready bin. The worst event for the crew was if the loader-op broke one of our bottles of wine that we used to keep wrapped in cloth and stored in the ready bin because the empty tubes were just the right size. You're welcome.... I knew all of that 35 year old knowledge and training would come in hand someday.... Thanks for the feedback on the ammo time loading. Regards, Badger

In the Sherman (M4A2E8), the loader-op would sit side-ways facing the left side of the 76mm master weapon. He would load from his "ready bin" (in the turret floor) the ammunition type as called for by the Crew Commander during the fire orders sequence. For example, the CC would holler "shell action... traverse right.... 800 yards.... soft skin vehicle at edge of tree line". The gunner repeats this and begins to traverse the turret while the loader-up selects an HE round (shell action) and drives it up the breach with fist closed, hollering "loaded!", once he was clear of the back of the breach. (a wise idea). Now's here's the catch. Often the CC would spot a more serious threat during the engagement before the round in the breach was fired. He would holler "STOP! ... shot action... traverse left ... 1,600 yards ... tank" and the gunner would commence engaging the new "hard target" with AP (shot action), but the loader-op still had HE in the breach, he would have to grab the breach block extraction handle and manually open the breach, remove the HE round, place it back into the ready bin or chuck it our an open "pistol port" to save time, then select and reload an AP round called for by the CC. This can be a 30 second process even for a big strong loader-op. Note .... if the threat was imminent, the command "Fire Unload" would be yelled by the CC in order to clear the HE from the breach by firing it blindly instead of wasting time going through the round extraction process, but this only happened occasionally. My question is.... does this software engine account for ammo type change over when the AI is faced with a situation of having to select different target types? Also, what is the default ammo type that is loaded when waiting for a target fire order (ours was AP) based upon the "greatest threat" assumption. Does the game engine base what's sitting loaded as being the result of the type of fire arc the player chooses? i.e.: blue would mean AP and orange would mean HE? I ask because I haven't quite figured out how the AI handles this ammo selection process on my behalf and I wanted to make sure I was minimizing my "time to target" so I had the best chance of getting my shot off before my opponent. Any feedback and tips would be appreciated. Thanks Regards, Badger

Some questions I would appreciate feedback on. 1. Night battles seem to have a few anomalies of troop behavior that I don't notice during day actions. Do troops "panic" easier at night than during the day? I've experienced several cases where an infantry squad are "command connected" with high moral bonus and they begin to fire at an enemy squad, who don't return fire. For no apparent reason, they immediately turn to "panic" mode and begin to crawl away, still never having received any incoming fire? I've also had a flame-thrower type be "watering down" a bunch of bad guys who also didn't return fire and do exactly the same thing even though he wasn't threatened at all? 2. I'm trying to understand the display at the bottom of the screen when one clicks on a "star" or "axis cross" marker when nothing else is showing. The condition is "extreme fog of war". Sometimes when I click on the marker it shows: (a) the "terrain type" and the graphic pic of a soldier's face on the left. ( the "terrain type" ONLY with a blank screen (no pic) where the graphic of a soldier's face usually appears. © no display of either a "terrain type" or the graphic pic of a soldier's face on the left. I read someplace (maybe here?) that these various display types mean something and you can tell whether the unit underneath is eliminated or not from it? Thanks for the help..... Regards, Badger

Not necessarily..... Having qualified on the Sherman (M4A2E8), I can tell you from experience that each subsequent round after the first primary hit is an entirely new re-sight and re-lay sequence. The only information that is useful is the fact that you now know the range to the target, in order to set the reticule pattern at as your look through the sighting telescope and re-lay your master weapon. Of course, that assumes your target is not moving and therefore the range may have changed on you. The sign of a great Sherman gunner was one that had the ability to re-lay his gun quickly after the first hit round and obtain a high percentage of subsequent hits. Regards, Badger

Still seems to be two files "Light Snow Low Res", but there's no "Light Snow Hi-Res". Thanks Regards, Badger

Troops? As in Infantry? We didn't have any infantry permanently attached, although most of our exercises were "combined arms" with infantry, armor and artillery all working in unison for a common primary mission. At least that was the plan. Often it was a "clusterF&^%" due to the "fog of war" and competition amongst the various branches for the choicest taskings within the overall mission. [ March 14, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Don't know about a brigade, but here's what my Regiment looked like. Circa 1960-68 Sherman Tank Regiment (Canada) 4 Tanks per Troop (5 man crews) 4 Troops per Squadron 3 Squadrons per Regiment plus an "A" and "B" echlon consisting of everything from jeeps to 3/4 ton trucks to deuce-and-one-halfs to support fighting elements. All in all, about 50-60 Shermans (with maint tanks, plus their support cadre. Hope this helps a bit... Regards, Badger [ March 14, 2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Hi Steve... Thanks for the feedback.... much appreciated.... I guess I'm failing to completely understand the nature of the graphics representations in CMBB. I have always assumed from reading threads here that what we see on our monitors during "moves", were only approximations of what the actual program code was using for the physics to calculate the results. A good example of this is the 75mm round crater from the shot the stationary PZ IV just took at the stationary T-34. You'll notice that where it appears is physically impossible based upon the relative positions of both vehicles, the LOS and trajectory of a round at that distance and angle. However, I have also always assumed that if you have a valid LOS, that the gunners of opposing vehicles are able to view each other clearly. So, regardless of whether the screen image shows scattered trees or forests that appear to block their view, this representation was probably as inaccurate as the 75mm shell crater appears to be. I guess those rules don't always hold true, as was the case here. Having said that, I guess the only point I was trying to make was that if the LOS is correct, then THIS IMAGE is what a typical gunner might be viewing though his sighting telescope at 67 meters in real life. The assumption is a clear "no aim" shot and the first guy to get the round off should be the winner. In any event, thanks again for producing an outstanding game. I thoroughly enjoy it and only regret that I didn't discover it sooner then the CMBB release. Many thanks to Chuck (vadr) for getting me hooked to become a Combat Mission "junkie". If I can help out in any way for future development or releases, it would be a privilege. I hope you don’t find my comments out of line, or that anyone else doesn’t misconstrue my motives for making suggestions. BTW, I do play Steel Beasts as a modern Tank Sim. Like CMBB, it's simply awesome as an entertainment product, even with graphics that are still at 640x480. Regards, Badger [ May 19, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

Well, I can't speak for the Panzerschreck , but in the mid to late 60's I was qualified on similar M72 and Carl Gustav AT weapons. I certainly was average in my fire team, but I scored 5 in a row on the Carl G. and 4/5 on the M72 at 100 yards. IMHO, it's not that tough a shot at 80 meters, however, I was on a range and not under fire, which is bound to have a distracting effect on the shooter. Regards, Badger

Helo polytropos ... Here's a thread in the CMBB section that may help you. Go to the bottom of the thread and see the footnote relating to "The Range and Angular Distribution of A.P. Hits on Tanks, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, December 1951 (Project TB3-1224B, Memorandum Report # 590)" This study was an analysis of the range and angular distribution of casualties and hits on tanks in WW II (NW Europe). It notes number of reported tank losses for 1st US Army, 3rd US Army, and the reports from the British Army. CMBB Thread (Click Here) Regards, Badger

Another brief comment about low range engagements for consideration in the next generation of Combat Mission. One of two point blank misses at 67 meters As I said, I can ONLY speak to the sighting telescope mounted in the M4A2E8 Sherman (76mm) that I qualified on. It was a circa early 50's critter with a reticule pattern in the sight,. This sight had NO magnification capability. It had the vertical bar down the center with horizontal lines for range (marked on each line in yards) that became increasingly tighter together as the range decreased. It also had additional horizontal markings for lateral displacement and fire correction that were graduated in mils. I believe there's 6400 mils in 360 degrees. There was a hand traverse wheel (gunner's right hand) marked with mils also for the same fine corrections so that we could look down and move the gun laterally without having to look through telescope. There was a small black cross for engaging at targets under 1,000 yards and zeroing the master weapon to adjust for parallax. We zeroed the actual gun at 1,000 yards to the telescope's cross by bore sighting (literally looking down the barrel through an open breach) with pieces of "thread" taped to the end of the barrel in a cross pattern. Why zero for parallax at under 1,000 yards. Well, remember the type of armored warfare and equipment of that era. Although CMBB deals with the generally more open terrain of Russia, a period map study for Northern Europe (see footnote) concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges to less than 800 yards. In fact, the actual range that most encounters took place was 330 yards. So, what’s my point? Well, in simple terms.... missing at 67 meters not once, but twice is almost physically impossible in real life. In real life, the target literally fills the entire sighting telescope so the gunner doesn’t even have to aim. Note: The AP shell crater located behind the T-34 relative to the LOS. I assume that this purely represents the graphics "artist license" that's taken within the game, but still something needs to be re-examined in relation to the physics and trajectory detail at these very low ranges. I have noticed that the many of the up close engagements of tanks within CMBB tend to be a bit gamey like this example, but it's still a fantastic piece of entertainment software and I love every minute of it. Regards, Badger Footnote: Information kindly provided by Charles Lemons, the curator of the Patton Museum. "This information comes from The Range and Angular Distribution of A.P. Hits on Tanks, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, December 1951 (Project TB3-1224B, Memorandum Report # 590) This study was an analysis of the range and angular distribution of casualties and hits on tanks in WW II (NW Europe). It notes number of reported tank losses for 1st US Army, 3rd US Army, and the reports from the British Army. Mean engagement range for Allied tanks vs German tanks was 701 yards. 1st Army mean range was 760 yds 3rd Army mean range was 615 yds British 2nd Army mean range was 644 yds According to the charts 87% of all engagements resulting in casualties were at more than 200 yds, 65% was greater than 400 yds. However, only 2% were at ranges greater than 2000 yds. It was noted in the report that the range at which most encounters took place was 330 yds - or half the average range. It also noted that most hits were on the front of the hull or turret for US Vehicles, but only for little more than 1/3 of the British tanks was this true. Several things were concluded during the study: 1. Four of the five engagements between single tanks went to the tank that fired first. 2. One half of all casualties were caused by a single hit and the average number of hits per casualty was less than two. 3. German weapons could penetrate Allied armor, in most cases, out to 2000 yds, whereas Allied guns could perforate German armor only out to about 800 yds. A Map study was also included for Northern Europe and it concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges. It also noted that in only 3 of 85 cases cited were the tanks actually engaging the gun that knocked them out. It also noted that in only 3% of the cases were the tanks able to return fire before becoming a casualty." [ May 19, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

I confess, I have turned into a CMBB "junkie". It's all Vadr's fault... Regards, Badger

ahhhhh !!!! I never realized that ... great suggestion... thanks for the tip. Regards, Badger

Hello game experts... Still being a novice, I wanted to post some pics of one of my current PBEM matches, so I could get some comments and feedback from the more experienced game players about how they interpret these pics. The following weapons platforms are all firing at what's termed a "light" AT Gun. Left to right (HMG, Panther G - 75mm HE, HMG, 250/9-20mm HT - 20mm, 81mm Mortar, Panther G - 75mm HE, Panther G - 75mm HE) Left to right (HMG, Panther G - 75mm HE, HMG, 250/9-20mm HT - 20mm, 81mm Mortar, Panther G - 75mm HE, Panther G - 75mm HE) Frontal view showing gun and exposure above stone wall and craters in front Localized crater damage from incoming 20mm, 75mm HE and 81mm rounds Zoomed-in pic of localized crater damage from incoming 20mm, 75mm HE and 81mm rounds 3/4 zoomed in close-up of localized crater damage from incoming 20mm, 75mm HE and 81mm rounds Frontal view showing gun and exposure above stone wall and even more craters in front So, what does everyone think? Is there anyway I can kill this "light" AT gun quicker? Is it possible that this is some kind of game engine anomaly, or am I seeing one of those things referred to as "it's just a graphics representation of what's really happening"? Having been the recipient of erroneous incoming 105mm arty fire in real life, I do have a small sense of what's it's like. I can assure you, it's definitely far better to give than to receive. So, I would have thought that with this incredible amount of close proximity incoming fire as compared to real life, this gun crew would have either panicked and abandoned their "light" gun, or be in body bags. In the CMBB game, they seem to be tough enough to continue firing though all of this incoming barrage (direct and indirect fire), plus stayed cool enough to bag the 250/9 HT, although it's possible he "bought the farm" due to incoming arty. BTW, they finally abandoned their gun after 4 minutes (not sure what weapon finally did the trick), but perhaps that's really the answer in itself. I also think the point that someone made earlier in this thread about the LOS pointing to the "base" of the unit is correct. That would explain the LOS going through the slight knoll in front. IMHO, I believe Dschugaschwili said it the best and his point "that non-vehicle units can not be hit directly in CMBB. Only the ground under/near the unit can be hit with gun/arty shells." is significant and perhaps it's the key to the entire discussion. Just my two cents... as always... Regards, Badger

Two quick questions... 1. What is the drop of Panther 75mm HE ordnance at 288 meters? 2. How does one take screen pics (capture) within CMBB? My apologies if these are answered elsewhere. Regards, Badger

My apologies for the thread drift, but I thought this might be of interest to some of the real grognards on these boards. I was just looking in an old album and found a pictures of my first few days as a fresh young Sherman Crew Commander. Although it's not caught on camera (lucky for me), I can still remember my very first round and the moment as if it was yesterday. I was standing in cupola ring, top half of my body exposed, targeting the gunner on an old Sherman wreck down range at approximately 1200 yards. When the 76mm went off, it spun me around in the turret, blew my beret off, singed (burnt) my eyebrows and hair and I choked on the cordite fumes that rose up from inside the turret. The instructor on the back deck (WWII Sherman and Korean War vet) leaned over and hollered in my ear, "don't you wish you had joined the infantry now?" .... For those that want to see what it looks like when a 76mm fires AP........ It should be noted for posterity that we missed!!! Sherman M4A2E8 First Day's Shoot (May 1964) Sherman M4A2E8 Second Day's Shoot (May 1964) Note the effect of the muzzle brake on the back blast .......... Regards, Badger Edit: Changed post images to links for convenience of slower connections. [ May 19, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]